AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Richardthughes

form_srcid: Richardthughes

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: Richardthughes

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/04/06 09:56:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hi, Pop-Pickers!! Let's see what's hot and what's not in the hip and happenin' world of ID:


Eric Pianka-----------------------------Dover
Puff of Smoke-------------------------Methodological Naturalism
Public Opinion------------------------Scientific Fact
Quote Mining--------------------------Fact Finding

And our conundrum of the day is:

"If the 'designer' is both irreducibly complex and exhibits specified complexity, what does that tell us about the nature of the designer?"

And now a word from our sponsor:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...."


Date: 2006/04/06 10:17:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
A "pro gay" desinger would sit well with the fundamentailsts. "Fundamentalist" is very descriptive because they 'fund' the DI and they are 'mentalists'.

Date: 2006/04/06 14:54:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"pearls before swine, Cast not"?

Date: 2006/05/25 05:15:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Has Davescott be banned from nerw posts? He was quite 'profilic' before falling for the hoax mail. I was thinking it would be usefull to stratify UD by subject category to see how much science and how much cultue war they're actually doing.

Possible 'buckets'?

Refuting Evoutionary claims
Religious posts
Culture posts
I googled for 'design news' and this piece proves ID..


Date: 2006/05/25 05:22:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"Is this a convincing 'debunking' for a change?  The ones you have given me before from Talk Origins were not convincing at all ... "

Too sciencey?

Date: 2006/05/25 07:06:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davescot's back with another great science-based thread.
"ACLU stops school prayers" or something. And so they should.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:40:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dunno if anyone's had fun with this one:


"It would be really ironic if your restraint was due to knowing you’d be censored if you didn’t restrain yoursef. -ds "

Woah! Move over Alannis Morissette!

Date: 2006/05/25 10:46:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot’s posts. Among these, 3 have been either explicit or implicit calls to “Stop the ACLU.” We’ve learned about “Kevin Padian hating fundamentalists,” and that Judge Jones apparently belongs in the same category with a carefully cherrypicked list of former Time Men of the Year which includes Hitler, Stalin, Krushchev, and Khomeini. And, we’ve learned that its important that members of the Marine Corps be allowed to pray.

The point is not whether I agree or disagree with any of this. The point is that any student in a freshman composition class can identify all of this as wildly off topic.

Dr Dembski: You’re not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.


Comment by SteveB — May 25, 2006 @ 3:43 pm "


Date: 2006/05/25 10:53:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (incorygible @ May 25 2006,15:47)
Wow.  They can't even keep the miracle out of empirical when typing the word.

Post of the week.

Date: 2006/05/25 18:47:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveScot makes it all clear:

"The ACLU and activist judges who side with them are the #1 obstruction to giving ID a fair hearing to everyone. Teaching the NAS and NCSE version of evolution to the exclusion of all else in public school is not just A problem it’s THE problem. If you don’t care for my posting the bad things the ACLU does so more people can see how they’re a destructive influence then skip over it. I’m tolerant of a lot of comments I don’t agree with (YEC) so I expect the courtesy returned. "

So it's not the complete lack of science nor the fact that it is religious, Dave? And there I was barking up the wrong tree all this time. I love Davescot. He's added that Bill O'Rielly twist to UD that it needed to stop it stagnating post Kitzmiller. They were ready to mothball it - that would have been tragic.

Date: 2006/05/26 14:52:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/05/26 16:54:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/05/30 07:41:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes

(comment #3) :)

Date: 2006/05/31 10:19:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes

and of course ID 'theory' gives us the answers where science cannot..

1) God did it
2) God did it
3) God did it
4) God did it

Date: 2006/06/02 09:29:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Fallacy Bingo:

So you’re saying you can’t tell a machine running under digital program control from a pile of rocks? Or are you saying you can tell the difference but you think that absent confirmation of an intelligent agent you can’t tell if the machine was built on purpose or its parts just piled up by accident like the rocks? Forgive me for saying this but I think anyone who seriously makes the argument you do, while understanding just how complex the machinery in question is, needs to have their head examined. Digitally programmed machines of almost unfathomable complexity don’t just materialize out of thin air. The burden of proof should be on the purveyors of the ludicrous notion that machines like that assemble themselves without help and until proven otherwise the only sane assumption is that these machines were designed by an intelligence of some sort. I can forgive Darwin. He didn’t have a clue of what was going on inside even the simplest living cell. You have no excuse. -ds

almost unfathomable complexity  - argument from ignorance
materialize out of thin air - spontaneous generation (Puff of smoke)

The burden of proof should be on... - Least Plausible Hypothesis

until proven otherwise the only sane assumption is that these machines were designed by an intelligence of some sort - The Holmesian Fallacy?

I'm new at this.. any more?

Date: 2006/06/02 17:01:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
How long before UD Jumps on this.

Using the ID co-option filter...

Does it contain "Design"?

Does it contain "science"?

It must be evidence for ID..

Date: 2006/06/02 17:54:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Please, call me "Rich".
someone else owns "Rich"..

Fallacy Bingo adds another dimension of fun to crash landing, er, uncommon descent. If only we could randomly generate fallacy bingo sheets.

Anyhoo, nice to meet you all.

Date: 2006/06/04 17:06:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's a nice one from Dave 'King of Maths' Scott:



With the current human population that means 6000 people would be fossilized every 70 years if the population remains stable. Over the span of 10 million years (the average lifespan of a species) there will be a total of 857 million fossilized humans. Imagine the odds of NOT finding one. -ds

Dave, that bad math only works if the starts at 10 million and remains at that level.  But of course, they were spontaneously (and intelligently) generated...

Now, let's look at reality..

Please note who the Jesus effect is the catalyst for population growth..


Date: 2006/06/05 03:59:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Plus, its not like humans bury their dead or anything.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:16:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Traditional marriage is the union between one man and one woman at its most fundamental level

So you could marry your mom once you've divorced your sister, TD?

Date: 2006/06/07 20:25:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
As always, the good book makes it clear...

"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..."
Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's is a wicked thing...."
Leviticus 20:17

Yet Abraham marries his father's daughter and remains God's favorite:

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12


Date: 2006/06/07 20:38:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Why does it bother you which groups get married, TD?

and as you'll probably try and twist the question around - if the parties involved enjoy it and it hurts no-one, it's fine by me.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:41:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ichthyic, congrats on 1000 posts!

Date: 2006/06/07 20:44:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I just "wanted" to do a "post" in the "style" of Thordaddy.

"Thanks" :D

Date: 2006/06/08 11:40:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Don't stop, Marine Sgt. Dell executive fungus cultivator Scott! Your other foot will fit if you relax your jaw.

Date: 2006/06/08 16:38:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
*** Welcome interlopers from Uncommonly Dense ***

Thanks for popping over; we hope the life rafts were comfortable. Although we're atheists who live in a moral vacuum, for some reason we’ve created this little leaflet to help you continue your life of promoting religion and denying science.

Life after ID

‘My my, at waterloo napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself” – ABBA

Life in many ways is circular. As the, er mighty phoenix of ID rose from creationism’s ashes, so you can crumble back there. Before you get all upset, please consider the upside:

• Still no science
• MORE Jesus
• The books are the same – there’s just a little cut and paste
• Probably the same faces
• You can still meet in a church
• You can still give your findings in the church

A plus for you is that you are no longer ‘bearing false witness’ – I know you’ve all been internally conflicted about that. *rolls eyes*

Anyhoo, here’s the mother lode:

Please understand, we appreciate your work. The comedic genius that is ID is both hilarious and touching – we think that we’ve come so far and yet there are those who long for the dark ages. And Davescott, you will always have a special place in my heart. If Fox news had you (after O’Reilly would be the perfect slot) I’d pay a subscription to watch. You could do exposés on 2 year old internet frauds with badly photo-shopped marines and suchlike. TV gold – if you’re reading this Murdoch, TV GOLD.

Date: 2006/06/09 05:49:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Captain... they're scanning us with zero wavelength energy. Our shields are useless. Logic dictates...GOD DID IT. :O

Date: 2006/06/09 05:55:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2006,10:45)
We all have to go sometime. Why not go out fabulous?

The funny thing about the Uncommonly Dense appreciation of Ann Coulter is, she doesn't actually believe what she's saying. You can see her sometimes trying not to laugh. She realized there was a demand for a certain kind of showbiz performance, and she's made millions off it. Sort of like how Dembski knows he hasn't overturned or disproven evolution, but he can make millions if he pretends to have done so.

Dembski knows he hasn't overturned or disproven evolution, but he can make millions if he pretends to have done so.

Why do you think he always says "please read chapter 6 in 'no real hunch'"... It’s just the next generation of televangelism. Buy my snake oil.

Date: 2006/06/09 09:53:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ June 09 2006,14:48)
Based on the last thread at WAD's smile a while a lonny bin, they are getting serious about this ID to IE thing.  As if changing the name will somehow make it legit...

Too funny.

Renaming a corpse will not bring it back to life. Plus the name change trick didn't work last time - this time it will be more obvious.

Date: 2006/06/11 17:01:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ooooh, Oooh!

Gil of UcD who got fisked by an awesome post on the pandas thumb writes..

I am pleased that the Panda’s Thumb crowd has created a thread designed to refute my arguments. This is indicative of the fact that a very sensitive nerve has been stricken, and that they are in a state of desperation to defend the indefensible.

Oooh, I see how this works, let me play.

I am pleased that the Gil has created a thread designed to refute Genetic Algorythms. This is indicative of the fact he is a gay homosexualist , and that he cross dresses and didn't vote Bush.

Date: 2006/06/11 18:13:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
If only that *dreamy* Davescot had a website...*swoon*

He's an ex Marine and Dell Exec, dontchaknow!

*cough cough* :p

Date: 2006/06/11 18:33:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
aw, bless his cotton socks!

Dave discovers MS paint

I love it when he gets angry after one of their, er, 'sciency' threads gets fisked. Hey Dave, at least Gil didn't put up badly photo-shopped pics of marines 'praying' which was a bogus, 2 year old story. Only a proper nonce would do that.

Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
Just send this link

spoken like a true, er, ‘agnostic’, Dave.

“Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed”

Hmmm, I doubt Dave is a marine, because in my experience, the have more honour than that….

Date: 2006/06/12 08:39:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I offered some stats I found for that thread. Dave must have not liked them.

Here are the results of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:

Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:

                          Religion is        Religion can
                    "     very important  "answer all or most
Respondents          in their life"     of today's problems"
Attended college         53 percent        58 percent
No college                  63                   65

Income over $50,000     48                 56
$30,000 - $50,000        56                  62
$20,000 - $30,000        56                  60
Under $20,000             66                  66

More fun stuff from studies

Of course, one must be careful with correlation - it is association not causation. But I can't help wondering...

are they thick because they are religious, or religious because they are thick?

Date: 2006/06/13 04:22:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Correction, Bob O'H

WmAD: Load.  Aim.  Fire!

ID is of course...

Load.. Fire..Aim! :D

Date: 2006/06/13 06:26:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ June 13 2006,11:23)
WAD's infatuation with Ann Coulter (the ugliest transvestite I have ever seen) is a laff riot.  I love the latest ann love fest thread on UD.


They both make up crap to sell books. let's be honest:

Uncommon Descent = 'Dembski's book store'

Date: 2006/06/13 06:54:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Davescot tells Dembski:

You lucky dawg!

Comment by DaveScot — April 26, 2006

Dave, never mind the EF filter, you need an is this a man? filter.

Filter, step 1. (CLICK ME)

Before that, you might want to filter for if they're even human

Hi, Ann? I have ET on the phone, he wants his wrists back...

Seriously, RM has given her feet for hands.

Good luck with Man Coulter, Davetard. He's single, so are you. Perhaps you're not as pro-bush* as you thought.

*Ooohhh - clever on 2 levels?

Date: 2006/06/13 07:37:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jeannot @ June 13 2006,12:29)
We often reproach IDers for their personal attacks. I'm not sure you should imitate them.

(to Christopher, Richard and Arden).

A noble sentiment.

Personally I'm delighted ID is in cahoots with Coulter. I think he probably only appeals to the 'God it Did' crowd and any moderate conservatives will be swtched off.

[tease]She does look like a man though, not that there's anything worng with that. I look like one myself.

Ann, if your reading this - I'm sorry...

that you look a man.[/tease]

Date: 2006/06/13 07:48:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2006,12:43)
MarkCC argues that CSI is an oxymoron.

MarkCC needs to be invited onto Panda's Thumb.

That's great blog...

Date: 2006/06/13 09:41:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
There's something about holding a fish...

Date: 2006/06/13 10:08:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes

chapters on ID are excellent - she gives a clearer and simpler exposition of Dempski,...

Dempski as predicted by steve story before!

Date: 2006/06/14 05:55:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes


Because if you know what laser light is (monochromatic, coherent) and how it is made (pumped optical cavity resonator) you know why it’s exceedingly rare for any natural formation to generate it. It’s almost inconceivable that any natural shutter or light source could be gated at one nanosecond intervals. Finding the exceedingly rare with the almost inconceivable in the same place at the same time moves you from almost inconceivable to fully inconceivable. I tolerate bright, thoughtful contrarians and you just don’t fit that category. You had no knowledge whatsoever from which to base your statements but you made them anyway. That’s not thoughtful. Move along now. -ds

now, from here


Natural lasers in the terrestrial and martian skies?
In a current laser patent dispute, one side claims that a certain laser patent is invalid because natural phenomena cannot be patented under U.S. law. It seems that last year, Michael Mumma and colleagues at Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Maryland discovered a 10-micrometer (infrared) laser in the Martian atmosphere. This laser is located about 75 kilometers above the surface, is optically pumped by the sun, and radiates an astonishing 101 2 watts. The terrestrial atmosphere may contain a natural 4.3-micrometer laser, for auroras are accompanied by very intense molecular emissions at this wavelength.

(Raloff, J.; "Gould Laser Patent Ruled Invalid -- So Far," Science News, 121: 199, 1982.)

Dave, do some math - is it beyond the UPB?

Oh you can't, can you.

For sale - one Explanitory Filter, still in box, never used. Instruction manual has significant wear and pages missing, however :p

Date: 2006/06/14 06:27:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
How did Mars get a "pumped optical cavity resonator" I wonder. Oh wait, it doesn't have one. Nice one Dave.


Date: 2006/06/14 06:49:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Those sneaky Martian mirrors..

maybe via this?


Date: 2006/06/14 18:56:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'll see your "pilot" and raise you "engineer".

Date: 2006/06/14 19:04:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Yes.. fancy using words from a public message board. Shame on you, Steve!

Randy.. at least please tell us about the insights engineering gives you, before you return to your thread derailing?

Date: 2006/06/14 19:07:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It does in fact say "from the panda's thumb" on here somewhere.

Date: 2006/06/14 19:17:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Maybe he has an early flight / preflight check tomorrow. :(

Date: 2006/06/14 20:09:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
My next album will be called:

"Randy Magruder Destroys Evolution"

Date: 2006/06/15 06:59:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
A mermaid or a centaur would faslify Evolution.

Date: 2006/06/15 08:51:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Let's not make this a AIG vs Creationist claims linkfest.

First, let's welcome Randy. :) We invited him here, so let's be good hosts. I welcome him challenging my views, because if it wont stand up to scrutiny, it's not worth a having. We should drill down to the core issues and work from there.

Evidence for / evidence against seems the startingpoint - although evidence against sometimes equals 'incomplete evidence for'.

Date: 2006/06/16 05:06:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
couple of points.


it used to be mental age / physical age, I think.

This would mean that he has a 75 year olds mental capacity? Now it's just tends to be a number that 'smart people' throw around to feel good about themselves. IQ is an indication of how good you are at IQ tests. It's also negatively correlated with theism.

Perhaps that's why Dave got upgraded to 'agnostic'.


People keep producing these snippets about Dave 'walter mitty' Springer Scott.

Can we get a full profile together? As I recall:

He was a marine
Worked at Dell
Was on the Dell patents comittee?
Grows mushrooms
Has no website

Date: 2006/06/16 07:59:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dembski's Google post vanished. I have a copy...

anyone need it? :p

Date: 2006/06/16 08:09:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Faid @ June 16 2006,13:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 16 2006,12:59)
Dembski's Google post vanished. I have a copy...

anyone need it? :p

...Google post?

Nah.. it's still there.I must have had a Davescott moment - I didn't look down teh page despite having an IQ of 317. :angry:

Date: 2006/06/16 10:50:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Demski has gone into *spam mode* to push his post off the page.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:11:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I agree. He's been riding his Explanitory Filter for a while now. No one uses it, because its unusable. Why isn'y he pressed on this?

Nothing new in the pipeline either.

Also, it looks like is giving up w'ith ID is not religion' and is trying 'MN / Darwinism is religion'. Good luck with that. He obviously wont go to court himself but will arm stooges with 'vice type strategies' and send them like fodder to their doom. Meanwhile, he makes a living from his books.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:28:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes


“Christians need to get their thinking straight about natural science,” said Padgett, an ordained United Methodist clergyman. “It does’t tell us about God. It never has.”

Psalm 19:1 NKJV

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Who am I to believe on matters of Christian doctrine, my Bible or Padgett.

Comment by bFast — June 16, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

ahh, the good book:

The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.
— Daniel 4:11

Big tree. So big you can see it from the other side of the world. Divine Refraction Theory.

Date: 2006/06/18 14:07:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 18 2006,17:40)
1) The evolution of language was witnessed as it was happening.

When the fuck does DaveTard think anyone witnessed THAT?

The evolution of language *is* witnessed as it happenins...

Ebonics, for example.

Date: 2006/06/18 19:11:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quality post, Keiths.

A tip of the hat to you.

Airspeed indicators break 2LOT, anyway.

Date: 2006/06/19 10:32:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2006,15:14)
What’s your background again, Glen?

If only DT would share his credentials with us! His time in the Marines and the 12 years during which he subscribed to Scientific American certainly qualify him to make pronouncements on any aspect of scholarly endeavor!

..and he worked for Dell...he was on their patents comittee...


Date: 2006/06/19 11:37:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Glen Davidson - Candidate for stupid question or the year.

Shouldn't that be either:

Glen Davidson? - Candidate for stupid question or the year.


Glen Davidson - Candidate for stupid questioner or the year.


Date: 2006/06/19 11:51:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Welcome to out motley crew, Glen.

I have some rotten fruit you can throw, if you like. ;)

Date: 2006/06/20 05:32:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
If global warming happens, they'd better *start praying* for evolution. Environmental change would be a catalyst for new species - and the end of some current ones.

Date: 2006/06/20 07:22:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard should really do some research before creating his own physiscs..

Force                   Relative Strength
Strong                 10^38
Electromagnetic     10^36
Weak                   10^25
Gravity                 1
Davetard logic       10^-150 (UPB!!! )
(altough it is the strongest farce)

It's the strongest in MPH, NOT KPH, Homo - DT

also please not the VERY sciencey gay marrige bashing thread on UD.

Date: 2006/06/20 07:59:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Randy says..

Actually, I’m opposed to teaching religion in public schools, so ID is out....

Preach it, Randy!

Date: 2006/06/20 11:14:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave get's all excited and takes the bait:

Dave, I’m curious. How may time more powerful is gravity than EMF in these regimes?

Infinitely more powerful in the case of a gravitational singularity. -ds

but then refuses to print my reply:

A singularity! – my favorite system of government / administration . Hmmm. Don’t they have zero size, so as a percentage of the universe they would be, uh, small... Of course the gravity wells from singularities can be felt further out but their strength diminishes as a square of the distance from them, so again as a percentage of the universe they would be small.

Still, once again I guess the engineers know better than the experts in that field.

Date: 2006/06/20 11:35:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ohhh, Davetard will probably lock the thread soon...


Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe. It always adds, never subtracts, and can build up until it overwhelms all other forces.

John G. Cramer
Professor of Physics
Nuclear Physics Laboratory
University of Washington

Cramer writes articles on cutting edge physics for Analog Magazine. He’s written 90 columns so far. I read all 90 hot off the press. He’s one of my favorite non-fiction authors.

Thanks for playing everyone. There’s a consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. It’s an autographed picture of me holding the microscopic black hole that contains the brains of all the Panda’s Thumb chance worshippers. Needless to say no intelligence can ever escape from it.  

Comment by DaveScot — June 20, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

After a big old Google search, this is the best he can up with.

" some ways.." is that a qualifier I see before me?

"It always adds, never subtracts.." So distance for example would not diminish it. In that case the zero size but infinitely dense region that is Davetard’s brain would have sucked us all in...

Still, quote mining must have been hard..

Stick to growing mushrooms, Davetard.

Date: 2006/06/20 11:52:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ June 20 2006,16:48)
"It always adds, never subtracts.." So distance for example would not diminish it.
Your second sentence doesn't follow from the first. The force of gravity is always attractive, and distance does diminish it.

Check your sarcasm meter, Steve...

and 'attracts' is not 'adds'. Also consider:

Date: 2006/06/20 12:39:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Update.. The article Davetard cites starts..

"Gravity is the weakest force in the universe."

I kid you not.

How dishonest are these creationists? :)

Date: 2006/06/20 12:56:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"It always adds, never subtracts.." [sarcasm]So distance for example would not diminish it. [/sarcasm]


Date: 2006/06/20 19:02:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Any more questions? -ds

Yes Dave. Where do you get your amazing modesty from? ???

Date: 2006/06/21 07:57:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Why deny ourselves the comedy?

I say let the man speak. :)

Date: 2006/06/21 08:11:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Steve, Perhaps as Mr. Christopher has suggested just one thread?

Positives: Damage and derailing will be limited
Negatives: Hilarity will be limited

Date: 2006/06/21 08:15:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (GCT @ June 21 2006,13:12)
It should be pointed out that DaveTard also threatened to hack this site.

He's got an IQ north of 150 (MPH, not KPH) and is a kompewter genius. As is we could stop him! ???

Date: 2006/06/21 08:31:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (k.e @ June 21 2006,13:20)
Richard u r so vicious!!!

R u lou reed in deskys?

$4DL'/ 1'/\/\ |\|07 L0U r33D - jU$7 d4\/374rD'$ b1993$7 Ph4|\|.

Date: 2006/06/21 09:01:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard says :

Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind.

but wait...

Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range).

They have positive correlation. So SAT's measure IQ in the same way believing in ID measures theism. ;)

Date: 2006/06/21 10:30:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hoisted by his own Davetard:

that website Dave points us to for IQ and SAT's?

on another page (same site)

'The correlation between the two scores was 0.58.  The standard error of estimate for the SAT total score was 102; the standard error of estimate for the Otis was 5.8.  This correlation of 0.58 gives a spuriously low impression of the correlation between the SAT and the Otis due to restriction in the range of ability in this sample.'

Unlucky Dave!

Join us next week as Dave links us to the bible to show how ID isn't religious.

Date: 2006/06/21 10:32:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 21 2006,15:28)
Why doesnt Dembski take his arguments and publish them in a mathematical journal?

Surely the Evilatheistconspiracy doesn't control maths as well?

2 + 2 - GOD = 5.

Date: 2006/06/21 16:57:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 21 2006,21:02)
on converting SAT scores to IQ...

I found this:

I cited a the paper they used for this article for the correlations.

Date: 2006/06/21 20:36:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 21 2006,22:54)

even using the adjusted equation with mean and std from the 2003 data, it looks like you are correct.

maxes out a little over 130.

maybe somebody else can figure out what's wrong?

here's the formula supposedly extracted from the paper (ignore the stuff at the top of the post)

(IQ - 100)/15 = .82 * (SAT - mean)/std

utilizing the 2003 data, the mean and std are:

1025 and 209, respectively.

assuming a max combined SAT score of 1600, I get 134 as the max IQ.

doesn't seem to translate well to the familar IQ table.

Good spot.

IQ distributions are a bit quirky anyhow. We assume normaility and a mean of 100 - but that means for every *rare* IQ of 210, we should get an IQ of -10. I know, you're thining "Davetard". ???

Date: 2006/06/22 12:08:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/06/22 12:19:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Recent UD / ID scientific advancements.

o The courting of Mann Coulter
o ACLU and marine prayer outrage (shame it was a hoax)
o Website hits
o 'Darwinism is religion', but we're not, we're SooOOoo sciency.

Did I miss anything?

Date: 2006/06/25 11:31:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Check out DT's latest thread. No more religion... only ID. Statespace of that: Zero.

Date: 2006/06/25 12:13:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Joseph Beres @ June 25 2006,16:38)
From dave
[Admin Announcement] Get Back to Intelligent Design

I’ve been lax in keeping the topic here on intelligent design and away from everyone’s favorite religion (or lack thereof). I’m as guilty as anyone. To remedy this situation I’m going to be deleting any comments I see with gratuitous references to religion until further notice. I’ll make an exception for any of our authors who’ve PhDs in both theology and mathematics.

PhDs in theology and mathematics huh? Guess that leaves Dembski out.

Dembski has a 13 page CV.

Get a grip. May I suggest a 14th page to include what he had for lunch and top 5 breeds of Dog?

Date: 2006/06/25 17:20:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes

And now for a moment of science.

Comment by Mung — June 25, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

I can't wait! *claps hands eagerly*

Date: 2006/06/26 05:40:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 26 2006,00:56)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 25 2006,16:01)
Well, it seems to have taken no more than a day for JAD to start insulting you. I guess that's an acheivement, of sorts.  ???

And while it's amusing, I'm not totally sure you've civilized DT if he can still pop up with this:

Open mouth and insert foot, boys. You can recover by admitting you were wrong and I was right and then KISSING MY BIG WHITE ASS!


Well, it is work in progress. :p

Edit: typo

He's not playing any more?

*lip trembles*

Date: 2006/06/26 07:40:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ June 26 2006,12:29)
Of course, and you probably realized this too, my real point was about DaveTard's inability to get virtually any science right, which means that Dembski's PR efforts to portray ID as science are not well served.  In fact I actually realize that most of those allowed to comment freely on UD are more interested in a dirty, amoral or immoral bastard who will fight for them, with no regard for decency or evidence.  As such DaveTard fills the bill.

Having said that, however, Dembski seems to have had designs for impressing more than disreputable fools.  I don't think that DaveTard serves his original goals at all, and that he is destroying any chance that he will be seen as anything much higher than DaveTard's inspiration.

That's why I was surprised recently when Dembski, on some UD anniversary thread, recently congratulated Davetard for taking the helm. It struck me as weird, because Davetard has been an absolute embarrassment for that site. I suppose Dembski is just happy he doesn't have to spend all day banning people himself any more.

I don't know if Dembski retains his original goals. The scientific community has heard his case, and dismissed it as nonsense. He only has one basic thing, argument from incredulity, and he decorates it in various complex-sounding ways, but that's all he had, and he field-tested it, and the field rejected it, and he's over. It's not like he's going to go on and create an actual scientific model, or do any experiments. He's done. He had his chance, and he failed, and he knows it. So I think his goals must have changed in response. Now I think he's just after money and a following, to keep his bank account and ego riding high. That's all he can do at this point, really, try to profit from the failure, whether by book royalties, plane tickets to speaking engagements, or $200/hr 'consulting' fees.

I'd do the same. But I wouldn't put Davetard in charge. He just makes the whole enterprise look amateurish and mean.

Of course, it only looks that way to us. To many people without science educations, it apparently looks very smart and sciency.

Never forget;

Uncommon Descent = Dembski's bookstore.

He has Davescott working for free, which is probably still paying him too much.

Date: 2006/06/28 04:33:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I see UD is *particularly* sciencey today.

Davetard – kid with crayons. Having warned UD not to get too religious, clearly ‘science’ wasn’t the new direction.

Date: 2006/06/28 05:27:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"corrected IQ of only 117"

Did I miss something? :)

Date: 2006/06/28 08:29:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm gutted to learn that my hero and mentor, Davescott's IQ is only a one in eight occurrence rather than a one in three thousandish proposition. Does this effect his turning water into wine abilities. Could his IQ have been augmented *since* the test via zero wavelength energy?

Yours in Tard,


Date: 2006/06/28 09:52:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
check this out...


The Cornell ID Course is open to any participants as long as they abide by the rules of engagement:

The following rules will be strictly enforced:

Ad hominem attacks, blasphemy, profanity, rudeness, and vulgarity will not be tolerated (although heresy will always be encouraged). However, vigorous attacks against a member’s position are expected and those who cannot handle such should think twice before they post.

emphasis mine

Someone mention spaghetti and I'll get on there in faux FSM rage. HEATHENS!

Date: 2006/06/28 11:59:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Henry J @ June 28 2006,16:26)

Don't tease me.  :angry:

Date: 2006/06/29 02:11:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Hey Barry! I was hoping the H.R. 2679 articles would draw you out of the woodwork.

I’d really like to hear what you think of jury nullification. The only other lawyer I ever had a heart to heart with about it couldn’t stand the thought of a jury defying a judge. Me, I love it, if for no other reason that it’s a way to stick it to the man - you know, like a way to tell the establishment to go fly a kite. Seriously, I believe the ultimate power should always be in the hands of the people instead of elected officials and especially not in the hands of appointed officials.

Comment by DaveScot — June 28, 2006 @ 8:17 pm

Woah.. DaveScot is down wit his bad self.

Unlucky 'designer': Ultimate power to the people. But not elected officials. I mean, which idiots elected them?

Date: 2006/06/29 02:18:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Gildodgen muses..

This is what amazes me. If one were to classify Kipling’s stories from an evolutionary perspective, they would be Lamarckian, but Darwin’s bear story also sounds more Lamarckian than Darwinian. BA

that's quite a tautological conundrum wrapped in a puzzle..with a twist of riddle.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:26:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
then there Fross...

yea, until they find some whale fossils with legs, or show some sort of transitional features I’m not buying this story

Click Me, Fross, and be converted

*from Carl Zimmer*

Whales with legs. That's the evolutionary path - the last thing that happens is their [Vesitigal] legs fall off. *sigh*

Date: 2006/06/29 07:51:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
GilDogen double dips:


3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one can’t just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.

4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.

Wow, Gil. What about the instructions for the pre production of the mechanism that instructed the instruction making mechanism to construct the instructions for the mechanims that instructed the construction?

That's irreducibly complex ^ Davetards IQ.

UPB here we come.

Date: 2006/06/29 08:04:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
the ratio of Davetard's bad photoshop posts to science posts on UD beats the UPB. Glory be to Billy D.

Date: 2006/06/29 08:29:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ultimate175 (apparently ultimates 1 -174 were misnomers)


I’ve always thought it would be worthwhile for biologists (or biology students) to have some sort of engineering apprenticeship. By spending time with a design engineer (be it software, mechanical, electrical, or any other discipline), they would see first hand just what it takes to end up with a tightly integrated, functional system on the back end.

Date: 2006/06/29 08:53:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Please note how I used my time machine to mock Alan Rhoda BEFORE he spouted:


It’s not simply enough that there be an assembly mechanism and assembly instructions. The assembly mechanism also has to be able to “read” the instructions. That means we need to already have in place some type of chemical “language”.

Moreover, all this has got to be hereditable somehow.

Ps - I'm sure this one isn't satire because he's got a Jesustastic website.

Date: 2006/06/29 10:18:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 29 2006,15:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2006,13:53)
Please note how I used my time machine to mock Alan Rhoda BEFORE he spouted:


It’s not simply enough that there be an assembly mechanism and assembly instructions. The assembly mechanism also has to be able to “read” the instructions. That means we need to already have in place some type of chemical “language”.

Moreover, all this has got to be hereditable somehow.

Ps - I'm sure this one isn't satire because he's got a Jesustastic website.

There is no way that you randomly guessed that Mr. Rhoda was going to say that, it's far too improbable! Anyone who thinks that you just guessed that he was going to say something like that is only lying to themselves. Clearly you were prompted by God to say what you said.

Hear, hear! -dt

WRONG - my tinfoil hat blocks infinate wavelength designer energy, elvira boys - dt

Date: 2006/06/29 10:47:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
These "I can't see how" folks are of course hamstrung by their own intellectual shortcomings. That’s why the non-theory of ID is so good. There’s nothing to not understand.

Date: 2006/06/29 10:53:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Fugg me, move over TS Elliot, there's a new cat in town; Micheals7...


So once again the tree is tangled in a web so tight even Charlotte cannot weave her way out of its knots.

Oh, the scintillating imagery!

Date: 2006/06/29 11:14:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I expect you'll get chased out of town with pitch-forks. ;)

Date: 2006/06/29 11:47:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 29 2006,15:58)
I'll bet we were interbreeding with Bonobos. They're horny little bastards.  :p

Is my webcam on? :O

Date: 2006/06/30 04:53:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The first issue focuses on the materialist reduction of soul.

Look guys, basically its just 4/4 gospel music with more contemporary sounds and it relates to relationships with real entities.

Date: 2006/06/30 05:36:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 30 2006,09:50)
Apparently anybody can join the discussions on the weblog set up to discuss Allen MacNeill's "intelligent design" course at Cornell University. But be sure to read the ground rules for discussion. I don't know how the co-moderation thing there might work, but you might consider copying any comment made there to a comment here, too, just to have a backup.

I put this up:

Ah, the 'explanatory filter'

A few observations, if I may.

Firstly, it is a fallacy of the Holmesian order:

The false positives have been noted – similar thinking has histrorically led us to think ‘the giants causeways’ was in fact built by giants and that Mars was populated by, erm, canal builders. [the problem with (1-x) type arguments is that man does not and cannot know “1” (everything BUT x)]. It works if you’re omniscient, but then you know what x is already…

Second, it’s never been used. Please don’t offer the include that is ‘the spontaneous generation’ of the bacterial flagella. Because evolution doesn’t require spontaneous generation.

IDists in their many blogs often tout,” this would be a perfect application for the explanatory filter”, but they never get around to using it.

They do however use this Explanatory filter:

Ask yourselves why:

Isn’t the poster child for IC and the main target for SC? It seems far more remarkable and unlikely that cute little flagellas. But it doesn’t nudge you along to the conclusion of a loving, Christian god…

but it looks like there's a moderation queue? How novel, for an ID blog.

Date: 2006/06/30 07:28:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2006,12:21)
June 30, 2006
Accident or Design? Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins

Spider silk and diatom silica structures are just accidents. We can’t design stuff like this ourselves but when we take these two complex things found in nature and combine them then all of a sudden it’s a design! Wheeeeee! Aren’t we smart!

Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 11:54 am

Somebody want to tell me what the point of this post is?

But it *looks* designed.

much like the sun looks like a wheel.

Date: 2006/06/30 16:26:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
from :

Indeed, once again I find it necessary to emphasize that this is one of the most obvious and important differences between the huge corpus of published research supporting evolutionary theory and the miniscule collection of speculative hypotheses and computer models that characterize virtually all of the ID literature to date. To state it bluntly: real scientists (like real fire investigators) get their hands dirty, in the field and in the lab, and publish research reports that present in detail the empirical evidence that either validates or falsifies their hypotheses. The world is still waiting for such work to begin to trickle out of the clositered environs of the Discovery Institute. And waiting and waiting and waiting…

Perhaps they’re too busy publishing press releases to do any science?

I like this cat

Date: 2006/07/01 08:10:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davescot turns up to ask for a banning:

What, you expected science?

Date: 2006/07/01 08:17:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2006,13:10)
Davescot turns up to ask for a banning:

What, you expected science?

then brags about it here..

He laso gets upset that about the claim that IDiots do no research. Why should they, when everyone else does?

Date: 2006/07/01 17:47:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes

(2) "creationism is TOO science !!!!"  The ID/creationist favorite for years.  Of course, I've asked several hundred creationist/IDers over the years what their, uh, scientific theory is.  And the only answers I ever get are (a) "Jesus saves!!!!" or (b) "I don't have to tell you".  Alas for them, though, this argument fell on its face in court, repeatedly.  So now we move on to:

It's recently evolved into Neo-Darwinism/Science is a religion TOO

Date: 2006/07/02 13:47:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Kudos for trying, Alan. Italways makes me laugher when IDers cry 'censorship' and 'marketplace of ideas'

Date: 2006/07/05 04:54:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (guthrie @ July 05 2006,08:03)
I note that Salvador says:

"Trevors and Abel are backed up by 150 years of empirical data after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Abiogensis goes against everything we know empirically and theoretically."

PAsteurs experiment was an accurate reproduction of the conditions of Earth 3 billion years ago?  You mean it is true, we're the result of an alien experiment.  Or a giant snotter from some aliens nose.  

Then theres this paper:

cached from google

Which appears to be a pukka science paper, but I cannot see how it got past peer review.  With statements like:

Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication systemwould have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination.

in the abstract, I cannot quite see that it makes any sense.  Programmed for function?  Whose the prgrammer?  

Selection pressure cannot select nucleotides at the digital programming level where primary structures form

Pardon?  But ultimately, selection pressure operates on the atomic level.

He should follow O Reilly on Fox 'news' channel.

Date: 2006/07/05 09:41:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,12:28)
In light of Keithseses' post, I'm restating my previous post:

From Alex Jones to Ann Coulter to Bill Dembski, there's really a lot of money to be made
through lying to idiots Extreme Polymaths.

I believe the term you are looking for is Polytard

Date: 2006/07/05 09:52:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,14:48)
maybe it was Omnitard.

Omnitard in his unitard... :O

Date: 2006/07/05 11:24:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Has DaveScott given up in your toblerone loving neutral venue?

Date: 2006/07/05 16:51:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 05 2006,17:48)
Tsk, tsk, tsk.  If you're gonna bait fundies, at least do it EFFECTIVELY.

Here's the one I've always found to work:

"Hey Dave, here's your chance to prove me wrong, in public, right in front of the whole world.  Here's your chance to show everyone, right here, how you mighty warriors for the Lord deal with us pitiful unbelievers.  Come on, Dave.  Show everyone.  Show everyone how the Holy Warriors are able to shatter us puny little evolutionists with just one mighty word.  Come and get me.  Tear me apart, right in front of everyone.  After all, Dave, you're a Lion for the Lord, right?   A  LION  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Roar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe just a Pussy . . . . ?"

Works every time.

Lenny, Alan, Awesome. A Davebaiting thread would be fun!

Date: 2006/07/05 18:13:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I just got this email from a friend:


Evilutionists eat babies and are responsible for  North Korea being doody-heads.

He is a well respected biologist / polytard who’s written tons of papers and stuff but who wants to remain anonymous so the Darwinian thought police don’t torture his grandma.


Date: 2006/07/06 05:44:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2006,09:38)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2006,12:31)
Funny that DT is always name dropping Scientific American to give himself legitimacy, since I'll bet the SciAm editorial board thinks Intelligent Design is a load of shit.  :p

They do indeed:


from the article


Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Hoisted by his own Davetard.

Date: 2006/07/06 10:29:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More all-too-common Dysentery:

TinaBrewer muses:


1. Allen MacNeill: I am going to assume that you are not willfully misrepresenting ID, and that you genuinely believe that the explanatory filter depends on being logically CERTAIN that no naturalistic explanation is, or ever will be, sufficient to account for all the complex phenomena in biology. I have personally met many people who seem genuinely to harbor these misconceptions. ID is probabalistic. It is an inference about the BEST available explanation for observed phenomena based NOT on ignorance ( like some law which could concievably be out there in operation which we haven’t noticed yet ) but instead based upon positive knowledge about the types of things which are designed by conscious intelligent agents. As Biology advances and uncovers greater and greater levels of complexity, the antique idea that chance and necessity wrought all of this becomes more and more IMprobable , while the idea that some intelligent agency acted to bring about this complexity becomes more and more probable.

Oooh, ID is probabilistic! Then you’ll have some math for us?



The probability of it being (god / designer) is 1-probability of (everything but god)
Bang some numbers in and where good to go.
Ohhhhh…what’s that? You can’t calculate ‘everything but god’ as a probability?

Daft cow.

Date: 2006/07/06 11:14:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes


Ok, Salvador. I think I’ve got it now.

So the next question seems pretty obvious…

“Exactly how unlikely is unlikely?” And this paper is going to tell us that.



Comment by janiebelle — July 6, 2006 @ 3:52 pm

Sal so SOOOOO baited.

Date: 2006/07/07 11:30:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Cast your mind back to Dave's swoonfest for Mann Coulter. Now Mann has been caught plagerizing, how does Dave 'data belongs to everyone' Tard feel?

Date: 2006/07/07 19:31:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Henry J @ July 07 2006,23:32)
Re "There is, by definition, one universe. It seems that what little I understand of the MUT (multiple universe theory)"

That's a semantic point. The word "universe" can (and I guess did used to ) mean "all that exists", which would include all space-time continuums that exist (with or without causal connection to the one in which we live).

Personally, I wish people woulnd't use the word "universe" to mean a space-time continuum when they're talking about hypotheses involving multiple such space-times. (But then again, I quite often don't get what I wish, and don't really expect to this time, either - but I'm still gonna gripe about it! :) )


Multiverse > Universe?

Date: 2006/07/09 07:05:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 09 2006,09:36)
Quote (dhogaza @ July 09 2006,08:45)
Cosmological fine-tuning for the existence of life is so well established that it is essentially beyond question at this point, unless one is willing to put blind faith in wildly-fantastic speculation about an infinitude of in-principle undetectable alternative universes. A huge amount of complex, specified information was clearly infused into the origin-of-the-universe process.

Hmmm, so the cosmos was deliberately designed so as to produce all the fine-tuned conditions needed for life.

So the formation of life in the cosmos was inevitable and unavoidable, right from the beginning.

So there was no direct design needed in the initial stages of life --- it all followed naturally from the initial conditions of the formation of the universe.

Hmmm . . . .

Or . . . the designer f'd up his initial universal conditions, and had to intervene to fix things later when he POOFED the flagellum and all the other things into being . . . . .

Hmmmmmm . . . . . . .

Sounds like a "petard" to me . . . . . .

Completely agree. If the universe etc. was designed, the YEC perspective makes so much more sense.

Who wants to get a Ninetendo for christmans, but have to wait >10 billion years to play with it.

It's called 'intelligent watching paint dry', homo - DT

Date: 2006/07/09 16:44:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveScott speaks on behalf of humanity, here:


The point is that no one can *imagine* a universe where any kind of life could exist with different physical constants. When atoms fly apart and make chemistry impossible you don’t have any wiggle room for how life could possibly exist. Some things seem to be basic requirements that can’t be avoided. Atoms capable of forming complex groupings appears to be one of those things. Of course if it were any different we wouldn’t be here to talk about it but we ARE here talking about it so we know something either impossibly fortuitous or purposely made to happen let us be here. -ds

Oh, let me count the fallacies, Davetard...

Date: 2006/07/09 17:42:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Faid @ July 09 2006,17:02)
If the universe etc. was designed, the YEC perspective makes so much more sense.

I have a feeling AFDave's gonna quote you on that, Richard.

It's Rich to my friends. :D

Date: 2006/07/10 04:14:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Speaking of ‘not being consistent’:


Scientists in general need to be kept on a tight leash. Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery. Christian scientists as well will do unspeakable, completely unChristlike things to animal subjects that just makes me want to put the heartless SOB’s in a cage and do the same things to them so they can see how it feels. Christ, son of God or not, set an example we should all try to live by and he never caused any living thing any pain - all he did was help and heal.
Comment by DaveScot — November 1, 2005 @ 12:22 pm

“Atheist scientists hold no moral absolutes and there’s no telling what they’ll do in the name of scientific discovery” – But Davetard, Honey, aren’t you agnostic? So presumably you too “hold no moral absolutes” and so “there’s no telling what you’ll do”.


Date: 2006/07/10 18:16:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave doesn't want to catch gayness - it erodes traditional 'intelligently designed' marrige, dotchaknow.

Date: 2006/07/10 20:14:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
wait for the spin..,71173-0.html?tw=wn_index_6

Date: 2006/07/10 21:02:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wonderpants @ July 11 2006,01:18)
[quote=Lou FCD,July 10 2006,23:06]
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2006,21:43)
Near as I can tell, DaveTard just don't like girls.   :D

Doesn't he claim to be married? Anyone ever seen a picture of the wife?

If not, we should exercise DaveTard's beloved First Amendment right of free speech, find a picture of her, and have lots of free and frank speech about her.  ;)

Davetard has the hots for Mann Coulter.. the 'lucky Dawg'.

Date: 2006/07/12 06:30:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I suspect star Trek is devil worship, like dungeons and dragons..

Date: 2006/07/12 08:12:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2006,12:08)
Did you know that Davetard has made the Index of Creationist Claims?

how about *this* machine:

Date: 2006/07/12 08:23:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 12 2006,13:12)
Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2006,12:08)
Did you know that Davetard has made the Index of Creationist Claims?

how about *this* machine:

The Oklo phenomenon gives scientists an opportunity to examine the results of a nearly natural two billion-year experiment, one that cannot be duplicated in the lab

Har har. :D

Date: 2006/07/13 04:34:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
GodSearch: the next generation Pilot.


Kirk: My goodness.. that asteroid….looks so….DESIGNED.

Spock *raises eyebrow* Logic suggests that you are inferring design from personal incredulity, Captain.

Kirk: No Spock, it’s made of ……stuff. I’m made of stuff…therefore…the lord god make us all. Each little flower that opens…….Each little bird that sings………God made their glowing colors……..And made their tiny wings.

Scottie: I cannae believe my ears, captain. I’ve designed loads of things without help from ‘god’.

Kirk:Scottie…’re……no true Scotsman.

**Next week - The Crew meet the Spacetard of Springer-Scot IV**

Date: 2006/07/13 04:39:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (GCT @ July 13 2006,09:36)
"The Wrath of DaveScot?"


Date: 2006/07/13 07:07:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
PZ Meyers and Davetard and Sci American..

Date: 2006/07/13 08:01:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (GCT @ July 13 2006,12:57)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,12:46)
I still want to know how PolyTard handles the cognitive dissonance of his beloved Scientific American ridiculing Intelligent Design.

"Oh, well, they're brilliant and authoritative on everything except that."

He said recently that he stopped his subscription and vowed never to subscribe again.  But, he convinced his wife to renew his subscription for him for Valentine's Day so that he could continue to receive it and read it without the guilt of sending them any money...or some other non-sensical thing like that.

Link me up, Baby!

I could do with a giggle.

Date: 2006/07/13 08:07:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Liar liar pants on fire Cordova..


Kurzweil co-authored a book with the Discovery Institute founders and fellows Geogre Gilder, Jay Richards, and William Dembski some time ago (something to do with Spiritual Machines).

I’m glad his association with the DI didn’t preclude him from being published at SciAm!

I’m of the opinion Gilder is very friendly to Kurzweils ideas (with the exception of the nature of man’s soul.)


Comment by scordova — June 28, 2006 @ 10:44 am

That's just a complete lie.

*I*, however, invented the spork. :)

Date: 2006/07/13 08:16:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2006,13:14)
In case you were wondering about the success of their latest efforts to nix all the religious discussion on Uncommonly Dense, I arbitrarily picked the largest comment thread on the page, "Ken Miller the Closet ID Supporter Backpedals and Dissembles" located here, , and you might be amused to know that in the 35 comments, the word 'god' is found 46 times. That's 1.3 gods-per-comment or gpcs.

GPCs - I think that'll make it into court one day.

But then Billy D. will tell the Judge "Oh, my server crashed last night, we lost all the records"

Date: 2006/07/13 09:17:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
However his subscription to badly photoshopped marines spam-mail hoaxes has never lapsed.

Date: 2006/07/13 09:25:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,14:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 13 2006,14:17)
However his subscription to badly photoshopped marines spam-mail hoaxes has never lapsed.

That was so cute! All it took was some jpegs of Marines earnestly praying to push ALL of Dave's buttons!

I offered to help Dave form Agnostics for the protection of fictitious Marine prayer  but he's not got back to me yet. :angry: Too busy looking Ann Coulter pics, methinks. Oh, or maybe growing fungus in his basement.   ???

Date: 2006/07/13 09:32:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Now that everyone is happy that this article isn’t a fabrication the comments are closed.  

Comment by DaveScot — May 23, 2006 @ 1:02 am

I hope the current drop of Marines are more honest and less cowardly than Dave.

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!

Date: 2006/07/13 10:50:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Uncommonly Dense 'comedy'

Please read the comments.. about as funny as a burning orphanage. If you can't witness an outbreak of rabies at the seeing-eye dogs institute this summer, try and catch the uncommon dysentery summer tour.

Guys you are hilarious, but it ways you can’t grasp. This is funny, but only in a ‘laughing at you’ type of way.

Date: 2006/07/13 11:11:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2006,16:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 13 2006,15:50)
Uncommonly Dense 'comedy'

Please read the comments.. about as funny as a burning orphanage. If you can't witness an outbreak of rabies at the seeing-eye dogs institute this summer, try and catch the uncommon dysentery summer tour.

Guys you are hilarious, but it ways you can’t grasp. This is funny, but only in a ‘laughing at you’ type of way.

DT's "I bet the would-be robber was a liberal Democrat" comment speaks volumes.

I'll bet the robber has no voting history.

Date: 2006/07/14 11:54:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Have a good weekend all.

Still no research form UD, except for Dave's mushroom growing..

Date: 2006/07/16 09:34:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh dear:


Not all brilliant men are skirt chasers of course but…

There’s a lot more to it than what the author suggested. The temptations are greater for brilliant men. A lot of women are very attracted to smart men regardless of wealth, power, or physical good looks. They don’t necessarily want to wed but they do want them for the father of their children. That drive in women would probably be the major factor. Monogamy for humans is a social convention not a biological imperative. Polygamy for men is a biological imperative. Look at the setup - men produce millions of gametes fresh every day for most of their lives. Women are born with a fixed number of gametes of limited shelf life. Clearly two different reproductive strategies set in opposition are in play there. But even given that women have a biological imperative to attract a keep a single mate she doesn’t have a biological imperative to be sexually monogamous with him.

At any rate, what I described above should work to cause allelic evolution to favor high intelligence in humans. And remember, when it comes to the science of evolution, should is the same as does.

Comment by DaveScot — July 16, 2006 @ 9:48 am

Oh Dave! Sire my brood of tardlings. If there was ever a person not qualified to talk about such things...

Date: 2006/07/16 09:39:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes



“A lot of women are very attracted to smart men regardless of wealth, power, or physical good looks. They don’t necessarily want to wed but they do want them for the father of their children.”

Huh? I don’t know whose this idea is, but there is a barking great hole in it: People who have affairs rarely want children to come of them. I hardly need enumerate the reasons why that is so, but for women such reasons have included - in historical times for which we really have information -extreme poverty, divorce, unmarriageability, induced abortion, infanticide, and a shameful death by stoning.

Of course, we could always default to Darwinian storytelling about Pleistocene cave guys and gals who “must have” or “would have” thought, said, or done this or that.

Well, “must have” and “would have” never caught the fish, right?

The only humans of whom we have any real knowledge are the modern ones, and they KNOW why they rarely want their affairs to end with a bun in the oven.

Women who want a bunch of kids typically get married to one stable guy who owns land and/or works for a living - and they don’t fool around. They get involved with a religion that promotes “family values”. They know their rights and make sure the guy knows his duties. If he doesn’t, the priest or witch doctor, or whoever is happy to explain them.


I suggest you do some googling before going off half cocked next time. Human history stretches back millions of years and you are evidently running on about your own anecdotal experience and some knowledge of the most recent eyeblink of human history where social custom made monogamy a more expected behavior. My anecdotal experience is far different from yours but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to monogamy in the human species. Something’s barking alright but it wasn’t me. -ds

Denyse O’Leary

It's like special olympics wrestling.

Date: 2006/07/17 07:44:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Who cares what happened in the distant past?

Geez, Dave, what is UD all about?

Who cares what happened in the distant past? Certainly not a bunch of disengenious fools trying to prove GODdidit / find the 'creator'.

Date: 2006/07/17 09:49:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Jim writes like a girly man.

‘Nuff said.

Comment by DaveScot — July 15, 2006 @ 1:59 am

Wow, DT.  You're such a tough guy.

Dave likes manly girls - with adam's apples...

Date: 2006/07/17 10:08:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Either you are willing to defend each of her published assertions, or you may repudiate them.

Dembski is *such* a coward.

I'm calling homoland security on you - DT

Date: 2006/07/18 04:43:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,09:32)
Quote (keiths @ July 18 2006,04:48)
I hope he does quit.  UD will be a lot more interesting when intelligent dissenters aren't banned on a whim.  Besides, he'll still be commenting, and Davey's entertainment value comes 90% from his inane comments, and only about 10% from his doofy moderating.

I know that most of the other contributors will be happy to show him the door.

The ridiculous level of banning was started by Dembski. Davetard merely took it over. In fact, before Davetard came along, we speculated a few times that Dembski was going to have to shut the blog down, so much time he was spending banning people.

It almost happened post Kitzmiller..."mothballing Uncommon Descent".

Date: 2006/07/18 05:04:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I just got this email from a friend:

From DaveScot@[Snip]

WHHHHHHHY? WHHHHHHHY? For the love of god, WHYYYYY? Does everything we've had, everything we've been through count for nothing? I've moderated for you these past years - and you treat this place like a hotel - then all of a sudden, ANOTHER WOMAN? I thought we were going to settle down, start something. But no. Well, you've not heard the last of me, oh no..

I think he's Outta here -- WmAD

Date: 2006/07/18 05:08:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,09:55)
Quote (k.e @ July 18 2006,10:44)
I see Dense-see rather than Denise. She must have had postmodernist parents( not that there is anything wrong with that), AND just what is going on with her hair cut?

"Some folks call it a Kaiser blade I call it a sling blade MMMMM-HMMMM."


Date: 2006/07/18 05:15:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm sad. Can someone do a Davetard obituary, with some slow-mo footage of his highlights? The ‘everyone accepts common descent’, the marines ACLU thread, threatening to hit PZ Meyers…. I hope he starts is own blog. Dave – if you’re reading this, honey – START YOUR OWN BLOG. We’ll all put some money in paypal to prop you up.?

Date: 2006/07/18 05:19:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 18 2006,10:18)
That would be funny to watch.

Well, we're not reading for the science, are we?

Date: 2006/07/18 05:32:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ July 18 2006,10:27)
Janie responds to her banning.

"The new UD with morphodyke and girlyman"

Sorry fellas, I've just wet myself. Back in 5.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:37:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow, that was embarrassing. Finally dry…



You Fùckers.

Date: 2006/07/18 15:37:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's why Dave got booted:

Repeated calls for more science and less religion, not enough bible qoutes in his work.

Date: 2006/07/19 04:18:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So here are the predictions:

Even more bible qoutes
Even less science
More opinion polls
More 'moral impact of darwinism'
An eventual falling out because Denyse keeps pluging her book.

Date: 2006/07/19 06:44:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2006,11:14)
Wow, in retirement, DT's getting all reflective 'n shit:

(See here)

My goal has always been to entertain. I'd rather put a smile on your face than a thought in your head. And in your case the latter might be nigh on impossible anyhow and I'm nothing if not a realist. I even told all the other blog authors at UD my strategy was going to be a page from Howard Stern's success story - whether from love or hate people will keep coming back to hear the next outrageous thing you're going to say.

On starting my own blog, I dunno. Sounds like work and that's something I try to avoid. Besides, what better place than right here could a Howard Stern fan find himself?

Blog for us Dave, your public demands it.

I'm nothing if not a realist

Dave, you are being too hard on yourself.

Date: 2006/07/19 08:14:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dembski knows UD hasn't been churchy enough recently - Davetard has shrunk the big tent somewhat - and when you shrink the tent you shrink the cash. Cue Denyse, christian appologist.

Date: 2006/07/19 10:38:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Negative science. It actually destroys existing science.

Date: 2006/07/20 05:46:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Denyse's first post:

and she gets a book plug in there. [Book, not butt, Steve S!]

No sexual preference or religious jibes, Kids!

Date: 2006/07/20 09:51:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2006,14:17)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 20 2006,15:07)
Good lord, is THIS the same Joel Borofsky? I bet it is!

Well, he uses the word 'god' 32 times in 1600 words, so yeah, that would fit in with Uncommonly Dense.

I'm sure Dembski has told him to refer to God as 'the designer'.

Date: 2006/07/21 04:53:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
And so it begins...

It seems to me that ID is so different from Darwinism that if IDers want to make their case, they should probably not focus primarily on trying to get papers published in a hostile atmosphere, useful as that may be, but rather by asking different questions of nature.

No science - gotcha. My I proffer that the atmosphere of the church will be friendly, Denise? Ohm - you know that already.

Different questions:

Why don't pigeons have shoes?
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Why only 4 seasons?

As we journalists know well, people who ask different questions often discover different things.

‘Different’ not actually meaning relevant or worthwhile.

Here’s one question that intrigues me: Why do some life forms not evolve, or so little that it hardly matters? The coelacanth and the cockroach come to mind, but there are others, including common ferns and cycads. Surely these life forms experience genetic mutations and changes in their environment.

If some life forms are especially well adapted over long periods of time, can general principles that are not mere tautologies (= they survived because they were fit and we know they were fit because they survived) be derived? If not, why not?

Lets see Denyse, if there’s little environmental pressure or competitive pressure to evolve, i.e. you’re a good fit to your current environment, why would you? If the your not tracking a moving target, things should slow down somewhat. Is there a hypothesis in there? No – but there could be if she had a mind.

Neo-Darwinian theory suggests that adaptive change should happen at a greater rate in highly dynamic environments

I believe that’s testable – and HAS been tested.

Date: 2006/07/21 04:58:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/07/21 05:29:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,10:24)
I thought we weren't allowed to call something a good or bad design, since we don't know the Designer's motives.

No, dembski *has* told us something, finally.

1) The designer(s) didn't have perfect foresight and so had to redisgn.

2) The designer(s) is at least one dimension isn't perfect.

3) Psalm 18:30
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Okay - so using my 'explanitory filter' we can rule out god, then.

Thanks Billy! Keep up the good work.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:43:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2006,13:30)

’m nt tht clvr… ’m s pzzld s y bt th vwls. ’v bn pstr hr fr lng tm nd t’s th frst tm t’s hppnd.


Spcltn bt th dsgnr’s mtvs s nt ff-lmts, t’s jst tht sch qstns r nt rslvbl wthn th frmwrk f D. t s n thng t mprclly dntfy dsgn thrgh th xplntry fltr, cmplx-spcfd nfrmtn, nd th lk. Sch prcss s ndpndnt f th ntr f th dsgnr r vn hs/ts cntnng xstnc.

t s qt nthr qstn t frrt t smn’s mtvtns. Tht’s qstn fr psychlgy, phlsphy r myb prsnl ntrvw.

My mjr pnt s tht D s nt rqrd t nswr th mtvtn qstns, r vn ddrss thm, n rdr t dntfy dsgn. W ftn sld ff nt phlsphy nd rlgn hr, whch s fn, bt w shld nt mstk flr t rslv phlsphcl qstns fr flr f D s scnc.

Dv T.

Comment by taciturnus — July 21, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Uh, denyse, somebody on your end is doing that. We’re just typing in regular comments, and they’re being disemvowelled.

Comment by stevie steve — July 21, 2006 @ 1:15 pm

Oh the good old days of Dembski as sole moderator ….

Comment by ofro — July 21, 2006 @ 1:15 pm

From moderator Denyse: That sounds remarkable to me, given that only some of the comments have the vowels removed. Not likely happening at this end. But I will make an enquiry.

Comment by O'Leary — July 21, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

No scientific skills
No grasp of technology.

Top choice for a 'science' blog.

Date: 2006/07/21 09:46:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Will they try and spin this?

Date: 2006/07/21 17:12:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
ID only works in Fundie / theocratic leaning places. Canada is a bit too progressive. ;)

Date: 2006/07/22 06:17:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The search for design:

If you pull something out and it stops working, then its irrdecibly complex, so its designed.

If you pull something out and it keeps working it has redundancy, so it's designed.

Maybe the EF should try and discount design first, as it's everywhere!

Date: 2006/07/22 06:35:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/07/22 19:08:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
They're not even pretending to do science any more. Its just 'culture war' from here on in. Expect more 'God' posts.

Date: 2006/07/24 06:03:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Which of these best describes the state of IDC 'theory',  (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?):






It's not big, it's not clever, but at least mine are grounded in reality....

Date: 2006/07/24 11:48:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Church lady writes...

From moderator Denyse: As I mentioned earlier, this thread will be much more fruitful if commenters actually SEE the Penguins film. That is not a reflection on the quality of previous comments. My point is that if you have not seen the film, you will not understand why a number of people pegged it as suporting ID rather than Darwinism, so your comments will tend to go off track into the behavior of a variety of other species, which may have nothing to do with the specific Penguins issue.

Comment by O'Leary — July 24, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

I did done the boldeding myself. EEEEeeeeee.

Yes looking at other species is far too scientific and may bring insights we don't wont to see. They are 110% specifically complexified like that there fracterial blagella. Praise the lord.

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:27:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 25 2006,16:50)
I will keep 'Paradigm Dawning' in mind for if I ever start a prog band and need a name for my first album.

Mine will be Texas Chainstore Manager

Date: 2006/07/31 19:39:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes

really think Darwinists need to take a few courses in logic and the philosophy of science. An engineering course wouldn’t hurt either. Maybe then, we’ll see those silly arguments like “underproductive organs” disappear.

Comment by Ryan — July 31, 2006 @ 10:45 am

Emphasis mine.

who hear is shocked?

Who thinks he might be a regular church-goer also?

Date: 2006/08/02 08:39:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (J. G. Cox @ Aug. 02 2006,13:03)

 More and more, I'm coming to believe that they need to add a new item to list of 100 things that you learn in kindergarten.

Item #101: If you have to invoke a conspiracy to support your position, then you are wrong.

that's what THEY want you to think. :D

Date: 2006/08/03 03:26:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm still waiting for the 'we got whupped' in Kansas story.

Date: 2006/08/04 11:37:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes


...Actually, ID can explain this just by saying evolution done it...

Fantastic, Ya'll. ???

Date: 2006/08/04 11:45:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Church lady muses:

Here’s what I told my friend: “If you divert a spring at its source, you change the landscape. Trying to divert it when it is a raging river could get you drowned.

Not only ignorant of evilution, she seems unaware that the water in the river doesn't all come from one spring.

ACORNS and TREES, Denyse. ACORNS and fuggin TREES *might* have worked.

Date: 2006/08/05 16:11:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2006,20:40)

Joseph: lots of forces are at play in society at any given time. I don’t disagree at all that there is a resurgence of genuine curiosity, and of course I agree that the materialist paradigm is bankrupt…But I really think it is the reemergence of overt religiosity which is making certain people quake in their boots, not natural curiosity. I have to say, however, that this may just be a bias of mine, since although i consider myself extremely religious (according to my own definition) I also get pretty freaked out by certain forms of religious extremism, and am a huge believer in religious tolerance.

People think in an associative manner. They have the word “religion”, and then there are a thousand images clustered around that word which pop up in the mind. Many of the thousand are ugly. many are beautiful. Fear has an amazing ability to drive what is beautiful and noble away and magnify what is leering and ugly. It just feels to me like people like this are deeply repulsed at the images which they (correctly or incorrectly) associate with religion, and they will not, no matter how many times they are corrected, unhinge ID from these associations. Thanks to fear.

Comment by tinabrewer — August 5, 2006 @ 11:17 am

Maybe we wouldn't associate religion with ID if you guys could go five seconds without talking about Jesus.

To be fair / pedantic, she doesn't mention Jesus...

Date: 2006/08/07 11:25:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 07 2006,15:45)
Sal just posted this over on Telic Thoughts:
Salvador Cordova will be on International TV next week along with Caroline Crocker, Edward Sisson, and IDEA GMU president Christine Chenette. See Coral Ridge Hour. (Disclaimer: I was intereviewed by their reporters, anything else said during that show is Coral Ridge's business).

International TV!  That's like, way better than national TV, isn't it?

Tune in.  Could be good for some laughs.

..looks good... ;)

Date: 2006/08/08 05:50:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh dear...

Do a little find and replace...

But Satan didn’t. Satan thanked me. Why was that? Because, at a deep level, Satan realizes that his professional advancement (Satan is now an endowed professor — Satan was largely unknown, like O’Leary, before entering this debate) and, indeed, Satan’s reason for having any sort of intellectual career worth talking about is that Satan has become a principal opponent of God. What’s more, my contributions to GOD have been seminal in that regard, giving him an adequate foil against which to devote her energies (why else does Satan devote three pages of the index — over 100 references — to yours truly?). To make a career attacking something, the object attacked has to be sufficiently dangerous and threatening. My colleagues and Jesus have provided him with precisely such an object.
When Jesus was in second grade, Jesus had a crush on Joan Gillespie. To show his affection, Jesus was mean to her and kept thinking up ways to be mean to her. Fortunately, Jesus outgrew that childishness. When it comes to God, Darwinists have yet to do so.
Deep down, Darwinists love God.

What a twat.

So, doctors love cancer?
Unicef loves disasters?
Firemen love fires?

Bill, you are an ungracious twat. You'd think god would pick someone, erm, nicer?

Date: 2006/08/08 08:57:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Dante @ Aug. 08 2006,13:53)
Stevestory, you mean to tell me UD now has a category called "Teen Culture"?


It's a culture war. No science required.

Diffraction is enough to make D*mbski a believer..

He'll be turning water into wine if he ever sees an eclipse...

Date: 2006/08/08 09:03:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
dante : Joels comments are from his own blog, called "god hates gays", or something.

Date: 2006/08/08 09:14:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Rebel without a clue:

The farce is strong with this one.

Date: 2006/08/08 09:17:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes

> Has anyone calculated the complex specified information of the smoke billows in the original? in the fake?

Well, Tom, it’s really very hard to calculate the CSI. Although, since the fake contains many repeating patterns, we know it has less CSI than the original. Thus, the conclusion that the original photo is more likely to be intelligently designed than the fake. Er. Wait.

Comment by BC — August 8, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

Date: 2006/08/08 10:59:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes


Date: 2006/08/08 11:48:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Aug. 08 2006,16:38)
JasonTheGreek on theistic evolutionists:
This is what always gets me. So, a theistic evolutionist would say that he just thinks that God guided evolution, though he has zero evidence to back up the belief? Isn’t a belief without a shred of evidence to back it up just idiotic to begin with?

This on a site where most of the commentators believe in Noah's Ark and Zombie Gods.

There's that peer reviewed bible...

Date: 2006/08/09 04:39:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2006,07:30)
he was thoughtful in his posts (he made several) and got discussions going-which I thought was the purpose of a blog: to host debate.  Apparently, William thought otherwise.  

I happen to believe that you're correct in that, Apollo: one purpose of a blog is to foster informed, civil debate using logic, reason and honorable ( non-fallacious) tactics.

However, I can speak from personal experience in saying that is not how Dembsky sees it. In another name, I was polite, concise and merely presented evidence that ran counter to two or three of Dembsky's claims. That was sufficient for banning. I also know that you can look through UD's archives and find many, many instances of this.

UD is not for debate, it is for mutual agreement and admiration, along with thinly-disguised indoctrination and sociopolitical manipulation.

Uncommon Descent is Dembski's bookshop, people. Nothing more.

Date: 2006/08/09 06:25:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Aug. 09 2006,11:04)
Oh.  Dear.  Grawd.
Paley updated and videoized

Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 10:49 am

as the rhyme says ...

"Impossible, laughable, surely a sin"

They just can't keep the cat in the bag.

Date: 2006/08/11 08:38:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I *heart* science pixie.

Date: 2006/08/11 13:33:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I did done a 'speriment. I maded a list of words then google searched th number of hits for that word in two specifically complex websites - UD and PT.I then did maded a chart of the occurance of the word as a percentage of my total arbitray list.

This is what I got:

the results

Fun, but largely meaninless.

Date: 2006/08/11 13:58:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
UD PT Ratio
liberal' 220 431 1.959090909
all searched 3404 7453 2.189482961

Date: 2006/08/11 19:46:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 11 2006,21:23)
Quote (Sanctum @ Aug. 11 2006,21:06)
Richard, I like the chart.
If you are going to expand this research I would like to suggest "fundy", "liar", "cretin", "retard" and "dick".
Someone already suggested my second favourite, "idiot".

Definitely. If it's possible to do whole phrases, try "why do we still have apes?", "materialism cannot be true", or "you're out of here."

only "out of here" got hits:

Do I get a Disco institute grant now?

"tell a little lie, say a little prayer, get cash tonight"

Date: 2006/08/11 19:50:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Scott, how be you explain your point? I’m not psychic, so I can’t guess what you think is circular reasoning if you can’t explain. I bet a lot of other people would have the same reaction.

Comment by O'Leary — August 11, 2006 @ 8:28 am

Journalistic excellence, church lady.

Date: 2006/08/12 07:28:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 12 2006,09:41)
Quote (Wonderpants @ Aug. 12 2006,05:25)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2006,00:50)

Scott, how be you explain your point? I’m not psychic, so I can’t guess what you think is circular reasoning if you can’t explain. I bet a lot of other people would have the same reaction.

Comment by O'Leary — August 11, 2006 @ 8:28 am

Journalistic excellence, church lady.

O'Leary: "I'm so smrt! S-M-R-T!"

Geez, there's going to be a turf war any day.  Joel's going to have to ban the church lady as her primary language is destroying English.  This is bad, see here.

Joel is a tool - and dembski should take him to task. There is the same message in less characters so the information content is higher per character - higher info density.. CSI, blah blah blah.

Forsooth, tis with great irony I proclaim that language doth evolve and one may see difference twixt one generation and the next. Joel probably wants us all to learn old Hebrew and be done.

Date: 2006/08/14 17:59:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Exlpanitory Filter Failiure..

It's a parody, you bellends*

*the bell shaped tip of the penis.

Date: 2006/08/21 09:38:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wonderpants @ Aug. 21 2006,12:40)
The quotation "For as the fool returneth to his foolishness, so the dog returneth to his vomit" seems to apply perfectly to this situation, where Otto can be considered as the fool or the dog. Or even both.

the vomit, surely?

Date: 2006/08/22 04:31:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard opines:

Dave has proven beyond a doubt that intelligent agents can construct useful trial and error algorithms

For soemone who claims technoliteracy, calling GA's "trail and error" shows a massive shortfall in understanding.

Is it 3? No
Is it 6? No
Is it 2? No
Did I say 3?...

GAs could (and do) help technical minds understand the power of evolution. Either Dave's worldview clouds his thinking, his thinking is somewhat lacking for a super genuis polytard, or both.

UD - keeping the web SCIENCE FREE

Date: 2006/08/22 10:58:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Shame on us! We're all 'culture war' and they're all 'experiments'. ???

Date: 2006/08/22 12:08:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Coo-Eeee, Davetard!


Genetic Algorithms have there name because they mimic real genetics in their problem solving approach. Quite apt, really. What would you call them?

Here’s the universal ID algorithm, (in basic).

10 input “Enter description of the entity”;A$
20 Print “GOD DID IT”

Done a lot of AI work, Dave? Understand search, A*, GBF, simulated annealing, etc, etc? Your commentary suggests otherwise, you bad, bad mushroom grower.
:D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/08/22 13:07:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard writes:
This is true. Each trial is not necessarily a totally random guess. After the first trial the child’s game of “warmer/colder” is employed to evaluate the trial results and solutions that are warmer are preferred over those that are colder as the starting point for the next trial

That is perhaps the best example of 'not getting'  GAs I have ever seen. There's the whole having little GA babies bit and / or mutation he's not getting. There can only be one king of tard, hail Davescot

Date: 2006/08/22 13:10:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes

comments 3 and 4:


What does this have to do with Evolution or ID?

Comment by valkhorn — August 22, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

Here we get another piece of positive evidence for ID. Thanks Dr.Dembski for your continuing high quality technical output. What would ID do without you?

Comment by Tiggy — August 22, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

Arf! How long will they last?

Date: 2006/08/22 13:45:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes

We programmers call this the “brute force method” because all it does is takes the simple method of trial and error and multiplies its effectiveness by the computer’s speed at conducting a trial and evaluating the result. No finesse. Just brute force. This brute force algorithm is what is proposed as the driver of creative evolution.

Dave has even given up on "hotter / colder" in this screed for a Random Walk

Date: 2006/08/22 15:29:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard is getting reamed here:
I suspect the thread will be closed and burried soon. He's banging on about 'brute force' [which is anything but GAs] and someone has pointed out that the statespace is to big for brute force [in this case nested loop itterations] to deal with. Poor Dave! Our polytard has been caught not knowing what he's banging on about again. Maybe this is an 'expertise bluff'?

Date: 2006/08/22 19:02:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davescot Bluffs:


Spare me. Were you a programmer when “Expert Systems” were all the fad? I was. Before and after. Like rule based decision making in software was something no one had ever done before some marketing genius decided to call it “Expert Systems” to see if it would sell better. Artificial Intelligence is the same story. 25 years ago I was working in the CAD/CAM industry with what’s called auto-router software. This is software that undertakes the enormously complex task of finding a way to route traces on a circuit board in the least number of copper layers. Circuit board cost rises exponentially as number of layers increases and production yield goes in the opposite direction. Rules for clearances between traces, width of thru holes, etc. all adjustable with the same tradeoffs. We implimented genetic algorithms, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in that software before anyone ever heard the terms and we weren’t pompous enough to think we were inventing anything new. Imagine how we laugh when some young idiot or clueless academician picks up something we were doing when they were still crapping gerber baby food and gives it some hoity-toity name like it’s something new. Please, please spare me.

Sorry Dave, no-one is buying that. You think GA's are itterative loop problem solvers that walk through the statespace of the problem until a solution hits them. You've said so yourself.

It's like someone is explaining a Formula One car and Dave is saying "Yes, I've worked with horses".All Hail king Tard!

Date: 2006/08/22 19:11:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2006,00:02)
Davescot Bluffs:


Spare me. Were you a programmer when “Expert Systems” were all the fad? I was. Before and after. Like rule based decision making in software was something no one had ever done before some marketing genius decided to call it “Expert Systems” to see if it would sell better. Artificial Intelligence is the same story. 25 years ago I was working in the CAD/CAM industry with what’s called auto-router software. This is software that undertakes the enormously complex task of finding a way to route traces on a circuit board in the least number of copper layers. Circuit board cost rises exponentially as number of layers increases and production yield goes in the opposite direction. Rules for clearances between traces, width of thru holes, etc. all adjustable with the same tradeoffs. We implimented genetic algorithms, artificial intelligence, and expert systems in that software before anyone ever heard the terms and we weren’t pompous enough to think we were inventing anything new. Imagine how we laugh when some young idiot or clueless academician picks up something we were doing when they were still crapping gerber baby food and gives it some hoity-toity name like it’s something new. Please, please spare me.

Sorry Dave, no-one is buying that. You think GA's are itterative loop problem solvers that walk through the statespace of the problem until a solution hits them. You've said so yourself.

It's like someone is explaining a Formula One car and Dave is saying "Yes, I've worked with horses".All Hail king Tard!

Sorry for qouting myslef. I feel dirty, like JAD.

Davetard adds:


So now here comes Tom with a GA working on a Steiner Tree with 6 points and one connection layer. Imagine me giggling over that trivial POS when 25 years ago I was coding software that did the same thing only with 60 thousand points to connect and anywhere from one to a dozen connection layers. Please, please, PLEASE spare me. I’m begging you. My sides are aching and I’m spitting beer all over my screen from laughing so hard.

Sorry Dave, no sale.Your knowledge of optimization is clearly close to zero. The details you give Dave, that's the key - there are none. At least say "lagrangian relaxation" or something when you bluff.


"That Harry Potter is rubish at magic. I was doing magic 20 years ago, really good magic that's much harder than his magic. AND I didn't have a wand..."

*wave hand hopefully*

Date: 2006/08/22 19:49:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 23 2006,00:34)
I was awarded millions of dollars in incentive compensation at Dell while we took it from $1B to $40B in revenue in the 1990’s. No fellowships though. It never occured to me to ask Michael for one. Imagine how sad I feel as I sit on my yacht writing this. Boo hoo.

Comment by DaveScot — August 23, 2006 @ 12:29 am

Could this mean that Paris Hilton is several times smarter than DaveTard?

Wow Dave, you rock. Hang on.. Sorry it's the phone - for you. The UN want you to be a special humility / modesty envoy. There's something about folks who tell you how great their life is.. no one believes them, they're trying to convince themselves.

Very similar:

Date: 2006/08/23 04:14:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ogee @ Aug. 23 2006,08:32)
[quote=Richardthughes,Aug. 23 2006,00:49][/quote]
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 23 2006,00:34)

Small, bizarre world:  I am acquainted with her "recently-ex-boyfriend".

So is Ed Brayton from 'dispatches from the culture wars.'

Date: 2006/08/23 04:46:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Tom English kills 'frontloading":

Salvador: “Specifically, have you read No Free Lunch which specifically deals with evolutionary algorithms?”

Bill’s treatment of the Blondie24 study of Fogel and Chellapilla is quite weak. Some here may not be familiar with Blondie24. The researchers set up an evolutionary program in which the population was a collection of checkers strategies (static board evaluators implemented as artificial neural networks, to be precise). The strategies in the initial population were chosen randomly, and they were so bad that most humans could beat them.

In each generation, the fitness of each strategy in the population was assessed. But here’s the key point: There was no fitness function. Instead, each strategy played games against randomly selected opponents in the population. For each game, both players were awarded points at the end. The payoff was 3 points for a win, -2 points for a loss, and 0 points for a draw. After all of the games were played, the strategies with fewer points were culled from the population, and those with more points engaged in reproduction-with-variation.

After close to one thousand generations, the researchers took the best strategy from the population and began using it to play against humans on the Internet. The evolved strategy played under the name Blondie24, and its opponents did not know they were playing against a computer. The strategy established an expert rating, playing better than 99% of human players.

I want to make it clear that the abstract environment in which the program evaluated strategies was the game of checkers. Those strategies that did better in competition were more likely to reproduce than those that did worse. There was emphatically not a fitness function. How could there have been? How can you inspect a single strategy and say how well it will do in play? You have to play strategies against one another to know which are better than others.

The form of evolution implemented by the evolutionary program is often referred to as coevolution. The program is independent of checkers. What does Bill Dembski identify as a source of CSI? He identifies the asymmetry of the payoff function — the fact that a win gains a strategy more (3 points) than a loss costs it (2 points). Does he compute the CSI derived from that asymmetry? No. Does he give any formal argument? No.

Coevolution is a bigger problem for you to deal with than Dave’s program. What are you going to do when I present results obtained with a symmetric payoff function?

By the way, Gil Dodgen has said some nice things about David Fogel’s book Blondie24: Playing at the Edge of AI. Check it out at Amazon:

Comment by Tom English — August 22, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

Date: 2006/08/23 06:58:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes

should we publish the 'ID TIMELINE'? ;)

Date: 2006/08/23 08:57:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2006,12:13)
by all means

Do you have a web space to put it in?

Date: 2006/08/23 09:05:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It needs to be on teh web so I can link to it. I just have it native on my desktop.

Date: 2006/08/23 09:14:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/08/23 14:06:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 23 2006,18:18)
BRAVO, Richard, that's VERY nice work. May I steal it for use in the future, elsewhere?

Of course!

You can have the origional Visio or a big ass Jpeg if you like. I'll even thrown in "Explanitory filter 2.0" for free.

PM me with your prefernces and email. ;)

Date: 2006/08/24 04:02:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (GCT @ Aug. 24 2006,08:37)
Oh DaveTard, I see you've grown some humility...

4.  I wrote a cribbage AI 20 years ago that people swore cheated. It’s still on the internet available for download at It doesn’t cheat. I simply wrote an expert system that made the same decisions that I would make in any given situation. That alone made it a good competitor. I then improved on mother nature by leveraging what a computer is good at - calculating odds precisely and quickly. As each card was exposed I calculated the odds of where remaining cards would be. This would not be possible for a human unless some kind of savant like Rainman but it’s certainly not cheating. Think of it like card counting at blackjack in vegas only more complicated. I didn’t take any card into consideration until it had been legally exposed during normal gameplay. This made the program virtually invicible after playing it enough times for luck to average out so skill level can become evident. I could still whip the snot out of it but that’s because I knew exactly what it was thinking and that’s enough of an advantage to nullify the card counting.

Comment by DaveScot — August 23, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

So, if you had made a patent application and then reviewed it yourself, would you have approved it?

I'm still calling bull$hit.

what langaue that he used 20 years ago is still  being used by modern PCs? Working out probabilities from a declining deck wityhout replacement is easy. Working out probabilistic distributions of how the cards will be played is hard, and confounded by the discard to the crib step of the game. There's also a stratgeic shift in card discarding and play if you're both close to the finish line. Again, Dave gives us no details, because he's making it up.

Date: 2006/08/24 04:17:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 24 2006,09:06)
I could still whip the snot out of it but that’s because I knew exactly what it was thinking and that’s enough of an advantage to nullify the card counting.

Um, Dave.  If your program always made the best decision available, the randomness of your hands would preclude you winning all of them.  If he had better cards than you, he would always win.  If the cards were evenish, he's most likely win, and he'd probably even steal couple when at a disadvantage.

Also, how exactly would you whip him when he was dealt: 5C,  5D, 5H, JkS, and 5S comes on the cut?  By knowing he was going to kick your ass, you nulified his superior hand?  The play of cribbage is by far the least important aspect of the game; it's the meld that counts.

First up: He's bluffing.

But if it used suboptimal logic (lead with your lowest card for example), then you would have an advantage.

Let's say your hand contains (2,7,7,9)

Leading off with a 7 would be best...?
that's because if they then drop a 7 (low prob because you have 2) you can play the 3rd for 6 points. If they play and 8 (for the 15) then you have the 9 for a run of 3...

There's a lot of nested logic of hypthetical comibitorial plays, which creates a large state-space. Could Dave do that?

Date: 2006/08/24 04:27:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 24 2006,06:27)
Richard: Thank you! I'm going to use the one you posted here, it's nice and compact, yet still readable.

I do ask you show us its use, though! ;)

Date: 2006/08/24 05:15:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 24 2006,10:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 24 2006,10:02)
I'm still calling bull$hit.

what langaue that he used 20 years ago is still  being used by modern PCs?


from the Wiki:

Since the 1990s, C++ has been one of the most popular commercial programming languages.

the others aren't really mainstream.

Date: 2006/08/24 05:29:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Music appreciation is intensely subjective. And since the appreciation is subjective so too must be the composition otherwise everyone could be a wildly successful composer just by following formulaic procedures. I think the mathematical connection pretty much starts and ends with simple relationships between notes on the scale and also the way the notes combine to form harmonic sounds.

Time signatures and dynamics?

Date: 2006/08/24 05:49:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
This is one of mine too:

Use and abuse! ???

Date: 2006/08/24 20:17:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave the polymath

Date: 2006/08/25 04:15:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes

(they actually opened a thread om the music and math skills correlation to stop this one getting derailed, but Dave so wants to be part of this one, despite having nothing to add..)


Date: 2006/08/25 06:09:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 25 2006,01:51)

You do this thread a great service, Richard.

hat's off to ya.


Date: 2006/08/25 10:10:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Multiple Universe Detector

Oi Fellas – Just done some research, between growing mushrooms in my basement and working on my yacht. Do yachts *have* basements? Never mind…

So you get a fracterial blagella and put it in the top there… where it says ‘start’...

Now this is the important bit – CSI – Go and watch CSI Miami.
Come back and you should know if the mulitverse theory is right or wrong. I’ll be here all week. Do you know if my Nobel prize will come 'Fedex overnight'? If it comes tomorrow can Steve Story sign for me? I’ll be on my plane and its got a special speedometer thing that’s in light-years per moon month so I might be in Alpha centuri by then.

PS. I have more money than you. ALL. And women want to me to impregnate them… hang on… Coming mum, YES, I am on the internet..5 more minutes… Okay, I’ve gotta go, I’m writing software that basically is better than the internet. Except I did that 50 years ago.

Date: 2006/08/25 10:38:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 25 2006,15:35)
I hadn't encountered a positivist before.

Are you positivist about that?

Date: 2006/08/25 11:03:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
looks at award.


Date: 2006/08/25 11:39:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More proof for ID

CSI found in dinosaurs

unlucky, Evilutionists! :)

Date: 2006/08/26 19:35:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 26 2006,22:30)
all systems are go for launch

the question is, out of which orifice?

all at once, silly.

Date: 2006/08/26 19:40:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard - including picture..!

...The brash chemist, who conducts independent research from his houseboat, has infuriated peers by refusing to "play by the rules of Socrates, Bacon, and Galileo," calling test results as he sees them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary....

Fair and balanced news

Date: 2006/08/28 18:26:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Blipey - are you going to give Davetard a trouncing? :D

Date: 2006/08/28 18:42:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
All we know about him is what he tells us. he laughed at ed Braytons picture yet he is not brave enough to show his face. Go easy on him, he is BIG esteem issues.

Date: 2006/08/29 05:19:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 29 2006,09:34)
Gallileo will be spinning in his grave.

Or is his grave spinnig 'round him?

Date: 2006/08/29 10:20:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2006,14:44)
I deleted the Collin DuCrane thread because I failed to get him over here. Mentok on the other hand...we might have the next AFDave on our hands...

I feel a bit guilty sometimes - my Granddad said "don't mock the afflicted". DaveScot isn’t the brightest light in the chandelier and clearly is insecure. He brings it on himself to a degree, but he’s the equivalent of an intellectual self-harmer.

Date: 2006/08/30 06:45:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,10:40)
Maybe it’s time to just tell the Darwinists to siddown, shuddup, and let others talk for a while.

Gosh, if the Catholic conclave did that, it would be making a real contribution. The Catholics who have weighed in on the subject may be right or wrong, but it’s time the Church recovered its own history and gave them a listen.

Even if a person is largely wrong, the points on which he is right might show a way forward.

It’s almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway.
But we must find some comprehensive way of addressing the history of life. Listening to the muffled or silenced voices - especially from one’s own tradition - would be a good beginning.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — O'Leary @ 8:20 pm

(Emphasis mine)

Poor Church Lady has her Jesus-glasses on.

ID is simply the death throes of 'creation science'...

Date: 2006/08/30 08:21:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/08/30 12:15:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,16:50)
Evolution == Atheism, take #283971

includes the following gem:


Leo1787 writes: “this semantic sleight of hand on the part of ID’ers will fail just as every other attempt to introduce the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life into public school curricula has failed.”

Leo, let’s see how you respond to the familiar Mount Rushmore test.

Assume that a Stephen King super virus wipes out all human life next year. 500 years later an alien visits earth and observes Mount Rushmore. The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation:

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.

2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture.

If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?

If the answer to this question is “No, it’s not fair” why is it fair for you to make the same accusation against ID proponents when they are attempting to account for specified complexity several orders of magnitude greater than that seen at Mount Rushmore?

My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them.

Comment by BarryA — August 30, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

Mount Rushmore – close examination shows the work of tools. Analysis shows jackhammers, drills, hammers were used. There are still metal pins where swing-seats were installed – telling us about the weight of the designer. Examining the weathering and erosion of the ‘faces’ against the rest of the rock, we can estimate a time period.


Date: 2006/08/30 13:08:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,17:21)

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.

Isn't it amazing that until Dembski published The Design Inference in 1998, nobody could tell if Mount Rushmore was created by humans instead of being a naturally occuring phenomenon?

Hmm. The aliens might not be able to figure out Mt. Rushmore. Being from another planet, they might not have read The Design Inference.

'Canals' on Mars. the Oklo nuclear reactor..

Date: 2006/08/31 04:44:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ye Tarde Spaeke:

Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh.

Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am

Ye Tard claims omniscience.

Date: 2006/08/31 05:49:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Faid @ Aug. 31 2006,10:41)
Yeah, like we said before... It's a unit that has two measurable values: "Zero" and "Lots".

Man, even Reich did a better job with orgone.


*stamps feet*

How about, "it DOESN'T look undesigned" ???

Date: 2006/08/31 05:58:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I've been offering to teach him a bit of AI over at UDOJ. He's not too keen on the idea, for some reason.

Date: 2006/08/31 06:09:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 31 2006,11:00)
"Aliens would know it's designed because of all the CSI"
"How much CSI?"
"Some, apparently. Just look at it. It looks all designey."

The fundamental problem with moderating this board is, how can a reasonable person not start cursing and spitting the 500th time they see that?

Of course, the next step is to add another pseudo-science phrase that is another proxy for designed. NFE (non-randomly formed enitites) = CSI = designed, But we can spot design through NFE. We can spot NFE through CSI. And I can spot a shell game.

Date: 2006/08/31 06:38:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2006,11:29)
Ye Tard claims omniscience.

Evil grin :>

Sung to The Major General's Song from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance

I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General
I've calculated vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the probability of every possibility
from fallacy to outcome, I am quite delusional
I 'm very well acquainted too with matters scientifical,
I understand creations, both the simple and complexical,
About Mt Rushmore I'm teeming with a lot o' news
­With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views.

With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the  usefulness of
creosote spews

I'm very good at banning and dissing all the rest of you,
I know the scientific names of magazines american;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General

I know our constitution and Judge D'over Activists
I ditactically dally in fundamental politics
I quote unknown authors of fictional stupidty
I give lessons growing mushrooms in basements very rapidly
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General

In fact, when I know what is meant by 'RNA' and 'DNA,'
When I can tell at sight a Mountain from a Statue-a,
When such affairs as genes and springing them willy-nilly,
And when I know precisely what is meant by 'biology,'
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern skulduggery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in thuggery;
In short, when I've a smattering of genetical humbuggery
You'll say a better dopey Design-o General had never sat a  
blog-gery.. -


For my biology knowledge, though I'm sucky and abdury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of last century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General!

*stands and applauds* :)

Date: 2006/08/31 07:08:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2006,11:57)
Snicker....Thank you Richard ....I thought since I was awarded the AtBC Poet Poet Laureate  prize I'd better do some! ....since YOU WON the Comedy Prize..bastard ...meant in the fondest Aussie sense ;)...oh and congratulations ...very original.

I'm the official scientists. Honest.


I would like to thank you all for not baninating me, a humble ID theorist, from your realm.

Date: 2006/08/31 07:11:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 31 2006,12:05)
I was worried, for a while, that Joel had learned of us and was cooling it on the subject of girls' sexuality, as a result of some comments here.


For instance, a few years ago no one would have worn skirts that could double as belts, or to be fair, that went above mid thigh. The reason no one wore this? They simply did not enjoy the idea of being thought of as prostitutes. Now peopleSeventeen: Helping with self-image by putting the say, “It’s my body and I can do whatever I want with it.” Okay, but at least be honest with. The reason prostitutes wore/wear little clothing is because they are advertising a product.

They are not trying to display their “woman-hood,” they are not taking place in the new feminism, they are not lifting the bonds of patriarchal restraint; they are trying to sell their bodies, as a slave would display his muscles in order to be purchased. Of course, those who dress this way and often act this way do so free of charge. This will sound cold and is extremely blunt, but try to prove it wrong. The biggest threat to prostitution is not good morality within society; it is the modern teenage girl who has bought into the bronzed crap that society has offered her.

Joel wouldn't know this, being home schooled and all.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:15:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/08/31 10:21:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
[creation science] -  [illegal bits] = ID


Date: 2006/08/31 10:26:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,15:20)
I think our DaveTard has masculinity issues:

...Like a well trained police dog the concept of losing a fight is inconceivable to me. Bring it on, beeatch...

It's inconveivable to well trained police dogs, because they have an IQ of about 4, and can't conceive much of anything. I think he makes a fair point.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:45:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"CSI - Bluffing"

some great stuff.

Read from here down.

Date: 2006/09/01 04:59:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Dumbski says:
...A. N. Wilson, the epitomy of English snootiness, recently fell for an elaborate prank that he could have avoided if he had drawn a design inference

Emphasis mine.

Hang on Bill, has anyone ever used the design inference? Can you point me to the examples with workings? Thanks.

If it wont work for the inventor what chance do we have?

Date: 2006/09/01 08:44:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes

ooh, oooh, someone gets duped by a code.

Jeffrey Satinover’s Cracking the Bible Code is the place to begin for anyone interested in the subject. It is engagingly written, well-informed, and generally sober. In particular, it avoids the statistical fallacies too commonly associated with coverage of the Bible Code. Even so, it is an uneven text. It is superb in describing the history leading up to today’s investigations. Indeed, the window it provides on Jewish intellectual life from the Middle Ages through the present is itself worth the price of the book. It is also very good at making intelligible the mathematics needed for deciding whether the Code is genuine. On the other hand, its speculative portions about the significance of the Bible Code are often diffuse and controversial.

The best known example of the Bible Code, and one Satinover treats in detail, is the Great Sages experiment. Several Israeli mathematicians took thirty or so prominent rabbis from the Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel, and looked among the equidistant letter sequences of Genesis for a juxtaposition of rabbi names with their dates of birth or death. They found some. On calculating the improbability of so close a match between names and corresponding dates, the mathematicians concluded that the match couldn’t have happened by chance (the probability was less than 1 in 60,000). The journal Statistical Science tacitly agreed. After an arduous review, its editors finally decided to publish the results of this experiment. Suddenly the Bible Code had a measure of academic respectability.


Date: 2006/09/01 08:47:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 01 2006,13:35)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,18:41)
I'm kinda curious to see just how overblown we can make this equation.

Why bother?  It always evaluates to zero.

(1)   [creation science] - [Illegal bits] = ID
(2)   [creation science] - [Illegal bits] = 0

Can someone solve for ID for me?  ???

Date: 2006/09/01 08:51:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Based on the written component of my driving test, MY IQ is 187.

Plus, girls, boys and sheep all find me *very* attractive. I'm just mentioning this because ,erm, I'm a millionaire.

Date: 2006/09/01 09:38:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2006,14:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2006,13:51)
Based on the written component of my driving test, MY IQ is 187.

Plus, girls, boys and sheep all find me *very* attractive. I'm just mentioning this because ,erm, I'm a millionaire.

Do women beg you to father their childen, like they do with DaveScot?

They fawn and posture to receive my seed. They know good genes when they see them. They are designed, not RM + NS jeans. RM + NS Jeans are K-Mark or maybe target. Mine are Versace Designer Jeans. Oh shit, I just named the designer.

Do you know that I live in a submarine like captain Nemo? Except mine also converts into an aircraft carrier so I can fly my stealth fighter that’s the best in the world that I designed 60 years ago. AND Michael Dell sends me a Christmas card.

Date: 2006/09/01 20:43:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Forget the booze. You need a crapload of mescalin for this one:

think states of matter have very little relevance to how chemistry works.

Maths is applied mind, physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry. We are biological beings who now posess mind. It seems to have gone the full circle.

Comment by — September 1, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

Like, woooooooaaaaaah, toooooootaaaaaallly, Dude.

Date: 2006/09/02 05:35:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 02 2006,02:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2006,20:43)
Forget the booze. You need a crapload of mescalin for this one:

think states of matter have very little relevance to how chemistry works.

Maths is applied mind, physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry. We are biological beings who now posess mind. It seems to have gone the full circle.

Comment by — September 1, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

Like, woooooooaaaaaah, toooooootaaaaaallly, Dude.

I was tempted to comment on the thread, but it best left to stand on its own "merits".

PS Rich,

I doubt I have time to write a thread topic at UDOJ. You seem to spend time there. Would you be interested?

Sure, but it'll have to be after the weekend - I'm at a wedding.

Date: 2006/09/03 11:33:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Alan suggested I start this thread, so here it is. I was late to the game so does someone else have a good genesis post?


Date: 2006/09/03 18:50:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 03 2006,19:44)
Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of your new avatar!

Emphasis mine.

Date: 2006/09/04 06:59:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It wasn't my intent to scare Dave away. He doesn't fair well in envirnments where he isn't the moderator. I think, nay hope, that like UD he will return.

Date: 2006/09/04 18:14:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Just look at all that CSI!

Date: 2006/09/04 19:03:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I have apologized to DaveScot for my “N+X” post. I hope he returns.

Date: 2006/09/05 08:22:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Kate tries to reason with Dave. I agree, 'cut and run' is hardly the actions of a marine?

['cut and paste' is the actions of me:]

Date: 2006/09/06 07:03:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Yes, but I'll think that you'll find ROADS are designed.

They are made from ground-up CSI powder.

*sits back, looks smug*

PS - I have more money that you all.
Of, I have to go. Michael Dell is calling me asking for help, *again*.

Date: 2006/09/06 09:50:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 06 2006,13:50)
I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for all the music and art in the world.

Comment by DaveScot — September 6, 2006 @ 7:57 am

Neither was business acumen, apparently
Mona Lisa and the hope diamond for a nickel?
I’ll take two, please.

Date: 2006/09/06 09:53:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Shame the Nebraska Nihilsts couldn't be bothered to show up...

Date: 2006/09/06 10:16:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Music is a near-universal phenomenon, far broader than the human species. Birds do it. Whales do it. Frogs do it. Crickets do it.

The more, however, I look at the question of beauty in all of its variants, the more I see this as a real challenge to NDE.

Comment by bFast — September 6, 2006 @ 11:33 am

Okay, we're beat. *packs bags and goes home*


Date: 2006/09/06 12:35:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 06 2006,16:31)
.....every time you poot forth.


Date: 2006/09/06 12:39:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 06 2006,12:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 06 2006,12:03)
Yes, but I'll think that you'll find ROADS are designed.

They are made from ground-up CSI powder.

*sits back, looks smug*

PS - I have more money than you all.
Oh, I have to go. Michael Dell is calling me asking for help, *again*.

Plus, don't you have that 3:30 impregnation appointment back at your houseboat?   ;)

I thought of boats, you know. First, that is.

Mine is made of this thing that is stronger than diamonds that I also created.

Here's the Tardling for 3:30:

Date: 2006/09/06 15:04:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Joel, Joel, Joel...

NDE = materialism, apparently.

In other news,

CSI + Hoo Hoos = Babies

Date: 2006/09/06 15:12:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Better to say it is preprogrammed to learn music. We are preprogrammed to experience certain kinds of conscious modes when certain kinds of waveform relationships are heard.

You wave that hand, sunshine.

but are we programmed to learn to be programmed to learn to be programmed to learn to be programmed to learn to be programmed to learn to be programmed to learn to be programmed to learm music?

And here I was thinking that the reason eastern scales and modes sound crappy to my western ear was cultural.

Date: 2006/09/07 09:08:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Jerry - Jerry! - Jerry!


Christians subscribe to the ten commandments. Number 6 is do not kill and number 9 is do not lie. This eliminates abortion and the way evolution is currently taught in the schools.

Comment by jerry — September 7, 2006 @ 10:23 am

a guick gander at  Deuteronomy 5:6-5:21, shows:

6: "Neither shall you commit adultery."

9: ""Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife."

Funny in light of

Sounds like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to me. Why am I wrong?

Because it doesn’t apply to the argument. IOW, while using sugar on porridge as a criteria for determining nationality/ethnicity leads to inaccuracy, national/ethnicty still can be determined. IOW, true Scotsmens exist.

Would a truely Christian government — one based on the teachings of Jesus — permit abortion on demand? I don’t think so. Evolution taught in schools? You can make the argument that it would. Regardless, the terms of debate would include the presumption a truely Christian government can exist and whether or not such a thing meets the criteria.

Comment by tribune7 — September 7, 2006 @ 9:23 am

Date: 2006/09/07 11:24:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
all the way up to eleven?


Jeanine: You don't, you don't do heavy metal in doubly, you know, I's
Nigel:   In what???  In what???
Jeanine: In doubly...
Nigel:   In dublin!?!  What's that?
David:   She means Dolby, alright?  She means Dolby, you know?  You know
perfectly well what she means.

Date: 2006/09/08 10:25:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Johnny B kicks in up a notch.


1. “Having parts of genes switch locations is a type of mutation, different than a point mutation but a mutation nonetheless.”
But they aren’t _random_ mutations. Jumping genes are well-defined semantic units. They don’t split out arbitrarily, they split out across fairly well-defined boundaries. And, these jumping genes often just so happen to correspond to functional domains of proteins, or other such “functional unit”. So the “jumping unit” closely corresponds to the “jumping unit”. The question is, is this just a bizarre coincidence? Or is the genome made for specific acts of change?

Wow. Totally, Johnny. I mean if you roll a dice, that number is an integer between one and six. Moreover, Dice are MADE to be rolled. Actually, let’s use designed instead of made. Another example, if you say ‘pick any card’, I know its one of 52. I can’t get the 15.3 of marshmallows, and I can’t get the king of Tards, because Johhny B is the king of Tards.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:07:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveScot talks sense?

Dave is correct, although sadly he didn't recieve that "rational mind" so it's lake of fire for him.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:11:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The best bit was Dave's jealously of 'the girls' flirting with BLipey.

Date: 2006/09/08 20:59:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 08 2006,23:48)
Quote (IAMB @ Sep. 08 2006,17:18)
I've got a beer that says Dave's reaction, should there be one at all, is that he knew the whole time and was playing along for the entertainment value. Any takers?

Hey! You were right!

Just in case you ever wondered why GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent stopped sweet talking you - I emailed him early on and told him at best you were probably a middle aged fag pretending to be a woman and at worst trolling to trap me in a compromising situation with a 17 year old girl. Didn't work, did it? I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. LOL

Wow. Dave sure put in a lot of work to make it look like he was completely suckered. Guess the jokes on us.   :p

Nice to see JAD telling dave to sling his hook on UD.  :D

Date: 2006/09/09 12:43:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 09 2006,14:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

Oh, you must mean THIS:

remember back in the day when the I.D. movement was trying it’s hardest to hide the Christian foundation of its agenda?

ID doesn’t have a Christian foundation. I am not a christian yet I am an IDist. And if ID did have a Christian foundation I would be getting into more arguments than I do already.

Christians can be IDists, sure. So can followers of Islam, Buddha, Tsaoism and agnostics. IDists being religious has about as much impact on ID as atheists have on evolution.

Comment by Joseph — September 8, 2006 @ 4:59 pm

You know, 'Tsaoism'. That religion that says you can only eat General Tsao's Chicken.

Sounds good. Show me your afterlife retirement plan and moral code? Be warned, I have a  very good offer from FSMism.

Date: 2006/09/10 19:53:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 11 2006,00:07)
Will someone who is not banned at UD remind those IDiots that the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research?

Cambridge Templeton Consortium: The Emergence of Biological Complexity

The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context of the emergence of increasing biological complexity. Areas of research supported include:

1. Chemistry, "fine tuning" in biocentricity, emergent order and the origin and existence of life
2. Evolution directionality and convergence
3. Archeological and anthropological research in human evolution and the origins and early developments of purpose-seeking and spirituality or religiosity

The focus is primarily on innovative scientific and systematic research, but projects with strong philosophical or theological components are also encouraged.  Grant proposals from all sides of this 'debate' are welcomed.

They spent it on publishers for their books...

Date: 2006/09/11 13:50:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Do you think the Tardtopians read this thread and grimace?

Date: 2006/09/11 17:08:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Evil allows for God’s grace – Sometimes evil occurs so we can understand and experience God’s grace. Imagine being out in the bitter cold and then dipping into a warm bath. We appreciate the warmth of the bath because we have been surrounded by cold. If we had been in a comfortable spring day then the warm bath would mean nothing to us and we would take it for granted

Joel, beat yourself with a stick, so that you can appreciate not being beaten with a stick later. ???

Date: 2006/09/12 07:02:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Being top of the food chain has its downside. There are some that *should* be claimed by predators. Let us celebrate them and their commitment to tard.

I’m looking for categories, nominations and prizes.

Janie Bell and Corporal Kate will host a star studded award Gala.

Date: 2006/09/12 09:57:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 12 2006,14:30)
Denyse is on a roll, she's got three posts up all of which appear to be trying to convince herself that the end of Darwinism is nigh. I've seen this repeating of a mantra from Holocaust deniers who think the Holocaust will soon be considered sham history.

I suspect that the more Denyse and the other IDers proclaim the demise of Darwinism it's because deep down they really know it's not going to happen.

The whole christian thing is based on 'the end is nigh'

Date: 2006/09/12 15:40:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,19:48)
How about also:

13) Most hilariously inept defense of ID

I see the laff index as being the crucial factor for this one.

14) Most embarresing Explanitory Filter faliure?

Date: 2006/09/12 19:46:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2006,22:01)
I'm not really hard on myself. I just think since I spend all my time making fun of Uncommonly Dense, I should be able to laugh at myself.

And as far as being moderator, I knew what I was getting into. I just wanted to help in cleaning up some annoying problems. Think of it like, Wesley is the tireless building supervisor, you guys are the tenents, and I'm the part-time janitor.

Maybe I should change my icon to this


Date: 2006/09/13 15:52:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Vintage DaveTard:

...Plunge asserts he is an outspoken atheist but he sure sounds like an outspoken agnostic to me. I find it a little irritating that atheist and agnostic are commonly conflated because that throws me into the atheist camp when in reality I am simply unsure one way or the other - in a no man’s land between theists and atheists.

emphasis mine


September 13, 2006
And who are your three favorite atheists?
The latest Newsweek gives a sympathetic portrait of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The article closes with the following sentence:

If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.


Filed under: Culture — William Dembski @ 2:34 pm

Me, myself, and I.

I kill me sometimes!  

Comment by DaveScot
— September 13, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

emphasis mine again

Drop and give me twenty, flip-flopper homo-fag! - DT

Date: 2006/09/14 05:32:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 14 2006,10:30)
In other words, make a ribosome and a DNA molecule in a proverbial test tube without using intelligently designed assembly procedures or precursors. That, while not falsifying ID per se, makes ID an unnecessary requirement in the origin of organic life as observed on this planet.

Comment by DaveScot — September 14, 2006 @ 6:18 am

Can someone please tell me what action a scientist could take, which would not count as an intelligently designed procedure, or what ingredients he could use, which would not count as an intelligently designed precursor?

If you force my god out of this gap, there are plenty more for me to hide him in...

Date: 2006/09/15 09:57:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 15 2006,13:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2006,20:52)
Vintage DaveTard:

...Plunge asserts he is an outspoken atheist but he sure sounds like an outspoken agnostic to me. I find it a little irritating that atheist and agnostic are commonly conflated because that throws me into the atheist camp when in reality I am simply unsure one way or the other - in a no man’s land between theists and atheists.

emphasis mine

I've never understood how DT can be an atheist.  I mean, doesn't he know everything?  Isn't his IQ somewhere around 1,983,435,234,234,654 or something like that?  I mean, if you can score a 6800 on the SAT doesn't that mean you know all?  So, why doesn't he know if there is a god or not?

I *am* the designer! - but not Gays, obvioulsy. They were RM + NS. - DT

Date: 2006/09/15 10:42:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Trouble at t'mill.

Someone is questioning the all-knowing one.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:30:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/09/18 10:08:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
UD has been pulled from google wholesale.

Date: 2006/09/18 10:28:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Don't want their many f*ckups immortalized, I think.

But think of the many pro-ID scientists who will now miss out.

Date: 2006/09/18 16:54:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (George @ Sep. 18 2006,17:58)

Sold to the Tard in the silly hat!

Now that everyone is happy that this is evidence for design the comments are closed.  

Comment by DaveScot — May 23, 2006 @ 1:02 am

Date: 2006/09/19 06:34:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard goes quantum-stupid:


Technically there’s nothing hypocritical. Any meat I eat is already dead, butchered, and offered for sale to the general public. I took no position about it being bad or good to EAT meat. The G12 and many vegetarians stake out the claim that meat poisons the body which I don’t believe at all. The position I took was entirely about killing. One can make a point that by purchasing the product I’ve contributed in some measurable way to the profit of an industry that kills. In this case it’s a diminishingly small way and my abstinence wouldn’t change it. I have no objection in principle to eating animals that died of natural causes which is something still prohibited by the G12 and most vegetarians I know. If you keep chickens for the eggs or goats for the milk - everything dies eventually and why should the body be wasted when the inevitable happens?

So you're in no way complicit Dave? You don't think they'll kill another animal to replace the meat you just baught? What if everyone stopped buying meat? what would happen? For a guy who bangs on about capitalism, he has no causal undersatnding. Or does he think that farmers walk the fields waiting for things to die of natural causes?

Date: 2006/09/19 07:11:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2006,12:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2006,11:34)
Davetard goes quantum-stupid:


Technically there’s nothing hypocritical. Any meat I eat is already dead, butchered, and offered for sale to the general public. I took no position about it being bad or good to EAT meat. The G12 and many vegetarians stake out the claim that meat poisons the body which I don’t believe at all. The position I took was entirely about killing. One can make a point that by purchasing the product I’ve contributed in some measurable way to the profit of an industry that kills. In this case it’s a diminishingly small way and my abstinence wouldn’t change it. I have no objection in principle to eating animals that died of natural causes which is something still prohibited by the G12 and most vegetarians I know. If you keep chickens for the eggs or goats for the milk - everything dies eventually and why should the body be wasted when the inevitable happens?

So you're in no way complicit Dave? You don't think they'll kill another animal to replace the meat you just baught? What if everyone stopped buying meat? what would happen? For a guy who bangs on about capitalism, he has no causal undersatnding. Or does he think that farmers walk the fields waiting for things to die of natural causes?

This is the same man who once claimed he avoided giving money to Scientific American (too supportive of evolution) by having the subscription in his wife's name...

The position I took was entirely about killing. One can make a point that by purchasing the product I’ve contributed in some measurable way to the profit of an industry that kills. In this case it’s a diminishingly small way and my abstinence wouldn’t change it

and what's the point voting, Dave? Your little crayon 'X' in the republican candidate's box wont make any difference in that big old pool of voters...

GOD I'm impotent - DT

Date: 2006/09/19 08:15:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (2ndclass @ Sep. 19 2006,12:57)
So apparently alliterative sentences are machines.  You learn something new every day on UD.

See penultimate opperation...

Date: 2006/09/19 10:28:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From Pharyngula:

GrrRRrrrrr..Culture war..Rrrrrrrr.....CSI......ZZzzzzzZZZzzzz

Date: 2006/09/20 06:49:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2006,10:03)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 20 2006,01:28)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 20 2006,00:55), not Arden.  Not to say he isn't a Great Man, but rather that his followers aren't as funny.

Arden is a Great Man.  But even He stands in awe of That Magnificent (Quotemining) Bastard and Inventor of the TardCap™, Richardthughes.

Richard, you magnificent bastard! I read your hat!


To the theme of “New York, New York.”


My Christian views
they force me to say..
I want to be a part of it, DaveTard, DaveTard!
We know it’s a ruse
his name you can’t say..
Paley’s old watchmaker argument..
DaveTard, DaveTard
I just can’t see, how YOU can’t see, it’s designed!
I think that it looks so designed, it must be designed!
Homo A-C-L-U’s
educated and gay
You find me so desirable..
Cos I’m Davetard!
handwaving? I don’t care!
he makes shit up; DaveTard, DaveTard.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:56:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2006,11:53)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 20 2006,11:50)
Well actually yes I am still a Kiwi.
Just living in Oz, I had the operation and Aussies will niggle the buggery out of you if they detect the slightest Kiwi accent so I'm a Kiwi incognito. If I go home I get picked on for my Aussie accent and if I spend long enough there the bloody Aussies notice when I come back.

To a Kiwi the Aussie pronunciation of "fish" sounds like 'feeesh' and to an Aussie the Kiwi "fish" is 'fush'.

Like writen Ukrainian there are practically no vowels in spoken Kiwi. :p
Oh and 'Crikey' is used on both sides of the Tasman Sea.

From here on out I shall address you as Weta, when I bother to address you at all.

You are one crappy christian. Look within. Sort your act out.

Date: 2006/09/20 07:10:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes

You've forgotten to lavish praise on my ditty.

*Looks at watch*

The great irony of ID is that you have the worst Christians in the shop window touting Christ.

Date: 2006/09/20 07:31:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 20 2006,12:29)
Hi guys,

I know I've been a bit of a blogtart recently, but I was wondering if there was any church burnin' or ebola spreadin' needed, now I have a little more time on my hands.

PS to Zachriel. I did wonder about editing my email, then I thought "sod it, at least they won't be able to accuse me of dishonesty.".

I see you're poaching traffic from UD - there are some in their camp that want a dialogue but can't get it.

Date: 2006/09/20 15:16:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Off topic, but I had to share..

Date: 2006/09/21 08:49:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/09/21 09:31:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Laugh? My undercrackers are still wet!


“All comments become the intellectual property of Uncommon Descent…”

1) You can’t assign rights to an entity that doesn’t exist.

2) Published matter is not “intellectual property,” although something it describes might be.

I think you need ace Internet Quasi-Lawyer L. Fafarman to sort this out for you.

Comment by Jim Wynne — September 21, 2006 @ 2:19 pm

Date: 2006/09/21 10:05:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Just a quick note:

to Christmas / Designerday.

Get to this storefront pronto:

before they sell out.

Date: 2006/09/21 11:22:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
just got this email from a


We've checked into your housetard's claims that Uncommonly Dense has been "cyber-hacked via the interweb's supermation infohighway by Darwnist Evilution zealots, who earn much less than me. I worked for Dell, you know". We find the claim baseless, but highly amusing.


=== SNIP ===


Date: 2006/09/22 08:09:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Run this puppy through the explanitory filter:

have you ever seen so much CSI?

Date: 2006/09/22 08:34:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
If not - well feel free to rant and we’ll just laugh.

oh, that place where irony meets hypocrisy..

Date: 2006/09/22 10:49:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
100% serious question.

Does JAD smell of Pee?

Oh Grandad!

Date: 2006/09/22 16:20:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Find 4 mates and go as the scooby new group.

You as Daphne.

Date: 2006/09/23 05:59:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:45)
Yes, Dave, please do take it away. It's starting to stink.

Got any evidence, or are you just another drive-by troll?

Surely Dave is supposed to provide the evidence?

Date: 2006/09/23 08:02:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Richard "Matt" Hughes

The "T" is a clue. The only unconfirmable need for Christianity would be spiritual salvation, *if* it were true. I thinkt that the baggage that comes with it, fundamentalism, anti-intellectalism, etc. make it undesireable.

Date: 2006/09/25 05:47:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2006,10:40)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 25 2006,10:10)
The account that I heard over the weekend about a person being clinically diagnosed with fullblown AIDS and then being medically declared free from AIDS following intercessory prayer must be one of those “delusions” us Christians are so prone to. I wonder if the attending Dr was delusional as well?

So god's plan was to give that individual HIV through whatever mechanism (poof?) and let them die a horrible, painful, protracted death from AIDS, unless that person got some "intercessory prayer" treatment, in which case god would poof it all away like a bad dream.

This god needs to find a constructive hobby, like burning ants with a magnifying class or tying firecrackers to puppies' tails.

Also, what about all the people who unsuccessfully pray for a cure for their diseases? What precisely is their scientific explanation for that? (We can guess what kind of religious explanations might be offered.)

If the vast majority of people who pray for a recovery from a terminal disease do not recover, which seems safe to say, wouldn't that indicate that the prayer had nothing to do with the recovery?

Funny how testimonies to the 'power of prayer' are now appearing on a supposedly scientific site.

Uh-oh. Appeals to the designer don't work.

Date: 2006/09/25 05:53:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
theory of the stars just being a few thousand miles away

For real? I feel genuinely sad for GOP if so.

Date: 2006/09/25 06:49:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow. Dark ages meets theasurus!

Date: 2006/09/25 10:04:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Is GOP always this good?


Look folks, the west has the enlightenment to thank. It helped us get past these little butt nuggets of "wisdom":

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." --Proverbs 3:5

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." --Proverbs 16:25

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity
every thought to the obedience of Christ..." --2 Corinthians 10:5

Conflate away, GOP.

Date: 2006/09/25 10:22:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
GOP: I have the Cojones to use my real name, so please use it, eh?

I've offered that it is infact the enlightenment that braught us all these good things. Seems you don't want to debate.

Possible falsification: Pre enlightment Christianity was just as peachy as post, or perhaps we can look at South American Christians untouched by the enlightenment?

Date: 2006/09/25 10:37:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So we're agreed that the enlightement, not Christainity, is the wellspring of this goodness?

Date: 2006/09/25 10:53:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I’d wish they’d take up that challenge, but I’m pretty sure in the next century they will prb say “In the next century we will succeed” and over and over again.

Hopefully, by then, ID will have established some of doctoral programs, something I can foresee, but I think the totally annihilation of evolution will take much longer than 100 years.

ID doctoral thesis:

Science cannot fully explain [x] (yet). So it must be designed.

Date: 2006/09/26 05:04:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Why don't we have a "Why the west needs bipeds" thread? When you describe 9x% of the population at that time, you don't describe very much. Although one will note that per capita, atheists do better than modern Christians.

Date: 2006/09/26 05:10:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Mi spelink iz impekable, Oakay?

Date: 2006/09/26 06:12:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,11:07)
So here's a question.  Did those mathematicians make their great contributions BECAUSE they were Christians, or did they just happen to BE Christians?  Are you going to sit here and tell us that they wouldn't have made their contributions if they had been Buddhist, Muslim, or *gasp* athiests?

There were two reasons for showing the list:

1) To demonstrate how wide the gap is. At least 6 out of these 10 giants were commited Christians! Wow!

2) To indicate that the underlying societies might play a role. Once again, why Christian and not Buddhist societies?

Hang on, 6/10 in a region where >90% are Christian says 'christianity is an impediment'.

Thanks, GOP.

Date: 2006/09/26 06:30:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 26 2006,11:27)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2006,11:12)
Hang on, 6/10 in a region where >90% are Christian says 'christianity is an impediment'.

Thanks, GOP.

Non sequitur (The cap really does suit you.)

Run an ANOVA and get back to me.

Please not that in modern society, Atheists tend to be brighter, compose less of the prison population and have much lower divorce rates.*

[adjusts cap]

*Correlation / causation issues noted.

Date: 2006/09/26 06:44:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh, the perils of using latin phases you don't understand.

Semper Tard!

Date: 2006/09/26 06:53:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
That's Christs' fault, not theirs.

Date: 2006/09/26 06:59:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 26 2006,11:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2006,11:44)
Oh, the perils of using latin phases you don't understand.

Semper Tard!

I understand the concept of non sequitur quite well, tardcap.


It's like Raaaaaaaaiiiiiin, on your wedding day...

Date: 2006/09/26 07:10:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,12:05)
This %*&(&%$& software!

Richard, Euclid and Archimedes didn't have a chance to become Christians, and Fermat could have been a Christian....I just couldn't find the info. That makes 6/7 (Poincare was an atheist I think), and 6/8 at the very worst. The point is that it took Christian societies to produce those giants. What happened to the great Hindu and Muslim mathematics programs? India had a huge head start, and Islamic countries were producing first-rate math from the ninth century at least. Yet Christian societies ended up lapping the field, regardless of a particular mathematician's beliefs. Why?

look at this and think *really* hard:

still waiting on your 'enlightenment piece', GoP, old chum.

Date: 2006/09/26 07:26:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh, two posts, both vying for 'best unsupported claim / because I say so'

I demand a Tard-off.

Date: 2006/09/26 07:39:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Musical interlude:

[with apologies to Dean martin]

When a Tard makes a claim, but no book says the same
That's hand-waving
When only Christian fools see ‘self evident’ rules
That's hand-waving
Tards will sing, ‘you just can’t explain, god must be to blame’
With no citations
Inventing things, benefits they bring, glory be the king!
Like ‘Christian nations’

Date: 2006/09/26 10:31:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hey, GoP. Isn't Islam largely untouched by the enlightenment? I've braught this up and you never replied.

Date: 2006/09/26 10:58:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From Behe's new book:

Can RM and NS explain the fracterial blagella? To be honest I haven't checked. But I'm sure God would have written about it in the bible if it were true.

Date: 2006/09/26 11:41:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm barely in a hurry.

Date: 2006/09/26 12:07:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2006,16:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2006,16:41)
I'm barely in a hurry.

But seriously, have we been a great audience?

*Glares at Arden*

The 10 o'clock show is completely different.

Don't forget to tip your server.

Date: 2006/09/26 18:22:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 26 2006,21:38)
They have a new user, Davetard!
edit: and
Pwned is apparently videogamer slang for "owned", to be "owned" is to be humiliated by an opponent.
The slang term pwn (pron. pown [as in p+own] or phoned), a term used primarily in the Internet gaming culture, means to defeat an opponent with little or no competition. In this context, to be pwned can be defined as "to get your butt kicked," with the strong connotation of also having been "made a fool of." It is generally used for taunting of a player's in-game enemies, and rubbing in any victories.

Pwned comes from the counterstrike 1.3 release where the P90 was introduced and horribly mis-balanced, allowing you to kill at will.

Date: 2006/09/27 04:35:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 26 2006,19:59)
I like this part
Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution.

We believe that today's students are smarter than they are given credit for, and that rather than being told what to believe, they have the ability to explore the range of possibilities and figure out what to believe on their own.

Wow.  OE is like a teenage version of AFDave's "Lies4Kids", only even more underhanded.

This new site reminds me a lot of the old cigarette ad campaign with "Joe Camel", where teens were manipulated with things like "We say smoking is for ADULTS only, so if you're not ADULT enough , DON'T SMOKE".  Substitute ID for SMOKE and you get the picture.

Nothing like pandering to the desperate desire of adolescent kids' to be grown up to sell the product.

Yes. Church is for teaching them independant thought also. ???

Date: 2006/09/27 04:38:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes

There are currently 3 users and 7 guests online.
Online users
Alan Fox

Same ol' same ol'!

Date: 2006/09/27 05:50:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2006,10:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2006,09:38)

There are currently 3 users and 7 guests online.
Online users
Alan Fox

Same ol' same ol'!

That gave me an evil idea.  Alas, the usernames are not case sensitive, so I couldn't have Admin as a username.  But Administrator wasn't taken.  :-)

Any suggestions for what to do?  I don't want to make a total mess, but some gentle fun could be had.


Oh, the fun that could be had with
First cause
Peer Review

Date: 2006/09/27 07:58:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The Housetard opines:

Because Europe has abandoned her belief in heavenly rewards she is increasingly focused on the material rewards of the earthly world. Children are a financial burden and adults can live higher on the hog without them...

You've won me over with your groovy brand of agnosticism, Dave.

Date: 2006/09/27 08:12:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
As ID has all but given up on research and is pretty much all ‘culture war’ these days, what will change in the future?

In all candor I believe, not much. Their epic struggle to win hearts and minds is somewhat moot, because it only really seams to appeal to the theistically inclined. If they keep fishing in the Christian pond, they’ll just find people affirming their own beliefs. These folks are much less likely to be bright, interested in science and inclined to do research so they’re not going to change the scientific landscape.

With regard to the political Landscape, I think after the next election the religious right will be somewhat weakened. More importantly, there is an underlying trend that America is moving away from theism.

I suspect this is the real issue, the virus of faith is struggling to evolve to the modern, dynamic landscape.

Date: 2006/09/27 09:36:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I definately believe that every citizen should enjoy equal rights under the law. That is not something that happens universally in this world.

Its not something that happens under Christianity.

Date: 2006/09/27 12:27:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,16:44)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
I've got the book, Arden.


ETA: 8:00pm tonight

Can you summarize the quote?

If not, why not?

Sure you've really read the book?

He's got the book. He'll have read it by 8 tonight.

Date: 2006/09/27 14:25:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's why...

Date: 2006/09/28 04:55:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
There has been no substaintial argument as to "Why the West needs Christianity". I think we've agreed, the enlightenment is good and that using time weighted population Christains produce less great mathemeticians than they should.

Date: 2006/09/28 07:33:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ved @ Sep. 28 2006,12:27)
Is it racist to recognize general differences between different races? Or is it only racist if the qualities in question are negative and/or false?

If it is true that Africans have darker skin than Germans would it be racist to say so?

If it is true that Africans are less intelligent than Germans would it be racist to say so?

You probably have to put a throw an 'on average' in their and acknowledge that causation may be environmental, eg eductaional opportunities.

On average, Atheists are smarter than Theists. On Average, they also give more to charity, are less likely to divorce and make up proportionatley less of the prison population.

Like that.

Date: 2006/09/28 08:05:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
First, ‘prominent mathematicians’ is a very esoteric and arbitrary judge of a good society.

Reductio ad absurdum:


Wow – look at all those countries better than the US. Look at Korea spank the US! Magic.

please note that the US is below average

Second, you’ve found association not causation and it is very conflated with the enlightenment. Given Christains did bugger all in the dark ages (except darken it a little more) I think that speaks to the enlightenment.

Christainity is up there in "crusades per capita", though.

Date: 2006/09/28 10:09:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
GoP, we should change the thread to "what is Racism?" as you've given up on "Why the West needs Christianity".

Date: 2006/09/28 12:47:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 28 2006,17:25)
wow richard!

Finland was in the top two in both of the categories you listed in that table.

everybody sing along!

Call me Rich.

Or Tardmeister General.

Date: 2006/09/28 16:56:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes

1) You're a bed bed troll.
2) You been unable to substantiate youre claim:
looking at some of your older posts, you should put some to bed before starting more, eh?

Date: 2006/09/28 18:55:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:01)
.... It isn't necessarily the vulgarity or vicious ad homs that disturb me as much as the sheer pointlessness of most of the comments: "lol" "+1", "STFU, noob", etc. Who wants to wade through that garbage?

$|-|U7 7|-|3 PhU(|< UP p4L3'/ j00Z b0r1|\|9 7\/\/47. W0o7!

You're right about your posts being pointless, though.

Date: 2006/09/29 05:50:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More Tard:

Couple of things - linking to Stop the ACLU is worse than WND. would be more reputable. Check out Dispatches from the culture wars for Ed Braytons funny interactions with them. Second - the Senate is going to look at the bill, laugh at the Fundies and send it back. Tick tock Fundies, time is running out, changes are a comming.

Date: 2006/09/29 07:17:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 29 2006,12:12)
Rich said:
Second - the Senate is going to look at the bill, laugh at the Fundies and send it back. Tick tock Fundies, time is running out, changes are a comming.

OK I know you are a seer and and all round good guy, in fact I was going to suggest you just call yourself "WhatAGuy" there a basis for your confidence besides the toothpaste you use?

The evidence is everywhere, it's self evident, can't you see it? I have this concept called the Congress-Senate Index (CSI) and this is just full of it. I think the Rights inability to divorce themselves from the not-very-popular Mr. Bush will have a large baring on things. You check check the polls, public sentiment, etc.

Date: 2006/09/29 07:27:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Alternative hypothesis:
To get the ignorant masses to do what you want / be happy with their lot?

Date: 2006/09/29 09:42:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Prediction: Kiddy fiddling scandal to rock the ID youth cult movement.

I'm about 40% serious.

Date: 2006/09/29 10:02:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
We all know that the Darwinian atheist lefty homo brigade will put your many, many offspring ( little blessings from the designer) in the liquefier if they catch you submitting your empirical, experiment laden paper to their closed minded witch-hunting ‘peer review’. Who wants to work in the salt-mines?

So, fellow IDers, why not submit them anonymously?

Date: 2006/09/29 10:22:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes

If I gave you 3 hours, a box of party staws, some paper clips and rubber bands, could you build a Fracterial Blagella? Could you? Could You?


Take the 3 hour challenge.

Date: 2006/09/29 10:44:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I wonder if his checkers simulation has the following ‘realistic’ features:

Opponent gets bored and leaves
The building you’re in catches fire
Your opponent cheats whilst you take a dump
Game stopped by earthquake / ‘global killer’ meteor / rapture

*points and laughs*

Date: 2006/09/29 11:10:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 29 2006,16:04)
Can you submit papers anonymously?

Besides, what is wrong witha  it of martyrdom anyway?  It has good biblical precedents.

Or are you talking about them submitting them here?

I'd love them to submit them here -
but I think we all know the real issue with the papers..

Date: 2006/10/02 04:38:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Overflowing underpants.

Date: 2006/10/02 05:16:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes

couple of things -
'quality of mathematicians' is a crappy measure.
and it wass the enlightement. Please note that NONE of your mathematicians are women? YOu can make a stronger case for 'men' over christainity based on your monkey logic.

Date: 2006/10/02 05:26:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Last night - the Simpsons "Bart has two mommies"

Ned: (gasp) A sliver from a band-aid wrapper! Call me Ned Zeppelin, but is one of my boys abraised and contused?!
Todd: I cut myself on the knife playing Christian Clue.
Rod: The secular humanist in the school house with misinformation!

Date: 2006/10/02 05:30:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Politics - nurture or nature? Take your time, GoP, as it's you, I'll give you three guesses...

Date: 2006/10/02 05:49:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,10:37)
R. Hughes:


couple of things -
'quality of mathematicians' is a crappy measure.
and it wass the enlightement. Please note that NONE of your mathematicians are women? YOu can make a stronger case for 'men' over christainity based on your monkey logic.

Well, some have argued that men's slight advantage in mentally rotating objects leads to an overrepresentation among elite mathematicians. It's another "small differences in the center of the distribution= large differences in the tails" type argument. Also, male IQ is more "bimodal" than female IQ, which means we have a lot more geniuses and dummies. These two observations might account for the discrepancies we see.

Point taken, as you elect to not adress the fact that "'quality of mathematicians' is a crappy measure."

PS - Highest recorded IQ was a woman.

Date: 2006/10/02 08:03:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hey, its you that's using outliers to judge a population not me.

I'd love to see your math utopia. Where folks are happy, loving and fair because they can add good.

D- .. see me after class.

Extra homeowrk - read "flowers for algernon"

PPS - try to adress my post on "US - crappy at math"

Date: 2006/10/02 08:17:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 02 2006,11:35)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2006,01:08)
"Overwhelming Evidence" just doesn't lend itself to parody or wordplay (as a title, I mean -- the contents are another matter) I spent a few minutes thinking about it and "overpowering excrement" is pretty appropriate, but "OverwhelminglyDense" is still superior to anything I could cobble together.

Overweening Evi-dunce?

Evo-dunce has to be the last part!

Over-whining Evo-Dunce?

Date: 2006/10/02 08:34:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 02 2006,13:30)
Hey, its you that's using outliers to judge a population not me.

Cause we're discussing the reasons for the West's dominance, which involves the achievements of outliers.

What a sad, selective reply.

So, women are better than men, based on the highest IQ recorded. Start you matrocracy movement, GoP.

And tell us more about math Utopia, [possibly N Korea?]

Date: 2006/10/02 09:56:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
1) I never said that possessing superior math skills makes you a better person. I started with this category because I think that a society with great mathematicians will have huge advantages in science and technology. Do I have to explain why this might be relevant to the topic on this thread?

But you've not made any causal links between Christainity and math, or math and good society. never mind though, eh?

only stated that men have more geniuses than women, not that they have the top genius. Besides, your example is probably false, since I think there's a chinese kid with a higher IQ than Vos Savant. Goodness knows this kid will probably put his IQ to better use.

Ohh, a mystery kid. I note that your use of 1 data point will now be significant..

3) Top IQ /= top math IQ. There's lots of men who could spank Marilyn in a math competition.

Oooohh... soemone's getting gender rage. Lots? what percentage of the male population. Do you know much about G? its the spacial reasoning and analogy portions that she's statistaically most likely to suffer in based on gender bais, but don't let the facts stop you.

4) Worst of all, you're still using the sumo wrestler fallacy: "If I can find a single exception to a generalisation, then the generalisation is completely useless". So are adults generally stronger than 7 year-olds, or not? Are men taller than women on average, or not? Can we make any generalisation at all? I noticed you ducked the question.

Gotcha, 1 isn't significant, but 10 is. The irony of a math post from someone who doesn't understand sampling. Do you think some mean type measure (as I posted in USA sucks at math) would be more representative?

5) Then you pretend that the first metric I discuss is the only metric I wish to discuss! [with your N. Korea example]

What else have you braught to the table?

Your respect means little to me, GoP. Being endorsed by fools is not on today's to-do list. I'm more concerned with the truth.

Date: 2006/10/02 10:19:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Dazza McTrazza @ Oct. 02 2006,15:13)
This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.

Anyone else getting this message when they try to access UD?

If so... LOL!


Quick, sell more books, Bill!

Date: 2006/10/02 10:27:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (REC @ Oct. 02 2006,15:23)
Yeah...can't get uncommondescent, overwhelming evidence, or iscid.
Probably just server issues-but it does crack me up that ALL the websites of the ID 'movement' live on one server. I mean, what is the point of all the cross-posting redundancy? Do they think they're going to trick their followers/funders into thinking they are bigger than they are by starting multiple sites?

Yes, but 'no redundancy' is the hallmark of IC systems, so that's GOOD design and shows a desinger, right? UC and OE are positively $hitting CSI right now.

Date: 2006/10/02 10:34:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 02 2006,15:30)
It's back online.

And guess who the top poster at OverwhelmingEvidence is?

You're the Field Tardshall in the UO Army.

Date: 2006/10/02 16:08:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
In other words, Hughes gets to make stupid arguments whenever he thinks his opponent's claims are unestablished. Gee, I thought that the best way to respond to "bad" logic was by using good logic.

Your claims are unestablished. My claims are statements of fact, you have established no causal links. If you find that stupid, then I feel sorry for you.

Quote an American boy who reportedly scored over 200 on an I.Q. test. Yano's father, Katsura, is of Japanese descent and his mother, Kyung, is of Korean descent.

Two big thumbs up for Here-say. Are you a Dell millionaire?

Here's a little CSI type research for you. If the IQ mean is 100 and the sd is 12 - let's asume normaility despite the zero bound, IQs of 200 and 230 occur in 1 in how many people? Given the total number of people who have ever existed / or existed in IQ recordable times, how likely are these?

and again..


what percentage of the male population
and please note she's not *really* aplying herself to math at teh moment. Or, you could just read the thread again and Rich trying to show me something about the sampling I've used? Is mathematical ability a good proxy for a great society?

Or not.

you can't rebut the fact that men are more likely to be geniuses by pointing to one female genius
.... and I don't think you can cite 10 arbitrary mathemeticians as evidence for a great society.I'm here for when you've finished arguing with yourself.

Date: 2006/10/02 19:01:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Karen opines:

“Bill, you would blow the guy out of the water. I’d give my right arm to see a debate between the two of you. Can’t we set that up, Dude??? I’m kinda thinkin’ Ken won’t go for it, though. ”

Dr Dembski debated Dr Miller and others once at the American Museum of Natural History. It was an evening that Dr. Dembski would probably rather forget. Want to see a transcript?

Comment by Karen — October 2, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

Bye, Karen.

Date: 2006/10/02 19:12:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2006,00:02)
How is Giltard responding to the royal beat-down being delivered by a guy whose email address ends ""? How do you think he's responding

Defending The Indefensible
by GilDodgen on October 2nd, 2006 · No Comments
I seem to have a talent for raising the ire and indignation of anti-ID folks. Check out the number of comments here (126 comments at this writing). This is a good sign for ID, because it’s obvious that my posts strike sensitive nerves.

Gil, If you still don't get that a simulation is not dependant on physically making the substrate experience the same effects as the simulated effects in the software after 126 posts, you are truely uncommonly dense.

Although I'm sure GoP meaures his self worth in a simular type of 'how many responses did I get?' way.

Never in the course of human history have so few missed so much by so many.

Date: 2006/10/02 19:15:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 03 2006,00:01)

Karen opines:

“Bill, you would blow the guy out of the water. I’d give my right arm to see a debate between the two of you. Can’t we set that up, Dude??? I’m kinda thinkin’ Ken won’t go for it, though. ”

Dr Dembski debated Dr Miller and others once at the American Museum of Natural History. It was an evening that Dr. Dembski would probably rather forget. Want to see a transcript?

Comment by Karen — October 2, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

Bye, Karen.

and here it is...

Bwahahahaha. I peed my pants.

Date: 2006/10/03 05:18:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh dear

144. Scott // Oct 3rd 2006 at 9:54 am


If you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, feel free to take your bluster and bold fonts elsewhere.

I am prepared to justify my assertion. Are you able to do the same?

Karl: As a moderator here, it is my responsibility to call people out on their empty and unwarranted assertions and just-so stories. Especially the tired ones that have been exposed time and time again. Therefore, it is unlikely that I’ll be going away any time soon. You, on the other hand, will likely become fast extinct from this blog unless you can legitimately support silly comments like the one I quoted above.

Now, your challenge is to demonstrate how Avida proves that blind, comatose, natural mechanisms can build highly complex, specified, cellular machinery which requires all of it’s components simultaneously to function.

DaveScot put it in the proper perspective:

Scott didn’t tell you why that was nonsense. Any complexity produced in a stepwise fashion by a computer is by definition not irreducible.

Make us all sit up and take notice by getting a computer simulation to reveal a biochemical pathway, based on nothing but random mutation and simulated natural selection, where a flagellum can be produced. I remain quite unimpressed by Avida finding pathways where higher level operands are produced by trial and error tinkering with microcode. Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

Comment by Scott — October 3, 2006 @ 9:54 am

Really, Scott?

D*mbski The fracterial blagella is Irreducibly complex
Scott Oh yeah? Prove it.

I like teh way things default to IC status untill they'e proved 'not', and which case something else is picked.

Date: 2006/10/03 08:24:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 03 2006,12:37)
This post belongs on the DaveScot's Greatest Hits album:
Actually Tom, they’re mosfets if you want to get techincal about it, and there are two mosfets in the most basic logic gate (inverter). A NAND gate requires four mosfets. Even assistant professors of computer science at Texas Tech should know that all other logic gates can be constructed from NAND gates.

What assistant computer science professors at Texas Tech probably don’t know is that microprocessor simulations, prior to creating the first mask, absolutely have to model at the gate level because of something called propagation delay which can result in something called race conditions. I was whipping out the fuse programming for programmable logic arrays while you were still in high school and I didn’t have the benefit of simulators way back then. Prop delays had to be calculated by hand to eliminate race conditions just as they had to be when designing with discrete TTL logic which I did for many years before logic arrays were invented. In 1991 I implimented the core logic for an 80486 motherboard in 19 discrete PALs with nothing but PALASM and hardware design genius.

Google it in all the spare time you have now that you’ve been booted off Uncommon Descent for your nasty habit of getting personal.

Condescension, ignorance, and braggadocio all rolled up in a few short paragraphs, topped off by a sociopathic and hypocritical booting of one of the few knowledgeable participants at UD.

Davetard's learning ended in 1994.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:15:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Cleverly combining two current issues?

ID’s secret, fragile yet very real research program:

It was DaveScot,

In the houseboat,

With the  mushrooms.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:34:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow, the inner workings of the ‘inerrant and infallible’ Opus Deiesque ID hierarchy!

Date: 2006/10/04 10:08:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I just got this email from a minion:

To: Grand_wizzard@Uncom[snip]

I pledge allegiance to the secret seal of ID. Your word is law, your law is fact, your facts bring light to the designer's eternal majesty. Your filter is flawless, long may we see CSI.

I will not question, but obey. For as it says is the designers guide:

“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." --Proverbs 3:5

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." --Proverbs 16:25

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity
every thought to the obedience of Christ..." --2 Corinthians 10:5

Humbly yours.


Ps - I like the idea of pretending to be agnostic. Does that mean atheist?

I welcomed him into the double-secret ID club.  --WMaD.

Date: 2006/10/04 10:28:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 04 2006,15:23)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 04 2006,14:34)
Wow, the inner workings of the ‘inerrant and infallible’ Opus Deiesque ID hierarchy!

All hail the guiding lights of Intelligent Design!

Left to Right..

O'Leary / DaveTard / Dembski / Dunnoabout this fella.

Date: 2006/10/04 16:05:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 04 2006,20:45)
Thought I'd share this article outlining how Muslims are seamlessly integrated into British society.

Trouble centred on the Jamea Masjid mosque in Clarendon Street, Avenham, for more than four hours last night (Sunday) and led to a massive policing operation.

Preston's police chief said the problems were triggered by local youths throwing stones at cars belonging to people attending the mosque.

This sparked a response from around 200 people inside the mosque who came out to defend those under attack.

It resulted in one 16-year-old Asian youth being stabbed in the arm, but ambulance crews were turned back as the police felt it was too dangerous for them to enter the scene.

Fighting continued into the early hours and led to police requiring back-up from officers as far away as Lancaster and Burnley.

Chief Supt Mike Barton, divisional commander for the area, said more than 100 officers were deployed and he was treating the incident as race-related.

He said: "Some people I spoke to at the mosque insisted it wasn't racial but I think some people at the mosque believe it was.

"Until we actually find the offenders and speak to them, and because some people believe it to be racial, then that's how we'll treat it."

Of course the "local youths" started it, but still......

Next week in the GoP times:

Millions of peacefull Muslims do nothing newsworthy exclusive!


Date: 2006/10/04 16:12:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So a group with an average IQ of 90 and standard deviation of 15 would expect 2.5% of its members to reach even a modest threshold of 120. And if you shrink the average to 88.5, the number drops to about 1.75%. Would you care to calculate what percent would reach this benchmark if the average IQ were instead 100? (Answer: more than 9%). Now in real life the tails would be fatter for all three of these groups, but the numbers would still favor the 100s. What does this mean? That the highest IQ group would dominate the intellectual professions if fair competition were allowed, and you have lots and lots of tension, especially if the three groups look different.

shocking use of numbers.


think of a population who's mean is 100 and the SD in 15. Now look at your 90 mean population. Would the SD still be 15 using near normality? Think Cvar. what about the 88.5 group?

Date: 2006/10/05 10:06:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 05 2006,14:59)
Tard Cap:

shocking use of numbers.


think of a population who's mean is 100 and the SD in 15. Now look at your 90 mean population. Would the SD still be 15 using near normality? Think Cvar. what about the 88.5 group?

No, the standard deviation would be narrower for the lower IQ groups, which matches what is observed in the literature. This would make the percentages of high IQ individuals in the lower IQ groups even smaller, so the adjustment would reinforce my argument. I was just trying to give the 90s and 88.5s the benefit of the, are you guys clueless. I hope you don't do this stuff for a living.  :O

Do you even read what you link to?

The first chapter starts by summarizing the known differences in phenotypic intelligence. When IQ is scaled to a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the typical US mean for blacks is 85, with the values in different studies varying from 80 to 90. The black standard deviation is approximately 12, with the range from 11 to 14 (notice the black variability in IQ is less than the white variability).

So the sd DOES scale to the mean. I hope you don't use anything sharp for a living.

Date: 2006/10/05 18:50:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Why does every study I've seen link theism with lower IQ / cognitaive ability? It also manifests itself in higher earnings. Clearly the west need atheism at its helm.*

*Not really, but you get the point.

Date: 2006/10/05 20:09:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Tonight's daily show.... magic.

Date: 2006/10/09 18:04:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes

jwrennie // Oct 9th 2006 at 6:25 pm

Why are atheists such whiny babies ? Do they even know what real discrimination is ?

Comment by jwrennie — October 9, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
2. Jehu // Oct 9th 2006 at 6:45 pm

A bigger question is why do atheists bother with anything other than perhaps eating, sleeping, defefacting, and “continuing their genetic matter.”

What I mean is, if life has no meaning, if there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, how can they possibly complain about a violation of their rights? On what basis do they make the complaint? How do they posit that any such rights exists and if they do exist why should anybody care if they are violated?

Comment by Jehu — October 9, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

Clearly stupid people require the framework that is theism.

Date: 2006/10/10 07:06:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Welcome back, Lou.
Do you know many cookies I backed for the appeal fund?

Date: 2006/10/10 08:19:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I mean, its not like you had to be a Christian to be an officer for one of these IDEA things, is it? Choc full of science.

Date: 2006/10/11 06:56:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The end is nigh!

johnnyb // Oct 11th 2006 at 11:31 am

“estimated at 1/4 to 1/3 of biology majors on some secular campuses here in Virginia”

That’s going to be a big wake-up call to secularists when these majors become researchers and start publishing.

Comment by johnnyb — October 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am

*points and laughs*

Date: 2006/10/11 07:25:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It's kind of like finding Japanese soldiers in the pacific, still unaware the war is over. They're not a threat, they're just pitiful

Or the decapitated chicken, still running, to who knows where?

Date: 2006/10/11 08:39:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes

That is completely false. According to athiesm life has no meaning and is the result of purely random chance. Therefore, wrong and right, good and evil, are merely social constructs with no objective reality.

If you are an athiest and believe in good and evil and think you know the difference between right and wrong, you are merely borrowing values from the Christian society in which you were raised. You are living on the memory of Christianity.

If want an idea of an athiestic society that makes the logical leap from Chrisitan values to athiestic values, observe Stalin’s USSR, China’s cultural revolution, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

Comment by Jehu — October 11, 2006 @ 12:57 pm

I can't respond right now, I have to beat my Grandma as I'm unconstrained by absolute morality.

Date: 2006/10/11 09:49:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I love it so!

Date: 2006/10/11 11:36:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Awesome signature.

I doff my tardcap.

Date: 2006/10/11 13:25:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
With Heddle and JAD gone, UD is out of 'scientists'.
Chock full of engineers, though.

Date: 2006/10/11 16:14:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Sal waffles:

30 minutes of inference, looks like, evolution can't explain..

And gets slapped:,38.0.html

Seriously, Sal, if this is the best your shower of shoite have, start packing up your big tent now.

Date: 2006/10/12 05:51:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Aardvark @ Oct. 11 2006,20:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,14:49)

I love it so!

Whack that mole!


This is now a great read...!

Date: 2006/10/12 06:32:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 12 2006,02:13)
This request from WAD to update the look and feel of UD is very odd - quite apart from the "I want to look as good as Richard Dawkins" hubristic schtik.

After all, they just finished overhauling the whole site.  And by "they," I mean DaveScot.  Doesn't this seem to be a deliberate insult to their resident computer genius?  Perhaps the revelation here that DaveScot is the real star of UD begins to needle a little...

You can't polish a turd

Date: 2006/10/12 08:12:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,12:58)
Casey Luskin Brings the Tard

North Korean Nuclear Test Forces Seismologists to Make a Design Inference

This week, seismologists were met with the unfortunate news that North Korea probably tested a nuclear weapon. The task of seismologists in the free world has been to confirm whether the North Korean government was truthful when they claimed they tested a nuke. Whether they realize it or not, scientists currently working to verify if North Korea has conducted a nuclear test are actually engaging in an exercise in intelligent design.

The fact that you can triangulate the source based on observation time and magnitude may tell you something about the 'designer'. Sorry Casey, we know this is verboten in ID circles. Why no CSI calculations? Disingenuous bellends.

Date: 2006/10/12 08:22:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
In other news, I used the design inference to pick my microwave lunch out from the freezer. Later, I'm going to use a design inference to catch a cab. How do I know its a cab and not a rock? Huh? HUH?

Date: 2006/10/12 08:46:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 12 2006,13:44)
In other news, I used the design inference to pick my microwave lunch out from the freezer. Later, I'm going to use a design inference to catch a cab. How do I know its a cab and not a rock? Huh? HUH?

So it's not rock science after all?

But..But.. scissors and paper just can't explain it all!

Date: 2006/10/13 06:42:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 12 2006,16:49)
Someone should do a photoshop of what the spawn of O'Leary and Dembski would look like.  I would do it but I haven't installed Photoshop onto my computer (even though I got it as a gift last Xmas).  The winner gets three of my autographed portraits sent to them, or they can have a poster of the Hendrix picture I drew as seen here:

Another fan!

I have one of these (#73/100)

E7#9, baby!

Date: 2006/10/13 08:02:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 13 2006,12:35)
I've only got one of these:

Also very nice.

I bet you tune to Eb

Date: 2006/10/13 19:21:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Sal gets another bitch-slapping

Date: 2006/10/14 16:36:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 14 2006,21:02)
Joe G has a blog, ironically titled Intelligent Reasoning. Joe G is a frequent commenter as Joseph at Uncommon Descent. Just for the record, Joe G purposefully delays comments, and suppresses others. He then claims to have provided a level playing field. Quite similar to Uncommon Descent.

Of course, this just demonstrates the weakness of Joe G's argument.

and guess what... he's an engineer!

What have they got against MN anyway? Does it stop then building the cool stuff they wanted to?

Date: 2006/10/14 20:19:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Funny how he doesn't put theism through the list of 8..

Date: 2006/10/14 20:24:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's a classic..

this thread:

by scordova on October 12th, 2006 · 22 Comments
(thank you to Denyse O’Leary for finding this and reporting it at ARN)

If one combines Discovery Institute’s list of dissenters from Darwin along with other lists (such as that maintained by ICR), one can create a list about 20 times as large as the Dicovery Institute’s list. Bergman estimates he could easily get 10,000 names. He has in the interim published 3,000 names.

Get's this comment:

14. bhinton // Oct 13th 2006 at 2:37 pm

I counted 1940 names on Bergman’s list (copy, paste into TextPad, look at line count).

Seems to be a few short of 3000.

Comment by bhinton — October 13, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

Why does this not suprise me?

Date: 2006/10/15 18:57:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 15 2006,01:24)
Here's a classic..

this thread:

by scordova on October 12th, 2006 · 22 Comments
(thank you to Denyse O’Leary for finding this and reporting it at ARN)

If one combines Discovery Institute’s list of dissenters from Darwin along with other lists (such as that maintained by ICR), one can create a list about 20 times as large as the Dicovery Institute’s list. Bergman estimates he could easily get 10,000 names. He has in the interim published 3,000 names.

Get's this comment:

14. bhinton // Oct 13th 2006 at 2:37 pm

I counted 1940 names on Bergman’s list (copy, paste into TextPad, look at line count).

Seems to be a few short of 3000.

Comment by bhinton — October 13, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

Why does this not suprise me?

Quoting myself - sockittome - XL tells me there are infact 1940 names. Truthinesstastic!

Date: 2006/10/17 07:44:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
UD still delisted from google.
CyberTard Dave, get on it!

Date: 2006/10/17 10:44:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 17 2006,14:50)
Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 17 2006,14:35)
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will webcast Dembski's chapel presentation at 10:50 a.m. CDT Thursday. Look here.

This I found gob-smacking amazing.

The man.

Intelligent Design Network’s Wedge of Truth Award, 2004 for promoting intelligent design (past recipients include Michael Behe).


Good Old GOOGLE!
The winning paper.

Have you seen some of the books he's working on?

Date: 2006/10/18 11:00:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,14:47)
Joseph is now schooling Allen.  Too funny.

Joseph // Oct 18th 2006 at 2:40 pm

Allen MacNeil:
Until then, it’s all airy speculation…

I would agree with that. That is is ALL airy speculation, even evolutionary biology and especially common descent.

I am also sure that anyone can fail to understand “No Free Lunch” and “The Design Inference”.

However given the materialistic alternative to ID is “sheer-dumb-luck”, sooner or later people, ie the general population, will start to realize that all objections to ID are nothing more than philosphical whinings.

As for “unambiguously” well with science you give it your best shot with the knowledge/ data available. Then future research can/will either confirm or refute the initial inference.

And BTW ball point pens and flashlights are just as “natural” as a bacterium or a maple tree. That is they exist in nature. And although we can say with confidence that neither ball point pens nor flashlights were produced by nature (acting freely) we have no idea how a bacterium nor a maple tree was originally produced- by nature operating freely or by intentional design.

Comment by Joseph — October 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Closer to the truth, Joesph understands neither Dembski's books nor NDE, so he gives them equal weight.

Argumentum Tardicus.


Date: 2006/10/18 11:52:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh dear...

Over on UD they ask, "what is life?"

and we get this nugget:

17. mike1962 // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:30 pm

The only consistent definition of life I can think of at the moment is:

Entities that come into existence due to preexisting programming in (what we call) DNA. These things are alive and NOTHING else is.


He is (what we call) a Tard.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:05:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

Douglas Adams.

Tail wagging dog, Fine-tuners.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:26:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Real Life CSI Caluclation:

No math, though.

*waves hands*

Date: 2006/10/19 10:03:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The IP is indeed the DI.

Ohhh, caught with hands in the cookie jar.

Date: 2006/10/20 04:46:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2006,04:47)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 19 2006,21:53)
"Secondly life is not about increased “order”. life is about specified purposeful information."

Firstly, life is about family and home, in that order.
Chaos is natural.  Order is 'mind made'.

define Chaos and Order please.
Or you might as well say "fishfingers are natural, cake is man made".

I've seen some quite orderly snowflakes :)

I'd love to see the CSI calculations for fishfingers and fishcakes.

Fingers clearly have more SCI. Breadcrumbing alone > UPB. Plus there's the shape.  Box shapes have moe CSI then cake/puck shapes, because they do.

Date: 2006/10/20 05:02:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
HEY UDers!

How about this for a posting rule that might help your cause: No CSI posts unless accompanied by mathematical workings

Date: 2006/10/20 16:00:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 20 2006,18:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2006,16:00)
My feeling is that is going to be sacked soon. There hasn't been a new post or comment in 31 hours.

Well, when all you have left is two middle aged morons babbling nonsense back and forth at each other, it's not hard to see that the kids weren't drawn in.  And also using the words "wacky" and "zany" on the front page probably wasn't a good idea for a site trying to attract kids older than 8.

The Ned Flanders school of web design..

Date: 2006/10/22 11:47:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
ID predicts this:


Date: 2006/10/23 18:34:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Religion: Memetic virus.

Date: 2006/10/23 18:48:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,15:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27)
Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn?

What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?

That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes.

DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:
Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here.

Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller."

As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota.

This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life.

Good work though. Dave sh*tting his pants and going into delete mode in nothing new. ID deserves him.

Date: 2006/10/23 18:54:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Er... hows abouts it. Converge on Chicago?

Date: 2006/10/24 04:36:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,09:06)
1 Denyse O'Leary is just plain dumb.

2 Kudos to whoever wiped the floor with Davetard on specified snowflakes. Davetard is a lot smarter than the rest of the idiots over there (IQ probably around 105, while the UD average is in the 80's) and you know he's probably getting the message. The horse he backed didn't come up lame, it came up quadrapeligic.

I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD.

Funny how ID, creationism and theism all have antintellectualism as common threads, isn't it.

Davescott's response to a quite robust mathemeatical critique?

He posts a picture of a snowman and bans someone.
That's because he's got snowballs.

PS: Heros is real please don't reply to this.*

*Just kidding. We love you. Materialism might not stop me kicking grandma, but you make me smile.




Hopefully this will keep you busy for a while.

Date: 2006/10/24 04:51:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,08:44)
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 24 2006,08:10)
Why has nobody invented teleportation yet?

Yeah! I distinctly remember when I was a kid back in the 70's that we were definitely supposed to have teleportation, cures for all diseases, highways on the ocean floor, and cities on the moon by now. What happened? :angry:

Of course, we were also supposed to have food rations made out of dead people and all be living in massive high rise apartments. So I suppose the news isn't all bad.   ???


Date: 2006/10/24 06:06:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54)
Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad.


Full of CSI, anyway.

Date: 2006/10/24 15:40:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,19:29)
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Oct. 24 2006,11:33)
Keep in mind as well that numbers surely do lie -- as soon as they are attached to 'real existents'.
Conclusive proof:
2 + 2 = 4
2liters (water) + 2liters (alcohol) ~= 4liters of solution.

But of course neither Sal nor zero understand squat about logic, argument, evidence, or numbers, so this is for the benefit of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Shirley, I do too. I know that two apples
make a pair.

A Horse has 2 back legs
It also has forelegs.
that’s SIX legs.
Six is an even number, but odd for a mammal.
The only number that is odd and even is infinity.
God is infinate, as are horses’ legs.
Horses are real - so God must be too.

Date: 2006/10/25 12:04:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 25 2006,14:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 24 2006,20:40)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,19:29)
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Oct. 24 2006,11:33)
Keep in mind as well that numbers surely do lie -- as soon as they are attached to 'real existents'.
Conclusive proof:
2 + 2 = 4
2liters (water) + 2liters (alcohol) ~= 4liters of solution.

But of course neither Sal nor zero understand squat about logic, argument, evidence, or numbers, so this is for the benefit of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Shirley, I do too. I know that two apples
make a pair.

A Horse has 2 back legs
It also has forelegs.
that’s SIX legs.
Six is an even number, but odd for a mammal.
The only number that is odd and even is infinity.
God is infinate, as are horses’ legs.
Horses are real - so God must be too.

"The only number that is odd and even is infinity".
Richard, O is as real as infinity. Is Zero odd and even?
Zero ( here, in reality, O is real )

It was satire, zero.

Date: 2006/10/26 06:51:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,11:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 26 2006,11:14)
Dear heroisonacidandnoonegivesacrap,

If a moderator removes your post to another thread, there was probably a reason, and cutting and pasting it back to the thread from which it was removed is bad form.

Just so y'know.

No lips for Drips,


Lou, I was not aware it had been moved.
Shirley mentioned that I'm bad driver and I suspect
both of you are telling me where to go.

Steve, if I have to tip toe around, this site will be
no freer than UD. If you have a problem with that,
please pm me.


No offense Hero, but most people think that your numerology posts aren't really relevent to the topic in hand. You do have a thread for it, though. there are only 10 digits. Finding coincidences should be very easy. especially with all the mathematical opperators available.


Date: 2006/10/26 07:10:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
K is the sound of "Ch" as in Christ.



C+H = 10 = K = 10

OMG! Jebusdoneit!

Date: 2006/10/26 07:18:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,12:15)
So are all of you saying that I should, at least, stay
off of this thread, especially with numbers?

Sal says, and I hate to keep quoteing him," Math
is the mother of science."


Comment on topic. If you want numerology, you have your own thread. DO you understand these concepts?

Date: 2006/10/26 07:21:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Priceless! :


jerry // Oct 26th 2006 at 11:32 am


Ban me too. I took no offense at Phil Vaz’s comment about the designer being God. I would guess that a very large majority of the pro ID people here explicitly believe the designer is God. Challenge him on it instead of banning him.

Certainly Dembski and Behe personally think it is God who is the designer and I am sure most of the others who are pro ID think so too.

When the discussion trespasses into discussions of God nearly all the time, it is hard not to associate the designer with God. This is not really a site about science but more of a venue for people to espouse their personal philosophies. So demanding that Phil Vaz’s comments be kept to the science of ID alone given the threads of the last few days is ludicrous.

Comment by jerry — October 26, 2006 @ 11:32 am

Date: 2006/10/26 07:25:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Okay, hero, you're not getting it you daft twat. Ban him from all threads but his own, says I. Lou, I beat you. That threesome with me, Janiebell and kate is back on.

Date: 2006/10/26 08:16:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Someone asks the "Shhh! dont ask it!" question:

12. franky172 // Oct 26th 2006 at 1:11 pm


However, given your uninformed comment that ID claims the designer is God

If we know that the designing agent can not be a strictly physical being; what options are left to us but God or perhaps Ghosts?

If we are left saying “the designer must be a non-physical being that created the universe”, isn’t that about as close to “god” as a definition can get?

Comment by franky172 — October 26, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

Date: 2006/10/26 08:52:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes

It is plain for all to see
there's a cancer at UD
Keep the desinger's name well hidden
Just don't ask 'who?' - it's forbidden!
though you might have found it odd
that our leaders think it's 'god'
don't confront us with that fact
Or our banning Tard will act!

Date: 2006/10/26 08:58:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes

19. Jack Golightly // Oct 26th 2006 at 1:53 pm

Hold the presses!

“the primitive Christians believed in a physically embodied, anthropomorphic God”


*Actually, children have been using WRONG! for a while. There is also a clever, equaly vaild counter-argument, RIGHT!

Date: 2006/10/27 05:42:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
UD's link to comment seems to be broken.

Someone slap their houseTard.


2. kairos // Oct 27th 2006 at 9:58 am

And look also at the number of children: Mike (Behe) vs Richard /D.): 9-1. This yields an expected exponential growth vs an expected exponential decrese. Who is going to win at the end?  

Comment by kairos — October 27, 2006 @ 9:58 am

Out breed us. It only works if your children are as stupid as you are.

Date: 2006/10/27 05:58:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard is >this< close to understanding 'God of the Gaps'....

51. DaveScot // Oct 27th 2006 at 10:47 am


I concede that the creator of the universe needs to be supernatural since all that is natural is contained within the universe. I will however make a caveat and say that science has transformed the supernatural into the natural in the past. The supernatural, once understood, becomes the natural. Keep in mind that at one time the motions of the stars and planets were thought to be driven by supernatural entities.

Comment by DaveScot — October 27, 2006 @ 10:47 am

I'm try to cheer him over the finish line.

Date: 2006/10/27 06:31:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DS Nixplanatory Filter!!

I doff my cap, sir.

Date: 2006/10/27 10:05:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes







Nothing. Okay, that's all we can do:

Subject, "Overwhelming Evidence" date of death October 27th, 2006.

It's a shame, so young yet so crap..

Date: 2006/10/27 11:13:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Post anything noteworthy?

Date: 2006/10/27 11:36:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
and here:,,2-1798944,00.html

Date: 2006/10/27 11:48:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Lurking variable: IQ.

Causation / correlation and all that.

Date: 2006/10/27 12:01:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
A cd on a hil (child) can knot. Be hid.

Very clever, if you spell 'hill' as 'hil', and disregard grammar.


Date: 2006/10/28 15:38:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh church lady!

Her signal to noise ratio falls under the UPB, ergo SHE is designed.

Date: 2006/10/29 03:52:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 29 2006,09:38)
And what are the "chances" that you have 2
eyes to see them?


If you want depth perception and redundancy, quite likely.

Date: 2006/10/29 06:20:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Sorry you got canned, Scaryfacts. Dave has snowflake issues, as we've seen before.

17. DaveScot // Oct 29th 2006 at 8:37 am


Snowflakes don’t look designed. They are not assemblages of interdependent parts that perform a function. Machines are designed. Snowflakes are merely repetitive crystal patterns. They look pleasing, not designed. Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.

Comment by DaveScot — October 29, 2006 @ 8:37 am

21. Joseph // Oct 29th 2006 at 9:32 am

Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ I would say that initially, when a snowflake is first observed, one might see the pattern as evidence for design. IOW one’s initial inference may be snowflakes are designed but further investigation, if conducted properly (key point), would demonstrate that snowflakes are the simple result of environmental conditions. IOW chance and necessity are all that is required to explain snowflakes.

And as for “measuring design”, I would use counterflow. How much is present and in what form does it take? > a simple whittling of a stick compared to Stonehenge; Nasca figures compared to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; simple tools for digging, chopping, etc. compared to the advanced technological tools of today.

Comment by Joseph — October 29, 2006 @ 9:32 am

Date: 2006/10/30 04:43:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes


If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate

The whole thing is starting to smell like a trial balloon that floated like it was made of lead.


Date: 2006/10/30 07:53:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I love Red State Rabble:

"I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist, who finally realized that everything he believed about everything that mattered was wrong."

So writes GilDodgen over at William Dembski's adult day care center, otherwise known as Uncommon Descent.

Thank You, Pat.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:03:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes

74. bj // Oct 31st 2006 at 11:50 am

The foregoing discussion illustrates some of my confusion on the issue of ID being science. I think that science has to do with what the truth or facts are concerning the earth and the history of life. So, I am confused about how ID can be science but somehow have adherents who believe that the earth is old and others who believe that it is young. The earth can’t be old and young at the same time. I am sure someone can explain it to their satisfaction, but I can’t believe that ID will make much progress as science under the current conditions.

Now, my previous thoughts relate to ID as science and I will, at least, adopt a wait and see attitude on that. But, my understanding of the essence of ID is that it is a metaphysical or worldview movement. That is it’s primary strength. I think the movement will get a hearing from the general public from it’s message against materialism and for purpose. The issue of design is interesting. The issue of purpose in life is ultimate.

So, it seems to me that the future of the movement should morph fully into a kind of science-based apologetic with the purpose of demonstrating the inadequacies of materialism and advancing the cause of purpose. Really, isn’t that what all of us proponents are interested in.

Comment by bj — October 31, 2006 @ 11:50 am

It's funny becaase it's true.

Date: 2006/10/31 16:37:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Offer a better, testable theory and we'll consider it with open minds.

Date: 2006/11/01 11:26:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Quotemining / misrepresenting Southpark...

6. mentok // Nov 1st 2006 at 1:52 pm

tribune7 you got it a bit wrong on the south park quote. The quote was from Kyle telling the conspiracy theorist that just because the official 9-11 report had many holes in it that that doesn’t mean it is wrong. He compared that with the theory of evolution. Here is the dialogue.

911truth Man: [sits at his computer and starts typing away] Look into the evidence of 9/11 and you’ll see there are a lot of holes in their story.

Kyle: There’s a lot of holes in the Theory of Evolution too; it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:23:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I love today.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:28:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So sal thinks he can detect design, but can't detect a big block of text, highlighted from the rest, on a page.

*pours Ricin in the well*

Date: 2006/11/03 05:38:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
T'was the editor's fault:

18. Patrick // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:32 am

Yes, apparently Tim McGrew was focusing on the text contained within page 31 (I don’t own the book myself so I’m going on people’s word that it’s actually there in page 31). I would imagine that the editor of the book “probably” shortened the quotation in order to fit into the highlight box. So in this case Myers is simply “making a mountain out of a molehill”.

Comment by Patrick — November 3, 2006 @ 11:32 am

It's not like the author would have to approve the draft or anything..

Date: 2006/11/03 05:51:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
OOohhh! *claps hands*

24. Patrick // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:47 am

I’ve been deleting snarky comments ever since this page was posted but I don’t remember zapping anything by franky172 (I even let in his latest comment; see #18).

Sal, I forget, do you even have mod capabilities?

Comment by Patrick — November 3, 2006 @ 11:47 am

So there we have it.

Science has: Peer review.
ID has: "Deleting snarky comments"

Date: 2006/11/03 06:15:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Rules ARE rules..

33. DaveScot // Nov 3rd 2006 at 12:06 pm

I did also take into consideration Franky’s saying the link included foul language. Foul language isn’t allowed on this blog and that would include links to foul language

....If anyone has a problem with that they can KMA. Google that.

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!

Comment by DaveScot — May 22, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

Date: 2006/11/03 16:39:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Is this as ID proponent being discriminated against?


Date: 2006/11/03 20:09:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes

1. Touchstone // Nov 4th 2006 at 12:05 am

I think it’s quite disingenuous to hide behind “You be the judge”. No one is confused or fooled as to why McGrews allegations received attention (albeit without diligence) here.

When allegations you broadcast or publicize end up being false witness, the right thing to do is be upfront about it: Whoops! Myers was right, we were wrong. I know that hurts for the folks here, but it’s the Moral Thing™.

Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn’t change the fact that McGrew’s accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn’t mitigate the original problem.

Speaking frankly and humbly about this will go much farther in building up the credibility of this blog than pointing to “unanswered queries” as your defence, or worse, hiding behind the skirt of “You be the judge.” McGrew did the right thing (mostly), and UD should, too.


Comment by Touchstone — November 4, 2006 @ 12:05 am

Date: 2006/11/04 15:41:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes

You're back on google.

Don't make me pull the plug again! :D

Date: 2006/11/05 16:18:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So many strawmen it's like a scarecrow convention...

Date: 2006/11/07 10:23:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I love it when they play "scientist"!

4. bFast // Nov 6th 2006 at 11:09 pm

Atom, “Self-genetic engineering.”

In light of the repeatability of this experiment, that does seem to be Ockham’s explanation.

Hmm... Does this mean I can wish for laser vision?

11. PaV // Nov 7th 2006 at 8:37 am

“Would you please spell it out? ”

It’s a “pre-programmed response” on the part of the organism.

Comment by PaV — November 7, 2006 @ 8:37 am

That's right, within all of us there's a little dictionary for every change we might need to face, genetically. Actually, it would have to be a BIG dictionary. A big onnescent dictionary. As these IDers are all (dis)information theorists, which mechanism would be smaller, RM + NS or the metachangedictionarythatgodputthere ?

12. HodorH // Nov 7th 2006 at 11:09 am

It’s a “pre-programmed response” on the part of the organism.

Well, then this would represent an opportunity for some real ID/frontloading research. If the cells are frontloaded, then all or most should experience the mutation upon replication. Conversely, RM/NS would predict that the population of new and improved bacteria arose from a single mutant (or one mutant followed by another, since there are apparently 2 mutations). I think this is a doable experiment — I’ll think about how it would be done.

Comment by HodorH — November 7, 2006 @ 11:09 am

Get the Templeton foundation on the phone!

13. DaveScot // Nov 7th 2006 at 11:10 am


The designer isn’t intervening. Obviously since the same enzyme keeps “evolving” over and over again in a matter of days (the experiment was repeated 50 times) it isn’t appearing de novo but exists in some form where its emergence is inevitable. That’s not evolution. Evolution isn’t supposed to be repeatable like that. If you didn’t know that you really shouldn’t be commenting here.

Comment by DaveScot — November 7, 2006 @ 11:10 am

Oh, davetard. How do you know the desinger isn't intervening? Do you have a zero-wavelength energy detector? Is that what your tinfoil hat does?

Evolution isn't supposed to be repeatable. Otherwise we'd get things like parallel evolution. Optimization must clearly choose a new solution each time. Its a bit like ordering things at the restaurant; no two can be the same.

Date: 2006/11/07 11:53:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard still doesn't get this whole internet thing:

81. DaveScot // Nov 7th 2006 at 11:39 am


Is your name Benjy now? If I wanted an answer from you I would have asked you. Next time I pose a question to someone give them an opportunity to answer it before you step in.

Date: 2006/11/08 01:20:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Nothing in Intelligent Design Makes Sense Except in the Darkness of Tard

Date: 2006/11/08 16:48:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Down with the kids. hip like dem. word.

Churchy types attempts at 'cool' are always good:

this makes me cringe, but its not as good as..


Magic. It's up there with Granny dancing. "wacky zany"? Are you trageting the youth from the 1950s? Please, will the bad nugget from UD who write this please let us know?


Date: 2006/11/08 16:52:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 08 2006,16:48)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,23:36)
I'd love to see a soccer match played with cricket bats...

Like Hockey, but with more blood.


Don't tell Mourinho that.

I'm 4 weeks into a 6 game ban for smkaing someone in the chops.* Bats are not required trust me.

*Probably because I didn't get enough jebus in my formative years. Or maye its a materialist reductionist thing. HELP ME DAVETARD!

Date: 2006/11/09 10:03:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
He dressed shockingly badly for a Gay fella.

More 'borat' than trendy.

Date: 2006/11/09 10:08:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes

let's have 'em.

Date: 2006/11/09 10:12:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 09 2006,10:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 08 2006,16:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,16:18)
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 05 2006,23:59)
What does JAD's PEH have to say about it?

God dun it.

Then he died.


'Got that, and wrote that down.  :D

It's hard to believe, isn't it?

I love it so!


Date: 2006/11/09 10:26:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Nov. 09 2006,10:25)
If I were gay, Freddy Mercury could have sex with me anytime.

Probably don't want traces of mercury in your blood.

Play safe. ???

Date: 2006/11/09 11:43:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Denyse O’Leary’s new blog: The Mindful Hack
by O'Leary on November 9th, 2006 · No Comments
Check out my new blog on the neuroscience issues that border on the intelligent design controversy, the Mindful Hack:

First two stories:

1. Blindness: Spiritual blindness worse than physical?

2. Sigmund Freud … fallen so far and so fast?

Note: The Post-Darwinist will continue as before, and I will continue to contribute to this and all blogs I am not locked out of. Mindful Hack tracks my latest co-authored book, The Spiritual Brain (co-authored with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard), currently in copy editing.

Denyse is the winner of quantity x shitness.

next week she's going to adress..

3. Are fifteen crap blogs equal to one good one?

Date: 2006/11/09 11:55:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes

If we evolved from Neandertals, why are there still Neandertals?

*crosses arms and looks smug*

Date: 2006/11/09 12:19:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2006,12:05)

Any time, glad I could help!

Crap, Rich.  

For a minute there, I thought I kinda looked smart.

ID > atheist materialist darwinsitic dogma religion.

Now please pretend to to JanieBell so I can have a w*nk.

(Not Kate though, she scares me)

Date: 2006/11/09 12:41:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Is he here?

Date: 2006/11/09 15:30:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Search results
For query "theory"
Jump to: navigation, search
There is no page titled ":theory". You can create this page.

For more information about searching, see Searching

Showing below up to 20 results starting with #1.


Date: 2006/11/09 17:02:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh Davetard...

50. DaveScot // Nov 9th 2006 at 5:44 pm

If you can’t know a) if you’ve modeled the probabilities accurately (or eve that you’re close), and b) what mechanisms or phenomena might “pop up” unexpectedly and provide a naturalistic explanation (see: quasars in the 60s) then what good is the inference?

We use the same probability models that NeoDarwinian evolution uses so we should be at least as confident as those. How do we know that something new might not pop up that throws NeoDarwinian theory in the crapper? Or germ theory? Or any other bit of science? It’s all tentative. Do you understand that all science is tentative?

Comment by DaveScot — November 9, 2006 @ 5:44 pm

But NDE doesn't use 'eliminate everything else to be left with NDE', does it Dave?

Well done with
It’s all tentative. Do you understand that all science is tentative?
- a good reason why the EF is utter bunk.

Date: 2006/11/10 10:36:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2006,15:30)

Search results
For query "theory"
Jump to: navigation, search
There is no page titled ":theory". You can create this page.

For more information about searching, see Searching

Showing below up to 20 results starting with #1.


Arden, THIS is Joey's site.

Date: 2006/11/10 10:52:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From Joey's welcome letter.

How could science presume such notions of blindness and randomness as the dominant players in nature if the very idea of science is based on the assumption that the universe is ordered such that it can be understood by the human mind?

emphasis mine.

Tail wags dog.


the human mind is ordered such that it can be understand by the universe.

Date: 2006/11/12 20:41:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard kicks it into overtard...!

..But, how would we ever know?

Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, is true. When and if all natural processes are exhausted as explanations then what remains is supernatural. But personally I’m of the opinion that intelligent design is a natural phenomenon and we’ll eventually discover intelligence can exist by natural means other than flesh & blood. Right now we’re still pretty clueless about the nature of intelligence and sentience. To put that in perspective reflect on the fact that we have no idea what makes up 75% of the “stuff” in the universe. That unknown stuff is called “dark energy” for lack of a better term. It’s not any kind of matter or energy that current physics knows about. Maybe intelligence can emerge from that unknown stuff just like it arised in us from the kind of matter we know about. Or maybe our intelligence actually comes from a source that isn’t ordinary matter & energy. A popular hypothesis on the nature of intelligence is that our brains act sort of like radios and serve to merely channel intelligence and self-awareness that comes from a source that isn’t made of the matter and energy we know about today.

The holmesian fallacy.

What the **** he's banging on about with "our brains act sort of like radios and serve to merely channel intelligence and self-awareness that comes from a source that isn’t made of the matter and energy we know about today. "

I think we know what sort of mushrooms he's been growthing. Pass the power crystals, Davetard..

Date: 2006/11/13 09:57:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I offered to teach him so AI / Search / Optimization over at UDoJ... he nearly shat his pants. As far as I can tell he thinks GA's work by brute forcing there way through the statespace of the problem. Yet he claims to be part of the design team for speak'n'spell.

His latest attack on Zachriel was what he's really about, purging science and smarter minds than his from UD. We've seen what happens when he steps outside of his un-moderated world. There was an experiment, as I recall...

Date: 2006/11/13 15:01:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" Rev. Ray Mummert

AND they have a battleship, and wine and cheese. FRENCH cheese, as well.

*shakes fist*

Do you know what can stop a battleship, boys?

Date: 2006/11/13 16:34:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2006,15:43)
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 13 2006,04:01)
Joel's argument is so transparently bad, it hardly needs fisking -- yet it's repeated every day not only by fundamentalists, but even by reasonable people who assume that belief in a deity is somehow necessary to morality.

It's just weird to me, this claim they love making that they're all psychopaths, restrained from raping and murdering me only by the written commands of a very powerful overseer. Even if it were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't be something to brag about.

With Dawkins, nothing was sacred - literally.

“Fear of God,” he said, “is a contemptible reason to be moral.”

Date: 2006/11/14 11:02:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I fifth it. Great idea.

Date: 2006/11/14 13:33:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The protocol should be post them here, and Steve promotes the good ones?

Date: 2006/11/14 16:29:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes

4. DaveScot // Nov 14th 2006 at 4:31 pm

I was curious a year or two ago about why regeneration was lost in mammals since it seems like it would be a deucedly handy thing to have as a survival tool. I googled around for an explanation and all I found was some speculation that along with the ability to regenerate lost parts comes a far higher risk of tumors. AFAIK all species that can regenerate lost parts are cold blooded, reproduce by laying lots of eggs (so they can afford to lose more offspring), and indeed are highly susceptable to tumors. Of course like most evolutionary narratives based on chance & necessity there’s no way to confirm it. It’s just one tough break after another trying to tease real answers out of a process that is unpredictable, unrepeatable, and uncontemporary.

Is uncomtemporary a word? It fit so well I just couldn’t resist.  

Comment by DaveScot — November 14, 2006 @ 4:31 pm


The good news is that the initial studies have found that the genes responsible for the MRL mouse's predilection for autoimmune diseases are different than the ones involved in fast healing; there isn't a horrible trade-off, where better recovery from heart attacks means one is likely to come down with lupus (there are almost certainly other trade-offs, however; for instance, the MRL mouse exhibits a greater inflammation response to injury). The bad news? At least 20 different genes are involved in the regeneration ability of the MRL mouse. This is a very complex characteristic, not one we're going to figure out how to turn on in ourselves next week.

Date: 2006/11/14 23:01:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It's nice to have a rescource that points to all the high level tard, in one place..

Date: 2006/11/15 00:40:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
A song called "Ironic" with no irony is meta-irony.

Date: 2006/11/15 01:09:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh deary me..

Davetard tries to poison the well...


It’s British. Allen’s attitude handily explains why there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire, eh?  

Let me explain, with the aid of my crayons..

Date: 2006/11/15 09:39:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Be careful what you wish for. If you get your wish you might make ID advocates a protected species

The legal concept is protected class. Please please please let this be a speciation event. No more reproduction between us.

*crosses fingers*

Date: 2006/11/15 11:29:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Or rohypnol and a cudgel.

Its great being a morally unconstrained atheist.

Right, I'm off to shag Grandma. :)

Date: 2006/11/15 13:38:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Church lady does a "five parter" that ends with "part four".

She's the 'watching paint dry' division of UD.

It'll be on OE and "post dawinist" soon, same crap.

then on 'shhh! it was Jebus" and "me and some doctor" and here other 15 shiote blogs.

Date: 2006/11/15 14:26:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Do you think Davescot buffs his love lamp to your image, Kristine?

Date: 2006/11/16 08:49:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Stop be a wacky zany activist
you're a rogue
I bet you love that old time Darwinian religion.

Date: 2006/11/16 15:53:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It's almost like he's been duped recently, like he was flirting with a 'girl' and it turned out to be a ruse. Now he feels guilt / anger at freeing his 'little republican swimmers' to the cooings of Lou CFD. He's always been a bit marginal (he thinks Mann 'adam's apple' Coulter) is hot and this doesn't sit well with the desinger's list of no-no's.

Poor Dave.

*Big CyberHug for DaveTard.* :D

Date: 2006/11/16 15:58:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveScot said...
One last thing. If I see you talking about me anywhere in the future I'll consider it an invitation to respond to you here. Got it? Write that down.

Sent to the FBI*. Big man picking on girls. Come and look me up Tard. PLEASE.

*Not really, but you know Dembski would.

Date: 2006/11/16 16:04:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 16 2006,12:55)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 16 2006,08:27)
I must say I'm disappointed that this board doesn't pay more attention to the speeding juggernaut that is becoming.  I bet you're scared that OE's gathering momentum threatens to crush your puny materialistic theories, so you choose to avoid it altogether.  But the evidence of the staggering popularity of this site is undeniable:

1)  Someone posted a comment there as recently as 44 hours ago.

2)  There have been over two (well, actually exactly two) new blog posts entered there in the last two days.

3)  The incredible appeal of this site to its target audience, high school students, is obvious--otherwise why would the top 4 users be 1) a 56-year old woman, 2) a college sophomore (schen24), 3) a 33-year old woman (siddigrl), and 4) a 38-year old guy (troutmac)?  Huh?  Huh?

Just more uncomfortable questions the materiodarwiniacistic cult chooses to ignore.

It's simply amazing that a flood of teenagers hasn't materialized to hang out with the likes of Troutmac.

Du'h, millions flock to it, read the evidence and are OVERWHELMED.

Pa! Pa! Little Johny has frozen up infront of the 'puter!

Date: 2006/11/16 16:16:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
ID is dead, "creation science" will of course spawn another incarnation.

Date: 2006/11/16 17:00:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Emboldened by his girl threatening:

21. DaveScot // Nov 16th 2006 at 2:13 pm

Chris writes:

If these ideas could be expanded they could have more predictive power.

Why should we need predictive power? Your pet theory doesn’t. When evolutionary theory can tell me when, where, and what the next species will be then you’ll be a step ahead of ID in predictive power.

It really boggles my mind Chris that you mention predictive power when the process you hold dear can’t predict jack-diddly-squat.

Comment by DaveScot — November 16, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

uh, Dave, NDE predicts / has predicted lots of things; common ancestry, intermediate forms, the phylogenetic tree. ID predicts none of these. with regard to;

When evolutionary theory can tell me when, where, and what the next species will be then you’ll be a step ahead of ID in predictive power.

This is quantum stupid, and pays no regard to the environment and selection pressures. Tard understands nothing.

Date: 2006/11/16 17:38:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2006,17:21)
I'm in Austin, TX right now. I have another seminar to give tomorrow. I think UT Austin is big enough that I would rate it fairly unlikely that Springer will be meeting me on this trip. Of course, next year may hold several more opportunities, since the Texas SBOE will be considering science textbooks once again.

what's the stance / feeling on ID / creationism there?

Date: 2006/11/16 18:51:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 16 2006,17:49)
Uncommon Descent posts are no longer being repeated in the News section of

yeah, they're flush with content as is..

Date: 2006/11/16 23:19:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes

27. DaveScot // Nov 16th 2006 at 8:11 pm


In any science other than evolutionary the observation of life coming from life would be a law. When something is observed without exception and predicts without fail so many times as seeing life coming from other life it would be a law and abiogenesis would be an atheist myth. Not having any predispositions to chant the party line in biology I do consider it a law of nature that life comes from life and abiogenesis is a baseless myth held by atheists to help them deny any living force in the universe that transcends themselves.

Comment by DaveScot — November 16, 2006 @ 8:11 pm

Atheists like you, Dave?

Let's hear your better first cause hypothesis...

Date: 2006/11/17 10:41:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes

DaveTard(?!;) on comment moderation:

"Regarding comment moderation...once that is "enabled" the comment section becomes irrelvant. You can selectively post, or even alter, what favors you, so the comments section is nothing by a reflection of your own propaganda."

Remeber Alan's blog and UDoJ, Dave? you were free on both and got reamed.

Date: 2006/11/17 11:36:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
My apologies to Dave. 'Banned in Kansas' fell through my tardsplinitory filter.

Date: 2006/11/17 18:01:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hat Tip to red state rabble..

How was this front-loaded, one wonders?

Date: 2006/11/18 02:34:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The irony of the email is immense.


DaveTard has a post about smashing PZ Meyers face somewhere, as I recall. He was in the marines? They must be proud...

What a Coward.

Date: 2006/11/18 02:41:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes

"Case For a Creator Event at Biola University"

"A Global Center for Christian
Thought and Spiritual Renewal."

ID targeting the swing voters, I see..

Date: 2006/11/19 12:02:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
EDIT: A big warm welcome to the interlopers from uncommon descent! Funny how you’re here, as ID has nothing to do religion, no siree. We have atheists on-hand to help you with the long words… *wink*.

here are DaveScots real views on bigotry...


Let me suggest that it is an empirical question whether college students who support ID are smarter, dumber, or comparable to college students who support Larry’s brand of evolution — IQ tests, SAT and ACT tests, longitudinal studies of academic and life success, etc. can all be carried out on the two groups. I would venture that students who are ID supporters come out ahead (in part because they need to display the independence of spirit and intellect needed to face down bullies like Moran):

Already been done, Bill:

Numerous studies and meta-studies show that theistic belief is negatively correlated with IQ. I am fascinated by the causation aspect. Thick because they're fundies? Fundies 'cause they're thick. Shallow end of the gene pool? Does anyone have a hypothesis?

Date: 2006/11/19 15:35:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
*watches the float submerge*

Richard T. Hughes (whose accomplishments other than being an ATBC poster child remain unknown) writes on religiosity and intelligence in response to Dembski:

Already been done, Bill:

Numerous studies and meta-studies show that theistic belief is negatively correlated with IQ. I am fascinated by the causation aspect. Thick because they’re fundies? Fundies ’cause they’re thick. Shallow end of the gene pool? Does anyone have a hypothesis?

Hey Dick (I trust you don’t mind if I call you that as long as I capitalize it), did you know that shoe size correlates with level of education? The larger your shoe size the more education you’ve likely had. Is that because big feet cause big brains? Or because big brains cause big feet? Duh.

Anyhow, the primary point I wanted to make wasn’t that mixing idiots and loose correlations result in loose idiotic conclusions. That was a tertiary point.

The main point is that people like Dick make aspersions targeted at “fundies” that are identical to those made in the past based on race and gender. So called fundies have become a politically correct minority that can be verbally abused without consequence. If you yearn for the days when you could speak and act like one race or gender was superior to another, if you are so insecure about yourself that you have to castigate others to feel better about yourself, pick on the “fundies”! There will always be some group that small boys like Richard T. Hughes can use and abuse to feel like a big man. In other words, Richard T. Hughes is a racist at heart but since that’s not politically correct he transfers his racism to a politically correct minority.

The second point I wanted to make is how religiosity might be correlated to health, happiness, and prosperity. I don’t know the answer to that. It’s a question I put up for discussion. When everything else is equal, does being religious make one happier or sadder, healthier or sicker, more or less prosperous? I suggest what we do is survey people with identical IQs, identical levels of education, employed in the same professions, but differ by being either atheist or theist. Then we measure the health, happiness, and prosperity attributes to see if there’s any correlation. I predict there’s a positive correlation between religiosity and health, happiness, and prosperity when all other factors are equal.

As a closer, I’d like to ask if anyone knows of a study between religiosity and reproductive success. Does religiosity confer a differential reproduction advantage? Are Darwinists headed towards extinction because natural selection favors religious people? How ironic if so.

My goodness, I've caught a whopper!
Someone give me a hand landing this thing...

And Dave, you should have used 'bigot', not racist. Fundie is not a race, despite those homo erectus rumours.

Dave, I didn't speak to superiority, just a higher IQ. You know, that thing that you think SAT measures. Again, correlation is not causation, as my post says. I’m just dealing with the facts Dave. If they’re bigoted, then so is life. I make no qualitative assessment on the character or value of the person, just that theists tend to be a little slower, on average.

With regard to shoesize, Dave, age is of course the lurking variable. It’s a proxy for age; there is clearly strong multicolinearity between the three. Brain size isn’t really that big a deal, but thanks for the laugh!

If you want to learn more about me, here’s a snippet.

Okay, Dave. Back to what you do best, intimidating girls / cyberflirting with girls who are really boys. Eh. I’ve got to run, the ACLU is stopping some marines praying.

Date: 2006/11/19 16:37:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Another one...

Given the state of university education and the sorts of idiocy advocated by some advocates, why would anybody think IQ correlates with education ?

Note adovacating advocates are not advocating ID, I think. WHY INDEED WOULD ANYBODY THINK IQ CORRELATES WITH EDUCATION?

Economic and social correlates of IQ Factors Correlation
School grades and IQ 0.5
Total years of education and IQ 0.55
IQ and parental socioeconomic status 0.33
Job performance and IQ 0.54
Negative social outcomes and IQ &#8722;0.2
IQs of identical twins 0.86
IQs of husband and wife 0.4
Heights of parent and child 0.47

Date: 2006/11/19 18:15:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 19 2006,18:11)
Thanks, Zachriel.  I forgot that the H word was in that link, which of course gets edited out by the AtBC software.


You might want to edit so our guests fgrom UD can enjoy.. :D

Date: 2006/11/19 18:39:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More Davescot goodness:

Camel f*$kers was just me taking poetic license. It's almost physically impossible fercrisakes. However, Arab men do have a propensity for sexual liasons with boys and animals. It might have something to do with treating women like shit. In my experience treating a woman like shit doesn't exactly increase the chances of scoring. Some men I guess would rather pork a farm animal than be decent to females of their own species.

Slight edit

All hail tolerant Tard!

Date: 2006/11/19 23:03:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
In planet Dave Tard, you are a 'racist' for not liking fundies.

My like or dislike is beside the point. I was just highlighting that emperically they are likely to have lower IQs. ;)

Date: 2006/11/19 23:26:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Good point. If you were to pull super-genius Davetard, threatener of women© out of the mix, his high SAT scores for the, erm atheist, camp would be removed, probably giving the theists the edge...


Date: 2006/11/20 01:00:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
You should set a paypal for donations. I'm good for it. Just don't splurge it on copies of "Of pandas and people".

Date: 2006/11/20 01:22:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Just sent a little something.

Its a tough call with regard to visability. You want it to be an option, but not to feel like begging. A subtle 'contribute' link or somesuch?

Date: 2006/11/20 02:06:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes

However, this argument is not for us but for whom aren’t aware of this and more and more use the IQ argument to discredit non-atheistic or non-agnostic people.

Cheese on your word salad?

non-atheistic = non-non-non-atheistic = theistic
non-agnostic = non-non-non-agnostic = gnostic (or does it?)

Date: 2006/11/20 03:54:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Can't believe you mothballed your blog, Alan... Boo!

*throw's rotten fruit*

Date: 2006/11/20 04:01:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I call it quantum-Tard.

Date: 2006/11/20 04:28:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Email him. Given how things went for him in the past, it's unlikely. He feels safe over at UD,but that's it I think.

Date: 2006/11/20 04:39:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm sure Dave would love to set the record straight about any percieved faults he may have.

Davey, honey? *kiss kiss - mwah*

Date: 2006/11/20 04:43:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"Comments on this blog are restricted to team members."

Phhh! I see how it is. What kinda ship you running here, Alan? USS uncommonly dense2? ;)

Date: 2006/11/20 09:10:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 20 2006,08:53)
DaveScot in the "Rewriting How the Solar System Formed" thread.

Random mutations, filtered or not by natural selection, are what NDE says is the source of variation. Random by definition means unpredictable. So if the theory begins by admitting it has no predictive power then what possible good is it? Yet they call it the unifying principle of all biology.

I can't believe that DaveScot doesn't understand probability. Players may gamble, but the House never does. The House can't predict the result of any particular roll of the dice, but it can predict the result of thousands of rolls of the dice. And they make quite a profit doing so.

According to DaveScot's claim, we can't even predict billiard balls, which are composed of quantum particles that have a component of randomness in their position and motion. But, in fact, we can predict the aggregate behavior of billiard balls, and with sufficient skill, "call our shots".

When we use the word "random" in science, it means uncorrelated. That is, the value of the presumed dependent variable cannot be predicted from the value of the independent variable. The plot forms a very particular type of mathematical distribution called "random".  

In the case of mutations, they may very well have specific causes. Some mutations are due to quantum fluctuations, but others are due to cosmic rays, environmental toxins, or ambient radiation.  What random means in this context is that they are uncorrelated with the environmental necessities of the organism.

Most dice give you a number between 1-6. You can't roll a Wednessday. It's random, but also bound / constrained.

Date: 2006/11/20 09:25:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I want to know more about the truckers.

Where to begin...

Date: 2006/11/20 09:29:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
*points at self*

Poster Boy! Gerrinthere!

Tards no not fear..

Date: 2006/11/20 10:25:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 20 2006,10:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2006,16:29)
Poster Boy!

So, do you think Dave polishes his lovelamp in front of your poster, Richard?

Doubtless. He paints his nails red so has hands look more girly, Sits on his hand for 60 mins so that it goes numb  / feels like someone else's hand and pretends Janiebell and I are with him.

He's fond of Blipey as well.

Date: 2006/11/20 11:12:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
And I make three.

Date: 2006/11/20 11:24:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes
patrik and Todd are working on a hypothesis, I think.


23. Patrick // Nov 20th 2006 at 11:25 am

I would think that the supposed correlation between theistic belief and IQ has more to do with peer pressure, popularity, and emotion. The theistic group is the vast majority and would include more of those with lower IQs. At the same time I’ve noticed it’s starting to become a popularity thing to be considered an atheist among young people. I met a 19 year old atheist and she didn’t have any real basis for her beliefs…it seemed she took them on because her friends all professed to be atheists! She didn’t know who Bertrand Russell was or anything at all about the historical foundations of atheism or the common arguments surrounding the subject. I’ve met others like that but they usually have a more solid foundation than believing it because friends believe it.

Comment by Patrick — November 20, 2006 @ 11:25 am

Aparently rejecting religion as bunk is not enough to be an atheist. YOu need to study on the founding fathers and stuff.

24. todd // Nov 20th 2006 at 11:42 am

Patrick, I’ve met many, many similarly aged kids of theist bent who posses similar shallowness of their belief, knowing only the VBS rote of their childhood and nothing of Aquinas and Augustine, little of the bible and superficial apologetics.

I chalk it up to age and inexperience.

Comment by todd — November 20, 2006 @ 11:42 am
The bible is not enough. You need apologetics as well. THEORY IN CRISIS! :p

Date: 2006/11/20 12:04:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
He's got three IPs / IDs. What a cock.

Please be civil
You've identified yourself as DaveScot from I also suspect you're (talk • contribs) "Dave Springer...emeritus systems design engineer from Dell Computer Corporation." As such, you are familiar with the policies of Wikipedia, particularly WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please stop insulting editors in good standing, moderate your tone, and if you try real hard, you'll find your standing in their eyes will improve as well. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You have broken the three revert rule. You can be blocked for this. Please refrain from this. Guettarda 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Dembski
You've been reported for a violation of the three-revert rule (3RR), which states that we're not allowed to revert to a previous version of an article, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours. If you violate this rule again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. The page has been protected against your edits in the meantime. Please try to gain consensus for your changes on the talk page, and consider signing up for a user account, as that tends to make other editors take your contributions more seriously. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 08:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Dembski and promoting pov
I've broken the news at Talk:Intelligent design about what I've found at the archives. I want to give you a chance to explain yourself. Correlating posts there to edits here, I'm reasonably certain that you are the user "DaveScot" there. There you've participated in conducting a coordinated pov campaign [1] at wikipedia and state "another chance for some mischief." Care to comment? FeloniousMonk 06:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Guettarda 19:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning against vandalism & personal attacks
DaveScot, you need to stop being disruptive and incivil. If you continue, you can may be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia, such as it's been. FeloniousMonk 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The follow IPs are associated with this editor (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs) (talk • contribs)
He has been identified as DaveScot from the blog and has warned before about trolling and personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 19:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A bad day for Tardom

Date: 2006/11/20 12:28:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Massive OE Army development:

Troutmac has uploaded a picture. I'm guessing he's repeated his Freshman year a few times. OE, run for kids, by tards.

Date: 2006/11/20 12:49:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Phhh! Dave is an emanate engineer in the field of design detection. Plus he invented the interweb, the supermation infohighway, erm,  'Caps Lock', the electric televisualator... ???

Date: 2006/11/20 13:06:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Bunny ponders Denyse's work:

Date: 2006/11/20 13:20:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 20 2006,12:08)
DaveScot has a thread on Ucommon Descent taking issue with Rich Hughes of AtBC. As neither can respond directly to the other, I am offering this venue for them as a neutral venue where they can post comments without fear of arbitrary moderation

One night only!

Under the lights! ! !

Who will emerge victorious? ? ?

On 8/31/2006 04:46:33 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...

Drop on by, Rich. I don't know where you get that I'm anonymous. I'm in the phone book. I'm 5'10", 220#, strong as an ox, carry concealed, and am trained to fight by the premier institution dedicated to the art of human slaughter in the world today - The United States Marine Corps. Like a well trained police dog the concept of losing a fight is inconceivable to me. Bring it on, beeatch.

I'm doomed! He's got a gun, CANINE level IQ and 'winning from incredulity!'


Date: 2006/11/20 13:56:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
My goodness..

... I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation....
It also includes formation of
geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

Turns out the bible was right, eh? Wowsers.

Date: 2006/11/20 14:44:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 20 2006,12:38)
I searched for a term at UD:

Welp, we couldn't find that...try again?

Was the term science?

Date: 2006/11/20 15:38:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes


This is just my PoV as to why I am against homosexuality:

Many people that I know who are “gay” are very beautiful and intelligent people. It disturbs me that they will not reproduce and pass on those traits all the time some very sick (evil) people are passing on their traits.

Wow, that's cabbaged my noggin.
The virus demands we procreate more vectors!

Date: 2006/11/20 16:08:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Over at OE, I'm checking out the leaderboard..

user points
oleary 150
SChen24 140
siddigrl 63
TheMAN 60
TRoutMac 60

Wow.. that Hip Freshman oleary has raced ahead.. poor old TRoutMac.

Wow.. she could win big...
and I know she's hoping for a signed copy of:

Date: 2006/11/20 17:12:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So, from my UD debut 'Fundies tend to be slower' thread, from the article..

Although the majority of studies show an inverse relationship between education and religiosity, there are several counterexamples of religious groups among which a positive correlation between educational level and religiosity has been shown. Perhaps the best-known of these studies are those involving Latter-day Saints or Mormons.

Up steps Design Detective Dacook:

What is probably the most religious state in the nation also produces the highest per capita number of scientists, and there is a positive correlation between the level of scientific education and religious belief:

Comment by dacook — November 20, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

Move over Sherlock holmes, there's a new kid in town. That EF sure is mighty powerfull, Paw.

Date: 2006/11/21 08:21:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
This has all been debunked already, many times. Regardless, it's an argument to concequences - trust the creobots.

Date: 2006/11/21 11:40:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Magic stuff:

. HodorH // Nov 21st 2006 at 11:25 am

From commentor HodorH:

I see. You’re above commenting in a place such as Panda’s Thumb, but you think that your readers aren’t, and ought to run your errands for you. I suppose it should have been obvious that someone so privileged as to have her picture on the front page need not make the frightful passage through the Darwinist blogosphere, enduring insults from anonymous commentors and repetitive questions from Lenny Flank, as fellow contributor Salvador Cordova has. But sometimes I just don’t catch these things. Perhaps I’d fit into the ID movement better if I were one for hero worship.

Comment by HodorH — November 21, 2006 @ 11:25 am
8. O'Leary // Nov 21st 2006 at 12:29 pm

From moderator denyse:

HodorH, you would fit in better if you showed more common courtesy and common sense. This is your second warning from me. - d.

Comment by O'Leary — November 21, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

You would fit in better! That's what ID is all about, "fitting in"... :p

Date: 2006/11/21 12:59:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
OE: one post in the last 24 hours. Wow, those hip IDers gave really harnessed both youth culture and the interweb.

Date: 2006/11/21 14:18:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
HAHA Davetard!

He’s upset with PZ Meyers, and likes to call him ’Paul’. Geez, Tardy. I bet that gets his goat.

Lots of dross, but the best bit…


The next thing I’d like to debunk in Paul’s latest diatribe is his assertion that matter and energy is all that exists in the universe and science can explain it all without reverting to anything else.

Oh, a DaveTard physics post! These are the best… (Gravity..! )


The latest findings in cosmology are that the universe is composed of 5% visible matter, 20% dark matter, and 75% dark energy…… In point of fact there must be something completely unknown going on in the universe. 75% of the “stuff” which makes up the universe is an unknown coined dark energy that diffuses the universe.
So you see, Paul, matter and energy that we know about are only a small fraction of what makes the universe go ’round, so to speak.

Magic! So PZ says there is only Matter and Energy but you show there is DARK matter and DARK energy! Magic. There’s anti-matter too – can we include that?
You say there is only ice-cream in the freezer but there is STRAWBERRY ice-cream AND CHOCOLATE ice-cream! PZ you evolutionist fool!

Let’s look at the point DaveTard is trying to make..


I have a problem with these people in that they arbitrarily limit what science can potentially explain. The so called supernatural remains supernatural only as long as there’s no metric by which to measure it. Once a metric is discovered the supernatural becomes the natural.

Science is the study of nature, Dave. Your diatribe about the supernatural just shows us what we already know, how the God of the gaps works and why ID is a non-starter. Thanks.

Date: 2006/11/21 14:21:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From the same thread, Allan MacNeil spanks Tardy thus:

1. Allen_MacNeill // Nov 21st 2006 at 3:18 pm

Unfortunately, Dave, the first division of meiosis does NOT produce two “diploid” cells. It produces two HAPLOID cells (i.e. two cells that have a single set of chromosomes), in which the chromosomes are double stranded. The second division of meiosis simply divides the sister chromatids in these two cells, which doesn’t change the fact that they are already haploid at the end of the first division.

This means that the products of the first division of meiosis are totally incapable of producing a fully functioning organism. This would be like producing a fully functioning organism from a sperm or egg cell; impossible, in other words.

Those vertebrates that are parthenogenetic (a few species of whiptail lizards in the southwestern US and the Caucasus mountains in Russia) do not produce fully functioning offspring from first division daughter cells. They produce them from hybrids between several sets of chromosomes from different species (see for the details).

This is freshman biology, Dave. If one of my students had made a statement this egregiously wrong, I would have flunked him or her on the exam.

Date: 2006/11/21 14:42:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes

2. Joseph // Nov 21st 2006 at 3:31 pm

Sorry Dave,

Yup Bio 101:

Telephase I- the cytoplasm of the germ cell divides at some point. There are now two haploid (n) cells. Each cell has one of each type of chromosome that was present in the parent (2n) cell. However, all chromosomes are still in the duplicated state. (italics in original)

Biology- concepts and applications Starr fifth edition page 142

Comment by Joseph — November 21, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

Pissing my pants at DaveTard..

Date: 2006/11/21 15:36:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ed's already got a post up..

I *heart* Davetard. :)

Date: 2006/11/21 16:31:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Date: 2005-05-19 14:05:46, Link  
Author: DaveScot
Sorry about multiple postings. I thought maybe the name DaveScot was no longer usable and I'd have to start numbering my incarnations. I thought wrong. Make a note of it. I think that's like the second time in my life I've been wrong about anything.

Ninth comment from the bottom

Got that? Write it down!

Date: 2006/11/21 16:35:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 21 2006,16:32)
At some point a voice should have sounded in DT's head, saying Wait. I'm about to claim that Myers has missed an extremely basic point in biology. Yet, I have NO training in biology, and I'm about to contradict a biology professor. Is it possible that I'm actually missing something real important?

But then, that wouldn't be our Dave!

Phhfff! . IDers claim that it will take folks from outside of biology, such as engineers and information theorists to push biology forward. Davetard is outside of biology. Actually, he's outside of all of it, having no degree.

Date: 2006/11/21 16:45:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I saved the page after 2 posts..

Vintage tard should be cherished!

Date: 2006/11/21 17:11:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 21 2006,16:50)
Aside from Crandaddy's brownnosing job, I detect a certain deafening silence at the bottom of that thread... ;)

Yes, the propaganda machine seems to have to a freeze on things..

Date: 2006/11/21 18:22:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
D*mbski comes to try and rescue his housetard with a big cut and paste dumb. Here's the highlight..

I propose that Jesus was a special type of XX male ([44]-[49]). Approximately one out of every 20,000 males is an XX male. Such males are normal in behavior and intelligence, but have smaller teeth, shorter statue, and smaller testis than normal males.

Emphasis mine.

No wonder Republicans relate more to Jesus.

Date: 2006/11/21 19:15:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More Tard:


This would be like producing a fully functioning organism from a sperm or egg cell; impossible, in other words.

Allen, are you familiar with automictic parthenogenesis by any chance? Clearly females of sexually reproducing species in most of the plant and animal taxa are capable of virgin birth. Mammals and gymosperms are the sole exceptions but maybe it just hasn’t been observed in those yet and it can indeed happen.


This basically says that you’re all wet about reproduction being impossible from just an egg.

Except YOU DaveTard only refer to mice and men in your origional post.

DaveTard: Men can spin webs
Allen: Web spinning would be impossible
DaveTard: NO!!! My colouring book has pictures of Spiders spinning webs!

Date: 2006/11/22 00:48:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes


it is virtually impossible in mammals

Do I detect a bit of backpeddling here?  

Surely you didn’t think I’d miss that “virtually” qualification did you?

What do you figure are the odds that a parthenogenetic mammal might slip through that crack you left open. Please support your estimate of the odds.

"Please support your estimate of the odds"? Pot - Kettle - Explanatory Filter...

Speaking of the EF, Dave wants all possibilities ruled out, no matter how unlikely. If they were only rigorous with the Explanatory Filter!

Date: 2006/11/22 01:04:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Allen MacNeal uses the EF to disprove virgin birth?

well, if you lower the UPB a smote..

Tipler also calculates:

“Adding all these numbers gives about 60 billion people as the total number of people who have ever lived.”

By his own admission, all of those people were conceived the old fashioned way. That is, given all of the human beings that have ever existed on the planet (i.e. somewhere in the ballpark of 60 billion), by Tipler’s own calculation not one of them would have been expected to have arisen as the result of the extremely convoluted (and virtually biologically impossible) mechanism that he himself proposes.

In other words, the odds are:

60 billion/60 billion = 1/1 = 1 = 100% in favor of non-virgin birth of a male (minus 0.5/120 billion, to compensate for the probability that Tipler’s “magical” parthenogenesis actually occurred)


1/120 billion in favor of virgin birth of a male

Honestly, I’ve never encountered a more skewed comparison of probabilities, and don’t expect to again (outside of this website, that is)

Date: 2006/11/22 01:49:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2006,01:44)
Holy crap!  It gets even better.  Davey went back and edited his comment to make it look less ridiculous.  Compare the DaveTard quote as it appears in Altabin's comment versus mine:

DaveTard, from Altabin's comment:
I arranged a googlefight to resolve this situation.

I win handily. There are far more glossaries that contain the word diploid without the word parent (by 2:1 margin) than there are glossaries that contain both diploid and parent. Subtract the number on the left from the number on the right to get the number of glossaries without parent in it.

DaveTard, from my preceding comment:
I arranged two googlefights to resolve this situation.

Add up the two searches with parent and parents and subtract from the search without either. The result is about an even match with a marginal lead in your favor. However, since it’s likely that many glossaries will contain the word parent or parents not contained within the definition of diploid I think that swings it back in my favor but that’s just conjecture.

Comment by DaveScot — November 22, 2006 @ 1:19 am

Attaboy, Dave!  Now maybe you should sneak back and edit the original post.

Surprise surprise...

EGO: Big
Intellect: Tiny

Date: 2006/11/22 10:47:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 22 2006,10:37)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 22 2006,10:32)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2006,04:45)
I'll even write it for you if you find it too painful:
"I was wrong about the meaning of 'diploid'.  Thank you to Allen, Joseph, and all of the others who pointed out my mistake.  Also, I sincerely apologize for calling Allen MacNeill a 'pedant'."

If he did this, the issue would immediately go away. So he doesn't, because the ID creationists seem to instinctually do whatever will drag my entertainment out the longest.

And he might even start the process of learning.

Me? I always try to learn from my mistakes. And from the plentitude, I have acquired quite an education thereby.

Not many learning opportunities..

Date: 2006/11/22 11:09:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Currently on UD:

Jesus was a mutant: some YEC apologetics.

What's that I hear?

*Puts hands to ears*

Ohh, it's the sound of darwinist evilutionary religion crumbling.

Over on OE:

*** a tumbleweed rolls across the scene, cautiously eyed by two crows. In the distance, a bell rings ***

Date: 2006/11/22 11:18:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From the middle paragraph:

Ed's writing will often remind you that there was a time when atheists did science, and believers did science, and atheistic scientists and believing scientists had pleasurable philosophical discussions in the cafeteria without demanding that their view be given a free-pass. After lunch they did experiments and wrote papers together. And then someone came up with the idea of stickers in textbooks and lawsuits and wedge strategies and “Vice” strategies and guidebooks for getting nonscience into the science curriculum and that religion was child abuse and now Moran's contrubution that students should pass an evolution litmus test or be expelled.

Date: 2006/11/22 11:29:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Boo! UD is having one of those silent, mopey moments that comes after a science related slap-down.

Come on Davetard, do another sciencey post. Chemistry this time, maybe?


*claps hands*

Date: 2006/11/22 11:51:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm convinced there will be a such scandal at some point involving an IDer - kiddie fiddling or some-such. I'm saying now, that when it happens, we just let it go and focus on the science.

You don't claim moral high ground by appealing to divine law. You claim moral high ground through better morals and behaviours.

We don't need to start 'Hitler was a theist' threads, we have reason and fact.

Date: 2006/11/22 12:18:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So your whole religious view is based on coincidence?

Date: 2006/11/22 13:09:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2006,12:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2006,11:29)
Come on Davetard, do another sciencey post. Chemistry this time, maybe?


*claps hands*

It's so hard to find a good housetard these days.

Mine is a boat-tard, because I live in a boat, like all high IQ autodictat design spotters do. Don't bother replying, your mind cannot comprehend how fast minds like mine work.

Excuse me, JanieBell and I have an engagement with Palmella Handerson.

Date: 2006/11/22 13:12:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 22 2006,13:10)
It's quite funny to see that Allen has essentially now taken over that thread.  :p

They're big on how engineers are better than biologists, until one shows up. Not only do they know he'll prove them wrong on about any point, but they wont understand why they're wrong.

Date: 2006/11/22 13:17:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I don't know who to feel sorry for!

They must be starting a frivolous litigation division.

Date: 2006/11/22 14:43:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
What planet is this about?:



"The United States was the best and brightest hope of the world when it was first founded, but squandered its moral legitimacy and dishonored the legacy of those who fought and died to defend it by attempting (so far unsuccessfully) to transform itself from a republic to an empire. And so, I’m even more proud of my Scottish ancestors who sat tight on their little island in the outer Hebrides (Barra, to be exact), didn’t invade or subjugate anyone else, and were never, ever (since Kisimul castle was built around the year 1000) defeated or subjugated themselves. "

I thinks it’s really melodramatic to say all that about the U.S. squandering its legacy and empire building. What empire would that be? Peacekeeping in Afghanistan and Iraq hardly seems like empire building to an Englishman. I can see how might to a Scotsman. And like it not since 1707 your homeland has willingly been part and parcel of Great Britain and shares credit and blame for everything done in the name of the British Empire. No one held a gun to Scotland’s head to remain part of Britain.

The former soviet bloc countries worship us for winning the cold war and setting them free to determine their own destiny. Is that empire building? Some increased percentage of the population of Europe might not care for us but nothing else has changed with our relation with Europe. They’re still NATO members, still rely on us for defense, still host our military bases, still buy our products… in short nothing substantial has changed. Dislike of America in Europe is all bluster and no action. When they make some real gestures that go beyond empty rhetoric I’ll take them seriously. Otherwise it’s nothing more than a fashion trend.

Nothing has really changed anywhere else in the world except we’ve gone from Arabs viewing us as paper tigers to real tigers. No doubt with Democrats in charge for a while we’ll go back to being paper tigers and the terror attacks on US shores and our embassies and ships at sea will resume. Militant Arabs are like dogs. They sense fear and it emboldens them to attack. George Bush understands that. Weak kneed liberals don’t. Show weakness to Arabs and they go for the throat. You can hide in your corner of upstate New York or on your isolated British Isle but keep in mind your redoubt is still safe because someone like me (former US Marine) was out in the big bad world keeping the bad guys away from you

Not big on Arabs, is he?

Date: 2006/11/22 14:57:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The very next post....

65. DaveScot // Nov 22nd 2006 at 3:51 pm

P.Phillips you’re still being moderated and I’m still not approving your comments when they’re overly long and/or too far removed from connection with the thread. I killed one of them earlier today for both those reasons but mostly the former.

Comment by DaveScot — November 22, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

Given your last 'brief', 'on topic' post, Dave - that is magic.

Date: 2006/11/22 15:08:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 22 2006,15:06)
What planet is this about?:

After that multi-paragraph diatribe having nothing to do with the biology of virgin births, where Dave does his best impression of Jack Nicholson (ala "A Few Good Men"), he chastises someone else thusly:

P.Phillips you’re still being moderated and I’m still not approving your comments when they’re overly long and/or too far removed from connection with the thread.

Irony apparently wasn't a weapon in the USMC arsenal.

This is hypocrisy. Your post was meta-irony.

Date: 2006/11/22 15:11:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 22 2006,15:06)
What planet is this about?:

After that multi-paragraph diatribe having nothing to do with the biology of virgin births, where Dave does his best impression of Jack Nicholson (ala "A Few Good Men"), he chastises someone else thusly:

P.Phillips you’re still being moderated and I’m still not approving your comments when they’re overly long and/or too far removed from connection with the thread.

Irony apparently wasn't a weapon in the USMC arsenal.

EDIT: Dagnabit, Richard, don't you have a real job?

Great minds think alike / fools seldom differ?


Date: 2006/11/22 15:17:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 22 2006,15:13)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2006,15:08)
This is hypocrisy. Your post was meta-irony.

Well, I never claimed to be a autodidact or have a 150 IQ.  I'm just sniping at my intellectual superiors.  It makes me feel good about myself.

Indeed. I bet you have neither a houseboat nor a fondness for fungi. Your tiny mind moves with glacial slowness when compared to ubertards such as myself. In the time its taken you to read this, I've thought of something so clever that it would take >UPB number of years to understand it because you are so stupid. I have to go know, Micheal Dell is calling me by telepathy.

*waves had dismissively*

Date: 2006/11/22 21:42:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 22 2006,21:39)
*Tongue, meet cheek.

uh-huh. Who's tongue? Who's cheek? WHICH cheek?

Date: 2006/11/22 21:52:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Davetard, very disengenious.

the full qoute:


Anyone who claims the earth is 6000 years old isn’t going to be persuaded by any amount of argument so why bother? ID has nothing to say about the age of the earth. We don’t have a dog in that hunt.

let's looks at Age vs Complexity

High complexity / young age must give rise to quick adaption OR design.

High complexity / OLD age gives you design or slower adaption.

You have a dog in that hunt. You just don't like it finding dinosaur bones.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:06:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Fundies are thickies: Reprise

Enjoy this big fallacious thread.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:23:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Your Aspie score: 34 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 151 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical


It is likely both women and men find you attractive, despite you living with mushrooms in youir boat.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:38:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
*rolls up sleeves*

Right, I'm here to sort this kerfuffle out.

VMartin - I don't like the cut of your jib. I don't think you've be hoisted by your own Davetard, but you do smell of urine and old folks homes. IS THAT YOU, DAVIDSON, YOU ODIOUS BELLEND?

Got that? Right it Down.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:45:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Davetard struggles with 'unconditional'.

Tardy, if you were (but please don't) to starve your dog and beat it with a stick repeatedly, it wouldn't love you. It would fear / f#%King hate you.

Outdoor cats often leave families if they find better ones.. or have many families that feed them. Hardly unconditional. Nice 'argument to concequences' thestic drivel you've got going on there at the moment.

Date: 2006/11/23 17:57:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
What else could there possibly be?

Lots of things that you can't think of.

Date: 2006/11/23 19:10:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Nov. 23 2006,18:49)
So, how long before UD pounces on this?

Wait, are Muslims allowed to be ID activists? With all the thinly-veiled racism that flies around in Tardtopia I keep forgetting the ground rules.

Isn't this the desired end state? Just do a find and replace for 'islam' with 'christianity'. This will spur them on.

Date: 2006/11/23 19:39:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,19:30)
Richard Hughes ....
Lots of things that you can't think of.
And apparently, neither can you.

Oooh - you squeeze that god of the gaps in there - but be carefull, as the gaps get smaller, so does your god.

Proto-hominids UGG and OGG must have thought the same way as you. God did everything back then. ;)

Date: 2006/11/23 19:51:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Nov. 22 2006,17:03)
Richard, I don't have a "religious view".
I have a reality view.

er.. okay.

which is based on numerology / coincidence.

Date: 2006/11/23 23:05:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Zero wavelength radiation discovered:

Date: 2006/11/24 00:48:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 23 2006,23:51)
Did anyone catch this little bit of hubris from Dembski:

P.S. If Dawkins is going to get the Templeton Prize, perhaps for once the Templeton organization should give the prize to two people. I would be happy to share it with Dawkins.


The Isaac Newton of making me pee my pants.

Date: 2006/11/24 11:45:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
He wont play outside of UD, not even when Alan Fox makes him his own playpen.

Date: 2006/11/24 11:50:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow. the Bible even has a book called numbers.

Convinced me...


Date: 2006/11/24 12:51:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 24 2006,12:06)
Au contraire, Rich.

I have replied to Dave. I would like to thank him for his participation and you for the venue, the 'Switzerland of cyberspace', Alan.

Proceeding with caution and hope..

Date: 2006/11/24 13:00:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Looking at UD recently - full on, not even hidden apologetics. Zero science.

Date: 2006/11/24 13:12:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Zach - just checked out your site.. I never knew you were a Civ fan! To be honest, I don't like any versions other than civ classic - freeciv is okay, but I like the first version the best. My strategy - Science based, the colossus of Rhodes + Copernicus’s observatory, whilst postponing electricity. This coupled with democracy / pyramids can give you a 1000 year advantage on your foes. Then wage war through commerce and technical superiority.

Date: 2006/11/24 14:42:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 24 2006,14:39)
Some Christian love from Borne...
#### is the penitentiary, the insane asylum, of the moral universe.

If there is no ####, there ought to be one.

Otherwise no real justice will ever be done for the infinite dammages laid upon the universe by the rebellious who have disobeyed the law of love to do what is right in their own eyes.

Wow.  I'm doing infinite damage.  Never knew I was so powerful, but I guess I should have known better.

davescot was looking for the definition of Fundy before.

They're no fun, but certainly mentalists

Date: 2006/11/24 15:46:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes

4. littlejon // Nov 24th 2006 at 4:30 pm

There are 9 topics on the “front page”. 6 of them are now predominantly about Christianity or religion. Please do get back to weighing up scientific evidence about hypotheses - its starting to look a bit “obsessed” here…

Comment by littlejon — November 24, 2006 @ 4:30 pm

I like this littlejon Fella.

Date: 2006/11/24 16:47:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 24 2006,16:43)
Has anyone here met the guy? Is he the Real Deal, e.g., a raving personality disorder on display?

So, what’s the deal with DaveScot? Anybody know?

I'm going to try this Spring.  He's promised to beat me up when I go to Austin on my tour.  He said to look him up, he's in the book.  I guess I'll have to do the leg work there too, but I'm looking forward to it.

In fact, I'm looking forward to the meeting more than anything else in my yearlong tour.  Don't go on vacation, Dave.  :D

He's got the hots for you.

Take lots of pictures!

Date: 2006/11/24 17:53:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (cak @ Nov. 24 2006,17:44)
As a long-time lurker on these sites I have a different take on DaveScot.  He has on numerous occasions labelled his severest critics as "atheists".  What kind of agnostic uses "atheist" as a pejorative?

DS recognizes that ID needs supporters who are not religious fundamentalists to make the case that ID is science.  So DS knows that too much god-bothering hurts the cause and hence his negative reactions on UD to anyone overtly religious.

This would support his flip-flopping. He's described himself as atheist and bashed them also. He uses 'god' a bit when he gets going too.

Date: 2006/11/24 23:03:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 24 2006,22:57)
Oh, that is hilarious:

CSI means "Complex Specified Information." But let's break that down further: in mathematics, one major definition of "complex" is "a lengthy string that cannot be compressed very much." And according to Dembski, one valid definition of specification is high compressibility. Therefore, Complex Specified Information means "something that cannot be compressed very much, but is highly compressible" which is another way of saying: "something that contains a lot of information, but doesn't contain a lot of information."

Clearly, there aren't enough Nobel prizes in all of Benmark for someone that could come up with a definition that profound...
Instead of publishing his findings in journals of mathematics or somesuch fancypants means of scholarship, Dembski has instead taken the innovative approach of delivering his wisdom directly to you, the viewer, via his blog, known as "Comments Commonly Deleted."

wonder why the picture is of John Carmak..

Ooooh - founder of ID.. now I get it!

Date: 2006/11/25 01:18:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Me n' Tard are chatting on Alan's Blog. He thinks he's in charge. Bless his cotton socks. :D

Date: 2006/11/25 02:36:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Boo. He's run off.  Just like a marine... ;)

Date: 2006/11/25 12:08:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 20 2006,12:08)
One night only!

Under the lights! ! !

Who will emerge victorious? ? ?

*Flexes Muscle*

Was there ever any doubt?  My IQ measured by suduko is 214. Fundy minds like Davetard cannot fathom how fast my mind works. I’m an autodictator who invented electricity. And the interweb, and electronic emails.

*Interlude, Davetard’s tongue twister*

He mails emails to the she-males

Say 10 times quickly then delete the thread.

Anyway where was I, oh yes. Tardy makes one good point:


I'm a bit of a survey junkie and really insist that a proper survey is used and the polling methodology is exposed in the survey.

For a while I have suspected that designers / disembodied telic entities have been manipulating the IQ test results of the faithful, via zero wavelength radiation. This would help explain that despite having a monopoly on the truth, they come across as a little slow. I plan on growing some mushrooms, and then smoking them to try and initiate contact. ID’s research program is alive and well, in my dingy, thank-you-very-much.

Date: 2006/11/25 12:35:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
same thread:

Here are a few of those for whom I have lost all respect. I am sure you will have no problem identifying them.

Spravid Dinger. M.P. Zeyers, Esley Welsberry, Falan Ox, Wonathan Jells, Dichard Rawkins, Jillip Phonson, Dilliam Wembski, Pott L. Scage, Charden Atfield, and while still alive and long before their death, Mernst Ayr and Gephen J. Stould. There are many more but I don't want to burden this audience any further. Springer is by far the most virulent of them all and has the record to prove it.

He quite likes me.


Date: 2006/11/25 12:38:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Alreet is Geordie!

Date: 2006/11/25 12:57:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Richard, he didn't INCLUDE you! THAT AIN'T FAIR!!

I've always been fair to JAD*

He created the artform that is the one thread blog.He'll be remembered for that. His PEH stuff, not-so-much, though.

*Except for maybe the "JAD smells if pee / old folks homes" comments.

Date: 2006/11/25 13:05:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/11/26 21:15:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (djmullen @ Nov. 26 2006,18:23)
People trying to psychoanalyze DaveScot should go to Google Groups and search for "david springer dell" without the quotes.

I want DaveTard's Job..

Date: 2006/11/27 01:22:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More Tard.

DaveScot said...
Oh hi, John. I wonder where you'd slunk off to after mailing that letter to O'Leary. She forwarded it to all the admins at UD. A couple of them, even Dembski, rose up in your defense.

They rose up, that is, until I emailed them a couple dozen choice quotes from your blog "newprescribedevolution" where you'd called Dembski all kinds of unflattering names. They then went from defending you to pitying you but agreeing that me banning you was the right thing to do. I didn't want to expose you in that way but you left me no choice.

4:39 AM

Didn't you D*mbski a 'fundy' and Denyse 'Morphodyke', Dave?

Date: 2006/11/27 12:48:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,04:01)
@Chris Hyland and associates,

Andy MacIntosh, a leading expert in flame technology, creationist and layman WRT evolutionary biology, seems someone to keep an eye on.

Shock, horror, he's a fundie..

Prof. Andy McIntosh, Leeds
Positions Held
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, Fuel and Energy Department, University of Leeds.

Genesis for Today - Showing the Relevance of the Creation/Evolution Debate to Today's Society. Day One Publications.
Design in the World and Universe, pp 141 to 156 of In six days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. New Holland Publishers
Wonderfully Created (Video) May Ores Christian Video Productions
The Intricacies of Flight (Video) Creation Sciense Movement

Postal Address
El Nathan
10 Forge Row
New Farnley
LS12 5DN

Telephone Number
0113 263 3444

Jebus on a bike!

"Creation Sciense Movement"

Not only do they want to sneak god into science, but also a second "s"!

Date: 2006/11/27 12:52:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Even better.. and AIG author!

Dr McIntosh's recent book Genesis for Today (foreword by Ken Ham) is available from Answers in Genesis

I hope he has his day in court.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:34:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Don't worry, I'll fix this.

*rolls up sleeves*

Oi, Davetard you bellend. Do some more sciencey posts. Thermodynamics would be fine. Make sure you list you SAT induced IQ at least once, tell folks you're a millionaire, that you used to work at Dell and that they can't comprehend how fast your mind works. You might want to omit the 'living in a boat full of fungus' bit, though.

I command it!

*claps hands twice*

Date: 2006/11/28 10:09:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes
When business is slow, D*mbski either

* Takes 'the brites' down, or
* Puts 'the brites' back up.

Date: 2006/11/28 10:25:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes

They killed that comment, which is the funniest thing I've seen associated with 'the brites'. Fundies, stick to what you do best - unintentional comedy!

got any more funnies in your cache stash?

Date: 2006/11/28 13:47:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Sidenote - I was drinking regular coffee, but its cappucino that's come back up through my nose...


Date: 2006/11/28 13:52:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dacook also seems blissfully unaware that Vinge is one of the main singularity proponents and has written many papers on it. Techno-rapture, creobots?

Date: 2006/11/28 14:13:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 28 2006,13:58)
Your alleged "tree of life" is missing its roots. It is missing its trunk. All it really has are branches floating in mid-air. With its "single-line of growth" existing only in some imaginations.

There is one and only one way to trace from any given twig to the trunk. Just like your paternal ancestry. Just like all nested hierarchies.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, but Joseph still failed to answer the questions.

Yes. And it has no leaves, no bark, isn't brown and wont burn on my fire.


Date: 2006/11/28 14:27:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2006/11/28 15:13:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard goes Ready, FIRE!, aim


Hiya Dave, you odious bellend. You lept to a conclusion that isn't, you bad creobot.

Date: 2006/11/28 16:18:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes

ID Media Blitz in the UK
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · No Comments
Here are articles that came out just since last night on the challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy in the UK. It looks as though Truth in Science is causing a media storm.

Uh-huh, woohoo, go IDers.

before you pat your backs, imagine if you'd posted this:

ID Science Blitz in the UK
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · No Comments
Here are peer reviewed publications that came out just since last night on the challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy in the UK. It looks as though Truth in Science is causing a research storm.

This is why you are twats.

Date: 2006/11/28 16:27:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"Dembski chickened out" T-shirt.

Date: 2006/11/28 17:54:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It always tickles me when Intelligent Design advocates point to articles that strongly support evolutionary theory.

Well, they can't point to ID ones, can they?

Date: 2006/11/29 00:31:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It bears repeating that the default view of ID for this list is the position hammered out over a fifteen year period starting with Phil Johnson and moving through to Behe, myself, Wells, Meyer, Nelson, Pearcey, Gonzalez, Richards, and O'Leary. Any of you who have a fundamental problem with that position need to consider carefully whether you should be on this list at all.

  Best wishes,
  Bill Dembski

Church lady (IQ 78) makes the cut, Davetard, IQ 150+, so clever inferior minds can't keep up (Grandad), is a B lister at best. Hmmmm.

Date: 2006/11/29 10:54:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes

D*mbski muses:

Quote of the day
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · 8 Comments
“You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.” — Who said it and how does it apply to the ID-evolution controversy?

then... 6th [remainig] post in..

6. William Dembski // Nov 29th 2006 at 10:43 am

PWE is no longer with us. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — November 29, 2006 @ 10:43 am


Date: 2006/11/29 11:09:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes


Date: 2006/11/29 15:22:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 29 2006,14:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2006,10:54)

6. William Dembski // Nov 29th 2006 at 10:43 am

PWE is no longer with us. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — November 29, 2006 @ 10:43 am


The technical problem at Oceana's Bureau of History is one that requires a thorough recollection investigation. Removing PWE's comment didn't remove all traces of PWE. Ekstasis is still left responding to a comment that never existed. The revolution will only be complete when the language is perfect.

By the way, what did PWE say to provoke the ban?

and more...

Collin // Nov 29th 2006 at 3:45 pm

does this website blacklist words? I suggest that this website could do better in not editing out dissent.

Comment by Collin — November 29, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
21. Collin // Nov 29th 2006 at 3:47 pm

What if a friendly blogger wanted to ask about one of the blacklisted words or offered a counterargument to a blacklisted idea. Is that automatically blacklisted? I understand the need of some kind of filter, but too much encourages the kind of group think IDers are trying to fight.

Comment by Collin — November 29, 2006 @ 3:47 pm

Date: 2006/11/29 16:27:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2006,16:16)
He's back!

aww.... bless his cotton socks.

Date: 2006/11/29 17:00:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
They used to put Dave in a room with their new stuff connected to the internet and measure its 'mean time to Tardation'.

For example.

Dell 325 DX.
MTtT 314 seconds
SD 34 seconds

Date: 2006/11/29 18:18:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 29 2006,17:35)
For the record, posting a family tree on a thread about inheritance resulted in Joseph refusing to post the comment to his blog.

Then he retorted in doggerel, "IOW you are nothing but an internet punk, spewing junk."

(Tidbit: In the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia, Alec Guiness portrayed Prince Faisal, Sharif Hussein's son.)

Shock horror, IDer censors.

Date: 2006/11/30 01:34:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I was delighted when Baylor granted him tenure. If you're going to be a bottom tier tarducational facility with maximum jebus, you need to retain the worst minds you can find.

Date: 2006/11/30 10:07:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Churchlady D'OL's articles are horrible, horrible reads stylistically, without even addressing the content issue..

But here..

She talks about herself in the third person.

1) If for any reason you ever talk about yourself in the third person, you're teetering on the edge of an abyss. There's no excuse for it. I don't care if you're the CEO or the hot-shottest marketing hot shot the world has ever seen. It's crass and ill-bred to use your own name when referring to yourself.

RichardTHughes does not advocate Churchlady's writing style.

Date: 2006/11/30 10:14:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Great post Chris. I'm from the UK also, originally.

Although the fundy count seems to be up in the US, churchgoing goes down every year. They may have the loudest voices, but they dwindle.

Date: 2006/11/30 10:43:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Agnostic, erm I mean atheist, no agnostic, oh he uses 'god's creatures', so I guess deist, Davetard, opines:

3. DaveScot // Nov 30th 2006 at 7:19 am


I think Dawkins is being disingenuous talking about a God he denies with every fiber of his being. What a creep.

Comment by DaveScot — November 30, 2006 @ 7:19 am

Date: 2006/11/30 11:25:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I've infiltrated the list. I'm

Date: 2006/11/30 12:03:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From the Tards that braught you "Activist Judges!":

Wikipedia Hatchet Jobs on ID Leaders
by DaveScot on November 30th, 2006 · No Comments

Date: 2006/11/30 12:13:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Another Churchlady nugget

When refereing to her other crappy blog, "Post Darwinist";

The Post-Darwinist skewers the nonsense

THE Post-Darwinist? WTF?

can I use the google to find that on the internets?

Baaaaaaad Baaaaaaaad fundy Journo. Your writing is the spork in cutlery draw of journalism.

RichardTHughes thinks Denyse could work for the Bush adminstration.

Date: 2006/11/30 13:55:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Bebbo @ Nov. 30 2006,13:30)
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Nov. 30 2006,12:08)
Isn't Dembski's Wikipedia article factually accurate? What's the issue?

PS: Yet again, DaveScot gets shut down on a foreign corner of the internet and retreats to UD.

I don't think the Dembski page on Wikipedia is completely accurate. But nevertheless it's obviously written with a certain bias.

Factual / Pro Science?

Date: 2006/11/30 14:57:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
D*mbski's last C.V. updates seems to be August.

Date: 2006/11/30 15:58:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
ID theorists use Data Compression, Shannon Entropy and the Bible to help detect design.

Somewhat ironic then that:

shrinks down to

"None" with very little content loss.

Date: 2006/11/30 18:51:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 30 2006,18:34)
WHOA!  Now I see that bFast's "Incredible" and Patrick's "Not really impressive" (hey, stupid, he said "incredible," not "impressive") comments have been deleted - and a primer on how to post to Wikipedia posted instead.  Isn't that just so SPECIAL!

Too late IDudes!

8. Thou shall not steal.

I stole that, BTW.

Date: 2006/12/01 10:28:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Writing like Denyse: Can you do it? Richardthughes has her disjointed style down; but what of the many links back to her crap blogs?

Date: 2006/12/01 10:55:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 01 2006,10:28)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 01 2006,01:30)

In case Dave Springer would like to justify his claims about Wikipedia, and if anyone wants to add a comment, I opened a thread here.


Your unflagging optimism about human nature is a wonder to behold.  :p

Hope for the best, expect the tard.

Date: 2006/12/01 12:59:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes
[Song: 'The Old Landmark']

(Dancing and singing, Jake is trembling)

Elwood: Jake, you alright?

(A ray of Light shines through the church onto Jake)

Jake: The band... The band!
Reverend: Do you see the Light?
Jake: The band!
Reverend: Do you see the Light?
Elwood: What light?
Reverend: Have you seen the Light?
Jake: Yes, yes! Jesus H. tapdancin' Christ, I have seen the Light!

(Jake starts dancing)

Jake: The band, Elwood. The band!
Elwood: The band? ... the band. The band? The band!
Reverend: Praise God.
Elwood: And God bless the United States of America!

Date: 2006/12/01 13:09:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
This little exchange:

Michaels7 // Dec 1st 2006 at 1:35 pm


I published part of those song lyrics here before. You got talent kid  Explosive, energetic and boldly in-your-face lyrics that are thought-provoking for youth culture today looking up to rap and hip hop poppers.

What do you consider your music to be? Industrial techno-rap? Pure form? I don’t keep up with the music scene like I use to.

Smiles…. revelation rap?

Comment by Michaels7 — December 1, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
6. Atom // Dec 1st 2006 at 1:58 pm

haha, thanks Michaels7. I don’t know what to classify my music as…definitely hip-hop, but I include lots of different elements.

And as always, the lyrics must be intentionally designed to get my point across and make people think. With all the bias against ID, I figured I’d show people directly that I support it and how it make more sense than alternative theories. Hopefully the kids will think it is cool.

Comment by Atom — December 1, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

from here:

It's utter shoite, Atom. Sorry.

Speaking of shoite, who can name these two improbable bedmates in this mashup?

Date: 2006/12/01 13:44:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 01 2006,13:11)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2006,12:36)
I'm sorta speechless.  This must be the ID movement's soundtrack.

It simply drips with dumb.


Enya and Prodigy?


Ah, 'smack my bitch up', happy memories*

*happy evilutionists moral-relativism Darwinistic orthodoxoy memories.

Date: 2006/12/01 13:56:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes

You got talent kid


Oh my..ethnic music. I'd better use some jive. I'll drop the " 've " from "you've".You got talent daddio! Do they still say daddio? Cat? oh my, how do those kids speak these days? Kids! that's it. You got talent kid. Should I add "word!"? Probably not.

Date: 2006/12/01 16:23:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I thought that after Dover it was "back to the lab."

You mean "let's try the lab"
You can only frame "we don't fully understand it (yet) so god did it" so many ways.

Date: 2006/12/02 11:30:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I.D. it's not religion, it's *all about* science.

Say that 3 times then go and read 2 weeks worth of UD.

Date: 2006/12/02 12:41:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 02 2006,12:05)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 02 2006,07:49)
DaveScot links to a Google search, but hides the nature of the search.

Applying Davey's tool of choice to the question at hand:

Quod erat demonstrandum.

not forgetting..

Date: 2006/12/02 14:01:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 02 2006,13:27)
Good news for Richard Hughes! :p

It's closer than I thought it'd be..

Date: 2006/12/02 15:44:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes

7. Joseph // Dec 2nd 2006 at 3:24 pm


Some incredibly dense- I’m talking walking black hole dense- people have interpretted your OP to mean that ID = religion.

Yes Recip Bill, I’m talking about you and your fellow disdainers of reason and original thought.

Comment by Joseph — December 2, 2006 @ 3:24 pm



"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."


Date: 2006/12/02 16:10:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davidsons comments to the above parody are also good..

Date: 2006/12/03 11:39:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 03 2006,11:34)
Meanwhile, Joseph lectures a geneticist about genetics and the nested hierarchy (who does provide a cite to a cool phylogenetic tree for myosins).

He'sTarding to make up for lost time.

Date: 2006/12/03 13:42:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
For instance, the Scriptures teach that with God a day is as a thousand years. But if a day is as a thousand years, then each day in a thousand years is itself a thousand years. Thus, if you run the numbers, a day with God is also as 365 million years.  Follow the math to its logical conclusion, and with God an instant is an eternity.

But what about the days in those days and the days that make up them which are themselves made of days comprised of days?


Date: 2006/12/03 13:47:59, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Indeed, the only way to gauge the extent to which one person loves another is by what that person is willing to endure for the other. Without the cost incurred by suffering, love among fallen creatures becomes cheap and self-indulgent.

So Gays love each other more, as they must endure fundie / societal scorn on top of the crap every day life generates. I like your thinking Bill.

Or maybe he's advoacting..

Date: 2006/12/03 13:58:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Phil Johnson - retired lawyer
Behe - onetime biochemist
Dembski - Professor of Thumpology, Southwest Baptist Collige of Book Larnins
Wells - cultist pop author
Meyer - philosopher
Nelson - YEC philosopher
Pearcey - stay at home mom?
Gonzalez - astronomer
Richards - uh bagger at Food Lion? philosopher I think.
O'Leary - 4th rate journalist

Ahh... Davetard is a B-lister because he's over qualified!

Date: 2006/12/03 14:07:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 03 2006,14:05)
You guys,

Just having a medicinal glass of Merlot, checked in to catch up on the news. Now I'm mopping up all over.


They call that FREEDOM JUICE over here.

Date: 2006/12/03 19:53:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard restates the party line: The emporer DOES have new clothes, and deletes a bit that presumably makes him look bad.


6. Robin Levett // Dec 3rd 2006 at 7:54 pm

Hmmm. Where to start?

Firstly; do you seriously consider that Bullock’s argument hangs together?

He makes two major claims; that evolutionary biology is a religion

the rest of this comment deleted

Comment by Robin Levett — December 3, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
7. DaveScot // Dec 3rd 2006 at 8:07 pm


After you made me bother to start fisking your screed against Bullock the first thing I did was look for where he equates evolutionary biology to religion. What I found was that the word “biology” never even appears in Bullock’s article.

If you want to remain a critical participant here you had better not make any more false accusations like that again.

Comment by DaveScot — December 3, 2006 @ 8:07 pm

Date: 2006/12/04 00:02:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ah, and how they bleat about c*nsorship.

Let's recap.

No science posts on UD since, well, forever
But no shortage of explicitly theistic posts
Legal defeats galore.

The end always turns nasty. Hacking is of course cowardly. And illegal. And ultimatley futile.

ID is a decapitated chicken; body still moving, though in no constructive direction.

Date: 2006/12/04 15:39:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 04 2006,15:31)
Color me pleasantly surprised. David Springer is in correspondence with Matt Cutts at Google in email, and added me to the CC list as someone affected by the sort of third-party exploits that have gotten both UD and the TOA de-indexed.

That was both thoughtful and generous, not least of which was because the information in the CC'd message gives a completely different reason than BUUD as the cause of UD's Google de-indexing troubles.

As a frequent Dave-basher, it's only fair we salute his good stuff. Well done, Dave.

Date: 2006/12/04 16:20:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Fair play to Dembski:

Schadenfreude at UD
by William Dembski on December 4th, 2006 · No Comments
I received the following email from someone I will keep anonymous:

Subject: blog entry on talk origins
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:35:41 -0500
From: snip

Bill, we have met a few times and are clearly on opposite sides with regards to ID, but I think we are on the same side with regard to Christ (although I am a Mormon). For this reason I strongly think you should remove [the] blog entry on TalkOrigins google problem. First, it is mocking and exploiting talkorgins problems with a hacker. I have always hoped that the ID debate could happen more often at a higher level than that (I do criticize my fellow ID opponents when I feel that they also have exploited situations like this because it has nothing to do with the issue).

Second the cached page contains language and (as accidently found out) live links to extreme pornography. Not something I would think you would want on Uncommondescent.



Because we were ourselves delisted recently from Google (and then relisted), the UD post in question is of interest here. Nonetheless, let’s try to avoid all appearance of Schadenfreude on this blog. Talksorigins, though slanted very much against ID, contains many items that ID proponents may want to refer to, if only by way of rebuttal. And presumably, with the shoe on the other foot, the same is true for the other side with respect to UD.

If the pornographic links really were the work of a hacker, I hope resolves this problem and gets relisted pronto.

Filed Under: Adminstrative

Date: 2006/12/04 19:23:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
As Davescot has confirmed it wasn't buud, what do they have to hide, other than revisionism. And we tend to spot that anyway.

What's up with ID/UD that they need to rewrite history?

Date: 2006/12/05 11:07:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave Tards it up a notch with this wonderfull strawman.

Predictability of Evolution
by DaveScot on December 5th, 2006 · 3 Comments
We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?....

a better strawman in terms of complexity, but still a straw man in terms of mechanisms, would be this:

Dave, I suspect you're smart enough to know you're just spouting nonsense. Stop it.

Date: 2006/12/05 14:31:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Dec. 05 2006,14:16)
This is DaveScot on Matt Cutts' weblog:

After all that we still weren’t reindexed until November and that I suspect was only because users who were shareholders in google phoned or wrote to investor relations asking why a blog with a 6/10 rank at google run by a famous professor/author (William Dembski) and linked to by hundreds of .edu sites had been delisted.

No comment necessary. It's hilarious enough by itself.

I suspect the designer intervened using zero wavelength radiation...

Date: 2006/12/05 15:53:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Vintage Tard.


...Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn’t make any of it predictable. If the market was predictable it wouldn’t be a market.

By the way, I'’m certain I’ve studied the stock market at least as much or more than you have, I made millions in it, and I knew enough to get out of it with my winnings intact because it’s all just a matter of luck. A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Comment by DaveScot — December 5, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

Dave seems to think the stockmarket has a negative expected value for Shareholders. is ID predicting a stockmarket crash before the end of days?

However, Dave's insights have pushed Tard stock up this session.

Date: 2006/12/05 16:23:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes

The simple truth is that ID uses the same experimental data that other theories of evolution use. It interprets the data differently.

Comment by DaveScot — December 5, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

Date: 2006/12/09 00:26:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Didn't ID predict junk DNA isn't junk?
isn't this an about face?

"Big pieces of junk DNA with a thousand highly conserved regions common between mice and men was chopped out of the mouse. In amazement the mouse was as healthy as a horse (so to speak)."

Wow, everything supports ID.

Three outcomes, all favourable to ID!

In other news, we've always been at war with Eurasia...

Date: 2006/12/09 00:29:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's some vintage Tard for you...

Only Dave and Bill O'Reilly get this good. High praise indeed.

Date: 2006/12/09 13:23:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Joe G challenges Dave for leadership of the Tard Party:

At 1:29 PM, Joe G said…

It appears that Imagination Deficit is the most censoring blog in the history of the internet.

I have yet to see of hear of an relevant comment being deleted or censored from UD...

Wow. I've yet to see invisible people. why do your find 'lost' things in the last place you look? Joe, I applaud you commitment to Tard, you intellectual self-harmer.

Date: 2006/12/09 14:08:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh Yes... a lap dance...
*clutches dollar bills excitedly*

Date: 2006/12/11 21:48:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes

ID "theorist" fails to cite bible correctly:

Date: 2006/12/14 22:35:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 14 2006,18:26)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 14 2006,17:42)
Ekstasis waxes ecstatic over circumcision:
Check this out regarding circumcision!!

Now, what happened to the “religious practices damage humanity” line? And how in the world did a religious practice develop that makes so much sense from a medical standpoint, and not just for AIDS, long before any theory of bacteria or viruses?

Oh, just lucky happenstance, is it? Hmmm. And how about that old Moses, how did he “receive the Law” thousands of years ago that just happens to have completely solid sanitary rules that were not practised by the Egyptians at the time?

Pure luck, just like Darwinian evolution, of course!!!

Comment by Ekstasis — December 14, 2006 @ 7:25 am

No word from Ekstasis on the Designer's incredible foresight in providing the requisite skin for snipping, thus providing mohels with employment for centuries to come.

Let me get this line of "logic" straight..

God (or a space alien if you will) designed me with excess foreskin, which is unsanitary and can lead to health problems.  Only later did he realize his design was flawed and instead of correcting it he told Moses to tell my ancestors to snip that excess and we'd live longer.  Rrrriiiiiiiigght.  Sure.  I get it....

Just goes to show you how incompetant (stupid?) the unintelligent designer is.

Now, if they want to start a new movement that studies "unintelligent design" I just might join them.  Oh wait, that's already being done, it's called modern biology! :-)

Hey! As a European who's a complete prick in many ways, let me take exception. If you keep it clean, there's no problems, a bit like other areas. Pre good hygiene / living in the desert it may have made sense. Rumour has it there's sensitivity loss that comes with the snip. What is it with theism and genital mutilation?

Date: 2006/12/15 11:34:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 15 2006,06:25)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 15 2006,09:05)
Playing the Judge Jones animation at OE, I noticed that the cadences and Chicago vowels of the judge's chipmunk speech resembled those of a certain disreputable intelligent design proponent.  Suspicious, I sampled the audio, slowed it down, and lowered the pitch.  Sure enough, it's Dembski.

1. Here's the original.  Fart noises have been removed for your protection.
2. The slowed-down, pitch-adjusted version which confirms that Dembski is the voice of Judge Jones.
3. For comparison, a clip from Dembski's recent sermon at the West Southwest Bible and Taxidermy College.
4. I also discovered that if you slow down Dembski's voice and play it backward, you get a prophetic message regarding the future of the Intelligent Design Movement.

What a catch!  One helluva Design Inference! Give that man a cold glass of Ebola and fresh church to burn!!

Seriously, that's a coup.  Unmistakably Dembski.  I'm just surprised that the Research Professor (the only one! ) at Southern Redneck Bible College has the time on his hands to make this recording himself.

Christmas has indeed come early this year

Nice find on the backwards masking, too.  I discovered that if you start playing the whole animation on the very first chord of Dark Side of the Moon, it sounds like complete shit.

Great opportunities to send the slowed down message from dembski as a "private admission" viral. It is of course him, so he'd have some fun 'splianing to do!

Date: 2006/12/15 21:07:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 15 2006,20:33)
Wherein I attempt to stave off a beating from a horde of Keiths.

erm, soz, that was me.

I sent a link to Pharyngula, Red state rabble and dispatches from the culture wars.

Date: 2006/12/15 23:59:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'm never sure if I should be happy they're so entertaining, or sad for them.

Date: 2006/12/16 00:40:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
IDERS: Please! no more egg on our faces!

Plagiarism: The Letter of the Law Versus the Spirit of the Law
by GilDodgen on December 15th, 2006 ¡¤ 2 Comments
Judge Jones ¡ª by accepting widespread praise for the most salient and important part of his decision in its written form, without acknowledging the true authors ¡ª has implicitly taken credit for what was not his. In my view, this constitutes de facto plagiarism, and it should be called what it is.

What say you?

Filed Under: Legal ¡¤ Courts

2 responses so far ¡ý
1. Patrick // Dec 16th 2006 at 12:14 am

Personally I think this was more than covered in previous topics.

Comment by Patrick ¡ª December 16, 2006 @ 12:14 am
2. bj // Dec 16th 2006 at 12:43 am

Patrick wrote:

¡°Personally I think this was more than covered in previous topics¡±

I couldn¡¯t agree more.

Comment by bj ¡ª December 16, 2006 @ 12:43 am

Date: 2006/12/16 11:26:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dembski says:


Over at there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There’s been a design inference made that it’s my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it’s true, it actually is me. But that’s only temporary. We are inviting Judge Jones to do himself. Stay tuned.

So dembski shows us that the design inference shows us who the designer is. Nice one.

Date: 2006/12/16 23:10:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"ID is Dead.." *fart*


Date: 2006/12/17 22:01:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Your 'movement' might be in trouble if the your headlines read:

Flatulence removed from “The Judge Jones School of Law”

Please, ID, Don't die too quickly.

Date: 2006/12/17 22:10:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 17 2006,21:19)
The Church Lady of Nuclear Physics
by DaveScot on December 17th, 2006 · 1 Comment

Dana Carvey or David Heddle?

You be the judge…

“This is #### embarrassing.”

“This post was on the adult blog, Uncommon Descent”

Doctor Heddle, you’re not half as embarrassed as I’ll be if you reveal the author of that email offering to make you an author on Uncommon Descent.  

Filed Under: Just For Fun

Come on Davetard, Church lady © o'Dreary.

Make an effort, you bad, bad tard.

Date: 2006/12/18 09:43:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ted Haggard of Information Theory

*Doffs Cap*

Date: 2006/12/18 12:19:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
HAHA. Bad plagiarist tards.

Date: 2006/12/18 13:20:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 18 2006,13:09)
I would not be surprised if Dembski closes shop at UncommonlyDense and OE.

Mothballed, Steve, Mothballed.

have you ever seen mothballs? I don't understand why folks focus on "bees shouldn't be able to fly". How can a tiny moth cart two of those puppies around in the air?

Date: 2006/12/18 13:49:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 18 2006,13:32)
Ken Miller responds to Dembski

Pissed my pants.

Will Demsbki post it on UD? No chance.

Date: 2006/12/18 15:16:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 18 2006,15:07)
12. DaveScot  // Dec 18th 2006 at 3:51 pm


Is Darwinism largely supported by atheists?

No. Atheists largely support Darwinism. If faith in Darwinian principles was limited to atheists we wouldn’t be here talking about it as they’re so small in number. It’s interesting though that the National Academy of Science’s membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with atheists representing 80% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov’t that the NAS enjoys. It’s an atheist clique. Religious people need not apply.

Comment by DaveScot — December 18, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

apart from the presumably 20% non-atheist members?

The oddest thing about ID is that supporters point to things that disprove their case, and yet it becomes positive proof.
Is DS taking lessons from O'Leary now?Link

Oooh.. let me play.


It’s interesting though that the NBA's membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with really tall people representing 80% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the TV coverage that the NBA enjoys. It’s an really tall persons clique. shorties  need not apply.

"Religious people need not apply". Except atheism is a religion, when Tardy says so.

Date: 2006/12/18 15:22:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 18 2006,14:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 18 2006,13:20)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 18 2006,13:09)
I would not be surprised if Dembski closes shop at UncommonlyDense and OE.

Mothballed, Steve, Mothballed.

have you ever seen mothballs? I don't understand why folks focus on "bees shouldn't be able to fly". How can a tiny moth cart two of those puppies around in the air?


So, Richard, are you here all week?


The Ten O'clock show is completely different.

Don't forget to tip your server

Date: 2006/12/18 15:49:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 18 2006,15:44)
Or, to cut more directly to the moist Tardy goodness...

It’s interesting though that the National Academy of Science’s membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with people possessing advanced scientific degrees representing 99% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov’t that the NAS enjoys. It’s a clique of educated experts. Poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and uninformed people need not apply.

Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover:

"We are being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

Date: 2006/12/20 10:08:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes

My my, at waterloo dembski didn’t surrender
Oh yeah, and Davetard too is busy blaming the ACLU
Creationists needing some help
They’re always repeating themselves.

Waterloo – Dembski  defeated, you lost the war
Waterloo – Jebus is absent for evermore
Waterloo – just what is OE coming too?
Waterloo – Creobots we’re all here laughing at you
Waterloo – Dembski is facing his waterloo

My my, You  tried to hold us back but we was stronger
Oh yeah, and now it seems your only chance is giving up the fight
And how could you ever refuse
You feel like You win when You lose

Date: 2006/12/20 10:54:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Robert Crowther  in action..

Date: 2006/12/20 11:16:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Weeping Davetard, confused agnostic / functional theist.

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
by DaveScot on December 20th, 2006 · No Comments
I found the images of young people in “The Blasphemy Challenge” giving up their immortal souls on a dare disturbing enough to make me weep for them. I’m not rationally convinced we have immortal souls to give up but certainly the possibility exists. Imagine on judgement day that was you in the video and it was being replayed. There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose in this. Please join me in a simple prayer for the young victims of this stunt.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

Now for UDs science news..


Okay, how about their reation to the Cobb County ruling?


Date: 2006/12/20 20:35:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes

30. GilDodgen // Dec 20th 2006 at 9:16 pm


That was a great essay, and I’m not easily impressed. DaveScot is a Christian. He just doesn’t realize it yet.


Comment by GilDodgen — December 20, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

Poor DaveTards, always the last to know..

Date: 2006/12/21 10:10:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Heddle *does* science. And he knows what science is, and what it isn't. I don't share his religious views, though.

Date: 2006/12/21 10:18:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Google trends:

"intelligent design"


Date: 2006/12/21 10:33:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (2ndclass @ Dec. 21 2006,10:19)
Second, Dave thinks that describing something in computer terms is an admission that it's designed.  The sun goes in cycles, like a CPU.  Designed!

And seasons.. and women...

Analogy.. ID's scientific sounding freind.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:00:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Let me spin in the style of the Discovery Institute:


Of course that's not what it really says.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:11:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Uh-oh. We have a problem. I’m so sorry. Let me explain:

Mantok-Jumang created the universe. He came to me and told me so. Special revelation or something. Anyway, he’s mad. Turns out something I did upset him  He’s so mad he’s going to send you all to a very bad place when you die. Fortunately, there is a way out. Mantok was very specific, and I’m not one to question his ways. He spake thus:


DaveScot must post on uncommon descent

“House music is the best music and to a lesser extent disco. Country music is for bad teds who date immediate family.”

This and only this will save you all.

I am not one to question his wisdom. As Dave is an atheist but doesn’t mind praying to gods that may or may not exist because of his thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of Pascal’s Wager, I’m sure he’ll do it and save us all.
See here for Dave in action.


Date: 2006/12/21 11:19:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It's a Miracle!

Sal shows us how stickers increased SAT scores!

In other news, there hasn't been a world war since YouTube was created.

Date: 2006/12/21 12:53:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 21 2006,12:43)
Is there any theoretical limit to the number of wild assertions, utterly unsupported by any cited evidence yet still "possibly" true, that these nefarious newspapers refuse to report?

The UPB, Ironically.

Date: 2006/12/21 15:00:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 21 2006,14:27)
If you read it with Will Ferrell's GWB voice it's 10x funnier.


Date: 2006/12/21 15:04:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2006,15:00)
At OE, firebird says:
...there seems to be a glitch in the forum and my account was blocked. I'm sure it was just a glich since I was respectful and I doubt the moderators would not try to squelch respectful dissent.

Patrick responds:
No, I've purposely blocked you twice. We maintain a zero tolerance policy on OE. Bill has specifically told us, the moderators, that OE is intended as a safe haven for students interested in ID. As in, not Darwinists. If you want to make your arguments try them on UD where the moderation policy is more lenient.

UD, where polite and respectful dissent is welcome.

(tries to maintain straight face)

Boo! what a Bunch of Sternbergers!
I violated SLoT laughing at that one.

Date: 2006/12/21 15:24:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From Dave's latest:

[edit - it's a tardlicious .BMP that we can't post]

WTF? is it tenuous tard art week at UD or something?

Made me think of this..

Date: 2006/12/21 19:04:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Born in England, live in Chicago now.

Hoping for a Tardtopia.

Date: 2006/12/22 12:05:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dembski seems upset:

Date: 2006/12/22 21:48:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hi guys.

Here's wishing you and your families a happy and prosperous 2007. Although we clearly disagree on topics such as science and religion, I'd like to thank you for the entertainment.


Date: 2006/12/22 22:10:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (heddle @ Dec. 22 2006,13:58)
Originally from Pittsburgh, PA. Have lived in Champaign IL, Va and Md suburbs of DC, Newport News VA, and now in New Hampshire. And before anyone asks: no, I don’t think my opinions about the places I have lived are any more authoritative than anyone else’s opinions.


I doth my Tard-cap, sir.

Date: 2006/12/23 13:34:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Something new...
Davescot blows his own trumpet..

44. DaveScot // Dec 23rd 2006 at 1:53 pm


On a ***tangential topic I did a little googling and found your expertise to be in the area of intellectual property. This is interesting as for two years I was one of a dozen engineers and a few in-house IP attorneys tasked with evaluating patent abstracts submitted by any of 35,000 employees at a $40 billion per year high tech company. I reviewed about a thousand abstracts, approved about a third of them, and AFAIK every one I approved was eventually granted. I’m the named inventor on four granted U.S.patents myself. It’s even possible my former employer employed your former employer in the past on IP legal work. Did Dell Computer ever use your firm that you know of?

Date: 2006/12/23 14:03:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard, Frontier lawman:

46. DaveScot // Dec 23rd 2006 at 2:19 pm

For what it’s worth I agree with tribune on the merits of that strategy. I’m just a little more fed up with the game and think it’s time to get the legislative and executive branches to slap down the judicial branch. In the old days of the republic judges that got so far out of touch with the desires of the people they serve they got impeached for their impudence. It’s been far too long since an example was made of one of these black-robed fascists.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2006 @ 2:19 pm

Hang 'em high, Dave.

Date: 2006/12/23 14:21:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes


• 25. DaveScot // Dec 23rd 2006 at 2:53 pm
Can a non-religious person come to believe there is a designer without becoming religious?
Sure. I did. I was a positive atheist for decades until I read Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” 15 years ago. At that point I became agnostic. I was too busy in my career to really look into ID until a couple of years ago but all my life I’ve spent most of my spare time reading science and hard science fiction so I was pretty well informed on a wide range of science and engineering topics before concentrating on evolution and ID. I’ve been retired for almost 7 years and have oodles of time now for learning about things that will probably never bring home any bacon. I’m still an agnostic in rational thinking but I more or less formulated Pascal’s Wager on my own and bet that way before I was out of grammar school.
Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2006 @ 2:53 pm

Wow. So much good stuff. I never knew “hard science fiction” was as good as a real education. I’ll see your PHD and raise you “Consider Phlebas”.

Will Dave’s ego let anyone discover / think of something before him?


I more or less formulated Pascal’s Wager on my own

Or from:


Dembski proposes a law of conservation of information but I didn’t know that until just now when I googled it. I figured it out on my own  long ago as it’s an obvious logical consequence of a deterministic universe

There is no original thought – Davetard has had them all already, as a kid with no friends ON HIS OWN

Date: 2006/12/23 20:17:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Hey, we need a messenger for our Kitzmass card. Who isn't banninated?

Date: 2006/12/23 21:49:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
just put this

at the front. You have to make an effort, you know?

Photoshop Schmotoshop. REAL men use MS PAINT.

Date: 2006/12/23 22:30:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 23 2006,22:27)
I've delivered the message, but y'all are perfectly capable of visiting her blog, y'know.

And juju, I'm not real sure how she's going to take the "harpy" comment, but do the words "run for your fucking life" mean anything to you?

Just a suggestion.

aha. Thou linketh wrongly. Tell corporal kate I'm still bruised.

Date: 2006/12/24 16:08:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 24 2006,15:50)
Okay, I'm home again, and I'll deliver the card-link if you want. I'm writing a cute poem to go with it. Just tell me if you've all written your greetings, and Christmas harpy here will flap on over to bring them the bundle o'joy.


Thanks. Best Send it before Jebus' B'day.

Date: 2006/12/24 19:03:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 24 2006,18:45)
I kinda like the picture of the aerobatic F-16s. For a while, I made my living programming the fire control computers on those.

Don't let Sal Cordova know!

Date: 2006/12/25 12:31:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Kristine said...
Thanks, guys!

It hasn't appeared on UD at all. To be fair, it was totally off-topic! I was writing to deliver a "greeting card link" from me and fellow atheist/skeptic UD watchers and thought I would whip out a poem while I was at it.

I'd like to think maybe one of the moderators secretly sniggered at it, though.

December 25, 2006 12:58 AM

Date: 2006/12/26 16:14:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
A regular, UDer, on her blog:

At least she's honest about not wanting transparent dialogue.

Date: 2006/12/27 11:08:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
We sent them a Christmas card and they wouldn't post it. What sort of secular moonbat homo looney commie fags are they? I have my doubts abouyt that Dembski - I think he's a card carrying memeber of the ACLU.

Everyone knows Jebus done it and god is the designer.

"And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly" (Luke 22:61, 62).

"And then he turned to WMaD and said unto him, thou will not say thy lords name because thou art a disingenuous prick. Lying in his name is surely a sin"

Date: 2006/12/27 11:30:52, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Demsbki's farting flash is a bit like when The Great Gazoo joins the cast of "the flintstones" - You're on your last season.

Date: 2006/12/27 13:10:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Awww.. bless their wickle tard socks.

I just saw Joseph use "bac flag" for the fraterial blagella.

They have their own little abreviations now!

Date: 2006/12/27 13:19:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 27 2006,13:07)
They forgot one:

The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located.  Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design.


ooohhh that tickled me.

Plus, Oranges are orange coloured..
Flies do actually fly
Bangs Sound like they are spelled..

Date: 2006/12/27 19:05:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,14:59)
43. SCheesman  // Dec 27th 2006 at 3:37 pm
 "Exactly how, when, and where did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella and attach them to bacteria? ”

I agree, this IS an excellent question and it does deserve some kind of answer.

Though not an “exact” answer, the solution to this question is that the designer created the complete DNA code for the flagella to be fully operational, once instantiated. Whether as a “hidden” subroutine that was eventually activated at the proper time (i.e. front-loaded), or as part of a fully functioning bacterium fully formed (as oponents of common descent might prefer) might be a question answerable in the future, just as close examination of computer code can reveal aspects of the code’s orignal design and subsequent evolution.

Comment by SCheesman — December 27, 2006 @ 3:37 pm


My Bold. TBH, I dont think too much of Cheesemans "some kind of answer".

So, ever hear of SCO v's IBM SCheesman? Go to and check out the most comprehensive examination of the "evolution of computer code" ever conducted. What would ID have done differently? Can ID come down absolutley on one side or another in the row over source code?

C'mon DS, put those computer skillz to use! Identifying source code origins should be a trivial matter for the design inference.

Da\/3_7@rd iz teh l337 h@><o|2.

Woo7! :)

Date: 2006/12/27 21:27:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes


Nice one Pat!

Date: 2006/12/27 21:38:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 27 2006,21:31)
Intelligent Design Tries to Rally Its Base

Unfortunately, all their base are belong to Judge Jones.

My Head a splode.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:15:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Over at Dispatches...

Date: 2006/12/28 11:45:51, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2006,11:20)
Patrick is misdirected. There is nothing stopping someone from falsifying "Darwinism". But the claim is that falsifying "Darwinism" would somehow demonstrate the validity of Intelligent Design, a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It' actually the Holmesian Fallacy

Date: 2006/12/28 11:54:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes


93. chunkdz // Dec 28th 2006 at 12:44 pm

Jack Krebs,
May I take a stab at it?
You asked that if a nonflagellate developed a flagellum in the lab, how would we know if it were designed?
The explanatory filter can be fooled by something that is designed, yet is indistinguishable from something not designed. Were this the case in the flagellum, then I’d say move on to the next example. Look for something else that the filter can catch.

That being said, I’d say that the WAY the flagellum developed would provide clues to design detection as well. Was the experiment repeatable, or a frozen accident? Did the flagellum all develop identically? Did various versions of flagellum form? Did some organisms develop other modes of motility?
Was the mechanistic process of evolution directed or random? Were mutation rates increased in loci dedicated to motility? Was active exaptation observed?

I think it is the details which will reveal design in this case, not simply the fact that a flagellum grew where there was none.

Comment by chunkdz — December 28, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

magic stuff..

That being said, I’d say that the WAY the flagellum developed would provide clues to design detection as well.

So you don't care for our pathetic levels of detail...but you do.

Ah, the random pointing at complicated things and declaring "That's designed untill you tell me it isn't because this filter we have but can't use and gives false positives anyway may have said it might be designed if we could use it.


Date: 2006/12/28 12:33:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2006,12:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2006,11:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2006,11:20)
Patrick is misdirected. There is nothing stopping someone from falsifying "Darwinism". But the claim is that falsifying "Darwinism" would somehow demonstrate the validity of Intelligent Design, a typical argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It' actually the Holmesian Fallacy

These are all variations of an attempt to demonstrate a limited claim by eliminating the universe of other possibilities. In the case of Holmes, he specifically attempts to actually eliminate this universe of possibilities, though the practicality of this is questionable.

In the case of Intelligent Design advocates, they conflate the Theory of Evolution with all possible theories other than Intelligent Design. Hence, by falsifying the Theory of Evolution, that leaves only Intelligent Design. This is clearly fallacious.

"Proving a negative" is a similar problem having to do with the universal set. It's easy to prove that unicorns exist — if you can find one. But you can't categorically prove they don't exist somewhere in the universe without looking everywhere.

All good stuff. Reminds me of Karl Popper's work with empirical falsifiability.

Date: 2006/12/28 14:27:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes

37. Joseph // Dec 28th 2006 at 2:36 pm

Just about any argument can be pruned down to two choices- A or not A…

Comment by Joseph — December 28, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

What a Tard!

Let A="dogs"

Q: Which animals have 4 legs?

Hmm.. dogs or not dogs. Or maybe *some dogs* and *some not dogs*.

May I recomended "Set Theory for Tards", Joseph.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:05:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow.. another guitar player. Surely this is proof for ID?

speaking of which.. I gots me a new axe.

That's a one off fender custom shop Moto Tele, masterbuilt.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:18:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Enjoy these days, my friends, for they won’t last for ever. Truly we are spoiled in this golden age of tard. We skip over many tard-laden comments and just feast on the sweetest, tardiest morsels – but already the death knell noises of the flash animation fart have been heard and soon we will have to wait for the tard that is “directed evolution” or telic entity creation or some such.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:28:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Loads of us here are players. I'm going to start a thread, I think.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:42:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes

But don't ask who made X.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:51:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,14:59)

P=[2c^(n-x+1) * c^x-1] / (c-1)

where ...

c number of girls and boys in a family (i.e. c=2 for 2 boys, 2 girls)
n number of generations
x lifespan in generations

Check my math, but I get over 2 million people with an average of 10 boys + 10 girls per family (less than half the traditional number for Adam's family), 6 generations, and a lifespan of only 5 generations (assume 30 years per generation, so 150 year lifespan).  

Remember, lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood by all accounts.  You may not buy 900+ years and I don't buy 25,000 (translation error in this case I think), but all accounts agree that lifespans were long.  150 years is not a stretch at all.

You may also think an average of 20 kids per family is crazy, but again, we are dealing with families which lived much closer to the original, perfectly created state of the human family.  Mutations had not had much time to accumulate, close marriages posed no genetic problems, and no doubt women were much more healthy and hearty than they are now, enabling them to bear children much more easily.

Also, there is no difficulty moving the Flood date back even a few hundred years.  Creationists have always acknowledged, and cannot completely rule out, the possibility of some missing genealogies in the Biblical text.

So could the Great Pyramid have been built in 2170 BC as the astronomy of the edifice indicates?

Yes, of course.

You bad tard.

large population growth, low infant mortality, longevity, better medicine, the agrarian society, where to start?

Date: 2006/12/28 16:10:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 28 2006,16:09)
I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.

Evolutionary archeologists?

They were right next to his imaginary friends.

Date: 2006/12/29 01:18:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Consider me a skeptic
Thanks for reading, and glad to be here. I come to the evolution/ID controversy from a unique perspective.... I am both a former supporter of evolutionary theory and a former supporter of ID. I have a 'scientist's background' and was a supporter of Evolutionary Theory and all of the Blindwatchmaker and atheistic philosophy that can go along with it.

Then a funny thing happened... the more and more I became exposed to the evidence for both abiogenesis and undirected evolutionary processes, the more skeptical I became, and my skepticism soon spiraled into a state of utter disbelief.

I engaged in a quest to absorb pretty much everything I could with respect to origins theories. I am as familiar with the writings of Walt Brown, Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, and William Dembski as I am with those of SJ Gould, D'Arcy Thompson, and Richard Dawkins.

For a long time... years in fact... I was a closet supporter of the ID movement, a closet supporter, as the nature of my job doesn't permit me the freedom to discuss ID openly; the Creationist movements never quite suited my fancy for a variety of reasons. I long held out hope that the ID movement would in fact begin to produce some actual evidence, beyond theoretical musings of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson, etc.

Almost a decade after becoming interested in, evolving to enthusiastic supporter of, and finally degrading to becoming a cynical skeptic of the ID movement. I've yet to see any real science coming out of the movement. There have been allusions to the existence of 'secret research programs' and the Biologic Institute has re-sparked my interest in the movement, but for the most part, I remain a cynical skeptic, and until the ID movement starts actually publishing some real hard data, I've got to remain a cynical skeptic.

The cynicism results mostly from my observation of the Uncommon Descent website. No... I've not been banned from there, but I do find the moderation policy at UD distasteful, and not in the spirit of free-exchange of ideas.

In any case... I hope to discuss some relevant science here in coming posts. Thanks for reading, and stay tuned.


Date: 2006/12/29 13:27:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here are my two babies:

funk and disco, baby, funk and disco.

I picked up the Tele because she's a one off, from when the custom shop was only building 4 guitars a week. I haven't seen a Moto that predates her. Sadly she was in some pretty heavy country circles before I freed her.

Date: 2006/12/29 13:35:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More UD fun.

ID — The Board Game
by William Dembski on December 29th, 2006 · 2 Comments
You know you’ve arrived when you’re the topic of a board game (look for “ID — The Movie” next).

Here's the origional version of "THE ID BOARD GAME"

Date: 2006/12/29 13:41:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 29 2006,13:35)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,11:28)
Russell ...    
What? Can it be you don't even realize you're making that claim?
Yes, it can be.  I normally don't realize I'm making claims which I, in fact, are not making.  Why don't you show me my quote where I am claiming that or ... if you can't, stop spouting nonsense.


Jesus Christ, Dave, at least pay attention to your own claims.

You claim there were eight humans on the ark, five of whom were related. Therefore, 10 HLA-B alleles.

You claim that your "flood" was approximately 4,500 years ago.

Today, there are 500 HLA-B alleles. Not 10, not 61, but 500.

Your first two claims necessarily imply an explosive increase in HLA-B alleles in less than five millennia, whether you realize it or not.

You have 225 generations or so to work with. You need to get from 10 to 500. Explain it, or admit your "hypothesis" is crap.

why does anyone bother with this fucktard?

He gets destroyed on one front, so ignores it and starts another.

Date: 2006/12/29 14:02:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Of Course UD was scooped by Pharyngula Yesterday:

Come on D*mbski, give a hat-tip to PZ who's much more plugged in that you are.

Date: 2006/12/29 21:35:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 29 2006,17:25)
The Tree of Life Explodes Davetard's Face

The tree of life Bitchslaps DaveTard.

Date: 2006/12/30 13:53:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 30 2006,11:13)
DaveScot again:
This is wrong. Design is not the illusion. Chance is the illusion.

If you believe in a divine, omnipotent creator, this is true. Predestiny and all that.

Thanks for pointing out you're a god-botherer again, Dave.

Date: 2006/12/31 14:35:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2006,08:02)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,01:10)
Consider me a skeptic

Either life and/or the universe was designed by an intelligent agent, or it wasn't. There's no other choice. To reject both seems, well, quite impossible ...

In science, there is always a third choice. We don't know. There is insufficient evidence. And as all scientific conclusions are considered tentative and incomplete, that means there is always the quest for additional evidence.

In the case of Intelligent Design, there is NO such evidence — and substantial evidence to the contrary. Intelligent Design is a social movement that uses the language of science to sway laypersons and effect political change.

Do not pass Go.

Actually, in science it's ALWAYS the third choice, "we don't know". Nothing is sacred, a better model can always previal. Back to poppers demarcation: Emperical falsifiability.

Date: 2006/12/31 16:32:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes

8. crandaddy // Dec 31st 2006 at 5:16 pm


I know all this “creationism” and “designer” drivel can be frustrating, but just be patient, stay the course, and talk sense to those who will listen.

Comment by crandaddy — December 31, 2006 @ 5:16 pm


what a republitard! Actually, even they gave that one up. Last to the dance again, Crandaddy.

Date: 2006/12/31 16:46:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I have seen no reasonable IDers. They're all odious duplicitous tards.

ID: lying for Jebus.

Date: 2006/12/31 18:19:21, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,18:15)
If you're tough enough to freebase some Tard Rock, here you go.

ID theory predicts these kids will flip burgers into their 50's.

Date: 2007/01/01 15:31:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Crandaddy's Irony filter does not have a hypocrisy layer.

3. crandaddy // Jan 1st 2007 at 3:27 pm

Forrest won’t debate you, Bill, and the reason is quite ironic–She’s a COWARD! Please do take every opportunity to hang it over her head. Perhaps even a counter on the front page would be appropriate.

Comment by crandaddy — January 1, 2007 @ 3:27 pm


Crandaddy is like Raiiieeeeiiiiiin, on my wedding day.

Date: 2007/01/01 17:15:16, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Now now, he must be right. He's supported by lots of infallible bible verses.

Isn't someone going to invite him?

Date: 2007/01/01 17:25:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Estimated Time to Deletion?

Date: 2007/01/01 23:40:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
From Telic thoughts:

Ed Brayton has a brief follow-up reply to me. It is great to see that Ed does indeed make distinctions and does not lump us with the ID movement. He notes it is possible that we are pushing a religious agenda and are part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement, but acknowledges there is no evidence of this. The reason there is no evidence of this is because we are not pushing a religious agenda and are not part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement. He further notes that he does not see us “lobbying school boards to get ID into science classrooms either” and again, this is because we don’t. In fact, years ago, I argued strongly against introducing ID into the science classrooms. Also, for years I have been noting that there is no “ID theory” and that ID does not qualify as science. And let’s not forget that we embraced the Dover decision, and the post-wedge world, with a smile and open arms.

*Stands and applauds*

If this *was* the ID movement, they'd be getting grants and 'real' science support.

Date: 2007/01/01 23:47:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Of course slimey quotemining Sal's comments are not approved of.

Date: 2007/01/02 10:29:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Tard gets Schooled, part 2385491.


11. DaveScot // Jan 2nd 2007 at 7:53 am

Well then I guess we agree to disagree. Comparative genomics is making a mess out of phenotype classifications. I’ve brought up a number of articles in the past 30 days which attest to this. You’ve done nothing but put your own spin on one of them.

Comment by DaveScot — January 2, 2007 @ 7:53 am
12. Jud // Jan 2nd 2007 at 9:15 am

DaveScot said:

“Comparative genomics is making a mess out of phenotype classifications. I’ve brought up a number of articles in the past 30 days which attest to this.”

I hope this continues to happen, since that’s how science functions - new knowledge replacing old hypotheses. (Though as I felt Zimmer pointed out in his article, the “old” sciences - paleontology, natural history, etc. - can continue to contribute to this “new” knowledge in order to create a more complete picture.)

Comment by Jud — January 2, 2007 @ 9:15 am

Date: 2007/01/02 12:18:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Moan Moan Moan.

Look, WHO is the poster child here?

Date: 2007/01/02 12:40:56, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 02 2007,12:37)
Oh, I know that the Dembster is bluffing. He’s a dembskream. He kills me. Suddenly it’s an obsession with Forrest. Why Forrest, all of a sudden? Why didn’t Dembski show up at any of the readings Dawkins recently gave in the U.S. to challenge him, since he’s trying to “save” Dawkins and all that? Why was he avoiding Dawkins?  Does he avoid anything that starts with a D? ;)

And no, I don't see a lot of respect for women's brains over at UD. ("Go make me a pot pie." "whining like a girl," etc.)

Check out that Baptist seminary at which Bill teaches and read up on their ideas of the "submissive" wife. (In my experience, there is no one so controlling and exacting, at least toward other women, as all these "submissive" women.)

It's the republitard image of a womans place should be in the kitchen. Letting the vote, drive.. whatever next, read? Maybe they'll even write books one day..hahaha.

Date: 2007/01/02 13:33:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The quintessential ID supporters post?:;f=3;t=000309;p=3

Member # 133

 posted June 21, 2005 06:52 PM                    
Wow Salvador! I don't understand all those math equations, but I get what you are saying. Cool!

"Science brings men nearer to God." -Louis Pasteur

Posts: 3653 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged |  

Date: 2007/01/02 14:26:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,14:18)
Answering Cordova on ID's Goals

the bitchslapping he gets in the comments is priceless. ID still proffers no positive evidence.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:34:22, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Novelty has worn off, methinks.

Date: 2007/01/02 15:17:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,15:11)
Well if they're proud of the traffic at UD, see this comparison between AE and UD:

It's because we're sexier.


Not you though, Arden.


Date: 2007/01/02 15:32:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2007/01/02 16:17:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (2ndclass @ Jan. 02 2007,16:14)
A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)

What does it mean for a research center to be "ID friendly"?  How does Dembski know beforehand that the results of their research will be favorable to ID?

The designer is mentioned in the infallible bible.


Date: 2007/01/02 23:15:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,20:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2007,15:17)
It's because we're sexier.
Not you though, Arden.

A certain young lady I know says: "Arden is teh SEXAH!!" But she didn't even mention Richard  :( . I suspect a conspiracy.


Date: 2007/01/02 23:46:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 02 2007,23:42)
Richardhughes: I snorted Pepsi and rum OUT OF MY NOSE because of you, f**ker!!
Now if I can just find a straw...I don't like WASTE. Damm, that was funny. KUDOS.

Sexy will do that to you.


Date: 2007/01/03 15:35:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
That coward Joespeph:

Come and talk somewhere where you'll get anhonest reply, you sad twat.

Date: 2007/01/03 16:42:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Funny story: It was windy and the leaves got stuck on my piercings.

Date: 2007/01/03 20:10:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 03 2007,19:50)
I am now 1 1/2 inches shorter than I was when I got my driver's license in 1979. I have shrunk almost 2 inches.



Date: 2007/01/04 10:14:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Good Math, Bad Math, Worse Tard:

Date: 2007/01/04 11:01:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 04 2007,00:29)
I knew that joke was coming, tho I had predicted Richard or Deadman would make it first.

I'm wounded to the quick, and dammitall, my quick is pretty tender as it is.

On the other hand, the joke tickled my fancy, and boy, did my fancy like THAT.

Still, I sense a FLAME WAR approaching.    :angry:

If anyone wants some, email me at:

*shakes fist in faux rage*

Arden is deffo flaming, though.

Date: 2007/01/04 11:30:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I'd like Janie on me, then Kate on me, then both on me.


Date: 2007/01/04 13:59:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
She has boilerplate creobot moderation, like Dippy Joe, UD, OE, etc. What's this free marketplace of ideas all about, then?

Date: 2007/01/04 14:56:24, Link
Author: Richardthughes
I *heart* Jack Chick

and by level 5, she was casting 'fireball' once a day. Huzzah!

Date: 2007/01/04 15:49:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Can you fellas conference call me in and Fedex me the beer?  


Date: 2007/01/04 17:30:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Thank you, explanitory filter!

Date: 2007/01/05 00:39:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
B+ Tard.

3. Robo // Jan 5th 2007 at 1:14 am

In my university thermal physics textbook (Thermal Physics, Kittel and Kroemer, 2nd Ed.), it is clearly shown the monkeys and typewriters idea is ridiculous. I faintly remember the odds of them putting a short work together by chance … 1 in 10^165,000 … e.g. not likely  

Comment by Robo — January 5, 2007 @ 1:14 am

Yes, Robo, but the numerator is infinity.

it doesn't matter if its one monkey or a million if you have infinite time. This abd math doesn't *really* surprise me from folks who and and infintesmal version of omnipotent for their deity.

Date: 2007/01/05 02:10:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
What is this, a n3rdlinger star trek convention or summin'?  :angry:

Date: 2007/01/05 02:19:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Slimey Sal needs to equalize a positive pressure differential:

Date: 2007/01/05 02:33:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Sal IS a 'crime against nature'

Date: 2007/01/05 10:03:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 05 2007,08:19)
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.

That Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Sadly, I can't find zimmer's excellent "The wisdom of Parasites" blog post talks about the emeerald wasp.

Still, tells us something about the designer:

A poet writes poems
A healer hels the sick
we are what we do (defined by our actions)


Date: 2007/01/05 10:28:53, Link
Author: Richardthughes
The best thing is Zimmer had this who thing well over a year ago.. he even listed a vague evolutionary pathway. It's a shame I can't find the article.

Here's another amazing parasite:

Davetard is over a year late to the party, A bit like his infamous praying marines post. Poor old Dave.

Date: 2007/01/05 10:54:42, Link
Author: Richardthughes
from UD:

20. Barrett1 // Jan 5th 2007 at 11:30 am

I’ve been waiting for an topic like this to show up.

Intelligent Design handsomely relies on intuition, prodding us to capitulate to our sense that nature is in fact designed. It is not an illusion, they tell us. Now, I hear some hedging about this occasionally, that we can be mistaken, but basically our intuition is correct that design is at work in the universe.

Darwinists, on the other hand, deny the reality of design, and therefore admonish those of us who believe our intuitive sense that design is at work in the universe. Intelligent Design is an illusion, they say. And moreover, the march of science proves this. What we once thought was the work of an intelligent agent turns out to be nothing more than natural, mechanistic processes at work. An intelligent agent may have been involved to get the ball rolling, they say, but there doesn’t appear to be any piercing or manipulation of this closed system we call the universe.

So, take the example posted above by DaveScot. My intuition is that an intelligent being would never consciously settle into his lab chair and design such a creature. For me, such a creature has no hallmarks of design. It has adapted and evolved and adapted and evolved over millions of years…Why do I think this? Because I can’t seem to make the connection between creatures like this and God. And it’s not because I have trouble with the morality of using another creature as a doomed vessel for hatching eggs. It’s just plain bizarre. And I have trouble with a bizarre God.

But like Darwinists, intelligent design proponents want me to ignore my intuition that the wasp is a product of evolutionary processes. They say the seeming bizarreness of God has been addressed by tortured theologians for thousands of years or something to that effect and the fact that it is designed is the basic point.

You see, for me, the appeal of intelligent design is that it squares with common sense. I can understand the intelligent design argument that the universe is bathed in a conscious God that was an continues to be involved in the universe. But this kind of example leads me to think otherwise.

Now, I bring this up because it is very, very important. I have talked to a number of scientists, medical researchers, physicians, many of which are brilliant people. You know why they reject intelligent design? Because of intuition. They can’t draw the connection between this wasp (and thousands of other examples) and an intelligent designer. It just doesn’t make sense.

Comment by Barrett1 — January 5, 2007 @ 11:30 am

Once again I know ID better then they do. They are so predictable. Ah, don't ask about the back yards in the potemkin village. ID is defined by the questions you can't ask and the "inferences" you can't make

Date: 2007/01/05 11:40:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes

John Davidson:

How about some *evidence* for any of that? That's an argument that I've heard numerous times before, but I've yet to see anyone actually *defend it* by showing actual evidence.

It's easy to talk and claim something like that, but it's a whole lot harder to actual turn that claim into a real scientific argument.

Just for example: there are a number of places where we've observed new genes, or new mutations of old genes - that is,
information or structure in the genes that is demonstrably

For example, we've seen bacteria formed from a single clone
line develop penicillin resistance by way of a modified
cell-wall production pathway; that capability was *not* in the original genes of the bacteria that formed the cell line; but it wound up being produced after prolonged exposure to penicillin with clavulanic acid. (Clavulanic acid blocks the actions of penicillinase, which is the common mode of penicillin resistance.)

Studies of the resultant line of resistant bacteria show modifications of the gene that codes for the production
of the cell-wall component normally interfered with by
penicillin. That is, we can sequence the specific genes of a normal bacterial strain, and the same genes in a resistant
strain, and identify the differences. That difference was *not* originally in the gene; and it is not the case that
an old gene was switched off and a new one switched on - it's the same gene, but modified. How can you explain that in terms of your theory?

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 5, 2007 11:54 AM

Date: 2007/01/05 12:41:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 05 2007,12:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2007,10:03)
Sadly, I can't find zimmer's excellent "The wisdom of Parasites" blog post talks about the emeerald wasp.

You can find Zimmer's post at the link below:

Thanks chief.. and erm, welcome aboard?

Date: 2007/01/05 14:27:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes

67. Barrett1 // Jan 5th 2007 at 3:18 pm

DaveScot, I don’t disagree it would be far more credible to believe in more than one designer than none at all. But that would require yet another model that I would have to ponder as I try and fall asleep at night. And frankly, I don’t have the energy. That’s not to say that I am not intrigued by your belief in panspermia. I am.

However, as cheesman points out, there have been those in the past who have looked at things in the natural world and were cocksure that it was designed by an intelligent agent. They were wrong. It turned out they were not designed, but the result of natural processes. Now, you may be right that life is designed. As cheesman points out, the jury is still out and things aren’t looking up for the naturalists. But I’m not so cocksure. And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient. And suspicious.

Comment by Barrett1 — January 5, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

All is not harmony in the big tent.

*insert inten(t)se joke here*

Date: 2007/01/05 14:49:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 05 2007,14:39)
Btw, under NDT, why shouldn’t there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It’s 'easy' for evolution we are told! Their 'fitness' for survival would likely be greater than ours.

Or, as our old friend Timothy Birdnow said, "Where are the giant mammaried mosquitoes?"

Actually, its a physics thing, and you can probably throw some SLoT in there.  There's a surface area to mass ratio where 'warm blooded' does not become really feasible. When things get too small they would lose heat faster than they could internally create it. Likewise, as you get bigger, drawing heat from your environment gets harder due to the same surface area to mass issues.


Date: 2007/01/05 14:59:48, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2007,14:56)
Strangely, all the hip young kids aren't abandoning the OC for OE:

Recent comments

   * Throwing Helena to the Wolves
     2 days 26 min ago
   * Wolf
     2 days 2 hours ago
   * Possible Interpretations
     3 days 1 hour ago

That's what's left when you ban everyone with anything interesting to say.

OE is a bit redundant when Church already exists.

Meanwhile, TroutMac is repeating his freshman year for teh 23rd time.

Date: 2007/01/05 15:37:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More textbook fallacy Tard from Davetard:


there have been those in the past who have looked at things in the natural world and were cocksure that it was designed by an intelligent agent

The naive presumptions of design have been weeded out. “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth” -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I say to you we’ve eliminated the impossible (Gods of Thunder, Fire, Sun, Volcanoes, and whatnot) and what remains (Intelligent Creator of Life), however improbable, is the truth.

Comment by DaveScot — January 5, 2007 @ 4:15 pm


I've heard this often quoted as a basis for problem solving. But it is very wrong. Given this view it should be no surprise that Doyle was a spiritualist and an easy target for scams.

All hail omniscient DaveTard.

Probably the first time a fallacy has been used verbatim.


Date: 2007/01/05 16:16:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard, copyright infringer:

big cut and paste, but the origional has this at the bottom:

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

Date: 2007/01/05 18:37:30, Link
Author: Richardthughes
JAD Bottles it; Plugs Alan's blog:

I am obviously pearl casting here and evoking the usual snot much to my delight. If anyone is interested in my views, I am still posting at ISCID's "brainstorms, "Telic Thoughts" and

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

Posted by: John A. Davison | January 5, 2007 06:04 PM

The reply..


I responded to your comment in a completely civil, respectful manner. To simply throw out your argument, ignore responses, insult us, and then run back to your safe haven where anyone who disagrees is banned is simply cowardly. Are you unwilling to actually engage in an uncontrolled, uncensored discussion of your theory in an open forum?

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 5, 2007 06:41 PM

Date: 2007/01/05 18:53:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 05 2007,18:39)
“I thought creationists were monsters, until I married one.” -Tatiana Hamboyan Harrison

They are hopeful monsters, I'll give them that.

Not so much monsters as children.

Date: 2007/01/06 22:02:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Here's the skinny:

1) the creos are funny.
2) Maybe some uninformed folks read this and and it helps them form the right opinions
3) The creos wont be dissuaded.. they're on a mission from 'the designer'.
4) Comedy like Davetard is a once in a lifetime thing.. you'll have to get into 'Keep immigrants out of Texas' or whatever he gets into next after ID collapses if you still want to toy with him.
5) You can say you stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the creo-wars, and that we we kept science free from the supernatural.

Date: 2007/01/06 22:23:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quack, quack, quack..

Date: 2007/01/07 00:23:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Click the link, it's a bit call and response..

122. avocationist // Jan 7th 2007 at 1:04 am

I’m afraid I’m with Barrett on this one.

>Because I can’t seem to make the connection between creatures like this and God. And it’s not because I have trouble with the morality of using another creature as a doomed vessel for hatching eggs. It’s just plain bizarre. And I have trouble with a bizarre God.

And I find answers like the following just beyond bizarre.

>The Creator (God) permitted certain corruptions only, such as would stand as useful illustrations for His highest (earthly) creation - mankind - so that they might learn from nature lessons they would not willingly receive from His explicit revelation - the Bible.

Conversion for the resistant via insect watching?

>And the fact that we can never know the designer is awfully convenient.

I don’t know if we can know the designer, but we can know God.

>It would appear to me the roach is drugged into a state of bliss.

Yes, that is a hopeful possibility, and I believe I’ve read that pleasurable, herioin-like endorphines take over in many prey animals as they are being killed. I wonder, though, if the bliss chemicals remain in force as the internal organs are being eaten.

>The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.

This doesn’t mean what you think it does.

>a planet designed for torment…And I’m scared I might be going there when I die.

Probably not, but it worries me for you to feel that way. I think that sort of mindset makes you vulnerable to evil beings.
There are instances of people going through near-death experiences, who felt themselves sinking into ####, but they called for help and were rescued.

Comment by avocationist — January 7, 2007 @ 1:04 am

Date: 2007/01/07 13:25:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 07 2007,13:13)
Tom Moore    
There is a clear definition of “true complexity” given by Wolfram (A New Kind of Science) as “not obviously simple” or “computationally irreducible.”

DaveScot demonstrates again that he doesn't understand the nature of fallacy.    
Tom Moore, You obviously don’t understand the “true Scotsman” fallacy because you went right ahead and used it again. True complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Claiming Wolfram knows better is just an appeal to authority.

Tom Moore did not commit a True Scotsman Fallacy — he provided a definition. Simply substitute the definition wherever you see the phrase. Nor is it an appeal to authority. He's just using a particular definition which he provided to you. (It was obvious from context, per my previous comment above.)

You’re boring me, Tom.

That happens when you can't follow or understand a discussion but get hung up on semantics.

Phffff Zach, you're just using the no 'true tard fallacy.'

Date: 2007/01/07 13:57:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Some quality stuff from davetard:

16. DaveScot // Jan 7th 2007 at 1:59 pm


Some people are better equipped to grasp the complexity and know what it takes to make such complexity materialize. I say to you that people who understand modern factory automation and supply chain management are the best equipped to grapple with the complexity of the simplest free living cell. How much do biologists know of factory automation and supply chain management?

Comment by DaveScot — January 7, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

Okay, I've studied : "Managing Innovation", "Logistics Strategy" and  "Industrial Systems Analysis" in Grad-school at an Ivy league university and worked for an e-procurement vertical in Sunnyvale, and it has fuck all to do with evolution.

I can just imagine what he thinks is going on.. little cell managers using mixed integer linear programming to work out how many enzymes they should make., whilst the little cell Foreman (complete with mini hard-hat) uses the Wilson EOQ Model to work out how much oxygen they'll need.

What a bad bellend.

Date: 2007/01/07 15:35:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 07 2007,15:19)
Ah, yes, DaveTard's old hobbyhorse about how only people who are as ignorant of biology as possible are truly qualified to see the Genius That Is Intelligent Design.

It's the "rule of the tool", he who's good with a hammer sees everything as a nail. But Dave didn't do any SCM / PBE/R as far as I can tell - he claims to have worked on the 'puters themselves, so he's claiming expertise by osmosis?

Date: 2007/01/07 15:38:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Davetard has a rare moment of introspective clarity:

I’ve found that people who point to cranks as authorities are usually cranks themselves.

from here

Date: 2007/01/07 15:46:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave would love to "Sternberg"' him, no doubt..

Date: 2007/01/07 16:10:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 07 2007,16:07)
After having outted a scientist, DaveScot is now trying to teach statistics to a professional data analyst, Febble. (You may remember her from her statistical analysis of the 2004 election/poll results.)

Ah, yes. Here it comes.
Adding insult to injury, when the probablistic resources of rm+ns are scrutinized with 21st century knowledge of the complexities involved that particular fiction doesn’t even pass the giggle test.

Well, you can't argue with that math.

His IQ is 150, in Base 6.

Date: 2007/01/07 16:17:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Dave also gives us this:

which links to some quality Tard indeed.

Note, there is a challenge:

The $64,000 question remains unanswered.

If a pattern like the one above were discovered not in a farmer’s field but carved into an asteroid would you presume it had an origin devoid of intelligent agency?

Answer yes or no, then support your answer. If you dare!

the handwaving in the answers is worth a read.

Date: 2007/01/07 18:29:47, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 07 2007,18:14)
Big strong tard thump chest good now:

Tom Moore

I’m quite certain I spent all the time or more on Wolfram that he deserves.

Your switch of URL was intended to air your discontent at my not approving an unconstructive comment you made. I’m going to go ahead and replace it with a link to your NASA page in the hope that will encourage you to cease the logical fallacies, appeals to crank authorities, and thus make my job easier.

If if weren’t for your position at NASA, an organization I have the utmost respect for, I would’ve banned you for making me waste my time googling up the skinny on Wolfram. Don’t refer me to any crank science again.

Comment by DaveScot — January 7, 2007 @ 5:16 pm

Dont refer me to any crank science again!
Oh... No comments from UD, then DT?

You Sternberger, you.

Date: 2007/01/07 18:37:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Oh, fine K.E. - qoute him but don't bother with mine:


Date: 2007/01/07 21:30:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Zero surfaces:


I deleted your comment as spam. Your endless, pointless numerology has absolutely nothing to do with this post. If you want to post more of your silly gibberish, you can wait until I post something else about numerology; otherwise, take
it somewhere were someone cares.

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 7, 2007 08:48 PM

Date: 2007/01/08 14:57:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,14:48)
Dang, Dumbski's inane copy & paste posts are threatening to push DaveTard's comedy off of the front page!  

That's the idea...

I recall 6 nonsense posts after Davetards "ACLU marines" laughathon by d*mbski to try and bail him out.

Date: 2007/01/08 16:33:40, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,16:17)
8. DaveScot  // Jan 8th 2007 at 4:33 pm



Dick Butkus would approve. :-)

Comment by DaveScot — January 8, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

Actually, the post really wasn't that brutal.  It was just more creationist rhetoric.  Well, now we know who to ask if we want to know what Dumbski's scrotum tastes like.

Scrotal licking is probably a 'stoning in the town square' type punishment as per the designer's book.

Date: 2007/01/08 19:53:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Poor old JAD:

Date: 2007/01/09 01:38:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Modest from Tardville writes:

86. DaveScot // Jan 9th 2007 at 12:22 am


No size limits. Must have been a high probability spam word in it. The lengthier the comment the more likely it is to have a spam word in it.


If developers do what amateurs always do - just start coding right away - disaster awaits.
Costs will sky rocket, overtime will be painful, debugging will never end and you risk losing the client (and then your job).

That’s what they tell you in school but if you ever get a chance to work with a gifted programmer you’ll find out the rule has its exceptions. The exceptions are what are known in the business as “star programmers”. They’re about as rare are pro ball players and usually end up earning about as much. They’re 10+ times more productive than average programmers. Familiar names that come to mind are John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, and Tim Berners-Lee… I’ve clocked myself writing over 300 lines of assembly or C code per hour that often executes flawlessly on the first pass (including a clean compilation on the first pass). I can code almost without syntactical or logical error as fast as I can type and I can type pretty #### fast. I’ve written literally millions of lines of code that has gone into billions upon billions of dollars worth of computer systems. Virtually none of it was done according to the structured/team programming rules you were taught. At the top of my game I was making about $1000 per hour and my mistakes, (which I didn’t make and had a long track record of not making) had the potential of each costing millions of dollars PER DAY in stalled computer manufacturing lines all over the world.

Opportunities for star programmers to perform one-man miracles have declined as software has grown in sophistication over the decades. Even someone who can crank out a thousand lines of debugged code a day can only do a quarter million lines in a year. 25 years ago that was enough for one major application like Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordstar or DOS or a couple of arcade games like Star Wars or Defender. Anymore these kind of projects require a million lines or more and while you might have a star programmer on the project he won’t be a lone wolf and so has to be a team player working with version control systems, group coding standards, et cetera. My last hurrah was designing laptops at Dell 10 years ago when there would be two principle engineers on the project - one hardware engineer and one bios engineer. But even PC BIOSes have grown into million+ line behemoths with some of the code 20 years or more old and is beyond the scope of any lone wolf these days.

Comment by DaveScot — January 9, 2007 @ 12:22 am

P.S. Tardy, Carmack is known for advancing graphics and rendering, not his code. I think it's his conceptual grasp not fast fingers that did it.

Date: 2007/01/09 01:48:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
This is *exactly* how evolution works:

In other news, engineering makes you stupid.

Date: 2007/01/09 12:12:55, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 09 2007,12:00)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 09 2007,05:58)
At the top of his game? Why, may I ask, is he no longer at the top?

Perhaps Dell found someone with a 160 IQ (as measured by scores from SATs taken at the age of 25) or who had a more advanced science degree (obtained through decades of reading Scientific American).

Phhhh. But what about his Hard Sci-Fi reading?

You do him a great disservice.

Date: 2007/01/09 15:18:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
You get that money by being a concept architect. No one is writing code for that. If someone is that good should but them in an enviroment that leverages their ability.

Date: 2007/01/09 16:23:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes




Date: 2007/01/09 16:41:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 09 2007,16:37)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2007,14:57)
Re "As for $1000 per hour, does that sound realistic to any fellow programmers in the US?"

No. At the least, it'd have to be a very specialized type of programming to rate that. I've heard of people getting maybe 50 or 60 per hour, so I'd expect that 20 times that would be extremely rare if it exists.


I'll bet what happened is someone gave him a lump sum of two grand for a particular job which ended up only taking him two hours. He has since reinterpreted this in his mind as "I used to get paid a thousand dollars an hour".


Date: 2007/01/09 16:47:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 09 2007,16:44)

gawd that following picture of your handiwork made me spill my coffee (out of my nose).


Date: 2007/01/09 17:12:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 09 2007,17:04)
First thing here that has LITERALLY (as DT would say) made me wet myself...


Date: 2007/01/09 18:02:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Can someone get me an RSS feed of OE? I just can't keep up!

Recent comments
A matter of discernment.

2 days 8 hours ago
Throwing Helena to the Wolves

6 days 3 hours ago

6 days 5 hours ago
Possible Interpretations

1 week 4 hours ago
Fossil Record

1 week 5 hours ago
Science vs. Religion

1 week 5 hours ago
Truth is truth

1 week 14 hours ago

1 week 21 hours ago
It will be great to have ID

1 week 1 day ago
ID in the UK

1 week 1 day ago

Date: 2007/01/10 00:13:29, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Still licking his wounds from

Sal goes home away from any intellectual influences and posts this nugget:

33. scordova // Jan 9th 2007 at 11:25 pm

>> That’s why they’re engineers, not scientists.

Not quite. That’s why scientists need to be engineers and not Darwinists.

Comment by scordova — January 9, 2007 @ 11:25 pm

Date: 2007/01/10 00:47:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 10 2007,00:40)
I've noticed the "If the horse is dead..." thread at UD has dropped from 13 to 12 comments. Just for the record the deleted comment was
12. Inquisitive Brain  // Jan 9th 2007 at 2:08 pm


   If the horse is dead, why keep beating it?

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

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

I was surprised it appeared at all.

He'll be on double not-so-secret moderation.

Date: 2007/01/10 00:56:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
GOP: "The fact that you can't handle an unpleasant truth is not my concern"

So you wont post about it and look a twat then...ooops, too late. D'OH!

Date: 2007/01/10 12:31:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 10 2007,12:22)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 10 2007,07:15)
Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re so desperate for something to talk about that when I ban someone it’s front page news over there.

"Over on Uncommon Descent they’re so desperate for something to talk about that when ATBC talks about Dave banning someone, it’s front page news at UD."

Please note it *didn't* make the front page here. It made the funnies, though.


Date: 2007/01/10 13:49:28, Link
Author: Richardthughes
that's my third, I believe.

Here's an oldie:

they're 'all caps' nowadays.


Date: 2007/01/10 15:26:00, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 10 2007,15:00)
Hey, DaveTard, dipsh*t, anyone can google chromatid and cut and paste the definition of chromatid:

It doesn't mean you understand a darn thing about it.  Why not quit googling and wikipedia-ing everything and try to understand it.  Your 150+ IQ should make this part of learning easy.  F*cking knobtard.


Date: 2007/01/10 15:47:50, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Your signature is the height of tard, you intellectual self-harmer.

How is the rotor high tech and alien? Because it is? because it looks it?

Canals on mars look designed, but they aren't!

Date: 2007/01/10 16:33:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes

I've lost one of my Tard monologues.. the one about Dave visiting Carl Sagan in h311? Can someone find it for me?

Date: 2007/01/10 16:49:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
IQ OF 150+

150 + -44

Date: 2007/01/10 17:42:09, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Ladies and Gentlemen and Arden..

I present the Meta-Strawman!

23. DaveScot // Jan 10th 2007 at 5:34 pm

If they’re informed, civil, and don’t use strawmen they do get to stay. The problem is that if a NeoDawinist has his hands tied behind his back in that manner he can’t possibly support the party line so you won’t see them commenting here very often but they do show up on occasion and are not moderated because I trust they will remain grounded in science and real evidence.

Comment by DaveScot — January 10, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

Date: 2007/01/10 17:57:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
*laughs at Sal*

24. scordova // Jan 10th 2007 at 5:58 pm


Thank you for permitting some of the PT contributors to post here (like Krebs, Bottaro, etc.).

Even in time of war, channels of diplomacy are often maintained. I think it appropriate we be seen as quite willing to engage the varsity among the critics including Matzke, Hoppe, Bottaro, Musgrave, Inlay, Rosenhouse, Theobold, or any of the Talk Origin crew. As dismissive as we may feel toward some of them, some of our readers, particularly the new comers and young would enjoy seeing the exchanges.

I personally would like to see Barbara Forrest make several appearances here….

Comment by scordova — January 10, 2007 @ 5:58 pm

like this, Sal?


It's fascinating to see you challenging John von Post to show some actual numbers/calculations about the bandwidth of an evolutionary process over time, when you have never presented any numbers or calculations for your argument. You made the assertion about "channel capacity", but without bothering to define the channel in a mathematical way! How is anyone supposed to refute that mathematically? It's just another round of the same old nonsense: you don't define your terms precisely, so then you can wave off any critique by saying that it's using the wrong definition.

It's the same game that Bill Dembski constantly uses for CSI - he refuses to settle on a single consistent definition of "specification" - and then he can cut down any criticism of the concept of specified complexity by saying "you got the definition wrong".

If you want to make an argument from Shannon theory that the "channel capacity" of the evolutionary process is insufficient, it's up to you to make that argument: you need to define what you mean by the channel, show how you did the computation of the Shannon capacity of
that channel, and show that the amount of information required by an evolutionary process exceeds that channel capacity. You haven't done that - and so there's no way to meaningfully refute your claim, because it's not sufficiently defined for anyone to be able to tell whether or not they're addressing the actual argument you claim to be making.

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 10, 2007 08:43 AM

Date: 2007/01/10 18:25:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 10 2007,18:13)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 10 2007,15:08)
Re " "The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10^-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." In a population 10^9, that means every mutation probably occurs in every human generation. "

That's for alleles that are widespread in the population. For less than widespread alleles it'd depend on the number of individuals with that allele.

A reasonable point, even though most alleles have more similarities than differences. And actually, they would be homologs, so I think we would still count it as the same mutation if it was in homologous base.

But truthfully, I typed that phrase in, looked at it askance, then tried adding "probably" into a couple of different places, here and there, finally settling on "probably occurs", and thinking 'That'll fix it'. But, as you suggest, I might have needed to add "nearly". Try, In a population of six or seven billion, that means nearly every possible point mutation occurs in each human generation.

I'm not sure if that completely satsifies your objection. But then I started thinking. (And that always means trouble.) Do we really have enough replications to ensure each base gets hit?

Rate of Mutation = 2.5 * 10^-8

M, Chance of missing a specified base with a mutation =
(1- Rate of Mutation) = 0.999999975

Chance of continually missing the base with a mutation after T trials = M^T

Every 28 million births or so (or about every five months at the current global birth rate) gives us an even chance of hitting our specified base. After just a billion births,(every seven years or so), the chance of not ever hitting our base is one in seventy-some billion.




Date: 2007/01/10 19:09:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 10 2007,18:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 10 2007,19:25)

what the #### did I get put in charge of again? Maybe I can look up Patrick Swayze and see if he's still in charge of clearing out bars...


Date: 2007/01/10 19:28:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes

He inferred the possibility of black holes twenty years before Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar did.


In The Animate and the Inanimate (1925), Sidis predicted the existence of dark matter (not black holes as is often mistaken).

Date: 2007/01/10 20:14:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2007/01/10 22:53:25, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow.. a D*mbski post:

15. William Dembski // Jan 10th 2007 at 11:49 pm

15. William Dembski // Jan 10th 2007 at 11:49 pm

Just to be clear about DaveScot’s role in this — he has my full approval to act as an agent in arranging this debate. Also, I’m willing to forgo an honrarium and cover my own costs to make this happen (provided, of course, that Barbara Forrest does the same — if here expenses are covered, so must mine; if she receives an honorarium, so must I).

Comment by William Dembski — January 10, 2007 @ 11:49 pm

Good lapdog, Davetard. Dembski's child like ego will not tolerate Forrest getting something and him not. I bet the venue would be St Gods church of Jesus in Texas or some such.

Date: 2007/01/10 23:40:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 10 2007,23:25)
wait... why does this "debate challenge" sound so familiar?

hasn't WD40 beaten around this bush before, then backed out because nobody could meet his "terms"?


A bottle of single malt scotch for you.

Date: 2007/01/11 11:15:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Great commentray of the "free marketplace of Ideas" that is UD:

Posted by sparc on January 11, 2007 10:54 AM (e)

For those of you crying that Panda’s Thumb censors too, here is a major difference:

All comments at Uncommon Descent start out censored until they eventually get the all clear from the mods, either by being hand-vetted or by having one’s name placed on a sycophant list.

At Panda’s Thumb, all comments start out as automatically appearing and one needs to work hard to earn a ban.

That’s a major difference.

But the main difference is that at PD nuts are only occasionally commenting whereas at ID they are posting.

Date: 2007/01/11 13:35:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes

Date: 2007/01/11 13:42:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Post batching?

I see threads have new posts from teh contoll screens but when I click on the posts they're not yet there.

Date: 2007/01/11 16:18:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 11 2007,15:27)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 11 2007,15:08)
If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).

OMG.  This is close to the the most ridiculously hilarious thing Dembksi has ever said in public.  
I hope this broadcast far and wide.

I think it deserves its own thread at PT. Is anyone reading this in a position to start one?

It's on Pharyngula now.

Date: 2007/01/11 16:50:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It must be a mental block. From the blog of mysterious revisionism, deletion and legal threats if you archive them:

scordova // Jan 11th 2007 at 5:33 pm

By the way, does any one here save TalkOrigin’s articles. We may want to preserve some of their articles for posterity before they withdraw them in embarrassment….

Comment by scordova — January 11, 2007 @ 5:33 pm

In other news, we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Date: 2007/01/11 17:18:54, Link
Author: Richardthughes
from Wikipedia:

The observer-expectancy effect, in science, is a cognitive bias that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it. Because it can skew the results of experiments (especially on human subjects), double-blind methodology is used to eliminate the effect.

Observer-expectancy effect is often a cause of "odd" results in many experiments, notably in paranormal investigations. One famous example was the horse Clever Hans, who seemed to be performing arithmetic and other amazing skills, but in reality took cues transmitted unconsciously by his trainer and observers. In another experiment, children were given laboratory mice and told that some were bred for intelligence, some for dullness. In reality, the rats were chosen at random, but the children reported that the "smart" rats learned mazes faster than the "dumb" rats.

Another example of the observer-expectancy effect is demonstrated in music backtracking; some people expect to hear hidden messages when reversing songs, and therefore hear the messages, but to others it sounds like nothing more than random sounds. Often when a song is played backwards, a listener will fail to notice the "hidden" lyrics until they are explicitly pointed out, after which they are obvious. Other prominent examples include facilitated communication and dowsing.

The observer-expectancy effect is also called the experimenter-expectancy effect, observer effect, or experimenter effect.

This seems to be a current theme running through all types of creationism, as they struggle to see what they are told in the bible. I would be interested in the thoughts of more learned minds.


Date: 2007/01/11 18:40:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 11 2007,17:35)
I have found a siggy!

..and failed me in biology!

Date: 2007/01/12 10:16:33, Link
Author: Richardthughes

25. DaveScot // Jan 12th 2007 at 4:43 am


Does Dr. Dembski not realize that the vast majority of “Biological Engineers” are also “Evolutionists”?

Do you have a poll to support this or is it just a guess based on your limited experience at a notoriously liberal university?

Comment by DaveScot — January 12, 2007 @ 4:43 am

Get ready for "no true Engineer"

Date: 2007/01/12 10:27:15, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Haha, *laughs at SalTard & JAD*:


(1) That is not a Shannon definition of channel capacity. That's a bunch of random handwaving. Do you even know how Shannon defines channel capacity, or how its computed?

(2) You do a great job of demonstrating exactly why Shannon is not appropriate for this purpose. Shannon theory is based on the idea of a fixed message travelling over a fixed channel. Your explanation of the channel essentially sees the genome of a species as a single message being transferred down a channel. But that's not how it works. The genome is millions of copies, all of them changing slowly, and being dynamically mixed and recombined. If you were to take your babble, and actually turn it into a mathematical definition of a channel, you still wouldn't have an accurate model - because you're basing your assumptions on a single message, ignoring copying and recombination, ignoring the fact that there's numerous individuals and variation between the individuals, ignoring the fact that changes are occurring simultaneously.

(3) You'll pardon me if I refuse to take a discussion at UD seriously, given that UD has a long history of banning anyone who so much as questions the party line. What kind of real scientific discussion can you have when anyone who disagrees is immediately banned from the forum?

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 12, 2007 08:06 AM


You want to go off and brag about how you've been banned from another site, you go right ahead and do it. I am not going to tolerate this bullshit any more. I've tried politely asking you questions; politely warning you about attacking people; not-so-politely warning you; editing the insults out of your comments - and all it's accomplished is to feed your ego. So fine - congratulation, you're the first person who I've banned. Go away, and brag someplace else about how I banned you.

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | January 12, 2007 09:36 AM

Date: 2007/01/12 15:07:03, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 12 2007,14:56)
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 12 2007,03:45)
Wow. I just struck the motherload.

Top atheist quotes

Some of those (read most), I found funny. Especially the church steeple with the lightning conductor.

However the "dark ages" quote I found contrary. IIRC the "dark ages" in England are the years that churches got burned. This destroyed historical records. Hence those years became dark in a historical perspective. No records available to "shed light" etc.

Now I may very well be wrong on this as my "enlightenment" was via TV. But I think that in England the "dark ages" refer mainly to northern England as the Viking settlers destroyed churches (and all the records they held) leading to a dearth of knowledge of what actually occured in those years.

Meanwhile in southern England, Churches continued to maintain lists of birth/marriage/death etc.

EDIT: Very rough POV. Feel free to destroy it.
EDIT2: I really do not mind my POV being destroyed. Especially if I learn from it.

i think you're right about the dark ages. The loss of Church records and other codified knowledge not the fault of religion. That is not to say that anti-intellectualism doesn't run through religion *glares at UD*. It was also a crappy time for the unwashed massed as well, (Feudal system?) and so the term dark works on a couple levels.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:49:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Mentok's mentalist diatribe:

Here's the bit I like:

Schools are not just about education, they are also about indoctrination.

YES! Indoctrinating with facts from their FACT BASED AGENDA!

Someone call Bill O Reilly.
Speaking of which, he's on colbert and vise versa on the 18th.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:56:46, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 12 2007,16:49)
Quote (djmullen @ Jan. 12 2007,00:55)
From the "Truly Programmable Matter" thread:    
4. antg // Jan 11th 2007 at 4:32 am


In your hypothetical university, would you be happy for for the faculty to freely follow any research avenue they wish, including (naturalistic) evolution?

Comment by antg — January 11, 2007 @ 4:32 am
5. William Dembski // Jan 11th 2007 at 9:00 am

antg: Yes, provided the university doesn’t have to pay the bill for their research.

Comment by William Dembski — January 11, 2007 @ 9:00 am

Yeah, why pay people to do research that's just going to disprove Bill's cherished illusions?

I think the main point of this whole thread is that Bill has finally figured out that he's never going to get tenure.

And we all know that very rarely does a university foot the bill for research (maybe in Europe they do, but not in the US). Unless a professor's chair is endowed (and then it's the endowment footing some bills), the funds come from government and private grants. ####, Bill Dembski, you'd be a fool not to scrape off those grants for the university. I know departments usually take their cut from the grants and that's what pays the utilities, etc.

Bill Dembski, do you even know how academic scientific research is really done?

Unless Dembski is saying that he would just keep 100% of the grant and not let the professor do any research with it. Of course, that professor (and likely the department) would not be seeing any proposals funded afterwards.

(ps- and I now realize that in the other post I am echoing the sentiments of steve_h above.)

Hey, it's NOT for a reason...

Date: 2007/01/12 17:28:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes

He's going to kick Blipey's arse? *shakes head and smiles*

Meanwhile this:

must surely be animatronics?

Date: 2007/01/12 17:46:08, Link
Author: Richardthughes



or Principle skinners mum?


Date: 2007/01/12 19:40:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 12 2007,19:01)


leaning forward, pensive,faraway look in his eyes, just a T-shirt on...

He's taking a dump.

Contrast this picture of senile hugability with his self-image:

I'm 5'10", 220#, strong as an ox, carry concealed, and am trained to fight by the premier institution dedicated to the art of human slaughter in the world today - The United States Marine Corps. Like a well trained police dog the concept of losing a fight is inconceivable to me. Bring it on, beeatch.

Date: 2007/01/12 19:51:34, Link
Author: Richardthughes
All my fault, apparently:

Date: 2007/01/12 19:59:36, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Ogee @ Jan. 12 2007,18:54)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 12 2007,17:29)

You know, somehow I knew DaveTard would look like that. My Comic Book Guy guess wasn't too far off the mark.

To me, he kind of looks like an older, fatter, dumber Stephen Root.

Stephen Root's agent called and he's NOT happy.

Date: 2007/01/12 20:31:43, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 12 2007,20:06)
LOL@all of you!



Date: 2007/01/12 20:53:26, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Wow Lenny..rape and pillage much?

Date: 2007/01/13 07:50:19, Link
Author: Richardthughes
He looks so *special*, you just want to hug him... :)
although he may smell funky.  ???

Date: 2007/01/13 17:21:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Homeotic (Hox) genes are usually clustered and arranged in the same order as they are expressed along the anteroposterior ...

Date: 2007/01/13 22:22:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 13 2007,20:44)
Well, can someone remind me why GoP wasn't banned for trolling this board (actually him and a second person) for over a year? I don't recall any mitigating circumstances being mentioned at the time. It certainly can't be his sparkling personality.

Martyr Syndrome.

He'll be after his crown of thorns next.

Date: 2007/01/14 11:45:32, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 14 2007,10:34)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 14 2007,09:54)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 14 2007,09:36)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 14 2007,00:16)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 12 2007,22:32)
When are you going to meet him in Austin?

Don't have my Texas swing finalized (the booking agent only finalizes schedules a week in advance), but we're in the area in March.

What will you do if he calls you a maggot and tells you to drop and give him twenty?

Look for the intelligent designer that created the sound system that would be piping in an actual drill sargeant's voice.

Are you thinking that he's got one of those high squeeky little kid voices too?

I am.

me thinkths that he'th a lithper.

Date: 2007/01/14 16:24:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Heads up
I am conducting an Intelligent Design Experiment. PM me if you want the details. ;)

Date: 2007/01/14 18:13:44, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Evilutionists make accurate predictions!

Date: 2007/01/14 19:59:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
ID - can detect supernatural design, can't accurately age the earth or universe.

Date: 2007/01/14 23:06:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (jupiter @ Jan. 14 2007,22:47)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 14 2007,12:21)
For anyone who is interested, I've made toilet paper with DaveTard's likeness on each perforated sheet.  It will be for sale via my website at $5 per roll not including shipping.  One word of warning-- until I get the kinks worked out, it is very abrasive to the anus.

"Abrasive to the anus"? That's surprising. You'd think DaveTard would exercise some sort of professional courtesy to prevent that.

Then again, DaveTard's photo seems to indicate that he's averse to exercise in any form.

"I'm 5'10", 220#, strong as an ox..." - Davetard.

4'10, maybe?

Date: 2007/01/14 23:43:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
DaveTard's been *very* quiet of late.

We love you Dave, stay in touch.

Date: 2007/01/15 01:53:04, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 15 2007,01:02)
Null, not Hull.

Wesley.. you're like a lurker here.. I was going to use the EF to see if you existed.. but then you posted!

Date: 2007/01/15 02:51:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Stinky Fat Grandad Writes:



3:16 am
Bob OH

What about the deist and theist biologists that reject ID?

They only reject the strawman “ID Creationism” (scientific creationism in a cheap tuxedo) that certain despicable and intellectually dishonest ID bashers have made of it.

Too right, the real, non strawman, falsifiable, prediction making and emperically tested in many labs ID is perfectly congruent with science.

Date: 2007/01/15 03:09:58, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2007,03:02)
at the "shit, quick, post something, anything" OW

Yeah... I suppose. But don't you think the biologists knew this? I guess some of them were faking their evidence. I think evolutionists fake their evidence all the time. Why isn't there something to stop them doing that? When other scientists find out about this fraud it's going to be some big trouble.

OK, own up, who's sockpuppeting citizenbob? Whoever you are, keep it up :)

We know bacteria can resist the most cleverly designed drugs but can we be expected to believe that a purely natural "dumb" process can outsmart the best scientists? Is it not possible that the Intelligent Designer is still at work and merely wishes that man does not upset the order of his creation, and he does so by limiting our use of these drugs.

more Bob

I think evolutionists fake their evidence all the time. Why isn't there something to stop them doing that? When other scientists find out about this fraud it's going to be some big trouble.


Date: 2007/01/15 10:39:57, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2007,09:41)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 15 2007,10:29)
I need a drink.  And it's only 10 in the morning.

Yeah, well, it's uh, midnight in Japan or somewhere. Tear it up.

Steven Hawkings thinks we must colonize space to ensure the survival of mankind. I think we must colonize space so that IT CAN ALWAYS BE FRIDAY NIGHT SOMEWHERE

Date: 2007/01/15 11:22:35, Link
Author: Richardthughes
It's still happening.. I know there's new stuff, I just can't see it.

Date: 2007/01/15 13:38:06, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2007,13:32)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2007,13:47)
The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is a student organization dedicated to:

1) investigating intelligent design as a viable scientific theory
2) promoting education and critical thinking about neo-Darwinism
3) supporting efforts of those trying to revise school standards to include discussion of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory
4) providing a forum for high school and college students to present, debate, and discuss their ideas about intelligent design and neo-Darwinism
5) clarifying the debate concerning neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and creationism
6) encouraging creative exploration of the aesthetic dimensions of design.

1: ID Theory: "One or more things in the world was probably designed, we absolutely can't tell you by whom, and we can't give you any details." What's to investigate? You're done. That's not a scientific theory, it's religion based deception.

3: "Teach the Controversy" has been dead for 13 months.

2,4,5: Babble endlessly on the internet about how you're revolution's going to kick in, any day now.

6 ah, ID art.

You idiots kind of gave away the game right there, didn't you?[/quote]

Date: 2007/01/15 13:49:27, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2007,13:44)
Re "Scientists now believe that the universe did have a beginning and is finite. "

Do scientists think that the space in which we live is finite? (or might be?)

As I recall, relativity implies that if a space-time is going to eventually collapse on itself, then that space would be finite, but if a space-time isn't going to collapse then it would be infinite. Do those two conclusions still hold when all the dark matter and dark energy theories are added to the picture?


I went to a talk on "entropy" at our local cafe scientific, so that Davtard couldn't violate me like his SLoT whore. There's a theory out there that given enough time big bangs occur, quantum theory shows us something from nothing happening - so it may just be the frequency of the event. Imagine our universe dying the cold heat death of continuous expansion, only for another big bang to happen eons later. This technically needn't be an entropy violation, FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

Turtles all the way down, baby!

Date: 2007/01/15 13:59:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 15 2007,13:51)
Tell me which thread(s), and I will see if I can fix it.

So far only on the 'uncommonly desnse' thread. It seems to occur when a new pages starts.. I get the old page (as the last page) whilst new posts go on the new page.

Date: 2007/01/15 14:05:07, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,11:34)
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 15 2007,11:29)
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 15 2007,11:21)
With the citizenbob thread - sockpuppetry or not - we really have hit the motherlode of stupid.

I was debating which tardalicious statements to include in the quotes.  There was so much tard I had to leave some out.

Didn't someone invent a measure of tard recently?

Work per unit Dumb or something?

If not then we need an SI measure soon.

Could use the Dembski scale. It would be a tad (tard?) like farads for capacitance.
For regular everyday use we would have to deal in micro D'Ms (pronounced Dumms, spelt in full as DeMskis).

Homo's per banning - DT

Date: 2007/01/15 21:02:41, Link
Author: Richardthughes


4:05 pm
Maybe the evolution story tellers will make a prediction for us.

Erm, okay. I predict Dave wont choose salad for dinner.

Date: 2007/01/15 21:39:23, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,18:42)
Ha, ha. Joseph challenges Lenny to a physical fight.
This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

(and clarifies he does mean a physical fight in the comments)
The OP is all about physical confrontation, ie fighting

Oh, man. Lenny, you should definitelyagree to meet him somewhere, preferably in the middle of nowhere. Then follow Dembski's lead.

Ah the time honored tradition tradition of bashing people for Jesus. Why do Tard and violence go hand in hand?

Date: 2007/01/15 23:13:17, Link
Author: Richardthughes
More Joe:

Joe G said...
Do you think it might have been metaphoric, Joe?

I have dealt with Lenny before and only an ignoramus would think he was using a metaphor.

is that how the intelligent reason, with their fists?

There isn't any reasoning with Lenny or his ilk. This type of thing is all they understand.

If you think he was serious, do you think that two wrongs make a right?

I don't see anything wrong with kicking his ass. He wants it and he deserves it. I am just volunteering to let him have it.

Or is violence the right way to make a point?

What point? I just want to shut him up.

What is wrong with seeing natural selection is action?

Buy a vowel limp dick...

Clearly he didn't take Nested Hierarchies too well..

Date: 2007/01/16 10:43:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 16 2007,10:31)
Mentok wails :  
Funny how they can spend time on religious critiques of ID yet refuse to take seriously the scientific challenges to evolution. Can they answer why,if humans evolved from apes, then why are apes better suited for survival in the wild? Sure having our brain power is better for survival, but we are weaker, we can’t subsist on the vegetation we find around us...

Yow. Multi-leveled tard. Hunter-gatherers subsist on "vegetation" we find around us, along with even just insect-derived amino acid supplements. And they...*gasp* survive in the wild just fine. This leads to cultivation of selected wild stands of plants, then domestication and agriculture. A chimp can kill me in wrestling, and can bite real good. So?  But chimps are better at "subsistence?"? Yow. He might as well be trotting out the old standby: "If we evloved frum munkeys, Y R their still MUNKEYS?!?"  Teh tard it burns!

Its a common IDist failing.

Evolution is about organism-environment fit.  What works in one place doesn't in another. If an environment is influx then there should be more evolution.

Evolution ISNT this continuum from 'not every evolved to very evolved'.

Date: 2007/01/16 11:01:37, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 16 2007,03:17)
Ah but this does have significance.

The violent fantasies of JoeG et al aside, the reason a lot of these guys get away with their schtick is precisely because they are sufficiently distant and/or anonymous that they CAN'T get their arses kicked.

Can you imagine someone behaving like the Troll in a pub lasting over six minutes? Someone would wrap a bar stool around his pointy head. Not of course that I am advocating or supporting such a vile act, that isn't my point. My point is that these trolls get away with it precisely because they are remote.

Anecdotal data from T.O. Howlerfests suggests that the McNamelesses, Uncle Daveys, Jason Gastriches et al of this world are really very mild mannered and pleasant company in person. I'd bet money that D'Tard is relatively personable in the flesh, and Demsbki etc.

The problem being that these silly cowards use the internet like Superman's phone box. They enter mild mannered Clark Clueless and emerge as SUPERTARD!

Supertard doesn't need evidence! If the evidence is against Supertard it's obviously a conspiracy.

Supertard doesn't need data! The whole world has to convince Supertard personally that the world is the way it is.

Supertard doesn't have to demonstrate his claims! Supertard's claims are the default, ignore that pesky multi millenia long quest for knowledge by lesser beings than Supertard in which Supertard's claims have already been refuted.

Supertard doesn't need to ACTUALLY defeat the villains! Supertard wins every contest in his own mind, which is all that counts, Supertard can declare WICTORY at any point he likes.

Supertard is a Super genius and Macho Man! Supertard's mild mannered 50kg 1.55m weakling who couldn't think or fight his way out of a wet paper bag is a cover for Supertard's REAL identity. Supertard bestrides the internet like an Ubermensch Collossus. Villains fall left and right, Kerpow, Splat, Kerdevastinginargument.

Supertard is a self deluding little maggot with aspirations of adequacy. Supertard should be chemically sterilised to protect the species gene pool.*


*Dumb fuck creationsts and quote miners, this is not a serious proposal, it is a joke. Rather like YOU are a joke.

The term I quite like for these keyboard-warriors is cyberhoolies. every-one's a killing machine from behind their keyboards and the anonymity of the Internet. Not me though, I'm a hugging machine. Besides, talkers aint fighters and fighters aint talkers.

Date: 2007/01/16 11:48:10, Link
Author: Richardthughes
He's replied.

here's a good bit:

Nope. I never threatened anyone, anywhere at any time.

but, top of the thread:

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

DaveTard should be worried about his Tardcrown. This Joe G is quantum Tard. Its good to have a new "Tard of the week", IN a week where DaveTard shows us his old, porky decrepit form

Date: 2007/01/16 13:32:20, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2007,13:22)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 16 2007,13:23)
She wouldn't know scientific data if it was stuffed up her pu$$y.

Let me just put in a request that people here not descend to JoeG's level.

I agree, although Joe seems to be suggesting a new type of explanitory filter. "Is that science, miss jones?"

"No.. but I like it"


*Gets hat and coat.*

Date: 2007/01/16 14:14:38, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2007,14:06)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 16 2007,14:56)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2007,13:38)
It's just generally a good idea to keep the tone of the place such that it doesn't turn people off.

If it;s such a good idea, then why are there still Tards at UD?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I *think* he's saying they still have a readership, despite the tone.

But, look at the quality of their readership (that doesn't go to laugh). I think Steve is saying lets stay attractive to those highbrow sciencey fact-based elitist types who live in their ivory towers and do actual research.

Date: 2007/01/16 15:12:11, Link
Author: Richardthughes
So just to recap -
Kristine is a foul mouthed, tone lowering, hip shaker who's much worse than Joe G.

Now that everyone's happy that's settled, I'm closing the comments -DT

Date: 2007/01/16 18:11:01, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 16 2007,18:09)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,18:42)
This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

I sayeth, Daneaxes and Chainmail, at a time and place of your choosing.

You may borrow one of mine, if you need.

I've never met a fundie yet whose mouth wasn't bigger than his balls.

Goade ye not the Tarde lest the designer thinketh 'I have wrought an imperfect thing, that's the last time I use generic CSI.'

Date: 2007/01/17 13:56:18, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 17 2007,13:04)
When I'm sat at my keyboard, I was in the SAS.

What, Scunthorpe Alloy Services?


Salvation Army Singers.

Date: 2007/01/17 15:09:12, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 17 2007,14:56)
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 17 2007,21:43)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,14:00)
What, Scunthorpe Alloy Services?

Salvation Army Singers.

Are you pair of bastards calling me northern or a god squadder?

Could one of you explain to us Yanks where northerners rank in the British pecking order?

All you need to know is that Louis is a soft southern bastard.

(Actually, so am I, come to think of it).

Shandy Drinkers!

*dons flat cap, pets whippet*

Date: 2007/01/17 15:20:31, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,15:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,15:02)
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 17 2007,20:43)
Could one of you explain to us Yanks where northerners rank in the British pecking order?

Of course, it will be my pleasure.

Without reservation all northerners are feckless, jobless bastards who have litters of bastard snot nosed ill educated brats, all of whom are criminals. They are invariably dole bludging scum who take drugs and beat their wives, who are fat. They have flat caps, whippets and all shag sheep. The one tiny thing they have going for them is that rarely, they just occasionally turn up someone who can brew decent beer.

I hate them all with a passion that borders on the holy and one day the South will rise and we shall sweep them from this green and fertile land.


P.S. I'm joking. There is no real hierarchy. The stereotype is that all northerners are unemployed but "real men" and all southerners are rich but soft, shandy drinking wankers. Sadly the stereotype is....pretty accurate really! ;)

P.P.S. Added in edit: Arden, yes! "Fucking Northern Monkies!"

"I hate these fucking southern fairies!"

Guy Ritchie disclaimer:

He writes one dimensional 'mockney' dialogue for the merrycans to lap up.


Baz: "Sorted?"
Gaz: "Sorted!"
Baz: "Safe...Pucka!"
Gaz: "'cept we owe jimmie three-lives a monkey"
Baz: "A monkey! You're 'avin a giraffe, geezer!"

Guy Ritchie you talentless twat, Sort it awwwt, its a daaaarn saaaarf fing, innit geezer? You're about as London as Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins, you're a propper art-school tarquin you muppet.

Date: 2007/01/17 15:47:13, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,15:41)
P.S. I'm joking. There is no real hierarchy. The stereotype is that all northerners are unemployed but "real men" and all southerners are rich but soft, shandy drinking wankers. Sadly the stereotype is....pretty accurate really!

In my experience, all Englishmen can agree to hate one thing: Liverpudlians.


Date: 2007/01/17 15:59:14, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Good Math, Bad Tard.

Date: 2007/01/17 16:19:49, Link
Author: Richardthughes
"actual documentary"!

Calm down! - You should write for the Disco Institute..

Date: 2007/01/18 12:09:05, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,12:02)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,06:52)
Orthodox evolutionists tell us that mutations are random when plotted against fitness but this is not the case.

franky 172 engages DaveScot  
I think you are using the word “random” to mean “uniform probability density function”, when evolutionary biologists are using it to mean “stochastic”, or un-deterministic.

Davetard is quite innumerate. He also has problems with recursion, directed search, AI...

Date: 2007/01/18 12:39:45, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2007,12:27)
Patrick, comment #13  
Did you ever get around to designing a program that could generate an english word with 500 or more informational bits using Darwinian mechanisms? If I remember correctly it was having problems with 80 bits or so.

Assuming 8-bits per letter, that's 60 couple letters. Phrasenation achieves that in just a few hours. Phrasenation is written in a very slow implementation. Now, if I remember correctly, the Universal Probability Bound indictes that this is virtually impossible in a cosmic lifetime.

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

I bet you front loaded it, or designed the fitness function, or it runs on a computer THAT WAS DESIGNED!

Date: 2007/01/18 12:46:39, Link
Author: Richardthughes
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 18 2007,12:22)
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 18 2007,17:45)
OMG, is Dave defending the plausibility of the Pre-Fall world now?


Hey Dave, that "Radiometric dating method exploding" post is long overdue...


D#MN! Now I get it!  I really thought that he was just posting pictures of his pets -- kind of a Friday cat-blogging thing -- and then the YEC retards leapt all over it.  But it was (implicitly) YEC from the start -- and they just picked up on the coded cues.

Little slow on the uptake today.

Don't think cats and dogs are natural enemies in the "hunter / prey" sense. But I'm pleased Dave is back Tarding things up.

Date: 2007/01/18 12:55:02, Link
Author: Richardthughes



Date: 2007/01/18 13:19:00,