AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Soapy Sam

form_srcid: Soapy Sam

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.243.23.129

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Soapy Sam

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 'Soapy Sam%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2012/01/22 04:53:58, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Greetings, earthlings.

Let it be known that what is and isn't observable, by definitional fiat, must on that grounds alone (and with clear regard to the hidden agendas of those who would hoodwink us to think otherwise) be dismissed as beyond the remit of a priori materialistic investigation. This is verified as true by the massively empirically confirmed and warranted operation of design in the observable here-and-now. 500+ bits of dFCSI cannot be produced by stochastic means, though you can get a shave and a haircut for 2.

And BTW ID is not anti-evohlution. Just me. Liar. No, you're a liar.

Sorry, just coming up for air!

Date: 2012/01/22 14:02:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2012,07:16)
 
Welcome, oh saponaceous one of promising wit.


Thanks, O ... ummm ... proposed law introduced under a mutual back-scratching deal! And Kattarina98 also.

Joe sent me, funny enough. Not directly, but I saw a link he'd posted.

Date: 2012/01/22 14:17:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 22 2012,03:58)
KF:

         
Quote
...the seat of learning...


That really is remarkably appropriate.


I know what you mean - but then again, in its context, I've rarely seen anything so wholly inapppropriate. Especially (forgive a slight lapse into Victorian gent mode) - addressed to a lady.

to eigenstate:
     
Quote
that swishing noise you hear is old Mr Leathers limbering up


Now, I do hope he means some kind of corporal punishment device, and not his gimp, or his “private member”!

Date: 2012/01/23 03:10:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 22 2012,17:06)
You can't fool me.  You're really StephenB, aren't you?


I take extremely seriously all attempts to 'out' me. Threats have been made to Mrs Dobney and my family ... :angry:

Hee, hee!

(Tappity, tappity)

Heute back ich, morgen brau ich,
Übermorgen hol ich mir der Königin ihr Kind;
Ach, wie gut, dass niemand weiß,
dass ich {some other pseudonym} heiß

:D

Date: 2012/01/23 06:53:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,04:34)
Don't worry, Joe will chicken out just before he shows up in that car park.

Only a moron would respond to joe. I do it all the time.

There was this other guy, joseph, but he's gone now...

       
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 23 2012,04:34)
Now it's a contest: Who will survive longer over at UD, Rumpelstilzchen Soapy Sam or The Whole Truth?

Aha! I peel back my cunning disguise to reveal ... another cunning disguise! Sorry, all of us here at 113 Acacia Avenue, Christchurch are determined that the utmost secrecy must be maintained.

Banning would be a favour, really - of all the wastes of time in a timewasting world, arguing with people who aren't really listening has to be near the top. But sooo compelling ... stay away from the flame ...

Date: 2012/01/23 10:26:32, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2012,09:52)
Joe:          
Quote
Elizabeth,

We will add nested hierarchies to the growing list of things you do not understand.


It's funny how nobody else on UD ever supports Joe's position on anything at all...


Or challenges it ... I was checking Joe's post history here, and the first one, from 2007, has the same nested guff as he peddles to this day.

Date: 2012/01/23 17:02:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 23 2012,15:11)

Right in the thick of things for the last year and a half. You have my commiserations.


No, not that long! In and out in flurries for 9 months or so. Regular lurker and gasper!

Date: 2012/01/25 02:44:32, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 25 2012,02:00)
Speaking of bannination, did Peter Griffin get the axe?

Not sure. I have to say, the way arguments leap from topic to topic to escape those scrolling off the bottom of the attention-span reminds me of the real (ie the cartoon) Peter's fight with the giant chicken!  :)

Information! Blat Bam Pow
Nested Hierarchy! Smack Wallop
Common Descent! Thud Thump
Disconnected sequence space! Bop Biff Bash

Date: 2012/01/25 04:36:23, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 24 2012,19:30)
Joe G is now giving lessons on nested hierarchies and cladistics.
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......cs.html

Yes, many a detailed treatise upon cladistics ends with the thoroughly convincing "duh".

Date: 2012/01/26 05:56:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2012,18:08)
<joe>They're liars.  It's 150 years, and they said 140, so they're lying.</joe>

Of course. Underselling a point by 6% is a well known tactic of liars.

Date: 2012/01/26 14:09:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
McAFee site advisor cares about me having my brain fried:


"Whoa!
Are you sure you want to go there?

//www.caseyluskin.com/ may be risky to visit.

Why were you redirected to this page?

When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors."



How thoughtful.

Date: 2012/01/27 12:49:16, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I hate the internet. Once, morons gibbered through the pages of the Watchtower. Now, they can spew their nonsense to all and sundry. And I have to happen upon their drivel and get annoyed by it. Why, oh why, oh why?

Some of today's dispatches from the unassailable  Fortress Joe, all in the space of 5 minutes:

           
Quote
if your position had anything, anything at all, then neither Axe nor Gauger would be an IDist.


{Axe, Gauger, Behe, maybe some others} {most everyone else}. Those in the first set being the only ones whose opinion matters. As soon as they stopped being IDists, it would stop mattering.

           
Quote
stop your whining and start presenting positive evidence for your position.


No comment necessary

           
Quote
Lenski has no idea if the mutations were random in any sense of the word.


In any sense of the word?

           
Quote
no one needs to deliberately mutate anything for a mutation to be directed by an organisms internal programming.


Not just external designers, but internal ones as well. All bases covered. If a mutation happens, it must be the internal designer at work. Except the bad ones.

Date: 2012/01/28 04:24:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 27 2012,21:15)
But do they really think that the Intelligent Designer, author of the cosmos and master programmer of life itself, also busied itself cooking up colorful, intelligent birds [...]?

Something to take your mind off the guinea worms.

Date: 2012/01/31 18:56:09, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 31 2012,17:08)
BTW, in this thread kf has begun to call the forum that must not speak its name "fever swamp".


Where is this fever swamp of which you speak? I may grab myself an ID!

Date: 2012/01/31 21:42:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 31 2012,19:32)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 31 2012,18:56)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 31 2012,17:08)
BTW, in this thread kf has begun to call the forum that must not speak its name "fever swamp".


Where is this fever swamp of which you speak? I may grab myself an ID!

Whoever mentions or links to "After the Bar Closes" over at UD gets his comment deleted and risks bannination.

Joe linked me here! Still not banninated, though.

Date: 2012/02/02 04:43:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2012,18:03)

   
StephenB:      
Quote
A dialogue, however, consists of mutual respect and bilateral disclosure.


Presumably that would require the left hand to have some idea of what the right hand's doing?

Date: 2012/02/02 04:53:22, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 01 2012,17:53)
And now an insane interlude:      
Quote
Joe [...] UFO

Bruce David agrees:
         
Quote
Or the substantial evidence that the vast majority of the more than 10,000 crop circles reported since the ’80s could not have been produced by any known human technology.

 
My favourite 'crop rune' consisted solely of the following symbols, in order: "GREETINGS EARTHLINGS". This is widely felt to be some kind of message.

This site is clearly part of an elaborate conspiracy to cover up the fact that aliens DO routinely visit agricultural regions at the height of the growing season. There is no known human technology that can flatten corn. None.

Date: 2012/02/02 07:44:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 30 2012,11:23)
UD's way of organising comments is a mess; it's logical but not convenient to follow.

I love the way the preview pane responds instantly to typing though, including html edits. No messing about with previews and hitting the 'post' button when you meant 'preview'.

Date: 2012/02/02 09:52:27, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 02 2012,09:12)
     
Quote
"GREETINGS EARTHLINGS"

They are sooo smart; they even know we are supposed to be addressed "earthlings". Why don't we ever reply to them on the cropsite?


Those symbols are actually a recipe for cold fusion in the Zargho dialect of Nebulon 5. They are trying to help us.

On the circlemaker site I linked are a couple of nice videos. One is a clip from a Brit program called QI which engaged the services of circle makers to inscribe their logo - lower case i inside a Q shaped like a magnifying glass. The production office was called within an hour of daybreak with the enquiry "is this real or man-made?".  

The next video shows a couple of Norwegian circlers at the site, breathing in the energy. One shows the others an aerial photograph, with the logo on its side. "Is that a man in a circle? Wow - it's like some kind of magnifying glass ... ".

The Youtube comments (yes, I know) on both those clips make one despair for sanity.

Date: 2012/02/03 03:28:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
@eigenstate - good work! I particularly liked the piece about the bees, and the 'ends' through which information operates.

I myself have spent many a happy hour composing detailed posts, largely for my own amusement ... and then simply binning them. I have neither time nor energy to pursue the case, or deal with the inevitable bad-faith backwash, while the thread scrolls steadily off the bottom of the list. But yourself and Liz and others make UD a worthwhile read.

Date: 2012/02/05 04:51:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Uptight Bullshit (from Reciprocating Bill post):

         
Quote
“So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations, then I simply did not pick up on it. More than likely I may have overlooked it given your pompous certainty… I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have.… I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot… I am more than willing to slow down for you.”


Top quality Christian-on-the-internet. You can just feel the love.

(yeah, twats on both sides. I know. It just seems difficult to advance the anti-evolution cause without being a twat).

Date: 2012/02/05 15:32:22, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 05 2012,12:57)
5.1

blustering dumbshit



Joe:
   
Quote
Well the Bible says the universe had a beginning- IOW the “God scenario” made a prediction that science verified.

Date: 2012/02/07 06:49:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
2.1
Elizabeth Liddle
February 6, 2012 at 8:33 am

[...]

From here

[...]


Twt:

I think the problem, such as it may be, is that Elizabeth is fundamentally good-natured. As such, I think she stands head and shoulders above the sanctimonious knobshiners that characterise much of the 'opposition' - the KFs and the BA77's and the UBs and - the latest contender vying for a place in the Top 5 contentious UD ass stakes - the Axels. The people who claim submission to a higher standard and then proceed to debase that standard by their attitude to fellow human beings. There are honourable exceptions.

She sticks up for herself, by her own lights. I too was amazed when she offered an apology to KF after the inexcusable 'derail'/Mr Leathers rant, but ... it's different for girls. I hope that isn't patronising. I would eat my own gonads rather than apologise to any of the many dipshits who have chosen to denigrate my intellect or motivation rather than address my arguments. My wife would just laugh.

Liz enjoys the argument. She's aware that banning is ever-present, and - whatever her reasons for posting, in what is really a matter for individual choice - calling KF would lead to it in fairly short order.

Everyone could perhaps just leave UD to shrivel in a succession of 1-or-2-comment bits of 'News'. It's only the 'materialists' that stir up any real interest in a thread - and that very interest makes the denizens think their movement is a significant force - they don't realise it is simply individuals arguing against bad philosophy and bad science, mostly for fun.

I can't even be arsed reading threads that KF is participating in. Life is too short to penetrate that god-awful prose. But if Elizabeth is prepared to dissect his arguments ... she will naver make him see what he is, but it serves to bring it to the attention of others.

I do wonder how the 'moderates' feel about the way their case is pursued.

Date: 2012/02/07 08:02:53, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 07 2012,07:42)




:D :D

I used to cheerfully pass by wrong people in the street, and never even knew. Damn you, internet!

Date: 2012/02/07 14:27:49, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 07 2012,10:26)

FWIW, I don't think I'm "submissive " at all - I think that's a wrong reading completely.  It might be to do with being female, but not because females are doormats, but because on the whole (I'd say) we don't do that dick-measuring thing.


I think this is what I was getting at. I struck up a correspondence with a female poster on the old Dawkins site and she lamented the tendency for discussions to end up as 'lekking' displays. I absolutely recognise the tendency in myself to respond in kind when someone is snotty - despite the fact that all one is pecking at is a few words on a screen!

More frustrating is the general refusal to make the mental effort to understand the scientific position, or the contrary philosophical one - especially when one has made some effort to be clear, not to make someone look stupid but simply to convey an enthusiasm. I think my own patience may be wearing thin!

Date: 2012/02/08 02:47:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 07 2012,14:13)
Ha ha ... Byers should do stand-up with lines like these:
       
Quote
Only biblical creationism is worthy.
Not foreign religfions[sic].


From the same ...

   
Quote
The[n] people would not waste peoples time with anything other then Genesis.


YEC Admits Genesis Waste of Time Shock.

:)

Date: 2012/02/09 03:50:53, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 08 2012,16:22)
       
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 08 2012,13:40)
       
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 08 2012,10:27)
           
Quote (eigenstate @ ,)

Biology is sun-powered.

Well, except where it's thermal-vent powered.  Not that that changes the situation re:SLoT.

Yes, good point.

On the other hand, a large fraction of geothermal presumably comes from the sun, even if it's indirectly. ( I guess some of it comes from radioactive decay as well.)


Well, it ain't about the warmth so much as the energy. Life is electron-powered. Energetic electrons roll down the thermodynamic gradient and do work, or lock the energy in bonds to do work later. Light gets them up there in the first place, or electrons already high on the thermodynamic gradient (such as in hydrogen sulphide in thermal vents), can be rolled downhill too. The latter mechanism probably came first. The energy in those molecules came from the star prior to the Sun.

Amazing that ID-ers still peddle that 2LoT shit.  Violations of the 2LoT would involve electrons going up the energetic gradient without some kind of energetic input. Life doesn't do that (though I have no EVIDENCE for my position :D).

Date: 2012/02/09 04:58:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Hahahahaha

The Straw King justifies his incivility.
             
Quote
Ya see it is obvious that people who continually erect strawmen, as you do, are just on an uncivil agenda of provocation.

Carte blanche to torch the whole straw site, then?

Date: 2012/02/09 06:22:23, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 08 2012,10:38)
GAAAHHH!!!  I hate performance appraisals.  The only bit that's really important is the bit that has nothing to do with the actual performance.

Sample comments from my boss:

         
Quote
{Ogre} is so knowledgeable about science that he can construct fusion powerplants and convert raw carbon into diamonds.


         
Quote
{Ogre's} collaboration and communication skills are such that the Israel/Palestine conflict might never had happened if he had been involved.


         
Quote
{Ogre's} technical skills and knowledge are so great that he successfully created an alternative world-wide internet using only paper cups and string.


         
Quote
{Ogre's} industry and organizational knowledge is so important that our company would be little more than a lemonade stand on a street corner without him.



Performance Ratings:
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement

[Ogre's] rating: Satisfactory


sigh...

and I didn't even blow anything up... this year.

I feel your pain. I used to be freelance. I got a tidy sum and never-ending contract extensions. They kept offering me a permanent position, and I resisted. Then ... the UK government, tax legislation, family to feed blahdeblah.. I took it.

Next up I am invited to participate in the performance system. "We know we have been paying you twice as much as a freelancer and been pleased enough with your work to offer you a job, but I'm afraid ... this year you are 'partially successful'". No pay rise, no bonus, thanks for being brilliant at your job but you're shit at gathering evidence of it.

We're supposed to take an active role in 'evidencing' our performance and (puke) our "behaviours". I can't be bothered, having spent 10 years with them not doing so, so every year it's the same. "Partially successful". "I'll fuck off then, shall I? "No, no, no .... ". Every year I win. I've handed my notice in twice, they ask me to reconsider, I suggest they reconsider the grade.

We have now been told that Performance meetings will go from 6 a year (5 too many) to ... 12! I presently work 2 days a week, so that's one every 8 working days ...

:angry:

Date: 2012/02/09 08:50:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2012,07:37)
Fortunately, my customers and bosses are pretty good about sending 'well done' e-mails and the like.


Yep, I get plenty positive feedback - one of the reasons I can afford to be a member of the awkward squad. Unfortunately there is a MOUNTAIN of stuff you are supposed to fill in as evidence, and I ain't got the time or energy, not for 1-2%. Too busy workin'! The evidence is about as reliable as Biblical evidence - just make stuff up. But I won't take a poor grade from anyone, even if it's only a word on a piece of paper. They don't think I'm good, I'll find somewhere that does. 'Cos I am!  ;)

Date: 2012/02/09 14:52:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 09 2012,13:45)
Well, champignon has been silently banned.

My last visible comment:
       
Quote
KF, you are a pious fraud and a liar:
       
Quote
That such feel it necessary to conceal their might and manipulation makes might views shows that they realise — deep down — that they are morally abnormal, or even warped, even monstrous.

LOL.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any of us who have been criticizing the Old Testament God for his genocidal tendencies secretly believe that “might and manipulation make right”.

Another false accusation for you to retract.

Ironically, in the comment I was trying to post when I discovered my bannination, I defended the right of KF and JoeG to make stupid and baseless allegations, and my own right to respond to them.

For shame! Many good posts under the mushroom banner. Anyone would think they didn't welcome critical examination of their scientific position...

I did wonder if you were sailing a tad close to the wind calling KF a liar and hypocrite! Interesting that Joe gets away with it, but then evos are not human, and therefore not in need of the same protection of delicate ego.

The fact that both are fair comment ...  hey, let's all get banned! KF! Over here, mate! I'd like a quiet word if I may. You are ...

Date: 2012/02/10 03:11:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe eats information

Not only matter and energy, but Information and "Life", went into Joe's pizza. And the information, apparently, is separately processed.

Date: 2012/02/10 05:45:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,05:15)
I'd say, if Zoe and KF are the same person

I'd vote for not. That emphatic asterisk (I keep looking for a footnote) appears all over Zoe, but not in K/F, and other markers of common descent are absent in the other direction. I don't think he has the wit to keep two personas up-and-running. But the styles, the prose and the smackable certitude are certainly very close cousins.

Date: 2012/02/10 10:36:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 10 2012,10:07)
           
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 10 2012,03:11)
Joe eats information

Not only matter and energy, but Information and "Life", went into Joe's pizza. And the information, apparently, is separately processed.

It would seem that Joe's body doesn't process information.

Not sure anyone's does ... ?  :)

He did seem to be saying that the information in the pizza would become 'processed information' as part of the digestive process. As this was about thermodynamics, I really think he may have been confusing entropy as an informatic and a thermodynamic parameter. Life violates the second Law of thermodynamics because there is more 'information' coming out of it than goes in?

Still, Chas D triggered a classic bit of schooltard Joe - haven't heard "spaz" since I was about 10! Wanker - I hear that all the time.  ;)

Date: 2012/02/10 11:14:18, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,11:07)
Looks like I have been banned too.

Whaaaat?  Let's all go down the pub. :angry:

Date: 2012/02/10 14:05:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 10 2012,13:10)
Looking through the most recent posts, Chas D is the only non-creationist left posting.  Can he last the day?

Chas tells me he is deeply offended at not being banned - makes him feel so harmless!  :angry:

Even Bullwinkle gets moosed, for this (or maybe a familiar IP?):

 
Quote
Chomsky described infants deducing the grammar of language from the imperfect spoken samples all around them.

Likewise, I’m struggling to deduce the administrative position on civility here. “Arrogant prick” doesn’t fly, I get that. But “mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict,” doesn’t draw a comment from the administration, and “sad and pathetic” comes from the administration itself. These are all personal characterizations.

So, what’s the deep structure vis civility at UD? Empirically, it appears to be “We require civility, modulo who your position on ID, and who you are addressing.”

Date: 2012/02/10 14:29:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,14:05)
I'm a little disappointed that Liz has been banned, though. She's an unreasonable ideologue, without question. The way she (and every other Darwinist there, including Larry Moron) ran from Upright Biped's overwhelming argument for design was shameful, no doubt.

Well, I do recall Uptight almost wetting himself with glee upon the opportunity to present Moran with his BA77-style magnum opus upon informatics ... "fuck it, not interested" was Moran's approximate response. I laughed my socks off. He's a biochemist. The argument was bullshit anyway, but how much time do you really expect people to invest on people's amateur theorising in Blog Comments?

The internet is stuffed to bursting with Groundbreaking New Theories. You really think Uptight Bikeshed was looking for serious scientific opinion on his thesis? Or an opportunity to use his lawyerly guile to persuade the faithful that ID was something more than mere argument from analogy, this passing scientist no match for one such as he?

Date: 2012/02/10 15:10:53, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,15:02)
     
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:17)
Let me also add that I applaud the double-standards of U.D.

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

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

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

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

awwwwww look at it

If the Spirit moves you, you just gotta testify.

(Arrington's head, by the way. I mean, c'mon, if that's the criterion...)

Date: 2012/02/10 15:37:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:25)

I'm willing to bet most of you would happily kill I.D. proponents if it weren't for the consequences (read: prison).

Why yes ... yes, that's exactly what keeps us from killing people with whom we disagree on the internet.

Date: 2012/02/10 15:53:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:48)

If you had to choose between spending time with your families [...]

I have a family? ... oh, crap ... I have a family!

Date: 2012/02/10 16:05:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Welcome, Jammer. Bring your friends. We don't want to kill you, honest. We're just the science geeks extending the hand of friendship to the Christian kids. We can unite against the jocks. We may disagree on some stuff ... but it's all in fun.

At the end of it all, you will float up on your fluffy cloud and can laugh heartily while we go down into a fiery pit for finding evolutionary theory the best fit to data at this point in proceedings. So, ultimately, no harm done, eh?

Date: 2012/02/11 10:49:09, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 11 2012,09:56)
William J Murray:

     
Quote
IMO:

Those that come here and, even in good faith and with civil tongue, reiterate misrepresentations of ID corrected in the FAQ, or rhetorical characterizations of ID and anti-ID argument/positions, or offer only patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined materialist, atheist, or moral relativist commentary & propaganda as if it were reasoned argument, should be quickly shown the door.

A reasonable, ethical host is not obligated to suffer the rhetorical, blathering nonsense of materialists, atheists, determinists and moral relativists in his own home ad infinitum just because his guests are polite and believe they are being honest and well-meaning.


Some retrospective self-justification going on here, I think: It's not that we are rude, it's that we are wrong. And nobody is under any ethical obligation to be told they are wrong by people who are, themselves, wrong.

William: that's how you build an echo chamber.

[...]


William prefers crickets to critics. Arf! Arf! You see what I did there? ... I changed ... anyhoo ...

Date: 2012/02/11 15:09:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,13:46)

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.


Given that moral issues tend to be held in common between very different societies, it seems probable that this derives from some kind of internal human sense. Whether that sense is due to our being a social animal, or comes from God, may not be easy to distinguish. But essentially Christianity covers about 33% of the world (done very well for itself, hasn't it?). So whatever 'objective moral standard' may be written in that particular book someone found (let's ignore all the stuff about shellfish and pork) does not apply to two thirds of the world. And yet they too have a moral standard.

And so, in short ... it simply doesn't matter what your particular religion insists upon as an 'objective moral standard'. And, indeed, if it leads, say, to persecution of homosexuals, I'd say fuck the objective moral standard.  

Bible, Constitution, Laws - all formal attempts to codify our 'inner sense'. If God made it all - fantastic. If not - well, we still share that general sense; must come from somewhere else. If there is no God, the Bible can only have been written by people. If there is, he appears to have implemented morality through our inner sense, not that book. Without the combination of the book's proscription, AND prison, would you be prowling the streets killing Darwinists?

Date: 2012/02/12 03:40:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 12 2012,02:24)
After getting his ass kicked all night by eigenstate, nullasalus bravely runs away.  But not before looking over his shoulder, making sure he has a safe head start, and talking some trash:
         
Quote
So, I’ll be walking away now. I’d say you should look me up when you grow a pair and get a little sharper, but really, I’m at least cognizant of my minor place in these things – discussing things with me is not some holy privilege. And besides, what’re the odds you’ll ever man up? We’ll need a decimal point and a few zeroes in a row to state that.

Aw, let's have that trash in full, we need the full extent of eigenstate's public humiliation 'for record':
       
Quote
You’re not worth my time, eigen. You clearly have some bizarre view of yourself as being Too Important To Ignore, along with your crazy-ass AtBC obsessives. You’re a coward who won’t criticize your Home Team, no matter what they do. And honest to God, you’re just not all that impressive in discussion, aside from having above average grammar – good job on that.

So, I’ll be walking away now. I’d say you should look me up when you grow a pair and get a little sharper, but really, I’m at least cognizant of my minor place in these things – discussing things with me is not some holy privilege. And besides, what’re the odds you’ll ever man up? We’ll need a decimal point and a few zeroes in a row to state that.

Oh, and there was a smily, 'cos he was only joking.

I really hate myself for this. It should be about arguments, not personalities or behaviour. Null could simply have stopped, and one wouldn't bat an eyelid. Good debate, well done chaps. But when two such arf-laden paragraphs get tacked on the end of a discussion ... can't ... help myself ... must ... mock ... nnnnngggghhhh ...

Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!") When danger reared it's ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. ("no!") Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about ("I didn't!") And gallantly he chickened out. ****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat. ("all lies!") Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin! ("I never!")

Date: 2012/02/12 09:45:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 12 2012,07:29)
                   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 12 2012,04:40)
It should be about arguments, not personalities or behaviour.

oh, that window closed long long long ago, judge jones

Aye ... but one can aspire to Higher Ground. Henceforth I won't let personalities get in the way, and will make sure I home in on the character flaws of anyone who does. And I'll only debate people who - after a succession of lengthy exchanges - I determine to be not worth my time debating.  

Anyway you AtBC-ers are all very very immature and I condemn you absolutely. Consider yourselves condemned. I will not stand idly by yadda yadda yadda. The veracity of evolutionary theory is at stake. If you keep misbehavin' it might make it wrong. Can't ya see?

Date: 2012/02/12 15:11:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Arrington: I am currently reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, in which he makes a strong case that liberalism (modern liberalism, not classical liberalism) should be placed on the same pole of the political spectrum as fascism

Arrington does not like liberals? And he's an American Christian? And he denies Global Warming? I am shocked. Shocked, I say. That such disparate points of view should find themselves combined in the one human being is utterly unheard of. Wonder what he thinks of gays.

(yes, Baz, I am aware of the irony).

Date: 2012/02/12 15:53:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
@eigenstate,

Odder than Odd Jock McOdd. He could just ban you, without spending a couple of paragraphs drumming up a reason! To the disinterested observer, the only 'incriminating' factor seems to be that you were spotted at UD and DID NOT reply to this (fucking arcane) question about superposition and Jupiter, and therefore cannot say you were at your mum's. But why you would post that you had responded, then not ... Wouldn't be like a lawyer to twist things to suit the argument though, would it?

I AM BARRY, HEAR ME ROAR! You WILL answer my question (and no answer will not suffice; you cannot answer it and not-answer it at the same time).

Meh. It is their bat, ball and pitch, I guess.

Good work, BTW. It's not just that I tend to agree with you, but that you are very readable and clear. Ironically, one of the UD-ers who is reasonably readable and clear is Baz A himself.

Date: 2012/02/13 06:56:07, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 13 2012,06:30)
The "no longer with us" search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?....h+us%22

 
Quote
Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at
snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us

Sheesh those guys are tough!

Date: 2012/02/14 19:33:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Heavens, I go out for a few hours and it all goes pear-shaped! Why are we shooting for the moon now? Has Jupiter disappeared?
       
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 14 2012,18:46)
Arringgoon:
         
Quote
Noam, no one will be banned from this site for criticizing ID, and I have no idea where you got such a notion. Go back and read the OP. Only those who demonstrate beyond the slightest doubt that they do not intend to act in good faith (by denying the LNC) will be banned under the new policy. It has everything to do with whether a person is a fool or a charlatan, not whether they criticize ID.


Seriously.  Why hasn't ScottAndrews2 been banned, then?


Strickerly speaking, Scott asked the question of himself, and answered "Yes". He answered No when Barry asked him directly. Under the terms of moderation policy 3Bc subsection 7, Scott lowered his eyes before the jabbing finger and gimlet eye of the Grand Inquisitor, which is the correct response, even though contradictory to his previous statement. I've got a bit of time for Scott, though - and funny enough, I'd probably answer "No" too, were it not for the fact that annoying that staunch defender of logical argumentation BA is far more fun.

Kudos to ben h. He appears to be a Christian (though Barry seems unaware, and anybody could be anything really), and had earlier suggested that he would not cast aspersions at a brother in "Christ's honesty". He might have been being sarcastic, of course.

Date: 2012/02/14 19:51:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
StephenB weighs in

Reason and good faith last seen piling their belongings into a U-Haul bound for the coast. :O

Date: 2012/02/15 03:18:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 14 2012,23:53)
Dismayed but not surprised by William J Murray:

                 
Quote

No, we need to teach them there is a limit to the foolishness adults will tolerate; if they will not learn, then at least we have rid ourselves of the foolishness. Take a lesson from history: appeasement doesn’t work.

Yes, appeasing the science geeks on an ID blog is a recipe for what? If we sense weakness, we'll... what? Starting posting charts and graphs? There's something deeply twisted about the idea that letting your opponents, or just those who have different beliefs post and debate is "appeasement".

*cues the tanks of the Army of Science to begin rolling into the Sudetenland*

OnEdit: forgot to mention who I was referring to.

In online debates, one is forced to agree with any arbitrary pronouncement made by the host, and if not one is being foolish? An odd cove. He has taken the morality debate to Elizabeth's site (I know you know). For a while he was prepared to bat it with others, but seems only interested in her viewpoint now.

But this                
Quote
When one is so self-important that they cannot even force themselves to eat a little humble pie in the home of a gracious host, they are more than likely just gong to be an insufferable brat anyway.


Made me laugh in the context of this, to Elizabeth on her blog (and of course I'm quoting out of context!)               
Quote
some observers agree that you do not argue in good faith.


Not him, obviously. Oh no. Just some other people that were worth mentioning at that point.  Otherwise it would be bad manners.

Date: 2012/02/15 03:46:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Chas D appears to be unable to post. Not sure why - last activity preceded Jupitergate, but there had been a response to one of Barry's petulant remarks about scientists - raised the ante(nnae).

Only logged in to make one final post to reply "no" to the moon question but "wouldn't want to hang around anyway debating the likes of StephenB"

Denied the opportunity to walk away with nose in air!  :angry:

Date: 2012/02/15 11:24:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,11:03)
         
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 15 2012,10:33)
don't confuse "pointing and laughing at them" with "taking them seriously" please

ID is deader than jesus's toenail clippings and buddha's dried dung.  and it has been for years

that doesn't mean that there aren't LULZ to be had at the tards expense.  barry is the sort of retarded bully that will always be fun to piss on no matter what the context, it just so happens that in this situation they are completely and utterly wrong.  that is worth a lulz multiplier of at least an order of magnitude

Excuse me- ID will only be dead when you assholes acyually ante-up testable hypotheses and positive evidence for your position.

Until then all evos are just pieces of shit fucking assholes.



Grrrr Grrrr Grrrr. GRRR GRRR GRRR GRRR. Why da funny man all red in da face?

Joe ... come on, big fella. No, c'mon; big hugs. Better?

Date: 2012/02/16 03:21:23, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,01:29)
       
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 15 2012,22:44)
Question for Eric Anderson:
         
Quote
The tautology problem is very real. It is frankly disappointing to see so many critics of evolutionary theory shy away from it. The just-so stories come up all the time and are largely based on the tautological formulation, and it is absolutely appropriate to point out when this circular reasoning is being used.

Why is e=mc^2 important as a tautology? It is a tautology, right? Of course it is.  "Survival of the fittest" is similarly tautologous (fittest = those that survive), and is important for the same reason. The tautology is not argument, not syllogism, but an *effect*, a *product* of the model, in both cases.

Eigenstate, I'm not sure why you think E=mc2 is a tautology.  It's not true by definition, and it's empirically falsifiable.  Could you elaborate?

Presumably 1+1 = 2 would be?

Like the second Law of thermodynamics (and evolution is a religion, Darwin was a racist twat, atheists have no logical basis for morality), NS = Tautology forms one of the very limited deck of Top Trumps that creationists try to play. It is one of the weaker ones - NS is a statement that is repetitious? Or 'entirely true if one part is true'? OMFG. Burn the Origin. One would certainly prefer a tautology over an argument from analogy ... but anyways NS isn't tautologous, not least because it is probabilistic. Iterations of 1+1 follow a probability distribution whose expected value is 2.

The faster runners pack the higher positions in a race. That's not tautologous - and certainly not 'circular reasoning'. It's just what happens when you set up a competition between variable entities. Even if the outcome was non-probabilistic - the fittest ALWAYS survived, or the runners always finished in the same order - we would not have a tautologous, still less a circular, argument. If the competition is discriminatory, it will discriminate (yikes! a tautology? Actually, no.).

Sorry - I should be talking to Eric. Just can't seem to ... (tap-tap-tap) ... ummm ... I think part of my internet is broken.

Date: 2012/02/16 11:32:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,05:08)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 16 2012,01:21)
Sorry - I should be talking to Eric. Just can't seem to ... (tap-tap-tap) ... ummm ... I think part of my internet is broken.

Here's your problem, Sam: The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Right, I've called tech support. Here is a brief summary of the exchange.

Date: 2012/02/16 15:59:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Scott has not encountered drift

Which is a bit frustrating since I recall spending a bit of time trying to explain why it matters. I'd have another go, but (despite my Thought not having been subjected to Trial By Barry :p ) I find myself unwelcome.  
                     
Quote
[...]and even every extinct species exists and/or existed, and therefore must have been selected.


Must have survived long enough to get big enough not to die without trace! Whether 'selected' or not is a different matter. Survival /= Selection. For as long as genes exist, they are surviving. If they are doing no better (in terms of their effect on carrier mean fitness) than other alleles at the same locus, they aren't being selected. Survival, or the number of offspring produced by any one individual, has little to do with selection, other than providing datum points for long-terms trends of each allele they possess.

Selection is a differential in average reproductive success at each locus. No differential (or 2s <=1/N), no selection. If there is a consistent differential in reproductive success, one allele will consistently find itself in more offspring than the other, and is more likely to survive (in the population) because of that. Which is not tautology but "If ... then" argumentation. If there is NO consistent differential in reproductive success, one allele will still find itself concentrated by sampling error alone.

                     
Quote
If natural selection is not assumed and therefore tautological then why is it missing from every single evolutionary narrative?


Everything is missing from an evolutionary narrative whose genetic intermediates have been lost - just as almost every word ever spoken has long since disappeared from record. What is assumed is the genetic continuum, not that every change was beneficial. Nonetheless, the expectation is that 'visible' changes are fixed by consistent differential reproduction beneficial more often than by drift. But selection is not evidenced by survival alone, and evolution is not "RM+NS".

Date: 2012/02/16 17:30:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,16:13)

Maybe it helps to put it this way. The process, in principle, is non-tautological. But in practice, whatever survives we label as "most fit". In that sense, constrained to the dynamics of fitness as the outworking of differential survival via variable heritable traits, we do apply a tautology, or at least we say that whatever survived is the most fit.


Well, we shouldn't label whatever survives as 'most fit', in principle or in practice. Even if we had a population of functionally identical entities (but could label the types), we would see differential survival, due to sampling alone. No individual need be inherently any fitter, nor any allele offer any boost to its bearers, for this differential to arise. Natural selection applies as a bias within this fundamental process - differential survival causally linked to the effects of alternative alleles upon mean fitness of carriers.    

It remains possible that the least fit allele becomes fixed - if we ran a series of replicates, it would happen in fewer than 1/N of them (the neutral probability), but in the single replicates that we run in the 'real world', there is plenty of opportunity for fixation against the selective 'wind'. On the average and over the long run, populations adapt, because you can't buck the odds for ever - alleles contributing more to fitness will prevail. But any one individual just survived, and any gains made by a particular allele may likewise be uninformative about whether it was 'truly' beneficial to the individuals that bore it (ie it raised mean fitness relative to rivals). There are many who argue that neutrality should be the null hypothesis.

Date: 2012/02/17 03:20:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Jesus, I can still log in!  My last post disappeared, but this is what it was:

       
Quote
dmullenix February 17, 9451 at 1:29 pm

Bully, you flaming asshole, the answer is “Yes"! Now ban me, damn it!

I'm feeling seriously unclean still being able to log in!

By the way, I have no idea where that year and time came from.  It's 12:23 am CDT, 2012 right now.


Ah yes. One can log in. One can even post comments. But they bounce against the teflon hull of Starship UD without so much as a tremor, let alone the occupants staggering from one side of the set to the other. The only evidence of bannination is that nothing has a "Reply" button any more.

Date: 2012/02/17 03:43:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2012,16:53)
1.  species are not individuals and cannot be selected.  theories of multiple levels of selection, that operate on higher levels of organization than individuals (species selection) are merely the consequences of reproduction (birth/death) of individuals

2.  if you survive and do not reproduce then you still have zero fitness.  selection is the differential reproductive success of individuals of varying genotypes or phenotypes (or locus in the alternate formulation)

Scott's discussion of species that survive are selected is a glimpse into essentialism.  For him, a species is a thing, an individual of sorts, and not the aggregate of breeding populations consisting of individuals

ETA a friend says that most people think like creationists and don't know it.  I think he is right, the tendency to treat species as a class and to use species names as predicates is hard to purge.  children are taught to use this concept from an early age, and it is a useful way to view the world (i.e. generalizations made as if species were individuals remain robust along the temporal scales of our lives... poison ivy is poisonous, Boletus bicolor is tasty, red squirrels live in northern hardwood forests, etc...  but they are not fixed relations as required by essentialism)

Yes - looking from 'inside' particular avenues of generational gene flow, it's clear that many/most on the creationist side see themselves as looking from inside a bubble. They can see other bubbles, but in both the forward and backward directions, there exists some kind of terminus (the onus being upon the "evo" to prove that there is not). But evos reckon they are just sitting in a pipe, connected in the past to other pipes. 'Species' is just a temporal illusion due to the inability to see very far up or down the 'pipe'. But organisms looking for mates, and taxonomists looking to classify, do so at a moment in time, fixed enough for practical purposes.

Date: 2012/02/17 07:10:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 17 2012,06:09)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2012,03:20)
             
Quote
Jesus, I can still log in!  My last post disappeared, but this is what it was:

                       
Quote
dmullenix February 17, 9451 at 1:29 pm

Bully, you flaming asshole, the answer is “Yes"! Now ban me, damn it!

I'm feeling seriously unclean still being able to log in!

By the way, I have no idea where that year and time came from.  It's 12:23 am CDT, 2012 right now.


Ah yes. One can log in. One can even post comments. But they bounce against the teflon hull of Starship UD without so much as a tremor, let alone the occupants staggering from one side of the set to the other. The only evidence of bannination is that nothing has a "Reply" button any more.

Well, that's a relief then.  Between that news and the three showers I took yesterday, I feel faintly clean again.

I'm reminded of Doc Daneeka in Catch-22. He was on the crew sheet of a plane that ditched (to get his flying hours in). From that moment, as far as everyone else was concerned he had died ("shame about the Doc"), despite his own impression of the situation.
     
Quote
I do have to admit though that the time I spent reading UD wasn't completely worthless.

Me too. I actually found it a useful resource at times, if you dodge the spin.

Date: 2012/02/17 15:25:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 17 2012,10:02)
OMFG, this must hurt Gordon E. Mullings aka Kairosfocus aka Dictionary: There are Darwin projects in Montserrat.

ETA: and in 2009 he also had to experience this:

And of course, as a member of the Commonwealth, his Queen endorses dread Darwinism on the British Tenner, by being on the front.

Date: 2012/02/18 06:27:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
error



Date: 2012/02/19 04:39:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,03:09)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

Personally, I think it was fair. I can see why woodbine might resent editing, but threads that sideline with personal grumbles based on past history and assumptions of bad faith litter UD, for example, and I think a little housekeeping is in order.  'The whole truth' seems to focus very strongly on personality, which is OK, but not everyone does or wants to. Perhaps "Fertiliser" rather than "Guano" ... but hell, it's the penguin theme, don't be so sensitive!

I give Gil credit for stepping outside the confines. Sure, his arguments are twaddle, and his self-aggrandisement can grate, but ... he's just a bloke, with whom I happen to disagree in a very fundamental way on a topic. I play music with Creationists. I would probably dislike them online, but in person, we get along just fine.

Date: 2012/02/21 14:32:48, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,09:27)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

Quite often?

That endosymbiosis theory relies on "looks like" for evidence of bacterial origin?
That molecular evidence of common descent is better explained by common design? Or, if he's feeling frisky, convergence?
That there is an 'essence' to species that resides somewhere other than the genome?
That ID (as practised) is not anti-evolution?
That common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy?
That life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
That neutral sequences cannot remain identifiable for long enough to be markers of common descent?

I realise this is all a reverse argument from authority - just because he's wrong on just about everything does not make him wrong on everything. I also understand you have an open house policy, so whichever netkook happens to latch onto your site has to be tolerated within broad limits of civility (Atheistoclast and "Socrates" may start homing in any time soon!).

But quite often right? Sorry ... just no. I have already wasted far too much life time reading that bozo's arguments. It's like arguing with a particularly stubborn 10 year old. He has nothing to offer, and apparently limitless time in which to offer it.

Date: 2012/02/23 10:39:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 23 2012,10:04)
Some good theotard from tgpeeler:
           
Quote
I think the problem ultimately boils down to rebellion. If God is Reason, and He is (I AM WHO I AM – an expression of the Law of Identity and the basis for all thought, rational or otherwise, because it is the basis for all language) then to reject Reason is to reject God. We are not dealing with intellectual problems here, we are dealing with willfully disobedient (to the First Principles of rational thought) fools (Psalm 14:1). It’s a hard thing to say but there it is. I hope lurkers are being reached because I’ve never had one acknowledgement of undeniable truth “out here” in years of posting with the ELs and their ilk. At bottom, this is moral degeneracy because it is willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths. Isaiah warned against this when he said “woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” This is a violation of the law of identity. And woe to those who do it.
$0.02

           
Quote
9
Axel, February 22, 2012, 6:50 pm
Spot on, tg. Insightful and lucid.

10
BrentFebruary 23, 2012 at 8:28 am
tgpeeler,

If that’s two cents’ worth I don’t think we need to worry about inflation just now. Very nice!

11
William J MurrayFebruary 23, 2012 at 9:03 am
tgpeeler and StephenB,

Beautiful, truthful messages.

Yurgh! Are they deliberately trying to piss me off? "If God is Reason, [and I've obviously got the inside track on what is Reasonable] then to reject [my version of] Reason is to reject God"

"willful and obstinate rebellion against undeniable Truths"? Yep, that's it. It's completely undeniable and I'm just being awkward.

Still, they will have the last laugh from atop their fluffy clouds as I descend woefully into the Pit. They love us really.

Date: 2012/02/25 14:51:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (socle @ Feb. 25 2012,12:49)
         
Quote

Prof FX Gumby: If you can measure it, and other people can measure it and get the same answer, then it's science.

Joe:

             
Quote

How can we measure evolution via blind and undirected processes?

Funny how he's never at a loss when it comes to measuring bits in a fruitcake or whatever the hell else...

Even if he has a hotkey for 'blind, undirected process', and 'BTW ID is not anti-evolution', and 'YOUR position has no evidence' and 'obvioulsy', why does he not get bored out of his tiny mind making the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? .... he's been unusually loquacious over at TSZ - even though they were just pastings from his blog, I'm impressed he managed to string a few extra sentences together in composing them originally.

Then this straight-to-Guano return to form ...
       
Quote
I know where I get my posts from, thanks. They are relevant and there isn't any need to re-invent what has already been said. What questions pertaining to ID have I answered? That there are delusional wankers like you who have nothing and can only spew ignorant nonsense. Yes we can look back through my blog and find a bunch of cowardly evos, like you.

Hee hee!



Date: 2012/02/26 02:50:22, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Feb. 25 2012,23:09)
JUst got home from a depatmental party (took a cab_....some of the faculty were discussing some presubumission draft paper with some inexplicable results.

Apparently is circulating far and wide seeking approval/comments before submussion-but the conversation got quiet on the details.

Anyone know awht this is about? Have a copy?

Ummm ... you'll have to be a bit more specific! Inexplicable results ten-a-penny round here. Not faster-than-light neutrinos again?

Date: 2012/03/01 05:47:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Cubist:        
Quote
For any protein which does not consist entirely of Methionine and Tryptophan, this calculation will yield a number of possible sequences which is appreciably greater than 1 (one). Hence, the vast majority of protein coding sequences must be able to tolerate some degree of change.


Interestingly, the most universally conserved sequences are not 'complex' things like enzymes, but structural proteins - eg histones. They are pretty short, and their conservation appears to be due to the very tight 'specification' of a nucleosome - a packaging unit of eukaryotic DNA. You can't fuck about with such low-level stuff without completely disabling the organism - it would be like deciding that your parity bit is 1 instead of 8, or something. System crash. It's probably circumstantial, rather than something inherently essential about one particular sequence. It may well be that early nucleosomes were not as picky on sequence, but once one became embedded in eukaryotic DNA management, it became constrained.

But enzymes - no trouble. The active site is usually pretty specific, but the binding sites less so - they need to distinguish substrate or cofactor from 'foreign body' - it's like a wire-frame model, and there is almost certain to be more than one sequence that will give the necessary specificity (or better). And the rest of the molecule, again, just another 'wire frame' that holds everything else in place.  

But Joe - 'Shannon information' in a molecule? FFS! How come only polymers can have it? What's the CSI of H2O? Couldn't be anything to do with a completely misplaced analogy between comms strings and DNA base/amino acid strings, perchance?



Date: 2012/03/02 11:15:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2012,10:48)
His GA meltdown is approaching a spittle fueled TARDGASM CLIMAX. fortunately for you all, he has MULITPLE TARDGASMS, so you're in for a day of pleasure.

He's teaching Joe Felsenstein population genetics now. And Liz is on her hols. Guano incoming!

Date: 2012/03/03 12:31:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Hey, here's this really cool blog. I know all about GAs now. You're all asswipe evo dogturds.
       
Quote
the GA to control the inside of an organism would have to be inside of the organism.

Ya see ...        
Quote
there is more to any given GA besides the ability to generate random mutations.

GAs directe those mutations via cumulative selection in order to reach the goal- ie solve the problem.


Not so hard, is it? The "GA in the cell" makes the mutations and causes things without them to die. So it's kind of in the cell and in the population at the same time. The random mutations generated by the GA (I thought they weren't random, but maybe that's a typo) get selected, probably by the cunning mechanism of having more offspring. It's a bit like ... well, random mutation and natural selection. But it isn't, it's a GA. Sheesh, you people.

Date: 2012/03/03 13:33:32, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
The random mutations generated by the GA (I thought they weren't random, but maybe that's a typo)


That's been cleared up nicely by this (2:03 pm  03/03/12, TSZ GA thread):

 
Quote
They are random wrt probability of their occurence, not that the occur by chance.


Random in terms of probability, not chance. Got it.

eta: in the too-long-for-a-sig category:
Quote
And I said the mutations are random and the selection process directed them of organisms towards the goal which it does.

Only a moron would think tat first sentence requires some "correction".


To be fair (why, again?), the second sentence refers to a previous post, but too funny to pass up a quote-mine.



Date: 2012/03/04 16:06:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.

Date: 2012/03/04 17:30:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,17:12)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 04 2012,16:06)
I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. [...]

He's on every thread hardcore right now.

It's like getting fucking termites!

Date: 2012/03/05 16:16:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 05 2012,14:43)
I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.

Discussing this perhaps? A simple GA mimicking evolution of an 'engineering' solution ... - complex and nothing 'smuggled-in', other than a means of distinguishing 'better' from 'worse' according to the function being selected for (counting out time).

(If I were attempting to persuade ID-ers with it, I would be for editing some of the text with which the simulation is introduced - guaranteed to alienate the target audience with haughty tone!).

Date: 2012/03/06 12:41:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 06 2012,10:11)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 06 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:23)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 05 2012,22:59)
Isn't MODERATION supposed to be a virtue? ;)

Not when taken to extremes.

Now you're just being mean.

It's a standard error.

You're biased!

Date: 2012/03/06 12:55:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe:      
Quote
Planetary formation via accretion- just a bunch of cosmic collisions, kevin

Star formation- just another lucky event


Gravity, Joe. Gravity. Not just 'random' collisions. Mass attracts mass. And, incidentally, causes nucleosynthesis of planetary matter and of those radionuclides that power our subcrust heating AND that nice sunlight plants obligingly trap in complete accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All hail gravity.

Date: 2012/03/06 14:24:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 06 2012,13:22)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 06 2012,12:55)
Joe:            
Quote
Planetary formation via accretion- just a bunch of cosmic collisions, kevin

Star formation- just another lucky event


Gravity, Joe. Gravity. Not just 'random' collisions. Mass attracts mass. And, incidentally, causes nucleosynthesis of planetary matter and of those radionuclides that power our subcrust heating AND that nice sunlight plants obligingly trap in complete accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All hail gravity.

Right soapy- just pull this "just-so" gravity out of the blind watchmaker's ass...

Got it- all science so far...

So it came out of God's ass? Or the alien's? Or you haven't really got a fucking clue and just say stuff?

The "blind watchmaker" is purely an evolutionary metaphor, counter to the notion that we have lots of examples of ID complexity to infer Design from in living organisms.

But now, you say, Intelligence can make gravity. And presumably quarks and photons and gluons. Riiight. Gotcha. All to make little ole us, each with a little crumb of that same Cosmic Intelligence. How nice.

But wait - surely this is Intelligent Design - that scientific theory, remember - not Creationism in a cheap tuxedo? You think you can get this shit taught in school science?

Date: 2012/03/11 17:24:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,22:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

Calling Bruce Alberts a Gnostic (not agnostic) was weird to say the least. But then this-

           
Quote
Don’t miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwin’s theory and explain “how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.”

In other news evolutionists performed over 40 million abortions last year.

Religion drives science and it matters.


Link

This kind of shit really twists my melon. I am a mild-mannered type, but - as a commenter on that piece suggested - evolutionists place no value on human life. Yes, of course. That would be why I'm such a shit dad, husband and friend, why I never stop to help strangers in a car crash, give blood or carry a donor card, why I regularly take myself off and torture babies and puppies, why I'm right behind killing Muslims in their beds and state executions. Oh, hang on, none of that's me. I do value life. And I don't even need a fucking celestial Reward to keep me on the straight and narrow. How can that be ...?

I was involved in an abortion decision, and it still breaks my fucking heart. I think it was the right thing to do, and I think that there is a need. In the real world people have sex, contraception isn't foolproof, not everyone is financially secure, and we are on our way to being the only species left on the planet. I'd rather there wasn't a need, and if I were God ... but no, it was a desperately hard decision that still haunts me. So fuck off Hunter, that is just contemptible.

Date: 2012/03/11 18:45:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Tell me Joe, what is the context of these two alleles?  Have you figured it out yet?  I know, do you?

Tell me Joe, what is the meaning of these two alleles?  Have you figured it out yet?  I know, do you?


Joe - *cough*Google! Can't beat a globulin, as I was saying to Person A only the other day. Blast!

Date: 2012/03/14 06:24:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2012,10:36)
Does increasing CSI inrease William J Murray's pissyness?

If he was chocolate, he'd eat himself!

     
Quote
So, here's the point: unless you can show NS to select more for increased CSI than against increased CSI, you have no basis for the claim that NS adds anything to the search for increased CSI.

OMG, that is such a sweet argument. Short, concise, and perfect. This is why I take the time and effort in forums like this.


(It's a piss-poor argument, crying out for the biological understanding that WJM considers superfluous to the discussion (he's got logic an' stuff), but I haven't the energy to dissect it!)

Date: 2012/03/14 19:30:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Strange bedfellows: (WJM, to Joe)      
Quote
It's a waste of time if you're trying to get them to understand. It's not a waste of time if it's the most effective way of killing time during slow periods at work.

He toys with us, for funzies. Good job we'd never stoop so low.

Date: 2012/03/15 06:21:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
REC:    
Quote
A concentration of one micromolar has about 600 million molecules per nanoliter.

Now you tell me. After I'd just ordered a set of 4-foot test-tubes.

Still, nothing acts against the tendency of molecules to dissipate in solution. Nothing.

Date: 2012/03/15 06:40:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
TSZ:    
Quote
Liz- buy a fucking vowel- I am finished- you win, you can wallow in your ignorance and you can stick your false accusations up your....

Date: 2012/03/15 07:45:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Behe has no problem with killing babies, as long as God does it.

Sounds harsh, but it's the obvious conclusion to draw from his assertion that the Designer is God and that malaria is designed


Perhaps he's saving himself the bother of allowing the life to unroll and then finding them sinful. We can't 'play God' - we need to ensure that all possible lives are lived, so that he can judge whether they were lived well or not (and cast them in a fiery pit if the answer is 'not').

Date: 2012/03/16 07:10:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I is a original eternal living humanity person. (Here's hoping on the eternal bit). But it was all made for Whitey. He only need women because you can't have men out of men. That would be gross, and God don't do gross. There'd just be all this sperm if He dint create women to put it in.

Date: 2012/03/16 12:29:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Mar. 16 2012,11:28)
William J. Murray wins my too-honest comment award:

   
Quote
Ultimately, science doesn't resolve anything anyway, IMO. ... I think there are very few ID proponents that would disagree with me on that one. Ultimately, what resolves things - towards any conclusion - is one's deep worldview, not data.


I think for him, and ID proponents, this is the truth.

Link

Thank heavens that the deep worldview of the cancer specialists that saved my friend's life was oriented in the direction of 'stuff-that-seems-to-work'. I bet they had a peek at some data, too.

Date: 2012/03/21 05:19:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 21 2012,02:42)
Stopped Clock Syndrome!

   
Quote
IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Get used to it.

 
Quote
Someone: Appeals to authority are fallacious.

Joe: Citation please.

Date: 2012/04/06 05:45:18, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (JohnW @ April 03 2012,18:14)
   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 03 2012,15:45)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ April 03 2012,14:22)
I clicked on Batsh^t's name at Cornholio's place and discovered the wellspring of all his C+P tard.

It's un-ironically called 'Let there be Light' and assuming you can get it to load you'll find one giant blog post wherein BA77 converses with himself. Functionally speaking it is his brain.

Batshit seems to segregate the tard by the year he found it

LTBL 2010

LTBL 2011

LTBL 2012

...although he's posted new stuff in all three places in the last few months.

It's the legendary Batshit77 lost TARD mine!  :D

Fucking hell.

I think it needs to be kept on separate pages to prevent the runaway formation of a Black Hole of Stupid.

The briefest of glances into Let There be Shite ... scrolling swiftly on (I'll read it in detail if I get an eternity in which to do so), the following inscrutable comment caught my eye:
   
Quote
Useful material. Thanks. Do you have time to organize it?

Date: 2012/04/09 04:31:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (paragwinn @ April 09 2012,02:18)
Low-hanging poisonous fruit:      
Quote
I will keep telling kids about ID and there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me. If anyone tries it will lead to their demise.
.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you THE UNABULLY!

   
Quote
But I will feel better knowing that you weren't frightened by me when I am putting you down...


"Of course it should be obvious from the context that the circumstance alluded to was merely that of subjecting him to a personal character attack, Your Honor".

Date: 2012/04/09 04:45:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2012,23:36)
Texas Teach:      
Quote
I know the issue of why they don't do some actual looking for "front-loading" or whatever has been discussed in a general sense before, but has anyone ever really questioned why Behe isn't doing that.  I get that Joe and Gil and Luskin and the Dr Dr don't really have the skills, but shouldn't Behe, or someone like him, be able to get some grant money and make a try?  Sure you could argue that the EAC* would control most agencies, but the DI has funds.  Templeton is giving away grants for all sorts of stuff like the money is burning a hole in their pockets.

Money's never been the problem for ID.  Their problem is, "What possible experiment can I do that will reveal an Intelligent Designer who happens to not exist?"

Everybody who believes in magic has this problem.

"What kind of God would it be whose hitherto strenuous efforts to avoid direct detection could be foiled by some crafty apes?"

It's reminiscent of quantum uncertainty. God is always glimpsed at the periphery of vision; swivel to focus and he turns into a ham sandwich with full backwards causation.

Date: 2012/04/10 07:08:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2012,01:47)
Currently, he's busy supporting Corny and UD by contributing to their meagre threads. I guess the intellectual level over at TSZ was way over his head.

Sadly not. Joey One-Post's back again. Provine mumble mumble thanks for the honesty Will question-begging if YOU had any evidence LOL wow, just wow Stonehenge you have issues obvioulsy we wouldn't be having this discussion step up I never said that ante up blah de frigging blah.



Date: 2012/04/10 15:16:24, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 10 2012,14:39)
Over at his shithole blog, Joe supplies his CV:

 
Quote
"I was an electonics engineer. What we do encompasses electrical engineering and goes beyond.

I was also a short-order cook, a carpenter, a roofer, an auto-mechanic, a plumber, an electrician, flooring-> all kinds of floors, research scientist- I could just keep going- I have done quite a bit."


"research scientist" :D  :D  :D

Jerk of all trades, master of none.

... proof-reader ...

Date: 2012/04/11 08:03:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Something new from the Joemeister:
   
Quote
I get it, you have no idea how science operates and you obviously don’t have a clue wrt extrapolation.
YOU have absolutely no evidence to support YOUR position. YOU can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for it. But good luck wallowing in your ignorance…


That's right - he spelt 'obviously' correctly! :)  

Date: 2012/04/25 04:10:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
it might force a reorganization of the timeline of common descent


I'll say! single-celled eukaryotes -> rabbits -> plants, animals, fungi ... and all those fucking trees will have to go - fossils trump molecules.



Date: 2012/05/02 02:41:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Woodbine @ May 01 2012,22:53)
Bruce David needs to get out more....

   
Quote
Well, another rather obvious one is that while the biological establishment is claiming that “evolution is a fact”, we are in the midst of a genuine Kuhnsian paradigm shift in biology—from the neo-Darwinian synthesis to ID.


Fuck.....I fell off the wagon.

:angry:

.....climbs back on.

Kuhn's Law! Whatever we know is wrong.

1859 or thereabouts - paradigm shift from Designer-implemented lifeforms to gradual modification filtered by environmental survival.

Two thousand and ... something, expect that 'paradigm shift' ... er ... back to where we started. Kuhn's yo-yo.

Date: 2012/05/02 03:15:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
I agree; Joe's run his course and has become boring.


Aye - I don't know why he does not bore himself shitless. He sees far more of his own repetitive, Tourettes-infested gibberish than anyone else. How many times can one prod people to go into some evidential detail on a subject one barely grasps, come back and say OBVIOULSY YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE a few times, before going stark, raving mad? I guess the answer is 0<N<Joe's post count.

Hats off, Joe, the troll's troll, ubertroll.

Date: 2012/05/03 03:43:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ May 02 2012,09:18)
Their 'scientists' are channelling JoeG:

       
Quote

gauger May 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Nick,

All the evolutionary hypotheses concerning the evolution of CPS that I have seen are based on sequence and structural analysis only. No testing.

In fact it would quite interesting to see if the hypothetical fusions and duplications that supposedly formed the first CPS in the first cells can be accomplished by purely undirected processes. A worthy experiment indeed. But until it has been shown that such a process can in fact generate an enzyme capable of channeling unstable intermediates from one active site to the next, these remain hypotheses only.

The problem is that similarity of sequence *alone* does not establish the existence of a plausible evolutionary path.


"purely undirected processes"

So take your genome sequences and x-ray crystallography and shove it. Forget reconstructions of ancestral enzymes, that's design. What you have to do is design a living organism without CPS, toss it is some media, and wait until it evolves CPS. And no frontloading the Kinase domains and other domains CPS is built up of. That isn't a viable organism? Tough shit-better get you some prebiotic soup and wait till multicellular life comes out.

LOL! If it did, you can bet your life Design was at the back of it, 'cos you can't have complexity without it.

And even if you have a plausible evolutionary path doesn't mean it was the actual evolutionary path.

IOW all you have to do is step up and provide some EVIDENCE taht blind, undirected processes can be a designer-mimic.



Date: 2012/05/03 07:51:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Amadan @ May 03 2012,06:12)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 03 2012,12:06)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 03 2012,09:43)
LOL! If it did, you can bet your life Design was at the back of it, 'cos you can't have complexity without it.

And even if you have a plausible evolutionary path doesn't mean it was the actual evolutionary path.

IOW all you have to do is step up and provide some EVIDENCE taht blind, undirected processes can be a designer-mimic.

:O

Taht was scarily realistic!

It just needs "Ya see" and a few "evotards" and . . .  you'd win a bunny.

Ah, this stuff writes itself! I had to ETA "that" to "taht", for added Joeyness.  

I reckon he has some of this stuff on speed-dial - that could account for the frequency of 'obvioulsy', as well as the ease of mimicry.

Date: 2012/05/04 11:17:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ May 03 2012,14:44)
Maybe he thinks "self replication" excludes sexual reproduction?

(It wouldn't be hard to interpret the phrase that way.)

To be rilly rilly fair (why?) I guess a pedant's self-replicator would be a DNA strand stripped of all RNA and enzymes transcribed from a prior copy of that strand and isolated from other cells, which was still capable of replication. Since that never happens, the DNA-protein world contains no examples of a 'true' self-replicator. And given the role of somatic cells, definitely not a multicellular one, sexual or otherwise. You can use that, Joe!

Date: 2012/05/07 15:55:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (George @ May 07 2012,14:19)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 07 2012,10:45)
   
Quote (Amadan @ May 06 2012,19:16)
The solution is to link to any fluffy bunny you can find. If poor little Pinkie above is shy, who are we to interfere?

Greyhound? What greyh . ..  oh, ah, nothing, just, ah, taking it for a walk before dinne . .  for a walk. Yeah.

I just wanted you to know that the links leads to AtBC - wasn't sure if it's meant to.

It was meant to.  As a reminder not to feed the troll.

While we're on (sorry Joe, I know it's supposed to be about you), a big fat Troll Award should go to William J Murray. Barely a thread goes by before another epistemological, ontological, let's-talk-about-me-athon. He's readable, articulate and not over-long ... but he's getting awful samey, and he knows all the right buttons.

Date: 2012/05/11 06:53:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe is Gwumpy!

The Guano Files

   
Quote
- thorton is still upset because I keep exposing his ignorance.

- Umm shalom, evos don’t know how to reason. You chumps are the most clueless sort there is.

I am just here to expose the tard that is evoTARD. And there is plenty of that here.

- Fuck you petrushka- your position has absolutely nothing but spewage for support. BTW ID is still not anti-evolution…

- Only a moron would say that redundancy is a waste.

- Go back to cheerleading, Richie pom-poms  

- And another coward chimes in….

- How can someone be conceived by accident? Did someone’s dick accidently fall into someone’s pussy?

- As I said- on a level playing field I would demolish a piece of shit like you.

- You should be thanking Lizzie for protecting your evotardgasms.        

- But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a clueless jerk…  

Date: 2012/05/13 03:59:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Understood, my bad for not thoroughly reading the OP.


Joe G. Yes, really! Of course, it was directed to WJM, so the world has not in fact tilted on its axis.

(Personal hypocrisy declaration: I too am much less likely to apologise to one of 'them' for point-missing).

A related phenomenon, WJM reckons Joe has got in a few 'zingers'. That what they're calling it these days?



Date: 2012/05/13 05:12:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (NormOlsen @ May 12 2012,23:16)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 12 2012,19:02)
If anyone wants to spin up Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat, he's now posting his nonsense at Corny's blog.   ;)

This is mildly amusing: if you Google
"Strawman soaked in ad hominem"

One of KF's posts on Hunter's blog is the top result.

Well, OK, I guess that's not very surprising ... or amusing.

Stop linking me to porn!

Or ... try googling "The soaked ad hominem is then ignited by snide or incendiary rhetoric, to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere."

No end of paraphrases of that appear, mostly KF-on-UD, but with a few on the pro-evolution side that have adopted variants for funzies.

I wondered how KF managed to type so much so quickly. It's all Post-o-matic. One is led to ... er ... other people with a remarkable similarity of style - eg this, "Dictionary" in the Bajan Underground:

   
Quote
Please, the fallacious abuse of the loaded word “racism” serves only to drag a hot distractive red herring across the track of truth, and to lead it out to a strawman soaked in nasty ad hominem personal attacks; which on being ignited poisons, clouds and chokes the atmosphere with polarising smoke.


Here, boy! A red herring! There ya go ... now follow it to this pile of straw where ... I'll just get me lighter ... Whump!



Date: 2012/05/14 07:30:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Latest nonsense

 
Quote
This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.


Other than the 'rapid' part (how rapid is rapid?), that could have been written in 1865. Darwin thought adaptations arose in response to environmental fluctuations!

Incidentally, it is to Hunter's credit that he appears to allow all comments (though little else about his highly selective viewpoint reflects credit upon him). KF shows up with the usual guff, and BA77 chips in with a shedload more - quite like old times! Then off KF scuttles to UD to pontificate interminably on the comments, untroubled by right of reply from the people he directly quotes.

Date: 2012/05/17 11:34:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Well, back to the science: Bollocks

Quote
How/ why did this alleged RNA World wither and die? Well in all cases of any self-sustained replication of RNAs or with self-replicating RNA ligases, the products did NOT undergo Darwinian evolution. That is the products did what the original did, even if the products contained variations:


Joyce made a self-replicating ribozyme. It did not turn into a badger. Ergo, no RNA World.

 
Quote
Unfortunately ribosomes do not appear to be reducible to matter and energy. I say that because synthesized ribosomes- made up of the same matter and energy as ribosomes in living organisms, do not function. Even if we just synthesize the RNA component the ribosome refuses to function as the ribosome in living organisms.

Why is that so? I say it is due to programming- as in the ribosomes of living organisms are programmed to crank out certain polypeptides. And the program, as with information, is neither matter nor energy.

So the bottom-line is if any RNA World existed it existed in the designer's lab.


Not reducible to matter and energy? What the fuck are they made of then? Ah ... information!

Designer-synthesised ribozymes fail to evolve, therefore ... ribozymes must have been designer-synthesised! Talk about turning a negative into a positive.

Date: 2012/05/23 04:12:49, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quoth Joe:    
Quote
This is all in reference to natural selection, which is a result, basically eliminative and doesn't do anything.

How the fuck can it be all three of those? Elimination is doing something. An eliminative process isn't a result, it produces one. Auditions are eliminative but - bingo! - they produce better orchestras than just giving everyone a go.  He's trying to merge something he heard Provine say with Gil's oddball "throw stuff away" stance, unsuccessfully.

Date: 2012/05/24 02:59:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2012,10:12)
Please! You've all underestimated Joe! He knows where the program is!

     
Quote
It could just reside in the cytoplasm or the cell wall or both.


Or neither Joe, or neither.....

Duh.

The deadpan response from Jerad ...
   
Quote
Joe,

Well, I should think that is a line of inquiry that could be pursued. Have you checked to see if anyone is looking into that? The name of the lab associated with the Discovery Institute escapes me at the moment but have you floated the idea past them? I find that usually the best place to start is first finding out what other people in the field think of your idea. Get some feedback, make some changes if necessary and try and pursue things.

:0|

Date: 2012/05/24 03:08:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2012,10:12)
Please! You've all underestimated Joe! He knows where the program is!

   
Quote
It could just reside in the cytoplasm or the cell wall or both.


Or neither Joe, or neither.....

Duh.

And (a veritable garden of delights, that thread) Joe is unconvinced by the findings of anatomy:

 
Quote
I understand the common descent narrative. It isn’t that I don’t like your case. To me it is as convincing as “the toe bone is connected to the foot bone the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone”, there is no substance behind it.

Date: 2012/05/25 10:51:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 25 2012,08:38)
And I'd like to mention that whatever Louis and I disagree about, it won't stop the beer from flowing next time we meet...

And this highlights the problem with EG, in a nutshell. I have mates whose politics stink, but it does not lead to the entire bleeding world getting involved in what amounts to "so, he was like, and I was like, whatever, but I felt, and she said, and he said, and I'm not buying his books no mo'".

These conversations can be excavated, chewed over by all nations and worked into one heck of a lather. All the other ones - the ones where any given protagonist was generous, funny, likeable, right or whatever - never seen. Like road rage - everyone's a fuckwit through the glass.



Date: 2012/06/05 15:00:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
jerry-has-a-blog-about-me

 
Quote
Hi David-

The 2nd law appears to be sort of vague. But accumulations of genetic accidents leading to the construction of novel protein machinery violates everything we know.


Everything? Joe's Law wins, then. I hadn't realised it was that easy.

Date: 2012/06/17 05:11:32, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Quack @ June 16 2012,06:44)
I have a number of questions I would like to ask of Dr. Jammer.
I don't want to waste time making a number of serious questions before I know that he will respond here. I have doubts.

Weren't you listening? All your questions have all been answered many times by the intellectuals of UD - even the ones you haven't asked yet, that's how far ahead of the game they are. It would be tiresome in the extreme to actually go in and pull them out, or to rephrase them anew for a clearly hostile audience. But it is all in there. Somewhere.

Not our fault you have reading comprehension issues. We have a marvellous, groundbreaking new theory, but there is no point in going through it all again. Reread the posts. All of them.

Date: 2012/06/17 05:31:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ June 16 2012,06:58)
Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.

I usually try and go for a light tone. But what a stupid, arrogant, shit-for-brains fucknut. And good old King-of-the-Saved ba77 chimes in with that slime about objective morality! What does their Book say about bearing false witness, Love Thy Neighbour or Judge-Not? This does deserve some publicity - the thoroughly nasty side of what ought to be a force for good, however much I happen to disbelieve the factual utterances in the Bible.  

Personally, I have never regarded atheism as a license to do what the hell I pleased. And even if it did, I can think of much more fun things to do than killing a bunch of people whose opinions happened to differ from mine.

Date: 2012/06/17 05:39:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
But Thorton raises a hearty chuckle: It's not just you Dr. Liddle. BA77 owes us all a new scroll wheel.

Date: 2012/07/21 06:18:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam

Fruit on the Loom


           
Quote
34.   Joe G Says:
July 20th, 2012 at 10:07 pm

Why the fixation on human chromosome 2? There isn’t any link between the alleged fusion and sharing a common ancestor with chimps.

Even evos admit the alleged fusion is human-lineage specific. But then where are the humans without the fusion? And what about those with that mix with and without?

So to recap- The alleged fusion doesn’t have anything to do with:

1- humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps

2- random mutations

3- natural selection

So what is the point, exactly?


Hee, hee!


ETA: Dang! Can't fix linky. See below.



Date: 2012/07/22 13:04:10, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 22 2012,11:14)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 22 2012,10:00)
   
Quote
But if technology (and the rest of human enterprise) is recovered for intentionality, teleology becomes a truly global rival to evolution.


Can anyone parse this for me?

In that thread, they lament the fact that people think technology has been evolving over centuries. But if they accept that technology is the product of design ...

And omit to notice that no-one but ID advocates gives a shit about lessons from the technological world for biological evolution.

Date: 2012/07/24 16:02:58, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 24 2012,15:24)
Kwok claims that JoeG is atheistoclast and IBIG.

Is there any evidence that this is so?

If one person is both, he is a fucking sight cleverer than either appears to be. Atheistoclast is significantly more intelligent than Joe G, and actually shows a vague grasp of concepts at times. But still more than happy to be laughably wrong, yet unembarrassable.

Date: 2012/07/24 16:40:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Was Behe right?

Persuaded by the presence of the number two and the words 'gene' and 'mutation', PaV argues that a toxin tolerance mutation involving 2 substitutions is just like Behe's CCC.

Earth to PaV: just one of these mutations confers resistance. It doesn't need 'em both, so they can happen independently and recombine or fix serially - in either case, selection has something to get its teeth into - no Edge of Evolution here.

They appear to have done so, repeatedly. 18 species across 4 orders have a specific mutation, 11 of the 18 also have a second. Remarkable convergence, or a very busy God. The 7 species with only the one substitution were asked how they had the temerity to survive anyway, but declined to comment.

Another day, another bad day for understanding your own icons.



Date: 2012/07/26 04:44:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Soapy Sam @ July 24 2012,16:40)
Was Behe right?

Persuaded by the presence of the number two and the words 'gene' and 'mutation', PaV argues that a toxin tolerance mutation involving 2 substitutions is just like Behe's CCC.

Earth to PaV: just one of these mutations confers resistance. It doesn't need 'em both, so they can happen independently and recombine or fix serially - in either case, selection has something to get its teeth into - no Edge of Evolution here.

They appear to have done so, repeatedly. 18 species across 4 orders have a specific mutation, 11 of the 18 also have a second. Remarkable convergence, or a very busy God. The 7 species with only the one substitution were asked how they had the temerity to survive anyway, but declined to comment.

Another day, another bad day for understanding your own icons.

The point continues to be missed/side-stepped in comments.

   
Quote
Four different orders of insects came up with the exact same mutation for resistance.

Where’s the “random variation” part of this?


All but the preserved fraction dead, perhaps?

Then a leap from malarial parasites to elephants, because it would take 2 million years for 2 specific amino acids to change in a protein. (wrong - *cough* recombination! *cough*)

   
Quote
One wonders why Darwinists don’t give up.

_

[Well, it's because they try and fool themselves and everyone else by saying that these odds are only for "specific" amino acid changes. But the probability of some kind of mutation is quite high in each generation---the neutral drift approach. But, we can see here, that "specific" amino acid changes are required. Neutral drift can't help us out.


But only one, you goddamned moron! Only one! So we don't need drift.  

   
Quote
Oh, alas and alack, another day, and another bad day for Darwinism!


Yeah, I know, right? Those crazy Darwinists don't know shit.

Date: 2012/07/27 03:10:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 26 2012,15:26)
PaV thinks PaV is oh-so-clever:
   
Quote
Tell me Timothy, how would you be able to distinguish a radically high mutation rate, taking place out of nowhere, and happening in the twinkle of geological time, from the intervention of an intelligent agent?


Well duh. It's amazing how they think that simply framing a question "radically high" "out of nowhere" "twinkle of geological time" is evidence enough for an intelligent agent.

Well, it's certainly all they actually need.

So, PaV, tell me something *anything* about this "intelligent agent" you claim did it. And why, PaV, why is this "intelligent agent" fiddling about with our DNA anyway?

And PaV, that's exactly the problem. If you can't tell the difference between X and "an intelligent agent" then what is "an intelligent agent" really adding?

Given that you couldn't even distinguish one mutation from the action of an intelligent agent - nor even a mutation-that didn't-happen from the action of an intelligent agent in preventing it - then I guess it must be intelligent agents all the way down. ID wins. PaV is doing a fine job of getting on my wick at the moment!

Date: 2012/07/27 03:26:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Maus - he's always good for a laugh too, innee? (sorry, no time for fiddling with long urls - it's the luskin/zimmer thread linked above). Have a good laugh at Joe's version of Occam's Razor on the way to the pudding.  

   
Quote
Joe: “But anyway I would say that one common design- or a design based on one standard- is more parsimonious than millions of just-so magical mystery mutations.”

Evolution is precisely ‘millions of just-so magical mystery mutations’. Take up HGT and Retrovirii before disagreeing too strongly.

timothya: “… is evidence that supports common descent.”

Flag thrown for Affirming the Consequent. You have two choices of Not Even Thinking available here. You can take Affirming the Consequent in that the existence of the consequent proves the antecedent. Or you can either take Raven’s Paradox and state that the failure to find the consequent proves that this proves that the antecedent that doesn’t exist proves the consequent that doesn’t either. Which is simply Affirming the Counterfactual Consequent. Both are mouth-breathing lackwit garbage that are necessary for stating ‘evidence of [insert random boggled nonsense here] proves unprovable thing’ as a portion of your metaphysical narcissism.

Please do not do this.


The Darwinist hangs his head, beaten by sheer intellect. "...evidence that supports ID" is exempted from this pseudo-intellectual asswipery by special dispensation, presumably.

Date: 2012/07/27 04:00:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Soapy Sam @ July 26 2012,04:44)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ July 24 2012,16:40)
Was Behe right?

Persuaded by the presence of the number two and the words 'gene' and 'mutation', PaV argues that a toxin tolerance mutation involving 2 substitutions is just like Behe's CCC.

Earth to PaV: just one of these mutations confers resistance. It doesn't need 'em both, so they can happen independently and recombine or fix serially - in either case, selection has something to get its teeth into - no Edge of Evolution here.

They appear to have done so, repeatedly. 18 species across 4 orders have a specific mutation, 11 of the 18 also have a second. Remarkable convergence, or a very busy God. The 7 species with only the one substitution were asked how they had the temerity to survive anyway, but declined to comment.

Another day, another bad day for understanding your own icons.

The point continues to be missed/side-stepped in comments.

    [...]

Then a leap from malarial parasites to elephants ...


PaV explains why he brought up elephants:

Quote
I used the worst case scenario simply to highlight the problems for Darwinism. I’ll let you fill in the rest.


Darwinism is in shreds because a particular species with a long generation time would take too long to achieve a particular pair of mutations that haven't been observed in that species? I'm devastated. Given that evolution is postulated to proceed solely by the most difficult paths available to it - the worst case scenario is very much the rule, in nature, as one can demonstrate by always picking it - it is indeed a bad day for Darwinism.

Date: 2012/07/28 10:56:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Zachriel @ July 28 2012,09:02)
Joe G congratulates Cornelius Hunter for shutting down comments.

   
Quote
Joe G: It's about time Dr Hunter. You can write all you want and you do NOT need the comments of evoTARDs to make your posts. They add nothing. They know nothing. And they just pollute all they touch.

There are plenty of blogs that do not allow comments so you are not the only one. When you want comments just post on Uncommon Descent and you will get them without any evoTARDgasms, which also means without any retaliations from your supporters. Perhaps a real discussion will break out.

If you ever do open up comments I again I will volunteer to be a moderator- I will never use another bad word on your blog because I will just moderate all evoTARD posts that do not conform to a civil discourse. IOW troy and thorton will not be posting very much as they do not know what being civil is and they are too stupid for any discourse.

But anyway, kudos for stepping up and doing the right thing.

Yes, well done Joe, you've shit in another sandbox. This time, instead of getting EXPELLED!!!, you managed to silence all discussion. A win either way for your method of doing science. Clap, clap and ... erm ... clap.

To the Loom!

Date: 2012/07/28 11:19:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....lli....

(Build your own damn tidy link!  :D)

Snort! Comment 28 ... ahahahaha ... my sides ...

Joe:
   
Quote
And no, Paul, we do not have the same body plan as other primates. We are upright bipeds, they are not.




Date: 2012/07/28 12:13:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 28 2012,11:52)
I can't understand why Hunter has chosen to close comments rather than simply suspending or banning the offender. He must know that Joe will be back as soon as comments are allowed.

I guess, to him, Joe isn't an 'offender'. I've seen the same elsewhere - people on the same 'side' as Joe tend to regard him as a lovable ragamuffin who talks much common sense. And a case could be made that Joe was not the sole cause of the thread's degeneration.

Date: 2012/07/29 06:48:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
linktoobigandicantbearsedshrinkingithttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dennis-venema-begs-the-question-and-warns-the-church-that-it-must-come-to-terms-with-human
-chimp-common-ancestry/#comment-428704

Joe:
                     
Quote
Assuming the very thing that needs to be tested in an old evolutionary ploy. And one that seems to be fooling evolutionists into thinking their position is being tested.


Hypothesis-testing fools ALL scientists into thinking a hypothesis is being tested! The answer is not determined by the question asked - "if you assume common descent, you'll automatically find it"!  

Design, meanwhile - no assumptions necessary. It's just true.



Date: 2012/07/29 07:59:22, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote

14
JoeJuly 29, 2012 at 6:21 am

Hey fartax- What happened, did your fat mouth spew flatulence again?

You must be the sock puppet of a sock puppet that was beanned from UD and now has reappeared. My bet is that you are from California…

15
JoeJuly 29, 2012 at 6:22 am

Also it appears that I have fixed Dr Hunter’s blog- no more evoTARD white trash- like you and your twin thorton- can mess with it.

16
JoeJuly 29, 2012 at 6:29 am

Herv! Clean-up on aisle 13- fartax messed itself again. Better bring the hazmat suits…



Moderators remain in 'standby' mode. As they have been since 2011. Unless you think Jupiter can exist/not-exist in the same sense - or share a 'position' with someone who does.

And not one pro-IDer voices the opinion that this guy might be counterproductive to their cause.

Final warning. Really, final final warning. I'm going to count to three. One ... two ... two and an half ... two and three-quarters...

Date: 2012/07/29 17:09:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 29 2012,10:49)

Hey, Soapy Sam, a shiny link for you!


Thanks Kattarina! Some titles lately are the kf-posts of the URL world.  

UD can't ban Joe. If they do, they are giving in to calls from their opponents. And they are removing one of their foremost advocates.

It's a fun watch. A desire for fairness in moderation leads me to say 'go on, ban 'im!'. But don't, and I can chortle at the intellectual asymmetry - and the ongoing antics of Dancin' Joe. But when will I ever get any work done?

Date: 2012/07/29 17:28:59, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 29 2012,16:58)
Sal:
       
Quote
I’m almost 100% certain humans are as recent as the Genealogy of Christ in Luke Chapter 3 suggests. This can be arrived at by purely scientific means.

Sure, Sal, sure.

Sal:    
Quote
I find it astonishing that Darwinists lump IDists and creationists together.


Maybe if you could put a cigarette paper between their arguments ... meantime, I find it astonishing that he continues to label the opponents of ID/Creationism "Darwinists".

Date: 2012/07/31 06:22:16, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
   
Quote (Seversky @ July 29 2012,14:21)


We could almost write it ourselves ...


KF's view on the matter ... perhaps

Onlookers, for record, note what we are up against. The enemies of reason wish to draw a distractive red herring across the path of truth leading away to a straw man soaked in oil of ad hominem. Joe consistently demands from the metaphysically blinded proof. And when exposed by pure reason in their inability to provide said proof, the enemies of reason demand a sacrificial lamb be tossed across the barricades, by whining complaints of tone. This is rich gravy indeed, from the inhabitants of the fever swamp - from which emerges the occasional mosquito to prod our hides.

We must stand fast. Joe is welcome in this house. He dances on the parapet, waggling his bare rear end at the besieging armies. And how they shake their fists in fury!

Date: 2012/08/01 01:50:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2012,01:34)
KF on Christina Shellska's Discovering the Discovery Institute:          
Quote
This is an ideological hit piece in the guise of research. An arts student will not normally be in a position to evaluate a technical scientific case on a controversial matter, even if she has some phil and history of sci. Communication strategies have little or nothing to do with it.

KF

A lawyer, however ... ?

Date: 2012/08/01 01:58:10, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 01 2012,01:50)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2012,01:34)
KF on Christina Shellska's Discovering the Discovery Institute:            
Quote
This is an ideological hit piece in the guise of research. An arts student will not normally be in a position to evaluate a technical scientific case on a controversial matter, even if she has some phil and history of sci. Communication strategies have little or nothing to do with it.

KF

A lawyer, however ... ?

Ooh, ooh, found a better one!

KF

 
Quote
PS: My son just advised me to be plain. Ms Shellska, you don’t have the relevant technical qualifications (much less facts) to speak with credibility on this matter. Please, think again.


Anyone know where I can get a second-hand irony meter?

Date: 2012/08/01 08:32:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Awwww... Back at Sandwalk.

 
Quote
Geez larry, all you have to do to silence us is actually step up and present positive evidence for blind and undirected chemical processes actually constructing new multi-protein machinery. But you are such a sad little man that you can't even do that.

Ya see Larry, you can spew insults all you want but being a little faggot yourself, your insults don't carry any weight- of course you carry a lot a of weight but that is another story.

Have a good day.

BTW if you want to see a decrease in evoTARDs just tell them to find me and insult me to my face. Go NRA!

Date: 2012/08/02 04:34:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
An engineer speaks
       
Quote
Given our understanding of human-designed class hierarchies, it is possible to make precise predictions about the tree of life. For example, since intelligent designers make frequent use of multiple inheritance (horizontal gene transfers in biology), we can predict that the tree of life is not necessarily nested.

And by crikey, it isn't, not everywhere! An ID prediction fulfilled.
 
Quote

It’s funny watching evolutionists attempt to explain horizontal gene transfers with nonsense like convergent evolution.

It's funny watching someone do something you have never, ever seen them do?

Date: 2012/08/02 05:23:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
ba77 suggests research!

   
Quote
For a twist on this experiment that would really drive Darwinists bonkers, they could artificially darken or lighten some moths and see if their behavior adjusts accordingly. It would certainly raise some interesting issues if they did adjust their behavior, as well as throwing another monkey wrench into the Darwinian Icon of peppered moths

So do it! Do the fucking experiment! Then discuss what interesting issues arose from it when you actually got some results, rather than speculating on how mad Darwinists would be if the result happened to be X!

Darwinsts would be soooooo mad if a bacterium with a lathe-turned metal genome were discovered! (Or maybe ... they would simply be curious, if initially skeptical).

Date: 2012/08/04 05:54:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
sergiomendes. I like him.

Date: 2012/08/04 06:05:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 03 2012,12:34)
Testable ID prediction sighted:

   
Quote
Maybe it’s chemicals that control this putative ‘control region’, such as factory emissions, or tree bark chemicals themselves. This is the more likely explanation of “industrial melanization.” So, what, then, becomes of this “icon of evolution.”


http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-429212

ETA: I do have to bless his pointy little head for putting his faith in ID to the test. I fully expect him to accept Darwinism when the heritable change is identified.

His attack on the inheritance of melanism is a classic of quote mining. Something that could be a textbook case in a course on social pathology.

PPS:

WD400 has corrected PaV. I'm sure we'll be hearing a thank you any moment now.

Maus does some science:

 
Quote
to belabor the obvious, predators are lazy. And this can be verified by spending an afternoon watching any watering hole on the serengeti.

Date: 2012/08/04 06:51:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Nasty Man

ForJah testifies how he came to conclude the evidence was against evolutionary theory. It's all down to Shouty People.

   
Quote
Dr.Moran’s nasty behavior influenced me to choose ID as the better option because he doesn’t show himself to be a kind or caring person. The ID community has rarely uses ad hominem attacks [...]

Date: 2012/08/05 05:19:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 05 2012,01:55)
Tell you what joey [...]

Lighten up!

Date: 2012/08/05 15:03:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quoth Joe "Nothing says evos are cowardly little faggot liars more than these types of forums and here is petrushka pushing for one more."

Such cowards that they take IDs at Uncommon Descent and attempt to discuss the issues there? Of course, if they do, they get whined at for being socks, or booted off because of some dumbfuck question about Jupiter.

Interesting that Joe has only done a few drivebys at Sandwalk. Not that I'm calling for a termite infestation. If he shows, I said nothin'!

Date: 2012/08/06 17:13:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2012,13:36)
   
Quote

As far as I can tell; genetic entropy is used by creationists to support a very young Earth.  If mutations are bad (and we all know that every single mutation is always bad, right?)...


Someone needs to get the word out to PaV:

   
Quote
So, what we see is either completely non-neo-Darwinian in character, or, by default, it is a simple SNP, which, given a large population size can be arrived at fairly quickly...


http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-429396

Followed up by Nick.

PaV      
Quote
Let’s point out that Darwinists insisted that “junk-DNA” had no function and was a confirmation of their theory. ID said that didn’t make much sense. Who turned out to be right?


Fuck me. Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me.

I have actually argued this with PaV, under heavy cover. Who actually said that junk DNA was a prediction of Darwinism? He asn't able to say. It was a prediction of Ohno, based upon genome size and mutational load, which appears to have been borne out, but could conceivably be overturned by new data. But those Alu scars? Not a fucking chance.

The function discovered so far pushes figures from what - 95% to 94.something? Big deal. Keep it up, Mr another-bad-day-for-darwinism! Like saying a couple of drops of rain means the Sahara isn't a desert after all. And whatever the outcome, Darwin don't give a shit. We already have organisms with no junk, and no-one bats an eyelid.

Date: 2012/08/07 04:46:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 06 2012,18:11)
Also, where did ID say junk DNA had a function.  The earliest mention that I can find of ID saying anything about junk DNA having a function is Behe in 1996.

Of course, Gould had been saying that since 1978.


Not so sure - see 'spandrels' and the 'adaptationist program' - but certainly those Darwinist opponents of Ohno, and later Doolittle and Sapienza, took a fair while to swallow the notions that most DNA in larger genomes could not be functional, and that DNA that acts purely on its own account can inflate genomes by that mechanism.

Darwinists resisted junk, and some still do.

The fuss died down, and despite lots of interesting things that are being discovered about the role of those elements in evolution, it still looks like raindrops in the Sahara. [PaV scans sky, a tiny cloud momentarily blocking the sun]. Any minute now, it's going to rain. Any minute .... better get inside, it's going to be a deluge ... no, I mean it, it's gonna absolutely ... any minute now...

Date: 2012/08/14 03:12:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05)
StephenB:
     
Quote
This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not.


Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935

So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time?

Oh yeah, Theocracy.

Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram.



Date: 2012/08/14 14:33:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 14 2012,09:42)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,13:09)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)
         
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05)
StephenB:
           
Quote
This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not.


Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935

So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time?

Oh yeah, Theocracy.

Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram.

define 'sandcastle'

What if it was built by ants?

It wasn't. Ants aren't surprising enough. Next!

Date: 2012/08/14 20:16:41, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2012,16:32)
Oh Yeah?  Well what if they're  frozen, what then?

Joe G Jr....

Oi! Joe G senior, if you please.

If ants are frozen, it takes away the element of surprise. Anyway, they don't have eyebrows, so they can't measure entropy.

When the Big Bang occurred, surprise was at a maximum. If anyone had been around, they would have been fucking surprised. Surprise in the universe has been steadily decreasing since then, by being turned into entropy. I also have a theory about fish.

Date: 2012/08/17 11:08:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2012,10:23)
             
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 17 2012,10:12)
I want to save this comment by David W. Gibson because it succinctly summarizes the flaws in Upright BiPed's argument and is therefore likely to disappear:
               
Quote
               
Quote
After all, you’ve already stated that I have “fled” a conversation, leaving that conversation “unfinished”. I would, of course, take immediate issue with that particular positioning statement, given that I was one person defending my argument against 8-12 opponents, non-stop for a period of 130+ days (surmounting well over 1100 comments in the process), while not a single person there actually demonstrated that any of the material observations I had made were false.

And there it is, right?

Well, not exactly. I have tried to follow some of that conversation (certainly I haven’t read every post by everyone), and as far as I can tell nobody has any problems with any of the material observations you have made at all. The complaint is instead that you have been asuming the consequent.

As a vastly simplified example, consider the following argument:
1) All dogs have four legs (material observation)
2) This object has four legs (material observation)
3) Therefore, this object is a dog! (conclusion)

As far as I can see, people can legitimately dispute the logic of this conclusion without the slightest question of a single material observation.

As I read it, this compliant was made repeatedly, by many people, who presented their case very clearly. “Answering” them by (once again) defending the material observations is missing the point.

Probably the clearest, most direct refutation yet.

On the less-philosophical side, I ... I mean, someone I know very well .. spent a while in the TSZ thread discussing a means by which the apparent 'semiosis' in the code could arise, in principle (because the problem is only an in principle problem with the origin of semiotic states, right?). UB blinked uncomprehendingly a few times, or, when he said anything at all, came back with the same rejoinder ... you can't generate a protein synthesis system without protein - unless you actually demonstrate that you can.

That is, point to a specific in-practice modern system to deflect an in-principle solution to an in-principle problem.

It is likely that you cannot actually perform synthesis of long peptides enzymatically. You have to do it with nucleic acids, otherwise the protein that is joining up the amino acids will not be able to prevent the peptide it is synthesising from interacting with itself, and an unholy mess ensuing. So all that is needed is to kick-start the 'code' is RNA-catalysed peptide synthesis, of an almost certainly non-catalytic, and initially monotonous, peptide product. The rest is easy. In principle.



Date: 2012/08/20 07:29:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe, Joe, Joe ... sigh      
Quote
Does translation follow any known rules of chemistry? There isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it represents- you do realize that, petrushka?

Yes, Joe. Chemistry plays no part in the translation system. None. Little elves look it all up in a big book.

Date: 2012/08/21 02:46:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 20 2012,13:03)
   
Quote (Joe @ August 20 2012, 6:39 am)
Except the ToE doesn’t explain junk DNA- ya see natural selection was supposed to be a designer mimic, not a design screw-up.


Link

So junk DNA is explained by deliberate Design because of redundancy, cryptic function or some such. But it can't be produced by a ... ummm ... 'designer mimic', because it is evidence of shit designer-mimicry? Got it.

Date: 2012/08/21 06:50:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,21:55)
Oshit-

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

Link

Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

'tembew'

 
Quote
Neither science nor simple reasoning can convince evolutionists. I doubt their minds will ever change. We need to reach the children and teach them how to think so that this failure of a theory can be gotten rid of.

Just a little sinister - reach the children and teach them how to think???

eta: Later That Same Evening:
Quote
The same way I think students should be taught how to think with evolution (so they can understand where scientists who accept it have gone wrong and improve on that).




Date: 2012/08/22 05:36:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 22 2012,00:19)
UpRight:        
Quote
Kinvadren,

I hope you’ll consider hanging around and becoming more aquainted with ID’s discipline with regard to claims and evidence.
Yes, do.

Ask KF about Weasel and latching.

Link

Kinvadren (link above)

     
Quote
When you guys ran through that series of user banning about logical fallacies in arguments considering the moon as existing or not existing I laughed so hard as it played out. It was hilarious to watch! Maybe over the top. But still very funny and classic!


I'd love to ask him about this paragraph, which sits rather oddly within his longer comment. However, I'm banned (I was never even canvassed for my opinion on the moon!). So I'll ask rhetorical questions here instead. Why was it hilarious? I found it hilarious too, but I suspect for different reasons. Was it because you loved seeing people who know something of the field within which ID wishes to operate being frog-marched out the door en masse? ID wants to be taken seriously as science, but refuses to debate on the science, unless it chooses the venue, packs the room and escorts all but a handful of critics from the premises. Way to be taken seriously!

Date: 2012/08/22 05:55:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
hey, where you all going? Come back here and eat your liver...

mphillips may have backed away slowly, fumbling for the door-handle, in the face of the usual KF (1-25) -> F/N-fest. KF declares himself, once again, the victor. Cock, a-doodle, and doo.

Date: 2012/08/22 08:40:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 22 2012,08:04)
Damn. I posted above without even realizing I was named in a new thread title.

Suffice to say that if I were mphillips I would not have to guess about whether I had been banned.

Suffice to say that UD has the ability, as do all forums, to check IP addresses and see if I am posting under two or more names.

Suffice to say that regardless of Mr Focus' status as a moderator, there's a long history of people disappearing after his warnings. If nothing else he is a harbinger.

One does wonder what his repeated threats of 'stronger measures' mean, if not some kind of moderation? Obviously, he doesn't mean Mr Leathers, even if we say that for the yuks.

Date: 2012/08/22 11:39:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 22 2012,09:35)
Quote
Joetard:

And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.


linky

I still want to know how many calories are in an ounce of information.

Does chocolate information have more calories than vanilla info?

I'd like to know how the cake-information knows to make molecules of me if I eat it and dog-info if I drop it on the floor.

Date: 2012/08/22 11:46:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 22 2012,11:13)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 22 2012,06:40)
One does wonder what his repeated threats of 'stronger measures' mean, if not some kind of moderation? Obviously, he doesn't mean Mr Leathers, even if we say that for the yuks.

He means this:
     
Quote
PS: Sal, I appreciate your point, however I must note that the same Dr Liddle has been associated with enabling behaviour for some very vile hate sites that have indulged outing, target-painting, slander and a lot more; for years. I have called on her to clean up what is going on at her own site, where there is slander. (And FYI, in British law jurisdictions, responsibilities under tort are a lot stricter than in the US, where some appallingly bad court decisions have eaten the heart out of protection against defamation, hence much of that “average” behaviour on the Internet. If she does not clean up her act, she is inviting serious actions. That, FYI Dr Liddle et al, is a caution about a vulnerability you are cultivating, not a threat.)

Please do this, Gord.  Please, please, please.

My late father-in-law was a law professor.  In his opinion, three verdicts should be available in a civil suit:
1.  Finding for the plaintiff.
2.  Finding for the defendant.
3.  Get the fuck out of my court.

Slander at TSZ? Why, that enabling behaviour is nicely documented in Guano, over half of it straight from the horse's ass mouth of UD-poltroon Joe G!

Date: 2012/08/23 04:36:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Aug. 22 2012,15:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2012,15:09)
Would someone care to point out to sanctimonious prick KF that Joe (who has his 6!) has posted pictures of ladies genitalia here, on TSZ and his own blog. And ask him why he and Joe are 6-watching buds.

       
Quote (REC @ Aug. 22 2012,14:27)
KF doesn't get the "so long as you don’t link to porn" on TSZ reference to Joe's 'tunie' link, and has this to say:

<snip>

I just can't get my head around the KF/Joe bond.  


Fnarrr fnarrr.

Joe is KF's biology expert. A similarly odd relationship was notable with William J Murray and Joe at TSZ. Being on the the same side is seemingly more important than being anything else.

Date: 2012/08/23 07:21:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 23 2012,04:36)
       
Quote (Freddie @ Aug. 22 2012,15:46)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2012,15:09)
Would someone care to point out to sanctimonious prick KF that Joe (who has his 6!) has posted pictures of ladies genitalia here, on TSZ and his own blog. And ask him why he and Joe are 6-watching buds.

                 
Quote (REC @ Aug. 22 2012,14:27)
KF doesn't get the "so long as you don’t link to porn" on TSZ reference to Joe's 'tunie' link, and has this to say:

<snip>

I just can't get my head around the KF/Joe bond.  


Fnarrr fnarrr.

Joe is KF's biology expert. A similarly odd relationship was notable with William J Murray and Joe at TSZ. Being on the the same side is seemingly more important than being anything else.

Talking of WJM, a fine piece of selective blindness:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-430853

       
Quote
I’ve come to realize that many people suffer from a kind of theism/religion derangement syndrome, much like Bush or Palin derangement syndrome, and are fundamentally incapable of reasonable conversation/debate when it comes to those subjects. For some, like Dr. Liddle at SZ, it appears only as a kind of short-circuited logic and a disruption in otherwise good reasoning skills; for most, though, the derangement goes further into a kind of hateful madness where any behavior against such beliefs is justified, no matter how uncivil or extreme.


I'm not sure that "Bush/Palin derangement syndrome" has been formally classified...! Nor can I tell whether WJM is referring to everybody, or just atheists - but I'm reading it as "present company excepted, of course". He has Walked Among Them, and can confirm that they are, indeed, savages.

Date: 2012/08/23 08:57:19, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Atheism and sexual deviancy

Huh! It's about adultery. When was that branded deviant? Meantime, UD's ad-popup is inviting me to meet singles in my area ... I'm married, dammit! But they sure look ... get behind me, Satan!



Date: 2012/08/23 10:27:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
KF wrote:
Quote
PPS: I think some of us need to beware of getting caught up in the Stockholm syndrome


"Some of us" = Sal Cordova, I suspect. Come back to the light.



Date: 2012/08/24 01:27:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Aug. 23 2012,16:14)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 23 2012,15:05)
Barry Arrington continues his quest to push inconvenient questions off the first page. He has started what is at least the third thread at UD dealing with Upright Biped's semionic theory.

So he can start the whole thing over as if the links to TSZ don't exist, no one ever asked UB how his theory supports ID, whether he has evidence that the genetic code existed in its current form in the first replicator, or what the existence of red plastic balls has to do with evolution.

I predict that if anyone brings this up or posts links to the threads UB ran away from, they will conveniently stop posting after being warned of more serious forms of correction.

"Having finished typing his rather grandiose OP, Barry sensed a nagging feeling that something was wrong ..."
     
Quote
I take the following from an excellent comment UP made in a prior post.  UP lays out his argument step by step, precept by precept.  Then he arrives at a conclusion.  In order for his argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises.  In order for his argument to be sound, each of the premises must be true.

Now here is the challenge to our Darwinist friends.  If you disagree with UP’s conclusion, please demonstrate how his argument is either invalid (as a matter of logic the conclusion does not follow from the premises) or unsound (one or more of the premises are false).  Good luck (you’re going to need it).

Without further ado, here is UP’s argument:

Is he fucking serious? He asks the "Darwinists" to dissect "UP"'s theory in a thread to which most of them can't comment? Meantime they have extensively dissected the logic of the argument, and the relevance of said logic to chemistry, over at TSZ. Presumably, KF is shortly going to say "chirp chirp chirp".

I give UB some credit for discussing over there, even if it made not a dent in his certainties, but Barry ... you're a fucking buffoon.

Date: 2012/08/24 01:59:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe-ho-ho

 
Quote
synthesized ribosomes do not function and if they were reducible to matter and energy they would


Joe says this a lot. How do you know if you've synthesised a ribosome if it doesn't function, dummy?

My banana-and-cocktail-stick computers don't function and if computers were reducible to matter and energy they would.

Date: 2012/08/24 02:54:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
At last! KF has finally agreed that it was an error to confuse petrushka and mphillips, and that the comment about linking to porn and not overloading the servers was not petrushka either.

He's also agreed that the latter comment was tongue-in-cheek, a typically British piss-take rather than the hate crime he first thought. And he has followed the 'tunie' links and realised what a hateful figure Joe is to have on his side, and has reprimanded him accordingly.

AND he has agreed that mphillips made an entirely valid point regarding 'islands of function' and his (KF's) apparent belief that he has a map of protein function by deduction from the map of English words.

Oh, hang on ... all I'm getting is chirp, chirp, chirp.

Date: 2012/08/24 06:02:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
But I guess KF has more on his mind, since he appears to consider it genuinely plausible that there are people here or at TSZ who would shoot him for his views.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/religio....-431018

     
Quote
And, pardon, that is before I touch on your attempt to push me into the same immoral boat as those who have set out to slander me over at TSZ. (And remember you are here dealing with someone who has to deal with hate sites and clearly unhinged denizens thereof who — as the recent shooting at FRC shows, if that was necessary — credibly pose threats.)

Date: 2012/08/24 10:33:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 24 2012,09:34)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2012,20:46)
Of all the cowards, Joe is the biggest.

He's also the biggest ass kisser

           
Quote
JoeTard:  Great job Barry and especially Upright Biped. Now we have the septic zonites sounding off with nonsense, special pleading and equivocation


If JoeTard sucked Arrington's dick any harder he'd turn the fat bastard inside out.


Hee hee! So people who know about physics and chemistry are being nonsensical and ... er ... equivocational, while those who appear to know next to fuck all are patting UB on the back with Shannon this and entropy that ...

Write it up, UB! Or get Joe to do it for you, he seems a bright sort. Then submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Then sit back and see what the reviewers say. They'll probably offer nonsense, special pleading and equivocation too. They might also mention physics and chemistry, and not confuse the usages of entropy

 
Quote
So the actual configurational entropy is far higher than the shannon entropy we usually use to estimate the information content in DNA.


What are you doing, Sal? Show your fucking working! You've had a good chat with Mike it's-about-energy Elzinga, then you start going all hand-wavy probabilistic on our asses about positional configurations! The code arose in a prebiotic soup? Try again!

Date: 2012/08/24 14:59:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 24 2012,14:47)
I don't doubt he talked to someone. What's missing is what the guy agreed to.

Hell, many of us agreed to the drivel he wrote. What's there to disagree with?

He contradicts decades of ID dogma regarding the physicality of information. It seems to me that more than one of us were shown Mr. Leathers as a result of asserting that information always has a physical manifestation.

So if he wants to open that Pandora's box, let him. I'm kind of surprised, though, that no one at UD noticed.

But when he and gpuccio imply that the extant genetic code was present at first life and that replicators cannot exist with anything simpler, they are just blowing it out their asses.

Suddenly it goes from pointless exercises in abstract logic to just making stuff up.

It doesn't even say anything. "I agree with everything you say, and it's an example of the arbitrariness ... " of? Things being arbitrary? Cactuses? Codon assignments are trivially arbitrary. Things can be 'arbitrary' in evolution. It (whatever it is) merely needs passing on to the next generation, with or without modification.

I'd be fractionally more impressed if he had a pet molecular biologist. What do physicists really know about biochem?

BA77, meanwhile, has noticeably not been popping up telling him that information is its own special 'thing', separate to physics - a contradiction that struck me last year with this.

Date: 2012/08/24 16:36:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2012,16:22)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 24 2012,13:59)
I'd be fractionally more impressed if he had a pet molecular biologist. What do physicists really know about biochem?

Organic molecules are made from atoms, which are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the later two are made of up quarks and down quarks. What more do they need to know?  :p

... nope, I guess that covers everything!

Date: 2012/08/25 03:53:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 24 2012,18:22)
Barry has baited another yes/no bannation trap. Has someone already tripped the wire?

I see several of Barry's allies have disappointed him in their answers.

But wait ...

Captain Objective-Morality

WJM:
   
Quote
Materialists, start your equivocation engines!


Smug professionally-equivocating libertarian free-willers, give us a clue as to how we can reliably determine the truth or falsehood of purported communications from Objective Morality HQ re: What We Should Abhor!

Date: 2012/08/25 14:30:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
This is what Joe reckons:
       
Quote
The sad part is neither Toronto nor any other septic zone regular can use abduction nor induction to infer materialism.

To infer materialism they need to employ full-blown bald declarations. But at least they have themselves convinced that their “methodology” works.

A posting itself constructed entirely from bald declarations. Well done, Joemeister, nice piece of irony. There are some cookies in the jar.

KF reckons, during a mild rebuke on the tone of that last:
       
Quote
You are a valuable and effective commenter at UD

And so he is. So he is.

Pricelessly, KF's deprecates Joe's use of "septic zone" because it justifies the excesses of those comfortable in "swamp mud". Pole-vaulted straight over the moral high ground there, KF!

Date: 2012/08/26 02:25:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Whatever Maus may be (impenetrable? self-important? several parts full of shit to several parts bang-on?) I wouldn't class him as a coward.

Has Barry bought UD off Dembski, then? Curiouser and curiouser.

Dissent will become more and more Uncommon. Arf! Arf!

Date: 2012/08/26 02:46:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
This is the full-of-shit version of Maus:

     
Quote
@Blue_Savannah

   Weren’t the turks just demonstrating ‘survival of the fittest’?

Maus: Yes and no. The hypothetical as given is predicated on the ‘fun’ of it. Survival in general and morality can intersect but need not.


That's No and No, you berk! The raw fact of some of the fully-grown adults of a species circumstantially killing the not-yet-grown young of a species - with guns, yet! - fulfils absolutely none of the criteria for Natural Selection. Learn some goddamned biology.

[eta ... OK, 'full of shit' was maybe a little strong! On this occasion. I'm sure he gives a damn what I think. :p ]



Date: 2012/08/26 18:41:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 26 2012,17:51)
Update from Sal:
 
Quote


 
Quote
   KairosFocus:

   Sal, ban away. No skin off my nose


You are hereby banned from any threads that I author at THZ. If you show up, I’ll have to show you the door.

Sal

Where's THZ? The Heptical Zone?

Date: 2012/08/27 03:43:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Aug. 26 2012,22:18)
 
Quote

Barry Arrington
Dr. Torley @ 36. The mental contortions to which some people will resort to avoid the conclusions compelled by their own premises is nothing short of astonishing.

CentralScrutinizer Barry @37,
Could you unpack you statement please?
What particular conclusion is Mark avoiding?
What contortions is he employing?
Thanks


@36 and @37 in a thread that now only has 25 comments. THREAD BROKEN!!!!!

And Barry declares himself victor:
   
Quote
UPDATE: This post has been up three days now.  Only one materialist has had the courage to answer the questions.  There have been several attempts to obfuscate, confuse and change the subject, all of which, as promised, have been ruthlessly deleted.  Come on materialists.  You’re letting your side down.  Have the courage to come in here and defend your views.


What a hosepiece. Debt collection business not intellectually and morally satisfying Barry? Calling the last opponent on your blog a "gutless coward" after you remove his posts makes you feel more manly? Isn't that insult in violation of your own standards? Seems others were banned for less, you arrogant prick.

Materialists - take a sock or put a sock in it! So you register with UD, post your response to Bazzer's questions and defend it, and even if you get through the primary filter you will be deemed not worthy of debating, banned and posts deleted. Yeah, that sounds like a fun use of an hour or two of my time, thanks, Baz!

Date: 2012/08/27 07:31:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
... of course, all these shenanigans are likely to have significantly upped the site-meter over at UD. So maybe BA and KF are not so daft after all ...

Date: 2012/08/27 11:08:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 27 2012,08:16)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 27 2012,07:31)
... of course, all these shenanigans are likely to have significantly upped the site-meter over at UD. So maybe BA and KF are not so daft after all ...

Hasn't been bad for traffic at TSZ either. But I find it painful to envision Barry or KF as parents or teachers. Can you imagine Barry pulling his loyalty tests on a class of third graders?

I had a college professor do something like that the first week of class. I naively responded. The rest of the class looked on bug eyed while I was excoriated.

LOL! I get the same at work over so-called 'performance management'. "Tell us what you think" say the managers. So the integrity-monkey on my back makes me start talking. And talking. And ... Notes are taken. Colleagues face-palm. "Nooooo. You do NOT say what you think. You say you think what they want you to think".

Date: 2012/08/27 11:21:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 27 2012,00:01)
Maus has been disappeared:          
Quote
24 Maus August 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. He was a gutless coward and will not be missed.


Maus is no longer a gutless coward:

24
MausAugust 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us.
[message ends]

It's a long muddy crawl back to the moral high ground.

Date: 2012/08/27 12:12:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam

In other news
... WJM continues to rehearse the-shittest-argument-ever-advanced-for-believing-in-God, as will be familiar from his tenure on TSZ.
     
Quote
we simply cannot live as if moral relativism is true

Apparently, if you teach your kids a particular set of values, the fact that your neighbour may be teaching his kids a different set of values invalidates ... something. The only way out of this conundrum is to believe that your values come from a higher source (even if you don't really), so you can go next door and jolly well sort him out. I hope I have not misrepresented the argument.

Date: 2012/08/27 13:52:48, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 27 2012,12:22)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 27 2012,12:12)

In other news
... WJM continues to rehearse the-shittest-argument-ever-advanced-for-believing-in-God, as will be familiar from his tenure on TSZ.
               
Quote
we simply cannot live as if moral relativism is true

Apparently, if you teach your kids a particular set of values, the fact that your neighbour may be teaching his kids a different set of values invalidates ... something. The only way out of this conundrum is to believe that your values come from a higher source (even if you don't really), so you can go next door and jolly well sort him out. I hope I have not misrepresented the argument.

That really is a fascinating turn of phrase. I mean really...we cannot live as if it's true? Does that mean it might be true, but we need to hide that fact or that it's not true and we need to burn anyone who behaves otherwise at the stake? I'm really at a loss here. Either way WJM sounds despicable.

More just convinced by the inescapability of his own logic, I think. It's a  bit of a setup for a 'Gotcha!'. If one agrees there is no absolute means to arbitrate something comparatively mild - eg: you think racism is wrong and teach your kids accordingly; someone else thinks it is de rigueur - one is forced to concede that it boils down to your respective opinions, if you don't think morality comes from 'somewhere else'. "So what", continues the argument "is to stop someone from deciding that it is morally right to torture babies?".

And, of course, absolutely nothing, regardless of your personal position on the source of your own morality, or theirs on theirs.  

Whether these mythical 'moral baby-torturers' have any substance other than as bit-players in a specious argument, I'm not so sure.

Date: 2012/08/28 06:39:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe

(tldr URLs, inc!)
   
Quote
I definitely need to tone it down but you need to lighten up, just a little

For once, Joe, I agree with you. KF is primed to take offence on a hair-trigger. But ... you see how this occurred? You pointed KF at a reference to him on TSZ that included a 'don't link to porn' joke. Most people 'got' that it was a joke about your 'tunie' post. Whether or not you did, I don't know. But KF immediately goes into 'how-dare-they' high dudgeon, the facts are laid out, and it blows up in your face.  

Personally, I think some of the abuse you get is a tad OTT. But you are hardly a cork bobbing in currents over which you have no control!

Date: 2012/08/28 12:11:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 28 2012,07:22)
For what it's worth I find Joe less offensive than KF. I tend to tune out potty mouth, unless it's also humorous. But KF is consistently humorless. That's a great failing in debate.

KF only has one nail. It's dreadfull boring, but he hammers it consistently. Joe seems to have a bucket of unsorted nails, picking whatever fits right now, regardless of whether he contradicts something he said five minutes ago.

Mmmm, I see Joe as an irritating kid, KF as a pompous ass.  

Although I can't say every 'evilutionist' is a laugh riot, humourlessness and a lack of self-awareness do seem to afflict the ID crowd. The general po-faced pomposity of KF, WJM, BA, UBP et al is in itself a source of chuckles.

Date: 2012/08/29 03:01:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 28 2012,22:45)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2012,16:29)
Joe is very lucky to have the stern hand of KF correcting him. Joe knows his place - subservient and grovelling to KF.

Didn't he admit to posting porn on the thread where KF smacks his ass?  Wouldn't that contradict his claim of there being no evidence of his posting porn?  I can't be bothered to go look for it--once was enough but I'm sure you intrepid tard-miners will not disappoint.

On a technicality, he is arguing that the 'tunie' image is not pornographic. (So KF must be absolutely OK with it...?) He has also argued that he did not post it to several sites, but to one, with links on the other sites. All of which makes it just fine and dandy. No further questions, Your Honor.

Date: 2012/08/29 11:59:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ Aug. 29 2012,11:41)
UD seems to have transmogrified into the kf'n'Joe show.

Must be a nightmare for any remaining rational supporters of ID

Mmmm - somehow I doubt it was intended as a personal megaphone for the perennially outraged, or shelter for trolls on their final final final final final final warning.

UK readers of a certain age may recall the Spitting Image puppets of David Owen and David Steel, which pop into my mind at intervals these days...



Date: 2012/08/29 17:13:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Questions

Bust another bloody URL! Remove the <br> tag.

I'd genuinely like to get to those questions. But I get ten paragraphs in and I lose the will to live. Then he starts rabbitting about fucking pornography and how anyone - ANYONE!!!! - could possibly make a lighthearted dig about such a serious subject. His reference to that dreadful slur is longer than the post that made the fucking slur in the first place, which somehow represents the entire anti ID movement in a nutshell.

Try again. read ... read ... read ... no. You win, KF, By sheer impenetrable volume of blether, you have defeated me. I'm just going to have to resort to poking fun. Sorry. I tried.

Date: 2012/08/29 17:18:18, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
.... and did he really say this:

 
Quote
In short, there is a significant problem among objectors to design theory that they resort to a habitual pattern of red herring distractors, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in poisonous ad hominem attacks, and then set alight through snide or incendiary rhetoric.


Again?

Does anyone take this guff-machine seriously? Keep posting, KF, and keep Joe as Number 2. You are doing a grand job.

Date: 2012/08/30 01:58:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 29 2012,23:48)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 29 2012,17:13)
I'd genuinely like to get to those questions. But I get ten paragraphs in and I lose the will to live. Then he starts rabbitting about fucking pornography and how anyone - ANYONE!!!! - could possibly make a lighthearted dig about such a serious subject. His reference to that dreadful slur is longer than the post that made the fucking slur in the first place, which somehow represents the entire anti ID movement in a nutshell.

Try again. read ... read ... read ... no. You win, KF, By sheer impenetrable volume of blether, you have defeated me. I'm just going to have to resort to poking fun. Sorry. I tried.

He actually posted:        
Quote
For instance, it escapes me how some could ever have imagined – or imagined that others would take such a claim as truthful – that it is a “lighthearted” dig to suggest that I would post links to pornography.

I may be wrong but to my best knowledge it has never been claimed that Kairosfocus is posting porn links. Just the opposite: He never provided any links to the porn sites he visited and readers have to trust his detailed content descriptions. However, from his writings and the accurate characterisation of the content of such sites it is clear that he's been there not only once. You know, they are just an innocent Google click away ...

He is one of the most humour-challenged individuals I have ever encountered. No matter how many times anyone says it did NOT mean he really would - the word is 'irony' - he remains attached to the ceiling. Now he just adds that as a meta-complaint. There are people there who say I'd post a link to porn ... and there are people who would argue that it was a LIGHTHEARTED suggestion ... AND THEY THINK OTHERS MIGHT AGREE WITH THEM ... splutter! Onlookers, the salts!

I've never known anyone more ready to start sniffing after strawmen soaked in ad hominem distractively dragged across the path of truth. He knows, despite tens of thousands of words, and dancin' Joe at his side, he's got nothin', so he might as well pursue 'em.

Date: 2012/08/30 09:31:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 30 2012,08:36)
   
Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 29 2012,22:31)
Darwinist biochemistry can't teach you what Joe can teach you [UD link]:          
Quote
I see that Allan Miller has gone off of the edge- earth to Allan- there isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the nucleotide (codon) and the amino acid it represents- the codon does not become the amino acid via some chemical reaction.

Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the nucleotides. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the tRNA and its amino acid. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the amino acids in the polypeptide. And all of that is irrelevant to what I said.

Thanks, Joe, I was about to fall over the edge myself!

What Joe is trying to say in his IDiot way is that the code could have been different.  UUU could have been leucine instead of phenylalanine.  

Don't think so ...he was explicitly responding to dr who's suggestion that life is chemistry. And it isn't because there is no chemical transformation turning nucleotide into acid...? "the codon does not become the amino acid via some chemical reaction."

Therefore information. Because acid gets stuck on one tRNA end and codon docks with the other, this causes the codon to 'mean' the acid. In like manner, my shoes 'mean' my hat, in a rather less tightly-constrained way.



Date: 2012/08/30 10:15:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 30 2012,09:29)
 The simple fact that there is a 1:1 correspondence between DNA nucleotides and RNA nucleotides and a 1:1 correspondence between tRNA and mRNA and a 1:1 correspondence  between amino acids and tRNA... nope doesn't mean a thing.

A small quibblette - only the first is a 1:1 correspondence. More than 1 tRNA can dock to the same mRNA codon due to 'wobble', and multiple tRNAs get charged by the same aaRS. Which are actually chemical reasons why Joe is wrong. The 'real' code isn't a neat reversible lookup matrix, like ASCII or something. If it were all 1:1, he might have a better point on 'information' - though it would still be chemistry.

Date: 2012/08/31 04:20:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but my kids just love to follow my internet debates on evolution! "Tell us more, dad, this really is fascinating stuff", they say. Actually, they say "Seriously dad, get a fucking life!", but I know they don't mean it ...

Date: 2012/08/31 04:34:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Aug. 30 2012,23:30)
whaadafuqinhell?

 
Quote
52
Robert Byers August 30, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Axel.
my mom was a nurse too and I heard things about girls being stronger then boys too.
However perhaps its just poor analysis. More gorls then boys are born and so on.

Adam would of seen all creatures in male/female divisions and parts and so if he was the male one it would suggest to him a chick is coming.
Yet it seems he had no such idea.
So i suggest he was self reproducing and knew it.
So the “rib” was this organ taken away and so today we have no evidence of it.

I mean Adam had no beard because it was perfect in Eden and no threat from nature. Perhaps after he needed it.

The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.
Its rainy in europe but not asia/North America.
Animals in the tropics are very hairy also but not because its cold.
I see out hair growth as simply a reaction to moisture which the body, wrongly, interpreted as a threat to warmth. So we need deordant and have hair there uselessly. And so on.
It all indicates biological change comes from innate triggers but no grand strategy.
Its possible asian bodies represent the original look of post flood people below the neck.
Hairless.


Which of you is it this time......

Just beautiful. I'm gonna set it to music. Altogether now:

Ohhhhh... the eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry.

Scans brilliantly!

Date: 2012/09/02 02:56:59, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2012,20:02)
In other words he has refuted saltation. Just 150 years after Darwin said it wasn't necessary.

Well, probably thinks he's dismissed the 'first organism'. Because the first organism was produced by random search of 'protein space'. Or 'DNA space'. Or some other v^n space derivable for a polymer.

Date: 2012/09/02 15:55:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 02 2012,11:44)
Unless I'm missing something, evolution is blind. But it uses Braille to feel it's way around. Never far from it's current homeostatic position.

Over at TSZ a surfing metaphor was suggested. The landscape changes and undulates, and evolution is continually falling, without changing its level. It is always in equilibrium. But it's not a balance with something else.

So Gould's paradox of punctuated equilibrium is an artifact of environtmental change.

I think PE is more to do with the role of cladogenesis in evolutionary tempo, and the role of population size in cladogenesis. Although environmental change cannot fail to leave its imprint.

The never-getting-anywhere quality of evolution (the Red Queen) is an interesting one. If a new allele with a positive selective advantage arises, it spreads due to that advantage relative to the existing type. When everything is the new type, there is nothing to have an advantage over, and the playing field has levelled again (for that gene). But adaptation has moved on one notch, and new alleles have to be that bit more 'beneficial' to compete.

Date: 2012/09/03 03:22:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 03 2012,02:09)
What a useless, insufferable, hypocritical, sanctimonious priss KF is.

A TSZ commenter gave the most succinct summary of KF's perpetual horrification - a 'pearl-clutcher'.

In another universe - one where they did not have common cause, and the one did not exert some odd kind of authority over the other - Joe would be kicking KF's arse seven ways to Sunday.

Watching the KF 'n' Joe Show is almost as much fun as watching Joe 'do' programming or chemistry.



Date: 2012/09/03 11:58:48, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 5:53 AM

DiEB-

I'm finished here- do whatever you want.

 
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 7:08 AM

 
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 7:10 AM

 
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 7:29 AM

 
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 7:32 AM

 
Quote
Joe G September 3, 2012 7:47 AM



:D



Date: 2012/09/03 15:04:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 03 2012,02:09)

   
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 8:15 pm)
And KF that line you thought was vulgar was from a very funny Monty Python movie- I definitely need to tone it down but you need to lighten up, just a little

Joe: All that did is to further reduce Monty Python in my already low estimation. The language reference to flatulence is vulgar, and should not be used. KF


Psssst! Joe! Ask him what he thought of Life of Brian!

Date: 2012/09/05 08:29:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 05 2012,08:12)
Spot the Tard Contest!

Who wrote this?  (Only one guess should be necessary)
     
Quote
A note: On entropy, the Macro-micro
information gap [MmIG] and the OOL
challenge of getting from Darwin’s
pond-state to living cell state (a gated
encapsulated metabolising automaton
with informationally controlled
self-replication)
without intelligently
directed organising work (IDOW)


KF bolded this from Orgel:

   
Quote
Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . .


Substitute "the observed existence of designers" for "metabolic cycles" and you have the problem with KF's entire schtick.

Date: 2012/09/05 09:01:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 05 2012,08:55)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 05 2012,09:29)
 
Quote
Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . .


Substitute "the observed existence of designers" for "metabolic cycles" and you have the a problem with KF's entire schtick.

FTFY

kairosfocus almost never has just one problem with his loggorrheic eructations.  He contains multitudes of tard.

I guess ... :)

His name is Legion, then, for many demons have entered into him. (Sam 5:9)

Date: 2012/09/06 06:07:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Kairosfocus shuffles the shells one mo' time.

(I paraphrase) Discover 500 shaken pennies lined up to make the ASCII code of a 72-letter piece of text, it is as one straw in a hay bale 1000 light years on its side ... 'Entropy' tells us to expect 50/50 H/T, since the space is dominated by microstates summing to that macrostate***. Now take 250 'bits' each lined up with its complement, as if 'twere DNA ...

You palmed the pea, you charlatan! What is the frequency of viable DNA targets in the space? Never mind its size. What does the space of English or pennies have to do with the price of fish anyway? The Universal Phase Space approach to the Warranted Inference. Some spaces are sparsely populated with viable strings therefore all are. That's some abduction!

***(72 ASCII characters could, of course, contain roughly 50/50 1's and 0's)



Date: 2012/09/06 08:32:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
UD are very slow on the uptake regarding the latest ENCODE results. One would think they'd be all over it like a rash, given their misplaced conviction that junk is vitally important for 'Darwinism'.  

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/....one....one.com

Date: 2012/09/06 10:44:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Getting 'Internal Server Error' trying to load some pages. Is it just me? (I realise probably not, since I don't host the place!).

Date: 2012/09/06 17:17:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Sal walks a yard or two in a pair of someone else's moccasins

(to KF)  
Quote
I’m not asking about CSI, IC, FSCO/I, IDOW, SFOD-D, MmIG, WMDs, MIGs, BUFFs, AWACS, VLSI, DicNavAb, etc.

[...]

A simple yes or no, would be helpful to everyone. You’ve been very verbose, and I’m not asking you to print more than 3 characters for a response of “yes”, 2 characters for a response of “no”, and 12 charcters to say “I don’t know”.

You don’t have to print a dissertation that doesn’t answer the question I pose.

If you don’t want to answer the question, say so. “I don’t want to answer the question. I want to talk about something else.” (that would be 73 characters for a response).

Date: 2012/09/07 03:55:53, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 06 2012,16:02)
   
Quote (REC @ Sep. 06 2012,11:27)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 06 2012,08:32)
UD are very slow on the uptake regarding the latest ENCODE results. One would think they'd be all over it like a rash, given their misplaced conviction that junk is vitally important for 'Darwinism'.  

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/....one....one.com

They've all bought into the mainstream science as a corrupt enterprise of evil atheists making up bullshit. It is hard to go from outright mockery of mainstream science to trumpeting the fruits of scientific labor.

I like they fuck-up the reporting of it: "the human genome is nonetheless pervasively transcribed into mRNA."

Not so much an ENCODE finding. Much of the human genome is transcribed into non-coding RNA. I think that is a key structural element in chromatin.

ENCODE calls things like having a pattern of (silencing) histone modifications or having a long ncRNA transcribed a "biological function." So yeah, 100% of the genome is functional by that standard. But this "function" is a structural role that allows the genome to adapt to being littered with transposons, pseudogenes, etc.

JohnnieM just posted on it.

Hmm, this is like how the changing times for Jovian eclipses allowed a rough estimate of the speed of light.  We should be able to get some idea of the speed of information in the tardiferous aether by timing UD postings.

Good old Andre
   
Quote
On junk-DNA I’ve been called a liar for Jesus by many. 6 September 2012 I can finally say….. I told you so!

He's read the abstract ... no, probably just the press release ... no, probably just the reporting of the press release ... but he's seen enough. All those other papers relating to evolution ... they're wrong. But this one ... this is pure gold! Dive your palms into those doubloons, Andre! It says 'function'!

Date: 2012/09/07 08:41:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 07 2012,07:02)
PaV chimes in with some weapons-grade po-mo bullshit:

Equivocation 101. From the 'direction' of physical forces and transfers to the 'direction' of mutation and the 'direction' (2 senses) of NS ...

Date: 2012/09/08 07:56:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe teaches entropy

 
Quote
(Mike Elzinga) It is the logarithm of the number of energy microstates consistent with the macroscopic state of a thermodynamic system.
 
Quote

(Joe) That means by observing some phenomena we should be able to piece it all back together to see what it was.


Yeah. That's what it means.

Quote
I still maintain that the fact that there is a 2nd law of thermodynamics is evidence for Intelligent Design.


'Nature operating freely' cannot enact laws, I guess.

Date: 2012/09/12 16:18:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
UBP          
Quote
You’ll also notice how the frontline scientists and researchers I have approached (i.e. Moran, Matzke, etc) have refused to get into a debate with me about it.

Yeah, they are afeared of ya. Not that they think you are a waste of time or anything.

I used to think UBP was a fucking dickhead. Then I saw him take his argument to TSZ, and thought "well, fair play mate". Now, I think UBP is a fucking dickhead. The pompous attempts to 'demolish' his opponents, smarmy 'I see through your subterfuge' stuff like this to 'onlooker':
       
Quote
By the way, you coming on this board and taking the 63 words of my #1 and #2 in the OP, and spending 260 words explicitly illuminating just how masterfully you could trim them down to just 23 words in a coherent statement that suits you, is not much of a demonstration of how incomprehensible the argument is. In fact, that was a rank amateur’s mistake, performed with great fanfare.

But don’t sweat it. It was obvious you wanted to show how smart you are.

People with great ideas always rehearse them interminably on blogs. It's the mark of a great idea. And the more punters you can suck into your cybersphere from their little bedrooms and studies across the globe, and then demolish with your withering contempt, the more embiggened you become.

The question remains: why do so many people spend so much time on the arguments of this charlatan?

Date: 2012/09/13 17:15:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2012,16:33)
Bwahahahah - Joe G not even on the radar!

EVOTARDGASMS!!!!1111one

Yes, I am surprised that Joey One-Note did not get an honourable mention, given the size of his very own thread. Perhaps he's just very quote-able.

I went for KF, Joe was my #2. Call the Electoral Reform Society.

Date: 2012/09/14 06:44:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 13 2012,21:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2012,14:33)
Bwahahahah - Joe G not even on the radar!

He's still trying to qualify:
   
Quote
Why is it that artificial ribosomes do NOT function? If their functionality was the result of their physical and chemical components then artificial ribosomes should function just as the ribosomes found inside living organisms.

Artificial ribosomes are lacking the programming required by compilers to function.

This is one of his current favorites. I thought functional artificial ribosomes had been synthesised, but it doesn't matter either way. It hardly points to a missing magic ingredient - and certainly not capital-D-Design as that ingredient - if you can't. You just haven't got one of the functional points in sequence space yet.

Date: 2012/09/17 18:58:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Get yer finest Joe here!
         
Quote
Jerad: Take for example the presence of hind legs in some species of whales.

Joe: Nope, no hind legs in any species of whales. Most likely remnants of hind flippers.

Jerad: So why are there still vestiges of hind flippers then?

Joe: Because there are.
:O
   
Quote
Jerad: Are you saying that when humans starting eating citrus fruits, etc that we lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C?

Joe: Nope. What I say is the non-functional VC gene is for the future when we cannot get VC epigenetically.

Evidently, in Joeworld, epigenetics is everything outside the genome, and includes eating :p (thesis supported upthread: "Because we can incorporate vitamin C into our diet- epigenetics.")

And we keep a broken gene that may one day become magically fixed because it would be impossible for the Designer Of Whales to just give us the fucking gene when we need it!

Date: 2012/09/18 07:33:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 17 2012,19:29)
                   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 17 2012,18:58)
Get yer finest Joe here!

                         
Quote
Jerad: Are you saying that when humans starting eating citrus fruits, etc that we lost the ability to synthesise vitamin C?

Joe: Nope. What I say is the non-functional VC gene is for the future when we cannot get VC epigenetically.

Evidently, in Joeworld, epigenetics is everything outside the genome, and includes eating :p (thesis supported upthread: "Because we can incorporate vitamin C into our diet- epigenetics.")

And we keep a broken gene that may one day become magically fixed because it would be impossible for the Designer Of Whales to just give us the fucking gene when we need it!

Nice spew of ignorance there dopey sam:


HAHAHAHAHAHA! Dopey Sam! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
               
Quote
epigenetics and the environment

EPIGENETICS & THE ENVIRONMENT

The genome dynamically responds to the environment. Stress, diet, behavior, toxins and other factors activate chemical switches that regulate gene expression.

Uh-huh. This is hardly a gene expression 'switch', though. The actual gene has had lumps taken out of it. And you did say it's for the future, when we are unable to get Vitamin C 'epigenetically'. Implying we do get it 'epigenetically' now - the environment causes the gene to stay broken, perhaps?

You know what a vitamin is, and what happens when you don't get enough?

Here's a way to test whether Vitamin C metabolism is just waiting to be turned on by an "epigenetic" environmental switch. Take some apes and put them somewehere ... oooh, I dunno ... on a boat, maybe? Then keep them at sea without access to citrus fruits or other dietary sources. Then see if this 'epigenetic' switch (mmmmffffffHAHAHAHA) gets turned on. Or off, whichever way you visualize it. Or maybe ... maybe they'll get goddamned scurvy! Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has done similar experiments already?

Or would that not be the right kind of environment to activate it? You can't put the environment on a ship, or summink?



Date: 2012/09/18 07:40:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 18 2012,05:35)


<snigger>

I thought the very mention of the fever swamp was a banning matter?

Anyway, I'm sure the UD crowd are fascinated by details of Joe's battles with sundry netkooks on other sites.

Date: 2012/09/18 10:18:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 18 2012,08:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 18 2012,08:07)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 18 2012,07:40)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 18 2012,05:35)


<snigger>

I thought the very mention of the fever swamp was a banning matter?

Anyway, I'm sure the UD crowd are fascinated by details of Joe's battles with sundry netkooks on other sites.

Yep.  Fortunately Joe is immune to actual knowledge.

Notice how he's switched from vitamin C to vitamin D.  

BTW Joe, did you know that vitamin D photosynthesis first appeared in bacteria 750 mya (and that's not 'millenia';).  And every land vertebrate has the exact same system for using sunlight to build vitamin D.  Hmmm... evidence of common ancestry.

Fail again, Joe.

Oh and do come back and cut and paste your metric for measuring or determining complexity, specificity, and the possibility of other options for the 'design inference'.

Sorry - schoolboy humour. I was laughing at Joe's reference to VD in your system and it's affect on gene regulation.  

I'll get back to reading me Viz, now ...

Fnarrrr, fnarrr ... sorry, missed the blindingly obvious!  :D

Date: 2012/09/18 14:20:02, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Gpuccio comes clean

 
Quote
Finally, the designer has heavy restraints. He cannot do anything.

(whistle ... workin' in a quote mine, goin' down, down, down ...)

Date: 2012/09/20 02:53:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 19 2012,22:48)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2012,14:23)
       
Quote
Probably, if and when we will undesrtand how the operating procedures are coded in the genome, the linguistic componente will be much more apparent, like in any complex coded software.


Gpuccio, explaining how design will be a piece of cake once we crack the small problem of emergence. Obviously there is a hidden grammar and syntax in coding sequences,. We just need to be able to read and write the language.

Of course if that is true, it makes the 500 bit barrier somewhat moot. The argument from isolated islands depends on the combination lock analogy.

EN&V also declares the gene dead:        
Quote
[...]it is quite clear that the unit "gene" is no more. That is to say, the "gene" is to morphogenesis what "phlogiston" is to chemistry and physics....an obsolete concept. And with the former void of content, the framework of evolutionary/population genetics is, well, gone. That's right: Gone. What do we inherit, then? A phenotype (= RNA sequences; transcripts).
(emphasis mine)
Poor Dr. Dembski. All his effort and the ridicule for nothing.

What a fucking moron. Where does he think a transcript comes from? One set of studies and he sees fit to redefine a science's concepts for them.

He evidently doesn't know the difference between morphogenetic and evolutionary concepts.

The pop-geneticist's 'gene' is a length of DNA. I think we still inherit chunks of that, despite the ENV discovery that there is also something called a 'phenotype'.

The biochemist's gene is slightly different - a length of DNA that codes for a discrete product: protein or RNA. I think such units are still alive and kicking also.

The phenotypically visible gene is different again - the distinguishable result of particular stretches of DNA, including their RNA transcripts, regulatory sequences and their binding status, activity control, and all that emergent shit.

[eta: Just read more carefully, and he derives his licence from the authors of the ENCODE papers. But they are writing for a literate audience, who hopefully know the difference between evolutionary and genome-organisational concepts.]



Date: 2012/09/20 07:36:49, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 20 2012,05:56)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 20 2012,02:53)

[eta: Just read more carefully, and he derives his licence from the authors of the ENCODE papers. But they are writing for a literate audience, who hopefully know the difference between evolutionary and genome-organisational concepts.]

I must second Larry Moran who doubts that the leading heads of ENCODE do exactly that.

Yes, I have re-re-read and - though ENV have still over-reached the inferences drawn - the Nature notion is just plain wrong, from both a genetic and an evolutionary standpoint:
     
Quote
we would propose that the TRANSCRIPT be considered as THE BASIC ATOMIC UNIT OF INHERITANCE.

(Blocks from ENV quote)

transcripts are part of primary phenotype, not genotype (as is the binding status of non-transcribed regulatory sequences, and methylation, sequence accessibility etc). ENCODE has not changed that.



Date: 2012/09/23 05:07:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2012,11:00)
Crossposting this from the UD4 thread, because it's sure to tickle a few funny bones.

From this thread at Uncommonly Dense.



lol.

Joe's attempts to pretend he understands relativity and quantum fizzicks are as much fun as his typos:

Quote
As Einstein said the equation tells us they are DIFFERENT manifistations of the same thing.


I shudder to think what a 'manifistation' might entail.

Date: 2012/09/25 06:48:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (DaveH @ Sep. 24 2012,16:27)
Don't know if this has been spotted... Our Hero turns up on The Loom.
Same old, same old contentless pish, nothing to see here.

He manages to completely reverse the role of sex:

 
Quote
There is no hope for evolution once sex hits the scene as it would take many more generations to do the same thing


Then brings 'geneticist' Sermonti in to support this horseshit:

 
Quote
whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress.


Which would explain why the tree of eukaryotes is overwhelmingly sexual, from root to twig-tip? And why most asexual eukaryotic lineages are short-lived on evolutionary timescales? And why GAs are turbo-charged by crossover?

Date: 2012/09/25 11:37:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (onlooker @ Sep. 24 2012,12:40)
Upright BiPed [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de

sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434386]identifies the miscreants[/URL]:
Quote
the rancor being passed back and forth between UD and TSZ does not have its genesis at UD or among UD commentors.

Yeah, Joe, Mung, and kairosfocus are the epitome of civility.

And UB himself forgets what a snooty, arrogant shit he can be.

Date: 2012/09/25 11:39:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 24 2012,12:20)
gpuccio earns 10 points on the Crackpot Scale:
 
Quote
To Joe Felsenstein (at TSZ):

One more thought: in the end, I believe that Dembski is right, although I aould never be able to give a mathemathical demonstration that he is tight (and I am not sure he has completely succeeded in that). But the general concepts are there.

Crackpot Index, #15:
 
Quote

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

I'm on the lookout for Thomas Kuhn. When he is invoked, it's Game Over!

Date: 2012/09/25 11:53:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Sep. 25 2012,10:09)
Some more of the "remarkably good" treatment Liddle receives from UD:

[...]

And Joe at his place:
         
Quote
Well it seems that the cry-baby evotards have been very busy trying to stick up for one of their own- Elizabeth Liddle. I just read a notice from blogger pertaining to my post in which I called Lizzie a liar, an equivocator and a dried-up old hag. True, I can only provide evidence for the first two- that she is a liar and an equivocator. I just inferred the other from what she writes. The post has been taken down and I will just rewrite it and post it. I told the admin that if required I could easily support my claims in any Court- all but the dried up old hag but that may become evident at the trial.


Classy, especially given who they're talking about, and that she hasn't been active in the discussion lately.

Perhaps it was the FUCK YOU Joe forgot to mention that Blogger objected to. Fortunately Google has preserved the text, though the page has gone:

       
Quote
Intelligent Reasoning: Elizabeth Liddle is a Liar and an Equivocator
intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/.../elizabeth-liddle-is-liar-and-equi...
27 Jul 2012 – FUCK YOU LIZ you dried up old hag. Evos don't answer questions. Evos just attack whoever disagrees with them. posted by Joe G @ 9:23 AM ...

Of course Joe. Evos just attack! Evos are cry-babies! You are pathetic. And the longer you stay at UD, the more hilarious the mass civility-whinges become.

Date: 2012/09/25 19:15:59, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 25 2012,13:16)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 25 2012,12:53)
       
Quote (REC @ Sep. 25 2012,10:09)
Some more of the "remarkably good" treatment Liddle receives from UD:

[...]

And Joe at his place:
                   
Quote
Well it seems that the cry-baby evotards have been very busy trying to stick up for one of their own- Elizabeth Liddle. I just read a notice from blogger pertaining to my post in which I called Lizzie a liar, an equivocator and a dried-up old hag. True, I can only provide evidence for the first two- that she is a liar and an equivocator. I just inferred the other from what she writes. The post has been taken down and I will just rewrite it and post it. I told the admin that if required I could easily support my claims in any Court- all but the dried up old hag but that may become evident at the trial.


Classy, especially given who they're talking about, and that she hasn't been active in the discussion lately.

Perhaps it was the FUCK YOU Joe forgot to mention that Blogger objected to. Fortunately Google has preserved the text, though the page has gone:

                 
Quote
Intelligent Reasoning: Elizabeth Liddle is a Liar and an Equivocator
intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/.../elizabeth-liddle-is-liar-and-equi...
27 Jul 2012 – FUCK YOU LIZ you dried up old hag. Evos don't answer questions. Evos just attack whoever disagrees with them. posted by Joe G @ 9:23 AM ...

Of course Joe. Evos just attack! Evos are cry-babies! You are pathetic. And the longer you stay at UD, the more hilarious the mass civility-whinges become.

Joe is a learning opportunity.  I know, intellectually, that he is no doubt a physical coward who would never dare make statements like that to a person's face.  I also know from his online history that he is none too mentally gifted.  Both of these characteristics warrant compassion.

Nonetheless, I will have to meditate repeatedly before I can let go of the desire to see a video of someone swinging through his hometown and defending Lizzie's honor.

I think in the matter of Liz Joe demonstrated that his shitness of character runs truly deep. She allowed him to post and start threads, spent hours shovelling his more aggressive shit into Guano rather than simply ban, treated him like an adult who might understand rational argument, would even have allowed him to stay had he shown some regret over the 'vagina' link ... so when people like KF whine about TSZ-ers calling a spade a spade and not mincing words over UD-ites' crap grasp of science (cue a million words whining about the civility, oh the civility, rather than addressing the science), I watch Joe hopping about the tent, and laugh my ass off.

Date: 2012/09/26 03:05:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 25 2012,23:41)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics?  really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?

I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in court—even if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.

Fortunately, UD comments form a prime exhibit and permanent record for the window-dressing charge. Despite 'repeated correction' that ID isn't CIACT, but stands on its own merits, one has to peel away just one, rather threadbare layer to reveal the truth. They haven't a hope in hell in court, and they know it. But ... Joe Average buys it alarmingly readily. The internet provides an excellent resource for crackpots to get together and gain mass, and look, in the process, like genuine seekers of truth. See also: Climate, Conspiracy. And scientists giving reasoned explanations are fodder to the publicity mill. So ... you're saying you've never observed protein synthesis evolving without intelligent input? But you have typed English characters on a computer, right?



Date: 2012/09/26 07:18:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ Sep. 26 2012,05:37)
       
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 25 2012,12:07)
Someone should get him started on chemtrails. That should be a laugh.

why start on chemtrails when we're still having so much fun with H2O?



I've lost track, this is certainly beyond doubling down but is it tripling- or quadrupling-down at this point?

The tripling-down point of water is that at which it stops being water and becomes one of two other things instead. The quadrupling-down point involves single molecules, which cannot have a phase. Even those chumps that edit Wikipedia have it wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_water Forms of water! Snicker! A molecule of water! Mmmmmmffff!

Date: 2012/09/26 10:02:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2012,08:47)
crossposted to TSZ thread
 
Quote


I was thinking of stephen, wasn't aware of mandi.  

so we have one good example of someone de-tarding within the history of this board.  

what we still haven't demonstrated is whether that de-tard was

 
Quote
on the basis of [your] online dialogue


It's hard to imagine ID without the internet, indeed that is about the only place it exists.  

A theoretically possible mythic beast that is often hailed in story and song, but all reports and observations of this purported being have turned out to be the rotting corpse of Creationism, being animated by dominionist political tools.

Mike Elzinga likes to toodle about this non-stop, how he has been watching the creationists since before creation and it's all a Duane Gish Henry Morris rehash mashup and nothing new has come from this since.




If the only positive examples of de-tard, In the Time of Swamp, which we can provide are Stephen Elliot (who I hope will chime in) and one other blogger then I offer the consideration that detard doesn't really happen because of anything we do here or anyone else on the internet.

Consider the tards that have scrawled upon the walls of all the science blogs you have ever read.  Now, say slowly and aloud "Creationists do not change their minds on the basis of arguments on blogs."  Can you say it and believe it?

I'd love to be convinced that i am wrong.  But since motive is important, and apparently one of the limited set of the topics for which "there is a place" here to discuss, I'd like to say that if you think you are performing a social benefit by internetting creationist retards onto their own petard then you are taking yourself too seriously.

And i say that in love, dear tardahols.  Hi, I'm Erasmus, FCD and I am a tardaholic.

I think you're right - I talk as if I think minds can be changed, but I certainly don't believe it, and I don't do it in the hope of 'saving' someone. I just like ideas, and argue for (what I see as) good ones and against (what I see as) bad ones. No point being cleverer than the rest of the world if you don't get a chance to show it!  ;)

Date: 2012/09/26 16:24:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2012,15:45)
The other aspect of self-education is learning to express the argument.

I see this as a win-win situation. Regardless of whether the onlookers learn anything, I do.

+1. There are probably better ways of gaining an education, but my understanding of the role of sex, 'search space', entropy, protein motifs, the structure and mechanism of the genetic code, speciation, the selection/drift continuum, and many other things besides, have been enhanced greatly by watching Creationists bullshit their way through the material, and engaging the debate myself. Even Joe has provided insight, despite - rather because of - being so obviously, consistently and blisteringly wrong. Shit arguments can lead to better ones.

Date: 2012/09/26 18:01:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (onlooker @ Sep. 26 2012,10:51)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 25 2012,13:16)
Joe is a learning opportunity.  I know, intellectually, that he is no doubt a physical coward who would never dare make statements like that to a person's face.  I also know from his online history that he is none too mentally gifted.  Both of these characteristics warrant compassion.

Nonetheless, I will have to meditate repeatedly before I can let go of the desire to see a video of someone swinging through his hometown and defending Lizzie's honor.

Joe is an easily ignored blowhard.

Does anyone know what is up with Mung?  He's at least as unpleasant and ignorant as Joe, but he also has a bitterness that reminds me of the weaselly little kids who would hang around with bullies, encouraging bad behavior that they weren't capable of committing on their own.  I don't think he's any less of a coward than Joe, but he strikes me as the type who would key a car or drop a dime on a fake police report to harass someone if he thought he could get away with it.  He just gives a nasty vibe overall.

Yes, I get the feeling Mung has bolded up of late. He has picked up the street style by hanging around with the bigger kids.

UD does seem to attract or bring out a particular strain of in-yer-face Christian. Which is by no means to everyone's taste, even in the theistic world. A short thread on Christians in Science dismissed UD as "that inbred and vitriolic site". Which, let's face it, is why it attracts attention. Being wrong in style is what it's all about; the more front the better!

Date: 2012/09/26 18:46:19, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2012,18:15)
That's interesting, because I have never felt lonely being the only evo on a hostile site.

Not lonely, but it can be damned hard to offer sensible, thought-out and researched answers to a large, baying crowd detecting fresh meat who consider the entire gamut fair game and themselves as expert as one would need to be. Trying to be honest and accurate - and being called a cowardly liar for your trouble! - takes a lot more effort than just saying stuff.

Date: 2012/09/27 03:44:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2012,20:23)
             
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 26 2012,19:46)
             
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2012,18:15)
That's interesting, because I have never felt lonely being the only evo on a hostile site.

Not lonely, but it can be damned hard to offer sensible, thought-out and researched answers to a large, baying crowd detecting fresh meat who consider the entire gamut fair game and themselves as expert as one would need to be. Trying to be honest and accurate - and being called a cowardly liar for your trouble! - takes a lot more effort than just saying stuff.

it's important to remember that it's all about the LULZ

pretending like there is some sort of substance to critique therefore good faith internetting discussion is possible with ID creationists is a huge error IMO

that's a very different thing from fisking the tard.

look at wes on dembski:  fisks the tard, brutally and without remorse, in print, with citations and leaves it up for dembski to run away from.

that's a totally different from trying to get KF to admit he is a lying dooshbag on UD where he can be lord of the flies gilligan bob marley gk chesterton version.

So, although I may have not been as clear on this in this thread as I was in my head, i think fisking the tard is great.  i guess what i am getting at is that there are a lot of smart people wasting a great deal of time and effort to fruitlessly yet systematically expose the Wizard in the arguments made by some very obtuse, dishonest and stubborn stupid fucking creationists.

And I have done it too.  And I hopefully will in the future.  But I am about convinced that "wasting a great deal of time and effort" is a pretty good descriptor, if your objective is to detard more tards.

oh shit this is now framing

One can see it as a two-way troll. There's no substance on their side, but it can be fun to stir the nest and watch 'em scurry. They, equally, think that is exactly what they are doing with the 'science side' - getting us to expose what any 'educated person' can see is a hollow sham.

Trying to get KF to admit he's a douche is impossible, but getting him to show what a douche he is, complete with bullet points - piece of cake! Meantime, someone like Joe is a past master at provoking a response. One of his stupid, repetitive points is trigger enough to try and give a sensible answer from a scientific standpoint - even though you know who you're talking to, and what you might as well be doing instead. I think it is the troll-ey attitude, rather than the fundamental wrongness of the arguments or any belief/desire that minds may be changed, that sucks me in.

I don't think I'm doing anything with any wider import than joining a debating society.

Date: 2012/09/28 16:03:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2012,03:22)
One question I find myself asking is whether there is anyone in the creationist/ID camp who can write an accurate, coherent description of evolution as understood by biologists. I haven't seen one.

By contrast, Darwin rather consistently put forth the strongest opposition case before beginning his argument. This is simply an indication of confidence and personal character.

The day I see an ID advocate begin his presentation  by forcefully presenting the case for evolution is the day I begin to worry.

I wouldn't worry ... if they understand evolution and still offer a convincing case for an alternative, then I would be obliged to put my road-dusty materialist nag out to pasture. I am very interested in what is true (to the extent that my feeble synapses can discern that). Contrary to what those fucking morons who shout 'ideology!' think. If we live in a God-created universe, and the only possible way a universe could exist is by being God-created, then living inside that universe with a conviction that it can't be so would be just embarrassing.

But ... in all honesty and sincerity, I don't think it is so. Not just because I understand evolution.

I am interested in how many here testify to some kind of fundamentalist history. For me, I have simply never bought the God idea, so no emotional struggle was required to understand science. I think I asked him for a hamster once - and got one. But I am perhaps less qualified than most to comment on the notion of 'de-tard', since it is not an experience I have been through.

Date: 2012/09/29 05:39:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Sep. 28 2012,21:17)
Any news on why EL has been absent from TSZ? Seems a lot of discussion about her posts are going on in her absence, both on TSZ and the cowards who refuse to venture out. Hope all is well.

I think she's OK - still (occasionally) active on Facebook. Life, I guess.

Date: 2012/09/29 17:07:30, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 29 2012,16:46)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 29 2012,06:40)
I would suggest that... the common factor among de-tards is that they were suspicious of the tard in the first place.

I don't think so.  In my case, for example, I assumed that the tard was true, because my parents, my pastor, and many people I respected told me it was true.

It wasn't until I started learning science that I realized, to my discomfort and distress, that there was a conflict between science and my religion.  And my initial response was not to become suspicious of the tard.  I doubled down on the tard and became suspicious of the science!

Interesting - did you take your convictions online? (I'm not looking for links!).

BTW My vote, should anyone care, for pending de-tard is Sal Cordova. The rest? Nevah!

Date: 2012/09/29 18:08:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Mung

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

 
Quote
If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.


 
Quote
I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.




Date: 2012/10/02 06:26:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 30 2012,09:08)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 29 2012,19:08)
Mung

[...]


There are over 200,000 words in that thread.  and most of them are from tards since they can't leave the gloryhole  UD to converse

Now, I didn't go to the TSZ thread and count how many words are in that thing.  But if you are not causing the tards to write at least 7-10 words for every word you write you are wasting your fucking time.

ETA after all the one social beneft we can all agree upon is that when tards are busy flecking their monitor with rage spit and pounding their keyboard with hamfists, they have no time to erode the teaching of science. So, keep them busy and get over yourself queefsniffs

How's one voluntary leisure activity more a waste of time than any other? Anyone disinterested is free to scroll right on by. Get over your own self!



Date: 2012/10/02 07:38:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2012,07:28)


well the minute you start running around pretending you are doing the public a great good by internetting the tard THEN that will apply to you

Ummm ... noted!

I feel I do the public a great good when I get my knob out in front of the webcam. Blog commentary ... not so much.

Date: 2012/10/03 03:18:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Oct. 02 2012,18:44)
         
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 01 2012,22:21)
Jesus H. Christ.  She still doesn't get it:
             
Quote
Here’s another effort (2008) to draw the tree of life. It doesn’t look much like a tree, more like a feather. But then neither did this 2010 one from BioMed Central.

Brilliant! If they had bark and some leaves, she'd believe in evolution....but those.....those are just not trees. Holy hell.

This little lot will really mess wth her head, then. Barely a tree in sight.

It did lead me to this one embedded in this rather splendid little piece:

a-poorly-illustrated-guide-to-the-tree-of-life

eta: actually, part 2



Date: 2012/10/03 03:45:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Zachriel: Differential refers to differences due to relative fitness, usually defined by a fitness function or map.

Mung: I know what deferrential refers to.

Hee hee! (Yeah, I know it's a feeble spelling gotcha. It's all I'm good for!)

Date: 2012/10/03 07:36:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2012,07:15)
Quote
kairosfocus: On Sept 23rd, I put up an essay challenge as captioned, primarily to objecting commenter Jerad.

As at October 2nd, he has definitively said: no.

Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:

 
Quote
Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.

No, actually. We suggested Origin of Species in the hopes people would read it. It was a bestseller in its day. A reasonable objection is that the text is dated, but it still makes a persuasive and readable argument, even a century and a half later. There are plenty of updated texts, both lay and specialist, that others have suggested.

 
Quote
kairosfocus: This is, frankly, a “don’t bother me” brush-off; telling in itself, as a definitive, successful answer would have momentous impact on this blog.

Most of the people commenting or reading on Uncommon Descent have clearly not read Origin of Species, so there's no way to judge its impact.

As for providing an independent 6,000 word essay, we have been banned from Uncommon Descent for writing just such defences of evolutionary theory.

I reckon I could write not just the essay, but a complete rebuttal thread in the voices of the main protagonists.

Date: 2012/10/06 05:50:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
KF understnds science really.

   
Quote
PPS: let the objectors who want to pretend that I don’t understand science — as opposed to ideological a prioris imposed on science and flying false colours — first read (link) and (link), then justify their claims as being more than mere dismissive, red herring and strawman caricature tactic talking points. Then, let them get back to the main point: produce and submit the 6,000 word essay.


Hahaha! It's evolutionary science you seem to have a bit of a blind spot with, KF! I think people have spent more than 6,000 words trying to gen you up on it.

 
Quote
Joe informs us that Zachriel has tried to brush it aside:


Conjurs up an image of an aide whispering in the ear of Don Corleone. "Dis displeases me. He has shown disrespect".

Date: 2012/10/06 06:10:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
CriticalRationalist offers some observations, and is threatened with mini-bannination for some unspecified offence from the pompous-fuckwit-in-the-ceiling:

Quote
CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KF


That's the way to conduct an essay competition! I shall pop some more corn.

Date: 2012/10/08 07:31:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
How come Mung and Joe aren't having at it? M insists his all-1's target has CSI; J says it can't because it's about as compressible as they come.

I wonder why he thinks proteins aren't algorithmically compressible? Is it because it's hard to squash a steak?

What about a dimer? Or a helix? or a beta-sheet? Or ...

Date: 2012/10/08 09:11:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2012,08:49)

So he must be hitting it pretty hard.

And going to your blog a lot in between. Fnarrr fnarrr!

Date: 2012/10/08 11:53:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2012,09:47)
To my bemusement, the "winning" patterns are very simple and regular. As if you could have an oracle that sets "weasel" as the target without knowing the target string.

Yes, the fitnesss function 'smuggles in' something about products! 4x4 is bigger than 3 x 5, 2 x 6, 1 x 7 ... which is, for example, why equal masses give a higher gravitational force (proportional to m1 x m2) than any asymmetric distribution of the same total mass (actually, the cause is the unequal distribution of individual atomic interactions, but proportionality to m1 x m2 is the mathematical result).

So settling on same-sized runs with 1-bit separators maximises the product.



Date: 2012/10/10 07:42:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 10 2012,06:56)
Joe fondly remembers the good old times Zachriel tried to teach him nested hierarchies:
     
Quote
Not only that those guys don’t seem to understand what a nested hierarchy is…

This guy has got to be unique. He has lots of time on his hands but still can't learn a thing.
[...]
Joe, just give it up. Science and math aren't your things.


Yes - I hate to be rude about people on the internet (prelude to being rude about someone on the internet), but it is hard to fathom how irrepressibly wrong he can be. People who know plenty of set theory, hierarchies, methods, artefacts and confidence levels in phylogeny inference - they no nuffink. But Joe G does. Messrs Dunning and Kruger have a massive file somewhere marked "subject J".

Date: 2012/10/11 03:20:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 10 2012,19:42)
There's more:        
Quote
Sorry, Darwinists, but IDers would expect it.



I too have an uncanny ability to make predictions. I anticipated every single one of last week's football results, for example.

I await the discovery of trilobites fossilised in the act of playing gin rummy - that would be a surprise for Darwinists, but not for ID.

Date: 2012/10/19 13:11:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I have to say, I didn't find it depressing. I found it honest and reflective. I'm not remotely religious, but if that's how people make sense of their lives, good luck to 'em. I'm not above mocking dumbness, but ... on bigotry, he has a point. If someone is stupid and religious ... it's the stupidity, stupid. It's not the being religious.

I wish him well.

Date: 2012/10/23 19:09:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
   
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.



Date: 2012/10/24 02:02:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2012,03:38)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 23 2012,19:09)
Breaking News
Joe says something new! He mentions Stonehenge! And ... er ... "if your position had any evidence to support we wouldn’t be talking about proving a designer." This is devastating stuff; he's finally broken free of his tendency to endless repetition and become one of ID's foremost thinkers.
     
Quote
seeing that natural processes only exist in nature, they cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So we infer it was something other than nature that gave us nature.

And what, other than nature, is there? There's us, obviously, but it can't have been us. So I give you ... ta-dah! ... Supernature! It's real; Joe proved it. Meantime, if you can't say how many mutations it took to get from reptilian jaw to mammalian middle ear, I'm afraid it's curtains for Darwinism. Turn the lights out when you go.

It's not new.  On about page 20 or 30 of this thread is a discussion of how stonehenge was formed using human designers.

I think it was Afarensis that demolished him on that one.

I know - thinly disguised sarcasm! You could distil his entire output into about twenty sentences, the Greatest Hits on heavy rotation.  

In his determination to follow Newton's rules, and not introduce unnecessary entities, he thinks it probable aliens 'did' Stonehenge...

Date: 2012/10/25 07:25:49, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 25 2012,07:55)
KF to gpuccio:
   
Quote
GP: Sometimes it amazes me that you are writing in a second language and many of the objectors are writing in their first. KF


Joe:
   
Quote
Really? I suspected as much- well most likely I knew it and just forgot. Amazing indeed. But that does explain some things like the choice of wording.


Joe truly is the stupidest person on the Internet.

It amazes me that KF is writing in his first language.

It is a curiously Anglophone trait to be gobsmacked at the facility a foreigner may have in English - typically, English-speakers are particularly shit at foreign languages, and assume everyone else must be too. I experience that surprise myself, when an endless supply of accented pundits pop up on the radio with perfect, idiomatic and technical English, or when travelling and finding that the entire populace appears to be much better at my language than I am at theirs.

Nonetheless, GP's argument is not very coherent, however English his excellent.

Date: 2012/10/28 10:55:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
UBP pounces upon another passing victim:      
Quote
Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of these conditions, because it (itself) is entirely dependent upon them. To say otherwise is to say that a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen?

You need semiosis to establish a semiotic state ...! "Take this small explosive device, Jerad. It is of a kind commonly termed a petard, coarsely named from the middle French term meaning to break wind. It will blow your argument to smithereens. I will now retire to a safe distance with my fingers in my ears, and ... what, nothing? Oh, give it here, it just needs a ..." {KABOOM!}

Date: 2012/10/29 19:43:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2012,20:47)
Nonreligious / Muslim Joe / Jim / JohnPaul:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-437806

 
Quote
....
As if-

1- As If God needs defending
2- As if humans could
3- As if anyone cares what keiths sez

But anyway, being brought up in a Christian family and having attended catholic schools, it is clear to anyone with an IQ over 50, that pain and suffering are the result of the fall of man. We brought it upon ourselves, with a lttle help from below. Now we have to deal with it.

Individual salvation can be had, as can individual damnation- equal opportunity. The choice is yours.

So that is how Christians explain and accept the world, keiths- unless they have changed in the past thirty + years.


This is also consistant with baraminology...

So ... he creates a perfect Eden, apart from this snake and this tree. Tells 'em not to eat the fruit. "Go on, have a nibble", says the snake. 6,000 years later, the world is full of disease, cataclysm and sin. "It's your own fucking fault" says God. "Your ancestors ate a fruit, and I told 'em not to".

Yes, that all seems totally in order. Pass me the scourge.

Date: 2012/11/04 03:56:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 03 2012,19:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2012,11:02)
If this guy starts ending his comments with "I love it so" and asking about my frugivorous predilections, it would clarify things, I think.

I actually was reminded a bit of JAD, the way he's focused on Jack Krebs for instance.

He would find common ground with Doug Dobney/Socrates.

Date: 2012/11/05 15:00:41, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (onlooker @ Nov. 05 2012,14:56)
I was just catching up over at The Skeptical Zone after a couple of days cleaning up from Sandy, and I saw a reference to something I thought was too offensive even for UD to host.  Turns out I was wrong.

Here's Mung explaining how he'd justify an omnibenevolent god allowing rape:
 
Quote
I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what?


So now what?  So now I know that I was correct in choosing to ignore Mung on every UD thread.  He's as ignorant as Joe, no more intelligent, but as thoroughly unpleasant and ethically challenged as Barry.  Quite the combination there.

Certainly an odd one for an objective-morality jockey to peddle. Turns out rape ain't so bad, which just leaves child molestation and murder. Or maybe they aren't evil either.

It would be useful if this objective morality were packaged in an unequivocal and accessible form. Maybe WJM will pop up and defend Mung, who at least is avoiding the dreadful fate of the 'subjective-moralist', of having no rational basis for their morality ... I expect there's a wider context to Mung's remarks, but I can't be arsed finding what it is.

Date: 2012/11/10 10:32:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 09 2012,02:40)
 
Quote (bornagain77 @ November 8, 2012, 8:10 pm)
‘You do not understand love at all.’

I beg to differ. From the tolerance, clarity, and patience, I have seen StephenB, over the last few years, exercise towards those who, IMO, unreasonably disagree with him, I would say StephenB has a far better grasp of the Christian imperative for love than most other Christians I’ve seen on the internet, especially myself!

Batshit77 must be back on the sauce.

link

That would be the StephenB that thinks (with GilbertD) that anti-ID commenters must be insane? Love you too, Steve!

Date: 2012/11/10 18:06:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Nov. 10 2012,21:40)
Barry, conflates the Central Dogma* of molecular biology and evolution in a post titled "Another Irony Alert"

 
Quote
Naturally, UB expects that if the denizens of The Skeptical Zone were genuinely skeptical (in the general sense of that word), the “Central Dogma” of Darwinian Evolution would be the first thing about which they would be skeptical.  After all, Darwinian Evolution is perhaps the archetypical conventional wisdom of our time.  But that is obviously not the case.  Instead, The Skeptical Zone is a place where the Central Dogma is zealously defended.


*Which I think stands, despite reverse transcriptase, if we respect Crick's original proposal.

If you ain't skeptical about my pet peeve, you ain't skeptical!

But, yes, I'd be very interested if they had some evidence of amino acid sequence dictating a nucleic acid sequence. Not verbally, obviously.

Date: 2012/11/17 04:25:22, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2012,07:11)
Joe G. (the not creationist) is pluging "Not By Chance” by Dr Lee Spetner" on every thread...

He loves to stick that ass-licking 'Dr' in front of every reference to the guy. PhD in physics. Fabulous. Must be right then.

Date: 2012/11/20 19:07:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
JDB:  
Quote
And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000


In one step. You realise no-one is saying it happens in one step? Or even two.

   
Quote
These were designed.


How long does it take a designer to determine that this specific version of the protein from the 1:10^15,000 possibilities at its disposal had the properties desired, using only the power of thought? Or even a rilly big computer?

Date: 2012/11/21 08:03:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Pyramids are antennas.


Yes, it's well known that huge piles of limestone and marble blocks make excellent antennas. You can also make a little hole in the middle and stick dead people in - they're dual-function. And the dead people probably help with the reception.

Date: 2012/11/21 16:55:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
reasonably civil exchanges

What, '[x] spews', 'crybaby [y]', 'moron', 'liar' etc are all 'reasonably civil'? You read these threads, sunshine?

eta
Quote
giving the lie to their drumbeat accusations of censorship.

So the fact that Joe hasn't lately resorted to his extremest guttersnipe mode means that UD is no longer wielding the banhammer? Truly, you are a master of the non sequitur.



Date: 2012/11/21 19:05:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
? page

Date: 2012/12/01 07:17:10, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2012,00:17)
For LULZ:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......ss.html

Quote
There wasn't any Mt Everest before the flood you moron. All of the mountains and ocean basiins were created during the flood year.

And if the earth was smooth- ie no mountains and no ocean basins, there is enough water to cover the entire planet to some 9000 meters.

IOW Elzinga is a fucking ignorant asshole.


If the planet was covered in water to a depth of 9000 metres, where in hell did Noah live?

Date: 2012/12/02 03:19:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2012,19:50)
Explaining Joe:

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

EDIT:

Quote
According to Islam, Noah's ark was a flat watercraft made of logs, tied together with primitive ropes, the flood was local, around the Dead Sea area, and the animals were Noah's domesticated[16] animals.

Time for a new crusade, I think. "Whole world!" "Local!" "Whole world, I tell ye!" ..... fiiiiight!!!

Date: 2012/12/06 18:00:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 06 2012,21:38)
Joe is having fun over at Corny's blog.

 
Quote
Thorton: All evolutionary processes do is drive a population to a local maximum in reproductive fitness.

Joe: Whatever that is- another reason it ain't scientific.


If Joe don't understand it, it ain't scientific.

(Thorton's not 100% correct, BTW Joe - there are evolutionary processes that knock 'em downwards as well. You could have called on your deep understanding of evolutionary theory and made him look small, instead of just blinking.).

Date: 2012/12/07 13:37:07, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Dec. 07 2012,00:40)
Joe at Hunter's blog:

 
Quote
Joe GDecember 6, 2012 2:55 PM
yeah thorton and it's a fact that you are a child-molesting pedophile- sick with syphillis contracted by having sex with infected dogs.


Joe GDecember 6, 2012 2:55 PM
Actually troy everyone knows that you too like little boys...


He is being slightly poked. I'm in favor of comments getting shut down, and that blog disappearing. For having a real Ph.D. in science, Hunter's posts are straying close to "Fucking magnets how do they work?"

He's a great ambassador for his 'position', and I mean that most ironically, folks. His side love his attack-dog persona; he says what they would love to say but are concerned it may affect their prospects after-life-wise. Then, at some point, they realise he's rabid and out-of-control. "er .. Joe ... if you could dial it down just a tad?". Do they keep him or do they press 'eject'?

Comments closed: termite infestation.

Date: 2012/12/13 07:19:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Oh, you poor people! The rest of us are fingerprinted at the US port of entry just for being foreign! Think I'll go to Canada; they like me there.

(The check for working with minors is obviously so they can tell who actually laid a hand on the kids ... ?).

Date: 2012/12/20 09:09:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 20 2012,05:21)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,20:22)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 19 2012,18:27)
Village idiot of the interwebs has a 'solution' to end school shootings, that is also 'free'! 3 armed police at every school...

http://www.blogger.com/comment....3821047

Being the civic minded sort that he is, I'm sure Joe will be leading the effort to raise the tax money to pay all those new officers.  And the recruiting effort to hire so many new cops.  Now there's a jobs program!

No. Joe doesn't think it will cost any extra money at all. Good luck trying to figure that out.

And the kids will grow up surrounded by armed police? Way to protect their innocence!

There is, of course, no conceivable solution to the prevalence of guns in a society that generates the perceived need for such measures. None whatsoever.

Date: 2012/12/28 06:39:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:        
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

Date: 2012/12/28 08:11:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 28 2012,13:41)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 28 2012,04:39)
OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:                
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

UD = undoubtedly deluded.


I notice that WJM said "gods".  I wonder how many he believes in? And I hate to think of what his "etc" includes.

to be fair, the expansion in square brackets was mine. It replaced his actual text "such things", alluding to an earlier paragraph:

   
Quote
There is evidence (yes, even scientific) for the existence of god, the supernatural, and the afterlife; there is no evidence (that I’m aware of, that anyone has offered me) that those things do not exist. .  


But yeah, why not - the evidence for God is the evidence for gods. What allows him to pare it down to a singular, I don't know. If there was more than one, you would expect --------. We don't find --------, therefore God.

Date: 2012/12/28 10:25:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 28 2012,16:12)
This is good.

JoeTard, besides believing in reincarnation and that the Great Pyramid is actually an antenna to contact space aliens, is now at UD arguing the evidence for ghosts.

   
Quote
Joe G:

Nick, Alan, starbuck, and LarTanner are just upset because there is more evidence for ghosts than there is for there position.

Deal with it guys…

linky


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

:D  :D  :D

People have seen ghosts. Or they said they did, and that's good enough for me. People's perceptions are infallible. They haven't seen artiodactyls turning into whales, however. Therefore it never happened.

Date: 2012/12/28 13:35:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
vjtorley diagrees with the UD majority about the supernatural origin of the Fatima events. But he is absolutely bang-on convinced about the lightweight Joseph of Cupertino.

Is it wrong to be dogmatic about the pull of gravity? Magic Works. Mostly through doing something that the crowd cannot work out. Even when magicians insist they merely create illusions, they are accused of using 'real' magic - check out Youtube comments on David Blaine, Dynamo, Derren Brown!

Date: 2012/12/30 04:41:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,04:58)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 29 2012,12:34)
I was kind of hoping Gary would cite a specific instance where evolution has exhibited foresight or has gone straight to some major modification without futzing around with variation.

Human chromosome speciation was the result of a "good guess" which likely led to almost immediate reproductive isolation (a new species).


That doesn't fit either requirement. You haven't given any reason to invoke intelligence in what appears to be as much a mechanistic accident as any mutation, and you have picked something that leads to no great phenotypic distinction - a 'major modification' equivalent to moving a whole chunk of your code from one place to another, without changing the execution one bit. I doubt you'd expect to get paid for that.

The main consequence of a rearrangement is a potential barrier to gene flow, which may be significant in some kinds of speciation contact, but there are many other, nonchromosomal, mechanisms. You think a chromosome rearrangement is 'intelligent' - how about, say, the expansion of an intervening body of water?

Date: 2012/12/30 15:17:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,13:26)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2012,04:41)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,04:58)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 29 2012,12:34)
I was kind of hoping Gary would cite a specific instance where evolution has exhibited foresight or has gone straight to some major modification without futzing around with variation.

Human chromosome speciation was the result of a "good guess" which likely led to almost immediate reproductive isolation (a new species).


That doesn't fit either requirement. You haven't given any reason to invoke intelligence in what appears to be as much a mechanistic accident as any mutation, and you have picked something that leads to no great phenotypic distinction - a 'major modification' equivalent to moving a whole chunk of your code from one place to another, without changing the execution one bit. I doubt you'd expect to get paid for that.

The main consequence of a rearrangement is a potential barrier to gene flow, which may be significant in some kinds of speciation contact, but there are many other, nonchromosomal, mechanisms. You think a chromosome rearrangement is 'intelligent' - how about, say, the expansion of an intervening body of water?

In this cognitive model chromosome speciation becomes an example of a molecular level “good guess” mechanism creating a new species.  How you would rather it be explained, is simply irrelevant to discussion of this theory with an entirely different model which produces that for an answer. There is nothing I can even do about that, it’s in the way the model works. You just have to get used to it being this way.

Why?

Date: 2012/12/31 07:05:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
The relevance of chromosome differences to human/chimp speciation remains unclear. Some fairly tight criteria must be met before it can be established that chromosome changes were involved in a speciation event, rather than occurring and being fixed in one or both of the lineages after they separated. The expected signals don't appear in apes. The 9 pericentric inversions and one fusion that distinguish human and chimp karyotypes just as likely all occurred after they become separate breeding populations.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiwe....ec.html

Date: 2012/12/31 16:01:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Axel (for 'tis he of the sodomitic night-terrors) confirms what a douche Chesterton appeared to be (he'd fit right in at UD) by this further quote  
Quote
‘When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.’
Anything except ghoulies and ghosties, the poofing into existence of fully-formed species and fallen angels trying to ram you in the rear, that would be.  

And BA77 quotes with approval their other favourite sophist-apologist CS Lewis:  
Quote
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
So it's a game of Belief? Believe wrong and you go to the worse of the places you didn't believe in? er ... OK, if you say so. Sounds exactly what a loving Father would do.

Date: 2013/01/01 04:14:27, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 01 2013,03:30)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 31 2012,16:01)
[...]
And BA77 quotes with approval their other favourite sophist-apologist CS Lewis:        
Quote
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
So it's a game of Belief? Believe wrong and you go to the worse of the places you didn't believe in? er ... OK, if you say so. Sounds exactly what a loving Father would do.

Elizabeth Anscombe. That's a name that should be prominent in any retrospective discussion of C.S. Lewis. I like reading the section on their debate in Wikipedia.

   
Quote

As a result of the contest, Lewis substantially rewrote chapter 3 of Miracles for the 1960 paperback edition.


Lewis was shown to be wrong in some aspect of his thought, conceded that point, and revised work in light of that deficiency. Would any of his modern cheerleaders go that far?


Yes, I'm prepared to believe Lewis (and Chesterton, for that matter) was possessed of intellectual honesty. That's the trouble with freezing one's current thoughts in print; future self-correction, or clarification, even if published, is omitted when people later quote your earlier words as What You Thought.

Date: 2013/01/02 04:50:45, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 01 2013,03:11)
Go here, then search for "karyotype".

I'm not so sure fission/fusion is a common mechanism of speciation per se. It's possible for both fission and fusion to spread entirely neutrally, with no mechanism to partition a population - in both instances, it's simply the presence or absence of a 'gap', and meiosis need have little problem aligning gap+ and gap- chromosomes in heterozygotes. You can end up with different numbers of centromeres, which can result in drive in female meiosis, as the polarity of division can reward greater or fewer as they avoid becoming polar bodies, but this is not a fitness effect. The main potential for fitness depression comes from a higher rate of aneuploid gametes, which might lower fitness in heterozygotes. This acts against the change while rare, but helps push it to fixation when common, if it can get there. But if hybrid fitness is significantly reduced, the likeliest result remains extinction, rather than reinforcement of isolating mechanisms to avoid hybridisation. In the tiny inbreeding population demanded in this circumstance, there is little variation to provide them, while the wider population is hardly likely to be troubled by occasional hybridisation.    

If an effectively neutral change in chromosome number arises (say) every 1 in 10000 gametes, then fixation of a change in the species chromosome number will flip at the same rate. But if there is drive, this acts in tandem with drift to raise the rate, which can oppose a weak selective effect. If there is fitness depression in heterozygotes, fixation will occur less often; where it does there will be a nonlinear progression (slowed at first, accelerated later). But I think this mostly occurs after isolation, rather than driving it.



Date: 2013/01/03 06:28:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 02 2013,13:16)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 02 2013,04:50)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 01 2013,03:11)
Go here, then search for "karyotype".

I'm not so sure fission/fusion is a common mechanism of speciation per se [...]

Maybe change in karyotype is mostly incidental and secondary to other isolating mechanisms. If that's the case, what pattern of karyotype changes do you expect to see in taxa? Does it fit with the observed pattern in the taxa I mentioned of swine and peccaries?


I think the problem would be that it is difficult to make a prediction at taxon level. If a chromosome rearrangement was a prime driver of a bifurcation, or bifurcation occurred and then one lineage subsequently experienced a near-neutral break or fusion, there would be the same number of species, and the same karyotype pattern.

There are 9 pericentric inversions and one fusion between human and other apes. It would be a stretch to consider them all involved in speciation of the LCA, which allows at least the possibility that none of them were.

The signal of a fission/fusion event in speciation would be very hard to detect, because 'gap+' may be functionally equivalent to some bridging patch of neutral sequence, due to the capacity of meiosis to align homologous stretches.  

Inversions are more likely to provide a signal, because they act as a partial barrier to gene flow by locally blocking recombination. If diverging populations were in contact, we would get different patterns within and outside the inversion region. Data for humans appears inconclusive.

There's an interesting treatment of karyotype evolution in mammals in Burt and Trivers's 'Genes in Conflict'. Genera almost all have a distribution of karyotypes that cluster at the 'ends' - either 'mostly metacentric' or 'mostly acrocentric', with fewer in the middle, half-and-half. The preferred explanation is that female meioisis periodically switches polarity, alternately favouring breaks (more centromeres) and fusions (fewer). This pattern is too widespread to suppose that, every time a break or fusion tracking the current position of the egg/polar bodies occurred, two new species were formed, with ultimate elimination of the one with the distribution closer to the median.

Since karyotype changes appear to be more common than speciation events, it becomes hard to directly implicate them in any particular one.



Date: 2013/01/03 06:36:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'?

Date: 2013/01/03 12:08:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,06:36)
...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'?

All of the rearrangements are a "good guess".

But if they don't lead to the speciation you invoke them for, what's good about them?

Date: 2013/01/03 14:35:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2013,16:45)
So, there's this site....

Attention Meter

....that apparently aggregates the data from a bunch of different web-traffic thingies. Here are the stats for Uncommonly Dense....







Looks good to me.

If only people would stop giving in to temptation and actually engaging the fools those graphs would look even healthier - you know who you are *scowls*.

The March spike might be car-crash gawkers after the LNC/DrREC debacle. The Aug/Oct ones might be 'TSZ-and-Jerad' or similar finger-pointing across the canyon. Which certainly supports a hypothesis that most UD traffic is generated by people who think it's baloney - and, further, that bannination is actually good for business, if not credibility.

KF needs to dream something else up, pronto.

Date: 2013/01/04 04:40:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,22:31)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,12:08)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)
           
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,06:36)
...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'?

All of the rearrangements are a "good guess".

But if they don't lead to the speciation you invoke them for, what's good about them?

I'm just following the current information on the fusion event, including:

Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi, “Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes”,  PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full

Harewood Louise, Schuetz Frederic, Boyle Shelagh, et al., “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression”, Genome Research, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Pages: 554-564, DOI: 10.1101/gr.103622.109, May 2010
http://genome.cshlp.org/content....54.full

The 44 Chromosome Man, And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past, The Tech Museum, 2010
http://genetics.thetech.org/origina....news124


Yes, but there are frequent problems with chromosomal rearrangements, and only occasionally does one slip through the filter of negative selection (the 'good guess'). Even more rarely can we say that such an event was involved in speciation. One possible mechanism of spread, incidentally, is that an increase in miscarriage could, in certain circumstances, be beneficial. When resources are scarce, producing few pregnancies can lead to fewer but better-invested offspring. This could drive the change part-way to fixation, but at 50% the advantage dissipates. But if the limit is lifted, the 'old' arrangement is as likely to become the one disfavoured, as it no longer has the numerical advantage. This could lead either to speciation or to elimination of one type within the species.

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)
The word "guess" is simply from the scientific terminology use  in cognitive science. Self-learning systems "take a guess" not "take a mutation".


DNA does indeed 'learn' about the environments through which it recently passed, and selection filters the generality of 'guesses', good and bad, to leave principally the ones to which we can, post hoc, ascribe the label 'good'. It's not a new idea, though.

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)

That's what happens when DNA is studied as a self-learning system. Even you are required to use the proper terminology. Ones in this forum who demand cognitive science conform to Darwinian terminology are just making asses out of themselves.

If you are arguing about evolution, people who use the biological terminology are hardly the ones making asses of themselves. I think that's your #1 problem: wading into a field you aren't expert in and telling them how to express matters.

I sympathise; I once tried to discuss an idea out of my area of expertise and was leapt upon from a great height, in part because of my misuse of terms and misapprehension of my jocular attempts to shake people out of what I saw as an entrenched way of thinking. It did not go down well! But instead of blaming them, I went off and got a better grounding in the subject matter. I still think I'm right, but I'm not going round lecturing people.  

Date: 2013/01/04 15:20:02, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Jan. 04 2013,19:20)
Evidence for damitall's hypothesis:

O'Leary's transfer to www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog coincides with a dramatic increase in traffic. Looks like it is pulling 4X the unique visitors to UD, and beats it in rank by ~250,000 sites.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/embed_c...._c....m

Confirming part of the hypothesis. The more worrying part is that people may be following her because of the rock-solid common sense she gives out.

Date: 2013/01/04 15:39:09, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 04 2013,21:31)
i have never.  ever.  ever.  met someone who said "you know that tranmaw, it write real good and i likes to read it" or any variant thereof

how likely is it that it just knows how to linkfarm blogwhore enough to get stats like that by itself?

Mebbe so. But nothing would surprise me in Mirrorworld, where horseshit is the finest gravy. I have seen people write admiringly of KF and BA77, claiming they read them closely, f'rinstance. They may have been lying.

Date: 2013/01/08 15:14:41, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 08 2013,07:16)
William J. Murray asks Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable?

Heard it!

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....o....ore-943

Yes, of course it is. But you try telling Bill that.

Date: 2013/01/09 04:43:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
     
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Date: 2013/01/13 15:36:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 13 2013,21:28)
vjtorley has cranked out yet another screed.  [...]

Batshit 77 replies:
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch......4041205

Further work has revealed that those words follow the barely-decipherable text: "I'll have the chicken. What would you like?"

Date: 2013/01/15 19:27:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
         
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Date: 2013/01/17 03:57:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 16 2013,17:13)
Why does Jesus look like Frank Zappa?

And he looks like he thinks I'm a jerk.

Date: 2013/01/22 06:17:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
I will put up thousands of dollars to meet you for a fight and then a scientific debate."

That conjures up a hilarious image. Biff! Bam! Bash! Now, professor, as you dust yourself off: regarding the role of neutral processes in speciation ... oh, you want another piece of me?

Date: 2013/01/27 07:29:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2013,01:08)
jerry's back!
This should raise the flow of tard over there if he sticks around.

You could have warned it was graphic man-love!

Date: 2013/01/27 07:41:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
lastyearon:          
Quote
How do you program the robot to identify designed objects?


Joe:      
Quote
You program it to look for signs of counterflow-

     
Quote
Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely Del Ratzsch in “Nature, Design and Science” page 5


So, you look for stuff that ain't natural. Obvious, really.  

Joe's robot would soon hit upon these regular tracks. A little further on, a second set ... then a third ...

Date: 2013/01/28 15:51:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
             
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Date: 2013/01/29 14:58:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
         
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                 
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

Date: 2013/01/30 05:24:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 30 2013,02:03)
EvilSnack makes a joke on KF's silly selective-hyperskepticism thread: [...]
UD link

 KF:  
Quote
ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW SUCH INDOCTRINATION AND POLARISATION LEADING TO EVIDENT CLOSED MINDEDNESS CAN BE CORRECTED EFFECTIVELY?

ALL CAPS! THAT OUGHT TO DO IT!



Date: 2013/01/30 11:32:13, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
We are not dealing with reason here, but indoctrination and polarising rhetoric feeding rage-filled contempt that has become artificially, willfully obtuse.


*cough*Projection!

Date: 2013/02/01 13:28:48, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
there is a very simple proof

Unfortunately, space does not permit me to go into it rigorously here. Granville's Last Theorem. We should be so lucky.

Date: 2013/02/12 06:46:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 12 2013,09:53)
joey is barfing up his usual IDiotic chunks, here:

http://skepticink.com/azathei....-wedgie

Like a broken record, down to the familiar pops and crackles. Joe - do you ever get bored with yourself?

[The ad that popped up was "Test your knowledge of the Bible! Take the trivia challenge!"]

Date: 2013/02/14 06:38:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 13 2013,05:02)
Here in the great state of Mizzou-rah! we are trying to redefine science as "faith based philosophy".  MO HB291

Hehehe. Also in the pipeline: a rebranding to the "Were You There?" State.

Date: 2013/02/14 06:45:23, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Feb. 14 2013,04:32)
Gould: if it were possible to ‘replay the tape’ of evolution, the outcome would almost certainly be very different, both in detail and in general. Contingency.

ID: The universal genetic code is only one of many options. Arbitrary......therefore, designed?

Can anyone explain the latter? Why are they patting themselves on the back for imagining a different equally functional genetic code could exist? Our design is arbitrary, therefore God? Isn't that the opposite of ID?

Short version: if it does not arise out of 'chemical necessity' or some such bunk, then it can't be the result of 'Natural Processes'. 'Cos Accidents Never Happen.

Long version: see any thread started by or mentioning Upright Biped.

They have split their chips though - some apparent optimality in the code = Good Design. Possible Other Codes /= 'Nature Operating Freely'.

Date: 2013/02/18 13:38:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
if two species have similar morphologies they think this is proof of evolution. It took me a long time to realize this because it seems too strange to be true. Similar morphologies, like similar strands of dna do not prove anything.


That's right, and similar patterns in 'silent' substitution don't prove anything. And hierarchic commonality of longer stretches of DNA inversion and insertion and deletion  doesn't prove anything. And commonality of transpositional insert positions don't prove anything. And relationships between karyotypes don't prove anything. And the fact that trees are recovered from objective phylogenetic analysis doesn't prove anything. And the concordance of many independent lines of evidence doesn't prove anything.

Fucking Darwinists. They're just determined to see relationship where none exists.

Date: 2013/02/20 04:08:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 19 2013,23:28)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 19 2013,14:33)
Bully makes up for Densey's absence by sticking a glaring typo in his latest thread heading:
   
Quote
Nick Matzke: All True Scotsman Believe in Darwinian Evolution

UD link

Nick Matzke has shown up on that thread.  Arse-kickings are being administered.

They are convinced they are the ones doing the kicking. The organic-chemistry basis of macroevolution? Really? And the babbling bozos are fine with that as a demand?

I'm off to find out what quantum physics can tell me about brain surgery. It is, after all, all about atoms.

Date: 2013/02/22 06:10:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Tour, on his intended behaviour during lunch:      
Quote
and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something [...]

A generous offer not to argue himself out of a position of understanding. Or only to argue about things he doesn't understand. Or did I misinterpret? {Whistle}.

I wish I'd known about this lunch offer. I'd roll up, draw a cladogram on a napkin with the word EVOLUTION double-underlined beneath it, and then set to stuffing my fat face.



Date: 2013/02/27 06:32:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (rossum @ Feb. 27 2013,11:31)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2013,04:18)
   
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 27 2013,03:10)
Whenever I see a scriptural reference to a verse from Ecclesiastes with the abbreviation "Eccles", I cannot help but think of the character from the Goon Show (a British radio comedy show from the 50's)
Eccles was a very silly person with a very silly voice -highly suited for reading out "scripture"

You've mixed up boy-scout extraordinaire Bluebottle with The Famous Eccles. Mind you, Eccles reading bits of wisdom from the Bible would still be amusing.

Both Eccles and Bluebottle are in "What time is it Eccles?"

Classic stuff.

You're wearing an Oxford tie!

Eccles: Yes.

What were you doing at Oxford?

E: Buying a tie.

Date: 2013/02/28 05:47:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 28 2013,04:03)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 28 2013,12:53)
UD is thwarting us, or at least me, in a way. Torley's new post about that chemistry prof who is confused about macroevolution is 11,800+ words.

I don't have the time or inclination to read such bloggorhea.

Looks like Nick Matzke read it though - the arse-kicking resumes here (UD link). It begins:
       
Quote
What I am impressed by is so much writing can have so little understanding.
... and just gets better.

Edited: Man, this tinyurl thing is just not working for me.

Torley:    
Quote
In the interests of fairness and clarity ...

... I'd like to throw up a whole pile of irrelevant and obfuscatory shit about different usages of the terms in different contexts. None of which supports the contention that macroevolution should have a chemical explanation separate to that for 'microevolution' and speciation mechanisms. But I'll just 'put it out there' anyway. In the interests of fairness and clarity.

Date: 2013/02/28 14:51:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2013,20:15)
In less than 5 hours, Upright Biped has accused me of deleting his comments, accused me of avoiding his questions, flounced, and returned for 3 more posts.

The even-shorter version of UB's still-windy distilled argument is "you can't have evolution without replication, you can't have replication without protein, and you can't make protein without protein". Based upon the absence of any modern forms that can do without it - the 'material observations'. You could drive a fleet of buses through the logical hole in that logical argument, but UB regularly appears on blogs to congratulate himself on its watertightness.

Date: 2013/03/01 08:13:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,13:51)

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.


Who says evolutionary change is only significant if it leads to a 'new' protein (whatever that really would mean - what's the threshold for newness)?

There was a genetic change that proved beneficial in the environment, and natural selection - the thing that 'does nothing' - resulted in takeover by descendants of the mutant due to increased relative replication rate. The mutants are random with respect to the environment, since they do not re-occur in reanimated frozen samples despite precisely the same environmental conditions.

Date: 2013/03/01 08:14:19, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
double post



Date: 2013/03/01 08:18:11, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,14:12)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2013,14:58)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2013,00:38)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 28 2013,15:51)
     
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 28 2013,17:33)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 15 2013,19:27)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 13 2013,00:10)
           
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 09 2013,04:43)
Joe, on the 'WJM - atheists are dishonest, thick and/or irrational' thread
                   
Quote
I know how to test Intelligent Design evolution. And no one appears to know how to test blind watchmaker evolution.

Strange, that…

Care to reveal your methodology?

Already have- more than once, too.


How to test and falsify ID

That's bullshit, Joe. Dembski's Explanatory Filter - Newton's First Rule, for that matter - are no help to you here. You don't 'test ID' by attempting to demonstrate 'blind and undirected processes' doing evolution, regardless whether that attempt succeeds or fails.

You need a method of reliably distinguishing ID causes from 'natural' ones in biological history. You haven't got one.

Fuck you soapy sam. Your position doesn't have any methodology beyond "it ain't designed no matter what!"

Fuck yourself, old bean. You think that is all evolutionary theory amounts to, so you will forever rail helplessly against it, with your convincing counterargument: "it is, I tells ya".

Whatever asshole. It's a fact that you cannot produce any positive evidence tat accumulations of genetic accidents didit.

Did what? What is your evidence that a designer did "it"? Are we back to the Explanatory Filter again?

Umm I have already told you what the evidence is that a designer did it. It is the same class of evidence that archaeologists, forensic scientists and SETI researchers use. And it can be refuted in the same manner that those venues' design inference can be refuted.

Go figure...

A completely meaningless answer. You have simply told me that there are methodologies in those various fields used to (attempt to) detect agency. You don't say what they are nor how they can be applied to fields other than those in which they are used. Such as biology.



Date: 2013/03/01 11:34:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,14:35)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 01 2013,08:13)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,13:51)

Got that? All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein, which its promoter is under control of oxygen, was duplicated such that the second copy is now under the control of another promoter which is ON in the presence of oxygen, ie not controlled by the presence of oxygen.

No new proteins and no new functions. We have the same protein doing the same function, just in a different scenario.


Who says evolutionary change is only significant if it leads to a 'new' protein (whatever that really would mean - what's the threshold for newness)?

There was a genetic change that proved beneficial in the environment, and natural selection - the thing that 'does nothing' - resulted in takeover by descendants of the mutant due to increased relative replication rate. The mutants are random with respect to the environment, since they do not re-occur in reanimated frozen samples despite precisely the same environmental conditions.

Nope- natural selection had nothing to do with it. Two potentiating mutations were required and no advatange was had by getting them.



That's right - put those two mutations down to drift. The one that allowed growth on citrate caused differential reproduction of the citrate-metabolising version in a citrate environment. That, sunshine, is Natural Selection.
 
Quote
And no, no one can say the mutations were random in any sense of the word.

'course they fucking can. They got a different result in the same conditions the next time they tried the same starter genome. That is random, by at least one definition: subject to a probability distribution. And another: uncorrelated with the outcome.

Date: 2013/03/03 05:03:09, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 01 2013,18:31)
Quote
Alan Fox: I agree that “no designer would do it that way” is a daft response to – well, what did you ask? – because nobody is giving the designer any attributes on which to base any supposition about the motives of any “designer or “agent”.


I think that put in those terms, "no designer would do it that way" is a daft response. But of course, the context is significantly more broad. What Eric is failing to note (aside from the question(s) that prompted the responses he cites) is that the underlying assumption is that ID is the Logos of John. Ergo, if you have a designer with unlimited resources and unlimited capability, there are designs such an entity just would not do.

But even if we toss aside the creationist (wink wink, nudge nudge) slight-of-hand and assume that ID stands on it's own religiously-neutral ground, we can still assess some characteristics about a supposed designer. For instance, we have several different so-called "eye designs" out there. I would think that anyone who truly thinks that ID is a viable scientific concept would be at least attempting to explain why and at least to some extent compare and qualifying some eye designs (like the Mollusca) as "good" against others (such as the Vertebrate)  as "not nearly as good". It might not reach to the level of "a designer would not do that", but I can't imagine anyone who would argue it's a design that makes sense given other, far superior designs.

Basically folks like Eric want everyone to accept as a default the idea that all of this grand complexity of life around us points to some waaaaaaay advanced designer, while handwaving away unexplainable elementary engineering differences and issues as irrelevant. Nobody who has any scientific curiosity would do that (see what I did there?).

ETA: typos

Much of the complexity of life is directed towards minimising the excellent designs of other organisms. Giving predators good eyesight and prey good camouflage is somewhat redundant. If a single designer, it's a bit pointless; if multiple, they can't have been operating in full isolation - they must have had a peek at each other's spec, to know what conditions to design for.

But why aren't we all just photosynthetic?

Date: 2013/03/05 07:29:55, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 05 2013,00:58)
     
Quote
By the way, Mike Behe published over 35 peer-reviewed papers over several years, in his younger days, i.e., when he was in the stage of his career Matzke is in now — the stage of trying to prove oneself competent in one’s field. So make your comparison fair. Compare Behe with his tenured critics. Ask yourself how many peer-reviewed papers Ken Miller has published since 1999, for example. Or Dawkins, since about 30 years ago.

I looked up Behe's pubs on Web of Science. As a grad student at Penn (1974-79), he had published 3 papers and a meeting abstract. In the next 5 years (1980-1984) he had 8 papers. I would not say he had a superior record.


Timaeus is a weapons-grade douche. I recall him chastising Elizabeth Liddle for posting at UD instead of getting on with some science.

Matzke apparently has more biology papers to his name than the entire UD OP-and-Further-Notes collective combined. He's entirely capable of being wrong, but if we're sneering at credentialz ...

Date: 2013/03/06 04:30:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 06 2013,07:18)
joey is displaying his massive brain damage at corny's site. The last two sentences are by joey:

Joe GMarch 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

thorTARD:
One molecule of H2O is a water molecule by definition you moron.

No, it's just one molecule of H2O, you dipshit.

And only English speaking people call it water, dumbass.

-----------------------

From here:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013.......nt-form

   
Quote
[eta: According to what your position sez, oleg,] the water here came from ICE stored in comets and other space debris. IOW on the atomic scale water is made from ice molecules, H2O. Dumbass


HAHAHAHA. Let it go, Joe. You're embarrassing yourself.



Date: 2013/03/06 07:48:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2013,11:52)
He remembers me fondly.  Sniff...

The petulant swipe at the opponent's intellect is something of a UD calling-card. I received the same at the mighty hands of UB, nullasullus and Axel (Axel!). They may have been right, of course ...

Date: 2013/03/07 03:03:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
TSZ has been hacked. I shall take a baseball bat to a few mailboxes forthwith, 'cos that's big and clever too.

Date: 2013/03/07 07:20:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
Joe assembled the furniture by design


'Design' is a verb in that sentence? Eeeenteresting.

"Joe assembled the furniture carefully"
"Joe assembled the furniture by accident"
"Joe assembled the furniture by design"
"Joe assembled the furniture on purpose"

In which cases is the clause after 'furniture' a verb?

Date: 2013/03/14 05:05:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 14 2013,06:35)
Hey Robin! One of your comments here is the subject of Barry's latest post "In which I once again mischaracterise my opponents' position". He even quotes you calling him a wanker, which, if I were in your shoes, would give me a nice warm satisfied feeling.
UD link.

Edit: Ditching this version of TinyURL.

Anyone who tries, however sophistically, to construct an argument that 'belief in NDS may have been selected for by evolution' is [if said person considers themselves a serious critic of evolutionary theory] a wanker.

How a culturally-transmitted notion that had its origins some 150 years ago could possibly have been 'selected for by evolution' in a species with a 20-year generation time is not made clear.

Date: 2013/03/14 11:36:54, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Mar. 14 2013,14:32)
     
Quote
So, Robin, the next time you call someone a “wanker” after you think you have just defeated their argument, you might want to find a person smarter than you (that shouldn’t be hard) and check with them  to make sure you understand the question, much less the answer to the question.


What an unbelievable ass-so now he'll stalk us here, excerpt comments, and post them at UD, along with insults.

I don't think posters here can strictly fault him for that! ;)

But he is the the very essence of a ... uh ... arrogant prick.

Date: 2013/03/15 04:50:27, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 14 2013,21:43)
And, as if on cue, WJM validates my point:

 
Quote
Please note how you phrase your response as if objectively valid “true statements” exist, which is only meaningful if an objective arbiter of “what is true” exist. You statements assume a theistic premise, where “what is true” is not the province of “whatever colliding molecules happen to assert is true”.


But then he gets twisted up in a mistaken strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem "Darwinist":

 
Quote
“Truth” can be nothing more, in essence, than “what views produce the most hardy and prolific offspring”. Theists are, in fact, “better off” when it comes to this issue, because under RMD, “true” can only mean “whatever produces the most successful, prolific offspring”. So, theism – by the RMD measure, is “true”, and materialism – which has produces and currently produces far fewer offspring – is false.


Uggh...so many errors and inaccuracies here. William, just for your own edification, I'm fairly certain that every "Darwinist" (and certainly this "Darwinist") will happily agree that the vast majority of truths we recognize have zero to do with offspring production. But even if that were not the case, let's just examine one situation that falsifies your premise: any group of "Darwinists" who recognize that limiting birth rates is better for human offspring will work to have fewer offspring. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

That you are yet another of the UD/apologist crowd who seems think that individual actions somehow impact evolution is nearly a cliche at this point.

WJM is becoming one of the foremost of knobshiners. The idea that a 'materialist' must hold that 'truth' (the accuracy of an idea with respect to an actual state-of-affairs) is arbited solely by its effect on the production of offspring is ... it's ... well, it's ... words fail me. For an evidently intelligent man, he can be incredibly dumb.

Date: 2013/03/15 05:40:24, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Further discussion at Sandwalk:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2013.......7685237

Date: 2013/03/15 09:49:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2013,14:46)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2013,06:40)
Further discussion at Sandwalk:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2013.......7685237

The rant of Diogenes is epic.

 
Quote
wanker lawyer Arrington's presuppository theology,

At least we didn't get his postsuppository theology! :)

Date: 2013/03/15 12:14:01, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 15 2013,16:52)
I think it would be more nearly correct to say that religion (organized faith) is a product of evolution. It is useful to be able to pass experience and conclusions from one person to the group. It is useful to be able to do this without being able to demonstrate and prove everything.

What religious believers fail to note or mention is that faith is actually faith in the testimony of people.

ETA:

The same social faculty that enables lying also enables religion.

There are two religion generating behaviors that are readily observable. One is hallucination and delusion, which if passed on to others becomes the core of religion.

The second is lying or making stuff up for power or profit. Witness Scientology.

The extent to which religion has a genetic basis (if it does) may also be attributable to social selection for 'belonging'; 'agreement'. It is a well-known, experimentally-verified human trait to go along with a group, even when you know they are wrong. And to punish 'dissenters', even when you are taught (by your own goddamned religion!) that that is wrong***

*** Well. some bits of the book say "be tolerant", others say "kill the fuckers". Hard to choose.

Date: 2013/03/15 13:30:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
When I read their extensive justifications for the incoherence of 'our position', I picture God caught in the existential angst they demand that we acknowledge. "How can I know what's true, moral or just? Do I have free will, or am I just at the mercy of 'spirit-matter'? Waaaaaah!"

They are now deep into arguing over the characteristics and capacities of this ineffable being.

Date: 2013/03/16 06:22:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM:
   
Quote


Graham2:

1. To prevent infinite regress with a causeless cause
2. To provide a source of free will, without which we cannot hope to deliberately discern truth
3. To provide a source of a perfect arbiter of truth, without which all arguments are subject to arbitrary and subjective conclusions.
4. To provide a source of a perfect, objective good, without which morality cannot be anything other than subjective and arbitrary – “anything goes”
5. To provide a reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the cosmos
6. To resolve the problem quantum wave function collapse presents to the formation of a universe prior to the presence of any physical observers

Whether you call the entity that resolves those issues god or donald duck, it’s still a necessary entity.

It is all so clear now. I will get in touch with the perfect arbiter of truth and morality next time I need a definitive answer on something. Maybe he can explain the problem of quantum wave function collapse for Universe formation while he's at it, and why he's the solution. And I can contact him at ... er ... ?

Date: 2013/03/17 04:29:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 16 2013,17:25)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 16 2013,15:43)
It's sort of their world, however, any "admission" is the gospel truth in their view, because supposedly the only reason any of us believes evolution and/or doesn't believe in God is some idiotic notion that we'd far rather burn in hell (or at least cease forever to exist) and deny God than to live forever in paradise believing God.

While it has absolutely nothing to do with why I don't believe in their particular god, I would say that "idiotic notion" is true for me to this extent: even if I believed in their god, I wouldn't lower my standards of ethics and morality so I could spend eternity with a genocidal, homicidal, infanticidal, racist, misogynist, slave-trading piece of shit like the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god.

I couldn't live with myself.


But that genocidal, homicidal, infanticidal, racist, misogynist, slave-trading piece of shit the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god is where you got your standards of ethics and morality from!  :O How else could they be real?  :p

Date: 2013/03/18 08:41:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 18 2013,10:15)
Crank up the ban hammer: Barry's back on the Law of Non-contradiction hobby-horse: Calling KN Out On His Sophistry.

A lawyer moans about sophistry. Barry Arrington moans about sophistry. Laugh my non-contradictory ass off.

Date: 2013/03/19 07:23:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2013,03:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2013,21:28)
Windbag KF goes off:

     
Quote
2 –> The similar inductive status of the island of function effect can also easily be shown from this text. There are a great many ways in which the 899 ASCII characters used in the above clip can be arranged: 128^899 ~ 2.41 *10^1894. (The number of Planck-time states of the 10^80 or so atoms of our observed cosmos since its credible beginning is less than 10^150, a very large number, but one that is utterly dwarfed by the set of possibilities for 899 ASCII characters.) Very few of them would convey the above message in recognisable English and while some noise — such as typos etc — can be tolerated, all too soon injection of random noise — a random walk on the island of function — would destroy function.


1 - > The actual count on UD is 905 characters. It would seem there have been some changes that haven't degraded function (spaces) during the transcription to UD

2- > It is not 128^899 possibilities. Many of the characters are the same. If you knew anything about design detection, you'd take a leaf from cryptanalysis and look at the distribution and dispersal of letters. Whoops!

3- > Zachriel's Phrasenator (link sadly broken at this time).

editz4spellz

You know what I wonder?

Let's say that there are 899 (or 905) ASCII characters in a message.

The question really isn't, what are the odds of the message I want it to say?

The question really is, how many possible combinations spell out an actual message in any language?

That'll mess them the hell up.

The question really is: how many combinations of bases have formed functional sequences of DNA in some organism or another? Some spaces are not well-connected. Therefore no spaces are well-connected? That's ... why, it's a logical fallacy! Depends on the rule for 'well-formed strings', and the structure of that space.

Date: 2013/03/21 05:34:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 20 2013,18:20)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Mar. 20 2013,11:54)
When some have tried outing tactics and have violated a simple request that you respect the privacy of my name, including what is in my part of the world a big insult, publicly using someone’s middle name without permission?

OMG! NOT HIS MIDDLE NAME!!! (faints)


BWAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously Gordon?? Really? Using someone's middle name without permission is an insult? You must really hate that your parents put it on all their legal documents then - what with you being too young to give permission to be given the name, let alone being old enough to let them use it...

I laughed for so long about this one I actually had to check the intertubes to see if it was true. So far, no confirmation, but I'm holding out hope I come across a reference. LOL!

People worldwide are supposed to know the specifics of insult-generation on some island? Elliot? Calling him Elliot is an insult? Elliot? Who'd have thought it. Elliot. Well, I never.

He should be aware that it is a huge insult on this island to cut and paste the same drivelling -->F/N shite over and over and over. For shame. Try to do better next time.

(Except that igniting strawmen phrase. You should use that more often, GElliotM.)

Date: 2013/03/22 04:20:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 22 2013,01:03)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,09:27)
KD wants evidence:          
Quote
Until Matzke actually starts doing science by itemizing the list of proteins required for a simple light sensitive spot, and then itemizing the list of proteins required for fully developed vertebrate eye, and then provides a testable method to go from list A to list B, Matzke hasn’t even begun to refute Thorley [sic!], or to defend a darwinian process, or to even do science. Matzke confuses creative story telling, combined with dodging and evading the core issues, with doing science.


KD, you are letting Nick Matzke off the hook way too soon. We want the process itemized atom for atom, complete with the probability calculation.

In the meantime, try to memorize the spelling of your friend's name.

By the same token, if ID wants to be thought of as a science instead of a particularly poorly thought out branch of apologetics, then ID had damn well better come up with a list of proteins required for a simple light sensitive spot, an itemized list of proteins required for a fully developed vertebrate eye and a testable method to go from list A to List B.  If ID can't provide that, then ID hasn't even begun to support Tholey [sic!], or to refute a darwinian process or even do science.  ID confuses very uncreative story telling, combined with dodging, misunderstanding the core issues, evading the core issues anyway and settling all "scientific" disputes with a bangasm with doing science.


Honestly, people, don't let the bastards get away with this crap.  When they demand knowledge that they know can't be obtained, turn around and demand that THEY produce that same evidence or we will consider THEIR side of the argument to be piss-poor apologetics and not science.

And if they dare to object, just mention sauce, goose and gander and demand they answer your question or stop demanding that we answer it.

I would like to see a definitive and proven genealogy from every one of these bastards. I'm not going to be picky, so I'll accept 1000 years. If they fail to provide such, I'll know they are descended from the aliens who landed in Lisbon in the 1700's, and I'll blast the fuckers with my home-made cosmic ray-gun. Same goes for you evolutionists, so you can wipe that smirk off your faces. Start genealogisin'.

Date: 2013/03/29 10:12:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2013,00:47)
Some of the saner UD regulars have moved to TSZ and it's no longer necessary to care what's happening at UD.

And promptly moved right back again.

Date: 2013/03/30 05:34:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 30 2013,06:24)
 
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2013,17:16)
 
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 28 2013,22:33)
Polarising red herrings (a particularly insiduous Alinskyist lab experiment on light, which I may remind anarcho-materialists Isaac Newton discovered, and is a wave)

:)

I like that you picked out this line, because after I wrote it I thought "It's nothing amazing but, for me, 5 gags in a short parenthesis, Gordon E Mullings has inspired probably the best creative sentence I have written."

I skimmed, but that sentence leaped out at me too. Anarcho-materialists? And it is a good thing Newton discovered light - hitherto, people had nothing on which to use those marvellous camera eyes.

Date: 2013/03/30 17:03:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
And they sure as hell can’t grasp the fact that if that the OoL and its subsequent evolution are directly linked. Meaning the only way darwinian evolution is responsible for the diversity of life is if blind and undirected chemical processes produced the first popluation(s) of living organisms.


Complete fucking bollocks, Joe. Darwinian evolution is not wedded to a particular mode of replicator origin. It would happen even in Designed replicators, unless their replication was perfect (ie mutation-free).

Date: 2013/04/01 15:12:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ April 01 2013,20:53)
 
Quote
Some sock might want to ask him whether the diffraction grating atop Crawford Hall at Case Western is objectively blue, objectively red, or objectively green:

Well of course it is!

How nice that the prism splits white light into 7 objective colour bands for us, to save our visual pigment response ranges from having to lump these wavelength continuums together themselves. I'm off to paint my bathroom Objective Magnolia.

Date: 2013/04/04 02:45:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 03 2013,17:42)
Over at UD, Joe is about to get posting privileges soon. Niwrad already dedicated him his very own thread titled "Joe scores".

Hmmmm ... !click! ... OK, left side of the screen, Joe Scores yadda yadda yadda. Right side of screen, very pretty girl on dating site ad. OK, concentrate: Joe scores yadda yadda .... mmmm she sho' is pretty ... Joe Joe yadda ...

Date: 2013/04/04 05:14:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 03 2013,23:16)
I'm loving that Joe is now basically an angry syndication service for TSZ.

He tries to  remove parts that are inconvenient or mention his porn-posting past, though. Bless you, little chubby cupcake!

Because his colleagues couldn't possibly sully their delicate senses by actually clicking on a link to the 'feotid waters'! :) From their perspective, Joe performs an admirable service, UD's 'sewer diver', nosing out all the news that's fit to mock.

Date: 2013/04/04 06:12:41, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 04 2013,12:05)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 04 2013,09:45)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 03 2013,17:42)
Over at UD, Joe is about to get posting privileges soon. Niwrad already dedicated him his very own thread titled "Joe scores".

Hmmmm ... !click! ... OK, left side of the screen, Joe Scores yadda yadda yadda. Right side of screen, very pretty girl on dating site ad. OK, concentrate: Joe scores yadda yadda .... mmmm she sho' is pretty ... Joe Joe yadda ...

If by "scoring" you mean getting all excited over internet porn, then I can see your point.

If the Joester finally scored, I'm pleased for him, but it's hard to concentrate on his doings when UD keep pushing pretty girls in my direction ...

Date: 2013/04/04 09:30:01, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ April 04 2013,15:00)




Want to have some fun? Feel free to remove the text and add your own.

Drs Dunning and Kruger check back through their old case studies ...

Date: 2013/04/04 18:46:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2013,23:20)
   
Quote (JohnW @ April 03 2013,12:54)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2013,10:28)
LOL

Joe and nested hierarchies vs and actual evolutionary biologist

Boom goes the dynamite.

Beautiful.

     
Quote
Ya see evolutionism is OK with any pattern

Ok, you don´t seem to be lying, you seem to be a genuine idiot.

Still going, so funny!

Good grief! I once tried to 'discuss' nested hierarchies with him at UD (though I'm no expert). Just one long "ya see"-fest. Set theory? Statistics? Likelihood? Confidence? Whassat?

Andy complains that his misconceptions go back two months! I've seen the same conversation going back to 2007. Just click on Joe's username, it's the first thing that comes up. Pay up Joe.

Date: 2013/04/05 03:14:58, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2013,01:09)
IIRC, Zachriel tried to explain nested hierarchies to Joe, and after what seemed weeks Joe was on the brink of understanding. And then - crash! the iron curtain fell down, and Joe balked at the last step. It seems to be a psychological problem: If Joe understood nested hierarchy, his whole identity would crumble like CAEK.

I've found this resource that clears it all up.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012.......cs.html

Joe (for 'tis he)          
Quote
The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy- see Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

The clade is not constructed on something that forms a non-nested hierarchy. Which is therefore .... well, OK! You infer phylogeny, you don't assume it. And you try multiple characters. If you keep getting similar trees, a process must be patterning that sharing of multiple characters in 'tree-like' manner. Now what could that be...? He quotes Knox incessantly. Yet if Knox tried to explain it to him, he'd instantly become a "shit muncher".  :D Get Knox to adjudicate, Joe.

Date: 2013/04/07 10:07:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 05 2013,21:33)
Might as well post this gem from Denton (pre Destiny Denton)

   
Quote
There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

Hmmm. Denton (and Joe) might wish to consider a ... well, an actual tree. The hierarchic pattern is compromised by the continued existence of the supporting structure? Really?

If we had the living genome of every organism descended from a given individual, even with no knowledge of who begat who, we would have a 'more hierarchic' picture than if we only had a sample (modern descendants). We could build, like a tomograph, a set of historic slices, each the then-current equivalent of the modern 'slice' that we get from looking at modern genomes. Stack 'em together and what have you got (bibbety bobbety boo) ... much greater resolution of ambiguities due to homoplasy, LGT, deletion, saturation etc: a closer approach to the 'real' tree.

Date: 2013/04/07 18:10:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Andy Schueler @ April 07 2013,23:06)
       
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 07 2013,10:07)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 05 2013,21:33)
Might as well post this gem from Denton (pre Destiny Denton)

             
Quote
There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)

Hmmm. Denton (and Joe) might wish to consider a ... well, an actual tree. The hierarchic pattern is compromised by the continued existence of the supporting structure? Really?

If we had the living genome of every organism descended from a given individual, even with no knowledge of who begat who, we would have a 'more hierarchic' picture than if we only had a sample (modern descendants). We could build, like a tomograph, a set of historic slices, each the then-current equivalent of the modern 'slice' that we get from looking at modern genomes. Stack 'em together and what have you got (bibbety bobbety boo) ... much greater resolution of ambiguities due to homoplasy, LGT, deletion, saturation etc: a closer approach to the 'real' tree.

This was from Evolution: A theory in crisis, which Denton wrote while he clearly had no clue what he was talking about, this was before he was educated on how to actually read a phylogenetic tree - http://www.antievolution.org/people.....ce.html

I think the reason why Joe G. quoted Denton is that he got desperate, he (might have) realized that his claim that transitional forms ruin a nested hierarchy was nonsense (although he still seems to be confused about the fact that transitional forms show transtions between ancestral species and their descendants).
So he shifted the goalposts from "transitional forms ruin a nested hierarchy" to "if all transitional forms *were still alive*, they would ruin a hierarchical classification". The latter claim is actually true (as Darwin already noted in chapter 14 of the Origin - what creates objective criteria to distinguish different groups of extant organisms is extinction and if all ancestral species were still alive, there would be only one meaningful classification, ONE group that includes all life). But since organisms are not immortal, this is nothing but a thought experiment and completely and utterly irrelevant for the point he tried to make initinally.


Does it need extinction? If one took a master copy of a document and created separate copying lines with branching, with distinctive 'inherited' marks that appeared during the process, a classification scheme based upon those marks could be entirely hierarchic even if you included every copy in the dataset, and none were lost, so long as you didn't assume they were all leaves.

(I'm not going to lay $10,000 out on it though! :) Perhaps I am confusing the role of digital characters with 'analogue' ones? On the latter, a fossil record rich in transitionals would present them as 'still alive' in the 'where-to-put-'em' classificatory sense).

Date: 2013/04/08 13:48:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (clamboy @ April 08 2013,19:18)
I am enjoying the uptick in TSZ's postings and conversations, mostly for the education, but certainly not least for the return of...

(heralds sound)

His Most Royal Tardiness, William J Murray.

I mean, No Neck Joe and GG Aulin get the job done, but when William J Murray posts, I feel like Screwtape taking in the luscious air of a Torquemada. His arrogance, His dismissiveness, His air of lese majeste when addressing Lizzie's posts about Dembski (or replies to His Own comments), His refusal to answer or even acknowledge questions or define His terms, His condescension and derision and insults...ah, I think I could never surfeit on the black bile that is the soul of William J Murray!

For those disinclined to seek out the pearls cast at the swine, this is a GEM:

Quote
BTW, the reason I don’t post here much is because I have a limited capacity to endure your ilk – this very kind of endless rabbit-holing and obfuscation of terms.But, out of a sense of fair play, I’ll spend some time here.

   For as long as I can stomach it.

Date: 2013/04/08 14:18:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 08 2013,19:51)
It seems to me that groups are useful because they imply relationships by descent. If we can directly determine descent for each individual, we do not need groups to discuss nesting.

It's just a thought experiment, but it seems useful to me.

I suppose that the entire tree - everything-that-ever-lived - is a genetic continuum. Along a branch, there is no clear point at which one species shades into another, but it's still useful - and possible, due to non-constant rate at the phenotype level - to group. If everything-that-ever-lived was still alive, and phenotypic 'distance' was regularly spaced, there'd be no taxonomy - but perhaps, no need for taxonomy. Linnaeus spotted the pattern (drawn not just by lineage extinction but anagenesis and 'dynasty formation' - some species proved a particularly ripe source of variants on the theme) and Darwin explained it.

Science on a Joe G thread. That I should live to see the day!

Date: 2013/04/09 10:40:12, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ April 09 2013,16:03)
joey g, in the Dembski thread at Panda's Thumb, said:

"The genetic code is arbitrary, meaning it is not determined by any law."

That seems like a very odd statement for an IDiot to make. Aren't the IDiots, and especially joey, the ones who claim that the "genetic code" is an intrinsic property of living things and that the "genetic code" was/is programmed into the front-loaded software that was/is designed, created, and installed by 'the designer'?

If joey is saying that the "genetic code" is an arbitrary labeling system designed by humans then isn't he admitting that the "genetic code" is not an intrinsic property of living things? Am I missing something?

He means not determined by any 'natural' law. Codons don't have an obvious strong correlation with the amino acid; nothing chemical appears to compel them to have the relationship they have rather than some other. Which means nothing, of course. A mechanism of peptide bond formation was stumbled upon which proved of value, and one of the many other options would have served just as well, is at least as sound an interpretation.

Date: 2013/04/11 02:58:45, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ April 11 2013,04:26)
Quote
(Kattarina98 @ April 08 2013,11:33)
I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer wrt cladistics, but wouldn't the decision of defining clades for critters become arbitrary?

In the described scenario, I suppose that ring species would be prevalent. Or maybe that should be phrased as "network" species instead of "ring"?

Course, I suppose that in the scenario that we actually have, exactly which clades get named is somewhat arbitrary, and just depends on which groups people want to talk about at the time.

Henry

Yep, it is just a matter for people, rather than Nature. The only taxonomy that counts for an organism is "Mate", "Food", "Predator". Only the first of these corresponds to a human taxonomic category, the Biological Species. The rest is down to the 'clumpy' pattern of divergence above that divide.

Date: 2013/04/11 03:05:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Freddie @ April 10 2013,20:15)
 
Quote (Patrick @ April 10 2013,13:03)
     
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 10 2013,13:09)
Bully Bannington has evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax because:

1) this winter was long and cold
2) Fox News said so.

All science so far.

Climate change is on topic for a blog ostensibly about intelligent design creationism how exactly?

For once, words fail me ... a screenshot will just have to do:


And yet the 6 all-time winter minima for Arctic ice extent occurred in the last decade, and the summer was also an all-time low. But as long as it's snowy on BA's lawn. (Been unseasonally snowy here in Europe too, so there's another data point).



Date: 2013/04/11 12:12:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 11 2013,15:39)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 11 2013,03:05)
And yet the 6 all-time winter minima for winter Arctic ice extent occurred in the last decade, and the summer was also an all-time low. But as long as it's snowy on BA's lawn. (Been unseasonally snowy here in Europe too, so there's another data point).

But why should Bully Arrington care?  His wing of the airplane isn't on fire.  :D

A interesting parallel with their complete inability to grasp the concept of entropy. If something is happening over here, that's all that's happening. Nothing could possibly be happening over there to allow one to say something about the system overall. But even the most intelligent of designers need their din-dins.



Date: 2013/04/12 17:46:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 12 2013,20:03)
Lewontin!    
Quote
So either answer decisively by showing an empirically warranted case that OOL and OO body Plans are indeed adequately explained on blind chance and necessity, or else stand aside and allow the empirically grounded best explanation to sit at the table as of right not sufferance. The time for definitional gerrymandering and imposition of a priori Lewontinian materialism on science is over.

Long since over.

Yeah, come along - bring a date! See if you can persuade an Intelligent Designer to join you. And I don't mean a computer programmer. Snort! Mfffff! Empirically grounded my arse.

Date: 2013/04/14 15:28:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ April 13 2013,16:38)
PaV (in an increasingly bizarre attempt to prove ???) shows us some of that legendary UD honesty:

   
Quote
In general they proved that, all things being equal (ceteris paribus), in the limits of those assumptions evolution does not happen. Yes, they proved that evolution does not happen.

PaV

   
Quote
In general they proved that, all things being equal (ceteris paribus), in the limits of those assumptions evolution does not happen. Yes, they proved that evolution does not happen. The fact is, however, that things do not remain equal. In other words, it has been consistently shown with vast amounts of evidence and scientific data that those assumptions almost never hold. They may only in a rare circumstance and then it is only for a very short period. Variations occur.

Source

Oh, brilliant. Among those situations necessary for the H-W case where evolution 'does not happen' are an infinite population with zero mutation and every individual having the same chance to breed and all producing exactly the same number of offspring. Just like in real life.

Date: 2013/04/18 05:36:59, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ April 18 2013,08:37)
"...but trust me, it's true"

The one single phrase that is the surefire identifier of conmen throughout the universe

lyo treads a fine line.

Date: 2013/04/18 07:01:26, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ April 18 2013,12:28)
   
Quote
Hi Nick

Yes please can we get a textbook on Macro-evolution’s facts!

I’ll make it easy for you;

1.) I want to see a step by step process of the evolution of the lung system.

2.) Step by step process of the evolution of the heart.

3.) Step by step process of the sexual reproductive system.

4.) When did survival of the fittest kick in? With the first single cell organism or later? How did they know that survival is key?

5.) How does natural selection select? If something is not in the search space how does it find stuff that is not there? Or has everything always been there?

6.) If Random mutations are 90% bad most of the time why are we here? is 1% good enough to go from a single cell to a complex organism such as a human? Is this scientifically possible?

7.) How did the feathers evolve?

8.) How did animals evolve from cold blooded to warm blooded?

Your most valuable scientific facts will be greatly appreciated.

Good Luck!

Andre


And at UD Andre asks brilliant questions!

I particularly like #4

Take that, evilushunists!

#5. "I understand neither NS nor the concept of the combinatorial search space".

Oh, and #6. "I don't understand that 90% is not the same as 100%, nor the related concept that 'most of the time' is not the same as 'all of the time'. Please explain these things to me."  

Go, Andre! Gish would be proud.

Date: 2013/04/20 17:59:53, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
kairosfocus flings his remaining credibility out of the window by bigging-up this baloney from Joe in an OP:

   
Quote
KF: "Joe puts in a good knock at 25":

>>Earth to Alan Fox,

Neither you, Shallit, Elsberry nor the NCSE need concern yourselves with CSI. That is because all of you can render CSI moot just by stepping up and demonstrating that blind and undirected processes can account for what we call CSI.

It is that simple- demonstrate blind and undirected processes can produce CSI and our argument wrt CSI, falls.

However seeing that you all are nothing but cowards, you won’t do that because that means actually having to make a positive case. And everyone in the world knows that you cannot do such a thing.

The point being is that your misguided attacks on ID are NOT going to provide positiove evidence for your position. And only positive evidence for blind and undirected processes producing CSI is going to refute our arguments.

Date: 2013/04/20 18:12:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
(Repost - original disappeared)

Kantian Naturalist  
Quote
A few of you had said that you're enjoyed what I was contributing to Uncommon Descent, so I feel some small obligation to let you know that I just can't do it anymore.  When I saw that Arrington has basically 'called me out', it struck me just how much of a bully he is.  I don't like bullies, I certainly don't respect them, and I don't want to feed his ego by giving him any attention.  And I don't like what's happening to me through my participation in Uncommon Descent.  It's not just mere stupidity or foolishness, but something much more pathological, and psychopathologies are communicable diseases, contracted by communicating.  So for the sake of my own basic psychic hygiene, I'm withdrawing from my involvement there.   They'll need to find someone else to pick on.

Discussions with pathological pseudo-intellectuals can indeed become an unhealthy obsession, as many here could attest! :D

[eta: fix type-o]



Date: 2013/04/21 16:27:27, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
The year, 2007. The month, December. The subject: Paul Davies and the Second Law. A fresh-faced young Montserratian types a comment regarding Prigogine's and Hoyle's opinions on improbability ... he gets a little carried away ...  

   
Quote
[...] But it is very clear that the scientifically based, well-warranted message entailed by prof Sewell’s Rmarks and Sir Fred Hoyle’s comment about tornadoes not being expected to form 747s when they pass through junkyards will continue to be ducked as long as possible. For we are in a long battle of attrition for the hearts, minds and souls of western civilisation, in contention with an ideology that has long since proved its ruthlessness and willingness to manipulate the balance of credible evidence.

In such a battle the appearance of a futile, costly quagmire with a steadily and horrendously mounting butcher’s bill will be long sustained, until the other side runs out of ideas and resources and collapses. For instance, compare the fate of communism, up to the turn of the 1990s, then its sudden collapse.

Or, you can look at the story of World War I, in which the Central powers kept on winning and beating off allied attacks at terrible cost to the allies, until in 1917, France suffered massive mutiny in its army and Russia outright collapsed — two of the major three allied powers. This kept on right up to the point of the major spring offensive of 1918 [during which, BTW, C S Lewis was wounded]. Then, resources finally exhausted and facing a rising tide of a new Allied power, the Americans, in 100 days, the German forces collapsed.

Indeed, in the second world war, Germany had to be bled out on the plains of Russia and in the skies over Germany and under the waves of the Atlantic before it could be defeated.

In short, great and determined powers have to be broken before they will be defeated.

We have to make up our minds if we are up to such a long, hard, grimly costly sustained ideological and philosophical as well as scientific slogging match.

Let us not be naive that some magic bullet result of ID research will make the issue suddenly go away. Even after such results, there will be a terrible, sustained rearguard action to address. And there may be a horrendous “Battle for Berlin” at the end with the die-hards, even when defeat has long since been obvious.

GEM of TKI


To the barricades!

Date: 2013/04/21 16:41:18, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Patrick @ April 21 2013,17:47)
Even Barry says he isn't a bully -- and it hurts his feelings to the tune of $10,000 when anyone calls him that.

 
Quote
"I'm a filthy center," he says, "saved by an amazing grace."


Probably misheard? "Sinner" in the Colorado accent? He certainly doesn't come across remotely 'center', in anything. :D

Date: 2013/04/23 16:17:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
KF:      
Quote
The morrow marks seven months of the unanswered free- kick- at- goal Darwinism evidential support essay challenge.

Bong! Bong! Bong! The bell tolleth. And none have answered my call. Bong! Bong! Bong! Hark! The cock crows. 'tis dawn... another blood-red sun, and nought to read by its angry light. We must await the waning of another moon, and 'twill be eight. I shall utter the challenge afresh. Come, Joseph. There is much to do.





Date: 2013/04/24 17:19:24, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 24 2013,17:32)
Eric Anderson knows evilushonary logic better than you:          
Quote
There are mutations going on regularly in organisms. You and I each have more mutations now than we did when we were born. There is no logical reason, on Darwinian principles, why we don’t see individual organisms evolve into something else over their lifetime, other than the question of time.

Imagine there were an organism that lived for millions of years. Would it eventually turn into something else? On Darwinian principles, why not?




eta linky http://tinyurl.com/cf6urun....cf6urun

Eric has become quite the Captain Facepalm. He has no ideeea how hopeless his grasp is. He recently said something along the lines of "Actually I understand evolution quite well.When you strip away the gloss, it's the theory that atoms bumping into each other can give rise to Tolstoy and Mozart".

Date: 2013/04/27 17:02:41, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Joe, 506 in Oldies-but-baddies-cant-be-bothered-making-a-link
   
Quote
Perhaps if more of us took up my tactic then we wouldn’t be bullied so much.

Yeah Joe, it's a goddamned brilliant strategy. No-one messes with you.

Date: 2013/04/27 17:12:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 27 2013,17:56)
 
Quote (damitall @ April 27 2013,07:43)
And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?

Crosspost:

KF:

   
Quote
504kairosfocusApril 27, 2013 at 10:24 am
Joe: Your evidently crude behaviour eslewhere is undermining any good you may be doing here. It is time to get up on the wagon across the board. KF


Have you read his blog, KF?

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Go on - have a thorough read.

You won't, because the American Taliban need their thugs.


Stop it! More fuel for KF's bully-boy accusations!

Meantime, in a quiet backwater of ID academia (link above):


 
Quote
Previous Posts

   Elizabeth Liddle has Totally Lost It
   "Evolution is Not Blind"????
   Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus
   Pressure Cookers- Why Pressure Cookers?
   Boston Marathon Explosions
   Andreas Schueler Chokes Again- When "Groups Under ...
   Andreas DipShit Schueler- Sez I am Wrong, Then Agr...
   Andreas Schueler, Lying Piece of Shit
   Andy Schueler, Schooled on Nested Hierarchies
   Joe Felsenstein- Clueless 'til the end

Date: 2013/04/28 05:55:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I'll give KF this: he can sure write a post! Nested-parenthetical asides, link, quote, F/N, PS, wordy rappinghood a-go-go. I bow down before the Master.

Date: 2013/05/04 14:31:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (socle @ May 04 2013,16:58)
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2013,10:08)
bpragmatic has been a semi-regular over on Cornelius' blog:

http://www.google.com/search?....pot.com

Wow, he's a lunatic.  But I'm now thinking that his writing style is too complex to be a product of Joe's mind.

Joe has a distinctive tic. Obvioulsy. (OK, he has many. Altogether now ...)

Date: 2013/05/15 07:02:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 13 2013,21:46)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:25)
     
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:23)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:19)
       
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:18)
         
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:15)
           
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:14)
           
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:07)
               
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:04)
               
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:01)
                 
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:00)
                 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:57)
                   
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:57)
                   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55)
[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]


Ooh lookee - a nested hierarchy!

Date: 2013/05/15 07:11:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ May 15 2013,12:04)
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,05:35)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

It's probably true that one shouldn't do that.

However, I would hold that long history of repetition of a particular type and content of internet activity, blatant dishonesty, and failure to engage constructively with reasonable critics allows one, in the case of these two gentlemen, accurately to label them as Rather Unpleasant People.

In British vernacular, arseholes

I think everybody who regularly posts on the internet has a screw loose. Er ...

Date: 2013/05/16 07:21:49, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,19:45)
     
Quote (keiths @ May 15 2013,10:26)
The issue of the dark triad in the debates over design — the danger of cossetting an asp of evolutionary materialism-driven cold, manipulative narcissism, machiavellianism and sociopathy from Alcibiades to today

And that's just the title.



The "Dirty Dozen scale" [...]


OK, I'll take that test ...

I tend to manipulate others to get my way. (Er ... to some degree, doesn't everyone?)
I tend to lack remorse. (Nope. Never do anything wrong, so I don't need it).
I tend to want others to admire me. (Well ... yeah. Specially girls.)
I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. (Nope. I try not to do things I would not like done to me.)
I have used deceit or lied to get my way. (Not really. To cover my tracks, maybe...)
I tend to be callous or insensitive. (Not at all. You ugly twat.)
I have used flattery to get my way. (I meant every word.)
I tend to seek prestige or status. (Nope)
I tend to be cynical. (I call it healthy skepticism.)
I tend to exploit others toward my own end. (Nah.)
I tend to expect special favors from others. (Nah.)
I want others to pay attention to me. (Not at all. Now, where's that 'post' button?)



Date: 2013/05/20 02:35:58, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Quack @ May 19 2013,09:13)
Many years ago at ARN I asked Sal what he thought about the origins of the fossil remains, the huge chalk and lime deposits all around the planet in relation to YEC.

All he had to say was that bacteria reproduce very fast.

I'd be interested to see his calculations regarding the necessary concentration of Mg/Ca carbonates in the oceans at around that time. All that lime hasta come from somewhere!

All the limestone near us has shells & corals in it. Tons of the stuff. Mountains of it. Layer upon layer upon ...

Date: 2013/05/22 06:58:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ May 20 2013,22:42)
   
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ May 20 2013,13:46)
[Joe] has great difficulty comprehending abstract concepts...

Philip is much the same...

Mung too. Gil Dodgen's inability to distinguish the model from the thing being modeled is legendary, and gpuccio suffers from the same deficit.

[...]


Upright Biped! Upright Biped! Don't forget Upright Biped! It's a code, I tells ya - we even call it "translation", and say the upstream thingy "represents" the downstream thingy.

Date: 2013/05/23 04:10:23, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Driver @ May 23 2013,00:00)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2013,13:47)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2013,03:57)
   
Quote (Driver @ May 20 2013,14:33)
Two wordclouds of UD commenters. The first one is easy.




Slightly more difficult:


1. batshit
2. ?????

I'd say the second is Byers, but I don't think he comments at UD.

It is indeed Byers, and he does post at UD.

Massive use of the weasel word "just", as in (to paraphrase him) 'Evolution is just a math model of reality', 'evolution is just a line of reasoning plus evidence'.

I would guess that "don" is a misspelling of "don't".

Do Joe! Do Joe! Obvioulsy, teh, strange, taht, coward, equivocation, TSZ, step, up, produce, testable, hypothesis, Mayr, agrees, with, me, Provine, Stonehenge, crunge-muncher (OK, he hasn't said that, but he should).

Date: 2013/05/23 05:05:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,10:46)
Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)

I think he's more accurately labelled as a pompous asswipe.

Date: 2013/05/24 03:24:00, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ May 24 2013,03:14)
Joe does sets:
 
Quote
What Cantor does is like saying "let all elements of every set = e. Then with sets of infinite size it's e,e,e,e,e,e,e,e,e,... all the way down!"

This is wrong on a very basic, elementary level. According to Cantor's definition,
 
Quote

A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception [Anschauung] and of our thought – which are called elements of the set.

(emphasis mine). In other words, every element of a set must be unique; no two members may be identical.

A set like {e,e,e,e,e,...} is merely {e}. It only contains one element.

I'd be inclined to cut him a little slack on that one - a 'set' of coin tosses does not simply consist of {H,T}. Properly, of course, it would be a multiset.

Date: 2013/05/24 07:11:47, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,12:10)
Well, a series of coin tosses is a vector, not a set, surely?

You can have a set of vectors, but a vector is not a set.

A given group of tosses would form a multiset. You could order them any which way, one of which would be in time sequence, but still a representation of the same multiset. The integers aren't 'really' ordered {1,2,3,4 ...} either; sequence is just one (the most convenient) possible notation.

Date: 2013/05/24 07:37:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ May 24 2013,13:21)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 24 2013,07:11)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,12:10)
Well, a series of coin tosses is a vector, not a set, surely?

You can have a set of vectors, but a vector is not a set.

A given group of tosses would form a multiset. You could order them any which way, one of which would be in time sequence, but still a representation of the same multiset. The integers aren't 'really' ordered {1,2,3,4 ...} either; sequence is just one (the most convenient) possible notation.

A multiset would be appropriate if we don't care about the ordering of the results. And in that case, one can simply specify the number of heads and tails and be done with it.

Well, yes - true of any multiset!

Date: 2013/05/25 02:29:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
What bizarre customer service! Use us - we're great. Oh, hang on, you have written too many words and/or are being accessed too often. You can fuck off.

I'm sure they could simply cap CPU, rather than suspend.

Date: 2013/05/25 02:37:03, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Henry J @ May 24 2013,20:01)
Wouldn't a set of coin tosses be a list of separate physical events, each at a distinct time and place, rather than simply a list of H/T values?

Yes, but you could also scatter a bunch of coins and have a set, of H's and T's. Repeat tosses saves on coins, 'collecting' set members one at a time from the Infinite.

Date: 2013/05/27 03:48:15, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,14:33)
I just tried TSZ again and it works. Even the comments appear to be working properly. The circuit board picture takes a long time to load but it was like that before the site stopped working.

Really? The circuit board seems to take the same time as other media to me.

Date: 2013/06/06 02:41:01, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Driver @ June 06 2013,07:03)
Headline:


Platonic forms do not suggest we evolved from fish


The article itself is beyond moronic.

     
Quote
The creationist reasoning would go like this:

   Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
   Mammals descend from Mammals
   Primates descend from Primates
   Humans descend from Humans

   Therefore: Humans descended from Humans

The Darwinist reasoning goes like this:

   Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
   Mammals descend from Mammals
   Primates descend from Primates
   Humans descend from Humans

   Therefore: Humans descended from Fish :shock:


I will give Sal Cordova the benefit of the doubt and assume he is stupid and ignorant enough to genuinely believe that this summarizes the thought behind the theory of evolution.
After all, he's apparently dumb enough to think the "creationist reasoning" is watertight.




It gets even stupider in the comments, where he says that because humans are not as similar to tuna as a salmon, humans are not descended from fish. Seriously.

     
Quote
If we descended from fish, humans would be up there with all the rest of the fish in the following list.


It is not clear whether he feels that  sheep and pigs are high enough "up there with the rest of the fish" to belong to the fish baramin.

"If we descended from fish..." .... we would expect to find many morphological and genetic commonalities with modern fish. We do, by golly. But differences too? How utterly unexpected.

Or maybe a fish stops being a fish (and hence becomes something non-aquatic organisms can't possibly be descended from) as soon as it hauls up on land?

Date: 2013/06/12 07:24:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2013,20:31)
Okay, I had a post about a great exchange on UD, but after 4 edits the board software was still fucking it all up so just go here if you want to see a really stupid post from O'Leary and some really funny and caustic responses.

Inspired some great OT gibbering by BA77 - a paper by someone else called Barr cited as evidence that viruses are a masterpiece of design!

Thanks a bunch, O Creator. Any more bright ideas?

Date: 2013/06/12 07:47:40, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (olegt @ June 11 2013,17:49)
Joe from his soapbox:
 
Quote
2 is a prime number. Do you know what a prime number is?

I ask because if you knew what a prime number is then you wouldn't go looking for a root of a prime number. Sure, curiosity may sink in and you have to take a peak. Then you learn why they call it "irrational".

Looks like Joe has given up even on fractions and intends to stick with integer arithmetic.

Why pick on the primes? There are only 7 numbers in the first 50 with integer square roots. They get further and further apart as you go on; they are very much the exception.

Date: 2013/06/13 02:58:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2013,02:44)
I can't make up my mind if climate change denial is dumber than evolution denial, or vice-versa.

Probably dumber, because even if the prediction and observation are totally incorrect, we are still running out of fossil fuel. We will anyway, quickly or slowly, but slow seems better. Different problem, same solution.

But for the Conservative, all measures to combat this are anathema. Taxation, international co-operation, limitation on the very fuel of corporate-led society ...

Date: 2013/06/14 13:57:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (JohnW @ June 14 2013,18:51)
Quote (Driver @ June 14 2013,02:59)
I see in his blog comments Joe is going to standardize the size of a point:

 
Quote
OK wait. A point should have a definite size. That would mean it would have a center.

A line would be made up of a uniform linear packing of points. The distance between the centers of two adjacent points = 1 point.

The Cartesian coordinate defines the center of the point.

I would be OK if the diameter of a point = the diamter of an electron. JoeMath would make it so.


This should provide some novel results  in geometry, and prepare the ground for an attack on Dedekind, now Cantor is slain.

I need to stop reading this thread.  My face is getting a permanent palm-print.

It is (for people with no lives) pure comedy gold. How many OP's on his blog, comments there and at UD, on infinity and zero? It would be just boring without the lashings of self-certain belligerence in support of his total wrongness.

Better than moles and the notion that planets need the rest of the universe to hold them up and stop them falling into the star!

Date: 2013/06/14 14:12:38, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (dhogaza @ June 14 2013,19:27)
     
Quote
There's been glaciers growing in Alaska, Norway, etc.


That's pretty much the standard level of logic of denialist arguments.

"only 99% of glaciers are shrinking, therefore it is getting colder."


Yup!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalay....sic.htm

Ice may become more plastic as temperature rises, causing a temporary increase in extent. And it may start snowing more (see:"too cold for snow". Ask your granny Thrinaxodon; something of a myth but there is a grain of truth due to inability of colder air to hold as much moisture.). Glaciers are shrinking despite these effects. Now, what could possibly make that happen?

Date: 2013/06/21 02:38:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 07 2013,21:48)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 07 2013,14:55)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 07 2013,14:47)
Just out of curiosity, you ever find the name of a glacier that's larger today than it was 10 years ago?

Apparently there are a few.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalay....ing.htm

Skeptical Science is a propaganda website. There's a blog, that carefully debunks the nonsense propagated by S.S. and others.

The blog

Hahahaha. That's a propaganda website, this one here is Da Truth!

Keep burning the fossil fuels, everything's gonna be just fine. Plenty more where that came from.

Date: 2013/06/22 03:44:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 21 2013,16:35)
For a more informative view of Meyer's latest production, Nick Matzke flays it alive at The Panda's Thumb.  However, I must urge caution here.  On UD, Andre points out that Nick has not yet produced the "textbook of macro evolution" someone at UD has apparently demanded of him.

Mung drives by occasionally at TSZ shouting the same bizarre demand out his rolled-down window. It is one of evolution's best kept secrets: no-one has ever written a single word on 'macroevolution'. And of course if it's not in a textbook, it's not science.

Anyone know what that magnifying glass thingy, or the word 'search', does on the Internet?

http://www.amazon.com/s....ol....olution

Date: 2013/06/22 03:53:42, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 22 2013,09:44)


http://www.amazon.com/s....ol....olution

Wha? 9th hit down: "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist"! What, in the name of the Great Search Heuristic, does that have to do with it? Someone at Amazon doing the equivalent of my local nutter who slips cards into all the evolution books at my library?

Date: 2013/06/23 04:16:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2013,04:34)
Joe:

Quote
Social facts:

Gregory was self-abused and then abandoned. His subsequent life was filled with rejection and loneliness. In 2002 he lost half of his mind and in 2003 the other half went out looking for it. No traces of his mind have been observed since that time.


KF: Ban him, or forever shut-the-fuck-up about civility, ad hominem, well poisoning etc.

Preferably the latter. He is doing a very nice job down that well.

Date: 2013/06/23 04:29:06, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 22 2013,21:53)
LULZ:

   
Quote
I believe I have already made it clear that JoeMath doesn't like infinities, especially between two finite points. JoeMath is a TBD wrt both types of infinities.

Haha. So it's OK with {1, 2, 3, 4 ...} but not {1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ...}, sitting as it does somewhere between 0 and 1? I'd like to see Joemath tackle calculus.

Date: 2013/06/25 12:38:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 25 2013,18:20)
William J Murray has a post that's odd even for him:    
Quote
The stolen concept fallacy is a form of self-refutation.

From Wikipedia: Stolen Concept – the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

In an ongoing, multi-thread sub-debate at The Skeptical Zone, I have been making the case that when materialists argue, they necessarily employ stolen concepts, such as those referred to by the following terms and more: “I”, “we”, “prove”, “evidence”, “reason”, “logic”, “determine”, “conclude”, “error”, “fact”, “objective”, “subjective”, etc.

He goes on to explain that paragraph to his satisfaction.  The tards shower him with praise.
Link

... and "kipper", "elastic", "grout", "latitude", "red", "beetle", "compose", "darling", "guitar", "extensive", "stratum", "horse", "self-important bulllshitting fucknut"...

Date: 2013/06/28 14:30:21, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ June 28 2013,13:47)
Now Mullings has produced a major rant, going from probabilities related to coin-tossing, through Buchenwald, to slavery.

Mad.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-coin-tosses-expectation-materialistic-question-begging-and-forfeit-of-credibility-by-ma










terialists/]Link[/URL]

I'm a mild-mannered chap, but fuck me, GEM can be a slimy piece of well-poisoning shit. I get a couple of paragraphs in and he feels the need to make explicit his use of the term 'fellow-travellers'. Yes! I mean LIKE MARXISTS! MARXISTS!

(Ironically, his graph of multiple tosses converging on the mean shows a remarkable resemblance to the loss of variation in a population due to drift - ie, Drift causes all-heads (or tails) through chance alone. With resampling, convergence goes to the extremes on the original distribution, instead of being anchored by the middle. I wonder which biology more closely resembles ... ?)

[eta: I wondered if I was being a tad harsh - because I am a nice chap at heart - until, after writing the above, I got to the bit about Buchenwald. Fuck 'im!]



Date: 2013/06/29 03:23:28, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ June 29 2013,07:15)
Niwrad assures batshit77 that his heavenly reward will be in proportion to his spam output:
 
Quote
bornagain77, thanks.

When it will be your turn (I wish you it will be very late……) you will can answer: “Lord, I defended You with Terabytes of top-level contributions to UD”. Your work will be even more repaid because done as an humble commenter.

born-again, names matter.

And the Lord will say ... "evolution, you dumb twat! EVOLUTION! I couldn't have made it any bloody plainer!  ... Dawkins, Darwin, I've told you before about sniggering".

Date: 2013/06/29 03:40:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 29 2013,08:39)
For record  :)

Gordon has deleted the comment below so I just thought I'd post it here. Please note, Gordon, that I didn't call you insane, just that your idiotic posts make you appear so.

   
Quote
     
Quote
I’m sorry but is the owner of this blog happy with such ranting?


I recall something posted elsewhere by Barry that would suggest he is.

PS @ Barry

Indeed I didn't bother to read KF's post. As I have remarked before, life's too short and on past form he neither says anything new or different, neither does he appear capable of giving critical comments a fair reading.

PPS @ Kairosfocus

Ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. I am not addressing your argument which is apparently about coin tossing. I am merely pointing out that including the illustrations you did in your OP makes you appear, well, barmy. I just thought you ought to know.


[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-coin-tosses-expectation-materialistic-question-begging-and-forfeit-of-credibility-by-ma



terialists/#comment-460055]link[/URL]

Inability to distinguish the ad hominem from the insult is something of a common trait!

Gordon - you're an idiot! Insult.

Darwin did not inspire the death camps because you're an idiot! Ad hominem.

Darwin did not inspire the death camps and you're an idiot! Assertion with a gratuitous insult thrown in for funzies. But borderline ad hominem. And you're making the association fallacy, a form of ad hominem. Which may be a tu quoque on my part. And you're an idiot.

Date: 2013/06/30 04:32:16, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Arctodus23 @ June 30 2013,05:54)
 
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 25 2013,19:54)
===================
>ALERT! ALERT![...]

That`s a lot of crap, again. Stop this nonsense, and troll somewhere else.

Nah, he's allowed to troll his own thread, surely?

Almost Mabus-like at times.

Date: 2013/06/30 15:35:45, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ June 29 2013,10:23)
"Darwin's theory must be wrong because he inspired the death camps": ad hominem

ad consequentiam, surely?

Date: 2013/07/02 06:22:56, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (damitall @ July 01 2013,08:46)
   
Quote (Driver @ July 01 2013,02:05)
Awww, Gordon has an acolyte. How cute.

     
Quote
materialist/atheistic book-burning, intimidation-tactic, Alinskyite anti-theistic thugs wearing lab coats


link


WJM: Pauses for audience applause. Not a sausage.

Yes, well...

WJM continues to insist that he believes just what he wants to believe, with no regard to evidence for or against that belief.


And yet he argues his ass off in support of those beliefs freely grabbed from the air!

   
Quote
Me, I just think him the most self-centred person I've ever come across.


Yup. And a late-breaking contender for UD's bull goose loony. He veers from articulacy to repetitive tic. He needs to stop borrowing KF's clothes though.

Date: 2013/07/02 06:42:46, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM:    
Quote
if it is the consensus view, and operationally successful, that the happiness of the majority is best served by the oppression and torture of the minority, then by definition oppressing and torturing the minority is morally good, because it provides for the greatest sense of happiness for the most people.


Yep, that's the real moral dilemma facing us all! Atheists can't define morality altruistically because I Can Invent An Absurd Situation. And they (unlike theists, who could wave a book) would be powerless to stop it. I'd like to stop the puppy-strangling, but it gives pleasure to millions.

Date: 2013/07/04 03:07:07, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 04 2013,01:46)
Why Evolution is Doomed
Reason 8593:
   
Quote
By way of contrast, at least some at UD, like physicist Rob Sheldon, physicist Andy Jones, and bio-physicist Cornelius Hunter can say they have been students of real science.

And gave it up as a bad job.

Date: 2013/07/04 03:15:10, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ July 04 2013,04:33)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 03 2013,19:46)
Why Evolution is Doomed
Reason 8593:
     
Quote
By way of contrast, at least some at UD, like physicist Rob Sheldon, physicist Andy Jones, and bio-physicist Cornelius Hunter can say they have been students of real science.

scordova

Why don't these "physicists" correct statements like:

   
Quote
Well, certainly the open/closed nature of the system is essentially irrelevant.


when their creationist peers/supporters make them?

The difference between the you and I or the Earth being a closed or open system is literally life and death.

Nah, we'd just switch from solar to geothermal! ;)

Anyone noticed how, since we put the earth in a radiation-proof box, it has kept on getting so abominably hot? [runs finger round sweat-soaked collar]. Have the boffins worked out why yet?

Date: 2013/07/05 03:08:02, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 04 2013,19:27)
Sal's latest OP: He's just as petty as Joe. ID sure attracts 'em.

Mmmmm. I haven't read the book, but I'd be interested in shit-stirring the opinions of those who have.

Date: 2013/07/05 08:43:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Driver @ July 05 2013,12:18)
I haven't read the book, but I have researched this topic.

[...]


Pretty obvious to anyone with half an understanding that, even if Hitler did think he was implementing Darwinism (he didn't), he got it completely and utterly wrong. Selection is not indiscriminate. If the UD minions were even halfway serious about 'what we are up against', they would be promoting an accurate view of the ToE, not perpetuating misinformation.

Unusually, Byers comes close to being a voice of reason in the comments. Which speaks volumes.

Date: 2013/07/15 18:30:19, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 15 2013,19:51)
I know I'd hate to eat British food.  I found this, on the internet, no less:

BRITISH  MEAT  INGREDIENTS  LIST
"...rat feces; cow urine; cow pus; tranquilizers; ground up cow heads ('puke heads' contaminated with hair, dirt, and ingest); chicken and cow manure (a 'beef fattener' with e-coli contamination) ; 'rendered' cows and sheep (recycled animal parts, diseased 'downers' and road kill added to animal feed); euthanized animals from human societies, etc.; growth steroid hormones (fatteners); radioactive isotopes; antibiotics (disease controllers); pesticides; herbicides; insecticides; larvicides; lethal euthanasia drugs such as sodium penabarbitol; a host of diseases from the cow, including pneumonia, bovine aids and perhaps mad cow chemicals like phosphorous to mask putrefaction; various carcinogenic chemicals, including dioxin (one of most deadly known chemicals, also present in Agent Orange)..."

And then scones and tea.  Bleah!

Glen Davidson

Ah yes, a dispassionate survey by the ALF. The rest of the world, of course, operates exemplary food hygiene and welfare standards. (Thanks for the MRSA, American pigs!)

Date: 2013/07/16 07:08:24, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Pilchard @ July 16 2013,11:45)
Quote (Febble @ July 16 2013,09:26)
 
Quote
FYI-FTR, # 2: KeithS of TSZ and other objecting sites, inadvertently shows the self-referential absurdity of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller po-mo ideologies regarding first principles of right reason and other self-evident first truths


Is this a record for post-title length?

That post has a great use of the confident and authoritative END, being immediately followed by a PS.

Good thing he shortened po-mo ... whatever that is. I'm guessing post-modernist. Whatever that is. I've read the Wiki, and I'm none the wiser.

Date: 2013/07/20 02:53:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Robin @ July 19 2013,15:09)
Dr. Robert O. Adair:

http://gracebaptistindianapolis.com/....lis....lis.com

   
Quote
Dr. Robert O. Adair Phd, Lit DD, DD. is a scholar with a burden for apologetics and learning.  His poetry has blessed many people. He is a published author.


Seems like more a kook than Joe.

If he quotes Intelligent Reasoning with approval, then yeah.

Date: 2013/07/22 06:24:04, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,08:05)
Yeah.  There is something very sick about that place.

I do understand the rationale of having a place primarily to "serve the ID community", but the interesting thing is that with the slightly weird exception of Cornelius Hunter's blog, there isn't any place I know of where ID proponents tolerate debate at all.

Which makes all this allegation of "censorship!" by Matzke doubly odd.  Trebly odd when combined with calls for me to delete "slander" on TSZ.  Quadruply odd when those calls are embedded in egregious slander of "Darwinists".

In fine postmodern style, when KF runs out of steam on substance he attempts a bit of obfuscating misdirection - look! Squid ink! A red herring! From The Other Side! These artefacts in fact reside up his own sleeve, tossed out as by a really bad conjuror. Well over half his output is tone-trolling.

Date: 2013/07/24 07:01:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (keiths @ July 24 2013,09:16)
niwrad:
 
Quote
The biological effects of radioactivity have been known since 1920...

In fact “high radiation” means “high mutation rate” and this should improve evolution by definition. If, instead of evolution, it causes damages and death then random mutations cannot be the driving force in the creation of the biological complexity. It is not only the death of billion poor fruit flies, it is the “death” of Darwinism tout court.

Dozy berk. If intermittent rain helps crops, think how much better the crops would be if you inundated the fuckers.



Date: 2013/07/28 17:45:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 28 2013,13:55)
And you'll be happy to hear that Murray is back to his old tricks, accusing "atheists" of "stolen obligations."  

Never mind that <I>twice</I> I called Murray out on his whole "stolen concept fallacy," and pointed out that it conflated conditions of validity and conditions of genesis --
and that never mind that on neither occasion did he ever try to provide a counter-argument to my objections -- he just conveniently exited the conversation -- now he's back, recycling the same old bullshit that he's been called out on dozens (at least) of times before.  

Murray's utter lack of intellectual integrity makes him a perfect cdesignproponentist.

So many of these types descend into repetitious sloganising. "Pizzas and butterfly wings", "stolen concept", "the computation", "might makes right", "whether they realise it or not" ... impossible to get any sense into or out of him.

Date: 2013/07/29 06:01:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (stevestory @ July 29 2013,00:34)
 
Quote
Pizzas and butterfly wings
5 pages of google results don't tell me anything about this phrase.

Alternatively rendered as 'butterfly wind'. A phrase that popped up that he was rather pleased about and began to chant as lengthy shorthand for the vagaries of chance. Theists, of course, are immune to the effects of chaos.

Date: 2013/07/29 16:52:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM's getting testy, in a cut 'n' paste kind of way.

At UD:  
Quote
Darwinists, naturalists, atheists – there are a few historical philosophers I respect that didn’t shy away from the ramifications of their worldview, even though that worldview tends to drive serious philosophers mad.

When I was an atheist, I was at least intellectually honest about it. These atheists stay safe on the conceptual reservation of theism, stealing concepts and obligations while condemning that which actually produces them. They’re intellectual cowards, clinging to the teat of theism and living high and safe off of its product, while screeching out mindless, anti-authoritarian condemnation, unwilling to go off the reservation to see what’s really waiting for them out in the wilds of their own worldview.

Cue Jack Nicholson: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” And so we get treated to Rube Goldberg compatibalisms and post-modernist, self-refuting blather.


At TSZ  
Quote
Some atheists and naturalists in history have been able to own up to the conceptual ramifications of their worldview, without reinventing and redefining terms to con themselves into believing their worldview provides things it cannot provide. I respect that. I patterned my own time under atheism in that manner.

I really have no respect for atheists and naturalists who cling to rube goldberg compatibalisms as if such re-definitions give warrant to cling to the theistic values and concepts they claim are false. Most atheists here are just rebellious, self-deceiving theists who have no intention of going off the theistic concept reservation, and are scared to death of journeying out into the wild of the real consequences of their naturalistic worldview.

Date: 2013/07/30 02:33:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Febble @ July 30 2013,08:27)
Quote (Driver @ July 29 2013,22:51)
 
Quote (didymos @ July 30 2013,04:41)
(of course, it goes without saying, the Christian variety).

William is the high priest of his own religion.

High priest and sole practitioner, I think.  

He doesn't claim to be a Christian.

He just stole a lot of their concepts :)

Date: 2013/07/31 18:25:44, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM is proving quite the bullshit-monger.

 
Quote
BTW, I think that all people would come to the same conclusions about god and morality, except that they are employing free will to deceive themselves otherwise.


The 'all right-thinking people' gambit. An odd kind of 'free' will that is exercised without the exerciser's even knowing about it, in the pursuit of self-blinding to avoid an inescapable conclusion ...

Date: 2013/08/01 16:55:18, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 01 2013,22:17)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 01 2013,07:10)
The "do nots" are trivial. How much of our lives are spent resisting the urge to rape and murder vs being spent trying to figure out the best way to do our jobs,  raise our children,  socialize with our friends and partners?

It seems many believers spend an awful lot of time resisting the urge to rape and murder.  Variants of "If it wasn't for God's disapproval, we'd all be out there raping and murdering" show up on UD (and elsewhere) regularly.

It gets their goat that 'evo-mat's don't generally conform to their stereotype of what atheism entails. Therefore, atheists must be dishonest. The best they can come up with is that they ain't nuthin' but ornery concept-thieves, to be held in contempt for that instead. They really should appreciate what their philosophy entails and start a-rapin', they of the demagnetised moral compass.



Date: 2013/08/03 12:49:52, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Surely not a week since the last newsworthy Joe-ism? From somewhere near the bottom of the ID Evidences barrel, I give you the Solar Eclipse theory:

 
Quote
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”


And, given changes in solar size and earth-moon distance, a temporal window too, not just where but when.  

Coincidence? How could it be?

Date: 2013/08/05 03:21:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM @TSZ - comedy gold! You must find out what my beliefs are right now before you can address them - and they frequently change, so best be quick about it.

He thrives on the ridicule, of course: a skilled troll. Getting atheo-mats to be snarky and exasperated is the game.

Date: 2013/08/06 13:26:19, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 06 2013,18:17)
Joe declares bloody war on materialists.  And spelling.
 
Quote
3 Joe August 6, 2013 at 7:15 am
If this is true, that he was fired for writing that paper and questioning evolutionism, then it is time for a war- a bloody war at that because this crap has to stop and obvioulsy the only way to stop it is to rid the world of all the cry-baby loser materialists.

They will hereafter speak in hushed tones of the War of the Unfair Dismissal. Obvioulsy.

Date: 2013/08/07 07:43:29, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 07 2013,13:04)
I see Mung has turned up to deliver inanity and present a lesson on how not to do sarcasm.

Mung's mother: Put your coat on, dear.
Mung: Do you even know what a coat is?

He's a card.

Elzinga: Defend Hoyle's 'junkyard tornado'.
Mung: Here's an entire book by Hoyle on evolutionary mathematics - refute it.

Date: 2013/08/17 12:49:01, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 17 2013,15:52)
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 17 2013,08:58)
RDK, my point was that rather than the story that PZ Myers wants to divide the American skeptic and atheist communities, a divide already exists.  

How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.

I'll continue this conversation in the Hints and Allegations Thread.

Also is the title of that thread a Collective Soul reference?

You Can Call Me Al?

Date: 2013/08/18 03:09:25, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Transposon-induced mutation good. All of it. Other mutation bad. All of it.

Date: 2013/08/22 19:32:05, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 21 2013,18:15)
I don't think that at any point was it suggested that Darwin be removed from the 10 pound note; he is actually going because they change the designs every 10 years or so, to make it more difficult for the counterfeiters.

That's it! He was a hairy bugger, the devil to get right.

Date: 2013/09/11 17:52:51, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 11 2013,12:08)
The size of an LP.

Heh! POTW.

Date: 2013/10/01 05:57:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (REC @ Sep. 30 2013,01:17)
KF sets some goalposts for us:

Quote

kairosfocus September 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm
WD400, I simply don’t believe you. You full well know the challenge is to observationally anchor development of a phylum from LUCA. Actually show the observationally grounded emergence of a major muticellular animal basic body plan. Not inferred and imagined or modelled, observed and backed up with the fossils. KF


Guess he won't have to move those. Doing the experiment in the lab would be "design" now, wouldn't it? So guess we need to find a habitable but unoccupied planet, and wait around a couple billion years.

Or simply locate the complete billion-years succession in the fossils. Shouldn't be too hard; there are no processes like erosion, deep burial or subduction going on.

Date: 2013/10/04 02:57:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
I do wonder, when there are no end of pretty girls to ogle on the internet, why I waste so much time observing this hysteria ... but seriously though folks, I am uneasy about some of this. KF in particular seems to have an actual problem. If he reads that he will take it as more slander, but I don't mean it so.

Date: 2013/10/04 03:54:17, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 04 2013,04:57)
One does kind of wonder.  That few, if any, care much about Meyer's tripe seems inadequate to explain Murray's rage that he can't convince anyone with his platitudes and sophistry, KF's projection of his own vile dishonesty about others onto, well, those same others, and Corny's sudden desire to censor, rather than to restate his bilge ad nauseam.

Something going on behind the scenes?  Quiet defections, perhaps?  The people who have left previously, like Darryl (sp?) Falk, have generally not made it very public.  "Doubting Thomases" are very unwelcome, for they haven't previously been devalued as "regular Darwinists" are by these frauds.  I don't know, anything that might force them to face the intellectual bankruptcy of ID might set them off, defections being obvious possibilities, although any threat of intellectual honesty breaking through could set off the especially vapid sorts, with Murray, KF, and Corny being among the more vapid.

Of course it must be annoying to "have all of the answers," without being able to answer any specifics, and to have predictions of the end of "Darwinism" that pass away as easily as all returns of the Messiah do.  Especially if you've convinced yourself that you must be right, without any evidence for the same (except for sermon-like apologetic nonsense that they consider to be "evidence"), never really getting anything right must wear on you.  But still, a trigger seems more likely for the cluster of meltdowns than mere frustration at endless failure would be.

If there is some trigger, though, they're probably trying to keep it as quiet as possible, apart from the hatred and anger that come out in their endearing authoritarian attempts to control where they can't convince with any substance.

Glen Davidson

Some of the pre-publicity for Darwin's Doubt had it as a book that would really give Darwinists something to think about. I think some were rubbing their hands in anticipation. The fact that it has been readily debunked is probably really annoying.

Date: 2013/10/05 17:44:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Bazza takes the curious line of quoting KF's report:

 
Quote
Such, further, is in the context of her continued hosting of grotesque conspiracy narratives and false accusations against ID culminating in a horrific declaration that design thinkers — equated to Creationists and onwards accused of Right-Wing Theocratic totalitarian intent [which is, frankly, code for "Nazi" . . . based on common misconceptions], are “enemies of humanity.” (In context, primary — leadership, secondary — their dupes.) This, going over as a matter of course without a peep of protest from the usual denizens at TSZ.


rather than direct evidence of EL's "culpability vis-à-vis personal mudslinging". She was banned for hosting a blog and not censoring it to their satisfaction? The brassiest of necks, they have in Hypocrisy Central.

Date: 2013/10/06 01:42:31, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
BA:  
Quote
Very few people are able substantially to alter their philosophical commitments after a certain age. Most will do almost anything to avoid even contemplating such a thing.


Barry is quite correct. In support of his argument, I give you ... Barry!

Date: 2013/10/18 13:04:20, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
WJM:
Quote
Atheistic materialism is a rebellion against the obvious. Only a fool can look at the nanotechnological marvels in a single cell and say “There is no design necessary here.”


That's that settled then <dusts hands>. Science can go home; it's obvious.

Date: 2013/10/20 17:35:35, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (timothya @ Oct. 20 2013,08:04)
From News at UD:
       
Quote
It’s unwise to simply discount legends; they are usually based on something, if only because few human beings have the imagination to invent a durable icon without any materials from nature at all.


Don't discount legends, since they would not be sustainable if they were unreal. Meanwhile, evolutionary theory is a pure conspiracy cooked up in leather chairs by dark forces over brandy, sucked up by willing atheistic dupes. And global warming.

Date: 2013/10/22 02:04:33, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 22 2013,06:42)
Murray revealing his acumen and voluminous scholarship:

 
Quote
Also interesting to note how materialist ideological commitments have influenced how the bulk of physical science research is conducted, as the only area where blind, double-blind and triple-blind protocols are stringently employed is that which doesn’t assume a materialist perspective – psi research.


He's critiquing logic on TSZ.  Apparently, knowing bullshit is the basis of his claim to such expertise.

Glen Davidson

Well, psi research and clinical trials and forensic work and environmental testing and lab calibration and ... psi research is actually undertaken from a materialist perspective. It assumes something happens we can detect. Otherwise why bother?

Date: 2013/11/05 18:37:50, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 05 2013,14:27)
Quote
I don't think that within my lifetime we'll make contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life, but we might at least learn it exists.


That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Even if there were millions of planets having human equivalent intelligent life, they would develop on different time schedules.

Looking at the varieties of life on earth and the rather peculiar circumstances leading to hominids, I'd bet against finding anything equivalent, ever.

Yep. We've been sending out radio signals for a whole century. Maybe manage one more? An ever-expanding wavefront briefly sweeping dead civilisations or planets full of life but nothing particularly communicative. Or just planet after planet of prokaryotic sludge.

Date: 2013/11/06 03:27:08, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
O'course, there are reckoned to be about 100 earth-like planets within 30 ly, so we could easily have passed over 3700 in 100. But even if every one harbours a civilisation eventually, the chances of our ????-in-4 billion years technological histories coinciding are slim. 'They' are almost certainly out there ('they' being extraterrestrial organisms of some kind), but I doubt we will ever know.

Date: 2013/11/06 03:29:09, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
...unless we find a way of detecting free oxygen, which would be a strong pointer.

Date: 2013/11/07 01:35:34, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 07 2013,02:05)
Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
   
Quote
Think of the programing language as the genotype and the program itself as the phenotype. How one gets from the genotype to the phenotype is termed development.

Mung

I'd go for 'misguided' myself.

Above that:

   
Quote
If it doesn’t accumulate, it’s evolution. If it does accumulate, it’s evolution. Ain’t modern evolutionary theory grand!


Er ... yes! If a lineage ends up a giraffe, that's evolution. If it ends up something other than a giraffe, that's evolution too. Is a 'correct' theory only supposed to produce one outcome?



Date: 2013/11/07 01:39:36, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Rich pickins! WJM, upthread:

 
Quote
Nothing useful can be gleaned from the materialist approach; only the assumption that the macro-feature was designed and purposefully engineered offers a worthwhile, actionable investigatory pathway.


Get actioning, then!

Date: 2013/11/07 01:44:57, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote
wd400: there are large amounts of data that purely Darwinian evolution can’t explain (notably, the preponderance of junk DNA in many eukaryote genomes

BA77: LOL, yep your a Darwinist alright! You may deny it trying to save face, but only a Darwinist would ever claim that!

Oh, how I love to chortle!

Date: 2013/11/14 03:45:37, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
It is a habit of mine to paste any text presented by a Creationist into Google and see (if available) what the full piece says. Among the hits, one almost invariably finds endless repetition of the truncated version copy-pasted from site to site. Like the old joke about knowing someone is bullshitting 'cos their lips are moving, you know it's a quote-mine because it's a quote.

Date: 2013/11/29 03:12:39, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2013,20:30)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 27 2013,01:12)
Victor gives us episode #352 of "The Annals of TLDR"

Holy shit that thing is 12,230 words long. Fuck That.

Part 1 was only 6,600 words. But fuck that as well. There will also be a Part 3.

Date: 2013/12/13 03:09:43, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 13 2013,01:30)

         
Quote
Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?
December 12, 2013 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design

Dear readers, everywhere I post I do so under my real name.


Yep, me too.

Date: 2013/12/13 03:21:14, Link
Author: Soapy Sam
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 13 2013,01:30)

           
Quote
Are there Any Depths to Which the Darwin Lobby Will not Sink?Is There Anything I Can't Make a Meal Out Of If I Try Hard Enough?
December 12, 2013 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
1 Comment

  • [...]

    Does anyone know who REC is?


  • He's got a short memory.

    Date: 2013/12/13 06:13:46, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Mapou/Savain retains his sense of perspective.

    Heh heh
         
    Quote
    How can a scientific theory suffer such a punishing blow and still manage to survive? It’s obvious, at least to me, that there are powerful criminal factions within the government and the academic world who are supporting it.


    Of course. The government (there's only one) is run by atheists.

    Date: 2013/12/13 13:41:42, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    It's an interesting circle of science, the legal world and even the good old Rules of Reason. Even though he WASN'T accused of fabrication, rendering the whole case redundant, would it be possible for a statement of the type "Barry fabricated the quote*

    *or he didn't"

    to be libellous? It certainly can't be proven false, a key factor.

    Date: 2013/12/15 05:21:08, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 15 2013,06:14)
    In full:

         
    Quote
    36
    scordovaDecember 14, 2013 at 11:02 pm
    [...]
    Actually, at some point I thought to myself, “Barry is testing if we can use our pattern matching skills which we learned in the study of CSI to get at the bottom of who this guy was.[...]”



    Try using your pattern matching skills to read a science book, you dumb bastards!

    Date: 2013/12/16 15:49:01, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Or ...

    Suppose your coins were sticky on the 'tails' side. A thousand were scattered and the board inverted briefly. In the dark.

    Or...

    Suppose you just had two coins, both heads, that reproduced, and the new generation tacked itself onto the end of the row. This set reproduced and end-joined again. and again and ... in short order, you'd have a string of 500.

    In neither scenario would ruling out 'chance' be justified. Unless you can't have 'sticky' or 'reproducing' coins other than By Design. Which is begging the question.

    Date: 2013/12/17 02:58:11, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,03:53)
    Sal's already trying to make the giant leap from "fair coins" to biology, and wonders why people resist his poorly defined scenarios:

           
    Quote
    Amino acids in a prebiotic soup, as far as their chirality, will obey the law of independent trials and also a simple distribution analogous to fair coins.

    Not one of them gets the fact that the isomer of an acid is just as different from it as glycine is at the point of side chain attachment. The 'side chain' for ALL D alpha-acids is -H, as far as any repeatable assembly mechanism is concerned. The fact that L & D isomers would travel together in some fractionating apparatus that distinguished on charge or hydrophobicity or molecular weight is neither here nor there - these are not available at the molecular level, which is sensitive to atom/charge position. Any mechanism with any specificity at all would not toss a metaphorical coin every time it came across an isomer, any more than you walk out the house with your gloves reversed half the time.

    If your peptide assembly mechanism can distinguish one acid from another (and alpha from beta and gamma), it sure as hell can exclude isomers.

    Date: 2013/12/17 18:53:38, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32)
    Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:

     
    Quote
    I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter.....

    That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism.

    What a slimeball.

    Date: 2013/12/19 03:00:18, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ Dec. 19 2013,04:33)
    Lizzie's post: "But chance itself explains nothing. It is the exact reverse: Chance is what we call the part of our data we can’t explain."

    Barry's Gotcha:    
    Quote
    Don’t take my word for it. Here is a paper called What is a P-value? by Ronald A. Thisted, PhD....


    In which the phrase "chance explanation" is used.

    Kinda an odd source. Was this paper pulled from Barry's deep research library? A class on stats he took?

    Nope: http://bit.ly/18zU3kF....18zU3kF

    The very first google entry for the gotcha phrase "chance explanation" and statistics.

    The second Barry cites:

       
    Quote
    Want more? Here’s a paper from Penn State on the Chi-square test. An excerpt:


    And again, we have a winner: first hit off google for 'Chi-square + chance.'

    http://bit.ly/1begGGe....1begGGe

    Neither paper helps Barry's argument that chance is a mechanism in the least, but he's able to create an apparent contradiction with Lizzie's statement with google-fu.

    Super! A Lawyer Writes about the meaning(s) of 'random', 'chance', and 'random chance'! I'll pull up a chair.

    Date: 2014/01/02 00:11:20, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Heh heh. Like he'd never been away!

    I wonder what the hiatus was caused by. Maybe his computer broke and he needed to find someone to fix it.

    Date: 2014/01/03 05:28:19, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2014,20:01)
    Aww. He's having a little meltdown on his blog. I don't think he liked my ID predictions, although he didn't actually address them..

     
    Quote
    And BTW AVIDA produces NOTHING when the relevant parameters are used.


    Sig-worthy. Use the parameters that produce nothing and it produces nothing.

    Date: 2014/01/05 16:19:46, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,22:02)
    geez.

    That's all I have to say.

    Wha'appen?

    Date: 2014/01/08 07:32:11, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 08 2014,12:28)
    Barry Arrington is just as stupid as Joe - who'd have thunk?

    Heh. Joe pulls out that quote from Provine, complete with stock 'thanks for the honesty Will' tagline. Welcome to 2014.

    Date: 2014/01/11 04:59:35, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
    Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.
    [...]
           
    Quote
    Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. [...]


    [...]
    Words fail me.

    Not. Even. Wrong.

    Date: 2014/01/11 07:31:17, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Thrinaxodon @ Jan. 10 2014,04:29)
         
    Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 07 2013,06:26)
    [...]

    Hey, dick!

    MAN AS OLD AS FROGS!
    >

    [...]

    HEY, SHOUTY PERSON! LATEST NEWS: MAN AS OLD AS FROGS CROAKS.



    Date: 2014/01/13 15:29:10, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 11 2014,18:07)
     
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 11 2014,05:31)
     
    Quote (Thrinaxodon @ Jan. 10 2014,04:29)
             
    Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 07 2013,06:26)
    [...]

    Hey, dick!

    MAN AS OLD AS FROGS!
    >

    [...]

    HEY, SHOUTY PERSON! LATEST NEWS: MAN AS OLD AS FROGS CROAKS.

    I'm older than frogs.  They usually only live a year or two, don't they?

    Except for Rana lamadingdong. That's been going awhile.

    Date: 2014/01/14 15:52:06, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 14 2014,15:42)
    Grandmaster Chubs

       
    Quote
    Joe January 14, 2014 at 7:55 am

    nightlight- I have never lost a game of chess to any computer. If you know of one that you think can beat me, please reference it and I will have a go.


    [...]

    Pssst! Joe! You have to turn it on!

    Date: 2014/01/14 15:57:05, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,19:24)
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 14 2014,08:42)
    Grandmaster Chubs

         
    Quote
    Joe January 14, 2014 at 7:55 am

    nightlight- I have never lost a game of chess to any computer. If you know of one that you think can beat me, please reference it and I will have a go.


    Fighter pilot, Olympic power lifter, evolutionary biologist, Iraqi war hero, GA programmer, baraminologist, all in his spare time from fixing toasters.  :D  :D  :D

    Stupendous!

    I find it amusing to see Joe desperately creating increasingly insulting posts at his blog hoping someone...anyone...will react with a comment.

    I'm happy to say no one is.

    Please...all of you...keep as ticks to watermelon and let the fun continue.

    I had to look though. This gem:

    Quote
    Proof that evolutionists are totally clueless wrt science is their question "What prevents macoevolution from happening?"- ie they want us to demonstrate a negative.


    Demonstrating the existence of something is proving the negative, now? :)

    Date: 2014/01/16 06:46:31, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2014,15:47)
     
    Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
    There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:



    Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

    Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.

    "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you"?

    God forgot to add "well, when I say every ... please see pages xxx-yyy for a list of exclusions. Pigs, shellfish, bottom feeders ..."

    Date: 2014/01/16 08:20:11, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Attention! Attention! Can I have your attention please?

    Date: 2014/01/18 12:50:33, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Polymorphism appears to result from balancing selection, rather than elevated mutation rate, which was the possibility that first struck me.  

    http://www.pnas.org/content....ull.pdf

    This selection was in train in ancestral pre-human lineages as well, so we descend from a long line of polymorphic species. How it transcends the apparent human population bottleneck of as few as 10,000 individuals, I'm not so sure. But you can't assume a single allele at the 'dawn of man', or any intervening point.

    eta,

    and you don't just multiply it down a single lineage, as noted by qetzal. Each time a lineage splits, twice as many mutations are separating their MHCs than happen in each separate line; split them a few more times and you could soon get 1000 different versions, even if each individual lineage only experienced a few mutations.



    Date: 2014/01/21 18:10:38, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Y'all chased him into Barry's arms, with your moderating his zingers and pitting your arguments and math and computer models against his suppositions. For shame!

    Date: 2014/01/21 18:22:16, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
     
    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
    Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
    Quote
    But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

    ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


    The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

    Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

    I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

    Protein folds as platonic forms....

    He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

    These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

    Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

    The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!

    Date: 2014/01/22 16:00:03, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2014,06:14)
    Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 18 2014,17:07)
     
    Quote (Friar Broccoli @ Jan. 18 2014,16:08)
    I am interested in assuming 8 alleles 4500 years ago (or two 6,000 years ago) and establishing that it is impossible.

    Sure, you can show it's impossible based on the natural processes we know of. But how do you plan to show that it's impossible to someone who believes in a being that created all life less than 10,000 years ago?

    The best you'll manage is to elicit a response like "It's not impossible for God!"

    This.

    I've done the math several times. But it basically means something like 5 new alleles per generation... but only in the HLA factors.

    Why wouldn't all the other alleles experience similar rates of mutation?  {oh yeah, god did it, derp}

    That kind of mutation rate in the general genome would pretty much destroy the species in a generation.

    You can't reason someone out of a position that the didn't reason themselves into.

    Obviously, since the MHC is involved in distinguishing self from non-self, I had to artificially raise variation in it as the human population expanded, so that individuals would not all get confused as to who was who.

    All the best,

    God

    Date: 2014/01/23 06:26:30, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Emergence is just interaction, surely? Two hands clapping, to go a bit Zen. It starts with our little quarks. They interact by gluons in menages a trois (Pretentious? Moi?). But free neutrons are unstable. Flip a down to an up and the whole has an electrical field, into which stray electrons tumble. Then (flips over a few pages) ... everything else! Ta-daaaah!

    Phoodoo has beat a fine retreat, BTW. Back to where he can say what he likes, and is never gainsaid.

    Date: 2014/01/23 08:33:09, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,12:45)
    The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

    For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

    But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

    So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.

    But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

    Date: 2014/01/23 09:23:05, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,14:41)
     
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
    But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

    A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.

    It's true - it's no more an explanation than 'emergence' is. I merely regard them as approximately synonymous, and it evades the slightly mystical quality that emergence seems to engender.

    phoodoo, I'm betting, would waft away any scientific understanding of this or that specific emergent phenomenon because it does not extend to his chosen example - ants, or brain cells. He wants THE scientific explanation for emergence as a phenomenon - everything beyond the naked quark, if such can stand alone. And the fundamental, explains-nothing-by-itself quality of emergent phenomena is that they result from interactions, building onion-like up to and including the level of interest.

    Date: 2014/01/24 09:57:50, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 24 2014,14:45)
    I've come to like William. I think he is trying to be honest, and I think his self-help theology is amusing.

    His repetition is tedious, but he seems to be clarifying his position rather than obfuscating it.

    I'd like him better if he recognised that the atheist contingent is also trying to be honest.

    Date: 2014/01/27 02:41:59, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Comprised almost entirely of Bozons.

    Date: 2014/01/29 15:52:14, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,19:33)
    Quote (NoName @ Jan. 29 2014,12:03)
    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,12:50)
    ...
    YOU have to demonstrate the existence of macroevolution, not me.

    It has already been proven, in the only way that matters.
    Just as the ability to walk from New York to New Jersey proves that one can walk from New York to Los Angeles.
    Or New York to Tierra del Fuego.
    Insurmountable barriers?
    That's your claim, you demonstrate it.

    No, it hasn't been proven and your analogy is bullshit.

    There isn't one instance of microevolution that can extrapolated into macroevolution.

    Anti-biotic resistance? Not a chance

    Peppered moths? Not a chance

    Beaks of the finch? Not a chance

    You've got nothing but to hide behind father time.

    So what's the fucking barrier, Joe?

    Date: 2014/01/30 18:43:50, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 30 2014,20:06)
    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 29 2014,15:52)
     
    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,19:33)
     
    Quote (NoName @ Jan. 29 2014,12:03)
       
    Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 29 2014,12:50)
    ...
    YOU have to demonstrate the existence of macroevolution, not me.

    It has already been proven, in the only way that matters.
    Just as the ability to walk from New York to New Jersey proves that one can walk from New York to Los Angeles.
    Or New York to Tierra del Fuego.
    Insurmountable barriers?
    That's your claim, you demonstrate it.

    No, it hasn't been proven and your analogy is bullshit.

    There isn't one instance of microevolution that can extrapolated into macroevolution.

    Anti-biotic resistance? Not a chance

    Peppered moths? Not a chance

    Beaks of the finch? Not a chance

    You've got nothing but to hide behind father time.

    So what's the fucking barrier, Joe?

    Hey asshole, it is up to YOU to demonstrate the possibility. It is NOT up to me nor anyone else to prove a negative.

    There isn't one case of speciation nor microevolution that can be extrapolated into macroevolution.

    No-one's asking you to prove a negative. You think there is a barrier to macroevolution, so what is it? That's a positive.

    If x genetic change takes place in time t, what's the barrier that stops nx genetic change taking place in time nt?

    One only has to observe that mutation occurs at an approximately steady rate, and one finds oneself having to explain why you CAN'T multiply change up.

    So what stops multiples of small-change from becoming bigger-change? Asshole?

    Date: 2014/02/02 04:20:41, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    They Said It:

    KF -  
    Quote
    TVH, you have been given an answer above, not only by me but by VJT — who is a full bore philosopher.

    Date: 2014/02/21 06:06:49, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 21 2014,10:18)
    Central Scrutinizer has gone one step further than Barry. His fantasy is about Darwinist women that will jump into bed with him:



     
    Quote
    I’m going to a bar tonight.

    I will seek out a Darwinist.

    Why?

    Because she will believe any stupid thing I tell her.

    I will get lucky tonight.

    Oh, thank you, you lovely, wonderful Darwinist


    When that fails he can draw a 'Darwinist woman' on his hand and talk to that.

    CS approaches gorgeous woman. "So, can I just ask what your views are on Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection?".

    Nope, it seems the perfect plan. She'll be putty in his hands.

    And I guess lying for promiscuous sexual favours is morally entirely tickety-boo, provided the donor is not a believer in Objective Morality. Classy.

    Date: 2014/02/24 06:44:34, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote
    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,22:04)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-491196

     
    Quote

    5
    Dionisio February 23, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    At the beginning of the post we read this:
     
    Quote

       Asks a writer at New Scientist, wondering whether people will be allowed to marry robots

    Allowed what? allowed by whom?
    The biblical concept of marriage doesn’t come from this world, but from God.
    The worldly parody of marriage has nothing to do with that biblical definition.
    These days many words have lost their true meaning. They mean whatever. So what’s the big deal about asking if whatever is allowed? Allowed by whom? Allow what?
    So the first question I would ask the questioner is: what do you mean when you say ‘to marry’? what does the word ‘marriage’ mean to you? Where did you take that definition from? The answer to those basic questions should suffice to respond the original question at the beginning of this post.
    Can we reduce the crime level in a country by declaring that some crimes are not considered crimes anymore?
    Can a company increase the quality of its production by lowering their quality assurance standards?
    Would we all agree with that?


    This is like a fictional parody of whiny old men.

    Argument by definition. There is, by similar reasoning, no such thing as anal or oral sex, regardless of the gender complementarity of the participants. So priests are OK, as long as as they steer clear of the danger zone. Which they generally do.



    Date: 2014/03/06 15:57:51, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,22:59)
    The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, [...]

    Tour:    
    Quote
    I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living,


    Evolution not synthetic chemistry. Not OoL. Evolution something different. Evolution evolution.

    Date: 2014/03/06 16:21:08, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    He's still on with the 6,000 word essay? No replies, a year hath passed, speaks volumes. Largely about the contempt in which him and his venue are held. He brings a disreputable blog into further disrepute. Takes some doing.

    Hmmm, wonder what you'd get from that viper if you attempted to discuss said essay following publication?

    Date: 2014/03/06 16:31:03, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote
    As for NM’s failure to acknowledge that a double headed coin landing H is not attributable to chance, that is a case of reduction to absurdity on his part.


    Huh? This is listed as part of the justification for obliterating NM's words. What if it had a picture of a duck on it? How do its markings influence a spun disk's final position?

    Date: 2014/03/07 11:46:07, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2014,15:10)
    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
    Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.

    The best strategy for dealing with the Gary Gaulin thread is not to view it unless someone other than Gary has made the most recent post.

    If everyone would follow this simple rule, the thread would be much better.

    I'm afraid I lost interest after the first page, no matter who is posting. 18 months of "you haven't a clue"? Please!

    Date: 2014/03/08 09:32:36, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,14:53)
    Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac


    roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
     
    Quote
    F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF

    I prefer to think of a die as something you get when you glue 6 coins together and fill in the gaps with corners.

    Date: 2014/03/09 07:16:58, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    KF! Fresh KF! Get yer KF 'ere!
       
    Quote
    F/N, FYI — FTR: Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains).


    Pause for breath. That's Sentence 1 over. Aaaaand ...

     
    Quote
    That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F, and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF

    Date: 2014/03/10 19:52:22, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 11 2014,00:41)
     
    Quote
    I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.


    Oh, absolutely, because you make molecules ab initio you must completely understand a process that never does this, or at least almost never has for the last couple billion years or so.

    It's the typical creationist engineer's boast, hey, I know how to design things so I must understand evolution perfectly well.  Meaning in fact that they know nothing about evolution and merely assume that what they do must have been what the Great Engineer did.  And why bother learning evolution when you already know how it "must have happened"?

    Glen Davidson

    Hey, I write software for a living and if anyone should understand evolution it's me 'cos it's all software. Apart from the bit that's like a little machine. Or the bit that's chemistry which must have been intelligently designed 'cos chemists can't intelligently design it. Or the bit that's like 500 coins all heads-up. Anyway, it's got fuck all to do with biology.

    Date: 2014/03/13 06:47:06, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ Mar. 13 2014,00:38)
    More KF loudspeaker to document [...]

    His '96' a new low. I do wonder what the UD moderates (if such there be) make of KF's behaviour.

    Date: 2014/03/19 08:11:22, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Joe shows up at Sandwalk

    eta: nothing much to see really - just thought it would be worth a watching brief.



    Date: 2014/04/14 13:32:42, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (REC @ April 14 2014,18:58)
    Quote (franky172 @ April 14 2014,11:31)
    Barry posts the following:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343

    Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

    Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

    EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.

    Also:

    BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION    155.8
    CHEMISTRY                      152.1
    BIOLOGY                              149.
    LAW                      147.6
    PRE-LAW                      147.1
    ACCOUNTING                      148.3


    Does this disqualify Barry, the CPA/Lawyer from rational discussion?

    No, of course not.

    Does Barry's being---Barry disqualify him from rational discussion?

    He holds himself up as the-exception-that-proves-the-rule, having majored in accounting but scoring 97% on LSAT. So his critical thinking skills are just top-rate, thanks for asking.

    Date: 2014/04/17 02:19:08, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    He does realise people push his buttons just for funzies? Doesn't he?

    Date: 2014/04/19 11:54:05, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 19 2014,12:21)
    Lewontin!

    [Tips back another shot. Falls off chair. I'm going to have to pick another trigger word.]

    Date: 2014/04/20 15:54:51, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    Joe's evidently had a post at Sandwalk deleted. There are replies, but I can't see what they are responding to. Wonder what he said to rattle the generally tolerant Prof. Moran?

    Date: 2014/04/24 14:13:16, Link
    Author: Soapy Sam
    If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.

     

     

     

    =====