AE BB DB Explorer

Action:
Author:

form_srcid: Tiax

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 38.107.191.99

View Author detected.

view author posts:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Tiax

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/03/09 00:56:56, Link 24.29.87.188
Author: Tiax
I think a similar interesting challenge would be to see what the craziest, factually false statement you can make on the boards is, while still eliciting approval from either the mods, or the readers.  

For example, make up a cult with a very specific creation story that meshes well with Intelligent Design, explain your story, and how whatever the topic of the day is perfectly proves it.

Date: 2006/03/09 04:50:36, Link 24.29.87.188
Author: Tiax
I'm sure this comment I just posted over there will get censored:

Quote

I'm curious, did you read any of the articles from the link?

Gov. Bob Riley said after the arrests that the arsons did not appear to be "any type of conspiracy against organized religion" or the Baptist faith.

An attorney for Cloyd, Tommy Spina, declined comment on the charges, but added: "This is not a hate crime. This is not a religious crime."

"There is no indication that this is a hate crime," said Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

I suppose that it's technically not 'gratuitous or unwarranted' if all you read is the headlines.


I suppose it's only to be expected.  DS is not a fan of facts.

Date: 2006/03/09 05:07:06, Link 24.29.87.188
Author: Tiax
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 09 2006,11:05)
Also, his swipe at 'college students' is bizarre...

Everyone knows college students are the vangaurd of the dirty evilutionist lieberals.  Them and the media.

Date: 2006/03/09 07:52:43, Link 24.29.87.188
Author: Tiax
Quote (hehe @ Mar. 09 2006,13:37)
Could it be that DaveStalin is connected to Al-Qaeda, and  took part in 9/11?

Lemme check...

http://www.google.com/search?....+Search

19 hits...Yes.  DaveScot is a member of Al Qaeda.  I know this because I googled it.

Date: 2006/03/19 12:28:27, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 12 2006,09:25)
Quote
This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others.
Is there a word for how pathetic that statement is?

May I propose 'Davetastic'?

Date: 2006/03/21 11:48:41, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Back in that thread about the church burnings, Dave decided than anyone who did not expressly condemn the fires was clearly in favor of them.  In his post, Dave does not condemn the allegations that this teacher is a devil-worshipper, or that she is a lesbian, or that she is a non-christian and therefore unfit to teach.  Thus, I conclude that Dave supports all of these allegations.

Date: 2006/03/21 12:26:08, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
I put up a post saying "I don't think Jingle Bells is on par with Faust," just to see if I can get Dave to kick me out of his country.  I'm not even sure that Jingle Bells is a christmas song, but it seemed like a good enough choice to get Dave's permission to call myself an unamerican devil worshipper.

Date: 2006/03/21 14:53:40, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
"1. It’s a play. This was a musical adaptation of it. Check your facts FIRST next time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_(opera)

"5. How on earth do you know the townspeople didn’t know anything about Faust? What a sweeping and assuredly false accusation. You just fabricated that statement out of whole cloth. -ds"

You know, dave's probably right, townspeople should be given the benefit of the doubt as being smarter than him.

Date: 2006/03/21 18:13:24, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (Drew Headley @ Mar. 21 2006,22:32)
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 21 2006,20:53)
"1. It’s a play. This was a musical adaptation of it. Check your facts FIRST next time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_(opera)

It seems that DaveScot is correct, it was originally a play under the name The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus written by Christopher Marlowe around the late 1500 early 1600s. It was based on Germanic folklore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Doctor_Faustus

The opera cited was written by Charles Gounod in 1859.

Yes, it was originally a play, but that's not relevant.  If the teacher had shown part of the Lord of the Rings movies, and someone had claimed that they weren't a movie, but a book, they would be wrong.  What she showed was from an opera, the fact that said opera was based off a play does not change this fact, just as the fact that the LoTR moveis are based off books does not make them books, or not movies.

Date: 2006/03/22 09:46:01, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
"8. Above you assert Faust as a play, but since the article uses the word opera, isn’t this more likely an adaptation of Charles Gounod’s opera “Faust”, which was adapted from Michel Carré’s play “Faust et Marguerite”, which was “loosely based” on Goethe’s aforementioned “Faust: Part I”?

It was a slip of the tongue. I know Faust as a story."

A slip of the tongue, which, when challenged the first time, results in going to Wikipedia, and producing (faulty) evidence to support said slip.  Yes, I make such slips all the time, and then defend them as though they were intentional.  For example, once I called someone by the wrong name, and produced a birth certificate to prove my point when they called me on it.

Date: 2006/03/22 15:36:28, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Is it just me or are the posts at UD getting more and more bizarre recently?

Extra points to anyone who can use a creative reading of Revelations to prove that Dave is a sign of the end times.

Date: 2006/03/24 06:02:36, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 24 2006,10:24)
You can just see Homer making some idiotic yet confident remark, a scientist explaining to him at length why he's wrong, and then homer saying, "Whatever all that meant, I'm still right."

In fact, Homer might say "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"

Date: 2006/03/24 09:37:09, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
The only thing I don't like about the recent post is that if they were all like that, it wouldn't be as fun to read.

Date: 2006/03/25 08:08:42, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
From the latest UD post, can anyone even begin to reconcile these two paragraphs:

"(Note: Natural selection clearly occurs within species as an adaptive mechanism. I.D. theory does not deny or even address this, nor does it address the question of whether natural selection could lead to the development of entirely new species. I.D. theory is concerned with the origin of life only.)"

"You can't improve the cell through one random mutation at a time because if you change any one aspect, the whole thing will crash. For evolutionary change to occur, every single piece of its Rube Goldberg-like factory would have to mutate at exactly the same time, and each single mutation would have to be beneficial, or the cell would just die."

Date: 2006/03/25 12:38:41, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
I think Dembski is starting to lose it.  His last two posts "The ID perspective on viruses?" and "Say it this time with feeling: “Isn’t natural selection amazing!”" make absolutely no sense.

The virus one is about a way that plankton use viruses to pass around genetic information.  I have no idea how that's supposed to be related to ID's 'prespective' on viruses, and Dembksi doesn't bother to elaborate.

The natural selection one is about a woman who has amazing memory, and WD writes "What is the survival and reproductive value of a perfect memory? Let me guess: the woman “AJ” described in the article below also has an uncanny ability to attract mates and has given birth to numerous offspring — all on account of her prodigious memory!"

Huh?  Is Dembski one of those who denies any evolutionary change? (since this would be an intraspecies change, something that Dave would be just peachy with, I would think)  Even so, does the above paragraph even make any sense?

Date: 2006/03/26 06:07:19, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote

#

Jack Krebs said

   Many such people object to ID because they believe it makes an unacceptable theological distinction between the things (perhaps few) that God has designed and, by implication, the many things that happen “naturally” and hence are not designed.

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of ID. ID positively identifies design. It does not positively identify what is not designed. What is not identified as design may still be designed, it simply isn’t positively identifiable as design. In more formal terminology ID does not produce false positives but it may produce false negatives.

Comment by DaveScot — March 26, 2006 @ 10:34 am


Is this a public admission that ID is non-falsifiable?

Date: 2006/03/26 18:05:59, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
The 'dt' part isn't actually mine, it got put there by a moderator.

Date: 2006/03/27 05:12:39, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Only the first line and the smiley are mine, everything else is Dave's

Date: 2006/03/28 19:16:46, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,01:15)
As much as I hate to agree with DS on anything, Buddhism has plenty of rituals and ceremonies. You can argue that they're not 'necessary', and certainly not everyone does them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I suppose that would make them not 'consistent.'

Date: 2006/04/03 17:01:06, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/570

Davescot says:

There is information on a blank CD. The arrangement of atoms, their position in time and space, IS information. Rearranging them changes the information but doesn’t add or subtract from the quantity of it. Information, like energy, can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/986

Davescot says:
The ordered deck has less information content because it can be described in a simpler fashion than a list of 52 cards. The only way to perfectly describe a random sequence of 52 cards is to list each card in order. -ds

Apparently CDs and decks of cards are different.  If you shuffle a deck, you get more information, but if you were to 'shuffle' the atoms on a CD, you just change information, and don't add any.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697

Davescot says:
The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs.

Deck chairs are also different than a deck of cards.

Date: 2006/04/04 13:22:33, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Now, I don't know a whole lot about virus genetics, but this comment by jaredl seems rather strange.  He makes the point of calculating probability -only- by point mutations.  My understanding was that you also have to account for recombination, which I thought was quite common in viruses.  Especially when we've got the closely related strain Reston ebolavirus which -is- airborne but not lethal to humans.  Is there a good reason to ignore the possibility of recombination, or is mr. jaredl just talking out his rear?

Date: 2006/04/11 10:33:17, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (PointyQ @ April 11 2006,15:11)
Dembski's latest post is simply the entirety of another blog post by someone else (typical), except Dembski leaves out a single sentence from the last paragraph of the original.

Here's the original, with Dembski's excision bolded:
Quote
The article is of interest primarily because it details the extensiveness of scientific misconduct. Our society tends to place inordinate trust in science and in scientists, assuming that the scientific method effectively removes the risk of misbehavior. In a fallen world, this could never be true.  The Korean stem cell and cloning scandal should be sufficient warning. This article brings the issue much closer to home.

Wonder why Dembski didn't quote that one sentence...maybe DS wouldn't let him?

He removed that sentence because removing explicit references to religion without changing substance make something not religious anymore.

Date: 2006/04/11 17:00:50, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1028#respond

Quote

ID proponents are often accused of reasoning as follows: “It looks way too complex to me to have evolved by naturalistic means, so it must have been designed.” This is the classic argument-from-ignorance-and-personal-incredulity objection.

But this objection doesn’t hold water. Design is inferred not from what we don’t know, but from what we do know. ID reasoning is an inference to the best explanation, based on what is known about the nature of information-rich systems and functionally integrated machinery, as well as the causal adequacy and capacity of known mechanisms.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/id-defined/

Quote
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.


Riiiiiight.

Date: 2006/04/11 20:21:04, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (UnMark @ April 11 2006,23:56)
Quote
3. I had to chuckle at a young hire at my work who glibly made the claim that ID could never be taught in a science curriculum at a university because there is no “Theory of ID”. I knew it was a matter of time and here it is. Biology credit for ID. I’ll tell you what ID can predict: that the Intelligent Designer has a plan for us and we are not so big as some of us like to think.

Comment by Doug — April 11, 2006 @ 3:16 pm


(italics mine) But I thought that ID does not, nay, CAN NOT, determine anything about the Designer aside from that it is capable of making and implementing a design.  Pray tell, Doug, how this prediction you talk about was formulated and how we can test this prediction.

Hypothesis: Things will happen, because the Designer has a plan.  I can make no specific claims as to what these things will be.
Observation: Things have happened.

The hypothesis is confirmed.

Date: 2006/04/12 07:52:02, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1031

Quote
The next question is whether those mutations are random. Well if they aren’t random then they’re guided and if they’re guided then ID is supported. Of course ID deniers must propose the mutations are random.


Random and guided are not opposites, nor do they represent the full range of alternatives.  The magnitude of the force of gravity is not random, it is in fact quite predictable.  I take it that Dave therefore will soon be releasing his theory of Guided Gravity?

Date: 2006/04/12 14:17:08, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
"I'm not an #######, I just play one on TV!"

Except he's not on TV, and really is an #######.

Maybe that wasn't the most apt of quotes...

EDIT: Apparently the boards don't like it when I combine arse and hole.  :(

Date: 2006/04/13 18:10:36, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1038#comments

Quote

  1.

     Cornell’s ID Group has been Debating this:

     http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/2006/04/08/bankrupting-id/#comments

     Also, I have a post clearing up some misconceptions about Irreducible Complexity:

     http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006/04/irreducible-complexity-what-it-is-and.html

     Comment by johnnyb — April 13, 2006 @ 9:19 pm


Going to johnnyb's link reveals this absolute gem:

Quote
Designers design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a designer somewhere behind it.


Pigs are pink, therefore pink things are pigs.

Brilliant!

Date: 2006/04/19 09:45:42, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2006,01:33)
Quote (haceaton @ April 18 2006,21:24)
Quote
Yup. All those wonderful people who now vote for George Bush and who want ID taught in schools


Allow me to point out that Maryland is not a Bush supporting state. We're heavily Democratic and both of our senators had the guts to vote against giving Bush Iraq war powers.

I wasn't including Maryland. I don't consider Maryland to be demographically or politically the same as places like Virginia, Georgia or Texas.

You sound like you have good senators. California has 2 Democratic senators as well, but they can't always be depended on to stand up to Bush in any meaningful way. But I too am proud to be in a very blue state.

We've got decent senators here in Maryland.  The governorship on the other hand...

Date: 2006/04/20 16:38:01, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
I wonder if Dave will make a post crying over the plight of the atheists?

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-....6&-Find

Date: 2006/04/21 16:04:22, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
I think Davescot's found the MSPaint on his computer...

Date: 2006/04/21 16:22:23, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Tee-axe.

Date: 2006/04/21 19:37:01, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
Quote (improvius @ April 22 2006,00:27)
It's funny to see them all clucking over there about how the flagellum supposedly predates the TTSS.  I guess it doesn't occur to them that that could be evidence of systems becoming complex by losing parts.

They can barely manage to work out solutions to single questions, it's just not fair if you start wanting consistency -across- questions.

Date: 2006/04/22 10:55:50, Link 24.29.82.124
Author: Tiax
I feel proud, Dave's non-sequitur response to one of my comments has now grown into an entire post.  I wonder if he'll get mad at me if I post a completely off-topic question in response...

Ask a question for specifics about ID
Uh...uh...look over there! It's a flagellum!

Date: 2006/04/23 17:50:17, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (UnMark @ April 23 2006,22:35)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1061
Quote
I’ve had to delete a number of posts proposing ways the flagellum could have evolved. That’s not the challenge. The challenge is to give a method of falsification.


I'm speechless.

He even deleted my comment which presented a model, and then -used the model- to show how it could be falsified.

I saved a copy, so I'll just post it here.

Quote

"If design detection isn’t science then neither is any theory of the flagellum evolving."

I'll take this to mean that I can demonstrate that a given model of the flagellum's evolution is falsifiable (since that would be under the heading of 'any theory' ) and satisfy the challenge.  As an example, I'll take the talkorigins model.  I know that many here probably don't agree with this model, and that's fine.  I'm not looking to prove that this is the pathway by which the flagellum evolved, or even to claim that this model has no problems with it.  (In fact, any points on which you believe it to be false would constitute falsifiability! )  The model is:

  1.  A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

  2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

  3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

  4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

  5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

  6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

Now, it should probably be reasonably obvious to anyone who has just read this that there are quite a few falsifiable points in here. Take the claimed co-options for example.  Simply check to see if the piece of the flagellum is similar to the piece it is claimed to have co-opted from (to put it crudely).  If they aren't similar, the co-option has been falsified, and thus so has the model!

Date: 2006/04/23 19:29:43, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (UnMark @ April 24 2006,00:15)
I figured as much, BV, when I read the line I quoted above. Is DT moving the goal posts again?

Not so much moving, as lying about their existence.

Date: 2006/04/23 20:14:47, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
"“Well if we show that the flagellum evolved you’ll just pick out something else and say that’s irreducibly complex”. That is a solid argument and what’s good fo the goose is good for the gander. Falsifying one instance leaves the general hypothesis intact. To get around this I chose DNA and ribosomes as what would falsify ID for me - if it can be demonstrated that those structures which are common to all known living things can evolve without intelligent input I’ll concede that everything else could have evolved without intelligent input."

...
...

Dave, falsifiability does not mean "We might be able to convince DaveScot that this hypothesis is false."

Date: 2006/04/24 17:49:10, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1067#comments

Qualitative sez:

"I just would hate to see IDers become like Creationists and Darwinists — mocking adversaries rather than addressing the accuracy of claims. "

Apparently Qualitative's monitor doesn't display bold text that ends with -ds.

Date: 2006/04/24 20:07:54, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (keiths @ April 25 2006,00:08)
In his latest UD post, Salvador Cordova writes:
Quote
At an IDEA meeting at UVa last fall, before 100 students, I was explaining what ID was. I was trying to communicate how cool it is to be an IDer.

That sounds like a cry for help.  Anyone want to offer Sal some examples of how cool it is to be an IDer?

Well, for one thing, the "we can't make any statements about the nature of the designer" game works in all kinds of situations.

"Yes mom, I can see that someone took a cookie from the jar, but our methods don't allow us to make any statements about the nature of this cookie thief.  Sure, it -could- have been me.  Some people may wish to believe it was me, but that doesn't mean it necissarily was me.  It might've been aliens.  Aliens with amazing technology."

Date: 2006/04/25 16:24:21, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote

No to both. A feature of the universe is intelligent life. Do you believe that it must be caused by something outside the universe? And just because something is outside of the universe doesn’t make it supernatural. Some theoretical physicists postulate a multiverse exists outside this universe. Is that multiverse supernatural? -ds


Of course.  The fine-tuning of the universe could've been set up by another group of aliens with even more amazing technology from another universe.  They spend their time making universes that are well-tuned for life.  Not only are these aliens potentially reducibly complex, but their universe is not necissarily specified.  Riiiiiight.

Date: 2006/04/27 20:02:44, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1078

Is Gil

A) Legitimately unaware of the facts
B) Willfully ignorant
C) Borderline retarded
D) A witch
E) All except A

Date: 2006/04/28 10:09:46, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote

ID proclaims that ID is science, not religion. A court, albeit an unreviewed district court ruling which holds little weight, has ruled that ID is religion. As long as the law views ID as religion the believing that ID is science is protected as religious belief. Now if someone is TEACHING this in a science class as opposed to simply holding it as a personal belief, there’s justification in making it a part of the employment decision. Employment is based on performance criteria on the job and while some, indeed very many, off-the-job considerations are legally relevant, religious belief is not one that may be considered. -ds


O, what a tangled web Dave weaves...

Date: 2006/04/30 10:43:39, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1086

"Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years."

Now, see if you can tell the link between this and

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1084

Hmm...

Date: 2006/04/30 16:07:49, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2006,20:54)
Quote (dhogaza @ April 30 2006,20:46)
It gets better yet, he believes that the discovery is evidence that the dinosaur didn't die all that long ago ...and that this is making scientists COWER.

Of course it is! Well, in between church burnings, that is.

When I first read about this discovery in the news, I promptly wet myself and hid under my bed for a week.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:21:21, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
I think this is my favourite UD thread in a long, long time.  I had honestly underestimated the strength of the YEC readership at that blog.

Date: 2006/05/01 14:14:33, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (Renier @ May 01 2006,16:35)
Tiax, you sound suprised?

I really shouldn't be after the whole common descent thing...

Date: 2006/05/01 16:08:20, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
If I didn't feel that trolling under multiple accounts was less than scrupulous, I would suggest a contest to see how absurd  a post we could make in favour of YEC without getting one of Dave's "witty" rebuttals.

Date: 2006/05/01 16:38:43, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
"#

“Not to digress too far, but I assume everyone here is familiar with Thomas Gold’s theory that fossil fuel does not come from fossils at all:”

Fossil fuel did NOT come from fossils! It was intelligently designed to appear at a certain location. Tsk tsk….

;-)

Comment by shalini — May 1, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
"

How did this get by the moderators?

Date: 2006/05/02 13:58:08, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote

#

In a search for truth one must follow the evidence wherever it leads. If, given the evidence from various areas of science and philosophical reasoning, the best possible explanation is design…then that is the explanation that should be accepted no matter how it makes anyone “feel”. Professionals who study this are the ones who are truly searching for truth. They consider all the possibilities and accept the best of all possible explanations, without ruling out possible explanations because of a materialistic or naturalistic bias.

Comment by Franz Bernstein — May 2, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
#

I think PZ Myers should find it assbackwards that the smartest, most evolved species on the planet has to look to lower, less evolved species in order to learn something about design.

It’s kinda like a college professor asking a 1st grader how to design a car.

Comment by Lurker — May 2, 2006 @ 5:14 pm


Franz seems to have forgotten that the designer isn't necissarily supernatural.

Lurker's just comically idiotic.  Either he thinks we're going to bacteria and asking them how to make a usefull gadget, and then waiting for them to draw up some blueprints, or he's very, very bad at analogies.

Date: 2006/05/02 20:10:50, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
So, I get done making a post telling Salvador how wrong he is, and I see this:

Quote
 
1.

     Sal, I think you misunderstood Genetic ID’s method of detecting GMOs. They appear to be using DNA fingerprinting to compare *known* GMO fingerprints to sample foods to determine if they contain any GMOs. There’s no design detection going on here.

     Comment by DaveScot — May 3, 2006 @ 12:01 am


Goddamnit Dave, that's not how this site is supposed to work.  You nod your head to the crazy claims and let -us- mock them!

Date: 2006/05/02 23:40:22, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
You know, maybe there -is- something to this explanatory filter:

1) Could Scordova's post be the result of chance?

No.  No intelligent person would by chance make something this dumb.  I know this because even DaveScot figured out that it was bogus

2) Could this be explained by a law?

Yes, the law of stupid people make stupid posts.

The Explanatory filter has thus proven that Cordova is an imbecile.

Date: 2006/05/02 23:45:14, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
You know, if genetic-id is doing legit design detection, you'd think they'd all be up in arms that everything except for genetically engineered stuff comes up as not designed.

EDIT: Just noticed this

Quote

With this in mind, I claim the work of the company genetic-ID is an instance of the Explanatory Filter.

www.genetic-id.com

   Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms. GMO [gentically modified organisms] testing is used to detect and quantify the presence of GMOs.


Just savor that logical train for a minute.  

A) Genetic ID can detect design
B) The explanatory filter can (in SCordova's wonderland) detect design
C) Therefore, Genetic ID is using the explanatory filter.

Date: 2006/05/04 15:18:04, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
The list of doctors is:

http://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

It contains an impressive 17 names.

Date: 2006/05/08 16:49:24, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
It's like something out of the Twilight Zone.

EDIT: Except dumb.

Date: 2006/05/08 18:29:02, Link 24.29.80.15
Author: Tiax
Quote (dhogaza @ May 08 2006,23:16)
So BarryA, once one of their bloggers, is being treated like us common scum.  Posts deleted.

Gosh, I hope his faith is deep and complete.  The actions of God's prophets might discourage him, otherwise.

There's the possibility he deleted it himself after getting a comment or two pointing out how absurd it was.

Date: 2006/05/14 17:13:37, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
I'm worried...I just had a comment turn-around time of under five minutes (the first time I checked back).  Either there's a very quick moderator on duty at the moment, or I've snuck onto the "good kids" list.

:O

Date: 2006/05/16 09:13:01, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,13:00)
Quote

Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds

Logic with Davetard:

I am an expert in computers.
Computers are digital machines.
some cell parts are digital machines.
Therefore I am an expert biologist.

Plus, when he googles "biology" he gets 613 million hits.  That's basically 613 million things he now knows about biology.  That's a lot.

Date: 2006/05/16 19:00:02, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
Apparently my comment of "I think those are pistons" was not appropriate for this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1125#comments

However, it does sound like carbon14atom needs clarifying on that point:

"It just appears to look like a flagellum, but you must force yourself to remember it doesn’t really look like a flagellum…for the obvious reasons"

The obvious reason is that it's a piston, not a rotor.

Shouldn't you be able to detect what something is, with the help of a subtitle, mind you, before you go about detecting whether that thing is designed?

Date: 2006/05/21 09:51:42, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
So, if living things are different than non-living things, it wouldn't make much sense to compare them to non-living machines, would it?

Date: 2006/05/26 10:09:52, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
"Not silencing. Telling him he doesn’t have a right to ruin a funeral with inflammatory rhetoric. He can get his message out in a setting that isn’t infringing on someone else’s right to a solemn funeral. -ds"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1159#comments

Replace 'funeral' with 'science class', replace 'inflammatory rhetoric' with 'ID.'

Date: 2006/06/09 10:27:33, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
You'd think that the big ruckus that went on in Dover about the Pandas text with subtle name changes from creationism to ID would teach Dembski not to openly discuss these things.  Of course, maybe he still believes ID won't need another name change in a few years.

Date: 2006/06/21 12:18:58, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise.

The Sun weighs about 250 lbs.

Date: 2006/06/21 13:10:46, Link 69.255.133.152
Author: Tiax
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 21 2006,18:01)
Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18)
I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise.

Well, that depends, what magazines do you subscribe to?

Now that you mention it, I -do- subscribe to Scientific American.  I must be the smartest man alive!!

 

 

 

=====