AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: SLP

form_srcid: SLP

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.42.165

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: SLP

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2002/12/14 21:30:27, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (katerina @ Dec. 11 2002,07:23)
I just recently clued into this facet of Monsieur Langan's character.  The word that keeps coming to mind is 'penis envy', but I don't know why or if that is valid.

But come on.  If you have never been in a science lab, what do you know about what is going on there?  And if you have never been involved with or been a research scientist, you don't really have a good idea of the financial tension, the long hours, the bizarro lab politics (on occasion), etc.

And if you have never been involved with or been a tenure-track professor, then you have no idea of what the isolation, the carrot-stick tension, the publish or perish pressure, the student loan repayment pressure, is like.

Chris gives professors the kind of prestige that the rest of the American culture does not.

So it's a little sicko.  He envies us.  But he is precisely not the sort of person we care to envy us.

Indeed.

Hello, Kat.

Sorry I did not respond to that email a while back - I hit the delete button instead of the respond button..

Anyway, being banned at ARN and all, I only occasionally stop by to read the sycophants pile on the critics (and get trounced), but this Langan thing is amazing.

I recall reading an old Guiness book of world records years ago, and the record for the highest measured IQ.

The guy worked as a janitor because he claimed that he did not want to be taken advantage of and that the CIA had been pestering him, or something odd like that.

Perhaps it is that folks with super-high IQs also get a dose of instability/paranoia/various other complexes to go along with it.
I think Kat's assessment makes a lot of sense - angry at not being 'recognized' as the super-genius he thinks he is has probably fostered a great deal of resentment and he is lashing out.
Problem is, I don't see what a "self-creating universe" has to do with evolution, but then, I am just a lowly scientist with no philosophy training.

If I may be so bold as to make a prediction - 10 years from now, Langan will have a solid following - primarily ID-types and various hangers-on, none with any real smarts themselves.

His CTMU will still be unpublished - at least via traditional means, and will, regardless, be little mnore than a punchline.

But then, again, I am just a scientist... :(

Date: 2003/01/17 14:26:35, Link
Author: SLP
I must say that this does not surprise me in the least.

ARN regular "Mike Gene" once wrote that he felt that discussion boards like ARN were in fact better than normal peer review because, according to him anyway, more people would read it.

As is mentioned, one of the purposes of review is to weed out inconsistencies, errors, etc.  Yet each and every time "Mike Gene" posted one of his over-lengthy 'essays' on ARN and readers critiques it, he doggedly refused to accept any sort of criticism, as was recently the case with Langan.

Basically, it seems that these folks think they "know it all," and post their thoughts in the 'knowldge' that all will bow to their irreproachable logic and heap accolades upon them.  When this inevitably fails to happen, they, instead of recognizing the shortcomings of their essays/articles, launch into attacks upon their critics.

I've seen it happen so many times, it cannot be coincidence...

Date: 2005/02/07 10:39:45, Link
Author: SLP
Is it just me, or do 'Moderator 6' and 'noboby' have similar posting styles...

Hmmm.....


It appears that ARN is regressing to its old 'ban 'em if they show us up' policy.  Like so many creationist boards, this will cause ARN to become a laughingstock - a parody of itself.

Date: 2005/02/07 10:48:03, Link
Author: SLP
[quote=charlie d,Feb. 06 2005,08:33][/quote]
Quote

Mod6 has been harassing science advocates on ARN for weeks, while letting the most truculent ID advocates free reins.  I got reprimanded a few weeks ago for calling mturner "skyturner" (from Luke Skywalker, because of his metaphysical belief in the power of the Force), in a thread in which mturner was at his most pathological self, freely insulting people, and thumping his chest about "whupping their ass".


So my 'mod6=nobody' idea is not so off the wall after all...
Quote



But now, the best: after my banning, I asked a friend to send the moderation a private message explaining that mod6 reasons for banning me were preposterous, and he got banned too, accused of being my sockpuppet (or I his)!  That's about as clueless as it gets...  LOL


I think that pretty much clinches it!

I've noticed a few other pro-science types that have 'mysteriously' stopped posting out of the blue.  I suspect the purges are beginning, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 'old guard' was behind it - prodding admin to get rid of the evil ones...

And what is the deal with ReMine?  Is he a major egomaniac or what?  I think he is just unable to accept the fact that whatever the merits of his 'model' or his definition or whatever he is calling it might be, it really says nothing of evolution if he cannot tell us how many mutations must have occurred to account for evolution.

It is like he is damning the concept of addition despite the fact that we do not know what X represents in the equation
2+x=5.

Bizarre.

Date: 2006/01/30 09:11:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2006,11:43)
Man, there are some idiots over there at Uncommon Pissant:

Quote
Not only is Dr. Davison an intellectual giant, he is also a giant of intellectual honesty. Truly a rare combination.

Comment by dougmoran — January 28, 2006 @ 10:46 am

A bit disturbing that someone would actually think that of Davison.

As an aside - Davison is not an emeritus prof at UVM.  He is just retired.

Date: 2006/02/01 10:34:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 01 2006,12:24)

(Have I missed something, or has Sal totally dropped out of PT since Dover?)

Sal dropped off KCFS also.

He had been doing drive-bys, mostly, but I had been trying to get him to offer some legitimate discussion on his claim that by employing a 10-letter "toy example" (his words) he could show how evolution should be erasing molecular hierarchies over time, and that their exixtence is a big problem.

His respopnses for fluff and topic changes, primarily.  He just didn't seem to get that 'mutating' a 10-letter sequence over 10 'generations' and 'erasing' a hierarchy is not quite the same thing as mutating a few nucleotides per generation in a genome of billions.

Date: 2006/05/18 14:15:56, Link
Author: slpage
Wow... long thread.

I was flattered to see that I was actually mentioned on Dembski's blog - in the comment section of that asinine ReMine/Haldane thread.

Another computer programmer (JohnnyB) creationist shows his stupidity...

Date: 2006/05/25 09:32:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Aardvark @ May 22 2006,14:47)
Quote

  5.

     You people are retarded.

     The email is a fake and you’re an idiot for not realizing that.

     Good show, Professor. This type of thing does wonders for your credibility.

     Comment by mamoulian — May 22, 2006 @ 2:38 pm


Probably won't last long either...

I found that one especially on-target.
:D

Date: 2006/05/25 09:44:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Drew Headley @ May 23 2006,15:00)
Before reading this quote, please turn off your irony meters.

Turned off?

Good.

Quote
It never ceases to amaze me how many blogs write long, vitriolic attacks on Dembski whenever he posts anything. Just goes to show you, one side of this debate is running out of ideas of their own…

Comment by Qualiatative — May 23, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

I wonder if those stooges realize how utterly bassackwards they are...

It would seem not.

Date: 2006/05/26 05:07:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (beervolcano @ May 25 2006,15:42)
Quote
the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Yet, a wooden boat carrying all the species of the world while a god in the sky flooded the entire planet sounds pretty reasonable.

Or, maybe you don't believe that part of the Bible. But you must believe that a man was born of a virgin, then rose from the dead to take away your sins...at least in order to be head of the IDEA club.

'More faith' than he can muster?  Well, by golly, IT MUST BE FALSE THEN!!!

:D  :D

I see they keep trying ot dig up 'Haldane's dilemma', too...

Don't ask Dung to explain why it is even a 'dilemma', though....

Date: 2006/06/27 09:12:37, Link
Author: slpage
It is an interesting phenomenon, the engineers-as-YEC/IDist thing.  My two oldest nephews are engineers, and neither is a creationist (one has admitted in writing that he would not consider himself informed enough to even draw conclusions on the subject).  Some of the most eloquent and information-packed anti-ID/creationism arguments/'defenses' of evolution I have seen have come from engineers.

Yet, I think it is true, that at least as far as internet and 'professional' anti-evolutionists go, engineers take up a disproportionate number of slots in the 'big tent.'

Take this guy, or this clown, or even old Sal Cordova.

Not only do they convince themselves that they know more than they really do, they all ternd to use pretty much the same silly arguments - no new information (without ever really defining information in a meaningful way), too complex for 'chance', they 'know design' when they see it, etc.

Odd...

Date: 2006/10/02 09:18:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2006,11:37)
Unfortunately, to most people, you come over as an obnoxious crank.

Indeed, Alan.

Not just obnoxious, but irrelevant.  His claims gets demolished on every board he transiently inhabits, which incites him to his paranoid, megalomaniacal excesses.

Date: 2006/10/02 09:24:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 01 2006,19:55)
Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez

 
Quote
I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy.


OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb.

The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly.

Its funny how the IDcreationists try to argue via (pseudo)authority.

Pathetic, yes, but funny.  Especially when one considers how they claim that 'credentials don't matter.'  Unless, of course, it is their supposed credentials which, as we so often see, are totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

Date: 2006/10/02 09:32:05, Link
Author: slpage
A gem from 'Russ':

Quote
The only realm in which I see this kind of litmus test for decency is liberal politics, in which liberals often believe conservatives are evil, but conservatives generally believe liberals are merely mistaken or foolish. Since I believe you identified yourself as a college professor (i.e. someone toiling deep in the heart of political liberalism), that explanation for your comment to bFast seems to fit. Am I mistaken?


Yeah, cuz that Ann Coulter is just so darn friendly to liberals from the get-go...

Date: 2006/10/04 09:52:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,21:15)
Having a closed forum is more than acceptable, but inviting comment, while banning reasonable argument, then crowing how no one has an answer, is beyond the pale.

I'm sure you know, but that is essentially standard operating procedure on most creationist-run boards.

Date: 2006/10/06 06:17:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,15:29)
Do these people get out at all?  OE seems to be attracting the dim-bulbs quite effectively.

In this case Patrick states
 
Quote
More on the subject of flagella:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602043103v1

“The propulsive efficiency, defined as the ratio of the propulsive power output to the rotary power input provided by the motors, is found to be ~ 2%, which is consistent with the efficiency predicted theoretically for a rigid helical coil.”

An engineer can’t get much more efficient than that, in other words, even in theory.


Is this a case where we can apply the design inference to real life?  Is venture capital available and a start-up company in the works????

Why would an engineer design a propulsion unit as a helical coil in real life?  :(  Quick call DoD and have them change their present submarine propellers (probably greater than 60% shaft efficient) for  a rigid helical coil.  The fact that a biological life form has optimized a function to a certain theoretical maximum has nothing to do with ID.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/...comment-153

I liked the first response to that post:

Quote
Thanks for a lot of interesting information. I think it's quite obvious that when we find a "machine" that is more efficient than anything man has made or we can even make theories about, than that has design written all over it. ..

Date: 2006/10/31 05:53:16, Link
Author: slpage
Well, Joseph (Joe Gallien, electronics engineer) would not know research if it bit him.  He is obsessed with 'Privileged Planet" and has declared that if someone watches it and is not an IDer when it is over, they are just liars.
He is too stupid to realize that advocacy videos are not the best place to find unbiased information...

Date: 2006/11/02 10:56:18, Link
Author: slpage
Same old lunatic, being helped along by his 'boy' Sal Cordova.

I see he's still quoting his out-of-date heros...

Pathetic as ever.

Date: 2006/11/06 04:41:30, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ichthyic @ Nov. 03 2006,01:20)
there's only one logical explanation for why UD is delisted, they just don't want to admit it.

they (most likely Dave "I'm such an uber engineer with a genius IQ" Tard) did a no-no that violated google search engine rules, and did it more than once (as you ALWAYS get a warning the first time).

if they want a witchhunt, they should start closer to home.

In fact, it was probably intentional action on the Springerbot's part after being jilted by Dembski in favor of Densye.  I guess he never figured WD40 would welcome him back into a menage-a-trois.

oops.

That would make sense -  he was banned from PT for, among other things (trying to impersonate me, for one), trying to hack the site.

Date: 2006/11/11 08:57:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 11 2006,01:10)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 11 2006,00:51)
Of course, Einstein's model had actual predictive power, unlike ID, and resolved a problem, unlike ID, and experiments were later done to confirm the theory's predictions, unlike ID. (Maybe there was even a Doktor Wilhelm Von Dumbkopfski at a backwater religious college who grumbled about Einstein's pathetic level of detail. ;-) )

Interestingly (ironically?) one of the new IDcreationist mantras is that the bland, imprecise, vague "this is so complex, it must have been designed" IS a 'prediction' and as AdR at ARN indicates, it is actually a 'predictive theory'.

This was in response to discussions on how evolution researchers are often 'surprised' by their discoveries - you see, IDcreationists would never be surprised (if they actually did any research) because they 'predict' that their Designer can do anything...

Date: 2006/11/17 07:39:20, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=IAMB,Nov. 16 2006,14:50][/quote]
Quote

Of course, DT's version of the ban, when asked by a commenter on UD, was something a bit different from reality(Source):
   
Quote
Quoth DT: My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names.

I attempted to explain the situation to the questioner, but naturally my comment never saw the light of day, meaning I never even got banned with insult... I was just simply blinked out of existence by the godlike tard powers of UD.


I have not followed the entire exchange, but if he is referring to his getting banned at PT, then David Scott Springer is a liar.

"Random" names - no, he used MY name, a name he KNEW was real.  He used it in an attempt to make me look bad.  The irrational person he is, he glommed onto me for reasons unknown to me and began, among other things, of accusing me of being 'GWW'.  Which was really odd, since I had only rarely posted at PT at all and when he started mentioning me, I had not even lurked at PT for some time.

He knew exactly what he was doing, and he got caught.

Date: 2006/12/01 11:44:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 30 2006,18:25)
On the Wikipedia thread here, Patrick claimed he too has been grievously wronged.  Within a Wikipedia article on the vermiform appendix, this originally appeared:
           
Quote
One explanation has been that the appendix is a remnant of an earlier function, with no current purpose.

Patrick substituted a much more detailed essay on the possible functions of the appendix, which began thusly:
           
Quote
For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults....

But ALAS!  He was almost immediately reverted, and his post identified as vandalism.

He wasn't entirely unappreciated, however.  Other sycophants at UD commented upon Patrick's erudition:
           
Quote
bFast // Nov 30th 2006 at 5:00 pm

Patrick, your knowledge of the appendix is incredible. I bet that if I assembled all of the physicians in my local hospital, they would not know as much as you about this appendage.

But Patrick is modest:
           
Quote
Not really “impressive”, I just spent the time to look into it. The problem is that the common view of the appendix is so entrenched that it’s become dogma. And information contrary to the dogma is buried under everything else (see TalkOrigins for example).

On a hunch, I googled the sentence, in quotes, "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function."  This turned up a 1999 "Ask the Experts: Medicine" response on Scientific American.com - which happens to be the revolutionary appendix essay Patrick posted on Wikipedia, word for vermiform word. See: Sci Am

The original was penned by Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University. The article, or portions of it, is repeated here and there across the net (blogs and so on), including Patrick's repeat post at Overbearing Ungulates.  Where he again fails to credit the author.  

Way to go Patrick!  See, there is research going on within the ID community.  Not to mention a good deal of cutting and pasting.  

And good work digging up information hidden from us - buried, no less - DEEP within the vaults of Scientific American.

Incredible?  Impressive?  Try, "ridiculous."

What is worse is 'bfast's' drooling admiration of the plagiarist...

Pathetic.

Date: 2006/12/04 09:30:37, Link
Author: slpage
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).

Well, he does have a B.S. in Electronis Engineering, which he claims make shim a 'scientist', therefore, he is an expert on everything.  Because that is what scientists with B.S. degrees are.

Date: 2006/12/18 09:30:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 15 2006,15:49)
Quote (2ndclass @ Dec. 15 2006,10:35)
 
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 15 2006,05:49)
The argumentum ex ididntreallydoitandanywayijustwantedtoseewhatwouldhappen, to use the technical term.

Does anyone remember when Dembski coyly stated that he might be intentionally putting errors in his work just to see if his critics can catch them?  Can't find the quote now.

I don't think it is intentional errors. IIRC it was something about posting a draft version of papers/books to the Internet and then making changes based on criticisms. Of course, the way he described it made it sound like a cynical ploy to address criticisms before the work made it into print rather than after.

Problem with that is Dembski didn't seem to make many changes based on the rebuttals/critiques he got.  Take his 'paper' on human evolutionin which he, like so many creationists, makes a direct analogy between DNA and written language.  The flaws with that reasoning were pointed out by several people, yet it still made it into his final version. I guess when you have an 'argument' that the ignorant masses still swallow, you keep with it.

And Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski knows them all....

Date: 2006/12/18 09:43:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2006,21:35)
And, of course, at the bottom of his last comment he calls women dickheads.  He's such a nice guy.

Joe:

Quote
BTW I looked at your picture and your gender, however those can be faked. It's the way you argue. But then again you could just be a d!ckhead.

Well, until he has 'threatened' you, you just don't know Joe.

You see, a few years ago, I was getting his goat pretty bad on the old OCW forum, and being the obsessive, anti-social, stalker kind of kook he is, he dug up my address, posted it, and declared that 'not everyone drives through Vermont to ski' ...

Of course, I was not the only one he did this sort of thing to - at least two other people had their addresses (one, in I remember correctly, even had his wife's name posted) posted in sick, sad attempts at intimidation.  Being perceived as 'right' is just so important to Joe G.

I believe this was around the time that he claimed that he should be considered a 'scientist' because he had a B.S. in electronics engineering.

Date: 2006/12/18 09:56:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 17 2006,12:29)
Quote
Ya know, every picture that Dembski publishes of himself, like the one at the top of this blog, leaves one with the view that he doesn’t have a sense of humor. Seems like he isn’t allowed to have a sense of humor.

Science not only asks you to accept the fantacy of neo-Darwinian evolution as “fact”, but it seems that you ain’t allowed to fart either.

Comment by bFast — December 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm

Bill can fart all he wants to, bFast, but if he wants our respect, he needs to earn it first.  Claude Shannon's motorized pogo stick?  After he pioneered information theory.  That famous picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue?  After general relativity.  "Isaac Newton" claims notwithstanding, what has Dembski done that we should indulge his flatulent animations?

Well, that is bFast, afterall - the guy who believes that a 2 year old news article disproves Darwinism...

Date: 2006/12/31 15:59:40, Link
Author: slpage
DaveTard:
Quote
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.


Which tells me that a 150+ IQ is not guarantee against being taken in by underinformed rhetoric that you just really don't have a background in...

Date: 2006/12/31 16:18:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,04:09)
I doubt it'll show up there, Joe's blog is moderated the way ID blogs are typically moderated.

BTW, how on earth does Joe expect common descent not to produce a nested hierarchy? What in the world's all that stuff about?

What is it about?  It is about the fact that Joe Gallien doesn't have a freaking clue about any of this stuff.  I had to laugh at his antics in the Neutral Theory thread.  The guy is a git.

Date: 2007/01/09 07:44:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 04 2007,13:02)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2007,12:50)
And FTK has to be an atheist sock puppet, too. I just can’t believe it. *Jaw drops*

Nope, she has her own blog:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/

Her own HEAVILY CENSORED blog - she really doesn't allow comments at all...

Date: 2007/01/09 08:08:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2007,03:17)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1930#comment-83870]DaveT:
 
Quote
That plus I’m a jarhead and I like explosions and other things in general that make loud noises.


*fart*

Taerd seems to have an odd obsession with his short stint as a Marine (supposedly).  He has NOT been a  Marine, if you accept his timeline, for going on 30 years, yet he says he is 'a jarhead'?  I was a paratrooper from 84-88, but I would be embarrassed to claim that 'I'm a paratrooper' 20 years after the fact.
The guy has major ego issues...

Date: 2007/01/09 08:37:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,07:22)
Quote
56. DaveScot  // Jan 8th 2007 at 7:56 am

Freelurker

If you’re an engineer and you’ve never had to find an answer using the scientific method then IMO you’re not doing anything really interesting. Conversely, if you’re a scientist and you haven’t had to engineer experimental apparatus in seeking answers to questions you’re not doing anything really interesting. Both disciplines overlap. The only real difference is motivation. Engineers only do science as needed and scientists only do engineering as needed.

I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for any engineering professor. Surely you’ve heard the saying “if you can’t do, then teach”.

Comment by DaveScot — January 8, 2007 @ 7:56 am


####, DaveTard never fails to maintain his idiocy.  Every post by him on this thread has at least one idiotic statement.  And BTW, DaveTard, it's "No True Scotsman" Fallacy, not the "True Scotman" fallacy.  He can't even get his logical errors straight.  

So according to DT's logic, if a scientist hasn't invented a new contraption in order to do his experiment, his experiment is worthless.  What a first class TARD statement from a first class TARD.

"If you can't do, teach"???????   LOL, I work in an academic clinical setting.  I have to "do" in order to "teach" everyday.  If I didn't, patients would die at the hands of residents.  I've worked private practice and academics.  Academics is by far more challenging in terms of the "do" portion of things.  Another baseless statement from the TARD-extraordinaire.  His level of experience in these matters is limited, yet he proceeds as if he is an expert in these areas.  Pathetic.

The old 'those that you cannot do, teach' is a clever way for those too stupid to teach to denigrate those that do.

it also ignores that fact, as you point out, teachers have to do first, then teach.  In fact, as everyone her eknow, of course, one must 'do' in order to get a job teaching at legitimate, accredited colleges and universities.

Date: 2007/01/17 07:26:58, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,18:42)
Ha, ha. Joseph challenges Lenny to a physical fight.  
Quote
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)  
Quote
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.

Joe has a history of 'challenging' people to fight - and then, I'm sure you will be shocked - backing out.  
He used to write things like "I'm sure if we sat face to face, you would see things my way" when you explained to him that he was wrong about something.
That, and the fact that he took to posting people's home addresses and making little threats, got a few of us at NAIG riled up a few years ago.  I was on spring break, and as I live only 2.5 hours from Boston, I told Joe to name the time and place, providing it was before I had ot go back to work.  Amazingly, Joe stopped posting for several days (after having posted a dozen or more times per day up to then), and the thread scrolled to the bottom of the page.  The day before I have to go back to work, Joe starts posting in the scrolled-down thread about how he is ready 'any time'...

He also pulled something similar with a poster that went by 'Skepticboy' and an other guy named Robert.

He is s typical bully - bluff and bluster when he knows nothing will come of it.

By the way - he has had back surgery...

added in edit - and OA - forgot about that episode....

:p

Date: 2007/01/17 13:13:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,08:10)
Wait that photo is the real Dave Tard?

It appears to be...

Doesn't look 'strong as an ox', either.  Looks a bit... 'tarded...

But you're right - the delusions of grandeur are demonstrated in spades by that pic alone...

Date: 2007/01/17 13:25:29, Link
Author: slpage
Get a load of this meeting of the minds - a lunatic, an asthma researcher, a retired actuary, and an IT technician, all pontificating on evolutionary biology as if they actually understand it...

Date: 2007/01/19 09:34:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,15:24)
Sal Adds:

 
Quote
3

scordova

01/18/2007

4:17 pm
The only ones not qualified to evaluate evolutionary claims objectively are evolutionary biologists. They have a nasty reputation of resisting criticism from other fields.

In contrast, I can’t imagine physicians and engineers resisting criticism from any of the hard science or math. I can’t imagine physicists and chemists and computer scientists telling mathematicians to buzz off. That is unheard of!

Evolutionary biologists seem to have a regular habit of resisting valid criticism from other scientific disciplines….




So what happened here them Sal?

Among Cordova's many other problems - his dishonesty,his basic incompetence, etc. - is his inability to tell the difference between valid criticisms and the uninformed bilge tossed out by creationists with math, law, engineering, etc. degrees.

Any old garbage, Sally old boy, is NOT in fact a valid criticism.

Like, for example, using "toy examples" (Cordova's actual words) of strings of only 8 characters to "prove" that "time erases hierarchies."  Why, amazingly, Cordova was able to "prove" this by using his amazing 8-character string, "mutating" one character each generation, and in only 8 generations, he 'erased' the 'molecular' hierarchy that did not even exist in the first place...

What a 'tard.

Date: 2007/01/19 09:57:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 18 2007,17:58)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 18 2007,16:47)
Being an anesthesiologist and dealing with these guys on a daily basis, orthopods usually are recruited from the best and the brightest in med school but they are FAR from the brightest docs in the OR.  We frequently joke in the OR about their neanderthalic qualities and exchange stories on a regular basis regarding their complete idiocy in dealing with matters outside of bones.  I had a friggin orthopod consult me on a patient with a serum potassium of 3.4 (normally 3.5 to 5.0) once at 6pm.  I told him to go read a textbook and deal with it himself.  I also told him not to consult me at 6pm unless it was an emergency.  I could go on and on about orthopods but I think I'll desist.  It is one of the reasons I am looking for a different hospital---too many orthopods here.  Dr. Cook needs to keep quiet about issues he knows nothing about before he further reinforces the medical stereotype of orthopods.

That hurt, jujuquisp. As a fellow orthopod (although, technically, I need 18 more months and a succesful exam to call myself that), that really hurt.

...And the fact that it's, more or less, absolutely true in many cases, didn't help ease the pain. :(


Soooo, Dr. Cook: Palmaris Longus?

Palmaris longus....

Wow - when I was in grad school, we did clinical correlation exercises with the medical students and one of the activities we did was to interview real patients who would describe their deficits and our job was to try to diagnose their problems (from an anatomical and physiological standpoint).  
Long story short, one fellow had gone in for carpal tunnel surgery and his surgeon snipped his median nerve thinking it was his palmaris longus tendon...

Date: 2007/01/19 10:17:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 19 2007,09:54)
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2007,09:34)
Like, for example, using "toy examples" (Cordova's actual words) of strings of only 8 characters to "prove" that "time erases hierarchies."  Why, amazingly, Cordova was able to "prove" this by using his amazing 8-character string, "mutating" one character each generation, and in only 8 generations, he 'erased' the 'molecular' hierarchy that did not even exist in the first place...

I looked for that, but could not find it. Do you have a link?

By the way, if you like toy hierarchies, I have devised a simple experiment along those lines, Zachriel's Nest of Letters. Even with just a few letters, Zachriel's Nest of Letters shows how neutral evolution can result in easily discernable nested hierarchies after several generations. It also shows when we might be able to predict the existence of intermediaries and the possible limitations of reconstructing the history of such a descent.

Sorry - it occurred at the old KCFS board.  Sometimes he referred to 10-character strings, sometimes it was 8.  It seemed to depend on how quickly he wanted to "disprove" evolution...

See one iteration of his 'toy examples' here, where he adds a symbol ('character';) to his string each 'generation' and darned if he can't make a hierarchy out of it in short order...
On page 2 of that thread, he introduces his 8-bit string.

His cluelessness, obfuscation, incredulity, etc. are exhibited in full glory in that thread...

Date: 2007/01/19 11:05:57, Link
Author: slpage
Hey - its 'Steve' the retard from creationtalk.com!

Cute to see you 'siting' propagandist hacks like Sarfati - man, if you hold frauds like that in such high esteem, you are really clueless.  Dumber than I thought, even.

Date: 2007/01/19 14:19:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 19 2007,12:28)
But you forget your closer.  
Quote
Another unsupported assertion.

Who would have thought?

Hmmm... Let's give that a name - The Cordova maneuver*.


*The Cordova Maneuver was first used by creationist Salvador Cordova, the exact date is unknown, though it appears to have been used as early as 2004. The hallmark of the Cordova Maneuver is to reiterate an unsupported or even refuted position ad nauseum as though the position has not been addressed. Additional iterations of the claim are usually accompanied by self-aggrandizing commentary, dismissive insults directed at detractors, and weak attempts to belittle those that have rebutted the claims. It is a form of fallacious argumentation.
...
With an addendum:

A great deal of psychological projection is contained in the highly defensive posturing that accompanies the unsupported assertions.

:D

I had forgotten about that.

Sometimes, I am so correct I scare myself.

I found anouther old exchange, showing the intellectual cowardice of the creationist -

see Sal run.

Date: 2007/01/19 14:49:42, Link
Author: slpage
I cannot decide if the creationists' continual reference to ReMine's application of Haldane's dilemma is pathetic or contemptible...

Probably both?

What no ReMine mongers (including Cordova) have ever addressed are, at least,  what their answers to these very important questions are.

Even if we consider an application of Haldane's model to be exactly as ReMine et al want it to be - that is, exactly as concocted in 1957, no exemptions, no modifications, no questions asked -  they must answer:

1. What was the ancestral population - what traits did it possess such that the hallowed 1,667 fixed beneficial mutations cannot account for human evolution from this population?

2. How many beneficial mutations are required to produce each phenotypic change you claim is required?

There are several others, along with these,  that they will ignore (ReMine always blows off such questions claiming they are 'posturing' or misrepresentation), but without knowing at least the anwers to these questions, yammering on about a 'speed limit' and some particular number of 'allowable' fixed beneficial mutations is pure soliphistic mental masturbation followed by bragging about how good you are in bed...

Date: 2007/01/22 15:14:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 20 2007,18:15)
bFast 01/20/2007 3:50 pm      
Quote
As far as I am conserned the whole “sexual selection” hypothesis totally collapses in light of reality.
I am the adoptive father of two girls who are the product of an FAS, mentally handicapped mother. She seems to breed like a rabbit. She has no trouble finding another partner. I, on the other hand, a fellow with a good career and above average intelligence was not able to establish a solid romantic relationship until I was 40. Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.


Okay, so what did we learn here?

(1) bFast adopted two kids...that's great, noble, A Good Thing ( unless bFast manages to stunt their intellectual growth to equal his).
 
(2) bFast thinks that HUMAN sexual selection means that the "mentally handicapped" (undefined in his example) are LESS likely to find willing casual sex partners. This is beyond ignorant.

Conversely, bFast is stating that "sexual selection" means males prefer increasingly intelligent women to have sex with.

By his reasoning, males shouldn't be lusting after Playboy models, but instead seeking out and avidly competing for Rhodes scholars. Like Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, or Lindsay Lohan --just to cite some current "sex goddesses?"

Or for a man of bFast's age...maybe he DIDN'T really lust after those hot babes of the 1970's and '80's -- he really wanted a tryst with Golda Meir and Madeleine Albright  

(3) bFast thinks that the less intelligent are " low on the evolutionary totem pole." in HUMAN societies, at THIS time in history.

This statement is more a reflection of bFast's own bitter, biased, ego-centric views than an honest appraisal of sexual selection. I have no real idea of the extent to which his adopted children's mother is "mentally handicapped" or how bFast is ignoring the historical, biological and social science data that downplays the role of female intelligence in MALE sexual selection. I do know, however, that  bFast is guilty of the worst sort of twisting and perversion of selection theory, game theory, human psychology, etc.

I have a very good idea of why you couldn't find a relationship up to your forties, bFast.

Note also that Bruce Fast - an IT technician - considers himslef of above-average intelligence.

I have a read a number of his writings on UD and elsewhere, and frankly, I don't see it.  I see the typical 'I know evolution is wrong, therefore, ID must be right, and anything that I can misinterpret to prop up my position, I will do' schtick.

These people do have one thing in common - an overblown sense of self-importance.

Date: 2007/01/24 09:32:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 23 2007,13:43)
Joe at UD:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1986#comment-86930

 
Quote
12

Joseph

01/23/2007

2:31 pm
Here is the scenario:

The class starts by watching the videos “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and “The Privileged Planet”-

The class then argues that ID does NOT belong in a religious education class as ID is based on observational data and does not care about worship or beliefs.

Hmmmm... Why would a class 'argue' one thing like that?

Anyway, here is a better scenario - a class watches a couple of IDcreationism advocacy videos, then reads the rebuttals to the claims made, then discusses the manner in which the videos presented the information - only in a pro-ID light, while ignoring or disnmissing any and all contrary evidence.

Then the class discusses how slickly produced advocacy videos are tools for the deceptive to con the uninformed into adopting an at-best tenuous 'scientific' position that just happens to prop up an underlying religious belief.

Date: 2007/01/24 09:38:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 24 2007,03:07)
DaveScot, military analyst (my bold below):

 
Quote
Well Jim [Webb], I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert.

I don't think Tard could drop andf give himself 20 from the looks of his pic.

But I did not know that clerks engaged in wargames.

Date: 2007/01/26 09:31:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,15:32)
Funny how he didn't limit comments to those who have seen combat?

Cheesypoof Dave made sure the avionics where okay or some-such..

Is this accurate?

I had him pegged as a clerk of some sort, but an aircraft mechanic doesn't see combat either.

I suspected that he was not in a combat arms unit when he mocked me for being a paratrooper - the wannabe effect and all that...

Date: 2007/01/26 09:36:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2007,10:59)
Bfast lays it on the line: "fuck you, we refuse to do research, and we're proud of it!":

   
Quote
bFast
01/25/2007
11:51 am
Ofro, “Go to the laboratory and provide empirical evidence that will convince everybody.”

The ID community is small compared to the research scientist community. However, the research sccientists are coming out with all sorts of evidence that cries for an ID interpretation. Do you remember those mice that had 100,000 highly conserved basepairs removed with no mesurable deleterious effects?

“Go to the laboratory” is a platitude, a brush off. While laboratory work is being done, analysis of the laboratory work of others is a hundred times more fruitful.


If anyone wanted a better statement of the parasitic nature of ID...

Yes, and science by quote is how the BEST science is doen!  Ask Wally 'electrical engineer creationist expert in all fields of science' ReMine - he'll tell ya'!

And way to go Brucie Fast - another in a long list of non-biologist computer tards who feel qualified - nay, compelled - to pontificate on things they have no education, experienc,e or training in.

Like science.

Date: 2007/01/27 09:06:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,17:26)
Sorry Tracy, make that Ladies and Gentlemen.  

As for the question- I thought that they were all related in the first place, so the last common ancestor probablty had 5 fingers as well.  Not to mention that they inhabit similar habitats, so that physical laws ensure some convergence upon similar body shapes etc.  
That seems quite straightforwards.

That Hunter is questioning the issue of a shared pentadactyly in marsupials and placental mammals is  a clear indication that is really does not understand evolution very well.

I knew this after encountering him at Infidels a few years ago - clueless, but as seems to be a requirement for the IDcreationist crowd, very, very sure of himself and the authenticity of his naive positions. (I know, I know - all those ad hominems - keep in mind, I am not using this to rebut his claims - that is easily and has been done by others - no, I am just pointing out the obvious)

That none of his fellow IDers have taken him aside and explained the basics of the position HE is arguing says as much about them as it does him.  This sort of covered-up incompetence is endemic in IDcreationist circles, from Dr.Cook to Dr.Wells to Dr. Hunter - titles clearly have little value when you pontificate on things you clearly do not get.

The truly sad part is this - the bible -believin' audiences will take what he says at face value because he is, after all, DOCTOR Hunter, pro-IDcreationist.



And yes - the establishment of pentadactyly in extant vertebrates goes back well before the split between marsupials and placentals.

Date: 2007/01/27 09:13:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,05:31)
Wesley:

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake.

Mistake.

"MISTAKE"????


A mistake is using "their" instead of "there", or writing "ilium" when you meant "ileum".

Using the same picture to represent two different species is not a mistake, especially when the picture was clearly manipulated (mirrored) in order to do so.

I mean, is it really that hard to Google Images for 'wolf'?

I smell purposeful dishonesty, myself.

But then, I have become conditioned to expect dishonesty and incompetence by the many egregious examples of this sort of thing from the DI crowd.

Date: 2007/01/29 09:41:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2007,10:45)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2007,08:05)
Dembski on Open Access: Is He Hypocritcal, Stupid, or Both?

Speaking of open access, the open access Intelligent Design 'journal', Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), last published an issue in November 2005, and that issue had five articles.

http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

Last one was published Nov 05.

They've even stopped pretending to do science.

Not to mention that if you look back at the old issues of PSCID, the majority of the articles were rehashed internet essays by DI fellows.  None of them come close to, as best I can tell, original research.

Date: 2007/01/30 11:53:27, Link
Author: slpage
It seems Hunter has been beating the wolf/thylacine skull dead horse for at least 3+ years...

Date: 2007/02/07 10:36:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 06 2007,21:06)
BFast explains
Quote

WinstonEwert, “Allright, who can expound on the method used to achieve “IC”?”

I haven’t analyzed the source code of this particular project terribly closely. However, if two “mutations” are required to achieve a given result, then the pair of mutations would technically, barely, be considered “IC”. This would be achieved as follows: a “mutation” happens that “at least does no harm” so it is permitted to continue — then a second mutation happens that completes the “IC” scenerio.

Now, if the number of possible “mutations” is extremely limited (5^100), this scenerio can happen fairly regularly. If the number of possible “mutations” is huge, the chance of getting a matched pair becomes really low. Further, Behe’s recently published paper shows that it is possible, in bacteria (short lifespan, smaller genome) to get 2 component IC once in a blue moon. Getting 3 component IC is much harder, and 4 gets into the zone of rediculous. The number of “matching” mutations that would be required to assemble a bacterial flagellum from known components is, like, 20. Such is the nature of “a little bit IC” (2 component) verses “very IC”, flagellum.


Alright, we're making headway!  First ANY IC shows that evolution isn't possible.  Now, small amounts of IC occur naturally.  If only BFast would grace us by defining "a little bit IC" and "very IC".

Not to sound crass, but bFast is just a typical ignorant yet overconfident egomaniacal douchebag...

Date: 2007/02/16 11:47:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 15 2007,19:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2007,15:15)
Challenge to UD

Hey you champignons champions of free inquiry:

PZ has listed the banned few from pharyngula and their offenses here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php

Can you provide a similar list? Please note I only have 4 gigs of RAM. Thanks in advance.

Sure, I'll get it started:

Richard Hughes: homo. insults my mom. no Marine can forgive that.

Blipey: homo. I'll kick his ass when he comes out here.

Zachriel: homo. three times.

Arden Chatfield: homo. dumb bunny.

Lou: homo. thinks he's a woman. two women. He's outta here.

Kristine: lesbian. that's okay, but she frightens Bill.

k.e.: homo. says these weird things all the time. plus I think he's some kind of foreigner.

John Davison: homo. plus he's completely insane.

Alan Fox: homo. lives in France. plus he's too nice to Davison.

Lenny Flank: homo. probably does weird things with snakes when he's alone. On the plus side, PZ Myers hates him.

SteveStory: homo. taller than me. I think he's jealous of me.

GCT: homo. stole my picture. he's outta here.

Ichthyic: homo. I heard stories about him down at the aquarium.

THEY ARE NO LONGER WITH US. -dt


(My apologies to anyone I overlooked, feel free to add yourself to this list.)

Well, I did try to register once and I was not allowed in at all.
 Does that count?

Date: 2007/02/19 13:35:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2007,20:00)
Hmmmm..

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....t-92139

Quote
4

bFast

02/17/2007

7:35 pm
DaveScot, do you know of any good global warming blogs around?

5

DaveScot

02/17/2007

8:15 pm
bFast

Yeah, this one.


DOWN WITH SCIENCE!


cool!  So bruce fast now fancies himself an expert on global climate change, too!

:O

Date: 2007/03/02 10:28:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 01 2007,10:36)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-92420
 
Quote
It’s quite amazing that basically evolution is magic, yet evolutionists accuse ID of being magic.
To the ancients, lightning seemed like magic. To a child, a card trick seems like magic. This is a result of something called ignorance. To you, evolution seems like magic for the same reason.

But, I've got a feeling about Jared White. Maybe he's a faux tard? His whole post seems like it might be a fake.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-92464
 
Quote
Let science get honest, follow Newton’s lead, and just say, “we don’t know.”
Huh? Stop being reasonable!! You'll take all the fun out of this. Look, Dembski KNOWS dammit! He knows that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer that created all of us to worship and praise him. Now worship!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-92507
 
Quote
Because they are far more beholden to actual empirical evidence. If physicists and chemists make up stories about their results, people can die.
Oh yeah, remember the massacre after the Jan Henrik Schon incident?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-92511
 
Quote
Physicists don’t. They consider the Big Bang, a “supernatural” event, to be a respectable idea. There is also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer (a cognitive agent) is needed to collapse the wavefunction.
Take note, bfast. This is how real tard is done. Yes, the BB is supernatural, bfast. Don't start with that "we don't know" crapola. And the Copenhagen interpretation says that humans are supernatural. Didn't you learn that part in your QM class?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....t-92600
 
Quote
But physicists open-mindedly consider cognitive agency to be a potentially indispensible part of scientific explanation. Compare this to the closed-mindedness of “official biology.”
Yeah, bfast! Official biology posits that there are no observers. The data just assembles itself by...magic. Wow. Evolution IS magic, after all.

bfast is just a fucking[http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2397&highlight=#2397] retard[/URL], excuse my French...

Oh, and are you ready for this - he is a Christian!  But that has nothing to do with his rejection of evolution, oh no....

Date: 2007/03/07 13:24:04, Link
Author: slpage
Is this the type of statement that a scientific IDist would make:

" I have found real evidence of a world-wide super-flood that helps make sense of Noah. I have been expecting scientific evidence to support the Biblical assertion that our ancients lived for a very long time. I have heard tell that, like the flood, there are oral histories throughout the world which, as a pattern, suggest that our ancients live a long time. "



I thought that ID had nothing to do with religion...

Date: 2007/03/07 13:42:12, Link
Author: slpage
It was 'bfast'....

The Christian college grad software developer and expert on information theory and evolution...

Date: 2007/03/19 11:16:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:28)
I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.

She is one of those 'just folks' types, who can 'see through the BS' and get to the truth.

At least that is how she likes to portray herself.

I think she is a moron, myself.  I'
ve tried to post at her blog about 6 times - none made it through.  Of course...

Date: 2007/03/21 15:56:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 20 2007,18:54)
Quote (Ogee @ Mar. 20 2007,20:21)
 

That's hilarious, given how DT squealed and whined like a little piggy when insulted at Alan's blog and at UDoJ.  I love the tough guy Marine act coming from a tubby yellow-bellied (or maybe those are just cheezy-poof crumb-stains?) REMF who speedily bans anyone who exposes his considerable inadequacies over at UD.  I suppose being a hypocrite is small beans when you're already a known cretin, bigot, coward and all-round uneducated moron.

Quoting the tardy one:

Quote
If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.



That is funny....

I've known many Marines in my day - most were just regular guys - not braggarts and wnnabes that spend the remainder of their lives yammering on about how tough they used to be.  Of course, there was that Force Recon Platoon that stayed in my barracks in 1986 - we had to throw out the mattresses from the room they stayed in because they got drunk and peed on each other...  

Anyway, while my blog is low-traffic and not very active (I only occasionally update it), Springhole left one comment there once, I replied, and he never came back.  He is not banned there, either.  

I also responded to one of his dumb claims here.  Also, never came back.

He is s typical bully - a coward deep down, only willing to mouth off to the big kids when he can hide behind teacher.

Date: 2007/03/28 11:00:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 26 2007,06:51)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2007,17:49)
What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

When I'm faced with people who tell me that atheists are all immoral, evil, baby-raping, homosexual murderers* (I think that's a direct quote), my response is something like: "Really? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of a single reason not to do all those things, other than that God tells you not to? That if you were to have a crisis of faith tomorrow, you'd be killing, stealing and raping before the day was out?"

If they say "Well... No. I suppose not..." then we can start a dialogue on the subject of ethics, and whether or not Christians really are better people.

If they say "Yes, that's exactly what I mean" (and it has happened), I back away slowly, being sure not to make any sudden movements.



* "homosexual murderers" does not mean "people who murder homosexuals", which is apparently OK.

An interesting point.  Years ago when I fist 'discovered' chat rooms (which I now avoid like the plague), I was chatting with a fellow in an 'atheism' room, and we decided to 'go private' (not that way).  He was a fundy, and he at one point asked me what I would do if I found out my son was gay.  I replied, "Beat him."  As I was typing a follow up message - "Just kidding, of course." - he writes "Me too, I guess we are not all that different."

I knew then that there are actually people that require fear of Hellfire to be decent people.

Sad.

Date: 2007/03/28 11:30:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 28 2007,04:44)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,14:03)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,21:32)
DaveTard..

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5459449

             
Quote
Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.




Richard - Thanks for the link - At the end of the post, DaveScot tries to lure FTK to his little Texas Love-nest with his water-sport skilz.


I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:
     
Quote (Davescot @ his own deluded little world)
...once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics.

Does he not realize that people can, you know, see his picture?  I'm no Brad Pitt, but if that picture is remotely 'accurate' (it sort of has to be - he took it himself!), he must realize that he is not all that attractive...

Then again, delusional megalomania probably does not stop with assessments of one's intellectual capabilities...

Date: 2007/03/30 08:20:00, Link
Author: slpage
No Jesus, No Holocaust....

Date: 2007/04/03 14:26:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...

Really?

What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?

Date: 2007/04/03 14:29:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:19)
Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.

Yeah....

So what is your position on people who simply ignore contrary evidence?

Date: 2007/04/03 14:35:00, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

There's that strange right-wing obsession with potty-mouth.  Oh, they can claim that we are all deluded, deceived, all liars, incompetents, stupid, childish, etc. But boy if you toss out the a-word, they don't wanna talk to you meanie-heads no more!

Date: 2007/04/03 14:44:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

So, do you think one has to be a genius to engage in 'rocket science'?  I ask because, first of all, 'rocket scientists' are primarily engineers, which are applied scientists (that is, they take the primary research that others have done and apply it to particular problems).  Sure, there are physicists involved, but I don't suspect it is terribly difficult to plug numbers into alread-developed formulae to figure things out, providing you have the appropriate training.

Plus, I purchased this compendium of information on the Saturn 5 rocket - 4 DVDs with something like 16 hours of footage.  And I was surprised to see how many failures there were on the project - valves not working and causing explosions, welds not holding, incorrect values being employed producing catastrophic failures in test engines and fuel tanks and all kinds of stuff.

When you only focus on the successes, it sure is impressive to be called  a 'rocket scientist'. If you look at the big picture, they re really no 'better' than any other scientist.

And it is a HUGE misconception that biology is so easy.  If that were the case, people like3 Dembski would not still be relying on asinine english language analogies.

Date: 2007/04/05 14:59:06, Link
Author: slpage
Then there is the issue that nobody has touched on yet...

Perhaps those scoring well on ther MCAT are simply good at taking standardized tests?

I find that standardized tests like the MCAT, SATs, and even GREs are fairly poor indicators of success.  Sure, they have a role in assessment, but I've seen plenty of people who, for example, maxed (or very nearly maxed)  the MCAT have to take remedial courses in medical school - I know, I used to have to teach some of them.

I couldn't help but notive FTK's idiotic little quip.  Maybe she should check this out..

Not that she will, of course - she gets her info from the Disco liars for Christ.

Date: 2007/04/06 09:12:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2007,15:19)
Quote (slpage @ April 05 2007,14:59)
I couldn't help but notive FTK's idiotic little quip.  Maybe she should check this out..

Not that she will, of course - she gets her info from the Disco liars for Christ.

Actually, she did check in there and made one of her standard inane arguments (evolution and atheism go hand in hand) in comment 123.

One of the unanswered questions that I asked her re this correlation was "So what?" Are atheists somehow lesser human beings than theists?  And are all theists created equal; how would she feel about an evolution-denier who worshiped Odin, or Shiva? Or the Rev. Moon???

Inquiring minds still want to know!

Yes, I remembered having seen her silly quip over there after I posted this.

So irrelevant and insignificant was her post there that it slipped my mind....

Date: 2007/04/06 10:43:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (2ndclass @ April 03 2007,14:24)
What in the world has gotten into DaveScot?
 
Quote
Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won’t be holding our collective breath in the interim.

Since when are grandiose, substance-free claims against the ToE considered a bad thing at UD?

Interestingly, Ilion has been posting more at ARN, most likely as a result of his banning at UD.  I noticed this, and checked out the post re: Ilion on my blog and lo and behold, Davetard had left me a message:

"I just banned Ilion from Uncommon Descent for making wild claims and no substance behind them. Out of curiosity I then googled his name and found the same assessment from Scott L. Page. We finally agree on something, Scott. Funny stuff."

Yeah, funny.

It is not that hard to see Ilion as the underinformed, overconfident gasbag he is.

Date: 2007/04/09 09:25:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.


FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.

Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"
:p

Date: 2007/04/11 09:33:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,09:08)
BLipster:

Quote
DaveScot said...
ftk

Sorry for the off-topic but I wanted to leave a note for Blipey and I know it'll get to him if I leave it here.

I was checking the calendar to make sure there weren't any all day soccer tournaments on Sunday, May 13th, and was reminded that's Mother's Day. I won't be available for any meetings on that day.

10:19 PM




Unreal.  A typical bully/coward.

Reminds me of those kids in grade school that would call the bigger kids names, and when the bigger kids had finally had enough and went after him, he'd run and hide behind the teacher...

What a Marine-pussy...


Oh - Rich - why do I think Popper and Kuhn are overrated.

First, neither (and, as far as I can tell, none of the 'biggie' philiosophers of science) actually had any experience in engaging in scientific pursuits.  Sort of like some Joe Sixcpack couch potato who never played football screaming at a quarterback in the NFL "You suck!  I could have done better than that!"
Second, neither seem to accurately portray the manner in which science is actualy engaged in, and worse, according to some of their acolytes (Lakatos for example) science is basically worthless and no better at finding 'truth' than sociology.
Several years ago (in the 1980s or 90s), there was a series of letters exchanged in Nature (I think - can't remember exactly right now) on the issue of the philosophy of science, and after the philosophers that were involved basically claimed science to be a farce (in so many words), a scientist replied to the effect that it was an interestign exchange on a topic that essentially means nothing.

So, they can philosophize away, and I don't really think it will have much of an impact on anyone except those who are outside of science and read their work and think they can then dismiss anything claimed by scientists (which I have seen happen).

Date: 2007/04/11 11:19:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2007,11:06)
Slpage: I'm a big Popper fan, because 'no black swans', empirical falsification, makes science perpetually open, hungry, subject to revision. Compare that to scripture. We never claim to be right, only to use the best current explanation given the data and the models fit. We are prepared to be wring and welcome it, because in revision comes greater understanding.

Rich

Rich - I agree with the 'spirit' of the falsification criterion, but a direct application of it is unrealistic.  That is, how often do scientists come up with an idea and say to themselves, "Hmmm...  Now how can I go about falsifying this?"

If it is not falsified, is it not science (this is a little claim of creationists on occasion - because ToE has not been falsified, it isnot scientific...)?  If it is falsified, then what?  
A more realistic application - and what, as best I can tell, actually happens - is that any new observations/experiments done with regard to a new (or ol) hypothesis/theory are de facto attempts at falisification.  That is, scientist X sets out to 'test' an idea in the hopes that the results will be supportive.  It seems to be human nature.

If the test ends up not comporting with the idea, then one would hope that scientist X reformulates his/her idea and tries again.  

I totally agree that any iteration of this is anathema to creationists, but that wasn't my point.  My point is that the 'biggie' philosophers of science took things to an illogical extreme in many cases, and so have been over-relied upon in many cases.

Date: 2007/04/12 12:13:44, Link
Author: slpage
I'm not sure what to make of the creationist fixation on  what they perceive as name caling and insults.

I wonder if they even read the material that their own side produces, and if so, if they perceive any negativity, incivility, etc. in it.  Most likely not.

It is that whole 'framing' thing - when an evilutionist tells a creationist he'she is closed-minded and ignorant, that is incivil, rude, name calling.  When a creationist says the same thing to an evilutionist, it is okey-dokey because it is 'the truth.'

The saddest part is, they truly do not seem capable of seeing their hypocrisy.

Date: 2007/04/13 07:20:07, Link
Author: slpage
Seems FTK, aka FtK, aka IAFM, aka Diana, aka Lapdog, aka.... is censoring posts at her blog as usual.

A guy can't even point out how much of a pussy her new pal Dave 'built like a football player' Springer is...

Thats ok, I'll do it elsewehere...

Date: 2007/04/15 11:08:43, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,April 12 2007,17:30][/quote]
FTK:
Quote
 
Quote
No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.


Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.

Perhaps if you would stop writing about things that you do not know much about as if you knew a lot about them, you would not hear that so much?
Quote


It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.

Perhaps because that was not what the debate was about?

When one looks at the 'scientific' ID meetings - the ones at which they don't invite critics - they don't really discuss science, either.  Why is that?  Don't you think that a big meeting of the big names in IDcreationism on the 'science' of ID might garner some actual scientific discussion, as opposed to, I don't know, mock interviews by Lee Strobel, of the typical 'Darwin=Hitler' garbage that tends to be the focal points of these things?

Recall, FTK, that ID's own 'peer-reviewed' journal, PCID, has not even been published since 2005!  THE ID advocates cannot possibly claim 'anti-ID conspiracy' there, can they?  
Quote
   
Quote
The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.


Doing so looks very cowardly.

Ahy yes, that old conservative machismo...

Because, after all, 'debates' are how real science is done...  at least when opne side does no scientific research of any type - all that is left is public spectacles to woo the fence sitters with flowery rhetoric and fire-up the hard-core supporters.

Perhaps the SMU faculty could invite - challenge - the ID propagandists to discuss the issues face-to-face any time, anywhere...  Than, when they take up the offer, the SMU faculty could claim that they can suddenly only meet at specific times that will not be convenient for the IDcreationists, and warn them about their dogs... and their concealed weapons... and their call to the cops... and their chain saws... and how they are all built like football players - no, middleweight boxers...

Because apparently that sort of thing is the antithesis of cowardly in religious conservative circles.
Quote

Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out?  If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about.  As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.


How about we all wait until the well-funded DI actually produces some verifiable research supportive of their bombastic claims, instead of reading their bravado and rhetoric about public 'debates' and op-eds written by lawyers and theologians?
Quote

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?  Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.

What is to debate?

The DI clowns will declare evolution caused Nazism, that Peppered moths were glued to trees, that Behe is the greatest scientist ever, that Dembski - despite being unable to hold down a job for any length of time - is the greatest Information Theorist ever, that Jon Wells, Spetner, Meyers, etc. disproved evolution, and then when asked what thye have that actuially SUPPORTS thier position scientifically, they will say, Why, we just old you!

What is to 'debate'?  Will the stacked audience really stop and think about what is being explained to them - between 'Amens', that is?

Open your eyes.  Public debates are for people that have no legitimate scientific support on their side.
Quote

It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

You are conflating a couple of issues here, deary.
There is a difference between making 'accusations' against "design" and calling out the antics of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement.  The Movement doesn't seem able to support their claims at all, not scientifically, so they rely on public spectacles and appeals to the masses.  They are, as Wes writes, snake oil salesmen.
Quote


Here's what I think.....

SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...


???  ???  ???  :D


Where did you get that picture of Springer?

Date: 2007/04/19 09:05:01, Link
Author: slpage
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...

Date: 2007/04/19 11:14:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.


Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...

...or an 'Asian gang member'.

There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.

Indeed not.  Trying to blame some supposed ideology or affiliation for the actions of an individual like that as an excuse to demean or villify said ideology or affiliation is pretty irresponsible and stupid.

Date: 2007/04/24 07:54:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2007,10:17)
In case you hadn't noticed, FtK posted this blog message yesterday.
 
Quote
Worth the read
Walt Brown has worked for 20+ years exploring a YE interpretation of scientific data, and over the years, has offered some fascinating theories. What I like most about his work is that it is very comprehensive. He has an eye for being able to see the big picture.

He has added a section to his website on the Grand Canyon. He has made many trips to the Grand Canyon over the years to conduct field work, and recently led a group in exploring his conclusions. Interesting read.

He also provides his take on global warming.

I sent her a comment, but it seems not to have made it through "moderation".

Amazing...

Brown's gibberish was demolished on KCFS with FtK often acting as the willing go-between as for some odd reason, Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.

FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims and still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

So much for the 'open mind' of the IDcreationist...

Date: 2007/04/25 09:48:05, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,08:22)
Scott,

You are such a liar.  Seriously, how do you live with yourself?

Brown did participate in that thread.  The debate went on for months.

How typical of the Christian creationist....


The 'debate' went on for months with you posting cut and pastes from Brown's asinine 'online book' and you refusing to 'discuss' anything.  Most liklely because you are too awe-struck in your hero-worship and too plain ignorant to know any better.

A semi-literate person might have seen that what I linked to was no 'thread', but rather to the old KCFS site.  I had intended to link to the search results that I had found linking to the several (about 20) threads referring to Brown's claims, most of which you participated in, but for some reason that link did not take.

So, you did not even follow the link, and you concluded without any knowledge or reason to do so whatsoever that I was referring solely to one thread.

How do I live with myself?

Quite simply - I, perhaops subconsciously, make it a point not to behave or think the way a rube like you does.

Quote
Yup, the other points are more important, and Brown did not get "demolished".  That would be wishful thinking on Scott's part.

No, it was my imopression after seeing so many of his claims refuted and the refutations unanswered.  It is highly ironic that a person who has gleefully claimed ignorance of the scientific issues discussed declare it 'wishful thinking' that Brown got demolished - how would you know any different?  Did Brown say so?

Of course, when one actually searches for the threads involving Brown's silly claims, one can find the one I started pointing out his stupidity on biological issues, which no creationists rebutted or even particiapted in.  Sorry, For the Dumbasses, your hero Brown is selling you a bill of goods and you are too wrapped up in your infantile hero worship and ideologically-driven 'truth filter' to know any better.

Quote
You want to read the Brown thread?  Go for it.  It ran from June '05 - Sept '05, with about 1900 comments to the thread.

How do YOU live with yourself?  You refer to a  single thread regarding Brown's ignorant creationist pontifications.  I did not - I referred to Brown's claims in general.  I wrote:

Quote
Amazing...

Brown's gibberish was demolished on KCFS with FtK often acting as the willing go-between as for some odd reason, Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.

FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims and still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

On will note that I did not refer to a specific thread, and it is also a fact that you acted as a go-between most of the time.  That Brown sdhowed up for a couple of posts is immaterial - as you note there were more than 1000 posts in that one thread that you refer to alone.


One thing of note in that thread - the most consistent thing you did was cut and paste and cheerlead!  Why, your scientific insights were just so clearly... nonexistent.

As for my comment re: Brwon's ideas, here is a list of just a few of the most recent threads concerning Brown at the old KCFS board (THESE are what I was referring to for the most part):

Walt Brown's dubious resume

Brown prediction falsified

Walt Brown's dishonesty regarding magnetic reversals
That one is cute in that you rush to your hero's defense when his lack of geology field experience is pointed out - you basically declare that Walt's looking at a fault counts as geology field experience.
Classic!  

Walt's 16 reasons

A classic FtK retort:

"I no longer waste my time on pointing out errors in logic and interpretation from KCFS forum members. It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.

Why waste my time on you? I'll digest the information you give me and discuss it with less aggressive and close minded scientists. So, thanks for the info., but no, I'll discuss it no further in this particular venue."

Wow - sounds familiar....

Quote

I've been in these forums enough to know the style in which you people debate.  It's called twist, spin, misrepresent, and name call.  
Ah, the projection.....


As for the rest, well, go f#$% yourself you stupid c#$%.

(I have to live up to my reputation of being so rude and uncivial, after all...)

Date: 2007/04/25 09:56:11, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,April 24 2007,14:08][/quote]
Uh oh - I found a typo:


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".


Let me fix it:


Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND IGNORED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".

Date: 2007/04/25 09:58:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,18:53)
Quote
But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.

You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?

Sort of puts the lie to her claims of TONS OF EVIDENCE, no?

Date: 2007/04/25 10:03:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,07:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(

Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit...

I'm more of a Drambuie fan, myself.

Date: 2007/04/25 10:08:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,09:50)
Quote (guthrie @ April 19 2007,16:21)
Newsflash!

Steve Fuller has a new book out soon.  
on amazon

The synopsis is interesting reading:
 
Quote
Synopsis
If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century's Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements' fortunes? Steve Fuller's brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science's most vociferous debate.


Now, apart from demonstrating that Fuller has no clue about science and how it is and has been practised, it shows that at least he agrees with Judge Jones on one issue- that ID is Creationism, with a religious presupposition.

I've had the 'pleasure' of listening to an interview with Fuller going on about his 'epistemology' at a great rate of knots. All with a hyper Disneyfied cheeryness overlaid with the taut smile of plastic surgeon's experiment on a goat off its chain. Hide the plastic toys, take the washing in and say goodbuy to the flower beds. The guy ...how can I put this...well, he's not afraid of talking about nothing of consequence........at great length.

It was interesting to watch Fuller have his hat handed to him on Berube's blog...

But, being a creationist, Fuller:

1. did not recopgnize it
2. acted condescending
3. declared victory

Thats what these people do...

Date: 2007/04/25 10:15:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Joe is the dumbest of the dumb.  All of his accumulated knowledge can be yours for only 20,000 USD.  But, if you don't have it, you're out of luck.  And this proves that he's really interested in disseminating information.

Quote
I am looking forward to the meeting. My list is completed. You will only see it once you give me the list I requested or $10,000. I don't give anything away for free.

I liked this one:

Quote
I would say that few people participate on my blog because they do not want to get their ass kicked.


Because, after all, Joe Gallien is a 'scientist' because he has a B.s. degree...

Date: 2007/04/25 11:13:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,10:38)
"Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit..."

Yikes, must have been a good night!      :O

Fun times....

After I emptied my intestines and drank a couple glasses of water, I was up for the night.

Amazing how much abuse a teenager's body can handle.

Date: 2007/04/27 09:56:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2007,07:01)
[quote=blipey,April 26 2007,02:38
For Posterity:


Weird - it was just the other day that I saw a football player/middleweight boxer with a pot belly and chicken legs...


He also doesn't lok like he's 6'2" or whatever his most recent 'I'm a big guy' claim was...

Date: 2007/04/27 10:04:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 26 2007,14:03)
Quote (argystokes @ April 26 2007,13:57)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 26 2007,11:44)
Why are so many people so jocular about Dave (Springer) Scot?
There is nothing too weird about the way he looks. A USA citizen a tad overweight (shock horror).
An ID proponent who has lied (shock horror).
C'mon. Is anyone really surprised? And what would you have to say if the situation was reversed and some ID suporters' main criticism of a pro-evolutionist was about looks/figure?
Yes I know it isn't exactly the same (the fool has said too much shiz for that to aply), just saying.

It's the irony of Dave making fat jokes about Ed Brayton, in conjunction with his bragging about his own physical attributes.

I "kinda" understood that (not the exact target admitedly). It is just that our side now looks no better. It is sillly to ridicule an argument on how your oponent looks unless references are given about their past comments doing the ecact same thing.
Maybe you dissagree.

EDIT: Dave Tard is a tit! There is no need to stoop to that level to point it out.

EDIT2: Sorry for being a boring git.

I don't see anyone saying that Springer's arguments are wrong because he clearly has a distorted self image.  His arguments have been shown to be lacking because they are not logical, are premised on unwarranted extrapolations and distortions, and his basic misunderstanding of most of the issues he pontificates on.

As has been pointed out, his appearance is 'ridiculed', if that is the right word, because he has made himself out to be some sort of paragon of masculine virility and he clearly is not.

Knocking down the braggart, as it were.

Date: 2007/04/30 09:18:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 30 2007,04:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2007,01:23)
Gary Hurd wrote:
   
Quote
It should be remembered by all here at least, that Panda's Thumb contributers Ed Brayton, and Timothy Sandefur are rabid opponents of environmental protection or any form of government regualtion of mining, logging etc...


But Ed Brayton at least does not seem to be a rabid global warming denier judging by his recent comments.

Hey Alan.
So you are the most ridiculous waste of space Darwin propogandist in the whole World and Wesley (the atheist) Elsberry puppet? Bloody ####, JAD is ranting about you.

JAD is still alive?

Huh...

Date: 2007/04/30 14:05:36, Link
Author: slpage
I've been following the whole 'baraminology' thing since about 1998 (I've got some stories, ooo....), and I can safely say that, IMHO, the entire thing is a system established to 'disprove':
1. human relatedness to anything else (i.e., specially created status to be 'proven')
2. macroevolution

IN some of their earlier papers, baraminologists opted to use subjective, biologically irrelevant data to rely on when doing phylogenetic analyses to show that you can use standard phylogenetic analyses to show a discontinuity between humans and other primates - they rejected the analyses done using molecular, anatomical, and chromosomal data is favor of - and I am serious - whether or not monogamous pair bonds are formed, population density, dwelling type, etc.

Pretty blatantly non-scientific, if you ask me...

Date: 2007/05/01 08:09:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,20:40)
Quote (phonon @ April 30 2007,18:42)
ID people just can't do comedy. It isn't in them, I guess.

Well, fundies as a whole tend to be humor-challenged tight-asses.  Just look at Dembski's performance on the Daily Show . . . .  (shrug).

That was - almost literally - painful to watch.

I wanted to punch that smug twirp in the mouth....

Date: 2007/05/02 10:09:41, Link
Author: slpage
Got them - thanks!

Gishlick makes many of the same arguments I have made elsewhere regarding the Baraminology activity. For one, giving primacy to the "Scriptural criterion" seems to be a bit closed-minded and limiting on the 'objectivity' of the turht-seeking creation scientists...

Date: 2007/05/03 08:12:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ May 02 2007,19:38)
Wonder why Davetard's not wearing a wedding ring. Didn't he say he was married?

Is gay marriage legal in Texas?

Date: 2007/05/03 13:19:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)

Quote

Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  


Why - is it his craggy beard, or his balding pate?
I know - it was his impressive mesomorphic V-shape...  which just happens to look more like a U...

He looks more like an embellisher and schoolyard bully than some sort of tough guy.

Quote


Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.

It was a 'threat'?  I thought Springer was a tough guy former Marine built like a boxer/football player (pee-wee football, sure...)?
Quote

 It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.

IMHO, I found it creepy that you wrote that Springer was "looking good."  Makes me wonder about your self-description, as Springer's was clearly a bit fantasy-laced.

Oh, and yes, I am fuming that Slimeador cited me in his latest lie fest.  In fact, I pile on the exposure of his dementia and dishonesty here.

Sad thing is, I'll bet you lack the sense to understand that what he did - does all the time - is truly dishonest.

Date: 2007/05/03 13:31:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 03 2007,13:21)
[quote=Louis,May 03 2007,13:03]
Dave, however, went so far as to publish JJQ's real name and work address and phone. Kinda undermines any moral authority he might have fancied himself as having.

(Well, yeah, that and threatening to hack PT.)

Creationists are like that.

Joe Gallien, Blipey's next host, did it to at least 3 people I know of, including me.  He went so far as to post my home address on a website and wrote that "not everyone drives though your town to go skiing" (I live in Vermont).  He also went so far as to post the name of another guy's wife and phone numbers of a couple of people.  It was only AFER he did those things that efforts were made to find out who he was.  That odd paranoid double standard...


Springer, of course, also impersonated me on PT (and gave some lame excuse that he was really impersonating a guy he worked with that just happened to have the same name as me).

Date: 2007/05/04 07:17:56, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 03 2007,15:00)
But doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that FtK's first response to having that picture posted was to try to post some more pictures?

:p

Creepy...

Very Creepy...

I recall that 'Joy' also claimed to have dogs, guns, and tight security.  She also had an extreme paranoid streak...

Just a coincidence, I am sure...

Date: 2007/05/04 07:24:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,15:34)
Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

Yeah, because all evolutionists are librals' and need to be killed.

Like Krauthammer and George Will and Guiliani etc...

???

What is it with conservative religious fanatics and their death cult?  Always wanting to go to war (as long as someone else has to go fight), always talking about violence.

Sick.

Date: 2007/05/04 08:53:05, Link
Author: slpage
Not specifically about UD, but that Scientist by virtue of having a Bachelors of SCIENCE degree in electronics engineering, Joe Gallien, has shown up at ARN hawking 'Priveleged Planet'...

Sad how dedicated a person can be to an advocacy video...

Date: 2007/05/07 08:11:27, Link
Author: slpage
Yeah, the mad picture looks better...

Date: 2007/05/15 14:27:06, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,09:09)
 Sal's been teaching ID for years, and he covers plenty of ground.  Doesn't matter to me if it stays in that venue for a while -- in the longer run, people will insist it become part of mainstream curriculum.

Salvador Cordova is a lying little weasel and propagandist.  If he is 'teaching' anything, I sure hope his 'students' do not expect to be taken seriously and/or get a good deprogramming after having been brainwashed by the master baiter.

Date: 2007/05/15 14:38:44, Link
Author: slpage
I admit, I was granted tenure and I have far fewer publications that Gonzalez (but many more than Wells and Dembski) and have never even received a major research grant (I have received a few small ones).

Then, I am not at a major research institution, do not claim to be or present myself as a major researcher, have not claimed (implicitly or explicitly) to have overturned a major scientific theory or to have provided material support for a fringe ideology.  Nor have I ignored the course catalog description of a class and instead taught my preferred fringe ideology.  

Tenure is no guarantee, even if you publish, even if you have grants.  As others have pointed out, there is much more to it.  While I was in grad school, one of the profs in my dept. was up for tenure.  She had dozens of publications, had recently received a big NSF grant, taught several courses, etc., yet was denied tenure.  I know a major researcher at Harvard that has never received tenure yet has been there for decades.

For the ID crowd to whine about this is to yet again display their intellectual limitations, their spoiled child attitude, and their condescending hubris.

Date: 2007/05/15 19:38:39, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 15 2007,03:08)
Dumbski gets it wrong!

And I have to wonder why he admits it? Could it be that he realises how absurd it would have looked for him to be attacking Dawkins when his record of peer-review is, erm, what would be a polite way to put this? Differently abled to that of Dawkins....

Well, he did once 'attack' Richard Wein for having 'only' a BS in statistics and daring to try to rebut Dr.Dr. Dembski's mathematical genius claims...

Date: 2007/05/19 09:02:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 18 2007,19:57)
Joseph seems to think that he has to get stupider as time goes by:
 
Quote

To me the “amazing” thing about Polaris isn’t just that it sits above our North Pole, but that it can be found due to the pointer (Ursa Major) that accompanies it.

IOW to find Polaris in the midst of all the stars just find the “big dipper” (easy to spot) and follow the outside edge of its pot to Polaris.


Truly "amazing."

Clear evidence that this is, indeed, a Privileged Planet...
???

Date: 2007/05/23 08:17:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 22 2007,03:05)
Hmm, Sal gets all excited because Professor Tipler mentioned his name"  
Quote
My name was mentioned in the show because I had consistently described Tipler as a provisional atheist. That used to be the case for Tipler, but his research in physics has now persuaded him that God exists.
World Renowned Cosmologist Frank Tipler on Sci Phi Show!
Oddly this weeks New Scientist magazine has a review of his latest book! Some snippets below.
 
Quote
Tiper goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics justifications

 
Quote
When conventional physics dosen't provide a sufficient explnation for the religious phenomenon in question, Tipler reinvents it

 
Quote
A collection of half-truths and exaggerations

 
Quote
It is far more dangerous then mere nonsence, because Tipler's reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern physics, combined with his respectable research pegidree give the persuasive illusion that he is describing what the laws of physics imply. He is not

 
Quote
he then claims that withou Jesus's resurrection, our universe could not exist

 
Quote
I have racked my brains to think of a more extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by a intelligent professional scientist, but I cannot. Given some of the junk that has been pubslished in the past decade, that's saying a lot.


Why am I not surprised in the least that the uncritical thinkers over at UD lap this tripe up? I bel Sal is his biggest fan! They seem to think alike!

Was is Tipler that rebuffed Dawkins by telling him that he is a biologist and biologists are not sientists, or was that the other arrogant gasbag ID physicist?

Date: 2007/05/27 10:49:29, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,08:15)
Frankly, I am not that impressed with your lot of so-called scientists here in this forum.  

Are you a scientist, shi?

Date: 2007/05/27 10:52:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (shi @ May 25 2007,12:09)
I agree with the opinion of this well known IBM scientist Gregory Chaitin, who said "In my opinion, if Darwin's theory is as simple, fundamental and basic as its adherents believe, then there ought to be an equally fundamental mathematical theory about this, that expresses these ideas with the generality, precision and degree of abstractness that we are accustomed to demand in pure mathematics." His article is here http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/mex.html

That is from his essay titled "Speculations..."

right?

Date: 2007/05/27 10:53:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (don_quixote @ May 27 2007,10:08)
For those interested, here is Shi's Blogger profile*, and here is his blog. He does indeed seem to be a practicing scientist, at Burnham Institute for Medical Research! I wonder what his employers would think of this 'tard?

*found via JAD's 'blog'. (warning the 800+ comments on that link might make your browser crash)

Oh, I didn't see that before I posted - say, Shi - did you ever spam my blog under the name 'Designs'?

Because this 'Designs' jerk claimed to be a cancer researcher, but was fairly clueless about evolution...

Date: 2007/05/30 12:44:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Freelurker @ May 29 2007,20:26)
Sal recently provided another episode of posturing and distortion regarding engineering, science, and ID.

I provided several comments, six of which made it through moderation. Here are the two that did not:
   
Quote
bFast wrote: “It turns out that when we examine biological systems, we must envision them to be like the stuff that we humans intelligently design.”

You lost me there. Do you mean we must not envision them to be unlike the stuff we humans design? I can envision lots of ways a flagellum is not like anything we have ever designed. It’s really marvelous.

By the way, the letter we’ve been talking about says that physiologists model biological systems in a manner that engineers use to model other systems (specifically, as black boxes with input-output relations.) Nowhere does he say that the resulting biological models must be like the models of systems built by engineers.

   
Quote
StuHarris and bFast,

I’m having trouble with this idea that engineering is non-materialistic. (In fact, I find it absurd.) Could you give an example of engineering work where a non-materialistic approach was used? An example from your own work would be ideal.

I gather that the moderator did not want me to pursue the ideas of StuHarris and bFast. He accurately assessed that it would not have gone well for them at all.

And I so wanted to hear about non-materialistic engineering …   ;)

Well, as I am sure you know, bfast is sort of a retard...

Date: 2007/06/07 14:47:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,14:45)
And, if you’re interested in predictions from a creationist who is following the evidence where it leads, you can read through all of them thoroughly by going to this index and looking under “predictions of hydroplate theory”.

Cool!  Wally Brown the engineer again...

I guess FtK - after examining Brown's GARBAGE from every freaking angle, still doesn't know enough about the science involved to form a coherent, valid opinion.

That is not an attempt to intimidate, ridicule, or anything else.  It is simply the truth.

Shall AGAIN link to my demolition of Brown the engineer's silly book section on biology?

The guy cannot seem to tell when he is out of his league...  But why should he?  With hero worshippers and sycophants aplenty on the 'net...

Date: 2007/06/07 14:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,14:48)
Quote
Go read that guy. He is a christian, an ID supporter, and a former physicist, and he will tell you, plain as day, why ID is not science.


I am *quite* aware of why many people do not accept ID as "science".  I actually agree with some of their reasoning, but the fact remains that everything that ID relays to the public is scientific.  It's about science...not religion.

Such as?

Date: 2007/06/07 14:54:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,21:26)
Dang, Steve, I think this might answer one of the questions you keep throwing at me....

Read it and weep, boys.  Looks like ID has a lab at Baylor University.  :)

Cool!

More crednetialism!

Can't wait to see the earth-shattering ID research churned out!

Date: 2007/06/07 14:56:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,22:29)
LOL, Steve, I think you're getting kinda flustered over this new lab.  You've spit out about 10 little posts in a row...but, but, but, they can't have a lab at a university...they just can't!  

CALL THE DARWIN POLICE.  PRONTO!!!!!!!

Wow.

One lab.

Maybe.

At a Baptist University.

Look out Harvard, Yale, U of Chicago, Stamford, etc.etc.....

Date: 2007/06/11 10:14:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2007,22:52)
Davescot used my name to say awful things on a blog one time. Someone used FtK's name recently at PT. Someone's used Doc Bill at pharyngula recently to post stupid rantings.

Is this new? I've only become aware of it recently. Is this a new tactic by the trolls, or is there a history of this sort of thing?

David Scott Springer did that to me at PT - it was a contributing factor to his banning there (that and trying to hack the site - seems a computer super-genius like Springer should have not only been able to do it, but do it without leaving a trail).

His laughably pathetic excuse was that he was not really trying to impersonate me, but was really trying to impersonate a guy he worked with....  who just happened to have the same name as me...
;)

The guy can't even lie very well.  Seems he has a reputation for this sort of thing.

Date: 2007/06/11 10:17:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,00:12)
Yeah, it tells me there are "nuts" on both sides.  Fr'instance, it's common knowledge that you use various names on other blogs.  Why, I don't know, but evidently that's not considered "nutty".

Not to worry though, I still love you.  I just think you're a bit of a fruitloop.

But there is a difference between using different names at different places (a means to shake off the stalkers) and intentionally employing the known name of another person.

Or don't you think so?

I once encountered an IDcreationist on a board who actually not only used 2 different names on the board, but he used them at the same time, and what is more,  one of his personas claimed the other was a former room mate, and the room mate heaped praise upon the other's antievolution claims.

When the site owner spilled the beans, the creationist actually tried to justify it all.

Odd how the cretin mind 'works.'

Date: 2007/06/19 11:03:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...
Quote

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?

I don't really care, but if a person claims to have done something and it is later found out not to have happened, it says a bit about the person's integrity.
Quote
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.


And did you know that 400-level courses on molecular biology or parasitology or immunology use the same introductory texts?  its true!  And grad students?  Same intro level texts.  Its amazing, isn't it...
Quote


I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP. :p

And do you ask the same questions of Walt Brown's assertions?

I know that you do not.  You accept the rants of creationists without question.  Hypocrite.

Date: 2007/06/21 06:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
 
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

   
Quote
What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

Oh well jeepers thanks....

Date: 2007/06/28 09:18:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Date: 2007/06/28 09:24:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKMTTP938HTSPI
 
Quote
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?


yeah, whatever you say Behe.... I'm quite sure Judge Jones saw right through you and your little game.

Funny - I noticed that comments are disabled.  Shouldn't be surprised - these people's idiocy can only prosper when they can control the debate.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:20:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,16:53)
Joe:  
Quote
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.


This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

Comments in the high 20s on this thread

I wrote a brief blog post about Joe's infatuation with THE PP.

I am not at all surprised that someone like Joe would find that line of 'reasoning' compelling - why, we are in just the right spot to see what we can see!  OBVIOUSLY designed!

Even a loony nut case creationist engineer agreed that
such 'reasoning' was silly...

Date: 2007/07/16 15:06:14, Link
Author: slpage
Do they really, truly think that silly analogies are evidence fo the ID as in the ID movement?
???

Can they really be THAT stupid and naive?

Date: 2007/07/16 15:10:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

Quote
And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.


Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

Well, not to sound macho or anything, but JoeG and Davey Springer are just old fashioned pussies.  They talk a big tough guy talk - on the internet - then suddenly try to avoid any actual meetings.  He has a history of doing that - me, Rob Rapier, Skepticboy, etc....

Date: 2007/07/16 15:12:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ July 14 2007,16:49)
Let's not forget the perfect asymmetry in the banning:

I didn't respond to DT's moronic math, therefore DT banned me.

DT didn't respond to Patrick Caldon's correction of his moronic math, so DT banned Patrick Caldon.

But... but.... IDists are OPEN MINDED and ENCOURAGE dialogue, unlike the hideous atheistic cult of Darwinism...

Date: 2007/07/29 12:42:00, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,09:36)
Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D

Actually, it is in Electronics Engineering.

Date: 2007/07/29 12:49:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?

No

Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?

No.

Does ID require a belief in "God"?

No.

So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.

And you are still a freak.

Oh well.

Brilliant retort, ID's Bulldog!

Date: 2007/07/29 12:54:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!

Bye-bye

And what, exactly will you say in the court of law?

Will you demand to be allowed to show an advocacy video and then declare that all who do not agree that this is, indeed, a 'Privileged Planet' must be stupid or lying?  I'm sure that will sway the court.

Will you threaten the judge or jury be finding out their home addresses and claiming that not everyone drives through their town to ski (or whatever it is that their areas might be known for)?  Yes, I am sure THAT will convert all to your side.


Will you declare that all evidence for evolution is just evidence for common design?  I'm sure all will see the pure logic and irrefutability of that.  

Actually, I do sort of hope that you are a witness in an ID court case some day.  I eagerly look forward to seeing you publicly humiliated in such a setting.  I promise to gloat for years.

Date: 2007/07/29 12:59:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...


You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.

Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

Can we say "cross examination"?

:p

Date: 2007/07/29 14:46:12, Link
Author: slpage
Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Date: 2007/08/02 12:34:12, Link
Author: slpage
Hi Red,

I too would like a workable definition of genetic information and a quick explanation for how it is measured.

Thanks

Date: 2007/08/31 13:00:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 28 2007,11:46)
Not sure if he has made that explicit. ?He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.

He has also claimed that he had to take an IQ test for his job, and boasted on the KCFS forum that he did it very quickly, and that the title of his job has the term 'scientist' in it.

Date: 2007/09/06 13:53:44, Link
Author: slpage
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english.  I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

Date: 2007/09/09 14:49:26, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,18:26)
Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember.

The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site.

Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets.

By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless.

Actually, he mentioned that 'not everyone drives through (my town) to go skiing.'  This was after he had oh-so-cleverly put my address in his signature line.  It was as if he thought those who he threatened would just retract all of our statements and declare his every utterance truth and factual because we would be all a-scared of him or something.  
Also, while Robert Rapier was involved in the discussions at the time, and Joe had 'challenged' him to come say things to his face and such, he did not contact Joe's employer, and I do not know who did.  Generally, I am against such activities (as I have actually had creationists threaten to contact my colleagues and my employer not because I threatened them - I have never done anything like that - but because I showed them to be wrong, ignorant, etc.), but in Joe's case, I think the fact that he was making threats from his place of work (he was also posting as two people at the time, claiming that his 'alter ego' was a coworker, one 'Cool Hand Luke', who also tried to intimidate people he disagreed with) to multiple people warranted some sort of intervention.  It wasn't as if tempers flared and one discussant writes 'I'll kick you ass!", he was actively stalking people, posting personal information about them on the net, and making implicit threats, all because he could not handle the fact that he was (and still is) too underinformed on the issues he tried to discuss and was put in is place.

He also tried to 'arrange' meetings between himself and one 'Skeptic boy' and I at least 2 other people if I remember correctly, and each time, he mysteriously stopped posting for several days.  On one occasion, he actually claimed to have been at the place that where one of these 'meetings' was to take place, but he was unable to describe the place.

He is s typical bully.  A coward at heart.

By the way - just in case anyone might need such information, he let it slip one time that he had had surgery on his lower back...

Date: 2007/09/12 07:49:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 19 2007,19:32)
Dr. Hunter:

       
Quote
On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.


There's a lot to say about this paragraph, but since I'm tired and irritable, I'll give you time to support this statement if you wish. Just two questions:

If molecular phylogenies are simply exercises in forcing the evidence to match preconceived ideas, then:

1) Why do the molecular trees surprise scientists so often, and

2) How are these phylogenies able to predict patterns of SINE insertions? The Afrotheria hypothesis was validated by retroposon evidence, and while it's true that the authors posit a "hypothetical evolutionary scenario" to explain a possible discrepancy caused by one insertion, the overall pattern supports common ancestry for these mammals.

Hunter:
Quote
On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.


What an ignorant fool.

He must have gone to the Paul Nelson school of molecular phylogenetics.

Nelson once claimed that the order in which a taxon is placed in a dataset and then aligned will dictate its position in the phylogeny, that experimenter bias essentially produces the desired outcome.

So, I took a dataset that I had been working on at the time, scrambled the order of the taxa in the alignment, coded their names, and removed all gaps.  I offered to send him this dataset, provided links to free software with which he could align them himself, and to free phylogenetic software that he could then run his dataset through.  I wrote that if his outcome was different than the outcomes that I got with that dataset, then he might have a point worth discussing.

But...

Darn it, he just didn't have the time...

... to test his claim....

But he went right on making it.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that these people are just plain old pathological liars.

Date: 2007/09/14 13:23:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Sep. 14 2007,12:37)
I hope its alright if I post some ARN trard. Ilíon links this article in his thread "Sea-water As Fuel?".
First, Ilíon defends the article:        

Ilion?

Say no more...

Date: 2007/09/17 11:17:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 16 2007,18:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275
 
Quote
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.

Josh

Savour, just savour.

Bob

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???

I wouldn't be so sure....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:04:57, Link
Author: slpage
Ah, Superspammer finds yet another place to regurgipost.

So, Sport - have you figgered out where RNA transcripts come from?

Know what "information" is?

Read my post explaining how Pellionisz isn't really telling you the whole truth about junkDNA?

Nah - you don't read stuff....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:07:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.

Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases -- heart disease, cancer, MS, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc etc......none of which have cures and all of which are killing more and more and more people despite the trillions of dollars being pumped towards Big Medicine.

I acknowledge that some diseases have been controlled or even cured, but nothing new lately...at least nothing that's doing all the killing.

Right, well, maybe your pal Bruce Lipton can cure all these diseases with his mind....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:11:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
My philosophy:

When you sit back and look at this whole thing, the debate is so polar opposite it’s almost eery. But I just thought I’d compare and contrast what I consider the most obvious difference in philosophy.

Materialists: believe that lifeforms are evolving upwards from something ugly (bacteria, fungues, etc) by way of a purely physical mechanism…(no thought or intelligence required)

SS: believes that we are devolving downwards from something beautiful (God) by way of the mind or mental processes.

Materiatists: say genes get passed down through the generations.

SS: says the mind gets passed down through the generations.

Materialists: say the genes control the mind

SS: says the mind controls the genes

With this comparison, it is easy to see who the real competitors are: the competition is between the physical actions of genes and the mental/spiritual processes of the mind. It can be no other way. Either information gets squeezed out of the random actions of genes or it gets squeezed out of the purposeful processes of the mind.

Evolutionists give the genome the credit for being the origin of information. I, on the otherhand acknowledge that the genome is a data base of information, but is merely a storage device and does not act as the generator of information. Instead, information’s source is ultimately God, but as we were made in God’s image, information’s source also resides in our minds just like it resides in God’s mind.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases. Society is certainly degenerating genetically…this fact alone dispells the notion that we’re in the process of increasing in complexity, as darwinists insist…instead we’re deteriorating, decreasing in complexity. But is the deteriorating genome the source of degeneration? I would say not because I believe the mind and mental processes are in control of the genome…and if this is the case, then the spiritual MIND is ultimately what’s degenerating, which makes the physical genome a follower of degeneration, not a leader. Likewise, with the emergence of new traits, the genome (the storage device) is not the leader, it’s the follower. New traits don’t come from a change in the genome, new traits come from a change in the mind.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.

Why do you keep cut-and-pasting (spamming) your own posts on multiple boards?  That is one of the reasons that you got banned for the creationist-run Christian Forums (one of the few such forums at which the administration actually has sense).

You are boring - not just because of your monumental ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, but because you do not even have the cajones to admit errors when you make them - and you make many - and then run away spamming boards with thread after thread.  Which, by the way, I don't think you'll get away with here...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:13:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:17)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...

no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?

Assertions only count as 'reasons' to fools like your pals Coadie and Scarlets...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:16:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.

Have you proven that there IS degeneration?  Or are you just relying on a creationist's claims?


And where is that evidence that the mind controls gene expression?

And please - not the already refuted snail shells and caterpiller coloration nonsense...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:24:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations + selection change a creature, yet not change a creature?

Ever seen a dwarf?  I mean, their body parts look very different from ours - some even have different numbers of joints between the bones in their fingers and toes.

And all due to a single point mutation in one gene...

But Sport knows that genes are irrelevant, so I guess the minds of the dwarfs are somehow changing their phenotypes  - so please, explain it all to us, sport.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:33:24, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,14:27)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,14:03)
I see that the category 3 shitstorm has left the building.

So, sport, when you return, please don't continue to ignore this query, which seems to have disappeared under the deluge of geological claims and counterclaims.  
Quote

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion  
     
Quote

Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

I suspect that if you can actually do this, you will quiet many of your critics here!

every phenotypic modification and every piece of new morphology stems from mental processes.  For example, and I gave this earlier, a flea can create a new spine for itself in the presence of predators.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover  (pg.2)

Changes in morphology, thus, must come not from changes in genes, but changes in the mind.   Since this is true, genetic change (aka materialism) does not explain how we got here morphologically......the mind/mental processes do.   But we can't make ourselves...thus, we must have been created by a mind other than our own.  I'm not going to get too much into this because I realize you don't really care to hear it.

What a fucking idiot....

This is how Supersport justifies this moronic position - you see, if any structure associated with the nervous system is involved - and this includes the endocrine system vis a vis the hypothalamus and pituitary - then by his own tadry definition, "the mind" is really in control.

The stupidity of his position has been explained to him probably 2 dozen times, yet here he is, posting the same old garbage.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:39:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

So, when your mommy and daddy touched their thingies together, they really put their minds and bodies in mommiy's woowoo, not a sperm and an egg each with half of the diploid complement of chromosomes?

I'm shocked!

Date: 2007/09/20 11:32:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,17:40)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

genes aren't definable either!

http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over

Pellionisz is a kook and self-promoter and has been disingenuous in his characterizations of the 'junk DNA' issue.

As I have explained to you twice already.

That it is clear that you simply ignore sound refutations of your claims, only to make them again and again, shows you to be at the very least suffering form some type of antisocial disorde, and at worst,a total fucking moron.

Date: 2007/09/24 08:00:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway....
She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.

Joy is exceptionally paranoid and self-important, and I agree with JAM - not very knowledgible in biology.

Date: 2007/09/24 08:13:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.

Yeah...  I wonder - how many new people post at TT?

I've not wasted my time there in some time, but when last I visited, I recall seeing the same few names starting threads and making comments.

Must be all those folks that are signing on to ID are doig it elsewhere.

Date: 2007/09/24 11:46:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?

Hmmm....

Let's see...

A dude that literally cuts and pastes thread-opening posts on half a dozen discussion boards, spam-trolls with 158 posts in 3 days (he has thousands of posts at CARM), evades, ignores replies, shifts goalposts, changes topics, etc., is banned one of only a couple of people ever banned here -  and you want to compare that to your extreme mesomorph pal Dave Springer who has banned more people than post at UD for such infractions as not agreeing with him on the the definition of a word?

Incredible...

Date: 2007/09/27 14:13:58, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,Sep. 27 2007,08:32][/quote]
FtK who is ignoring me because I am such a meanie troll:
Quote
No doubt you're somewhat familiar with Brown's work, but to accuse him of "armchair bullshit" is pushing the limits here.  Brown has spent endless hours in the field, and I know this because I've had conversations with him about his work in this respect.  His most recent theory in regard to the Grand Canyon required an extensive amount of research in the field over the years.


And because you have talked to him, he is right?

What a strange position to hold.  It is fairly common among creationists, I would add.  For example, I recall discussing some of Jon Wells' lies and distortions on the old CARM board, and a creationist there, Helen Fryman, steadfastedly defended him, and the primary defense was that she "knew the man" and had sat down and had dinner with him (at creationist meetings), therefore, she knew he was right.
It didn't seem to matter that he described pharyngeal pouches as ridges, or that he quote mined Jain, Lake and Rivera.  Oh no - she 'knew' him, thus he is always correct and honest.

I don't care how long Brown claims to spend 'in the field', the fact of the matter is that he is way out of his league on any number of subjects he pontificates about, whether you have 'talked to' him or not.  I posted some of the flaws in his biological claims on KCFS, for example, and you totally ignored them, but doubtless because you 'know the man' you will just 'know' that he is right and anyone daring to question his claims is just an arrogant atheist...
Quote


Have you *ever* considered coming down off you high horse of arrogance and pick up a phone and talk to some of these creationists you so loath?  Perhaps your view of them is not as accurate as you would like to believe.

What would change, exactly?

I've exchanged pleasant emails with Jerry Bergman and he seems like a very nice fellow.  But he is still a dishonest and incompetent propagandist.  I used to think that Paul Nelson was a good guy, also, after several pleasant email exchanges I had with him, then I discovered that he was in cahoots with Woodmorappe and has engaged in some smear tactics against those on the 'dark side.'

So maybe Walt Brown is a hell of a guy - how does that possibly impact the error of his claims?

Looks like you ascribe to the George W. Bush doctrine of placing loyalty to an ideal over competence.  It worked wonders for FEMA and DoD and EPA and the AG's office, etc...
Quote


I can tell you this...as long as you "mainstream" scientists refuse to take creationists somewhat seriously, and continue to treat them like dirt you'd like to scrape from underneath your shoes, the public is going to continue to view you as a bunch of arrogant assholes.


And thus evolution must be wrong.

Brilliant!

Date: 2007/09/28 13:35:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2007,14:25)
SuperSport is now posting at FtK's blog.

A regular Meeting of the Minds...

Hey FtK - ask SS where RNA comes from!

He says it comes from "the mind", but I don't believe him.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:01:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,20:11)
Yeah, pretty much...because the poster is not the extent to which these perverts play and the behaviors they endorse.

Why are conservatives so concerned about what other consenting adults do in the supposed privacy of their own homes?

Are their own lives really so miserable that they feel the need to inflict their own Larry Craig-style morality on everyoner else?

Date: 2007/10/01 13:04:55, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,23:01)

Quote
Promiscuity seems to be the nature of the beast...

Have you ever talked to a college student?  And I don't mean the former president of Wheaton...
Quote


and, why promote homosexuality by having "gay parades" etc., where participants seem to get off on wearing outrageous attire or acting like loons, rather than featuring loving, caring, relationships.

Yeah - and those costumes worn in the Rose Parade - I mean what kind of relationships are THEY endorsing!!???

Date: 2007/10/01 13:06:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 29 2007,23:07)
Why are your stereotypes any more valid than a Klansman's opinions about Black people?

Any chance of you answering my questions?

Funny you write that - have you read about the Christian 'family'  group that purchased the KKK's mailing list to recruit members?

Date: 2007/10/01 13:07:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 29 2007,23:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,23:32)
 Just because I don't agree with someone's lifestyle or something they adhere to which I heartily disagree with doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike them.  

You make it sound like people choose to be gay.

Well of course they do.

It is my understanding that a huge number of people chose to be Jewish in the 1930s in Germany, too.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:20:53, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 28 2007,21:49)
johnnyb:
 
Quote
Paul –

I can see a day where in fact the main center of Academia is outside of the university, and in fact am hoping to work towards that over the next year.


Translation: I am flunking out of community college.

LOL!

Yeah, old JohnnyB is a funny one. He's a ReMine acolyte and - get this - an engineer!

Date: 2007/10/01 13:37:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 01 2007,00:25)
bFast is a tard

Who would have thunk it?  Some casual computer programmer-type sits about and comes up with some major problems for theoretical physicists!  

Of course, bfast has a history of doing what creationists with such backgrounds do - pontificating on matters that they have no business pontificating on.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:32:30, Link
Author: slpage
So basically all one has to do is add the word "Family" to the name of a group and it will automatically be seen, by conservatives, as good and wholesome and 'traditional' and such.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:40:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 02 2007,13:32)
Meantime, Dembski is back on the EIL list:  
http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/People.html

I liked the Grasse quote on their.. quote page...

The only other person I have seen quote from Grasse's 1977 book is John A. 'I love it so' Davison.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:48:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Tom Ames @ Oct. 02 2007,15:57)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 02 2007,11:32)
Meantime, Dembski is back on the EIL list:  
http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/People.html

Anyone look at the CV of Dembski's colleague Thomas English?

It's on what looks like the website for his apartment (which he's given the grandiose title 'Bounded Theoretics'), and shows that Dr. English has spent 8 of the last 10 years as a "Researcher" for "The Tom English Project". Not even a Senior or Staff Scientist--just a "researcher"!

Reminds me of that "Smartest Guy in the World" character who was on ARN for awhile, and who wrote a chapter for Dembski's book on ever-so-smart people who agree with him. (Langdon was his name, I think.)

Yeah - the guy that took the MENSA exam first with a fake name, then re-took it under his own name so he could get a higher score...

Date: 2007/10/04 11:19:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2007,11:00)
Since when they say Family they just mean gay-haters and Klansmen, I think we should let them keep it. The Church-Burnin' Ebola Boys have some scruples.

I must concur...

Date: 2007/10/04 11:26:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,10:47)
Funny...that coming from you blipey, because at my blog you are continuously suggesting that I go private again.

I took down all personal photos at my blog...

ie.. Dembski's ordeal...no doubt the admin and regents addresses are common knowledge and listed on the internet.  But, I don't condone what he did and was very glad to see an apology put forth in that regard.

My personal information is not public and I want it kept that way.  The way some people talk to me online, I really don't know what some of them are capable of.  Just the other day someone was madder than hell at me for letting Skatje's comment go through moderation because they believed I was writing comments for her and using her name.  I wasn't, but this person was HIGHLY pissed off at me, even though I was honest about the entire situation.

You really think these foklks put their home addresses on the internet?

I can guarantee that I never put such informationon th einternet, so when your pal JoeG. posted my address on the net, he was doing some stalking.  He also posted the name of one other guy's wife and someone's phone number.  Because, after all, if you can intimidate someone into not posting on a discussion board, creationism will be true...
No outrage from creationists when he did it, though...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:27:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:31)
FTK:

If Dembski had been given a chance at Baylor, perhaps  you would all have been surprised about the output...then again, maybe not.  But to gag IDists and not allow them to receive grants, etc. from mainstream sources is a mistake on your part.  

Why, exactly, did Dmebski need a "lab" at Baylor to do his "research"?

Dembski's "research" consists of using a computer.  He doesn't have a computer?

He cannot do his "work" where he is?  

Let's face the facts - Dembski does nto do any sort of work that requires anything more than a computer and internet access.  He doesn't need a 'lab' - even a virtual one.

It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

And as far as "Expelled" goes, well, we heard the same 'warnings' when the Dover trial started...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:30:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 04 2007,17:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:31)
What I should have said was that you evos have been trying to find something, *anything* that you can claim is an example of a macroevolutionary change taking place in nature...something we can empirically detect with our own eyes...it doesn't exist.

Gee, when I was a postdoc, I did my own sequencing and empirically read the sequences with my very own eyes. Nowadays, I send DNA off for sequencing, but I can still read the trace files that are emailed back to me.

How can you babble about seeing things with our own eyes when yours are firmly closed to looking at any real evidence?

I wonder - has FTK ever actually seen Jesus?

Date: 2007/10/05 13:37:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56)
Richard,  creation science is out there in the private sector...what good is keeping it private doing them?  You've admited to never reading any of it... most people haven't.  Until fairly recently, most people had never even heard of the advancements in creation science, and it's been around for years.

Advancements?  Like what (not that I will get an answer)?

I own and have read Icons, Refuting Evolution, Biotic Message, etc. - no original science in anyo them.

I own several volumes of CRSQ.  Propaganda mostly, and the 'science' in it must conform to Scripture.

Not agreeing with it and seeing it as garbage does not mean we don't read it.

Date: 2007/10/05 13:39:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:08)
Quote
You know, when you say stuff like that, it's like you *want* people to laugh at you.


Yeah?  Well, you won't be laughing when February 2008 comes around.  

The Darwin thought police have made one two many unfair arrests lately, and it's going to come back to haunt them very, very soon.

Right, 'expelled' again...

Stenrberg the non-Martyr...

Crocker the creationist proselytizer.....

Gonzalez the guy who stopped doing research but wanted tenure...

YAWN....

The only folks that will believe the garbage in it are the same folks that think Limbaugh is a patriot and Larry Craig was framed...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:43:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)
When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals.  Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.

But see, the creation ID scientists could then point to their published work and say "See?  We DO engage in scientific research and the evil Darwinists are suppressing the truth!"

It is truly idiotic to claim that there is no reason to publish in their own journals.  If that were so, why were the journals set up in the first place?  Didn't the DI folks understand this?

Date: 2007/10/24 13:57:23, Link
Author: slpage
Busily looks for Tard's claims about being built like a middle-weight boxer or a lineabacker....

Date: 2007/10/24 14:02:34, Link
Author: slpage
Joey really has no idea how much of an asshole he makes himself out to be, does he?

"Cetaceans are much more than a loss of hind-limbs. There should be at least 50,000 intermediates."

Looks like somebody has been listening to DI philosopher-idiots again...

Date: 2007/10/29 10:35:20, Link
Author: slpage
In case you hadn't noticed, that linebacker-build possessing extreme mesomorph Dave 'tardy' Springer is at ISCID, duking it out with fellow misanathrope John A. "I love it so" Davison...

A classic bit of hypocrisy from tardipus rex:


Tony Blair's isn't a botanist that I'm aware of. Have his findings been published in a peer reviewed journal?



Hmmmm..

Is Davy Springer a physicist?  A biologist?  A geneticist?  ?????
[B]

Date: 2007/11/07 08:23:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:39)
I'd prefer that it be taught at the university level...FAIRLY.  But, since it is obvious from the syllabuses that I've read from those professors already teaching ID, I'm not sure how one would get to the truth of the issues.  Students don't have the time or interest to check out pro-ID sites to get to the truth of the matter.

I know you are ignoring me because I am mean and all, but what, exactly, should be taught in a university class re: ID?

Date: 2007/11/07 08:31:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,19:03)
Quote
3,4) If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

Anyway some basics of religion should be taught at schools for those childrens whose parents are fanatic atheists or neodarwinists and do not talk with their children about religion which formed thinking of our grand parents and our predecessors more than 1.000 years so intensively

Also children should know some other evolutionary approaches as well - it means ID, orthogenesis etc., and their basic arguments - if they want to study it outside school. They should be taught more facts about "natural selection" and what some great scientists thought of it. They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.


Ooh, I like his answers much better than mine.  Especially his answer to questions 3&4.  That is sooooooo true.  

No doubt in the future when students read about neo-Darwinist beliefs in regard to dino to bird, ape to man etc., etc., they'll split a gut laughing at how backwoods we used to be.

"Mom, can you freaking believe scientists used to think that we all evolved from a common blob?"

My daughter has gone to church several times with her conservative christian friend.  This the friend who has, on at least 2 occasions, asked my daughter if she likes GW Bush, and when my daughter has said no, her christian friend has pointed at her and yelled 'Democrat!  Democrat ! Democrat!'  My daughter isin 5th grade.

This is also the 'friend' that told her a few years ago that if you don't believe in god you are "stupid" and are going to hell.

My daughter thinks religion is silly.  And my wife and I have never talked to her about it, except to answer her questions.  She came to that conclusion all by herself, about 2 years ago, in part when she found out that I am the Tooth Fairy - she thought for a second, then asked about the Easter Bunny.  I nodded.  Santa?  Nodded again.  God?  I smiled.

Kids are pretty smart, providing they have not been brainwashed by repetitive mantras and browbeating by authority figures.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:31:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious part...in the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

The depth?

Perhaps they should include a link to UD and Joe Gallien's blog to see the 'depth' of the debate.

Or maybe a list of 'scientists' that doubt Darwin.

Or maybe one of Dembski's new collections of rehashed nonsense.  Or maybe Behe's latest collection of pre-refuted gibberish.

Because, after all, they really cannot supply any actual primary research information...

Date: 2007/11/08 09:36:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)

Quote
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

They cannot even seem to produce anything for THEIR OWN journals.
Quote

 And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science  

Then perhaps you can explain WHY macro-evolution is wothless.
Quote

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  

How many pro-evolution books are referred to in Expelled, do you think?
Quote

If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".


Which 14 would you suggest?

Date: 2007/11/08 09:37:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:10)
Hey FtK what do you think of the ID camp refusing to be interviewed?  

Quote
Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."



Read more
here

And I'm still curious to know which ID books your children have read.  Well other than the bible.

I submit that they refused to be interviewed because they know what THEIR side does to interviewees and how thier tapes are edited.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:41:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:14)
We all know that NOVA is part of Team Dogma when it comes to evolution.

Just a big conspiracy to keep THE TRUTH from getting out...

Date: 2007/11/15 11:45:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2007,19:37)
They showed a clip from some Discovery Institute DVD. While the DI voice over talks about scientists doing research, the DVD shows Michael Behe in a lab coat, which should make anyone chuckle, and Stephen Meyer giving in a lecture.

One hard thing for anyone who moderates here is, the only approprate response to that is "Fucking lying bastards." yet we need to not have that kind of intemperate speech around here.

Good luck Lou.  :p

The DI whiners are complaining that the PBS show was 'lying' because they really sent the DVD version of 'Icons...' not Unlocking...  Because that is just a great big lie!

But I got a chuckle out of seeing Meyer in that clip as the DNA narrator was talking about scientific research....

Date: 2007/11/27 09:28:33, Link
Author: slpage
And, of course, FTK sticks her wet little nose in it and pulls back a turd:


Quote

"Okay, I haven't had time to follow this latest melodrama, so let me see if I have this straight.

Dembski used a clip easily found on the Internet, and he credited the source.

Now, Darwinists here and at Harvard are pissed because it was used in an ID presentation. Correct?..."

Date: 2007/12/03 20:46:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 02 2007,20:24)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,20:19)
If I exclude Blipey's comments, I post about 99.9%.  There are not many people here who can say I've not put their post through moderation unless it was virtually content free or nasty.

Just for the record, I have had quite a few comments not appear on FtK's blog. Not hundreds, and not recently, because I have quit commenting there. And exactly none of them have been "content-free, or nasty."

Just the facts, ma'am.

Same here.

But then, I am one of those "meanie" evilutionists who dissed crazy Walt Brown and showed SLimy Sally how sleazy and stupid he is....

Date: 2007/12/03 20:56:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,22:01)
That is a comment that doesn't deserve a response.  Behe just wrote an entire book sharing his work (which could never have been considered 20 years ago).  Technology advances and so does ID and creation science, though it has yet to see the light of day in mainstream journals or labs.  It’s censored, so books are written instead.  

Dembski wrote a book providing his research.  You may not call it lab research, but just the same, it raised the level of understanding about the immense complexity of the universe.  Gonzales wrote the Privileged Planet and lost his job because of it.  All these books provide information due to what we've learned from advancements in science.  

Evolutionists have aided in advancing creation science and ID as well, and that’s helpful because their research will get published whereas those who have made public that they support ID won’t get published.   That’s also a little scary, because I sometimes wonder if scientists might stop publishing certain things simply because it could be considered as support for ID.  

Just recently Panegea has finally been questioned by mainstream scientists.  If anything further comes from that, some creationists will certainly benefit.  

Nothing coming from a creationist or IDists would ever be believed, so it certainly wouldn't be considered "doing research".  Brown has all done all kinds of research, and has made numerous predictions, but they don't count unless a mainstream scientist bearing a Darwin emblem on his chest makes the same claim.   Then we can finally claim it as research.

OK...

Did you read Behe's new book?

How much of his own amazing new ID research did he discuss?

Let me help you here - NONE.

Because he hasn't done any.

You didn't read it, did you?

What is your evidence that Behe's 'research' is censored?  Or are you just pulling a Cordova?

Dembski doesn't do research.  He writes books yammering on with his religiously-inspired hack-kob opinions that even other mathematicians find vacuous and useless.

Gonzalez writes about his anthropocentirc fantasies with his theologian co-author.  He stopped doing research when he became a creationist.

Your whining about these things that you are totally clueless on is so.... typical....

Date: 2007/12/03 21:06:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,22:21)

Quote
Sal is not sleezy.

Yes he is.  He repeats things he knows to be false.  He embellishes events to the point of absurdity.  He almost literally worships IDcreationists (' Sir William'.. .how gay is that???*)
Quote

Darwin did beat a puppy in order to feel powerful.  He later felt sorry about it, and hopefully it the only incident of animal abuse.  

Better had he just shot some herons for being alive, right FTK?
Quote


If you want me to post the rest of the quote at YC, I will.  Personally, I think Sal was posting it in jest.  He already knows that Darwinists get highly irrate about that quote because I've seen him post it numerous times in the past and receive the same comments.

So, you mean he purposefully provokes irate replies?  Why would people be irate if they did not know that he was lying about it?  Maybe people get irate when they see a sleaze bag like Cordova engage in repeated acts of dishonesty while claiming to be part of a cult that possesses superior morals and ethics because they do not question the words written by Bronze Age nomads in a collection of plagiarized fairy tales...
Quote



Sometimes I post things just to rile the lot of you as well.

Oh, well, what better way to change people's negative impression of you!
Quote


 I know that's nice a kind thing to do, but it gets really old watching you guys put me down consistently every single day.  No doubt he gets sick of it at times as well.

Here's an idea - maybe if you two actually, you know, STOPPED doing the things that make people label you the way they do, maybe THAT would be better?  If someone thinks Sleazy is a liar, for example, is the best thing to do is lie some more?
Quote

I don't have one of those devices on my computer to block what my kids read, but the other day I wondered if I should get one so I could block out this site.  Maybe that would keep me from watching you people treat me like dirt.

You mean you let them see what sort of nonsense you write?

Wow...  I envision that teenage 'I'm embarrassed of my parents' stage being a long and justifiable period at the FtK compound...


*not meant as an offense to homosexuals

Date: 2007/12/03 21:16:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,07:22)

Quote

Typical...make sure everyone knows that although he BEAT a dog to feel powerful, he later regreted it.


Um.. Mrs. Christian?  Did you see the part where he said it happened whilst he was a "little boy"?
Shall we degrade and despise your precious angels when they are old men for killing herons simply for being there?

Date: 2007/12/03 21:24:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,09:58)
Dave, how can one NOT get past Abbie's shrill behavior? It's over the top, just like PZ's.  She's went absolutely postal due to Dembski using a youtube clip that GAVE CONCENT FOR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  If they didn't mean for anyone to use it for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, then they should have put that in writing.

Consent for education use providing it was not ALTERED and they were given CREDIT.

I guess you missed those little things...

Because afterall, details don't matter to the YEC cultist...

Date: 2007/12/04 08:02:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Dec. 03 2007,18:05)
Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...

Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.

Not to mention the paranoia...

Date: 2007/12/05 11:15:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 05 2007,00:28)
Hey, all you people who've actually voted on tenure?

Does alluding to a potential tenure case before it comes up actually open a review board to lawsuits? If so, what's the justification behind the legal precedent in question? It seems like it'd be a bizarre prohibition to me, but if there is such a prohibition it's the only part of the entire case that isn't founded on bad logic from the very beginning.

I don't think so.

At my University, when a person comes up for tenure one of the first steps is for their department to review their materials and openly discuss their merits.  Then there is a departmental vote on whether or not the chair should recommend the person to the dean for tenure.  Depending on the chair's input, the dean then sends the materials to the promotion and tenure committee, members of which have the authority to ask for additional information form any party involved.  If everything is in order, the committee approves the application and sends it to the Provost for final approval (it then goes to the president and the board of trustees).

I suspect that the process is similar at other institutions.

If the decision of the committe is appealed, then here it goes to the President, who can also gather more information, including testimony.  It is all fairly open, expect for, for example, the committee deliberations themselves (however, minutes of the meetings are avilable afterwards).

So, unless there are legal reasons for gagging those involved, the process is generally pretty open, again at least at my institution.

Date: 2007/12/05 11:27:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,16:12)
Hey.  Why don't some of you dodos come diet with me?

There have to be a couple of you who are interested in healthy eating and losing weight.

Lurkers are welcome too!  The more the merrier...

Well, if I'm an extreme mesomorph, built like a middleweight boxer or football linebacker, you know, I could just drop 10-15 pounds without thinking about it.
But I don't want to, and that is why a look more like a couch potato with chicken legs...

Date: 2007/12/14 16:58:37, Link
Author: slpage
Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski



What the F#$K????


DEMBSKI IS NOT NOT NOT A SCIENTIST AT ALL, much less a "leading one"..

Why do these people have to embellish so much?

Date: 2007/12/17 16:38:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,15:05)
Lou FCD
Quote

Anything involving your invisible theory needs to go in your cosmology thread or here on the wall.


I see. Franz Heikertinger, Adolf Portmann, Otto Schindewolf, Leo Berg, Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse (president of the French academy of science), Punnet (Punnet square), Robert Broom, John Davison are wrong and should be only at  the "Bathroom Wall". They are all "outdated" with no "predictions". And it's only you who veni, vidi, vici as administartor of AtBC, hehe.

I'm shocked!  JAD's acolyte trying to wow us with irrelevant name dropping and crdential spamming?

Davison is a kook.  He was once a legitimate scientist, then he became what he is today - a snake oil peddler...

And vmartin digs it...

Date: 2008/01/03 08:04:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,07:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.

No.

YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.

Sick, isn't it, what religious zeal, stupidity, and hubris can do to a person?

So, Sally boy gets an A in a college class and feels the need to boast about it on his website.

I'll bet he'll be using that grade to 'prove' that he is an expert on all things scientific...

Wait - he does that anyway, because he had a music minor ...

Date: 2008/01/03 08:37:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 01 2008,21:28)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 01 2008,18:03)
   
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 01 2008,17:29)
GCT,

That statement was qualified.  As to the chick, she and our subject are not related.

I'm just sayin' it's still a bold statement.  It's tripping my no true Scotsman filter.  This Prof. Smith is obviously not who (s)he says (s)he is, but I don't think we need to make such sweeping statements either.

GCT,

Let's not get hung up on this minor point.  I speak from personal experience acquired on several campuses, but maybe I'm generalizing a bit.  It's not important.  

The story with Dr. R. is ridiculous on another level.  On the one hand, professorsmith is hiding his/her creationist ideology from "materialist" colleagues until tenure.  On the other, he/she is openly arguing a creationist stance before Dr. R., who is also a colleague.  Why risk blowing cover if it supposedly is so dangerous?  That doesn't make sense.

Maybe this ProfessorSmith is a professor in the same way that Joe Gallien is a 'scientist'?

Date: 2008/01/03 21:23:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (factician @ Jan. 03 2008,12:30)
Bah!

professorsmith:
Quote
I was looking through the eTOC (electronic Table Of Contents, for those of you not in academia) for Nature today, and saw this:


News and Views
Nature 451, 22-23 (3 January 2008) | DOI:10.1038/451022b; Published online 2 January 2008

Magnetism: Freedom for the poles
Oleg Tchernyshyov1

Yes, my new friend olegt and managed to get a piece into Nature.

From what I understand of the article, someone has shown that it is possible, in theory, for magnets (like bar magnets) to only have one pole.  This is the stuff of science fiction, but is it any more use than Darwinism?

Well done Dr. Tchernyshyov!


This is written with the intellectual maturity of an intelligent adolescent.  Anyone want to wager that professorsmith is a sockpuppet of Slimy Sal?

Could explain why he refuses to let any of my comments through moderation....

Date: 2008/01/07 08:35:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 06 2008,18:01)
Is this just a retake on ReMine's BS?

http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2007am/techprogram/P35998.HTM

Monday, November 5, 2007
57-3
Using Mendel's Accountant to Simulate Mutation Accumulation and Genetic Load in Plants.
John C. Sanford, Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), Los Alamos, NM 87545, Paul Gibson, Int'l Inst. Cooperative Studies, Cooperative Studies Inc., PO Box 12830, Overland Park, KS 66282-2830, Wes Brewer, Computer Science & Electronic Engineering, Handong Global University, Handong, South Korea, and Walter ReMine, Science & Mathematics Dept., Northwestern College, St. Paul, MN 55113.

Northwestern College is a Christians College....

The only place a hack like ReMine could get a job...

Interestingly, he is not mentioned in the Science and Mathematics faculty list, evan as a part-timer.  Hmmm....

Date: 2008/01/07 09:09:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote
1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?


Interesting that 'analogy' is #1.  Anti-evolutionists actually seem to employ analogies as evidence, which Gene appears to be doing by using it as a primary criterion for establishing Design.  

The ONLY potentially objective criterion is #2 - the others are pure ID gobbledegook.

I will not be buying this garbage.

Date: 2008/01/30 09:09:51, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2008,18:30)
What odd can I get on Sal having repressed fundie gayness syndrome?

I'd like some of that action (the bet, that is...).

I think one of the reasons so many funnymentalists are obsessed with sex - and gay sex in particular - is because they are latent homosexuals and/or were moelsted by a male relative or relgious figure as children.

That or they are just depraved sex perverts like FtK.

Date: 2008/01/30 09:13:02, Link
Author: SLP
Sal blabbering on about the Neutral Theory is like Sal blabbering on about,....  Anything else.

Pretentious, shallow, naive, condescending, WAY too overconfident, and, as always , plain wrong.

Date: 2008/02/01 12:39:44, Link
Author: slpage
Some UD drone writes:

Quote

“PZ easily won the debate.”
Thankfully “winning” a debate does not the truth make.


Funny - they seem to think debates are the bvest way to get to the truth when they perceive THEIR guy to have won...

Date: 2008/02/01 12:44:01, Link
Author: slpage
Computer programmer creationist and, apparently, brain expert, bfast wrote:

Quote
I suspect that the differences between human and chimp brains are vastly more significant than PZ makes them out to be. I note, for instance, the HAR1F gene that is rock stable throughout mammals, yet is different in 18 bps in humans. I find the HAR1F to be inexplicable within a neo-Darwinan framework.



No explanation why it is inexplicable, and doubtless, personal incredultiy will be his 'evidence.'

bfast is a douchebag.

Date: 2008/02/01 12:45:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
FtK will no doubt cry "censorship!"

*Rolls eyes*

And surely, SHE, with your scientific brilliance, will be able to point out and explain all of PZ's "atheist lies", right?

Date: 2008/02/01 12:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,11:50)
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

Could that be a documented lie from the creationist/IDist Simmons?

Date: 2008/02/05 17:51:30, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:

 
Quote

Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.


Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.

 
Quote

Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


Source

A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

Date: 2008/02/06 07:21:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 03 2008,21:31)
In regard to divorce, it has become almost an epidemic.  People divorce their spouses for any number of insignificant reasons.  I can certainly understand divorcing someone for infidelity, abandonment or abuse, but the problem is that infidelity is almost a way of life these days.  It’s wrong, and it’s harmful to our children.

And who gets divorced more - Christians or non?  Conservatives or Liberals?  Red staters or blue?

Hint:  Who has been divorced more, Rush Limbaugh or John Kerry?

Date: 2008/02/06 12:23:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 01 2008,16:00)
Somehow the Coulter ref put me in mind of this video.

How about this one...

Date: 2008/02/06 12:40:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (REC @ Feb. 06 2008,10:29)
Quote


DaveScot

02/06/2008

9:05 am

Clarence

The Discovery Institute doesn’t have a biology lab. They don’t have enough funding to even begin assembling one.

Link

Hmm....kinda answers all my questions on what the content of all the 'peer reviewed' literature DI is generating will be

<link fixed - Lou>

Really?

We just refurbished a storage room and turned it into a functional but small modern molecular biology research lab for just over $100,000.
Surely the DI can cut its PR budget enough to cough up that....

Date: 2008/02/10 14:47:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2008,08:54)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 04 2008,08:43)
Hi Alb, and others,

Chien's description has been changed to "biologist."

Paul

Since the original statement in EE read thusly    
Quote
This point has been further emphasized by a recent Precambrian fossil find near Chengjiang, China. Scientists there recently discovered incredibly preserved microscopic fossils of sponge embryos. (Sponges are obviously soft-bodied. Their embryos are small and soft-bodied, too—other than their tiny spicules.) Paul Chien, a marine paleobiologist at the University of San Francisco argues that this discovery poses a grave difficulty for the artifact hypothesis.

and since Paul Chien has NO credentials in paleontology, how is this new wording any less misleading?

Why didn't you change it to "Paul Chien, a toxicologist..."?

Or does Paul suddenly have a bunch of peer-reviewed publications in the field of paleontology? I looked in the web of science, and I didn't find any. Perhaps you can point me to those.

thanks

It seems sort of like referring to Wells as either an 'embryologist' or a 'molecular biologist' depending on which one will get more traction, while neither ir really all that accurate.

Creationists of all stripes have a long and sordid history of embellishing their credentials to make their commentary seem more relevant.

I wasn't aware of Chien's mischaracterization.  Must have just been a little editorial mistake - like Paul Nelson said, all texts have them.  But it is odd that this editorial mistake in a text has been used in several other venues.  Hmmmm....

Date: 2008/02/10 14:52:21, Link
Author: slpage
Well, Sal is the same fellow who declared that evolution is false because it would be impossible for the sternum to form...

Date: 2008/02/11 11:39:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,23:32)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 10 2008,23:28)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:28)
You people are savages....it's rubbed off on me, and now I'm part of the problem when I enter ATbC bizzaro world.

I've never seen you act like anything other than a dishonest, lying and disingenuous twit myself.

Oh, that's another reason why I keep coming back.  To defend myself.  I've never been anything other than honest....yet, "twits" like this clown keep accusing me of dishonesty.

Awww...

Poor widdle FtK, all alone and always the victim...

Never has this paragon of virtue, intellectual honesty, and brotherly love ever done anything to deserve anything but friendship, respect, and admiration...

Date: 2008/02/13 11:00:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 13 2008,00:55)
Oh, just found this new tard
Quote


14

peter borger

02/12/2008

10:36 am

Non Mendelian inheritance is often observed. It is caused by Variation inducing genetic elements VIGES, previously known as ERVs, LINEs, SINEs, ALUs, etc.

VIGES integrate into certain areas of non-coding parts of genetic instructions and modify protein expression patterns and other genetic output. They have an ability to excise an reintegrate, duplicate or diminish, and this explains the non-mendelian fashion of inheritance.

I have completed a MS (200 pages) containing the complete overturn of the main Darwinian hypotheses and GUToB, a set of testable hypotheses that explains what falsifies Darwinism.

Is there an interested publisher around?

I hope he sticks around, it could be fun.

Bob

Borger is an asthma researcher and hard core creationst.

I've encountered his idiocy on EvC and seen his claims get demolished at ISCID.  He jsut keeps pumping out the same moronic bilge.

Interesting?

Not at all.  Infuriating and annoying?  Yes.

He claims, for example, that some loci mutate so nonrandomly as to appear random.

Major tardage.

Date: 2008/02/20 11:28:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 17 2008,16:18)
Quote
106
bFast
02/17/2008
4:50 pm

Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

You're right, bFast.  It took considerably longer than a million years.

Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

Why should anyone CARE what a  software developerthinks about DNA?

Date: 2008/02/20 11:42:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (1of63 @ Feb. 17 2008,14:01)
The problem is that believers assume that these experiences happen while the brain is flatlined.  But there are periods before the op when the patient is being put under and prepped and afterwards when they are coming out of it when these experiences could easily have happened.  That's the more likely explanation.

The fact is we have no evidence that consciousness can exist apart from the physical brain and these stories just don't cut it.

Not to mention the fact that most of the aspects of NDEs - the light at the end of the tunnel, a feeling of euphoria, etc - can be induced by deprivijg the brain of bllod, as often happens to pilots and astronauts undergoing high-G training.

Date: 2008/02/27 14:13:55, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:49)
BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?

Actually, panspermia subsumes the existence of life.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:04:43, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 10 2008,01:21)
bFast - just a couple of observations.
1. It would help if you could clarify your terminology.

Well, he is a computer programmer creationist with no background in biology.

Which is why, of course, he must be right on everything he writes.  Because creationists without biology backgrounds with computer/engineering backgrounds know everything about everything.  

And if there are any truly brilliant engineers out there, they would side with creationist bfast and his ilk on these issues.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:06:04, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (bFast @ Mar. 10 2008,09:53)
JAM, you bore me.  You don't at all answer my real question, but spend all your energy trying to twist what I am saying into something racist.

Do you think anyone is not bored by your typical, mundane, arrogant creationist pontificating?

And you might want to work on your spelling - it detracts from your vacuous claims.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:29:25, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 10 2008,22:09][/quote]
Wow...
bfast:
Quote

2, You suggest that you and I are 99.99% identical.  If there are 25,000 genes, with an average of 100 aminos per gene, that would mean that there's about 250 alleles.

What does the average amino acid number have to do with it?  How you get 250 alleles out of that is a mystery of creationist math and biology.
Quote

From my understanding there are at least seven alleles that control for eye color (I recognize that these alleles may have other effects, as is so common.)  So eye color eats up 35% of the available alleles.  I don't believe it for a moment.

What you 'believe' or not is immaterial.
Quote

My bet is that there is [sic] no less than 1000 alleles that affect the phenotype within humanity.  Even 1000 would be an amazingly small number considering the amount of variance within humanity.


Why is that?  Do you have a rationale for that statement?  How much change does an allele produce?  Is it quantifiable?  Do all alleles produce the same or similar amount of change?  And how do you know?
Quote

 Further, if there really are this few alleles, getting to an accurate cause for all genetically caused diseases should be pretty darn easy.

"There are over 6000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through generations." (http://www.geneticdiseasefoundation.org/) That would indicate that there are 6 genetic disorders for every allele. ;)
You demonstrate nicely a common problem with IDcreationists with no biology background attempting to pontificate on biological matters.   For starters, why do you assume a completely uniform distribution of allelic difference?

Date: 2008/03/11 13:05:00, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,11:19)
slpage, you are distracting from this topic.  Please go away.

Sorry, you can't pull strings with your imbecilic buddies and order people around on here.

You don't seem to understand the difference between genes and alleles, that much is obvious.  You are clueless.

Date: 2008/03/11 13:09:13, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 11 2008,11:30][/quote]
Clueless creationist....


Quote
Richard Simons:  
Quote
bfast, I am not convinced that you have the concept of alleles completely straight as you use the word in an idiosyncratic manner.
 
Quote

My bet is that there is no less than 1000 alleles that affect the phenotype within humanity.


Here you seem to be using allele when you actually mean locus.


No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  


Do you even know what a GENE is for christ's sake?

No, an allele is a variant form of a GENE.

You should stick to whatever it is you think you actually understand, because this ain't it.
Quote




Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.


Clueless.  I may be distracting from is topic, but you should not even be discussing it with this level of ignorance.
Quote

 Honest, I doubt if I could have carried this conversation on this long with Zachriel if I was unaware of what an allele is.


Well, you have been yet you are very clearly unaware.

Creationists have never let their ignorance stop them from pontificating, though.  So keep going - it is entertaining to see someone so clueless carry on as if they have some sort of in-depth understanding.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:05:13, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2008,16:31)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,14:19)
Wesley Elsberry, thanks for getting to a real number to my question.

But no thanks to those who corrected your gross misunderstanding of the fundamentals you need to understand to construct a useful model.

Never admit an error, bfast. That does wonders for your credibility.

JAM,

bfast has a pretty fragile ego, and refuses to acknowledge error and will ignore those that demonstrate his shallow understanding of issues that he nonetheless pontificates on.  I have seen him do this on forums before.  He is what one might call a 'baby'.

And worse, he is a Salem Hypothesis poster boy.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:08:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,18:31)
JAM, and the other peanut gallery critics,  has it dawned on you that Zachriel, an actual Ph.D. biologist, has not questioned my understanding of what an allele is.  Convince him that I misunderstand or SHUT UP!!

Sorry, bfast, I too have a PhD in biology (anatomy and cell biology, to be precise) and you clearly don't even really understand what a gene is, much less an allele.

Here, I will prove it:

"An allele is a variant of the same protein. "


An allele is not a protein.  Nor is a gene.  You clearly don't know, whether Zachrial pointed it out or not.  Maybe he just has a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance.


Perhaps YOU should SHUT UP since you are clearly well out of your league on this basic issue.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:11:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,21:40)
And, gentlemen, if my understanding of alleles is so messed up, why could Zachriel simulate my ideas in his pre-built allele simulating software?  Answer me that one?

Simulators do not rely on erroneous understandings, they use numbers.  Pretty simple, really.


But, you are a computer technician creationist, and you know everything about everything.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:22:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,21:28)

bfast:
Quote
I am aware that alleles are variants of genes. But genes make proteins, amongst other stuff that they do.

Yes, but they are not proteins.
Google expertise is not real expertise.
Quote
Only alleles of genes (two variants of the same gene) which actually affect the phenotype of the organism need be considered in this context.  I actually understand all of that.

Yet you wrote that alleles are variations of proteins, so clearly you don't.  If it had been a mere misstatement, then you would have had no problem admitting the error and moving on. But you actually expanded on the error:

No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

And now you are attempting to minimize/equivocate by offering up some Wiki expertise (that still seems to ignore the resources Wes provided).
Quote

Now, back to the first question.  How many alleles are there which affect the organism's phenotype (in this case a mammal, I don't care which one) in any measurable way?  

Who knows?  Maybe you can ask DaveScot - he has a high IQ.
Quote

I understand perfectly what an allele is.  You all are just playing the "creationists aren't evolutionists because they don't understand the basics" card.  It is bull!


An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

'Bull' must be creationese for 'true'.
Quote

If I get any more of it, I will end this thread.  I am getting interesting results on my extended simulation, but I think I'll find a less rejecting audience.


You mean like a bunch of sycophantic know-nothing fellow creationists who seem to live to pat each other on the back for spewing nonsense on moderator-protected creationist havens like UD?

What a spoiled baby.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:23:32, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Mar. 11 2008,22:01)
At first guess, I would say that he made a decision to use the appropriate definition of an allele in the model.....

We now return you to your lurker free channel

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:45:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
Another piece in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 
Quote
 
Quote
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?

I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.

Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...

Date: 2008/03/12 09:22:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:08)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:08)
You clearly don't know, whether Zachrial pointed it out or not.  Maybe he just has a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance.

I did try to clarify bFast's terminology earlier in the thread in order to fully comprehend what he was trying to claim. However, he hasn't been too forthcoming on answering my questions. I am still willing to give him a chance to make his point.

(The problem remains of how to generalize the results sufficiently as to make a valid claim about biology. I remain very doubtful. The results so far actually contradict bFast's understanding—even within the toy universe. But first things first.)

Indeed.

This reliance upon 'toy' examples has a long history in the IDcreationist realm.  I am reminded of Cordova's insistence that his "toy example" (his words) of molecular phylogenetics - employing a whopping 10 letters, 'mutating' 1 per round of 'evolution', and showing that after only a few such rounds, hierarchies were impossible to make - proved that molecular phylogenetics was unrelaiable and also, of course, that somehow this showed evolution was wrong.  This occurred on the old version of the KCFS forum.  To employ a hackneyed phrase, it wasn't even wrong, and here we have a simulator violating Borel's theorem right before the creationist's eyes.  Amazing.

In the end, my 'predicition' was right - you just have a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance. :p

Date: 2008/03/12 18:34:03, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 12 2008,15:10][/quote]
bfast:
Quote
I understand that an allele is a version of a gene.  I understand that there are non-coding genes.  I understand that introns, for instance, often affect the phenotype.

Who wrote this:

"No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein. "

Quote

 I would assume that an intron would be seen as a non-coding gene.


No, an intron is part of a gene.
Quote
However, I may be incorrect when I assume that an intron would be seen as a gene, or a portion of a gene even though it is not a gene that codes to protein.


No, an intron is a part of a gene.
Quote
 Alas, this only goes to the question of exactly how the word "gene" is defined by biologists, not to my understanding of what an allele is.  


"No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein. "


I don't think it is the biologists that have the problem.

It is the non-biologists that think they can gain google or wiki expertise or read a few creationist books and pontificate on biology on par with actual biologists.

Date: 2008/03/12 18:37:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,17:29)

bfast:
Quote
Gentlemen,

A common definiton of evolution is, "change in allele frequency over time", correct?


Yes - not protein, not intron.
Quote

Please, gentlemen, hash out between yourselves a comprehensive definition of allele, I will happily use your definition.

Nice way to cover your ignorance.

Stick to writing scanning software.

Date: 2008/03/12 18:44:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:11)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
Another piece in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

 
Quote
     
Quote
And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?

I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.

Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...

Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.

Or digging a latrine...


Unfortunately, ol' Joey complained about having back surgery YEARS ago - well before the 'war on terror'.

I think he is just milking it, trying to make himself out to be a tough guy getting hurt in Iraq.... digging latrines...  I think his original back problem stemmed from trying to engage in autofellatio and realising that he couldn't quite reach.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:49:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,19:24)
Honest folks, I think that this thread has meandered into people finding fancy ways of telling other people that they are stupid becuase either you all have narcisistic personality disorder, or because you fear that I have your pet theory by the short hairs.

The irony is rich.

The creationist not only projects, but then goes on to engage in the rampant megalomania that seems nearly endemic in those that inhabit protected pro-creationism blogs and forums.


Let us not forget that bfast the computer tech not only claimed that alleles are proteins, but EXPANDED on that theme:


No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:50:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,20:03)
I am fed up with this "you don't know what you are talking about" bit.

You are fed up with the truth?

Too bad.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:51:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 13 2008,03:49)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,19:24)
you fear that I have your pet theory by the short hairs.

A Nobel awaits then, once you disprove "evolution".

But, but - Warren Bergerson already did that!

Date: 2008/03/13 08:00:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2008,06:57)
bFast is imposing a contrived situation to match his expectations.

Well, of course.

That is what these people do.

I mentioned Warren Bergerson (aka 'LifeEngineer')above - surely most of us remember him?

If not, he is a retired actuary who claimed for years that he had disproved evolution using 'actuarial math.'  And, after years of claiming this, it was drawn out of him, on ARN, that he had in fact never done any calculations at all, he just "knew" that if he had done so, it would have disproved evolution.

After some prodding, he finally revealed his math on Terry Trainor's MSN group, Talkorigins (note that the guy that pointed out Bergerson's stupidity was eventually railroaded and banned - just like what happens at UD).  His claims were challenged, and he ended up changing his formulae and inputs 3 times when shown to be in error (never admitting it, of course), each time coming up with the same answer.  That is, he rigged the formulae repeatedly to get the results he wanted, to include doing a simple probability calculation backwards.

Same thing with this UD denizen.  He's just making it up as he needs it to be.

Date: 2008/03/13 13:53:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 13 2008,11:52)
Oh come on!  There's no chance that a real journal will ever consider these results.  They don't do that.  

Why would a real journal consider this amateurish pulp fiction?

You could try ISCID I suppose - they are hurting for pro-ID 'science'...

Date: 2008/03/15 11:16:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2008,18:58)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 13 2008,17:02)
My current algorithm and reasoning is as follows:

I have no idea what you are doing. What happened to the 2-allele? Are considering only the first gene, which is normally a 0, but once in a population a 1? What's 1/10th the population? I don't get it.

bfast doesn't either.  It is just creationist blathering.

Date: 2008/03/15 11:18:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 14 2008,07:07)
You appear to have abandoned your original model because it didn't show what you wanted it to. Perhaps it was trying to tell you something.

Perhaps he is channeling Warren Bergerson?

Date: 2008/03/16 11:26:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 16 2008,10:26)
bfast -

I'd be interested in seeing the code for a simulation of intelligent design.

Wouldn't that amount to a hideously long series of assignment statements?

Isn't tht an interesting proposition - to see IDcreationists actually try to model THEIR OWN ideas to see if they have merit.

nah.

Too risky for them.

Date: 2008/03/17 11:54:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guest @ Mar. 17 2008,11:41)
Biology...the major for engineering, physics, and chemistry dropout students.

Pitiful...just pitiful.

Funny...

One of my former advisees switched majors from biology to mechanical engineering after flunking introductory biology...

Of course, Eaton seems to be a big fan of Gish's, so if he knew much of anything, he'd know that adoring Gish is a badge of stupidity.

Date: 2008/03/21 07:56:00, Link
Author: slpage
Where is the "libral' media" in all this?  This sounds like at least page 2 material to me....

Date: 2008/03/23 15:05:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,11:54)
Hey Richard: As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. As a journalist supposedly reporting the news for a major daily, Cornelia Hunter is.

Is there an obligation to be truthful at least?

Apparently not.

Crocker...

Date: 2008/03/23 15:08:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,12:42)
Oh wow, you caught me, guys. Pants down and on fire! Anything to avoid the real issue I guess.

Real issues?

You mean like Crocker getting canned for being a crappy teacher and peddling lies in class and NOT because she was just trying to present 'both sides'?

Date: 2008/03/24 17:46:25, Link
Author: slpage
That is his way.  He did the same thing at evolutionisdead.com when his claims were questioned - spewed a few insults then runs back to tard-protection land.

IDiots are intellectual cowards.  Or should I say pseudointellectual cowards - even extreme mesomorph and failed jarhead Davey Springer.

Date: 2008/04/01 11:45:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 30 2008,14:22)

Salvadork:

"For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific kinds of sub-atomic events."


Now, this is Tippler the physicist?  Tippler the guy that claimed biologists are not scientists (he's a theoretician... huh...)?

And he is saying that XX is male?

Tipler - and Cordova - are, I'm sorry, fucking idiots.

XX is female, Sally.

Date: 2008/04/07 09:18:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 05 2008,08:33)
At the start of his post on Fisher's Fundamental Theorem, Sal quotemines four people: Walter ReMine...

Well who better to quote than an electrical engineer YEC nutcake?

Date: 2008/04/07 09:30:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ April 05 2008,16:28)
Really?
 
Quote
I think Dr. Dembski has something like three PhDs.

So that would make him Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski??

Gee, that would not be an attempt to agument via authority or credentialism, now would it?

Date: 2008/04/09 09:19:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2008,23:26)
Dave Scot worships Rush Limbaugh and wants to be him.

And here Rush goes off and says something that Dave bans people for saying.

Bless his obese, oxycontin-addled soul.

I love it so!

And I would like to know why Limbaugh took a bottle of Viagra to the Dominican Republic - a place known for its underage male prostitutes....

Another great spokeman for the Christian Right!

Date: 2008/04/09 13:59:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2008,09:57)

Funny how a glorified Space Invaders jockey tries to insult  a biologist:

Quote

It’s a good thing an organic coin collector like you was around to correct the misclassification which is akin to putting a Liberty Head dime into a Roosevelt dime collection.


What a dick.

Date: 2008/04/09 14:02:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Kristine @ April 09 2008,13:13)
Well, I hope his idea of a date isn't crashing his hands through window glass reaching for girls - I got creeped out enough by that watching Legend of Boggy Creek last year. :) (Boggy Creek 2 is only worth watching if you have the MST3000 version.)

Come on now, I still remember the Travis Crabtree song...

Date: 2008/04/09 14:13:47, Link
Author: slpage
The student body where I work is generally conservative.  I am developing an evolution class, but only a few of our classes directly touch on the subject.

I've been here 8 years, and only twice had people question me directly about it, and only once have a student make anoffhand comment about it.

One question blew me away - not THAT the question was asked, but when.

I was teaching a comparative anatomy of the vertebrates class.  The first week is all background material - a brief overview of anatomical terms and the historical treatment of the field, then a day or two on why comparative anatomy even makes sense - evolution.  Can't cover much in 2 class periods, so I hit the basics - concepts like homology, cladistics, fossil record, etc.  
So, we are about 10 weeks into the semester, doing dissections in lab one day, and this student, totally out of the blue, says, "Do you really believe in evoluton?"
I was taken aback - why was she asking this NOW?
Several students within earshot started paying attention, so I used it as a teaching opportunity (it was a class, after all).  I explained the difference between 'believing' it and acceoting it, and explained why, from my perspective, I accepted it.  She wasn't convinced, but she did not seem to be in a position to argue about it, at least she let the subject drop.

But I generally only discuss the subject (cre v. evo) with colleagues.

Date: 2008/04/13 08:34:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Annyday @ April 12 2008,23:06)
FtK's claims about being outraged by atheist blogs from professors are a little weird. She took college biology years ago, but she is only now in retrospect learning that universities are atheist indoctrination centers? This seems a little bit backwards to me, much like realizing you were at a Nazi rally after the fact from Goebbels' journals would be. If her claims are true, it should be logically impossible that she didn't notice it at the time.

I suspect that, like many right-wing bible thumps, for lackwits like FtK, a lack of explicit endorsement of conservative Christianity is interpreted as hostility toward it.  

I took many classes in several colleges, at least 2 of which were taught by people I knew to be atheists, and religion was never discussed at all in their classes.  The only class I can remember religion coming up in at all was an American Gov't class I took, and it was a religious student that broached the subject, not the teacher.

While I am sure that there are atheist professors out there who belittle religion in their classes, I also know that there are plenty of religious professors who use their classrooms as evangelizing tools.

I took a few classes at a community college in Lansing Michigan in the late 1980s and the physiology instructor, one 'Roscoe Root', was an evangelical who not only routinely took out full page ads in the school newspaper decrying either abortion or evolution, but also declared in his classes that evolution was false (even though he taught no classes that dealt directly with evolution).  I know several students who had complained about his open prosyletizing, but nothing was ever done.

He was never expelled.  I'd bet FtK would see nothing wrong with what ol' Roscoe did.

And, ol' Roscoe does his part in proclaiming the impossibility of evolution on the RAE TV show:

Program Number:    141  The Mystery of Life
Guests:  Roscoe Root
Date Produced:  07/17/1998   Run Time: 29:29

Program Description:  Roscoe Root discusses the inability of genetics to explain the origin of new species. He give examples of anatomical structures that could not have evolved.


I'm sure it was jam-packed with facts!  Never mind that Root's specialties did not include genetics...

Date: 2008/04/28 14:12:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,13:29)
LOL

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.

Jeez....  A paper I published when I was still in grad school has been cited 65 times....

I must be 22 times the scholar Berlinski is!

Date: 2008/04/28 14:14:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 27 2008,18:33)
Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

   
Quote
Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.

So is that why IDcreationists are so quick to point out Dr.Dr.Dembski's  (irrelevant) credentials?

Date: 2008/04/30 10:56:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2008,10:31)
DaveTard is such a nonce. Analogy is evidence? That means shuttlecocks are birds, ovens are suns, waterfalls are designed by god for showering porposes...

Unless Dave means everything we know is designed is designed, which I'd agree with... ???

IDcreationists have been using analogies as evidence for years and years.

But try to tell them that analogies are nto evidence, and they accuse of 'elitism' or some such douchery.

Date: 2008/05/18 17:45:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 18 2008,08:17)
A Sunday morning outing in the UD ponds revealed this gem of projection, from commenter johnnyb.      
Quote
Just to point out - one of the reasons I didn’t go into biology was because Darwinism looked, well, BORING. Darwinism - the way they teach it in the school - is waiting for something to happen, and then ascribe the cause to nothing particular.

I, for one, am very thankful that johnnyb "didn't go into biology". Wankers like johnnyb should stick to apologetics, or engineering, or hanging around public libraries to use the computers, or whatever line of employment he might be in these days.  But I really doubt that he is telling us all the reasons for that momentous decision...

Well, johnnyb is Jon Bartlett, a creationist computer programmer (what else?) in case you didn't know.  He has championed the 'no new information' routine, Haldane's dilemma (ran away from a discussion I tried to have with him on it to Fred William's draconian-moderated board where he whined about it all), dino-man coexistence... Typical numbskull YEC with an engineering background who therefore thinks he knows everythying.

Frankly, I find engineering boring.

Date: 2008/05/18 17:50:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 18 2008,15:23)
Poachy invokes the Joe Gallien theory of simulation:

 
Quote


 
Quote
When a computer simulation of reality doesn’t match up with reality we (speaking as a computer scientist) usually consider the model to be the source of the error instead of reality.


If they really wanted to model climate, they really should be subjecting the computers to swings in temperature and humidity. But, I am willing to bet that they aren’t.

Are there really people that stupid?

Date: 2008/05/21 16:49:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (PTET @ May 20 2008,03:56)
Born in Glasgow, lived lots of places, and now so central in London it would make your eyes water... As would the tiny size of my flat (or "apartment", for you colonials)  ...

A Londoner, eh?

I spent a few months in England in the mid 1980s, and spent several days in London.  I loved it.  

Me?  Central Vermont.

Date: 2008/05/21 16:53:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Kristine @ May 20 2008,15:49)
I'm orginally from Minnesota too.

I recently moved to *redacted* not far from *redacted* still in good ole MN. ;) I've been to Germany, Austria, France, Jamaica, Ecuador/Galapagos, and Canada. I loved Paris. I COULD LOVE LONDON! (I want to go there in a major way, being that I was an English major and all.)

Are you going to the annual meeting of the SSB and ASN?

I wonder if ReMine is going.

Date: 2008/06/17 07:31:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 15 2008,07:14)
By popular demand and via the kindness of Jasper, the Walt Brown thread from KCFS is now available in the archives here.

If you'd like to get all the pages for your local reading in one operation, click "Save As" on this link.

Wow, such bad memories....

I was tickled by Sal's extrapolation of Berthauld's (sp?)sedimentation 'experiments' in a glass retort to cliffs in the Grand Canyon (apparently) on page 10...

Date: 2008/06/17 07:51:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 16 2008,17:12)
When I was a wee lad, brand spanking new to the forums at KCFS, I was seduced by the fetching FtK who had posed a question I could answer.

I know that, I said!

And I held forth and offered FtK a chapter and verse from my favorite undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy book.  FtK thanked me profusely and told me she had taken that course, but used a different book.

I asked FtK if she wanted a copy and she said, no.  I asked, are you sure?  And she said, no, on my honor.

So, she offered her honor, and I honored her offer.

Then for weeks afterwards is was honor, offer, honor, offer...

Finally, I realized that I was being used and she had no intention of accepting the answer to her question or learning the reasons why.  After that I switched from mentor to mocker.

And, I haven't had a drink since.

I learned FtK's truse nature very quickly and treated her in the appropriate manner and was vilified for it by some on our own side - some who now are 'meaner' to her than I ever was.  

It's funny - I often seem to be ahead of the curve on these types of things and I often get kicked around for it, only to see those doing the kicking doing the same things I was kicked for later on.  My most famous example - about 13-14 years ago, on the first incarnation of the Internet Infidels forum, PZ Myers chided me for being so vocal a YEC-basher.  The times they change, eh?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:25:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 22 2008,19:36)
So you're fighting a losing battle, Rich--again.

Losing battle...

Say - did you guys break even yet?

How do feel knowinng that you portrayed Crocker as a martyr when she was in reality an incompetent hack spewing creationist lies and nonsense in her classes?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:28:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 23 2008,07:40)
Paul dropped by yesterday after church, and he is a bit early this morning    
Quote
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 23 2008,07:28

I think he is trying to mix up his schedule for us. I guess we should hold off on using his appearances to synchronize our watches, or the trains.

Hey Paul - did you ever get someone to run the alignment and pnhylogenetic analysis on the sequences I sent you via Helen Fryman a few years ago to test your claim that investigator bias totally skews such analyses?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:31:18, Link
Author: slpage
I wonder if there will ever come a day that Dembski's sycophantic readers actually grow tired of shelling out bucks for the same recycled, repackaged shit every year or so...

Date: 2008/06/25 17:35:09, Link
Author: slpage
So let me get this straight - Davetard thinks Lenski is wrong because he did not consider the mythical non-random mutation as a source of variation?

What a fucking imbecile.

Date: 2008/07/08 11:59:43, Link
Author: slpage
Yes, Alonso is a sleazeball.

Knew that when I first encountered him on the old KCFS board several years ago.

He's a classic argument-via-analogy and assertion clown, who, like most creationists, immediately resorts to labelling exposure of his ignorance as "ad hominem" attacks.

Such a little boy...

Date: 2008/07/08 12:05:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,15:17)
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.

Wow...

Shades of the older ARN board, when 'Mike Gene' and his sycophants ruled it with an iron hand.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:08:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2008,16:12)
I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.

Really?

Is he as annoying in person as he is on the internets?

Date: 2008/07/08 12:10:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:10)
How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.

So sayeth the fellow taht has declared that analogies are evidence....

Yes, I do remember.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:15:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:27)
It'll be fun excersize for the comming weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be, perhaps even occasionally cross post it to AE. See you guys later.

Projection AND spelling errors...  How... typical...

BTW - 'coming' has one M.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:19:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
So I wonder what the point of this thread is then if no one knows my position. Perhaps that will become clear in the comming weeks.

'comming'

Once is a typo.

Twice is the sign of a dumbass.

'Technical' blogs... Riiiightt......

Date: 2008/07/08 13:52:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.

So, if they invited all sorts of such folks, shouldn't it be bursting with articles?

Date: 2008/07/08 14:06:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 07 2008,19:01)
The suggestion that Nelson/Guts may be into AIDS denialism reminds me of this post by Mike Gene to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:
 
Quote
Democratic Party Family Values

1.  Adultery is not bad as long as it is between consenting adults

2.  Wife-beating is okay as long as the wife doesn't care

3.  Women should get jobs benefits if they perform sexually for the boss

4.  If "everyone does it," it is good

5.  Character doesn't matter

It is the only post by mikebgene@aol.com archived at Google Groups.  A web search on that address confirms it is the Mike Gene of the intertubes ID debates.

I was reminded of this because, like AIDS denialism, it is one of those things which suggests our friends may be a bit off kilter in ways other than the ID realm.  It's a second data point.  There are of course scientists who happen to be politically conservative, however the kind of stances that Mike Gene has taken above are indicative of something beyond merely being conservative.

'Mike Gene' also has/had the aol screen name nucacids.  As many sockpuppet creationists do, he actually appeared on one of the newsgroups as nucacids referring to mikebgene in the third person, heaping praise upon 'his' claims and such.  It was soon discovered that nucacids was mikebgene, and he gave some lame excuse for pretending not to be himself.

If one has the stomach and time to waste - and if the archives were not purged* - one can peruse the less-frequented ARN forums and see 'Mike Gene' reveal his true, right-wing ID/creationist ideology in less guarded moments.


*ARN had an odd history of having 'oopsie!' moments that resulted in massive deletions of posts.  Just a big coincidence/mistake, though...

Date: 2008/07/08 14:09:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2008,12:30)
Nelson has hit the wingnut big time: an entry on FSTDT:

 
Quote
I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.
Nelson Alonso, ARN Discussion Forum [Comments (28)] [2003-Jan-01]


Be sure and read his comments following, where he vanished as soon as someone asked him to give his supporting data.

Easier that way.

Date: 2008/07/08 14:28:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ July 07 2008,07:35)
Note to Guts

It is quite possible to have a reasoned discussion on this board. BFast once proposed a computer simulation concerning evolution. Though it didn't show what he thought it did, and while he abandoned the discussion when it was obvious he was incorrect, and although he never modified his views accordingly, it was a fruitful discussion while it lasted.

That is what Bfast does.

He is a creationist, and the creationist cannot admit error on anything.  They just run away and make the same claims elsewhere.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:40:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:13)
Hon, he postulates how hernias, hiccups, and snores evolved from freaking fish.  Come on...  

And you say an anthropomorphic superbeing willed it thus on a whim...

I know which 'story' I find more plausible.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:42:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:13)
 Why would someone in the ID movement try?  ID = design detection.  The theory itself doesn't comment on common descent.

Sorry 'hon' - ID is not even a theory and if you knew as much about your own positon as you pretend to, you would know that Johnson, Nelson, etc., acknowledge that there is no 'theory' of ID.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:44:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,21:35)
Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent. .

So, what, EXACTLY, was 'hindered' in your informed opinion?

Date: 2008/07/10 07:49:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,22:17)
Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"

Not a damn word you spew.

I wonder though - will these folks emerge from this meeting claiming "Phil Johnson was right!  Behe is a god!  Dembski knows all!"?

I sort of doubt it.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:53:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Gunthernacus @ July 10 2008,00:24)
I wonder which it was in this case of diametrically opposed statements?  A knowing lie to try to save a bankrupt argument, or innocent cluelessness from a known liar?

Ummm.... Yes.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:56:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2008,16:37)
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,14:23)
Cajuns, on the other hand, do like swamps. They live there, so that surely means something. I have no problem with Cajuns living in swamps if that's what they like, but I'd never choose it. I'm a Highlander... I am here on purpose.

And in the mountains it's easier to steer clear of them Gummint agents tryin' to suppress your superconductivity research.

Well, she did once claim that she has barbed wire, guns and dogs protecting her home as she has been 'stalked' by people from the internet....

Date: 2008/07/10 07:57:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:21)
HI JOY!  You're awesome.  Love your posts and comments at TT!  I'm you're biggest fan - in this neck of the swamp anyway!!!!


Blind leading the blind?

Stupid swaying the stupider?

I'm at a loss.

Date: 2008/07/10 08:01:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,21:56)
Quote
So I guess my question is this. Based on my readings at TT, it appears that both you and Nelson know next to nothing about biology. Yet this whole discussion is about biology, trying to distinguish between two explanations for the observed diversity of life on this planet.


I've never been a working biologist other than seriously applied bio-physics in action. But my elder sister (we shared a room for 17 years!) is a Ph.D. plant physiologist. And I grow ginseng, goldenseal and black cohosh (endangered all) right here that I can see out my window. That sister (unlike the other two, who went into medicine/programming instead) was once the world's foremost expert in American Mandrake as a treatment for cancer (now bioengineered into ridiculousness). We're planning a Materia Medica. Have been planning it for the past 40 years.

Why do you think they call it "Health Physics?"

Ah, so you have agarden, thus you can comment authoritatively about evolutionary bioloogy and associated topics.

Well, at least you are being logical and rational.

As for health physics, I was my old unit's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare assistant NCO.  So I guess I can comment authoritatively on what you did for a living.

Right?

Date: 2008/07/10 08:02:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,22:46)
Buh-bye.

Typical...

Without 'delete' control, these people usually don't last long.

Date: 2008/07/10 08:12:52, Link
Author: slpage
So Sally the closeted IDiot 'conferenced' with ReMine a few weeks ago - I wonder if ReMine went to he big Evolution meeting there and told everyone present how they are all wrong and that he, Walter J. ReMine, electrical engineer, YEC, expert on all things, is right and evolution is wrong.

Sally just loves stroking ReMines.... ego....

Date: 2008/07/16 11:26:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sparc @ July 14 2008,22:33)
DaveScot
Quote
Roy Spencer
Quote
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.
Didn't ID run under a different name back in 1988? Something starting with "C" and ending on "ism"?

Is that Roy Spencer the same Roy Spencer that is a global warming denier?

Date: 2008/07/16 11:28:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (EyeNoU @ July 13 2008,20:00)
Most obsessed with homosexuality....Sal Cordova

Most Likely to Have Wet Dreams while dreaming of a walk with Dr.Dr. D - Sal 'Sally you're cute in them jeans' Cordova

Date: 2008/07/20 13:43:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 13 2008,15:51)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,15:00)
MikeGene blogs a Farewell to Telic Thoughts.

Here was his previous farewell as Julie Thomas.

Until the next pseudonym, Mike/Julie.

P.S. Oh and don't worry about the inmates--they'll be running things quite nicely.

Interesting.  I read recently that the late homophobic racist Jesse Helms may have been a crossdresser (total hearsay, but not the least bit surprising if true).

Mike Gene/Julie Thomas.

Sally Cordova callking Dembski "Sir William."

Lots of wide-stancers appear to be of the IDcreationist pursuasion...

Date: 2008/07/20 13:59:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  

DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!

As you bow down to Brown?  And Cordova?  And Behe?  And whoever else with irrelevant qualifications who also happens to be a bible-nut happens to spew some erroneous gibberish that props up your religioous fantasies and martyr complex?

Sorry - only creationuts are that weak willed and brainwashable.  Pity that your superior morals continue to allow you to endorse and promulgate fabrications.

Date: 2008/07/20 14:03:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Chayanov @ July 18 2008,11:39)
First the Altenberg 16 were going to put all us Darwinists in our place.

 
Quote
We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"


But now it seems they're also part of the conspiracy.

 
Quote
Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.


And in other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Hilarious.

These people (creationuts and their kind) are so laughably predictable and dense.

Just as Judge Jones was 'one of us' who was going to put 'Darwinnism' in its place, until he looked at the evidence and declared ID to be creationism to be non-scientific and suddenly he was a left-wing activist...

Retards.

Sorry, but that is the only word that comes to mind when I consider folks like FtK.

Date: 2008/08/04 13:56:58, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 02 2008,16:30)
I had forgotten about Jerry Don Bauer!  He is right up there with the best of the totally impenetrable creationists.

And you know he 'taught' an online ID class focusing on - get this - genetics and information, right?

Yup.  Hosted it on his own website.  I can only imagine the shock and horror of the fools that actually shelled out the 80 bucks he was charging to see him declare that because water fleas exhibit recessive traits evolution is wrong...

Date: 2008/08/04 14:00:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 03 2008,00:53)
BTW, FSCI has been mentioned in that very thread  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Seems like bfast was afraid to admit that the emperor is naked.

Brucie Fast has a hard time admitting anything.

Date: 2008/08/05 07:34:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2008,19:28)
I've always been a fan of his 'psycho with a dead animal on his head' photo:



Brags about being in Mensa? Mohawk? Sci-fi fan? Thinks women* who get raped 'asked for it'? He must be a devil with the ladies.


(*who, by the way, shouldn't vote.)

These uber-macho right-wing types usually seem ot have something to hide...  Like their wide-stance...

Date: 2008/08/05 07:40:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).

Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...

Date: 2008/08/05 07:42:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ July 29 2008,11:01)
Joy gives Zachriel a lesson in new math.
   
Quote

It wasn't an explosion (relatively speaking) because it took maybe 30 million years? That sort of demands we sacrifice basic understanding of relative comparisons and factors of 10. 30 million years compared to 3.8 billion years deals with exponentials. It took just over one ten-thousandth [10^-5] of total evolutionary time for the animal kingdom to diversity as far as it was going to diversify clade-wise, everything else was just fun with evo-devo and expression in ecological interplay. Tinkering. That seems fairly 'explosive' to me, relatively speaking.

Ummm.  If memory serves right, Joy was educated in the US, where a billion is 10^9, not 10^12 (as it would be in Russia).  So 30 million = 30 x 10^6 divided by 3.8 billion = 3.8 x 10^9 is 0.008, i.e. about 10^-2, not 10^-5.

Lots of creotards have math issues.

I saw a guy on the CARM board try to denigrate an evolutionist by writing that 1/1000 would be written 1x10^3....

Date: 2008/08/05 12:22:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,08:34)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,07:40)
   
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).

Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...
Losers...

A fan? Cool!! Pre- or post-Gabriel departure? :)

I first saw them at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go in Hollywood is nineteen-mumbledy-something. Peter Gabriel in a giant tetrahedral papier-mache head, bouncing around to Apocalypse in 9/8 time. I was so-o-o-o-o-o stoned.

I was pretty wasted the first time I saw them - 1983.  I've seen Gabriel twice.  I'm a bit too young to have seen them together.  I think Trick of the Tail was their best post-Gabriel effort, though Wind and Wuthering had some good cuts on it.

I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...

Date: 2008/08/05 12:24:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 01 2008,10:19)
Quick! Shield your irony meters!  Joy holds forth:
Quote
If you are not just playing internet footsies and are indeed the college educated engineer you claim to be, you should have a better understanding of science than you display.

Well, I expect no less from Joyhole...

Date: 2008/08/07 15:22:27, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,21:27)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,12:22)
I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...

Too funny! Next thing, they'll be doing an entire vaudeville version of "Harold the Barrel" in your living room.

Reminds me of a colleague who's kids "rediscovered" the charms of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Entire scenes of dialogue being recited randomly throughout the house, and the toddlers dragooned into shouting "NI!" at almost any prompting...

*looks around in surprise*

What, too off-topic? Oh, uh- something to do with B B King, right? Oops, wrong thread...

Thanks for the memory lane visit, slpage. Cueing up Foxtrot as soon as I'm done here.

O Knights... who until recently said Ni.

Date: 2008/08/18 16:48:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2008,18:05)
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:        
Quote
  Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.

So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.

link

Yeah, minor league... And I suppose Joy is Major League?  So major league that she has had her computer hacked repeatedly by people she gets into arguments on the internets with (doubtless because she overpowers her opponants with straight-talking truth and facts) and has barbed wire and dogs protecting her property....

She is a paranoid megalomaniacal bitch with withered lady parts, who knows next to nothing about the relevant issues surrounding the so-called ID/Evolution 'debate.'

She can stay at TT and have the female equivalent of circle jerks with FtK and Julie Thomas.  About all she is good for.

Date: 2008/08/18 16:51:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (rhmc @ Aug. 17 2008,19:23)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,19:15)
Hi dhogaza,

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.

if you're looking for war crimes, look to dresden, hamburg, the fire raids on tokyo and other japanese cities...

plenty of crime to spread around.  the nuclear weapons were just flea bites compared to what was done earlier...

I understand that Curtis LeMay once commented that he was certain that if we had lost the war, he woul dhavce been executed for war crimes (he was the guy behind the fire-bombing of civilians).

Date: 2008/08/18 16:58:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ July 20 2008,16:22)
Shorter TP: "Some of my best friends are PhD types."

Spare us the backpedaling, TP.  Here are three examples of your bigotry against "PhD types", all from the same thread (a fourth, of course, is your very use of the phrase "PhD types" itself):

From here:
Quote
I'm lucky to get the majority of my terms spelled correctly much less use them properly. Arguing about terminology is something PhD types do when I present them with my working prototype of an invention they said would be impossible to build.

And here:
Quote
Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."

And here:
Quote
Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.

Yeah - I'm sure engineer technicians so frequently embarrass PhD types- you know, those clumsy bookworm egghead types that have no real world experience...

I rented this DVD on the Apollo program - you know, the best engineering minds in the country working with essentially endless funding to meet a common goal - and I really enjoyed watching all the big explosions and failures,and was a bit surprised to hear that every Apollo flight was plagued by all manner of problems.  

But hey,thye don't use fancy words and cut to the chase without going through all the hoops.... Maybe that explains ..... nah....

Date: 2008/08/18 17:04:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (creeky belly @ Aug. 18 2008,01:55)
This is the general lack of scholarship and hubris which gets the goad of many of the scientists around here. In your mind, you're doing scholarly and revolutionary work; to me, and I suspect others on this board, you come off as anti-intellectual and arrogant.

Wow - that describes this dude Mark Kennedy to a T.

He's been making - literally - the exact same arguments for 4 or 5 years, and every time his errorneous claims are corrected, he simply re-terates them and insists that nobody has addressed them.

It is like a requirement or something...

Date: 2008/08/19 08:09:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 18 2008,20:01)
Quote
Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).

There was near-total confidence that the uranium gun would work, so much confidence that they didn't bother testing it.  They built one, moved on to the plutonium implosion design.

As for justifying it as payback, having burned over 200,000 Japanese civilians to death in Tokyo alone was more than sufficient to balance the books over about 3,500 military dead and the handful of ships permanently lost, don't you think?

In the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese Navy was fastidious in targeting our armed forces only (I'm well aware that such fastidiousness wasn't typical of the Army, but then again, they weren't involved).  Can't say that about the Home Team after LeMay got involved.

Heck, most of those BBs were raised and shelled the hell out of Japanese-held islands in preparation for invasion.  My guess is that these resurrected ships themselves killed more Japanese than our deaths in the Pearl Harbor raid ...

And water boarding?  Well, that is a war crime.
Or was until we started doing it...

Date: 2008/08/24 11:54:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Quote
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?


They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motors#Examples

http://www.charliewagner.com

Yeah, no evidence at all.

Funny how little minded folk can be so impressed by fancy diagrams and computer generated clips...

Date: 2008/08/24 11:56:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:16)
Quote
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?


I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

Teacher?  Oh my....

Date: 2008/08/24 11:56:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:35)
Quote
So, what happened then. According to you?


I don't have a clue...but neither do you.

Like everyone else, we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.

Projection.

Date: 2008/08/24 11:59:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,17:02)
Molecular motors – a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik

They are small, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed for an amazing variety of functions. Science fiction? Think again … this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell, with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations. Many of these compartments are specialized “factories”, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products. A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other. In the big picture of things this incessant exchange of material keeps the factories of the cell functioning, which in turn is what keeps us alive.

Read entire article:

[URL=http://www.tifr.res.in/~roop/NaturesNanotech.htm]

Ah, the argument from metaphorical language and analogies!

Brilliant!

Date: 2008/08/24 12:01:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,16:26)
All algorithms are the result of intelligent input.

Well, you see, assertions and illogical syllogisms have got me totally convinced.

I mean, ALL algorithms are designed by intelligence totally proves it all, doesn't it?

How about only a conscious mind can produce information?  Like that one, too?

Date: 2008/08/24 12:08:29, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,12:54)
Even if you can concede the possibility of
the eye itself evolving, you would have to account for the concurrent
evolution of the bones of the head, the eye socket, etc, the muscles that
control the eye, the nerves that carry the images, the blood vessels that
supply the eye,  the biochemical reactions that make vision possible and the
cerebral cortex necessary to process the images. Evolutionary biologists
forget, sometimes, that all of an organism is integrated together, the parts
and processes are not separate. For one to "evolve", all must evolve and in
a manner that allows the parts to function together. This would require such
a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations
of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well
beyond the reach of chance.

I see that your arrogance is inversely proportional to your khowledge of developmental genetics and the actions of genes.

Date: 2008/08/27 08:00:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2008,22:04)
Local control over schools seems to be the root of the problem. Local control is not something we'd accept in other important areas. Next time you're watching COPS, and a strangely high amount of the action seems to be taking place in Lowndes county, Georgia, ask yourself if you'd want a local citizen's council of real estate agents and retirees voting on how and on whom to use the nukes at nearby Moody AFB.

Exactly.  When I lived in Michigan, there was a school budget or bond vote that got a lot of attention (I don't remember the details).  The locals came out soundly against it - the main opposition was regarding a few thousand dollars for computers.  The local news covered it, and they interviewed some of the voters as they left the polls.  One chap in particular I remember plain as day - scruffy beard, missing some teeth, 'REDMAN' tobacco hat on - he voted no of course, and his rationale was that he "didn't have no computers" when he was growing up, and didn't see why 'these kids' needed them either...

Local control is a bad, bad idea.

Date: 2008/08/27 13:57:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,13:17)

Quote

Actually, it is very compressible if it is a DNA sequence, since codons (triplets of base pairs) code for only 22 possible states - start, stop, and twenty amino acids - even though the symbol set could accommodate 64. So the real measure of information in DNA is no more than 4.5 bits (log2 of 22) for every three base pairs, not 6 bits (log2 of 64).


Yes, but isn't the compression you write of 'conceptual' (I can't think of a better word)?
Sure, you can run a computer file through a compression algorithm and all that, but DNA is physical - more akin to trying to 'compress' a CD as opposed to the 'information' ON the CD, if my point is making any sense.

Quote
Quote

Message one's sequence codes for a protein.
Message two's contains junk DNA.

Does message 1 contain more information?

Difficult question. What you're asking is how much entropy (uncertainty) is there in the sequence of amino acids (our message set) in the proteins that make up the human proteome. Are some amino acids rarer than others? Are some amino acids sequences more likely than others? If the answer is yes, then the entropy of the source will be less than that of a source whose symbols have equal probability. That would reduce the information content from 4.5 bits per codon to something less.

Junk DNA, assuming it is not under selection pressure (else why would it be "junk"?), would be likely to accumulate mutations more rapidly than DNA related to the proteome, yes? Those mutations should help to "shuffle the deck" and over time one would expect the symbol set to drift toward equiprobability. (But never quite get there - equally random sequences of base pairs does not code for equally random sequences of amino acids.) So my guess is that yes, the junk DNA has more information (as defined by information theory) than DNA that codes for proteins.


OK, so while we are discussing hypotheticals, how about this one.

Two DNA sequences, both 1000 bps long, both identical with one exception - one sequence starts with TAA instead of TAC.
The 'functional sequence' has a measured information content of (just tossing out a number here to make it simple) 1000.
Would the non-functional sequence have a content of 999 or 0?

Date: 2008/08/28 11:06:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,17:24)

Quote
The OP spoke about using bits to encode the nucleotides:
 
Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 27 2008,12:21)
Both messages contain a human DNA sequence - ACGT etc etc, each letter coded as two bits, ie 00 = A, 01 = C, 10 = G, 11 = T.

...so I was responding to that. I would agree that compressing functional DNA does not seem possible. Perhaps a very large steam press...


Indeed.

This has always sort of bugged me in these discussions - talk of compressability and information and DNA.  
Quote
Quote
OK, so while we are discussing hypotheticals, how about this one.

Two DNA sequences, both 1000 bps long, both identical with one exception - one sequence starts with TAA instead of TAC.
The 'functional sequence' has a measured information content of (just tossing out a number here to make it simple) 1000.
Would the non-functional sequence have a content of 999 or 0?

1000. That assumes a C is as likely as an A. Functionality ("semantic content") is irrelevant.

@Turncoat: yep, I am using Shannon's definition (and thanks for not mentioning my errors).


Interesting.  Funny - when I present IDcretos with similar scenarios, then get themselves into a tizzy and can never seem to even try to address the question.

Date: 2008/10/03 11:44:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 28 2008,08:54)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53)
Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.

   
Quote
Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth.


Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.

Be sure to follow the link to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic.

What sort of weird moon-man language was that written in?
Were NONE of his references checked by the reviewers?

Date: 2008/10/08 10:19:41, Link
Author: slpage
Does anyone know if Caroline Crocker's book about integrity in science has come out yet?


Also, it will be great fun to watch as Religulous surpasses 'Expelled' in earnings...

Date: 2008/10/08 10:25:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (BopDiddy @ Oct. 06 2008,16:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2008,07:13)
I was going to register for Scordova's Young Cosmos, to link to my previous comment, but I couldn't figure it out. Then I noticed that the vast majority of the recent comments were by John A. Davison.


I must say, that while I think the claim of LOLing is a tad overused and overstated, I did, for the only the 2nd or 3rd time in my internet discussion forum career, actually laugh out loud when I saw that picture.

Date: 2008/11/07 07:54:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 05 2008,03:12)
Quote
The brain is a semi-liquid organ, always in motion, so live brains do indeed change themselves all the time.
Whoa!  I've heard the brain described as like jello, but "semi-liquid" is a first.  ..

Because it is stupidity akin to 'the internet is like a series of tubes.'

Date: 2008/12/23 08:17:39, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,13:17)
Odd thing is, he didn't even wait for my apology.  :p

Not odd at all.  That is what those people do.

Many years ago, I was in a similar situation on ARN.  An exceptionally smarmy and smug creationist had recently died, and in the ensuing Nixonization of him (all past misdeeds were forgotten, he was elevated to 'great man' status, etc.) was getting out of hand, I wouldn't play along.  We had gone back and forth well prior to his death about his claim that phylogenetics fails because it does not meet the "Kock rules."  He would never explain what he meant.  After his death, in the lament thread, I commented that now I'd never get to know how the 'Koch rules' applied to phylogenetics.  A number of indignant creationists complained to the ARN thugs, and I was sent an email by Paul Nelson explaining that folks were demanding my banning unless I apologized.  About 10 minutes after I got the 'warning' I went to ARN to apologize, and I was already banned.

I guess they like to be able to say that they came down from the mountain to give the poor heathen a chance.

Date: 2009/01/02 12:56:38, Link
Author: slpage
Who wrote this:


Berg essentially argues against selection using many examples from modern biological history.

I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

I also respect immensely Dr. John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, although I must admit, much of it is over my head.

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

Date: 2009/01/19 20:47:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to amazon.com) and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Are you referring to Crocker's book about integrity in science?

Date: 2009/01/21 10:34:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

 
Quote
“The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search”
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.


assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

So, I wonder who reviewed this 'paper'?

Date: 2009/01/21 10:36:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:27)
Quote
 
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Strange.  I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one.

Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received.


Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent.

Regarding publishing:  
Quote
both should be published later this year

So, does this esoteric exercise in circular reasoning by the Baylor ID lab have any application to real life?

Date: 2009/01/22 09:02:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,21:05)
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2009,20:47)
   
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to amazon.com) and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Are you referring to Crocker's book about integrity in science?

I'm talking about the book described here.  Usually if I read about a book "to be published" sometime in the near future (or, in this case, the near past), I expect amazon.com to have some inkling of it (even, at least sometimes, self-publications).  Not in this case.

Is this the book "about integrity in science", or has she written another book amazon.com doesn't know about?

(BTW, just in case it needs stating, I'm really not in a rush to delve into Dr. Crocker's literary output.)

Looks like the same one.

That website has a different format - you can no longer email her directly.  Several months ago, when there was an email link, I emailed and asked her if she could tell the difference between a hyrax and a hyracotheium.  No reply...

I also noted on her whiny 'replies' link that she claims the things at Expelledexposed about her are wrong.

I especially liked this loaded phrase:

"· After having been banned from the GMU lecture hall..."


Due to the poor economy ( we lost about 1/4 of the worth of our endowment, apparently), we are pink slipping a number of adjuncts.  

Will it be correct for them to claim that because their contracts were not renewed that they have been 'banned'?

Date: 2009/02/09 19:01:50, Link
Author: slpage
Seems Axe penned an essay at the Biologic Institute, declaring Darwinism dead.


It was pwned at
CARM:

Well, going to the source, it looks even worse (because I can actually read it).

I found the usual creationist sleight of hand trick:

Now, there are two important questions to be asked here. The first, which Durrett and Schmidt address, is the question of whether this kind of two-step conversion can evolve in a Darwinian fashion—and if so under what circumstances. The second, which they largely avoid, is the question of relevance to Darwin’s grand vision. That is, even if we knew these binding-site conversions to be feasible, would that give us any reason to think that the more profound conversions are feasible?

Axe is making a rather disingenuous extrapolation - that ALL of the steps of 'Darwin's grand vision' required at least the 'two-step conversion' process outlined int he artilce he refers to.
There is no rationale for this - he surely provides none.


As things stand, scientific caution dictates a ‘no’ answer to this second question.

Actually, intellectual honesty dictates that one would not have even asked that question.

The main reason is simply that converting one binding site to another accomplishes no significant structural reorganization, whereas transitions to new life forms would require radical structural reorganization.

Surely Doug Axe, molecular biologist, knows how development works? Does this fellow really think that all evolutionary processes are dictated by changes in binding sites?

By way of analogy, you might easily cause your favorite software to crash by changing a bit or two in the compiled executable file, but you can’t possibly convert it into something altogether different (and equally useful) by such a simple change, or even by a series of such changes with each version improving on the prior one. To get a substantially new piece of software, you would need to substantially re-engineer the original code knowing that your work wouldn’t pay off until it’s finished. Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this.

He is right about one thing - Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this sort of nonsense. Why use a tired analogy? Because an honest treatment doesn't accomplish what he wants.


Furthermore, returning to the first question, it seems that even humble binding-site conversions are typically beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. Durrett and Schmidt conclude that “this type of change would take >100 million years” in a human line [1], which is problematic in view of the fact that the entire history of primates is thought to be shorter than that [3].


Right, because all changes in evolution require a two-step process as described in the article.


It is a shame really - Axe at one time was about the only IDcreationist actually doing research. Now, apparently relaizing that hsi research is not demonstrating ID or Creation, is doing what all of these people end up doing - Egnor, Wells, Behe, etc. - writing op-ed pieces littered with logical fallacies and unwarranted extrapolations.

Pathetic.

And one last thing - I have to wonder why Axe didn't mention this form the paper he refers to:

In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.


In fact, the more I read the paper by Durrett and Schmidt, the less honest I see Axe has become.

I guess that is what happens when you become a professional creationist

Date: 2009/02/10 11:11:15, Link
Author: slpage
So....

Is Axe hoping that the sycophantery will not question his implicit claim that all evolutionary changes require two sequential mutations in a receptor gene?

Date: 2009/02/16 09:56:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

And then there's this bit of hilarity (my emphasis)  
Quote
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...

Date: 2009/02/16 09:58:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 16 2009,07:18)
What a pathetic blog.

What pathetic posts.

 
Quote
Surprisingly, despite its simplicity, very little is known about Placozoa. But what we have been discovering recently is very interesting……


Is that the royal "we" Mike? Are you getting your hands dirty with actual research?

No, thought not.

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/placozoa/

Yeah, I'd be curious to see what sort of research is done at the van Andel institute.

Date: 2009/02/16 20:37:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,17:54)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2009,17:29)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,15:01)
     
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 16 2009,14:41)
Tardstorm warning!

Walter ReMine and his dratted Biotic Message have surfaced!
Peepses
Batten down yer baramins!

You gotta love the reviews, from here.
       
Quote
"Apart from the Bible I've never been so enthralled by a book in all my life!"
Christopher Chaney, Horseheads, New York

Has he updated anything?  Or is this just a "buy my book!!" push for the same rancid horseshit he self-published over 15 years ago?

Apparently not..
 
Quote
In 1982 he began eleven years of laborious research, culminating in his treatise, The Biotic Message.
Copyright © 1997-2007 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.

 So, he finished his "research" in 1991 and has been waiting 18 years for the "right moment" to publish :p

ReMine's  a creepy* self-promoting shyster.  Question his claims and he accuses you of "posturing."  Ask him to support a claim, he says it is "in my book."  If you read his book and point out something silly, like how he claims it takes more than 500,000 beneficial mutations to get a 'sapien from a simian', he accuses you of 'misrepresenting' him.  Make him a 'moderator' of a discussion board to entice him to stick around, and he makes Davescot look like a gentleman.

He's showed up on email groups (a ggogle Mormon gourp, and sci.bio.evolution) posing as 'fans' of himself, talking about himself in the third person, and when he gets caught, he just goes on as if nothing happened.

His monumental ego has garnered him a small legion of dimwitted followers, who are - lucky for him - ignorant of the issues involved in his claims and find him hero-like in his stature.

As far as Message "Theory" being testable and such, well, I wonder why he's not tested it.  There are no such tests in his book.


*I came across a weird google group several years ago - Laotian refugees or some such thing - while googling ReMine.  One of the people on the group, a young Laotian woman, had apparently rented an apartment from ReMine, who had left copies of his book out for her to see - opened to certain pages - and he would show up 'unexpectedly' to discuss it with her.  That was weird - but she actually seemd OK with it.  Which seemed weirder...

Date: 2009/02/16 20:41:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 16 2009,20:07)
All this made me go read Wikipedia's page on Haldane's Dilemma again. That page never looks the same from one visit to the next!

Reading the discussion panel was fun. Hilarious to see WalterR talk about himself in the third person.

Isn't that weird?  Who talks about themsleves in the third person, besides that nutjob on Seinfeld (Jimmy)?

it is bad enough that ReMine does this when he is pretending to be someone else, to do it while you sign your own name is just plain odd.

He also seems to practically live on that Wiki page.  Musn't let anyone correct his errors or point out his ignorance.

Date: 2009/02/16 21:30:26, Link
Author: slpage
Oh, those internets...

I think I just discovered a keen way to argue against ReMine's claims - by using his own words!

ReMine wrote in 2002:
Quote

Let me again emphasize the key point.  Haldane's Dilemma puts a limit on the rate of beneficial substitution. It places no limit whatever on the rate of non-beneficial substitution -- substitutions that are harmful, neutral, or inert (i.e. unexpressed). These changes are abundant in nature, and extremely rapid. For example, x-ray a population and watch the "genetic diversity" rapidly increase. In these ways, "genetic diversity" can arise extremely rapidly, and that does not lessen the problem of Haldane's Dilemma. They are largely separate issues.


Well, OK - most of the mutations producing phenotypic changes that lead to human evolution from an ape-like ancestor were NOT beneficial.  Simple as that.

Date: 2009/02/26 14:39:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 16 2009,20:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

And then there's this bit of hilarity (my emphasis)        
Quote
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...

What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...

I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine: web.archive.org/web/*/http://arborvitaepress.com
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).

Sounds a lot like the 'publisher' of ReMine's book..

Where the 'publisher' just happened to use the same email address that ReMine did...

Date: 2009/03/26 09:05:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 24 2009,11:00)
How many times has Joe suggested physical confrontation to someone an ID or evolution board?

I don't know, but I may have been among the first.  I guess it must have been about 8-9 years ago on the old OCW forum.  He was his usual self, and a few of us had put him in his place on the issues and we all know that little Joey don't like that.

He posted my full name and my home address in a post, and later wrote that he might be passing through, and that "not everyone goes to Vermont to ski".

It came up again on NAIG shortly thereafter, and I'd had enough. We only live a few hours apart, and spring break was coming up, so I told him to give me a time and a place, and I'd be there.  He was suddenly too busy to post for about a week, and on the last day of my spring break, when the thread was about to scroll off the board, he makes a post boasting an 'anytime' sort of thing, then later claimed that I had chickened out.

He later 'challeneged' Chris Seibold and Robert R., and who knows who else, and I know dates and places had been discussed for at least a couple of people - Chris showed up at the agreed to time and place, Joey didn't, but he later claimed to have been there waiting (but could not accuratley describe anything at the venu) - or was that Blipey?  Or has that happened on more than one occasion?
I stopped interacting with him shortly thereafter, but I can only imagine how many times he's done this.

He's a classic internet bully/punk - talks tough when he knows there is little chance of actual confrontation, shows himself to be a big talking pussy when his bluff is called.

As an aside - he did also write of having had back surgery and to have re-injured himself in Iraq (I guess digging latrines is hard work).  Just mentioning a choice target and an obvious handicap, just in case... :p

Date: 2009/03/26 09:10:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,02:55)
Oh dear.  Clive is annoyed  
Quote
10

Clive Hayden

03/25/2009

5:20 pm

Allen,

“And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.”

Prove it. I know you quoted it, but if you endorse it, then prove this charge if you maintain that it is true. Otherwise, you are getting personal and invoking a self-styled motive to paint Remine and all other Creationists with a wide brush. If you cannot prove this charge, then this quote of yours belongs in the scrap heap of ego-maniacal evolutionist rants. And that is exactly where it will go if you cannot prove it.


So Pendulum swings into action
 
Quote
11

Pendulum

03/25/2009

6:19 pm

Clive, please don’t apply this standard even-handedly. If bornagain77 has to prove genetic entropy every time he quotes Sanford, we’ll be here forever! Just ask Allen if he read the frickin’ book, and if he says no, delete the comment.

Which does bring us back to the issue of blog entry as advertising tease. If Message Theory doesn’t put in a timely appearance, we should all ask for these posts to be filed in the Memory Hole. My 2d.

Oh - Alan quoted my ReMine review!  I'm all aflutter...

Date: 2009/03/26 09:17:35, Link
Author: slpage
I also liked how crazy Joey the 'electronics engineer' (i.e., radio repairman) claims that all that needs to be done to refute ReMine is to, in effect, demonstrate the opposite..

And does anyone else wonder how many sets of kneepads Sally Cordova must go through when he attends YEC conventions?

Date: 2009/03/26 10:36:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 26 2009,10:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2009,09:38)
Interlibrary loan works. I requested "The Biotic Message", and got Notre Dame University's copy. I was the first person to check it out from them, too...

ETA: Later on, I found a used signed copy of "The Biotic Message" that I added to my collection of religious antievolution literature. I also have a copy of "The Genesis Flood" signed by Whitcomb.

I read ReMine's chapter on Haldane's Dilemma and his paper on  "Cost Theory" which he tried to publish in  The Journal of Theoretical Biology, but got frustrated when the reviewers failed to see how it contributed anything to what was already known, and ended up publishing in ICR's Technical Journal. I think it's no more than a trivial exercise in algebra.

KC

I think Felsenstein's review is most notable - not just in what he actually wrote, but in the clearly dishonest way that ReMine characterized the reviews in general.

Felsenstein's review is available on the web (he got tired of the embellishments ReMine was giving himself via the reviews) - he notes the non-academic (i.e., unprofessional) style and the fact that it's math is correct, but irrelevant.

Hey KC - email me when you get a chance (I've lost your email address...)

Date: 2009/03/26 10:40:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 26 2009,09:27)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 26 2009,10:10)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,02:55)
Oh dear.  Clive is annoyed    
Quote
10

Clive Hayden

03/25/2009

5:20 pm

Allen,

“And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.”

Prove it. I know you quoted it, but if you endorse it, then prove this charge if you maintain that it is true. Otherwise, you are getting personal and invoking a self-styled motive to paint Remine and all other Creationists with a wide brush. If you cannot prove this charge, then this quote of yours belongs in the scrap heap of ego-maniacal evolutionist rants. And that is exactly where it will go if you cannot prove it.


So Pendulum swings into action
   
Quote
11

Pendulum

03/25/2009

6:19 pm

Clive, please don’t apply this standard even-handedly. If bornagain77 has to prove genetic entropy every time he quotes Sanford, we’ll be here forever! Just ask Allen if he read the frickin’ book, and if he says no, delete the comment.

Which does bring us back to the issue of blog entry as advertising tease. If Message Theory doesn’t put in a timely appearance, we should all ask for these posts to be filed in the Memory Hole. My 2d.

Oh - Alan quoted my ReMine review!  I'm all aflutter...

Many props to you for reading it.

Is there a research library of "literature" like this? Somewhere scholars can access the original sources without paying loons like ReMine?

I must say, to avoid putting money in that charlatan's pocket, I got an inter-library loan rather than buying it.

As far his his refs, any good overview of population genetics covers them all, or most of them.  Of course, his book is now 13 or so years old, and he claims that he took 12 years to write it, so his sources are pretty out of date (i.e., the book would nto contain the many, mnay newer publications on the subject), and he just sings the same old tune anyway.

Date: 2009/03/26 10:47:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2009,09:38)
Interlibrary loan works. I requested "The Biotic Message", and got Notre Dame University's copy. I was the first person to check it out from them, too...

ETA: Later on, I found a used signed copy of "The Biotic Message" that I added to my collection of religious antievolution literature. I also have a copy of "The Genesis Flood" signed by Whitcomb.

I got Dartmouth's.  I was the second person to sign it out, and the front cover had a stamp indicating that it was a gift.  I don't recall now who it was a gift from, but at the time, I recognized it as a lower-level creationism activist.

Also of note, it is interesting tha ReMine left a whiny post on ARN a few years ago in which he accused evolutionist writers of engaging in all sorts of untoward antics in their writings to make their case seem more impressive than it is.  One of the things he claimed was the extensive use of jargon, and using multiple citations for non-controversial issues while offering no support for their controversial claims to lull the reader into complacency.  I easily documented HIM doing exactly that in that review:

Quote

He uses quote after quote - sometimes incorrectly, as in his quote of Van Valen on p. 219 - to support non-controversial subjects. For example, he uses 14 citations to support his statement that under Haldane’s model, one gene per 300 generations can be substituted (p. 216). This is not in dispute. But how many citations does ReMine supply for this:

“Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?”

Ignore for now the clumsy prose, and look at what he is asking/saying. He is implying that 1,667 changes - in a genome of ~30-40,000 genes - is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. Never mind that he does not identify the ancestor, so he has no way of knowing what changes have to be accounted for. But he is saying that more - many more (he mentions “500,000 selectively significant nucleotides” on p. 209, implying that even this is far too few; odd considering the size of the genic portion of the genome) are ‘necessary’. THAT deserves some support - science by quote, if you will. And if you have or have read the book, tell us how many quotes ReMine provides to support this implication.

None. Not one.

This antic is repeated throughout the book

Date: 2009/03/26 10:49:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2009,10:14)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2009,10:08)
scordova:
 
Quote
Joseph,

I understand you are a retired airline pilot.

Wha?

I thought Joe worked for GE, which means it is possible that he was a jet engine technician.

If he worked for GE, it was for far less than 10 years, for when I first encountered him, he worked assome sort of technician for an electronics firm in Maynard, MA.

Date: 2009/03/26 11:06:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2009,10:58)
I seem to recall googling him after one of his memorable outburts and finding his Linkedin profile that indicated he worked at GE.  But that was a while ago, so I could be wrong.
Of course, he lists his affliation here as GE.

Could be his affiliation with GE is like Dembski's with Princeton...

Date: 2009/03/26 11:14:17, Link
Author: slpage
Sycophantic Sally at UD
scordova
03/25/2009
7:58 am
Walter,
Nice to see you!
If you were not aware of it, one of your key claims in Biotic Message regarding Haldane’s Dilemma has been unwittingly affirmed by an National Academy of Sciences member, Masotoshi Nei. Nei affirms the truthfulness of Haldane’s dilemma in his paper Selecitonism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution.
Your critics have attacked your use of Haldane’s dilemma to defend Message Theory. Ian Musgrave, Nuny, etc. might consider making retractions in light of these developments.
I would highly recommend discussing Nuny and Jody Hey’s work. I think your work on population genetics might help get readers more interested in the details of message theory.
I became interested in message theory because of your exposition on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection and the work of Motoo Kimura.
PS
For the reader’s benefit, and because Walter might be too modest to highlight this fact, the book Genetic Entropy by Cornell’s renowned genetic engineer, John Sanford, was inspired by Message Theory!

=================================
Wow… Where to begin?  
First, Nei’s paper does nothing of the sort.
Were Nei to ‘affirm the truthfulness of Haldane’s dilemma’, there would first have to have been a dilemma.  “Haldane’s dilemma” was not Haldane’s model, it was a term coined by an individual who believed that Haldane’s model did not allow for the “necessary” amount of mutational change (an amount never actually identified) to account for the evolution of large, slowly reproducing mammals.  The term was coined at a time when it was believed that the human genome contained more than 100,000 genes.
 
ReMine’s use of Haldane’s “dilemma” was to declare that under the assumptions of this model, no more than 1,667 beneficial mutations could have been fixed in the lineage leading to humans from its split with a common ancestor some 10 million years ago, and that this is too few to account for human evolution.  ReMine never explained why it is too few, he just knows and wants us all to believe that it is.  I submit that it is premised on his religion-based anthropocentrism and human chauvinism, and nothing more – for surely, if evolution happened (and of course, ReMine ‘knows’ it didn’t), there would have to be many, many, many more such mutations that separate us from the apes.  Apparently.  But ReMine never even tries to tell us why, certainly not in any scientific sense.  He instead employs cheesy prose and rhetoric.

On to Nei’s paper and the ‘truthfulness’ of ‘Haldane’s dilemma…

I suspect Cordova hangs his hat on this passage:

“This justifies Haldane’s theory of cost of natural selection and supports Kimura’s argument for the neutral theory of molecular evolution.”

Well, the first part of it, anyway.
But Nei makes an interesting justification for his criticism of Kimura:

“In practice, the unit of selection should be a gene or an amino acid, because noncoding regions of DNA are largely irrelevant to the evolution of proteins and organisms.”

Hmmm…. I wonder if Cordova and ReMine agree with that?  Noncoding regions can be regulatory in nature, and while changes to them may not alter protein structure, they most certainly can influence phenotype, and how Nei would not know this is a mystery.  Altering, for example, the timing or extent of expression of a developmental regulatory gene would certainly affect the organism as a whole.

But anyway, back to the ‘truthfulness’ of Haldane’s dilemma..

Nei takes for granted the constraints and criteria of Haldane’s model, regardless of whether or not they are truly realistic.  Here is one example:

“In other words, for a gene substitution to occur in a population of constant size every individual
should produce on average more than one offspring…”

Note the requirement that the population remain at a constant size.  When this requirement is removed, the ‘cost’ of natural selection essentially disappears.  Why this requirement is taken for granted is a mystery to me.
We should also note that Nei states openly in his introduction that since he has played a role in this, that his take is biased (he apparently favors a pro-Haldane approach, at least in the part of the paper Cordova skimmed).

Anyway, one will note that Cordova completely ignored Nei’s statement that the neutral theory is also supported – meaning that selectionism is NOT the sole arbiter of evolution, so Haldane’s dilemma is NOT the sole sieve through which evolution of humans should be viewed, even if we are to accept that Haldane’s model is 100% accurate, precise, and universally applicable.

Some other interesting indications in Nei’s paper:
-The biological definition of “neutral” is more useful than the statistical one (i.e., the observed effects of a mutation that does not produce a selectable difference in phenotype is more relevant than applying an abstract mathematical formula to the mutations)

-The abstract mathematical treatments of neutrality and costs of selection of individual loci “never occur in natural populations” (i.e., appending selection coefficients and the like to individual genes devoid of their genomic and organismal context is not justified)

-Despite initial resistance and apparently conflicting evidence, ultimately the data indicated that in fact the neutral theory is the ‘null hypothesis’ of molecular evolution (i.e, most mutation is selectively neutral, only those mutations that become subject to selection are therefore not neutral – seems a bit of a tautology, then, tautologies are by definition true!)

In the end, I think Cordova’s drooling sycophantery is indicative of the level of scrutiny that creationism/Intelligent Design acolytes and cheerleaders apply to their sources and the level of true understanding of the issues these people possess.  I submit  that Cordova likely discovered this paper by doing a keyword search, not by engaging in any sort of scholarly literature review, for his conclusions are not justified by the actual content of the paper, and it is fairly obvious that there are a few phrases and sentences that, devoid of context, would seem to support Cordova’s position.

What is worse for Cordova, the ‘support’ for Haldane’s “dilemma” seems to be mentioned more in passing than anything else – after discussing the ‘cost of natural selection’ in the first section of the paper, Nei then goes on for some 40-odd pages discussing the evidence supporting neutral theory, positive and negative selection, and data indicating the selection of beneficial mutations.  Funny, is it not, that none of this seemed important enough to Cordova to even mention?

Having encountered Cordova before, I know what sorts of argumentation he employs to prop up his positions.  They are shallow, naïve, and simplistic, but presented with unyielding confidence.  Which makes it more likely, in my experience, that those even less informed than Cordova will be impressed by his presentation.

Date: 2009/03/26 19:32:58, Link
Author: slpage
I left this at her blog:


========================
Your comment is awaiting moderation

slpage Says: .

March 27, 2009 at 12:20 am | Reply
Hi Lisa,

You wrote on Sandwalk:

“The genetic evidence is spurious as well.”

I’d hate to think I wasted 5 years in graduate school producing 9 publications while generating about a quarter million nucleotides worth of DNA sequence data for analysis.
Other than conspiracy theories, what do you have?

Further, the Table of Contents in your book lists this, Chapter 5:

Concocting Genetic Clues
46 Evolution’s Timepiece
47 Phylogenetics: The Guessing Game
48 The Holey Trees
49 Defective Corrections

My graduate research was on the molecular phylogeny of primates. You appear to be accusing me - and those who do this type of research - of something very sinister. If you truly believe that phylogenetics is a “guessing game”, then I should like to see your evidence for this. I will not buy your book, that is for sure, but I do hope that you have the confidence in your ‘research’ to supply the evidence for these apparent accusations.

Here is one of my papers:

http://homopan.wayne.edu/Publications/1999/MPE_Page_1999.pdf

Please demonstrate my errors. Show the “spurious” genetics.

Sincerely,

Scott L. Page, PhD.
==================



Considering that it is 'in moderation', I have a feelig it will never see the light of day...

Date: 2009/03/29 11:21:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 26 2009,19:48)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 26 2009,19:32)
I left this at her blog:


========================
Your comment is awaiting moderation

slpage Says: .

March 27, 2009 at 12:20 am | Reply
Hi Lisa,

You wrote on Sandwalk:

“The genetic evidence is spurious as well.”

I’d hate to think I wasted 5 years in graduate school producing 9 publications while generating about a quarter million nucleotides worth of DNA sequence data for analysis.
Other than conspiracy theories, what do you have?

Further, the Table of Contents in your book lists this, Chapter 5:

Concocting Genetic Clues
46 Evolution’s Timepiece
47 Phylogenetics: The Guessing Game
48 The Holey Trees
49 Defective Corrections

My graduate research was on the molecular phylogeny of primates. You appear to be accusing me - and those who do this type of research - of something very sinister. If you truly believe that phylogenetics is a “guessing game”, then I should like to see your evidence for this. I will not buy your book, that is for sure, but I do hope that you have the confidence in your ‘research’ to supply the evidence for these apparent accusations.

Here is one of my papers:

http://homopan.wayne.edu/Publications/1999/MPE_Page_1999.pdf

Please demonstrate my errors. Show the “spurious” genetics.

Sincerely,

Scott L. Page, PhD.
==================



Considering that it is 'in moderation', I have a feelig it will never see the light of day...

I think your comment is much more likely to lead to her investigating the absorption powers of Depends, and I will bet you Dembski's famous single-malt bottle of scotch that your moderation is permanent.

iT'S ID - iT'S HOW THEY ROLL.

Good comment, thanks, good to have you here.

Well, the moderation was not permanent - it was the next best thing - 'buy my book and you'll have your answer.'

Date: 2009/03/31 09:41:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 14 2009,18:42)
Freelurker

You make a good point; at least Genie isn't actively trying to get tard into the public schools. He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence.

Nice review.  I took note of this:

Gene relates an anecdote that, according to him, shows that ID inferences are not scientific dead ends; they can act as a "research guide". This is his "prediction" that proofreading also occurs during transcription. He predicted it from a teleological standpoint, and it turned out to be experimentally verifiable.

My jaw dropped.  

He relayed this anecdote years and years ago on ARN, before I was banned for the third time.  I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

Why?

As I had written then, Gene's 'prediction' was written about after a discussion on translational proofreading had occurred on ARN.  When he talked about his 'telic prediction' being borne out by (other people's) research, I noted that when doing a search on Pubmed for 'proofreading', the paper he cited came up.  It also came up searching 'translation proofreading' and any other combination of relevant terms.  I asserted that he had simply seen that paper during the course of the previous discussions, and either purposefully or maybe subconsciously used it to formulate a "prediction" to impress the rubes.

Other than 'Nyuh-uh!', he never really had any sort of explanation for how it just happened to occur to him after a discussion on translational proofreading...
I am too cynical to think the two were unconnected.

That he put that in his book is just...  wow...


As for "He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence."  

I'm happy that I am not the only one who has concluded this...

Date: 2009/03/31 09:56:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,14:17)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 30 2009,14:14)
Clive stands up to Davison:

 
Quote
No childish name calling will be tolerated here John. I’m serious. And secondly, the merits of the arguments stand or don’t stand on their own. You’re welcome to demand no anonymity on your own blog, you’re not welcome to demand it here as a prerequisite to commenting. Let this be a warning.

Link

Clive, part-time and very selective moderator.

Surely you've seen the sophistic and self-congratulatory gibberish that he and mynym spew on his blog....

Being a psychologist and all, how can his amazing powers of insight be wrong?

Date: 2009/03/31 10:40:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2009,17:44)
Sig worthy?:  
Quote
bfast (#48):

Thank you for mentioning those interesting news. Obviously, I have never believed in all those goofy attempts of the official academy to cover the embarassing truth of the Ediacara and Cambrian explosions with all kinds of unlikely theories. That is only evidence of how uncomfortable they are with those realities.

And if, in the opinion of JayM, I am “misrepresenting the mainstream view”, I am very happy and proud of that.

And yes, this (like many other things) is MAJOR evidenciary support for ID!

-from gpuccio

Well, bfast has never been one to be very concerned about truth or honesty.  Or sense or intelligence.

But hey - he's a YEC with an engineering background.  He is always right.

Date: 2009/03/31 10:45:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2009,10:26)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 31 2009,09:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,14:17)
 
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 30 2009,14:14)
Clive stands up to Davison:

   
Quote
No childish name calling will be tolerated here John. I’m serious. And secondly, the merits of the arguments stand or don’t stand on their own. You’re welcome to demand no anonymity on your own blog, you’re not welcome to demand it here as a prerequisite to commenting. Let this be a warning.

Link

Clive, part-time and very selective moderator.

Surely you've seen the sophistic and self-congratulatory gibberish that he and mynym spew on his blog....

Being a psychologist and all, how can his amazing powers of insight be wrong?

He has his *own* blog?

If he's country shrink....

http://www.intelldesign.com/

Date: 2009/04/26 16:26:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ April 24 2009,08:15)
Veteran Joe watchers:  Have you heard this?
Quote
BTW I was a staunch evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the scientific data while studying to be a zoologist/marine biologist.

If so -- details, please!

I guess that was before he decided to go to electronics engineering (i.e., technician) school.

I have heard that line so often ('I used ot be an evo until I did research') that I typically do not read past the "I used to be an evo..." part.  Each and EVERY time I have heard or read someone make that claim, it has turned out to be completely false.

Joe Gallien was never studying to be anything other than a technician wannabe.

Date: 2009/05/07 07:43:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ May 07 2009,00:02)
Sal Cordova:
Quote
The geneology of Christ might have some support from the work of Cornell Geneticist John Sanford. I wouldn’t write his work off just yet. He too, used to be an atheist.

WTF?

Yes, of course Sanford used to be an atheist, and somehow, he suddenly became a YEC.

Because of all the evidence from jebus, I guess.

Why do they tell such lies all the time?

Date: 2009/05/12 12:09:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 11 2009,09:29)
On the Walter Remine thread, Ray Martinez has a classic comment.  
Quote
Evolutionist Scott L. Page has a review posted at Amazon. He points out that you support undisputed claims ad naseum but fail to support disputed claims.

I haven’t read your book but I can tell that Page has made a careless blunder or deliberate misrepresentation. Knowing evolutionists, I am quite confident that the latter is true.

It would appear that Ray did not bother to read my review, either:


After encountering ReMine on the internet on several occasions, I decided to read this book of his that he and lay creationists laud as the best thing written on the subject. After reading some of the reviews here, I must say that at first I thought I had read a different book. From an author who "knows what he is talking about"? He "pulls no punches yet he is not rude"?
First off, ReMine is not "Dr.ReMine". He has a master's degree in engineering.
Second, if you want to consider the fact that he accuses evolutionary biologists of colluding to hide the 'truth about Haldane's dilemma' for more than 40 years, and repeatedly referring to evolutionist 'storytelling', is not being 'rude', so be it.
The substance of this volume is not in his use of quotes - which his 'customer service rep' told me via email is how some of the "best science" is done - but in his lack of them.

He uses quote after quote - sometimes incorrectly, as in his quote of Van Valen on p. 219 - to support non-controversial subjects. For example, he uses 14 citations to support his statement that under Haldane's model, one gene per 300 generations can be substituted (p. 216). This is not in dispute. But how many citations does ReMine supply for this:

"Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?"

Ignore for now the clumsy prose, and look at what he is asking/saying. He is implying that 1,667 changes - in a genome of ~30-40,000 genes - is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. Never mind that he does not identify the ancestor, so he has no way of knowing what changes have to be accounted for. But he is saying that more - many more (he mentions "500,000 selectively significant nucleotides" on p. 209, implying that even this is far too few; odd considering the size of the genic portion of the genome) are 'necessary'. THAT deserves some support - science by quote, if you will. And if you have or have read the book, tell us how many quotes ReMine provides to support this implication.

None. Not one.

This antic is repeated throughout the book - citations galore supportive of non-controversial facts, no citations at all supportive of his 'Biotic Message' fluff.

ReMine says over and over that this or that in fact supports his 'theory'. He says over and over that his 'theory' is "robust", "testable", and "scientific." Readers and accolade-heapers should ask themselves - If this is true, why did not ReMine provide a single test? Why did not ReMine provide some real-life examples of the application of his 'theory'? What he did was lay out - usually in a demeaning way - some aspect of evolution and claim that it actually - magically - supports his 'theory', not evolution!

And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine's amazing 'theory' can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as "John Woodmorappe", not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.

Date: 2009/05/12 12:14:13, Link
Author: slpage
It is also interesting to note that cvomments are turned off in that ReMine thread now.

Old Wally just can't change his stripes, I guess.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/lesson_cre_ethics_rr.htm

Date: 2009/05/15 10:16:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 12 2009,14:32)
Quote (slpage @ May 12 2009,12:14)
It is also interesting to note that cvomments are turned off in that ReMine thread now.

Old Wally just can't change his stripes, I guess.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/lesson_cre_ethics_rr.htm

I have a comment window, though I don't care to comment there.  It may be that nobody else cares about ReMine either.

Yeah, I was surprised at how few pro-ID comments are in the ReMine trifecta.

Date: 2009/05/18 12:21:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 18 2009,09:26)
Quote (KCdgw @ May 18 2009,09:05)
Joe G is brave:

   
Quote
tsmith,
Balad, Iraq March 2004.
I think I was trying to prove one can outrun an RPG



Adel DiBagno is impressed (or sarcastic):

   
Quote
Joseph,
We are all in your debt for your service to our country.
A debt we can never repay.


KC

Joe Gallien (Joe G) is a bullshit artist who has floating this "I was wounded fighting in Iraq" lie for years.

When pressed on the details, turns out he was never in the military.  He spent a month or so there as a contractor, and somehow hurt his back in a totally benign manner, lifting something the wrong way.

It steams me no end to see this chickenshit dishonor the real men and women who fought for our country and who were wounded or killed there.  :angry:

Funny - he was mentioning his hurt back well before he supposeldy went to Iraq.  He mentioned it wayyyyy back on the old OCW forum probably 7 or 8 years ago - claimed that his prayers helped it heal.

Date: 2009/06/19 13:09:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 19 2009,12:50)
Reading the discussion has made me reconsider Wesley's earlier suggestion that you guys build a better program. It might be a way of collecting your observations.

However, if "Mendle's Accountant Cooked the Books," Sanford et al will merely claim that your new program has predetermined its answer.

And from what I have seen, he would then just be projecting.

I am still wondering why they think that constraining the outcomes to a constant population size is biolgically realistic.

Date: 2009/06/23 19:06:44, Link
Author: slpage
"... only sort of cause known to produce information."


Ah, the old arument via analogy.

I'm sure that is gold to the Heritage Foundation crowd...

Date: 2009/06/23 19:10:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Steve Schaffner @ June 19 2009,13:33)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2009,13:09)
I am still wondering why they think that constraining the outcomes to a constant population size is biolgically realistic.

It's a feature of many population genetics models. It has the advantage of being simple. How accurate it is depends a lot on what organism you're looking at.

Of course, there's a big difference between using models to analyze how particular aspects of evolution work and trying to model the entire process well enough to say whether it can occur.

Which is sort of my point.  Their claim is that this is state of the art and realsitic, yet they appear to have employed certain parameters for simplicity rather than realism.

Constant population size is one of my pet peeves with Haldane's model as well.

Date: 2009/06/23 19:13:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2009,16:16)
Quote
Of course, there's a big difference between using models to analyze how particular aspects of evolution work and trying to model the entire process well enough to say whether it can occur.

Well, that's just being picky! :p

But yeah, if populate size is allowed to go way up, then the simulation would have to deal with food shortages (i.e., fitness would drop across the board if population gets too large for the food supply).

Henry

I don't mean just allowing it to grow willy nilly - that is not realistic, either.  But if they want to claim 'most realistic' then it seems to me employing non-universal constraints negates that claim.

I also gather that while deleterious mutations are allowed to accumulate and not reduce, that beneficials are allowed to be lost.  Is that correct?

Date: 2009/07/19 17:48:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2009,22:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 17 2009,14:11)
Vintage Joe G from the Tardmines:

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2007....ic.html

I wish I still had links where Joe G. (AKA John Paul) wrote he would accept a reptile with hooves as a TRUE transitional, and where he once told me the gas planets like Jupiter & Saturn were put there by the designer so Earth would be protected from asteroids and comets. I really miss his YEC arguments. Speaking of which, check out this http://web.archive.org/web....s-f.htm where he was a contributor to a YEC website.

Ah, Luke Randall, molecular biologist creationist.  The grand poobah who once declared that humans have "3 billion codons" and when I corrected him, he deigned to declare that I should learn some biology before daring to do so again, lest he make me regret my ignorance...

Date: 2009/09/11 08:33:59, Link
Author: SLP
"FL" also posts on numerous boards as "Mellotron".

He supposedly has a background in journalism, but if you are familiar with his antics, it seems more of a FOX news type of yarn-spinning ideologue.

He has a tendency to hunt the net to find a single person who has written something that he can construe as supporting his position and then presents this person's ideas as the ultimate truth on the matter, and no matter how much evidence is presented overturning his claims, he will not yield.

He has, for example, taken an out of context quote from Jon Oro that he uses to imply that biological evolution INCLUDES abiogenesis.  When it is pointed out that Oro was referring to the CONCEPT of evolution (change over time), not the theory of evolution, he simply restates his original claims and claims victory.

In short, he is a hero-worshipping, ignorant, obstinate, classic Dunning-Kruger poster boy, YEC dimwit hack.

Date: 2009/09/11 11:56:06, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Jasper @ Sep. 11 2009,10:23)
"FL" are the initials of "Floyd A. Lee," a resident of Topeka, Kansas. He outed himself years ago on PT.

Interestingly, here's an old article from the Topeka Capitol Journal written by someone named Floyd Lee.  I wonder if it was the same FL?

And a list of his articles:

http://findarticles.com/p....Journal


I wonder if they know how much of a dishonest dork he is there in Toe -PEEEK -uh....

Date: 2009/09/14 08:41:38, Link
Author: SLP
Came across this while perusing some of Floyd's past forays:

*********************

Please read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

Does the above passage indicate to you that:

1. The author sees evolution by natural selection as a 'basic' phenomenon/concept that has applications to biology, cosmology; both animate/living and inanimate/non-living things and thus as a concept, 'evolution' ties all all these areas together



2. The author is indicating that abiogenesis/cosmochemical evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Darwin
*********************

The question is asked because Floyd likes to take snippets from that quote to claim that evolution (as such) definitley includes abiogenesis, and we all know that if you can find problems with abiogenesis, therefore, you've found problems with evolution:

***************

He's referring to his fantasy wherein Oro's quote (Mello only ever quotes this part: "...organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3)." except that he leaves off the ellipses in the beginning and capitalizes Organic) really means that abiogenesis is part and parcel of Biological evolution and thus if he can carry on about a bunch of 'problems' with abiogenesis, he has thus refuted evolution as well.

He insists that he is interpeteing Oro correctly when he comes to that conclusion.
***************

Date: 2009/09/14 08:53:30, Link
Author: SLP
Oooo - that one musta hurt, eh Floyd?

Date: 2009/09/14 10:17:04, Link
Author: SLP
Not that it will matter, of course.   If you are familiar with FL/Mellotron's antics re: the Oro quote, you wil know that neither context nor common sense will deter his invincible ignorance.

Date: 2009/09/14 13:43:38, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,12:58)

Quote
Quote
FL has his opinion, and he will not be persuaded otherwise, as years of interaction have shown.


And I can say the exact same thing about you, Dr. Elsberry, based on reading your PT posts for years likewise.  


You presuppose that the material you've presented has merit and is worthy of being considered in-depth.

Your 'argument' style is absolutely child-like - you have your heroes who can do no wrogn, you have your choice (often doctored or otherwise inaccurate) quotes form individuals that you then claim are the ultimate experts/authorities, and you refuse to yield an inch when shown that you should be a mile back.

That the Dunning-Kruger dogma in you.

Quote

In fact, I would be very highly surprised if anybody in this forum confessed at all to being "persuaded otherwise" from their current position, after being presented with the facts and reasonings that I intend to offer, as well as the counter-responses from Deadman and other posters.


I would, too, considering the quality of your arguments.

I have personally had the opportunity to delve into your position statements, quote mongering, hero worship, and repetitious regurgiposting, and I have that you are immune to acknowledging error.

You simply ignore refutations of your position, wait  few weeks or months, then make the same claims all over again.


Frankly, I don't care if evolution is incompatible with your version of Christianity. I would imagine that there are any number of real-life phenomena that are.  Of course, being incompatible with Branze-Age mythology is not rationale to dismiss evidence, unless, of course, one is not actually interested in the truth.

Date: 2009/09/16 08:02:17, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,01:52)
Quote
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?


What, you think I'm gonna let YOU off the hook, dude?  Pfffft!!  

(And wott is Stanton doin' in this saloon?  Don't he know that LIVE AMMO is permitted in this joint??)

Okay, let's first lay down the final two incompatibilites Dale,
then I'll do your question there.    :)

Unless you are a 14 year old with dreams of living like the bling-dripping talentless "musicians" you see on MTV reality shows, stop writing and acting as if you are, Floyd.

Date: 2009/09/16 08:07:23, Link
Author: SLP
Genesis 17:14

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



Why does Yahweh have this things about uncircumcised penises?

Was Yahweh the original 'Catholic Priest'?

Date: 2009/09/17 14:35:04, Link
Author: SLP
never mind

Date: 2009/09/17 14:38:20, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)

Floyd wrotes:
Quote

Nope, the schools should NOT stop teaching those science subjects, not even stop teaching biology, not even stop using the canned Darwin Dogma Dogfood textbooks that they're using right now.



I say to that:

S'mo fo butter layin' to the bone. Jackin' me up. Tightly.
What it is big mamma, my mamma didn't raise no dummy, I dug her rap.

Date: 2009/09/22 10:40:39, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:35)
Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)

How ironic...

Date: 2009/09/22 10:41:44, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:30)
Quote
Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.

So, find me a high school or university-level Physics, Genetics, or Chemistry textbook that SAYS these particular things.  

So if it is assumed, it is OK?

Date: 2009/09/23 13:12:05, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 23 2009,12:19)
Quack, you're being very unfair.

The Bible is perfect and literally true in all things. Except when it gets a bit metaphorical, or when there were copying errors. Fortunately, we have Floyd to tell us where these things are.

And I suppose that it is just a coincidence that the parts that are errors (so much for a literally 100% true bible, eh?) are the embarrassing parts and the metaphorical parts are the parts that are so silly that claiming them as literally true would be to demonstrate a profound stupidity.

Date: 2009/09/24 12:41:54, Link
Author: SLP
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?

Date: 2009/09/25 07:26:06, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 24 2009,13:04)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,12:41)
I'm still concerned about the Christian cult's fixation on the penis.  
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

But in Yahweh's day, boy, foreskins were king:

Habakkuk 2:16 - Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing [shall be] on thy glory.


Genesis 17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Genesis 17:11 - And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


1 Samuel 18:25 - And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

1 Samuel 18:27 - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

Joshua 5:3 - And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.


It was a regular wienerfest!

Let me guess - all metaphotical?

Not metaphorical. There was good reason why there were more female converts to Judaism than men.

The men often chose the lesser commitment of the so-called  God-fearers. These men were loosely attached to the synagogue and enjoyed a subset of the privileges of full membership. In return, they agreed to obey some of the law (for example, to keep the Sabbath) and to live in a morally acceptable way. They didn't have to be circumcised. They were the low hanging fruit (bad metaphor?) and were among the first converts to Christianity.

Well, maybe, but I plan to act Yahweh-like and ask my daughter's suitor for 100 foreskins as a dowry...

Date: 2009/09/25 07:27:43, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I think there is certainly truth in that, we've certainly seen it publicly in the last few years.
But mentioning that is enough to get you suspended from Christian-run forums.  Those folk never were that good at facing the truth.

Date: 2009/09/25 07:28:54, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,16:24)
Quote (SLP @ Sep. 24 2009,13:41)
Nowadays, of course, we have 'family values' Christian conservatives either obsessing over - and strangely knowing all about - homesexual sex acts or being closet homesexuals themselves.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and in my experience are actually positively correlated.

IOW, the bigger the homophobe, the deeper the closet.

I HATE THEM GAYERS. THEY MAKE ME SO MAD I GET A STIFFY.  :angry:

Stiffy?

I have not heard or used that term since about 1986 - thanks for the mammaries! :D

Date: 2009/09/25 10:48:46, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,09:52)
Quote
Actually, the TOE says nothing about biological origins or cosmological origins.

The ToE doesn't even say anything about biological origins, Robin?

Cue out of context and wildly extrapolated and misinterpreted John Oro quote in 3...2...1...

Because after all, one guy's misinterpreted, misrepresentedopinion TRUMPS ALL!

Date: 2009/09/25 10:52:15, Link
Author: SLP
Allow me to head Floyd off at the pass:


Please read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

Does the above passage indicate to you that:

1. The author sees evolution by natural selection as a 'basic' phenomenon/concept that has applications to biology, cosmology; both animate/living and inanimate/non-living things and thus as a concept, 'evolution' ties all all these areas together



2. The author is indicating that abiogenesis/cosmochemical evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution as put forth by Darwin

Note that it is quite likley that FL will only quote this part:
"...organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond"
because he is dishonest.

Date: 2009/09/25 11:16:48, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 24 2009,14:17)
I see that Slimy Sal is still spreading his usual bullshit about population genetics on the Weasel Thread, despite having been corrected numerous times. Perhaps someone can point him to this link.

I can't bring myself to read sleazy Sally's stuff anymore.

I do recall once, several years ago on KCFS, he set up an 8-letter 'analogy' to a genome, set up a scenario in which it 'mutated' one letter each generation, then 'demonstrated' that in only 8 generations, the entire sequence of letters was different, therefore, evolution cannot happen AND molecular phylogenetics was shown to be fatally flawed...

I was very tempted at the time to employ the word "retard", but I felt that it would be frowned on...

Date: 2009/10/06 09:34:12, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
Okay, back again for a bit.  A few notes:

(1)  I could be wrong, but I think CsAdams will start falling silent about the cite thing now.  She had said, "And we wonder why FL doesn't provide cites for those textbooks", so I provided her the cite for the Miller textbook straight out of the FTE amicus brief itself.

But then instead of simply checking out the provided cite, she starts insisting on a page scan.  However, the poster JLT went ahead and did the checking and (even without offering any page scans himself), offered the appropriate Miller text, which confirmed that the FTE cite I provided was the real deal.  

"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?

Date: 2009/10/09 10:17:43, Link
Author: SLP
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure..."

-Todd Wood, YEC, PhD.


Not exactly on topic, but I do wonder Floyd - what do you know that he does not?

Date: 2009/10/09 13:41:35, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,11:08)
So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?

Well, he says that he accepts YEC because it is a 'faith' decision - he accept sthe word of the bible over what he sees and experiences.  

It is nutty, and I feel sorry for the guy - the mental anguish that he must have to live with.  But I mentioned it because he is a smart guy, an earned PhD, engages in scientific * research, is a YEC, yet sees that evolution is, in essence,
'true.'


* so-called

Date: 2009/10/12 14:05:48, Link
Author: SLP
Floyd the creationist?  Doctor quotes to make it seem as though the 'evo scientist' is claiming something he/she is not?  NEVER!


Oh, wait....

Quote
Quote
“Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life—possibly in the “warm little pond” that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker.”

–evolutionist John Oro, from Life’s Origins, ed. Wm. Schopf, c2002, p 26.


Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.


Mellotron/FL uses the Oro quote top PROVE that abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, and nobody can tell him anything different.. Except...

Actual Oro quote:

Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.


Context - and un-doctored quotes - are amazing.
Note that Floyd - who claims a journalism background - sees no problem in failing to indicate that he omitted the first half of the sentence.  In fact, he appears to TRY to cover this up by capitalizing the O in organic.

Date: 2009/10/13 08:44:34, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:02)

Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
   
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?


By 'short' you mean doctored, for you never indicate that you lop off half a sentence when you quote it and go so far as to capitalize the O in organic to make it appear as though it is the first word in the sentence.  That is, you take an active rople in deceiving your readers.
 
Quote

     
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.


Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath?  I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate relaince.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.



It is interesting to note, however, that your 'take home message' from that quote has changed a bit since I presented it in context and pointed out that you've been parading around a doctored version.

Why can't you even at least admit that? Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!

[quote]
Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
     
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"


You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.



Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?

It is as if I claimed that the U.S. flag were only red and white and to 'prove' this, presented this quote:


"The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white."

Then, someone who felt the flag were red, white and blue, found the source of my quote, and presented the rest of it:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars."

And I then thanked them for proving my point and to 'prove' this, did this:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.


And just sort of blew off the rest?

That is what YOU'VE done re: this quote.

I have to ask, and I do so sincerely- are you medicated?

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v....oststop

And then you ran away....

Date: 2009/10/13 08:48:08, Link
Author: SLP
Reposted here as it is off-topic in the FL debate thread..

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:02)

Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
   
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?


By 'short' you mean doctored, for you never indicate that you lop off half a sentence when you quote it and go so far as to capitalize the O in organic to make it appear as though it is the first word in the sentence.  That is, you take an active rople in deceiving your readers.
 
Quote

     
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.


Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath?  I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate relaince.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.



It is interesting to note, however, that your 'take home message' from that quote has changed a bit since I presented it in context and pointed out that you've been parading around a doctored version.

Why can't you even at least admit that? Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!

[quote]
Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
     
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"


You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.



Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?

It is as if I claimed that the U.S. flag were only red and white and to 'prove' this, presented this quote:


"The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white."

Then, someone who felt the flag were red, white and blue, found the source of my quote, and presented the rest of it:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars."

And I then thanked them for proving my point and to 'prove' this, did this:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.


And just sort of blew off the rest?

That is what YOU'VE done re: this quote.

I have to ask, and I do so sincerely- are you medicated?

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v....oststop

And then you ran away....

Date: 2009/10/15 07:16:36, Link
Author: slpage
Crowther:
"Rather than debate the science, Darwinists try to suppress it. They simply can't stand to let people know the truth about the shoddy case for Darwinian evolution."

This from a guy who sees no problem with Jonny Wells REFUSING to test his claims re: molecular phylogenetics with real data.

The hypocrisy just oozes from these creeps.

Date: 2009/10/19 13:24:50, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:21)
Quote
quote mining opinion of evolutionary biologists

Deadman's earlier accusation of "quotemining" was wiped out literally quote by quote, evolutionist by evolutionist.  

You never attempted to help him on that one.  Why?

Oro.

Fail.

Then of course there is  your patented 'Whomever I quote is the ultimate authority on whatever I am quoting them on - be it a veterinarian discussing vestigial structures of a chiropracter claiming that the coccyx anchors the nervous system - my quotes represent absolute TROOOOF!''....

Date: 2009/10/19 14:11:38, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)
Quote
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.

If by "knocked out of the park" you mean engaged in sheer repetitive denial and truly bizarre extrapolations, coupled with a refusal to admit that you have had a tendency to present a doctored quote, then sure.

====================================
Quote
Quote

"Real deal" just like your doctored Oro quote that you've been bandying about the nets for a few years now?

Hardly doctored, SLP.


So, do you really believe that omitting the first half of a sentence and then capitalizing the firt letter of the next word to make it appear as though the first half of the sentence was NOT lopped off is NOT doctoring a quote?

What DO you call it?

Here is what you typically present:

"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Here is the actual sentence:

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

My point in bringing this up is more to point out your general dishonesty when presenting quotes - for it is DISHONEST to lop off "In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) " and not even indicate that this had been done and to then try to cover up this editing by capitalizing the first letter of the next word.  Antics like yours have made many many people completely distrust YECs when presenting quotes.

And let us never mind that your whole premise is silly and absurd.

Quote
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories,"


That's a direct echo of what Oro wrote in Schopf 2002 which I have quoted over the past few years.  
Yes - and you misinterpreted/misrepresent that, too.
Quote


Needless to say, the next time you guys try to suddently pretend that abiogenesis is separate from evolution, I'll be quoting not only Oro but De Duve as well!!

In other words, you will parade your invincible ignorance for all to see and pat yourself on the back while doing it.

You still simply cannot understand the difference between the concept of evolution and the theory of evolution.

How on earth a person can conflate the 'evolution' of the universe with the theory of evolution is a mystery.  I believe this is the usual creationist retreat position - when shown to have made an egregious error in an anti-evolution argument, do NOT under any circumstances acknowledge it, for to do so might imply that you are open to admitting error on other issues!

You are an incredibly deluded and intellectually dishonest person, and I say that with all sincerity.

*************************
Quote
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution–natural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.


******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.


Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath?  I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate reliance.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.


Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!

Quote

Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
Quote
 
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"  


You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.


Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?

Date: 2009/10/20 09:44:37, Link
Author: SLP
Ah, I finally found it...

Floyd:[quote]
Okay, let's check back with SLP.  I asked him a question previously.  I want an answer.
[/quote]

Do you, now?
That is rich, coming from someone with a pretty well documented tendency to abandon threads...
[quote]
In 2002, William Schopf published a fascinating book, Life's Origins:  The Beginnings of Biological Evolution.
(Yes, that's the full title.  Not exactly separating abiogenesis from evolution, is it?)[/quote]
Well, I guess you win!  A book title does not make it clear that abiogenesis is not part of evolution, thus, it must be!
Brilliant...
mamma jamma real meal deal brilliant.
[quote]
The most fascinating part of the book is what the late evolutionist Dr. John Oro wrote in one of the chapters.
  [quote]In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements.

Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment),
organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
(see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. [/quote]
Here's the key phrase in the middle of that quotation:
 [quote]organic molecules evolved by natural selection,
ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker
[/quote]
Not only does this statement tie abiogenesis to evolution, but notice that Oro even tosses in a direct, unmistakable factor:  "organic molecules evolved by natural selection."  IOW, the exact driving force cited for postbiotic evolution is the same cited for prebiotic evolution. [/quote]

Your proof-texting is both legendary and monumentally easy to demolish.  What about this key part (which you seem dead-set on ignoring):

"Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems."

In my reading (and apparently everyone but yours), Oro is saying that the CONCEPT of evolutioon by naturalselection - a MECHANISM - is not unique to the theory of evolution ala Darwin.  Just as the MECHANISM of bomb dropping, gravity, is not unique to the dropping of bombs but also to planetary orbits.

You bolded but do not seem to grasp the implications of this:

"But evolution also operates ..."

Hmmmm....

You have a hard time with parts of quotes that sort of diminish the take-home message of your proof texting.
[quote]
Oro also pointed out something else:
  [quote]"We can conclude that the different forms of life are not the result of a process having a determined finality developed a priori by a creative  plan, nor are they the result of a chance fortuitous act.  Life emerged as the result of natural evolutionary processes, as a new form of movement of matter during its process of development."

---from AI Oparin's final scientific paper (1986), quoted by Oro in Schopf 2002. [/quote]
If that paragraph sounds familiar, it's because it echoes something De Duve recently said in 2009 (Nmgirl quoted it and SLP re-quoted it.)

  [quote]Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"[/quote] [/quote]

You are really hung up on the use of the 'evolution', aren't you?
So, like, when someone says "That due is as cold as ice", you must really think that the dude is 0 degeees C...
[quote]
Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.[/quote]
Actually, it is true.

Nowhere in the Origin does Darwin claim that abiogenesis must have occurred before evolution took place, or that the theory of evolution requires abiogenesis.  Nobody has ever said this or implied it.
It is certainly CONSISTENT with evolution, but evolution (as in the ToE) does not in fact require it.
Your inability to understand certain words and your prooftexting notwithstandfing...
[quote]

In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
  [quote]"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.[/quote][/quote]
Never heard of him of the book.  But I forgot - if Floyd Lee can find a mamma jamma real meal deal quote that he thinks props up his case, it is the absolute trooooof!

So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?
[quote]Okay, that's like background information for the upcoming post or posts.  

SLP thinks I "deceived readers" on the short version of Oro that I've quoted in other forums and past years (and wants to apparently debate it here and now), and meanwhile my own question for SLP is designed to show that I've never quotemined John Oro AND to show that Oro meant precisely what he said---and in doing so puts the lie to the evolutionist claim that prebiotic evolution (abiogenesis) is separate from evolution.  [/quote]
You HAVE deceived by use of a doctored quote, and the implication of the quote itself is irrelevant.  I don't feel thye need to 'debate' anythign here - you just write the same things over and over, same as on CARM.  You have staked out your little fiefdom in your prooftexting world, and you are not budging.  
Hopwever, it is my positon that you quotemined Oro by ignoring the overall context AND by ignoring the implications of his actual words, words like 'link' and 'concept' and 'also'.

Unless it really is your position that the Theory of Evolution is THE CONCEPT of evolution?

Do you think that stellar evolution is also 'part and parcel' of biological evolution?  You must - the word 'evolution' appears in it...
[quote]

No deceit, no joke:  Abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution, no doubt.[/quote]

It is a joke and there is plenty of doubt.

Abiogenesis is consistent with evolution, but evolution does not require it (which is really what you mean, right?).
[quote]Got some more for you SLP.  

         [quote]In the mid-1800's, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things.  But evolution also operates in the inanimate world....[/quote]

Right there, you see Oro providing a rationale that clearly connects abiogenesis to evolution, makes them inseparable in fact. [/quote]

So, we've gone from 'part of' to 'inseperabl;e', all by parsing the same quote.  Amazing.  What next - Darwin required the RNA world?
You keep ignoring the "concept of evolution" part...
       
Quote


And look at it again, SLP, he's not just referring to "a concept" only, but actual evolution.


Then why does he use the word "CONCEPT"?

Proof-texting makes you like like a retard.
       
Quote


 He does this same thing when he says "organic molecules evolved by natural selection".  He's talking actuality, NOT abstract concept.


Do you really think that the evolution by natural selection that Oro refers to for organic molecules is the SAME as the evolution of natuiral selection as laid out by Darwin?  Really?
What niche competition was there for organic molecules?  Who was preying on them?  Who were they competing with for reproduction?
or gee, could it be he was referring to evolution as such?
       
Quote


So you got it wrong there too.  Care to respond?  Are you able to?


I have actually already responded to this line of 'reasoning' the last several time syou brought it up.  You are just proof-texting.
       
Quote
         
Quote
And I know you 'stand by' what you've written
 
Yeah, you DO know that from our past discussions.

Hey look - Mellotron lops off another quote to make it more to his liking!
       
Quote

Start here:
       
Quote
Here's your question:  Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
.......disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?


Okay, I didnt' get a straight answer from you on this one and so permit me to insist.

You got straight answers from me more than once.  I refer you to this thread yet again - the one you bailed from after your repetitive mantras failed to convince anyone of the veracity of your position.
       
Quote

Seems to be a lotta complainin's from you because the short version----"organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker" wasn't quoted properly, apparently supposed to be something like....

"...organic molecules)  or "...(Organic) molecules" or
..."(Organic) molecules"


Well, that's fine.  Whatever way is the right stylistic way to start off that paragraph, I admit I didn't do it just right.  C'est la vie.

Yeah, no biggie.  Sure, you lopped off half a sentence without indicating you did so and tried to cover it up by capitalizing the first letter of the first word in your doctored quote.  Yeah, no biggie.  You're a (Fox news-style) journalist, why should we expect you to understand how to quote properly.  
One has to wonder how many other quotes form you are treated in this cavalier fashion.
I mean I am sure that the pew warmers you present it to won't care (and will liklely resist having your folly pointed out to them), but in the real world, honest people do care about such 'stylistic' issues.
       
Quote

Much of the time, I simply wrote, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envsioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker."

Much later on, I think I started trying to change it over to be more stylistically correct, even though I was simply posting on discussion boards and not writing for publication.

Right, so if you quoted this for the Topeka Star, you'd have done it right...
I hear that excuse from students accused of academic dishonesty all the time.
       
Quote

But I'm not interested in folks trying to play games, trying to pretend that "abiogenesis is separate from evolution" based on a stylistic violation on a quotation.


That is not the case.  The case is that you proof-texted the paragraph and then only quote the part you think proves you are correct.
       
Quote
 If the idea is to claim that I'm "deceiving readers" or quotemining or taking anything out of context, then let SLP step up to the plate and demonstrate it, not just blindly assert it.  


I've done so repeatedly.  You keep ignoring it and then laughably act like you are here - all indignant and as if reiterating the same failed 'proofs' over and over will vindicate you.
Quote

snip laughable hubris
Ohhh, and answer the OTHER question too while you're here:
         
Quote
         
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posi the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolution---natural selection.

Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP.  But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it.  


You are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between a concept and a specifc application of the concept, so no answer will suffice for a proof-texting zealot.

Sorry.
       
Quote
       
Quote

Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

You said you answered this one.  Show me again exactly how you did?

Here for one example.  
       
Quote

Oh, and you dropped this one too.  Completely.
         
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian De Duve summarized the plenary session:  "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories..." (2009, Nmgirl's post)


Care to address what he said, SLP?


Actually, I did reply to that, too.  Guess you just missed it.  The same answer applies - the issue is the concept of evolution, not a specific application of that concept.  I have a feeling that he did not mean that the theory governing the evolution of flora and fauna encompasses the evolution of the universe.  
Or do you think that the stellar evolution is 'in crisis' because we do not have a conclusive hypothesis of abiogenesis yet?

       
Quote

I don't think you can.  

Allow me to correct that for yo:

Mellotron: "I don't think."        
Quote


I think you major in minors because you're not able to handle the fact that multiple experts, past and present, really do connect evolution and abiogenesis even down to 2009.  You whine and wring your hands, and try to shoot the messenger because you're too limp to deal with the message, is that it?


I major in not proof-texting and ignoring words that do not prop up my pre-conceived notions.


As for being limp....        
Quote

Don't try to hide behind CM or other low-octaners on this one.  Git on here yourself if you dare, and answer to these realities.  Ready yet?


if I dare?

Cute...

       
Quote
I'll try asking you one more time, SLP.  I've already answered your post in honest detail (and you seem bent on ignoring that response, plus you didn't really answer the questions that I gave to you in that response previously.).

Actually, I don't check this board every day, and this is a fast moving thread.
       
Quote

Anyway, here's your quote:
         
Quote
"Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "


Here is the actual sentence:
       
Quote

"In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). "

Can you---are you ABLE to---show me where the "actual sentence" CONTRADICTS the shorter quotation in ANY manner?  Sincere question, but don't play games on this one SLP.  


Funny fellow - I never said that the entire sentence negates the part you doctored - no, you are arguing against what you THOUGHT I claimed, not what I did.  My complaint on that has ALWAYS been the fact that you dishonestly hacked the quote then made it appear as if it was the whole quote, and used that to claim that Oro says that abiogenesis is indeed part of the theory of evolution, and by extention that evolution is dependant upon abiogenesis.  The entire paragraph makes it quite clear that this is not the case.  The quoted sentence itself is really irrelevant, it is your use and misinterpretation of it that is the issue.        
Quote


I already admitted previously that the shorter sentence was stylistically incorrect.  


"stylistically"?

If a student of mine got caught doing that on a paper, they would get hauled before the honor board!

If a YEC does it, it is par for the course.
       
Quote

(I also pointed out that I never used the stylistically incorrect shorter sentence in anything other than Internet discussion forums...  You did not acknowledge this.)


How can I acknowledge that which I'd not yet seen?  Earlier in this thread, you wrote "Hardly doctored, SLP".  Not exactly an admission.  And 3 months after you were exposed as doctoring the quote on CARM, there you are, trotting it out yet again.  Apparently, your Christian sensibilities take a back seat to tossing out a 'juicy (doctored) quote'.


       
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.


Now, let's try an alrenate bolding pattern - and pay attention Floyd:

       
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.



I've already asked you to look up the words "linkage" and "concept" and even provided definitons for you, but it does not appear to have sunk in.  You may also want to look up "also".

On p. 43, you do some more of the same and more wild extrapolation desperately attempting to make abiogenesis part of evolution (the theory, not the concept).

So, are you saying you use this quote elsewhere, say, in public?  What do you think the chaces are that someone in the pews will have access to the book from which you snagged that quote and will be able to challenge you?  ZERO, which is what people like you count on.
       
Quote

Show me that I took Oro out of context or quotemined him or something.   If you are unable to then you don't have much of a complaint, quite honestly.


I've done both, actually.  That you cannot or refuse to acknowledge this is a given.  It i

Date: 2009/10/20 09:45:34, Link
Author: SLP
Not sure what the problem with the BB coding was, but I couldn't fix it....

Date: 2009/10/20 09:53:36, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:00)

Quote
Furthermore, you were directly shown that Oro did NOT limit it to the mere "concept" of evolution at all.

That was just your proof-texting speaking.
Quote


For example, "Organic molecules evolved by natural selection" is a statement of actuality.

Actually, it is his opinion, for starters.  Second, if you stop proof-texting, you will see that your position is simply irrelevant.
Quote

 He's actually ascribing the origin of life to evolution---


Actually, here on earth, he is doing the opposite.  He is saying that the concept of evolution via natural selection applies to cosmochemical origins just as uit does to biological ones.
If he believed that abiogenesis and biologicla evolution were one and the same, why did he mention them seperately?

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

For Christ's sake, tying things together does not mean that one is 'part and parcel' of the other.
Quote

furthermore, the SAME KIND of evolution as the postbiotic arena---with the driving force being natural selection.

The SAME KIND of gravity causes bombs to fall as causes planets to orbit the sun, thus, orbital mechanics is part and parcel of ballistic trajectory calculations!
Quote


For you to pretend that Oro is merely dealing with the "concept" of evolution is---how did you put it?---"Dishonest."


Yeah, I guess he actually used the word CONCEPT just for kicks..

"Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems."
Quote



How does it feel to be a dishonest evolutionist, SLP?


I wouldn't know, I am not the proof-texting quote doctorer.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:26:17, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)

Quote
Let's go right here, SLP:
     
Quote
In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.
       
Quote
"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution."

---Lurquin, The Origins of Life and the Universe, p. 32.

Okay, now that's a really clear example of abiogenesis NOT being separate from evolution.  So what was your response?
     
Quote
Never heard of him of the book.

So you get to simply ignore and blow-off published statements like that of OOL expert Paul Lurquin, simply because you ain't been to your public library (the science section, btw) and read his book?  


My point was that one person's opinion - whether they are 'experts' or not - is really irrelevant, especially when your quotes are nto what they are cracked up to be:

"The RNA World Hypothesis is a very attractive one, because it bases the appearance of life squarely within the realm of evolution.  RNA, by virtue of its ability to store information in a base sequence, propagate it by replication, and evolve through mutation, allows much more flexibility than can be seen in a world in which proteins appeared first... Natural selection cannot operate on them [proteins]."

Looks like, yet again, we have someone commenting on the CONCEPT of evolution via natural selection, and not someone indicating that agiogenesis is 'part and parcel' of the theory of evolution.

It is true that I've not heard of Lurquin, and I mention that as I know your game.
Quote


No, that's not rational.  "Never heard of him or his book" is not a rebuttal, and is not a refutation of what he said.  It's as simple as that.  What Lurquin wrote, still stands.


What I wrote was not meant to be a refutation or rebuttal of Lurquin, but of you.

Lurquin's quote stands as words indicating he is  someone who favors an RNA world type hypothesis for abiogenesis over a protein-frist one, not that he PROVES that abiogenesis is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.
Quote


     
Quote
So, if I write a book and state the opposite (you seem very impressed with books), will you stop making these claims?

Maybe si, maybe no.

Actually, no.
I know how you operate - whomever you happen to quote is the ultimate authority, like your veterinarian on vestiges, or your chiropracter on the relevance of the coccyx.  You are immune to rational discourse.
Quote


But if you write that book, you will be forced to read the books of others first, and THAT is a very good thing in this case.


Actually, I would not write a book on abiogenesis for starters, for I have relatively little knowledge of the field and I am not a creationist who believes that google expertise is REAL expertise, and if I did, I would likely go to the primary literature, not books.
But if I were to write a book on abiogenesis, you can rest assured that my arguments would not consist of quotes and proof-texting.

Date: 2009/10/20 10:27:45, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 20 2009,10:22)
Your attempt to equate one person's opinion with scientific fact is poor Floyd.

That is like linking Christianity to pro-slavery as the SBC, Southern Baptist Convention, was formed for the sole purpose of lending scriptural support to slavery and not only was it a natural state, but one blessed by god.  By extension that means that Christianity has no problem with slavery.

Do you agree with that Floyd?

He HAS to.

I mean, if he is to be considered honest and not engaging in ad hoc double standards.

Date: 2009/10/21 08:29:47, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:07)
Let's go right here, SLP:
      [quote]In fact, let's toss in one more statement, this one comes from Paul Lurquin's 2003 book concerning the orign of life.snip prooftexting gibberish

So, Floyd Mellotron Lee - you goad and bait me for a couple days for not replying to you within some arbitrary timeframe, boast about having a 'mini debate' with me, that you will 'deal' with me, etc., and THAT is all you can muster?


Not that I really care anymore - you've played your hand and you are holding a pair of threes and claiming that it beats my royal flush.

Proof-texting and this weird elevation of whomever you happen to quote (not always honestly) to imperial status is no argument.

Date: 2009/10/21 08:39:29, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2009,21:01)
Floyd, posting a quote proves only that somebody said something.

It does not prove the accuracy of what was said, not even when it's quoted accurately.

It does not prove that what was said is the concensus of scientists.

It does not prove that what was said is part of the theory being discussed.

Continuing to make this error after it being repeatedly pointed out does prove something.

However, what that proves is something that one would think you'd want to avoid proving.

---

Secondly, you're still conflating "caused to exist" with "explains".

Evolutionary theory explains matching nest hierarchies, geographic clustering of genetically related species, series of fossils, etc.

Saying that the theory explains those patterns does not contradict the assertion that God caused the existence of life in the first place.

Henry

No, no, no - you just don't get it.

If a person wrote or spoke those specific words, then the quote is accurate.  So when I quote Floyd Lee thusly:

"God's plan for all humans has always been slavery."

or when he wrote to Ogre:


"You're a Christian ."

What I quote is 100% true and accurate - Floyd Lee certainly did write those words (I just copy and pasted them, so  I know).  It doesn't matter that I omitted part of the sentence without indicating I did so, for as far as I am concerned, I did not change his intended meaning.

Date: 2009/10/24 09:53:48, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,16:15)
Quote
"We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." Duane Gish, Evolution -- The Fossils Say No! (3d ed. 1979)

Sorry, but that one (and thanks for offering it---it was interesting!) does NOT refute what Dr. Ratzsch specifically wrote.  

Ratzsch did not say that you could scientifically discover how God actually created things.  Far from it.  The ONLY thing Ratzsch pointed out is that there AREN'T any sustainable BLANKET prohibitions that can be employed against scientific investigation of supernatural design.

IOW, design detection hypotheses and theories CAN in fact be scientific.   Any given design hypothesis or theory (like all scientific hypotheses or theories) may boom or bust upon actual investigation, but you do NOT have a rational basis for saying a priori that it's not even scientific.  

Again, that particular reality doesn't mean you can scientifically figure out how God created Adam.  It ONLY means that supernatural design detection CAN indeed fall within the realm of genuine science investigation.

FloydLee

I have to wonder if YEC zealots like Floyd Mellotron Lee hurt their necks when they enter into the necessary mental contortions that they empploy to save their losing and self-defeating positions.

A well know creationist claims that you can't learn anything about god's creative powers via scientific iinvestigation - but wait!  - that flies in the face of what other YECs claim!  Gee.... Ummm...  I know - well, no I don't.. Ummm...

DOES NOT COMPUTE

ENGAGE MENTAL GYMNASTICS PROGRAM

Date: 2009/10/27 13:20:41, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,16:50)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,16:37)
 
Quote
It may have escaped your attention, Floyd, but your literalist position is one held by a very small minority of Christians.


On what are you basing that statement, Amadan?  2009 polls, perhaps?

     
Quote
No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species

About half of public believes plants, animals and humans evolved  while almost half believes humans were created directly by God.

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – February 18, 2009 – Two hundred years after the birth of Charles Darwin, Americans are still deeply divided on the subject of evolution and whether humans evolved or were created directly by God, as in the story of Genesis.

But it isn’t a neat division of opinion. Some people give inconsistent answers to different questions about evolution and what should be taught in schools.

In reply to one question almost half (45%) of adults say they believe humans were created directly by God and only 29% say they evolved from other species.

In reply to another question 53% of these same people say they believe that “plants, animals and human beings have evolved over time,” and only 21% say they do not believe this, with fully 25% who are not sure or decline to answer.

More quote-mining from Flody: He forgot the rest of the words that followed his quote:

 
Quote
When people give apparently inconsistent answers like these it is usually a sign that they have not thought much about the issue and do not have very firm opinions.  

These are some of the results of a new BBC World News America/The Harris Poll® of 2,158 adults surveyed online between February 3 and 5, 2009. Other interesting results of this BBC World News America/The Harris Poll include:

--People in the South and people who describe themselves as religious (67% of all adults) are less likely to believe that humans evolved from earlier species than are people in other regions or people who are not religious.
 
-- There is no consensus on what should be taught in schools.  The largest group (40%) favors teaching both Darwin’s theory of evolution and creationism.  Only
23% believe teaching only Darwin’s theory and an even fewer 17% favor only teaching creationism.


From : http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_...._18.pdf

Floyd "SuperChristian" Lee ignoring or leaving out parts of quotes that do not support his position?  I'm SHOCKED, I tell you.

Date: 2009/10/27 13:31:23, Link
Author: SLP
Luke 14:26

Date: 2009/10/30 15:09:42, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,12:23)
Quote
We also pointed out that neither Millam nor Ratzch have any authority to determine what is or isn't science.

Dr. Millam is a scientist with a PHD in computational chemistry and Dr. Ratzsch is a multiple-published professional philosopher of science.

You were saying.......?

Ah, more of the "whomever I quote is the ultimate authority" routine....

But...  Millam was called a "theoretical physicist" at the Kansas hearings... He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.

So, which of the three of you is incorrect?

Of course, Millam is a creationist, so...

Date: 2009/10/30 15:16:29, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,10:35)
Quote
"You guys (and Deadman) did NOT appeal to science but instead to a negative theological presupposition."

Quite true, btw.  The religion of materialism, to be specific.

Of course, you're welcome to believe in a materialist religion whenever you like, but don't try to equate it to science.

Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.

You know, when you guys so often try to claim that everything that you don;'t agree with is just another religion, you really show how little you think of your OWN religion...

Date: 2009/10/30 15:21:40, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 26 2009,13:28)
Why did God choose six 24-hour days of creation and then rest on the seventh day?  Quite straightforward, according to the Bible---He was modeling for us humans the way we were supposed to operate  (hat tip to Dr. Kurt Wise, [i]Faith Form and Time[/b]).  

The same Dr. Kurt Wise who has admitted that there are transitional fossils and that there actually is a great deal of evidence for evolution?

Date: 2009/10/30 15:34:23, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)
Quote
Yes.

"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.

So, this special magnifying glass - apparently it has the power to switch around the timing of events without allowing those who use the magnifying glass to see it...

Date: 2009/10/30 15:38:22, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,17:44)
Hey, there's one more item I needed to put on the table for conclude the Biblical Perspective on Biology part.  I may comment further on the Biblical Perspective thing (since you guys like to keep on commenting), but this will be the last part of the intended BP presentation.

Check this out.  Talk about incompatibility!
   
Quote
Evolution:  Sun before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before sun.

Evolution:  Dry land before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before dry land.

Evolution:  Atmosphere before sea.
Genesis:  Sea before atmosphere.

Evolution:  Sun before light on earth.
Genesis:  Light on earth before sun.

Evolution:  Stars before earth.
Genesis:  Earth before stars.

Evolution:  Earth at same time as planets.
Genesis:  Earth before other planets.

Evolution:  Sea creatures before land plants.
Genesis:  Land plants before sea creatures.

Evolution:  Earthworms before starfish.
Genesis:  Starfish before earthworms.

Evolution:  Land animals before trees.
Genesis:  Trees before land animals.

Evolution:  Death before man.
Genesis:  Man before death.

Evolution:  Thorns and thistles before man.
Genesis:  Man before thorns and thistles.

Evolution:  Cancer before man  (Edmontosaurus was found with a malignant tumor in 2003).
Genesis:  Man before cancer.

Evolution:  Reptiles before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before reptiles.

Evolution:  Dinosaurs before birds.
Genesis:  Birds before dinosaurs.

Evolution:  Insects before flowering plants.
Genesis:  Flowering plants before insects.

Evolution:  Sun before plants.
Genesis:  Plants before Sun.

--- Selected examples from Dr. Terry Mortenson's article, "The order of events matters!",  04-04-2006, AIG website

---Edmontosaurus item found at:  Biology Online
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=598 .


FloydLee

Yes, the order of events do matter.  Anyone that has not been brainwashed by the cult of YECism will see that the order of events claimed in the bible are incompatible with REALITY, evolution or no.

Date: 2009/10/30 15:43:51, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 27 2009,20:09)
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are both written as "straight historical narrative".  They are inconsistent as straight historical narrative:

In Genesis 1 first animals are created by the earth, and then later men and women were created by God.  In Genesis 2 first Adam was created by God, then animals were created by God, then Eve was created by God.

FL explains this away using a contortion that would make even Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney blush: FL claims that Genesis 1 is "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 is not chronological, but dealt with things according to their importance (or somesuch).  Note that even this extraordinary contortion doesn't explain away the inconsistency that animals were created by the earth in Genesis 1, by God in Genesis 2.

How does FL know that Genesis 1 is chronological and Genesis 2 is "by order of importance"?  Both are written as straight historical narrative.  Why does FL claim that Genesis 1 must be read as "straight historical narrative" whereas Genesis 2 must not be read in this way?

It is how the fundaMENTAList mind must operate - in order to unquestioningly accept two contradictory aspects of a document they are told is 100% true they must engage in this shallow, easily demolished, child's lie-type of 'reasoning.  Or their heads would explode.

Date: 2009/10/30 15:46:34, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:40)
Quote
Floyd, if Genesis is metaphor, then your list is meaningless.

Here's your problem CM.  Gen 1-11, and the creation account in Gen 1-3, are NOT metaphor.  Not allegory.  Not nonhistorical.

You need to show us evidence that these specific chapters are metaphor and NOT straight historical narrative.

(And btw, the argument "Darwin sez so" does not constitute evidence on this one.)

Ummm...

Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?

I mean, with something other than repeated unsupported assertions, argument via preferential pseudoauthorities,  and pseudo-hipster doofus lingo.
***

Date: 2009/10/30 15:49:50, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,13:19)
Oh, and feel free to close the thread on Nov. 2 if you wish, Deadman.  

My Biblical Perspective is finished, you guys are totally refuted (you too baby) concerning the genre of Genesis, and the only item left for me to present is the ID-is-science presentation plus the autopsy of your motley attempts to copewith the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Will have your serving of ID on the table, quite soon!

Wow...

It must be so comforting to live in a fantasy world in which one need only link to a website that asserts the same things one does in order to prove one's point...

I can only imagine what amazing ID insights Mellotron will be able to provide.  Wait - I need not imagine, I need only do a little searching to see what he has presented on CARM etc. in the past on the subject, for FL's presentation really hardly changes.

He'll spew out Trevors and Abel's unsupported gibberish...

The 3-pointer...

Some Meyer and Behe...

What did I forget?

Oh, and of course it will not matter how much coutner evidence is presented, no matter how completely the claims of his heroes are demolished, nope.  FL will still claim victory no matter what.

Like a good little christian soldier.

Date: 2009/10/30 15:58:27, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,14:32)
Quote
Sorry Floyd, but as I pointed out earlier, folks like CARM and UKapologetics are not authorities or credible sources

In other words, you can't refute their actual statements on the Doc Hyp, your sister's not available to help out, and the only thing left is to claim out of the blue that they are not authorities or credible sources. Okay!

Meanwhile, readers can compare this source:

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

with this source (and all its sources therein):

http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm

....and see what's going on there.

Well, here:

http://www.ukapologetics.net/mustest2.htm

is a brief biography of the author of your 'authoritative' site on the DH.  I think it is pretty easy to see what is going on there.

Date: 2009/10/30 16:08:08, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,09:55)
Furthermore, Jesus is using a straight literal historical example to TRUMP a straight literal historical example that was given by the Pharisees.  He's NOT using historical fiction to trump historical fact, he's using historical fact to trump historical fact.
....

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Straigh historical fact.  Can't be a disciple of Jebus unless you HATE your family.
Yeah, can't get much more straightforward than that.

So much for those 'family values' being biblically inspired, eh?

Let the mental contortions begin!

My favorite is 'Well, back in bible times, 'hate' meant 'love less'....

So when I say I love my grandmother but hate my grandfather, what I REALLY mean is that I love grandpa a little less....
:D

Date: 2009/10/31 12:49:57, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:30)
Quote
He then claimed 'theoretical chemist' whatever that means.

And he has the PhD and work resume to back it up, doesn't he?   (Go ahead and say yes; save time.)

You miss - purposely? - my point.

You said  one thing, Calvert said something else.  He says something different.

Point is - you people seem to provide whatever impressive-sounding title for your hero of the day depending on which moniker you think will be most impressive.

Date: 2009/10/31 12:51:38, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:29)
Quote
Please show that 'materialism' is a religion.

It's a religion to me.  It sure ain't science (nor any part of the scientific method), and some of you seem to worship it most fanatically.

Oh, so now Floyd Lee, wannabe journalist, full-time internet YEC propagandist, gets to dictate what is and is not a religion.

You know what?

ID and YECism are mythic cults to me, so therefore, they ARE mythic cults.

Date: 2009/10/31 12:52:25, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  


So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?
Quote

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  blah blah blah  


***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."[/quote]
Cute - post-hoc rationalizations now count as  'scientific hypotheses'....

So tell us - have any of these amazing ID scientist/theologians done any actual research ot try to falsify their hypotheses?

Or is merely tossing out this 'hypothesis' sufficient (ala Behe)?

Date: 2009/10/31 12:59:01, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,16:59)
Quote
Isn't the onus on YOU to show that the biblical narrative IS histroical and true?

Only have to show you that the text is historical narrative and that it's not metaphorical or allegorical.  

Like I said, you're free to believe Genesis is historically false (because of your belief in evolution) all day long.  The only issue here, however, is whether the Gen creation/fall/flood texts are written as historical narrative.

Already provided the Gen 5 genealogy to show that it's historical narrative, plus some other Scriptures too.  The biblical writers of the OT and NT were really serious about viewing Genesis as actual literal history and the foundation for the rest of the Bible doctrines.  Same for Jesus and Paul.  

FloydLee

In order for something to be an historical narrative, should there not be corroborating EVIDENCE to back up the narrative?

I mean, The Iliad reads like history, too.

And by the way - my 'belief' that the bible is ahistorical came before I accepted 'naturalism.'  I think I was in maybe 5th grade when I realized that it had to be mythology.

Date: 2009/10/31 13:02:54, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 30 2009,19:09)
Correction, Floyd: It presents an unscientific hypothesis. Specifically, it is unscientific because it assumes that the conditions in which we on Earth find ourselves are improbably attuned to suit our existence. In doing so, they...

Yup..

When FL trots out Trevors and Abel, we will have to point out the same flaw - that they assume that information had to have been 'written' (their word) by an intelligence and then they rhetorically ask how 'inanimate nature' can accomplish this.

I've pointed this out to Floyd 'my opinion = fact' Lee before, and he just ignores it so he can 'justifiably' make the same pseudo-argument in the future.

Date: 2009/11/01 18:57:19, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:05)
Quote
So, if I rent a room at the Smithsonian and show "The Exorcist", you'd declare it to be scientific?

I'm afraid you don't understand, SLP.   Check this out.

snip series of what are doubtless embellished assertions, as I am used to getting from Mellotron Lee


Btw, SLP, have you actually read or seen "The Privileged Planet" for yourself?  Serious question.

FloydLee

So, of all the stuff I wrote, you are going to focus and ONLY reply to THAT???


You must be desperate for a 'win.'

And no, I have not nor do I intend to read that silly argument via awe that Gonzo and his boyfriend wrote.  I've seen some of their 'best' arguments,  like how we are at the perfect spot for observing the galaxy...
As if that argument could nto be made if were were on the opposite side of it!

I've seen their argument presented by a pro-ID creationist, Joe Gallien, and they were PATHETIC and simplistic.

But I'm sure you were left agog...

Date: 2009/11/01 18:59:50, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:05)
Quote
They did not endorse it.

Totally incorrect, CM.  The Smithsonian withdrew their co-sponsorship AFTER they had already granted it.

So, are you claiming that PP was "endorsed" by the Smithsonian?

Like I said, I've learned not to belive you at all - even when you present quotes (as we all knnow how you deal with them...)...

Date: 2009/11/01 19:02:12, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 31 2009,20:22)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
 
Quote
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty

And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?

Nope, and I don't have to, given that the "fine-tuning " argument has always been beset by the problems I mentioned. Until I see that someone is going to address those issues (you can't, Floaty?) -- the why should I finance the work of Gonzalez?

There's my answer, Floaty -- now you can answer what I asked about the fallacies, logical errors and Space-alien creators you now seem to be supporting by forwarding Gonzalez as somehow meaningful to your Christian creationism.

He will never directly answer, of course.  I suspect because he has received assurtances that Gonzo and his boyfriend put out PP as cover for their true YECism.

Date: 2009/11/01 19:06:19, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:47)
Quote
(CM)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God

   
Quote
(Evolutionist Dr. Ernst Mayr)

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.
It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).

----SciAm, July 2000

Nuff said.     :)

Cool - so if I can present just one IDcreationist with a degree who says ID is not science, I can write "'Nuff said" and that will be that?

Date: 2009/11/01 19:08:36, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,11:31)
******

So now you see that indeed the authors of "The Privileged Planet" indeed got it right concerning their presentation of a genuinely falsifiable (and hence genuinely scientific) cosmological ID hypothesis.

FloydLee

It is also a falsifiable hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese.

Is such an hypothesis therefore scientific?

Date: 2009/11/01 19:10:42, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,12:01)
And while we're at it, let's look a little closer:
   
Quote
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Check this out folks----Life first appeared in the water on Earth on the very same day that the first birds appeared on Earth.

Does that sound like the theory of evolution to YOU?  Hmmm?  
If not, then you better scrap all that "Indirect Creation" mess pronto, yes??

FloydLee

No, but it does seem to run counter to the evidence.

A rational person would adopt that position for which the evidence fits.  I tool would reject such a position in favor of a pre-determined position premised on believing that a deity blew on dirt and a fully formed man popped out.

Mammajamma!

Date: 2009/11/04 10:41:41, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,11:54)
Speaking of weird things:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum....74&st=0

This guy thinks that he's asking something simple, like "Show us the morphological changes from the whale's ancestor to the Sperm Whale", or "Is the Komodo Dragon a descendant of some dinosaur?"

Good stuff.

Fred Williams is  a piece of... work.  One of those 'i'm an engineer, therefore, I know all' types.

He's claimed expertise in math, then went on to declare that an event with a 1 in 32 chance of occurring would have to wait through 31 iterations until it finally happened on the 32nd trial...

Date: 2009/11/04 10:44:18, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 04 2009,04:56)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,04:21)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,11:54)
Speaking of weird things:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum....74&st=0

This guy thinks that he's asking something simple, like "Show us the morphological changes from the whale's ancestor to the Sperm Whale", or "Is the Komodo Dragon a descendant of some dinosaur?"

Good stuff.

When you introduce a new site, and I've already been banned from it, it tells me I've spent too much time on the internet.

Those guys, beginning with uncle Fred himself and downward are crazy! All I did was tell them goodbye, meaning I no longer had any desire to talk to them – and I can’t even read the forum anymore. I expected, really wanted to have my account removed, but quarantining my URL?

What a miserable lot.

Easier for them to claim victory when they ban everyone capable of truly demolishing their claims...

Date: 2009/11/04 10:50:28, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:43)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 02 2009,08:52)
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)

Umm "evolution" isn't being debated ass-face.

You must be too stupid to understand that.

What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.

Date: 2009/11/04 10:52:39, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul replied:
 
Quote
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support.

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.


16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.

I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....

Date: 2009/11/04 11:21:31, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)

[quote=SLP,Nov. 04 2009,10:50]
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04
What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.[/quote)

Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.


When I look up "design", I get this:

de?sign??/d??za?n/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-zahyn]  

–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:

mech?an?ism??/?m?k??n?z?m/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [mek-uh-niz-uhm]  

–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

"Design" is a plan. the "mechanism" is the means by whicht he plan is implemented.

So where is the evidence for the means by which the plan is inmplemented?

Quote

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.


No, 'design' is a plan.  It is not the mechanism by which the plan is implemented.

Or do you really believe that the assembly instructions that came in the box with a child's toy is the mechanism by which the toy is put together, and that the use of tools and the physical putting-together of the parts is just part of the 'design'?

If that is truly your highly unorthodox idiosyncratic 'definition' of 'intelligent design', then you are still left with the main point - what is the evidence for it?

Using the child's toy example, if 'design' is both the plan for putting it together as well as the actual act of putting it together, we are left with evidence that the plan was implemented.

We have the actual written instructions, we have the packing material, we have the tools.

Where is anything analogous to that in, say, the 'design' of the bacterial flagellum?

Will you say in the genes? If that is so, then we are left asking who wrote the instructions.  For in the toy analogy, we can certainly find out.

Quote


It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.


If only I could have earned a BS in electronics engineering like you, I guess I would be smart.

By the way - you never did answer the question regarding your claim to having been injured in Iraq asked on TT - someone looked up the injury reports and there were no such reports on the day or in the place you claimed ot have been injured digging toilets or whatever you want people to think you did...

Quote

That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.


This is a human contrivance.

Only an uneducated person would really think that looking at human activity would be evidence that Intelligent Design exists in nature such that the flagellum was the product of design, not natural processes.

Further, we could find out who the designer of the program is, we could discover the means by which the design was implemented, we could find 'evidence' for the process.

Not so with biological 'design.'
Quote


Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.


Spetner the Hebrew creationist who believes that Yahweh created 365 kinds og bird and 365 kinds of beast and the millions we have today magically evolved when nobody was looking in less than 4,500 years?  That wizard?
Quote


Then there is artificial selection.


Which is anothe rhuman activity.
Quote


There you have it design mechanisms.


Yes - human ones (I won't count Spetners nonsense).

Are you people saying that humans designed the flagellum?

Date: 2009/11/04 11:25:50, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,11:06)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 04 2009,10:52)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
Things have been quiet at TT lately.  

A while ago I asked Paul Nelson (for the umpteenth time) to explain in what way "Woese and his reasearch group radically undermine fundamental lines of evolutionary reasoning" and what exactly are the "corrosive consequences" of that research to the upper branches of the evolutionary tree of life.

Paul replied:
   
Quote
One step at a time. A data dump now about problems with metazoan (or chordate or mammalian) phylogeny would be getting ahead of the discussion. Let’s sort out the origin of Eukarya, according to Woese, first.

Suggested reading, re HGT and its evidential support.

P.S. I have a book MS (with Scott Minnich) due next week, so will be away from this discussion over the weekend and early next week.


16 days later, no sign of Paul.  

Zachriel, maybe we should ignore Joe Gallien for a while.  IDers at both UD and TT view him as a crazy uncle and won't be caught dead talking to him.  If he sees that his tantrums don't result in conversations he'll have to either change his behavior or at least change his venue.

I've been waiting for about 6 years forhim to demonstrate that investigator bias alters/dictates molecular phylogenetic analysis outcomes....

Why would I do that when I never made such a claim?

I was referring to Paul Nelson.

Sorry to hear that you have abandoned your Muslim Faith.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:37:37, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:51)
Check out this one little co-inky-dink, one of many:
   
Quote
"Thanks to its large, angular size, the Moon occults many stars along its path.  In this way, the Earth-Moon system acts like a giant telescope, allowing astronomers to resolve objects normally to small or close together to measure from the ground.

A slow angular speed of a moon across its host planet's sky, like our own, allows for more detailed measurements.  This method works best with a large moon without an atmosphere--which produces a crisp, knife-edge sharp edge on its limb--orbiting far from its host planet (but not too far, because the smaller a moon is, the fewer stars it occults over a month.) [

---pg 110

No wonder Earth is called the privileged planet!!

FloydLee

Yeah, because nobody cfould ever figure out how to do such things anywhere else in the entire universe!

WOW!!!

What an amazing 13.7 Billion year old universe, accordign to Gonzalez!

Date: 2009/11/04 11:40:20, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

Ah, the old selective authority gambit - you accept their 'authority' - in fact you denmand that they be recognized as the ultimate authority - when you agree with their cliam, but you simply dismiss the same authority if they claim something you do not agree with.

Amazing how that works....

Date: 2009/11/05 07:47:29, Link
Author: SLP
If I remember correctly, two people emailed his former employer because Joey was sending them threats from his work email account.

Thats what Joey the Muslim does - he threatens people, then bails when they take him up on it.  


A 'public debate' would be a hoot -

EVO:  Mr. Gallien, can you tell us all what the mechanism for Design is?

JOE:  Yes, Design IS the mechanism!

EVO: Oh, OK, how is it implemented?

JOE:  It is Design, dumbass!

(crowd starts shaking heads)

EVO:  Can you give an example of this 'design' in Nature?

JOE:  Sure, artifical selection in domestic animals!

EVO:  Um...  Humans do that..

JOE:  Yeah - and thats ID, stupid!  

(crowd starts to chuckle and act disgusted)

EVO:I thought ID was all about thye origin of life and flagella and such?

JOE: Thats right - artificial selection proves that an Intelligent Designer designed the bacterial flagellum!  Duh, asshole!  How about I pay you a little visit so you'll see things my way?

EVO:  Well, I am right here across the stage.  Bring it on.

JOE:  Gotta go.  I'm double parked.

JOE (2 weeks later):  So, evo pussy, chickened out of our little get together, eh?




Such a coward, in more ways than one.

Date: 2009/11/05 09:47:44, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:48)
Quote
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone

a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it

Right - grown-ups write things like "real meal deal" and "mamma jamma"  and "HMMMMMMM?"  and use weird font styles like this *********

Date: 2009/11/05 09:48:59, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,09:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,08:53)
Also need to ask something else.  Who in here has actually read "The Privileged Planet"?

What books on evolution have *you* read FL?

Not that it matters - whatever books Floyd has read contain absolute truth written by unimpeachable authorities....  At least when the truths they wrote coincide with Floyd's pre-determined conclusions.

Date: 2009/11/05 10:51:10, Link
Author: SLP
Guy 'Those ain't varves!' Berthault and a crack team of no-name geology-types are meeting in Rome on Nov. 9 to rub the Pope's face in their disproof of evolution:


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archive....ion.htm


Oh dear, whatever shall we do!

Date: 2009/11/05 11:40:53, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,09:49)
Quote
I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

What?  Falsifiability is no longer required for scientific hypotheses?  Did you actually address the specific falsifiers Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book?

So, my moon=cheese hypothesis is scientific because it is falsifiable.  Thanks.

Date: 2009/11/08 17:04:29, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

True.  However, when non-scientists make pronouncements on scientific issues that they have no relevant training, education, or experience in, can be shown that they are inn error, yet insist that they are correct and everyone else is wrong, we have a real problem.

And that problem seems to be endemic on only one side of the creation-evolution issue.

I am in a discussion on another board with a YEC who claims a science-related doctorate (yet he did not know that phenotype covers physiology, among other things).   When I informed him that two YECs with real PhDs, Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution and that there are transitional fossils, this YEC declared that they were "ridiculous people" and 'silly'.  Because afterall, a TROOOO YEC would reject all things scientific...

Date: 2009/11/09 08:30:51, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,08:09)
Asking a favor:

A YEC has stated that the "superior oblique muscle" on the eye "proves creationism" and refutes Evolution as obviously it can't be done.

As a novice on the Pub Med stuff, how would I go about looking it up?

Ask them about the superior auricularis.

Or the extensor coccygis.

Or the palmaris brevis.

Date: 2009/11/09 08:36:14, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,08:13)
Here's the link to the post:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2836

I can't post there as my IP was banned a few years ago for daring to ask Fred to support his claim that Oil of Hyssop contains "50% antibacterials" as he has claimed...

But what we have is the creationists' ignorance of things like development leading them to ask asinine 'questions' such as how did the muscle find the hole in the bone to go through.

Simple answer - it didn't need to.  It, like th eother extrinsic eye muscles, devleop in situ.  They do not sprout and then extend to find their point of attachment.  

That 'challenge' is just the sort of thing that Fred the electrical engineer thinks is a game winner.

Date: 2009/11/10 10:33:07, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,22:00)
Wow, those guys at EFT are even worse than UD.

At least there they first attempt to show science.

Those guys put out crap and then have nothing but insults as they really don't even understand what they are posting.

You should check out this place

Seems most there boast of NOT being YECs but insist things like evolution can be countered by yammering on about abiogenesis and how 'natural selection' cannot create life...

Date: 2009/11/12 13:05:37, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:58)
However YOU chickened out.

Anytime Scotty.

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


Whatever... Blipey...

Date: 2009/11/12 13:10:11, Link
Author: SLP
Funny, Joey must have missed this:

[quote=Joe G,Nov. 04 2009,10:55][/quote]
[quote=SLP,Nov. 04 2009,10:50]  
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04
What is the mechanism of ID?

Please do not say 'design', for 'design' is only the plan.  What is the mechanism of the implementation of the plan, and what is the actual evidence for it?

For example, the mechanism for the implementation of human design can be seen in the scraps and left over materials, tools, etc.

Please, floor us with your acumen.[/quote)

Design is a mechanism Scott.

Just look up the two words:

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.


When I look up "design", I get this:

–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:

–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

"Design" is a plan. The "mechanism" is the means by which the plan is implemented.

So where is the evidence for the means by which the plan is inmplemented?

Quote

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.


No, 'design' is a plan.  It is not the mechanism by which the plan is implemented.

Or do you really believe that the assembly instructions that came in the box with a child's toy is the mechanism by which the toy is put together, and that the use of tools and the physical putting-together of the parts is just part of the 'design'?

If that is truly your highly unorthodox idiosyncratic 'definition' of 'intelligent design', then you are still left with the main point - what is the evidence for it?

Using the child's toy example, if 'design' is both the plan for putting it together as well as the actual act of putting it together, we are left with evidence that the plan was implemented.

We have the actual written instructions, we have the packing material, we have the tools.

Where is anything analogous to that in, say, the 'design' of the bacterial flagellum?

Will you say in the genes? If that is so, then we are left asking who wrote the instructions.  For in the toy analogy, we can certainly find out.

Quote


It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.


If only I could have earned a BS in electronics engineering like you, I guess I would be smart.

By the way - you never did answer the question regarding your claim to having been injured in Iraq asked on TT - someone looked up the injury reports and there were no such reports on the day or in the place you claimed to have been injured digging toilets or whatever you want people to think you did...

Quote

That said there are specific design mechanisms-

One is a targeted search such as the "weasel" program.


This is a human contrivance.

Only an uneducated person would really think that looking at human activity would be evidence that Intelligent Design exists in nature such that the flagellum was the product of design, not natural processes.

Further, we could find out who the designer of the program is, we could discover the means by which the design was implemented, we could find 'evidence' for the process.

Not so with biological 'design.'
Quote


Another is "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner in 1997.


Spetner the Hebrew creationist who believes that Yahweh created 365 kinds of bird and 365 kinds of beast and the millions we have today magically evolved when nobody was looking in less than 4,500 years?  That wizard?
Quote


Then there is artificial selection.


Which is another human activity.
Quote


There you have it design mechanisms.


Yes - human ones (I won't count Spetners nonsense).

Are you people saying that humans designed the flagellum?

Date: 2009/11/12 13:28:24, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,09:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 04 2009,23:13)
LOL@cakeboy: Design is a mechanism. What a maroon!

Yes design is a mechanism if we go by the standard and accepted definitions of the words "design" and "mechanism".

However if you are an ignorant asshole- as most of you appear to be, then dictionaries are of no use.

When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.

Date: 2009/11/13 07:56:04, Link
Author: SLP
Poor Derwood - banned for showing BA77 how much of a dumbass he is...

Date: 2009/11/13 11:48:28, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 13 2009,08:52)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 13 2009,08:56)
Poor Derwood - banned for showing BA77 how much of a dumbass he is...

Linky?

Not handy... I can only stomach that place for so long, then I have to take a break before wading into it again...

Date: 2009/11/13 11:51:16, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 13 2009,11:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2009,12:40)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 13 2009,11:34)
[URL=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996






9312.html]Luskin calls for civility[/URL]

Comments are open.

Remember to mention http://antievolution.org/invcomp early and often.

First link is broken.

link should read http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/
Casey-Luskin-Lets-restore-civility-to-the-debate-on-evolution-and-intelligent-design--6996

9312.html

ETA: Grrrrr!!!!! put all that on one line.

A request to regain civility in this debate coming from a person who is associated with an organization and with people that link the acceptance of the ToE with Nazis and Stalin and murder and amorality and the like rings pretty hollow.

Date: 2009/11/14 16:35:50, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 13 2009,22:23)
Well, I got banned at EFT.

Well, thats Freddie 'I'm an electrical engineer, so I am an expert in all science' Williams for ya....

He has a history of such antics....

A Lesson in Creationist Ethics Featuring
Walter ReMine and Fred Williams

Date: 2009/11/15 19:46:09, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2009,11:51)
So, anybody care to ask him how long till Solexa proves ID? It's been almost 4 years already since Sal brought it up and they don't seem to be saying anything about "the designer" on their website.

And check out this comment from Sal
     [quote]

I also am delighted to point out president John West of Solexa (not John West of Discovery Institute, CSC), is an engineer. The officers of Solexa specialize in Chemistry and Engineering.

  Mr. West holds BS and MS degrees in
   engineering from MIT and an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School at
   the University of Pennsylvania.

Hysterically, Sally quoted this article:

Wanted: Biologists who can speak 'math,' engineers fluent in genetics

from 2006 when claiming that engineers were basically better at  biology than biologists are (part of his pathetic attempt to 'support' the YEC/ID notion that engineers who are IDCs are right all the time).

But when I found tha article and quoted this line:

"It's a constant challenge," he says, "to find ways to make biology comprehensible and relevant to students who think like engineers."


Suddenly, Sally didn't want to talk about it no more...

Date: 2009/11/20 08:38:19, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2009,08:34)
Somebody should ask Sal about his approach to science; how he went out and bought something like this:

 
for a geological experiment to disprove current theory about folding/deformation of sediment rocks.

That was recorded at ARN's ID forum, maybe ten or more years ago, and might be available in their archive.

Being banned there I am unable to check it out.

Many years ago, Sal did something similar at the KCFS forum.  He claimed to have proved that molecular phylogenetics is all wrong, and he showed how he did it.

He took a single, I think it was 8-letter sequence of letters, allowed one letter to 'mutate' per 'generation, and after 8 generations, his 'sequence' was 100% different from what he started with, therefore, molecular phylogenetics methods are unreliable.

And he was totally serious.

Date: 2009/11/20 11:56:21, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:32)
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 12 2009,13:28)

When I look up "design", I get this:



–verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), esp. to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.  
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.  
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.  
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.  
6. Obsolete. to mark out, as by a sign; indicate.

–verb (used without object)
7. to make drawings, preliminary sketches, or plans.
8. to plan and fashion the form and structure of an object, work of art, decorative scheme, etc.

–noun
9. an outline, sketch, or plan, as of the form and structure of a work of art, an edifice, or a machine to be executed or constructed.
10. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.
11. the combination of details or features of a picture, building, etc.; the pattern or motif of artistic work: the design on a bracelet.  
12. the art of designing: a school of design.  
13. a plan or project: a design for a new process.  
14. a plot or intrigue, esp. an underhand, deceitful, or treacherous one: His political rivals formulated a design to unseat him.  
15. designs, a hostile or aggressive project or scheme having evil or selfish motives: He had designs on his partner's stock.  
16. intention; purpose; end.
17. adaptation of means to a preconceived end.

I don't see anything about design being "create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", in all of the applicable definitions, I see 'design' as the PLAN.


And the definiton of 'mechanism' doesn't help, either:



–noun
1. an assembly of moving parts performing a complete functional motion, often being part of a large machine; linkage.
2. the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.
3. machinery or mechanical appliances in general.
4. the structure or arrangement of parts of a machine or similar device, or of anything analogous.
5. the mechanical part of something; any mechanical device: the mechanism of a clock.  
6. routine methods or procedures; mechanics: the mechanism of government.  
7. mechanical execution, as in painting or music; technique.
8. the theory that everything in the universe is produced by matter in motion; materialism. Compare dynamism (def. 1), vitalism (def. 1).
9. Philosophy. a. the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
b. the view that all biological processes may be described in physicochemical terms.
10. Psychoanalysis. the habitual operation and interaction of psychological forces within an individual that assist in interpreting or dealing with the physical or psychological environment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see nothgin there that indicates that the "plan" is the means by which something is accomplished.

Apparently, some feel the need to simply make up definitions to prop up their fantasies.

When I look up mechanism, I get:

3. method or means: a method or means of doing something

And then design


plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way

Plan AND MAKE.

So as I have tiold you many times before one can do something by design or willy-nilly.

A mechanism is a a process, technique, or system for achieving a result-

Design is to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

A plan is a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.

Therefor design is a mechanism.

It is a very simple and basic thing to understand.

As a matter of fact the only people who don't think that design is a mechansim are uneducated people.

OK, so where are the plans?

Plan AND make - PLAN and make.

Where are the plans?

Date: 2009/11/20 11:58:12, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Joe:

http://www.google.com/search?....q=&aqi=


Ms Encarta? How long did you fish before you got one that was remotely what you wanted?

Richtard,

We have been down this road before and you lost then too.

It isn't my fault that you are too stupid to own or read a dictionary.

And yet many dictionary entries do not come close to indicating what those you finally decided to refer to do.

Hmmm...

So, where are the plans?

Or is this one big circular argument?

Date: 2009/12/04 13:56:50, Link
Author: slpage
A 'hero'?

A HERO???

What an asshole....

Date: 2010/01/08 15:08:01, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2010,14:22)
This thread is great:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs....nt-6993

Rich - are you the Rich that asked Jack Hudson to define his terms?

He's another one of these dudes who presents himself as objectively analyzing all the evidence and 'concluding' IDcreationism.  I encountered him a few years ago on the old creationtalk board.  He accused me of stalking him because I read a post of his on another board that linked to hiw personal website and commented about it...

Date: 2010/03/02 14:24:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Date: 2010/03/03 10:23:06, Link
Author: slpage
never mind

Date: 2010/03/04 11:30:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:35)

Quote
BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".


But not in editions 1-5?

Quote

IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.


Right.

Is it your opinion that non-IDC claims (i.e., evolutionary claims) can make it into textbooks without having to have gone through the 'normal' process of having had been vetted through the peer-review process and been considered established science first?

Date: 2010/03/04 11:33:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:37)
Read the commentary here

You refer to a commentary by a computer technician creationist with a documented history of distorting facts?

Whatever.

Date: 2010/03/04 11:43:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote
I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile(sic) thereof, is just an illusion?


What success is that?

What Design has been detected in biological entities using the EF that does not rely on using analogies as the foundational basis?

Date: 2010/03/08 11:03:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2010,10:58)
Upright Biped -
 
Quote
14

Upright BiPed

03/07/2010

1:24 am

Note to self:

Education cannot kill rationality. I refuse to believe it. There are too many who are a contradiction to the idea. So, what can? What is the force that binds such educated people to utter stupidity?

Let me know when I find out.

I engaged Upright Biped on HuffPo a few months ago.  He comes across like a whiny spolied brat.  You show he is wrong about something and he claims you are 'incivil' then runs off declaring victory.

Date: 2010/03/09 11:56:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (REC @ Mar. 08 2010,12:01)
JohnnyB should really outline his arguments before presenting them:

Johnny B uis one of the multitude of YECs who is not as bright as we wants to think he is.

he, after all, thinks thata decorated pig carved onto the wall of a temple in Cambodia is 'proof' that stegasaurs roamed with people

Date: 2010/03/11 13:03:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?

Hi Joey,

I see that you - being a scientist and all, what with your degree in electronics engineering - can only respond in  that oh so Christian (or is it still Muslim?) spirit.

You see, Berlinski claimed to have gotten to 50,000 characters that seperate whales from camels.  You got a mere 202 characters that 'define' an aardvark.  

If there are more than 50,000 differences between a whale and a cow, surley there are many more than define each species.

So, this must mean that whales have at the very least nearly 250 times as many characters as aardvarks.

Does that sound right?

Which one of you is correct?

Date: 2010/03/11 13:05:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.

And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?

Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

I take that bothers you.

Your response does not in any way appear to remotely address what had been asked of you.

Was your combat wound in Iraq to yiour head?

And why was it not on the news?

Date: 2010/03/11 13:07:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?

Date: 2010/04/16 11:35:07, Link
Author: SLP
In a discussion on increases in genetic information on another forum, gene duplication was presented as a means by which non-intelligent intervention can increase genetic information.

Mellotron/FL countered with one of his patented long quotes from YEC Jerry Bergman (italics and bolds (except for the title) mine):
Quote

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

by Jerry Bergman

....The proposition that large scale evolution has occurred via gene duplication is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence. Little evidence currently exists to support the belief that gene duplication is a significant source of new genes, supporting one University of South Carolina molecular evolutionist’s conclusion that scientists can not ‘prove that [genome duplication] didn’t happen, but [if it did], it didn’t have a major impact. … For me, it’s a dead issue’. (Ref 10)

...
According to Hughes, ‘Everything we’ve looked at [fails to] support the hypothesis.’ (39)

Darwinists promote gene duplication as an important means of evolution, not because of the evidence, but because they see no other viable mechanism to produce the required large number of new functional genes to turn a microbe into a microbiologist.

In other words, evolution by gene-duplication is yet another example of just-so story-telling.

Refs:

(10) Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.

(30) Behe, M.J. and Snoke, D.W., Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 13:2651–2664, 2004; p. 2652.

(39) Pennisi, ref. 1, p. 2460.

So, I read Bergman's article, and I decided to check one of his sources, Googling this article:

Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.


And darn it if the returns I got were to THIS article:
Quote

Science 21 December 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5551, pp. 2458 - 2460
DOI: 10.1126/science.294.5551.2458

News Focus

MOLECULAR EVOLUTION:
Genome Duplications: The Stuff of Evolution?

Elizabeth Pennisi
The controversial--and formerly unprovable--proposition that evolution moves forward through duplication of entire genomes is getting support from current advances in molecular biology. The emerging data have not persuaded all of the skeptics, however. They maintain that evolutionary change could have been fueled by duplication of individual genes or perhaps segments of chromosomes--without invoking anything as dramatic as genome duplications.

Note what I underlined -

FIRST - Bergman misrepresents the title - in the Bergman article, in his references, the word "Gene" is in italics, while the rest of the title is not. Interesting...

SECOND - read the abstract. Not only is the article not even really about gene duplications as such, but rather GENOME duplications, the abstract actually indicates that GENE DUPLICATIONS are more likley a cause of evolution!

THIRD - Mellotron/FL, who had originally referred to the Bergman article, claimed that Bergman's manipulation of the title was a mere "typo" of a mere 2 letters, and that my pointing this out was due to my bias against Bergman (I admit, I am biased against any person with a well documented history of lying about and/or misrepresenting all manner of things related to evolution).

THE QUESTION:


Does anyone truly believe:

1. That Bergman's 'error' was a mere typo

2. That Bergman correctly represented the content of the article (judging by the abstract, anyway)

3. Mellotron/FL is not merely engaging in obfuscation to protect one of his YEC hero-sources?

Thanks

p.s. - I should point out that Bergman also claims that Down syndrome is caused by a gene duplication, but it is caused by an extra chromosome....

p.p.s - I should also point out that the above article was the only one I actually checked...


p.p.p.s. - I should also point out that I did contact Bergman about it and he did indeed claim that it was a mere typo and that genome duplications are really just big gene duplications, so his use of quotes about genome suplications supporting his claims about gene duplications is OK.

Date: 2010/04/16 11:42:30, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 15 2010,20:47)
 Show me...

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity?
What do we measure irreducible complexity ?
We'll add EF to all of these...
Will a Muslim  scientist, an atheist scientist, and a Christian scientist all get exactly the same values (whatever they are) from Dembski's explanatory filter?  If yes, then it should be trivial to show this.  If not, then why not.

BTW: Someone remind me and I'll look at the high school texts at work in the morning.  I know I've got Holt, Pearson, Glencoe, and I think I have Campbell.  They may or may not be the most recent additions, but I'll happily look up the info for you.

In fact... I think I already did...

Reminds me of an email exhcange I recently had with creationist software designer David Pogge who maintains the website scienceagainstevolution.org.

In one of his essays, he claims that engineers have been measuring complexity for 30 years and he was aghast that biologists did not accept their claims.  Oh, and that the work by Hazen on emergence is all 'faith'.

So, I asked him if he could tell me how much complexity a dogfish has.

His response was to claim that engineers can indeed measure complexity, and that it is better than biologists who just claim some things look more complex than others.

But he did not even attempt to answer my simple straightforward question.

Typical creationist liar....

Date: 2010/04/16 13:39:24, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 16 2010,11:59)
I'm less inclined to believe it was a typo and more inclined to believe he doesn't know the difference.

Could be - he did claim that Down syndrome is 'often' presented as an example of 'gene duplication', though he was unable to provide any examples of this.

Not knowing the difference can explain how he used an article critical of genome duplication as a driving force in evolution to try to dismiss gene duplication, but it was just too much for me to accept that he just happened to mis-type the title of the article, just coincidentally making it look like the article realy was about what his thesis was about.

Of course, what I did not mention is the megths that Floyd Lee aka Mellotron went to to claim that Bergman is correct ion claiming that gene and genome duplication are the same thing - a sampling (he was trying to claim that all sorts of people conflate gene and genome duplication):

Quote
Here's another example:
Quote


Gene & Genome Duplication in Acanthamoeba Polyphaga Mimivirus
Authors: Karsten Suhre (IGS)
(Submitted on 25 May 2005 (v1), last revised 19 Jul 2005 (this version, v3))
Abstract: Gene duplication is key to molecular evolution in all three domains of life and may be the first step in the emergence of new gene function. It is a well recognized feature in large DNA viruses, but has not been studied extensively in the largest known virus to date, the recently discovered Acanthamoeba Polyphaga Mimivirus. Here we present a systematic analysis of gene and genome duplication events in the Mimivirus genome. We find that one third of the Mimivirus genes are related to at least one other gene in the Mimivirus genome, either through a large segmental genome duplication event that occurred in the more remote past, either through more recent gene duplication events, which often occur in tandem. This shows that gene and genome duplication played a major role in shaping the Mimivirus genome.
http://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0505049

Once again, there's that same conflation.


Quote
The short answer is THIS:
Quote

What is a gene and genome?
A genome is all genetic data of a single cell. That includes the genes in the nucleus, but also that of mitochondrial DNA.
A gene is a section of the genome which codes for one protein. It consists of various codons.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_gene_and_genome

So indeed, we have a situation analogous to the book and page gig discussed earlier. After all, a gene IS a section of a genome. One DOES include the other.


Quote
Biology professor Andre Cavalcanti wrote:
Quote

Duplications can involve parts of genes, a complete single gene, part of a chromosome (called block duplication), an entire chromosome, or the whole genome (Li, Molecular Evolution, 1997 Sinauer).
http://pages.pomona.edu/~ac044747/aroc/Duplications.htm

Hmm. Imagine that. Book and page, Derwood. Book and page.



Quote
Beginning with a single universal ancestor, the magnificent diversity of life has come about through a series of branchings of new species, which eventually gave rise to the major branches of the living kingdoms and the hundreds of millions of separate species that have graced the earth. A similar series of branchings, but this time within genomes?—?gene duplications?—?has spawned the large and diverse population of clusters of genes that constitutes the modern genome.


I liked this one, too:

Quote
Quote
Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years. Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970). Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor. Major genome duplication events are not uncommon. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago. Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome.

They don't even mind saying gene-dup and genome-dup in the same paragraph, the same **process** , like I said earlier.


Does the Wiki article REALLY claim that gene and genome duplication are the same process?

No, not at all.  It does ambiguously state that gene duplication "is any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene; it may occur as an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome.[1] "  Their reference 1 is to this paper:
[url=Evolution by gene duplication: an update]Evolution by gene duplication: an update

and in that paper, while it is stated that gene duplications can occur via chromosomal duplications (probably where Bergman got his 'definition' from), when one reads the paper, one sees that that statement is one of those 'overly broad introductory' type statements, for the authors then go on to differentiate each type of duplicate, and they make it quite clear that chromosomal duplications occur by mechanisms other than those in which gene duplication occurs - same process?  Hardly:

Quote

Gene duplication can result from unequal crossing over
(Fig. 1a), retroposition (Fig. 1b), or chromosomal
(or genome) duplication, the outcomes of which are quite
different. Unequal crossing over usually generates tandem gene duplication; that is, duplicated genes are linked in a chromosome (Fig. 1a). Depending on the position of crossing over, the duplicated region can contain part of a gene, an entire gene, or several genes. In the latter two cases, introns, if present in the original genes, will also be present in the duplicated genes. This is in sharp contrast to the result from retroposition (Fig. 1b). Retroposition occurs when a message RNA (mRNA) is retrotranscribed to complementary DNA (cDNA) and then inserted into the genome. As expected from this process, there are several molecular features of retroposition: loss of introns and regulatory sequences, presence of poly A tracts, and presence of flanking short direct repeats, although deviations from these common patterns do occasionally occur [17].
Another major difference from unequal crossing over is that a duplicated gene generated by retroposition is
usually unlinked to the original gene, because the insertion of cDNA into the genome is more or less random. It is also impossible to have blocks of genes duplicated together by retropositionunless the genes involved are all in an OPERON.
Only those genes that are expressed in the germ line are
subject to heritable retroposition. Because promoter and
regulatory sequences ofagenearenot transcribedandhence
not duplicated by retroposition, the resulting duplicate often lacks necessary elements for transcription and thus
immediately becomes a pseudogene. Nevertheless, several retroposition-mediated duplicate genes are expressed, probably because of the chance insertion of cDNAinto a genomic location that is downstream of a promoter sequence [17].
Chromosomal or genome duplication occurs probably by a
lack of disjunction among daughter chromosomes after DNA replication. Substantial evidence shows that these large scale duplications occurred frequently in plants but
infrequently in animals [10]. Recent human genome
analysis reveals another type of large-scale duplication,
segmental duplication, which often involves 1000 to
.200 000 nucleotides [18]. That most segmental duplications do not generate tandem repeats suggests that unequal crossing over is probably not responsible,
although the exact duplication mechanism is unclear [18].



I have to wonder if they think that refusing to admit error on something so clearly wrong makes them look smart or something?

Date: 2010/04/17 06:28:55, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (JLT @ April 17 2010,04:41)
Here, he provides whole genome duplication as "evidence" for his claim that gene duplication is normally detrimental.

I missed that one - I wonder how Floyd will spin that to try to rescue his hero...

Date: 2010/04/19 06:39:22, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 18 2010,18:44)
FL should realise that if he quotes a creationist he should check the facts as they invariably lie.

I see that FL has run away

It is certainly a form of lying - Bergman went to great lengths to "prove" that gene and genome duplication are the same thing (if only via the most simpleminded 'logic' - the same sort of logic that dictates that a single rain drop is the same thing as a torrential downpour), but using an article that in fact indicated that gene duplication was MORE involved in evolution that whole genome duplication as a source indicting gene duplication is just insane.

I expect such things from Bergman and the 'professional' YECs, but Mellotron/Floyd went way over the top in his defense of Bergman that it just floored me.  He thinks he has proved Bergman correct by quoting peope who merely mention both gene and genome duplication in the same paragraphs, regardless of the context, as indicating that Bergman was right - seemed to me that if they were the same thing, then there is no need to name them independantly -  and THAT is a bit disturbing to me that someone in this world actually thinks and and acts that way.


And votes.

Date: 2010/04/21 11:50:46, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 20 2010,13:52)
Tell me Floyd, tell me why, in ten years are so of peddling CSI, EF, IR, and BS that Dembski has never bothered to actually use his ideas to do any actual, you know, work.

Good points.  In my experience, when I have presented DNA sequences, etc. to ID CSI/IC types and asked them to tell me about the 'complexity' and such, I inevitably am told that I first must tell them 'what it does.'

In other words, they cannot say a thing about one of their main arguments unless they already have an answer.

Dude:  How much CSI is in this bit of DNA?

IDC:  Well, um, what is that bit of DNA?

Dude:  What do you mean?

IDC:  Is it forma  gene, or...

Dude:  Oh, it is part fo a gene

IDC:  Oh Well, then it definitely has CSI that was put there via intelligence

Dude: No, wait, it is not in a gene

IDC:  Oh, then it has none






In other other words, theirs is a big circular argument.

Date: 2010/04/22 14:54:29, Link
Author: SLP
Well, he does think that gene duplications and genome duplications are essentially the same thing because he was able to find a couple of real live scientists mention them both in the same paragraph....

Date: 2010/04/22 14:59:37, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2010,10:53)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:46)
Quote
Remember, Dembski said "ID is religious."

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages.  You guys aren't even listening.  Not even paying attention.  Repeating the same refuted claim.  

U gotta be kidding.   Honestly.

Self declared victory! Then why are you still here?

Dembski thinks that:

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"

Okay.

Well see, THAT does not mean that ID is religious.

Can't you read?

:p

Date: 2010/04/22 15:05:08, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (csadams @ April 21 2010,15:55)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:20)
Okay.  It's right there Cs.  I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

No need to go any farther until you do.

Oh, I see.  You won't produce any evidence unless I give you credit.

I'll give you credit, sure enough.  In fact, responded to your argument over a year ago:

 
Quote
Let me see if I get this - FL, you’re now complaining that the short little paragraph in the text dealing with the RNA world hypothesis doesn’t mention one of your pet problems with it?

Riiiiight. Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text. The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.

(So if you were to wander into my classroom today, you’d probably gripe that I’m not teaching the mathematics of Gauss’ law to freshman who are learning the difference between resistance and conductance. Gotcha.)

The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:

     
Quote
Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.


FL, I hope you’ve learned something here: that you’d best check original sources to make sure they actually say what your favorite websites claim they say. Between your bastardization of the Holt text and your subsequent use of the Gould quote-mine, you seem to be following in the footsteps of Don McLeroy.


So yeah, I give you credit. I give you credit for continually refusing to provide evidence in the form of page scans.  I give you credit for not responding to the above points I made over a year ago.  I give you credit for ignoring the suggestion that you write your very own high-school level treatment of origin-of-life.  

Dollars to doughnuts that you'll refuse to provide the scans unless I say exactly what you want me to say.  Meh.  I don't dance that way.  Besides, you've used other excuses before to not provide original documentation.  

We shouldn't really be surprised you put a ludicrous condition on providing evidence this time.

Ho hum.  Wake me up when FL provides some actual factual evidence in form of scans of the relevant textbook pages.

My gosh, FL is  aseriously broken record.

He did the EXACT same thing with Freeman and Herron's 'Evolutionary Analysis' re: panspermia - in a box essay, them mention - MENTION - panspermia as one of several non-abiogenetic origins of life and because they did not explicitly dismiss it, he declared on CARM that therefore they were endorsing it.

How does this guy get through a day with such muddled thinking?

Date: 2010/05/17 17:14:23, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2010,22:35)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2010,22:02)
Cornelius reacts:  
Quote
This blog is erroneous and I will retract it. Apologies for the false publicity.

Hunter may be retracting the post, but the current bottom comment shows Hunter accusing Theobald of being a career "misinformer".

And it appears that Cornelius is a career projector.

Date: 2010/05/17 17:43:06, Link
Author: SLP
Has anyone else read any of Abel's papers and concluded, like I have, that
1. I am astonished at how such nonsense gets past peer review
2. question begging shoiuld not be considered a valid scientific endeavor?

Date: 2010/05/17 17:45:56, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 30 2010,09:19)
And he's supposed to be a Christian?

Honestly, I can't see why anyone would be a IDist without being a Christian, so is he?

What a little wimp, too scared to say anything that he can't control.

Oh, and his 'insults' are almost as weak as his arguement supporting ID.

He used to claim he was a Muslim.

But when a poster on the old OCW board tried to discuss the Koran with him, he bailed.

Date: 2010/06/29 12:51:00, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ June 29 2010,04:24)
Scordova posted a comment on Dr. Matheson's blog explaining why "junk-dna" schould have function. His reasoning sounds coherent to me. So why do you claim junk-dna, generally, has no function???
Link: http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010....9080639

Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .

Date: 2010/08/05 11:00:19, Link
Author: SLP
Joey claims:
Quote

With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).


So, by this measure, there is  no such thing as an 'original' gene and a mutated one with less information.

I wonder if little Joey considered that he just shot down a major YEC/ID claim?

Date: 2010/10/27 17:44:04, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 08 2010,05:51)
There's been some progress (Richard Kepler and M Holcumbrink seem to have vacated the scene) and some regress (Uptight Bi-Tard is there) on this Amazon thread.

UB is going on about "meaningful information", and, when pressed for a definition, said that it "refers to or is correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities". Bafflegab. I'm pretty sure that he is misrepresenting Shannon information as well. But I am a mere biologist, so if somebody better versed in information theory wants to whack-a-mole, head on over there.

Looks like upright was too busy proof-texting to read all the relevant words:

"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities."


Messages are not in and of themselves information.

Date: 2010/10/27 18:22:07, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:16)
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 09 2010,11:07)
Should we invite Kepler over here? He's clearly a compulsive liar and therefore might be fun...

He's a long-winded, pedantic liar who seems more wrapped up in the sociological and rhetorical aspects of the "debate" than in the science. In fact, he is scientifically illiterate, it seems.

Fun...

Sounds like so many ID advocates...

Date: 2010/10/27 18:25:30, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2010,04:18)
[quote=Ptaylor,Oct. 19 2010,21:11]
Quote
300 lbs about 1.5 x my body weight- can't run blew out my knee in Iraq and I am only qualified to fly small twin engine aircrafts- Cessna, Piper.


Ah, yes.  The "Iraq" incident. Very sad, that.

The one that was never mentioned in the press....

The one where he hurt his back....

But now it is his knee....

Date: 2010/10/27 18:27:02, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 24 2010,15:22)
Such a sad little boy.

Joe even sucks at being an internet bully. He puffs up his chest, bangs away at his keyboard (the only banging he does, probably), and everyone just points and laughs.

Poor Joe.

A 150 lb bully?   :O

Date: 2010/11/05 13:51:14, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2010,21:56)
The previous ID research journal PCID folded in 2005 after four glorious years.  (Check out this cool article by William Brookfield: In Search of a Cosmic Super-Law: The Supreme “Second law” of Devolution).

The next ID journal JOEI never saw the light of day.  We only knew that its Editor in Chief was supposed to be Gloppy.  Here is the AtBC thread.

Anyway, the shiny new ID journal is BIO-Complexity put together by Biologic Institute.  The Editorial Board involves the usual suspects (including Gloppy).  

Two papers are up: Current volume.  With comments!  The authors and the commenters happen to be members of the editorial board.  Talk about a self-sustaining journal!  

Comment sample:
   
Quote

Reader Comments

Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics & ProtoBioSemiotics

by David L. Abel (2010-05-12)


EMAIL REPLY

Excellent paper.

"Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics & ProtoBioSemiotics"

Talk about credential embellishment....

Date: 2010/11/05 13:58:02, Link
Author: SLP
So, let me get this straight - this 'journal' has TWO articles in it?

And has a 'large readership' based on th esupposed fact that PDFs of these 2 articles have been downloaded 2000 times?

Date: 2010/11/29 08:07:29, Link
Author: SLP
Came across this on the CARM forum:

I was perusing some Amazon.com discussions and I came across an IDC who all but worships physician and YEC/ID David Abel. Abel has published a couple of assertion and speculation-filled hypothetical papers, and many IDCs see this as 'proof' that ID is legitimate. Anyway, Abel also founded the so-called "Origin of Life Prize", which I will not glorify by providing a link to.

Essentially, this 'prize' will be given to anyone who can all but duplicate the origin of life. But the criteria for winning the prize put some interesting constraints on how you can win it - you see, you have to 'prove' the strawman version of OOl that Abel lays out, you can't just propose your own hypothesis and provide the evidence. Nope - among other things, you have to explain how the "information" required for the first living thing was "written" before the first living thing appeared - hence the strawman. There are many similarly biased and absurd criteria, but that is just a taste of what passes for legitimacy in IDC circles.

Abel has also compiled a list of judges that will score your submission - the average score must be 80%. Who is on the list? Well, besides a collection of unknowns, mostly from Mexico, and a bunch of people who have probably never even heard of this prize*, there are folks like Phil Skell and Walter Bradley - along with Bill Dembski. Because according to Abel, the nature of the OOL is multidisciplinary, and so it makes sense to have creationist engineers and such judging. So, you submit a winner, but YEC Bradley gives you a bad score - too bad, so sad...

And did I mention that Abel has to first decide whether he will even pass it along? This is just the Hovind Prize with bigger words and fewer bible references.

Anyway, I came across a blog (so I cannot link) on which the author made a submission - he didn't really put a lot of effort into it, he just wanted to see how it would be handled. It was rejected by Abel - so no judges ever saw it - and what was interesting is some of the things Abel wrote in his reply:

"The problem for me comes in when we start trying to explain formal linear digital prescription, representational symbol systems, Hamming "block-coding" (many to one redundancy coding to reduce noise pollution in the Shannon channel), cellular computation, and formal organization with nothing but a purely materialistic belief system. We can't even practice the scientific method or mathematics with a consistently held materialistic worldview."

Again, with some key words emphasized:

"The problem for me comes in when we start trying to explain formal linear digital prescription, representational symbol systems, Hamming "block-coding" (many to one redundancy coding to reduce noise pollution in the Shannon channel), cellular computation, and formal organization with nothing but a purely materialistic belief system. We can't even practice the scientific method or mathematics with a consistently held materialistic worldview."


Never mind the jargonistic bafflegab - Wait - I thought the OoL Prize was totally scientific? I thought Abel was a scientist with no religious beliefs biasing him? I thought this 'prize' was all about the truth and science? What is all this about 'materialistic worldview'? Is Abel looking for supernaturalistic answers? Looks like it.

Abel's response shows what it is really about.



*Several years ago, this topic came upon the ARN forum, and a participant there contacted several of the people on Abel's list of judges. It turns out that several of them had never heard of the 'prize' but were on Abel's list anyway.[B]

Date: 2010/11/29 17:17:06, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (ck1 @ Nov. 29 2010,15:37)
Abel's "prize" is being offered by an organization he calls the Origin of Life Foundation.  This organization is based in Greenbelt, MD, which is my neck of the woods, so I took some pictures of the Foundation last summer:

http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=1007618&postcount=282

Also, their list of judges is just a list of people they might ask to evaluate applications, if and when they get any they think are worth sending out for judging.

That is awesome.

But tell that to Uprightbiped, and he'll blow a gasket.  He seems to think that Abel has all but 'disproved' a natural origin of life.

Date: 2010/11/30 12:51:42, Link
Author: SLP
"Whichever way the matter is ultimately resolved, everyone with a genuine interest in science should agree that there is a scientific case against the neo-Darwinian explanation of biological origins, the arguments put forward here representing only a part of that case. "

Reminds me of that arrogant nonsense in the ReMine/Sanford 'MA' paper - what was it?  'Any reasonable person will conclude that our model falsifies neo-darwinism' or words to that effect....

Date: 2010/12/09 18:13:21, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 09 2010,17:14)
Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

Funny, I thought you were out of the loop until February?

Date: 2010/12/14 09:29:16, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 13 2010,10:17)
New Tard:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ll.html

The trouble is, Joe, you seem to need to know if something is designed or not before you calculate the numbers to tell us if it's designed.

[tard] IOW, HOW YA LIEK THEM APPELS? [/tard]

This has always been the case with such folk.  They declare they can tell how much information is in a DNA sequence.  You show them a DNA sequence and ask them to tell you how much information is in it.  They decline, claiming that it is a trick question, because they don't know if it is a gene or not.

Date: 2010/12/14 12:18:14, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 13 2010,20:03)
You just need to know if it has functionality. Then you measure the specified information.

But the specified information is the same as the non-specified information. If you need to know up front what the sequence is/does, then the methodology you espouse is worthless, for you simply subjectively apply a parameter.

Date: 2010/12/14 12:21:39, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2010,00:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 13 2010,20:06)
[snip] Hey asshole, science is not done in a fucking vacuum nor on a forum.

[snip]

It was a waste of time putting those experiments on the shuttle then!

Quote
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.

Then there is astronomy. On any given night I can have 3 telescopes pointing skyward. 2 4,5" aps with a 910mm FL(one automated and one manual) as well as a 10" ap with an 1125mm FL.

And that is just the tip of the ole iceberg.

That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.


*points and laughs*

I thought ticks ate blood, why would they care about watermelons?

Date: 2010/12/14 12:23:18, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 14 2010,05:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2010,00:58)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 13 2010,20:06)
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.


*points and laughs*

In other words, Joe works for the TSA putting boxes on the conveyor to the Explosive Trace Detection machine.  It was a proud day in the Gallien household when he received his royal blue shirt and black polyester pants.

I was the assistant NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare) NCO of my unit when I was in the army.  As such, I was granted 'secret' clearance.

Date: 2010/12/14 13:41:43, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 14 2010,12:38)
Quote (SLP @ Dec. 14 2010,12:23)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 14 2010,05:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2010,00:58)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 13 2010,20:06)
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.


*points and laughs*

In other words, Joe works for the TSA putting boxes on the conveyor to the Explosive Trace Detection machine.  It was a proud day in the Gallien household when he received his royal blue shirt and black polyester pants.

I was the assistant NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare) NCO of my unit when I was in the army.  As such, I was granted 'secret' clearance.

Wow!  Does that mean you know almost as many 3 syllable words as Joe?  Before talking to Joe, you might want to emphasize that you weren't a key grip at the National Broadcasting Company.  He doesn't like those media types.

Yes, and I might even know what they mean!

Date: 2011/02/01 08:52:02, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 31 2011,22:34)
There is a new post up at UD. Guess who wrote it? Here is the first sentence to clue you in:
Quote
In my work in aerospace R&D I produce computer simulations using what is arguably the most sophisticated Finite Element Analysis program ever developed: LS-DYNA.

Did you see the mutual mental masturbation society comments?  such bloviating and Dunning-Krugerism is a sight to behold.  I especially like the fellow who declares that when he says he understands the science nobody will debate him... whatever....

Date: 2011/03/07 13:42:04, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 06 2011,09:51)
I've said before that I've been privileged to watch one of these self-denigrating performances where I actually knew the fellow in his pre-"saved" condition.

He attended my elementary school.

He attended my church.

We spent plenty of our spare time together playing in the neighborhood.

There certainly weren't drugs or "bad influences" that I had noticed. I don't think that I was a "bad influence" for him, either.

There was only about a year in between when I last saw him and he showed up giving a presentation on how much better he was doing in his new life than in his wicked old life.

This made me re-evaluate the rest of the confessional tales I had been told, and treat new ones with skepticism.

I have similar experiences.  Though I did not know him prior to his "conversion", I knew a fellow in college that gave the tired old 'I used to be an evolutionist, atheist, etc., then I did some research and became a YEC' line.  Years later, when I knew him better, he unwittingly admitted that he had been born and raised in a fundy home and gone to a private 'bible-based' school.  His stint as an 'atheist evolutionist' was a bout of teen rebellion that lasted a few months and he had never actually been an atheist.  He was never 'converted' because he had really been a YEC all along.

That, coupled with steve Austin's lies, made me not just skeptical, but dismissive of such tales.

Date: 2011/03/20 08:42:14, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 18 2011,08:50)
Unintentionally Humorous Post of the Week:

johnnyb

 
Quote
Sometimes I think the response to ID is because it is so far outside the normal mode of thinking, people don’t understand it, even after detailed explanations.




Is that the same johnnyb that thinks temple carvings of a decorated pig are really evidence that dinosaurs lived with people?

Date: 2012/03/15 09:36:54, Link
Author: SLP
I came across an old article by Coppedge on a paper dealing with a new algorithm using large datasets to reconstruct phylogenies.  It was primarily snarky insults and nonsense, but two things struck me -

1. The program employed a heuristic search.  Coppedge - supposedly knowledgeable about computers and such - declared this to mean  that they were "just guessing"

2. He referred to the Maximum Likelihood search criterion as a "value".

IOW - he is completely ignorant of this stuff, yet felt qualified (if not compelled) to write a "take down" of this article.

The worst part is, so many lay YECs gobble his stuff up - they LIKE that he is obnoxious, rude, insulting, etc.  Pity that they cannot see that his bluster is used to cover up his angry stupidity.

Date: 2012/04/26 08:46:07, Link
Author: SLP
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Date: 2012/04/27 10:27:33, Link
Author: SLP
I was banned at Hannity's forum a few years ago - after only one post.  My offense?  I had the disrespectful audacity to ask if Hannity had ever served in the military.

Date: 2012/04/27 10:33:23, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (fusilier @ Jan. 25 2012,07:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2012,23:48)
OK, another right-wing blogger holds forth, this time on how Genie Scott is a "science nazi".

So I responded:
{snip}

Just FYI, RKB's expertise is in banking, but I've never seen him commenting on Wall Street financial shenanigans, or the mortgage crisis, or....  It's all YEC all the time.

OTOH, he isn't like FL.   I'd be glad to have lunch with RKB.

Back when Bentley used to post on CARM, he was asked about the 'dishonesty' in his own profession (in an exchange on the usual 'evos are all liars' thing).  He allowed that not all bankers were honest, because people are sinners, but somehow he didn't get the double standard he was employing.

I've not visited his blog in some time, but I was amused by hos bio - he gets all humble about how he is not a scientist and all this, then goes on to declare that he sees the things that all those evo scientists can't and so.

Me?  I'd have coffee with him if only to throw it in his face.

Date: 2012/05/04 12:17:53, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2012,10:36)
Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Don't know if you caught this? Lizzie remains unimpressed.

Nor I.  He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete.  Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.

Date: 2012/06/21 12:45:53, Link
Author: SLP
Why does Luskin refer to himself as a 'scientist'?

Date: 2012/09/09 17:16:18, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 08 2012,21:38)
I nominate "Ilion", aka Troy D.Hailey, for the specialty "Wandering Jew" award, for migrating from forum to forum, like an unwelcome Gypsy caravan, pedding his homegrown "Human Chromosome 2 disproves evolution" theory.

Please tell me that clown is not STILL peddling that?

Date: 2012/09/09 17:19:13, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 02 2012,21:27)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 02 2012,21:14)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 02 2012,20:53)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2012,20:38)
erm....

     
Quote
And if your fudge factor is 25 million years then you has better be trying to roughly estimate more years than this universe has


?


25 million > 6000.

Joe's a YEC?

Yep, Joe Gallien is a YEC.  He's also a coward and a blowhard and a compulsive liar and a vulgarity spewing idiot.

But mostly he's just an asshole.

So, he's not claiming to be a Muslim any more?

Date: 2013/04/24 16:28:11, Link
Author: SLP
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 22 2013,13:52)
JoeTard on his blorg, singing the same one-note song "your side has no evidence", makes an interesting claim:

 
Quote
JoeTard:  "Umm, your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Your posityion doesn't have any predictive power. It has nothing.

How can you really evaluate Intelligent design? Read the pro-ID literature.

As for "how, when and why", well the why was figured out to be for scientific discovery. The how and when will have to wait. Heck we still don't know how or when or why wrt many artifacts- ie things determined to be designed.

Obvioulsy the designer of life has capabilities I do not posses. The designer of bombs- well I have expertise there.


linky

JoeTard lives in the Boston area doesn't he?  Better alert Dembski and have him report JoeTard to Homeland Security.

Well, he did once claim to have gone to Iraq (not as a soldier) and to have somehow gotten injured.  I recall I did some digging at the time, I found a website that listed all non-service people injured or killed in Iraq, and there was no entry for Joey.  I confronted him with this (way back on ARN, I think) and he avoided me for a while.

He's a dumbass, plain and simple.  And apparently a dumbass that wants people to think he is a dangerous one.

Double dumbass.

 

 

 

=====