AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Skullboy

form_srcid: Skullboy

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.163.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Skullboy

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/09/09 21:21:15, Link
Author: Skullboy
Stevestory:

I think it just looks that way because DaveScot moved the 'Attaboy PZ' thing to the top again because he was so excited by new poll results.

Date: 2008/09/22 12:15:11, Link
Author: Skullboy
Dodgen definitely suffers from slide rule envy. From what I can gather, he is a bright programmer, but not actually an engineer by training.

This sophomoric attempt to show off what he thinks is mathematical depth reminds me of this post from a while back. In it he launches into an elaborate description of binary search algorithms, a matter which is only tangentially related to the issue under discussion.

But of course, deliberately confusing levels of abstraction when discussing computer simulations is one of the most-used tools in the ID toolbox. If you can sound really technical while doing it, the sycophants will all go "oooh" and "ahhh."

Date: 2008/09/25 11:04:10, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 24 2008,20:29)
   
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 24 2008,20:23)
Rowan speaks up.  Will he last?

     
Quote
Get a grip. I’ve got lots of Obama supporting, Christian, moral friends, who care as much about life as you do ...(SNIP)... Engaging only with the right, is pretty much preaching to the converted.

That guy is toast.

So did Rowan bite the dust? I can't find this over there.

Date: 2008/09/27 12:58:54, Link
Author: Skullboy
Burning Questions:

Will anyone over there mention this eugenics plan, or is it too embarrassing--in light of their recent political declarations--to acknowledge that the idea came from a republican?

Will Dembski or O'leary be lame enough to suggest a theological interpretation of this recent astronomical observation? Or will they leave it to Batshit77, who'll characterize this as an obviously purposeful aspect of the universe, and add it to his list of things materialist science didn't "predict", even though it is a prediction, and is based on advanced observations, tools and methods of current "materialist" astronomy?

I'm actually curious to see if and how these two items are discussed over there.

Date: 2008/09/29 21:36:46, Link
Author: Skullboy
More on DaveScot and his theoretical and practical possibilities:

     
Quote
There is a finite chance an adult human with a lifetime of memories could materialize out of nothing in a single quantum fluctuation of a huge number of particles. In an infinite universe it isn’t just possible that will happen, it’s inevitable. Everything mechanically possible has 100% probability of happening in an infinite universe.


This is stoned college student crap. The idea that an infinite universe would realize every possibility is a very finite conception of infinity.

I think he's been corrected on this before. He just likes how lofty it sounds so he keeps repeating it. Some of the commenters try to correct him. Most of them seem like they're walking on egg shells as they do. I wonder why.

prhean says

     
Quote
I’ve never been one to buy in to that kind of logic, however commonly accepted it might be.


But Dave sets him straight.
     
Quote
It isn’t logic. It’s law.


How am I ever going to get over this tard addiction when the shit is just this good?

Date: 2008/09/30 01:25:28, Link
Author: Skullboy
Either Lynch or someone with the same idea placed a comment under that very article. The comment linked to a trend comparison of ID, evolution and GW. The comment is now gone. An Orwellian un-comment, if you will.

I didn't catch the handle.

Keeping complete track of the intellectual censorship over there would require a script that could just download the latest threads every minute or so and analyze the differences.

Date: 2008/10/14 16:44:55, Link
Author: Skullboy
Just to document this before it's gone:

Another doomed UD comment

   
Quote
Joejoe17

10/14/2008

4:17 pm
Actually, Poe’s Law states that religious fundamentalists just cannot be parodied.

Of course on this site, I can see why you offered a slightly modified version of the true Poe’s Law.

Date: 2008/11/21 18:11:34, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 21 2008,17:44)
 
StephenB = pure TARD


That whole thread is extremely dangerous to TARD addicts. That TARD is so pure that the same dosage you've been mainlining daily for weeks could kill you if it comes from that thread.

Date: 2008/12/17 10:50:03, Link
Author: Skullboy
Reciprocating Bill should enjoy this one:

Quote

Those of us who have bothered to look at evolution in depth and noted the scientific problems, paradoxes and oxymoron’s...

From here

The guy has two other plurals in the very same list, but by the third one, the dumb is just too strong and he just has to throw in an apostrophe.

What is a scientific oxymoron anyway?

Date: 2008/12/30 12:44:45, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 29 2008,14:42)
   
Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 30 2008,07:31)
   
Quote
fff

POTW

FFF

Date: 2008/12/31 18:23:49, Link
Author: Skullboy
TheYellowShark:
 
Quote
...Evolution is accepted beyond all reasonable doubt within the scientific community.



tribune7:
     
Quote

Geocentricsm was accepted beyond all reasonable doubt the scientific community circa 1610.


Yes. And so was intelligent design.


Link

Date: 2008/12/31 18:29:08, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote (Skullboy @ Dec. 31 2008,18:23)
TheYellowShark:
     
Quote
...Evolution is accepted beyond all reasonable doubt within the scientific community.



tribune7:
         
Quote

Geocentricsm was accepted beyond all reasonable doubt the scientific community circa 1610.


Yes. And so was intelligent design.


Link

Oops. TheYellowShark nicely makes the same point himself a bit later in that thread.

I should go back to lurking.


Link

Date: 2009/01/09 10:21:44, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote
“All truth is God’s truth” Thomas Aquinas said. Should it surprise us that wise men throughout the ages apprehend and express that truth?

-BarryA


Wow. Truth belongs to God, so anything that's true is by definition Christian in origin. Even if it happened before Christ.

I suppose this is technically a valid logical argument, but any objective observer can see how arbitrary, unverifiable, and suspiciously convenient the premise of this argument is. Yet BarryA delivers this rebuttal with condescension and arrogant sarcasm, as though he is proud to have so thorougly embarrassed his opponent with facts and logic.

UD is just a depressing place sometimes. Sometimes it's no longer amusing, or frustrating. Just depressing.

Date: 2009/02/26 17:37:10, Link
Author: Skullboy
bFast attempts a mathematical refutation.

   
Quote
Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.


I'm no mathematician, but I think that makes for 600,000 generations. But I'm sure the lovers of truth and precision over there will immediately correct him in the interest of integrity and credibility.

   
Quote

 
Quote
Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.

Bacteria reproduce hourly, or faster. 6,000 hours is less than a year. Therefore we can simulate the number of generations from the last common ancestor to man in less than a year.

Experiments have been conducted for five and more years trying to obtain a simple two-specific-mutation evolution. If neither individual mutation offers benefit, if both are merely neutral, five times the number of generations that separate chimps from humans seems insufficent, in bacteria, to produce what needs to be a simple evolutionary step.

Ouch, simple truth like that must hurt the other side.

Good post, as usual.

Atom


Oh, nevermind...

Date: 2009/03/17 00:38:03, Link
Author: Skullboy
What's the real story with Gil? I listened briefly to one of his recordings and he plays advanced piano pieces at least adequately. I think he edited a magazine about hang gliding. He was apparently somehow involved in a noteworthy computer chess project, and now seems to work in engineering though I don't think he ever took a degree in it.

It sounds very impressive, but when you read the things he says on UD, he really seems kinda dumb.

Is he some rich kid producing vanity recordings and holding sinecures? Or (to turn the cynicism back his way) does he really understand the concepts and justifications of simulations and just posts bogus lying-for-Jesus refutations that he figures UDers can't or won't recognize as such?

Date: 2009/03/27 23:27:44, Link
Author: Skullboy
Disclaimer - I'm very drunk.

The latest UD article is about the "harvesting hypothesis."  I'm guessing they're once again distorting research to fit their own views, but I'm more interested in whether this supposed harvesting effect makes any sense in any context. When I google "harvesting hypothesis" I get a bunch of links that all seem to be to the same couple of papers, then just a bunch of unrelated stuff.

I think the relevant(?) links are about air contamination in hospitals and whether it's only killing people who would be dead really soon anyway.

If some variable were killing only people who would have died (say) three days later anyway, wouldn't that be undetectable? If your study shows a significant increase in deaths over controls, you've got a difference. You can't reasonably claim that the difference can be attributed to something that would have happened anyway, right?

Is there something to this harvesting idea and I just don't understand it, or is this crankery?

And even if there is some sort of statistical effect here, the UD post seems like more failure to understand that natural selection is not about what's "supposed to happen".

Date: 2009/03/28 00:23:46, Link
Author: Skullboy
My own inherent tard, or just exposure to dangerous levels?

Date: 2009/04/28 13:27:05, Link
Author: Skullboy
Vox Day, quoted without comment:

 
Quote

 
Quote

Invisible Pink Unicorn: 4/28/09 10:26 AM:
Also, nice lumping together of Socrates, Russell, Dawkins, and Jesus-scorning, like they all go together, as if those four address the same intellectual problems.

You clearly failed to understand the point. Jesus Christ - or whoever wrote his dialogue, if you prefer - is clearly operating at a more formidable intellectual level than Socrates, Russell, or Dawkins. Those jokers couldn't even handle me, let alone Paul or Augustine.


From here.

Date: 2009/04/28 23:23:54, Link
Author: Skullboy
That same thread keeps on giving.
VD:
 
Quote
Look at it this way. X=designer and Y=design. We know Y exists, so it is equal to at least 1. Dawkins states that X MUST be greater than Y. I contradict and state that X may or may not be greater than Y. We don't have a value for X, but we do know that if there is no designer, then X=0, obviously. However, we know that 0 is not greater than 1, therefore Dawkins has to be incorrect.


Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Date: 2009/05/15 14:51:04, Link
Author: Skullboy
I'm surprised a moderator of UD would actually refer to a UD comment by number. Between moderation delays and deletions, a comment number at UD is a very protean thing. Surely Barry of all people should recognize this.

Date: 2009/05/15 16:27:58, Link
Author: Skullboy
Couldn't it be a sort of indirect or implied "B" making it a B3?

Date: 2009/05/19 15:20:04, Link
Author: Skullboy
O'leary on the question of whether human ancestors were tarsier-like or lemur-like:

 
Quote
All I know is this: Between two competing arguments, in which only one side can be right, information that supports Argument A must subtract from information that supports Argument B.

I didn’t make that up. It is just logic.


That only follows if A and B are the only two possibilities.

As a Catholic, and a theistic-evolution opponent, her position on the matter is presumably that we descended from neither.

Go figure.

Here.

Date: 2009/05/20 15:17:15, Link
Author: Skullboy
It's Jerry people suggest is a deep sock, right?  More evidence:

 
Quote
There is a whole literature out there on this subject and you come here and say fine tuning is out because of one simulation of irrelevant conditions. If the ID people did something so ridiculous they would be laughed at all round the globe.

Date: 2010/03/05 02:36:05, Link
Author: Skullboy
Quote
Vox Day: By the time I was five, I was fairly convinced that most people were idiots. I probably lost the conventional faith in credentials when my kindergarten teacher asked me about my triceratops-shaped name tag.  The problem was that it was actually in the shape of an allosaurus. How could anyone with even half a brain possibly confuse the two?  

Is he making fun of himself here? Is this a Poe? I'm lost. I mean, all this talk about IQ and how he's so remarkable that he can barely relate to people of normal intelligence...is this for real or is he just some elaborate con? It just seems so high school. Isn't this guy in his forties?

 

 

 

=====