AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: The Ghost of Paley

form_srcid: The Ghost of Paley

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.47.128

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: The Ghost of Paley

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 'The Ghost of Paley%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/10/06 12:57:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote (Hyperion @ Sep. 01 2005,01:15)
I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off.  I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.

You claim Paley's philosphy is discredited? How? He merely stated the obvious. Living things are designed. This is as obvious as Aristotle's observation that gravity makes earth and water fall. Granted, Aristotle did not come up with the mathematics behind this process; Newton did. Likewise, Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided. Stupid, immoral evolutionists like you deny the obvious. It is like attacking Newton's law of universal gravitation by saying things really don't fall, they only "Move how the random forces of natural selection push them," or some other such Darwinian rot.

Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!

Date: 2005/10/10 13:48:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
C.J. O'Brien wrote

Quote
In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.


That's just it, you merely assume that organisms sharing genes proves they share ancestors. That is precisely what Christians are challenging. It's just an assumption of stiff necked evolutionists--and your own words agree.

In a paper published in Trends in Plant Science1, several authors do an analysis of whole mitochondria genome-based phylogenies and get a tree that completly contardicts the tadiational evolution tree. As dogmatic evolutionists, they assume their new tree is wrong because it is inconcsistent with established Darwinian catechism. However, why should it not be. Any evolutionist can just do any test and come up with any kind of ancestry tree they feel like. All of the gene distributions are random from a point of view of common ancestry. However, the subtle and sophistaicated analysis of intellegent design theory shows each gene was put in for a specific purpose, and hence, demonstrates its design.

C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.


Soltis, Douglas E., Albert, Victor A., Savolained, Vincent, Hilu, Khinder,Qiu, Yin-Long, Chase, Mark W., Farris, James S., Stephanovic, Sasa, Rice, Danny W., Palmer, Jeffry D., and Soltis, Pamela S. October 2004. Genome-scale data, angiospem relationships, and 'ending incongrunce': a cautionary tale in phylogenics. Trends in Plant Science Vol. 9 No. 10

Date: 2005/10/11 14:54:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Please check figure 1 from this paper:Paley's Revenge

   Does this look familiar? It should, since this is from the evolution-smiting Naylor/Brown paper. Sorry Charlie, but the Chickens have come home to "sleep with the fishes"! And this from whole-genome mitochondrial DNA, so don't complain about small sample sizes... tap-dance all you want, but only a Dembski/Berlinski joint paper can begin to explain this curious incongruence, with a generous slice of my mathematical model (forthcoming). And while you're at it, please pity the poor urchins stranded among the chordates.
  Until Darwin-science can begin to address its failed predictions, Americans have every right to laugh this Lysenkoist pseudoscience out of the classroom.

Date: 2005/10/11 15:44:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry, the data say otherwise. The appelate courts can't overturn the results of the papers I've cited, no matter how badly they may want to. Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. I've been playing by your rules: can you?

Date: 2005/10/11 15:50:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
No thanks. German potato salad leaves me bloated and flatulent, not unlike your attempts at a rebuttal.....................

Date: 2005/10/12 03:31:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.


Sorry, try this time.Paley's Revenge

In addition, this is not an intellegent design paper. It is from a paper peer reviewed by the commie evolutionist community!

Date: 2005/10/12 04:19:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
To clarify a previous post, I was just trying to reply to Saddlebred without using the quote feature. The point stands, however: Naylor, Brown, and Baptest have posed intractable problems for the Darwinian paradigm. The phylogenetic tree is rotten from the trunk to the tiniest stem. I could quote dozens of papers to show this, but if you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes, what good does it do? And are you really suggesting Figure 1 poses no problems for evolution? It might be time to take this horse to the glue factory...........

Date: 2005/10/12 05:52:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I recently began reading comments on Bill Dembski's uncommondescent blog and posted the odd comment myself. I soon noticed comments were rapidly deleted and registration cancelled. As I don't have a fixed IP address, he couldn't ban it. Others noticed the practice and there was dicussion on PT and elsewhere about the lack of integrity it demonstrated. There then followed  a period where dissenting posts were tolerated. But there was a new development; unwelcome posts remained on view to the poster, but became invisible to others. I assumed I was being ignored, but, no, I was invisible!

I believe this speaks volumes for the integrity of William Dembski


Based on the naive, dubious assumption you are telling the truth-- Since evolutionists do not believe in the ninth commandment, or the other nine for that matter, there is no reason to trust their word.--Dembski is merely "censoring" already refuted evolutionist idiocy. There is no need for such a great scientist to cope with Darwinian drivel. He and his colleagues have research to do. To wit, he is preventing you and those like you from exposing your own stupidity out of a sense of Christian mercy!

Date: 2005/10/12 09:50:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds

I am not he, but merely a humble servant of God.
Quote
Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point.

 I empathise. I, too, spent many a year in the American public school system. ;)
Quote
Ya'll need to put up or shut up

  I have. Do you have anything to offer in return?

Quote
Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas?  Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting?  He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view.  Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.

 If this thread represents the typical argumentation proffered on this site, I REALLY empathize. Poor man.
Quote
What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?

 Now you're getting it. If only the feminists could get it, instead of engaging in witchcraft, lesbianism, and Dungeons & Dragons. But I've come here to provide an education in science, not social studies. One subject at a time, Sea Biscuit.
 Focus, gentlemen.

Date: 2005/10/12 11:09:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Ah so Bill is religiously motivated. Thanks for the confirmation. So much for the claim that ID is science and not religion.


Ad hominem!

Fox seems to think citing a man's personal faith refutes his arguments, but his own Darwinian religion should be exempt from such critique. Well, he is right. Whether a man believes in Jesus Christ or Charles Darwin is irrelevant to the strength of his arguments!


Quote
ROTFL What? Where? Bill Dembski is a pedestrian mathematician and demonstrably dishonest.


Thorough, cogent refutations of Darwinian "science" are not dishonest. They are truthful. As believers in the ninth commandment, both Dembski and I defend truth. What do Darwinians believe in beyond selfish acquisition of power?

I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms. The data has clearly demonstrted intron loss occurs randomly and not in a nested heirarchy as common ancestry predicts. This has been reported in a paper published by Oxford journals--this is the same organization that employs Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Darwinism himself! (Notice that Christians like myself accept data from evolutionary sources, we do not reject their writings on a priori grounds.)

Since you evolutionists have such poor reading comprehension skills, at the bottom is a link to the chart showing the data explicitly.



Now, I hope you evolutionists will start arguing like the scientists you claim to be instead of Sunday morning pundits.

Chart

Date: 2005/10/12 11:56:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.


I have cited other papers as well; I could cite dozens more. What constitutes a "good" approach to constructing your godless tree of life? Evolutionists merely take any data that conforms to their Darwinian catechism and reject the rest as being somehow inadequate. The "Tree of Life" is an evolutionistic fantasy construct. Intellegent Design theory explains the real reason life is as it is, and my orginal thesis that some genes wind up in other organisms because they eat each other is absolutely solid.

Date: 2005/10/12 14:01:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong.

Let's stick to the cited papers, please.

Quote
Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).


 Ahhh, the scientists at Panda's Thumb have asked for scientific guidance from a lawyer. Why am I not surprised?  :p
 First, care to elaborate on my misrepresentations?  Since they are so abundant, the only hard part should be picking the most egregious one! Is Figure 1 not as I have described it in previous posts? And if it is, how is that ridiculous phylogeny acceptable under Darwinian assumptions? Talk about a big tent!
Quote
It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.

 So far the only flailing I've seen has been by my "critics". But I'm willing to hear you out. How are post-hoc adjustments (discarding third-codon positions from analyses, removing "problematic" taxa such as lamprey or lancelets since they lead to bad trees, etc) considered acceptable science?

Date: 2005/10/12 14:19:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
As a followup:
Quote
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?

  Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science.
 My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist.

Date: 2005/10/14 07:15:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the delay, but I was wrapped up in my bible study groups. The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! Well, on to the subject at hand.

 
Quote
Where did I say I was a lawyer?

 Where did you say you weren't? In the off chance you aren't, I apologize for the slander. :p
 
Quote
You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent.

 It ain't just one paper, hoss. It's the cumulative weight of many that leads to my eminently sane conclusion. But following my own advice, I'll stick to the current paper.
 It's true that the authors hypothesize that more taxa will solve the problem, but in the case of _animalia_, they don't support that raw speculation with any data, so I didn't mention it. Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. In addition, the author's conclusions conflict with others who assert that the number of characters is the most important component in any analysis.
Quote
So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this link.

 Believe it or not, this source is nothing new to me. In fact, I've managed to come up with with some cogent criticisms in between my bible-thumping, synagogue-torching and all. Hint: Count how many proteins are used to support his consensus tree, and then contrast this with Wu 1991. More to come later......

Date: 2005/10/14 09:28:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.

 This would be a relevant criticism except for the fact that the citation demonstrated the need for at least _5_ genes to support an analysis (some suggest 20 or even more!;), instead of relying on a single protein, however informative. While Theobald may have indeed utilized multiple lines of evidence to buttress his conclusions, the facts are that:
1) he chose a _single_ protein to demonstrate his hypothesis (see the reference for the consensus tree in point 17), and
2) the protein he chose has its own problems (see Ayala's Cytochrome C analysis, which postdates McLaughlin and Dayhoff's 1973 study and has humans diverging from mammals before kangaroos, in addition to a multitude of other "mistakes").
  Why base a consensus tree on a single (flawed) protein, especially when your own sources counsel agin it? And if there _are_ multiple-gene studies that draw the same conclusions, why not quote them instead? I think this represents good prima facie evidence, but collapses under close scrutiny. The kind of scrutiny that's honed with diligent study of Dembski's monographs.
Quote
When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.

 As opposed to chickens and fish? :D

Date: 2005/10/14 09:35:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Fox:
   The link appears to be broken.......

Date: 2005/10/17 05:32:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
First, I want to thank Mr. Murphy and Mr. Fox for quoting two relevant papers as rebuttals, even if they end up supporting Uncle Paley's point of view. It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers.
  Mr. Murphy:
  If you follow point 17 as I suggested, you will see that the 1973 paper was cited by Dr. Theobald, not me. So you should address this puzzler:
Quote
[W]hy are you citing studies from 1973?

to him.
 The Cytochrome C paper showing the erroneous relationships is Margoliash Finch 1967 I think, but it's cited by (Ayala 1977). There are some other strange results, such as the viper clustering with man (how biblical!;)), but I need to look it up.
 
Quote
You can't cite a single study (or even a handful of studies) that are out of step with literally thousands of other studies to show that an entire body of knowledge is incorrect.

 Perhaps not. But what _is_ the consensus tree, and what are the studies that rigorously support it? The zoologists seem just as clueless as the molecular biologists.....
Quote
If you think that, all by yourself, you're going to convince the scientific community that the consensus phylogenetic tree is a hoax, you're hallucinating.

 Well, isn't this reversing the burden of proof? Shouldn't the scientists give a convincing tree in the first place? Instead of one cobbled together from a single protein.....

Date: 2005/10/17 06:41:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Evolutionists only accept data that conforms to their pre-conceived amoral ontology and reject the rest. In discussions in the "After the Bar closes" thread I cited several papers under undermining the evolutionistic "Tree of Life" assumption of common ancestry. Evolutionists responded by citing other papers with different data, and based on nothing more than question-begging assumptions of the truth of their ontology, claimed this proved the "Tree of Life" conclusively. However, without these assumptions, such data is inconclusive and meaningless.  Only the a priori assumption of evolutionism over Christianity makes such such inferences possible. As a Christian I look at the same data and draw different conclusions than evolutionists.

Intellegent design theory (IDT) provides an empirical basis to explain the data of functional genes. IDT has shown that similar structures are not the result of common ancestry, but merely the results of the designer's choice to use materials in the same way a human engineer would. In conjunction with my hypothesis that all "junk DNA" common to diverse organisms come from some of the organisms eating the others parsimoniously explains all of the data. Intellegent design theory and endosymbiotic exchange (eating) explains allof the data parsimoniously. Why do we need Darwinism to explain anything? Darwinism can now be relegated to the ashcan of the other amoral ontologies of the 19th century--Marxism and Freudianism.

Date: 2005/10/17 07:11:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
No, Mr. Fox. I was planning on responding to your (most excellent) paper on the correct thread.  My previous post was trying to clear up Mr. Murphy's misunderstanding of my Friday post.

Date: 2005/10/17 07:46:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Nice Paper! A few preliminary comments:

    1) As with other studies, the urchin is absurdly grouped.

    2) Widely and randomly distributed indels are hypothesized to come form an unknown ancestor. Could be true, but who knows?

    3)  This study supports the Coelomata hypothesis, which has been questioned my several recent whole genome studies. The alternative Ecdysozoa hypothesis is also buttressed by signature Hox sequences. Two richly supported speculations that flatly contradict one another. Which marker should we trust?

    4) Myriapods + Chilicerates, although indicated in some molecular research, is a grouping that will surprise most morphologists. Which line o' evidence should be trusted? Both lines have high levels of support.

Date: 2005/10/17 09:30:43, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Here is my source for point (2):
Quote
Fourteen intron locations appear to be ancestral within eIF2 genes, as determined by their common occurrence in at least two highly divergent lineages of animals, fungi, plants, or protists.

 The authors discuss their reasons for removing six of them, but not all.

Date: 2005/10/17 14:29:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Now, you say you've read Theobald, and normally I would have no reason to doubt you. But since you're still asking me what the consensus phylogenetic tree is, when Theobald's article has a huge, giant picture of it right on the second page of his article, I can only assume you haven't read it all that closely.

 I have read him closely, which is part of the problem. In fact, I had to read Theobald _very_ closely to see where he derives that huge, giant picture (otherwise known as Figure 1). Go to Part 4 (Protein Functional Redundancy) and look under "Criticisms". You should see a single citation. Click on it. What do you see? Hint: That slapping sound you just heard is your palm striking your forehead.
Quote
And why are you asking scientists for a phylogenentic tree that wasn't "cobbled together from a single protein"? I believe they've already been so kind as to provide you with one, if only you'd the eyes to see.

 Yep, Figure 1, cobbled together from - buckle the #### up!- a single protein. A _bad_ protein.
Quote
Now, I suppose you could be asking me for the astronomically huge, complete phylogenetic tree that maps out the relationship of every last taxon out there. But if that's the case, I'd still have to say you don't know your Theobald, because he makes it pretty clear why there isn't any such tree, and there likely never will be one.

You're both righter than you'll ever know. But for now, I'd settle for a tree that knows more than I do. Like, for example, that Chicken of the Sea is a brand name, not a suggestion for a phylogenetic tree.
  Remember, folks, the molecules are for testing the consensus tree, not for deriving it. That is why it is called independent evidence. And the molecules can't even come up with a giggle-proof phylogeny.

Date: 2005/10/17 14:47:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Just a small point. I missed the reference to echinodermata in Kooijman & Hengeveld (2005). Could you point me to it?

 It's in Figure 4, buried in the branch just under the Deuterostomia species. Its name is Strongylocentrotus.

Date: 2005/10/18 09:49:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Following up on my comments, I see this amusing quotation from the Krauss et al. paper:
Quote
The following cases of nested intron distributions are particularly informative. First, intron 212-1 was found in several species of animals, fungi, and protists. The nearby intron position 212-0 was identified only in angiosperm plants and may demarcate a monophyletic group of plants, because the intron 212-1 had been very likely lost before an intron 212-0 was evolved. Second, intron 127-2 was detected in protists, in some animals, and in one fungi (the basidiomycet Cryptococcus).[Paley's emphases]

 Notice, however, that Figure 5 assumes/posits intron positions 127-2 and 212-1 as ancestral to all species in its clade. It appears that wild conjectures serve as the phylogenetic equivalent of plaster of Paris.
This collapses most of the nested hierarchy, as once again I demonstrate scientists's lust for proving evolution by assuming evolution. But I'm sure your response will be more na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Darwin!
 It's nice to see algae and nematodes grouped together: this supports my model. For the insect grouping that does appear to support Darwinism, this probably arose to the tight geographic sampling:
Quote
Species trapped in the vicinity of Leipzig (Sachsen, Germany) were Lithobius forficatus (centipede), Oniscus asellus (woodlouse), Enallagma cyathigerum (damselfly), Forficula auricularia (earwig). and Aphis sambuci (aphid). Arthropods captured around Ruhla (Thüringen, Germany) were Araneus quadratus (spider), Cercopis vulnerata (cicada), and Scoliopterix libatrix (butterfly). Allacma fusca (springtail) was trapped near Ilsenburg (Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany), and Lepismachilis spp. (bristletail) was found in the vicinity of Pfarrwerfen (Salzburg, Austria).

 Wow, no chance for gene transfer there. ;)
 One last thing: notice the sparse taxon sampling.
  So in summary, the paper fails to achieve its goal due to circular reasoning, probable horizontal transfer, and goofy relationships. Better luck next time.......

Date: 2005/10/18 10:07:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Wow, you guys really like to poison the well, dontcha? I assure you that my ideas are mine alone. No cribbing off ARN, kibitzing at I.D. conferences, or piloting black helicopters. Just a David armed with the slingshot of Truth, with a smattering of Dembski's sublime maths. As for my beliefs, I pretty much see it as the Bible calls it: geocentric special creation. None of that cheap Hollywood special effects for me - man on the moon my arse!

Date: 2005/10/18 10:28:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And yet, "the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973)." (emph. mine) If you ask me, that statement pretty much sums up exactly why you're wrong.

 Not interested in what the man says as much as what he demonstrates. Which ain't much, apparently.
Quote
So it's your understanding that the tree depicted in Figure 1 is totally wrong?

 Why yes, now that you mention it. Just one question: what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....
Quote
After all, Bill, protein analysis is a relatively new science. Major portions of the consensus tree haven't changed in a hundred years. If protein analysis has difficulties building an accurate tree, why do you assume that means the tree is completely bogus?

 It's totally bogus, dude, because the molecules were meant to provide objective characters for better tree-building. There is a reason, after all, for the palpable embarrassment that real scientists have felt for Darwinism historically. Genes were supposed to elevate just-so storytelling to the heights of a solid, if pedestrian, discipline. Now genes trees are just a "new, untested" method that everyone ignores unless it gets the correct results.

Date: 2005/10/18 11:00:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And you said you were working on theory of horizontal gene transfer? Whatever for? Evolution don't happen anyway, right?

 It seems that Mr. Murphy's ability to quote retroactively embarrassing papers is only matched by his imaginative, zen-like readings of my posts. When did I say that HGT had any function other than making scientists gnash teeth over their worthless papers? HGT gives false positives, is all. But with a theory on how this transpires, godly men can better guide the trembing Darwinian finger over the contours of its error. The true giants (Berlinski and the other guy) are otherwise occupied, so it falls to me. But I'll take a side order of falsification while the engine's running.

Date: 2005/10/18 12:54:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Here's one of my favorite Dave-related quotes. It's from an article by Professor Nilsson, of Nilsson-Pelger fame, on Berlinksi's bumbling attempt to rebut their 1994 paper on the evolution of the vertebrate eye:

Quote  
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.


Way to go, Dave!

 Well, you finally did it, old chap. You made Uncle Paley out to be a liar. For the first time, I must defer to the Discovery Institute:
The Master Replies
 Nick Matzke, have you found that expert in optical theory yet? If you need an information theorist, there's this guy I know......

Date: 2005/10/18 13:20:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Unfortunately, IDT and endosymbiotic exchange are both non-theories, with no explanatory power.  Sorry.

 Turning your fangs on Margulis, eh?

Quote
You engaged in what is known as "quote-mining", which is an unethical practice of selectively citing another person's words.

  Darwinists caught with their pants around their ankles= quote-mining. Besides, we "creos" are only interested in the data behind the quotes rather than the inept spin-doctoring that clutters the discussion section. But we thought you would figure this out by now. Apparently not.
Quote
The theory says nothing about any theological issue, and there are a large number of devoutly religious folks who accept both the theory of evolution and faith.

 So say the evilutionists when the cameras are on. Some spokesmen (Dr. Kenneth Miller) claim otherwise. He's a useful sort, I guess. ;)

Date: 2005/10/18 13:56:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
:(   How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?

 From memory:
 1) The Master graces the denizens of Commentary with one of his usual masterworks. Topic: The usual inanity of evos, with a special focus on the hijinks of Dawkins, Nilsson, and Pelger
 2) The authors of Dawkin's Folly managed to publish a shrill screed as a pathetic attempt at a reply
 3) Darwinists ooze out of various sewers, orifices, and dungeons in order to gang up on our hero
 4) The Master administers a sound thrashing to said minions, with a side portion of optical theory for the lurkers, and apparently, the preening experts who had extensive need for both
 5) Nick Matske pines for his departed heroes. The rest slime their way back to their familiar bogs, sadder but none the wiser, to continue their collective paean to moonstuck , taxpayer-wasting scribblings


  I hope this helps.

Date: 2005/10/18 14:19:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I still think you're a fraud, husk, so I am loath to make any substantial reply.

But a query perhaps: What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?


  Amazing. Simply Amazing. Mr. Murphy's ink has the power to cloud all minds, friend and foe alike. Does anyone have the ability to decipher a simple argument? The Master's argument went to the heart of the model itself, and was not a semantic quibble. Read the link.  Of course, just as a podiatrist finds the solution to all illness in the humble foot, so does the Darwinist in word play.

Date: 2005/10/18 14:46:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It's a simple query. It's not intended, of itself, to substantially deal with any of Berlinski's attacks on the model. Just one of his more outrageous assertions.
And I read the link.

So, answer the question, lifeless wisp.

 
Quote
What is the fundamental difference between a "mathematical model" and a "computer simulation"?


  Answer: Nothing substantial at all. If that was the extent of the Master's charges, I would agree with your argument (assuming we ever hear it, that is). But since you've read the link, will you please address the rest of his? As a great man once opined, he who does will be the first.

Date: 2005/10/18 15:28:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
For those interested in the Master's argument, here is a slice:
Quote
Staking their all on Snyder’s model, Nilsson and Pelger must live with its consequences. “Having considered the physical limitations to resolving power,” Snyder wrote, “in addition to the absolute sensitivity of eyes, we now apply our concepts to real compound eyes.” This is something that Nilsson and Pelger never do. And no wonder. For Snyder then added the rather important caveat that bringing theory to bear on life “requires precise knowledge [of various optical parameters] in the various regions of the eye” (Snyder, p. 276, emphasis in the original).

Quote
When tested, Snyder’s model turns out to be false across a wide range of arthropods. As Warrant & McIntyre note glumly, “The model, on the whole, works best for those eyes for which it was originally formulated—apposition compound eyes functioning according to geometrical optics—but recent careful and sensitive measurements of angular sensitivity reveal that even in these types of eye, the model often performs poorly.” Readers may consult figure 34 (p. 441) of Warrant & McIntyre’s paper to see how poorly the Snyder model does. In studies of the locust Locustia, real and predicted angular-sensitivity functions do not even share the same qualitative shape.

Responding to my observation that no quantitative argument supports their quantitative conclusions—no argument at all, in fact—Mr. Nilsson has thus (1) offered a mathematically incoherent appeal to his only equation; (2) cited references that make no mention of any morphological or evolutionary process; (3) defended a theory intended to describe the evolution of vertebrate camera eyes by referring to a theory describing the theoretical optics of compound invertebrate eyes; (4) failed to explain why his own work has neglected to specify any relevant biological parameter precisely; and (5) championed his results by means of assumptions that his own sources indicate are false across a wide range of organisms.

 And here is the Darwinian rebuttal:

:0  :0  :0  :0  :0

Date: 2005/10/19 06:48:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm just a humble legal assistant, who has spent entirely too much time arguing with the likes of you, arguing over things like if you exclude natural causes, and supernatural causes, what's left? (I couldn't get an answer to that question.)

 I don't remember that question being raised before, but I'll take your word for it. My answer would be: keep natural causes if you want. Just make sure they can parse the heavens. If they can't, open your mind to other explanations.
Quote
It's left me a little too tired to wade through Berlinski's screed.

 Then why bring the matter up? Well, I won't tease you for not responding to the big B. But shouldn't somebody here have the requisite knowledge? After all, the man did his legwork. Don't play the Lestrade to his Holmes when Moriarty is more fun...
 As the Peach would say: tick, tock, tick, tock..........Mr. O' Brien? Mr. Fox?

Date: 2005/10/19 07:25:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
uh, you are aware that dembski has stated his support for common descent, yes?  will you now say that debski is "unenlightened"

put yourself up to the mirror and see your own hypocrisy. the folks you hold up as models of enlightened thought are mere poster boys for political groups.

get a clue and move on.


 My, how....responsive. What you interpret as support for CD is merely openmindedness to contrary hypotheses (have Peachy explain this concept to you, although you might have to donate the extra glue, glitter and crayons).

Date: 2005/10/19 08:25:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I don't feel the need to respond to Dave because it's clear the scientific community has amply demonstrated where he's wrong.

Where are these scientists? Communing in the Himalayas with the yeti?
Quote
The exclusion of all possible explanations (natural and supernatural) for the existence of life didn't happen here, and of course the guy who has effectively done so denies that he has, but I bet you can guess just from that the subject even arose that we're not talking about an evolutionist.

 I know I'm accused of being absent-minded at times, but I don't remember this at all. Could you cite this?
Quote
There are plenty of things for which there is currently no known explanation. Half of biology probably fits into that category. But are you sure you want to appeal to supernatural explanations to fill those "gaps"? There's a term for that kind of argument, you know.

 Yes. But that doesn't absolve a hypothesis from its own responsibilities. So it is encumbent upon scientists to prove their case first. Yes, I know: the Nilsson - Pelger paper was a but a crumb in Mt. Improbable's buffet of evidence. So why did you guys drive us sick with it? Unless it's the best you have? Platonic truth is finally shining in your little grotto, and you can only make shadow puppets on the wall. Conspiracies only take you so far, you know......

Date: 2005/10/19 09:06:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Secondly, your hypothesis is laughable. You've grossly misunderstood and oversimplified the biochemical mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer in the most infantile way.


My hypothesis is much more plausible than the orginal one proposed by Mrs. Sagan. (I am aware they got divorced; it's amazing how often that happens with evolutionists!;) In my version, complex specified information does not increase. In Mrs. Sagan's, it does. She claimed mitochondria and chloroplasts were eaten by other one-celled organisms to become animal and plant cells without any mechanism at all. This is a gargantuan increase in complex specified information utterly impossible without the aid of intellegent design.

In my version there is no increase in CSI, and a plasuible mechanism by wihch this occurs. A paper was published that describessoma-to-germline inheiritence. Since this requires a great deal more CSI increase than digestive system-to-germline inheiritence, my hypothesis is quite plausible in the light of current knowledge.

Quote
By your hypothesis, I should have corn genes, celery genes, carrot genes, rice genes, wheat genes, yeast genes, and genetic material from MANY other organisms incorporated into my own which is not the case.


According to some papers, you do. This is how evolutionists construct their godless "Tree of Life" How do you think they come up with "evidence" that humans are related to plants and animals from junk DNA? This is the main point I've been trying to get you evolutionists to understand!

Quote
You did know that grains, yeast and vegetables have DNA didn't you?


Yes I do. Do not take me for being stupid. Stupidity does with the Darwinian faith, not the Christian one. How stupid do you have to be to put your faith and trust in a man everybody recognizes is dead?

Date: 2005/10/19 09:21:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
No one is immune to bias. You are living proof of that; your religious beliefs, a factor that is irrelevant to the data presented, clearly color your arguments against evolution. Of course, you are free to draw the conclusions you wish from the papers you've read (understood?), and I'm free to disagree with you. One need not be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to come to different conclusions.


This perspective leads your evolutionary hiney down the road to nihilistic scepticism. What you said is correct, all evidence is interpreted in the light of presuppositions. However, if you can not choose between presuppositions, you have no means of knowledge. Your evolutioary worldview closes you to the possibility of making any authentic knowledge claims. All knowledge claims actually presuppose the Christian worldview. This has been proved by the late Dutch theologian Cornelius van Til. Read the essays at this site and be enlightened.

Quote
-- Just don't teach your Christian-biased conclusions on science to my children in science class; they want to learn science, not Christianity.--


Why should Darwinian-based conclusions be preferred over Christian-based ones. When, by your own admission, no one is immune from bias? Indeed, science can not exist independently of Christianity, since it involves knowledge claims (see above).

Date: 2005/10/19 09:52:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)


Because the Holy Bible says otherwise. The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity. Since if you no Almighty God to answer to, it follows that you can act in any way you wish.

This especially true of the sin of sodomy, the unholy communion of the Darwinian faith. How else can you explain that almost all of the so-called "Christian" evolutionists are Catholoics? That is, they belong to a church where Christian ritual has been exposed as a front for this most germane and heinous Darwinian act.

Date: 2005/10/19 13:16:14, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What educated layman outside of the ID community has heard of Berlinksi, or really cares what a mathematician's opinions on evolutionary biology are?

 Just one more thing: Berlinski is a maths guy, so his opinion on Nilsson - Pelger is highly relevant. And I'm starting to add more detail to my model in another thread.

Date: 2005/10/19 15:22:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Lynn Margulis' (Mrs. Sagan) work isn't being debated here. Her work was rigorously researched, it proposed biochemical mechanisms, and was peer-reviewed. Her work was fecund and led to multiple new branches of research.

 I.D. is peer-reviewed, over the squeals of many wee piggies I might add.
Quote
All you have is CSI to back up your hypothesis?

Elaborated and elucidated in a delectable series of monographs. Read them first to revel in their sheer beauty, then gently glide into the cold, crystalline bath of the mathematics proper. It's not often that one can discern the traces, the whispers, of a mind greater than one's own. Don't be an ungrateful little prig.

Date: 2005/10/19 15:33:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
wrong.  would you like to view the actual tv interview where dembski clearly states his support for the theory of common descent?

 If it's not too much trouble.
Quote
now, once you have seen what he has to say, we can argue about WHY he says it.  however, he is very clear on stating his support for common descent.

 If he is clear, I'll retract my statement. But many people (Behe, for example) are often assumed to be fully in line with CD when their real stance is more equivocal. Often a single statement is mindlessly copied from one site to another until it assumes urban legend status. But I'll hear you out.

Date: 2005/10/20 03:39:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Now the sun orbits the earth, and the Apollo landings were faked?


The fact the Apollo missions were faked is obvious. Remember the waving American flag in the photograph. If evolutionists are correct in saying there is no air on the moon, how does a flag wave? Which is it--is there air on the moon and the evolutuionists movement has been exposed so utterly they will never be able to get their pants on again, or is the Apollo mission a fake?

As far as the Sun going around the earth, Scripture makes this crystal clear. (Note that Joshua made the Sun stand still, this is because the Sun is going around the earth.)

Date: 2005/10/20 10:34:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Are you running for king of the cranks or something?
Really, ghastly, this is over the top, even for you.

I was going to disabuse you of your reverence for "The Master," but, like Mr. Fox, I am afraid that your credibility has been utterly exposed as non-existent.

If you are (as I believe) joking, well, it's gone about as far as it can at geocentrism.
Good fun, but all things come to an end.
Even ghosts.


 Oh, don't let my beliefs keep you from your duty. I'm willing to listen to any/all criticisms of the Master's position. Remember to address his real arguments, and not what Eugenie Scott may have told you they were. If you can, that is. I promise my response will be point on (I hope this doesn't scare you away again). And by the way, if you're reading this Nicky, just one question: Have you found your expert yet? :D

Date: 2005/10/20 11:09:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The interview was done on a nightline special a few months back. here's one of the sites that still has a link to the video clip:

 Thanks for the link. I can't watch it yet (have to hook up my speakers first) but I promise I'll see it later today.
You're a man of your word, and that counts for something in my book (if not on this board).
Quote
once you watch it, you should have an obvious response as to why he responds in the affirmative, but again, i am dissapointed you didn't already know, and you have lost serious cred in my book.  boo-hoo, right?

 Now, it's normally a given that a man posting under the moniker "Sir Toejam" is usually been engaged in a long and bitter feud with common sense, and you haven't exactly done anything to reverse that impression with posts that are almost as orthogonal to reality as they are to the thread topic. But I will admit to a certain silent amazement that you bring so much more to the fight:
 1) muddle-headed psychobabble
 2) funhouse, white-knuckled paranoia
 3) the reading comprehension of a faeces-flinging primate

 I mean, how many people would post an elliptical post proposing a poorly-defined test and then treat a response for more information as an excuse to engage in tired carnie blather. Yah, it must be tough when all the Lenny Bruce concerts are checked out at Blockbusters and the only thing left are a couple of dog-eared Margaret Cho tapes that you can't check out anyway 'cause the clerks made you clean the last ones you rented. But don't take it out on me, hoss, as I don't give a toss.
 Since I haven't seen the clip yet, I'm probably setting myself up for a pratfall, but I would guess that Dembski is proposing some sort of privileged-planet style frontloading as a possible explanation for life's origins. Like Behe, he has been partial to such a hypothesis in the past, but I've always treated it as the frivolous speculation that it undoubtedly is. I seem to remember Dembski expressing some skepticism about the ape-man link, but I could be confusing him with Behe. In any case, I'm willing to admit a mistake if, in fact, your interpretations prove correct.

Date: 2005/10/20 13:54:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Actually, as I intimated earlier, your initial lack of knowledge regarding ID constructs as proposed by Dembski allows me to easily dismiss your current persona as nothing more than a feeble attempt at intellectual masturbation.

 If you're implying that either frontloading or CD is inherent in Dembski's formal model, then your complaint about my logic would have merit. Obviously, I should have seen the implications swimming in his maths. But assuming that's the case, then why were you initially surprised by his confession? And if you are complaining about my lack of awareness of his metaphysics, again, where do you get that idea? From a request to provide information? Your phrase
Quote
your initial lack of knowledge

implies the latter. I'm really confused by what you're saying, by the way. Perhaps a peek of the tape would help. In any case, don't assume that I'm fooled by all these attempts to dismiss my "persona": it's sure a heck of lot easier than dismissing my arguments with evidence, clear reasoning, etc.

Date: 2005/10/20 14:43:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Well, I've seen the clip. My thoughts:

 1) No mention of front loading. Actually, that topic's too complex for T.V., so I should have anticipated that.
 2) Says CD has "good evidence", doesn't say he agrees with it. But close enough to an endorsement.
 3) Surprisingly strong slam against Special Creation. So you're right and I'm wrong, he's no metaphysical ally of ours. I knew about Henry Morris's complaint, but please understand that Morris does not represent the full spectrum of fundamentalist thought.
  In short, you're correct. But you missed a crucial point: nowhere does Dembski imply that ID is necessarily incompatible with Special Creation, only that his personal beliefs aren't. And I knew that Dembski wasn't a committed fundamentalist; I just misjudged the level of his antipathy towards fundamentalism. Again, you admit that you were initially surprised by his support for CD. So why should I have been aware of it necessarily?

Date: 2005/10/21 04:04:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Anybody catch Primetime tonight? Interesting show about a preteen pop duo called Prussian Blue who sing white supremacist songs. Imagine Mary Kate and Ashley singing songs about how great Rudolph Hess was. Yikes.]

 Funny that you mention it, but I recall reading something about them a couple of months ago. The details could be wrong, but this is what I recall:
 1) The name comes from the discoloration caused by Zyklon B, a cyanide gas used to exterminate people in the death camps, which (natch!;)) they don't believe in. (They seem to think that Zyklon B was used for delousing purposes only).
 2) Their parents are apparently pretty big players in the neo-nazi movement, but who knows how these things are determined, I guess they hold a goose-walk
 3) Don't know about their musical talent, but I get the impression that they're the White Power version of the Shaggs, with mommy and daddy just bound and determined that they're going to be stars, durn it. They probably have more musical talent, but then again, you'd probably have to work real hard to be any worse. I'll give The Shaggs credit, though, their style really comes together and they're worth a listen.....

Date: 2005/10/21 07:28:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Are you really that dilluted?


No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!

Quote
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!



Speaking of which, were you aware evolutionists assumed there would be 125 feet of moon dust on the moon based on the assumption that such dust had been accumulating for however many billion years they assume its age is. In actuality, there is only three inches. However, every item allegedly taken on the alleged Apollo mission was equipped with a flat base like a sled so it would not sink in this dust. The flagpole did not have to be jammed anywhere, it merely had to be set down. Your story is all bull$^^%, or, excuse me, rhino&%&^.

Unlike you, I know how to spell "rhino" nad use words like "diluted."

Date: 2005/10/21 09:24:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I don't know if "The Shaggs" could be worse than these girls.

 I think "being worse than The Shaggs" would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as their music is at maximum entropy. To steal a joke about another act, if Edison had taken his phonograph and a cylinder with a recording of "My Pal Foot Foot" to the Patent Office, they would have roughed him up and thrown his invention out the window. You can verify this by going to the link and clicking on the little...whatever....that thing is. And the album only goes downhill from there. So I guess that the Second Law can go #*@! itself after all.


  But I don't doubt that Prussian Blue is absolutely terrible.

Date: 2005/10/21 09:50:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Oh, Sir Toejam has a lot more to worry about than his name. Like coherent logic , evidence, and relevant posts. Oh, by the way, "Sir Toe", if yer gonna fret over anyone's lack of knowledge, you should start with evolutionists's total ignorance about optics. Maybe then you can avoid being Nilsson's mark in the future. And tell Nicky to find his expert; the Master's bored and wants to administer another spanking. And Commentary's readers will appreciate it as well - they love seeing your atheist hides get flayed in public.

Date: 2005/10/21 10:13:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The entire "Moon Landing Hoax" has been debunked by many noted scientists and agencies.

 Yeah, that's a common theme around here. Was this debunking any better than the attempt to "debunk" Berlinski?
Quote
Tell me; are you a Kent Hovind follower?

 Oh no, I ain't going for that again. O'Cryin', Foxy, and the brief stalker are already using my geocentrism as an excuse to run away from my arguments. You'll have to figure it out yourself.

Date: 2005/10/22 08:40:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
you can't see the similarity between judging the worth of an education and judging the worth of a particular piece of art for public funding?

I would certainly label the public funding of art based solely on the potential economic value of the art to be censorship, wouldn't you?

 Well, I think you're conflating the idea of censorship with the concept of public funding. I may reject the government's right to censor a work ("Buttman and Throbbin' ", let us say) while simultaneously arguing that it is not entitled to my taxpayer dollars. Even if you define censorship as a withdrawal of taxpayer funds, that work may still be subsidized by the private sector. Tax money is finite, after all, and I think it wise to allocate it with an idea of maximizing return, whether financial or social.

Date: 2005/10/22 08:52:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
This was covered on either Pharyngula or the Questionable Authority (or both). There was a Proquest or LexisNexis or other scholarly paper search for "intelligent design." Essentially, there were maybe 10-20 papers in which "intelligent design" was in the proper context. Out of those, none of them supported ID.

 Not any more. In fact, the squeals were created precisely because an ID-oriented paper found its way into a scientific journal. See this site
 I admit, this source might not be the most reliable. :D

Date: 2005/10/22 09:00:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What on Earth (so to speak) does the amount of dust on the moon have to do with evolution of life on Earth? And why on Earth would opinions about that have anything to do with one's opinion about evolution?

 Nothing much, directly. But if the earth proves as young as I suspect, this would deal a crippling blow to evolution. Plus, some are using my geocentrism as an excuse to evade my arguments (after asking me my personal beliefs!;)). Hopefully people aren't being taken in by this tactic.

Date: 2005/10/23 09:55:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe.  As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.

 Well, on that subject, here are some more sites that fill out the picture:
Pro Hoax
More Pro Hoax
Anti Hoax
Forum
 Two problems with antihoax sites:
 1)The Problem of Consilience of Inductions
   In deciding between two hypotheses, one should usually choose the one that unifies more observations and relies less on post hoc rationales to explain phenomena. In other words, the hypothesis should do most of the explanatory work, and incorporate as little into its predictive bundle as possible. This is not met with the antihoax community, as their rationalizations range from short camera exposures, unique lunar soil characteristics, the vacuum, pranking astro-naughts, miscommunication, and hairs on lenses to account for anomalities. The prohoax community can unify all "problems" under one rubric: a manufactured moonwalk.

 2) Changing, mutually-contradictory explanations. For example, the author claims that the reason that no flame was seen from the departing lander was due to the lack of air in the lunar environment. Then he says, whoops, that's a minor effect. It's really the fuel. In each case, he shows supreme confidence in his answer. But since he rarely quantifies anything (e.g. how much torque would one need to create the flag ripples we see?), one can only shrug one's shoulders and comment that his whole treatise is written in jello.

 There is are cathedrals of doubt hidden behind Phil Plait's quaint, complacent Potemkin Village.

Date: 2005/10/23 09:58:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry. "There are cathedrals of doubt....."

Date: 2005/10/23 10:07:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If I have to read many more of these 'evolution is a dogmatic atheist religion' claims, I'm going to go spare on the authors.

 Sorry, but I am not conversant in Ebonics (unlike liberals, I prefer squandering time on frivolous languages such as Greek, Italian, and Irish Gaelic instead). Could you please translate this?

Date: 2005/10/23 10:44:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
ONE ID-oriented paper? Did I hear you right there? Only one? Just ONE as opposed to God knows how many in support of evolution over 150 years? My God, the case for ID is truly compelling.

 Yes, and the evos are doing their best to make sure that little indiscretion never happens again. See the journal's statement.
 Besides, I think the Behe-Snoke paper also qualifies as an I.D. paper. C'mon, Wonderpants, keep up with the discussion.
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2005,14:52)
Quote  
Can somebody perhaps tell me why it's amoral to think (1) that complex organisms had ancestors or (2) that an organism will be very similar to some of its recent ancestors, or (3) that organisms with extensive similarity of some part of its DNA probably inherited that from a common ancestor? (and the greater the similarity, the greater the probability thereof.)



Because the Holy Bible says otherwise.  


Sources please.

 What are our schools producing nowadays? Hint: look near the front.
Quote
Quote  
The entire ediface of evolutionism is about finding excuses for immoraity.  


Again, sources please.


 Well, there's My Struggle by some German fellow. What was his name? Don't worry if you don't know: ask the nearest homeschooled kid and he'll tell you.
Quote
Sadly, even God's words in the Bible doesn't make Christians act in a Christian way. They were forbidden to shed blood, so instead they got round it by putting people on the rack and finding similar loopholes. Or how about the bishop who said "Kill them all. God will know his own." when asked what to do about the population of a town that had been captured and had quite a few Christians living there.

  This must explain the utter bliss and peace that reigned during the secular 20th century.

Date: 2005/10/23 11:38:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?

 And here we have it. Post-modernism at its worst: I feel, therefore it is........well, if it gets you an academic post in lieu of someone qualified, good luck with that.

Date: 2005/10/24 14:03:14, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
 
If I have to read many more of these 'evolution is a dogmatic atheist religion' claims, I'm going to go spare on the authors.

Sorry, but I am not conversant in Ebonics (unlike liberals, I prefer squandering time on frivolous languages such as Greek, Italian, and Irish Gaelic instead). Could you please translate this?

Maybe it would help if you spent some time learning English?  

 I guess I had that one coming - or is that going - my Amurican is not so good! :(

Date: 2005/10/24 14:26:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I have only one, simple question:

Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?

 Sure. But what does that have to do with anything?
Quote
but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.

I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked?

 I assumed it was a rhetorical question, but I guess you're still probing me. For what it's worth, I assure you I am not a member of the Panda's Bum. As for whether I'm sincere, the only way I could "regain" credibility in this area is by losing it. Think about it. Now answer this: Ever dunk a witch?


 Wow, so many questions! Does this mean you'll give me a second chance? ???

Date: 2005/10/24 14:57:03, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Did you actually read the article?  
"Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure."
And you might look at the AAAS article it links to as well.

 From the statement:
Quote
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings.[my emphasis]

  It's the global nature of the ban that bothers me. How in the world can the Society possibly know that no future I.D. paper will be relevant? Even if you accept their side of the story. Which I don't; for one reason why, see here.
 How can you guys possibly defend them?

Quote
I can't think of a time in human "civilized" history that was ever dominated by "bliss and peace".

 Perhaps not. But even accounting for technology, the 20th century saw a lot of bloodshed.

Date: 2005/10/24 15:52:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

 Oh please, it's obvious to anyone with a room temperature I.Q. that you're as yellow as they come. Heck, if you ever made any sense, I'd praise you for being Nicky's best prawn puppet. I'm sorry if the evo's brightest were pranked by a mediocre paper; I really am. But don't blame Berlinski for rubbing your collective noses in it - that's what you get for #####ing on the rug.

Date: 2005/10/25 05:06:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Every century has seen a lot of bloodshed.  There was nothing different about the 20th century.  Obviously there is nothing different about the 21st.  Religion is no preventer of war.  Technology is no provocateur.  Human nature is the same no matter what mask you wear.

 So do you agree that there is nothing inherent in Christianity that causes war? Personally, I think that religion can be a great source of friction, but at least it provides (admittedly imperfect) protection against completely sociopathic behavior. I think if you try to quantify the destruction caused by theocratic vs secular governments, then religion comes out ahead, although both sides can reference plenty of horror stories to support their case.

Date: 2005/10/25 06:02:04, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
....Nicky, on your promotion to head barker. I knew you had it in you as soon as I saw this wonderful, masterful, lunatic cakewalk of evo storybooking. I never thought you guys would ever find someone who could avoid the sterno long enough to crayon a coherent rebuttal to anyone, and personally, even I had my doubts at first, what with the sloppy glue-jobs you would earnestly present to the ARN, but you've come a long way, even if your magnum opus is padded with the detritus of failed guesswork and gyrates about its sham phylogeny like a child's dreidel. Shin, Hey, Gimel, Nun, indeed. You are truly the gleam in an old tart's eye, the shining spittle that guides the evos through the dank corridors of their troubled mind. Keep the good work up, and you just might get a job shining the Master's shoes, or even provide your special brand of Pub-Med carpet bombing to wear down Eugenie's Kids.

Date: 2005/10/25 09:07:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Re "K, F or C?"

Kentucky Fried Chicken?    

Nah, just a little test of scientific lieracy at the Elementary School level.

 I guess it's not enough to watch me topple Sir Wiggle's mental house of cards - you have to play Socratic master as well, eh.
 Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?

Date: 2005/10/25 09:14:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).

Date: 2005/10/25 09:17:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I once watched a fascinating discussion where a pastor tried to reinterpret the "eye of the needle" story to mean that rich people could go to heaven.  Can you belive it?

 I've never understood how so many of my fellow Christians can ignore such obvious teachings, either.

Date: 2005/10/25 09:23:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?

 Obviously, this should read:

Answer: F, but I suspect the average I.Q. level here is more C-oriented. What prize did I win?

 As if I don't italicize enough already.

Date: 2005/10/26 09:45:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I agree religion comes out ahead, way ahead.  That might be because historically there have been a lot more governments with religious inclinations than atheistic ones.  It would be easier to compare if there was something resembling parity.

 I think you misunderstood me. I'm arguing that religious leaders, on average, are less violent than secular ones. I think if you look at tyrants such as Ivan the Terrible, you'll see that their religious convictions helped mute their atrocities somewhat. Whereas Stalin, who was an atheist despite his early training in the Tiflis seminary, had nothing to brake his increasing paranoia. I really do believe that if Hitler had been the Catholic he pretended to be (regarding his beliefs, that is: I think he was actually a neopagan), he would not have ordered the Holocaust. For every Cortes, there's a Bartolome de Las Casas whose religion tries to reign him in. You have to wonder why active, deliberate genocide became more prevalent during the 20th century. But violence has been a constant throughout history, that's for sure.

Date: 2005/10/26 11:01:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Since there seems to be so much speculation about my motives and identity, I thought I'd compile the reigning theories just for fun. I might have added one to fill the speculative sample space:

                         Paley the Insider
 A popular early hypothesis. Paley is a regular contributer who's decided to tease the other fellas. Possible culprit: Dave Cerutti.

 Evidence for:
  Cerutti's stated desire to assume another identity after his last visit (as Admonicus). Paley appears soon afterward. Also, Paley seems to possess some familiarity with past activity from other regulars. The continued ribbing of Nick Matzke.

 Evidence against:
  The time frame. Why wait a month between posts? Paley's interests mesh poorly with Dave's.

         
        The Documentary Hypothesis:Multiple Paleys

  This idea has been floated occasionally. Basically, Paley is a composite of several individuals.

   Evidence for:
  The syntax, grammar, and vocabulary shift from post to post. In fact, scholars from Panda's Thumb have postulated several distinct layers in Paley's manuscripts:

  P, or Protopaley, whose posts reflect the primitive, philosophically dense trollings frequently encountered on the Talk Origins forum. P-Paley often relies on quick, brutal attacks on his enemies, leavened with the occasional swipe at other posters' political tendencies. Advocates bold scientific positions. As the name implies, the earliest model.

  L-Paley. The trickster. Gentler than P-Paley, he still enjoys a good scrap, but relies on wit and dependent clauses to defang his adversary. Loves Phylogeny and Hoaxing, and has refined his trolling to fit the board's needs.

  B-Paley, to denote his desire to play nice and abide by the rules. Relatively courteous; is thought to be a bridge to useful partisanship of evo doctrine.

   Evidence against:
  At minimum, the conspirators must know each other, as Paley always uses the same email address and password when logging on. Posts often reflect similar ideas and imagery, as well as a dazzlingly intellect rarely encountered in life, much less Panda's Bum. These argue for a single author.


               Genuine Paley

  Evidence for:
 His protestations. In other words, none.

 Evidence against:
  See above. Also, it's convenient, which counts for more than it should.
 
    Comments?

Date: 2005/10/26 15:09:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16: 01)
Comments?
None

Hmmmmm.........
Kirk finally shuts off M5 by pointing out that by killing humans it has violated its programming of saving men from dangerous activities such as space exploration. Since the penalty for murder is death, the M5 concludes that it must die, and shuts itself down.

Date: 2005/10/28 04:03:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I want him backkkk! WAHHHHHHHHHH

 Don't worry, I'm sure your comfort troll will assume a new identity and log in again. Then you'll never have to deal with an argument you can't handle again.
Quote
Could somebody get a copy of "Eliza" to fill in for him?

 Perhaps, but to fill the time, why not read this? Then maybe you won't get skinned so bad in the future.

Date: 2005/10/28 04:24:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.


  Murphy, you're back! Hey, do you still have the barrel I lent you from our last encounter? You can keep the suspenders; after all, you'll probably need them next time.

Date: 2005/10/28 05:09:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Gould's writings were so confused that they act as a blank slate upon which any reader can project his presuppositions. It's obvious that Gould's talents couldn't match his ambitions, and let's face it - nothing revolutionary was ever going to come from his specialty anyway. I mean, staggering around Cat Island with a  Pina Colada in his chubby little hand, picking snails out of the sand - what a good use of alumni money. But Steve's career serves as inspiration to us all: to make it big in American Academia, all one needs is an ass full of red-diaper politics, a thesaurus and a sponge memory.

Date: 2005/10/28 06:36:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Largely because we now report it in full, and because we have the means and weapons available to attempt to commit it more easily.

That, and the aus-rotten of Las Casas in favor of Marx, Darwin, and Tupac. But they're hip, so I guess it's all good.

Date: 2005/10/28 06:49:56, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Have any of you YEC trackers followed this guy, Marshall Hall?   Check out his website I especially like this pearl of wisdom:
Quote  
Qualified and able Creationist/Geocentrists around the world are speaking out on the two facts that ICR (and AIG) are steadfastly resisting, viz., The Bible teaches a moving sun, not a moving earth; &: Both the heliocentricity and the geocentricity models explain all the phenomena. Thus, support of heliocentricity is a philosophical, not a scientific, choice, & not fit for Biblical Creationists.  
Point that out when our more urbane pseudointellectual anti-intellectual friends(e.g. Discovery Institute) use the same "philosophical bias" gambit.


Amen and Amen. All conclusions about the world are ultimately derived from philosophical presuppositions. Evolutionists start with the assumption that the autonomous human mind is capable of coming to accurate conclusions. However, since the human mind is fallible; this is false. Ergo, evolutionists have no basis at all to ground any knowledge claims. Christians start with the Bible as a guide to knowledge. The Bible makes it possible to ground knowledge claims.

I can hear the screaming demands to prove the reliabiility of the Bible now. This however, misses the point. Autonomous human reason can not prove the truth of the Bible more than it can prove the truth of evolution or anything else. It must be accepted as an ultimate presupposition in order to prove anything at all.

Any reasonably careful reading of the Bible makes it clear that Geocentricity is the correct view of the issue. Hence, geocentricity has been proven. If you want to use autonomous human reason to settle the question, it will be just one opinion against another

Date: 2005/10/28 08:43:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:
Quote
what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....

 
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add:
 F=mv.

Date: 2005/10/28 09:13:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
"Oh butterscotch! This Paley guy knows biology, philosophy, history, psychology; he expresses himself well, doesn't fall for our usual tests and psi-wars, stays on topic, rubs our noses in our boo-boos, knows and throws our own sources back at us, shows us stuff we never knew; and worstest of all no matter how we try we just can't ignore him - the lurkers are even catching on! Mr Dawkins you said you said all fundies were dumb n' nuts so why so why THISCANTHAPPENWEHAVELOTSOFDEGREESJUSTLOOKATTHEMSTACKEDINROWSCOLUMNSTOTHECUSPOFINFINITYANDB

ACKFORANOTHERRIDEONTHEMERRYGOROUNDSEEI
TWASNOTINVAINBADTALKINGMAN!!!!!!!
"

Date: 2005/10/28 09:53:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.

   Just to make sure I understand your argument, you are saying that any choice of characters is suitable, because only evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. So there is no a priori reason for the choice; any characters that form a tree will do?

Date: 2005/10/28 10:11:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Of course, you mind being fallible, you cannot come to that conclusion, so we can ignore it.

 Well, we're also relying on an outside source, the Bible. Yes, our relations with the Bible are filtered through our senses; that is where blind faith comes in. With it, we can escape the logical paradoxes/ undecidable propositions that are imbued in any man-made construct. Since all systems are built on quicksand, we must realise that we are only capturing a projection of truth, not truth itself. We are prisoners of our senses and logic; only God possesses the key that liberates.

Date: 2005/10/31 09:03:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

and
Quote
I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

  Wow, you guys are pretty slippery! Here are my points:

 The present system, although modified by Hennig, is still essentially Linnean. Now, ole Carl was definitely a creo, so any evolutionary modification should improve and objectify his schema. This was to be accomplished by applying the concept of common descent. With common descent, the evos presumed, they could use the fossil record and embryology to decipher the homologies that define the clades, and thereby produce a robust tree. But the poor embryos wouldn't cooperate:
Quote
Most traditional views of homology rely on two unwarranted premises: the pervasively hierarchical nature of biology, inclusive of the levels of genes, development, and morphology and the linear mapping of genes onto developmental schedules and of developmental schedules onto phenotypes. These premises are only occasionally verified.

 The author proceeds to point out incongruities during the development of the vertebrate alimentary canal as one example among many. Basically, embryology seems an unreliable way to test the homology of characters. As for the fossil record: well, let's just leave that weak sister alone for now. To summarize, there is no consistent way to test homologies.
 But can't we use common sense? Not really. Take mammals as an example. Mammals are defined as creatures that are:
 1) Endothermic
 2) Furry
 3) Possessors of a unique ear/jaw structure

  All of these characteristics are questionable. Birds and other critters share character 1), pterodactyls might share 2), and a recent    fossil revealed parallel "evolution" for 3), rendering that characteristic uninformative.
 To show you how labile these classifications can be, see here and compare to P.Z. Myer's simple phylogeny for winged insects.

Date: 2005/10/31 09:47:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Any particular reason for the red-bating? Are you still concerned that the CPUSA might try to take over the country?


No, I am not concerned about that at all. Polls indicate only 9% of Americans believe in evolution and most of them are effete cowards who couldn't take over a wet paper bag. There is no chance of a communist takeover in this country. In America, communists are an endangered species that exist only in zoos like Harvard and Berkely. America's Christian taxpayers care for you like any good zookeeper; we just don't want you animals to determine what our children learn in our schools. Che Guevera, Lenin?--Chomsky, Gould, etc., much less their pathetic disciples who run this message board don't even come close.



Quote
And surely you're not going to claim that the Soviet Union was a haven for evolutionists...


Darwinism is the intellectual precursor to Marxism. Without it Marxism could not exist. It is an uncitical devotion to the works of Darwin that caused Lysenkoism to be adopted. Lysenkoism is just applied Darwinism. It was the Christian monk Gregor Mendel, not the atheistic philosopher Darwin who really discovered genetics, and this is what Lysenko objected to. Yes, evolutionists had free reign in the Soviet Union, while true scientists were sent to the Gulag.

Date: 2005/11/01 05:06:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
I want a source on that


Here is the linkI was in slight error. The 9% poll was for 1987. Darwininsts seem to have gained a little ground. As of 1997, 10% of Americans believe in evolutionism! It might even be as high as 11% by now! Wow, the revolution must coming soon!!

*snicker*

Date: 2005/11/01 05:15:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Communist Manifesto: 1848.

On the Origin of Species: 1859.

Do we have a QED here?


No, "we" don't. The Communist Manifesto is just a bunch of left-wing ranting. It reads like a joint pamphlet of Noam Chomsky and Martha Nussbaum. It has no substance. Karl and Fred's great work, Das Kapital, contains the theoetical foundation for their ideas, grounded thoroughly in Darwinism. It was Darwinism that animated the corspe that was socialist ideology prior to the 1860's

Date: 2005/11/01 07:05:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Communist Manifesto: 1848.

On the Origin of Species: 1859.

Do we have a QED here?

 One other thing. When Christians invoke Darwinism, we are discussing something broader than Charles D's scribblings. The roots of Darwinism are found in Milesian philosophy, and reached their apex in Malthus and, ironically enough, Erasmus Darwin. Chuck himself was rather dimwitted, and obviously let someone rifle Grandpa's manuscripts while watching Huxley take the pratfalls in public. I often wonder what Chuck thought when he stared, slack-jawed, at the pages of his own "work". You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for exploiting an obvious imbecile to advance your satan-breathed ideology. And Marx should be ashamed for trashing and then plagiarizing Malthus. But I guess the ends justify the means, no?
Quote
Do you honestly think Lysenko was based on Darwinism? I'm pretty sure Darwin didn't believe in the heritability of acquired characteristics, which is central to Lysenkoism.

 As I've just stated, Darwin petit-fils had enough trouble dressing himself each morning to corcern himself with such, but his books do rely on lamarckian inheritance as a supplement to natural selection.

Date: 2005/11/01 07:29:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.

 Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.
Quote
I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system

 But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself?  There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they were ever valid to begin with. By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?


Henry J wrote:

Quote
I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me.

 Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?

Date: 2005/11/01 07:37:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
And don't forget we are talking about the USA here, which is unusual amongst the developed nations in that a very high percentage of the population claim that religion is very important in their lives.  Europe, for example, is much more secular.  The States is closer to a developing country in this specific regard.

 What's funny about this is that Americans are also happier than Europeans in general - if anyone asks for the source, I'll dig it up under the condition that the skeptic subsequently concedes that high levels of religious belief and personal contentment might be causally linked.

Date: 2005/11/01 07:43:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Oh yes, thank you so much, Mr Paley, for opening my eyes to such new and wonderous things. I never would have found this without you:

 You're welcome. In fact, this may be the best phylogenetic tree ever presented.

Date: 2005/11/01 07:55:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Or it could be that high levels of wealth and personal contentment are causally linked?

 No, that's pretty well been debunked. Even lottery winners decline to previous levels of happiness after a couple of years. But ignorance is bliss, or so I hear.....

Date: 2005/11/01 12:31:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
As a gross simplification the process of evolution consists of an organism acquiring a change in its inheritance or genes and in consequence incurring changes in its characteristics and subsequently a variation in its prospects for flourishing in the environment.


You can say that again. Evolutionism is an ontological theory stating that mind is subordinate to matter with the obvious implication the universe itself it fundamentally amoral. There is no evidence for this belief, abd a great deal of evidence against it, but it exists because evolutionists want to justify their immoral behavior.



Quote
A wide variety of things can produce changes in an organisms’ genes and for many, if not most, we have a detailed theory of the process in neo-Darwinism which covers all of the common changes that can arise from within the organism’s own genes. However, as well as an organism’s own genes it exists in an ocean of alternative genetic material, from fragments of dead organisms through pollens, viruses and bacterial plasmids to complete consumable organisms of different species.


Of course! All of the excuses for why things aren't like the way Uncle Charles said they were supposed to be.

Quote
We know that there are some instances where an organism has acquired a gene or group of genes from another. The process is referred to as horizontal gene transfer. Two classic instances are the transmission of resistance to antibiotics and mitochondrial DNA. Concern over genetic engineering has brought further examples to light.


Maybe this sort of thing is all there is, and all "evidence" for relationships among the different kinds our Father hath created are nothing but figments of febrile evolutionistic imaginations. It's just like seeing the virgin Mary in a peanut butter jar. If a man is determined to find a pattern, he does!



Quote
The processes of horizontal gene transfer and neo-Darwinism operate in very different ways and therefore each should leave its own distinctive signature on the pattern of new species found in the evolutionary landscape. So we will compare the two processes and look to see if there are any ways in which horizontal gene transfer could leave an identifiable signature on the new species and use this to see if there is a detectable component of horizontal gene transfer in the evolutionary record and, if so, estimate the proportion of evolution that could be attributable to it.


Again, your like a mental patient seeing Mary in a peanut butter jar, and trying to eat all of the peanut butter that is not the Blessed Virgin as "proof" of his find!

Quote
We find again that the problem in estimating our ratio is an almost total lack of the expected signature of the neo-Darwinian descendant species and are left with the same, peculiar, estimate that 100% of new species arise from horizontal gene transfer


In a moment of sanity, you admit it is all a crock. There is nothing there but peanut butter.

Quote
An alternative way of determining the effect of numbers on probability of evolving that eliminates many variables is to take a well studied organism, like homo sapiens, and note that for every individual homo there are numerous accompanying parasites and symbiotic bacteria. Since these all have gone through the same evolutionary history the history can be largely discounted and the question becomes one of counting the number of new species of human flea, skin mite, athletes foot yeast, gut bacteria etc that have appeared in the last couple of million years while humans evolved from a Miocene ape.


Oh, where to begin. To claim that humans share an evolutionary history with fleas, mice, and gut bacteria, and Miocene apes is an egregious act of question-begging. Furthermore, you fail to take into account the massive difference in the level of complex specified information(CSI) contained in a human versus a bacterium. Even if one admits that bacteria evolved without intellgent design (This was already proven impossible by Dembski and Behe!;), to think that humans could is utterly absurd. Humans have a level of CSI that is almost immeasurable. How do you compare bacteria changing themselves with the aid of intellegent design (genetic engineering) with humans suddenly evolving complete with a moral sense and a knowledge of God without any intellegent input? The inanity of evolutionists never ceases to amaze me!


Quote
To hark back to the second mode of estimate – there is a simple calculation that says that if 99.99 % of living organisms are single celled then 99.99% of copies of genes are in single celled organisms and 99.99% of the genes changed by neo-Darwinian processes are in single celled organisms so that 99.99% of populations that accumulate enough change to produce a new species will be single celled and 99.99% of new species arising under neo-Darwinism should be single celled. Put this down as another odd calculation that suggests that most multicellar life originated via horizontal gene transfer.



Exactly how does horizontal gene transfer increase CSI? At least Neo-Darwinism provides a mechanism, albeit a crude one. Did everything evolve just randomly?


Quote
Alternatively, just possibly, everyone else is overlooking something obvious.



Yes, we have been made in the image of God, just as the Bible says. That is what explains the data and that is what you've all been overlooking.

Date: 2005/11/02 04:04:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
This guy and his study show that happiness is not the whole of the equation.

I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data.  I'm sure you have our own explanation as to why the more religious country (ours) has more murders, abortion, and STDs than the more secular countries in Europe.  I'm going to guess that you are going to dismiss it outright.

   How can I dismiss data that I can't see? The blurb doesn't link to the study, so the reader is left in the dark (perhaps deliberately?) when it comes to the author's methodology, sample size, etc. Lines such as this:
 
Quote
“Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world"

don't exactly inspire confidence in the author's objectivity. Is the study online, and if not, would you mind giving a brief summary? Trust me, I won't run away.

Date: 2005/11/02 07:45:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data.

 To give you additional guidance, here are some questions I ask of any cross-national survey:
 1) Did the study make demographic adjustments at any point? (Are white, middle-class Americans compared with white, middle-class Europeans? Or at least did they compare similar races? If not, the study is a joke.)
 2) Were adjustments made for the varying percentages of 15-35 (or similar-aged) men in the respective populations? If not, the study is propaganda.
 3) Are there any other considerations (population density, gun laws, etc.)? If not, the study is compromised.

 Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work. I'm not whining, just stating a fact. But I'll respond to your study if you fill in some details.

  I hope this helps.

Date: 2005/11/02 10:33:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Show me the numbers, man.  I showed you the numbers that suggest that a lack of religion doesn't hurt social ills.

 First, a few numbers.
 Also, see here.
 Notice two things: when comparing violent assaults, suddenly the U.S. doesn't look so bad:

Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40

But what about that murder rate? To answer your question:
Quote
Are blacks more likely to commit crimes, or are poor people more likely to commit crimes?


 Homicide Offender Rate/100,000 by Race in US (2000):

3.4 - White
25.8 - Black
3.2 - Other
 Note: this doesn't take into account the reasons behind the discrepancy. But notice this bit:

Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91).

 This demonstates my earlier point about the need for caution when comparing America with more ethnically homogeneous countries. This point also applies to other social ills. Think about this: if Christianity is so useless in creating a stable society, then why did America's exploding crime rates coincide with the secularization of the public sphere in the mid-sixties? And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life? And morality is indeed tied to crime: check out Giuliani's application of the "Broken Windows" theory to New York City. Get rid of the hookers and grifters, and watch the murder rate drop. Liberals predicted the utter failure of this approach, which of course demonstrated its usefulness to any rational mind. Its subsequent success was practically guaranteed.
 Wait, it gets worse: the FBI (coincidentally, I am sure) includes Hispanic criminals under the "White Offenders" hate crimes category, even though Hispanic victims get their own box. This, of course, artificially inflates the crime rates of European-Americans. Now, who doesn't have it in for us?

Date: 2005/11/02 11:49:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
The problem here became clear to me while reading your post.
Quote  
Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work.
I don't think this is true at all.  In fact, most academics ARE white, heterosexual Christian men.  You might as well make another baseless claim like "Jesus ate babies!"

   Undoubtedly academics are mostly white, straight, and Christian (although do you have a source for the latter? I suspect the rates of atheism among professors, if uncovered, would raise Middle America's roof!;)) But how is this inconsistent with my contention? Self-hatred and "enlightenment" values go hand-in-hand, after all. Well, that's all for now. Later, I'll hand out a fun homework assignment and answer any follow-up questions..........

Date: 2005/11/02 12:49:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?

 Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).

Date: 2005/11/02 13:47:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Swooosh wrote:
Quote
A religiously influenced government would downplay the material and political angle, and instead invigorate the population to support the war by citing religious differences.  The Nazis.  The Crusades.  The Iraq War, more of the same.

 For a different perspective on the crusades, try Thomas Madden.
This page argues that Hitler was not Christian.
 As for the Iraq War, there's another side to the story:
Quote
According to Rubin, sanctions were the sole available choice that did not imply allowing Saddam Hussein to do what he pleased in the region....These observations do not answer the question of whether any policy, no matter how strategically sound, is worth the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children -- a figure that originated in a Unicef report on infant mortality in sanctions-era Iraq and became the rallying cry of anti-sanctions campaigners. And the argument against sanctions on Iraq went beyond even this single, horrifying statistic.

 I guess the Clinton years weren't so great for the Iraqi people, either.

Date: 2005/11/02 13:51:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
It's nice to finally see a consistent, well-supported tree on Panda's Thumb.

Date: 2005/11/02 15:54:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Why don't your numbers match these numbers?

 Try here if you want some background.
 Please sample Figures 6 and 7 while you're browsing.
Quote
I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America.  However, they are also disproportionally poor.  I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal.  I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime.

 My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
 
Quote
Quote  
And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life?
Because that happens to be about 20 years after Roe v. Wade.  Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.  And since more unwanted children were aborted after Roe v. Wade there were less criminals 17-20 years afterward.  Simple math.  And it relies nothing on Reagan.

My cipherin' suggests a period of 8 years. But then, I never did get the New Math.
Quote
When the baby boomers reached their late teens crime increased.  That's when people do crime.  No suprise there.  The coinciding was a coincidence.

 The Woodstock generation turning to debauchery I can believe. But if you read criminology books from the time period, the overriding concern was the nature of the crime committed, not merely its frequency. The utter viciousness and callousness of the young thugs shocked many seasoned professionals. All except evolutionists, of course. But they're hardly professional, so never mind.
 
Quote
But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory.  All across our nation.

Not really. I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston. You know, the cities that started patrolling their red-light districts. But what am I telling you guys for, ya'll are probably still sporting the bruises.... :D

Date: 2005/11/03 12:10:44, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Hmm - if you read the current literature instead of the out of date literature, maybe you would be more aware of what was going on.

 Go back to your Playstation, sonny. The big people are talking.
Quote
And why do these numbers disagree as well?  Can you explain the discrepency?  I didn't read all of that, as I don't have the time, nor do I really care all that much.  But if you want more, seemingly different data, check out figure 2b on this.

 Hey, I'm not the one who mistook a newsblurb for a scientific survey, and then switched to a different set of figures when pressed for more detail. But if you could ever trouble your bad self to click on the blue line, you'll see that the charts are derived from data compiled by the International Crime Victim Survey, which is...oh, who am I kidding. As if you'll ever look. Here:
Quote
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is the most farreaching programme of standardised sample surveys to look a householders’ experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of unsafety in a large number of countries. This page summarises the development of the ICVS.

There were two main reasons for setting up this project. The first was the inadequacy of offences recorded by the police for comparing crime in different countries. The second was the absence of any alternative standardised measure.

Police figures are problematic for comparative purposes because the vast majority of incidents the police know about are notified by victims, and any differences in propensity to report in different countries will undermine the comparability of the amount of crime counted by the police. Moreover, official police figures vary because of differences in legal definitions, recording practices, and precise rules for classifying and counting incidents. These limitations are well-established. A number of countries have independently mounted crime or ‘victimisation’ surveys to asses national crime problems- and the ICVS mirrors their approach. Such surveys ask representative samples of the population about selected offences they have experienced over a given time. They are interested in incidents are whether or not reported to the police, and indeed, the reasons why people do and do not choose to notify the police. They thus provide both a more realistic count of how many people are affected by crime and - if the surveys are repeated- a measure of trends in crime, unaffected by changes in victims’ reporting behaviour or administrative changes in recording crime.


 As for the methodology:
Quote
CATI method

The technical management of all (but Finland and Malta) of the surveys in the industrialised countries has been carried out by Interview, a Dutch surveying company. Interview subcontracted fieldwork to survey companies in the participating countries, while maintaining responsibility for the questionnaire, sample selection and inteview procedures. The survey on Malta was done according to the Face to Face method, supervised by UNICRI.

sampling: a sample of between 1000 and 2000 households was drawn by random dialing of telephone numbers. Non relavant contacts (like companies) were ignored. Within a household, there was a random selection of a household member aged over 16. In case of a refusal, this household member was not replaced. The process continues until the agreed amount of completed interviews were reached. An exeption to this procedure is Finland, a random selection of individual were drawn from the population register. Also an exeption was Northern Ireland and some rural parts of Spain, since telephone penatration was low the interviews were taken face to face, but also computer assisted.

response rates: in the eleven industrialised countries in the 1996 sweep taken as a whole, 67% of the respondents selected for interview agreed to take part. this was an improvement on the overall response rate of 60% for the twelve countries of the 1992 sweep and on the 43% response rate in 1989. In 1996, response varied from 40% in the USA to 80% or more in Austria, Finland and Northern Ireland. For the seven countries which took part both in 1992 and 1996, the response rate was about the same or better in five, but fell slightly in two (the Netherlands and USA). For the three countries which had surveys in 1996 and 1989, responses were lower in Switzerland but higher in the other two.

CATI: the interviews were done by telephone. The interviewer reads the questions (and instructions) from a computer screen. The answers are directly entered into the computer system and used to select the next question. (For instance, the items on car crimes were skipped if the household has no cars.)



 There's much more, of course, but this will get you started. Of course, I can't read it out loud to you.
Quote
Clearly math is not your strong point at all. Crime rates fell in 94.  Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 73.  That makes 21 years.

Why, it certainly does. But the time from Roe v. Wade to the Reagan presidency was only 8 years, just as I wrote, apparently to no avail. And that's when crime started falling. I must admit, however, that it did start rising again in the mid-eighties, so there wasn't as much net change during the Big R's tenure as I thought. And I am aware that crime continued to jump until the Republican Revolution in 1994. When, of course, crime immediately began to plummet despite dire liberal forecasts of the crime wave sure to follow in the wake of welfare reform. By the way, whatever your reader charges, it's way too much.
Quote
But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory.  All across our nation.  There is no consistent correlation between crime fighting methods and less crime.

Sorry, but there was something special about the crime drop in the Big Apple, no matter how badly you may want to wish it away.* I bet you wept in frustration as Giuliani exposed the city's gangsta-hugging tactics for the crap they were, and are. So typical: conservatives have to change the tire in the thunderstorm while the libs watch from the safety of the local Starbuck's. And bitch about how warm their frappuccino's getting.
Quote
I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston.
Simply false.

Really?
Quote
Another facet of the recent decline is that until lately it has been driven primarily by the largest U.S. cities. In 1995, 40 percent of the national drop in homicide could be accounted for by just six cities. Given its large share of the national population, and its relatively high homicide rate in 1993, New York City’s 67 percent reduction in homicide from 1993 to 1998 itself accounts for 17 percent of the national decline during this period. But New York’s experience has not been unique; over the same period, the number of homicides has dropped in San Diego by 68 percent, in Boston by 65 percent, in Los Angeles by 60 percent, in San Antonio by 60 percent, in Houston by 43 percent, in New Orleans by 42 percent, in Detroit by 26 percent, in Philadelphia by 23 percent, in Dallas by 21 percent, and in Chicago by 18 percent. Together with New York, these cities account for 8 percent of the national population, but 59 percent of the decline in homicides. For 1999, statistics from the FBI’s preliminary Uniform Crime Report indicate that the largest drops are now occurring in smaller cities, such as Nashville, Tennessee, at 50 percent, and Fort Wayne, Indiana, at 41 percent, as the largest urban areas have now bottomed out.

 While you're at it, fire your fact-checker as well. :p



*Here's a homework exercise for Constant Lurker: name the sources the author uses to validate the official numbers, and compare with Paley's sources. Discuss any similarities you see.

Date: 2005/11/03 12:47:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
MD Potter slobbered:
Quote
Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies.
The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.

Which is part of the Alpha Centauri star system. If you want to pawn this little red wannabee off as a real star, be my guest. By the way, do you know any optics experts? The evo community seems a little short at the moment....
Quote
Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?

I know my slow responses must be frustrating, "Matlock" Murphy, but no need to rush your cross. Remember F. Lee Bailey's advice: trappeth thine enemy before thou goest for the kill. But let's keep the orbit simple and circular, to better match your reasoning: 6.88E11 m/s would be the velocity.

Date: 2005/11/03 12:49:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Whoops, make that 2.99E12

Date: 2005/11/03 12:54:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
I'm trying to imagine what this has to do with the Steves project...

 Just tryin' to reclaim them, one steve at a time.....

Date: 2005/11/03 13:53:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
would you care to solve for the mass of the earth?

To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......

Date: 2005/11/03 14:13:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So you must think the ten thousand or so scientists who have contributed to this tree were smoking, crack, then?

Naaah, given normal growth on the evo slush fund, they can do the powder. Off a failing coed's bottom, of course.....

Date: 2005/11/03 14:29:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so.

Yep. My calculated mass is 55 times higher. Pretty good agreement, I'd say.
Quote
But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?

Right again. More to come. Cue the narrator, please.

Date: 2005/11/03 14:35:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Which doesn't really answer the question. So let me rephrase: you think the phylogenetic tree as described on the Tree of Life webpage bears no resemblance to reality. T or F?

Objection! Asked and answered! But again, T, with a few minor reservations.

Date: 2005/11/03 15:58:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
I grow tired of your tireless unwaranted self-aggrandizing.

 Yes, I can be an ass sometimes. All part of the show, I guess, even for sincere folk like me. But I do appreciate your arguments, and you gave me a few things to think about. Obviously, I still maintain my position has more evidence behind it, but there's no doubt that America doesn't abide by its ideals very often, and that's a shame. Thanks for being so reasonable.

Date: 2005/11/04 04:50:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America.  However, they are also disproportionally poor.  I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal.  I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime.  And that being black increases your chances of being poor.  The question is, if whites were more likely to be poor, would whites be disproportionally responsible for crime.  I would say yes.  But our society hasn't run that experiment, yet.

 One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists  who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings:
Quote
“… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

“Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”
Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.

“Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”
Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”

“… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)

“[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.”
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.

The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

 Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data.

Date: 2005/11/04 09:10:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Tom Ames belched:
Quote
What an ugly, smug, glib and self-satisfied person this "Ghost of Paley" is.

Must be either Dembski or Berlinski.


Wow, you guys can be really mean sometimes. And until you can refute their arguments, Tommy, please refer to the Big D and B as Wizard and Master, respectively. :D

"Matlock" Murphy wrote:

Quote
Why?

Why not?

Date: 2005/11/04 09:22:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

It must also be noted that while Color o' Crime focuses on blacks, it doesn't let whites off the hook. If I'm not mistaken, they go to great pains to emphasize the relatively high crime rate of whites relative to North East Asians.

Date: 2005/11/04 10:29:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Thanks for the links, Mr. MidnightVoice. The first link is broken, however.
Quote
The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug  users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession  arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans  make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest  rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition,  since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons  incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in
that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses.


In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those  individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the  drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The  Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)  A CNN article in 1996 sited U.S. government figures that show more than 90
percent of all federal prosecutions for crack cocaine in 1995 were of African  American defendants. In addition, unlike convictions for powered cocaine and
other drugs (which wealthy, Caucasian defendants are more likely to use), a conviction for selling crack cocaine can carry a lengthy prison term without benefit of parole.

 I once heard an African-American (Congresswoman? Spokeswoman? I forget...) propose the same argument on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, but some white guy (yeah, yeah, I know; Paley should have taken his Ginkoba that evening) seemed to refute it by pointing out that while Crack and Coke may be chemically similar, Crack is far more addictive, thus having the greater potential for stimulating criminal behavior. As he put it, "You never hear of coke neighborhoods, only crack neighborhoods. Why? Because crack more readily leads to the type of violent, impulsive behavior that fuels the crime rate. The police crackdown was a direct response to the pleas of the inner-city communities to do something about the epidemic. In fact, these policies were and are very popular among community leaders." Also, I remember reading in The End of Racism that when prior criminal history and the specific circumstances of the crime were taken into account, then the Black-White sentencing discrepancy disappears. Although narrow in focus, this study supports that contention. But I'll see what else I can find.
Quote
Thoughts about the victimization methodology.

At first, I thought the victimization methodology would be a valid way to determine crime statistics.  But then I realized what's going on in those studies.  You're asking these liberal people in foreign countries if they feel victimized.  Surely, you can see the tendency for error that will result.  But, I thought, what's a better way to do it?  Small crimes have a tendency to not be reported or over sensationalized.  But, murders don't.  Our police force is pretty good about counting bodies and no one can claim that they "felt murdered" in a survey.

If we're going to look at one statistic to determine crime, it might as well be murder.

 No, they ask the people if they have been victimized. Either someone burgles your home or not, either someone beats you up or not. Sure, close calls happen, just like faked crime statistics. In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.

Date: 2005/11/05 03:55:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans

Obviously, this should read: "do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white Europeans?"
Quote
Are whites the only members of society?

  1) No, but let's face it: when evos talk about the "dangers" of fundamentalist Christianity, they're not referring to Joseph Lowery. They mean Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. White Christians, in other words.
  2) When trying to measure the effects of a single variable (religion), it is important to match groups that are as identical as possible in all other ways. This avoids confounding factors.
  3) You may be forgetting, Cogzoid, that many of our European friends could be fined or imprisoned for frankly discussing racial matters. By keeping the discussion focused on whites, people like Midnightvoice can participate without fearing a Midnightknock on their door. Even the beautiful people can't fight The Man; take Brigitte Bardot, for example. Of course, given the current situation in Gay Paree, she might have to assume a new identity. May I suggest Cassandra? Mr. Newman, a remake of "Burn On" is badly needed......
 Well, we can argue the causes of differential crime rates until even Homer nods. But this part of the study is also worth debating:
Quote
The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

 Gentlemen, the floor is open......

Date: 2005/11/05 05:50:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm a little hung over right now, so I might not be thinking clearly. But it's occurred to me that Bill's figure for the mass of the earth, 5.5 E 51 Kg, might compare with the mass of the observable universe (at least the visible, non-"dark" part of it). I wonder if that's where he's going with this...

(Oops...am I giving the game away?)

 Patience, my son. I will unveil the model when I get some free time: after all, one can't interweave art and science, unify and explain cosmological mysteries, and awe the human mind on demand. Slather on a little more Devon cream and order another latte in the meanwhile..........

Date: 2005/11/05 06:33:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Given the tragic violence currently happening in the City of Light, and recent eruptions a bit closer to home, I have pondered the future of America and Europe, leading to one question:

Mandarin, Korean, or Japanese?

Date: 2005/11/07 06:33:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
But would you care to estimate a time frame? Another couple of years, maybe? Just so I don't have to keep checking back.

 Worst case scenario: A week from this upcoming Friday (Nov. 18, I believe)

 Best case: This Thursday (Nov. 10)

 I hope this helps.

Date: 2005/11/07 09:10:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Well, given the task I've set you (i.e., overturning 500 years of settled natural law, as it were), I'm not expecting an answer any time soon (unless you've already been working on this for a decade or two, in which case…).

 You have the time frame now. And I'll make this promise: if I don't deliver at least the rough draft of my geocentric model by November 18, I will personally fly to Clichy-sous-Bois, walk to the nearest mosque, and do a spirited Ait Bogar for the residents clad in a Crusader Rabbit diaper and a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase " Paley a le beguin pour Sarkozy!"

Date: 2005/11/07 09:16:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Paris isn't France. Here in the Languedoc I don't need to lock my car at night.

You don't have to lock your car in Paris either. Just make sure you bring an oven mitt for when you get back......

Date: 2005/11/07 14:24:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
He chooses to ingore first hand account, eye witness...which is his/their major reason for not recognizing Evolution...."cause no one was there to witnes it.

It's hypocritical at best.

 I don't know why people think that this argument is mine, when I've tried to make it clear all along that I'll accept circumstantial evidence so long as it converges on a single conclusion. If someone would present consistent, independent evidence for a particular lineage, I would buy the evo account, but what I receive are a plethora of crazy and flatly contradictory trees that reflect nothing so much as the insanity of the brainpans that generated them in the first place. I think people don't read what I write so much as what they think I would write if I was the slack-jaw that they assume I must be, given the certitude of their assumptions.

Date: 2005/11/08 05:52:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
My point is that while he may be very intelligent, which I believe he is, he also finds it very easy and convenient to discard, ignore documented fact to form a belief.

I believe this practice makes his other arguments less credible.

 Let's assume that you've got my character nailed: I'm a hopelessly baffled person whose scientific judgement can't be trusted, and my arguments reflect this flaw. Or I'm an incorrigible troll. Great.
 Then why can't anyone refute my arguments? And what does this imply about your character? Or about your positions? In any case, I'm willing to focus strictly on the evidence; how about you?
 By the way, how does my stance on some issues detract from my advocacy of others? What kind of ontological voodoo are you proposing? Either I have good arguments or I don't; please focus on rebutting, rather than psychoanalysing, me. The fact that you rely on the latter makes me suspect you can't do the former.
 I don't see a bunch of free-thinkers here - merely religious apologists with their minds rusted shut. Prove me wrong, boys.

Date: 2005/11/08 06:20:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Quote  

Cantonese.  China is amazing.  And BIG
And polluted. And noisy. And they hassle americans about Visas. And have a police state.

 Oh, I don't deny any of this. And I don't blame you guys for misinterpreting my post; I'm sometimes too cute for my own good. My goal is not to move to these countries (although Japan sounds rather nice, actually). I just want to learn the languages of our future overlords. Don't laugh, America; China's already got us by the nads economically, and don't kid yourself about who's going to blink when the confrontation arrives. And Europe? They'll have a hard enough time keeping their cities intact to pose much of a counterthreat (why oh why do our guests torch our cities? We've given them free medical care, housing, education, and freedom in speech, politics, religion, association....I know! We're Bad, Bad, Racists! More appeasement will turn the trick! And a few more speech codes while we're at it (to be applied only to whitey, of course)! It'll work this time for sure! Friends, Romans, countrymen - lend me your wallets!;))
  I personally think Mandarin's the most practical choice; maybe we need to run a poll......

Date: 2005/11/08 07:53:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And the women are gorgeous - almost up to French standards

 I actually prefer Chinese women - very pretty and feminine. With Japan, however, you get the cuties and a nice country in the bargain, so I have to give the edge to Japan. China's got a richer culture, though.
 All right, gentlemen, there's only one way to settle this debate. I will fire the first shot.
 Midnight, I await your response.

Date: 2005/11/08 13:18:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
But Bill, the tree I've presented to you is supported by exactly the kind of evidence you say you want. Now, granted, certain groupings of certain organisms using certain types of evidence will result in different trees. But that's to be expected, if for no other reason than the truly astronomical number of possible trees.

 You do realise that this "astronomical number of possible trees" business is derived solely from Hubert Yockey's cytochrome c analysis, which does not account for alternative splicing? And without Yockey's crutch, we're back to the puzzle of weirdly discordant molecular trees which don't match each other, let alone the phylogenies derived from morphology. Therefore, no consilience.
Quote
So, what is the point in debating fact with you when you can just offer as a defense.."No thats wrong"?

 And still you don't get it. I always back up my arguments with evidence. Which is why they get ignored, of course.

Date: 2005/11/08 15:06:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
China, btw, doesn't have us by the nads economically. It's like the old saw--if you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it's your problem. If you owe them a billion dollars, it's their problem.

  :D  :D  :D  :D

 Robert Downey, Sr. for Federal Reserve Board chairman!

 China: It seems you are a little behind in your interest payments, treasured friend.

 R.D.Sr: That's not a MP, that's a YP.

 China: YP?

 RD Sr: Your Problem!

Date: 2005/11/09 07:15:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I know you said you've read Theobald closely, Bill, but you keep providing me evidence to the contrary. As Theobald points out, as the number of taxa (or, for that matter, any kind of object -- cars, asteroids, library books) that you're trying to relate to each other increases, the number of possible genealogical "trees" you can construct goes up geometrically.

 Yes, I forgot about this aspect of his argument. Theobald's claim resembles an argument Sean Pitman once made about the relationship between the number of amino acids and the potential sequence space. He essentially stated that the ratio between useful sequence space and potential sequence space decreases at an exponential rate as you add more residues, and that this large target prohibits certain types of neutral evolution, thus rendering some types of evolution (those requiring fortuitous double and triple mutations, for example) impossible. Sean's math was sound, as was his conclusion. The problem, of course, was that Sean did not account for the existence of protein families that cluster together in sequence space, thus destroying his initial assumption of even distribution of potential function throughout the search area.
 This brings us to Theobald's argument. Theobald asserts that the potential number of branches in any tree increase at a factorial rate as the number of organisms increase, rendering an astronomically large "tree space". Therfore, we should embrace any theory that winnows this number down. But without biological facts to back it up, this argument suffers from the same defects as Pitman's: it assumes a uniform bodyplan distribution throughout morphological space. This is not true, as I'll demonstrate. (Hint: compare placental mammals to marsupials. Do you see any animals with similar features?). More later.

Date: 2005/11/09 07:51:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Will you booking your hotel room in Stokholm, then? :-)

 A zif. :angry:

Date: 2005/11/09 08:15:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
More later.

 Here's the problem: morphological characters do not have to be, and in fact are not, uniformly distributed throughout the sample space of all potential body types. We see this in many cases of "convergent evolution" between marsupial and placental mammals. No matter how the similarities came to be, the fact remains that God- or nature - is not as adventurous as Theobald implies. This suggests that there is a natural grouping of "kinds" that can be investigated in different ways, none of them requiring the notion of common descent. In other words, I have no need for that hypothesis.  :)
 
Quote
Well...not always. I once asked you why you thought the consensus phylogenetic tree is wrong. Your reply: "Why not?"

 I hope this addresses your question.

Date: 2005/11/09 08:34:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So in the book he wrote himself, about his own beliefs, Hitler professed his Christianity.  Lets not dance around this issue.  "But," you say, "that isn't real Christianity!  Christianity is good!"  That is a steaming load of.. circular logic.  

You have a few choices right now.  

You may state what your particular brand of Christianity is, and refute all other sects of Christianity (and relinquish any need to explain or defend their actions.  Note that you then also relinquish any ability to have Christianity take credit for their "good" actions).  

You may accept all forms of Christianity, including Hitler's brand (thus taking the complete opposite tack as above).  

You may describe to us what "qualifications" a sect of Christianity has to have to actually be "Christian".



 Here's a source just for you:
Quote
Hitler did make anti-Christian remarks, like his October 10, 1941 claim that "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (Adolph Hitler, "Table Talk," London, Weidenfelt & Nicholson, 1953). But much of his hostility was not so much against the ideas of Christianity, whatever their diverse interpretations, but the institution of the churches in Germany, and the opportunities they posed for allowing his Nazi movement to consolidate power. Hitler remarked, "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interest of the State."

 So it seems that even if Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't a bible-believing one. Which is the only type that matters. It's a logic thing; you wouldn't understand.

Date: 2005/11/09 10:12:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I still think you're misinterpreting Theobald's point. The number of potential trees has nothing to do with whether there's a uniform distribution of body plans, or protein conformations, or anything whatsoever. It's exclusively dependent on the number of taxa to be classified.

 Certainly. But this is mathematically trivial; what makes the argument potentially relevant to biology is whether or not the classification process itself is truly arbitrary, absent common descent. And this depends on the distribution of morphological characters. Which is decidedly nonrandom in any working ecosystem.
Quote
Nested hierarchies are a fact.

They are if you use a tree-like scheme in the first place. But the methodology had better not force the conclusion.

Date: 2005/11/09 13:05:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Common descent with modification was originally a hypothesis put forth to explain nested hierarchies. But common descent with modification is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it has achieved the status of a fact in need of an explanation, rather than a hypothesis in need of verification.

 And this is where we disagree. You seem to be saying that large groups of morphological characters can triangulate a tree, and thereby make it factual (at least on some branches). If so, then why do genetic phylogenies? Any discordant result must be tossed out, given the previously established tree. And if the genes do count, the morphological tree must still in some sense function as a hypothesis that needs testing. Remember, genetic testing wasn't established until the sixties. Are you saying common descent wasn't a fact until then? Or did the phenotypic characters make it factual?
 I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm really confused about this.
(Paley braces for the inevitable witticism......)

Date: 2005/11/11 06:03:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Well, you probably need an expert opinion on this question, but I think you need to look at it this way: for some phylogenetic questions, morphological analysis provides the answer. For others, genetics is the way to go. For still others, the fossil record gives brighter illumination.

.......
Quote
Also, I should probably make what might seem like a fine distinction. That there is, in fact, "one true tree," at this point must be regarded as a fact in need of explanation. But a particular tree is still, necessarily, a hypothesis in need of verification. However, as I said, the large-scale structure of the tree is for the most part sufficiently supported to be considered well-settled. But again, as I said earlier, there are definitely regions of the tree that are still controversial. Given past successes, it's to be expected that the same lines of evidence, including genetic evidence, will eventually illuminate the true structure of the tree.

 Fair enough. I think part of our problem is we have different definitions of consilience. My definition stresses the independence of differing lines of evidence, while yours emphasises the unity of knowledge. It's like the baseball Hall of Fame: much of the controversy revolves around differing ideas about what makes a man a hall of famer. Is it the excellence of his play, his notoriety, or his contribution to winning teams that should be given the most weight? Problem is, people don't attempt to define the basic issues; they project their presuppositions instead and wonder why others can't see things their way.

Date: 2005/11/11 09:37:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So the original disciples, Saul (later Paul) and all of those Mediterranean converts during the first couple of centuries before the text of the Bible was codified don't actually count as Christians.  Good to know.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 I guess we need to include "reading for comprehension" as one of those things atheists can't be bothered with. It was clear from the context that I was referring to modern Christians, not Christians throughout history. Yes, Paul didn't have the complete scriptures when he wrote his letters. But he did have direct testimony from apostles, family members, witnesses, etc, that more than made up for this lack. And some scholars think that much of the canonical New Testament was composed during the first century.
Quote
Remind me why this is relevant to an evolution discussion?

 Ahhh, but when I do bring up relevant issues, you guys keep changing the subject. And squeal when I still kick your ass.

Date: 2005/11/11 10:19:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Well my, my, my, let's get a wheelbarrow for Hillary's top hitters - I don't think their hind legs are of much use right now. Ya sure don't have much of an appetite without the courts to enshine your hunches in Law - but I guess that goes without saying. After all, why else would you be quiverin' behind Big Brother's britches?

Date: 2005/11/13 08:48:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The point, Bill, is that unless you believe in some sort of special creation, that has to be the way it happened (let me know if you can think of some alternative story). If you assume life evolved without direct intervention of a creator (or maybe even if you do assume a creator), there's an unbroken chain of living organisms extending backwards in time from me to the simplest forms of life.

And for me personally, I'm actually at one end of that chain (I'm not having children).

 That is an interesting viewpoint, assuming an evolutionary process of course. But I find the last remark rather ominous, and illustrative of the end result of Darwinian philosophy. I'll explain more later tonight if I get a chance, although I may start a new thread. By the way, I think I'll get my rough draft in on time, but I've been surprisingly busy lately. May I ask for a one-week extension? Asbestos diapers don't grow on trees, you know......

Date: 2005/11/13 11:14:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I don't know if I'll get the extension, so I'll assume its not in effect unless I hear from you.

Date: 2005/11/13 11:18:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Sorry to make my first post off topic, but I found this to funny to ignore. Check out these links.
I find it funny that atheists and agnostics have a LOWER rate of divotce than any religious group.

 More about this later. For now, please see the new topic.

Date: 2005/11/13 11:56:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
This topic came up during the LUCA thread, and I thought it deserved its own space.

  Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide.
  There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.

Date: 2005/11/14 04:07:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Are you sure you'll have time to work on your solutionopinion piece whilst preparing your paper and working on your theory of geocentrism.

 Your concern is touching..... but relax, Foxy. I may not be good at much, but I can multitask like crazy.

Quote
Come on, admit it. You are parodying. No-one can be (apparently) this lucid and yet so completely irrational.

 Oh, how the imams must be laughing at your clueless ass. How are my opinions irrational? Remember, this is an American board, so you can't get Big Bro to shut me up - you'll have to support your diatribes with logic n' evidence. Good luck, Monsieur - it's all you can rely on, apparently.

Date: 2005/11/14 08:51:04, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Wow, you guys are sumpin'. When I make a complete argument, I get....

<chirpchirpchirpchirp>

 ......but let me make an abbreviated one, and the bloodhounds come a' bayin'. Note to self: Suspense + Politically Incorrect Thinking = Deluge (in relative terms at least).  :D

Quote
Two major logical fallacies from the Ghost:

 Shazam! An actual argument!
Quote
1.  He implies that the economy is a zero sum game.

Really? I thought that phrases like this:
Quote
There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done.

imply otherwise, especially since I made no attempt to address the economic argument. I'm fully aware that free trade can produce benefits for both partners, even if one nation is more efficient in producing and distributing goods. The culture can still suffer, however, regardless of the economic gain.
Quote
2.  The Ghost appears to believe that immigration, and possible globalization as well, are new phenomena.  This is patently false.  There have been many waves of immigration and globalization before.  The most recent major wave was from ~1875-1914.  I don't believe that I need to mention the significance of the end date on that one.

 Uhhhhh....no. Since the vast majority of these newcomers came from Europe, the cultural differences, although substantial, were manageable. Unless Ireland and Lithuania were Muslim countries at the time, which is doubtful (if currently taught, no doubt).
Quote
One wonders if GoP's (how like the GOP  ) thoughts are that immigration of non-European types is somehow different to immigration of European types.  

 <Beeep-Beeeep-Beeeeep-Beeeep>
 Possible thoughtcrime in progress! All guards to Sector B! This is not a drill! Repeat: All guards to sector B!
Chill, M.V., it will all be explained.......later.

Date: 2005/11/14 12:02:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Geocentism is not rational, gene transfer by ingestion in multicellular animals is not rational. But your analysis of problems that can arise from rapid immigration of culturally different groups seemed quite lucid.

 My mistake. I thought you were saying that my stance on immigration was irrational. But if you find it wrong-headed, I would certainly love to hear your reasons why. Or you can wait for the full post.
Quote
American... Eh alors?

You have this board confused with Dr Dembski's blogsite, perhaps. No arbitrary censorship here. Not even for being boring.

 Ummm....Mr. Fox, you do realise I was praising this board for allowing free speech, n'est-ce pas? The slam was directed at France's speech codes. Remember the Bardot affair? Or is your media even more controlled than I feared?
Quote
Diatribes, moi? I'm not the one espousing crazy ideas in a parody of a crank pseudo-scientist.

 Why is everyone so obsessed with my motivations? I mean, I know I can get ornery at times, but at least I attempt to address other people's arguments. Even if they're French. :D

Date: 2005/11/14 12:14:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hyperion said:
Quote
Asbestos diapers?

Is there some use for those other than flameproofing your hindparts?

 Well, look who just caught up.

Quote
By the way, I think I can see where GoP is going with the whole mass of the Earth thing.

Not if your post is any indication.....

 Eric Murphy said:
Quote
If you're the last of your line because everyone died without leaving any children, I guess that could be rather sad, but I've made a personal choice not to have children (don't ask for my reasons unless you want to wade through a 2,000 word essay).

 You don't have to give your reasons unless you want. I'm more interested in the general spiritual malaise wrought by Darwinism - or whoever wrote that imbecile's books. And thanks for the extension.

Date: 2005/11/14 15:48:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I am curious as to your solution and why you think we in the poster's graveyard need to know this. Jacques Chirac, Ariel Sharon, and other national leaders would surely benefit more from your opinions and be able to put them into practice.

 Yes. The solution. Where was I? Oh yes.
   Now, as several posters have asserted, immigration can certainly benefit society. The question becomes: How can we maximize these gains while reducing cultural friction? The answer, of course, has been staring us in the face all along: by using the scientific method.
   Society's elites assume that all immigrants are interchangable, and minus prejudice from the blue-eyed devil (from now on, BED), should assimilate fairly uniformly throughout the workforce and produce roughly equal outcomes. In fact, this assumption underwrites the laws mandating affirmative action, at least in the U.S. But is this reasonable?
   On the face of it, this truism is highly questionable. First, cultural values differ. Some prize individuality, others emphasize group harmony. Some are intellectually inclined, others are more spiritual. Of course, these values exist on a continuum - all societies embrace the core human values to some extent - but small differences become huge when the groups are forced to compete.
   And that's where statistics come in. Unless competing groups are precisely equal, their achievement will produce different averages and variances. Is this a problem? After all, aren't we judged as individuals? Yes, but the individuals given most weight are the famous ones, the "movers and shakers". Those are the individuals that define a group. Einstein. Newton. Shakespeare. Ramanujan. Lady Murasaki. And so on.
   What does this mean? First, these individuals have one thing in common: their abilities lie on the extreme right tail of the talent curve. In addition, they existed in cultures that nurtured their particular talents. Shakespeare's reputation as a giant rests partly on the historical circumstances of his time; an era when the English language was just being standardized, when the ability to compose verse was highly prized, and a developing middle class that could provide an education and supplement an artist's income. He certainly deserves his lofty reputation, but at the time he was merely the brightest star in an already crowded firmament.
   Perhaps the assumption of group equality can be salvaged by the evidence? A counterintuitive hypothesis need not be wrong; common sense is often a poor guide. Here is where we turn to history. And history delivers a cold verdict indeed: small group differences do not disappear when societies collide - they magnify. So much, in fact, that many are forced to avert their eyes from the glare.
   In fact, a cursory inspection of modern immigration history quickly identifies the groups that blend most seamlessly into the Western fabric: Europeans, Northeast Asians, and Jews (No surprise, since these groups helped create the Western identity in the first place). Now, a lot of ink has been spilled trying to identify the precise cause of this; but for our purpose the reason is immaterial. I don't care why these groups are so beneficial to Western societies, I just know that they are, and as a pragmatist, I would like to use that fact.
   Better yet, the record is clear on who to avoid, and the results dovetail nicely with common sense: those people who hate our guts, and want to destroy the culture we have so painstakingly crafted. And why not? Our culture is not theirs:

James Baldwin:
Quote
"The most illiterate among [the Swiss villagers] is related, in a way that I am not, to Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aeschylus, da Vinci, Rembrandt and Racine; the cathedral at Chartres says something to them which it cannot say to me, as indeed would New York's Empire State Building, should anyone here ever see it. Out of their hymns and dances come Beethoven and Bach. Go back a few centuries and they are in their full glory -- but I am in Africa, watching the conquerors arrive."

   There is much truth to this. If I shared his history, I too would see a conqueror's energy in a bust, a hiss of menace in a sonnet. Certainly I can empathise with such sentiments, but this provides little comfort as I watch Paris burn.
 And Paris need not burn. Yes, Westerners have caused much evil and suffering. Perhaps we have so damaged the environment that it cannot be fixed. Perhaps severe adjustments must be made. But why should we stand by listlessly while people who consider us infidels, BEDs, and colonialists wreck the beauty that we have created? How does this solve anything? Wouldn't it be better to consolidate, rather than dissipate, our energy?
   So here's the solution:
 1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.
 2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course
 3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
 What are the advantages of this model? I'll fill in the details later.

Date: 2005/11/15 05:53:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Your posts are well written, but your logic is so fallacious that I don't even know where to begin.

 Uhhhh..... thanks, I guess.
Quote
Europeans are all of the same culture?  So I suppose you'd like to go to downtown Derry and wave the Union Jack.  Go ahead, see how long you survive.

 Obviously you've been taking correspondence courses from the Cogzoid Shool of Reading Comprehension, for your posts so badly distort what I've written that I don't know where to begin. But here's a good place to start:
Quote
Since the vast majority of these newcomers came from Europe, the cultural differences, although substantial, were manageable.

So where did you get the idea that I believe that European culture is all of a piece? By the way, one of the European languages I'm learning is Irish Gaelic, so I'm well aware of the cultural differences within the not - so - United Kingdom.
Quote
Again, at this moment in history, these groups appear well assimilated in Western culture.  But please, read up about Berlin in 1939 and tell me that us Jews were blended seamlessly into the Western fabric.  Sheesh.  Now you might respond with "but that's not America."  Ok, go read some of Henry Ford's writings.  See how well he thought that Jews had assimilated.  As for Northeast Asians, clearly you are not from the West Coast, else you would have read some of the history of how Chinese and Japanese immigrants were treated there.

 Judas Priest, Hyperion, you do realise you're talking to a fellow Amurican? The public schools here won't let you escape until they fill your head chock full of the sins of the BED. Yes, Henry Ford's antisemitism was lingeringly and lovingly covered, as was Chucky Lindbergh's Nazi sympathies, the founding fathers's slaves, Japanese concentration camps, coolie labor and the Chinese Exclusion act, our broken treaties with the Indians, and on and on and on and on.......so what's your point? That I'm stupid for not having my brain sufficiently washed?
   In any case, you make my point for me. The German Jews were abominably treated, as were many NE Asians in Amurica. But what happened? Did they riot, loot, rape, and set our elderly on fire? No, for the most part, they assimilated. Wow, imagine that.
Quote

Quote  
2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course


How the #### would you do this without resorting to Gestapo tactics?  What do you do if the host country won't take them back?  What if the host country will imprison, torture, or kill them?  What if they refuse to go?  What if they have families here, and their children don't even speak the language of the old country?

 By the way, would you like to know where I got this idea? Hint: Google "Elon plan" and see what comes up. And no, my policy would not forcibly deport anyone. It would present a nice dilemma for those immigrants who so love to bitch about our country: leave, or admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there. But I think many would go for this carrot, especially given the stick mentioned in part 3 of my plan. Even if they don't, the point will have been made.
Quote
And right now you are completely free to say whatever you want, as you're doing right now.  And I have the right to inform you that if you don't want to be treated like a racist, you might want to write something that less resembles Mein Kampf.

 You really should make a date with Mr. Google (per my request) before making these accusations. I'll deal with the rest of your post later.

Date: 2005/11/15 07:10:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Your statement appears to contain two errors - claiming an association between 'Darwinism' and spiritual malaise (an error because there is no evidence whatever of any causal connection); and claiming that Darwin was an imbecile (easily disproved by any reading of the man's works).  Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken?

 No, you are correct: correlation does not necessarily equal causation. But when two things consistently group together across different nations and cultures, I get suspicious. Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not.
Quote
Perhaps you can demonstrate that you're not mistaken [about darwin]?

  Well, the man rarely appeared in public, let Huxley and Hooker handle the public presentation of his theory, and possessed indecipherable handwriting that only top echelon cult members can decipher. Means? Plagiarizing Grandpa's work. Motive? Collapse of Western Civilisation. Opportunity? Abundant. Not enough for an indictment, perhaps, but worthy of a "hmmmmmmmm...."

Date: 2005/11/15 07:34:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
By the way, Mr. Paley's Ectoplasmic self, sir - the Elon plan calls for forcible deportation of undesirables.  The United States has been doing this for some two hundred years - so now we have NA casinos.

 Now, now, no doing Hyperion's homework for him. :D
By the way, I didn't say my plan was equivalent or even similar to the Elon plan, only inspired by it. And by the way, the country that came up with this idea (shhhhh...no telling, please!;)) has also used variations of my plan in the past. In fact, recent events may have been inspired by this model. But let's see what Hyperion has to say.

Date: 2005/11/15 07:51:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It's facist.  Deal.

 I'll be sure to pass your brilliant argument along to the heads of our mystery nation. By the way, which delightful American public school did you attend?

Date: 2005/11/15 10:19:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Mr. Paley is clearly trying to make a comparison to the government of Israel.

 Very good. So you see the irony, then: Comparing my plan to the Nazis is just a little suspect when same plan is derived from a much harsher strategy formulated by the Nazi's victims. Now, you might say that America and Europe's situation is considerably different from Israel's, and I would agree. This is one (among many) reasons that my plan does not call for the forceful deportation of American citizens.
Quote
When Mexico and Canada are armed to the teeth, call for our destruction, and try to invade several times, then one could compare the policies of America and Israel.  Until then, please stop playing word games and simply say what you mean.  The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

 I really don't understand what you're getting at. Uncle Paley doesn't speak in code - he says what he means. Not that this stops people from misunderstanding me. But on to your point.
   True, Mexico and Canada are no military threat to us, but this doesn't render immigration benign. Immigrants can drive law-abiding citizens out of certain regions merely by targeting them for crime, by rioting, and by soaking up social services. And some want a whole lot more. To be sure, extremists can be found in any group, but the behavior of many of our newcomers adds legitimacy to these concerns.
Quote
Quote  
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.


Pointless mental masturbation.  Go take a poli sci class or two...even better, you could go get a degree in that subject, like I did.  But you know what, if you want to abolish these laws, go right ahead and write to your congressman, it's your right.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Since neither congress nor the President would do that, how would you accomplish it?  

 How do you think many of these laws got established in the first place? By a selective, and unjust, interpretation of this law. But what is done may be undone, especially if the foundation was based on a lie.
Quote
In fact, Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, a sponsor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, vigorously denied charges that the act would lead to the categorization by race and the use of quotas.

He even promised to eat the paper on which the bill was printed if it led to equality of results.

Responding to charges that the act would lead to categorization and thus decision making by race, Humphrey stated on the Senate floor "In fact, the opposite is true. Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race, religion, and national origin are not to be used as the basis for hiring and firing."

But through a fairly rapid process of bureaucratic manipulation and court decisions, equality of opportunity was rejected as inadequate and replaced with equality of outcomes.

Fourteen years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, signaling the postmortem to Humphrey’s non-discriminatory law, wrote in the famous Bakke decision, "I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a race neutral way . . . In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race . . . In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who made the case for a colorblind constitution as a lawyer for the NAACP, reportedly told his fellow Justice William O. Douglass, who commented upon the discriminatory nature of affirmative action, "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our turn."

Let me repeat that last bit:
Quote
Now it’s our turn.

 Wow. No racial animus there.

Date: 2005/11/15 11:02:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Accusing "darwinism" of causing social malaise is like accusing religion of doing so because of the Inquisition or the Crusades, which would be an equally absurd statement[....]

I'm certainly not implying that each and every Darwinist is a social misfit, nor that every Christian is a cultural asset. Far from it. But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends. There are lots of short men and tall women, but it would be improper to conclude that women are the taller sex.
Quote
[[.......]as obviously religious people have also done great things in the world.

 And maybe someday our textbooks will mention them again.

Date: 2005/11/15 11:07:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What exactly is the new topic?

 Sorry......fighting on too many fronts right now. I'll try to address this later.

Date: 2005/11/15 15:57:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

 By the way, can anyone decipher this? I still don't know what this refers to. Hyperion? MidnightVoice? R's Grandkid? Anyone?

<chirpchirpchirpchirp>


Oh well:

Poi ch'èi posato un poco il corpo lasso,
ripresi via per la piaggia diserta,
sì che 'l piè fermo sempre era 'l più basso.

  Part three: closing the circle.

Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
What are the advantages of this model? I'll fill in the details later.

 Yes, details. Why do this in the first place? Consider: How does a wise man solve a problem? Answer: He steps aside to let the problem solve itself.
  Like it or not, all cultures compete with each other. Immigration, in fact, is nothing more than citizens flocking to the victor, which is why America has an "immigrant" problem, while Liberia doesn't (it does, admittedly, have an "electricity" problem, a "transportation" problem, or a "please God let me keep my head attached to my shoulders for just one more %#$%! day!" problem, which might account for its lack of our problems). Thing is, once people enter a wealthy, secure nation, that nation can subsidize whatever fool habits they might have had, and even cultivate a couple of new ones in the bargain (America being the world's leading exporter in this area).
  This, frankly, will not work. We need cultures that can help us solve our problems, because our bonehead decisions affect the rest of the world. We also need a way to try out those bonehead ideas before thrusting them on the world. But how? Easy: let the communities decide.
 You want to live in a community in which strangers have sex in the bathrooms? Great, you do that, and I'll live in a community that waits for marriage. Let's run a race and see who wins. The life of a gangsta sound appealing? Go for it, just keep it away from me. Want to relive the good ol' days in Nazi-ville? Swell - I'll live with the Jews and we'll compare notes later. Sure, many communities will abuse their new freedoms. That's O.K.; they'll pay the price soon enough.
  What will happen, of course, is that the world will notice a trend. The communities that follow truth will miraculously be the only ones worth living in. Stable, productive, spiritual communities will flourish. People will crane their necks at the emerging miracle, and ask, "How can they do this? And how can we have what they have?" "I don't want to live a bitter life where neighbors eye each other warily, where gunshots are heard every day, where people have given up! Paley oh Paley let me join in your fellowship!" And I take them by the hand, and lead them to a world they never imagined.

 Can you handle the truth?

Date: 2005/11/16 05:01:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.  Good luck, though, as the Hebrew language contains no vowels and is incredibly difficult to learn.

Meh - Hyperion, you are hopeless. I'm trying my best to follow your increasingly lunatic parsings of my posts, and coming up short. Another academic poisoned by postmodernism, I guess. I just hope that when your Mentos Moment © arrives, you can be coaxed down from the watertower before any damage is done. And yes, Foxy, I hold your philosophers responsible for this.
Quote
Mr Ghost of Paley

Your Danté quote seems quite appropriate. Lost in Héll and unable to climb out.

 Yes. You're righter than you'll ever know. Well, in a generation you will. Don't worry, when Uncle Paley hears your little fists hammering on the gates, he'll let you in. :)
Quote
GoP,

Might I suggest that you go to South Carolina?


 Ahhhh....but what happens when the community flourishes (as it will)? The feds will just force us to open up our paradise to a bunch a surly, evo-loving Starbucks cult members. That's why my plan must be implemented first. Get on your knees, then we'll talk.

Date: 2005/11/16 06:36:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
In case you have not noticed, this is not a foreign policy board.  Furthermore, if you are interested in foreign policy or in the domestic policies of foreign countries, that you actually read more about them first.

While cheerfully ignoring and forgiving the gratuitous insult, let me explain the relevance to evolution. In my nation, local communities will dictate what gets taught and what doesn't. Once again, a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition? Ya'll have to raid your slush fund, that's for sure, and the cheerleaders might have to provide their own blow, but mainly, you'll have to adapt to the new intellectual standards if you want to survive. No circular reasoning, no ducking arguments, no ad homs. Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style. We'll even provide the wheelbarrows for your prize hitters.

Date: 2005/11/16 09:19:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Classic, just classic. Hmm, can Natural Selection survive natural selection? According to Paley, here is us be lamenting in the near future: "Oh noes, our beloved theory of Natural Selection has just been undone by... natural selection, Natural Selection is dead!"

 So why not apply your beloved, omnipotent, supercool mechanism to society, and watch it go to work? But noooooo, natural selection can build a rotary motor out of a bacterium's butt, make a Newton from sea scum and sunpower, craft a protein/gene/hormone cascade from colliding molecules, but to build a better society, for that we need politburo hacks. Well, if you want to spend your declining years in a tenement wearing a mustard-stained wife-beater, eating Kraft Velveeta slices in your underpants to the accompaniment of sirens, curses, and gunfire from outside your cracked window - go ahead. But I expect more from life.

Date: 2005/11/16 15:56:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Then why do you keep erecting straw men?

  Nice to hear from you again, Hyperion. Let's make a deal: name one strawman of an evo/liberal/atheist position that I've erected, and we'll discuss it. But I'm a ghost, not a ghost-chaser, so you'll have to spoon-feed me a little.
Quote
lunatic parsings?  Geez, all I did was assert that this is not a foreign policy webboard.  Am I not correct?

 No, Mr. Hyperion, that's not all. You also said:
Quote
The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close.

Then you followed with:
Quote
Ok, if you have a problem with the government of Israel, perhaps the place to vent such concerns would be on an Israeli board.

 Neither of which has been explained, let alone justified.
Quote
See, here's the thing that I don't think you're getting about natural selection:  in order for it to operate, it requires that members of a population fail.  The whole point of the public school system, last time I checked, was to try to prevent that.

 Which, of course, is precisely the problem. Without the possibility of failure, there is no incentive to improve.
Quote
But ####, I happen to notice that there are thousands of private schools out there, completely unfunded and unregulated by the government.  Why then do so many of them teach evolution?  I attended a private college, and I still have my freshman bio book sitting on my shelf.  Funny how our private college, with no government funds or interference, operating purely in the free market, still chose to use a textbook which uses the theory of evolution to completely tie together all of biology.

 Super. So why are you so afraid of a little competition in public schools?
Quote
Geez, if all you're going to do is call people names, litter your posts with logical fallacies, and then above all make assertions which simply make no sense, then why even post.

 What logical fallacies? Remember, your disagreement with my position does not constitute evidence against it.
Quote
By the way, you still failed to tie this in with your original post about foreign policy.

   It's all about competition. Between culture, lifestyles, and ideas. Modern liberal society has done its best to throttle competition wherever it can, mainly by restricting freedom. What's particularly pernicious about this is that liberalism, by its very nature, hates the stable, the successful, the fruitful, the functional . So you guys reward the losers, the disturbed, the perpetually angry and clueless. And then bemoan the existence of disparities.
Quote
Oh, by the way, have you ever actually taken a foreign policy course?  Have you ever taken a foreign policy course from a professor who had to cancel class for a week so he could fly to Japan to participate in an East Asian security summit, essentially sitting face to face with North Korean diplomats to talk about nuclear weapons?

 Expertise can sometimes blind one to the obvious. But your argument from authority is duly noted.
Quote
Oh, and how old are you?

 Ageless.

Date: 2005/11/17 10:26:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence.  What are the trends, Paley?

 Well, if you recall, I did mention cross-national satisfaction surveys, but the subject was quickly changed into a debate over crime rates (which I won, in my humble opinion). But the original point still stands: the citizens of the United States, despite the evil machinations of the BED, rank as the happiest in the developed world. And yes, most Amuricans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This suggests a causal link.

Date: 2005/11/17 13:54:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Murphy:
I forgot that next week is Thanksgiving. I'm planning on visiting relatives, and won't be able to post until the following Tuesday. Sorry, but you'll get your model then.

Date: 2005/11/17 15:48:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid wrote:
Quote
If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's.  You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing.

Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
Quote
You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country.

 No, but I did demonstrate that:
1) Much of the national decline was driven by a handful of big cities (a claim you initially scoffed at, by the way)
2) At least one of those cities (Boston) adopted Guiliani-style policies
3) There was a change in the American mood, as evidenced by the Republican Revolution in Congress, which proceeded to establish badly-needed welfare reform and encourage tougher enforcement of felony sentences (if bad guys stay in prison longer, they have less opportunity to commit crime; please look at the incarceration statistics)
 4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.

 And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing.
 I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?
Quote
You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all.

 Hopefully this helps.
Quote
I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related.

 A good point, and one I didn't address. Why? Because even if true, it's the kind of solution I could never embrace. Heck, in my opinion, those unborn children should be added to the death total. But I didn't want to focus on that issue, because I knew it would sidetrack our debate. In any case, not all experts are sold on this idea; I've seen challenges to the study that inspired this claim. I'll look them up if you wish.
 
Quote
You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account.  Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries.

 Actually, I claimed more than that. Even without adjusting for racial disparities, several European countries have higher victimization rates than ours (You really need to check out figures six and seven). And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study. And while we're at it, you never did address the Fed's crooked bookkeeping, under which Mestizos are often classified as white if they commit a crime, but as nonwhite if they're victimized. Since Mestizos are much more likely than whites to commit crimes, this artificially inflates the white crime rate. And also implies that whites target blacks for violence more than they really do. Don't kid yourself; this is very deliberate.
Quote
You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either.  Humble opinion, indeed.

 I'm struggling to stay polite here - but Cogzoid, really, you have got to be kidding. There is no possible way that you could have missed my citation of The Color of Crime during our original debate - I even quoted part of it again, and practically begged for commentary. I know that lengthy cut n' paste jobs are frowned on here, but you really brought this on yourself:
Quote
One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists  who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings:
Quote  
“… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

“Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”
Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.

“Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”
Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”

“… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)

“[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.”
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.

Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.

The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data.

 Once again, I will highlight the most relevant bit:
Quote
The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate. [my emphasis, natch]

  Are these conclusions valid? I don't know. But to their credit, these banjo pickin', 'backy chewin' rednecks knew what they were up against, and stuck to Federal Crime data in forming their argument. I'll give them that, at least.
Quote
But, besides that.  What about these cross-national surveys?  I probably didn't see them.  Can you point them out again?


 If you will address this response with more than catcalls, I will pony up the surveys.

Date: 2005/11/17 15:56:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

I'm bumping this thread for those who want to see how the debate really transpired. I'll let the reader decide for himself which of us is closer to the truth.

Date: 2005/11/18 05:12:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If you're going to disavow strawmen, you shouldn't use one in the same post.

    Except that this isn't a strawman. Liberal philosophy really is antipathetic to success - observe the mission statements of finer liberal fishwraps everywhere : "The job of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Carry out an informal content analysis of just about any mainstream Hollyweird flick, tv show, or commercial: count the number of times that businessmen, corporate leaders, and suburbanites are portrayed as evil, incompetent, and impotent, then contrast with the number of positive portrayals. I have, and even bracing myself for the worst, was actually shocked at the pure hatred and propaganda emanating from our elites. Some commercials, for example, seem to serve no purpose other than ridiculing the BED. But please don't take my word for it; run your own trial.
Quote
A:  You were being disingenuous in your original post by implying that you were discussing one country, when in reality you were discussing another.

B:  I don't think that the second quote requires explanation.  If you have a problem with the government of Israel, clearly venting such concerns on an Israeli board might be more effective.

    Except I wasn't, and don't. Look, I don't know what you're implying here, but I happen to respect Israel, and while its government has occasionally overstepped itself, I think it's made the best out of a very bad situation. Alan Dershowitz himself would find my philosemitism embarrassing. Please can the insinuations and just tell me what you think my position is. Trust me, I won't be offended.
Quote
Because public schools are not a free market.  Public schools are a reaction to a particular market failure called "common goods" or "public goods."  If you had ever taken classes on public policy, you would know this and not need to ask the question.  The reason why we have government-funded public schools is the same as the reason why we have a government-funded military for common defense.  Both are public goods, that is to say services which benefit the vast majority of the population.  The entire point of existence for a government is to deal with public goods of this nature, because the market will not provide them itself.  It is true that the market does provide education on a small scale in the form of public schools, just as the market provides martial defense in the form of private security, bodyguards, and separatist militias, but the market fails in both situations on the large scale.  Just as the guys who taught me CDT - bodyguard certification - are not going to defend this country from attack, private schools are not going to be able to effectively educated large numbers of students...and most importantly, such a failure winds up effecting the entire population as a whole.

 This isn't an unreasonable position. Problem is, this doesn't work in modern America. Look, modern public schools are zoos - I've talked to teachers of all races, and almost every single one has condemned the system in the harshest terms imaginable. I'm talking about good Christian black teachers erupting in 40 minute rants, telling me stories of being cussed at, punched out, having desks thrown at them, tires slashed, "students" threatening them outside their homes, Chinese and White teachers switching careers after a couple of months in the field, being molested and encouraged to cover it up by spineless principals, massive and routine grade fixing, assaults,rapes, and bullying covered up to make the schools look safer - you name it, it happens. Heck, look at the standardized test scores of home-schooled students compared to their peers: they lap the field. And why not? Homeschoolers don't have to worry about their classmates going on a shooting rampage, or the guy snorkling blow at the adjacent desk. Theory is nice; reality is better.
Quote
Quote  
What logical fallacies? Remember, your disagreement with my position does not constitute evidence against it.


Several times on this thread I have pointed out specific instances, complete with quotes and a description of the specific fallacy.

 Then you should have no trouble pointing one out.
Quote
Ok, an argument from authority is not a logical fallacy.  The logical fallacy that you are thinking of is the argument from inappropriate authority.

  No, arguing from authority is always fallacious; society trusts the opinions of experts because it assumes they can marshall the evidence to support their position. So show me the evidence.
Quote
Man, all these experts using their expertise to help people, it just makes me sick.

  Ya, but the experts I turn to give me straight answers to my questions; they don't belittle me and accuse me of being a Nazi. But then, they don't have to.

Date: 2005/11/18 05:23:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Hey, I've waiting this long. So this is going to be the Unified Field Theory of Geocentrism, right? It will explain the revolutionibus of the orbi as well as Mona Lisa's smile, right?

 Thanks again. Out of curiosity, what's the highest level math you've studied?

Date: 2005/11/18 05:51:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Someone on PT posted this excerpt from "A Man for All Seasons" which has some relevance to Bill's ideas.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

 Pretty cool quote, but that's the problem with literature; it leads to differing interpretations. By the way, what do you, as a Frenchman, think of your nation's speech codes? I'm not looking for an argument; I'm just curious. And in your opinion, how do most French people feel? Surveys are nice, but I'd like to take advantage of your first-hand knowledge.

Date: 2005/11/18 06:32:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Very interesting. Will and Derbyshire are not shy about their support for evolution, are they? This is good, actually; I like people who don't mince words, even if I don't agree with them. The funny thing is, I recall Will once stating that he didn't buy the evolution of "the mind of Newton from primordial slime", so either Will is confused, I am, or his beef is with abiogenesis rather than common descent.

Date: 2005/11/18 10:27:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
No, see, it's a textbook definition of a strawman.  If you had simply said "liberals tend to abide by the belief in comforting the afflicted and helping the downtrodden" or some such, that wouldn't necessarily be a straw man, but saying that liberals hate success, that is a straw man.

 O.K., O.K., liberal philosophy tends to encourage people to hate success, although some individuals may combat this trend in their personal lives. So, do you argue this essential point? I notice you said nothing about the rest of my argument.
Quote
See, the problem here is that you're missing the most important part of the equation:  public schools must accept almost any student who enrolls.

 Yes, under current law they must, but not under Paleylaw. Besides, public schools have had these concerns for 150 years without this buffet of horrors; why have these problems exploded since the mid-60's? I thought the Great Society was supposed to improve society, not wreck it.
Quote
Current homeschoolers are not a representative sample of what we would see if all students were homeschooled; and more importantly, looking at the average scores in a public school test is misleading, you also need to look at standard deviation as well.  Much of the time, the top end of the scores at public, private, and home schools are actually very similar, it's just that the public schools also have to contend with the low end of the bell curve as well.

 I'm not so sure this accounts for the entire difference, but I'll accept it for now. The point is, why should high achievers have to put up with people who don't want to learn? Even if the smart set gets sequestered in A.P. classes, they still have to face the other students when the bell rings. I just saw an article (no time to look it up now, but will later if pressed) about how asian kids are getting the #### whaled out of them by jealous thugs. The author tried to imply that the bullies were Italian and Jewish, but a check of school demographics indicated it was black kids. This is not unusual; what's unusual is if it gets reported.
Quote
Just out of curiosity, did you attend public schools?  I did, although I went to a private college.  While much of what you mention about public schools does occur, those are rare instances that are cherry picked from data, completely ignoring many of the good things about public schools

 Try telling that to a modern public schoolteacher. Out of time; more later....

Date: 2005/11/19 04:03:56, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
That is a straw man argument.  I don't understand why you seem to be confused on this point.  STRAW MAN.  It is a logical fallacy.  When you attempt to set up an opposing argument so that you can knock it down, you are using a straw man argument.

 I think you are the confused one here. If I said, "Darwinists believe that the living world was created strictly by chance", that would be a strawman, since the evolutionary model also includes natural selection. But if I said, "The basic tenets of Darwinism encourage a hatred toward Christianity", then I would be making an empirical argument, which could then be tested and potentially falsified. Here is my problem with liberalism: it encourages its adherents to loathe successful people. This may very well be false, but you can only demonstrate this by appealing to sensory evidence. Which you haven't done.
Quote
When I was in high school, the only kids I ever got in fights with were White, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here other than your own lack of experience.

What exactly is your proposal here?  That we go back to Jim Crow schools?

 Ahhhh....nothing like a little cognitive dissonance to flush you out. You just hate stories about minority groups whaling on each other, don't you? Sorta refutes the liberal hypothesis that only whitey can hate.
 To address your point, no, I don't pine for the return of Jim Crow laws. Or race laws of any kind. If people of different ethnic groups wish to live, work, and love together, it ain't any of my nor the government's business. So why did I bring up the story in the first place? Three reasons:
 1)  It's a concrete example of how our media distorts reality to carry out its agenda (remember, the weasel who wrote this piece tried to imply that the thugs attacking the asian kinds were Italian and Jewish, rather than hispanic or black, which would reflect the school's demographics much better. This is evil.).
 2) It shows one of the fruits of hating the successful, which is physical violence directed towards high achievers. Believe me, there are plenty of articles out there just like the one above.
 3) Asian academic and economic performance demonstrate that minorities can be successful in majority-white nations if they just apply themselves. After all, if the Man is so powerful, then why is he so easily bested by Suzie Hu and her ilk? Liberals, please explain.
celtic-elk Wrote:
Quote
GoP:

If you're so inclined towards competition, why not let the immigrants in and see which culture survives the free market?  Are you afraid you'll lose?

 No, I'm afraid they'll lose, and then the government will gallop in to level the playing field. You know, sorta like what we've seen, and are seeing, in France, the U.K., and America.
 I've got to go for now, but I leave you with a little test:
 1) Copy n' Paste the Paleyplan and log on to the White Nationalist or Neo-nazi group of your choice (Note: the website must explicitly identify itself as such). Talley the responses, scoring a +1 for a positive reply, -1 for a negative reply
 2) Then copy n' paste a pro-evo, anti-ID argument, and do the same.
 3) Compare the scores. Which position was treated with more respect? Report back with your findings.

Date: 2005/11/19 06:00:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
No, arguing from authority is not always fallacious.  That you seem to believe this is disturbing.  It makes me question whether you actually comprehend the difference between appropriate authority and authorities who simply say things that you like to hear.

 I'm sorry, but if you were right I would agree with you.

 An argument's quality has nothing to do with how many experts line up behind it; if it did, civilisation could never progress. True, an expert is more likely to know what she's talking about - that is why we weight her opinion more heavily than Joe Sixpack's. At some point, however, the expert must be willing to support that opinion with evidence gleaned from scholarship. If she cannot or will not do so, her opinion means zip. Nada. Nuttin'. And trotting out credentials in lieu of facts is often a signal that said expert is bluffing. Prove me wrong, Hyperion, prove me wrong.
Quote
Are you saying that school integration was the problem?  Because this is such a laughable explanation that I don't even know how to respond without being insulting.

 Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever.

Alan Fox said:
 
Quote
Where I live (Languedoc-Roussillon, though some now want to change the name to Septimania, the area's old Roman name, may not be representative of the rest of France. People are generally tolerant of immigrants, as there has been immigration from Italy (encouraged and financed by the French government) at the end of the 19th century, and  a considerable influx of Spanish refugees and exiles (Los Rojos) around the time of the Spanish Civil War, but Parisians are generally detested. Amazingly, people from the Champagne area are also loathed, because the Champenois formed a large contingent of the Albigensien crusaders, so cultural memory can be quite long. The exception to this tolerance is to recent immigrants from their former colonies in North Africa, mainly Algeria. Les Arabes are not welcomed and ghettos exist in major towns and cities, with the results you have seen.

  Thanks for the info; you gave me a slice-of-life I couldn't obtain anywhere else.

Date: 2005/11/19 06:57:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I had a lengthy reply to Cogzoid that didn't get through. I'll try again later.

Date: 2005/11/20 11:08:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
OK, let's hope I can get the message through this time....
Quote
You're still stating your opposition's side of a debate and then knocking it down.  That's a straw man.  Note that I am quoting your position, and then responding, that is how one avoids straw men.

 So what are the "real" implications of liberalism? Be careful, you're speaking to a recovered one.
Quote
No, you showed how one article, which you didn't even quote or cite, made a dumb reference to the ethnic identities of some students.  All that reflects is that either the author of that mysterious article was a moron, which is a definite possibility, or that you might not be remembering the article correctly.

 If I do cite it and show where the weaseling occurs, will you admit the possibility of deliberate slander? If not, what's the purpose of citing it?
Quote
Yes, and I also know many Black students who are academically successful.  I don't know exactly what your point here is, other than trying to say that the success of some minorities proves that there is no discrimination.

 Yeah, and I once met a woman who was 6'5". Shall I conclude that women are much taller than men on average? I don't doubt the existence of excellent black students, but you need to focus on general trends. As a group, Asians are dramatically more successful than African-Americans or mestizos, and substantially more successful than whites. How does the liberal model explain this, Hyperion? I mean, given their extensive history of discrimination, they should be below white kids in academic achievement, shouldn't they? By the way, hapas, Jews, and East Indians also kick ass. How is this possible?
Quote
Oh, I don't doubt that some people will use physical violence as a means of acting out their insecurities.  That high school kids tend to do so is also not really news.  I'm just not sure exactly what your point is, other than that high school kids will bully other kids, which is about as novel an insight as "the Pope is Catholic" or "bears shit in the woods."

 No, I'm afraid the incidents go way beyond mere bullying. But if you agree to my conditions, you'll find out soon enough.
Quote
But let's take a step back for a second.  Your assertion is that Asians apply themselves and as a group wil succeed.  Having read the history of West Coast immigration, the building of the railroads, etc etc, how do you account for the fact that in the not-too-distant past, Asians were viewed in the West the same way that African Americans are viewed in the South?

 Not really. Oh, I'm sure they were despised all right, but few bigots applied the same stereotypes to both groups. I will be happy to prove this if you wish.
Quote
Quote  
Not to be rude, but are you really from the United States? You certainly don't seem very conversant with our history. The Great Society program postdated Brown V Board of Education by at least six years. My public shool certainly taught this. Boy, did it ever.



Yes, but apparently you weren't paying attention when they did.  Brown was decided in 1954, this is true, but actual desegregation took well over a decade to be put into effect.  In Virginia, where I went to public schools, the school system did not desegregate until the early 70s, which post-dates the Great Society.

 So why link the two. Most historians don't. Here's a second bite at the source I quoted earlier:
Quote
But when historians refer to the Great Society, they usually mean the remarkable array of initiatives launched between 1964 and 1967 designed to expand the social welfare system and eliminate poverty.

 Please notice the timeline. And no integration, I see. Let's look at LBJ's scholastic policies, shall we?
Quote
It shattered a long-standing political taboo by providing significant federal aid to public education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 offered assistance to underfunded public school districts throughout the country; the Higher Education Act of the same year provided aid to needy college and university students.

 Still no integration policy. Hmmmm... maybe another source will do the trick.
Quote
1954  
May 17
The Supreme Court rules on the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The ruling paves the way for large-scale desegregation. The decision overturns the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation of the races, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." It is a victory for NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, who will later return to the Supreme Court as the nation's first black justice.  

 Yep. Just as I said. Let's pick up the second mention of integration (ignoring the incident at Little Rock):
Quote
1971 April 20
The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds busing as a legitimate means for achieving integration of public schools. Although largely unwelcome (and sometimes violently opposed) in local school districts, court-ordered busing plans in cities such as Charlotte, Boston, and Denver continue until the late 1990s.

 What happened to all that mid-sixties Great Society immigration policy, Hyperion? No one seems to have noticed it but you.
 Apology accepted.
Alan Fox wrote:
Quote
Now what about some quid pro quo. A bit of background from you may shake my conviction that you are parodying.

 Maybe tomorrow.....

Date: 2005/11/20 11:52:43, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hi Cogzoid.
Quote
Quote  
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans.  Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations?  You're really straining the logic, my friend.

    You're mixing the studies up, but that's OK; I get the point. My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the crime drop in New York City, an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics?
Quote
Fluctuations happen, what's your point?  Notice the trend in '94.  WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE.  I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s.  I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.

 It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr..
Quote
This is known as confirmation bias, Paley.  You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong.  There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong.  Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind.

 Well, you've got me on Global Warming. As for the missing WMD, let me just say that I think it's cruel to pick on the mentally retarded, even when they become president. :D
Quote
I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study.  Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates.  I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests.

 After you left,  MidnightVoice floated a similar argument. Please see my response to him. And yes, the study does anticipate your counter.
Quote
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

  If Jared's reading this, he's probably laughing his ass off at all the free publicity you're giving him, Cogzoid.
Quote
But, that is a minor point overall.  Blacks may have higher crime rates.  I'll concede the point.

  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0
  Wow. I've really sold you short. You definitely have earned my respect.
Quote
However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole.  Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors?  Are they not religious people?  Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not?  I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.

 Then again, maybe not.
Quote
My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.

Quote
1) No, but let's face it: when evos talk about the "dangers" of fundamentalist Christianity, they're not referring to Joseph Lowery. They mean Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. White Christians, in other words.
 2) When trying to measure the effects of a single variable (religion), it is important to match groups that are as identical as possible in all other ways. This avoids confounding factors.

 You do realise the importance of avoiding confounding factors, don't you, Cogzoid?

Date: 2005/11/21 05:50:44, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc.  And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics.

Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure.
Quote
Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies.

 No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this. :D

Quote
Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY.  When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause.  Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes.  I've given an explanation.  You've given Republican trunk-waving.

 Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever.
Quote
You want it both ways, Paley.  You don't want to include blacks of our society.  Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans.  As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks.  I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself.  Either the Europeans don't post  racial data on the web, or I give up too easily.

 Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available.
Quote
Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go.  What are these accomplishments I should look at?  Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?

 You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion.

Eric Murphy said:
Quote
Just out of curiosity: do you think that if someone were to take, say the top 1% of income earners among white Americans of European extraction, and compared them to the top 1% of African-Americans descended from slaves, that there would be a statistically-significant difference in the amount of violent crime committed by the two groups?

 Yep. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Date: 2005/11/21 06:10:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If if if.  I honestly don't care about your piddly little article.  You said about three sentences from it, so I honestly have no idea what it would show.  Most likely, it would show that the author is an idiot, but since you haven't cited it, and therefore I haven't read it, I really have no idea what my reaction might be.

 Yeah, I'll bet you don't care. But I do. No student, be they black, white, asian, or other, should have to put up with what these kids do. But I'm sure the thugs have high self-esteem, and isn't that what it's all about?
Quote
Huh?  What conditions?  You haven't said anything about any conditions, and no, I'm not going to stipulate to anything stupid like this.  I'm getting pretty damned tired of your disingenuous arguments where you coyly hint at one position, then pretend you were really saying something else.

 Whatever. Support your position, if you have one. But we both know you don't, so you can quit bluffing.
Quote
Really, honestly, do you suffer from some sort of mental illness?  Or are you simply an immature simpleton who just likes to try to irritate people?  

 Why should I choose from only one? Can't I be a little of both? :D
Quote
If you think that you are somehow impressing anyone by knocking down straw men and playing word games, you're not.

 What word games? Please be clear on this.
Quote
If I had to make a guess, I'd go with luck and social trends.  I certainly wouldn't assert that  skin pigmentation is linked to intelligence...I mean, getting a tan on the beach doesn't affect one's intelligence.  What is your explanation?

 What does skin color have to do with culture? You do realise that I have explicitly avoided a genetic argument, don't you, Hyperion? Why can't you see this simple little fact?

Date: 2005/11/21 06:37:03, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
How can the "80's and mid 90's" be much more conservative than the "1988-1994 period," when the one is a subset of the other? Just curious.

 Yeah, sloppy wording on my part. I meant that the original Bush administration + Congress was less conservative than either Reagan + Democratic Congress or Clinton + Republican Congress. And the media seemed to agree with me, based on what I read at the time.
Quote
But Bill, don't you realize that your propensity to believe that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime than a similar group of European-Americans are, in the absence of data to support such a position, makes you a, well, um...racist? By definition?

 Et tu, Murphy, et tu? My understanding of a racist is someone who believes that genetic differences impact on mental performance or emotional stability. A position that I have never argued. What I do assert is that different cultures lead to different results regardless of income. Hey, do a favor for me: look up the results of SAT scores for upper-middle class African-Americans as compared to white americans around the poverty line. See something interesting? Do you think culture might play a role in this? If not, why not? And was Bill Cosby high when he gave his speech criticizing Black culture?

Date: 2005/11/21 07:24:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Last bump, I promise. But I think the lurkers should be able to evaluate the Cogzoid-Paley debate for themselves, if they wish.

Date: 2005/11/21 08:35:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
By the way, here's my source for the SAT claim:
Quote
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences are the paramount explanation for the racial scoring gap. Consider these three facts from The College Board's 2005 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

All of this is very bad news since it suggests the possibility that even if blacks reach economic parity with whites, SAT score differences between the races may persist.

Moreover, the data gives fuel to the biological racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of the cognitive capabilities of blacks.

 Yes, and I noticed during a recent search that several racist websites have already made much hay out of these results. But I think that culture may explain the discrepancies.

Date: 2005/11/21 12:00:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night.  Your skepticism is duly noted.

 Also, keep in mind the mass desertion, looting and overall incompetence shown by Nawlins finest.
Quote
What about every other major city in the US?  Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.

At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted paper.
Quote
And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries.  Which don't put the US in such a good light.

 I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's.
   Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower homicide rates than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one study that does just that:
Quote
Of eight jurisdictions (four states, three provinces and Canada as a whole), Montana had the most homicides per capita over the fifteen year period, with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6, followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at 3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at 1.3.

The first seven averages are in the anticipated range, but the rate for North Dakota is one of the lowest in the world despite an abundance of guns in the hands of its citizens.

The 15 year per capita homicide rate for the three provinces combined was 3.2 per 100,000 compared to 2.7 per 100,000 in the four states.

 Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's). This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states. Could population density be a biasing factor?
Quote
In response to criticism that the three states contained no large cities, Minnesota was added to the mix. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have a combined population comparable to that of Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg.

  Pretty interesting results, eh?
Quote
So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to.  You don't see a problem with that?  Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?

   First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome. Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors. Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books. Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs. Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables?



You're welcome.

Date: 2005/11/21 12:10:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Ok, but since you're still just referring to some article that I still haven't read, I can't really form an opinion on it, now can I?

 Nice dodge.
Quote
This is what I mean about being disingenuous.  You discussed the different scores of various racial groups.  When I say that clearly skin color can't be the reason, you then accuse me of bringing it up.  Brilliant.

If you're arguing culture, though, you've got some problems.  For starters, there is no one single "Black" culture, any more than there is one single "Asian" culture, or one single "Jewish" culture, or one single "hispanic culture."  Now, at the individual level, I can certainly see how the culture in which one is raised can affect one's academic performance, but the problem is that culture really isn't tied so well with race.

 Unsupported assertion. And a big surprise, no doubt, to the many black and Jewish people who seem to think otherwise.

  I guess I should celebrate the fact that you're starting to recognize and respond to my argument, as opposed to the <cough> strawmen you've been thrashing.

Date: 2005/11/22 04:56:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well?  What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?

 Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise.
Quote
[Your study] succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities.  To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there.  Something you have yet to do.

  But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all?
Quote
But the murder rates flatly disagree with you.  And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get.  You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at.  (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)

 Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime. Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on.

More later.

Date: 2005/11/22 06:00:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The article, until presented is a non-argument and it is impossible to dodge a non-argument.

 If you have read the thread from beginning to end, then how did you miss my three-part essay detailing my argument, consisting of:
1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts
2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents
3) New legislation repealing all race laws
4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents

 In addition, I proposed a test that anyone can do to verify that Hyperion's implications were false. Since you read the thread, surely I won't have to point out where, will I? And nobody took me up on this test.....hmmmm....veddy curious.
  Now you may think my plan is naive, fascist, counterproductive, whatever; that's your right. But direct your criticisms to the real model, not to Hyperion's paranoid misrepresentations of it. But you won't, and it's for the same reason that Hyperion didn't - the model is sound, rational, sane, and chock full of supporting evidence guaranteeing its success. Which explains the existence of speech codes. Can't let anyone see the posterior of General Butt-Nekkid.

Date: 2005/11/22 07:55:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm interested in your explanation for the disparity at high income levels.  Surely you can't be seriously suggesting that there is a fundamental cultural difference in the US between blacks and whites at the $80,00-100,000 annual income level?  

 I don't see why not. Many successful blacks describe themselves as "bicultural", and occasionally complain about the stress this puts on their everyday life. And I've read books where white-collar blacks express extreme frustration with the corporate (i.e. white) world, and complain about cultural isolation.
Quote
Note also that the data for white students (and probably for other races as well) at varying income levels is probably subject to extreme sampling bias: many affluent students go to college, and therefore take the SATs, because they can afford it, whereas the poor students who take the SATs are self-selecting for those at the upper end of academic ability and ambition.

 I'm sure that this explains some of it. But then why the positive correlation between income level and SAT scores? Rich and middle-class whites somehow find a way to outscore these poverty-stricken prodigies. And don't these rich black kids have access to better schools, tutors, etc.? It seems that you're reaching here.

Date: 2005/11/22 12:17:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.

 I think your last sentence is potentially false. Crooked police in general do try to deflate the crime rate, and this would apply to all countries. But I think it's a fallacy to assume that:
 1) All police agencies are equally corrupt and incompetent
 2) All countries will attempt the same manipulations

 Let's take the F.B.I., for example. Earlier I showed evidence of hanky-panky in how they classify perps vs victims. But did they do it to lower the crime rate? No, they were far too busy playing pin the tail on the honkey for that. Result: No net crime deflation.
 But let's look at an American city during the mid-nineties. The city's finest know that the whole world watches New York, and when good things happen there, they'd like to share in the glory. Result: the crime stats plummet.
 Now let's look at a European country such as Great Britain during the mid-nineties. You've got a spanking-new gun policy, you're liberalizing immigration laws, and you read the papers and see the policing success in America and Canada. You'd like a piece of the action, and what's more, you don't want to alarm the public unnecessarily. So what do you do? Well, you carry out your tried-and- failed twin strategies of yanking guns from the civilians and letting in boatloads of terrorists, fanatics, and other enemies of civilisation. Predictably, this fails. Plan B? Let's let my source take it from here:
Quote
A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."

For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

 I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Quote
And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.

 There's a big difference between intra-thug violence fueled by the drug trade and thugs attacking civilians. While both are regrettable, the second concerns me more since I don't plan on selling, or even buying, drugs.
Quote
And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal.

 But what shall I do when the fruits of liberal policy create them?

Date: 2005/11/22 14:47:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The article, not the argument.

 Oh well, the argument needed to be restated anyway, not that anyone's paying attention. And despite Hyperion cluck-cluck-clucking out on my eminently reasonable conditions, I'll cite it anyway:

The article.

 Now for the interesting bit:
Quote
In the last five years, census data show, Asians -- mostly Chinese -- have grown from 5 percent to nearly 10 percent of Brooklyn residents. In Lafayette High's neighborhood, Bensonhurst, historically home to Italian and Jewish families, more than 20 percent of residents are Asian.[my emphasis, not that the author deserves this bit]


  "But Paley", you'll squeal, "our dear Erin is just providing some background detail for a little verisimilitude! Cut her some slack!"
  To which I say: read the whole article. Not once, not once, is the race of the offenders mentioned. So why bring up race at all? To highlight the irony that Brooklyn has always been a haven for immigrants, and should be the last place to find violence against same?
 Hey, I've heard of a bridge in the area that's up for sale.
  "Oh, Paley, this is but one author! No need to jump to hasty conclusions!"

How about now?
Quote
 Mark Talo, who taught English as a second language at Lafayette but quit at the end of the recent school year, said the assistant principal had pulled two of the three Chinese students from his classes to deliver the news.  "The atmosphere at the school was very depressing," Mr. Talo said. "It was like being in the Deep South during Jim Crow."  


   Once again, a slur against white people, and no mention of the race of the perpetrators. Now for the likely reason:

   Ethnic Composition of Lafayette High

        White                               11.8
         Black                               45.8
         Hispanic                           25.1
         Asian and others              17.1

 Now, it's possible that the BEDs were responsible for the attacks, but don't you think this bit of info would have provided a slightly different perspective to the story?
   Of course, that may have been the problem.

Date: 2005/11/23 06:47:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Does anybody know if it is possible to post images on this bulletin board without a URL? I have developed a brialliant and sublime cosmological theory that I want you all to critique. The images in question are actually equations generated by Mathematica. If it is possible to post images not on the web, please explain how to do this, and, failing that, would somebody familiar with Mathematica please explain how to turn these equations into something MS-Word would recognize as text. (Is it possible to get integration symbols as text at all?)

Thank You for Responding:

The Ghost

Date: 2005/11/28 05:04:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Silly kids, it wont matter in fifty years or so.  Might as well work together to figure out how we're going to survive the Big Crash.  Borders, nations, flags, races, religions, blah blah blah.  Irrelevant pomp.  

Time. To. Evolve.

  If my concerns are so much irrelevant pomp, then why are so many people on this board concerned about my plan? No national policy will make a difference, right? We might as well sit back in our rocking chairs and wait for Armageddon....

Date: 2005/11/28 07:48:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?

  But Cogzoid, you're only proving my case.
Your own source concedes that the hopitalization rate matches Guiliani's figures during the period of the Big Drop:
Quote
In 1993, the last year of David Dinkins's administration, health department officials created an "injury surveillance system," hoping to monitor weapons-related assaults against young men. At first, they surveyed only hospitalizations. With the decline in shootings in the city, the number of hospitalizations caused by assaults dropped sharply, right through 1999, but then leveled off.

In the meantime, seeking better information on assaults against women, health department officials expanded the survey in 1997 to include emergency room visits in addition to hospitalizations.

From then until 2002, the number of assault victims who were either hospitalized or treated in emergency rooms in the city went up in every year but one for a total increase of 19 percent.

 So when you say:
Quote
I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.

  You're just supporting my point that the Miracle was real, and not an artifact of shady bookkeeping.
Quote
Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets.

 Your inability to refute their position is duly noted.
Quote
The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.

 Actually, the quote came from a 2000 Inspectorate of Constabulary report, not the 1996 article you're referencing. And the report also takes current homicide classifications to task:
Quote
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

 I suspect that British cops would know something about British crime classification and accounting, but I've been told before that I'm hopelessly naive, so help me out, Cogzoid. :)

  My contention that we should use as many sources as possible to triangulate the data seems as sound as ever.

Date: 2005/11/28 08:32:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
GoP,
Please get to the point.
I have been reading this thread for a few days.
I think you have valid reasoning...But please stop wasting time.

 I don't know what you're referring to; if supporting one's position is a waste of time, then I'm guilty as charged. But my main point (summarised twice with no rebuttal on the horizon....) is that we should use objective criteria when deciding who gets in. The question shouldn't be: "What can we do for you?", but rather, "What will you do for us?"
 The first nation that asks this question will watch its science, technology, and economy soar, while the rest of the first world devolves into Brasil or Colombia. But hey, if you want to live in a country where you have to fly to work behind a phalanx of bodyguards, it's your thing.

Date: 2005/11/28 08:40:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
GoP:

How are we doing on our ToE?

  Pretty well, although some formatting problems are forcing me to split my paper into several sections. I'll try to summarise some of the main points tonight or tomorrow.....

Date: 2005/11/28 12:26:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Ahhh Well,
If that is your whole point, I guess that I agree with you.

I was under the impression though that the USA already had a strong imigration criteria.

The UK on the other hand seems to be lacking in that area.


      Don't forget France and pretty much the rest of Europe. Their policy seems to be: If you reside in one of our former colonies or can sneak in, welcome! America's de facto policy: If you can provide a short-term economic benefit, then come on in, and we'll even ignore the rising crime and associated burden on social services! And who cares about cultural balkanization and regression to the mean, which means your kid might be more likely to join a streetgang than play John Henry to the gringo's Ferdinand the Bull! I mean, it's not like we could get Chinese to do the work, or better yet, invent the technology that makes sweatshop labor obsolete. No, that would be plumb crazy..........
    And if the Chinese won't do it, let the companies relocate. Or abolish the minimum wage. Or, like Bush, explore the idea of guest worker programs. But do something. This, in conjunction with the buyout program, will help restore one nation under God, indivisible. But you guys know this already.

Date: 2005/11/28 12:52:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
GoP:

How are we doing on our ToE?


Since there is a problem calculating the mass of the earth assuming Alpha Centauri and the rest of the universe orbit it, the evolutionists thing they have refuted the Biblical truth of geocentricism¡Xnot so!!!! The truth is that neither Alpha Centauri nor any other of the fixed stars orbits the earth via gravitational attraction. They are locked into a large conducting Gaussian sphere of dense ether.

Gauss Law states:

(1)

This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.


(2)
           =0 R<r

Now the period of this function is the distance from the sphere of the fixed stars to the center of God¡¦s creation, the earth. (Remember, this is the only section of the domain of R we care about, you can¡¦t bitch if the model does not work in the Empyrean. In addition, since this is an even-range expansion about R=0, it goes into ¡§negative R¡¨ space. This is as physically meaningless as evolutionism, but necessary for the model to work!;) The first terms of the series are:

(3)
   (4)
         

This is the A0 term

 (5)
     (6)

These are the An terms.



.

(7)

    (9)

Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom. Now, we know the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars, it is 4.5 light-years. (The Triple Centauri System is something of an anomaly, since it serves as a revolving door for angels to pass in and out of the Empyrean, it protrudes a little.) We also know the value of the permittivity constant  , and the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.) All that is unknown now is the charge outside the sphere of the fixed stars, Q.  

We can find Q by calculating how the field gradient inside the sphere of the fixed stars from the 2.7K uniform temperature the evolutionistic Soviet agents Penzias and Wilson. They called this the ¡§echo of the big bang¡¨ in order to score a propaganda victory for the motherland by ¡§proving¡¨ Gamow¡¦s theory.  In a paper published in Physical Review Letters in 1976 showing the relationship between Temperature and field gradient at a given temperature is:

(10)1

Here eqe1 is the field gradient at Temperature T which is 2.7K, and eq0e1 is the field gradient at 0K.  Since the field has no angular variation, the field gradient can be assumed to be E¡¦®.  Now, here is the formula:

    (11)

Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨  

Continuing with our discussion of equation 10,    approaches the inverse of the fine structure constant, 137 as the crystal becomes more perfect. In addition, in perfect quintessence the Debye temperature, TD also approaches the same value. (This flows from the electromagnetic nature of the universe which you will not see in papers because it proposes a direct, in-your-face challenge to the gravity-based, big bang evolutionistic model.)  The constant ƒ× is given by the formula:

   (12)1


Filling in the numbers, we have:

  (13)

50.7413  (Real answer)

The other constant, ƒÒ can be assumed to be 1. Finally, Equation 10 with numbers comes out to be:

 (14)
-0.0014781

Now, when we set equation 14 equal to equation 11, and set the values for   and the radius of the sphere of the fixed stars r (4.5 light-years), and set R equal to the radius of the earth. (In the absence of the sun, the temperature would be 2.7K, so I can get away with this. This is the temperature due to the electric field gradient.) We can calculate a value for Q in the Empyrean to be:

1.46088 X10^46 C

This is a very big number. I bet you¡¦re wondering how this much charge can exist. The answer is in the stars themselves. This plasma flow is how the angels keep the stars shining. How this works will be discussed in subsequent posts.

Date: 2005/11/28 12:57:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
K. Nishiyama, F. Dimmling, Th. Kornrumpf, and D. Riegel
Theory of the Temperature Dependence of the Electric Field Gradient in Noncubic Metals

Phyical Review Letters 37,357-360 1976

Date: 2005/11/28 14:14:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for all the formatting errors, but this gives a sample of my thinking. To summarize, in recognition of the relative strength of electromagnetic forces vis-a-vis gravity I have used Gauss's Law in conjunction with an equation relating temperature and field gradients to derive the cosmic microwave background value. No reference to the Big Clang required. But I will not stop here. The next section of the paper will discuss the infamous n-body problem in the context of induced dipole moments. I will then utilise Shannon's information theory to convert the excess charge to work, thus uniting my oeuvre with Dembski's.

Date: 2005/11/28 14:33:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
One more thing. The genetic determinists (i.e. racists) would probably want to expel Central and South Americans from the U.S. in obeisance to racial "purity"; me, I just care about assimilation. Mestizos show some cultural potential, but the evidence suggests we restrict immigration to Asians, Jews, and Europeans for now. With the cultural and technological renewal sure to follow, we can heal the world, rendering Swoosh's scenario obsolete. And the world will bless America, and more importantly, God.

Date: 2005/11/28 14:43:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Cogzoid wrote:
Quote
Fair enough.

Here's data on murder rates by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Notice how the US is in the top 25 in between great countries like Bulgaria and Armenia.  While most of civilized (and secular!;) Europe have half or less of the murder rate.

I found this bit of data on abortions:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_abo_cap

And finally rapes:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap

 By the by, if yer just interested in objective counting, what's rape statistics doing in there?

Date: 2005/11/29 12:26:44, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
    = 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.

So there is no discontinuity present, as the field decreases over the thickness of the proposed cellestial firmament.  So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.  Obviously, the thickness must be non-zero, "since authentic" zero thickness shells "do not exist in nature."

 Seems so, doesn't it? But I'll justify my use of the Fourier series in the next installment, and solve a few conundrums while I'm at it.
Quote
How does your model account of differing parallax of different stars? Actually, how does it account for parallax at all? If everything orbits the earth, shouldn't the parallax of every body out there on the sphere be zero[or non-equal]?

 Patience. It will all come together shortly. Genius moves at its own pace, after all.

Date: 2005/11/29 15:56:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Just to give you a running start, I thought I'd include a few other, relatively non-controversial, astronomical observations, with the request that you explain how your model accounts for them:

  That's sweet of you, Matlock. I do appreciate your criticisms, as they help refine my thoughts. To avoid distraction, I'll try to incorporate my rebuttal within the work proper. Please understand, however, that the paper must simultaneously address many criticisms, so part of it might be rough going for those without calculus. The study must strike a balance between detail and clarity, and enchant in the process. I'll do what I can.

Date: 2005/11/30 07:24:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Therefore, there's no need for any rebuttal, since I haven't made any rebuttable assertions. However, my difficulties with higher mathematics shouldn't present an obstacle to you, since the currently-existing theory accounting for the above-referenced observations has been able to explain those observations without resorting to the sort of difficult mathematical formalisms favored by (what's his name again?) The Master(sm)(?). I have every confidence you'll be able to do the same.

 Fair enough. Actually, my first summary was a failed effort in that direction. I'll expand my abstracts a little more in the future. And by the way:

Dembski  -> The Wizard

Berlinski  -> The Master.

Date: 2005/11/30 08:07:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Lurkers, please notice the contrast between the cogent (if misguided) responses to my geocentrism paper and the strawmen/slander directed to my po' little immigration model. Or even the lack of interest (Murphy aside) in parrying my thrusts at the phylogenetic tree. Doesn't this seem to indicate that one position is, um, a little more solid than the others? But I thought that Darwinism and Liberal immigration philosophy are every bit as well established as the shape of the Earth!! That's one of the justifications for the speech laws and court decisions, right?

Date: 2005/11/30 15:37:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Please review Gauss.  It is painful to see you abuse these theorems so badly.  The equation set
E® = Q/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}
    = 0 {R<r}
is that of an ideal Gaussian spherical shell with thickness = 0.  A Gaussian spherical shell with non-zero thickness = x has an additional term Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {r+x>R>r}.  More properly stated, E® = Q(x)/(4*PI*eps0*R*R) {R>r}, where Q(x)=Q for R>r+x and 0 for R<r.


Vickland, although  still basically stupid, is intelligent for an evolutionist. Vicky, I am aware of the equations for a Gaussian sphere of thickness greater than zero. However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. Indeed, they are hypersolid, to stretch a metaphor. In addition, you appear to be confused about the symbols; this is partially my fault; that registered trademark symbol is actually the derivative of the field with respect to R, which is the field gradient if there is no angular variation.



Quote
So there is no discontinuity present,


At this point you're correct. There is no authentic discontinuity, even as the thickness of the shell approaches zero. (Review your Delta functions if you have trouble understanding this.)

Quote
So the Fourier series is wrong, and you would need knowledge of the thickness of the firmament to be able to perform the proper analysis.


The thickness is differential, my use of Fourier series is absolutely correct in light of this fact.

Quote
Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."  


Evolutionism was revealed to Nimrod by Satan at the Tower of Babel. It was not invented by a 19th century retard with a rich family who had a bunch of books ghost-written for him. Although an utter dolt, Chuckie had connections to dark powers that orcs like yourself following him can not begin to understand, even with liberal use of pinhead's cokespoon. He gave his money and  his soul to the purveyors of Atlantean magic in exchange for fame.

One more thing Wally--that is your first name, isn't it?--please find an optics expert for Nicky. In conclusion, all these issues will be resolved in due time, so please, I continue to beseech all of you to be patient.

Date: 2005/12/01 15:55:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid said:
Quote
Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.

 I'm glad you find science so entertaining, Cogzie. But I must admit I find some of your actions strange for such a maths wizard:

 1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God).
 2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion.
 3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this.
  Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response.

Quote
Quote  
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.

Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.

 I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........

Date: 2005/12/02 05:52:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.

 Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.

Date: 2005/12/02 06:55:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately.  I often get bored by your condescending drivel.  But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.

 Sorry to hear about your surgery. I hope that you have a fast recovery.

Date: 2005/12/02 10:21:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 02 2005,11:52)
Liberals had three full decades to make an impact, and boy did they ever. It's our turn now.

And boy are you ever.

 With all due respect, having the Commander-in-Chimp representing us is like being told you've won the lottery, but are being paid in Monopoly money...........

Date: 2005/12/04 11:54:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Salvador

You do realise Mr Ghost of Paley is a parody, don't you?

 Thanks, Mr. Fox, for giving a real-time example of the transition of an idea from speculation to settled fact. One of the few transitions, I note, that can be easily found in the Evo literature. :D
Quote
Quote  

Dan requested of the noble Reverend Paley:

Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating



No, we want more, we want more.

 Oh, don't worry about that. I can tone down the sass upon request, but ain't no-one takin' away my right to say 2+2=4, even if he is a fellow Southerner, or his last name is.....O'Brien.

Date: 2005/12/05 06:46:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Okay, but before this discussion goes completely off the rails: how are we doing with your accounting for the various astronomical observations I set out a few pages back? I'm waiting with bated breath...

 Yeah, I realise I've been slow to respond lately. I'll try to get something up tonight that addresses a few of the issues. Mr. Cordova will have to provide the fireworks for now....

Date: 2005/12/05 09:41:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I agree. Not the real Cordova. I put my money on DaveScot. This "Sal" addressed one of his middle-school barbs to "Flanky Boy". DaveScot, before he was banned at PT, addressed me as "Russy Boy". Coincidence? I think not.

 Could someone tell me why troll-hunting is so popular on the internet? I admit that it satisfies a communal urge to gossip and speculate, but why does this sport so overshadow the content of a person's arguments? Are ideas really that boring? I'd appreciate any insight on this.

Date: 2005/12/05 09:56:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means.  I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.


Again, this is my fault. That symbol was supposed to be Pi. I will resolve the graphical issues in my posts that will explain it all.

Date: 2005/12/05 10:31:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?


The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no.

Quote
What are the "atoms" of ether made of?


They are made of qunitessence, of course. Differentially sized sized crystals provide a way to preserve the material structure of the universe, but also its continuiuty. My theory has finally settled the debate between the atomists and Aristotaliens. The material world is real, but still exhibits no disorder.

I hope this sheds some light on the overall evolutionism/intellegent design debate. Evolutionists think like their atomistic predecessors that matter moves randomly in an empty void until interacting with other randomly interacting matter. Intellegent design theorists (Plato and Aristotle belong in this category, despite not having access to the Bible.) responded by claiming that intellegence is necessary for the order and purpose in the universe, but failed to fully account for thge material world. (This is the source of the evolutionistic wailing that intellegent design is a "supernatural" explanation and can hence be dismissed.) My crystalline ether theory makes it possible for final causes to be made manifest in the material universe, for thought itself can move objects of differential size. I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had.

Date: 2005/12/05 13:03:16, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
No, I just had some time to finally deal with you.  You were low on my priorities.
Quote  


(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?





The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.  



What I think Lenny and others are interested in is how thoughts manifest themselves in the physical world--to resolve the paradox of Aristotle's unmoved mover--that how can something be move that is in itself unmoved. My theory of differentially sized crystalline spheres solves the paradox and provides the last piece of the puzzle completing ID theory. Since these spheres apprach zero mass, they can be moved by thought, with approaching zero, yet real, physical force. This is how thought effects everything else.

Mr. Cordova, I appreciate your work but there that small problem in ID that evolutionists since Democritus have hinted at. I believe I have resolved it.


Reverend Jim writes:

Quote
4.  do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?  And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.



What do the political views of your sugar daddies have to do with the accuracy of your conclusions? Are you scared, Reverend? Do you see Black helicopters piolted by men with Crusader helmets spying on your house? Does your pizza delivery boy report similar occurences? Are you sure Susan Sontag really died of cancer? Are you sure she wasn't poisoned by John Ashcroft's deep agents on every street corner in Men in Black garb? Could it be time for Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal and yourself to board yourselves up in a cabin in Montana with whatever overweight, smelly literature department chairwomen willing to mate with you guys before the infamous "they" come to take ya'all away?

Date: 2005/12/05 14:09:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the typos - I hit the "Add Reply" key when I meant to preview.
Quote
For what it's worth, Bill, I don't think you're a parody. I do think you're an instigator who likes to rile people up, and I don't think you necessarily believe everything you say you believe. You certainly don't believe the entire universe revolves around the earth. I think you've hinted at your agenda earlier, which I still think is ill-conceived. But I'm very curious to see what your next substantive post will say...[my emphasis]

Nooooooo!!!!!! Not this crap again. Eric, please don't play games like Hyperion. Just say what you mean - I promise I won't get offended.

Date: 2005/12/05 15:09:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Empirical support for the quintessence can be found here. Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well, but this should give a sample of my thinking:
Quote
Last year, while Kim was a graduate student, he and physicist Moses Chan used the can to squeeze ultracold helium into a crystalline solid that appears to flow without resistance--like a liquid with no viscosity. For decades physicists had mused about such a bizarre "supersolid," and others had searched for and failed to find it. So Kim and Chan's results have touched off a flurry of activity among experimenters and a debate among theorists as to whether it's even possible for a perfect crystal to flow. They are rejuvenating helium physics, a small field that has played a large role in shaping modern physics (see sidebar, p. 39).

   For more enlightenment, please consult this paper. I think the calculations are a bit crude, but it's a good starting point for my monograph, which will also use the concept of dipole moments to explain the n-body "gravitational" phenomenon. Given the relative magnitude of Coulomb forces to gravity, this approach should be fruitful, and my marriage of Bose to Maxwell will lead to the unification of all physics.

Date: 2005/12/06 06:24:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Busted link alert.

 And this after I checked the *&^%$ link twice. Let me try again:

A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal.  Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics.
 
    This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later.
Quote
[B]ut I do think you're only claiming to believe the universe is centered on the earth, and you're using arguments supporting that belief as a stalking horse for another point entirely, i.e., that evolution is not as well-supported as, e.g., modern astrophysics and cosmology.

In other words, I don't think you're a parody, but I don't think you're necessarily being completely up-front about your beliefs. Which is fine; not intended as a criticism. I just think at times you're pulling our collective leg, as it were.

 Not really, although I can see where you got that impression. Even if that had been my intention, it wouldn't have worked, since you and Cogzoid have admitted that you don't have any training in Evo biology. Now if P.Z. or Nick or Lilith had to retreat to sniping at my geocentrism, this would have established the paucity of support for Darwinism. But I'll stick to physics for now.

Date: 2005/12/06 07:38:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale?  That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement.  Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure?  Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options?  Every crystal has axes.  Why would quintessence crystals be different?

Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter. My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin. For example, my condensate can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing. Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.

Date: 2005/12/06 08:03:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So—

A. You actually are a Nobel candidate, in which case I was right about you; or

B. You're not a Nobel candidate, but I was probably still right about you.

 
  Ahhhh.....an Evo prediction in full flower!  :D

Date: 2005/12/06 11:31:14, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley.  What does "baryonic in structure" mean?  Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't.

 I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board. Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs? I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates.

Date: 2005/12/06 15:59:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Has Mr. Flank ever given any specific criteria on what constitutes an answer to any of his questions? His debating tactic seems to reduce to:

"Answer these questions please."

"Nope, you didn't answer my questions [copy n' paste]"

"Still no answer I see...[copy n' paste]

Repeat as many times as necessary......

Date: 2005/12/07 08:41:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I'll try to fill in the details later tonight, but here are a few answers to Cogzoid's questions:
Quote
Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?

 Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.
Quote
What forces does quintessence interact with?  Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak?

 The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)  ;)
Quote
If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?

 Since you haven't seen the model yet, we don't know how it all fits together. But later we will.
Quote
If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?

 See above. The quark structure is different, so no, not at present. Don't worry, I'll propose some tests along with the model.
Quote
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?)
Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?

 "Infinitesimal" and "no", respectively. Remember, bosonic materials don't obey Pauli. And the quark alignment (along with the unique optical properties present in most condensates) would be impossible to detect with a telescope. Once again, I'll propose some tests later.

 Eric - don't worry, I'll give your questions due consideration tonight (hopefully). I just think it's important to answer the primary structure questions before hitting the secondary and tertiary structure of my model.

Date: 2005/12/07 12:14:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.

 Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well. :p
Quote
Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand.  The atoms that make up your skin push on each other.  It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting.

  Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present. Instead, I must repeat myself:
Quote
The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later). Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)

 Like, perhaps, a photon.

How are photons classified, Cogzie?

  More later.

Date: 2005/12/07 13:22:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
One more thing: I didn't mean to imply that photons carry both the weak and electromagnetic forces. It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course. This also explains this comment:
Quote
The quintessence interacts with the strong force, but not like a typical fermion. The strong force and gravity combine to align the quarks in a single direction (more on this later).

 Hadrons are not the building blocks of quintessence, so something else must explain its interaction with the strong force.

Date: 2005/12/07 15:56:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley.  Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

Sloppy wording on my part, yes. W and Z bosons mediate the weak force, but they can only act on leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception). By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?
Quote
You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand.  It's all electric.

Gee, I've really been misinformed:
Quote
Hadrons are defined as strongly interacting composite particles. Hadrons are either bosons (named: mesons), or fermions (named: baryons)
Ordinary baryons contain three valence quarks or three valence antiquarks each.
Nucleons are the proton and the neutron, the fermionic constituents of normal atomic nuclei.
Hyperons such as the Ä, Ë, Î and Ù particles are generally short-lived and heavier than nucleons. They do not normally appear in atomic nuclei.
Ordinary mesons contain a valence quark and a valence antiquark, and include the pions, the kaons and many other types of mesons. In quantum hadrodynamic models the strong force between nucleons is mediated by mesons.
Exotic baryons have been discovered only recently.
Pentaquarks consist of four valence quarks and one valence antiquark.
Exotic mesons are predicted by new theories.
Tetraquarks consist of two valence quarks and two valence antiquarks.
Glueballs are bound states of two or more real gluons.
Hybrid s consist of one or more valence quark-antiquark pairs and one or more real gluons.

Yep, those quarks sure are unrelated to a particle's structure.....

Date: 2005/12/08 09:44:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress.

   Let's back up and take stock of the situation. Apparently, Roshi-san finds me a rather dull student who needs polishing before being permitted to share knowledge with the other daiya no genseki. Clothed with this conviction, Roshi-san's yuurei journeys to a shadow world in which he sees ignorance in a bad choice of words, fear in a mote of expression. Since I am not blessed with Roshi-san's insight, I will use the humble methods available to gaijin.

 1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy?
 Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed.

2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"?
 As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction. These range from weak London forces to stronger dipole-dipole forces, which result from partial charge separation in the molecule. One particularly strong force is hydrogen bonding, which results from a positive hydrogen atom in one molecule being tugged to molecules containing lone pairs of negative electrons (they are called lone pairs because they don't participate in the covalent bonds between valence, or outer shell, electrons). Molecules with flourine, nitrogen or oxygen atoms are particularly prone to this attraction.
  What about intramolecular forces? Electrons play a big role here as well. Recall that the atom is composed of three particles: electrons, neutrons, and protons. Neutrons and protons reside in the nucleus, while electrons inhabit "concentric" shells that surround the nucleus. Complex probability density equations describe the regions where electrons may be found in these shells, while other equations govern the movement of electrons between shells. Much to Cogzoid's probable displeasure, I will ignore them, as well as the accompanying jargon, in favor of a common and very loose analogy.
  Think of the nucleus as being a small village in the center of concentric, circular towns. Or imagine the conventional model of the solar system. Let's say a villager wishes to locate an electron in a surrounding town. One might start by finding which town, or orbit, the electron inhabits. Then one would locate the hotel at which the hotel rests. Then one calls the hotel clerk to find the room number. With this information, one goes to the room, opens the door, and finds the electron sleeping on the left side of the bed. We've accomplished our goal at last! This represents the heart of quantum numbers and electron configurations.
  Why is this important? Because electrical interactions govern bonding as well as the structure of the atom. The problem is, they are in turn influenced by the nucleus. After all, without the nucleus, there is no atom; without the atom, no baryonic matter (you know, the stuff of Cogzoid's dreams). And what is the nucleus made of? Quarks, of course (with a little help from gluons).
 In fact, there is a specific quark blueprint that determines whether or not a particle will be a proton or neutron. Recall that a proton possesses a +1 charge. Why? Because protons are composed of three quarks - two up quarks, each with a +2/3 charge, and a down quark, with a -1/3 charge. Neutrons reverse this scheme, with two down quarks and only one up quark. If you sum the charges, you'll see why neutrons are, well, neutral.
 Now here's the interesting part. A particle isn't necessarily frozen in one identity: a neutron, for example, can decay into a proton, electron, and antineutrino during beta decay (in this case, beta - decay). But if you check a Feynman diagram, you will see that there is an intermediate step in which the neutron emits a proton and W-boson, which in turn splits into the electron/antineutrino lepton/antilepton pair.
 How does this transformation happen? By a down quark "flipping" into an up quark! Although electrons themselves are considered point particles, they can be created by a quark flavor change, which in turn changes the identity of the matter in question. Of course, there are other examples, but this will suffice for now. For more detail, check here.

 In other words, I stand behind my statement. :D

3) Was Paley's lepton comment appropriate?
 In a word, no. Although literally true - "heavier particles" such as the gauge W / Z bosons do carry the weak force - the statement, despite the insertion of the word "or", clearly implies that leptons carry the weak force. But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:
Quote
Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

 So if my mistake constitutes an impeachable sin, how should we interpret Cogzoid's blunder? Being charitable, I will pass it off as sloppy wording. Notice, however, that I corrected my mistake, while Cogzoid snipped around his. Don't worry Cogzie, I forgive you. :)

4) Finally, do I imply that neutrinos aren't leptons?
Perhaps, but if you check the structure of the offending sentence, you'll see that I was attempting to contrast the neutrino's small rest mass with the mass of W/Z gauge bosons. In other words, I created an objection by attempting to thwart another. Oh well.
 
 I hope this helps.

Date: 2005/12/08 10:14:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I just thought that people might want to have a place to toss their.....err.....marginalia. This will hopefully keep the debate on track.

Date: 2005/12/08 12:27:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And now name calling?  C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.

Name calling????
Quote
A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter.  Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".

 At best, this proves we conflated the same concepts.
Quote
Yes, quark structure is sufficient.

Apology accepted. ;)
Quote
But it is not necessary.  One could hold Positronium in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time.  You can see that muonium could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds).  Look, ma!  No quarks!  So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand.

 Cogzie, you were born too late: you would have made one #### of a scholastic philosopher. :D
Quote
It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.

I demonstrated my understanding in the previous post. Unless you really believe that I learned all that within a day. Gee, mebbe ah hain't sech a bad student aftuh all.
Quote
Electromagnetic and Weak forces are one in the same.  No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.

 You don't realise it, but you just won a bet for me. But I can't let you slide on this one. From your source:
Quote
Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 102 GeV, they would merge into a single electroweak force.

Mathematically, the unification is accomplished under an SU(2) × U(1) gauge group. The corresponding gauge bosons are the photon of electromagnetism and the W and Z bosons of the weak force. [my emphasis]

 At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"? Typos and awkward phrases happen; check out my last post, for example:
Quote
But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:

 Boy that dumb Paley, what with him mixin' up his photons and protons and all.......

Quote
Based on the length of this discussion and the disagreements on quantum-mechanical minutiae, I'm estimating we'll get to discussion of using Cepheids to come to an agreement on the value of Hubbell's constant in, oh, 2016.

By the way, have we cleared up misunderstandings regarding the consensus phylogenetic tree, or is that still on the menu (to be discussed starting in the fall of 2025)?

 You know, I remember that Stephen King once claimed that he had to stop writing The Stand for a while because the book had turned into his personal Vietnam. I didn't understand him then, but I think I do now. But I'll muddle on anyway.........

Date: 2005/12/08 12:40:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
By the way, how do you guys feel about the physics discussions? Are we communicating our points well? Just looking for some guidance here......

Date: 2005/12/08 13:37:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I fail to see what I need to apologize for.  It's a simple fact.  And it's 100% correct.

    Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post?
Quote
By the way, are you implying that photons carry the weak force? Or is it just the massive gauge bosons?

 You didn't respond, although it would have given you a perfect opportunity to justify your choice of words.

  I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public (not that I'm pinning this on you; you seem like a reasonable enough fellow to me). Let's return to one of Mr. Cordova's comments:
Quote
Darwinists are perennially distasteful when they're trying to defend their theory, not really very well humored....

   You may not understand his meaning, but talk to the average American and I bet he'd give you an earful. If you guys would only listen to him, you just might make some headway.
   Well, that's enough of that. You don't have to respond, but I'd appreciate if some of you would think about this issue. Anyway, back to the fun, and keep those questions flowing.......

Date: 2005/12/09 07:48:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley


 A lesson on appearances versus reality:

The above fellow obtained a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and a Master's in education from the University of Cincinnati, taught high-school math before pursuing another career, but still tutors at-risk youth in his spare time. What does he do for a living? The first person with the correct answer doesn't win anything except the respect of cool people everywhere.

Date: 2005/12/10 05:33:03, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
He's a professional athlete, probably from a team based in or near Atlantic City.   I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this question.

  Yes, the sign provides a few clues, but shouldn't be taken at face value. Hopefully, the point will become clearer when his identity is revealed.

Quote
Doesn't this post belong in the "State of Denial" thread? I'd like to get past quarks, hadrons, nuclei, and maybe even molecules sometime before the end of the decade...

I'm working on it, I'm working on it. You won't be disappointed; it's a Duesy, I tells ya.......Come on guys, don't let me down. Surely one of you must know....Sir Toejam? Cogzie?

Date: 2005/12/11 09:26:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
As someone due to receive radiotherapy after surgery, I'd be interested to see the source material, which may have some relevance for me.

 Sorry to hear about your medical problems; hopefully the radiotherapy is just to prevent the recurrence of tumors in other regions of the body. I hope everything goes well.

Date: 2005/12/11 09:51:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Thanks Mr P. I hope so too.


 I realise you're an atheist, so I won't counsel prayer, but I know that several studies have indicated that humor and a positive outlook aid recovery. So I'd suggest renting as many comedies as possible and laughing your a## off. For comedy routines, a good start may be found here. You can catch his act on cable as well.

Date: 2005/12/11 10:11:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Well guys, I have to admit I'm a little surprised. Then again, he's not exactly a household name, and an appreciation for this man's talent is usually scarce on g-loaded fora like this one. But your intellects should be able to divine my point after seeing this page. (You may have to click past an annoying ad to get where you want).

Date: 2005/12/12 04:48:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
An athlete who is educated and a good person.  He sounds like a fine role model.  It's too bad that there aren't more like him.  But, what's your point, Paley?

 That appearances can mislead. After all, very few people would give this man a chance in a streetfight against, say, an in-prime Muhammad Ali, but his accomplishments suggest otherwise (don't laugh; even world class strikers/kickboxers tend to get clobbered in mixed martial arts settings). Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation. When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't. Y'all have been pretty good to me so far, and I just don't want any backsliding. I'll try to get the model together as soon as I can.

Date: 2005/12/12 08:27:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.

It's true that some scientists play by the rules; this is why I wrote:
Quote
When evos focus on arguments and facts, the debate moves forward; when they don't, it doesn't.

You could have also mentioned the critique of Behe/Snokes; that essay was very good. But both papers responded to peer-reviewed literature, so a higher standard of argumentation was necessary. Why can't this be the default standard for all replies? By the way, I'm not including you or Murphy in my complaint. You both rise above the usual level of discourse. So do Elsberry, Theobald, and Cartwright.

Date: 2005/12/13 10:43:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Mitigate - "to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad".  From the Cambridge Dictionary.

I'm not sure your sentence means what you intended, but I agree that there is not much we can do to mitigate the quality of the ID argumentation.  

 I'm aware of the legal meaning, but doesn't the word also mean "to lesson the impact of"? If not, I apologise.
Quote
Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

 I agree. Part of the delay is my fault; I couldn't resist contributing to another thread. But I'm working on it.....

Date: 2005/12/15 07:57:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley


******      It's Clobberin' Time!      ******









Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. This wave function operation can be used to determine the probability that two particles can be found in the same quantum state.  For bosons the equation is:





While the analogous one for fermions is:



Now we know that 1 and 2 are the subscripts for the wave functions acting on particular particles, while a and b are their quantum states.  For the fermions, even the dumbest evolutionist can comprehend that the probability of two fermions being in the same state is zero, while for the bosons it is finite*. The property that makes this possible is spin. This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.

When Jesus taught ethical imperatives in parables, the evolutionists of his day responded by demanding they, “Tell us plainly.” Likewise, today’s evolutionists reject non-material realities by demanding “evidence” on materialistic terms. The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.

Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. Since things that are truly indistinguishable are alike, it follows that all of them can be in the same state and it would be impossible to tell them apart. No doubt, there will be some objections to this idea. Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. I understand this concept because it is like the Trinity. G-d is three beings, yet all of them are indistinguishable, and can exist as a single state.

Fermions by contrast, have fractional spins and hence need to be turned around at least twice to come back to the way they were. Since most ordinary matter is fermions, we tend to be more familiar with their properties. These are the material particles that can do  generate magnetic fields, something that bosons can not.




This is an illustration of how a spin-1/2 particle behaves. It needs to go around twice before it is back to its old self.



This is the same sort of thing for a boson, every time it turns around it is always the same.


Now, what does this have to do with quintessence? Quintessence has a very special kind of spin. The spin of quintessence is 1+i. This enables it to turn around in hypercomplex space yet maintain certain fermion-like properties while in our own. Like a boson, quintessence particles can all exist in the same state, enabling it to have superfuild-like properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate yet still create a magnetic field that holds in place all of the excess charge in the Empyrean that is the source of the back ground temperature.  

Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.




This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.


* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. While perhaps getting the details wrong,this great man did have a powerful intuition of how subatomic physics refuted evolutionism

Date: 2005/12/15 08:10:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Forget the Cepheid variables; I wonder when gravity will enter the discussion. We've only gotten through two (or is it one?) of four forces. And from what I've understood from Bill so far (which admittedly isn't much), I'm beginning to wonder if gravity even figures into GOP's TOE at all.



Gravity is a property of earth and water to move toward the center of the universe, it is not a property of air, fire, or quintessence. The rest of the universe is sustained by strictly electromagnetic forces.

Date: 2005/12/15 15:23:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm so disappointed. So this means none of the observations I listed a few pages ago will ever get any kind of explanation, Bill? And I've been waiting all this time...

  How does this complaint follow from an analysis of my model? My reframing of the gravitational "force" has little to do with your observations, which will all be addressed in due time. Remember the analogy between my theory and the structure of proteins. I must address criticisms of the model's primary structure before tackling its predictions. Paradigm-shattering, nobel-level physics (with a Fields medal on the side) doesn't come easily, even for ectoplasmic folk.

Date: 2005/12/15 15:58:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
O.K. Dean, here's your chance. Please explain how:

 1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.

Date: 2005/12/16 03:44:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It's just impatience. Given that I posed my questions three weeks ago, I would have hoped we would have made some progress in answering them by now. But I guess given that we're overturning 500 years of physics, involving the work of uncounted thousands of scientists, it was unrealistic of me to anticipate answers in less than one lifetime.

 The hardest part of any journey is taking the first step. But I should have some more time in the upcoming week to flesh out my model. In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.  :D
Quote
Hence the disappointment. That, and the fact that Mr. C seems able repeatedly to make criticisms of your theory you've had difficulty answering.

 Can't have it both ways. If I'm having such "difficulty" answering Cogzoid, then I can't be expected to address other criticisms, now can I? But don't worry: I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............

Date: 2005/12/16 03:59:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Such simple questions, Dean, yet I'm still waiting for your reply. Why is that? And by the way, anyone's free to jump in with a relevant opinion. I know some of you gentlemen have degrees in math and statistics, and I'd like to profit from your expertise. Julie? Elsberry? Rosenhouse? Wein? Bueller?......Bueller?.......

Date: 2005/12/16 08:24:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
It appears that Dean's not going to defend his insinuations, so I guess it falls to the rest of y'all. Here are some interesting excerpts from John Derbyshire's new piece [all italics due to yours truly]:
Quote
Well, very interesting things are happening on the British (and European — but I'll stick with Britain) Far Right.  The most interesting is, they have dropped antisemitism.  On a word-association test with "Far Right," a lot of people — including, I think, most of my NR colleagues — would come up with "antisemitism" as a first response.  This is now seriously out of date.  In Britain, the old street-fighting, Jew-baiting National Front has morphed into a collar-and-tie party named the BNP — that is, British National Party.  Nick Griffin, the BNP head, has been conducting a purge of Stalinesque ruthlessness against the old antisemitic National Front types.  FrontPageMag's Robert Locke tells the story here.  All the BNP's xenophobic propaganda is now concentrated against Muslims.  Jews are OK, on the principle that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

(I note en passant that Jared Taylor, who runs the white-nationalist American Renaissance magazine and website, is way ahead of the game here.  For years Jared has been responding to questions about what he thinks of Jews with a cheery: “They look white to me!”)  

This stuff bears watching.  The Far Right may not be your cup of tea; but they're out there, and with intelligent leadership, a tailwind of economic disgruntlement, and the dawning realization among white people in the West that they have, by foolish policies, made themselves into a minority in their own countries, outfits like the BNP might very well become a great force in public affairs in the 21st century.

Quote
Israel has now pretty much given up on the Palestinians.  The path forward (or Forward) is one of consolidation:  establishing well-defined borders, marking them with impenetrable barriers, and leaving the Palestinians to do whatever they #### well please.  The implication here is that the West Bank Israeli settlements, those that can’t be incorporated within the borders, will have to be abandoned.  Sharon is not quite ready to say this out loud yet, but it’s implicit in everything he’s doing.  It’s quite a turnaround for Sharon, who once upon a time was Mister Settlements.  Israel doesn’t need a Mister Settlements, though, she needs a Mister Borders, and that’s where Sharon is positioning himself.

By the way, John refers to the White Nationalist movement as the "Looney Right", so I don't think he's very sympathetic to the likes of Taylor, either.
 And Mr. Dawbyshuh, sir, do watch out for those bright, cute, Hapa children, willya? I've been told that those "Jewish" and "Italian" kids get a little resentful at conspicuous displays of academic success. :(

Date: 2005/12/20 06:56:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I go away for a couple of days, and all #### breaks loose.... :D
Quote
You're no scientist if you don't know what a degree Kelvin is Paley Ghostey - you are more unsuprisingly more familiar with more American uses for the letter K of course. Who is your wizard by the way? Can you spot him by his sublime maths??
At least that explains your quoting of "White Nationalists" in support of your irrelevant rants:


    I don't know which is crazier: Morrie's attempts to discourage others from reading my musings by exhuming and displaying old threads from the poster's graveyard, or his Kabbalistic reworking of said posts, jokes, and quotes. Frankly, I thought that Manson's interveaving of the White Album, Revelation, and hippie agitprop would forever remain the standard-bearer of moonstruck Boomer lunacy, but the Yenta has cleared that bar in his flipflops, to mix a half-dozen metaphors (where are you when we need ya, k.e.?). Now, the early suggestion that I like to drag black people behind trucks was just tacky, but the Yenta's become more entertaining as his idee fixe has bloomed kudzu-like throughout the intellectual landscape, so I won't get too offended by his attempts to shut me up, especially when those efforts reveal more about him than they do about yours truly. By the way, here are some questions that he seems to have overlooked:
Quote
O.K. Dean, here's your chance. Please explain how:

1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.


 The floor is open, hoss.....

Date: 2005/12/20 07:52:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Since Jaroslaw Krzywinski has also published a paper entitled "Evolution of Mitochondrial and Ribosomal Gene Sequences in Anophelinae (Diptera: Culicidae): Implications for
Phylogeny Reconstruction" -which I have read - it is clear that he is an evloutionary biologist, and no supporter of ID or creationism.

 Which makes his conclusions even more interesting, of course.
Quote
Ambiguous wording suggests that Ghost of Paley has a paper published by Oxford journals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and shameless of Paley Ghostey to do this as a self-professed "Defender of the Truth".

 No, it's your sloppy and overwrought reading of my posts that causes this confusion. Say, does my quoting of an evo paper make me a closet evolutionist? It should, by your "reasoning".
Quote
Why then would his work attract the interest of an old racist like "Ghost of Paley"?

Well if you type "white" and "gene" into Google - then you'll pick up the paper in the top ten replies.

 
 Believe it or not, I followed the Yenta's advice here. I suggest that all lurkers do likewise, although their faith in the Yenta's reasoning skills might be tarnished thereby. By the way, was the Walrus really Paul, Dean? This being your area of expertise and all.....

Date: 2005/12/20 08:00:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
You forgot to paste your image on this thread, Dean. Now why would that be? It couldn't possibly be that you're afraid of losing another debate, could it?

Date: 2005/12/21 06:42:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
apart form this fun bit of quote mining which I think sums up the point:

 Quite frankly, this is no worse than your previous efforts; the honesty is a nice touch, however.
Quote
Can't be arsed .. not that there's a smashing new ruling to read Whiter Shade of Paley..

 Read your ruling, then. My questions aren't going anywhere. In the meantime, here's a quiz for the lurkers:

 What source really inspired Paley's use of "Master" and "Wizard"?

Hint #1: It was made into a movie that nerds love to quote

Hint #2:
Quote
How many times must I wait while you scramble after your foil?


  You have no one but yourselves to blame if you whiff on this one.....

Date: 2005/12/21 06:54:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Swoosh Wrote:
Quote
Hey, don't drag the Beatles into this.  I love the White album!  Its one of my 10 desert island discs, and the only Beatles album on it.   Perhaps its ironic in light of this discussion, but I chose the White Album precisely because of its musical range (read: diversity).

Yeah, the White Album's good, although I'm a Revolver and Abbey Road man myself. What are the others, starting with number nine, number nine.....

Date: 2005/12/21 08:37:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta sniveled:
Quote
Lurkers
Ghost of Paley is a barmey old racist and 'White Nationalist' that doesn't deserve the time of day. He is not here to talk about evolution or intelligent design, and in my opinion is ignoring the rules of the board.
Please ignore this troll in future.


 Lurkers, please notice the blantant smear tactics and attempts to have Paley silenced. And that nobody, not even Sir Wiggles, admonished the Yenta for stifling the free exchange of ideas.

A reminder from Jesus:
Quote
MT 7:1 Judge not, that ye may not be judged;
MT 7:2 for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.
MT 7:3 But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?
MT 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Allow [me], I will cast out the mote from thine eye; and behold, the beam is in thine eye?
MT 7:5 Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.

 Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

Date: 2005/12/21 09:14:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan

Cogzie! I hope you've almost recovered from surgery. Where would this thread be without you or Mr. Murphy nagging me for my lack of progress? :D
 To answer your question: No, I haven't given up. Think of me as Columbo (with you guys playing the Jack Cassidy role, of course). It's not that I try to be slow and obsessed with detail; it's just my nature. But like the detective, I hope to uncover the truth eventually.
 By the way, can you answer my last question? Surely someone around here knows.....

Date: 2005/12/22 07:57:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

Good to hear. Hey Murphy, I haven't forgotten about you. What's your legal opinion on the upcoming Kansas trial? And if the Dover case does get appealed, how do you think the Supremes will rule (other than with their usual iron fist, of course). I think the Supreme Court is up for grabs myself...

Date: 2005/12/22 08:46:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley


Cogzie, I think this one is most appropriate for you!


Quote
Quote  
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science.  Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator.  When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.  It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.


Well, in the words of Roger Penrose,

Quote
According to this procedure, (second quantization) try to pretend that the wavefunction Psi (Greek in the original) of some partice itself becomes an 'operator' 1


You are sort of correct here, but still confused. In the creation and anhilation operators to which I was referring the wavefunction does become an operator on itself. This is why I said "Wave function operaton", as opposed to "Wave function operator." Of course, evolutionists evade the implications of Creation, because, according to their ontology, it doesn't exist.


Quote
Quote  
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
Misunderstood, denied?  By whom?  Who do you think theorized spin, afterall?  I can make baseless claims, too.  Creationists eat babies.  Hitler was a geo-centrist.    

Quote  
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"?  If not, I'd love to hear your source.  And what are these non-material characteristics?  I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.


Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you  tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology. As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. Your sacastic remarks concerning Hitler and cannibalism provide unintended insight into the epistemological void that is evolutionism. You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa.  Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion. Read the works of Cornelius Van Til for more insight.

Quote

Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this?  Window glass slows down light, too.


Well, some BEC's, like quintessence, are far more effective. You can read this paper for more details. The equations governing the velocity of light in quintessence are similar. They will be coming shortly.


1--Penrose, Roger. 2005. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. The Road to Reality. p. 657

Date: 2005/12/22 08:54:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzie and all other interested parties can consult this book to grok the allusions 'master' and 'wizard' to which I occasionally refer.

Date: 2005/12/22 09:58:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Eric Murphy wrote:
It doesn't look like the Dover case will be appealed, given the stunning defeat handed to the defendants coupled with the changes in the Dover school board, but if it goes to the Third Circuit, it's hard to imagine how the district court decision would be overturned. Generally appellate courts defer to the trial courts on issues of fact and determinations of witness credibility, which means normally a case would be overturned on questions of law. Given judge Jones's laborious application of the tests set forth in Lemon, McLean, and Edwards, among others, there's not much room for maneuver for an appellate court. If the case did make it to the Supreme Court, which seems even more doubtful, I'd expect a 7-2 or 6-3 decision in favor of Plaintiffs, depending on the makeup of the court at the time.

Thanks for the legal opinion. 7-2 seems a little "optimistic" to me, but that's just ghostly intuition.
Quote
Alan Fox wrote:
Mr The Ghost of ¨Paley assures us
[he] ha[s]n't given up. And can we also expect your "gut to gamete" paper?

Sure. By the way, what's your definition of a racist, and why did you play the Yenta's silly game in the other thread? I expected a more level head from you, not to mention better reading comprehension. :D

Date: 2005/12/23 07:54:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Moderator(s), are you getting my messages? I think there's a glitch in the email system, and I don't know how else to reach you.

Date: 2005/12/23 09:25:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
They're probably still hung over from celebrating the Dover result, Bill. You could try emailing Reed Cartright at PT admin.

 Don't know if you're joking or not, but you're probably right in either case. Thanks.

Date: 2005/12/23 10:16:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Since I'm still not sure if there's a glitch in the email system, and since I won't be able to access the moderator's reply shortly, I grant permission to the moderators to delete any part of the Dean Morrison rebuttal they feel necessary; I just ask that they keep as much of the original message as possible. I appreciate whatever assistance they can provide. Thanks.

Date: 2005/12/24 04:56:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I tried to post a message to the PT board in the "What happens when the facts are stated" thread and it was blocked. An IM came back stating it was being witheld becuase it was "malcious" and immediately I tried to email the moderators and they have not replied. Is this some technical problem on your end?

If it is not a technical problem for either of us, and this post really was censored, I would like to know how it violated board policies. Would someone knowledgeable of these issues please respond.

Thank You,

The Ghost of Paley

Date: 2005/12/28 04:31:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
PT employs some automated routines to protect against spamming and improper commenting. Users may receive notice that includes the word "malicious" for the following reason:

* Attempting to enter a comment within a minimum timeout period from their last comment (prevents 'flooding';). This initiates an automatic IP ban.

This is a very common automatic option for a great many discussion board systems.


Thanks for the comment. By the way, I submitted a new comment, so the original post isn't needed any more.

Date: 2005/12/28 05:21:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If anyone asks me why I am such an ardent opponent of the "culteral renewal" "mob" then this will do as an opening - this is the future if we fail even once to oppose "the wedge". Forget the separation of church and state being lost, eventually these fanatics would strip everyone except "their" brand of Christian of all rights and legal defenses.

As many Muslims are trying to do in Europe. Ever read Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch or Jihad Watch? And how do you feel about Europe's attempt to ban "hate" (read:critical) speech against religion (read: Islam). The governments are clear that these restrictions apply only to Christians (read: white Christians). How's Theo Van Gogh doin', by the way? And what's that I hear about Dutch politicians and newspaper editors needing bodyguards all of a sudden? I'm not saying that all or even most Moslems are like this, but it doesn't matter. All it takes is a critical minority with a government looking the other way.

Date: 2005/12/28 05:28:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
By the way, Paleyland would give everyone the freedom to worship God, Allah, Odin, or nothing at all. But Paley's support of religious liberty does not render him soft-headed about other faiths, especially ones with too many extremists. Sorry.

Date: 2005/12/29 03:12:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
you must forgive Paley, he's a closet racist and doesn't even know it.

 Now there's a refutable charge. :D

 Don't mind the evos, Mr. Mahandi, they're just not used to logic, reason, and testable concepts.

 By the way, Sir Mousealot, I thought you said you were "done" with me. Oh, I'm sorry, that just applied to my arguments, not to sneaky well-poisoning. Well, you're free to take the Hyperion Test (as outlined in "A Modest Proposal") anytime you find convenient. Or tackle the Study That Dares Not Speak Its Name. Or find an optics expert for Nicky.....

Date: 2005/12/29 03:21:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Guys, I heartily recommend that you check out my latest reply to Mr. Brazeau in the Panderichthys thread (the PZ Myers thread with the drawing of the fish "arm"). Also, I've replied to the Yenta in the "This is what happens when the facts are fairly presented" thread. And Murphy/Cogzie, I haven't forgotten about you; next week I'll have access to a real computer.

Date: 2005/12/29 03:40:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
In the spirit of Christmas I'll forgive you barmy old racist: if I'd realised that you thought that the earth was the centre of the universe; and that the world was 6000 years old; I wouldn't have taunted you so much as you are obviously past help.

 And since you can't respond to (let alone refute) my arguments, what does that say about you?

Date: 2005/12/29 03:55:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Mahandi,
 What is your opinion of the Oriana Fallaci trial? Do you support her right to speak her mind?

Date: 2005/12/30 04:08:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I don't think it will, necessarily. My understanding of America doesn't really see whiteness and protestantism as essential elements. I think a lot of people who think of Americans as cornfed whitebread football players from Iowa are in the dying-off WWII generation. Of course, there may be a lot of opinion I'm not seeing. What do you think?

No, but the Judeo-Christian culture that made America great is absolutely essential to our collective well-being. Your use of "whitebread" demonstrates the success of red diaper brainwashing in our schools. Let's be honest here: almost all the religion, science, technology, architecture, art, culture, law, cuisine and everything else that make the U.S. and Europe worth living in is due to "whitebread" culture (with a huge assist from N.E. Asians and substantial input from India, of course). In fact, when "whitebread" culture so desires, it can compete in those fields dominated by other cultures. Look at boxing, MMA fighting, rap, and basketball: trivial fields, to be sure*, but "whitebread" culture has produced some first-rate contributors in these areas. But where, pray tell, is the non "whitebread" Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven outside of N.E. Asia or India? Nowhere. Which is why multicultural philosophy (and nations) lead to quotas, an unhealthy emphasis on pop culture, decadence, sleaze, speech codes, and violence.

1) 2+2 =4
2) When you abandon God and "whitebread" culture, you end up under the thumb of those who don't.
3) I hate Big Brother.

*Yes, I realise that many Americans and Europeans would argue with this; this is one reason that we'll all be speaking Mandarin in 50 years

Date: 2005/12/30 04:12:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And "Gut to Gametes" paper, Mr Paley.


 Thanks for the helpful reminder, Foxy. :)

Date: 2005/12/30 04:47:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
In fact, multiculturalism has a nifty way of dessicating all culture. Take African American culture, for example. Think about the Harlem Renaissance, Jazz, Blues, Gospel, Soul, etc. Certainly a fine contribution to any society, and all of it produced during "whitebread" cultural hegemony. Is it a coincidence that black culture jumped the shark during the ascendancy of multiculturalism? I suspect not. And I think Bill Cosby would agree.

Date: 2005/12/30 04:56:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
See the previous post. This is just a taste of what's in store for suspected thought criminals in our brave new world. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

Date: 2005/12/30 06:16:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Where have you been living, comrade? When did American black culture "jump the shark"? IMO it is just now starting to hit it's stride.


Ved, you have got to be kidding me. Yes, Black Gangsta culture and everything it entails is wildly popular internationally (especially among teenagers and the mentally feeble), but I'm talking about lasting contributions; you know, great works of art that don't age along with ya like Duke Ellington, Thelonius Monk, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Aretha Franklin etc. Not subliterate morons babbling red diaper politics into a microphone. ####, even blacks won't listen to rap that's more than a few years old. Try referencing Public Enemy and see how far you'll get. And yes, I've seen Tupac's "poetry" and it reads like the spoiled, angry rant of a not particularly bright 10 year old. If you seek real culture, hoss, look elsewhere......

Date: 2005/12/30 06:20:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Oh, and don't forget rock(and roll). There are relatively few black rock musicians, but the whole genre wouldn't exist if it weren't for white people co-opting all of the ground work that was laid as blues, jazz, etc.

When did I say otherwise? And where would blues and jazz be without whitebread technology and music?

Date: 2005/12/30 07:19:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the multiple posts; I'm working with the best technology I have. Let me support that last argument. Take Jazz, for example. Where do you think that Duke Ellington, John Coltrane and Miles Davis got many of their harmonic ideas? European classical musicians. Funny thing though, when blacks borrow from "whitebread" culture nobody complains, but let others borrow from blacks, and the libs whine like schoolkids. The popularity of modern Black culture masks its utter irrelevance to anything important. It produces very little of value in art, literature, architecture, science, law, philosophy, or religion. It doesn't produce a stable, well-ordered, mannerly society. ####, it doesn't even consistently produce world-class athleticism anymore; Eastern Europeans are beginning to take over boxing, the Olympics, and MMA. Our trash-talking Olympic basketball team couldn't even medal, casting doubt on the quality of our big three sports, and the success of "whitebread" athletes in the 400 and high jump (and the women's 100, not to mention China's victory in the hurdles) is shattering stereotypes at a (heh) world-record pace.
 If blacks and whites want to recapture their old glory, a liberal dose of Dr. Coz is very much in order.

Quote
B B King, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Junior Parker, Phil Lynott (I know, I know, could technically be classed as Irish), or how about Carlos Santana?

Yep, they're awesome, and did their best work before the multicultural revolution, just as I wrote.

Quote
Oh lord, a troll hath invaded my lovely thread. Be happy Wes doesn't provide thread authors here the ability to do maintenance, Paley, because I'd delete every worthless thing you wrote. Go away.


I have no doubt of that, and given the rate at which our liberties are withering, you just might get that chance one day. I wasn't trying to crash your party; I just thought you wanted a <cough> diverse range of opinions. But I'll withdraw from this thread. I do value your contributions, however, as well as Ved and Mr. Mahandi's. I'm looking forward to their responses, which promise to be very....exacting.

Date: 2005/12/30 07:47:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
In an earlier post you asked for a refutation of Jared Taylors "The Colour of Crime", please follow this link which questions the reliability of JT's analysis in light of questionable statistical practices -


 Thank you, Mr. Mahandi; already you're proving your value to this board. Yes, I've seen that criticism, as well as Tim Wise's thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, both sources are refuting the earler, less sophisticated version of the report. As the excerpts I've quoted on other threads make clear, Taylor did attempt to account for SES and profiling in the new edition, and still found a substantial discrepancy in crime rates. I also found evidence that poverty stricken whites outperform wealthy black students on the SAT, which would be hard to explain under the SES determinant model. Also, why do Asians commit fewer violent crimes than whites? I find this just as puzzling as Jared "Squeal like a pig!" Taylor does.  :D   I also find the critic's avoidance of Crime very troubling. But if you uncover any new critiques, let me know.

Date: 2005/12/30 07:53:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Interesting. I find that my dog gives me a cock-eyed look when I break into Japanese or Irish; of course, it might have to do with the quality of my speech, and not the language itself.   :(

Date: 2006/01/03 08:50:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta wrote:
Quote
I think you got you answer Shadey Paley

 Yes. And maybe some day it will involve the study I actually cited, not that I'm holding my breath.
Quote
but if you want more - my response is over here:

 Seen it, not impressed. Look, if you want me to come over and play, you'll have to do three things:

1) Answer these questions:
Quote
Please explain how:

1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.

2) Stop misrepresenting my political beliefs, i.e. that I support apartheid, white nationalism, or any legal code that discriminates against racial, religious, or ideological minorities. I do not, and have made myself perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't even support your Jim Crow affirmative action policies. You do know that quotas harm asians more than whites, nu? Don't make such a tsimmes out my opinions when your own beliefs encourage racial discrimination.
3)Retract your demonstably false charges that the KKK inspired my ideas.

Date: 2006/01/03 10:19:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Steve and MidnightVoice, the more I think about it, the more I'm forced to embrace your opinions. Pathetic little whitebread culture, so very useless, maybe it's time we chucked it overboard. What else can be done with a culture so helpless in math, physics, chemistry, medicine (who would ever take whitebread papers seriously?), economics, and literature. And the future is especially barren. And the less said about whitebread athletes, the better. And so many wimps! But what else could be expected? I think I'll see what's on TV.....

Date: 2006/01/03 10:25:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
And don't forget molecular biology and genetics. Thanks for the heads up, Midnight.

Date: 2006/01/04 08:44:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
I don't know, Bill. At your current rate of progress, I'm beginning to wonder if your Theory of Everything is really going to turn out to be a Theory of Nothing.

Check back Friday after 3 : 00. I should have something then.

MidnightVoice wrote:
Quote
Ignorance is bliss, oh uneducated one  

Where are my manners? Here's a more up-to-date source. And oh yeah, here's some microbiology on the side. Of course, whitebread culture is getting strong competition in physics, but more than holds its own in chemistry and math. For more depth, check this site. To see how countries rank, check here.

 Understand that I'm not denigrating the extensive contributions of other cultures. In fact, I suspect that we'll be seeing much more input from other civilisations as time passes. Just don't forget which culture laid the groundwork in most (all?) of the relevant fields. The truth is a bit different from what we see in the media, no? At least you now see why most movies and commercials put so much effort into portraying whites, Jews, and Asians as fools, criminals, and dweebs. As I've said before, the liberal mind truly loathes the successful.

Date: 2006/01/04 09:48:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sheikh Mahandi wrote:
Quote
I seem to recall a criticism of Jared Taylors statistics, which cited not only the use of flawed sampling to produce skewed results, but also the following basic failures of logic and reasoning -

 If Jared's statistics are flawed, blame the U.S. Department of Justice, because that's where most of his figures are coming from.
Quote
The statistics used deal with incarceration rates, rather than crime rates per se, thus - If blacks are more likely to be arrested, and if they are more likely to be convicted, and they receive longer sentences, then they will form a disproportionate segment of any prison population.

Yes, the profiling and sentencing bias argument. First, that premise is highly dubious (see my previous citations as well). Second, Jared uses victimisation studies like the NCVS to address part of this problem. Third, why should it be assumed that poverty is independent from culture? It seems to me that culture helps determine socioeconomic status. You can't test liberal models by assuming their truth a priori. Fourth, my major point is that these extra factors confound the original thesis, i.e. that religion causes crime. How can you test for one variable (religion) by introducing other variables (differences in racial and ethnic cultures, which are widely acknowledged by liberals when it suits them: "Boy those white people are so stiff, cold, devious, and boring. They really need to be more black!")?
  Look, any criminologist that did a study like Taylor's and came to the "wrong" conclusion would be sacked immediately, or shunned, assaulted and intimidated if he couldn't be fired. In many countries he would even be fined or imprisoned. Thus, people like Jared fill the void. I don't like it, but I didn't cause it, so I can only use what's available. Don't like Jared? Get in line; I don't care for him myself. But if you want to refute him, you'll have to address his real argument, or do your own analysis.

Date: 2006/01/04 09:57:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Just out of curiosity, do you know the ACLU's official position on gun control and the second amendment?

Date: 2006/01/04 10:02:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Russell said:
Quote
But is there a site somewhere where the Clousers and Heddles of this world respond to these?

Try here.

Date: 2006/01/05 08:44:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta Wrote:
Quote
- there you go Paley.. mixing up data and statistics.

I'm afraid the confusion is on your part, lad:
Quote
Descriptive statistics is a branch of statistics that denotes any of the many techniques used to summarize a set of data. In a sense, we are using the data on members of a set to describe the set. The techniques are commonly classified as:

Graphical description in which we use graphs to summarize data.
Tabular description in which we use tables to summarize data.
Summary statistics in which we calculate certain values to summarize data.
In general, statistical data can be described as a list of subjects or units and the data associated with each of them.

Quote
You meet the OED definition of a racist because of your clear statements that you would discriminate on grounds of race ( in the case of immigration to the US for example).

Ummm, Yenta, Northeast Asians are not a race, the Jews are not a race, East Indians are not a race: they are ethnic groups, and each group is concentrated in a particular nation: China, Japan, Korea, India, Israel. If I wanted to use racial classifications, I would have used the terms "Asian" and "Caucasian". Yet I avoided the broader racial categories, choosing to focus on nationalities instead. Why? Because each of these groups assimilate into Western society. Many of their racial cohorts do not.
Quote
You ran away from that challenge on the 'Pandas' site - so there it stands, unrefuted, and unrefutable - unless you are prepared to withdraw all the racist statements you have made?

 What racist statements? That some nationalities assimilate better into Western society? That some cultures are not suited to developed societies? If that's racist, then the truth is racist (shrug).
Quote
By the way - I'm not responsible for your 'Jim Crow Laws' affirmitive action or anything else - I'm a Brit remember.

Simple question: Is affirmative action racist? Please give a straight answer. And if it isn't, why not? If it is, then why aren't you jumping on American liberals?
Quote
If your jokes about the 'K^K' and 'wizards and masters' backfire on you - I'm not to blame.

You should be more embarrassed by the fact that you pretend to be a scientist yet you clearly didn't know what a 'degree Kelvin' was.

Still lying, I see.
Quote
1) As I mentioned before, the “Wizard” and “Master” stuff is borrowed from the book Princess Bride, not a terrorist organisation

2) I quote bunches of papers; I hardly need to stumble on one by typing in “White Gene” (which is a patently stupid search command anyway; really, Yenta, you can do better than this)

3) The K bit was started by MidnightVoice, not I. Besides, your methodology reeks. For example, it’s clear that you don’t believe in Neonazi philosophy, correct? On that we can be agreed, right? And yet on one of your picture posts I counted a total 14 typed words. Does this coincidence mean anything? No. But the “clue” is there anyway. So see, it’s very easy to uncover false positives by your method. This is how people can “find” De Vere’s hand in Shakespeare’s work.

 As for my "ignorance" of the degrees Kelvin issue, I'll let the lurkers decide.

Date: 2006/01/05 08:47:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Yes. And physics.

Date: 2006/01/06 04:54:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta Wrote:
Quote
.. by your logic you couldn't accuse the Nazis of 'racial discrimination' then - after all the Jews aren't a 'race' - they're an 'ethnic group'.


I suppose you're the kind of guy who likes to get the calipers out when he's making his racial judgements

You're the one who pulled out the dictionary, Yenta. Don't squeal when Uncle Paley administers a much-needed lesson.
Quote
Caucasian in particular is an American construct with about the same validity as Ayran. If you look at DNA everyone outside Africa is just one tribe.

Wrong again, not that it matters. See Figure 1.

And the lies keep on comin':
Quote
So it's absolutely flippin' crystal clear that you are a racist by your own definition - which is probabably why I scared you away from the Panda's thumb - if not go back and post there and refute what i said.

The only crystal I see is the crank yer smokin. From your own post:
Quote
See you in Na-na-ia since this thread is dead now.

You were the one encouraging me to leave the thread. Now you're claiming that I "ran" away because I followed your suggestion! Absolutely insane. But I've learned to lower my expectations when debating liberals. By the way, Yenta, you made a statement that proves that you read my explanation of the "Wizard" issue. Here it is:
Quote
In mitigation you are totally barmy, believing in: ‘intelligent design; that the universe revolves around the earth’; and that its a good idea to quote ‘white nationalists’ and the ‘Princess Bride’ in your defense.

This proves that you knew where the "Wizard" reference came from when you wrote
Quote
If your jokes about the 'K^K' and 'wizards and masters' backfire on you - I'm not to blame.

a few posts ago. Yet you didn't mention the explanation. I'm starting to catch on to the evo debating style; sorry for being slow: in mitigation, my teacher's a cretin.
Quote
And don't bother trying to 'correct' your posts here - I've saved a copy.

The only one trying to rewrite history is you. Class, what is the definition of "projection"?
Quote
From the room temp IQ thread ...


Quote  
By the way, while you guys are wallowing in your C-level IQ's, try to appreciate your correspondence with a member of the K community (the Master, the Master^2, and I'll let you take a stab at the third member).


'KKK' Larry

Technically, that's 'kkkk' when you incorporate the square symbol, which I obviously wouldn't have done unless I meant something else. Once again, I'll let the lurkers read the original context. For some reason, you never link to the original post. Hmmmmmm... why would that be?

 Oh, by the way, I saw your latest smear. Hey, be a man and confront me directly with your allegations in the future. And when are you going to answer my questions? Here they are:
Quote
Please explain how:

1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it.

Here's a few more:
Quote
Why shouldn’t I be allowed to cite a person, even if I don’t agree with him? You still haven’t answered that. Do you believe in Big Brother? And is John McWhorter a racist? Read his book Losing the Race; it takes contemporary black culture to task in very harsh terms. Is Michelle Malkin a racist? She shares many of my immigration and cultural concerns. According to liberal philosophy, white people can’t question their views because they’re “people of color”. Or should they have more liberty to speak their mind?

Here's another one:
Quote
Simple question: Is affirmative action racist? Please give a straight answer. And if it isn't, why not? If it is, then why aren't you jumping on American liberals?


Why can't you answer any of these questions, Yenta? It wouldn't be because liberal philosophy is incoherent, or that lies and slander are all liberals have to offer, would it?

Date: 2006/01/06 05:04:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I'm going to try and finish the new part today. My rough draft was deleted by accident, so it's going a little slower than normal. Eric, I'll try to answer at least one of your questions in this paper......

Date: 2006/01/06 05:16:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
You mean Dean's a scientist?

:0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0

Date: 2006/01/06 06:57:30, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
HAhahahahaha! Disgusting. Your "knowledge" of the "liberal mind" is as accurate as your understanding of the moon landings.

Thanks! Oh, that was meant to be an insult.

 My opinions on the liberal mindset could very well be wrong. Please understand, however, that they're not casually formed. I grew up in a very liberal neighborhood (yes, I'm a Southerner, but the neighborhood was Jewish), conversed with hundreds of liberals, read scores of books by and for liberals (favorite: Gore Vidal - great essays and fiction, although he has a problem with characterization), and, as previously noted, am a recovered one. Liberalism truly is a mental illness: it prevents its adherents from noticing the simplest things, or grasping the most declarative of sentences. I hope that one day you experience the fulfillment in leaving the Cargo Cult behind. Obviously, I can't speak for all conservatives, but I feel that I've reclaimed my humanity, as well as my rich, deep pitch (the result of inner confidence. That's why liberals often sound strangled without their voice coaches). I just couldn't see six fingers on demand any more.  ;)

Must..... continue.......with paper..............

Date: 2006/01/06 10:00:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta dithered:
Quote
Paley you're a racist - your own words prove it.

 Once again: Is English your first language? Or is my American dialect giving you problems? You seem to be amazingly tone deaf for a native speaker.
Quote
Look at the dates of my posts on Panda's thumb mate - you ran away for a whole week - I posted three times before you came back with one of your obscure insults. I the end I gave up on you - the thread was only dead because you were scared away.

  Careful, Yenta, you are crossing the Hyperion radius of rationality, and I'm having difficulty processing your rants......follow the light at the end of the tunnel before it's too late!!  :D
Quote
Based on your posts at the Panda's Thumb, and here,
you are a racist - plain and simple.

If you say so. Of course I could follow your reasoning better if you would answer a couple of questions....do I need to post them again?
Quote
You might want to rationalise that you aren't on the basis that you would discriminate by 'ethnic group' rather than 'race'  - and that only make you a 'twit' and a racist.

 Good, you're back in focus; I actually understand this complaint. Let's get one thing straight: Strict immigration policies are not discrimination. Discrimination applies once you become a citizen. If I advocated Jim Crow laws (as J. Taylor and the liberals do), your charge would have merit, but nobody has a divine right to become a citizen of any country he likes. Try emigrating to Japan, India, America, Canada, Mexico or any African country: you'll see that they don't just let anyone in, and yes, culture plays a big part on who gets in. As well as nationality and race. But please don't take my word for it; investigate the matter yourself.
Quote
Paley - you said that the 'Wizards and Masters reference was from the 'Princess Bride' - since I've never read it ( isn't it a little girls book?) - I took your word for it.

Ummm, no you didn't. You pretended that the explanation didn't exist, and repeated your (rather nutty) allegation. You lied, in other words. And no, the book is for adults, which means that it's much too advanced for you. Try the movie instead.
Quote
You still haven't expained the KKK or KKKK reference - what was all that about?

:0  :(  ???  :D

Sorry, had to collect myself. Let me try again.

There are three basic units of temperature (note the qualification): Celcius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin. Let's say you encounter someone with an I.Q. of 75; we'll give him the initials D.M. You wish to insult his intellect in a colorful way. What to do? Ahhhhh... use the old "room temperature" cliche. Problem: the reference assumes a Fahrenheit temperature scale, as the equivalent Celcius measure - around 24 Degrees - would be too low, while the Kelvin temperature - 297 degrees - is way too high. MidnightVoice pointed out the ambiguity, and I took an opportunity to praise The Master, the Wizard (whom I referred to as Master^2), and.......myself. The K's indicate stratospheric IQs; the C's, evo IQs. And that's all there is to it. If I had praised anyone else up to that point, I would have included them; but I hadn't, so I didn't.
Quote
Seems an odd coincidence to me that a self-avowed racist should reference from 'White Nationalists' - and then talk about 'Wizards and Masters' - and KK or KKK or KKKK for some as yet unexplained reason - purely by accident?

And yet you won't give it up. I really wish I had the literary talent you credit me with - I would be very rich. But that's what you get for using a crappy methodology.
Quote
I frankly don't care about American Liberals, the obscure commentators you quote - or what a 'Yenta' is - (you still haven't told me).

"Yenta" is a yiddish term for a coarse, gossipy woman.
Quote
I am pleased to have run one 'Good Old Boy' redneck racist out of town!

 For a nonprejudiced sort, you do like your stereotypes. But I guess some forms of bigotry are O.K., if you have the right beliefs....
Quote
You post as 'Ghost of Paley' on the PT again -and all I have to do is point here - or to the PT thread.

Is this how Darwinists conduct debates? I thought it was about the quality of a man's arguments. Boy, was I misled.
Quote
So you'll have to think up a new alter ego now chum - and as soon as you start spouting the same old nonsense - I'll run you out of town again - your daft racist and astronomical views are absolutely trademark - as is your pretending to be a 'self-taught' expert on matters where you are essentially clueless ( a tip mate - get a better teacher).

I don't quite grasp this sentence. Let us try the next.
Quote
There are other little 'giveaways' you have - but I'll let you try to work out what those are...

 Wow, clues so dubious they don't make the Yenta's cut. Can't wait.
Quote
So bugger off to 'Paleys World' - or why not try 'Unearthly Descent' - I hear the living dead walk the earth there -

- see you back in your next re-incarnation on Panda's Thumb.

Mods willing, I plan on sticking around. Lucky you.
Quote
You racist.

####, I lost the office pool. And me with all my liberal experience.......

Date: 2006/01/06 10:07:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What are your views on meteor showers (snigger) 'Paley' (snigger)?

hhmmm??


 Can someone help me out with this joke? I assume it's an effort to link me with Larry's (alleged) holocaust denial, or Larry in general. But with the Yenta, one can never be sure.....

Date: 2006/01/06 10:16:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I've noticed the way you go back to edit your own posts when your foolishness has been pointed out.

I don't remember editing a post for anything other than a typo. I certainly haven't attempted to cover anything up. Which post(s) are you talking about? And why can't you answer any of my questions?

Date: 2006/01/07 07:54:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Oh pleeeaaaseee.....

 Well, I think I've found what I wanted. Thanks for the spelling tip; when you have actual arguments to add to that, let me know. Cogzoid and Fox offer sound advice worth following. To Mr. Murphy and Cogzoid, I've saved my new draft on two disks, so you'll get your paper Monday (can't post it now). Mr. Fox: Be patient and I'll see what I can do. Mr. Morrison: I suggest you head to the Sherdog Forums - the people there seem more your speed. I'm sorry I broke your brain - come back when you get it patched up, old chap..... :)

Date: 2006/01/07 07:58:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
We've finally reached a point of agreement. Check back Monday - I won't let you down.

Date: 2006/01/08 09:50:56, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'll happily check your paper for spelling and English , Paley - but if you want it peer-reviewed you'd better find a moron like Larry.
I assume that won't be so hard to do?

Naaw, not when there are fine, upstanding scientists such as Ken Millar available. Do you really think I'm Larry? Wow, you are clueless - no surprise, I guess......

Date: 2006/01/08 10:23:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
How strong is the scientific evidence supporting each of the following statements? Please score each statement on a scale from 1 (there is no scientific support for this statement whatsoever) to 4 (there is moderate scientific support for this statement) to 7 (the scientific support for this statement is overwhelmingly strong).


1) Living organisms arose from non-living matter by a purely natural mechanism that is well understood.
Don't know enough to say. 2 sounds fine.

2) All organisms alive today share common ancestry at some time in the remote past.
4.5. Stong lines of evidence for some organisms, but they disagree too often.

3) All organisms alive today reached their modern form as a result of mechanisms that are well understood by science (e.g., mutation, natural selection, drift, and the other elements in the modern theory of evolution).
5. Gene duplication, frameshift mutations, and point mutations are increasingly well understood. But how does it all add up?

4) Supernatural intervention has played no role in the development of living organisms as we see them today.
1.5 See the Wizard's latest.

5) Supernatural forces are not required to account for the development of living organisms as we see them today.
1.5. See above.

6) Human beings are related to other species.
5.5 The molecular, fossil, and morphological evidence match up pretty well here. Too bad some of us are way smarter than evolution predicts.

7) The physical form and behavior of human beings have been shaped by natural selection.
2.5, to be generous. Some evidence of positive selection for a handful of genes; too many just-so stories.

8) Supernatural intervention played no role in the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
Are you kidding me? 1 all the way, baby.

9) Supernatural forces are not required to account for human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
See 8).

10) Natural selection is responsible for the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
Natural selection did play a role in the development of civilizations, so 3 I guess.

Ghost of Paley

Future Fields Medal winner and Nobel prize candidate. :D

Date: 2006/01/09 07:26:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
As mentioned in previous essays, quintessence has the properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate and can thereby retard the velocity of light. In addition, since anything traveling in the quintessence medium can phase in and out of higher dimensions, this will explain the phenomenon of gravitational “lensing”.

The equation governing the group velocity of an electromagnetic pulse through a medium(1) is:









.


where c is the speed of light, omega is the pulse frequency, and n is the index of refraction. This equation can be used to describe the velocity of a laser through a Bose-Einstein condensate. Now, I suspect that Darwinists will maintain that even if this condensate exists, it will not slow starlight uniformly because starlight is not a laser, but rather a distribution of frequencies. This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.  This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2), or:



Since the frequency goes unchanged, it follows that the second term in the denominator of equation (1) equals zero. This suggests that light travels through quintessence space with the velocity of  

 
m/s

Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance.  To repeat for the thick-headed, the sphere of the fixed stars is not exactly of uniform thickness, and these differences produce the illusions alluded to in this paragraph.

Now, the illusion of gravitational lensing is also explained by the multidimensional properties of quintessence. This comes from the fact that light is occasionally reflected across a mirror in higher-dimensional space and reflected back again, creating a second ghost image indistinguishable from the first.

1 Light speed reduction

2
Authoritative source

Date: 2006/01/09 07:33:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Note to nutters: I edited the last post to remove a typo, changing "feflected" to "reflected".

Date: 2006/01/09 08:12:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
From now on I'm going to ignore the Yenta's slander, but since he intends to poison the well:
Quote
I am pleased to have run one 'Good Old Boy' redneck racist out of town!

You post as 'Ghost of Paley' on the PT again -and all I have to do is point here - or to the PT thread.

So you'll have to think up a new alter ego now chum - and as soon as you start spouting the same old nonsense - I'll run you out of town again - your daft racist and astronomical views are absolutely trademark - as is your pretending to be a 'self-taught' expert on matters where you are essentially clueless ( a tip mate - get a better teacher).

and in fact has already done so after making this threat, I feel that a generic response is called for.

1)  A good starting point that outlines my political philosophy.

2)  Two defenses of my position. (Scroll down to see Dean's false accusation that I am Larry Fafarman, whom Dean accuses of Holocaust denial.)

3)  Proof of Dean's lies.

4)  Some opinions of Dean's posts.

In short, the reader should treat Dean's opinions with extreme skepticism before endorsing them.

Date: 2006/01/09 08:18:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Dean is lying again.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:21:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I should just ignore it Mr P. OTOH any progress on the Gut to Gametes paper?


On the subject of lateral gene transfer, it is important to realize the only evidence organisms have genes in common with other organisms is the fact that when you take some biological material from an organism--sometimes whipped through a centrifuge, somethimes not-- and run it through the gel electrophoresis gauntlet you have occasional similarities in which lanes win this electrostatic race. Who knows what this means. I could make one sample out of spit and the other out of pee and write one paper "proving" my kinship to monkeys and another "proving" my kinship to E. coli. What makes organisms "similar" in this sense is that we eat each other. Molecular fragments from ingestion can easily end up in the samples used for the static shock Nascar circuit. This is why anybody can construct any phylogenic tree he wishes based on whatever presuppositions tickle his fancy. Yeah Darwinists! Paley has exposed your tea-leaf reading charade for all the world to see!

Date: 2006/01/09 10:31:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Here is a picture of this popular evolutionists' toy that allegedly "proves" their molecoles-to-man theory. Biological material is dissolved in colored goo and then electrodes are placed at each end of the apparatus and they have a race. The winner is in the one with the lowest mass-to-charge ratio.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:45:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
You should check your links too, Mr. P, i am not sure if anyone else has a Panthercard for Georgia State Uni. I don't


I'm sorry. Here is the Citation:

Title: Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. (cover story)
Subject(s): ATOMS; BOSE-Einstein condensation; COOLING; LIGHT -- Speed; LOW temperature research; MENSURATION; QUANTUM optics
Author(s): Hau, Lene Vestergaard; Harris, S.E.; Dutton, Zachary; Behroozi, Cyrus H.
Source: Nature, 2/18/99, Vol. 397 Issue 6720, p594, 5p, 4 graphs, 3bw
Abstract: Describes the use of sodium atoms at nanokelvin temperatures to observe light pulses travelling at velocities of only 17 meters per second. Process of loading and cooling atoms; Question of whether the atom cloud remains in the Bose-Einstein condensed state during the interaction with the probe; Proposal that with some technical improvements still lower velocities can be achieved; Observation of large optical non-linearities, in the form of an intensity-dependent refractive index.
AN: 1568994
ISSN: 0028-0836


Unfortunately, you will have to pay for this if you don't have access to a University library with a subscription.

Date: 2006/01/09 10:49:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Alan Fox wrote:
Quote
hope this is a rough draught, Mr P. Such unscholarly language may not be appreciated at peer review. i recall you suggested that DNA from ingested organisms could enter the germ line of the consuming (multicellular) organism. Now you seem to be suggesting that lab work is fraudulent. So far, I'm  disappointed. There must be more. Please take time to collect your thoughts.

 Just some premature celebration; sorry again for the bad link. The failure of evo theory in no way impacts on my original hypothesis, which remains absolutely solid, and crucially depends on modern research into the immune system. You won't be disappointed, only frustrated that it took an outsider to put it all together.

Date: 2006/01/09 11:03:04, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
By the way, finding a possible source of contamination in trad evo research is but one prong of my theory, which does not rely on evo mistakes to make its case. My work's multifaceted nature resists facile pigeonholing. Much more later.

Date: 2006/01/09 11:19:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Inspired by our debate (not that he'd ever admit it), John Derbyshire has waded in with an opinion on Secular vs. Religious societies, as well as other topics. Worth reading.

Date: 2006/01/09 14:12:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
a point of English Paley - that would be libel not slander ...

Legally it would be neither. In America, proving libel is considerably more difficult than in Great Britain, which you would know if you shut yer gums and picked up a book once in a while. Tell me Yenta, is there a single branch of human knowledge you're not ignorant in? Just for the record.  :p

Date: 2006/01/09 14:39:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
While the Yenta is busy researching American defamation law, I thought a little quote would help pass the time.
Quote
"Libel", "slander", and "defamation" are commonly used as synonyms in ordinary language, at least in Britain and Ireland. However, those jurisdictions that distinguish "libel" and "slander" as legal concepts do so on the following broad basis: defamatory communication in writing is termed "libel" while one made via the spoken word is termed "slander".

Class, define the term "ordinary language". For extra credit, write an essay on the type of education it would take to produce a man ignorant about word usage in his own language.
Yenta, if you can't find the information, please let me know and I'll help you. Hint: six points must usually be established, even for private individuals.

Class, do you think I could drop a few pounds?

Date: 2006/01/09 15:01:44, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
now you see it wouldn't be slander Paley - because I wrote it down.

See the wikipedia source. I was clearly using the vernacular meaning. We can argue "point-of-publication" issues and their applicability to the Internet if you'd like, but your statements are clearly not libelous by American standards (but not for the reason you think). So no matter how you look at it, you're wrong. You lose - again.

Hurts to be out-argued by a "redneck", don't it? My, what will your students think?

Date: 2006/01/09 15:16:03, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
My, aren't you a fast typist?
Quote
I don't know when you became an 'common British person'? - what Wikipedia doesn't really explain that mixing up 'Slander' and 'libel' is a common mistake of the uneducated in both countries - rather like mixing up 'lend' and 'borrow'.

Once again, you whipped out the dictionary, not me. Don't get upset when I prove that English is not your strong suit. And you really need to brush up on linguistics while you're at it - there are no such things as "bad" dialects. See, you shoulda read McWhorter like I told you.............
Quote
Since you hide behind a pseudonym I guess you wouldn't be protected anyway - although it might make for an interesting piece of case law.

I have to agree here. But since your statements don't constitute libel anyway, I guess we'll have to remain ignernt. I ain't the suin' type noways. :D
Quote
Do you consider yourself to be some kind of lawyer by the way Paley???

Nope. And I'm not a professional card player either. But I know when someone's been dealing from the bottom of the deck.................
Quote
'out-argued' ? now this really is a dreadful concoction -

If you click on the link, all will be revealed...........

Date: 2006/01/09 15:24:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Please don't tell me you're not a teacher....how disappointing! All this time I was relishing the thought of making you look like a jackass in front of your own students. Almost like this guy.

Date: 2006/01/09 15:40:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I didn't say that there were such things as bad dialects - I slip between Devonian, Scouse and Scots myself.

Contrast this with:
Quote
don't know when you became an 'common British person'? - what Wikipedia doesn't really explain that mixing up 'Slander' and 'libel' is a common mistake of the uneducated in both countries - rather like mixing up 'lend' and 'borrow'.
Or saying 'I'll learn you a lesson'!
Common maybe - good English? I think not.

Geez, Yenta, try to make it a little more difficult, or else suspicious types will think you're my publicist. :D
Quote
However when I come across a supposedly educated person like yourself it dissapoints me to see you making such an elementary error.

Contrast this with:
Quote
I did offer to correct the English in your 'paper'.

It's "disappoints", Yenta. Perhaps we both need tutoring in that most difficult of languages (known as "good English" in the vernacular).

Date: 2006/01/09 15:49:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'm more of a fan of Mrs Henn myself:

Thanks for the link; I'll have to read it later. Well I'm off now - have your way with me if you must. But before taking too many liberties, just remember:

Your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower.

:D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/01/11 05:10:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Should I just come back in, say, 2026?

I'm planning on refining the redshift part of the theory, and I'd like your input on the proposed physical consequences (I already have Cogzie to quibble over the math  :) ). I agree that it would be couterproductive to develop a global theory before examining certain aspects of the model, so I'm going to stick with one piece for now. Hopefully this will restore your confidence. :D
Quote
Also, at risk of completely derailing a discourse that's already essentially plunged into the gorge, I suggest you give Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" a read. I think Mr. Diamond has some rather compelling ideas about the relative technological prowess of various cultures and why they might be that way.

Yes, this is an excellent book that occupies a prominent place on my bookshelf. In fact, if you want to discuss it further, one of us can create a new thread. Three things to remember:
1) I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy.
2) Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like.
3) Unfortunately, parts of his argument actually strengthen the position of white supremacists.

 I'll be happy to elaborate in another thread.

Julie Stahlhut wrote:
Quote
Wow!  Now I'm eager to get my hands on that cool multicolored gel-loading dye.  The stuff we use in my lab just separates into two comparatively boring shades of blue.

Would you comment on my "guts to gamete" paper when I present it? If you have time, of course.

Date: 2006/01/11 06:12:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
stevestory wrote:
Quote
ahahahhahahaaha. I know wes doesn't like bad language, but there's no other way to say this. DaveScot is a dipshit.

Mr. Story, I'm just a dumb hillbilly who needs sharpies like you to keep me straight, but I sense a tension between your dislike of DaveScot's high-handed ways and this statement:
Quote
Oh lord, a troll hath invaded my lovely thread. Be happy Wes doesn't provide thread authors here the ability to do maintenance, Paley, because I'd delete every worthless thing you wrote. Go away.

I also seem to remember another poster threatening to run "rednecks" off the board whenever they caused trouble (i.e. by arguing hard-to-refute positions), and then repeatedly posting offensive cartoons next to one "redneck's" posts. With only three posters complaining. In evo land, all people are equal - but some are more equal than others, ah guess.  :D

Date: 2006/01/11 06:32:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Mr P. I think you can be assured of many comments when the moment arises. My breath is well and truly bated

Oh yes, I know you'll have plenty to say, and I anticipate your response. But something tells me that Ms. Stahlhut would also like to reply, and I just wanted to make it clear that anyone's free to jump in (Ms. Smith, are you listening? I recall that your specialty involves immunology - don't be shy).  :D

Date: 2006/01/11 06:49:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Wow, Yenta, a man of your talents deserves an ambassadorship. Perhaps you can bridge the much-needed gap between Evilutionism and hillbilly culture. You mighta orta keep your ebonics in the suitcase though: some black Amuricans could resent your interpretation of their dialect.  :D  Ah'm jest sayin'......(hillbilly fer "Something to consider, my good man.")

Oh yeah, has Tara found a date for you yet?

Date: 2006/01/11 06:58:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Alan Fox said:
Quote
You're still posting, Mr P.

That's true; gotta give credit where credit's due. God bless the Wes!*



*As well as the other mods.

Date: 2006/01/11 08:17:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Scroll down to the first Jan. 9th post to see why the Yenta's lying (again).

Date: 2006/01/11 08:53:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
This should definitely go in a new thread, but at even greater risk to life and limb of the train passengers, I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist."

O.K., I'll start a new thread. Actually, this book deserves its own space for many reasons, not the least being the author himself (who's an evo biologist). I don't even mind if others jump in. But it's your call here.

Date: 2006/01/11 09:11:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Paley's position:
Quote
Yes, this is an excellent book that occupies a prominent place on my bookshelf. In fact, if you want to discuss it further, one of us can create a new thread. Three things to remember:
1) I am not a racist, so most of his arguments are irrelevant to my political philosophy.
2) Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like.
3) Unfortunately, parts of his argument actually strengthen the position of white supremacists.

Eric Murphy's reply:
Quote
I do want to take issue with your claim that Dr. Diamond is a "racist." By any conventional use of the term, he most certainly is not a racist.

Quote
Diamond himself is very aware of how his dicussion of race and culture can be misinterpreted by those with a desire to misinterpret, and he says so in the book. But the truth of the matter is that a dispassionate reading of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" will provide no comfort to those who think that any particular race has any intellectual advantage over any other race, nor to those who think that any particular civilization's successes are due to the inherent superiority of its members.

Here's the book we're discussing.

Opinions?

Date: 2006/01/11 10:05:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid wrote:
Quote
Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.

Hey, give Eric some credit: he's forcing me to dwell on one aspect of my model at a time, which improves everyone's focus. And I've been working on a reply to you. But my mind is modular, so our side debate over G,G, and S doesn't really slow me down - it just goes in a different box; in fact, it may speed up my reply since I can let my subconscious (or whatever) take over.

Date: 2006/01/11 10:09:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Heh, I assume Mr. Murphy's working hard on his opening...............

Date: 2006/01/11 10:45:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
2) Just like his namesake, Mr. Diamond is a racist. He clearly advocates black supremacy in the prologue. I'll be happy to quote the relevant bits if you'd like.


From pages 20-1 of the book:
Quote
It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct.....[he spends the next three paragraphs justifying this assertion, then concludes with]....That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up...Why is it that Europeans, despite their likely genetic disadvantage and (in modern times) their undoubted developmental disadvantage, ended up with much more of the cargo?"

Quote
3) Unfortunately, parts of his argument actually strengthen the position of white supremacists.

I'll support this later, but I want to give Eric a chance to respond.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:44:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliott wrote:
Quote
What is "afirmative action"?
Would I be right in guessing that it is similar to what is known as "positive discrimination" in the UK?

Yes. Affirmative action is a nice word for quotas. I know the lawyers here will jump all over me for that, citing many cases that make subtle differences between the two, but as the great American writer Bill James said, "If you look at a woman that hard, she'll punch your lights out."

Sir Toejam wrote:
Quote
and, no, i don't believe affirmative action was ever meant to be racist (or reverse-racist), regardless of how the policy may have been abused in some circumstances.

I have to disagree here. This timeline implies otherwise, despite Hubert Humphrey's empty promises.
Quote
Senator Humphrey responded that if the Act sanctioned quotas, he would "start eating the pages one after the other...." "Nothing contained in [Title VII]," Humphrey continued, "shall be interpreted to require any employer to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of race...on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons employed...in comparison with the available work force."4

ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Given the imbalance in the opportunities afforded most African Americans in society, the intent of Affirmative Action is to offset some of that imbalance. It's difficult for me to sympathize with the occasional American of European descent who may have lost out in a bid for a well-paying job to an African American when I see the relative economic success of African Americans as compared to European Americans.

I suspect it's more than "occasional". And Asian-Americans are probably hurt even worse. Why should they suffer for something they weren't responsible for, even collectively?

Date: 2006/01/11 12:58:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
And if you think that African Americans have suffered in the marketplace because they are genetically less fit for the marketplace than European Americans, I'm afraid that makes you a racist by any rational meaning of the term.

Why should a lack of ethnic representation in a certain sector be interpreted as either "institutionalized racism" or "inferior" genes? Why couldn't culture play a role? And if a numerical discrepancy is evidence for racism, does that mean that whites are discriminated against in sports, heterosexuals in the fashion world, and Gentiles in just about any intellectual profession you could name? In fact, this is the real reason so many middle-class blacks are antisemitic: they take this type of logic to its natural conclusion. This is one of the ways in which liberal philosophy encourages hatred (in my opinion).

Date: 2006/01/11 13:04:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Ignore Dean; he's a proven liar. See the first Jan. 9 post.

Date: 2006/01/11 13:09:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
stevestory wrote:
Quote
I would delete everything you wrote.

Why everything? Or even most of it?

Date: 2006/01/11 13:56:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Okay, here's why Dr. Diamond is not a racist: regardless of whether he believes that New Guineans are genetically superior in some sense to other races, he is not advocating that New Guineans be given any extra privileges as a result of any purported superiority, nor that other races should be discriminated against based on even provable deficiencies, if any there are.

I have to admit, he sounds like a racist in my book. But it's true that he doesn't advocate Jim Crow laws, so by your definiton he wouldn't be one. Of course, his political philosophy doesn't affect the strength of his argument, so his book must be judged on its own terms. I just think it's funny that he spends 400+ pages refuting one type of racism when he's so quick to embrace another (in my opinion). Unfortunately, racists are now using his argument to buttress their own beliefs: some now claim that the differences in climate, flora, and geography were the selective pressures that drove the selection for white people's "superior" intellect. And now, of course, they have studies to quote-mine for all they're worth. If Mr. Diamond complains, they can just quote his prologue. But all is not lost yet, there are plenty of genetic studies to come, and I think that the Flynn Effect will be writ in DNA. Not that it matters; Jim Crow is wrong no matter what.

Date: 2006/01/11 14:46:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
If it were more than "occasional," we'd see the proportion of African American management professionals approach their proportion of the population at large -- regardless of whether you think African Americans are as qualified for those positions as European Americans. Since that's hardly the case, I think we can rest assured that such cases are, indeed, "occasional."

I don't know about management professionals, but when the California University system banned Affirmative Action preferences, black and hispanic admissions declined dramatically. California's experience is pretty typical. I can't recommend Losing the Race highly enough; it's clear that many minority students had no business being in Berkeley. And graduating from top-flight schools is an important step for any management professional.
Quote
You don't need to look at the statistics to see that institutionalized racism is a fact of life in America; all you need to do is watch television or look at recent historical events such as the Matthew Sheppard case in Massachusetts in the late 1980s.

I'm not trying to be snide (really), but we must have completely different cable packages. I don't watch much TV (and I'm sure you don't either), but what I do see shocks me in its antiwhite bias. I mean, every second commercial portrays white men as nitwits, and crime dramas are awash in white thuggery. Sorry, Eric, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you really have to clarify this. And even though gay bashing still goes on, I've noticed that Hollywood and Madison Avenue are creating programs and commercials that target gay people. It sure seems like attitudes are quickly changing, and this is supported by the people I talk to. Isn't there a poster here who's openly gay? He might have some insights worth sharing.......
Quote
That said, it's definitely true that culture can play a role. But, at least in the case of African Americans, the cultural argument supports my case. What happened to African American culture? It was systematically eradicated in the 18th and 19th centuries. What kind of "culture" are African Americans heir to? They've been forced to come up with their own culture sua sponte in a matter of a few generations, rather than the millenia European Americans or Asian Americans can look to for cultural cues.

You've got a point there, but is A.A. the best way to remedy this problem? I know it's been said many times, but I think A.A. devalues minority achievement. And wasn't all this supposed to be temporary?
Quote
Should African Americans' lack of an authentic, indigenous, deeply-rooted culture be held against them? What do you think?

Not entirely, perhaps. But it's been about 40 years now under A.A. and in some ways Black culture is getting even more decadent. Single-parent households and out-of-wedlock birth have exploded since the mid-sixties, and a depressing amount of black youth in stable two-parent homes are embracing gangsta culture. Not that I'm letting white culture off the hook: we're experiencing the same &^%%ing trends. Look at the white youth in Great Britain - "lad" culture and hooliganism are taking over. School performance continues to decline, and for our schools - well, 'nuff said.

Date: 2006/01/11 14:53:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Whoops - just caught an error. McWhorter's anecdotes involve Stanford students, not Berkeley ones. Which is even worse, in my opinion.

Date: 2006/01/12 04:28:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Russell wrote:
Quote
I guess I'm going to have to get out my copy of "Guns, Germs and Steel" to figure out why affirmative action is central to the discussion of it.

Don't bother - Diamond doesn't focus on it (or even bring it up I think). But this statement is highly relevant in my opinion:
Quote
Unfortunately, racists are now using his argument to buttress their own beliefs: some now claim that the differences in climate, flora, and geography were the selective pressures that drove the selection for white people's "superior" intellect. And now, of course, they have studies to quote-mine for all they're worth. If Mr. Diamond complains, they can just quote his prologue.

Do you think that Diamond made a tactical blunder?

Date: 2006/01/12 04:41:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint, you stated the central dilemma better than I ever could. I for one enjoy reading your posts. Like Eric, you must scribble for a living.

Date: 2006/01/12 05:22:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Why ban everything Paley said? a very weak quality control of banning loquacious creationists.

But what if those "loquacious" rascals present different arguments and back up what they say with links? I try to rebut the best arguments against my position when I have time, and the only points I rehash are those that have been ducked by evos. I don't deny that some creationists are as you describe, but so are a lot of evos. Personally, I think the mods do a good job. (shrug).

Date: 2006/01/12 05:57:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I guess that depends on what you assume is his strategic goal.  What do you assume that is?

To refute biological arguments that try to account for civilisational differences between racial groups. An admirable goal, but Diamond's execution has problems.

Date: 2006/01/12 11:27:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Wow! Does this thread have good writing or what? Sorta like a transcript of the Vidal/Buckley debate, without the physical threats of course.... :D
Just a few observations:
Quote
Offspring of European-Asian breeding look like the non-European.

Not necessarily true.


The latter image in particular has undergone intense scientific scrutiny. :)
Quote
But there's a book I think you'd find pretty interesting. It was written by Kevin Phillips, an economist who worked for the Nixon administration. It's called "Wealth and Democracy: a Political History of the American Rich." He makes a pretty persuasive argument that the very programs conservatives decry are the ones which have done the most to better the lives of most Americans.

I'll take a look, but to be honest, most of the research I've seen has indicated that A.A. and Great Society programs have been failures.

Date: 2006/01/12 13:28:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Alan Fox wrote:
Quote
You're not letting your "intense scientific scrutiny" distract you from adding the finishing touches to your "gut to gametes" paper, now, are you? One can only bate one's breath for so long, you know.

Let's see....first there's Cogzie, then there's Mr. "I ain't no doctor yet" Brazeau, so let's say......two weeks. If you've been waiting this long, you can wait a little longer. This way, you're learning the virtues of patience along with biology. I like to give full value.

Date: 2006/01/14 08:28:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
I reject Jensen's analysis basically for two reasons: first, I don't WANT him to be correct. And second, I think his measurement tools are problematic and indirect, and find Gould's The Mismeasure of Man persuasive.

While I agree that Jensen's hypothesis suffers from significant flaws, I'd be careful about giving too much credence to Mismeasure. Some psychologists argue that Gould's book shuns scientific analysis in favor of polemicism, and regard his book as the psychometric equivalent of Worlds in Collision. For a better discussion of these issues, try this APA report and Murray's latest, which include more recent studies, including many critical of the Bell Curve.

Date: 2006/01/14 08:31:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I look forward to your blog and comments.

Date: 2006/01/14 09:55:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
See part one of my response to Mr. Brazeau.

Date: 2006/01/15 11:02:47, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
I understand you don't really believe the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around it, and that this is all an exercise in intellectual virtuosity. But that doesn't change the fact that these are all questions that need answers. And I haven't even begun to run out of questions yet. I suspect that Mr. C has plenty of his own as well.

I realise I could use a little more focus, but I'm working on answers......promise. By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.  :D   I'll try to develop my redshift theory more in the near future. Eric, could you cut and paste your questions as well? Thanks.

Date: 2006/01/15 11:30:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I think even valid arguments that Gould's skepticism about factor analysis are less than fully justified, miss Gould's point. Historical attempts to measure brainpower HAVE been used traditionally to buttress the status quo, and people in fact ARE capable of acquiring amazing levels of proficiency (or failing to do so) in ways that a single, set number implies are narrowly constrained. It just ain't so.

But this objection misses the point of modern research, which relies more on statistics and neurobiology than it does on conflating "g" with other variables. Surely there are many ways to measure human value and accomplishment; nobody claims otherwise. But if you want to quantify the level of an individual's "book" smarts, IQ is a good - if imperfect -  tool to use. The real question becomes, "Are group differences in these traits due in part to genes?" We both agree the answer eludes the experts, but that doesn't detract from what they have discovered. And ignoring the problem won't erase the consequences of policies predicated on egalitarian assumptions (which I share). Skepticism is appropriate for now; will it always be so?

Date: 2006/01/17 08:52:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.  
-Dan

Ahhhh, don't worry - Paley wouldn't dish it out unless he could take it. I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.  :)

Date: 2006/01/17 09:35:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
Rather than level/not level, we might more profitably consider the gradient. After all, nearly ANY 'minority' individual faces an uphill battle. In much of the business world, blacks are doing better than women. To carry this more-or-less to the limit, study after study shows that all else being equal, taller men do better than shorter men and attractive people do better than plain people. Thinner people outperform heavier people. The playing field is never level.

True enough, and few reasonable people would deny that blacks still face discrimination. But the next part puzzles me:
Quote
What interests me is the feedback effect. Which groups, faced with nearly insurmountable obstacles, give up and (justifiably) claim discrimination, and which groups roll up their sleeves and redouble their efforts? In both cases, a feedback effect is clearly operating. Which means perhaps an assumption of a level playing field is not being made, but rather an observation of how different people respond to a field tilted against them.

Insurmountable obstacles? Care to back this up with noncircular reasoning (i.e. "Blacks underperform because they face severe roadblocks. How do discern these obstacles? By noting black underperformance!") And what power renders these obstacles inoperative in government, sports, and entertainment? "Why yes, I watch black actors, listen to black musicians, and pay good money to attend black-dominated sporting events! Heck, I'll even allow my children to date blacks. But I'll be $%#-%^$# if I let black-designed software enter this household! That, suh, is too much to bear! In order to prevent this from happening, in fact, I think I'll set up lots of minority colleges, scholarships, corporate recruitment programs, and even burden black folk with preferential access to America's top schools! And to really drive the point home, I'll give black-owned businesses first crack at guvment contracts! And set up taxpayer-funded watchdog agencies to monitor private companies! Now that oughtta show them people who's boss!"

The Yenta wrote:
Quote
A lot of Black Americans did escape the South - but it seems that a lot are still there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....lations

Why do you think that is?

Oh my goodness - now Whitey has created a sinister force field that prevents black-driven U-Hauls from traveling north! Mr. Klansman, tear down this wall!!

Date: 2006/01/17 11:28:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
In sports, the goal is to win. Just win. But I hope you are aware that it wasn't always this way. Baseball had the Negro Leagues for decades, because a color barrier was enforced. And blacks have been allowed into other sports only with reluctance (there's a movie about this out right now).

But that's precisely the point. Blacks were blatantly discriminated against in baseball, with strict Jim Crow laws put in place to well, "keep 'em in their place". And yet somehow they overcame this despite widespread prejudice. So apparently Jim Crow didn't present an "insurmountable" obstacle in the sporting world. So why does it do so in other fields? Don't engineering firms "want to win"? Aren't there economic costs associated with rejecting qualified blacks in favor of mediocre whites? In fact, wouldn't competition be even fiercer in an industry that doesn't have an antitrust exemption and isn't ruled by potbellied rednecks like baseball was (and to a certain extent, still is)? Curious minds want to know.....
Quote
Anyway, the obstacles are not deduced from statistical performance measures, they are observed directly.

John McWhorter and others would beg to differ from you, bro. He argues that discrimination is greatly diminished now, and that blacks can succeed with less than superhuman effort. More later.....

Date: 2006/01/17 15:12:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
and don't bother quoting your pin-up 'McWhorter' - one of the refererences you gave to him was of his opinion that the Brithish far right has renewed itself and the  BNP (British National Party) is 'sweeping the country led by their charismatic leader 'Nick Griffiths.

The BNP has less than 0.0- something % of the popular vote - and it's leader is up in court at the moment on a charge of 'inciting racial hatred', having been caught out on camera by a TV documentary.

He got that so wrong I wouldn't trust his opinion on anything else.

That was Derbyshire, not McWhorter, Yenta. McWhorter is an African-American linguist. And you misquoted Derbyshire anyway.
Quote
Black people are hanicapped by the predjudices of others whilst it's clear that you are handicapped by your own.

The only thing that's "clear" is that you clearly can't support your side of an argument. Hence, the need to resort to slander, wisecracks, and speechcodes.

Date: 2006/01/17 15:32:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Libel Paley ..Libel..

Yentas don't libel - they slander. Hence the choice of words.

Flint wrote:
Quote
And since I also have a curious mind, I'd like to ask you: what do YOU propose should be done to eliminate discrimination?

As you've already mentioned, discrimination can't be eliminated. All that a society can do is reduce it to manageable levels. This has been done. Now it's time to step back and stop rewarding dysfunctional cultures.

Date: 2006/01/18 05:01:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
Most of the list you provided, of special college admissions and scholarships, government contracts, etc. only reward those who abandon a dysfunctional culture. They are exactly the sort of enticements you should be favoring: wallow in poverty and resentment, get nowhere while subsidies shrink. Get out of that cycle, go to college, go into business, get rewarded. And as I said, it seems to be working.

Actually, I do favor scholarships aimed at blacks, mestizos, and other at-risk minority groups. As well as corporate tax breaks for companies that aggressively target and train minorities. I think that A.A. policies have outlived their usefulness, and believe they should have been dropped around 1994. I also believe that America should buy out those crusty South African farmers and work with the World Bank to train replacement black farmers. The Mugabe policy that the South African government is currently pursuing will result in mass starvation and the entire destabilization of South Africa. And when that happens, the libs will wring their hands and blame Whitey. While black people starve.
Quote
So long as the all-too-typical child is born to a single mother, dumped into a daycare institution, then attends a school whose primary function is extended daycare and whose administration is more interested in preventing shootings than teaching anything, while the parent pays no attention to the environment and provides no encouragement to learn, while the "community values" provide active DISincentives to learn anything, the task has a long way to go.

So we agree that the status quo sucks. Problem is, why are the schools acting as prisons and caretakers. You're acting like there's some mysterious fog floating around black communities, turning morals inside out and converting "good" schools into "bad" schools. I've got news for you: bad schools become that way because of the students. If the students would behave, the problem would be solved. The students are actively choosing to turn their schools into war zones - not all of them, to be sure, but many of them. And many of the good students actively support the dysfunctional culture that produces the bad ones. I've talked to many teachers and read up on this. If the average Amurican only knew......
Quote
At times, I get the sense that if anything had been up to you, you'd have left the Jim Crow laws in place. But rather than assume, perhaps I should ask: do you think that a policy of benign neglect should have been adopted before now? And if so, when?

Hopefully your questions are answered now. If you have any more, I'm willing to help. Now let me ask you a question if I may:
What's so evil about restricting immigration to those nationalities that:
1) Have proven they can compete without Government arm-twisting
2) Don't look at Western Culture as a tumor that must be eradicated (and the people along with it?)

In other words, let's say France had been importing millions of N.E. Asians, Indians, and Jews instead of North Africans. Do you think that their economy, crime rates, and standard of living would be better or worse? I'm genuinely curious. Please support your answer to the best of your ability. Thanks. And Eric, I'm curious about your opinion too.

Date: 2006/01/18 07:15:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I plan on responding at length a little later, but for now I'd like to make a couple of quick comments.
Flint wrote:
Quote
Immigration limits on non-Northern European cultures are quite strict (and we all know that the only people worth associating with come from Northern European countries, right?).

1) Could we cut out the snide insinuations in the future? The Yenta's ways are not for everyone, and you don't look very fetching in a girdle anyway.  :D
Quote
I would hope it would depend on the experiences these people have in France. If they are restricted to ghettos, and systematically NOT hired into (or promoted into) decent jobs, and basically treated as worthless, I would imagine ANY of them would eventually protest. The key for me isn't nationality or geographic origin, it's *access to opportunity*. If that access is real and not a sham, then these problems can be avoided. But it has to be real access (not tokenism) and real opportunity (as level a playing field as we can engineer).

2) Yes, yes, that's great, but taking all these considerations into account, could you please answer the question: In your opinion, based on what you know about N.E. Asian, Jewish, and Indian cultures, and how these cultures would tend to interact with French society, do you think that the results would be better or worse? In other words, would Jews, N.E. Asians, and Indians have wound up in the same position, given what we know about French society? Please answer with as much detail as possible, and once again, I realise that you don't have a crystal ball. Just do your best. Thanks.

Date: 2006/01/18 09:15:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I'll also agree that those cultural groups you identified have a history of being industrious and law-abiding. So AT FIRST, I would expect them to contribute a lot less to the crime rate. However, if opportunities are closed off, I wouldn't expect them to contribute much to the standard of living, this being prohibited. And given a few generations of being prohibited from rising socially, doing anything worthwhile, etc. I'd expect them to be much like the Algerians are today.

O.K., so I take it that your answer is: ultimately there would be no difference. Thanks for giving me a straight answer. Now, here's where I'm puzzled, and perhaps you can help.
           Traditionally, Jewish people have been systematically excluded from industries, from owning property, from moving freely, and from enjoying religious liberties that Gentiles take for granted. Why, not too long ago a society even attempted to remove them from the face of the earth (I hope even Mr. Fafarman would agree here). And yet despite all these obstacles, they keep rising to the top. Restrict them to shtetls, and they use the segregation as a chance to deepen their communal ties. Force them into middleman occupations? They just shrug their shoulders and become an indispensable part of the economy, all while inventing, writing, and thinking so well that the host country is forced to ignore the Jim Crow laws already in place. Restrict their access to the top schools? They just go to second-rate schools, and transform them in the process. This,of course, is exactly why the Holocaust happened: no matter what, the Jews thrive. You can't make them expendable; the fanatical antisemite must use radical "remedies". So why would modern France be different? The modern Frenchman tends toward antisemitism, but it's nothing like what the Jews have faced historically. This analysis also applies to the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Indians, albeit with a little less force.
            Remember, the Algerians are not having their culture destroyed, nor has the current generation had to face the burden of colonialism. These are the children of people who have chosen to live in France, and are free to leave if they don't like it (harsh, but undeniably true). They receive extensive welfare and medical care that even many Amuricans can't afford. So yeah, I do beg to differ. Heck, I think that France would be a world power if they had done as I advise. I just can't picture Jews and Asians torching ghettoes. For one thing, their living areas would never have become ghettoes. For another, it's not in their culture. And I suspect history backs me up. Or do you disagree?

Date: 2006/01/18 11:16:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions.

Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump.

Date: 2006/01/18 11:30:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
I'm kind of done with this discussion (I still say the key differences between African Americans and virtually every other ethnic group out there is a legacy of slavery and the deliberate destruction of their culture), but I did want to point one thing out to Bill. Given a choice between living in a country that takes care of its citizens and a country that's a world power, I'll take the former. What did being a world power ever do for the English?

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving this thread. But one point I'd like you to think about: would you rather live in a country that can devote more resources to helping troubled nations because of its internal strength, or in a declining, debt-ridden has-been that has to struggle to stay strong? Because that's what happens to balkanized countries in my opinion. Look at the lack of help we're giving to South Africa. Part of it's due to our foolish foreign policies, but the truth is, we have too many internal problems, and this affects our capacity to help others.

Date: 2006/01/18 15:00:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid wrote:
Quote
I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon.

Thanks. Actually, the discomfort's not too bad, but these problems leave me rather spacey (yeah, I know, how can one tell, etc, etc.). Fortunately the fish research was previously completed, or else I'd look even worse.
Quote
I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.

The Peach is not without his charm, but he doesn't take to being contradicted, does he?

Sir Wiggles wrote:
Quote
lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.

Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it.... ;)
Quote
do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?

Post scandalous cartoons? <shrug>

Date: 2006/01/18 15:22:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Poor little Yenta - doesn't know its own name yet is planning to lecture me on Jewish culture. Yeah, like that's gonna be a fruitful debate. Hey Yenta, if you really want to impress me, why don't you take a stab at answering most of my questions. OK, some of my questions. OK, one of my questions. In case you've forgotten, here they are:

Please explain how:
1) my citation of The Color of Crime proves that I agree with Jared Taylor's views, especially when I've made my own views perfectly clear on several occasions;
2) the citation is inappropriate, especially when it supports one of my main complaints against most cross-national studies, i.e. that they confound race and religion, driving the very conclusions that they're trying to prove;
3) Jared Taylor's political beliefs render him unable to multiply or divide government figures; and
4) if Jared's study is transparently worthless, nobody can refute it?
5)Why shouldn’t I be allowed to cite a person, even if I don’t agree with him? You still haven’t answered that.
6)Do you believe in Big Brother? And is John McWhorter a racist? Read his book Losing the Race; it takes contemporary black culture to task in very harsh terms.
7)Is Michelle Malkin a racist? She shares many of my immigration and cultural concerns. According to liberal philosophy, white people can’t question their views because they’re “people of color”. Or should they have more liberty to speak their mind?  
8)Simple question: Is affirmative action racist? Please give a straight answer. And if it isn't, why not? If it is, then why aren't you jumping on American liberals?

Date: 2006/01/19 04:46:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Look, Yenta, if you want to bring up French policy bring up French policy. If you want to answer questions, answer questions. But quit trying to change the subject - you're not fooling anyone.

Date: 2006/01/19 06:49:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzie -

I still feel bleh, but look for a response tonight. I hope to justify:

1)My choice of dimensions (hint:think about permutation theory)

2)How my model relates the index of refraction to "the total amount of elementary charges in a structure"

3)my position on redshifts

Date: 2006/01/19 07:02:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
As I've said repeatedly on this thread, most members of most immigration waves have NOT arrived able to compete. They were poor, discriminated against, and didn't speak the language. So I think you're really asking to restrict immigration of those who won't BECOME competitive or will STILL be antagonistic a couple of generations down the road. Can you predict this? On what basis?

Let's say you're a Mexican or an Arab. You can't compete today. But does your nationality indicate that you personally can never compete, or that you personally think the nation you're adopting should be eradicated? Are these characteristics of nationalities, or of individuals?

Can't we derive predictions from recent historical events? It seems the trend is pretty clear. I must admit that Mexicans are a tough case, but I've said this from the beginning. So the question becomes, "Why ignore the evidence of history in order to carry out a policy that will probably achieve less than a policy predicated on the evidence?" We know that certain groups will assimilate, so why not stick with proven groups? Why drain at-risk countries in order to squeeze blood from a turnip? To be honest, your proposed model seems to be a lot more work than it's worth, and it sucks resources that can be better spent elsewhere (foreign aid to nations, world bank, etc.). And ponder this: what is the worst case scenario of your immigration model vs. mine? My model clearly wins here.

Date: 2006/01/19 09:15:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Yep, you pretty much got it correct, and the differences are due to (according to me, at least) hard-to-change cultures (not biology).
Quote
And THESE groups we should...well...I'm not sure. If they are NOT here, keep them out. If they ARE here, what? Exterminate them? Rope them onto reservations where our neglect makes them least threatening? Round them up and ship them back to wherever they originally came from?

If they're not here, keep them out but put more effort into aiding their native countries. This takes money and time, both of which will be more abundant with my plan.
If they're here, treat 'em like every other citizen, because that's what they are entitled to. Of course, charity and tax incentives would be used to address inequities. No race laws, however.
Please continue.....

Date: 2006/01/19 11:19:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
To be blunt, I think that African-Americans will *always* have a distinct culture. But it need not be so dysfunctional.

Absolutely. Now you're starting to grasp my point. Culture can be improved in principle, but it can't be eliminated, nor is that a desirable goal.
Quote
Personally, I've never seen any evidence that [foreign aid to at-risk countries] works. Hard enough to modify a culture of a minority within our own population.

True, the evidence is slight, but I think current approaches can be improved. Earlier, I gave an example of what I considered an effective strategy for South Africa. And here's the main point: dollars spent on third-world countries go further than those spent in developed nations. This amplifies the effectiveness of sound remedies, promotes autonomy, and allows nations to pursue their own programs without fear of America stealing the harvest. Or why would Nigeria train doctors for the benefit of British patients? They wouldn't, leaving fewer doctors for Nigerians.
Quote
Is Affirmative Action a race law? It also applies to women.

And....?
Quote
And tax incentives are just another form of payment. Economically speaking, there's no substantive difference between me giving you $10, and me NOT taking $10 away from you.

Except I have free choice under the former.
Quote
Now, just for grins, let's say this approach works, and values of industry, integrity, knowledge, etc. actually DO get injected into the culture. Should immigration then be permitted?

Yes. Immigration policy should always reflect change. But it should not assume it.

Please continue....this is interesting.

Date: 2006/01/19 14:06:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?


I explained this in my last post1. The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c. In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality!

1Authoritative Source

Date: 2006/01/19 14:25:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Quote  
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
Why seven?  Did you just pick that out of your hat?



No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses.

Here is the math.

Quote
Quote  
The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨

Quote  
Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model.
So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist.  Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell.  I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?


Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars!

Date: 2006/01/19 14:45:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.


A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace.

1
Read this and be enlightened!

Date: 2006/01/19 15:28:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I told you I was under the weather! I recently edited the last three posts to reduce typos and fix the grammar. Get over it, Yenta.

Date: 2006/01/21 11:03:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta wrote:
Quote
However I think you are simply incorrect when you say that 'GOP' is arguing for a 'level playing field' and would not discriminate agains people on the grounds of race (or 'ethnic group' as he prefers to say).

      Dean neglects to mention that the buyouts are voluntary: anyone who declines is free to remain in America. So why do it? For one reason, it forces the malcontents to "put up or shut up": after all, it's hard to argue that the Man has got you by the throat when you can't be bribed into returning to your ancestral paradise. (Note correct usage). Second, those with a greedy, short-term mentality are self-selected for emigration, and get the chance to remake their lives. Third, America frees up money for the long-term that may be applied to foreign aid, while cementing its first-world status in the bargain.

Date: 2006/01/22 11:52:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible. Thanks.

By the way, I just replied to Mr. Brazeau.

Date: 2006/01/23 04:49:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
quoth the zilch:
Quote
When my kids were small, they enjoyed cutting out pictures from old magazines, choosing them for color and form rather than content.  They pasted them onto paper in the shape of animals, buildings, spaceships, etc.  Thus, they could make, say, a cat out of pictures of dogs, or fashion models, or churches.

Given my love affair with the hyperlink, I can see why you think I'm doing a "Gish gallop", but I've also been trying to summarise my position periodically. I also try to ask good questions when I'm confused about the professor's point of view. You may be painting with too broad a brush...........

Date: 2006/01/23 06:36:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Perhaps I should break it down a little. Let's start with just the Cepheid variables. Where do they fit into your model, Bill? They fit really well into standard astrophysical and cosmological models; I'd be curious to see where they fit into your model.

First I need to explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed blueshifts. Give me time and I'll detail it tonight.

Date: 2006/01/23 06:42:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Wiggles, you can run but you can't hide. George is gonna getcha!!!!   ;)   :p

Date: 2006/01/23 07:12:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy said:
Quote
I was under the impression that your model didn't predict blueshifts at all. Or perhaps it predicted stars that oscillate between redshift and blueshift with a 24-hour cycle?

That's the part I'll address tonight.

And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:54:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hey Mr. Chatfield, I hear that you're supposed to be some sort of language expert.  :D  Two questions:

1) Have you heard of John McWhorter, and if so, how would you rate The Power of Babble?
2) Has any modern language ever increased its number of declensions and conjugations over time? Languages always seem to trim extraneous grammar as they mix with others. I know that McWhorter uses the [pidgeon -> creole -> language] model of language evolution, but attic greek and Latin seem "too" complex (yes, the Greek city-states were often geographically separated, but I don't think this fully explains the complexity). I'm not looking for a debate - just your opinion.

Date: 2006/01/23 08:56:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
You're right, language change could never happen. I mean, I've never seen Spanish change into Chinese. I mean, it's just not believable.

Besides, if Italian is descended from Latin, how come we still have Latin?


You guys are just a' teasin me... :D

C'mon. Don't you find attic greek a little much? Was the speech a lot less complicated than the written form? Perhaps the literati contrived the complexity to separate themselves from the masses. Just looking for your opinion - and are you familiar with McWhorter's work?

Date: 2006/01/23 12:07:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Arden Chatfield wrote:
Quote
1) Yes, I've heard of John McWhorter, and in fact I know him personally.

Could I get an autograph?

Date: 2006/01/23 12:13:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Anytime you want to get rid of me faster,all you have to do is send me a check.

Not when you've got your own slushfund to draw on. Get a cheaper grade of blow, or coeds with with lower test scores. You ain't gettin a dime from me.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:49:45, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Hey, dude, John McWhorter doesn't sign autographs for just anyone...


B-but....I bought most of his books, and only read one in the bookstore. Also, I give him free pub on this blog, although dullards like the Yenta keep mixing him up with Derbyshire (conservative Johns being so hard to tell apart and all). Maybe he could check in with an opinion on linguistics ("Oh, those evil Towerites"). Even a "Get bent, Paley" would be great.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:55:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
And who would Mr. McWhorter make it out to??

The Ghost of Paley. Who else???   :D

Date: 2006/01/24 09:54:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sir Wiggles wrote:
Quote
Based on what I've seen, The land "down under" has gone bonzo conservative in the last decade or so. it might overall be even a bit to the right of the US.  

You can always count on liberal programs and Muslim pogroms to deprogram the masses. Thanks, guys, for introducing the Land Down Under to reality therapy. Dipped into your slushfund yet?

Date: 2006/01/25 04:46:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Oh yes, I guess Muslims are also evil.


Only when they harass others, as is often the case in Australia. Can't a whitebread have a swim when he wants? Or is this another freedom we must surrender?  :D

Date: 2006/01/25 07:18:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
... so I take it you've been there then GOP?

If I was the liar people make me out to be, I could simply answer "yes" and watch the Yenta spin in circles. But I haven't been to Aussieland, so I'll just lead him to a magic information box! Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm available for further help if anyone needs me....

Date: 2006/01/25 07:34:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I hate to nag, but…
I've been re-reading this thread, and noted that Bill originally promised his model for November 18. (Of 2005, not 2006, I believe, although he was never explicit about that.)

I didn't realise that the entire model was due by Nov. 18. In my defense, the time machine is broken, so I couldn't get all of your ojections ahead of schedule. :p
Eric, you just have to accept that I'm very deliberate, and prefer a good answer to a quick one. Sorry. But I should have a reply soon.

Date: 2006/01/25 08:21:09, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
.. Oh I see, so this is another of your 'assertions'.
I've been there by the way - including to Sydney, and I don't recall this being one of their 'worries' mate.

That's not an M.P., that's a Y.P.
Quote
So you can pretend to yourself that you are an expert on things - when the reality is that you a bizarre little disembodied entity.

No pretend to it. Don't feel too bad, though - it's not easy information to obtain. The Marxist media prefers to cover certain things up, wait for the inevitable reaction, then report said reaction without the necessary context. Like in Cronulla beach, let's say. Oops sorry...we yanks aren't supposed to know the background behind that...<zombie>The riots were due entirely to racism and xenophobia. There was no cause for any anger. Less freedom is the answer. Less freedom is the answer. Less.....</zombie>

Date: 2006/01/25 14:43:58, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
GOP .. you have the freedom to travel the world - but am I right in thinking you've never actually been anywhere, and see no need to - because you can stay at home and Googletrawl?

As with so many other things, you are mistaken: I've been to several foreign countries - England included. But in addition to traveling, I rely on scientific research, news articles, and other people's experiences to shape my world view. And much of this evidence exists on the internet.
Quote
But I'm afraid that people see though a 'Googletrawler' like yourself - I was suspicious when you started quoting a rather obscure paper about the 'White Gene' - I'm sure you were dissapointed when you found it, and the term wasn't quite used in the way that you had hoped. You were found out my friend.

Your inability to absorb information is duly noted. This flaw is reflected in many ways: for example, I notice that you still can't spell "disappointed" despite being corrected on at least one occasion. You chose an apt avatar.
Quote
I have to admire your balls for the way you pick fights with you intellectual superiors - although I'm afraid they lose respect for you when you run away as soon as things start to get a little hot for you and you are clearly out of your depth.

Even if true, how does this make you look? In our only debate, you were clobbered so badly that you've resorted to following me around Panda's Thumb and lying about my politics, to the point where even your ideological allies beg you to quit. Pathetic.
Quote
I'm afraid your hit and run tactics don't work any more.
Whoever you are, you are a fraud - and you scare no one.

Then why are you the one that's sweating?

Date: 2006/01/25 14:56:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Yes, I'm still working on both papers; when I've given up I'll let you know. My work schedule and sinuses have conspired against me lately, plus you wouldn't want me to shortchange Mr. Brazeau? That would be selfish, and I know you guys aren't that. Hopelessly deluded: yes. Selfish: no. I do appreciate your continued patience. Take my thoughtful intervals as a commentary on your scientific insight.  ;)

Date: 2006/01/26 05:28:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hey, leave Eliot out of this! When he's not writing about his %^$# cats, the lad shows ability.

Date: 2006/01/26 10:07:03, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Has it ever occurred to you to put your talents to the common good?

give something of your time for nothing perhaps?

in return you might learn from those less fortunate than yourself...

How do you know that I don't help the less fortunate?
Quote
I'm an Atheist - I don't need a reason to do that kind of thing - I understand you are a Christian? - aren't you supposed to do that kind of thing automatically?

... just wondering?

I do because I want to, not because I have to.

Date: 2006/01/26 15:50:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
How about this cause?
Quote
I also believe that America should buy out those crusty South African farmers and work with the World Bank to train replacement black farmers. The Mugabe policy that the South African government is currently pursuing will result in mass starvation and the entire destabilization of South Africa. And when that happens, the libs will wring their hands and blame Whitey. While black people starve.

Date: 2006/01/26 15:53:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Must.....concentrate......on paper.....

Date: 2006/01/27 07:51:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
... but by 'crusty' do you mean 'white'?

Of course the farmers are white; the effects of apartheid don't vanish at the pop of a champaign cork. The question is how to redress these inequities. Until recently, the ANC has let the better angels of its conscience guide its land reform policy, but sluggish economic growth and intransigent farmers have blocked progress. Most farmers will probably accept fair market value for their plots, but absent foreign aid, the money is lacking. A little carrot-and-sticking would work wonders here, and I suspect that Caporegime Bush can provide the <ahem> motivation. Our resources, alas, continue to be frittered away on Neocon opium visions.

Date: 2006/01/27 08:54:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift.  But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift.  But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy.  So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.


You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to

some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.

Date: 2006/01/27 09:02:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?!  Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!!  Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?!


Cogzie, check out this website for a good introduction on how this can work.

Date: 2006/01/28 10:19:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Cogzie wrote:
Quote
Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy.  This Dark Energy is sometimes called Quintessence.  So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept.  How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest?  You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to more receptive sites.

No dishonesty - just a lack of respect for the evidence supporting Dark Energy. After further review of the SDSS data confirming the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, I concede that researchers have found positive evidence for Dark Energy at last. I shouldn't have ignored this part of the Big Clang model and I apologise for my carelessness. However, my model will explain the source of Dark energy.

ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Wait a minute. I know I'm not a mathematician, but what does a frequency of 2 Pi/24,000 years mean? That sounds more like a period to me. A frequency should be expressed in Hz, or cycles per minute/hour/year/century or whatever unit you want to deal with. What's the frequency or period in units we can use? A perriod of 2 PI/24,000 years is a lot less than a year; it's on the order of two hours.

The number should read: (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Sorry for not making this clear before. And yes, I will include the derivation of this figure in a future post. The equation is a simple ODE. I suspect you'll be disappointed Cogzie.

More later.

Date: 2006/01/28 11:16:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Would "more" involve guts and gametes, and would "later" suggest within my lifetime?

But aren't you enjoying my debate with Mr. Brazeau? And I am contributing (albeit slowly) to my geocentric model. Actually, I'm happy about being wrong about the level of evidence for Dark Energy. Along with the Redshift, this is the first observation that my model will explain.

Date: 2006/01/28 11:21:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
"IQ must be in the room temperature range"?

Hey, he's stealing my lines!  :D

Date: 2006/01/29 11:08:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on dimensional analysis.

Date: 2006/01/30 09:50:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What math? Where?
Quote  
ACLU

F U


My dear Ved,

Is the phrase "F U" part of the liturgy of the mother church of evolutionism referred to in my post? It wouldn't surprise me, for the linguistic performance of members of that group tends to be stunted at that vocabulary level.

Date: 2006/01/30 11:35:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Now, about them blueshifts...






Now, this equation governs the angle-independent motion of quintessence and explains the redshift. However, there are blueshift anomalies that need to be explained. They are explained by the fact that r(0) and r'(0) are functions of the polar and azimuthal angles of the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence, the entire sphere is not all vibrating simultaneously. Therefore, there are some stars that have blueshifts.

Date: 2006/01/30 12:28:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Potty wrote:

Quote
GoP babbled:
Quote  
In the future I'll rely more on standard units and less on delusional analysis.


Fixed that for ya.


Mr. Potty appears highly skilled at the art of character interchange via keyboard. Perhaps we need to recruit him in a "man-vs.-machine" showdown against Dawkins' weasel program on who can write the works of Shakespeare the fastest. However, this might be too much trouble on a first try. Instead, he could compete with his perceived ancestors in a race for the holy grail of literary greatness via keyboard plonking.

Date: 2006/01/30 15:27:23, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Martin wrote:
Quote
Secondly, the phrase ‘all three fish classes’ is simply Arnason et al.’s mistake re-stated. It assumes the correctness of the ‘fish typology’ as a natural group. However, there is ample evidence that tetrapods are descended from some ‘fish’ and that taxa of interest to us here belong along that branch.

And maybe one day Arnason will find it. Let's review some complaints of the original  Arnason study:

1) No tetrapods
2) Not enough lungfish/coelacanth species
3) Bad root, partly due to 1)

Let's take the last part first. Here's an unrooted tree from from an earlier study. As one can see, the lamprey creates trouble when used as an outgroup, because of the tendency of its mitochondrial DNA to cluster with tetrapods (I can cite other sources for this claim). On the other hand, its nuclear DNA behaves better under the evolutionary whip. So should this organism be used? Depends on the researcher's presuppositions.
To address the first two points, let's examine fresh studies. After making the very adjustments that Martin et al. demand, our dear Aranson finds that the results don't improve:
Quote
(1) Morphological and molecular trees of gnathostome relationships commonly depict lungfishes and tetrapods as sister groups. However, in many cases, the placement of the rooting point of these trees has depended on arbitrary assumptions. Traditionally, these trees show Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) as the sister group of remaining gnathostomes, a position that is inconsistent with the palaeontological age of the Chondrichthyes, which is younger than that of bony fishes.

(2) Analyses of mt data sets do not identify the commonly accepted gnathostome tree. Instead, when the tree is rooted with a non-gnathostome outgroup it splits into one tetrapod and one piscine branch. Chondrichthyes fall among other lineages on the piscine branch. The mt tree is inconsistent with the common notion of evolution from cartilaginous fishes to ray-finned fishes and from here to lobe-finned fishes (lungfishes and coelacanths) and tetrapods

(3) Gnathostome mt distances are consistent with a basal split between tetrapods and all gnathostomous fishes. The distances do not suggest that the evolutionary rates of the chondrichthyan mt genomes are anomalous compared to other mt genomes.

(4) The mt tree suggests that lungs and air breathing are ‘‘primitive’’ conditions among extant gnathostomes. If so, tetrapods and basal lineages on the piscine branch have retained this condition, while the swim bladder and the absence of this organ in some piscine lineages, constitute derived conditions.

(5) Some nuclear data sets favour the mt tree, while others don’t. The correct tree of basal gnathostome relationships is not known, but the mt trees are reproduced by currently acknowledged phylogenetic approaches. The amount of data that can be extracted from mt genomes is finite. Therefore, by necessity, extended analyses of deep gnathostome relationships must be based on the establishment of larger nuclear data sets and a more comprehensive taxon sampling.

By the way, Bichirs and ropefish were the basal piscines, leading to the oddly creationist mantra: "a tetrapod is a tetrapod, and a fish, a fish".
Hey guys, take a look at Table One: I think you'll find enough Dipnoids and 4pods to keep you occupied. And finally, another  side of Brinkmann.
Quote
The gene order of the mitochondrial genomes of the South American and Australian lungfish conforms to the consensus gene order among gnathostome vertebrates. The phylogenetic analyses of the complete set of mitochondrial proteins (without ND6) suggest that the lungfish are the closest relatives of the tetrapods, although the support in favor of this scenario is not statistically significant. The two other smaller data sets (tRNA and rRNA genes) give inconsistent results depending on the different reconstruction methods applied and cannot significantly rule out any of the three alternative hypotheses. Nuclear protein-coding genes, which might be better phylogenetic markers for this question, support the lungfish–tetrapod sister-group relationship (Brinkmann et al. 2004). [Paley's emphasis]

While Arnason may be sliding over to the dark side, ya'll still have Brinkmann, at least. Heat therapy, anyone?

Date: 2006/02/01 07:01:08, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Zilch wrote:
Quote
So why should He settle for a jiggly jello data tweaker with all those pesky observational and logical unpleasantries?  No, there's a much simpler explanation, which not only overturns five hundred years of physics, but millenia of philosophy:  God is beaming all this stuff directly into our brains.

Yes, metaphysical assumptions drive my model...so what? Every hypothesis resides in a philosophical matrix, including those derived from a naturalistic point of view. One can't test a piece of a theory without implicitly probing the rest. That's how the model becomes consistent not only with itself, but with the rest of the universe. Which is pretty much science's goal.  ;)

Date: 2006/02/03 08:21:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
HET - ÃOBOPÈTÜ writes:
Quote
Eric, you might well be right that the tap-dancers in any such model would be stepping on each other's toes constantly, if they were constrained by coherency.  But if the formulae don't have to fit together, they can overlap and contradict one another, so that the dancers can simply, magically, dance through one another like so many ghosts.

Not if the formulae are being picked apart by specialists and knowledgeable amateurs.

Date: 2006/02/05 11:43:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Just watched some news coverage of a demonstration in London.
Some people carried placards demanding the cartoonists be beheaded. They should have been arrested IMO.

Mr. Elliot, you have a good head on your shoulders, but your naivete does you in sometimes. The speech codes are not for immigrants, silly, they're for people like you. Heck, you're more likely to get in trouble for bitching about your guests's behavior than they are for the acts themselves. And as immigration policies continue, expect to wave bye-bye to many more liberties. The newcomers are so easily offended, you see, and it's important that we entirely reshape our culture so that they'll feel more at home (so they can then seek a new host). If recent atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials have taught us anything, it's that we have no moral compass and must allow the Religion of Peace to take us where it will. In other words, shut up and hand over your gun - in Neocon land everyone is equal - some perhaps a tad more than others ......and freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Date: 2006/02/06 03:52:36, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I do not mind immigrants at all. But I do object if people are comming to Britain and have no respect for our laws or society.
We probably need people to come and work. But I feel the UK should have more control on who gets in.
I was on a course a while back with a guy from Africa. He had worked in the UK for about 10 years and was worried he would not get to stay. While other people seem to have no problem, even though they do not contribute anything. That is crazy.

Yeah, I've heard the same complaints from many recent immigrants. Hard working people from, say, Venezuela, get the shaft while M13 gang-bangers just walk in. By the way, it's nice to see that Dean has a new friend. Welcome to the board, "Tired". ;) Does anyone have an extra pacifier?

Date: 2006/02/06 13:50:14, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I've been busy lately, sorry...I've also been trying to integrate dirichlet functions into my model, and it's taking longer than I thought. I'm still working on it.....

Date: 2006/02/06 14:33:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Arden -

Since you're so good at looking things up, then how could you possibly have missed the occasions where I pointed out that:

1) I do not believe in mental differences among the races

2) Dean Morrison is a blatant liar who has not justified any of his assertions

3) I'm the one who brought up Jared Taylor's background, and have been very open from the beginning. I have also welcomed all criticisms of his study. Ask Cogzoid, Eric Murphy, and Mr. Mahandi if you doubt me. Do I have to agree with someone before I can cite his work? If so, where does that leave science?

 I can prove all of this, and will, if you subsequently concede your error. Frankly, this is beneath you, and I am embarrassed that a group of scientists and intellectuals would stoop to lies and character assassination. What's worse, you imply that I am antisemitic, which is beyond absurd - heck, even the Yenta hasn't raised that charge.

Quote
Oh yes, and Dean Morrison also took GoP to the mat for it HERE:

The Yenta couldn't take Pee-Wee Herman to the mat - his whole schtick is spinning lies and ducking questions. Which you would know if you actually read any of our exchanges. You haven't, and you sure can't refute anything I say, but boy, let your precious beliefs get challenged......

 But just to humor you - let's say I'm the most dreadful race-baiting and antisemitic cretin imaginable. Does this change the fact that many of our immigrants want to strip us of our ability to criticise their culture? Does bring the victims of terrorism back to life, or rebuild skyscrapers? I've shared my ideas on immigration policy - share yours. I promise to hold myself to a higher standard of criticism than you have....

Date: 2006/02/07 09:28:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
OK, here are a couple of threads that outline my position. Let ignorance be a defense no longer.
Arlen wrote:
Quote
I still find it very troubling that you seem to see no problems with using Jared Taylor's work, and that you actually make excuses for him like that 'nationalist'/'supremacist' distinction.

Excuses? "White nationalist" is the more appropriate label so I used it. In practice, there is little to distinguish between the two positions, but the ideas behind them differ so that's what I focused on, especially since a few posters were asking for definitions. And The Color of Crime relies on (repeat after me, students) official government statistics, which allows skeptics to check the author's claims. Please notice that antiracist watchdog groups and professional criminologists have not commented on the study, even though they're aware of its existence and have critiqued similar efforts in the past. All they would have to do is re-examine the Dept. of Justice's figures, show where Jared goofed/lied, and write a rebuttal on the internet. Heck, look at all the math and statistics guys on P.T. Where are their responses?
Quote
The only people I've seen who find distinctions like that so important are people who are essentially racist in all meaningful senses of the word.

And now you've found an exception.
Quote
Moreover, I find it troubling that in response to allegations of racism, your reflex has always been to attempt to redefine the term, and then, having done so, claim the term now doesn't apply to you.

No, the term doesn't apply to me because I don't believe in either racial discrimination or biological differences. So what's your definition of a racist?
Quote
It's very weaselly, which I suspect you know. And while I'm glad to hear you don't "believe in mental differences among the races", that sounds like another way to dodge answering the question straightforwardly, since I don't consider that to be an essential definition of 'racist'.

Which is.....what, exactly?
Quote
In a case like that we are quite justified in doubting such a person's veracity or objectivity, due to his background.

Of course, and that's why I brought up the authors's background from the beginning. You should be suspicious -  I certainly am. But once again, you can cross-check their numbers against the government's. Please keep in mind that any mainstream sociologist who carried out this study and arrived at similar conclusions would shortly be looking for another job, or would have to hire bodyguards to protect him from his own students. Ask John McWhorter about the consequences of challenging racial taboos. Now imagine what would happen to him if he were white.
Quote
I do not believe that Europe should give an inch on freedom of speech, except that I think that incitements to violence are intolerable.

This statement is meaningless, since many Muslims and racial minorities take any criticism as an incitement to violence. Do you defend free speech or don't you?

Date: 2006/02/07 11:23:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliot wrote:
Quote
TBH. That post does look pretty damning. But from what I have read of GoP's posts, I think the racist slur is a little pre-emptive.
When you read that quote as a response to the posts against him then it doesn't look as bad.
I am giving alowance for this being a difficult media to discuss these issues. It is hard to know how a poster truely feels without access to body language and emphasis.

Keep in mind that there's a history behind my citation of that paper. Cogzoid and I were arguing in another thread about whether or not religion is correlated with crime, and if so, how. I made the point that if you want to tease out the effects of religion, it is wise to make the cross-national samples as homogeneous as possible, thereby avoiding confounding factors. Cogzoid disagreed, and asked for evidence that cultural differences across groups contribute to crime apart from socioeconomic status, discrimination, etc. I responded with The Study That Dare Not Speak Its Name. If you read the original post, you'll see that I clearly expressed skepticism about the study. As time grew and I continued to field objections, I began to realise that the work might have merit. Why people think they've refuted evidence by bitching about its source is beyond me. If anyone can explain this bizarre point of view, I'd like to hear from him/her....

Date: 2006/02/07 12:38:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
TBH? "That's Been Handled"? "Thor's been here"? British slang? Don't follow....

Date: 2006/02/07 12:52:22, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the delay, but I'm trying to wed several portions of my earlier theory with newer parts, all while anticipating possible objections.

Date: 2006/02/07 13:07:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
C. J. O'Brien wrote:
Quote
My stance on [Affirmative Action] is that it is one on which reasonable people can disagree. (I favor it, but there are good arguments against it.) One of those is not, however, that it is racist.

Why not? A.A. advocates discrimination against targeted racial groups. That makes it racist by any reasonable definition. A better question would be, "How could it not be racist?" I can see why someone would support it, but let's not kid ourselves....

Date: 2006/02/07 13:39:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
AA, while discriminating on the basis of race, does not assert that any group of people is inferior or superior to any other.

So you feel that racism has at least two components:
1) Belief in one group's racial superiority
2) Actual discrimination

....or do you think part 1 is sufficient? I think 1 might be enough, except that A.A. posits White moral inferiority, as Mr. Hyland has mentioned. But whether or not it's racist is secondary to the fact that it doesn't accomplish its stated goal - redressing historical discrimination. A.A. simply hands an unfair advantage to middle and upper-class minorities. Funny thing is, the liberals love A.A. in principle, but choose non-A.A. doctors for their kids. Hmmmmmm.....

Date: 2006/02/07 14:34:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
There are at least three (not mutually exclusive) rationales for affirmative action:

Each one based on shakier logic than the last....
Quote
The one that currently flies in the US courts for higher education is that there is an educational benefit to all students in being part of a diverse student body.

So blatantly false that liberals themselves don't buy it. Which is why Chelsea Clinton went to Sidwell Friends School, where Whites are a pretty solid majority, rather than an ultra-diverse public school in the D.C. area. I'm sure Slick Willie would have gone even whiter if people weren't watching. Sure, minorities can contribute as individuals, but there is no evidence that diverse schools outperform nondiverse ones. All students, regardless of color, should be allowed to attend any school they qualify for. The government has no business restricting or creating diversity.
Quote
To redress the crimes of the past.

Which it doesn't, if it ever did.
Quote
To redress present discrimination.

The only evidence for this one being differential results, which would render the N.B.A. a most racist institution. Incidentally, Sowell, McWhorter, and many other blacks don't find institutional racism a huge barrier anymore - who am I, a mere white man, to challenge their perceptions? After all, they're the ones who should know.

Date: 2006/02/08 07:44:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
The Yenta lied:
Quote
Don't be too kind to Gop Steve -

And then the misrepresentations flow like honey. Guys, it's best to treat anything Dean says about me with the strictest of scrutiny. Or you can just follow Fox's advice and ignore his "contentless" (Cogzie's word, not mine) posts.

Date: 2006/02/08 14:31:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Keep declaring victory with every defeat.  Promise proofs, though they are always "in the works."  Deny or snap back - with a 13-year-old's idea of snappy comebacks, likely culled from Mad Magazine - when the muck of your prejudices, and fears, is exposed though your own comments.

<Yawn>......do you have a real rebuttal, Yenta-with-a-library-computer? Didn't think so.

Date: 2006/02/09 07:42:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The only beautiful liberal women are concentrated in Hollywood and they are mostly dumb as a box of rocks.

Well, I wouldn't go that far - plenty of academic women are attractive. And actors tend to be brighter than most; they just don't use it. But it's true that liberalism draws primarily from two groups - twinkies and bitter people. And since attractive people tend to be more outgoing and successful (with no need of political crutches to justify their failure), the Professor has a point.

Date: 2006/02/09 10:12:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Paley, your nonsense is not welcome on my thread.

Yeah, yeah, let me just answer GCT's question: I've never posted on UD, and never plan to, because I hate their massive censorship. Even the evos should have a right to state their views, and if I ever had a blog, anybody who could avoid Carlin's choice words would be welcome. A debate without free speech is no debate at all, and I appreciate Wes's board policies.

Date: 2006/02/10 08:03:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
well, i haven't seen any actual IDers respond to your question, so in the interest of off topic frivolity...

Frivolity, indeed. Let me be the first to answer your question. Now while individual Christians may believe in a Triune God Who uses stochastic mechanisms to create the universe, an ontological tension hums in the shadows of their mind. Darwinism presumes human rationality as the starting point for proper inquiry, with sensory evidence adjudicating the outcome. But suppose that human reason is inherently flawed, and misuses the senses to arrive at a false conclusion? No one could tell by reference to the methodological naturalism underwriting the enterprise. Furthermore, the methodology integrates itself into an individual's Weltanshauung, corrupting his frame of reference and driving him further from scripture. Over time, the method becomes the philosophy, and shoves out competing claims.  24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

I hope this helps.

Date: 2006/02/13 12:43:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So Bill—is it time to shut this thread down? Your posts are getting further and further apart, and your substantive posts are down to barely one a month.

My job (you know, the place I go to every morning after I stagger out of the nearest trash can) has been killing me lately. So I might need to shut things down for a while. Don't worry, I'm still working on it -  I just don't want to give a deadline I can't keep. I'll bump the thread up when I have new material....

Date: 2006/02/14 11:23:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Ghost of Paley can't back up his assertions.......

Quote
LOL. Why not just admit that this is one assertion that you can't argue to completion?


.....and people wonder why I'm so unrelenting - look what happens when I drop my guard.


:p

Date: 2006/02/16 04:53:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:
Quote
Bill, here's the problem: you come out with guns blazing, trashing not only evolutionary biology but basically all of physics (or at least, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics). You claim that evolutionary biologists are cretins, you unaccountably lump astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists—basically anyone who believes the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around—in with biologists by referring to them as "evolutionists," and then claim to not only be able to debunk their theories, but also to be able to blow away the scientific community with your own virtuoso performances in mathematics, physics, astronomy, and biology.
Then, when you're called upon to back up your assertions, it turns out you don't actually have a theory of biology or astronomy, but rather are trying to cobble both together after the fact, and appear to be essentially forcing the observations to fit your theory, rather than the other way around, which is exactly the sin of which you accuse about half the scientific community of being guilty.

Is it any wonder that you're the recipient of a certain amount of skepticism and hostility?

True enough, but what I'm complaining about is people confusing fact with speculation. Everyone assumes that I'm simply ducking out of an argument (which is OK), and then uses that assumption to trash me. But nobody can possibly know my motives; all that's available is the circumstantial evidence of my actions. Not that this really bothers me, and I actually like most of you guys. But what about someone with a thinner skin? I've seen too many gang-ups on this site (present company excluded).

Date: 2006/02/16 06:16:07, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I guess "guts to gametes" is not even on the back burner, now.

Naw, I'm working on that as well - I just can't give a deadline right now. But it should be worth waiting for.

Date: 2006/02/16 09:19:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It should be fun to see if I can come up with objections to your theory as fast as you can propose it. So far, I'd have to say I'm way ahead of you in that game.

True enough, which is one reason for the slowdown.
Quote
When someone comes up with a wildly novel theory, everyone else in the field piles on with objections. No doubt sometimes it feels personal. But given your well-known contempt for "evolutionists," "liberals" (i.e., "traitors" in current parlance) and other assorted evildoers, it can't surprise you that you're getting some push-back from other posters here. Right?

Your point remains valid. So does mine. I don't take the criticisms personally, even when they're a little south of the beltline: after all, I've landed a few netherly shots of my own. But what about the more delicate types who dislike the insinuations about their motives? It seems like many posters here treat every evo skeptic as a manipulative liar. This doesn't sell your movement well...

Date: 2006/03/01 09:55:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I guess that Fields Medal will have to wait until next year. Or am I being optimistic?

I'm still tied up with work, but I should be able to do something next week. The fact that I've completely stopped posting should indicate how busy I've been. What else could silence me?

Date: 2006/03/13 06:06:56, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Wally writes:

Quote
Sorry, I know this is responding to a five week old post, but I just saw it and realized no one had made the refuttal that was immediately apparent to me

Quote  
You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.


Sorry, GoP, you need to review your trigonometry and calculus.  If the sphere starts out compressed at t=0, then the equation for its radius is r(t) = R + Asin(theta - pi/2), where R is the uncompressed (steady-state) radius, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, and theta is t/T, and (theta - pi/2) indicates that the oscillation is beginning from a minimum value of r as sin(-pi/2)=-1.  If we are currently one quarter through the cycle, then t=1/4 T, or theta=pi/2, and (theta-pi/2)=0.

Now, on to the calculus.  Just to review, r(t) is the radius at a given time, r'(t) is the velocity of the radius (and therefore, the velocity of any point on the sphere), r"(t) is the acceleration, and the positive direction for r' and r" is away from the center.  For clarity, I'm dropping (t) and substituting (x) for (theta - pi/2).  Lets run through the calculus:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Acos(x)
r" = -Asin(x)

If we substitute for (x) with the present time value (theta - pi/2) = 0, the values above become:

r = R
r' = A
r" = 0


Sorry - Wally world is closed: The moose outside should have told you how to plug numbers into your own formulae. At this time we are around theta=Pi/2. Now, this gives a value r''=-A, consistent with an accelerating universe the big clang theory doesn't predict (at least without recourse to other phenomena).


That having been said, there is still some explaining to do. Wally mentioned that without zero velocity there is no Doppler effect. Given his formulae, but not his plug-ins, that is what we would have for r'=0. Now, if you would only scroll down to my follow-up post you would find that my quinitessence sphere has a non-zero initial velocity (the derivation will appear shortly), so Wally's objection is moot, and the Doppler shift remains to bedevil the evo community.

In light of the fact that Wally is one of the brightest evolutionists here, and the best he can do is botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining, this bespeaks poorly of the Darwinist community in general!

Date: 2006/03/13 13:47:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the typos. Due to time constraints, I didn't have time to edit. Hopefully I communicated the important part....

[addendum: I just edited the post. Hopefully it's a little clearer now.]

Date: 2006/03/15 06:56:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Russell wrote:
Quote
As I said before, within limits, I buy the concept of the "molecular clock". But my big problem with your idea is that it goes way beyond those limits. The reference you gave deals only with actual cytochrome C, by definition a mitochondrial enzyme. The constraints on its evolution - its rate of accumulation of differences after lineage splits - are at least comparable. When you talk about the bacterial homologs, all bets are off.

You might find the first footnote to this essay interesting:
Quote
As an aside, Camp has misplaced the above Denton quote. To be fair, Denton made that remark in response to the controversial "molecular clock" hypothesis, which is related though distinctly different from the observation of equal molecular divergences between species. From his later comments, Camp evidently does not understand this difference. The molecular clock hypothesis is the idea that rates of evolution are constant throughout time. Rates could be extremely variable yet result in equal genetic distance between two species serendipitously. Conversely, rates could be very constant in specific lineages, yet result in unequal genetic distances (if the rates are unequal between lineages). Regardless, Denton is still confused on the subject, as he uncritically assumes that absolute background mutation rates in yeast should be "100,000 times greater than in a tree or a mammal ..." (Denton 1998, p. 291-292). This would only be true if DNA replication errors were the primary source of mutations. However, there is currently little data supporting this directly. Recent studies have indicated that other sources of mutation are more important (Huttely et al. 2000; Bohossian et al. 2000; Kumar and Subramanian 2002). All else equal, we expect that absolute background mutation rates should be equivalent between species, and that is roughly what is observed. Even if DNA replication errors are the primary cause of mutations, from the most basic conclusions of neutral theory there are other reasons (beyond the scope of this rebuttal) for why rates of protein evolution should be relatively equal between organisms with very short or very long generation times (see Ohta 1993 and references therein -- this article gives the consensus explanation which Denton claims does not exist, and it demonstrates that the evidence supports this explanation).

Shi's point may be valid, but there are better ways to establish it than relying on out-of-date books. Just my opinion, of course.

Date: 2006/04/05 07:56:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
"For that matter, it is possible to model a wholly geocentric view of the universe -- but it is so complicated to include the retrograde movements of planets and so devoid of coherence and mathematical elegance that no one with any sense would insist on using that model. We'd much rather use Kepler's laws than have to deal with the innumerable and pointless complexities that would result from a geocentric model."

I hope to refute this statement eventually. Obviously I've got a lot of work to do, and my regular job isn't helping matters any. Please notice, however, that the belt that cinches this argument is rather circular - remove it at your peril. For now it's enough to see one of the Master's minions giving this board a much-needed biochemistry lesson: just be thankful that the Master's occupied elsewhere. Evos remind me of that hapless guy in Porky's that would keep running to the pigman looking for a fight, only to stagger back half-conscious to his friends. When will you guys ever learn? Berlinkski is one of the most profound intellects of this century, and has a specialist's grasp of biology, chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and physics (although Dembski's creative flame flickers a little more brightly in information theory, IMHO). See this as A Learning Opportunity and you'll be better off. Darwin's domain is the Land of Ice Cream. The future belongs to us.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:09:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
J. G. Cox wrote:
Quote
I should also emphasize that evolutionary theory gives many potential research directions for the question at hand.

Except for the most important one: would evolutionary theory predict a "gay gene"? Or any other gene for that matter? Why must Darwinism wait for verification of an entity's existence before lauching its research program? Shouldn't evolutionary psychology or the ever-so-mathematically-cogent field of population genetics provide a predictive model for what changes are possible? But no, after real scientists make the discoveries, evos rush in, chisels in hand, and announce a new field to "tackle". It's easy to give answers when nothing's at stake.......but you get what you pay for.

Date: 2006/04/05 12:45:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
No, it would not, because (as far as we know) mutations are random. Thus, just because some trait might affect fitness does not affect that probability that that trait will arise; it simply means that if it does, then the probable fate of that trait will be determined by its fitness influence.

Well, I'm talking about the likelihood of natural selection preserving a particular mutation, not the odds of the mutation arising in the first place. So why can't evolution derive a probability distribution of this "fitness influence"?
Quote
If you can come up with a way to predict mutations (not just differential probabilities of transitions versus transversions), then you have just scored yourself a Nobel. In any case, that would be incorporated right into evolutionary theory because evolution, like all scientific theories, is amenable to adjustment as new information is obtained.

Geneticists should worry about the mutation part; it's the evos responsibility to describe the other half of the RM & NS expression. Their inability to do so is one reason why evolution gets scant attention in medical textbooks. Retrodiction only goes so far, especially when people's health is on the line.
Quote
ID, however, seems amenable to adjustment only as the political and legal climate changes.

We were the ones who saw the value in "junk" DNA, and the danger in assuming that retroviruses randomly insert themselves in the genome. But then cleaning up after Darwin is a full time job.

Date: 2006/04/05 12:48:59, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The weeks have long since stretched into months, and the months will soon enough become years.

What's a few years to an evo?  ;)

Date: 2006/04/05 14:31:06, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It makes it very difficult to calculate exact probabilites like you want, but there are folks out there trying to do that very thing.

why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out.

And what predictions have they made? Take your time - it's an important question.
Quote
oh wait, that's right.  Based on your past posts about the inadequacies of cladistics, I'd say your reading comprehension is not sufficient to the task.

oh well, you could always try anyway.  ####, you might learn something.

Even Mr. Brazeau conceded that several of his earlier criticisms of Arnason et al. were refuted in the literature, although this didn't prevent him from launching several more. And the fact that Arnason's work suffers from flaws does not erase the more egregious problems in the research Brazeau cited, which supports my earlier complaint of phylogenetic unreliability. But being such an expert thinker on all things fishy, I'm sure you were already aware of that. ;)

Date: 2006/04/05 15:40:32, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
but not any of the ones raised by you, nor were any of the objections raised by you logical or relevant.

Um, who was the one who cited, summarised, and highlighted the points in the offending study? As for your second point, the very length of the thread says something about the scientific relevance of my objections. At least it's a better indicator than "Dood, you were really shredded. 9 out of 10 hyenas agree!"  :D
Quote
As usual, I'm not gonna do your work for you.  You're simply not worth more than a sidenote to any lurkers that the issue is worth investigating.

Paley's translation for the lurkers: "I don't have a clue, dood." So does evolution predict a gay gene or not? Supporting reasoning/evidence would be nice.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:23:01, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Thanks for the references. I remember the controversy surrounding Dean Hamer's work, but notice the silent dog in the debate: evolutionary theory. Why didn't Hamer take historical biology into account before offering his hypothesis? Answer: nobody knows what evolution predicts.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:35:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
It seems to me that when we look at homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, suicide and euthanasia, we see phenomenon that purposely defy evolution.  If each of these phenomenon were genetically-related then a "self-destruct" gene would seemed to have evolved at evolution's own design.

I agree, but I'd like to see if evolution actually makes any predictions before I hammer it with any putative inconsistencies. All of this could be avoided if evolution could provide a rigorous way to test its stories instead of leaning on other disciplines for guidance. This is why Dembski and Behe had to construct a new vocabulary before critiquing Darwin.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:41:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I'll have some time to work on it this weekend. Look for an outline soon. I can't commit to anything more specific than that....

Date: 2006/04/06 07:02:05, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
For what it's worth, I think it's a shame that Larry is doing this. Internet fora like Panda's Thumb are the last holding pens for free speech. I may not agree with many of the ideas here, but at least you give your "satans" a platform for their objections. I'd hate to see this board become more restrictive due to security concerns. What makes this doubly ironic is the fact that Larry is, apparently, a holocaust denier - a belief that has been legislated out of existence in many countries. Yet he wishes to quash other people's speech.

Date: 2006/04/07 07:38:14, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
jeannot said:
Quote
What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments).

          Correct. Evolution makes retrodictions rather than predictions. But scientists need predictions in order to produce new technologies and carve out promising paths for future research. That's why evos must wait for discoveries in other fields before pursuing their own inquiries. Look how dependent modern evo "science" is on genome sequencing and developments in computer science; conversely, these disciplines have little use for evolution. Why? Because people would rather learn new things than explain old ones.
        Which brings me to another observation: the clever way in which everyone (including creationists) constucts cofferdams (in evos's case, caissons :D )  to protect his philosophy from encroaching dissonance. Let's use a neutral example: I'm a big fan a baseball and its statistics. While a player's contribution with the bat can be reliably tabulated, his glovework is tougher to measure. A statistician can record assists and putouts, but do these numbers reflect a player's skill or the quirks of the team's pitching staff? And what role does his homepark's dimensions play? The manager's mindset? This problem has bedeviled everyone in the game.
      Perhaps one can account for these factors by adding the total number of a fielder's plays, estimating the impact his team makes on these numbers (do the pitchers yield an unusually high number of ground balls? Is the outfield a bit undersized? Are the surrounding players unusually immobile, forcing the player to accept more chances?), and adjust accordingly. But one problem remains: a team is alloted a maximum of 27 outs. This constrains each player by "capping" his number of opportunities. An exceptional defensive player (Ozzie Smith or Andruw Jones in his prime) will reduce the number of hits while "hogging" more than his share of outs. Which means fewer opportunities for everyone else.
     This problem is known to just about every statistician in the game. Unfortunately, until the advent of play-by-play data, the stats guy was unable to measure the impact of this factor. So did they admit that the traditional stats were crucially flawed and wait for better metrics? If you answered "Yes", then obviously you haven't been on planet Earth for very long. Instead, they simply ignored the gaping hole in their model, or assumed that it wasn't very important. For example, Bill James wrote an essay a couple of decades ago defending the range metrics current at the time while deriding his critics as "amateur sabermetricians". Recently, however, he came out with Win Shares, a metric that avoids the age-old problem to a much greater extent. His shiny model competes with other metrics such as Ultimate Zone Rating and Defensive Regression Analysis, which account for the precise location of every batted ball over the entire season. While flawed, each method represents a tremendous improvement over traditional statistics, and blessed with these shiny toys, the math crowd regales us with the intractable problems faced by measures of old.
      Am I implying any dishonesty here? No, it's just people being people. Humans have a need to solve problems, to make a splash, to create, and they aren't going to let inadequate methods-let alone facts- get in the way. To work, however, this process must be unconscious. There must be no acknowledgement of the incompatability of past positions, because that might compromise today's glosses. Too few transitions in the fossil record? Well, kids, geology predicts that fossilization will be rare, so evolution predicts this state of affairs. And what with soil acidity, depositional bias, continental drift...it's no surprise, and only a rube would think that intermediates would be anything other than vanishingly rare....we can even calculate this....oh look at this new discovery! OOH- and lookie here! and here! See, just as we predicted - an intermediate - no, a whole slew of them! What was it you creos were saying about the poor fossil record? And we can measure the probability of fossil preservation with much more confidence - so there! Once again, the snake sheds his skin without a moment's thought - be he evo, creo, or somewhere in the middle. So what to do? I don't know either, but I do know this: when an expert says a problem doesn't count, it just might be that it can't be counted. Look around you, you'll see this phenomenon everywhere.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:15:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
What, praytell, is the past incompatibility that has gone unacknowledged in this case?

Originally, evos credited the stinginess of fossil-bearing strata to simple geochemical processes. Yet now that several "intermediates" have been discovered, not only are these processes ignored, there is not even an attempt to reconcile past explanations with current data. It's as if prior rationalizations have disappeared into the memory hole. Did later stratigraphic research overturn those facts? Were the facts merely wishful thinking? What is the explanation?

Date: 2006/04/07 09:49:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So, GoP would like to throw out modern science, statistics etc?

See, this is part of what I'm talking about. My purpose was not to bash statistics, least of all baseball statistics. I was discussing the way that people process disturbing information. Instead of saying, "Yeah, that's a crippling objection for now, hopefully we'll be able to address it with future research", they use two defense mechanisms:

1) The objection is not really important, at most it's a slight gap in our knowledge
2) A smooth rationalization pops up, which is assented to by all researchers in the field, and quietly dropped when a better explanation comes along. This process appears to be large instinctive, as no mention is ever made of the switch. Just like the speaker in 1984 (heh!;)) changing the enemy's identity in midsentence, except the crowd doesn't rip up the obsolete banners and placards. If anyone does object, they're labeled a crank, rube, and whatever other terms come to mind. This label has some merit, as it usually does take an outsider to probe beneath the surface.

 Personally, I appreciate the evolution of baseball stats, and support the new metrics. I just remember that we were supposed to be at war with Eurasia, that's all.
Quote
They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock.  I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled.

See? Unconscious.  :)

Date: 2006/04/07 10:15:49, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Okay. Let me try again.

   During the Gish Era, a common objection to evolution was the scarcity of intermediate fossils (yes, I know that it's still common, but much more hay was made back then). I was an evolutionist at that time (now I'm a geocentric creationist, to answer Mr. Elliot's question), so I would hunt for responses to the creo charges. The most popular one was, "The scarcity of transitional forms is perfectly understandable, given how unlikely the fossilization process is. It's surprising how many fossils we do have". Then they would demonstrate this by describing the process in detail, all the time underlining the unlikelihood of the whole thing. Now, however, no one remarks on how surprising all these discoveries are, given the unlikelihood of the intermediates being preserved. Now, those same creo objections that were glossed over before are being dusted off and recast as significant problems that have now been solved, proving the validity of evolution. Look at the Stephen Jay Gould essay celebrating the discovery of Rhodocetus in Dinosaur in a Haystack. Would the objections have been recognised if the discoveries had not been made? I say no.

Date: 2006/04/08 05:15:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
avocationist wrote:
Quote
Anyway, if australia was indeed isolated that long ago then I think there ought to be some evolutionary principles to account for the similarity that occured. Just saying similar selection pressures isn't good enough.

What do you think, Paley?

I'd have to agree that the morphological convergence between marsupial and placental mammals is a little too spooky to be accounted for by selection pressures or the cooption of regulatory genetic pathways, although this explanation might work for coarser phenomena such as convergent lifecycles. For example, how can the Darwinist explain the striking similarities between the skull and teeth of Tasmanian "wolves" and their distant placental "cousins"? And remember, scientists once considered mammalian earbones evidence for a common ancestor of the entire class, due to their intricate structure as well as the existence of a sequence of fossils that purportedly show the step-by-step modification of the earbones from the reptilian jaw. Too bad later fossils established that monotremes must have evolved their similar ear structure independently:
Quote
The three-boned middle ear was thought to have evolved only once in a common mammalian ancestor, before the separate evolution of monotremes and later of marsupials and placentals.

But the discovery of a monotreme with a single-bone middle ear changes this simple story.

A common ear

Rich is excited by the findings because they suggest this complex ear structure arose separately at least twice during evolution. And he is amazed at the similarity between the middle ears of monotremes, placentals and marsupials.

"They're so similar it's frightening," he says. "How close can convergent evolution be?"

Convergent evolution occurs where similar traits evolve among very different groups of animals as a result of exposure to similar environmental pressures. What these pressures were in this case, no one knows.

"I haven't go the foggiest," says Rich. "People haven't thought about it because it hasn't been a problem until now."

The findings also mean that palaeontologists will have to reassess the way they identify mammal fossils. To date any specimen was a mammal if it had a three-boned middle ear.

But since Rich's discovery, the classification of mammals won't be able to rely on this simple test alone.

Rich and team did not find the whole skull of the extinct monotreme. They only had a lower jaw to analyse. But this jaw showed telltale signs that the hammer and anvil were connected to it.

[all emphases due to Paley]

I would be frightened too.

Date: 2006/04/10 04:51:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
It seems like people are conflating several issues here:

1) The extent to which society should tolerate homosexual behavior

2) The origin of homosexual behavior / feeling

3) Whether or not homosexuals are more inclined to commit crime, have STDs, or engage in naughty behavior in general.

Points 2) and 3) are purely empirical, and are therefore in the domain of science. There is nothing bigoted about researching these issues, even if the researcher does not assume the liberal's null hypothesis of completely equal behavior across all groups absent discrimination from straight White Chistian males.

Point 1), however, is predicated on one's prior philosophy and is hard to shift with evidence, especially the evidence proffered by the social sciences. Religion and political philosophy create a powerful inertia that isn't going to be halted by insults and slander.

Date: 2006/04/10 06:26:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Your post does make your position clear: Homosexual behavior is bad, it is wrong, it should not be tolerated, queers are diseased naughty criminally-inclined people, it's an insult to disagree with these positions, as would be expected from liberals. NOW, let's all be scientific and objective on this playing field.

Dean, you know it's against the rules to hijack rational people's screen names.  :D

Seriously, I think you read much more in the post than was actually there. By "naughty behavior", I meant promiscuity, public indecency, soliciting minors, etc. : in other words, actions that are widely considered naughty independent of sexual orientation. Obviously, no one will agree on an all-inclusive definition; hence a vague phrase meant to elicit different images in different minds.
Quote
Your first question is strictly a value question, phrased poorly for lack of any baseline. Are we talking here about normative positions ("being homosexual is bad") or about cost/benefit considerations to the society? How would you go about quantifying these things?

Cost-benefit, with the presumption that no harm is done to society by tolerating the behavior. I have no interest in bringing the government into the bedroom. But I'm willing to listen to all sides.

Date: 2006/04/10 06:44:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Chris Hyland wrote:
Quote
I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour.

Sex or sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.

Flint wrote:
Quote
But more specification would be useful. If we designate homosexual behaviors as crimes, is it honest to then turn around and say homosexuals are "more inclined to criminal behavior"? I wouldn't be comfortable calling that a "scientific investigation." Would you?

I wasn't designating homosexual behavior as criminal, but starting with the baseline assumption that homosexual acts should not be classified as criminal.
  Here's an interesting question: what role should societal condemnation play? Even if a society doesn't illegalize a certain behavior, it is still possible to make life difficult for people doing it (note: I am not saying this is a good thing, just stating a fact).

Date: 2006/04/10 08:59:28, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint wrote:
Quote
There's no question that social acceptance of any behavior largely throttles that behavior. But there's also no question but that the specific behaviors rewarded or rejected by any given society (or region) are in constant flux. Just as a typical example, if I wish I can wear my hair down to my waist and work in a corporate suit-and-tie environment and nobody thinks twice about it. Imagine 50 years ago!

and
Quote
The point I'm trying to support here is that where there is no harm done, fashions CAN change.

Certainly true. And I think that some degree of social change is inevitable provided the change doesn't hurt society. Even when it does, social forces can sometimes reestablish equilibrium (consider the transition between the late '70's and the Reagan era). But what if change is wedded to identity politics? Then it's hard to measure its impact, and politically dangerous to even try. Look at the abuse hurled Thordaddy's way for daring to suggest that a disproportionate number of homosexuals engage in destructive behavior such as casual, unprotected sex. He may well be wrong, but that's an empirical issue. It doesn't necessarily make him a bigot. And if he's correct, then society has every right to question the ethos that produces the behavior. If he's wrong, better to show him why, even if you don't think he's met your burden of proof. I'm interested in the evidence.

Date: 2006/04/10 11:22:53, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Hi Ghost,

Quick question – how do you define gender?   Is it just the physical equipment a person is born with?  Are there only two genders, male and female?  What about hermaphrodites?  What gender are they?

Yes, I remember reading that a certain proportion of babies (3 out of 1000? can't remember) are born with ambiguous genitalia, and need surgery to "correct" the condition. And there are the transexuals of course, which sometime overlap the previous group. But you're trying to build a rule from the exceptions. Most people are pretty clearly male or female. We can't design social norms around the exceptional cases - that would be like architects designing doorways with the NBA center in mind.
Quote
what if we could change our gender at will?

some fish species change sex over time, some are protogynous (many wrasses, for example) and some protandrous (some groupers).

Well, if protandrous groupers campaign for equal rights under the law, then I'll worry about it. Man, you guys really are dancing around the issue, ain't ya?

Date: 2006/04/10 13:06:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Meanwhile, Russell focuses directly on the issue and asks very good questions. Do you have answers for them?

Why not?
Quote
My question is: what should the role of public education be in this? Specifically:
What is being taught in school that he thinks should not be?

Can't really answer this since I don't know what the schools are teaching. But I don't believe that certain students should have to be run through the guilt ringer like you see in "white studies" classes. Just the facts, ma'am.
Quote
What is not being taught that he thinks should be?

I think that all the relevant hypotheses for the origin of homo/heterosexuality should be taught, from the purely biological to the socialization model.
Quote
What should science and scientists say about it that they don't?

Social scientists should be allowed to research group behavioral differences if they wish. Some do already, but not enough. For example, homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals: true or false? If a difference exists, does biology play a role? What about spousal/partner abuse? I read a study somewhere that indicated that homosexual couples (including lesbians) are more likely to have violent relationships than heterosexual ones. Has this been replicated?
Quote
What should science and scientists not say about it that they do?

That's easy. Don't assume that discrimination is the only explanation for antisocial behavior, or even an explanation at all.

Date: 2006/04/10 14:01:43, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
I personally would speculate that the cost to society of tolerating homosexual behavior would be the loss of the leverage of "superiority" that some people need, the loss of a category of people to look down on.

Perhaps.....but maybe there's a good reason for the taboo. Most social rules have developed for a reason. Even libertine societies were not equally tolerant of all types of homosexual behavior. I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous.

Russell:
Quote
What are we to make of the fact that 75% of AIDS cases in women are ascribed to heterosexual activity? Does that mean heterosexual activity is abnormal and unnatural - but only for women?

And how many of these men were living on the down low? This is one reason why it's folly to treat sexual behavior as if it exists in a vacuum. If a man's wife cheats on him with a bisexual man, and hubby gets AIDs, how is that not his problem? And with Cosmo telling women to cheat on their spouses as a step towards self-fulfillment, this possibility becomes less remote. Look at the black community - black women are much more likely to get AIDs than white women. Why is that? Because Black culture encourages the men to screw around more. Every action you take affects another human being. And it's easier to destroy a village than rebuild it.

I know that many will find this post provocative, but I can't help it. The truth is, the social conservatives make a lot of sense, and you ignore their warnings at society's peril.

Date: 2006/04/10 14:42:27, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
If society had a little more of this...

and a little less of this...

...school shootings would be a thing of the past.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:34:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Homosexuality is NOT a choice; here the social conservatives are wrong.

You're probably correct here. I wish that good people wouldn't use such bad arguments.
Quote
But this is one of those things that confuses me about the conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. I should think the implied long-term commitment would be exactly what the conservatives want to promote.

Well, I suspect that conservatives are afraid of the camel nosing his way into the tent. They respect the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Quote
Many homosexuals DO want a committed relationship with the same duties and privileges you enjoy, and the social conservatives are wrong to oppose this.

Given that openly gay people are becoming more visible year by year, all I can say is I hope you're right. This society could use more responsible behavior.
Quote
The social benefits of easily available abortion have been beneficial without exception or ambiguity, a win-win-win situation for the woman with an undesired pregnancy, for society in the form of the crimes not committed by those not born to commit them, and even for those aborted rather than born into an unwelcoming environment unwilling and unable to raise them properly.

I'm trying to avoid an abortion debate at all costs, so let me just say that most social conservatives would not find this line of reasoning very fetching.
Quote
Nobody is cheerleading for misery, disease, jealousy, contempt, or homicide. It's true that free-love communes solved none of these problems, and made many of them worse. But bad policies don't become good just because some 'solutions' were steps in the wrong direction.

But progressives are competing against 1000's of years of social selection. Their track record doesn't inspire much confidence in the future. Did you ever see the "The Harrad Experiment"? It all looked so groovy at the time. Who could argue against such logic? Reality, that's who.
Quote
Wow. I find it difficult to believe that in order to act morally and not shoot up kids in schools, I have to believe in one of the most bizarre sets of fantasies ever invented. And this despite that fact that atheists are WAY underrepresented in prisons.

Not you, perhaps, but what about the people who need some guidance? Putting the issue of truth aside, many people need religion.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:47:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
there are many societies that have/had regarded polygamy as the norm, and have no problems with that.  Others that use promiscuity like the bonobos do, as a social binding force.

it's this specific society that has problems with the types of behaviors being discussed.

Paley, and now Flint(?) appear to be ethnocentralizing their thinking here.

why not investigate how other societies that are different from that in the US deal with these issues?

We would, 'cept they keep spinning us like turnstiles as they enter the U.S. I think that tells us a lot right there. "ZOOM-ZOOM-ZOOM!" #### hippie.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:26:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
This [abortion] is much more a question of what modern technology permits, fighting against a clearly irrational rejection despite the fact that the evidence accumulated in even a relatively short time has overwhelmingly discredited the conservative resistance.

Once again, I want to avoid debating the merits of abortion, but I couldn't let this slide without comment.
Quote
1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. This works out to approximately 18,000 per year.[1]

This statistic courtesy of the the Guttmacher Institute, an organization dedicated
Quote
to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.


Are these statistics reliable? Some insiders doubt them. Even if the statistics are valid, should we worry about late-term abortions? Yes, and here's why:
Quote
The seventh month of gestation witnesses the appearance of many new osseous (bone) formations. The developing foetus is now 305 millimetres long. Sulci and gyri (the convolutions) of the brain are much more in evidence, membranes over the pupils disappears and the eyes open. The insula (An oval region of the cerebral cortex overlying the extreme capsule, lateral to the lenticular nucleus, buried in the depth of the fissura lateralis cerebri (sylvian fissure), separated from the adjacent opercula by the circular sulcus of insula.) and the tubercula quadrigemina develop.

The seventh month is essentially characterised by rapid growth, development and organisational refinement.

By the eighth month, the foetus will be 405+ millimetres (16+ inches), from crown to heel. During this month of development the foetus will strengthen its body and the nervous system will increase its connections and receive more sensory input, and gain more motor control.

During the ninth month the foetus will reach 510 millimetres (20 inches) or more. All ossification points are in place, and further refinement of motor and other neuronal connections takes place for the ninth month foetus is usually very active.

Here's another source that gives a week-by-week development with 3D ultrasound pictures.  Medical experts agree that a fetus may experience pain by the third trimester.
This is significant because:
Quote
At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks.

As if overturning the common conception of infancy weren't enough, scientists are creating a startling new picture of intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations:

By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear.
Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.
Just because the fetus is responsive to certain stimuli doesn't mean that it should be the target of efforts to enhance development. Sensory stimulation of the fetus can in fact lead to bizarre patterns of adaptation later on.

In my opinion, there's not much to distinguish a third-trimester fetus from a newborn. Any differences are quantitative rather than qualitative.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:55:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Just one more thing. Everyone who advocates that gay marriage should be legalized is assuming that this will end the matter. But what if gays decide that marriage isn't enough (there's still all this institutionalized homophobia floating around, don't you know), so a good dose of affirmative action, set-asides, and hate-crime legislation are in order? Current promises don't mean much; after all, liberals once said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act wouldn't lead to quotas. And it didn't for a couple of years or so.

Date: 2006/04/11 15:55:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Occam's Aftershave wrote:
Quote
Hey Ghost,

You forgot to explain how allowing a same-sex couple to make the legal committment of marriage will lead to sexual mores getting wiped out.  Or lead to a massive wave of “free love” and “open relationships”.  Or signal an “end to marriage”.

Please reread the original post. I actually said:
Quote
I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous.

The "suite" refers to the cluster of sexual prohibitions against homosexual relations. As you can see in the passage, I never stated, or even implied, that allowing homosexual marriage by itself would unravel the social fabric. In fact, I actually implied that:
1) much of the social fabric has already been unraveled by "progressive" philosophy; and
2) heterosexuals have largely caused this.

 But homosexuals held up their end by refusing to shut down gay baths in the wake of AIDS. Consequently, the disease spread so rapidly throughout the gay population that most AIDs victims were doomed before the scientists could get a handle on the situation. Furthermore, many gays have embraced a decadent lifestyle, alienating potential allies to the cause. Look at the typical gay parade. Do these people realise how they damage their movement?

Date: 2006/04/12 04:46:48, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Occam's Aftershave wrote:
Quote
T-daddy, shouldn't you be off burning crosses, or marching with Fred Phelps somewhere?

Look, I understand that you're frustrated, but you won't accomplish anything by foaming at the mouth like a rabid dingo everytime someone challenges your liberal pieties. Why not let the evidence speak for itself? Live up to your handle for once.
Quote
And what is a "decadent" lifestyle?  PDAs in front of some 80 year old WASP prig?  Wanting to have a committed same-sex relationship with someone you love?

No, but having unprotected sex with strangers in the midst of a plague certainly qualifies. And here are some numbers:
Quote
Gómez found that based on reports of the previous year, most sex behavior that might spread HIV did not differ significantly between African-Americans, whites and Latinos. But whites, for example, most often identified themselves as gay and reported a larger number of male sex partners than did Latinos and African Americans. Whites also were more likely to have oral insertive sex with men who were HIV negative or whose HIV status was unknown.

African-American men were more likely than either whites or Latinos to also report sex with women, to identify themselves as bisexual, and to be uncomfortable with their same-sex behavior. When recalling encounters within the past three months, African Americans and Latinos reported higher rates of unprotected anal intercourse with a partner whose HIV status was negative or unknown. Interviews suggested that both groups are less likely to consider oral sex as a substitute for penetrative sex.

The survey showed that 47 HIV positive men across all ethnic groups reported unprotected anal insertive sex with a partner though they knew his HIV status was negative.

In one-on-one interviews with each man, surveyors pulled out the context: "These encounters usually were rare, and there were very few men who did not consider it an issue to have sex with a man whom they might infect," Gómez said.

Often an HIV negative partner was willing, or even demanded to take the risk, she said. Even more often, drugs, alcohol or other factors limited the men's perceived sense of control over their behavior.

Gómez said a more worrisome statistic was that more than half the HIV positive men (132) had sex with partners whose HIV status was unknown.

[all emphases mine, of course]


Thordaddy, do you think I'll get any rational responses to this? Eric and Flint, maybe. The rest, I'm not so sure.

Date: 2006/04/12 05:16:31, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
 
Look at the typical gay parade

Quote
spend much time watching gay pride parades, do you?


Ahhhh...a member of the Concrete Crew, I see.

Date: 2006/04/12 05:38:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliot:
Quote
There is no condoning a HIV+ person having unprotected sex with someone they know (or it is possible) to be negative.

But that is the bahaviour of individuals. I believe this has also happened in heterosexual sexual encounters.

Certainly. And this behavior may be even more common among heterosexuals (the statistics for straight teens are depressing enough). But the majority of surveyed gay men engaging in sociopathic behavior? I just can't endorse a culture that leads to such irresponsible acts. But watch the excuses roll in.........

Date: 2006/04/12 06:14:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Midnight Voice
Quote
And don't forget, AIDS started out as a heterosexual disease, and in many parts of the world is still prediminantly heterosexually transmitted


Yep. There are pockets of the straight community that also behave recklessly. But you're proving my point: AIDs may not discriminate, but it does seem to target Africans, drug-users, and gay men. Doesn't this indicate where most prevention efforts should be directed? And an ounce of clear thinking is worth a pound of cure.

Flint:
Quote
I'm not sure I'm quite grasping the distinction between decadent and irresponsible.

Well, one often leads to the other.
Quote
I confess that since the advent of AIDS, I too have had unprotected sex with women not known to be HIV negative.

Then you engaged in reckless behavior. But please keep in mind that AIDs is much more common in gay communities, and has been for decades. There is no excuse for a gay man to be unaware of the risks. Also, anal sex is more likely to spread the disease than vaginal sex, all other things being equal. Plus, many of the men continued to have unprotected sex even when they knew they were HIV positive. That's just pure sociopathy. By the way, the study is saying that the majority of gay HIV + men are being irresponsible, not the majority of gay men overall. Sorry for the mistake.

Date: 2006/04/12 09:13:15, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
One thing leads to another, I guess. You're correct, this behavior is reprehensible. But I doubt being homosexual predisposes an individual to be more likely to do it.

I doubt that gay people are biologically predisposed to immoral behavior either. But for whatever reason, they engage in said behavior at an alarming rate. And since I don't buy the "discrimination made me do it" angle, that leaves culture as the leading candidate.
Quote
If I may say so, this locution begs to be misinterpreted. AIDS itself doesnt 'target' anyone. This disease could have originated in (let's say) Indiana, and it would appear to 'target' Hoosiers, at least for the most part, for some period of time.

Bad wording. I meant that these population groups have much higher levels of the disease. Certainly, some of it is due to the difficulty of transmitting the virus through vaginal sex (less tearing, etc.). But that's only part of it, and doesn't explain the African heterosexual rate. Or the African-American het rate for that matter. Perhaps black men are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior? Doesn't seem likely, but who knows.
Quote
This is the kind of implication that makes you look bigoted.

I let the liberals worry about bigotry. I'm more concerned with the evidence.
Quote
Granted, prevention should be targeted where a disease is most prevalent. But that's pretty straightforward..

Unless society denies that certain behaviors/cultures are more likely to lead to the disease. Or a Marxist media tries to hide the truth. Thank God for scientific journals and the internet.

Faid said:
Quote
Ghost, in a few words: What do you think the survey you linked shows about the homosexual "lifestyle" and how it relates to AIDS?
(Be so kind as to define this lifestyle, too)

Male homosexuality -> more likely to engage in promiscuous sex -> lack of concern for a sexual partner's welfare -> sociopathic behavior

This is just my hypothesis, but at least it attempts to explain the evidence, and it also accounts for the correlation between loose morality and violence evidenced in the overall community (high homicide rate during the 20's and 70's in America, etc.)

Sir Wiggles:
Quote
I thought we were supposed to learn from your shining example?

How could you, you don't even know who I am. But consult your local Baptist for a map to the moral life. Or take a dose of this.....

......and call me in the morning.

Date: 2006/04/12 11:19:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:
Quote
Well, since this is your hypothesis, and it does not originate from this survey (and I agree), can you tell me, in your words, what makes you think that the first correlation in your hypothesis (Male homosexuality -> more likely to engage in promiscuous sex) is valid?

Other than common sense, you mean? O.K.
Quote
A monograph from The Medical Institute for Sexual Health a nonprofit
medical/educational organization concerned with the twin epidemics of
nonmarital pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases reveals the
following information.
[....]
Homosexual men, on average, become sexually active approximately three
years earlier than do heterosexual men. In general, homosexual men tend
to have significantly more lifetime sexual partners than do
heterosexual men.

Or try this one:
Quote
An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Quote
AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).


And what of our Sapphic sisters, you might ask?

Quote
Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Since these (admittedly biased) sites quote actual studies, I think the claim rests on your shoulders now.

Flint:
Quote
With all due respect, you seem to be struggling very hard to notice the obvious, and not quite seeing it. I'm not going to claim that African cultures generally are more broadly promiscuous; data on these matters are very hard to collect reliably.

I think one of my sources provides an explanation.
Quote
Back in the distant past, I was once informed AFTER sex, by a nice white woman I met in the church choir, that she had an STD. But she wasn't about to let me know until she got what she wanted. At least she told me! Was she a sociopath, or just self-centered? Or is this self-centered behavior when you or I do it, and sociopathic when homosexuals do it, because we are just weak, whereas THEY are *depraved*?

If the STD was very serious, then yes, she qualifies as a sociopath. If it was treatable or nonserious, then she was just a jerk. Not that the tramp has my sympathy.
Quote
In other words, I'm saying there's good cause to think that promiscuity is much more correlated with individual preferences than with membership in some particular group like the gay community. Do you know differently?

Yes, and the above explains why.
Quote
And this leaves "culture as the leading candidate" without visible means of support. I'm not sure there is an identifiable "promiscuity" culture, or a "loose women" culture, or a "skirt-chaser" culture. Is there?

No, I'm sure phrases like "Hitting bitches" and "wearing a tramp stamp" are products of my fevered imagination. Do you know what a "rainbow party" is? Some say it's just an urban legend, but no one finds its existence implausible. Why is that, you think?

Date: 2006/04/12 15:25:25, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid said:
Quote
I'm sorry Ghost, but these are not just biased sites that cite studies. They are biased sites that cite studies by biased organizations (check out the "Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality", or the "Medical Institute for Sexual Health", and see for yourself). Also, they quote a 1992 biased book that in turn refers (not quotes) to two articles from journals of the 80's, claiming that they indicate this behavior. I could not find these articles, except as a reference in other biased sites. So, sorry, but it's still in your shoulders ,I fear- After all, it shouldn't be that hard to find an objective comparative study of sexual behavior in homo- and heterosexual adults... I actually believe you'll find a lot, if you look past your bookmarks.

Here's a primary source.
Quote
2.7 VOLUME OF MALE SEXUAL PARTNERS IN THE LAST YEAR
Men were asked In the last 12 months how many MEN have you had sex with in total? and allowed to indicate one of five responses (0.9% did not answer this question). The number of male partners men had in the last year differed slightly by recruitment method. Compared to the men recruited on the internet, the booklet-recruited sample were less likely to have had no male sexual partners and were more likely to have had very high numbers of male partners. This is contrary to the popular impression that men recruited on the internet are, as a group, exceptionally sexually active.

Number of male sexual partners in the last year
(n=15852, missing 150) % Web responses
(n=11820) % Booklet responses
(n=4032) % ALL responses
(n=15852)
Number of male sexual partners in the last year
(n=15852, missing 150) % Web responses
(n=11820) % Booklet responses
(n=4032) % ALL responses
(n=15852)
(None)  6.1  4.7  5.8
(one)  16.6  19.8  17.4
(2, 3 ,4)  29.2  27.3  28.7
(5 to 12)  25.1  21.9  24.3
(13 to 29)  12.4  12.5  12.4
(30+ )   10.5  13.8  11.4


Here's the main page.

If you want more, do your own homework.  :p

Quote
You don't have to, however: I,m interested, as I said before, to know why you think this is so. I wanted to know more about this "common sense" bit: The reasons (obvious in your mind, I see) that homosexuals are more prone to disregard for their personal and their partners safety.
Can you elaborate?


You misquote me - please reread the offending post:
Quote
Faid:
Quote  
Well, since this is your hypothesis, and it does not originate from this survey (and I agree), can you tell me, in your words, what makes you think that the first correlation in your hypothesis (Male homosexuality -> more likely to engage in promiscuous sex) is valid?


Other than common sense, you mean? O.K.

The "common sense" phrase referred to the gay tendency towards promiscuity, not sociopathy. As usual, Flint supplied the logic as well as I could:
Quote
Perhaps the simple impossibility of conception explains a great deal of this behavior. I always ask of myself: If I were single, if I had access to a great many partners, if I weren't in danger of becoming a parent, if I were young, healthy and randy, what posture might I adopt? I can't guarantee I wouldn't feel "Why not?" and just go for it. If I were aware of serious and prevalent disease, if I noticed a lot of those in my cohort becoming sick and dying, I'd probably take precautions. Most of the time.

Except I think I'd take precautions all of the time under those circumstances.

Now, where's your evidence?

Date: 2006/04/12 15:47:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I'm going to have to close shop until tomorrow, but before I go, I'd really like to see some evidence offered for the liberal null hypothesis of equal behavioral outcomes absent discrimination. The excuses for other people's misbehavior are getting threadbare. You've got the Marxist media, the vast majority of academics, speech codes, threats of violence, and the courts on your side - it's time to turn that advantage into solid, fact-based arguments. People are getting fed up with the intellectual three-card monte. I've already done my share of the heavy lifting - now it's your turn.

Date: 2006/04/13 06:25:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Don't be silly. How can anyone present any solid evidence of how things would be if only things were different? I take the normative position that social forces DO influence individual behavior in important ways. But how can I produce evidence of widespread *different* behavior under conditions that do not obtain?

You do realise that you've conceded the untestability of the central assuption underlying liberal policy? But not to fear: as it happens, I don't agree with you. I think that there are ways to measure the degree of prejudice that exists in a society (surveys, etc.) and then correlate those levels with achievement metrics for minority groups. For example, does discrimination cause violent crime? If it does, we would expect crime to decline as, say, median income level rises within the group or as the proportion of prejudiced people within national surveys decreases. Also, we can guage marketing trends: if minority groups appear more frequently in ads, this indicates greater public acceptance, as most companies strive to attract, rather than repel, potential customers. The number of minority faces on the glass teat should relate inversely to the number of antisocial acts by those groups. And so on. More later.

Date: 2006/04/13 06:55:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Well my, my, my! It looks that the Marxists have fled the field, leaving poor Flint by his lonesome. Well, Flint doesn't need a pack of hyenas by his side anyway. Now that we've seen that the liberal side of the issue is completely unsupported, I wonder if the Panda's Thumb regulars will apologise for their name-calling. Should I hold my breath?  ;)

Mr. Elliot:
Quote
GoP,

Your claims sound far more plausible when linked to culture than to ethnicity.

Thanks. But I'm still contending that as ethnic or racial groups segregate, they create different cultures which in turn leads to differential outcomes. Please remember that I don't accept biological IQ differences across groups. I do think this is an issue worth examining. Some contemporary genetic studies are a little worrisome IMHO.

Date: 2006/04/13 09:06:12, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
I think it's much the same with homosexuality. It's a normative position, not an evidence-based position, that legally imposed inequality is *wrong*, and that discrimination (meaning, different treatment for reasons unrelated to the treatment itself) is *bad*. Speculation as to whether homosexual behavior might change if legal policies change, in my opinion, is irrelevant. Denial of basic civil rights (like the right to marry), simply because the people being denied make us uncomfortable to think about, should IMO be debated on philosophical grounds. Is such discrimination a Good Thing? Defend or reject.

OK, I think I see your position. You argue that all adult citizens have the right to marry, and that this liberty may only be revoked (if at all) by an individual's actions. Anyone who wishes to limit this right to certain groups must argue from philosophical, rather than empirical, grounds. Any attempt to quash a group's liberty is misguided, even if society is harmed as a result (which, of course, may not happen). Is this summary correct?

Date: 2006/04/13 09:59:51, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Russell:
Something just came up, so I don't have much time to respond. I'll keep this brief:

1) I'm also deeply skeptical of efforts to change sexual orientation.

2) I don't want to criminalize gay behavior, or even to necessarily restrict gay marriage - but I would like a healthy debate over this issue before we take the plunge. In other words, I don't view the right to marriage as fundamental.

3) No problems with telling the truth during class, but the lessons should stress that there's always a risk for pregnancy/STDs from sex.

Date: 2006/04/13 14:11:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:

It's nice to see you back! And you took time to look at my sources. That's a good thing, because I often wonder if anyone actually pays attention to the evidence during debates. Anyhoo:

Quote
Hmm. You know, I think I can use yours, actually.

In the survey you posted, the larger percentage of homosexuals had 2 to 4 partners in one year. Since the other results seem evened out, more or less (those who had none, or one partner, were about as many as those who had more than a dozen) I can assume this is pretty close to the mean number of partners (at least I don't think it would be more than five or six, but someone more qualified can do the math)

The math wouldn't mean much since we don't have access to the original data. But we can still spot some interesting trends:
Quote
2.7 VOLUME OF MALE SEXUAL PARTNERS IN THE LAST YEAR
Men were asked In the last 12 months how many MEN have you had sex with in total? and allowed to indicate one of five responses (0.9% did not answer this question). The number of male partners men had in the last year differed slightly by recruitment method. Compared to the men recruited on the internet, the booklet-recruited sample were less likely to have had no male sexual partners and were more likely to have had very high numbers of male partners. This is contrary to the popular impression that men recruited on the internet are, as a group, exceptionally sexually active.

Number of male sexual partners in the last year
(n=15852, missing 150) % Web responses
(n=11820) % Booklet responses
(n=4032) % ALL responses
(n=15852)
Number of male sexual partners in the last year
(n=15852, missing 150) % Web responses
(n=11820) % Booklet responses
(n=4032) % ALL responses
(n=15852)
(None)  6.1  4.7  5.8
(one)  16.6  19.8  17.4
(2, 3 ,4)  29.2  27.3  28.7
(5 to 12)  25.1  21.9  24.3
(13 to 29)  12.4  12.5  12.4
(30+ )   10.5  13.8  11.4

      Now, it's true that close to half lead relatively restrained lifestyles, while another quarter are roughly normal. It's the other 22 - 26 % that concern me. Keep in mind that the "13" and "30" are lower bounds; for the former we can use a median figure of 21, which is quite a large haul by non-rockstar standards. Worse yet, 10 - 13% claim AT LEAST 30 partners a year. What are the upper bounds? 50? 75? 100? Suddenly it looks a little more like Vegas.
   If there were no consequences to this promiscuity, we could just pass it off to "boys being boys". But what about the upper tail? Certainly some of these men are HIV+, and each partner that these men infect has a potential to spread the disease to many more men. In an insular community like the gay community, this quickly leads to saturation. And since the gay community will remain insulated given their relatively small numbers, relaxing societal taboos will simply expose free-thinking straight men (as well as their wives, girlfriends, and club tramps) to the virus. Look at the African-American community for a real-life example, and keep in mind that their culture is very homophobic. Their higher exposure to prison rape accounts for some of the spread....but a lot is from the down low.
Quote
Do you think it's due to the "subjective interpretation of data" we discussed earlier, or is somebody deliberately twisting the data to make it show what they want? And who may that be?

Here's a hint.

Thanks for the link. Like its real-life counterparts, diseased information has a way of saturating insular communities - in this case the fundamentalist counterculture. I'll try to avoid Cameron's surveys like the.....well, let's just say I'll keep my eyes open. Having said that, what does one bad researcher have to do with the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine and CDC studies? I realise that they might be hard to find, but according to rumors, there's a whole world beyond the internet.
Quote
Now for the main issues:
Well, if you say that by "common sense" you were refering only to the promisquity of homosexuals, then I stand corrected (although that's more of a "common conception" than anything else).

However, you did claim, when defining the homosexual lifestyle to me, that this promisquity in homosexuals leads to disregard of safety, and finally sociopathic behaviour-  you directly connected that with homosexuality. Do you retract that?

Why would I do a thing like that? You asked me to outline an opinion, and I proceeded to do so. Now you're holding my cooperation against me.
Quote
Well, besides the fact that saying "homosexuals are more active in pursuing sexual relationships because they feel safer" is a long way from calling them sociopaths, what of it? How does that differentiate a homosexual from, say, a heterosexual man with a vasectomy- or a woman with a permanent form of contraception, like tubal ligation, or even IUDs and vaginal rings, for that matter?

What? Have you even read the whole thread? Here's the relevant excepts again:
Quote
Gómez found that based on reports of the previous year, most sex behavior that might spread HIV did not differ significantly between African-Americans, whites and Latinos. But whites, for example, most often identified themselves as gay and reported a larger number of male sex partners than did Latinos and African Americans. Whites also were more likely to have oral insertive sex with men who were HIV negative or whose HIV status was unknown.

African-American men were more likely than either whites or Latinos to also report sex with women, to identify themselves as bisexual, and to be uncomfortable with their same-sex behavior. When recalling encounters within the past three months, African Americans and Latinos reported higher rates of unprotected anal intercourse with a partner whose HIV status was negative or unknown. Interviews suggested that both groups are less likely to consider oral sex as a substitute for penetrative sex.

The survey showed that 47 HIV positive men across all ethnic groups reported unprotected anal insertive sex with a partner though they knew his HIV status was negative.

In one-on-one interviews with each man, surveyors pulled out the context: "These encounters usually were rare, and there were very few men who did not consider it an issue to have sex with a man whom they might infect," Gómez said.

Often an HIV negative partner was willing, or even demanded to take the risk, she said. Even more often, drugs, alcohol or other factors limited the men's perceived sense of control over their behavior.

Gómez said a more worrisome statistic was that more than half the HIV positive men (132) had sex with partners whose HIV status was unknown.

[once again, my emphasis]

Flint:
Quote
I pointed out a few posts back that heterosexuals under the same conditions act exactly the same. Apparently finding members of the same sex arousing changes nothing else I'm aware of - young people still like lots of sex with lots of partners, are pretty irresponsible and spontaneous about it, and immerse themselves in promiscuous sexual activity whenever circumstances permit.

The key phrase being,"under the same conditions". The conditions are not the same, especially in a moral society. Hetero men have a natural brake on their worst impulses: women*. Which is a huge reason why hetero relationships are healthier, IMHO.


*Don't be too smug, ladies: men help keep women civilised and focused as well

Date: 2006/04/14 08:10:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid and Flint:

I'll have to be brief again, as I'm a little rushed today:

1)I don't think societal taboos are preventing sex between gay men and women, but between experimenting straight men and gays. So the disease vector would go like this:
(HIV+ gay men) ->(straight men)->(girlfriends/wives). Once again, we see this happening already in the black community, where promiscuous sex is more common. There's also evidence that more young women are experimenting with lesbianism (14%, I think) and this could happen with men too as gay culture becomes more accepted. This is deadly for young men at least.

2) I realise that I haven't discussed the philosophical arguments so far. I'd like to get a common agreement on a few facts (such as gay promiscuity) first. You can see why that would be appropriate, no?

3) Faid, please investigate what happened in the American gay community during the first wave of Aids, particularly in big cities like San Fran. There's evidence that Aids is starting to spread more rapidly in Europe (immigration is one factor, I believe), and this can also trigger a future epidemic. I'll try to post some stats when I get a chance.

Date: 2006/04/14 09:06:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
You bring up good points Flint, and I will discuss them with you as soon as I can, but you should know that I believe that some freedoms are contingent on the likelihood of a group abusing them. Yes, you think that restricting civil liberties in itself damages, or even endangers, a free society, and that the right to marriage is one such freedom. But my argument depends, at least in part, on certain facts being accepted. But I understand your impatience. Also, not recognising a ceremony is completely different from advocating murder or genocide. Boooooo!

Date: 2006/04/14 10:18:17, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Even if we grant that gays are more promiscuous, that gays are certainly no less likely than straights to be irresponsible about disease (I see no reason why gays and straights would differ on this at all), and that at least in the US, AIDS just happened to get introduced into the gay community first, what have we achieved?

But gays, due to circumstances of the male sex drive, will always be more promiscuous than hets. And if promiscuity leads to indifference to one's sex partner, this will always make gays a high-risk group for STDs. Remember, AIDs is just the latest member of a wave of STDs that struck hardest in the gay community. We just didn't hear so much about the previous ones, because the gay lobby was more marginalised back then. I remember one or two diseases being mentioned in "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (but were Afraid to Ask)". And yes, Dr. Reuben was biased. I also remember a lengthy discussion in the book about gay promiscuity. Heck, gays themselves joke about their lifestyle, about the leather bars and drag shows and sex clubs. It seems that the members of Panda's Thumb are the only ones in the dark. And remember the study I cited twice: a majority of surveyed HIV+ men were behaving recklessly. Perhaps they don't represent the gay community in general (as I noted), but the danger is there.
Quote
But OK, the marriage issue is much more along the lines of a vindictive hassle factor. For about $10,000 in legal fees and a tall stack of special powers of attorney and other forms, a homosexual couple can replicate nearly all of the obligations and protections a hetero couple can get for $25. Some have actually done this. My own employer treats same-sex couples as same-as-marriage in terms of default insurance beneficiaries and in every other respect. They have found that *advertising* that a same-sex partner is indistinguishable from a legal spouse in every possible way, helps them attract and keep good employees!

Yes, the current laws are incovenient for gay couples, and I'm sure that many find the discrimination hurtful. Consider this, however: as a young man, I had to face a certain level of discrimination based solely on my gender. Higher insurance rates, registering for the draft, (and if I try to duck it, facing penalties or withholdment of scholarship funds). In fact, if the draft is ever reinstated, guess which gender will be targeted? And guess which sexual orientation? And let's not even get into social security, which started as a trust fund but now serves to transfer wealth from one group to another (for humane reasons, of course). Now, I could complain about some of these things, and sometimes I do, but I have to admit that there is a rational and humane reason for these policies. So yes, civil liberties do depend on facts to a certain degree. And this will be one prong of my argument.

Date: 2006/04/14 10:21:13, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Eric, I'll try to reply as soon as possible.

Date: 2006/04/15 10:04:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:

Where did you get your 1 out of 45 STD figure from? A careful review of my source shows that 6.5% men have the HIV virus, which is ominous since 43.3% never even bothered to have a test. Other surveys show that around 7 - 12% of gay Londoners have tested positive for HIV at least once in their lives. True, this is inflated by false positives; however, this result also doesn't account for the quarter of gays who haven't tested. In section 3.6, the report concludes that approximately 1 out of 8 gay men have tested positive, think they're positive, or have a positive partner. Given the growth of AIDs in Europe, this doesn't bode well for the gay community.

Eric:

Yes, researchers are getting better at controlling AIDs: this will create complacency until the next viral mutation or disease hits, and then the process starts over. As I've stated before, AIDs wasn't the first "gay" disease, it's just the first to get wide media exposure. As for your smoking analogy, the health threat from second-hand smoke has already been addressed by essentially banning smoking from public places. Even where it's allowed, the smokers are segregated. So once again we see how the facts inform the regulation of civil liberties. And, of course, one musn't confuse the refusal to sanction a ceremony with murder and violence.

Flint:

For someone who wants neutral language, you sure like to psychoanalyze your opponents. How do you know that my opinions are a "mere smokescreen". Perhaps I start with different philosophical assumptions than you, and this causes my conclusions to diverge from yours. Personally, I wouldn't mind if gay marriages are recognised if I didn't see a lot of historical and medical evidence that this will cause harmful, even catastrophic outcomes. Once again, look at the effects of prior progressive policies, and the lies that were told to justify them. What makes you think that gay marriage isn't yet another Trojan Horse for an overthrow of Western society?

Date: 2006/04/15 10:31:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Sorry for the "rushed" feeling of the last post, but I'm working under severe time constraints. I'm not losing my composure or anything.  :)

I forgot to answer Flint's question: no, I've never been tempted to experiment. In addition, I really don't have anything against gays that I wouldn't have against, say, smokers or excessive drinkers. I don't wish to limit their rights to free speech or employment or living arrangements or public displays of affection - I just don't think marriage is an absolute right. If it was, we'd allow polygamy and (yes) incestuous marriages. We don't, and for a very good reason - polygamy would destroy the social fabric (lots and lots of lonely, unmarried men above and beyond what we have now), while incest can lead to children with genetic problems. It's really not so hard to see, guys. If we can use evidence to restrict some types of marriage, why can't we use it to challenge other types? In other words, why do liberals get to select the ways in which we can approach topics? And by the way, nobody ever addressed my concern that we might be enabling another class of professional victims. And yes, I think that many gays would campaign for affirmative action regardless of the circumstances - it's just human nature. And this is one step to ensuring that yet another group gets jobs and university seats that it doesn't deserve. And once A.A. is established, it never goes away. Ever.

Date: 2006/04/15 10:48:00, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
&*%$ library computers! Maybe this post will get through......
Quote
Because I gave you credit for intelligence. You are as obviously working backwards to rationalize your desires as I am. Do you think I can't see this?

I'm sorry, I just don't see this. I don't think the right to marriage is fundamental, and that society has some leeway to discriminate in this area. How this is making up special rules for gays (or polygamists, or first-cousins)? Obviously you disagree. Fine. That's what this debate's about.
Quote
There are *always* persuasive reasons why *this* is an exception.

Look, even for fundamental rights exceptions exist. Why shouldn't this be the case for non-fundamental ones (if indeed they be).
Quote
You have STATED that if those whose sexual practices make you uncomfortable, are granted ordinary civil rights just like they were (gasp) citizens, then catastrophe will follow. And you don't understand that this claim is 100% self-serving, and based on nothing but itself?

First, gay sex doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. Second, I've been trying to supply evidence for my position. More later.

Date: 2006/04/15 11:19:29, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
The main thing gay people seem to be looking for is to be treated just like everyone else. They're not looking for "special" rights; they're looking for the same rights as everyone else.

OK, let me try again:

1) I do not believe that asking for the right to marry is "campaigning" for "special privileges"; I'm aware that this debate is over equal rights.

2) Problem is, the courts define equal rights as equal outcomes in employment, housing, schooling, etc. This means lots of work for the government to do, as outcomes are never equal - it's practically a statistical impossibility.

3) How to redress this obvious inequity? Well, we've already deemed gay relationships as deserving of federal recognition, why not expand this recognition to gays as a distinct, victimized group?

4) And how best to reduce the inequity of this victimised group? Why, the way we've done it for other victimised groups: quotas, set-asides, "hate-crime" legislation, etc. Ooops- not working? Obviously we need to really get to work......and the cycle continues......

    This could never happen, right? Well, that's what they said about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Man, you must be a Bircher to think that this'll lead to quotas....what are you, a bigot?" Almost the same litany, word for word. But this time liberals are telling the truth, right?

So what can we do to ensure that equal rights stay equal? I'm open to suggestions.

Date: 2006/04/15 11:52:34, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So far, you have come up with two "evidences" - the first is that the sexual behavior of that part of the gay community that does NOT WISH TO MARRY, should prohibit marriage for those who do. Which is frankly silly.

But you're assuming that sexual behavior is static regardless of circumstances. Not necessarily true. I'm arguing that societal disapproval acts as a brake to spreading disease, and that removing that brake might cause an acceleration in promiscuity. For example, it used to be true that men were more likely to cheat on their spouses. Not anymore: the latest surveys show that female infidelity rates have finally approached men's. Why? Society has changed: feminism led to the loss in patriarchal "hegemony", then in all male moral authority. Also, women bought the entitlement myth: my immediate desires trump all other concerns. It used to be that women were ashamed of acting like such brazen hussies; now they glorify in their sluttiness. That may be OK if they're single and disease-free, but this attitude also poisons their matrimonial relations. Moral attitudes that you took for granted as a child have been driven underground. Out of time - more later.

Date: 2006/04/16 09:41:18, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:
Here's why I think the current infection levels pose a risk for a future epidemic:

Let's assume that the typical British gay/bisexual man has a median number of 4 partners a year, and that the HIV infection rate is 8%, a reasonably conservative figure. Assuming that a man chooses his partners randomly, the probability that he will avoid the HIV virus in a given year is simply (.92)^4, or roughly .72, which leads to a percentage of 72%. The "odds" that he will encounter at least one partner with the disease is the complement of this, or 28%. Over a 1 in 4 chance! And this is for a year. Obviously, his odds go up over several years, even if he sticks with his original partners (for they might become infected with the disease from their other partners). Now I know that even Los Angelinos don't choose their lovers at random, but consider this: the men most likely to present the most risk will be the companions that everyone covets; i.e. the attractive and promiscuous. This is why a modest change in the infection rate can serve to trigger an outbreak.

Flint:
Obviously you feel that men will be men regardless of societal pressure, and that marriage may reduce risky behavior. The right to marriage is fundamental, and any challenges to this freedom must bear the burden of proof. Furthermore, any challenge towards fundamental rights such as marriage must survive strict scrutiny, and that I have not adequately coupled the putative dangers of legalising gay marriage with a compelling societal interest. In other words, my action acts too broadly to serve its purpose (and may even counteract the purpose), and therefore does not achieve its goals. Fair summary?

Date: 2006/04/16 11:49:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
One more thing. How about a trade: let gays have full marriage privileges, while everyone, including gays, gets their right of free association back. It's not like gays would be giving up entitlements they already have, since their group isn't formally recognised as a victim group. In fact, their net and absolute rights will expand. Everyone else will also be more free. Yes, bigots will use this freedom to reinstate restrictive covenants in a few areas, but for gays, what else is new? It's not like bigoted landlords didn't already have de facto discrimination in place. So what do you think? Would you take the tradeoff? All opinions welcome, especially the usual gang and T-daddy's. Remember, I'm not asking if it's realistic, just if you would make the swap. I would, in a heartbeat.

Date: 2006/04/17 06:33:11, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:
Quote
Two points: First, no matter how many annual partners a person has, he chooses one at a time. Maybe I'm wrong but, doesn't the chance of finding a HIV carrier remain the same (8%, in our case) every time he makes a choice?

Absolutely. But each different partner represents another "chance" to contact the disease. It's like drawing a card from a deck, recording the value, replacing the card, and then shuffling the deck. Let's say you're calculating the probability of drawing at least one king in 4 attempts. You could use the binomial formula and sum the relevant possibilities, but this strategy is tedious without computer software or a graphing calculator. So let's use an indirect strategy: find the opposite probability and subtract from the total probability (which is "1" in decimal form). Now, the chance of avoiding a king is 48/52 for each pick, and since the events are independent, we calculate the chance of missing the king all 4 times as 48/52*48/52*48/52*48/52. Since this is the opposite of what we're trying to find, we can calculate our probability by subtracting our answer from 1 (the total probability). So our answer is 1 - (48/52)^4.
Quote
The main problem, however, is this: Your calculation implies that every contact between a HIV(-) and an HIV(+) person results in infection.

This formula does make a lot of assumptions; you wouldn't use it to model the spread of disease in the real world. But it illustrates my point that a small change in the infection rate can lead to catastrophic outcomes. For a real model you would need a differential equation with a lot of empirically-derived constants. More later.

Date: 2006/04/17 07:33:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
So we have two basic issues here. First, does State grant of legal marriage increase the incidence of behaviors dangerous to social health? So far, you have not addressed this at all. I'm not aware of any suggestion this is so.

Yes, this is what I thought you were saying - I just didn't express myself very well. So you're assuming that marriage is one of the fundamental rights grounded in free society, that it applies to all consenting adults (with narrow exceptions), and cannot be denied to certain groups without showing a clear and present danger. This is why I brought up the legal definitions - what we have here is a failure to agree on whether:

1) Marriage is a fundamental right that requires strict scrutiny to overturn*
2) the restriction must be narrowly tailored to meet its objective
3) we can assume that marriage trumps culture

Quote
Second, IF the behavior of certain identifiable groups of people is demonstrably unhealthy, should this behavior disqualify those practicing it from the institution of marriage? By comparison, should felons in jail be prohibited from marrying?
 
Good question. Let me think about it.

*Contra Flint, I assume a "rational basis" scrutiny, which is the minimal standard of proof, and is closer to society's standard.

Date: 2006/04/17 08:56:04, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hey Eric, how far would you compromise to make gay marriage come about? If I had any control over the matter, I wouldn't mind allowing full equality for gay couples provided I got something in return (we'll ignore real-world considerations here). Would you be willing to bend a little to my immigration model for example? Or chuck affirmative action (forcing a strict constructionist reading of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Or allowing a full restoration of free association rights within U.S. borders? Which compromise would you be willing to make? Anybody else is welcome to participate. And by freedom of association, I mean the real thing:
Quote
Libertarian
Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community whose values, laws, and culture are closely related to what one wants.

Most libertarians believe that federally enforced laws and difficulty in moving between countries limits peoples' freedom of association, and are in favor of local control.

The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under libertarian laws, businessowners could refuse custom to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Those sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, in a case of refusing service, a case of the freedom of contract, respond that unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage.

Date: 2006/04/17 11:20:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy wrote:

Quote
In other words, straight people don't have to give up anything in order for gay people to be allowed civil union, and gay people shouldn't have to give up anything in exchange for something that, if they weren't gay, they would already have.


If no social harm ensues by "normalizing" gay relationships. And assuming this doesn't lead to quotas, set-asides, and other entitlements down the road. I will concede that gay people are extremely competitive, and wouldn't have an immediate need for such things. Just call me a cynic where human nature's involved.

Quote
But I can't help asking this question: why is gay marriage even an issue for anyone who isn't gay? Why do straight people even have an opinion on the subject?

Part of it involves religion, of course. I suspect that "traditional" Americans view all sex acts with suspicion, but are willing to tolerate sex that serves a critical function (reproduction).

Date: 2006/04/17 13:43:43, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Eric:
Quote
Again, this is not something that gay people cause. It's not their fault a solid majority of Americans are uptight about sex.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't change the facts. Who knows, maybe there's something to being a little uptight. Keeps the guard up.
   It also goes back to the level of distrust between liberals and conservatives. That's one reason I'm discussing compromise: compromise forces people to re-evaluate their priorities, adopt the other guy's POV, and codify their underlying assumptions. So which gov. regulations would each of you surrender to make gay marriage a reality?

Date: 2006/04/18 09:42:26, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Faid:

The software ate my detailed response so let me be brief:

1) My calculation assumes a sequence of independent events, similar to the card analogy. Furthermore, it assumes that the probability for each event is fixed, and that the partners are randomly drawn from the population.
2)  Recrunching the numbers to reflect a 10% condom failure rate and a median of 2 sex acts per partner (the median number of partners remaining at 4 every year), I find that the risk of infection is still around 5.6% a year. Over a period of 5 years (not necessarily consecutive), the risk of at least one unprotected exposure to the virus returns to a rather gloomy 25%. Of course, one may be exposed to the virus without contracting the disease.

More later.

[I edited this post to correct a bone-headed error that inflated the percentages]

Date: 2006/04/18 12:38:50, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliot:
Quote
BTW Ghost, I thought trying to lump gay marriage and A.A. as the same was very disingenuous.

But I didn't. I said that recognition of the ceremony might soon lead to recognition of gays as an "official" minority group, which will then lead to A.A. If you doubt me, see my link to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The libs have pulled the wool over our eyes before, but they ain't gonna do it again. In the eyes of American courts, "equal rights" means "equal outcomes" unless the outcomes favor the minority. Sort of like in Great Britain, where whites can be jailed for stuff that wouldn't raise a yawn if a member of a protected group did it.
Quote
Well we have had gay marriage (actually a "civil ceremony") legalised in the UK for some short time now. Society has yet to collapse.

And hopefully it won't. But as infection rates continue to increase.....well, we'll have to see.

Date: 2006/04/18 13:35:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
OK, I guess we disagree here about the default. For me, the default is that rights granted to citizens are granted to ALL citizens, and denied only for non-capricious violations (i.e. violations that specifically abuse the right being granted). For you, the default is that rights are granted selectively, to those groups who have demonstrated that they "deserve" the rights, in the opinion of, well, you, I guess.

First, I do believe that some rights are fundamental: the right to speech, assembly, fair trial, etc. Marriage, in my opinion, is not one of them. Nor should it be. I think it's dangerous to force society to bear a high burden of proof before restricting the franchise; otherwise, who knows what type of marriage we'll wind up with (and this is where T-Daddy's slippery slope arguments make their appearance). Now you bring up the point that the horses are already out of the barn, so why not allow marriage so that it may discourage the worst excesses of the gay lifestyle? I might go for that except for the fact that the normalization of any behavior encourages all expressions of that behavior, and thrusts that behavior in everyone's face. Gays holding hands and kissing in public is OK; a leather bar on every street corner isn't. And believe me, the feds won't allow communities to zone leather bars the way they would strip clubs. Cause, you know, that would be bigoted. If I could get legal assurances that gays will be held to the same (admittedly modest) civilisational standards as straights, I would support gay marriage. But until then - no dice.
Elliot:
Quote
TBH Ghost, A cousin of mine is gay. I want him to enjoy the same rights as I do.

He should be alowed to "marry" his boyfriend so they are not punitively taxed upon death.

Believe it or not, I'm sympathetic to your cousin. I wish that all gays were like him. But it seems that they aren't. As I've shown, about a quarter of gay men are extremely promiscuous, and combined with the reckless behavior of most HIV carriers, this endangers the remaining group (and with normalization, the straight community as well).
Hyland:
Quote
And how do you think societies treatment of homosexuals affects these numbers?

I suspect that homophobia is one factor keeping the infection rate under control. Before the gay community collectively came out of the closet, infection rates were low simply because the opportunity wasn't there. Now it is, and a substantial percentage abuse it. If people weren't dying, this wouldn't be any of my business; but they are, so it is. And I can't say, "Well, I'll just avoid gay sex", because any woman I might sleep with may carry the virus (passed along by a bisexual man or a frisky straight). Look at the African-American community for an example of what's in store for us.

Date: 2006/04/18 14:53:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
ericmurphy said:
Quote
This is a question specifically for Bill o' the Paley clan (note I didn't spell it with a "K" :-) ), but anyone else can feel free to jump in.

Hey T-Daddy, do you know how to tell if you're winning a debate with a liberal?

Answer: They bring up the Klan.

[edit: I think I misunderstood Eric here. I thought he was encouraging others to call me a Klansman. Sorry, Eric. The challenge still stands, however.]
As for my won-loss record, let's just say I get called a Klansman an awful lot in these here parts.  :D
Quote
Okay, assuming (if I haven't made an ass out of u and me) we're in agreement so far, shouldn't we allow gay people to marry individuals of the same sex unless we can show that doing so would infringe on the rights of others? What other justification would there be?

Tell you what, Eric. How about this. We allow gay marriage and drugs:

1) You allow us the freedom of association (the real kind: absolute freedom to hire, serve, and live wherever one wants), and
2) No laws favoring any race, gender, creed, or nationality. No affirmative action, no Jim Crow, no government looking over your shoulder.

So far, I haven't heard a peep from any liberal on this (including your vaguely worded "compromise"). Why is that? I thought liberals were all for civil liberties, and here I am offering freedom for everyone. Hmmmm.......it seems that some people are more equal than others after all.

Date: 2006/04/18 15:09:40, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Hyland:
Quote
Homophobia certainly isn't going to keep gay people from having sex any more. There is no going back, you are not going to stop people who want to have sex from having sex, unless you introduce some pretty harsh punishments. I really think at this point legalising gay marriage can at worst have no effect on the problem of promiscuity.

Considering future trends, I hope you're right.
Quote
If you think American marriage could go down a slippery slope look at what we have to contend with.

Heh. If she was a US citizen the Democrats would run her for president. And she'd probably be better than Bush.

Date: 2006/04/18 15:31:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Mr. Aftershave:
Quote
Do you know how to tell if you're winning a debate with a homophobe?

After you point out the self-serving hypocrisy and total lack of rational arguments for their prejudice and bigotry, they'll call you a liberal!  

Yep, and we need to cut it out, as it's clearly one of the worst smears around.  ;)

Hyland:
Quote
It's probably worth pointing out since you quoted the libertarian defininition of freedom of association, that libertarians regard any company with limited liability as an extension of the state, so any freedom of association law would not apply according to the libertarians who I have asked about this.

What a bunch of wimps. I hope the libertarians on this side of the pond are different. Here's a link that you might find interesting:
Quote
On the other hand, if  you are a private organization (that is to say, you fund what you do with your own money) then go ahead and form your associations (or not) however you choose.  I may not approve of the associations you make or choose not to make, but I do not have the right to force you to do otherwise.  For example, The Gideons (those people who place Bibles in hotel night stands) not only require their members to be men, but they limit their membership to men who are white-collar professionals.  I don’t pretend to agree with or even understand their rational.  But, it would be a misuse of the law and of government to force them as a private organization to structure themselves otherwise.
[......]
I hope that the Boy Scouts of America have learned a lesson about the value of remaining a strictly private organization supported by non-tax dollars.  I am glad that the Supreme Court saw its way clear on this issue.  I am relieved that the freedom to associate (and the freedom not to associate) has been preserved . . . at least for the time being.  

P.S.  Closing thought:  Instead of  “Supreme Court says Scouts can ban gay leaders”, couldn’t the story just as easily have been reported as “Court strikes down activists’ attempts to ban freedom of association”?  Why the use of the word “ban”?  The Boy Scouts don’t want to “ban” anyone.  They simply want to be able to choose whom they associate with, like the rest of us do every single day.  When I chose to marry my wife, did anyone say that I “banned” the millions of other women I chose not to marry?  Of course not.  It was simply a choice to associate and many more choices not to associate.  Nobody “banned” anybody.

Date: 2006/04/19 06:06:55, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
thordaddy:
Quote
But the above is not the agenda.  The agenda is to accrue more "benefits" by redefining traditional marriage and legitimizing homosexuality and using the court system to get what a small radical minority seeks... validation for their inexplicable orientation.

Do you have any quotes from gay activists that back this up? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but we should try to support each of our major contentions whenever possible. Otherwise, they will be dismissed (perhaps correctly) as the ravings of paranoid bigots.

For the rest of you: ahhh, I see the interracial trump card has finally been played. I'm only surprised it took so long. Never fear, I plan on addressing this argument as soon as possible.

Date: 2006/04/19 07:19:57, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
As a matter of interest, do you reckon it would be best to ignore it completely, so that it withers and dies, or rather, joins the back scratching set up that are the pro-Id blogs?

Well, if I ever get the time, I know I'm going over there. His "summary" of his experiences over at P's Thumb is complete nonsense. While I may not agree with ya'll on a lot of things, you do give a guy a chance to make his case, and I appreciate that. What gives him the right to pollute one of the last bastions of free expression? And then whine like a teenage girl with her cellphone privileges cut off.....

Date: 2006/04/19 07:45:16, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
BTW, did you ever look at my revised posting regarding the vibrating shell theory?  It's the third post down onthe last page of the LUCA thread.  Just curious if you had any objections or clarifications.

Yeah, I'm way behind on that. I'll try to respond when I can. I got sucked into the gay debate like a rookie, and then I've got "Ripper" Brazeau to deal with.....

Date: 2006/04/19 09:09:52, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
But are you surprised at the precise congruence of the arguments?

Well, to start off, I don't see a precise congruence:
a) Opponents of interracial unions, unlike the opponents of gay marriage, have to deal with the fact that such unions can produce children. A social justification for these relationships is present from the beginning.
b)  It's more difficult to show social harm from such relations, since there is no expectation a priori for more promiscuity. With gays, however, two males are involved. Promiscuity may be assumed.
c) On the other hand, opponents of racial mixing can argue that the children of those unions degrade society with their allegedly low IQs, poor impulse control, or higher violent tendencies. Homophobes cannot use this argument.

So I'm planning on arguing three things in future posts:

1) Although many social conservatives have tried to prohibit interracial marriages, there is no necessary connection between racism and homophobia.
2) Although I believe that interracial unions are both moral and legal, they harm society in several ways that are obvious to anyone with a capacity to reason. Thus, I will have my work cut out for me in this forum. :(  The good news is, the social benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
3) The original opponents of interracial marriage, although wrong in several key areas, correctly projected some of the harm that would come from these marriages. Some of their other concerns may also be valid.

Thordaddy, get your asbestos undies on, for the battle's just beginning.

Date: 2006/04/19 09:37:10, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliot:
Quote
Ghost,
How does marriage promote promiscuity?

By giving social acceptance to a promiscuous culture.
Quote
What is wrong with promiscuity if done in a responsible manner?

In the long run, it can never be responsible.
Quote
From your last posts, I think you are atempting to sidetrack though.

I plan to show the relevance later.

Date: 2006/04/19 09:49:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
What we're talking about here is identifiable out-groups, people unlike us in some way. Different=wrong. I said this earlier, but I see it didn't take. They are *different*, deny them their rights. Make up the reasons afterward, so long as they stay inferior!

But this assumes that the opponents of deviant* marriages must bear the burden of proof, and that marriage is a fundamental right available to all.

*In the statistical sense

Date: 2006/04/19 11:20:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Those conservatives like you and TD fought against every one of these reforms, kicking and screaming about the collapse of society. Yet today at least you (I don't know what or even IF thordaddy thinks) can look back, at a couple or more generations removed, and see that every one of these reforms was a net benefit, and that US society was on balance strengthened rather than destroyed *every time equality was granted* to a previously deprived group.

I guess it depends on the time scale. We conservatives have been wrong about several issues over the previous millenium or two, but I think our track record over the last 40 years can't be beat. Also, keep in mind that the idea of the religious conservative has evolved over time in American society; some of the most progressive causes of the past were championed by the same moral busybodies who were so eager to quash individual rights:
Quote
Because of the correlation between drinking and what we now recognize as domestic violence -- many of the women who were beaten by their husbands observed that their husbands were likely to do so when drunk -- the temperance movement existed alongside various women's rights and other movements, including the Progressive movement, and often the same activists were involved in all of the above. Many notable voices of the time, ranging from Lucy Webb Hayes to Susan B. Anthony, were active in the movement. In Canada, Nellie McClung was a longstanding advocate of temperance. As with most social movements, there was a gamut of activists running from violent (Carrie Nation) to mild (Neal S. Dow).

Many former abolitionists joined the temperance movement and it was also strongly supported by the second Ku Klux Klan. Often called the KKK of the 1920s, it had been established (or revived) in Georgia in 1915 largely to defend that state's prohibition laws. Promoting and even enforcing temperance became a cornerstone of the Klan's agenda as it spread throughout the country.

For decades prohibition had been touted as the almost magical solution to the nation's poverty, crime, violence, and other ills.

Also, many staunch conservatives opposed slavery:
Quote
Today Wilberforce is most loved and remembered for his campaign against the evil of slavery but he also campaigned successfully against many other ills of his time. Policing, penal reform, medical aid for the poor, education for the deaf, restrictions on the use of child labour, an improvement in the conditions of the Poor Law, action against gambling and the establishment of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were all part of his extraordinary legacy. His biographer John Pollock was surely right when he said that Wilberforce was a "man who changed his times".

His life story acts as an inspiration for the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Not only did he show that a Christian can succeed at the highest level in politics in service of great causes, and against the greatest odds, he demonstrated a biblical model for political involvement. Wilberforce combined his love of Christ and commitment to Christian principles with humility, patience and tactical genius.
[...]
Wilberforce was the public face and leader of a much wider movement that included Thomas Clarkson, Edward James Eliot, Charles Grant, Zachary Macaulay, Hannah More, Granville Sharp, James Stephen, and Henry Thornton. This group of followers of Christ was called the Clapham Sect and met from approximately 1790 to 1830. These 'Saints' as they were first and not affectionately known provided practical skills such as research into the false economics of the slave trade in addition to pastoral encouragement of one another. Wilberforce was surely great but not great enough to undertake his work on his own.

Flint:
Quote
But the principle has remained the same: It is clearly to our social advantage as a nation to grant equal protection under the law to everyone. Always has been, and social conservatives have ALWAYS opposed this for reasons they considered compelling. In hindsight, we can see that their reasons were invariably self-serving, made up to support resistance to change. Nothing is new today.

As the above shows, this is simply not true. Besides, what of the female conservatives that currently oppose abortion and feminism? That's not a convenient position for any woman.

Date: 2006/04/19 15:08:38, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Ok, I think we need to clarify some basic issues:

1) Can a principled objection be made to same sex marriage?

              Flint seems doubtful, because he considers any infringement of civil rights antithetical to the spirit of American society, especially after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, any person who shares core American values yet seeks to abridge a particular group's liberties must possess an ulterior motive for doing so. Marriage is one such liberty. Marriage is not a privilege bestowed on those groups with proven track records; it is, barring unusual circumstances, an entitlement to each adult citizen. When freedoms expand, society benefits, and in any case historical evidence demonstrates that the benefits invariably outweigh the liabilities. Past worries have largely proven groundless. Given the inherent contradictions within a homophobia grounded in American values, combined with the dreadful history of previous attempts to quash liberty, the advocate of gay marriage may assume that his opponent is deluded, self-serving, evil, or some combination of the above.
                Eric seems to agree with much of this, and highlights the problems that gays often face in their marriage-less existence. Surely anyone with any sense of human compassion would allow gay people the same rights that straights take for granted, especially since the moral person assumes an equal distribution of rights and privileges across groups, and revises that assumption only under severe circumstances. Opposing gay marriage is no less arbitrary than opposing interracial unions, and we see how irrational that was in retrospect. But that is not all. The opponent must assume that gay marriage would increase unhealthy behavior, a position that is prima facie irrational and self-refuting.

How am I doing?

Date: 2006/04/19 15:37:54, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
2) Do gay people behave badly?

      Panda's Thumb argues that they don't, and gives several reasons:

1) Any attempt to argue against promiscuous behavior founders on its religious circularity: no one can objectively classify acts as good or evil unless such acts infringe other people's rights. Voluntary sex, no matter how common, clearly infringes on nobody's rights. Those who are offended by a particular behavior may refuse to engage, and in fact may take reasonable steps to shield themselves from the act and its consequences (if any exist).

2) In any event, gays are not necessarily more promiscuous than straights with similar oppotunities, and do not engage in unsual levels of risk-taking. Even if they do, it's no one else's business, and drugs are available to combat most diseases - including AIDS. Infection rates are under control, and the gay community is much more cautious today than in the past.

3) And what about lesbians? Their lifestyle is restrained even by heterosexual standards, so the usual dumbass arguments don't apply to them. It's all a continuum, babe, and the sooner homophobes abandon their binary view of the world, the better. Besides, who wants to be married to a closet case? Well, that's what we would have in a fundie society.

4) This is because gay feelings are biologically driven to a certain extent. The gay, like the poor, will always be with us. So why not accept the facts and accomodate those who are not responsible for their feelings, and even if they were, are certainly entitled to them.

Still with me?

Date: 2006/04/20 05:12:02, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
What seems to make marriage denial relevant is the a priori conviction that gays are undesirable icky people, that God hates them, that they *deserve* to be denied ordinary civil rights because they are *different* and life is much more pleasant if we keep them in their place, which is as far away from US as possible. NOW, the task is to find a "principled" and at least remotely plausible rationalization for this policy. Good thing gays in the US are still the primary vector for HIV. After all, we needed SOME excuse.

This is why I'm trying to codify everyone's assumptions. You seem to approach the issue like this:
1) The traditional definition of marriage is arbitrary. Its  raison d'etre? To exclude and oppress sexual minorities.
2) Gay marriage is a logical consequence of the 14th Amendment.
3) Therefore, any reasonable person would advocate gay marriage given the chance.
4) Corollary: anyone who wishes to deny said rights must be a bigot.
5) So the debate revolves around exposing the bigotry underlying the opponent's position. If he frets over the spread of deadly diseases, that's just a ruse. If he cites a study, it's merely to pollute the liberal mind with sophistry.  We're liberals after all - we possess a purity of heart and clarity of mind that lets us see through the haze of smoke that cloaks the conservative's atavistic loathing of Liberty, Truth and Beauty. I mean, we're Progressive, by god, and nothing evil ever comes from us. Just ask any Russian. Or Cambodian.

Date: 2006/04/20 05:33:19, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
thordaddy asks:
Quote
Do these pro-gay advocates really believe they are putting together coherent arguments?

Coherent? Certainly. Logical? Surprisingly, yes. And to be fair, Flint and S. Elliot have some sympathy for the conservative point of view. Keep in mind that I used to be one of those dreaded liberals, so I can empathise with their POV. Doesn't change the fact that:



IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!

Date: 2006/04/20 08:31:46, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Stephen Elliot:
Quote
Anyway. Ghost I await getting clobbered. Be carefull, I might have the Hulk in reserve. Brick face is no match for the green one, nuff said. MMM.

Crap, you may be right. I've always seen the Hulk as a right-thinking conservative, but if the TV shows are to be believed, Bruce Banner is a #### beatnik. Well, at least I've got Superman.....wait a minute.....supports nuclear disarmament.... locked lips with Michael Caine in Deathtrap....................

:0  :0  :0  :0  :0  :0

Superman's a PINKO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<....starts quivering......>

I think I'll lay down for a while......

Date: 2006/04/20 08:47:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
Kind of analogous to saying one has the 'right' to shoot a policeman because he was trying to arrest you...

Or the "right" to sneak in a movie theater 'cause Hollywood movies all suck anyway.

Date: 2006/04/20 12:21:37, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Next question: should obese people be permitted to marry? [or drunks, or felons,......]


You mean you were serious with this question? Well, one reason might be that eating and sex are completely unrelated acts (Hey you in the back row! Stop giggling!;)). So a law prohibiting marriage would have zero chance of suppressing an unnaturally large appetite. In addition, nobody would have to change the definition of marriage in order to marry two fatties, as they would with homosexual couples. Furthermore, there is de facto discrimination against obese people: if their weight exceeds a certain level, they will pay double for airline seats, their range of occupations is restricted, and so on. In other words, society already has disincentives in place for unrestrained obesity. On top of this, fat people struggle for societal acceptance as a group. I'm not defending these things; I'm just noting that your little analogy fails on multiple levels.
     Once again, you hold me to an unusually high burden of proof: If I can't prove that homosexual marriage by itself would cause a societal collapse, I have no case. Once again, I must point out that this is based on assumptions that I do not hold, and that you have never defended without recourse to those very same axioms. Why should we assume that marriage is an unalienable right like speech or religion? Please show me where Lilburne or Thomas Jefferson or George Mason defended unlimited choice in marriage as a fundamental right. If you can't, then you're the one that's blowing smoke.

Date: 2006/04/20 12:40:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Quote
So I think you're using a "look over there" argument. If we're concerned about the spread of deadly diseases, let's focus on the disease.

But you're assuming that allowing gay marriage won't have a positive impact on infection rates. But assume that marriage encourages much more homosexual behavior, and that this behavior leads to more disease. Wouldn't a ban be effective then? And we know that gay behavior is dramatically more common in societies which normalize it (Ancient Greece and Rome, to give two historical examples, or prisons, for a contemporary one). Do we really want another bubonic plague on our hands?

Date: 2006/04/20 13:31:39, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Lurkers, please note that although liberals whine a lot about "civil" rights, they have little interest in restoring civil liberties for majority groups. Gay marriage? Oh yes, must be done, regardless of the impact on society. Freedom of association for everyone (as opposed to minority groups only, which is the situation in America)? #### no, because a few bigots might make it a little harder for minorities in some ways. Doesn't matter that this speculation is based on 40-year-old history and that contemporary surveys suggest that America's attitudes have changed. You see, liberals never have to show that they have cause - only conservatives.
Speaking of which:
ericmurphy writes:
Quote
Another thought, Bill, with respect to your trade of gay marriage for free association.

If I give you free association, aren't you getting something for nothing? Because free association would effectively mean that gay people only got marriage at the suffrance of straight people anyway. If some community doesn't want gay people to marry (or even live) there, I guess they're (the guy people, that is) out of luck, right?

No, communities wouldn't have the right to prohibit gay marriage, nor "zone" gays out. The right to association would apply only to privately-funded businesses, private clubs, and isolated neighborhoods. And remember, everyone would share the same rights. Please keep in mind that businesses value profit over bigotry, and that most Americans desire clean, safe neighborhoods where the same standard of behavior applies to each resident. This is the 21st century, you know. Time to get rid of the lava lamps.

Date: 2006/04/20 14:11:21, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Ghost:

I'm afraid we're going in circles:

         Eric and Flint, obviously I'm trying to understand your position. In fact I think I do. You're both saying that I should make a reasonable case that allowing gay marriage, in and of itself, would effect the dire consequences I forsee. Now obviously I can't do that, because allowing gay marriage by itself won't do much of anything, at least immediately. Great. I admit that if you focus narrowly on this issue, it's hard to see the harm, particularly if you also assume that the right to marriage is not the state's to give. If I shared your assumptions and myopia on this topic, I would have conceded the argument long ago. However, I do not share these assumptions. Marriage is not a right that springs, full grown, from the brow of Justice, but rather a clever way for society to channel the people's sex drive for productive purposes. Look: sex is necessary for reproduction. However, unbridled sex is not only unnecessary, it's downright dangerous. Marriage ties the joy of sex to the responsibility of parenthood without causing an undue burden on unwilling participants. It bribes, yes bribes, people into behaving responsibly. But in order to understand its virtues, you must first recognize it for the compromise it is.
  Also: If my arguments about disease, the social compact, etc are just rationalizations for a visceral dislike for gay sex, then why did I offer a compromise? Why am I the only one who's trying to support his case with facts? Why am I working so hard to understand your point of view? None of my actions can be explained by your model.

Date: 2006/04/20 15:52:24, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
I'll have to pick this up later, but let me explain one thing. I made my "compromise" offer partly because I believe that legalization of gay marriage will lead to diminished freedom for everyone else down the road (including, ironically, gay people themselves). However, most of the rationale was to gain insight into other people's belief systems: what is most important to you, and why? I find it a little disturbing that no one would concede anything substantial (although Eric did try a little).

Date: 2006/04/21 07:50:20, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Gays face discrimination over more than marriage; they face a lot of de facto discrimination from the national thordaddy army. Overcoming that sort of discrimination typically means affirmative action type programs, increasingly intrusive and micromanaging legislation. "What, your company has no gays, when gays represent 3% of your local population? You are ipso facto discriminating, you must hire 11 gays and pay a fine. THEN, of course, you must associate with those gays we made you hire *whether you want to or not.* You must not discriminate against them in promotions, wage scales, benefits, or any other way. And to make sure you don't, you must submit (in triplicate) a zillion forms and hire an extra lawyer to handle it, and so on ad nauseum." And that's the American approach to solving social injustices.

Yes! you're so close, now take that final step. What if a lack of proportional representation is not due to bigotry, but simply an example of bad logic wedded to innumeracy. For example, basic probability argues that we would expect a sizable number of companies to have an unusually high or low proportion of gays; when you consider that many gays actively choose occupations conducive to their culture (the fashion industry and Hollywood, for example), that increases the likehood of "discrimination". In other words, probability predicts an unequal distribution of groups across industries absent culture. And as we know, culture is never absent. The government knows this very well - they just hope that Joe Sixpack continues to flunk his statistics classes. More later.

Date: 2006/04/21 09:40:33, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Flint:
Quote
Not sure I understand what step you're asking me to take here. Surely (just as an example) whites are WAY underrepresented in the NBA, while blacks are essentially nonexistent in the NHL. Nobody is (at least to my knowledge) charging discrimination in either case. Why not?

Apparently you don't follow sports very much: if fact, that's exactly what the media charges. Of course, they only fret if there are too many whites; majority-black sports like basketball or track never suffer from a lack of "diversity". Let's do a little quiz: which of the following athletes has made the cover of Time?

1) Jeremy Wariner
2) Roman Sebrle
3) Vitali Klitschko
4) Tiger Woods
5) Yuliya Nesterenko

Be honest, Flint: How many of these names do you even recognise?

Quote
But I can't believe your argument is that to avoid trying to battle this tar baby case by case, we should institutionalize bigotry. That cure is much worse than the disease.

Eh? Allowing freedom of association is institutionalising bigotry? Who's making unwarranted assumptions now?  :p
Quote
Perhaps we should both turn a careful eye toward Massachusetts. The experience there may well provide a strong indication as to whose anticipations are the more accurate. What do you think?

I was going to propose Great Britain as a test case, but Massachusetts works. By the way, here's a sample of what British crime thinkers can expect in the future:
Quote

Swedish anti-gay pastor acquitted  

Pastor Ake Green: Tested Sweden's tough hate crimes legislation
Sweden's Supreme Court has acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals.
In a sermon two years ago, Pastor Ake Green told his congregation that homosexuality was a "deep cancer tumour" on society.

He was convicted in 2004 under Sweden's hate crimes law.

But on Tuesday the court upheld an appeals court verdict that Pastor Green's remarks did not constitute incitement to hatred.

In a 16-page ruling, the Supreme Court said his sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion.

Mr Green was the first cleric convicted under Sweden's new hate crimes law, which was amended two years ago to include homosexuals.

[Paley's emphasis]

But all we have to fear.....is fear itself - right guys?

Date: 2006/04/21 10:13:35, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
While Flint is squinting at my multiple-choice quiz while asking himself, "Who the #### are these people surrounding Tiger Woods?", let me just say that I finally figured out why we've been talking past each other: we have radically different conceptions of what marriage does. Although societies and their monarchs have traditionally used marriage as a means to cement treaties, transfer property, and grant privileges, marriage mainly serves as an incentive (along with the economic goodies that surround it) to keep men faithful to their families. Tons of research document how children suffer when they are raised illegitimately; I won't insult your intelligence by citing it. Marriage is not a right one has, it is a privilege one earns.
Flint:
Quote
We seem to have a terminology issue. How does *forbidding* gay people from marrying translate to "allowing freedom of association"? I doubt even George Orwell could have connected them this way.

I never said it does. But if nontraditional groups wish to marry, shouldn't others have the right to shield themselves from the consequences of granting that right? This is what progressives consistently fail to recognise: freedom without responsibility is a meaningless concept. Sometimes, it's the difference between life and death.

Just out of curiousity: how many names did you recognise? Flint? Eric? Anyone? I'm genuinely curious about this.

Date: 2006/04/21 10:19:41, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Eric:
Quote
And it's always interesting how problems like proverty, lack of immunization programs for children, etc. get short shrift, but AIDS looms as a civilization killer in the minds of many.

Yep. And if we have an epidemic on our hands, would that increase the level of funds for childhood immunization, or decrease it?
Quote
Let's face it: if you're straight, the chances of contracting AIDS are slightly higher than the chances of being struck by a meteor.

And that meteor's headed right for Earth.  :(

Date: 2006/04/22 04:16:42, Link
Author: The Ghost of Paley
Let me try to clarify some of my cultural arguments. Why do I think that changing the definition of marriage will lead to such disastrous consequences?

    Consider how cultures form. Human beings are fundamentally biological beings. While the evos and I differ on the genesis of our drives, we all agree that humans share many biological needs with animals. As human societies evolve, they network with other tribes, invent technologies, and develop social structures to manage their affairs. Societies experiment. Soon, historical contingency selects the strategy that successfully defines, and therby demarcates, a culture. As modern research shows, many biological and technological networks such as the internet exhibit a scale-free structure. A scale-free structure is characterised by the development of a few early hubs, which serve as a nexus for most social interactions. Since they are primal, they develop a ri