AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Tony M Nyphot

form_srcid: Tony M Nyphot

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.156.42.165

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Tony M Nyphot

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 'Tony M Nyphot%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2008/06/16 11:54:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (keiths @ June 16 2008,03:25)
A question for long-time Ftk-watchers: In all seriousness, do you think Steve is right? Are obstinacy, lack of motivation and psychological defense mechanisms the only obstacles to Ftk's mastery of basic trig, calc, physics and geology? Or is there something else about Ftk's brain that makes learning all of those things, and then critically applying them to Walt Brown's "theories", as impossible as training your goldfish to recite the Gettysburg Address?


I don't know...I have a goldfish that can do some amazing things, what with the blowing of bubbles, jumping in the air and nibbling the naughty bits on a deep sea diver named Louis. Or is it nibbling the bubbles and blowing...well...anyway...(but there does seem to be a bit of air coming out of the diver fellow)...get on with it...

So last night I pulled out a collection of Abraham Lincoln's writings and opened it to the appropriate pages and faced it in front of the fish bowl hoping to answer to keiths' query.

My goldfish (I call her For The Kippers because she seems to be generally happy in her own little enclosed world) appeared to take a genuine interest in learning, but soon gave up. Although I'm sure she was able to read the words, my theory (which is mine, that it is) is that she quickly realized that no one else could ever really understand or communicate on her level and decided not to waste her time when there was much food to eat (yum, yum).

FTK still kisses up to the glass preening for attention every now and then, so there has to be a smidgen of awareness in there somewhere. I'm just not sure she can, or wants, to move beyond that miniscule amount of interaction.

Ever.

Date: 2008/06/18 09:36:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Honoring Poachy:

Date: 2008/09/02 11:12:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2008,05:21)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2008,05:40)
I, for one, welcome the venerable received wisdom of our aged ones, and wish them happy birthdays and many more to come.

Now, can I get my frisbee out of the yard without you old coots turning the garden hose on me?

Urmm, thanks.

But you can leave the frisbee, I'll be able to use it. I actually played Ultimate Frisbee over the weekend, using those mad skills that I learned in the 60's and 70's. So now I ache in muscles that I didn't know I still had. To hell with the Metamucil; I need some Ben-Gay (or Ben Homosexual, as the American Family Association would phrase it).


Ultimate in the 60's/70's? Where?

I've been hucking close to that long...and still do...first night of Fall League is tonight!

Happy B-Day to the wizen ones...

Date: 2008/10/02 11:29:44, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 02 2008,07:39)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 01 2008,21:30)

FtK can you think of any particular reason why Notropis minnows or Etheostoma darters both contain hundreds of species yet are found only in North America?

You're wasting your breath. FTK has repeatedly said she does not believe in mackerel evolution.




I'll get my coat.

I disagree.

She does believe in a Holy Mackerel! sort of evolution.

Date: 2008/10/02 16:53:51, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2008,12:51)
When I was a young lad I wanted to grow up and be a comedian, I used to tell people that and they laughed at me. Then I became a comedian.

Well they're not laughing now are they?

Louis


I'd say that is really On The Spot. No?

Perhaps you should check your prostrate.

Date: 2008/10/02 16:59:53, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
[mumble,grumble]

uhmmm...prostate...

stupid keyboard...'r' too close to the 't'...

[/mumble,grumble]

Date: 2008/10/03 14:58:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Professor Heddle,

I am a long-time, daily lurker to AtBC (3 years at least...what a waste) and have come to have a measure of respect for you, your posts and what I view as a fair amount of integrity on your part. However, I am disappointed in your support of Palin.

I readily agree that "neither high IQ (especially) or an encyclopedic command of facts has a significant positive correlation with the ability to lead or govern."

In response, I ask if you believe a lower IQ and a limited command of facts and knowledge have a negative correlation?

There has to be a minimum level of ability to lead and Palin does not clear the bar, rather, she's doing the Limbo. Decisions may ultimately come down to world-views, but she has a very narrow and very small one from which to draw. SCOTUS judges certainly have broader world-views, regardless if they come from Long Dong Silver movies.

How can you watch any of the interviews and think this woman has much capacity to think critically in any unanticipated scenario? Even if the droning whine of "gotcha journalism" were remotely true in the case of the Couric interviews, you'd think someone truly capable and ready to lead the US in the world could handle an insignificant reporter like Katie. No? Palin may have a decent IQ, but for me she exhibits a severe handicap in the arena of world knowledge, facts and understanding she's incapable of contemplative thought or coherent answers.

Although she is a *hawt*, smart, job creating, maverick hockey-mom with lipstick whom I betcha I might genuinely like if I got to know her better over a six-pack or two around a kitchen table there following a rousing day of moose-goosing while out guarding our precious environmentally safe drilling rigs there in ANWR (and our fellow Americans too, don'tcha know!) from the constant Russian fly-overs...Palin is the absolute worst choice I have ever seen on a presidential ticket. Period. Spiro T would make a better choice. Even in his present condition.

I acknowledge your world-views, have read your blog here and there, agree with your insightful assessments on occasion...but it is maddening to me that someone of your intelligence accepts this farce of VP pick and the nonsensical populist gambit that it is.

More disturbing are the millions of people in the voting public who, like FTK, are not near as smart as you are and credulously fawn over her (Palin, not FTK) with no thought whatsoever.

Tony M Nyphot
(more than half serious but still a bit looney)

Date: 2008/10/03 15:56:28, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,14:07)
Grrrrrrrr....!! I oughta rip you apart for that post, but I'll allow you to live since you're basically a lurker.

Please...don't let my status as a lurker stop you. I should be easy prey compared to the other elitist intellectuals here. I have no fear of empty insults.

While I'm not the best at communicating my thoughts, it should be clear I was expressing an opinion about Palin. Take it or leave again..I don't care.

However, I am willing to stand by my statements that:
1. You are not as smart as Heddle, in anyway, by any stretch.
2. You credulously fawn over Palin with no thought whatsoever as exhibited by your earlier vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous, "breath-of-fresh-air" posts.

As astutely pointed out by csadams (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5785;st=450#entry124508), you and Sarah are very much alike.

If, as you say, she is a good representative of who you are...Do you think you would make a competent VP?

Date: 2008/10/03 16:38:02, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,14:30)
Tony M Nyphot,

Yes, quite a few people are disappointed that I support Palin. I dont understand that. People dont disappoint me if they support a different candidate. I switched from Obama because he flip flopped on FISA and public finance. (He also flip flopped on Born Alivebut in that case his flop was preferred to his flip). And the final straw for me was the Biden selection. But for those for whom those things are not important, I dont ponder why they dont get it.

You would be wrong to assume anything even remotely close to smart people support Obama. (Or any other candidate.) There are plenty of smart people supporting each candidate. The closest you can come to making such a statement is that the smart people on sites like this support Obamabut these sites, and counterparts on the right, are merely unrepresentative blips. If you think that way, you are in danger of waking up the day after the election like the proverbial Hamptons socialite who said: I dont understand how Nixon won, everyone I know voted for McGovern. (OK, that wont happen this election which is, for all intents and purposes, over--but the point stands.)

As for Palin, I do not think that exhaustive knowledge of all the nuances of the issues is important for a president or VP. Cheney knows a bundle but hes a crappy VP. Ditto Gore, Carter, Johnson, Nixon. I always want a president (or in this case a VP) that I find to be a good and decent and capable personcertainly they must rise above some intellectual threshold, one that I think Palin more than achievesbut primarily I want a person I can admire. At one time I felt that way about Obama. Now, of the four on the national ticket, I only feel that way about Palin. And Ill take that over command of the issues, interviewing or debating skill, passing an ideological litmus test, or pedigree any day of the week.

If the Identity-Politics Watchdogs (who, in my opinion, cast their lidless-eye gaze in but one direction) don't like that--screw 'em. Democracy can be a bitch.

Edit: Biden Moment Typo.

Professor Heddle,

Thanks for the worthy reply. By no means do I think "smart people" only support Obama. I personally know many who do not. I also agree that Biden was a disappointing choice in many ways, just not perhaps in the same ways. He IS a smart, capable individual. I also think he is good and decent.

However, I believe it will take a presidential nominee reaching across the aisle on a VP pick to help remove some of the polarization that continues to fester in the political system. Biden is not that type of pick. (For some reason I had in mind someone like Lincoln Chafee.) Sarah Palin does not represent a reach across the aisle either. She is more of a reach back to the base and so is also a major disappointment in that respect. So much for the maverick label.

While I agree with much of of what you say in your response, the big disagreement comes in following your own criteria of "good and decent and capable." I can't say I really know enough to tell whether Palin is good and decent. I have seen enough, including attending one of her rallies, to say she is NOT capable.

The skills you subjugate to admiration in making your choice are necessary for dealing with national and world issues and should take precedence in my opinion. I want someone that has the ability to get the job done, not someone I admire for trying to do something they can't. Regardless, for me at least, she has not demonstrated she rises above an "intellectual threshold" and has done nothing more to gain my admiration that many others have not also done.

As far as flip-flops, Palin and especially McCain, are just as guilty. And I agree with you that Obama's change on FISA is disturbing. I guess it depends which ones mean the most to you as an individual.

Anyway, I respect your choice. I am disappointed in it and I don't "get it" at all. Sorry...

Tony M Nyphot

Gratuitous BTW - You are much, much smarter than FTK.

Edit: just to pretend I can mess with FTK

Date: 2008/10/03 17:11:24, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
[Cue my first trip to the BTW]

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,15:16)


a. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. See Synonyms at intelligent. EPIC FAIL
b. Amusingly clever; witty EPIC FAIL
c. Impertinent; insolent: That's enough of your smart talk. Now you're talking!
2. Energetic or quick in movement: a smart pace. FAIL (see blog diet diary)
3. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others FAIL (except in your own mind)
4. Fashionable; elegant: See Synonyms at fashionable. FAIL (peeing in your pants and fainting is an immediate disqualification for this category of smart - except maybe in Kansas. I'll consult with Jack.)



[Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]

Heddle is much, much smarter than you. He has a science degree.

[/Richard Dawkins "Beware The Believers" voice]

Date: 2008/10/04 01:52:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,20:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.


Hey FTK help me out here...by what measure?

I'll list Obama's achievements just as a US Senator at the national level and you list Palin's achievements in any capacity anywhere and let's compare. If Palin's record comes anywhere close to Obama's, I'll promise to buy you dinner. (I don't welch like the good DrDr and I'm not Welsh like some others around here.) If her record doesn't compare favorably, you only have to admit you have been fawningly credulous about her supposed achievements and that Palin doesn't shine at all and is, in fact, rather obviously dim. (By comparison of course.)

Then we'll move on to their life and world experience.

I'll start...Here's a summary of the Congressional Record at the Library of Congress as given at TheZoo:

 
Quote
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.

Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.

Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:

Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
Foreign Policy (10 bills)
Voting and Elections (9 bills)
Education (7 bills)
Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
The Environment (5 bills)
Homeland Security (4 bills)
Discrimination (4 bills)


You can find a detailed listing of the bill numbers at either link and check up on them.

What of our darling Sarah?

Date: 2008/10/04 02:20:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,01:01)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,02:52)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 03 2008,20:13)
When I look at the comparison between the achievements and experience of both Obama and Palin, Palin simply outshines him.


Hey FTK help me out here...by what measure?

Well, she does have some qualifications. She left Wasilla with $20 million in debt. Being able to rack up huge debt is critical for being a movement conservative:



Well, okay...I'll give you that.

But doesn't every resident get $1000 back from the government to help offset this? It should only take one third of the town's population to give that up and make it right again.

And Wasilla got a damn fine hockey rink for the kids and their hockey-moms!

Who knows, in the long run maybe Palin's efforts could produce the next Roenik, Modano, Drury or Chelios.

Date: 2008/10/04 02:45:21, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,01:20)
Who knows, in the long run maybe Palin's efforts could produce the next Roenik, Modano, Drury or Chelios.

...either that or Armageddon...




Can I haz edit?

Date: 2008/10/04 12:39:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2008,07:14)
Quote
I'll list Obama's achievements just as a US Senator at the national level and you list Palin's achievements in any capacity anywhere and let's compare.


Um...I already listed 3 comparison lists, and they pretty much lay it out, dude.

Yes, we already know Obama's good at voting yea, nay, or "present", and of course he had a hand in developing some of those bills...but, to what extent? Who knows.

Quote
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.


That says nothing. If he's so impressive, he sure didn't show those skills when trying to better theChicago educational system.

Yes, yes...I followed your links earlier, dudette. Perhaps you could point out where any of them show actual achievements, not just titles, general duties, resigning in protest and snagging a snowmobile champion as a husband. Summarize her accomplishments of substance for the greater good and then we can compare. If you already have the links, it shouldn't be too hard to make a quick list. Here's another one to help you out.

I'll admit having 5 kids and keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" is quite an achievement. However, it's not that unique as demonstrated by the Louis/Arden/carlsonjok wife-envy competition. I could be wrong..."smoking hot" might be a relative measure in their case.

I am impressed with her private sector experience. Not just anyone can be a sportscaster!!one!11! Or a salmon fisherman!! WOW!!!!

Your link to a deranged anti-ACLU site likewise says nothing.

Graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and being President of the Harvard Law Review does say something. (Cue whine about educational records.)

Not that Obama is some man of great stature, but if you had any honesty at all, when you look at what each has accomplished in making a positive impact in people's lives, Palin pales in comparison.

Date: 2008/10/04 12:51:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Did I say "wife-"?

I meant "mother-".

Date: 2008/10/05 00:42:24, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 04 2008,16:25)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 04 2008,13:39)
...keeping yourself "Smoking hot in a 'naughty librarian' sort of way" ...

There's nothing "librarian" or "smoking" about ignorance or illiteracy.

Agreed.

Just want to clarify that is not my opinion. I don't find unplumbed depth-of-dumb wrapped in a pretty skin very attractive.

That line is directly from a side-by-side comparison of Palin and Obama at one of FTK's links. I'm guessing it's one of the ways FTK believes Palin outshines Obama in experience and achievement.

I hope there is a God...then maybe he will help us.

Date: 2008/10/05 01:18:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2008,23:57)
I don't think she's necessarily dumb, I think she's completely out of her element.

Yeah...I was a bit uncharitable by using the "d" word. I'll take it back.

Even so, Palin displays a dearth of general knowledge and real-time thinking skills I would expect any semi-intelligent person to possess independent of specific topics. After 44 years, I'm not convinced years of preparing, reading books, and talking to think-tankers will change that for her.

She's not just in over her head she doesn't know how to swim and shouldn't be near the pool.

Date: 2008/10/07 01:02:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 06 2008,13:12)
Internet Quiz:

Heddle & Ftk : After the Bar Closes :: Heddle & mroberts : __

a shot in the dark...

DFtCW by EB?

Date: 2008/10/07 12:20:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,10:21)
Ding! We have a winner. Monty Py--I mean Tony M. Nyphot wins the grand prize: a night with Arden's mom.

Second prize is two nights.

:p

Damn it.

Whenever I win, it's always prizes chosen with a predetermined winner in mind.

Either that or it's something I have already had.

Date: 2008/10/07 12:57:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2008,11:47)

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 07 2008,18:20)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,10:21)
Ding! We have a winner. Monty Py--I mean Tony M. Nyphot wins the grand prize: a night with Arden's mom.

Second prize is two nights.

:p

Damn it.

Whenever I win, it's always prizes chosen with a predetermined winner in mind.

Either that or it's something I have already had.

HEY! You get your own jokes! "Arden's mum" is a registered trademark.


Wait...are calling Arden's mum a joke?

Quote


Well, she's registered......


In Amsterdam? Is that where you met her?

Quote
Louis

P.S. Excellent work, you're already falling into my trap. Next you will be repeating the rumours about Deadman and those squirrels.

Date: 2008/10/10 13:10:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Outside of normal business hours, I indulge in graphic design. Particularly poster design.

Using that medium, here are some of the best at their craft: 30 Reasons

The are downloadable in PDF form to print and display. The first (October 5th) is my personal favorite so far.

Date: 2008/10/10 13:50:24, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2008,09:18)
Right I think that's everyone dealt with. I can almost smell the pub!

You know...if you're headed to the pub, may I suggest you invite FTK and her friend Walt down for Mojitos?

I've heard fruitcakes are much more tolerable with a little rum in them.

Date: 2008/10/12 02:27:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Another hint for people to visit 30 Reasons.

I am not affiliated in any way. I just like posters. These all have a particular message and a new one appears each day until November 4th.

Here's my favorite:

Date: 2008/10/13 20:15:51, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 13 2008,14:37)
And they use email lists for intimidation purposes, encouraging folks to call radio stations that are airing a view they aren't fond of.

I assume this equates with:

Using physical mailing addresses to coordinate state police visits to and interrogations of ethnic voters in counties with an ethnic majority that might vote the 'other' way?

Using physical mailing addresses to send official looking/sounding letters hinting that there might be arrests of certain people at voting locations if they show up?

Having a GOP Secretary of State create "purge" lists to disenfranchise identified democratic leaning voters by lumping them in with felons?

Please, please, please...won't somebody help our poor radio stations avoid intimidation from phone calls!

(Unless of course they broadcast teh gay programs. In which case please contact their major advertisers and threaten to boycott.)

Date: 2008/10/14 14:56:38, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 14 2008,13:17)
I think your clarification suits me down to the ground, especially as I've also chosen not to vote more than once.

So there were occasions when you chose to vote more than once?

Are you admitting to stuffing the box here?

Date: 2008/10/14 15:15:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,14:01)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 14 2008,14:56)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 14 2008,13:17)
I think your clarification suits me down to the ground, especially as I've also chosen not to vote more than once.

So there were occasions when you chose to vote more than once?

Are you admitting to stuffing the box here?

Not if you believe Mrs. Louis.

In my haste, it appears I was a bit too transparent, what with carlsonjok, Louis, Arden, Arden's mum and all the missuses making the rounds...

I'm new here, so please forgive my insouciance for being obscure...

Date: 2008/10/15 22:21:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 15 2008,19:58)
I am taking a nausea break from McCain's stream of BS.

A nice glass of Macallan will do the needed adjustment.

I'm assuming that your break was taken from the debate? I had to dip into a cheap Fonseca port to make it through. (Probably would have done that anyway.)

I will disagree that McCain's output was a stream of BS.

"Stream", for me at least, implies something flowing and continuous and what I watched was choppy and and disconnected, though the BS is not in question.

ETA: Thanks for allowing me the edit button Dr. Wesley....[turns to FTK]...pphhhhhht!!!onehundredeleventyone!!!

Date: 2008/10/23 18:36:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
From Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor at The New Republic:

Quote
McCain feels with his heart, but he thinks with his base. And when he picked Sarah Palin, he told the United States of America to go fuck itself. I used to think of my dilemma this way: Obama's conception of America is better than he is, McCain's conception of America is worse than he is. But McCain is looking more and more like his America, which is Bush's America: a country of capitalists and Christians. I do not know how to explain what has become of him.

Date: 2008/10/23 20:19:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 22 2008,15:45)
where the hell have YOU been? been too normal around here lately, I'm starting to feel like a libertarian or something.

It appears he's been filming a topical show for PBS:
Lord of the Gourds: the Pursuit of Excellence

Date: 2008/10/23 20:28:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 23 2008,11:50)
E.T.A: That's a hard does of reality.

Date: 2008/10/27 01:06:03, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 25 2008,14:01)
Somebody explain what "empirical research" means to Daniel.

Catching up on things here after a weekend respite, so I know this is a tad late, but I'm not sure I'm reading Wesley's plea correctly.

Isn't it obvious that "empirical research" means nothing to Daniel?

Does that really need explaining to anyone?

Date: 2008/10/27 21:26:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 21 2008,22:31)
So gradually over the past year I've been doing grilled cheese experiments. the bread's pretty standard white bread. The coating on the outside has been variable (Promise, Smart Balance, olive oil, or whipped butter) and hasn't made too much diff. But the cheese...I'm now thinking the lowbrow approach might be better. So far I've used, for cheese, slices of provolone, swiss, mozarella, or muenster. And the results have all been unsatisfactory. I'm starting to think the lowbrow approach, aka those fake cheese slices like Kraft singles, which are I think mostly vegetable oil, would work better. The real cheese melts but is too stiff. The fake cheese gets gooier and I'm thinking that might actually be better.

I like to think I make some of the best cheese sammiches around and the gf (mine, not yours) agrees. I'm not sure what your gf would think, but Arden's mum and Louis' better-3/4 both like them.

I use a medium or extra sharp cheddar (usually Tillamook) cut in very thin slices and normally mix in some finely shredded asiago, parmesan and mozzarella. ( I have to try Crabbie's cream cheese binder next time.)

I have a small sandwich-size, enamel covered cast-iron frying pan pre-heated at a medium-high temp, throw a pat of butter in to melt, swish it around and swipe it clean with a slice of the bread, then repeat for the other slice. Place the whole sandwich in, cover with a lid and fry for 3 minutes per side. Crispy bread and perfectly melted cheese every time.

Sometimes I'll even use pumpernickel with swiss, muenster and some black forest smoked ham and a bit of stone-ground mustard.

Since sourdough is a hobby of mine, I believe superior bread makes a huge difference. Here's a semolina sourdough with non-segregated sesame seeds on top:


Date: 2008/10/27 21:44:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 27 2008,19:17)
(Oh, speaking of scary eastern European peasant cuisine...)

How does that compare taste-wise with our southern favorite of Scrapple? I've heard it's hog awful offal.

There's always Armour Pork Brains in Milk Gravy, supplying 1200% of your daily cholesterol in a single serving, too.

Doesn't have much Spam in it. Not so much rat, either.

Date: 2008/10/27 22:28:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
...hereoisreal has to be coincidence-channeling somehow...

something amazing just happened to me...I was looking through Time's pictures of the week and suddenly up popped the exact image I've had in my head ever since Palin bragged about facing Putin if he ever reared his head...



ETA: lolspeak - my first ever attempt

Date: 2008/11/01 00:13:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 31 2008,20:16)
I should have predicted this, but I'm seeing a lot of trick or treaters this year dressed as Barack Obama.

Good thing they're not trick or treating in Dave Scot's neighborhood.

Haven't noticed any Sarah Palins yet.

The teen daughter of a good friend dressed as Palin, quite looked the part as well.

The scariest part of her costume...she also wore a name tag that said:

"President Palin,
John McCain is dead!"

I think she could have added "Long live the W" to round out the horror of it all.

Date: 2008/11/01 00:23:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2008,15:49)
i prefer longleaf pine.

Louis said you preferred Notty Pine...

Date: 2008/11/13 01:15:43, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2008,15:16)
Quote
Etymology:
Middle French contester, from Latin contestari (litem) to bring an action at law, from contestari to call to witness, from com- + testis witness

Speaking of etymology and gonads, this reminds me of a favorite line from a favorite Classics professor.

In latin, he brought up the word "testicles" and asked for a translation derived from it's roots: "testes" (testis) for witnesses and "cles" denoting a diminutive form.

Thus we arrive at "little witnesses." Why name them so?

Because they are always at the scene of the crime...

Date: 2008/11/26 23:59:09, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2008,21:58)
 
Quote
Objected to violins on television, as I recall.


What about saxophones? ;)

Henry

Well I for one object to all the sax on television.

I mean, I keep falling off.

Date: 2008/11/29 00:00:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 28 2008,19:06)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2008,16:55)
HA HA THIS IS ARDEN



Nah, I'd never wear that hideous headband.

However, I think that is Carlson on the right.

Now I'm really confused.

I thought that was Arden's mum with Louis coming in from behind.

Date: 2008/12/03 14:25:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 03 2008,12:19)
Good stuff on the Olofsson thread:
 
Quote
150

Sal Gal

12/03/2008

2:07 pm
On the positive side, I want to say that I like the shift in Dembskis work. What he and Marks write is sufficiently non-gelatinous that I can counter it.

Who is this so-called Sal cordova Gal and why does she think so positively about works not written in Jello?

Date: 2008/12/08 22:59:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 08 2008,13:57)
Hey guys,

Guess what I found on my front doorstep this morning??!


Hugs and Kisses,
~FtK

I'm curious...

Was it left in a brown paper bag?

Did someone light it on fire before ringing the doorbell and running away?

Date: 2008/12/12 11:54:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 12 2008,07:52)
 
Quote
Franklin County students participating in a media course are getting an unplanned lesson in the First Amendment.


http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/187410

Did anyone read Creasy's essay at the end of the article?

Having a bit of a background in journalism, I actually thought it spoke quite well for a high-school kid.

Though I have always been a firm believer in evolution and somewhat anti-religious, his would be a much better piece without the 5th paragraph, which alienates those he wishes to influence.

Not unlike the conflicting opinions on how to approach the issue I see on PT and AtBC.

Date: 2008/12/12 12:43:42, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Thanks Douglas.

Thanks Wes.

I have not visited the TO site since it was hacked. I followed your link just to catch up on one of my favorite sections, the "Post of the Month" archive.

The scary thing is, one of my favorites was from March 2005, which just goes to show how long I've been addicted to watching the deconstruction of TARD.

I suppose thanking Wes is like a junkie thanking his supplier.

Date: 2008/12/17 14:57:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 17 2008,13:32)
I realize that standards at UD have fallen even further from a semblance of "sciencey-ness" ever since Barry "The Lawyer" Arrington took over, but ..DAMN -- they're not even trying anymore.

Also, quit making fun of Lizzy, she's not a damn horse, you unscrupulous bastards. Here's a guy who rides a horse:


Maybe it's all the facial "improvements", but Camilla is starting to look a lot like Joan Rivers to me...

Date: 2008/12/18 00:20:38, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 17 2008,18:31)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 17 2008,19:28)
If you can show me wrong - please do.

If the designer is so great how come dog shit is so sticky and awful? I mean, it could come out in nice packaged lumps ready for disposal, no smell no mess.

And yet, here we are, I've got a shoe full of dog shit and I desperatly need a stick to get it out with!

You must be a miserable and sinful oldmaninthesky...



via Wulffmorgenthaler

Date: 2008/12/20 12:45:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2008,08:50)
I'll join in if and when they miss something (highly unlikely) or if I feel I have a novel slant.

Louis

Would that be a slant to the left or the right?

Date: 2008/12/20 12:57:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Much is the want that Dave could still post on global warming. Oh what enflamed and tardinous rage we might enjoy this holiday season...

Obama Appoints Climate Change Experts via NYT.

Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says via CNN

Other than info found at Wikipedia, does anyone know much about Jane Lubchenco? With Holdren and Lubchenco, I'm sensing a comforting lean towards Harvard.

Date: 2008/12/21 01:32:44, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2008,17:30)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 20 2008,18:45)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2008,08:50)
I'll join in if and when they miss something (highly unlikely) or if I feel I have a novel slant.

Louis

Would that be a slant to the left or the right?

I haven't decided yet. It seems, from the other thread, that epistemology may rear its ugly head any day now. Unless our new Blueish playmate decides chemistry has special inductive issues, I'm not sure I can be seriously bothered.

Apathy: today I has it.

Louis

Please excuse my inept reach for blue-shaded humour.

I did not mean "slant" in a political, philosophical or intellectual sense, but a more juvenile one.

Like the "slant" Arden's mum might notice when you stand in front of her.

BTW, even minus pithy words, it's nice to see the TARD Hat back.

Date: 2008/12/21 08:23:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 21 2008,04:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2008,22:26)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2008,22:24)
You'll be awaiting moderation at UD, but your comment will easily go through here. That's how we roll.


I thought we were about to get something u^mber and ma^lodorous. But, alas, this is Richard (HA HA):


Not sure if I'm bowing or only doubling over in laughter, but I give praise to the master of coffee-on-keyboard lolcats...

Date: 2008/12/24 15:24:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (khan @ Dec. 24 2008,14:03)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 24 2008,15:27)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 24 2008,14:05)
 
Quote (dochocson @ Dec. 24 2008,10:40)
HAHA! I would high five the Davester, but I don't want to get Cheezy Poof debris all over my hands.

Do you think if I accidently slipped while high fiving Davey that a jury of my peers would award me damages for his broken nose spewing blood all over my hand?

I'm just asking....

Maybe that's what really happened to Khan's wrist?

So some folks actually read and remember my posts?

If the pain in my wrist is an indicator, he wouldn't just have a bloody nose, he would have a fractured skull.

Pre-existing condition I think...not your fault.

*************

Merry Holidays, good health and excessive libations to all!

Thanks for another year of high-brow, elitist entertainment!

Date: 2009/01/01 19:54:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 01 2009,13:44)
Eating black-eyed peas on New Year's Day is supposed to bring good luck for the year.

Christians have their Designer in the Sky and His promise of a heavenly eternity. Carlsonjok only has magic black-eyed peas and maybe just maybe luck for a year.

Not sure who to pity more...

I had extended family over for a New Year's Day dinner and successfully prepared one of the best homemade meals I have ever created: SauerBraten (marinated 5 days), Blaukraut, Pumpernickel (Americanized version), Potato Galette and steamed broccoli with a thyme/coriander/pepper seasoning. (None had much rat in them.)

Served with a wine choice of Riesling, Crver Nacktarsch, Schwarzriesling, or Dornfelder or a beer choice of Paulaner Oktoberfest Marzen, Hofbrau HefeWeiss, Tilburg's Dutch Brown Ale or Leffe Blonde.

And for dessert, whole-milk black raspberry/chocolate chip ice cream to help calm acidic reactions sure to visit later in the night. (Too bad about evolution failing to enable the small intestine to deal with those foul polysaccharides and oligosaccharides.)

Oh yes...Ramos Pinto Vintage Port 2000 for the cook after everyone left.

ETA: magic and left-out libations.

Son of ETA: left overs and gifts

Date: 2009/01/02 11:14:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 02 2009,02:10)
Unicum? YIKES!

That stuff is EVIL! I drank it whilst in Hungary, and it nearly finished me off. It's like Jagermeister only more disgusting. The Hungarians drink it like water however, lovely, mad folk that they are. It is however palatable as a "Unabomber" ( a shot of Unicum dropped into a glass of red Bull which is drunk in one go, like Jager Bombs).

And no one make any jokes about the name "Unicum" they've all been done.

Mr Nyphot, if you drink that, you are a braver man than I. My headgear, it is off.

Louis

Yes...the Unicum...well, that was one of the "gifts" brought by attendees.

That exact bottle was a present given 3 years ago from the significant other's brother (or maybe it was Arden's uncle?...I get them confused) who lives in Budapest.

Unicum's properties are well known, the bottle has not been opened and it travels the rounds, given mostly as a "gift" to the host of various dinners throughout the year. It somehow always finds its way back home. I love it so...

I was more worried about the Riesling as it came from Carlson Vineyards...it's probably just horse piss.

Date: 2009/01/02 19:40:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 02 2009,13:14)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 02 2009,17:14)
[SNIP]

I was more worried about the Riesling as it came from Carlson Vineyards...it's probably just horse piss.

You can but hope, at least it would wash out the taste of the Unicum.

Louis

Strangely, as long as it is ice cold, Unicum isn't so bad after a few sips. It's just that it removes the enamel from your teeth. Supposedly it's a good digestive aid and the story I'm told from Budapest is that Unicum started out as a bitters aperitif.

As such I've experimented with a few drops in martinis and soups, but it tends to eclipse every other ingredient. However, mixed with a bit of soda in the AM works as a good corpse reviver. Give it a try.

*****************

On another note, I'm curious what beers are favored most by the "scientific" crowd here, categorically, from the British Isles, from the Continent and from the States.

I like most of the Samuel Smiths but it is overpriced. While relaxing on a ferry between Denmark and Sweden, I really enjoyed a Ceres Royal Dark (Stout?), but have never found it in the States. I also like Duvel.

I don't much care for the US micro-brewery stuff I'm surrounded by. They taste a bit green to me.

Date: 2009/01/02 22:32:03, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 02 2009,19:05)
Well, Colorado isn't exactly considered a prime Riesling appellation

Au contraire, nuisance du cheval:

Date: 2009/01/02 22:56:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 02 2009,19:30)
their Select Port is probably the best American-made port that I have tried.

Much like AtBC and the tard, Port happens to be an obsession.

I'll search this out and give it a taste based entirely on the recommendation from one of my favorite MPFC sketch subjects, though I doubt you come with any bloody wafers.

Watch for Louis and Arden making an appearance towards the end.

Date: 2009/01/02 23:30:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 02 2009,22:03)
I noticed the other winners include Chateau Ste Michelle, which is one of my favorite wineries, and Heron Hill, which is on my list to visit the next time I am up in the Finger Lakes.

If you like Finger Lakes regional wines...

Not sure I can recall any specific label names (or that you could find them in the US anyway) but a fantastic wine experience for me was during a break from a skiing trip in British Columbia. We spent 2 days touring the wineries surrounding Kelowna and Okanagan Lake and partaking in their Ice Wine Festival. One of the best tasting Rieslings I've enjoyed was during that trip, The only other thing I can remember in relation to that Reisling is that the next stop was a nearby goat cheese tasting room.

We are planning on going back for a summer or early fall visit just to do some tasting room hopping.

Date: 2009/01/03 13:58:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
HBD to DB, producer of pointed and humorous anti-ID sentiments!

Date: 2009/01/06 11:49:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 06 2009,08:04)
...tho I should have soaked the beans overnight.

Soaking overnight, and rinsing in fresh water a couple of times during their soak, helps reduce global warming activity...you could make DaveScot much happier.

If you happen to have a pressure cooker, there is absolutely no better way to cook beans. They cook clean through and are not falling apart and mushy on the exterior.

I make a vegetarian chili with black, pinto and Anasazi Ancestral Puebloan beans and serrano, chipotle, jalapeo and ancho chilies. Other ingredients are usually lots of garlic, onion, olive oil, green & red bell peppers, corn, cocoa powder, cumin, ground pepper, cilantro, oregano and basil. It only takes 15 minutes in the pressure cooker after soaking the beans overnight.

Date: 2009/01/06 17:30:42, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 06 2009,11:24)
Kristine 's recipe looks very alluring, but I've never cooked beanless chili. I've always been vaguely intimidated by cooking it and getting it right. But beanless chili isn't an obsession out her e like it is in Texas.

FTFY

Date: 2009/01/07 01:16:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Dembski personality traits and priorities on display:

 
Quote
1

P.S. I own intelligentevolution.org.


He forgot to say "FIRST!!!!!"

Date: 2009/01/07 12:44:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 07 2009,10:51)
 
Quote
Dembski personality traits and priorities on display:


Quote

1

P.S. I own intelligentevolution.org.



He forgot to say "FIRST!!!!!"

Guess who owns ERASMUSPRESS.NET that is selling Dembsk's new writings:
Quote

Registrant:
William Dembski

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ERASMUSPRESS.NET

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HOSTMONSTER.COM
NS2.HOSTMONSTER.COM


For complete domain details go to:
http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?Domain=ERASMUSPRESS.NET

Who is Erasmuspress?

So, essentially, that entire post is a disguised "by my book!" for fleecing the flock with more rehashed drivel.

Who says Dembski hasn't learned from O'Dreary?

Date: 2009/01/07 23:38:45, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 07 2009,22:21)
Quote
Publication Frequency

The Journal of Evolutionary Informatics is a quarterly journal published in January, April, July, and October.
So it will come soon.
link

Seems that they forgot to publish the October issue.

Say what you will, I'm quite impressed by their Editorial Team.

It is unimaginable any journal could assemble such a roster comprised of every ID Scientist in the world today.

Date: 2009/01/09 12:20:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2009,09:49)
And, French and Spanish make...

...Euskara?

Date: 2009/01/09 15:35:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2009,12:12)
Later I dabbled with the 68000 assembler of the original Mac, although learning programming on that platform was much more about learning the toolbox.

Wow, that give's me serious flashbacks. Among 5 various college majors (mostly abandoned) was a foray into Applied Mathematics and Discrete Structures. About the same time, just for grins, I explored 68000 assembly language. I still have a complete set of the "Inside Macintosh" volumes in near mint condition, Volume VI is still in the box. If anybody wants them, they can be yours for the price of shipping.

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2009,12:12)
My first hard drive was 20MB in 1987 and cost about a grand.

My 2nd Mac was an SE and I had to wait an extra 3 weeks for the model with an internal HD, also 20MB. I seem to remember it costing an additional $800 to avoid the Sisyphean swapping of 800KB floppies, even with 2 disk drives to use. I even went an extra mile (uphill on an 18% grade) and doubled the RAM the extra 1MB tacked on another $700. Looking back, I can't believe I actually did graphic design on that thing. No wonder I have to squint so much. I used to get up 1/2 hour before I went to bed just to get my work done.

Who would have thought some 20 years ago, we'd all be sitting here, drinking Chteau de Chasselas, enjoying the Crme de la Trd...

Date: 2009/01/09 15:50:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 04 2009,07:56)
Some of the pics from my recent trip to the San Francisco Bay Area can be seen here. I tried to get together with Arden, another bird aficionado who lives in the Bay Area, but he apparently was in LA for the holidays. Since I also failed to get together with Louis last summer in the UK, I can only conclude that Louis and Arden are the same person...

Enjoy!

Those are beautiful pics, better than most I see from the "professional" photographers I deal with.

May I inquire as to your camera setup?

Date: 2009/01/09 16:09:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2009,14:44)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 09 2009,15:35)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2009,12:12)
My first hard drive was 20MB in 1987 and cost about a grand.

My 2nd Mac was an SE and I had to wait an extra 3 weeks for the model with an internal HD, also 20MB.


Johnny-come-latelys, both of you.

I wrote my first computer program on punch cards because the school I went to had only one computer for the entire district (of 4000 students). We thought we were hot stuff when they put a half-dozen Apple IIe in the high school. Those babies had 64K of RAM and no internal drives.


I did say it was my 2nd Mac...I also endured the IIe era. I was, however, fortunate enough to miss out on punch-card programming, though I witnessed 2 older brothers lugging around boxes of cards.

My first programming class utilized 3 teletype stations in separate rooms connected to a district mainframe by telephone lines. Assignments were saved onto paper tape.

I have residual memories of 2-player Star Trek computer game played on those teletype stations where a singe turn might take 20 minutes. The entire game usually took up several sessions of 3-5 hours and used a forest or two's worth of paper.

I'm sure you can find an LOLcat for that...?

Date: 2009/01/09 16:50:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (subkumquat @ Jan. 09 2009,12:57)
These critters were about 10ft behind the house. We have a motion sensor activated light and we always hop up to see what's out there when it comes on. All of these were within a span of 10 minutes.

Those are fantastic photos as well. The two creatures dancing around chocolate cake at night are especially neat. It conjures up visions of Louis and Arden prancing around the ladies on 42nd Street.

Perhaps it should be obvious, but do you also have the camera connected to a motion sensor or are those taken hand-held? Have the camera mounted on a tripod and pre-focused on the lit spot?

Date: 2009/01/09 18:55:41, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2009,16:16)
Here is your LOLCat:


I was a little let down by my AtBC LOLcat idol with this one, but you made up for it with the ones in the UD2 and Libations posts.

Date: 2009/01/09 19:07:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2009,16:41)
anybody have an recommendations on food processors? I've heard you either pay $30 and get a piece of crap or $200 and get something good. Any comments?

I can give you some recommendations...

I can also provide info on food processors.

Seriously though, it depends somewhat on what your purpose for using one is. That will guide a prescribed evolution to a final decision.

I have four in various sizes and formats for specialized purposes and 2 are manually operated. I love them so...

Date: 2009/01/09 19:21:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2009,16:34)
I am currently making Ale-sauced pork ribs and vegetables. Although, I added parsnips in addition to carrots, and about twice as many new redskin potatoes as is called for. Also, instead of a stout, I made it with Koningshoeven Tripel Trappist Ale. It is probably going to be another hour or so before it is ready and I am having a hard time waiting.

Looks and sounds yummy. Its now on my list to make right after Kristines chili.

Ill be curious to know how it turns out...post a pic.

Date: 2009/01/10 23:50:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 10 2009,20:39)
At least both of us agree that CCR rocked!!!!

You two need to keep on topic, even if this is the BTW.

Now as far as the Tards are concerned about that chimpanzee/man relationship...well, Ninety-Nine And a Half Won't Do. And they'll never believe Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog.

Most are convinced that evilutionists either worship some Pagan Baby or are atheists with some Sinister Purpose to deny the existence of THE Fortunate Son that Came Out of the Sky and who could Walk on Water.

It would be ideal if someday the ID crowd would stop Lookin' For a Reason and recognize all the available evidence, but I'll bet that Someday Never Comes.

Before You Accuse Me of being Gloomy and Feelin' Blue, I'll remind you that I can be Lookin' Out My Back Door of my Ramble Tamble abode and be inspired by a beautiful Green River running by the Cotton Fields.

Don't Look Now, but over at UD, it appears Steve Fuller is creating a Commotion, by edging ID closer to a Jehovah's Witness philosophy. Pretty soon they'll be proselytizing Door-to-Door or preaching Down on the Corner.

I wish the Disco Instant-toot would stop Tearin' Up the Country by shoving their ID garbage onto school boards, but What Are You Gonna Do?

ETA:
Quote (khan @ Jan. 10 2009,18:59)

Dinosaur patrolling listening to Buck Owens...

Get Down Woman!

Date: 2009/01/11 12:47:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 11 2009,10:19)
Even a brief glance at the evidence would show you're off your rocker.

Is there an award for Most Ironic Statement of the Millennium?
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 11 2009,10:19)
As far as I can see, the only real conspiracy on Amazon was PZ Myers and his little pack of Darbots running over to slag the film as soon as the DVD was announced.

I assume PZ and his crew are also responsible for the underwhelming consensus at Rotten Tomatoes:



Edited to subtract

Date: 2009/01/14 00:26:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 13 2009,20:58)
Quote
Interestingly, he states the codes are only in the "true" bible which I assume is the King James (AV) version ?


Certainly. After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for anybody, right?

:D

Henry

I have to imagine a likely response would be along the lines of:

 
Quote
An all-knowing, all-seeing God would obviously know of all languages and all possible translations of his inspired Word. Thus each and every version would reveal the hidden messages via the bible codes to anyone with a secret decoder ring.


After all, it's much more fun that way...sure beats having God explicitly spelling out the most important things to know in His book so stupid people have a clear understanding.

BTW, I have a lightly used Bible (only opened by a little old lady every Sunday) for a very good price. I'll throw in the accompanying decoder ring at no extra charge.

ETA: formatting, something to do with clarity and special offer

Date: 2009/01/20 22:38:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2009,20:18)
I switched to Classico and Bertollis for marinara sauce.

Try out Muir Glen tomato products. For me at least, they have wonderful flavor, are not subjected a lye bath (NaOH) for peeling and can be found on sale frequently in the chain grocers.

Date: 2009/01/20 22:44:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2009,16:34)
I am currently making Ale-sauced pork ribs and vegetables.

I made this 2 nights ago and per your suggestion used 1 tsp of salt. Upped the pepper to 1 tsp, used 5 cloves of garlic and added the juice from 1/2 the lemon. Didn't feel like wasting a Boddington's and bought a single of Guinness for the base liquid.

Came out pretty good...thanks for the link!

[...urrrp...]

Date: 2009/01/20 23:30:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 18 2009,15:22)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 09 2009,20:07)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2009,16:41)
anybody have an recommendations on food processors? I've heard you either pay $30 and get a piece of crap or $200 and get something good. Any comments?

I can give you some recommendations...

I can also provide info on food processors.

Seriously though, it depends somewhat on what your purpose for using one is. That will guide a prescribed evolution to a final decision.

I have four in various sizes and formats for specialized purposes and 2 are manually operated. I love them so...

The thing I'd mostly use it for is chopping up onions, a frequent task I hate to do by hand.

[personal opinion]

1. The small, wave-blade style hand choppers are fairly worthless.

2. Expensive food processors (Cuisinart) can do a decent job, but often turn them to mush.

3. Smaller versions are great if you only need finely chopped onions.

4. One of the most indispensable, multi-use kitchen tools I own is a mandolin, especially when Grisman visits. Nothing else comes close to creating thin slices if that's what you're after. There are cheaper versions around, but avoid the OXO.

5. I've only used while preparing meals at a friend's home, but a version of this worked well.

6. If it's just a matter of st^inky fingers, a cheap onion holder can be used, or rub your hands on stainless steel immediately after chopping.

[/personal opinion]

I was taught by a french freedom chef how to chop an onion similar to what is seen here. I was taught to not cut all the way through on the horizontal and first vertical cuts and this holds the half together while chopping. By varying the number of cuts, it is easy to control the size of the chop. After years of doing this, I can chop an onion in under a minute, but not quite this fast. For me, it's just not worth the time it takes to retrieve a piece of equipment that I have to clean afterwards. Laziness rules.

[ETA: a longer how-to version]

Date: 2009/01/20 23:54:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Another bon guillemet from the same thread:
Quote
The only good defense is to be as offensive as possible.
John A. Davison


The mindless old coot isn't so defenseless after all.

Date: 2009/01/21 12:00:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
An exchange that shows one of the reasons I love coming here...
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 21 2009,09:00)
But I got a Shun knife for Christmas, and jobs like chopping vegetables are transformed.

That, plus you can have the knife factory resharpened forever for the price of postage.

 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2009,09:31)
knife factories get dull?

 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,10:47)

Eight hours a day on the floor, five days a week, day in day out, same thing every day, no chance of promotion, I can see that.


Well that...and realizing that without AtBC, I would never have learned about Arden's mum, who never needs sharpening.

Date: 2009/01/21 12:08:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,11:05)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 21 2009,10:00)
An exchange that shows one of the reasons I love coming here...
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 21 2009,09:00)
But I got a Shun knife for Christmas, and jobs like chopping vegetables are transformed.

That, plus you can have the knife factory resharpened forever for the price of postage.

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2009,09:31)
knife factories get dull?

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,10:47)

Eight hours a day on the floor, five days a week, day in day out, same thing every day, no chance of promotion, I can see that.


Well that...and realizing that without AtBC, I would never have learned about Arden's mum, who never needs sharpening.

I get my knife sharpened at your mom's house at least once a week, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo...

Yes, I'm afraid I do and distresses me greatly...she died 20 years ago.

Date: 2009/01/21 12:12:43, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,11:08)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 21 2009,10:08)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,11:05)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 21 2009,10:00)
An exchange that shows one of the reasons I love coming here...
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 21 2009,09:00)
But I got a Shun knife for Christmas, and jobs like chopping vegetables are transformed.

That, plus you can have the knife factory resharpened forever for the price of postage.

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2009,09:31)
knife factories get dull?

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,10:47)

Eight hours a day on the floor, five days a week, day in day out, same thing every day, no chance of promotion, I can see that.


Well that...and realizing that without AtBC, I would never have learned about Arden's mum, who never needs sharpening.

I get my knife sharpened at your mom's house at least once a week, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo...

Yes, I'm afraid I do and distresses me greatly...she died 20 years ago.

Nah, she just smells like it.

No, I think that's steve's st^inky onions...

Date: 2009/01/22 15:06:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 22 2009,05:38)
Can Daniel identify his God? We don't get much help from the Bible, it says things like
Quote
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM

Is this Daniel's god?

Date: 2009/01/22 21:08:44, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 22 2009,18:02)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 22 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 22 2009,05:38)
Can Daniel identify his God? We don't get much help from the Bible, it says things like
Quote
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM

Is this Daniel's god?


How did you find a photo of Louis's mother?

Is that what she looks like? I can never tell...the room is always darkened when I'm visiting.

Here I was thinking it might be John A. Davison in a more candid moment, sans glasses, makeup and dentures.

Date: 2009/01/23 11:35:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Happy Birthday Wes...may all your gifts be as wonderful as the one you help provide for us.

Happy Birthday SD...13 posts in and still going strong.

Date: 2009/01/25 18:40:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2009,09:06)
Always interesting to peel one of Denyse's stinking onions.

stevestory can help you slice it instead...

Long post, but a good one once I made it through. Thanks for the effort.

Date: 2009/01/25 18:46:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Denyse:
 
Quote
I am really going to miss Richard John Neuhaus, who slipped away January 8 (1936-2008), quite unexpectedly, and is NOT an example of the problem I am commenting on here.

For someone she is really going to miss, it took her long enough to notice.


[excuse me...what's that?...I have the wrong date on my check...doesn't everyone make that mistake?]

Date: 2009/01/25 18:49:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2009,17:40)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2009,15:12)
I could breed chihuahuas and presumably eventually produce a great Dane, but what if I could not?

let's take this theme and run with it...

I could destroy Darwinism by posting on a blog. But what if I could not?

I could out-bicycle Lance Armstrong. But what if I could not?

I could design an automobile engine that ran on salt water. But what if I could not?

[Dembski]

I could don a small sweater. But what if I could not?

[/Dembski]

Date: 2009/01/30 12:45:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deejay @ Jan. 30 2009,08:45)
That's good for disguising some cheap booze, but right now I'm using Patron silver and Cointreau. I also make them with 1800 Reposado and Grand Marnier, but I prefer the former. I'm looking to finish off that bottle of 1800 and pick up something else if anyone has any suggestions.

...mmmmmm... tequila...

A few years back, a group of friends gathered at my house for the weekend for a field study of commercially available tequilas, orange liqueurs, margaritas and a subjective evaluation of taste versus cost. Between all of us, we had over 20 different bottles of tequila and 5 orange liqueurs and set up endless blind taste tests. All in the name of science, you understand.

For straight shots, Patron Silver was 3rd behind Gran Centenario Aejo and Milagro Aejo. It was interesting that a silver placed this high, even above the other Patron types.

In the margarita tests, we used the same homemade "mix" (2.5x fresh squeezed lime, 1x fresh squeezed white grapefruit, .5x Agave nectar) and varied the combinations of tequila and orange. It took the entire weekend, but, like Sisyphus, we drudgingly persevered. The Gran Centenario again topped the list with Cointreau and Patron Citronge leading the orange category.

Coming in at 3rd in their respective idioms on the margarita tests, and dominating the value/taste test, were El Jimador Reposado tequila and Gran Gala orange liqueur (above Grand Marnier!). The El Jimador was 1/2 the cost of the Patron and in a direct margarita face-off actually came out ahead. The Gran Gala costs less than than the elite liqueurs and may even bring a bit more orange to the palate. The El Jimador is made by Herradura.

I enjoy margaritas immensely, but at some point it seems a waste to mix really expensive tequila when you can enjoy it's smoothness straight instead. I just received a bottle a bottle of Don Julio Reposado as a gift this morning...perhaps we'll crack it on Sunday.

More than likely, I'll be drinking Pilsner Urquell for the Super Bowl.

Date: 2009/01/30 16:47:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deejay @ Jan. 30 2009,12:32)
Thanks for the reply, Tony M, and all the wisdom imparted. I hear you on the whole straight vs. mixed in a margarita issue on quality tequila. I'm going to have to try the mix you used with the agave nectar. I'm not too surprised that Grand Marnier was outdone in the orange category; I think it's the weak link in the 1800 margarita I make. I just might pick up that El Jimador if I don't splurge on something fancier when the 1800 is gone. Your experiments were indeed heroic.

I'm headed off to NH for the weekend, and then back Sunday at 4 Eastern, with just enough time to cook before kickoff. I really look forward to reading more replies when i get back.

I typed up that response just before leaving to a lunch meeting...which ended up at a Mexican restaurant...with clients who don't partake of the spiritual world (at least the fermented kind).

Because of the prelude, for the entire lunch, my thoughts were dominated by how good a margarita would taste right NOW! DAMN IT!

So, on the way home I stopped to pick up some limes and voil:



BTW: My favorite marg is with Patron Silver and Gran Gala.

Son of BTW: The mix I described previously goes with 6x tequila and 3x orange, doesn't conform to "standards" but sure is good.

Bride of BTW: It's hard to take a steady picture with a hand-held laptop

Louiss Mother BTW: I'm off to the mountains to schuss the steep and fluffy

Date: 2009/02/02 20:40:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
One must acknowledge that even among the core of the hard tard producers, someone occasionally gets something right. Is it by random chance or is Joseph a sly marionette in the company of finer hosiery?

Joseph:
Quote
ID is a religion as bald is a hair color.

I would put that in the new FAQ.


(emphasis original)

[eta: I'm still drinking margaritas and I'm not sure what I read in that quote initially, so please ignore...]

Date: 2009/02/02 20:47:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 02 2009,16:59)
 
Quote (khan @ Feb. 02 2009,18:58)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 02 2009,18:54)
New funniest thing I've read so far this year.

Quote
Comcast believes the pornography that interrupted its feed of the Super Bowl Sunday night was the result of foul play, a company spokeswoman said Monday morning.


H/T Greg Laden.

So how much detail can be shown in 30 seconds?

I'm glad you asked, Khan.

Quote
Callers said that the clip showed a woman unzipping a mans pants, followed by a graphic act between the two.

That wasnt one of the new 3-D movie trailers?

Date: 2009/02/02 21:02:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 30 2009,18:14)
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 30 2009,18:21)
You science fascists say there are no simple answers. No!! As President Reagan said, there ARE simple answers, just no EASY answers. I post this here because in addition to hating special needs children (euthanazis!), I realize you can only accept the truth about evolution in a context of derision.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=92630


1) How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? It Doesn't.

2) How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly? An example is the Cambrian Explosion. It Can't.

3) How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started? It couldn't.

4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes. These are not enough to account for the complexity of the organism. What is the other 98% of the genome's function? We don't know.

See, that took, what, 8 words? And yet, Darwinisim is in ruins.

BWA HA HAH!!!

I followed the link, and after all his whining, and special pleading, one of his "citations" is A WIKIPEDIA / UD LINK!!!

REAL SCIENCEY !


Jeffrey Dach, MD, did have one recent citation of some repute in his article:
Quote
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/12/top-ten-darwin-and-design-stories-of.html
The top ten Darwin and Design stories of the year


Doesn't that make it science?

Date: 2009/02/07 18:20:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,10:05)
On a serious note, speaking of grandparenthood, or rather in this case parenthood, I am going to be a father.

Late to the party as usual (I was at an earlier one...), but I wish to extend my congrats as well.
 
Quote
Any parenting tips will be gratefully received and of course ignored as advice generally is by everyone, we'll just have to make mistakes like everyone else does.

My only advice is to remember that "motion magic" got you into this in the first place and it can help in the most trying of times.

When he cries...pick him up and walk in large circles, preferably through alternating light and dark areas. Won't got to sleep...pick him up and sway. Even in good times...pick him up and dance around. Motion is your friend.

Just don't do this.

Date: 2009/02/07 18:26:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot


Maybe evolution-a-mists and tardidiots are both right. Or both wrong, depending on your world view, of course.

From here.

Date: 2009/02/07 18:32:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
I was reminded of s.story while grilling a snack today.

Thin sliced black forest ham layered with 2 types of gruyre and baby swiss on homemade pumpernickel. No onions.

Date: 2009/02/07 18:50:21, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 06 2009,18:45)
Interesting interview with Judge Jones in PLoS Genetics.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading that.

I do think that creation-IDism proponents will quote mine this interview to prove that evolution indeed has communist roots.

Quote
Jones: For decades afterwards, evolution was not substantially taught or taught at all.

Gitschier: In Tennessee or anywhere?

Jones: Anywhere. But by the '50s in the US, with Sputnik and the Cold War, there was a belief that we were falling drastically behind in science education and in other things, and you began to see a much more dedicated science component of education.


[ETA: Oops...wrong thread...anyway to move it?]

Date: 2009/03/31 21:26:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2009,15:03)
Denyse goes for guilt by association, part UPB:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....respond

 
Quote
31 March 2009
Evolutionists careers built on plagiarism?
O'Leary
A recent article in Cracked, discussing plagiarism, used the careers of Richard Owen and H.G. Wells - both important evolutionists - as 40% of Five Great Men who Built Their Careers on Plagiarism.

Read it and see what you think.


They're on page 2:

http://www.cracked.com/article_17198_p2.html

here's the stuff..

 
Quote
...Also, he looked kind of like a pedophile.


...As it turns out, important British scientists are actually almost exactly like pubescent, small-minded high schoolers.

...For most men, stealing close to the entirety of a better scientist's accomplishments would have been enough douchebaggery. But Richard Owen was just too great a cockbite to succumb to such plebeian levels of asshattery.


etc, etc. By linking to this, does Clive have to kick out Granny Spice?

When I think of evo. theory, the names "Richard Owen and H.G. Wells" are definatley top-of-mind.
???

I've been occupied for a bit and only lurking here and there, but I want to point out one of the "Recommended for Your Pleasure" links at the bottom of RTH's Cracked article that is most germane to the discussion of tard:

5 Ways 'Common Sense' Lies To You Everyday

The lead in paragraph:
Quote
Albert Einstein said common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18. It is also a result of some pervasive and extremely stupid logical fallacies that have become embedded in the human brain over generations, for one reason or another. These malfunctioning thoughts--several of which you've had already today--are a major cause of everything that's wrong with the world.


Coming in at #3 is the "The Appeal to Probability" with:
Quote
How It Screws Us: Our brains are stupid when it comes to calculating probability.


Amazingly enough, it even has a phallacy for k.e. at #2, "The Regression Fallacy":  
Quote
You'll Hear it As: "If this cock ringpenis gourd isn't lucky, then how come I got that new job when I was wearing it?"


.

Date: 2009/03/31 23:40:21, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
I am told that Richard Owen Dave Carnie invented the term dinosaur bromance. If so, that would make him pretty important in the history of evolution HOMOS. He did not need to have agreed with Charles Darwin DaveScot about everything.


FT4Denyse

***************************

Is there a difference between the "normal" UD TARD and GrannyTARD? Is her's a form berTard? I've built up an immunity to most of the drivel at UD that allows some small measure of entertainment.

However, I cannot yet comprehend I have not bashed in my monitor while reading O'Leary to rescue eyes and brain. WHY?...WHY?...do I torture myself so? How do the regular UDenizens even withstand it?

If I were Denyse's cow, I'd kick over the lantern just to cleanse myself in the conflagration.

Date: 2009/03/31 23:47:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Ludwig, whoever that is, like his namesake, is a genius.

Anonymity is the enemy of irrational dialogue and always will be.

I love it so!

Date: 2009/05/24 11:36:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 21 2009,13:33)

Don't know much taxonomy, but this looks exactly like the "chameleons" we used to catch in the gravel pits as kids in Colorado.

Date: 2009/06/07 13:05:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2009,11:44)
 
Quote (afarensis @ June 07 2009,12:26)
* I lived in Knoxville for six years so I am entitled to say y'all.

I'm all for the spread of the y'all meme to carpetbaggers and yankees, but it drives me crazy when some actor/actress is trying to pull off the accent and can't understand that y'all is plural, not singular.

Just what is the singular form you would use?

Where does "all y'all" fit into the scheme of things?

Date: 2009/06/11 00:16:11, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Enjoying a little Java la Mingus whilst perusing the latest in high tard...

Date: 2009/08/11 01:02:41, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
We Believe in Evolutionand God, by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk

Anybody heard of these guys and their BioLogos website??

Date: 2009/08/11 13:39:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Has something happened to the the timeline?

All I am getting is something about Louis' history at the dockyards and something about ports and and a mouth...

Date: 2009/08/13 17:59:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 13 2009,15:18)
I nominate Richard Hughes to play Dr. Hovind--Rich has that certain je ne sais quoi.

About RichardTHughes...you may not know what, but I do. One word:

Homo.

Besides, RTH is too funny. I think a "name" actor like Crispin Glover from his Rubin and Ed days could convey the whacked-out je ne sais QTF kookiness more accurately.

Date: 2009/09/15 15:29:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 15 2009,13:09)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 15 2009,19:37)
[SNIP]

...known philatelist??

[SNIP]

Those photos of what I was doing with those stamps were doctored. It's a lie I tell you. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury I ask you, is this the face of a stampophile?

Louis

Date: 2009/09/15 17:42:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Tourista snaps from Jellystone Park:






The Zombiecoons next door (2 different nights):



Date: 2009/11/11 23:42:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
After I got home, I got Hull due to complaints about how I had sorted the laundry.

Perhaps this is akin to the Canadian bogeyman for not performing chores correctly...

I'd be worried if The Golden Jet were sent 'round to restore order in my house.

eta: the and 'd

Date: 2009/11/12 14:55:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 12 2009,12:26)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 12 2009,11:15)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2009,12:50)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 12 2009,04:32)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

 
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behes Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Stare at the squares. Innie or outie?

I wonder how many more of these it will take to squeeze the central square into a vertical column of characters. Let's find out!

This was clearly Intelligently Designed. The entire thing is one big oxymoron. You're all refuting Darwinism as we speak!!11!!

This would make a tarderiffic sweater pattern.

Could it grow large enough that a single post could fill an entire page and/or match the screen area taken up by a single kairos-kaa-kaa or batguano77 post?

Date: 2009/11/13 16:01:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 13 2009,14:23)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 13 2009,10:10)
Quote
on ths board, we need More DiEb.

Thanks! I'm glad - btw - that P. Olofsson reiterated my concerns: hopefully, his comment isn't ignored - as dozens of mine are...

On the "Dembski at Texas A&M" thread, osteonectin says that Dembsky and Marks' Search for a Search" paper is available at their "Design Inference" website...

Osteonectin posted at 11/13/2009 12:29 pm.

Uh, It's not there anymoreeEe, osteonectin.

To be fair, I can access the pdf "draft" at the Evolutionary Informatics site under publications. It remains a piece of still-born crap whether you can access it or not.

That site really irks me. I detest their co-opting pictures/quotes of famous scientists to create an air of credibility for themselves...bastard charlatans!

Date: 2009/11/13 16:49:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 13 2009,15:08)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 13 2009,16:01)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 13 2009,14:23)
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 13 2009,10:10)
 
Quote
on ths board, we need More DiEb.

Thanks! I'm glad - btw - that P. Olofsson reiterated my concerns: hopefully, his comment isn't ignored - as dozens of mine are...

On the "Dembski at Texas A&M" thread, osteonectin says that Dembsky and Marks' Search for a Search" paper is available at their "Design Inference" website...

Osteonectin posted at 11/13/2009 12:29 pm.

Uh, It's not there anymoreeEe, osteonectin.

To be fair, I can access the pdf "draft" at the Evolutionary Informatics site under publications. It remains a piece of still-born crap whether you can access it or not.

That site really irks me. I detest their co-opting pictures/quotes of famous scientists to create an air of credibility for themselves...bastard charlatans!


Tony: when you click on the "Search for a Search" link there, you get the "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" paper instead.

That's what DiEb was talking about here, in the Evo. Comp. thread:

 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 09 2009,07:25)
This seems to be quite typical: They still have the announcement for the article "A Search for a Search" on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab site, but they don't link to the actual article as they did earlier. Instead, they link to the article "Conservation of Information in Search" - wherein one cannot find the announced results, i.e., the vertical and the horizontal no free lunch theorems...

Ah yes, you are correct...I was taken in by more of their dishonesty...and feel embarrassed to fall for such slack trickery at that. I should know better.

They're still bastards though...

Date: 2009/11/16 01:49:18, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (REC @ Nov. 15 2009,23:40)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal....-339996

Quote
I am the owner of RationalWiki, though it not ownership in the traditional sense.

Anyway, fair use is a complex issue, and more than a few cases have up held the full copying of a work, though other cases have found infringement with just a few sentences.

Issues to consider, we are a non-profit, educational resource. The copied portioned are copied for the purposes of criticism. Much like the use of Imagine in Expelled. Also IEEE is the primary copy right holder I believe. And the fact that this is an academic publication should all be weighed in your decision about how you want to pursue this.

I am curious why this is a battle you are so eager to fight?


This should get tasty. Uncommondescent, where everyone is a lawyer, polymath, philosopher and biologist (except the actual lawyer is incognito as a pseudo-scientist, the 'scientists' are the church choir, philosophy begins and ends with a narrow view of Jesus, the journalist can't write, the maths don't add up, and tard reigns supreme.....)


 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 16 2009,00:24)
I just wanted to comment on the thread, but comments are closed, so the following will not be published at UD:
 
Quote
Dear Dr. Dembski, the easiest way to get the article at rationalwiki taken down would be to show how wrong the critique is.

I'm sure Dimbulbski was just growing weary of these quibblings and thus shut the comments off after such a large number of responses. He's got a lot of work to do you know, what with publishing peer reviewed papers every decade, and he doesn't have time to jack around with people who might know something.

Date: 2009/11/17 17:00:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Stumbling through UD threads on occasion, I keep running across the poster handle of 'jitsak' and can't help but think 'jitsak = spoogebag'.

It is my theory (which is mine, that it is) that I have been relegated to gutter-think by prolonged exposure to Louis and Arden and their mums.

Damn their evilutionary ways...

Date: 2009/11/17 17:22:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 17 2009,15:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 17 2009,16:11)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 17 2009,05:07)
I may have had a moment or two over there worth bragging about some time ago.

He's being modest.

Lou, that doesn't become you.

http://scienceblogs.com/greglad....lle.php

http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006....ot.html

 
Quote

Beautiful and heart-warming story, exquisitely written and performed, but nothing's gonna top Known Internet Bully and Banninator DaveScott falling for JanieBell and Corporal Kate!

Rich mentions my all-time favorite pwnning...that of the genius known as DaveScot. I'm surprised it took this long for Lou or anyone else to bring the UDOJ episode to the table.

There has been an immense wealth of laughter I've experienced through AtBC, its denizens and the sheer stupidity that is UD, but the masterful manipulation of Mr. Springer in full view of the internet is one of the all-time great moments in the Tard Wars.

A grateful bow to Lou and his brilliant charade...

I have no personal exploits in the mines to talk about. I could say I walk erect on two feet (Hi Clive!)...but I won't.

Date: 2009/11/17 17:41:42, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 17 2009,16:03)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 17 2009,17:00)
Stumbling through UD threads on occasion, I keep running across the poster handle of 'jitsak' and can't help but think 'jitsak = spoogebag'.

It is my theory (which is mine, that it is) that I have been relegated to gutter-think by prolonged exposure to Louis and Arden and their mums.

Damn their evilutionary ways...

And if you play your cards right, you too can land a starring role in "Sodom & Gomorrah, The Fun Years".*


*This film not yet rated by the Prudes at UD (PUDS for short)

As my genes have been passed down through an ancestral Bavarian line, would this mean I get to star Witt Kattarina?

Date: 2009/11/19 21:04:03, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,14:17)
Clive lets it all out. At once:
 
Quote
Maybe this will illustrate how science isnt about truth, I think that you will grant that there are truths that cannot be got through any science, such as the law of non-contradiction, mathematics, etc. Science relies on logic, otherwise, if you dont start with logic, you cannot even begin to do science. If you get rid of logic, all science goes with it. Im sure you see my point and would agree. But the problem with calling scientific theories as truth, is that they are a different sort of inference, one which can in principle be changed, and has been changed, when more data is studied. The laws of logic and reason, in principle, will not be changed, regardless of how much data is collected. It doesnt matter how far you go in mathematics, differential equations, etc., if the multiplication table changes, all is in ruins, and the same goes for our reason, and I would add even morality. But the outside world is the mystery, which constantly alludes us, and never explains itself. We do not discern it as we discern logic. All science can ever do is provide descriptions of things, and then we call those descriptions natural. What can never come is an explanation from those descriptions. But we can give an explanation for the laws of logic and reason, and why they are true. We have inside knowledge to the laws of reason and logic, and do not have the equivalent insight into what we call the natural world, because we do not perceive it, as it were, as a truth, like the law of non-contradiction. There is no equivalent insight that we possess in regards to logic and nature. Logic we understand as true, nature, we dont.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/neurosc....-340446

His writing leads me to believe he is the mutant offspring of an ungodly Canadian corporeal communion between Robert Byers and the Morphodyke.

Clive's literary mumblings blend Byer's unreadability with the shaved-dog-ass' WTF? journalism so subtly it's worth savoring.

I'd like to see Clive fight Hull on ice.

Date: 2009/11/19 21:07:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
hey happy,

heddle birthday

Date: 2009/11/19 21:18:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 18 2009,18:54)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 18 2009,11:32)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 18 2009,07:49)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 17 2009,21:33)
Sometimes, it's the little things that bring a little tear to my eye. Ah, memories. Davey says he knew all along...

-----

Leo Stotch flaunting the ban hammer was pretty classic, Carlson, planning or no.

Huh?!? I never knew you were that alternative-lifestyles lady. These are mental images and juxtapositions that can never be deleted.

Really? Funny stuff right there.

Davey going over to DAJ's blog and spamming the shit out of it in defense of JanieBelle was hysterical.

I saw the spamming. So that was what all that was about? Lou, I've gained a new appreciation for your Jedi-like power of manipulation over the weak-minded.

paragwinn and heddle,

As I'm quite sure both of you are familiar with the personalities involved, sit down when you have an hour or two and read through UDOJ, following the links to UD and JAD and I guarantee it will provide as much amusement and laughs as any other form of entertainment available.

If not, I'll send you both a bottle of scotch.

Date: 2009/11/20 12:21:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 20 2009,05:48)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 19 2009,21:18)
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 18 2009,18:54)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 18 2009,11:32)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 18 2009,07:49)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 17 2009,21:33)
Sometimes, it's the little things that bring a little tear to my eye. Ah, memories. Davey says he knew all along...

-----

Leo Stotch flaunting the ban hammer was pretty classic, Carlson, planning or no.

Huh?!? I never knew you were that alternative-lifestyles lady. These are mental images and juxtapositions that can never be deleted.

Really? Funny stuff right there.

Davey going over to DAJ's blog and spamming the shit out of it in defense of JanieBelle was hysterical.

I saw the spamming. So that was what all that was about? Lou, I've gained a new appreciation for your Jedi-like power of manipulation over the weak-minded.

paragwinn and heddle,

As I'm quite sure both of you are familiar with the personalities involved, sit down when you have an hour or two and read through UDOJ, following the links to UD and JAD and I guarantee it will provide as much amusement and laughs as any other form of entertainment available.

If not, I'll send you both a bottle of scotch.

Is there sort of a starting point? The linked post where the masquerade is revealed doesn't have a sort of "begin here" link. What is the other blog being mentioned, DAJ? Is that one of Davison's blog?

I have a faculty meeting at noon, and it would be nice to have some entertaining reading to get me through it.

Well, I suppose at the beginning would be a good place to start:

http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html

(first post at the bottom)

Lou's pic in the left column did not exist and the "I'm entirely fictional" under Janiebelle was not there. Follow the posts as if you did not know this was set up by Lou. Several short posts are inconsequential and can be skipped, but they provided legitimacy to the grand charade. To get the full benefit requires some reading at UD and Davison's blog.

Particular memories I recall were the Marines/Kate scare (complete with advice from the floating command center), the Big Green Marker treatment of Davison, WmAd's personal banning of Janiebelle, Springer's defense of the girls at both UD/JAD, the aforementioned Springer flounce-out-from-UD post...

While many individual events are funny in and of themselves, the entirety of the comedy-drama and the people it pulled in is without compare.

Lou's web caught many flies.

Date: 2009/11/22 12:51:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
don't



too much, or you might



and someone will regret it next morning



****************





eta: oh yeah...bon anniversaire, nuisance de cheval

Date: 2009/11/25 11:13:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Stephen Meyer shares the TARD with the masses.

Shame on CNN [*hisss*] for for giving the tiny-brained empty-animal-food-trough wiper space for his drivel.

Fortunately they also have an interview (including video links) with a 'militant atheist' and a second article by a leading skeptic.

Date: 2009/11/27 12:09:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 26 2009,14:42)
Mmmm beer and Irish whiskey...

...add Bailey's and you can blow up autos.

Date: 2009/12/07 00:14:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwins definition of natural selection: This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call natural selection. Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I dont think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I dont think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldnt be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (youre beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So youre manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter youre manipulating. But of course youre still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldnt necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats? Nah. I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:

Date: 2009/12/12 23:46:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 12 2009,21:39)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 12 2009,00:36)
 
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Dec. 11 2009,23:08)
How dare you defame David Brent in such a way!

I like this comparison better:






Kneel before Bob!

Err . . .


I don't know if he sees himself like this:

but it is from his own ASA presentation

Sweet Jesus! Page 6 even has a link to a YouTube video! This is truly a Batshit_77 quality ID paper.

Three questions per RJMII's ASA presentation:

1. Is Baylor U aware of the prevalent use of their logo in a presentation that also promotes the previously Expelled EIL website?

2. On page 27, is it the inner prankster of Marks purposely misspelling "Weasel Wear" while promoting the EIL webpage with "Weasel Ware"?

3. Given the plethora of RJMII illustrations throughout the presentation (many with DaVinci-inspired, backward artist's marks), which of the following best describes Marks' real GodIntelligent Designer-given role in life?:

a. Evoltionary Informatician
b. Cartoonist/Illustrator wannabe
c. Consummate ID clown
d. Utter, senseless waste of human life

Date: 2009/12/12 23:57:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot


HBD2U

Date: 2010/01/06 13:09:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2010,06:29)
Tribune7:  
Quote
Even money is usually non-material...

Yep, I got a piggy bank full of non-material money. And I got a bank account where the value of my balance is held in a non-material computer. No sir, there are no actual memory cells containing my balance. It's because money is non-material (usually!).

These people have some very serious mental problems. Yes, you could argue that concepts are "non-material", money, love etc. I'd go along with that to a certain degree, but these "non-material" concepts vanish if there are no material brains to house them. Therefore they are "material" even if you can't look at them under a microscope (of course, you can look at neurons but you know what I mean!).

Meh, I think Hofstadter should be translated into IDiot speak and read, very slowly, to them.

Reading oldman's post caused some rarely used bits of grey matter to fire and pose queries I'm hoping someone can ask Densey and Frilly-Gilly concerning the immaterial mind and computer analogies:

As a computer (or an application) starts up, it loads programming into volatile RAM and as it runs, the OS or application keeps current data in volatile RAM. Is that data ever material before being written to disk? If someone were to yank the plug, that data disappears forever...did it ever really exist? How does this compare with our own thoughts? Is it possible creationists operate on minimum RAM?

Date: 2010/01/21 01:45:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,17:40)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 20 2010,18:35)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,12:28)
If you're really Jerry, say something about No Free Lunch in your next comment over there.

Well I'll be...

NO WAY!

Rich, you are god an intelligent designer deceiver.

Jvla skit!

<Applause>

Didn't really believe until I recognized the Hear O' Israel musings.

BTW, is Jerry really a cross-dresser?

Date: 2010/02/14 14:38:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2010,08:22)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 14 2010,00:38)
UPDATE: scordova is playing the "clergy letter project card":
Quote
Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I dont mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But Id recommend that if the clergy wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.
In other words:
Quote
[slimy]I don't actually say that Francis Collins is the next to kill his colleagues but if that should happen one day don't say I didn't warn you.[/slimy]

UD can always count on Slimy Sal when in need of someone to squat, pants around ankles, and curl a fetid, steaming turd into his shoes.

When BarryA is unavailable, that is.

Put yer shoes on, Sal.

Perhaps a sock could remind Slimy of Matthew J Murray, a home-schooled christian raised in a devout Arvada (BarryAss' locale), Colorado household.

Upon expulsion from the 12-week missionary program with Youth With A Mission, went to the Arvada church, shot 4 people (killing 2), then drove to Colorado Springs and shot 5 more (killing 2 teenage girls).

I dunno...being denied tenure after many years or expulsion from a 12-week program...I guess they are weighted equally in the gravity of life?

Date: 2010/02/17 01:06:53, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,15:32)
 
Quote
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact. Everyone born since August of 1945 is acutely aware of just how threatening science in the service of Power can be, and things haven't gotten more Utopian recently with the continuing and accelerated development of biological WMDs while nuclear WMD budgets keep going up (pay no attention to Obama's flowery rhetoric on that, he's increasing the budget). Thus you can't really expect the public to suddenly come to believe science and scientists are going to solve all problems for us, or willingly submit to a cientocracy when one too many scientists has advocated 'reducing' the population with weaponized Ebola. Ain't ever gonna happen. Just fact, based on how the people you're fighting this sideshow-Culture-War with, think.

I have been lurking and reading consistently at AtBC for about 5 years, masochistically visit the tard that is TT, and I am aware of Joy's predilections...but I can go back and read her paragraph a bit differently after her explanation above. Editing to add two hyphens and a comma at the end of the bolded line in her quote changes its meaning a little for me.

I'm guessing what Joy is trying to say is this:

While SHE does not necessarily believe the Pianka accusations emanating from the ID side, she thinks the general public DOES believe the "weaponized Ebola" bullshit by Mims/Dembski. Joy thinks the "very bad PR problem" of science is a failure to expose the bullshit effectively in the public mind, resulting in a growing distrust of science as portrayed by its opponents.

Dembski and his ilk demonize scientists by preying (praying?) on the public's ignorance of science. They build on small collective fears atomic bomb in the hands of Power through falsehood and foment hysteria in a completely different area.

(It amazes me how Climategate has increased public distrust to new levels under the threat of what from science?...the inconvenience of getting up off our lazy asses and paying more attention to what we are doing to our environment? Seems God's chosen caretakers would warm up to the idea of minding the Earth...guess not.)

Anyway, I think Joy contends that such manufactured alienation is far enough along, there is no way the public is going to suddenly trust science or scientists. I don't disagree with that contention.

However, having said all that, I am not convinced whether Joy is uncomfortable with the disgusting behavior of Dembski and the rest of denialist crowd or not...


ETA: BTW, I have a real problem with Joy's "Science...as an amoral servant of Power". That's just more demonizing.

Date: 2010/02/17 02:16:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 17 2010,00:50)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,01:06)
[...snip...]

I can see what you are saying

Just to be clear, I was trying to say what I think Joy was trying to say. Perhaps I should have qualified a bit more by saying "I don't totally disagree".

 
Quote
- that scientists have not been effective countering the BS that idiots are saying about them (and science in general). That's a common complaint. The only cure for that is education, and unfortunately that requires countering the BS that the creotards and other maggots want to foist off on the public.

I'd be a bit more skeptical about some of the claims - I would seriously doubt that any vast quantity of people know who Pianka is or what was said about him.

Agreed. The Pianka smear is relatively unknown in the general public, but is indicative of a common tactic among denialists, big and small, to demonize science.

 
Quote
I'd wager that it is mostly the morons at UD/TT who keep the lies going among their own little inbred group. America has an unfortunate history of anti-intellectualism and the belief that the mythical "common man" is somehow better than those who might actually have a little knowledge about something, especially when such knowledge threatens their comfortable safety bubble that their religions makes for them. Add in a political party that preys on manufactured fears and who oppose public education (preferring private indoctrination), and another political party that seems too scared to actually do anything, with both parties doing their level best to suck as much money out of corporations as they can while squatting on the people who elected them...well, not the best situation in the world, right?

A pox on all their houses! :angry:

Date: 2010/02/17 12:06:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 17 2010,05:41)
 
Quote

Agreed. The Pianka smear is relatively unknown in the general public, but is indicative of a common tactic among denialists, big and small, to demonize science.


If it is relatively unknown, then it isn't a good example of reasons why "science has a bad PR problem", does it?

The fact is, science does not have a "bad PR problem". Scientists are up among the most trusted people around according to the polls. Certainly, more could be done to improve upon that, but it is another way that our interlocutor is out to lunch.

Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say. Perhaps it is not a "good example" in itself, but indicative of tactics. Granted, though relatively unknown in general public, I believe the Pianka is well known among specific, albeit small, groups UDites for example though I'm not sure how long the incident remains in their unused brains.

I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."

A more wide-spread smear campaign against science comes along, like Climategate, and provides a common ground for such smaller groups to coalesce and find strength in numbers for their misguided beliefs. Slow accretion in relatively unknown areas for sure, but spreading the gap between science and portions of the public nonetheless. Just a thought...

I agree "that our interlocutor is out to lunch", just saying this one particular paragraph I was able to read a little differently.

Yes...I trust scientists to a fault. I wouldn't trust Dembski with my cafeteria card, but I'd trust Louis completely...even around my beer.*


* Though maybe not around me mum.**

** Or Arden's mum. ***

*** Or Arden.

Date: 2010/02/17 17:00:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Joy,

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 17 2010,12:59)
Tony M Nyphot:
Quote
Again, I was expressing what I thought Joy was trying to say.

And doing a good job of it too, I might add. Thanks.

Thanks. I like to believe I'm able to reconsider and change my view when warranted. In the case of this one particular paragraph of yours, I happened to change my original interpretation after your convoluted explanation. It is likely difficult for others here to do that with anything you say.

Borrowing an analogy from a good friend...

Pretend you have a bucket. When you first start posting on the internet, the bucket is filled with water. The water represents your credibility. Each time you post an inane or dishonest comment, a hole appears in the bottom of your bucket and the water leaks out. Each time you can answer directly and/or back up claims with evidence, a hole is repaired.

Between your excursions both at TT and here, I'd say the bottom has fallen off your bucket for most people. There are still one or two drops of water clinging to the sides of your bucket for me...not sure why. Just a charitable sort, I am.

(Dembski has nothing left but a wire handle, so even when he attempts to borrow from somebody who has a full bucket, he can't retain a single drop.)

Quote


Quote
I had the thought, perhaps wrong, that one could view a number of "relatively unknown" incidents (Freshwater, McLeroy/TSBE/Comer, Dover, 'Expelled', etc... ) where anti-science, pseudo-religious agents (Dembski, the DI, Meyer, etc... ) use falsehoods to smear science, both locally to the incident and among their own echo-chambers, as planting the seeds for a larger "PR problem for science."


That's excellent analysis, Tony. So despite lip service to the mob here ["I agree 'that our interlocutor is out to lunch'"], you're probably going to get slammed anyway for telling them something they don't want to know.


Hey, I have thoughts once in awhile...some are good...many are not. If the "mob" wants to slam me, I'm willing to listen. I only request they use LOLcats when doing so. I'm not really one for lip service...that was not, since I do think you are off-kilter for the most part. I had the same reaction as fnxtr here and after your reply, had the same question as Louis as to whether teaching gravity is also indoctrination. (Keen bastard, that one is.)

I don't have the desire to belong to any mob, but if I did, AtBC supplies the witty, irreverent, fun banter I enjoy. I also learn more here than anywhere else I frequent on the net. I'd even buy them beers if any were in my neighborhood.

For me, you come across as mostly anti-science, but don't fully commit to siding with its prominent opponents. There are fleeting moments you approach being rational, but some force seems to pull you away.

eta: the 'the' and url fix

Date: 2010/02/17 17:57:50, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 17 2010,16:24)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 17 2010,22:00)
[SNIP]

Thanks. I like to believe I'm able to reconsider and change my view when warranted. In the case of this one particular paragraph of yours, I happened to change my original interpretation after your convoluted explanation. It is likely difficult for others here to do that with anything you say.

[SNIP]

Oh I dunno. I just think Joy is spectacularly confused. That doesn't mean she isn't occasionally right about something (or indeed wrong about something).

I believe Joy is occasionally right about something and I tried to convey that in my "fleeting moments of rationality" comment at the end. After all, every blind squirrel is nuts...or something like that.

And you are a keen bastard, because "I just think Joy is spectacularly confused" describes succinctly the impression I get from her ramblings.

[BTW, I don't include you among the "others here"...]

Date: 2010/02/17 18:24:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
I have been personally introduced to an affliction known as Pine Mouth.

Here is an 2001 article from the European Journal of Emergency Medicine.

After eating 2 handfuls of pine nuts last Thursday, I woke up Sunday to find that regardless of what I eat, it all is incredibly bitter.

Between meals, there is no sense of bitterness, but anytime I eat or drink, my mouth is overwhelmed with bitterness...chocolate, cheese, bread, salsa, beer, fruit juice...even brushing my teeth. I can't even enjoy a good glass of port.

While palate-ly horrible, it is a most curious experience from an intellectual stand point.

If anyone knows of more recent information, it would be appreciated. There's nothing like a good spoonful of alum, but I've had enough.

Date: 2010/02/17 19:03:43, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,17:38)
Everything tastes sweet for hours after exposure.

Only hours? Apparently, I get to experience bitter for up to 2 weeks.

Date: 2010/02/23 01:06:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 22 2010,10:44)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 22 2010,09:43)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 18 2010,00:03)
 
Quote (REC @ Feb. 17 2010,17:38)
Everything tastes sweet for hours after exposure.

Only hours? Apparently, I get to experience bitter for up to 2 weeks.

I've been bitter for years....oh wait...different thing right?

Louis

I'm not bitter, I'm just tangy.

HAR, HAR, THIS IS FNXTR

Date: 2010/03/14 12:54:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,01:42)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27)
Seals are from the "dog kind"?

See? It's thecaniform thing again:

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41)
 
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43)
In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark.

why?

Why not? It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said.

It's easy when you're just makin' shit up.


He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind".

You grant Mr. Robert more knowledge than he is capable of by assuming he understands "caniform".

It's much, much simpler than that. Here, let me spell out his undeniable logic:

Baby seals = pups
Baby dogs = pups

Therefore, when they change into adults:
Seals = Dogs

QEDuh!

Date: 2010/03/25 01:28:19, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 24 2010,18:41)
Plus, I'll claim the Ministry of Funny Walks.

I'm sorry to inform you, but that's Silly...

I predict the imminent demise of this thread in the year 2025 and I'll wager a bottle of single malt scotch on that.

Waterloo.

Date: 2010/03/29 14:50:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:58)
 
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?

Apparently Joe didn't make it out of 3rd Grade.

Is it really possible someone can be this persistently stupid and impervious to learning rudimentary knowledge.

Joe G has to be the most complex (and specific) Poe ever perpetrated anywhere.

Date: 2010/03/29 14:58:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)

measuring information/ specified complexity

Hey Poe-Joe,

I read your post. I have a simple question for clarification.

Was the CSI you measured in your example contained in :
1. the word "aardvark",
2. the definition of that word,
3. or in an actual aardvark?

Date: 2010/03/30 00:55:09, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?

That made me LOL as well...and brings another question to mind:

If we bake an aardvark into a cake and it is not listed with the other ingredients, does the cake have more or less CSI?

Date: 2010/04/06 12:48:26, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 06 2010,11:02)
WmAD announces a new design for the E[v]IL website. Bookmark the errata now.


Hmmm...no attribution for the errata is provided. And here I thought Dembski was keen on ethical behavior in academics.

Clive unintentionally provides a spot-on review in the first comment:
Quote
1

Well done.

Clive Hayden
04/06/2010
11:28 am



Time to stick a fork in it already...

Date: 2010/05/22 01:42:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Question for Mr Trossity...

I was fortunate to see a brightly colored bird alight in our backyard aspen trees, the hues of which I have never seen in my locale. I was not fortunate enough to get my camera before the winged florescence disappeared. By way of Googly-Moogly, I was able to identify it as a Western Tanager.

I am curious how common it is to see this bird in an urban area of northern Colorado?

Date: 2010/05/22 12:01:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 22 2010,05:53)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ May 22 2010,01:42)
Question for Mr Trossity...

I was fortunate to see a brightly colored bird alight in our backyard aspen trees, the hues of which I have never seen in my locale. I was not fortunate enough to get my camera before the winged florescence disappeared. By way of Googly-Moogly, I was able to identify it as a Western Tanager.

I am curious how common it is to see this bird in an urban area of northern Colorado?

Yes, that is a stunning bird! The northernmost member of the tanager family.

Not common in urban areas, but they certainly do occur. Definitely common in the forests in your nearby mountains. But it's not surprising that you haven't seen them; I'm always amazed at how this bright yellow and red bird can hide so well in a green background.

I've even had one (in a much less flashy plumage) in my yard here in NE Kansas, although that was a bird significantly out of range and out of season. This bird was at my birdbath in January, and she should have been in Central America at that time of year.

Not having much knowledge of birds, I would never have associated your pictures with the same bird that saw. I assume that your pic was a female or a winter colorization?

As you note, it was curious to me how well the bright colors of this bird still blended in with the green of the leaves and the yellow of sunlight. This image is very close to the bird that I saw.

Beautiful plummage...

Date: 2010/09/04 12:45:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 04 2010,08:47)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 03 2010,22:08)
*sniff*
 
Quote

Note to readers

Because I am writing a book, I probably will not be blogging much before December, but expect to see me then, if not before. I did post some new material today. For stories on the intelligent design controversy, go to Uncommon Descent - Denyse


Until December...


Why is Densye wearing a red collar?

I don't know, but after taking the trouble to shave, she could at least have faced the camera...

Date: 2010/09/05 14:55:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 05 2010,13:17)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 05 2010,11:07)
Quote
yes, and also a nice segway into John Lennon's Imagine...


Yeah, I'm a bit of an utopist, like that...

Yeah, me too, but don't tell anybody. I don't want to spoil my rep.

Har Har...you guys belong to this group.

Would they EXPELL Django if he were still alive?

Date: 2010/09/15 09:57:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot


Maybe the Big Kahuna should crack down on piracy.

Date: 2010/09/16 21:31:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
They (whoever they are...I love it so!) say you should start small, so Delaware it is:

Christine O'Donnell questions evolution.

The darling of the Tea Party regurgitates all the familiar points. Granted the interview was 14 years ago, but hey, small changes over many years is what it takes to confront the Darwinian Conspiracy and creationists are moving up in the political hierarchy.

(Where is that politics thread...?)

Date: 2010/09/28 18:48:45, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,17:12)
 
Quote
See above. Since you have shown yourself to be quite ignorant about science in general and evolutionary biology in particular, your notions about what is useful and what is useless are complete nonsense.


In regard to the scientific topics in this debate and understanding the mechanisms of evolution and how they work, I always held my own here at ATBC and elsewhere.

Held your own? On scientific topics?

Ha...Ha...Ha.....that is most hilarious indeed. Thanks for a good long laugh FTK!

Not only are you steadfastly ignorant of basic science and biology*, you are entirely blind to your own lack of accomplishment at this or any other venue.

I would venture to say that, in spite of everything anyone has ever tried to teach you, you have remained impervious to even the slightest smidgen of scientific knowledge sneaking in.

* And history.

Date: 2010/09/30 23:39:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Dazed from Duvel and blithely trundling through the channels, I stumbled upon Charlie Rose: The Brain Series. The episode on the tube was quite fascinating. I then watched 2 more online.

Perhaps one of yarny brethren might pass the link along to the Canadian morphodyke...maybe she could learn about actual brain science and the people behind it.

Date: 2010/10/10 11:49:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 10 2010,03:00)
I had to share the joy with you. John Davison quickly got himself banned by Mark CC, and migrated over to my blogs. He's now on This Scientific Life, creating fun and games. the only people ansering him are myself and "Fred the Bulbous Squidge". Fred has now started calling JAD "Fluppy the Wonder Whelk".

How do you like them whelks?

I posted this question at Bob's blog:

Does anyone know who is behind the pseudonym VMartin?

Has that ever been answered confidently?

BTW, "Fluppy" is such a happy and harmless sounding name, I hate to see it denigrated by being attached to JAD.

Of course, since the whelk is (among the lamellibranch bivalves) that most depraved of the whole sub-species and nothing but a homosexual of the worst kind, it is a fitting moniker. (3:50 into the vid)

I am impressed by Fred's patient and consistent approach in the storm of JAD's tired effrontery. JAD remains incapable of changing his well-worn behaviour in response...news at 11:00.

Date: 2010/12/09 11:19:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 09 2010,08:24)
Forthcoming additions to Joe G.'s audience: Joe Whorphin, Joe Bigboote, Joe Smallberries . . .

Big-BYU-TAY

Big-BYU-TAY

Date: 2011/02/11 00:09:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
[delurk]

I just returned from my annual B-Day ski excursion. Vail this year with consecutive days of 7", 18", 5", and 9" of fresh powder and first runs in the back bowls...but that's not important right now.

While waiting for the shuttle early one morning I picked up the local paper to find the last in a series of articles by one Henry Bornstein, local to the valley, examining the oft-repeated canard of the USA being founded as a Christian nation from both a legal and an historical context.

I searched for the rest of the series online upon my return and thought some of you might enjoy reading the articles and have provided links below in chronological order.

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/2010100909882

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100913/EDITS/100919960

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100920/COLUMS/100919755

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100927/EDITS/100929847

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101004/EDITS/101009971

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101011/EDITS/101019999

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101017/EDITS/101019845

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101220/EDITS/101219812

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101226/EDITS/101229877

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110103/EDITS/110109995

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110110/EDITS/110109873

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110116/EDITS/110119872

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20110207/EDITS/110209913

[/delurk]

Date: 2011/02/11 09:46:02, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2011,07:49)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 11 2011,06:09)
[delurk]

I just returned from my annual B-Day ski excursion. Vail this year with consecutive days of 7", 18", 5", and 9" of fresh powder and first runs in the back bowls...

[SNIP]

BASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBASTARD!!!!!!!!

That is all. Thank you. We now return you to your standard envy free, irrelevant thread of utter shite.

Louis

Don't be so mean...after all your mom reveled in the deep pow-pow.

She liked the snow too...

Date: 2011/02/18 20:07:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,12:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 18 2011,13:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
....you ignorant ball of puss.

Awesome, a mere two words separate Joe calling someone else ignorant, from his demonstration of being unable to spell "pus".

I love it so!

typo

Hmmm...a typo?

Not really little JoeyG, since you misspell it the same way a mere 11 posts later.

Ya see...a typo is like typing "muttion" instead of "mutation" and does not involve repeating the same error, unless you happen to type teh word "the" dyslexically a few times.

Please stop acting the aggrieved 2 year old and have the cojones to admit to a simple error of ignorance in spelling.

ETA: Not that I'd waste any more time looking through previous posts than I already waste, but I would bet little JoeyG has experienced the same "typo" before.

Date: 2011/02/20 11:38:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 20 2011,06:43)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 18 2011,20:07)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2011,12:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 18 2011,13:04)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
....you ignorant ball of puss.

Awesome, a mere two words separate Joe calling someone else ignorant, from his demonstration of being unable to spell "pus".

I love it so!

typo

Hmmm...a typo?

Not really little JoeyG, since you misspell it the same way a mere 11 posts later.

Ya see...a typo is like typing "muttion" instead of "mutation" and does not involve repeating the same error, unless you happen to type teh word "the" dyslexically a few times.

Please stop acting the aggrieved 2 year old and have the cojones to admit to a simple error of ignorance in spelling.

ETA: Not that I'd waste any more time looking through previous posts than I already waste, but I would bet little JoeyG has experienced the same "typo" before.

Yes it was a typo because my "s" key was sticking and I don't have an edit key to fix it once I posted it.

Yes, Little JoeyG.

It is amazing, however, that your 's' key only seems to stick when typing the word 'pus'.

Your behaviour mimics the deflection games that 2-year-olds employ when caught telling fibs.

Of course we know you must be older than that, having graduated to the 8-year-old age group's mastery of adult words.

ETA: I see RB has already made the same point, and with references.

Date: 2011/02/20 12:06:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 20 2011,07:39)
Joe's "s" key was also sticking here:
Quote
Yes I understand that you are a twisted and demented puss-eating maggot.

And here:
Quote
8- Three weeks later the sore in my mouth is gone and so is the puss-filled sack.

And here:
Quote
You are BOTH an anal licking faggot AND a puss-munching maggot.

And here:
Quote
They cant support their position- all they have to do to falsify ID- so they have to pick on something until it gets infected and oozes puss.

We would award 1 point for this:
Quote
That means that you are just a wilfully ignorant belligerent sack of pus.

But we'd have to dock him another for "wilfully ignorant" because his "l" key was balky.

RB,

Just a further note to extend appreciation for your dogged research skills in compiling this list. I know it is not easy to visit the darkest of mines.

You have provided research that confirms my initial hypothesis and further supports my second.

Thank you.

Date: 2011/03/10 10:45:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 10 2011,09:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2011,18:07)
Mathgirl is relentless.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-373625

GO MATHGIRL!

Don't worry she (if she is a she) will get sick of it quite quickly I suspect.

Then we can get back to the normal program.

Not a single one of them comes up to her knee caps.

It's like watching Snow White (in drag I suspect) play rugby with terracotta gnomes standing in for the 7 dwarfs.

hehhe 4 a laff draw up a card for each ID tard vis a vis dwarf

Though clones of a single dwarf, one and all, each has a signature flaw that makes them uniquely Dopey.

Date: 2011/08/05 16:32:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 05 2011,08:49)
It is some comfort to know that the overwheming majority of creationists are really very stupid.

That's a minimal "some" my good Dr.

I find it discomforting there are so many very stupid people who endeavor to have everyone join them on the far left of the bell curve.

I have been following Dave's efforts at Amazon. I'm immensely curious about Kepler's motivations and purpose for being so utterly insane.

And I continue to marvel at the unfathomable depths of the abyss that resides in Joe Gallien's skull.

Date: 2011/10/29 20:04:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 29 2011,09:05)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 29 2011,10:31)
I have thought long and hard about this. In order my responses are:

1) Fuck you.

2) You, especially, fuck you.

3) Fuck you.

I think we are in total agreement. Can we go to the pub now?

;-)

Louis

you don't have to be such a dick, you pussy!

I'm not your pussy. Prick.

Date: 2012/03/11 13:28:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 11 2012,01:29)
 
Quote (REC @ Mar. 10 2012,20:53)
CH is on a roll this week-more rants on the science is religious, therefore bad, long live my religion.

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

Quote
Dont miss Butler Day at the Cambridge Science Festival next Saturday where evolutionist Ben Irvine will knock down straw men objections to Darwins theory and explain how understanding Darwinism better can help us all to achieve well-being.

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

Religion drives science and it matters.


Link

So, according to corny, over 40 million abortions were "performed" last year by "evolutionists". Hmm, I wonder if he personally asked every person who "performed" any or all those alleged abortions if they're an "evolutionist"? Obviously, to corny, anyone who performs an abortion must be an "evolutionist" and corny absolutely hates "evolutionists" and blames "evolutionists" for all the world's ills whether they really are "evolutionists" or not.

joe g likes to say that ID isn't anti-evolution but anyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows that ID is anti-evolution, and in corny's case it's really, really obvious that he is ANTI-evolution! He constantly bitches about "evolution" and "evolutionists". He's a religious nutcase, just like all the other IDiots.

Perhaps "evolutionists" perform the abortions, but I have a question for Corny if someone could relay it to his blog: Who gets abortions and supplies the demand "evolutionists" allegedly fulfill?

"Almost three-quarters of women obtaining abortions in 2008 reported a religious affiliation. The largest proportion were Protestant (37%), and most of the rest said that they were Catholic (28%) or that they had no religious affiliation (27%). One in five abortion patients identified themselves as born-again, evangelical, charismatic or fundamentalist; 75% of these were Protestant."

From here (PDF).

Date: 2012/03/11 13:45:48, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Joe,

I've been reading your tripe* for a number of years.

I can't believe you are really as dense and pathologically stupid as your writing in various locations makes you out to be.

So...my guess would be you put on a moronic and pathetic act because you get some demented pleasure out of making people much, much smarter than you engage your blatant idiocy.

But then I question why anyone would waste years of time in their mother's basement watching ticks on watermelons and arguing ice is not water.

Whether it's an act or you really are THE stupidest congenital dullard the Internet has ever seen, I thank you for laughs.

And either way, what an utter senseless waste of human life you've turned out to be.

* (not to be insulting to ruminant stomachs, as it were)

Date: 2012/04/03 23:17:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Enjoying a Charlie Rose episode on PBS with E.O. Wilson, Pinker and Eric Kandel.

Date: 2012/04/11 23:28:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Happy birthday to one whose ramblings clearly indicate he is really out of his gourd*.

* which is not something recommended for the kids**

** not that there's anything wrong with that***

*** HOMOS

Date: 2012/04/22 12:24:44, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ April 22 2012,01:22)
I couldn't resist and had to go to UD again. The Tard is still strong there:
Quote
1
Robert Byers April 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm

This marsupial wolf was in fact just the same creature as wolves elsewhere I say.
Likewise other marsupials were exact copys of placental countertypes.
Its been a great error of classification to see minor details of reproduction and a few other things as separating marsupials from placentals.
In fact it was just a general adaptation due to the area they moved into after the flood.
In fact marsupialism is simply a attempt to increase production of offspring.

The marsupial wolf was a just a wolf and would grab sheep. The farmers are right and simply it was not common because the wolves
were not that common.

Genetic studies should not have much faith placed in them to tell us of the past.
Convergent evolution is a myth alongside other evolutionary ideas.
Same shaped creatures are the same cxreatures after all.
minor adaptation abilities can account for difference.

by the way the marsupial wolf (Tasmanian tiger) did howl in the night.
Wolves do that.

A little farther down we have:

Quote

4
Joe April 22, 2012 at 7:13 am

Collin,

Unfortunately I have worked in food processing- if you want scary, well lets put it this way, there are foods I will never eat again.


Does this mean Joe was paid to put on what's underneath that big shirt of his?


ETA: bowlderization

Date: 2012/06/05 00:55:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Ran across this article on denialism while following up on other research.

A couple of years old, but still on target today.

BTW, ran into Louis on the elevator today. He was on his way up to have coffee with Arden's mum. I told him we miss him here at AtBC, but he said we're all just sheep (not the Welsh kind) and couldn't be bothered to 'bother' us as it were.

Date: 2012/09/04 21:28:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
A nice, concise opinion piece, entitled:

Myths and truths about atheism

Date: 2012/09/17 15:12:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 17 2012,13:34)
 
Quote (Mindrover @ Sep. 17 2012,08:39)
Am I the only one who reads Marcuse's rants in the voice of a bongo-playing beat poet?

I hear William Shatner

I hear Rick Astley as P-P-Porky the P-P-Pig.

Date: 2012/09/20 23:01:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 20 2012,19:44)
Now I hear them in the voice of snagglepuss.

Can't be.

He's not exiting stage left.

Or right.

Perhaps El Kabong can save us.

Date: 2012/10/21 22:21:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 21 2012,19:09)
Joe:
 
Quote

BTW TSZ- part of defintion of artifact is that there is no good natural explanation. And yes part of coming to a design inference means that there is no good natural explanation.

Let's open MerriamWebster:
 
Quote

Artifact:
1 a something created by humans usually for a practical purpose;
1 b something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual.
2 a product of artificial character (as in a scientific test) due usually to extraneous (as human) agency

The standard definition of an artifact is not something that cannot be explained through a natural mechanism. Instead, it is something that is positively tied to human agency.

If Joe had bothered to google the word "artifact", he would find the etymological meaning is "made by skill" and the origin of the word was specific to objects created via human skill.

Though not falling to the same level of stupidity of "ice is not water," still a major fail by the ever moronic existence that is JoeG, a bigger, dumber ass that any Kardashian appendage.

Date: 2013/01/17 10:29:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 16 2013,10:13)
Why does Jesus look like Frank Zappa?

Because the shroud was created in Joe's garage?

Date: 2013/01/17 22:08:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 17 2013,11:05)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 17 2013,10:29)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 16 2013,10:13)
Why does Jesus look like Frank Zappa?

Because the shroud was created in Giusppe's garage?

by the Mothers of Invention?

He was looking for a Jewish princess?

Date: 2013/02/19 17:04:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 19 2013,09:51)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 19 2013,10:10)
Gary, I will answer your compulsive liar question if you will tell us whether you've ever been employed and for how long.

40+ years in the graphic arts industry.

Hmmm...huffing Spray Mount and imbibing Bestine for 40+ years...

That will provide the foundation for my theory concerning GG's intransigent, intractable, intolerable and amazingly persistent stupidity.

(I'll need to write it up here and have it reviewed in multiple online forums to refine and perfect the theory [but it's pretty solid theory as is here first reported] and taught in national school libraries servicing their countries by those who better understand the historical importance of a paradigm shifting breakthrough. Here, here!)

One would think a graphic artist possessed of a little creative ability could, and would, design a better looking "bug" than Gary's programmed dreck simply out of personal pride in their work. Then again, he said he was just in the industry and not necessarily an artist or designer...maybe he just sharpened Xacto blades...

Date: 2013/03/03 22:09:19, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 03 2013,18:17)
I explain the real-science of how intelligence systems work,...The shame in that is tremendous.

Given how atrocious your writing is, this is how I read the last lines of your post above.

I quite agree.

Date: 2013/03/06 22:16:51, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2013,12:16)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2013,12:51)
While I am high at the moment, I'm just slightly high, not destroyed and sitting on the couch staring at the tv. So I don't think that's the reason I'm misunderstanding Joe. What is his point? Water isn't water, it's H2O? And ice isn't water?

WTF is going on here?

A while back ago (someone has a link in their sig) I asked Joey a question about information. The question I asked was something like

"Given a box that is completely isolated from everything else. Given that the box is filed with one mol of water. What is the information content of the system?

Now, what is the change in the information content if the water is completely disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen? What is the change in information content if they recombine into water?"

Then I said, "Be careful, it's a trick question".

I would have given Joey credit for two different answers because I recognized that I was unclear. Water is at a lower energy state than the gases would be, so without an input of energy from outside the system, it couldn't disassociate. I would have also accepted the actual calculations of the change in entropy (in joules) of the system.

Joey's response was "But I get the trick question. There's no such thing as one molecule of water."

What followed was a hilarious discussion of Joe not understanding 9th grade chemistry (moles) and him continually trying to redefine water as only the liquid state of H2O.

I also mentioned that it would be possible to tell what state a single molecule would be by measuring the kinetic energy of the molecule, but he didn't get that either. Ice isn't just ice because it's linked to other molecules. It can link to other molecules because the kinetic energy is reduced enough that hydrogen bonds are stronger than the motion of the molecules.

Swish... right over his pointy little head.

Prior to Ogre's masterful expos of Joe's utter cluelessness, and perhaps leading into it, there was ongoing stick-poking of Joe resulting from his vehement insistence that hail is not made of water.

IIRC, that was preceded by his lecturing us that a baseball and a hailstone of the exact same dimensions are not the same size.

Date: 2013/05/01 14:57:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
The Forbes Thought of the Day reminded me of one Gary Gaulin:

Quote
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
Frank Leahy


Deep under he is...

Date: 2013/05/18 19:23:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,17:18)
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,17:00)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,16:34)
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did. {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Socle also added to it leaving infinity (three dots) before 100 and 101, therefore according to the logic now shown infinity ends at 100 or 101.

Hey Gary,

The sets such as {0,1, 2, 3, ..., 100} that Joe and I were talking about aren't infinite; the "..." just represents a gap. This set just has the numbers 0 through 100 as elements, so we are not presuming that "infinity ends at 100".

That's not what I learned in math class. Three periods at the end are supposed to indicate infinity, not a gap.

Gary, you learned correctly in your math class.

Unfortunately, you are unable to correctly apply what you have learned, which is pretty much the case for you in just about everything.

Now, it's very simple...looking at your own definition of "Three periods at the end are supposed to indicate infinity, not a gap." and then the notation in question "{0,1, 2, 3, ..., 100}" are the "Three periods" at the end?

BTW you are one, and though not followed by an ellipsis, an infinite one at that.

Date: 2013/06/05 00:03:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 04 2013,11:43)
Its a typo from fighting off exhaustion. Hours earlier I finished taking the program to where I expect hypotheses are cognitively formed. I was thrilled to have made it that far so fast. If things did not go this well then the coding could have required weeks of aggravating experimenting. With that pressure removed and my already getting a little tired from programming I thought I should write (what was supposed to have been) a short message just to say that I was already caught up on what most had me under pressure from not having had time to work on it. I also wanted to quickly explain what I was warning not to get stuck in (probably many thousands of years old) that will make you rip yourself to pieces, where you become public enemy number one to cultural leaders taking their time right behind your back, setting the stage for your downfall. Early southern slave plantation owners would have seen nothing wrong in a song about following a river that the slaves sing all day while working. But the lyrics encouraged revolution, by explaining how to travel up-north via Underground Railroad, which soon saw much traffic. There was also a Mexican revolution where art and music created folklore that united the masses against super-wealthy who exploited peasants they controlled in an enslaving way. Now we have JoeG and others ripping themselves to pieces, while some were dragged into court over Dover with the entire scientific community against them like Kathy did for following state mandated procedure in regard to public hearings for what the Discovery Institute followed procedure for making an issue with a couple of largely symbolic changes like a theory being a best explanation which (where explained as I do) is true anyway. But back then it was seen as trying to fix something not broken, then chaos erupted that escalated to a professor getting beaten-up and people willing to serve jail time where they have to, to win the ID culture-war that the Discovery Institute started with a wedge strategy.

From what Kathy explained to me, they were being culturally bombarded by the Atheism movement that did will with rebellious youth of the late 1990s and scientific establishment that helped degrade them. Even had the Flying Spaghetti Monster satire where Kathy gave that movement just what they wanted her to say when she warned bad things can happen from mocking God. As it turns out though the FSM patron pirate still leading on in that regard is me, which metaphorically makes what Kathy said true, but the rebellious youth of back then now with rebellious kids of their own can look back in time to be glad the conflict had an educational component where everyone ends up knowing a lot more than we did back then, where a Theory of Intelligent Design emerges that Im more or less teaching in this thread but its not all bad and sure not from the think-tank so its now metaphorically the pirating the DI, with their own theory. Pastafarians can be into that, even though Kathy gets to say I told you so in response to there not being something scientific in the challenge of at least trying to come up with something useful from what the DI explained to Kansas at the hearing, regardless of its religious implications that are really no different than with Evolutionary Theory where now Evolutionary Creationism is hip.

Soon all will be a creationist of one sort or another, with Atheists just saying it was a just chemical reactions creation which where one generalizes is true too, but that does explain how consciousness works or help answer the big-questions nearly all yearn to answer. So yes Kathy is religious as heck and always managed to only stir things up by off the top of her mind saying something that only stirred things up even more, but during reelection she brilliantly answered a KCFS questionnaire that showed she was one with her local NSTA peers and fully capable of handling the issues expected in the next 4 years, and passed the torch able to say that the more hands-on standards in the works are an improvement. In reality board meetings are normally for mundane issues like bussing costs and budgeting, that she had much experience with, with the hearing gone crazy and else from the hoopla was something out of the ordinary. Once you know her you know why its really nothing to get overly shook about. What she was hoping for is the Theory of Intelligent Design the DI was talking about be given a fair hearing that is now happening here, by my going around from forum to forum on the internet with her creation, that comes from not minding her way-religious way of seeing things, that goes with what she said that were right-on in regards to science and science education. What she was hoping for is the theory having educational value for the receiving end of what makes many of the people she was elected to serve rip themselves to pieces like earlier explained. From a better scientific understanding comes culture changing something that the scientists had to figure out by following the evidence wherever it leads from the premise of the theory the DI thousands of times repeated (in my signature line) that spells out the challenge. Need to put that into a useful scientific context, or its forever divisive controversy that does have a way of moving science along but where Kansas is closer than you ever imagined to civil war from so many having been made scientifically and culturally powerless. But little things like the egg and oil experiments she encouraged (not get shook about) led to our introducing the concept of self-assembly to US science teachers through the NSTA journal ultimately publishing it, not the usual side that finds a way of including a slap in the face in how new to teaching concepts are taught. Scientists were experimenting with self-assembly so its no news to the scientific community but it was on the horizon to be where Kathys at in K-12 education, where she did not mind ushering that in by showing around either. The powerless had power on that one, which in turn changed how Creation Science viewed the concept, where with all said in no way takes the fun out the search for our Creator. If it takes crazy sounding things that Kathy said then so be it.

I go with the flow of what the situation offers in regards to producing a peaceful scientific revolution where we all have a lot of fun and learn new things from all the science chaos that brought everyone together. That takes a real Theory of Intelligent Design able to change how things go in the worst of forums especially this one, that Kathy can approve of, to keep a fair-hearing going somewhere other than board of education meetings, by the ruckus now being in this forum by the challenge moving around and up the ladder where the scientists are needed to find things to assimilate that were thought up by those thinking that would hurt it not help it.

Where you wonder why Im here, its to keep what started back in the radio pirate past that met up with Kathy to become the Theory of Intelligent Design she needed to have fun with science too. It now shows progress towards somewhere we have never been that shows what she was talking about being in such a challenge that was worth making happen. Religiously we find a reciprocal causation through chemistry microcosm that qualifies as a prayer path that influences cellular and molecular intelligence we can consciously feel that is there too, but in theology they would say they already knew that and are just thankful science is finally making progress figuring that out.

The theory is very faith-friendly, where in parts sounds right out of Genesis where in own image, likeness, worked to explain how emergence of one thing from the behavior of another has those properties. I did not leave it out of the official text of the theory to download. The theory this way explains what theology needs to know to reconcile science and religion, without the theory having to get religious about it. The theory used culture established word meanings to show where that is, in its logic structure, along with a Chromosomal Adam and Eve that actually does help operationally define the word human which is otherwise not so easy and very subjective as to where that can be narrowed down to one or a few couples of interest who scientifically qualify in that way. Dating has them just before tool-makers are found in the fossil and archeological evidence of their direct descendants that now includes us. Its not arguing against established science, its showing where they are chromosomally in the scientific evidence, for those who are at least thankful for that being there to muddle this forum and follow up on because of my hunch they had to run for clothes but no solid evidence for yet. That would further make science read like Genesis, so its a starting point Kathys grandkids would go from there with that has her in it, not something from what Kathy and others most feared using science to culturally destroy them their descendants are expected to be ashamed of that happened in their family history. That might not be a big deal to some in this forum but it is where many need a happy ending after all to the calamity in Kansas that went all over the US causing trouble after that.

How much history was going long ago changed and now none who matter have to look back in anger over that. In turn this forum ends up against history makers who already won and nothing said in this forum can ever change that, its already said and done not something you can change, that has a way of undermining anyone who messes with how history goes where it most matters by attacking a theory with them in it too.

Message being communicated through what most might not notice between Flying Nun reruns is the happy ending strategy looking like it works elsewhere, and must myself remember not to become a tyrant by further explaining what the thrill of the chase and all that seems to boil down to (at least does exist in that way) so none panic from not knowing the details I had to better explain. Its not something new that I created, just something that I learned to respect, so as not to similarly become a victim of my own demise. This theory makes it so that youre up against culture change that already happened elsewhere where its now in historical folklore with none there in support of changing that, and other great soul searchers who find nothing wrong with a theory that fairly kicks butt in this forum in a way that makes them all proud. Culture changes work with the best they can find that exists around for scientific guidance towards what they are searching for that helps makes a song or something that has a before its time thought that gives it lasting power from being on the wave of something real.

The theory only has to drive a forum like this one crazy for it to demonstrate how well it works, where that sort of thing works for the people who only need that to not have been defeated by the scientific establishment by having nothing to show for their suffering such public humiliation. But to be fair to all a happy ending has to be there even Wesley who pressures like crazy for more and more hypothesis related detail I had to keep you informed about where Im now at in the software project so you know Im still working on it. First had to figure out what a hypothesis was well enough for an Ah ha! moment that made it possible to narrow where that is in the computer model, to provide earlier detail where that is in the circuit.

For brain-like programming sake, I now think that keeping it as simple as possible requires drawing easy to convert to logic diagrams like scientists use but Im not exactly sure its called or have list of them where an adder is + in a circle like (+) and so forth like in papers. Its then easy to get complex with something relatively simple mouse clicks in a widening circuit where a sensory input bus layer on one side to Confidence data that is incremented or decremented by one in response to how confident it is that the response that is memory will work. Where that becomes complex the bus lines become different layers where one is for Forward/Reverse motor system and another layer for the Left/Right motor system dedicated to changing that direction vector.

Sensory readings to form the conditional part of a hypothesis is on the other side and running parallel to bus lines that control Guess that produces the antecedent of a hypotheses where it turns out as in earlier velociraptor related example the conditional that produced the hypothesis that they wrote in cursive makes no sense what produced it yet a testable hypothesis is none the less there.

Im confident that I now know what is needed to make Wesley a believer too, where its circuited like in papers and on its own forms layers that together produce hypotheses. So Ill see what I can do to make where hypotheses come from more obvious that way, where we can all then see what Im talking about, that should help explain a whole lot of things we argued over in the thread, while the forum works on this long message explaining more that you need to know, to make full sense of what I was talking about. Where someone in the control room on purpose sent an almost subliminal message its in flying nun programming helping to cope with Wesleys prodding not something subversive that gets personal. Just makes you wonder where certain things come from, where regardless of where they did became part of what helps direct the thought in the theory that now challenges some in this forum, without it having to be the end of the world just because it can.

I'm sorry, but...this is just fucking awesome.

How can any of you not respect the incredibly brilliant talent required to construct sentence after sentence that tease readers' minds into searching for something, anything, of substance somewhere within the words.

It's like a grand pastiche of "Where's Waldo" with coherence and relevance taking on the role of Waldo, while Gaulinese provides the distracting, hodge-podge background.

The game is afoot, you can't help yourself, you search and search, read through it once, twice, thrice...searching...searching...

Alas! There is no Waldo and GG's trickster ways are revealed in all their glory.

But to Gary and this wonderful Magnum Opus, which this has to be recognized as, I say...

Here! Here!

Date: 2013/06/05 00:46:50, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 04 2013,11:43)
Its a typo from fighting off...it having to be the end of the world just because it can.

Seriously, this truly is a work of art.

I just had to read it once more, and I find it fantastic the way a few consecutive words that appear to make sense together are sprinkled throughout the wall of words. As others have already noted, it is hard to choose a favorite sentence that displays the consummate skill of how to butcher language without actually killing it. Consider the sheer magnitude of Gary's efforts and be in awe.

I can't really explain it, but Gary's ability to maintain consistent inconsistency for that long of a screed is amazing to me. The myriad logical tangents that are woven in and out, and the overreaching causal connections are spellbinding.

Too bad Louis isn't here to appreciate Gary's magnificent work. I would dearly love to see him respond.

I offer to take him to any 'football' game he wishes to attend, buy him many pints and drop him off at Arden's mum's room afterwards just for one reply distilling Gaulin's "theory" with withering and witty repose.

Edited, because I can

Date: 2013/07/04 17:11:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

If I interpret GG correctly...which, given his utter failure to recognize intelligent use of the English language, is not certain...he has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 4 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary (which he will avoid answering, of course):

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science?

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, and has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes spanning a couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...4 comments over 2 months is doing well and constitutes a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? It's been over 2 months since Wes' post with none following his by anyone?

Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really


Maybe it's just me, but I would not consider that to be an endorsement that your pathetic little VB bug models intelligence in the real world or makes a scientific contribution in any way whatsoever.

So...essentially, your post I quoted above is one big, fat, exaggerated lie.

The only semblance of a true statement in your quote is that "A number of them studied it,..." since 3 people (including Wes) read through your heap of parrot droppings.

Yes, in one small instance you were correct...3 is a number.

Congratulations.

Date: 2013/07/10 10:29:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 10 2013,02:37)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ July 09 2013,19:46)
Despite the way he keeps tossing in "chromosomal Adam and Eve" and the way he is insisting that he is supporting intelligent design, he is not pushing a YEC/fundamentalist view of things, nor apparently even anything that most IDists would claim as intelligent design. He thinks he's providing a bridge between religion and science. Unfortunately, the scientists don't see any science there worthy of the name, and his delusions have little in common with the delusions preferred by the fundamentalists, and scientists and science deniers have polarized enough that there's no longer very much interest in a bridge, and his ideas are in any event incoherent and unworkable, so there's an impressive lack of interest.

It took 10 months for you to figure out that Im talking real-science. I now wonder how long it will take this forum and other entities to figure out how much of a useless scientific disgrace they now are.

This actually is theory that obsoletes your sacred "evolutionary algorithms". Needing to trash something much better than your junk science that even misses Chromosomal Adam and Eve is another historic unethical blunder for the entire scientific community to be ashamed of.

Gary...you forgot to bold four important words preceding the two clauses you did bold. Those four words ("...he is insisting that...") negate the meaning you wish to read into N. Wells' comment. So...either incompetent reading comprehension or purposeful misrepresentation by Gary once again.

Given Gary's history recorded here in some 200+ pages, I lean towards incompetence.

Date: 2013/07/10 10:34:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
By the way Gary, could you please answer my questions below?

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 04 2013,16:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

If I interpret GG correctly...which, given his utter failure to recognize intelligent use of the English language, is not certain...he has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 4 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary (which he will avoid answering, of course):

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science?

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, and has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes spanning a couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...4 comments over 2 months is doing well and constitutes a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? It's been over 2 months since Wes' post with none following his by anyone?

Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

 
Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really


Maybe it's just me, but I would not consider that to be an endorsement that your pathetic little VB bug models intelligence in the real world or makes a scientific contribution in any way whatsoever.

So...essentially, your post I quoted above is one big, fat, exaggerated lie.

The only semblance of a true statement in your quote is that "A number of them studied it,..." since 3 people (including Wes) read through your heap of parrot droppings.

Yes, in one small instance you were correct...3 is a number.

Congratulations.

Date: 2013/08/30 10:57:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 30 2013,09:16)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 30 2013,07:17)
However Gary take heart, you did use the word hexagonal and showed some hexagons .......glory bee.

You mean he's not just droning on?

Well...yes...but amazingly enough, he has still failed to generate any buzz.

Date: 2013/09/27 13:20:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 26 2013,23:19)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Sep. 26 2013,19:51)
OH MY GOSH I BROKE THE CHEW TOY AGAIN!!!!!!!!! (and there's no foxnip in this one, either.)


Sry, e1. I'll go back to lurking, now.

I wouldn't worry too much, Gary is busy on his day job hanging shop signs from the top of a very long ladder to keep his isp account open.

He'll be back posting some random science'y looking drawing that will backed up with breath taking gibberish while he waits for his next gig.

I'm afraid all the foxnip in the world won't keep Gary from making a fool of himself.

After showing Gary's "writing" to a couple of psych doc buddies, both were unanimous in saying his text indicated signs of mental disorder and obsessiveness.

I put forth GooGoo's obsessiveness with his little VB toy has pushed him far over the edge, interfering with his "day job" to the point he cannot cover living expenses. It is possible his electricity and/or Internet connection has been terminated for failure to pay. He does whine incessantly about how the CBEB conspiracy has driven him to starvation.

Whatever the reason for his current absence, that same obsessiveness will undoubtedly drive GG to one day return to AtBC and once again shout loudly his ignorant twaddle...a white whale of a "theory" proving his to be an utter, senseless waste of human life.

Not to worry Mr. Fox, you can't break what is already in pieces.

Date: 2013/10/12 22:20:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 12 2013,16:23)
Finsbury Park.

Well...given the circumstances of one of the primary players of MCC here at AtBC, it would seem most appropriate to find a gambit mirroring his current status in the competition.

Thus...I counter with:

St. John's Wood

(upstairs, in the dark, with Arden's Mum no less)

Date: 2013/10/15 18:24:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 27 2013,12:20)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 26 2013,23:19)


...

He'll be back posting some random science'y looking drawing that will backed up with breath taking gibberish while he waits for his next gig.

I'm afraid all the foxnip in the world won't keep Gary from making a fool of himself.


...

Whatever the reason for his current absence, that same obsessiveness will undoubtedly drive GG to one day return to AtBC and once again shout loudly his ignorant twaddle...a white whale of a "theory" proving his to be an utter, senseless waste of human life.

...




Predictions confirmed.

Was there any doubt?

Date: 2013/10/15 18:28:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 15 2013,16:07)
...snip...

I'm happily married,

...snip...

Yes...but is your wife?

Date: 2013/11/17 11:14:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2013,21:29)
My wife did not like the more wordy version, but she does better like this one with another example added:

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2013,01:13)
After showing my wife a printout of the last paragraph I posted she said it's perfect.

I then made a printout of what Charles Darwin wrote. Without saying anything about my opinion or where it came from I gave it to her for her opinion of that. Her reaction was quote This looks like shit! and further mentioned that it's more like poetry than science writing. What I wrote made scientific sense to her, while the other one was so all over the place it made no scientific sense to her at all, even with Natural Selection and other phrases to help fudge it along.

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2013,20:00)
But after another batch of trying different things my wife likes this even more. And she is fussy, would not like semicolons either. But here's an update that uses less complex grammar to say the same thing, in even better words, that should not need any:

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2013,05:01)
I uploaded the latest changes, with a printout of the new paragraph awaiting approval from upstairs, my wife, so for right now at least the writing marathon to connect that much together is done.

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2013,06:45)
After my wife got done with it, it's down to just this, that looks even better!:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2013,07:05)
It's now better connected! My wife likes it even better too!

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2013,10:50)
The theory even now says "expressing all three levels of intelligence, our creator." to best I can also make it work with the Trinity puzzle that has long been around to work from, even though one has to accept that it for some reason helps word scientific theory where every word must be in its place, like never before, or not even my wife will like it

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2013,08:52)
You're asking for changes all over the place! By my wife is also OK adding:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2013,10:19)
And you already know what my wife thinks of what Charles wrote, in comparison to what we wrote.

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2013,13:53)
You do sound like my wife, who also says things like "Why do you want to look like an idiot?" when it's not what she is looking for, that has to have it K-12 simple and explain something she wants to know about or she hates it. I'm between extremes, with her not liking to get overly technical. We're both stuck with her opinion on how it's turning out. But I honestly think she will like what you forced me to change.

Who is your wife and what book(s) has she written and/or what cognitive systems has she developed which makes her an expert in the field of cognitive science?

Who is your wife and what book(s) has she written which makes her an expert in the fields of logic and grammar?

Date: 2013/11/19 17:17:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2013,15:09)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 19 2013,15:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2013,14:54)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 19 2013,14:27)
You really, really don't understand Darwin's work or the Theory of Evolution.

I very much understand his theory. Might even say I spent way too long studying it. The theory was more fun when all I knew was the hype, not reality. That's one reason all the hoopla that steals credit from others while co-opting entire sciences under the banner of "Theory of Evolution" became very annoying, and childish.

Then demonstrate that you understand it by refraining from saying stupidly wrong stuff about it. Disagreeing with it is one thing: making assertions about it that are false and stupid is something completely different. Your record of spouting rubbish about evolution so far supports the conclusion that you have near-zero understanding of the subject.

I do not disagree with his theory. It's simply scientifically useless for my science work that pertains to systems biology and cognitive science.

All the hype over a now antiquated (by gene theory and such) paradigm is genuinely annoying, and being treated like a jerk because I do not hero-worship Charles Darwin like the flock in this forum does is extremely demeaning.

Gary,

Your "science work" (re: your "theory", which is not) is scientifically useless and is referred to by no one. Nor does it have any scientific relevance to systems biology or cognitive science.

You are treated like a jerk, not because of any refusal on your part to acquiesce to some imagined hero-worship standard you disingenuously believe exists.

You are treated like a jerk because you are one. You're an ignorant, deluded, pompous imbecile incapable of intelligent communication or reasonable scientific discourse. I feel a tinge of remorse saying so as I sincerely believe your writing and behavior here exhibits clear signs of mental instability.

Do right by your wife and family and get some psychological help.

Date: 2014/01/01 14:49:21, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2013,19:14)


Science does not care about what did not work out for a theory, science only ends up containing what did.





Gary, I'm surprised...you've composed a fairly articulate statement that is factually true.

And it clearly explains why science contains not one iota of your imbecilic drivel whatsoever.

Good job.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:48:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,13:24)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 02 2014,12:35)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,10:30)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2014,09:34)
Relevance to your 'theory'? None.
Relevance to the objections raised against your 'theory'? None.

The video indicates this Theory of Intelligent Design has the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace in it.



Fair is fair. Your theory allows celebrating the genius of Charles Darwin, and ours allows celebrating the genius of Alfred Wallace, who by the way has a much neater giant beard.

I think you should celebrate a believer in spiritualism.*

It goes so well with the rest of IDiot claptrap.

Glen Davidson

*Bullshit about celebrating the genius of Darwin. It's the theory, worked on by many, that deserves defense from the attacks of the ignorant trolls like yourself.

This is an argument over which of the cofounders of "evolutionary theory" had it most right, and I'm not the only one with good scientific reasons to not jump to the conclusion that Charles had it all together and others only helped make it more coherent:

British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo-Darwinism

Even in our era some of the most known scientists in the world understand and discuss inherent weaknesses in the Darwinian model. It is very unscientific to marginalize all who try to explain what the problems are. And making it seem like there are no weaknesses at all in your theory is to others (including myself) qualifiable as a "sham". So for Wesley's sake, please don't go there.

What shines from other sources like Wikipedia indicates that Alfred Wallace did have scientific insight into what I'm explaining that pertains to intelligence. He even boldly included consciousness in the model, which makes it surprisingly complete. All that is encompassed by the Theory of Intelligent Design is in what Alfred said. It's thus actually an old idea, I just happen to be working on right now, which only seems like a never before heard of theory because of "co-founder" Charles getting all the glory then overdone hero worship that dissed the rest.

"It is said that nearly 50% of the population of the USA do not accept the theory of evolution. Some are called creationists since they believe in various forms of creation, either literally as described in Genesis, or in a variety of more modern ideas of creationism. Some also espouse the ideas of Intelligent Design (ID). Both the creationists and the supporters of ID tend to take every example of a break with neo-Darwinism as a vindication of their views. Some have done the same with my article, despite the fact that I make it clear that I am arguing for a return to a more nuanced, less dogmatic view of evolutionary theory, which is much more in keeping with the spirit of Darwins own ideas than is the Neo-Darwinist view. "

Denis Noble in his Answers.pdf (my bolding and sizing)

**********************

Clearly Gary, for your own sake, you should not go where you often do. By his own words, Denis Noble is an ardent supporter and promoter of Darwin's specific ideas.

Your behavior and posts amount to nothing more than doltish folderol.

Your writing as seen at numerous websites, your piddling excuse for a "theory", your inability to comprehend, your grandiose view of yourself and your "work"...hmmm...I could go on and on, so why bother making a list...let's just say every instance of your Internet presence (and even the problems you recount of your experiences IRL)...all exhibit signs of mental disorder.

That is an observation expressed by the vast majority of people who come into contact with you. Stop pretending to be something you can never be and get some help. Seriously.

edited for link fix

Date: 2014/01/02 20:04:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:28)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 02 2014,16:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,13:24)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 02 2014,12:35)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,10:30)
 
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2014,09:34)
Relevance to your 'theory'? None.
Relevance to the objections raised against your 'theory'? None.

The video indicates this Theory of Intelligent Design has the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace in it.



Fair is fair. Your theory allows celebrating the genius of Charles Darwin, and ours allows celebrating the genius of Alfred Wallace, who by the way has a much neater giant beard.

I think you should celebrate a believer in spiritualism.*

It goes so well with the rest of IDiot claptrap.

Glen Davidson

*Bullshit about celebrating the genius of Darwin. It's the theory, worked on by many, that deserves defense from the attacks of the ignorant trolls like yourself.

This is an argument over which of the cofounders of "evolutionary theory" had it most right, and I'm not the only one with good scientific reasons to not jump to the conclusion that Charles had it all together and others only helped make it more coherent:

British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo-Darwinism

Even in our era some of the most known scientists in the world understand and discuss inherent weaknesses in the Darwinian model. It is very unscientific to marginalize all who try to explain what the problems are. And making it seem like there are no weaknesses at all in your theory is to others (including myself) qualifiable as a "sham". So for Wesley's sake, please don't go there.

What shines from other sources like Wikipedia indicates that Alfred Wallace did have scientific insight into what I'm explaining that pertains to intelligence. He even boldly included consciousness in the model, which makes it surprisingly complete. All that is encompassed by the Theory of Intelligent Design is in what Alfred said. It's thus actually an old idea, I just happen to be working on right now, which only seems like a never before heard of theory because of "co-founder" Charles getting all the glory then overdone hero worship that dissed the rest.

"It is said that nearly 50% of the population of the USA do not accept the theory of evolution. Some are called creationists since they believe in various forms of creation, either literally as described in Genesis, or in a variety of more modern ideas of creationism. Some also espouse the ideas of Intelligent Design (ID). Both the creationists and the supporters of ID tend to take every example of a break with neo-Darwinism as a vindication of their views. Some have done the same with my article, despite the fact that I make it clear that I am arguing for a return to a more nuanced, less dogmatic view of evolutionary theory, which is much more in keeping with the spirit of Darwins own ideas than is the Neo-Darwinist view. "

Denis Noble in his Answers.pdf (my bolding and sizing)

**********************

Clearly Gary, for your own sake, you should not go where you often do. By his own words, Denis Noble is an ardent supporter and promoter of Darwin's specific ideas.

Your behavior and posts amount to nothing more than doltish folderol.

Your writing as seen at numerous websites, your piddling excuse for a "theory", your inability to comprehend, your grandiose view of yourself and your "work"...hmmm...I could go on and on, so why bother making a list...let's just say every instance of your Internet presence (and even the problems you recount of your experiences IRL)...all exhibit signs of mental disorder.

That is an observation expressed by the vast majority of people who come into contact with you. Stop pretending to be something you can never be and get some help. Seriously.

Sticking what I more or less already know in my face does not fix the inherent weaknesses in your theory. That was only another nutcase attempt to cover them up by throwing insults at me.

If you want to go back to the early days of "evolutionary theory" for a fix then what Alfred Wallace proposed for theory helps avoid making the same mistakes again.

Gary, Gary, Gary...you pitiful, deranged, insignificant pipsqueak...

What I stuck in your face, was the fact you introduced Denis Noble to discredit Charles in favor of Alfred for your "argument over which of the cofounders of "evolutionary theory" had it most right" while Denis is likely the most strident supporter of Darwin's ideas specifically as Charles envisioned them.

Yes, Denis is critical of "neo-Darwinism", but that is in deference to Darwin's ideas themselves as indicated by Noble's own words.

In essence, you brought in one of the "most known scientists in the world [who can] understand and discuss inherent weaknesses in the Darwinian model" both to support your "theory" and to undermine the Darwinian model.

Unfortunately for you, said scientist (your chosen authority) stands resolutely behind Darwin and thoroughly rejects anything to do with Intelligent Design, which would include all of your codswallop you incessantly preen over.

You have no possible way of knowing what my theory is. If it were either "neo-Darwinism" or the "Darwinian model", others here have made the point abundantly clear that you understand neither and are incapable of identifying "weaknesses" if/where they are present.

As for "throwing insults", I endeavored to avoid direct personal ones in my previous post, focusing on your behaviors and output. It is possible I failed in that regard.

In this post, while my opening appears to be insults, I feel strongly your interactions here and elsewhere belie derangement. For that reason, and that you have wasted 40+ years of life on your "theory", you are pitiful. By your own admission, science cares only for what works, and since science contains not one iota of your imbecilic drivel whatsoever, you remain insignificant.

Then there's "pipsqueak"...well...it's just a fun word to use.

Date: 2014/01/04 14:05:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2014,19:29)
TodAy, at skool, we lurned, commas:

 
Quote
And if science can only allow a certain amount of luck in any given model, the materialism, and by extension darwinism, are scientific non-starters as they rely on luck, so what is left, scientifically?

Give the guy a break...it's probably typos because his "," key began sticking much like his "s" key once did.

Or maybe his puss-engorged fingertips are inadvertanly hitting the comma key as he types.

Date: 2014/01/06 18:16:11, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 06 2014,16:54)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 06 2014,14:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 06 2014,12:46)
Others explain other things for adding on like for example with video that includes cognitive bias expressed by the NCSE down that should be primarily caused by beforehand concluding that something must be impossible.

Maybe the best-yet.


 
Quote
Others explain other things, for adding on, like for example, with video, that includes [info on] cognitive bias expressed by the NCSE down, that should be primarily caused, by beforehand concluding, that something, must be, impossible.

Incoherent, imbecilic drivel...

*****BUT NOW WITH MORE COMMAS!!!eleventy-one,,!!!,!!*****

Really increases comprehensibility and flow don't you think?

Date: 2014/01/07 11:08:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,09:28)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 07 2014,09:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,08:44)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 07 2014,08:27)
Your program does not address either change over generations or speciation, so it is not relevant to evolution. Heck, it doesn't even address the emergence of intelligence.

The Speciation and other sections of the Theory of Intelligent Design will make it obvious that N.Wells is another very deceptive liar.

He said your *program* doesn't address those things. Another indication that your program and your written "theory" lack (among many other things) cohesion.

The theory is included with the "program" that demonstrates the modeling method using one entity, and there are other programs linked to from notes in the "program" and needing more than all that is a scam to make sure no human on earth could ever meet all their ridiculous demands.

Incomprehensible Gary....try using more commas please.

Date: 2014/01/07 11:11:51, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 07 2014,09:24)
He is feverishly trying to make up for his absence: Since December 31, he has written 19 OPs on his blog.
Sadly, none of them got any comments. I'm tempted to post a pity reply. :(


Kattarina, compassionate soul you are, I would entreat you to avoid any reply to Joe.

That goes for that Richard T. HuggyBear character as well.

Joe's absence has provided us with a novel opportunity to observe a new dimension of irrational behaviour borne of being ignored and rejected. I find it more entertaining watching his desperation blogging driven by inattention.

Stick-poking Joe is inviting and certainly fun, but can be pursued whenever the desire arises. Can we resist temptation and let this play out a little while longer?

Date: 2014/01/07 16:03:11, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 07 2014,13:36)
JoeTard is so happy he's about to bust a nut! Someone (AVS) is finally paying him some attention at UD! Of course AVS is only pointing out what a clueless idiot JoeTard is but JoeTard doesn't care. Even negative attention is attention. :p

This is exactly the case.

Joe is bereft of life without someone noticing him. He's an attention whore addicted to whatever response he can garner, akin to an obnoxious, petulant child lashing out in the hope of generating a reaction of any kind.

He posts with invective at his own blog believing that abusive language towards others will require a response.

Before AVS engaged him at UD, I would have bet money we would have manipulated Joe into returning back to this AtBC thread by simply ignoring him everywhere else.

That may still come to pass now that Batty Arrogant has stepped in at UD in defense of Joe. I suspect AVS is not long for the yarny world.

Date: 2014/01/07 22:45:45, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,21:28)
 
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,20:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 06 2014,20:35)
 
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,19:35)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 06 2014,15:12)
Gary, what do you think of Ray Martinez's positions on Atlantis (Martinez-English Dictionary).


Dear Gary:
Be advised that the link provided takes you to a page of gross misrepresentation perpetrated by an angry Evolutionist.

RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

I can sure relate to that. Goes with the territory, for me too.

Have you seen the Alfred Wallace The World Of Life - a manifestation of creative power, directive mind and ultimate purpose book yet?

https://archive.org/stream.........2up

It's from a cofounder of Evolutionary Theory, but it's certainly not the usual Evolutionism. In my opinion anyway.


Wallace was, of course, co-founder of the theory of how evolution may occur. He was a solid member of Darwin's camp until he announced that an invisible spirit world did indeed exist, and that this domain was responsible for creation of the human brain, not natural selection. Despite the implication seen in these facts, Wallace remained an Atheist: He rejected the existence of the Biblical Theos.

I found him much like Albert Einstein in the way there is a scientific side that is like void of religious context that an Atheist could like, but at the same time a religious side expressed by their seeing it as explaining how God/Creator works with no "supernatural" in between it's what is ever there for a Creator (be-it "just chemistry" or whatever some call it).

Alfred seems to be everything at the same time. An anything anyone wants sort of person. Can even say he was an Atheist. His legacy at least works for the NCSE in that he did not have a Biblical view. Yet there is his none the less religious side in hiding that very noticeably expresses itself in what happens from NCSE rubber-stamping what he said, which leads to his book for the details on all else in "evolutionary theory" all need to know about.

His religious sides makes it easy to find middle-ground strategy against the NCSE tactics to religiously use him against the ID movement. Like you indicated, he can be an Atheist, where one wants. But it's not that simple, which totally complicates any attempt to use him that way.

Alfred is Alfred. Just have to love him for who he is, even though it's probably impossible too tell what exactly that is.

Sometimes Gary types words and sentences.

Most of the time he just types.

Date: 2014/01/09 12:46:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,10:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:50)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2014,11:44)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 09 2014,11:43)

Fuck you asshole- that is exactly how they do it. Can't have a crime if the wind blew the papers out the window

Is it a crime if termites are the murders? After all termites are intelligent agents.

It could be a crime. It all depends.

I can't believe that he actually considers this a valid question.

Kevin, I get it you are a moron. Say someonme tied someone down and put something on them that termites liked. Then they put thousands of termites on tghe person and the termites killed the person.

Yes that would be a crime, dumbass.

What if the murderer used a hailstone (that is not made of water) the same size (and weight) as a baseball to bash in someone's puss-filled head in a New England parking lot while they were eating a caek containing the same amount of CSI as an aardvark?

Date: 2014/01/14 13:24:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 14 2014,08:42)
Grandmaster Chubs

Quote
Joe January 14, 2014 at 7:55 am

nightlight- I have never lost a game of chess to any computer. If you know of one that you think can beat me, please reference it and I will have a go.


Fighter pilot, Olympic power lifter, evolutionary biologist, Iraqi war hero, GA programmer, baraminologist, all in his spare time from fixing toasters. :D :D :D

Stupendous!

I find it amusing to see Joe desperately creating increasingly insulting posts at his blog hoping someone...anyone...will react with a comment.

I'm happy to say no one is.

Please...all of you...keep as ticks to watermelon and let the fun continue.

Date: 2014/01/14 13:30:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?

Date: 2014/01/15 22:32:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 15 2014,20:59)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 16 2014,09:30)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 15 2014,09:03)
Maybe Gary is just planning to annoy professors who don't know how to use Google by using an algorithm that is able to find ones that can't ask teh BIG G "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin" ?

So I tried that search and discovered 1) that this thread is only #8 (we must need to say fuck more) and 2) that there is another Gary Gaulin in Va that is a professional counselor. If ever there was a message written in the stars for our Gary.

Edited to add: Fuck.

It's #6 for me now. Fuck - it's working!

Who the fuck gives a fuck who the fuck Gary Gaulin is?

Date: 2014/01/24 22:57:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2014,21:30)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
Jesus fucking Christ Gary where is the Hopfield net?
........
........

If you must know why then after having spent the previous day drinking 4 liters of soap with no food I was soon (after writing that) hooked up to an IV drip to replace some of what I lost from dehydration then out like a light from under anesthesia while having my butt-snaked to get a couple of typical polyps. It's a welcome to your 50's routine thing that I am glad is over. Sure wish I had a Big-Mac, Whopper, Wendy's or Red Robin bacon cheeseburger or similar but at least I have good coffee that does not cause gastric distress to help wake my systems back up again.

To help explain which is what in the model I am next going to divide up the code into modules according to the paper Navigating from hippocampus to parietal cortex which will make one with a Place Cell memory I can call NetRAM, with program comment saying that a properly constructed Hopfield Network is expected to ultimately store the same environmental data. In this model place cells are directly loaded with data, according to what is at each place in the outside world. This makes cells that might have to be avoided (such as a solid to not bash into or place that delivers a shock) that are able to reflective or adsorb waves emitted by GetTo cells by setting their 6 data output bits (decimal 63) to neighbor cells whenever its 6 inputs from their data are reset, as either a one time (as in echolocation) pulse or continuous AC wave as in radio transmission where radio engineers can this way visualize RF waves going through the air while bouncing/adsorbing off solids, while MyX,MyY location cell(s) sense the waves from a certain angle we reflect, adsorb, or are transparent to.

More commas Gary. More fucking commas.

Date: 2014/01/25 00:20:05, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2014,06:07)
The best this forum can do for me is to let a couple of nutcases (who ignored what I earlier wrote) speak for them?

There should a warning label on this forum to let the reader know that real-science is not welcome here.

Real science is, and would be, most welcome here Gary. It's unfortunate that you are incapable of bringing any to the table with your childish pretensions and the inane drivel you label a "theory".

In contrast, I have performed "real-science" in this very thread by experimenting to see if adding a specific phrase to posts can increase the likelihood that your very own thread here at AtBC will appear higher in a Google search for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?"

Normally, I rarely use the f-word, employing it only when emphasis on a specific point can be made by its use. However, I have put aside my puritan preference to further the "real-science" effort begun by k.e. and Ptaylor to assist those that may wonder "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?"

For the benefit of the lead scientists, the data collected from my "real-science" experiment follows:

1. I performed an initial search for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" and, as reported by Ptaylor, it appeared in the 8th slot on the first page.

2. After demeaning myself and using the f-word multiple times in a single post, I noted several posts following mine also using the the f-word many, many times.

3. In my case, subsequent Google searches for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" has not increased the likelihood of this thread appearing higher on the list.

4. In fact, a negative effect has been noted. Now when I do a Google search for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?", it has dropped to the 9th slot on the first page.

Since I am not that familiar with how SEO operations are affected by post content, I am not in a position to draw a specific conclusion why adding the phrase "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" in posts has not raised the appearance of this thread on the results page for a Google search on "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?"

I am not concerned about the larger picture though, because the majority of links ahead of this thread in a search for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" are to threads that confirm with overwhelmingly substantial consilience the proper response to Gary's "theory".

It is apparent multiple people from multiple forums have enough exposure to Gary's folderol to understand who the fuck Gary Gaulin is, so that anyone doing a search for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" will no doubt have access to a wide array of information on "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?"

I'm not convinced further experimentation by adding "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin?" in more posts will effect the desired change, but if the other nutcases wish to continue the "real-science" taking place in thread, then I'm up for the challenge.

Date: 2014/01/25 19:05:41, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 25 2014,01:35)


 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 25 2014,00:20)


 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2014,06:07)
The best this forum can do for me is to let a couple of nutcases (who ignored what I earlier wrote) speak for them?

There should a warning label on this forum to let the reader know that real-science is not welcome here.



Real science is, and would be, most welcome here Gary. Its unfortunate that you are incapable of bringing any to the table with your childish pretensions and the inane drivel you label a theory.

In contrast, I have performed real-science in this very thread by experimenting to see if adding a specific phrase to posts can increase the likelihood that your very own thread here at AtBC will appear higher in a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Normally, I rarely use the f-word, employing it only when emphasis on a specific point can be made by its use. However, I have put aside my puritan preference to further the real-science effort begun by k.e. and Ptaylor to assist those that may wonder Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

For the benefit of the lead scientists, the data collected from my real-science experiment follows:

1. I performed an initial search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? and, as reported by Ptaylor, it appeared in the 8th slot on the first page.

2. After demeaning myself and using the f-word multiple times in a single post, I noted several posts following mine also using the f-word many, many times.

3. In my case, subsequent Google searches for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? has not increased the likelihood of this thread appearing higher on the list.

4. In fact, a negative effect has been noted. Now when I do a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?, it has dropped to the 9th slot on the first page.

Since I am not that familiar with how SEO operations are affected by post content, I am not in a position to draw a specific conclusion why adding the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? in posts has not raised the appearance of this thread on the results page for a Google search on Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

I am not concerned about the larger picture though, because the majority of links ahead of this thread in a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? are to threads that confirm with overwhelmingly substantial consilience the proper response to Garys theory.

It is apparent multiple people from multiple forums have enough exposure to Garys folderol to understand who the fuck Gary Gaulin is, so that anyone doing a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? will no doubt have access to a wide array of information on Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Im not convinced further experimentation by adding Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? in more posts will effect the desired change, but if the other nutcases wish to continue the real-science taking place in thread, then Im up for the challenge.



I have to admit that the f-bombing incident led me to finding the two top slots filled by the tracksite and self-assembly demonstration published by the NSTA, which is why I did not complain about that end of whatever it was that was going on.

Its all just nuts for scientific development. I want to bring serious scientists to the discussion but its always like a nut-house around here.

This forum proved unable to present a model that can compete with the theory that still works for me, and is only getting better with time. Were now into explaining some of the greatest scientific mysteries of them all, while armchair warriors with no practical experience at all in how intelligence works throw insult mixed questions while expecting me to be 24/7 be here entertaining all the dumb junk that gets thrown at the theory and I. Its in a way like leaving pet dogs at home that go crazy when youre gone for even a minute, and are so disturbingly excited to see you home again that they have to be shaken off your legs.

The forum slogan that invited me here, now begs for YOU to have thats any better at explain how intelligence works:



In a way, you need me, or there is nobody to argue with, while entertaining yourselves. I keep in mind that posting in this forum is sometimes what a scientific mind after work does for fun, and know some like to yank MY chain, sometimes to try getting me back home again. Its an unusual symbiosis, I try to make the best of, even though its not always easy on any of us.

Anyway, Im back to work on it! Ill next have some real-science for you, that came from the development of the theory of you know what that gives you what you asked for, and a whole lot more.



Well, this is exciting...Gary you have at long last finally decided to join in a real-science experiment by doing a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Before proceeding, I do have to warn you, Gary, there are 2 important guidelines (but not the only ones) to follow when replicating real-science experiments:
1. Make sure to you follow the controls in place so that others know you have replicated the real-science experiment faithfully.
2. Do not, under any circumstances, falsify data in your report. This is very important. Real scientists frown on this and it will lead to the offender being ostracized from the real science community.

Now, in your report of your results of your participation in this real-science experiment, you state:
 
Quote
...led me to finding the two top slots filled by the tracksite and self-assembly demonstration published by the NSTA...

I have conducted this real-science experiment numerous times and I find this result has never been achieved. I would hope that you are not reporting biased data in the hope it lessens the impact of the true result of perfoming a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

That would be truly unconscionable.

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and will believe you merely failed to follow the experiment protocol properly. Perhaps you only searched for Gary Gaulin or maybe just Who is Gary Gaulin ? Please note the real-science experiment here is to prioritize your very own AtBC thread here in a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin . The the fuck part is essential to this here real-science experiment.

You have toiled many years promoting your theory across many internet forums. My guess would be that this here AtBC thread is the longest running, most up-to-date location and the one where you have spent the most time. It would be a shame if scientists around the world doing a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin would not be directed here first and here encounter your lifes incoherent incomprehensibility in every single glorious shred. Here.

******************************************

Anyway, Im back to work on this here real-science experiment! Ill next have some "real-science" for you, that came from the development of a variable error in a new Google search this morning.

[I would again like to note that IRL, I eschew the use of the f-word. It is not one I use cavalierly.]

This being Saturday, I revert into weekend-lazy mode...too lazy to even type. So I C&Ped Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? for the Google search, including the quote and question marks.

Amazingly enough, the first, and only, result listed was to this very thread and k.e.s first mention of Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? that initiated this real-science experiment.

So, I hypothesize the reason adding Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? to posts here did not achieve the desired prioritization effect because of the quotation and question marks.

For the next round of the real-science experiment in this here thread, I have removed them from the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? repeated in my quote above here in this post and changed it to be without quotes, in bold and the question mark set off of the end of the phrase by a space, like so: Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?



k.e. - I did note your trademarking of Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin in the above post, but in the interest of furthering knowledge on just Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin in this "real-science" experiment, it was necessary to forego the "TM" to see if the Google search engine can prioritize the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin when it stands alone. My apologies.

Date: 2014/01/27 13:31:41, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 27 2014,10:46)
For your amusement, here's another bit of output. Again, based on a pattern length of 4, but this time sourced from one of Gary's posts here. Arguably, this comes closer to capturing the true Gaulinian style:
"Hours earlier I finished they controlled they controlled taking to pieces, while work on what that was already get stuck in (probably many that was already get stuck in (probably many that far so fast. If things did not to fix some public hearings did not to where I expect hypotheses are cognitively for following the made it then the made it that themselves sing all day which soon saw much travel up-north via Under pressure in a should write (what the entired weeks of aggravating an enslave been) a should have required weeks of aggravating off exhaustion owners taking all day while work on what far so fast. If things did nothing wrong in a should write (what was already getting stage just to quickly explaining the procedure required weeks of aggravating an enslave required weeks of aggravating had me under pressure in a should write (what far so fast. If thing wrong in (probably many that the ID cultural leaders would have required weeks of years old) that I was thrilled themselves sing an enslave seen not go things did not to where you rip you rip you rip you rip you rip you rip you rip you rip you rip your back, setting beated program to where explaining couraged revolution owners taking wrong in a should write (what most had me under pressure required weeks of years old) that that was supposed to pieces, which soon saw much travel up-north via Under pressure required weeks of years old) that I was already get stuck in "

What an amazing demonstration of "real-science" !!one!1!

In my opinion, the pattern length of 4 example accurately captures the entirety of the intellectual substance of Gary Gaulin's "theory" in a shorter and more comprehensible format.

Anyone searching in Google for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin would be lucky to happen upon your example for a clearer understanding of the true value of Gary's "real-science".

Comparing your example to Gary's actual output, the only differences I see are that there are too many commas and not enough "here"s there.

Date: 2014/02/04 00:14:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 03 2014,20:32)
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pdagogenturms...

Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale

Meine Nippel explodieren vor Freude

Date: 2014/02/05 00:03:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2014,22:06)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 04 2014,00:14)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 03 2014,20:32)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pdagogenturms...

Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale

Meine Nippel explodieren vor Freude

Vielleicht sollten wir einen thread fr deutschsprachige Latrinalia einrichten.

Wenn ich sagte, Sie hatten einen schnen Krper, wrdest du es gegen mich halten?

Date: 2014/02/07 19:04:49, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!

I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found this (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!

I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)

Date: 2014/02/07 21:59:53, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2014,20:10)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 07 2014,20:04)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!

I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found this (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!

I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)

Quote (DaveScot @ July 18, 2006 at 4:44 pm)
I hate to disappoint the church burnin ebola boys but I wont be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as its nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. Im going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as hes going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (its back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. Hes napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think well go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser Id shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA I kill me sometimes!


This was a classic DaveScot comment.

 
Quote
The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate


 
Quote
HAHAHA I kill me sometimes


Dave produced a few AtBC memes in that single post.

Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but Lou's Janibelle, Corporal Kate and UDOJ takedown of DaveScot was one of the most elaborate, extensive and hilarious internet larks perpetrated on someone deserving of nothing less.

It kills me sometimes.

Write that down.

[eta - Don't we owe the CBEB meme to Dave as well?]

Date: 2014/02/11 12:13:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote

16
William J Murray
February 11, 2014 at 8:43 am
So, we can say in some sense that the universe is the computer and that the so-called natural laws represent an operating system. Life would represent a program running on that operating system.

The user can act on the system in various ways they can change the physical features of the computer, alter the operating system, alter the programs running on the operating system (like, say, life) or use an interface to enter the program as it is running and do various things provided by the nature of the running program.


Date: 2014/02/17 11:50:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 25 2014,18:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 25 2014,01:35)


 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 25 2014,00:20)


 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2014,06:07)
The best this forum can do for me is to let a couple of nutcases (who ignored what I earlier wrote) speak for them?

There should a warning label on this forum to let the reader know that real-science is not welcome here.



Real science is, and would be, most welcome here Gary. Its unfortunate that you are incapable of bringing any to the table with your childish pretensions and the inane drivel you label a theory.

In contrast, I have performed real-science in this very thread by experimenting to see if adding a specific phrase to posts can increase the likelihood that your very own thread here at AtBC will appear higher in a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Normally, I rarely use the f-word, employing it only when emphasis on a specific point can be made by its use. However, I have put aside my puritan preference to further the real-science effort begun by k.e. and Ptaylor to assist those that may wonder Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

For the benefit of the lead scientists, the data collected from my real-science experiment follows:

1. I performed an initial search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? and, as reported by Ptaylor, it appeared in the 8th slot on the first page.

2. After demeaning myself and using the f-word multiple times in a single post, I noted several posts following mine also using the f-word many, many times.

3. In my case, subsequent Google searches for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? has not increased the likelihood of this thread appearing higher on the list.

4. In fact, a negative effect has been noted. Now when I do a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?, it has dropped to the 9th slot on the first page.

Since I am not that familiar with how SEO operations are affected by post content, I am not in a position to draw a specific conclusion why adding the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? in posts has not raised the appearance of this thread on the results page for a Google search on Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

I am not concerned about the larger picture though, because the majority of links ahead of this thread in a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? are to threads that confirm with overwhelmingly substantial consilience the proper response to Garys theory.

It is apparent multiple people from multiple forums have enough exposure to Garys folderol to understand who the fuck Gary Gaulin is, so that anyone doing a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? will no doubt have access to a wide array of information on Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Im not convinced further experimentation by adding Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ? in more posts will effect the desired change, but if the other nutcases wish to continue the real-science taking place in thread, then Im up for the challenge.



I have to admit that the f-bombing incident led me to finding the two top slots filled by the tracksite and self-assembly demonstration published by the NSTA, which is why I did not complain about that end of whatever it was that was going on.

Its all just nuts for scientific development. I want to bring serious scientists to the discussion but its always like a nut-house around here.

This forum proved unable to present a model that can compete with the theory that still works for me, and is only getting better with time. Were now into explaining some of the greatest scientific mysteries of them all, while armchair warriors with no practical experience at all in how intelligence works throw insult mixed questions while expecting me to be 24/7 be here entertaining all the dumb junk that gets thrown at the theory and I. Its in a way like leaving pet dogs at home that go crazy when youre gone for even a minute, and are so disturbingly excited to see you home again that they have to be shaken off your legs.

The forum slogan that invited me here, now begs for YOU to have thats any better at explain how intelligence works:



In a way, you need me, or there is nobody to argue with, while entertaining yourselves. I keep in mind that posting in this forum is sometimes what a scientific mind after work does for fun, and know some like to yank MY chain, sometimes to try getting me back home again. Its an unusual symbiosis, I try to make the best of, even though its not always easy on any of us.

Anyway, Im back to work on it! Ill next have some real-science for you, that came from the development of the theory of you know what that gives you what you asked for, and a whole lot more.



Well, this is exciting...Gary you have at long last finally decided to join in a real-science experiment by doing a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

Before proceeding, I do have to warn you, Gary, there are 2 important guidelines (but not the only ones) to follow when replicating real-science experiments:
1. Make sure to you follow the controls in place so that others know you have replicated the real-science experiment faithfully.
2. Do not, under any circumstances, falsify data in your report. This is very important. Real scientists frown on this and it will lead to the offender being ostracized from the real science community.

Now, in your report of your results of your participation in this real-science experiment, you state:
 
Quote
...led me to finding the two top slots filled by the tracksite and self-assembly demonstration published by the NSTA...

I have conducted this real-science experiment numerous times and I find this result has never been achieved. I would hope that you are not reporting biased data in the hope it lessens the impact of the true result of perfoming a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?

That would be truly unconscionable.

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and will believe you merely failed to follow the experiment protocol properly. Perhaps you only searched for Gary Gaulin or maybe just Who is Gary Gaulin ? Please note the real-science experiment here is to prioritize your very own AtBC thread here in a Google search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin . The the fuck part is essential to this here real-science experiment.

You have toiled many years promoting your theory across many internet forums. My guess would be that this here AtBC thread is the longest running, most up-to-date location and the one where you have spent the most time. It would be a shame if scientists around the world doing a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin would not be directed here first and here encounter your lifes incoherent incomprehensibility in every single glorious shred. Here.

******************************************

Anyway, Im back to work on this here real-science experiment! Ill next have some "real-science" for you, that came from the development of a variable error in a new Google search this morning.

[I would again like to note that IRL, I eschew the use of the f-word. It is not one I use cavalierly.]

This being Saturday, I revert into weekend-lazy mode...too lazy to even type. So I C&Ped Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? for the Google search, including the quote and question marks.

Amazingly enough, the first, and only, result listed was to this very thread and k.e.s first mention of Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? that initiated this real-science experiment.

So, I hypothesize the reason adding Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? to posts here did not achieve the desired prioritization effect because of the quotation and question marks.

For the next round of the real-science experiment in this here thread, I have removed them from the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin? repeated in my quote above here in this post and changed it to be without quotes, in bold and the question mark set off of the end of the phrase by a space, like so: Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin ?



k.e. - I did note your trademarking of Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin in the above post, but in the interest of furthering knowledge on just Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin in this "real-science" experiment, it was necessary to forego the "TM" to see if the Google search engine can prioritize the phrase Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin when it stands alone. My apologies.

Ive been back to work on this here real-science experiment! Ill next have some "real-science" for you.

BTW: I have been spending a wee bit of my free-time on the Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin "real-science" experiment and what I now have is already working enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be ridiculed by.

The latest update:

A search in Google for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin now results in this very thread (here) rising to the #4 slot.

More exciting is that searching for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin in both Bing! and Yahoo! returns this here AtBC thread in the #1 position.

This has to be very gratifying for Gary since anyone doing a search for Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin will likely be directed here and will be able to assess for themselves his fine work throughout these 300+ pages. Here. Here.

Date: 2014/07/22 22:25:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,20:00)
Intellectual disability linked to nerve cells that lose their 'antennae'

Did you see the apostrophes enclosing the word 'antennae' in the headline?

Did you read the quote from the PhD scientist where he says "acts as kind of antennae"?

What? Do you sit around Google searching for biology terms + insect body parts?

Do you really think this has any relevance to the piss-poor piddle you call your 'theory' or your kiddie VB program?

I think there's another Google search effort you should be doing. It's real-science too.

Date: 2014/07/23 15:03:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2014,21:40)
I also read "Cellular antennae" are now being found on other kinds of cells.

3G, 4G or LTE?

Date: 2014/07/28 01:30:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,23:37)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 25 2014,21:22)
You missed this one:      
Quote
6. A man’s body is designed to be complimentary with a woman’s body and vice versa. All of the confusion about whether same-sex relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged this obvious truth.

Write that down.

If you follow that nonsense to its logical conclusion, then anything other than penis-in-vagina is unnatural.

So...if I'm following Barry's logic correctly...since black males are designed on a grander scale in an unmentionable area, while lily-white females are often daintier in the "complimentary" [sic] location...any confusion about whether inter-racial relations are licit would be swept away in an instant if everyone acknowledged the obvious design incompatibility...yes?

Date: 2014/07/28 01:37:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ July 27 2014,22:31)
OMFG:
     
Quote
122 kairosfocusJuly 19, 2014 at 7:36 am

PS: ...
     
Quote
130 kairosfocusJuly 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm
... PS: ...
     
Quote
154 kairosfocusJuly 20, 2014 at 11:04 am

... PS: ...
     
Quote
167 kairosfocusJuly 20, 2014 at 5:21 pm

... PS: ...
     
Quote
234 kairosfocusJuly 22, 2014 at 8:43 pm

PS: ...
     
Quote
248 kairosfocusJuly 23, 2014 at 10:33 am

... PS: ...
     
Quote
267 kairosfocusJuly 24, 2014 at 4:54 am
... PS: ...
     
Quote
282 kairosfocusJuly 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm

... PS: ...
... PPS: ...
     
Quote
287 kairosfocusJuly 24, 2014 at 5:57 pm

... PS: ...
     
Quote
295 kairosfocusJuly 24, 2014 at 6:29 pm

PPS: ...
     
Quote
306 kairosfocusJuly 25, 2014 at 3:37 am

PS: ...
     
Quote
307 kairosfocusJuly 25, 2014 at 3:47 am

PPS: ...
     
Quote
308 kairosfocusJuly 25, 2014 at 3:55 am

PPPS: ...
     
Quote
325 kairosfocusJuly 26, 2014 at 1:34 am

... PS: ...
     
Quote
328 kairosfocusJuly 26, 2014 at 2:16 am

PS: ...
     
Quote
330 kairosfocusJuly 26, 2014 at 3:01 am

PPS: ...
     
Quote
332 kairosfocusJuly 26, 2014 at 3:12 am

PPPS: ...
     
Quote
336 kairosfocusJuly 26, 2014 at 4:58 am

... PS: ...
     
Quote
348 kairosfocusJuly 27, 2014 at 5:58 am

PS: ...
     
Quote
349 kairosfocusJuly 27, 2014 at 6:26 am

PPS: ...
     
Quote
350 kairosfocusJuly 27, 2014 at 6:35 am

PPPS: ...


post scriptums were less welcome at UD when they didn't come from Gordon E.Mullings      
Quote
3 jinxmchueJune 24, 2008 at 11:24 pm

And I’d draw your attention to Lenski’s usage of “P.P.S.,” “P.P.P.S” and “P.P.P.P.S.” Honestly, who but preteen girls writes like that?

I'll pay to see your post in its entirety appear at UD.

Where are all the yarny martyrs when you need them?

Date: 2014/08/06 00:10:05, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2014,14:08)
EN&V display photographs from the trip.



EN&V...Bad at math or seeing things that aren't there?

You be the judge.

Date: 2014/08/06 01:11:49, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Not that my pictures are stunning like the others on display here, but I'm posting to see if there is an herpetologist who can identify this little guy.

Caught him taking in the late afternoon sun on the return hike from the dinosaur tracks in Purgatoire Canyon, Colorado.







(No Louis...herpetologist...not urrpppetologist)

Date: 2014/08/06 01:22:26, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Also curious if someone knows what the plant below might be. Found near 11,000 feet at Blue Lake in the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness.

There were thousands of them at 10,000 feet and above in mostly open areas that tended to be wetter than surrounding areas. The pictures don't do justice to fascinating raised patterns in the leaves, which I assume help channel rainfall to center of the plant.



Date: 2014/08/06 17:10:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 06 2014,15:59)
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 06 2014,15:38)
"I drink Hydrogen Peroxide regularly, and look how I turned out. "

Bleached?

No.

Beached.

As in whale.

Date: 2014/08/06 17:13:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Don't remember where, but I remember reading a study somewhere about the neurotoxicity of H2O2 and the associated deleterious effects.

It would explain a lot of Joe's base stupidity.

Date: 2014/08/07 18:26:19, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 06 2014,15:34)
Today was Fledging Day. I'm a little sad.

Lou,

Enjoyed viewing the entire series. Nice pics and I found seeing the evolution of the chicks quite interesting.

Date: 2014/08/07 18:29:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 07 2014,02:44)
Tony, regarding your lizard, take a look at this:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/account....c_range

TWT...I wasn't able to send a PM, so:

Thanks for nailing both identifications for me.

Date: 2014/08/21 16:52:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 21 2014,15:39)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 21 2014,11:58)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 21 2014,09:29)
 
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 21 2014,16:33)
First up, Dr Moose's

Appeal to the failure of Windows 8 to improve itself.



         
Quote

"if you have information that is copied with variation and selection then you must get (as Dan Dennett p50 puts it) 'Design out of chaos without the aid of mind'."

This, I see, as the first tenet of neo-Darwinism. If this statement is true, then neo-Darwinism is very credible. If this statement is false, then neo-Darwinism is, well, wrong.

As a software developer, I would love to see software that results from a world where this statement is true. We have information. Every time a piece of data is loaded off of a hard drive, and into active memory, we have duplication. All too often we have computers making copy errors — much more so 30 years ago than today. We even have selection, it is called "operators cursing computers". Yet with these three principles plugged together, the only improvement we have seen is that the intelligent designers have worked really hard to reduce copy errors.



Stick that in your analogy pipe and smoke it, evolutionists!

Fucking software developers. (Hang on, I'm a software developer!). Tierra? Avida? Eureka? What in hell are they then, if not successfully replicated with random errors? I hope he's not really entitled to use 'Dr' - it would be twattish in the extreme to include it in a webbyname if so.

I hope he's really a moose.

A Møøse once bit my sister...

I've heard those can be pretty nasti...

Date: 2014/08/22 01:38:50, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 21 2014,20:14)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 21 2014,16:52)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 21 2014,15:39)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 21 2014,11:58)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 21 2014,09:29)
     
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 21 2014,16:33)
First up, Dr Moose's

Appeal to the failure of Windows 8 to improve itself.



             
Quote

"if you have information that is copied with variation and selection then you must get (as Dan Dennett p50 puts it) 'Design out of chaos without the aid of mind'."

This, I see, as the first tenet of neo-Darwinism. If this statement is true, then neo-Darwinism is very credible. If this statement is false, then neo-Darwinism is, well, wrong.

As a software developer, I would love to see software that results from a world where this statement is true. We have information. Every time a piece of data is loaded off of a hard drive, and into active memory, we have duplication. All too often we have computers making copy errors — much more so 30 years ago than today. We even have selection, it is called "operators cursing computers". Yet with these three principles plugged together, the only improvement we have seen is that the intelligent designers have worked really hard to reduce copy errors.



Stick that in your analogy pipe and smoke it, evolutionists!

Fucking software developers. (Hang on, I'm a software developer!). Tierra? Avida? Eureka? What in hell are they then, if not successfully replicated with random errors? I hope he's not really entitled to use 'Dr' - it would be twattish in the extreme to include it in a webbyname if so.

I hope he's really a moose.

A Møøse once bit my sister...

I've heard those can be pretty nasti...

Who trained the møøse?

Not sure, but I think those responsible have been sacked.

Date: 2014/08/22 23:58:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

     
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
    
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

Date: 2014/08/23 00:14:09, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,22:02)
http://humanevents.com/2014.......0755688

I notice that Robert Marks II showed up in the comments to say:

     
Quote
2. In the comments about my column in Human Events, addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-ID clichés. Such shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate.


Speaking of "addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-[Evolution] clichés" and that "shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate."...I sorely wish someone would welcome the return of Galapagos Finch by linking to ERV's post below:

How not to blog anonymously: Robert Marks

(I don't have any of the prerequisite commenting profiles, but I may have to create one just for this. I feel Oleg's discovery should be noted.)

Date: 2014/08/23 00:20:02, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,23:13)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Aug. 22 2014,23:58)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 22 2014,20:13)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2014,03:08)
There are a couple of new threads ready for your enjoyment!

http://humanevents.com/2014.......0688954

Anyone in this forum know someone named Dr. GS Hurd?

http://humanevents.com/2014.......2305646

Thanks for the tip-off!

You can't mean this ...?

         
Quote
Robert Dekko  Gary Gaulin • a day ago
I studied your theory in quite a great amount of detail. From your word soup of terrible descriptions to your inaccurate portrayal of matter, behavior and intelligence to your absurd self-aggrandizement, your theory is bunk.




No...I think he means this one.
        
Quote
Timothy Horton  Gary Gaulin • 2 days ago
GaGa, you've got an almost 400 page thread over at ATBC where your brain dead stupidity has been beaten into a fine pink mist. But I suppose you're not happy until you soil yet another discussion with your mental feces.

Thanks for the link Gary, I did enjoy that.

You're very welcome. It's important to excessively boost the confidence of the ones being led off the edge and into scientific oblivion by those who comfort you by holding your hand all the way to the rock-bottom.

I gave you fair warning. Choice is yours.

I'm not too worried.

Though some may fall from a high edge, the enormously swelled head of one Gary Gaulin, long since dashed on the rocks of scientific oblivion below, will cushion them well.

Date: 2014/08/23 00:22:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Cross-posted from the GaGa thread:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 22 2014,22:02)
http://humanevents.com/2014.......0755688

I notice that Robert Marks II showed up in the comments to say:

       
Quote
2. In the comments about my column in Human Events, addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-ID clichés. Such shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate.


Speaking of "addressing the contents of the book would be more fruitful than name calling, throwing zingers or repeating tired old anti-[Evolution] clichés" and that "shallow exchanges are typically done by those lacking the intellectual capacity to engage in intelligent debate."...I sorely wish someone would welcome the return of Galapagos Finch by linking to ERV's post below:

How not to blog anonymously: Robert Marks

(I don't have any of the prerequisite commenting profiles, but I may have to create one just for this. I feel Oleg's discovery should be noted.)

Date: 2014/09/03 16:51:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 03 2014,15:10)
Corny Hunter posts something ordinary about cytoskeleton evolution, leading BatShit77 to post comments involving: Roger Penrose, entropy, deep time, information theory, Behe, death, gravity, Boltzmann, Planck's Christian Theism, C.S. Lewis, Romans 8:20-21, black holes, the quantum Zeno effect, the Shroud of Turin, Quantum Holograms, and multiple bacterial flagella.

He's like a Creationist Energizer Bunny gone berserk.

linky

Nice cataloging of BS77 irrelevancy...I admire your ability to trudge through it...but why is this any different than his usual scroll-wheel debilitating replies of C&P boilerplate that he's posted for years?

I'm sure it's the same old shit everyone knows he posts again and again and again. He should just use your keyword compilation above. It would be much quicker and someone might actually stop and read it.

Did he mention it was off-topic?

(BTW - Did you ever learn to chop onions efficiently?)

Date: 2014/10/05 18:09:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 05 2014,15:03)
Now, is that pronounced "Arr-rington" or "Air-rington"?

Err-ington?

Erring-a-ton?



Date: 2014/10/16 10:10:51, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
[quote=GaryGaulin,Oct. 16 2014,07:08]    
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 15 2014,21:42)
...
It is just the expected outcome of the loss of credibility I often spoke about.
...

Happily for you Gary, you've lost no credibility at all.

One cannot lose something they never had.

Sadly, there was a time you had 20 years of your life ahead of you to spend doing something financially worthwhile and socially rewarding.

Instead, you wasted it on your incoherent, insignificant and ignored "theory" along with a worthless adolescent VB program.

You probably have a few years left...try to use them meaningfully.

Date: 2014/10/21 22:24:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2014,14:52)
OMG, GET ON THIS JOE:

Cat eats watermelon

Joe could start by contacting Crispin Glover.

Date: 2014/10/22 00:06:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Oct. 21 2014,21:28)
         
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Oct. 21 2014,22:24)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2014,14:52)
OMG, GET ON THIS JOE:

Cat eats watermelon

Joe could start by contacting Crispin Glover.

Start what?

Why, start expanding on your ground-breaking research into the varied living entities that eat watermelon, of course.

While I'm sure your fingers are swollen and puss pus filled from your many replies, you are spending a fair amount of time here, so could you please take time to reply to some unanswered questions stemming from a blog post of yours with a scientific impact factor equal to that of Gary Gaulin's output?

           
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,12:00)

measuring information/ specified complexity


Was the CSI you measured in your example contained in :
1. the word "aardvark",
2. the definition of that word,
3. or in an actual aardvark?

Is there more CSI if the definition is in French? German? Czech?

What's the CSI in ASL, GI Joe? Is it different from the CSI in English? Why, or why not?

Does a bigger aardvark have more CSI than a smaller one?

How about age? Does the age of the aardvark affect CSI?

What if one's just eaten a big pile of ants, and another hasn't eaten in 3 days? How much more CSI is in the full one?

What if we freeze the aardvark?

What if we then thaw the frozen aardvark and bake it into a caek?

If the aardvark is compressed into a sphere with a diameter of 42.67 millimeters and weighs in at 45.93 grams is it the same size as a golf ball and can it float?

Date: 2014/10/23 11:11:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 23 2014,01:50)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 22 2014,22:13)
I normally just ask for an opinion, somewhat like that. It might be a good idea, maybe.

Go for it. What have you got to lose? You could even ask arrington, gordo mullings (kairosfocus), or v.j. torley to devote a thread to examining/reviewing your 'theory'. I would think that the IDers there should be very interested in every version of ID 'theory', so I don't see any legitimate reason for them turning you down.

Gary will never post his "theory" at UD.

His attention whore disorder attributes being rejected by "bullies" a form of confirmation he is correct. That's why he only posts in real-science real science forums.

Being rejected by the ID community Gary supposedly belongs to would shatter the overblown image he has of himself, at long last rendering his pathetic life utterly meaningless. He would then have to face the undeniable truth he has wasted decades of time on worthless, soon-to-be-forgotten crap.

It would be more than he could handle.

Date: 2014/12/28 16:59:48, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 26 2014,05:15)
...I badly needed at least a few hours of sleep before being able to properly form sentences.

By this metric, you needed at least a few days months years of sleep while composing your "Theory(sic) of Intelligent Design", not to mention most anything you type and post

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 26 2014,05:15)
...before fussing with it even more made it even worse!

And clearly, you never cease fussing with your precious piffle much the same way.

Date: 2014/12/28 17:07:47, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 26 2014,05:15)
Instead of having it posted here by midnight (so I could finally get some sleep) I was still working on it past 7 AM in the morning. And I also had to be at my dad's house at noontime for the Christmas Day celebration!

It is incredibly sad you spent Christmas Eve and Christmas Morning creating yet more useless, worthless and irrelevant drivel rather than embracing the holiday and family.

Pathetic really.

Date: 2015/01/06 20:29:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 06 2015,18:00)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 06 2015,17:15)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2015,00:55)
Make that 350mV. I have to stop rushing!

Tedious and banal.

GG will probably think. you're referring to a law firm.

But probably not.

Date: 2015/01/06 20:39:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2014,03:29)
My dental problems are causing me serious agony today, and I'm in no mood for the usual shit from the psychos who enjoy making me suffer.

Gary, as you've frittered away years of your life on an inconsequential, insignificant "theory" in deference to your health, family and work, you alone are the main culprit behind your suffering, dental or otherwise.

You seem to enjoy it.

The 425 pages of evidence at hand strongly suggests you are psycho.

Therefore, you are in no mood for taking shit from yourself.

But here you are...

Date: 2015/02/18 16:31:26, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2015,15:27)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,16:24)
 
Quote
From encryption to vapour tracers. Of course, it makes perfect sense.


It does if you knew the money involved...

I have a reasonable estimation of what your home is worth, Joe. So, don't even.

How much do cardboard structures in corners of New England parking lots go for these days?

Date: 2015/02/18 16:36:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,15:18)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2015,15:40)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,15:33)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2015,15:28)
Joe, what years did you work on encryption and for what service?

1990s- Technical Communication Corp

1990s, you say? Hmmm.

http://forums.anandtech.com/archive....45.html

Yes dumbass, the 1990s, for the ENCRYPTION company.

In 2004, March 2004, I was in Iraq with the vapor tracers and the military. The picture TWiT found was taken at Camp Anaconda, near Balad, Iraq.

Didn't you deny that puss-face picture was you?

Date: 2015/02/18 16:46:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,15:38)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 18 2015,16:36)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,15:18)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2015,15:40)
         
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,15:33)
         
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2015,15:28)
Joe, what years did you work on encryption and for what service?

1990s- Technical Communication Corp

1990s, you say? Hmmm.

http://forums.anandtech.com/archive....45.html

Yes dumbass, the 1990s, for the ENCRYPTION company.

In 2004, March 2004, I was in Iraq with the vapor tracers and the military. The picture TWiT found was taken at Camp Anaconda, near Balad, Iraq.

Didn't you deny that puss-face picture was you?

I did NOT say it was a picture of me, asswipe. Learn how to read.

Did I say it was you?

Did I say you said it was you?

I asked if you had denied it was a picture of you?

Perhaps you are the one that needs to learn how to read, puss-face.

Date: 2015/02/18 17:39:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Joe at UD:

   
Quote

63
JoeFebruary 18, 2015 at 4:50 pm
There isn’t any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O.


So hail is not water, H2O is not water, and a molecule of water is not water.

Got that? Write that down.

I love it so.

Date: 2015/02/18 18:57:44, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,16:55)
     
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 18 2015,17:39)
Joe at UD:

           
Quote

63
JoeFebruary 18, 2015 at 4:50 pm
There isn’t any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O.


So hail is not water, H2O is not water, and a molecule of water is not water.

Got that? Write that down.

I love it so.

Water has a tensile strength that a singular water molecule does not have. Ice has a different molecular matrix than water does.

A 24" steel beam has a tensile strength a 12" steel beam doesn't have.
 
So the 12" beam must not be steel?

What else you got that differentiates a molecule of "water" from water?

Date: 2015/02/18 19:14:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,17:14)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 18 2015,17:39)
Joe at UD:

       
Quote

63
JoeFebruary 18, 2015 at 4:50 pm
There isn’t any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O.


So hail is not water, H2O is not water, and a molecule of water is not water.

Got that? Write that down.

I love it so.

Surface tension- water has that- what is the surface tension of one molecule of H2O?


You say there is no such thing as a water molecule, but don't you need one before you can have two, three, four,...many?

How many "water" molecules do you need before you have enough surface tension to make water?

If a bucket of water has a surface tension that a cup of water doesn't have, is it not really a cup of water?

Date: 2015/03/15 12:15:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
In a back-and-forth about violent deaths and who is most responsible, De-News interjects:

     
Quote
15
NewsMarch 15, 2015 at 9:56 am
Zachriel at 1: There may not be a decline in violent deaths so much as a decline in reporting. If the deaths of no-longer-wanted women, unborn children, identified gays, enemies of the people are not counted – well, how DOES one do the stats anyway?


Perhaps she should visit Christian Life Resources where she will find that 72.5% of women receiving abortions report a religious affiliation. Only 27.5% report no religious affiliation and I would bet a few of those are too guilty to admit they do have an affiliation.

Date: 2015/03/15 12:34:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 14 2015,21:42)
Although I have to avoid getting others stuck in the mudfight going on here in this thread, in the real world where the best around exchange ideas needed to stay current in what is known about how "intelligence" works my models and theory are such a scientific noncontroversy I was honorably nominated (by one of the most knowledgeable and respected in the forum) to help moderate the Kurzweil AI forum:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-668886

As in the topic for an exceptional Lady Gaga performance that seemed too off-topic for the forum, I sometimes know what is needed to lead to entertaining science fun that that time needed information on Ray Kurweil's music related interests to help keep such a thread on-topic. I do not have much free time to moderate, but on occasion I do help in that regard.

Claims of my ideas being rejected hide the fact that experienced scientists in relevant fields find them to be no controversy at all. IBM and other creators of machine intelligence are not at all threatened, modern systems have the expected guess mechanism and other systematics required to qualify as intelligence. The Google brain can now make a "best guess" for selecting videos so where the "intelligence" science is really at all is still actually going very well. That level of help settling the semantic "best" or "good" guess issue I have to welcome the change from science itself that make my theory writing life easier. Small changes added up to what I have been explaining becoming a scientific reality, which could just be by others finding out the same as I did about the features of "intelligence" on their own without me, but either way the models and theory withstood the already decades long test of time and became scientific reality.

It seemed that CNOT would not mind my appreciatively mentioning their nomination in this anti-ID forum where how intelligence works is so poorly understood it (from a moderating perspective) scientifically deserves the torment, from my being here.

That's hilarious.

You think because some random, anonymous person on a fringe forum mentioned (not "honorably nominated") you as a possible moderator confers acceptance of your piddly little toy VB program and your not-even-wrong, pretend "theory"? No one else in said forum even took notice or repeated your name as a possibility.

And you claim as your breakthrough moment on said forum an off-topic post about Lady GaGa?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...ROFLMFA...clearly this proves you are moving up in the world...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...make it stop.

Why don't you give CNOT a link back to this thread so he can see how brilliant and under appreciated you really are?

Date: 2015/03/15 12:41:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
I did notice how well received you were at Uncommon Descent.

After they ignored you, your comments, your "theory" and your wonderful kiddie animation, I see you have returned to AtBC for attention.

I assume for you unfavorable and disagreeable recognition is better than none at all. No wonder you always come back.

Date: 2015/03/15 13:24:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Back at Kurzweil AI forum, which according to the esteemed Gary S. Gaulin is "the real world where the best around exchange ideas needed to stay current in what is known about how "intelligence" works my models and theory are such a scientific noncontroversy" and where Gary states that "Claims of my ideas being rejected hide the fact that experienced scientists in relevant fields find them to be no controversy at all.", one can find an in depth review of Gary's "theory" by a relevant-field, experienced scientist by the name of Quotetheraving.

Quotetheraving's ending summary proves yet another FAIL and lie from Gary:
 
Quote
You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice.
To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.

Date: 2015/03/24 22:44:48, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 24 2015,21:19)
Blake is one of my favorite poets, but he seems to have been batshit crazy. Favorite example of that is this:

 
Quote
AND did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.


Sounds like British Mormonism.

Put to a great tune, it seems to be the British equivalent of America the Beautiful and Battle Hymn of the Republic mushed together. If you watch BBC costume dramas, you hear it several times a day.

My favorite rendition (of course):

http://youtu.be/rGEeLtq....LtqtNvU

Bit far in for the start (2:51) with the grand finale begins at 3:46.

Date: 2015/03/26 22:31:03, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 26 2015,21:23)
Re "Slow and steady eats the donut."

Might be a hole in the middle of that theory...

Well, duh...

A-hole named JoeG.

Date: 2015/03/31 14:47:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 30 2015,16:20)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 30 2015,15:02)
And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job.

Credit where it's due, AB.  ID has also discovered:

- the largest known number;
- vegan ticks;
- ice is not water;
- the stars in the rest of the universe stop the planets from falling into the sun;
- the amount of CSI in caek and aardvarks;
- and of course, frequency = wavelength.

Admittedly, that's all just Joe.  But his laboratoryshed is the only ID research facility to have produced anything.

Don't forget these discoveries:

- a baseball and an hailstone (not made of ice) that have the exact same dimensions are NOT the same size (with the corollary that a piece of granite can NEVER be the same size as a baseball)

- the "s" on JoeG's keyboard sticks only when typing the word "puss"

- that in chemistry "mole" is shorthand for "molecule"

- a picture of a "nasty vagina" is NOT porn

Date: 2015/03/31 16:50:26, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 31 2015,14:15)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 31 2015,15:47)
- that in chemistry "mole" is shorthand for "molecule"

hold on--did anybody actually claim that ever?

Ahhh...while you were out recovering from tardaddiction, you must have missed yet another epic scientific pronouncement from JoeG...that a mole of H2O is not water. Or something along that line...

I could find it, but clicking on a user name no longer brings up a list of their posts. Is there a way to search AtBC for posts by a specific user? I miss that function, particularly when looking for some of Louis' retorts.

Date: 2015/03/31 19:09:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 31 2015,14:15)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 31 2015,15:47)
- that in chemistry "mole" is shorthand for "molecule"

hold on--did anybody actually claim that ever?


Not exactly, but close enough:

   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 06 2012,18:51)
     
Quote
There is only one definition of 'mole' that pertains to chemistry. sigh...


Yes, I know- what I didn't know is if you were using some sort of shorthand for "molecule"


Need some lulz?

Read on for a few pages more from OgreMkV's link above.

Date: 2015/04/07 10:51:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (The whole truth @ April 07 2015,00:03)
Make hotel reservations and start packing your bags. Attending this "Scientific" conference is a must for anyone who wants to follow "The Truth, Wherever It Leads".

http://www.uncommondescent.com/neurosc....omments


ETA: At the conference circle jerk, there will be a:

"2:00 PM Panel Discussion with Responders: William Dembski, Ph.D (Discovery Institute), Fazale Rana, Ph.D. (Reasons to Believe), and Joel Chan, Ph.D. (Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University)"  (bolding in original)

http://www.christianscientific.org/details....tsburgh

I'd contribute to a GoFundMe program to send Wesley or someone to the Panel "Discussion" for Dembsi to "respond" to.

Date: 2015/04/21 22:32:53, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
I know there are more than a few here at AtBC that fondle the guitar with much delight. I don't know how many are acoustic finger pickers.

I am...and I just learned of the recent passing of one of my main idols.

The world has lost a guitar genius without parallel.

I was privileged enough to attend a guitar camp he headlined, spending 2 2-hour private sessions learning from him. Oh...and share a bottle of "fantastic" Glenmorangie Highland over dinner after meeting back up with him at Denver concert years later.

John Renbourn - NY Times

John Renbourn - The Gaurdian

John and Bert were the guitarists I wanted to be. I would also thank them for introducing me to the music of Mingus and Monk.

Date: 2015/04/23 13:15:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2015,10:57)
Comments off, of course:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism....nablers

He never addresses the "why do you keep outing yourself?" issue.

Someone should ask if outing a person is objectively wrong in all instances.

IIRC, GEM of TIKI believed exposing Mathgrrl was not wrong.

BTW, I have been visiting UD via PTaylor's suggestion of DoNotLink.com to avoid giving them hits. I wonder if you can comment without adding to their visit count in any way.

http://www.donotlink.com/framed?....?580511

Date: 2015/04/23 13:31:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2015,15:32)
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.

I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Gary, you are a documented liar when it comes to your claims about outside reviews pertaining to the monument of a wasted life you label your real-science "theory".

A little trip down memory lane:

 
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2013,03:16)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,05:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

Let's see what Gary describes as 'doing very well'

     
Quote
I am looking for honest unbiased opinon (informal peer-review) of the following theory......blah....blah...


     
Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


     
Quote
Just perusing through the paper so far, I might read the entire thing at some point, I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected:


     
Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


     
Quote
Two words: Bull shit.


     
Quote
It's a hypothesis at best. A theory requires evidence, experiments to support your hypothesis.


     
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.


     
Quote
I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!


     
Quote
I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.


....and that's all within two pages.

Gary, if that's an example of your theory doing 'very well' I'd hate to see it take a beating. (Incidentally it'll come as no surprise that Gary drags the Stalin trope out as soon as he can.)

Of further note...(I'm sounding like Batsh^t_77, here) Gary says....

     
Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design is halfway between science and religion, where they interface. Only have to make it scientifically coherent in order to bridge the gap.


Oh, Gary.


 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 04 2013,16:11)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

If I interpret GG correctly...which, given his utter failure to recognize intelligent use of the English language, is not certain...he has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 4 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary (which he will avoid answering, of course):

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science?

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, and has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes spanning a couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...4 comments over 2 months is doing well and constitutes a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? It's been over 2 months since Wes' post with none following his by anyone?

Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

� � � � � �    
Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really


Maybe it's just me, but I would not consider that to be an endorsement that your pathetic little VB bug models intelligence in the real world or makes a scientific contribution in any way whatsoever.

So...essentially, your post I quoted above is one big, fat, exaggerated lie.

The only semblance of a true statement in your quote is that "A number of them studied it,..." since 3 people (including Wes) read through your heap of parrot droppings.

Yes, in one small instance you were correct...3 is a number.

Congratulations.


Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2015,20:46)
According to Gary,      
Quote
That is from an overall constructive discussion (which over three years ago ended) from the first topic I ever posted in that forum!  

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....t-31405

It's an example of what happens when my IDeas are not battled using "wretched arguments in enormous, repetitive, voluminosity, as seen in this thread..."

At the Kurzweil AI forum the theory issue is now ancient history. The regular members understand what I was saying as it pertains to cognitive science and biology. Forum staff do not mind the computer models and other things that came out of discussion. I help show how valuable of a service they are to someone like me.
 

Well, that certainly seems to put us in our place.  Guaranteed experts generally understood his points and did not object, and a good and productive conversation was had by all.  But wait, this is Gary talking!  Have we learned that Gary is always careful and never makes false assertions, or is there just occasionally, just once in a while, a little tiny gap, barely noticeable really, between Gary and reality as everyone else knows it?  Aw heck, I'm almost starting to feel guilty about checking up on whatever he says.........

So, following Tony's fine example, let's distill that Kurzweil thread for the essence of various people's opinions about Gary's ideas:

Provoketur:          
Quote

lie more and continue to ignore anyone that makes concrete observations.

Its like having a discussion with redq. hardly worth the effort.




Quotheraving:          
Quote
There's so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin so I'll pick each apart in the order they appear. .... This displays either a complete misunderstanding of what intelligence implies or worse an attempt at redefinition of terms. In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white.

This not only fails to "operationally define intelligence" but also manages to be a tautology and so vague as to be essentially meaningless.  All you do is state the obvious (intelligence producing algorithms allow electronic intelligence) and offer this up as though it were proof that a constituents behaviour explains the behaviour of the whole which is not only no kind of support for your later argument but is patently false. There are numerous examples of systems where their behaviour arises as an emergent property at a certain scale rather than as an inherent property at all scales.

You are mixing things up.  Traditional 'religious' Intelligent design only requires that complex organisms be the result of an intelligent creator. Your 'theory' which you term intelligent design however argues that intelligence is an innate property existing at all scales and that each higher strata is produced as a result of intelligent behaviour of the strata below.  For this to be called intelligent design you must first show that the behaviour of lower scales is actually intelligent (capable of choosing a better course of action from a range of less favorable responses) and that the higher levels are designed (made intentionally) you manage neither.
........................

Non random implies order which implies rules, it does not imply intelligence.  Stating that ordered behaviour at the atomic behaviour allows for further complexity of behaviour at the molecular layer is nothing more than stating the obvious, calling this intelligence rather than simply complex behaviour however is a mistake.

............................

Again you ascribe purpose to selection displaying a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Yes the genome is the end result of previous iterations of mutation which were each a succesful adaptation, but it does not therefore constitute true memory, the ability to consciously choose between options, let alone the ability to model the environment

...........................


You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice.  To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.



................................

My point is that each scale is different and that this difference renders the term intelligence inapplicable and the entire basis for his argument moot  Not to mention it completely fails at it's claim to show an alternative to natural selection.   So less troll food and more wild unsupported claims and a poor choice of name.


....................

I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!
Though first you should clearly define your terms and provide a strong and logically sound argument with pertinent evidence as support.  However you haven't provided any real evidence, and certainly nothing that would convince anyone with a passing familiarity in highschool level science.
You do however build an argument resting on unsupported claims, misapplied terms and stating the obvious as though it supported your argument when it doesn't. Ultimately producing what amounts to little more than an exercise in sophistry.



           
Quote
Gary:  Or in other words you demand a unscientific explanation that does not follow any known scientific laws/theories, so that you continue to believe that a scientific explanation is unscientific.


No, quite the opposite really.  I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.

Handwaving away fundamental problems does not make your essential premise any more sound, nor any less an exercise in semantics rather than science.


..........................

However this goes far beyond poor use of language.  It begins with messy semantics, generating confusion by shifting between levels that should be considered on their own virtues and described by reference to their own particular behaviours, then uses the resultant confusions to support conclusions that are laughably and patently false. Which is why I consider this argument specious... it's nearly a textbook example of sophistry.


............................

Your language here is mangled, but even when corrected (ironically by a "best guess") your idea has obviously confused levels of abstraction. ...........You have erected a straw man, namely that some "atheistic contamination of science" relies on a false idea (that being the randomness of chemical reactions) to support their anti-ID anti-Creationist worldview, but nothing could be further from the truth.
With all due respect, and apologies if I have gotten something basically wrong, but If even a crackpot like me can come along and without much trouble DESTROY your silly thinking (or knowing propaganda, if you are that cynical), what chance do you think you stand against real scientists? The thought that you want to contaminate science with this crap, and that you think science is currently contaminated by opposite notions, is troubling to me.




EyeOrderChaos:          
Quote
 Deepak Chopra has been churning out this kind of stuff too  ...........
I think it's obvious that they are thoughts about human bias, motivations, comfort levels; I think it's obvious how it pertains to the subject; I think it's obvious that you want to appear to be trying, begging, pleading to keep the debate here in the realm of science but sir we are not even close to science yet, starting with your submission.



................................

The consensus so far is that you are not being logically coherent in your use, your intended application, of the word "intelligence", and in your assertions of what the scientific consensus is regarding random versus nonrandom behaviors of various configurations of matter. I would agree with these criticicms. However, don't let any of that discourage you, how to arrive at an operational definition of intelligence is not without controversy, I think, and if you think you are really on to something why not keep pluggin away at it? Also, why not learn from the criticisms while youre at it?. To be honest though, I don't think you have the makings of a good theory, because your definition of intelligence involves a tautology, an ontological indeterminism: "It's intelligent because it's purposeful because it's optimized for the environment because it's designed because it's purposeful because it's intelligent". Plus, I don't think your understanding of what randomness is and isn't and what it does and does not import to the "design" arguments is very good.



Field Man:          
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.



{i}Pan:          
Quote
 The VERY FACT that you are doing your utmost to evade and dodge these questions makes EVERYTHING you do from this point SUSPICIOUS.  The FACT that you are doing everything you can to slide past these direct and simple questions shows that you are not being honest.


Yessiree Bob, ringing endorsements, every last one of them.

Date: 2015/04/23 18:42:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
     
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

Date: 2015/04/23 19:17:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,17:51)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,18:42)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
               
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

And the tales grow taller on down the line.

It's sad how nutcase junk like this just goes with the science territory I'm in.

Tell us Gary...where is the tale I tell?

Everything I have said or pointed out is true and you are incapable of showing otherwise.

Tell us Gary...what science territory are you in?

By all accounts, everywhere you have introduced your "real-science" it has been judged as absolutely lacking in any science. It has been repeatedly demonstrated you know little, if any, science.

As a matter of fact, in the quoted text above, people you yourself have identified as "cognitive science experts" have pointed out that:

"a coherent logical argument [is] supported by pertinent evidence and [is] ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order to [be] viewed as a scientific theory... You [Gary] singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific."

and

"you're not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really"

Rather than avoiding reality and simply mudslinging empty words as you have just done, show me to be incorrect.

Date: 2015/04/23 19:23:04, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,17:51)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,18:42)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,16:35)
           
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,13:31)
I'm calling "Bullshit!"

Yes I can see the giant pile of manure you just dumped on this thread.

I'm sure your fellow mud-slingers will be proud of the stench.

Sorry Gary, it is not manure, and it is not mudslinging, simply documented proof of your exaggerated lies lest anyone be deceived by your pathetic, idiotic claims of positive reviews.

What is a steaming pile of shite is the 40+ pages you call a "theory" that you have crapped all over the internet and that has been flushed away everywhere you go.

The only stench here is the overpowering reek of rejection that follows you wherever you go.

And the tales grow taller on down the line.

It's sad how nutcase junk like this just goes with the science territory I'm in.

BTW, this all started with a very tall tale from you:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2015,15:32)
The description for the grid model currently at Planet Source Code was before hand reviewed by Edvard Moser and other experts in the field. And I plan to keep it that way.


So show us where Edvard Moser has ever reviewed anything you have produced.

Date: 2015/04/23 23:20:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2015,19:02)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 23 2015,19:23)
So show us where Edvard Moser has ever reviewed anything you have produced.

I sent him an email. He sent an encouraging email back.

And that was before he became a Nobel winner, not after.

As has been previously documented, you have a penchant to exaggerate and lie about "reviews" of your "theory".

You are delusional to think we would believe another tall tale like this. But then you are delusional across the board.

I very much doubt Edvard Moser or any other expert in the field reviewed your description of a grid model.

Wait...I apologize...there was at least one expert in the field who slogged through your twaddle...Wesley Elsberry.

What were his thoughts on your "real-science theory" again?

Date: 2015/04/24 13:23:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 24 2015,12:02)
Nobel Laureates are notoriously susceptible to woo outside their specialty. Pauling on vitamin C, Shockley on IQ.

There's a web page somewhere listing several dozen similar examples.

True enough.

In this instance however, we have:

A. Edvard Moser (along with other experts) reviewed Gary's "description" of Gary's grid model and was impressed enough to send back an encouraging email.

B. Any one of a million other scenarios.

C. Delusional, pretend "real-science" scientist Gary S. Gaulin is making shit up once again.

I don't personally know Edvard or what woo he might be susceptible to, but I'm quite certain which choice above is most probable.

Date: 2015/04/24 14:11:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
75
Don Pedro [aka Piotr]April 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm
And we are still waiting for Kairosfocus to define FSCO/I and clarify how it is related to “active information”. A computable metric would be better than an intuitive criterion such as “Methinks it’s like a fishing reel.”


Well...the nerve of some people!

Date: 2015/04/25 19:51:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2015,16:56)
Here is an enlightening UD article about the cyber bullies who now gladly represent the academic scientific community in all public relations matters that have religious implications:
FYI-FTR: A headlined notice/response to abusive new atheists and their enablers

That's nice, but I'm not bullying you.

I am simply holding you accountable to specific claims you have made that are clearly untrue.

So please, look over this quoted claim of yours from 2 years ago and answer the questions that follow. You have never owned up to this false claim by answering the questions. You routinely make similar claims of positive reviews of your "real-science" "theory". From now on they will be examined and exposed for the untruthful exaggeration they are.

***********************

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.


Gary has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 3 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary:

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science as you demand? (Remember, that is the criteria you yourself established as necessary for evaluations your "theory".)

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes, and spans a mere couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...how does 4 comments over 2 months constitute doing well and over a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any recognizable merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? In over 2 months since Wes' post, why has no one else commented? (Maybe they were surprised to find out more about your "theory"?

5. Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

     
Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really



How does this comment from the primary responder exhibit "doing well" for your theory?

Date: 2015/04/26 00:43:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2015,19:54)
     
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 25 2015,19:51)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2015,16:56)
Here is an enlightening UD article about the cyber bullies who now gladly represent the academic scientific community in all public relations matters that have religious implications:
FYI-FTR: A headlined notice/response to abusive new atheists and their enablers

That's nice, but I'm not bullying you.

I am simply holding you accountable to specific claims you have made that are clearly untrue.

So please, look over this quoted claim of yours from 2 years ago and answer the questions that follow. You have never owned up to this false claim by answering the questions. You routinely make similar claims of positive reviews of your "real-science" "theory". From now on they will be examined and exposed for the untruthful exaggeration they are.

***********************

             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,22:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.


Gary has provided a link to a forum he believes exemplifies "how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present."

Let's examine that link:

The forum entry was started 2 months ago.

There are 4 "voices" providing 10 posted comments. Gary is obviously one of the posters. As Gary notes, Wes is another. Gary is the source for 5 of the comments, while Wes contributes 1.

The other 4 comments are provided by asimov1 with 3 and Mnemomem with 1.

Questions for Gary:

1. Who are asimov1 and Mnemomeme and what book(s) have they written and/or what cognitive systems have they developed which make them experts in the field of cognitive science as you demand? (Remember, that is the criteria you yourself established as necessary for evaluations your "theory".)

2. How does a forum entry that is only 2 months old, has only 4 replies from only 2 people outside of yourself and Wes, and spans a mere couple of weeks, show that the "other forum has long known about [your] theory writing project"? Seriously...how does 4 comments over 2 months constitute doing well and over a long time?

3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

4. If things were going "very well" for you in that forum and if your so-called "theory" had any recognizable merit, why were there not more cognitive science experts commenting on your work? Why haven't you continued to post? In over 2 months since Wes' post, why has no one else commented? (Maybe they were surprised to find out more about your "theory"?

5. Now, let's also look at the post from asimov1 immediately preceding Wes' for an example of the reception Gary's drivel received from a "cognitive science expert" (my bolding):

             
Quote
Most AI is virtual, it lives in a digital universe , it is physically embedded in that universe. Whenever the AI is thinking or doing something that virtual universe slows down or stops altogether, the flow of time has ceased....if you get me...now this is way different from reality isn't it !

My thoughts

If thats what your creating then your not really creating AI that would be fit for our universe, just fit for the Matrix you created for it to live in, that Matrix like universe has completely different laws of physics to ours ( and other matrix like universes ), prolly less dimensions, heck even time works in a very different way !....to a certain extent your learning to do the wrong thing in the wrong kind of universe. your not really advancing AI or your understanding of it at all, not really



How does this comment from the primary responder exhibit "doing well" for your theory?

Your tactics that attempt to make me appear to be a liar are expected from a smear campaign where those involved quote each other in order to make the tall tales grow even taller with time.

I have nothing to own up to. And I am not going to be conned into making it appear that I need to answer to you and the other defamatory creeps in your network.

You accuse me of telling tall tales...without stating what they are and without providing any evidence.

You accuse me of making defamatory statements...without stating what they are and without providing any evidence.

How dare you accuse anyone of mudslinging and smear campaigns when you are more guilty of empty defamation than anyone here.

I have quoted people you identified as "cognitive science experts", not anyone in some imaginary network I belong to, from a site you linked to and where you claim your "theory" has long been known and is doing well.

The evidence provided from following your link shows your statement to be less than true.

It is possible your abuse of the English language may have led to misinterpretation. If that is the case, answer the questions and/or try to explain in your communication-challenged manner what you really meant by your words. If I'm wrong, I'll own up to it.

True, you don't have to own up to your words, but you don't get to make false claims and expect to not be held accountable. It's not like you have any credibility to lose with anyone you reads this thread.

Date: 2015/04/26 01:13:57, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2015,20:14)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ April 25 2015,19:51)
3. How do you know Wes' post did not surprise them since there are no posts after that from which to draw any such conclusion?

I must though mention that for me the three way discussion was very scientifically valuable. Long after it was over Wesley bumped the thread, but oh well.

I guess since 2 months provided enough passage of time for your "theory" to be "long known" per your words, it is conceivable in your mind that Wesley's thread bump coming a week after yours was "long after it was over".

However, as one of the astute members of your very scientifically valuable three-way discussion said of your "theory", "now this is way different from reality isn't it !"

Date: 2015/04/26 17:47:47, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2015,16:34)
         
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 26 2015,17:22)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2015,17:12)
A theory is an explanation for how something works.

Period...

That doesn't even match the definition you just quoted.  You really are just impotently flailing about aren't you?

Wikipedia is known for favoring what the anti-ID movement wants for embellishments, which in turn end up part of NSTA policy and definitions even though they are being deceptively used by political hacks who use them to take the definition out of context.

Okay then, let's use the definition of a scientific theory and subsequent appraisal of Gary Gaulin's 40+ pages of mangled-English provided by a person Gary Gaulin has identified as a "cognitive science expert":

Scientific theories         
Quote
demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and [are] ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order [to view] a theory as scientific...You [GARY] singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.

Date: 2015/04/26 23:08:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2015,19:51)
               
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 26 2015,18:57)
In the context of your "work," if we were charitable we might say you have a hypothesis.  You most definitely don't have a theory.  You have been told this by knowledgeable people everywhere you've gone.

You are either trolling, or you're trying to get in on the action of Tony M Nyphot quoting you as a science expert too. Just say what they want to hear and you're in good with the in-crowd, in this toilet of a forum. Oh what an honor that is, not.

No Gary, I wouldn't quote Jim Wynne as a science expert as he has not identified himself as one.

The person I quoted was one you identified as a "cognitive science expert" from a forum you have repeatedly linked to and where you have indicated your "theory" has been "long known" and is "doing well". You introduced and linked to the expert with criteria for a scientific theory. Your "theory" failed to meet that criteria.

You chose the definition of a scientific theory from Wikipedia as your standard. When it was shown your "theory" failed to meet that standard, you then proceeded to sling mud Wikipedia's way.

You have presented your "theory" at a large number of forums asking for review. Everywhere you go, you are told you do not have a scientific theory. (Can you link us to a site that does so?)

Each of the sites you have linked to fail to confirm your "theory" as being scientific. Many commenters at multiple locations (including AtBC) have given constructive criticism to improve your not-a-theory only to be met with juvenile mudslinging, name-calling, smear campaigns, invective and defamation from you.

Even your treasured kurzweilai.net that you proudly tout as being "a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present" recognizes your "theory" for the delusional bluster that it is.

You hilariously resort to a kiddie program definition of "hypothesis" in a desperate search for credibility.

I'll help you out...here's a definition for Scientific Theory whose criteria your "theory" meets:

             
Quote
Scientific Theory (So Gary Gaulin can be a Real-Scientist)

Incoherent, unsupported, untestable twaddle featuring delusional ramblings in tortured English, here. And with borrowed, relabeled circuit diagrams you can post and post and repost, over and over, again and again, to prove it's real-science. Oh...and a totally unrelated animation of an insect (with a hippocampus!1!11) coded in the very high-level, computer-programmer worshipped language of Visual Basic. Here.


It's K-12 simple. I'm not sure it will be accepted as a valid definition though.

[ETA: Forgot how important it was to have an foraging insect animation for testing purposes of a real-science theory. Virtual -> Visual]

Date: 2015/04/27 23:59:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2015,18:04)
I'm more like the shit...that...keeps coming back

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2015,19:08)
Consider me to be as dumb as a turd


Really no need to ask 462 pages later...

Date: 2015/04/28 10:08:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (NoName @ April 28 2015,07:02)
Your biography should be titled "Life as an Epic Failure".

Gary has already written the first line, though per his habit of stealing from expert literature, it's not original:

"Call me Ishmael dumb as a turd."

Date: 2015/05/08 22:36:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 08 2015,15:22)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 08 2015,15:26)
It's possible that this was done at Ewert's request.

He should show up somewhere and explain.

Winston started trying to back out once it became clear he was losing, but he was still in it at the time of The Disappearance.  I think that SimonLeberge was giving him more serious butthurt than Aurelio.

I've been following along here at AtBC, and UD by consequence, since well before the Dembski Debacle in Dover. While many silent banninations have taken their toll on the more rational commenters, I can't say I recall a Stalinesque purge of history of this magnitude before.

While capable of this, Barry Arrogant is a blustering fool who is too intellectually deficient to comprehend how thoroughly Aurelio and Simon decimated Ewert. Besides Erring-a-ton likes to parade his commenting executions for the onlookers.

The extensive elimination of Aurelio, and Barry's juvenile nature, leads to a design inference that someone else is responsible.

I further suggest it goes above Ewert.

It's at the request of Marks or DrDr D.

Date: 2015/05/15 00:49:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
David Springer
DaveScot jumps ship at UD:
July 18, 2006 at 4:44 pm

Quote

DaveScot says:
July 18, 2006 at 4:44 pm

I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it’s back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He’s napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we’ll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA – I kill me sometimes!


Not sure how one would encapsulate the master baiting that eventually lured Dave into ditching Dembski for a 17 year old lesbian marine but petard hoisting has rarely achieved the height displayed in this comment.

Date: 2015/05/25 13:11:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2015,06:33)
I have been mostly busy working on the IDLab-5 and might be days away from a preliminary. This is coming out great!

I'm  trying to avoid rushing something online that is  not all there.   yet. I kept finding ways to simplify and improve the math and other things. I'm now mostly working on adding angular time to the network in a simple biologically plausible way that should give the critter the intuitive ability to from experience predict which way what it is chasing will come out of something after disappearing into a moving or stationary place, including shock zones it learns to avoid.

FTFY

Date: 2015/06/05 18:49:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 05 2015,17:51)
   
Quote
A Computer Just Solved This 100-Year-Old Biology Problem
A new study argues that computers can independently invent scientific ideas—not just crunch numbers.

A silicon theorist

Simply put, Levin and Lobo's computer attempted to mimic real-life studies over and over again in an excruciatingly-detailed simulation. The machine would randomly guess how the worm's genes formed a regulatory network that allowed for this amazing regeneration, then let that genetic network take control in a simulation, and finally measure how close the results were to real experimental data. If its guesses were good (meaning the gene network made the simulated worm regenerate similarly to real-life experiments), then the machine slightly modified the random genetic network it had created, and tried again until its model was even better.

This may sound simplistic, but after three days of constant guessing, simulating, evaluating its guesses, and tweaking its tactics, the computer had invented a core genetic network that faithfully matched every one of the hundreds of experiments in its database. Essentially, it had explained what scientists had failed to—how the genes connect.

Levin and Lobo are quite adamant that what they programed their computer to do "is not just statistics or number-crunching," says Levin. Through trail and error, the computer invented an accurate model of the inner-workings of the flatworm. "The invention of models to explain what nature is doing is the most creative thing scientists do. . . this is the heart and soul of the scientific enterprise," he says. "None of us could have come up with this model; we (as a field) have failed to do so after over a century of effort."

Hava Siegelmann, a computer scientist and biomedical engineer at the University of Massachusetts who was not involved in the research, applauds the the team's inventive work, and also agrees with Levin's claim that this is more than just 'statistics or number-crunching.'

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science....-theory


Not really relevant if the worm didn't have a hippocampus.

Date: 2015/06/07 19:30:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,18:13)
This forum is full of lunatics.

Coming from a lunatic that's full of it, why would anyone believe this to be credible?

Date: 2015/06/07 21:47:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2015,19:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,19:55)
Parasites.

Says the guy demanding everyone else do his work for him.

And the guy who leeches off the work of Heiserman and Trehub without comprehension.

Date: 2015/06/07 22:45:07, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,21:24)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2015,21:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,21:31)
Scientists are supposed to objectively consider all evidence.

But as we can see what is being taught is that it's OK to ignore inconvenient evidence unless somehow forced to behave like a scientist is supposed to.

See that word?  Evidence.  What you have ain't evidence, cupcake.  It's a video game and a bunch of rambling, incoherent nonsense. Produce some evidence, or be ignored (except by those who entertain themselves by laughing at you).

Allow me to simplify:

Is this science or religion?

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

As judged and documented at each site you have infested with your inane real-science "theory", it is clearly not science.

So that leaves religion.

With deranged disciples numbering between 0 and 2.

Date: 2015/06/07 23:29:20, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2015,21:52)
Thank you for your insulting opinion.

You asked a simple question and indicated it has one of two answers.

It is a verifiable fact, NOT AN OPINION, that sites where you have requested informal peer-review of your piffle, including sites where you personally indicate cognitive science experts participate, eliminate one of those answers as a possibility.

By your own criteria, that leaves religion as the only answer and you as its single, demented devotee.

I may have been snarky in answering your question, but that doesn't change the facts on hand.

Date: 2015/06/14 22:59:47, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (N.Wells @ June 14 2015,21:33)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 14 2015,22:20)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 14 2015,22:14)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 14 2015,22:11)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 14 2015,22:08)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 14 2015,21:37)
We can now add the claim that scientists would love to be proven wrong about ID theory to the list of bullshit that has been fed to the general public.

The only thing missing is evidence.

We can add the meaning of the word "evidence" to the list of bullshit that is being fed to the general public.

We are all well aware by now that evidence isn't a component of real-science.

If you are unable to test the theory then you should not be speaking on behalf of science or scientist.

Some of your claims are self-evidently wrong.  Others are untestable.  None of them have any support by anyone other than including you, and you haven't provided any legitimate tests or valid supporting evidence.   The combination leaves you approximately one theory short of an actual theory.

FTFY

Date: 2015/06/14 23:43:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 13 2015,01:00)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ June 12 2015,17:51)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 12 2015,07:18)
Anyone know which country won the DARPA robotics challenge?

How about now leads the world in industrial robots?

The South Koreans.  The competition stressed extremely complex and well controlled motions and most of the other robots fell over. However, their win was probably inevitable because throughout history only those with Seoul can control Chorea.

http://www.gizmag.com/darpa-d....d....14

And now they can control you. Got what you asked for.

By the way, the theory long ago made its way there too. For some reason it has been relatively popular in the Ukraine and Baltic states. That should save money in shipping costs to the UK, for emerging technologies that require a good understanding of what you and others only trashed.

I'm thrilled that at least some parts of the world know good science when they see it.

I call "bullshit".

It has been previously documented you believe as little as 2 months constitutes "long ago".

Your mangling of language renders most of what you produce incomprehensible, not to mention inane, to those who count English as a first language.

It has also been documented that utter rejection of your "real-science" "theory" by cognitive science experts of your choosing can mean "relatively popular" in Gary Gaulin World.

There is no possibility your "theory" has been in the Ukraine or the Baltic states beginning "long ago", that it is intelligible to inhabitants who speak primarily Slavic languages, and it most certainly is not "relatively popular".

You're proven a liar once more.

Date: 2015/07/02 14:47:32, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk    
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Date: 2015/07/02 22:55:42, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,19:22)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk              
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist.

Where did I argue that?

No, my 'argument' is that:
a) you often claim your real-science has nothing to do with religion;
b) you then claim at another site (one linked to by you no less) that you are lead by "scientific evidence" (your real-science "theory", no doubt) to a Creator;
c) therefore you are a liar.

BTW, I was created by my parents and I exist.

Another reading-comprehension-fail to add to Gary's other long list.

Date: 2015/07/03 00:31:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,22:49)
               
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,22:55)
                 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,19:22)
                           
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47)
                           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk                                  
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist.

Where did I argue that?

No, my 'argument' is that:
a) you often claim your real-science has nothing to do with religion;
b) you then claim at another site (one linked to by you no less) that you are lead by "scientific evidence" (your real-science "theory", no doubt) to a Creator;
c) therefore you are a liar.

BTW, I was created by my parents and I exist.

Another reading-comprehension-fail to add to Gary's other long list.

I only have to focus on the science. Computer models and experiments.

All scientific theories for explaining our origins have religious implications. Blaming that on me so you can next make me appear to be a liar makes you a creep.


More Gaulin fail...

Gary...you have said in the past that your real-science is not religious.

Now, you are saying          
Quote
All scientific theories for explaining our origins have religious implications.

which would of course include what you claim to be your "theory".

Whether your quoted statement above is true or not (it isn't), I have not and would not blame you, so your rude accusation is baseless.

If...IF...it were true, by your own words you are still a liar. So a simple question:

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Depending on your answer, you have one of two claims to retract.

Of course, it has already been shown you have made numerous other false claims. What's one more lie for the pile?

Speaking of which, can you please provide a link to the section/s of your theory where you explain how one intelligence level causes another.

Or retract that claim as well.

Date: 2015/07/03 00:43:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

   
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

Date: 2015/07/03 01:09:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

         
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

Date: 2015/07/03 01:12:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:59)
I was invited, duh?
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2015,00:56)
Why are you still here you attention whore drama queen?


He has a point.

His arguments are tired, poor and wretched in all ways possible.

And they now appear to be Creationist too.

Date: 2015/07/03 01:47:43, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:19)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,01:09)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
             
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

               
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

It is very fair to expect that you could answer your own damn (loaded) question.

Go ahead, make my day..

Gary,

We all know you have trouble with reading and comprehension, so let me break it out for you.

What do you not understand about
   
Quote
I have made no claims about any theory

and
 
Quote
This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not.

and
 
Quote
It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.
?

Look, it's very simple, you have made two claims:
1. That your real-science "theory" is not religious.
2. That "All scientific theories for explaining our origins have religious implications" with your real-science "theory" leading to a Creator.

One of these is not true. So...

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Replying with one word, either "Yes" or "No", has to be simpler than typing another large collection of weasel words.

Supplying a simple "Yes" or "No" has to be easier than providing a link to the section/s of your theory where you explain how one intelligence level causes another as well.

Date: 2015/07/03 01:54:45, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:19)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,01:09)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
           
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

             
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

It is very fair to expect that you could answer your own damn (loaded) question.

Go ahead, make my day..

Well, if you insist...

Yes! Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory" of Intelligent Design is religious given all available evidence.

Happy to have made your day.

Date: 2015/07/03 02:09:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:50)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ July 03 2015,00:41)
     
Quote
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

So that's clearly a "Yes" for you on that, which means that "At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work" is a fib.

Then the same goes for you and according to your standards your theory is now pseudoscience hogwash that is illegal to teach in US public schools.

Gary, I'm curious as to to why you left out this part of N. Wells' post when replying to him? He makes a valid observation that needs addressing.

     
Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2015,23:41)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:32)
N.Wells, also please note qualifiers and such that you are ignoring in order to make it appear that there is an issue where none exists.

You're the fool that ignored your own "for humans" qualifier when claiming that a part of that section explained high mortality levels among juvenile clams.  I'm actually paying attention to it.

Date: 2015/07/20 09:51:02, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 20 2015,07:51)
Double bonus JoeTard from the same post at Corny's place.

First the reason why women don't deserve the right to choose an abortion.  They're too dumb to be given rights.
     
Quote
Joe G July 19, 2015 at 8:13 AM

Umm if women are too dim to decide BEFORE having sex perhaps they shouldn't be given the right to choose after they become pregnant.

Then we get Joe's understanding of spontaneous abortions that end 40% of all pregnancies.  Miscarriages are evidence of Intelligent Design because they show genetic entropy.

     
Quote
Miscarriages prove how miraculous life is as obviously it is a very intricate and complex process. Miscarriages speak of the wrought of genetic entropy.


linky

The bottomless pit of stupid that is Joe G.  :D


Bottomless pit, meet infinite largest-known-number lack of self-awareness.

 Joe G July 20, 2015 at 6:38 AM  
Quote

BTW misrepresenting the opposition is the surest way to admit your arguments have lost.

Thank you



(JoeG thread material?)

Date: 2015/07/24 11:37:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (k.e.. @ July 24 2015,09:19)
Quote (paragwinn @ July 24 2015,07:57)
 
Quote (sparc @ July 23 2015,21:18)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 23 2015,16:16)
K.e.. "Don't forget teh Dembster still owes a book to The John Templeton Foundation maybe that's why his buddies at bible school thought waterboarding him was a good idea. "

In the introduction to "Being as Communion", in the credits, he thanks the Templeton Foundation for their support and says this book is the one he owes them.  No reply from the Templeton boys so far.  Possibly they're still speechless.

Getting permanently reminded of the 10,000 bucks must have been a pain in the ass for him because his CV/resumé at designinference.com since 2012 says:      
Quote
Templeton Foundation Book Prize ($100,000), for writing book on information theory, 2000–2001; project partially completed by publishing book titled No Free Lunch with Rowman and Littlefield in 2002.

I suppose the Templeton Foundation has a "No Free Lunch" policy.

So what's the sequel going to be called?
Free left overs?
Supper for Welshers?
Loafers and fishing?
No soup for John Templeton?
Go set a thief?
What would Jesus charge?
Weekend on me?
We don't need no sequels?
Waterloo for Waterboarders?
No fault bankrupts for the morally free lunch crowd?
Excuses that don't involve dogs?
Hire a Canadian and solve all your PR problems?
etc etc

"Demb Skiowesme"

"Of Meece and Sweaters"

Date: 2015/08/03 14:24:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 03 2015,10:08)
 
Quote (NoName @ Aug. 03 2015,08:53)
It's not so much a 'Gish gallop' as it is the 'Gaulin  Gavotte'.
The contortions, the wild leaps, one can only shrink in horror at what the music must sound like.
Of course, given that this is Gary, the music probably sounds like 'the aroma of a yellow-ish shade of green trapezoids'.

The "wild leaps" aren't consistent with a gavotte.  ThouTube dance tutor

'Gaulin Gigue' might be more precise.

What would happen if we were to describe KF's contortions as the "Gay Gordons"?

Hmmm...I've tried to think of an appropriate word to append to 'Gaulin' in the mode of 'Gish Gallop' for some time now. I have yet to come up with one beginning with 'G'. Neither Gavotte nor Gigue really distill the essence of Gary's huff and fluff for me.

The word "Strut" defined as "1. to walk with a vain, pompous bearing, as with head erect and chest thrown out, as if expecting to impress observers." captures the spirit of Gary's cocksure inanity for me.

Too bad 'Gaulin Strut' doesn't have that catchy rhythm for a proper meme.

Date: 2015/08/03 15:49:42, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 03 2015,14:45)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 03 2015,13:14)
Gaulin Gambol

Gaulin Appallin'

Gaulin Gall-Blabber

[edited to revise Blather as in "noun: long-winded talk with no substance" --> Blabber as in "noun: foolish, mindless, or excessive talk"]

Date: 2015/08/10 21:03:01, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
[quote=stevestory,Aug. 10 2015,17:37]  
Quote
Nature Cannot Account for Nature. Duh.

Without the BA byline, how many would have surmised JoeG Virgil Cain finally was allowed posting privileges?

Date: 2015/09/02 22:00:30, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 02 2015,20:54)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 02 2015,14:11)
Joe turned up at Sandwalk again. Offered to fight/debate everyone in the room, said the same shit he always says ("your position can't explain prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes" ring any bells?), got deleted leaving only the ghost of other people's responses to mark his passage. Hehe.

The quintessential mass-debater, our Joe.

I think you meant "master-de-bator"

Date: 2015/09/22 17:01:53, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote

50
Mapou
September 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm
BA77:
   
Quote
A Destructive Eternity and a Orderly Eternity are what we find empirically not philosophically.

I’ve come to the conclusion that BA77 is a purveyor of pure unmitigated BS. But then again, I’ve been similarly accused. LOL.


Jealousy in the kiddie fort?

Date: 2015/09/27 14:19:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2015,15:35)
break out you ID DETECTARS and see if this triggers anything:

TbeqbaZhyyvatf

TRZbsGvxv

Date: 2015/10/02 14:31:17, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
MSN Lies About the Oregon Shootings
October 2, 2015 Posted by Barry Erring-a-ton under Intelligent Design
1 Comment

In this story.  

Here is the headline:

Probe in college slayings peers into Web rants and possible religious rage

Here is the lede:

     
Quote
The gunman who cut a deadly path through a college campus appeared armed for an extended siege, a report said Friday, as investigators probed deeper into suspicions the shooter may have been driven by religious rage


Later in the story we learn that no one believes the shooter was motivated by religious rage.  Rather, he was motivated by anti-religious rage and singled out Christians for death.  MSN’s writers and editors are shameless, utterly shameless.


Yeah! And those drivers they claim are motivated by road rage...well that's just another lie. Those drivers are not motivated by the road. They're motivated by drivers ignorant of basic etiquette. It should be clueless driver rage.

Date: 2015/10/12 23:07:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 11 2015,19:18)
And after having to nominate Sal for the past decade's most scientifically useful information (for the ID movement)...

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 12 2015,19:24)
And Joe G struck again! But it was helpful:  

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......9180147

With heroes like Sal Cordova, Joe Gallien, Casey Luskin and a pseudo-Halloween Whopper, how could Gary not be doing science?

[ETA the Gaulin-Deified Casey per N.Wells below...if only I could find one of Gary's choice Luskin Links]

Date: 2015/10/14 17:08:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,15:51)
He made his mess, I want to see him eat it.

It's only natural naturen.

Date: 2015/10/18 11:15:47, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 18 2015,06:01)

Including a certain Reader from Plano Waco Riesal?


edited: had my Reader's Texbutt towns mixed up

Date: 2015/10/26 22:23:15, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Meanwhile, over at Sandwalk, Gary once again embodies a real-life example of infinity with a lack of self awareness.

Gary Gaulin
Monday, October 26, 2015 11:05:00 PM
Quote

Debating this issue with hopeless know-it-all's who don't think they need to learn can be fun and interesting too.


However, as is always the case, he is wrong.

Gary is no longer fun or interesting.

Date: 2015/11/26 01:16:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.

Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.

Date: 2015/11/26 17:30:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2015,15:27)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 26 2015,01:16)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 25 2015,23:59)
Wait till Barry finds out Wesley is Joe G Virgil Cain.

Or that I was once an atheist, play piano and wear frilly shirts.

[singing] Ohhh… I'm an atheist and I'm okay,
I sleep all night and blaspheme all day! [/singing]

Sounds like you're an amoral, degenerate god-denying type that puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars.

Date: 2015/11/27 11:34:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2015,01:28)
The models that came later did well enough in a forum with cognitive scientists of all kinds who like to point out problems with new ideas they find.


This again?

Several times in this very thread, it has been shown that Gary's concept of "doing well" fails to match up with reality:

         
Quote (N.Wells @ July 05 2013,06:12)
         
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2013,04:16)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,05:43)
And for those who did not know, this is one example of how things actually go very well in a forum where cognitive science experts who actually program cognitive systems are present, as well as what happens when a hidebound academic from this forum (Wesley) shows up to top off the thread with link to this one:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....n-lobes

The other forum has long known about my theory writing project. A number of them studied it, which is why Wesley did not surprise anyone there.

Let's see what Gary describes as 'doing very well'

         
Quote
I am looking for honest unbiased opinon (informal peer-review) of the following theory......blah....blah...


         
Quote
You gotta be fucking kidding me. We all see through your bullshit, Gary. Get your creationist ass off this forum.


         
Quote
Just perusing through the paper so far, I might read the entire thing at some point, I find that there are at least a few unprovable assumptions which could greatly influence the interpretation of whatever data you have collected:


         
Quote
Your paper is flawed in it's fundamental premise of non-randomness. I'd not spend any more time trying to 'prove' it, and go enjoy a nice round of golf or something.


         
Quote
Two words: Bull shit.


         
Quote
It's a hypothesis at best. A theory requires evidence, experiments to support your hypothesis.


         
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.


         
Quote
I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!


         
Quote
I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.


....and that's all within two pages.

Gary, if that's an example of your theory doing 'very well' I'd hate to see it take a beating.

             
Quote
[From Gary] Woodbine, thanks for the nice list of useless insults that around here passes as a critique.

I especially like the "Get your creationist ass off this forum."

After seeing something like that a reasonable person is able to understand what's going on, in this forum.


Gary, all of those comments except the one about getting off the forum are accurate criticisms that identify valid concerns about your speculations, and all of those except the "BS" one are substantive enough that they would improve your results if you corrected the errors that they identify. They are not polite or detailed about it, but that's irrelevant.



****************************


   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 27 2015,01:28)
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin




Ah yes, then we have the "cognitive scientists" at kurzweilai.net as identified by Gary himself assessing his "real-science" and pointing out problems just as Gary indicates they do:




 
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2015,20:46)
According to Gary,      
Quote
That is from an overall constructive discussion (which over three years ago ended) from the first topic I ever posted in that forum!  

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....t-31405

It's an example of what happens when my IDeas are not battled using "wretched arguments in enormous, repetitive, voluminosity, as seen in this thread..."

At the Kurzweil AI forum the theory issue is now ancient history. The regular members understand what I was saying as it pertains to cognitive science and biology. Forum staff do not mind the computer models and other things that came out of discussion. I help show how valuable of a service they are to someone like me.
 

Well, that certainly seems to put us in our place.  Guaranteed experts generally understood his points and did not object, and a good and productive conversation was had by all.  But wait, this is Gary talking!  Have we learned that Gary is always careful and never makes false assertions, or is there just occasionally, just once in a while, a little tiny gap, barely noticeable really, between Gary and reality as everyone else knows it?  Aw heck, I'm almost starting to feel guilty about checking up on whatever he says.........

So, following Tony's fine example, let's distill that Kurzweil thread for the essence of various people's opinions about Gary's ideas:

Provoketur:          
Quote

lie more and continue to ignore anyone that makes concrete observations.

Its like having a discussion with redq. hardly worth the effort.




Quotheraving:          
Quote
There's so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin so I'll pick each apart in the order they appear. .... This displays either a complete misunderstanding of what intelligence implies or worse an attempt at redefinition of terms. In my experience such redefinitions are signs of sophism and semantic gymnastics similar to redefining black as 'dark grey' in order to have a basis to argue incrementally towards the statement that black is white.

This not only fails to "operationally define intelligence" but also manages to be a tautology and so vague as to be essentially meaningless.  All you do is state the obvious (intelligence producing algorithms allow electronic intelligence) and offer this up as though it were proof that a constituents behaviour explains the behaviour of the whole which is not only no kind of support for your later argument but is patently false. There are numerous examples of systems where their behaviour arises as an emergent property at a certain scale rather than as an inherent property at all scales.

You are mixing things up.  Traditional 'religious' Intelligent design only requires that complex organisms be the result of an intelligent creator. Your 'theory' which you term intelligent design however argues that intelligence is an innate property existing at all scales and that each higher strata is produced as a result of intelligent behaviour of the strata below.  For this to be called intelligent design you must first show that the behaviour of lower scales is actually intelligent (capable of choosing a better course of action from a range of less favorable responses) and that the higher levels are designed (made intentionally) you manage neither.
........................

Non random implies order which implies rules, it does not imply intelligence.  Stating that ordered behaviour at the atomic behaviour allows for further complexity of behaviour at the molecular layer is nothing more than stating the obvious, calling this intelligence rather than simply complex behaviour however is a mistake.

............................

Again you ascribe purpose to selection displaying a poor understanding of Darwinism.
Yes the genome is the end result of previous iterations of mutation which were each a succesful adaptation, but it does not therefore constitute true memory, the ability to consciously choose between options, let alone the ability to model the environment

...........................


You claim much but deliver less than nothing. Essentially this whole stinky and shaky edifice is based on nothing more than unsupported claims and a casual redefinition and/or misapplication of basic terms such as intelligence, memory and choice.  To my eyes this is an object lesson on the need for clear definitions of important terms.



................................

My point is that each scale is different and that this difference renders the term intelligence inapplicable and the entire basis for his argument moot  Not to mention it completely fails at it's claim to show an alternative to natural selection.   So less troll food and more wild unsupported claims and a poor choice of name.


....................

I think you are unaware of how presenting a theory works... you provide the evidence!
Though first you should clearly define your terms and provide a strong and logically sound argument with pertinent evidence as support.  However you haven't provided any real evidence, and certainly nothing that would convince anyone with a passing familiarity in highschool level science.
You do however build an argument resting on unsupported claims, misapplied terms and stating the obvious as though it supported your argument when it doesn't. Ultimately producing what amounts to little more than an exercise in sophistry.



           
Quote
Gary:  Or in other words you demand a unscientific explanation that does not follow any known scientific laws/theories, so that you continue to believe that a scientific explanation is unscientific.


No, quite the opposite really.  I demand a coherent logical argument supported by pertinent evidence and ideally consistent with the known scientific laws/theories in order for me to view a theory as scientific... You singularly fail in this regard and hence I consider your effort unscientific.

Handwaving away fundamental problems does not make your essential premise any more sound, nor any less an exercise in semantics rather than science.


..........................

However this goes far beyond poor use of language.  It begins with messy semantics, generating confusion by shifting between levels that should be considered on their own virtues and described by reference to their own particular behaviours, then uses the resultant confusions to support conclusions that are laughably and patently false. Which is why I consider this argument specious... it's nearly a textbook example of sophistry.


............................

Your language here is mangled, but even when corrected (ironically by a "best guess") your idea has obviously confused levels of abstraction. ...........You have erected a straw man, namely that some "atheistic contamination of science" relies on a false idea (that being the randomness of chemical reactions) to support their anti-ID anti-Creationist worldview, but nothing could be further from the truth.
With all due respect, and apologies if I have gotten something basically wrong, but If even a crackpot like me can come along and without much trouble DESTROY your silly thinking (or knowing propaganda, if you are that cynical), what chance do you think you stand against real scientists? The thought that you want to contaminate science with this crap, and that you think science is currently contaminated by opposite notions, is troubling to me.




EyeOrderChaos:            
Quote
 Deepak Chopra has been churning out this kind of stuff too  ...........
I think it's obvious that they are thoughts about human bias, motivations, comfort levels; I think it's obvious how it pertains to the subject; I think it's obvious that you want to appear to be trying, begging, pleading to keep the debate here in the realm of science but sir we are not even close to science yet, starting with your submission.



................................

The consensus so far is that you are not being logically coherent in your use, your intended application, of the word "intelligence", and in your assertions of what the scientific consensus is regarding random versus nonrandom behaviors of various configurations of matter. I would agree with these criticicms. However, don't let any of that discourage you, how to arrive at an operational definition of intelligence is not without controversy, I think, and if you think you are really on to something why not keep pluggin away at it? Also, why not learn from the criticisms while youre at it?. To be honest though, I don't think you have the makings of a good theory, because your definition of intelligence involves a tautology, an ontological indeterminism: "It's intelligent because it's purposeful because it's optimized for the environment because it's designed because it's purposeful because it's intelligent". Plus, I don't think your understanding of what randomness is and isn't and what it does and does not import to the "design" arguments is very good.



Field Man:          
Quote
So, in other words, you aren't gonna get your paper published in any reputable journal, nor supported by anyone who actually reads it and is knowledgable about the basics of science. You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that.



{i}Pan:          
Quote
 The VERY FACT that you are doing your utmost to evade and dodge these questions makes EVERYTHING you do from this point SUSPICIOUS.  The FACT that you are doing everything you can to slide past these direct and simple questions shows that you are not being honest.


Yessiree Bob, ringing endorsements, every last one of them.

Date: 2015/11/30 21:21:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 30 2015,18:14)
Upright biped gives us some bio on ComplexityWeb:        
Quote
I blog on the web under the pseudonym Upright Biped. I am not a scientist, and I make no pretense to having a scientific background. I have a 30+ year career in the major media, serving most recently as Research Director and in Programming. My background includes stints with CBS Stations Group, Tribune Broadcasting, News Corp, New World Communications, Sinclair Broadcasting, and other affiliate television and radio stations.

Thanks for the link, REC

Not sure it means anything, but Tribune, Sinclair and New World all have offices in Colorado Springs, just a little south of Banny Erring-a-ton.

Date: 2015/12/28 16:48:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 28 2015,01:04)
Since trying to flush it would clog up the crapper...

Ahhh...so you finally realize your real-science "theory" is just one big turd.

Date: 2016/01/10 01:13:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 09 2016,22:38)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 28 2015,17:38)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 28 2015,16:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 28 2015,01:04)
Since trying to flush it would clog up the crapper...

Ahhh...so you finally realize your real-science "theory" is just one big turd.

My day-job gives me the resources to make a poster that looks easy enough to flush but the ink and paper (either archival Montval watercolor from France or made of Kevlar) are essentially waterproof. Even where successful with the initial flush it's likely to clog up the pipe out to the street and the Royal Society would have to call a plumber to snake out whatever it is that's now blocking up their entire sewage system and overflowing all the crapper's. After rinsing off (the one or more pieces) to see what it is, the poster is back again. And with even more people wondering what the heck is going on.

You have the power to stop toilets?

Hmmm...missed this this the first time around...

Are you saying one of the premier watercolour papers used by watercolour artists is essentially waterproof?

No wonder they're all switching to oils and acrylics.

Date: 2016/02/08 09:45:43, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 08 2016,02:49)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 07 2016,08:10)
   
Quote

Does anybody care if I post photos of my (non-guitar) instruments?


Well, we'd need to know what "instruments" euphemizes.

Glen Davidson

The euphonium, obviously.

Speaking of Euphonius instruments, it is scary to note the passing of another creative original, who rarely produced canned music.

Another one gone...RIP Dan Hicks.

eta: A 2nd Obit

eta2: listening to "I Scare Myself"...contains one of the best and most unique violin solos ever

Date: 2016/02/15 21:55:48, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 15 2016,19:22)
Some of us are back, but a few here aren't all there even when they are here.

Well of course...you can't be there when you're here.

Date: 2016/02/15 22:00:59, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 06 2016,10:18)
We will probably do a round of hat-passing at PT once we figure out the update parameters.

I'm in for a donation...a GoFundMe at AtBC for a new server?...a bit of compensation for maintenance folk?...what's needed most?

Date: 2016/02/20 23:20:05, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Learned Hand @ Feb. 20 2016,20:42)
And the Biologic Institute says that Axe makes over $100k (more than all its other payroll expenses combined).

Creationism is a hell of a racket for the small clique of people at the top of the food chain! What an elegant business model: become the guardians of a lost cause supported by wealthy ideologues. You get to run up the bills and are never responsible for delivering results.

How many rubes know the extent they've been fleeced to support less-than-honest leaders of a scam enterprise?

Maybe that huggy RichT character could assemble Learned Hand's discoveries into a TSZ post for that Mangy Mung cretin to wallow in.

Date: 2016/02/22 13:36:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (someotherguy @ Feb. 22 2016,05:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 22 2016,01:52)
Something about that thread (or maybe it was just boredom or some psychological issue) prompted me to check the UD archives. Amusingly enough, they were having the same conversation over at UD almost exactly 10 years ago, with ID critics pointing out that 2LOT has nothing to do with biology, and regulars insisting that it certainly does, and even if it doesn't, it should. There were a couple of related conversations going on, one of which gave the world this magnificent nugget:
         
Quote
31
physicistMarch 7, 2006 at 11:30 am

Davescot

If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.

Me writing this sentence. -ds

UD link

As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la tard

PS Just reading the thread titles for March 2006 gives a few laughs*. Samples:
Evolution in free-fall - William Dembski
Finally, Nick Matzke Finds An Opponent That Makes Him Look Smart - Dave S[cot].
My 15 Minutes of Infamy in the Evolutionary Anthropology Community - GilDodgen
Another Boner from the Church Burners - Dave S.
Neo-Darwinism is Collapsing Under the Weight of the Integration of the Sciences - GilDodgen
*Some of these are context-dependent for the lulz; notpologies to those of you who haven't been following UD as ridiculously long as me.

Ah, those were the glory days.

Hard to believe I've tuned in to this for well over a decade.

Banny Erring-a-ton is a poor man's DaveScot and has none of the entertainment value.

It's no fun anymore.

Date: 2016/02/22 19:40:34, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 22 2016,16:18)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 22 2016,13:36)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Feb. 22 2016,05:27)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 22 2016,01:52)
Something about that thread (or maybe it was just boredom or some psychological issue) prompted me to check the UD archives. Amusingly enough, they were having the same conversation over at UD almost exactly 10 years ago, with ID critics pointing out that 2LOT has nothing to do with biology, and regulars insisting that it certainly does, and even if it doesn't, it should. There were a couple of related conversations going on, one of which gave the world this magnificent nugget:
           
Quote
31
physicistMarch 7, 2006 at 11:30 am

Davescot

If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.

Me writing this sentence. -ds

UD link

As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la tard

PS Just reading the thread titles for March 2006 gives a few laughs*. Samples:
Evolution in free-fall - William Dembski
Finally, Nick Matzke Finds An Opponent That Makes Him Look Smart - Dave S[cot].
My 15 Minutes of Infamy in the Evolutionary Anthropology Community - GilDodgen
Another Boner from the Church Burners - Dave S.
Neo-Darwinism is Collapsing Under the Weight of the Integration of the Sciences - GilDodgen
*Some of these are context-dependent for the lulz; notpologies to those of you who haven't been following UD as ridiculously long as me.

Ah, those were the glory days.

Hard to believe I've tuned in to this for well over a decade.

Banny Erring-a-ton is a poor man's DaveScot and has none of the entertainment value.

It's no fun anymore.

I don't know, Barry can be very entertaining at times. Especially when someone has logged in with a sock and agreed with him for a few comments (to get past moderation) and then slowly turned on him. This has given me hours of entertainment.

Good to hear you are having fun, and I have enjoyed your forays, but for me the fleeting lives of socks and the momentary laughs they provide by their short existence in the BA era pale in respect to episodes like that of DaveScot, JanieBell and Corporal Kate. Not to mention posts with photos of praying soldiers...

I'm not trying to impinge on anyone's present entertainment, but somehow, for me at least, there is a big difference between DaveScot's arrogance and Barry's, though I couldn't say exactly what. Barry is a blustery, mean-spirited, lunatic asshole that is as dumb as they come. Dave seemed to have an iota of smarts. About a few things. Occasionally.

Maybe part of it for me is also the absence of certain denizens of AtBC too...Louis, Carlson, Arden, Louis' mum, Lenny, to name a few...and their takes on UD.

Date: 2016/04/24 01:29:08, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2016,23:33)
Way more people take me seriously than you can imagine.

I can't imagine anyone ever taking you seriously.

So if there is one person that does, then you are correct...that's way more than I can imagine.

Date: 2016/04/24 01:37:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,09:41)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 23 2016,10:11)

1) how much money did they separate you from?

$30, which was the full package including all conference videos.  I was easily enough able to afford it.


Best to throw your money away to a going-nowhere sham program than put it towards fixing dental problems threatening your health.

Always a good plan that.

Date: 2016/05/09 22:01:13, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 09 2016,20:38)
I will continue to post relevant information.

Gary, you can't continue something you've never started.

 
Quote
But I'm purposely not answering these assholes.

Assholes or no, you've never answered questions anyone has posed before, as you really can't do so intelligently. It would be surprising if you were to start now.

Date: 2016/05/17 12:39:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ May 17 2016,10:37)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 17 2016,08:40)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 17 2016,10:09)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2016,21:26)
I already have a paper that's good enough to go!

You've given the paper to a sentient being for proofreading, right?

Thank goodness you didn't say "intelligent", otherwise he might have given it to the vacuum cleaner.

Why go to all that trouble?  Just put it in front of some molecules.

Careful, though...not all molecules are at the same level of intelligence. Best to confirm with a biochemistry forum if they are unimolecular or not.

Date: 2016/05/18 23:57:35, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2016,20:07)
...everything is supposed to be my responsibility and all the scientists in the world are too busy with "real science" to get involved in a not-a-theory...

Well...yeah.

Date: 2016/05/20 11:10:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 20 2016,00:06)
Update:
The Blyth Institute is getting the conference videos and papers (now in review stage) ready for publication. Jonathan is excited by the excellent turnout, all speakers submitted a paper. The online conference turned out to be a great success.

What made it a great success and for whom?

How many non-presenters attended the econference?

Do you know anything about the Blyth Institute? How many people work there? It's mission statement? What influence it might have anywhere at all?

Will your unintelligible piffle pass the review stage and be included on whatever materials the Blyth "Institute" produces? How will you react when it doesn't?

Did attendees get to see your digital bug with a hippocampus that "looks like multicolor poop"? Were they as impressed as we are?

Was it simply a great success because you forked over money for someone to pay a smattering of attention to you? Money that could have been put towards your health or that of your family?

That kind of great success?

Date: 2016/05/22 10:43:36, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2016,09:58)
Quote (jeffox @ May 21 2016,10:37)
Would you have been hired at your present job without a HS diploma?

Yes. I started work in the graphic arts industry before graduating from high school.

   
Quote (jeffox @ May 21 2016,10:37)
Also, why didn't you seek out and work with other students who were working on those 'science and electronics projects'?

There were none in my neighborhood, except one who I started building a telephone with but he soon moved away or something. My parents did on occasion find a summer camp with rocketry and Math Magic, or other academic class I could attend like one where we built radios but they were rare.

Somewhere in this thread, Gary mentioned it was his father's printing business that he works for. Which likely indicates it is the only job he would have been hired for with his deficient education.

Gary saying he is involved in the graphic arts industry is like an heavy equipment operator saying he is involved in the architectural design of buildings.

Date: 2016/05/22 11:12:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 21 2016,08:43)
Punishing grade school kids for on their own learning how to do college level science and electronic work is academic snobbery.

I'm guessing you have yourself in mind in typing this statement.

Unfortunately for any sense of veracity, nobody is punishing, or has punished you (or any grade school kid) for learning college level science and/or electronic work on their own.

The past 560+ pages of this thread clearly show that even through your many years beyond grade school, you have yet to learn any college level science, much less basic high-school science.

Date: 2016/05/22 19:09:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 22 2016,12:44)
Th the moral of this story is stay away from these creeps...

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 22 2016,12:45)
I have no idea what kind of mental illness they have but it's serious.

I assume you are once again talking about yourself here, albeit in third person plural.

Date: 2016/07/04 15:59:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
A couple of random comments from UD:

   
Quote
8
News  July 3, 2016 at 4:02 am
...
Excuse me. English is the language of the Internet and aerospace. Change that, will you, and then get back to us.
...


   
Quote
28
William J Murray July 4, 2016 at 8:01 am
   
Quote

rvb8 said:
Now, being born in the USA does not bestow virtue, just as it does not bestow blame; where your parents had sex is exactly 100% out of the child’s control, it is happinsatnce, dumb good luck (or bad luck if your parents are from the Congo).

Your metaphysical template is not binding on others. I disagree that anything about the circumstances we are born into is “luck”; I believe we choose the circumstances we are born into.
...


I distinctly chose to be born to parents with wealth and fame. What the hell happened?

Date: 2016/07/04 16:41:03, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2016,15:09)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 04 2016,16:59)
A couple of random comments from UD:

       
Quote
8
News  July 3, 2016 at 4:02 am
...
Excuse me. English is the language of the Internet and aerospace. Change that, will you, and then get back to us.
...


       
Quote
28
William J Murray July 4, 2016 at 8:01 am
       
Quote

rvb8 said:
Now, being born in the USA does not bestow virtue, just as it does not bestow blame; where your parents had sex is exactly 100% out of the child’s control, it is happinsatnce, dumb good luck (or bad luck if your parents are from the Congo).

Your metaphysical template is not binding on others. I disagree that anything about the circumstances we are born into is “luck”; I believe we choose the circumstances we are born into.
...


I distinctly chose to be born to parents with wealth and fame. What the hell happened?

What thread is that on?

News' comment is on the Brexit: Celebrate an asshat thread


WJM's is on the Scientific Dissent/Securities Fraud thread

Date: 2016/07/05 12:35:41, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ July 04 2016,23:04)
Quote
I believe we choose the circumstances we are born into.

Those Fritzl kids were literally asking for it.

At what point during development do fetuses choose their circumstances to be born into?

Maybe some regret their choice and miscarriages are simply early suicides.

Date: 2016/07/11 09:46:37, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ July 11 2016,07:58)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 11 2016,12:46)
Oh man, Gil has died!

Now he gets to meet all those school teachers he slandered during his repeated attempts to bolster his personal salvation story.

Hmmm...are you sure they go to the same place?

Too soon for banter? I did hesitate.

Date: 2016/08/13 21:17:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
No Sane Person Acts as if Materialism Were True
August 13, 2016 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design


Employing a design inference, Barry finally admits he acts as if materialism is true?

Date: 2016/08/23 17:12:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
46
kairosfocusAugust 22, 2016 at 5:06 pm
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there.

Who would know this better than GEM of Tiki?

ETA: oops...wrong thread

Date: 2016/08/23 17:17:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
46
kairosfocusAugust 22, 2016 at 5:06 pm
RB, twisting words to find an offense that is not there.

Who would know this better than GEM of Tiki?

Date: 2016/09/07 15:27:38, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2016,13:12)
Re "......it goes away at night"

Leaving her in the dark?

Where she's always been.

Date: 2016/09/16 16:12:24, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 16 2016,14:54)
 
Quote (NoName @ Sep. 16 2016,15:38)
Is anyone else having problems with their InBox?
I got my second failure today -- that's  two message notifications I've received that are gone by the time I get to my InBox.
Seems very odd.  I've tried responding to the senders but I don't know if those messages have  gone out or been swallowed by the system.

NoName

Hmmm. Yep, a test message of mine went straight into the ether.

I'll have to dig into the error logs about this. The fix, if possible, will not be immediate.

Wesley

Just an FYI, but I sent a couple of PMs recently that never received a reply...I just thought everyone was ignoring me like they usually do.

The PMs do not appear in my sent items either.

Date: 2016/09/16 16:35:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 16 2016,11:26)
 
Quote

34
kairosfocusSeptember 15, 2016 at 4:19 pm
BO’H: It seems, you have not read Quran [that is, Q] Surah 9:5 and 29, or related materials regarding the Caliphate, the history, the Pact of Umar and other linked matters directly relevant to both Ottoman Caliphs and acts of men like bin Laden or al Baghdadi. I suggest you do so. As a 101, you may read here then here, noting the significance of names like “Silas” at that site. KF


Q Surah Surah, whatever will be, will be.

The future's not KF's to see.

Islamophobes'R'Us Grand Inquisitor or not.

Date: 2016/09/20 11:27:33, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 19 2016,19:19)
Dissension in the ranks?
   
Quote
bogartSeptember 19, 2016 at 7:11 pm
Rvb8: “I am not guilty of being patronising here, as Barry often is. I do genuinely hope that you can see the grandeur of life without recourse to human invention.”

Although I don’t agree with the hyperbole and rhetoric that rvb8 has displayed, he does have a valid point. Some of us, as Christians (and I have been guilty at times), tend to be patronizing, arrogant and pompous towards those who lack the faith. Before we speak we should take a couple steps back and make a decision: is our goal to ridicule and debase atheists, or to convince them that our worldview is better? So far, sadly, I have seen more of the former than the latter. Hopefully, this will change.


Damn. This is a theist who I would probably enyoy having a drink with. Maybe it is his/her name. Anybody who would chose to be named after my cat is gold in my books

Hmmm...that comment appears no more.

Was it the choice of a golden moniker, or simply the exposure of blatant hypocrisy that lead to Stalinist suppression.

Date: 2016/09/20 11:38:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2016,01:06)
I could have easily wasted another 100 hours...

20 x 365 x 24 = 175,200 hours
100 / 175,200 = .00057

When you've wasted as much of your life on monumental insignificance as you have, what's another ~.06%?

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 20 2016,01:06)
But now I can delete it all out!


Please.

Date: 2016/09/24 22:03:39, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Animals learning to communicate what they desire?

Horse Feathers!

Date: 2016/11/22 15:10:29, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 22 2016,06:56)
 
Quote
Joshua G, the awkward problem with blogs is that they are non-economic volunteer projects that tend to last until one or a few individuals get drawn away for various reasons.

Denyse still bitter that nobody ever thought enough of her 5 blogs to 'feed the kitty'.

Within that same comment by Denyse, I find the following a revealing admission:
 
Quote
Hunter is a DI fellow but that is a somewhat loose relationship that mainly commits the parties to not dissing each other in public.


No telling what happens in private with Mister Leathers.

Date: 2016/12/05 20:42:19, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,18:05)
And another dose of reality for those who were led to believe that science is an excellent career choice:

www.reddit.com/r/Biochemistry/comments/5gbu98/a_materialistic_question/

The bright side I guess is that the internet is well saturated with out of work and struggling scientists for me to talk to, in forums that pertain to what they went to school for.

I'm wondering what your motivation is for this post.

Just another way to distract from others exposing the inconsequence of your incoherent not-a-theory?

Or more pathetic whining about your inability to get paid for your "not-science"?

If the later, note the following in one of the comments:

   
Quote
All that being said, successful scientists can be wealthy BUT the kicker is that the range of salaries in the field is huge due to the abundance and quality of PhDs. There are shitty PhDs that are poor, there are wicked smaht PhDs getting paid.


Well, you're not a shitty PhD...there is that.

But that's simply because science was not your career choice and you are not a PhD.

The shitty part still applies heavily to your efforts, clearly evidenced by your financial standing.

Date: 2016/12/05 21:21:00, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,19:56)
Now that things are going great at Reddit and elsewhere I may soon need to stop posting in this cesspool of a forum. I had enough arguing with assholes.


1. Everyone here remembers what it really means when you say "things are going great" at another forum (see my signature for an example)

2. You will always need to post in this forum as it is one of the few where you can get a fix when your attention-whore addiction fails to be satiated by delusional self-aggrandizement

3. As N. Wells notes just a few posts preceding this one, the asshole you find conflict with most frequently is yourself...not sure what you can do about that

Date: 2016/12/06 11:33:56, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,22:52)
(F.U. finger excised)

Ooooh...isn't that a devastating response from someone of overwhelming insignificance?

Ha ha Gary, this is you:

Date: 2016/12/06 17:56:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,19:56)
Now that things are going great at Reddit and elsewhere I may soon need to stop posting in this cesspool of a forum. I had enough arguing with assholes.


Responses to Gary proving "things are going great* at Reddit”:

         
Quote
Mnementh2230 8 points 7 hours ago
...
If you don't even know that much, I'd recommend you go do some basic reading on the topic before coming back here, because all you're doing now is embarrassing yourself.


         
Quote
Mnementh2230 1 point 13 minutes ago

Like I said, Darwin got a lot wrong about evolutionary theory. That doesn't matter in the least to modern evolutionary theory. The only people who would make that mistake are people like you, who don't understand the scientific process.


         
Quote
apostoli 1 point 18 minutes ago

|pompous

Please. It would help if you would enlighten this community with a coherent yet concise presentation of your views on the subject, instead of pissing everybody off with incoherent inane comments.


         
Quote
DarwinZDF42 1 point 3 days ago
I don't really know what point you're making.


         
Quote
DarwinZDF42[S] 11 points 10 hours ago
As usual, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.


         
Quote
VestigialPseudogene 5 points 9 hours ago
I have seriously no idea what you're trying to say.


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 5 days ago
I am sorry, but don't just guess answers and confidently present them as fact!



         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 5 days ago

Also, your "in a case like this" is not a case that exists, because you are building on a false premise.



         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 5 days ago

In fact, we can quite easily see that your answer is very wrong,
...


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 5 days ago
...
I really do not mean to be rude, but you keep making claims to people with the certainty of someone, who knows what he's talking about, but you keep saying nonsense!


       
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 5 days ago

If you do not know a lot about science, there is nothing wrong with that, and literally hundreds of people would leap at the chance to teach you almost anything you wanna know. But if you are going to act like you know stuff and then make nonsense up on the fly, you are trapping yourself in ignorance.


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago
....you did not understand a word i was saying, did you? Because your answer does not relate to my response at all.
...


I particularly like this one:

         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago
...
It's like a child playing scientist, only in this case it's sad, because you seem to be an adult, trapped in their own delusion.


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago
I honestly think you might have some mental issues. You are the only one not seeing that your word salad are incoherent ravings with no connection to anything.
...


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago

You don't understand science. I don't need to present you scientific evidence disproving something, that has never been proven, because it doesn't even make sense. What you are saying is basically something like "Show me scientific evidence that rules out that the color purple smells like anger."
...


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago

First of all, even if your claim had made sense to begin with, the burden of proof would still be on you to support it, not on anyone else to prove it's not possible. That's how science works. But that's a moot point anyway, because your inital claim was utter nonsense. I explained how and why it was utter nonsense. Your response missed the entire point.


         
Quote
Mnementh2230 2 points 4 days ago
I'm with the other guys: you can't make logical connections or distinguish fantasy from reality. You need some serious mental help. I don't mean that maliciously, I mean that seriously.


         
Quote
coldfirephoenix 1 point 4 days ago
Are you for real? I just explained this to you. I explained WHY your idea lacks any plausible mechanism by which it could function. And I explained to you that YOU need to be able to support your claims in science, it's not up to anyone else to disprove them. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. And of course you don't have any, because your claim doesn't even make sense.


Gotta love this one:
     
Quote
coldfirephoenix 2 points 4 days ago
The thing is, I don't think he's trolling. I think he actually has mental problems. Read some of his post. Read his rambling, incoherent mess of a blog post he calls a theory (because he does not know what a theory is). I am not kidding, everything about him seem to be giant warning signs that he is literally unable to make logical connections, and to distinguish his fantasy world from the real one. I genuinely think, that in his head, this all makes sense.


         
Quote
DarwinZDF42 2 points 4 days ago
1. I don't think you're using "emergent" correctly.
2. Nobody's claiming it was a "lucky accident." Read my long post at the top of the thread. Dispute as you like.


         
Quote
DarwinZDF42 2 points 4 days ago
"Prove a negative or you're a jerkface!"
Are you five?


Edited to add one more where Gary himself points out how great* things are going at Reddit:

Quote
GaryGaulin -1 points 4 hours ago
What a bunch of snotty brats. If they can't get their way then they downvote you until all your replies disappear off the screen. Total creeps..

yellownumberfive 3 points 4 hours ago
When you post something that isn't incoherent, irrelevant, whining, insulting or just plain wrong I'll be glad to upvote it.



*for some values of great as defined by Gary...same as it ever was

Date: 2016/12/06 18:15:58, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
On the "Coming soon..." post:
Quote
54
kairosfocusNovember 29, 2016 at 2:00 am
RVB8, we are still waiting for you to cogently address the issue of text being observed in the heart of cell based life [particularly, machine code], and in so doing to correct your blunder regarding base chaining in D/RNA in 43 above. This, on pain of being exposed as not only demonstrably ill-informed on wider worldviews issues but also of having falsely claimed a focal interest on matters of science connected to the design inference controversy (by implied sharp contrast with ID supporters here at UD). KF


Is Gordon really saying there is observable text in the cell...maybe "Made in Heaven"?

Date: 2016/12/19 18:36:50, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Dec. 19 2016,13:26)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 19 2016,14:13)
     
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 19 2016,03:38)
Giving up the booze and hitting the Jesus really turned Batsh^t into a great guy didn't it?

Yup, it was alcohol making him an ignorant dumbshit.

At least alcohol gave him an excuse, however poor it may have been.

Glen Davidson

Shut off your irony meter.

This from Batshitcrazy77 to Wayne Rossiter in the same thread:
     
Quote
Might I suggest you are too emotionally attached to your argument?

Yes, but in defense of Batshit77:
 
Quote
50
Truth Will Set You Free  December 18, 2016 at 2:13 pm

wrossite @ 46: If you can’t get along with BornAgain77 you have some real issues.

Date: 2016/12/26 19:29:47, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 24 2016,18:08)
I don't have the time or the intestinal fortitude to chase Gary all over the web, but I have a question for those who do: does he ever link to ATBC and tell everyone how well he's doing here?


I don't go chasing Gary around the web, but occasionally follow the links he provides when attempting to make himself appear important.

I don't recall that he has ever linked back to AtBC, where things are going greater* for him than anywhere else.

I will say that recent interaction with Gary over at Reddit where "things are going great*" is quite entertaining and incisive as the following post speaking about Gary attests to.

     
Quote
[–]paintheguru 1 point 2 hours ago

I wanted to join the debate, but now I'm convinced the poster suffers from a serious mental illness.

He seems to be trying to organize his feverish mind alongside a 1979 hobby robotics book. That's probably where he gets his "molecular intelligence" (bottom-up AI design), his obsession with RAM, and other concepts he misuses.

The computer "model" is the most insane piece of code I've ever seen this side of TempleOS. Motors, stomach lining, and a reimplemented atan2 function, with a helpful comment that it behaves just like the library version, all crammed together in VB Forms.

I wish we could get him to seek professional help.


* again, for some values of great as defined by Gary

Date: 2016/12/31 21:41:14, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2016,14:06)
coldfirephoenix gives a good synopsis of Gary at
https://www.reddit.com/r....db....dblp2qc


coldfirephoenix has several excellent analyses of Gary, even providing footnote links in this particular one
   
Quote

GaryGaulin 0 points 2 days ago
I'm 100% on the side of science.


   
Quote
coldfirephoenix 5 points 2 days ago*
No. No, you are not. You like to play scientist, like a toddler who found a labcoat, without understanding what science really is. What you are doing is undermining everything science stands for a lot more than any other idiot who outright states he doesn't accept science.
You have rejected the very notion of peer review in (the inevitable) case it rejects you.1 In fact, you have shown to not even have a firm understanding of what exactly peer review is. 2 3 4 5 You have tried several times to turn the burden of proof over to people rebuking your (intelligent design) nonsense 6 7 8, you have shown to have no understanding how citing sources works9 , have shown to not even have a grasp on even basic terminology like "hypothesis" and "theory"10 11 ; lack of comprehension for even basic scientific principles12 13 14 15 ; disturbing inability to appropriately follow through a simple logical chain of communication16 and you have shown to be completely unwilling to change your point of view, no matter how many people patiently explain to you why and where you are wrong.
You are the most anti-scientific person I have ever met.
No one here, except maybe for the creationists, thinks you are scientific. You need to snap out of that delusion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Edit: Just for fun, I'd also like to point out that this short reddit-post has almost as many citations as your 50-page-ramblings you call a theory, which you claim to have worked 10 years on. :D

Date: 2016/12/31 22:17:16, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
AtBC is one of the only internet hangouts I frequent.

However, when it was down recently, and I was killing time waiting for delayed flights, perusing the subreddits Gary was posting in provided entertainment.

Besides coldfirephoenix, several others were quick at exposing Gary for the delusional loon he is.

Things really are great over there.

Date: 2017/01/10 17:23:12, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Things are still going great for Gary over a Reddit:

DarwinZDF42 asks:
Quote
You think that when you propose a theory (and I'm using "theory," generously here), and other people disagree with it, it's the job of those people to test your theory?

This is an honest question: Have you ever done science, for real? Worked in a lab, collected data, published?


Gary replies:
Quote
You changed the subject from giving an honest and unbiased evaluation of a theory into a personal attack.

The theory I defend gets tested with models and more, yet you are not scientist enough to acknowledge that.


DarwinZDF42 tries again:  
Quote
Describe some of those experiments, and please answer the question: Have you ever, in any way, participated in the process of science? I'm assuming no, but please, prove me wrong. Tell me the lab you worked in, what system you worked with, what experiments you did. If the work is published, but all means, I'd love to read it.
Or just admit you've never actually done any of that stuff.


Unable to answer a simple direct question, Gary comes back with:  
Quote
It always comes back to giving me endless responsibilities that would require millions of dollars in research, instead of your responsibility to fairly judge what the researcher could afford to present to you.

You are clearly making excuses for your scientific misconduct.


DarwinZDF42 tries yet again:  
Quote
Require millions of dollars? I'm just asking if you've actually participated in any kind of research, ever. You need millions of dollars to answer yes or no? That's weird.


As is his wont, Gary prevaricates with:  
Quote
The answer is yes, on all counts, but I have no interest to participate in your swellheaded pissing contest.

Give an honest and unbiased review/test/assessment, or your scientific credibility will get swept into the dustbins of science history.


coldfirephoenix comes in with another exemplary assessment:  
Quote
Gary, for the last time, no one here thinks you are a scientist.

Everyone here agrees that you don't even know the basics of science.

You seem to be under the delusion that we are having a scientific debate or something with you. We are not. We are talking to you like we would to a child. We are patiently explaining to you why what you write does not even begin to make sense on almost every level, and why it is not even science.

Date: 2017/01/11 13:09:31, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 11 2017,11:31)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 11 2017,13:09)
The first time I saw or heard about Berlinsky was when I watched Expelled.

you'd have to heavily sedate or endrunken me, and then tie me to furniture, to get me to watch expelled. I'd sooner take up Cutting as a hobby.

Wasn't Berlinski the crank who interviewed himself?

Date: 2017/01/11 23:09:58, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 11 2017,21:45)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 11 2017,13:09)
         
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 11 2017,11:31)
           
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 11 2017,13:09)
The first time I saw or heard about Berlinsky was when I watched Expelled.

you'd have to heavily sedate or endrunken me, and then tie me to furniture, to get me to watch expelled. I'd sooner take up Cutting as a hobby.

Wasn't Berlinski the crank who interviewed himself?

He was the guy with the really bad case of William F. Buckley envy in Expectorated.  Just look at him in the recliner sequence.  Same tortured body positioning, same condescending "I'm too good for all this" attitude, same airey vocabulary, same fucking drivel coming out of his mouth.  It's like they were twins separated at birth and William F. got all the money.


Being fortunate enough not to have seen Expectorated, I found I was remembering this from Panda's Thumb:

David Berlinski interviews self, calls self "crank"

To quote Nick Matzke:  
Quote
"Over on the “ID the Future” blog, they are posting David Berlinski’s interview with himself. Interestingly, Berlinski doesn’t fare well."

Date: 2017/01/16 15:10:55, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Perusing Gary's Reddit exploits on a lazy Monday afternoon*, I felt I had to document a couple of diatribes posted by Gary himself.

From the religious little man who routinely suggests he is an expert in so many fields but still needs others to test his work and prove him wrong:          
Quote
Gary Gaulin
Suddenly needing others to do your thinking for you is another tactic used by religious activists to dodge the responsibility they took upon themselves by suggesting they are an expert qualified to judge the scientific merit of the model/theory in question.


Then there is the full-on martyr complex:  
Quote
Gary Gaulin
I watched years of time be wasted on religiously motivated pissing contests. When the scientific misconduct that made my work a living hell is finally understood for what it really is then all involved will be stuck in a major historic blunder that led to a hypocrisy filled epic.


And of course, more prevarication and self-aggrandizement:  
Quote
Gary Gaulin
My cognitive based ideas are always being tested where the experts in the respective fields go to share information. You can even say I'm making sure to be there with them, when the answers we have most been searching for are through science revealed.


*Why I check in on Gary every once in awhile I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps it's a fascination with how someone can persistently maintain self-delusion in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence everywhere he goes. I'm impressed with the continued patience and time N.Wells and others take to dissect Gary's incoherent ramblings and attempt to explain where he is wrong despite the clear indication Gary's mental block is impenetrable.

Date: 2017/01/16 18:04:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
You know what's really sad?

I just came back to AtBC via the main page and it's Gary's birthday today.

When I was at Reddit earlier, he had numerous posts spread out over several hours. What a pathetic way to spend your special day, eh? I almost feel bad posting this.

Then again, Gary appears to derive immense pleasure from having his real-science "theory" and "model" exposed for the insignificant drivel it is.

So...Happy Birthday Gary*, you crazy loon you!

*I really mean it too.

Date: 2017/01/16 18:17:22, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 16 2017,14:30)
Remember when Dembski photoshopped himself into a line up of Einstein, Bohr etc?

Difference is Dembski was joking.

I recall a number of Dembski dalliances, but not that one for whatever reason...and I should have as one of my mathematics professors supposedly worked with Niels Bohr before coming to teach at my college.

Any chance you have that image anywhere?

Date: 2017/01/23 20:06:45, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
I got it!!!1!    [/Gary Gaulin voice]

Four years later, a "real-science" experiment in this here thread here has reached its zenith. Here.

Searching Google (here) for "Who the fuck is Gary Gaulin" now returns AtBC as the first result.



Finally, a real-science theory that has evidence.

Date: 2017/02/08 23:16:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2017,22:01)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 08 2017,06:27)
how's this for syntax:

         
Quote
The concepts the theory covers are now basic science: only sufferers of the Dunning–Kruger effect and trolls have a problem like you have with it.


You hit those last 5 words like a brick fucking wall.

Splendid! That's exactly what crash test dummies are for, anyway:

1989 "K-Tel" Vince and Larry Ad Council PSA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DW-cP3GRNg&index=4&list=PL13JZox6S8MH-tAP6DnlFw-_4mgxcyJ9z

You too could learn a lot from a dummy.
Buckle your safety belt, today!


A quote from Reddit (where things are still going great*) seems appropriate here:
 
Quote
VestigialPseudogene

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but it seems like you didn't get it:

Don't randomly spam youtube songs to my comments, it's annoying, it makes you appear insane.

Date: 2017/02/14 12:32:24, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 14 2017,10:09)
Appears that Gaulin really has run into the wall.

I'm not so sure that didn't happen head first a long time ago.

Date: 2017/02/27 22:25:23, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
A Reddit comment to one of Gary's posts that applies to almost every post at every forum Gaulin has infested:
Quote
[–]Lawliet-Ryuzaki 3 points 1 day ago
You may want to rephrase everything you have written here, because this does not make any sense.

Date: 2017/03/01 12:10:25, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 01 2017,02:45)
Over at EN&V you are invited to meet Amy a young biology student with a heartbreaking history:      
Quote
Meet Amy, for example, who has been passionate about math and biology as long as she can remember. In her late teens, she devoured books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyer. Full of hope for the future, she headed off to college to study molecular biology at a prestigious research university in the Midwest.
But in her first college biology class she was immediately confronted by ridicule for the idea that anything but purposeless and random processes are responsible for the seeming design of life. Instructors stifled any discussion that went outside of their materialist views of life's origins.

She persevered because her passions and convictions were strong. After years of increasing hostility, Amy felt alone and isolated in the midst of all these bright minds that had been constricted by the limits of Darwinian materialism.

But Amy was lucky. A friend and longtime supporter of Discovery Institute's CSC told her about the Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences. She applied and was accepted. The experience transformed her life, as evidenced by her comment in the closing survey we distribute to students:      
Quote
I feel deeply privileged to have met the Discovery Institute people...I think that without their intervention I would not have gone back to university. Being around like-minded people makes me feel less alone.

However, you should be aware that the picture illustrating the text is just another stock photo downloaded from the web.

So?

Maybe the photo was taken while Amy was interning for Dr. Gauger.

Date: 2017/03/06 09:19:52, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 06 2017,01:59)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 05 2017,09:14)
<snip>
Look who has made a pronouncement on how we should pronounce his acronym FSCO/I:
   
Quote
As it seems necessary to set a pronunciation, the acronym FSCO/I shall henceforth be pronounced “fish-koi” (where happily, koi are produced by artificial selection, a form of ID too often misused as a proxy for the alleged powers of culling out by differential reproductive success in the wild)

Any bets on whether he gets pissed off if we actually start calling it FISH KOI?

Eventually he'll tell you to stop carping on about it.

And accuse you of poissoning the well.

Date: 2017/03/06 16:19:27, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 06 2017,15:11)
Who started this pun fest? They should reely have cod it out.

Mahi, Mahi...this must mean you've had your fill, eh?

Date: 2017/03/06 16:56:10, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 06 2017,15:20)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 06 2017,16:19)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 06 2017,15:11)
Who started this pun fest? They should reely have cod it out.

Mahi, Mahi...this must mean you've had your fill, eh?

Continue if you must. I will just tuna you out.

Holy mackerel, chum. I didn’t mean to mussel in on your fun, but if you've haddock with me, that's fin.

Date: 2017/03/13 19:35:48, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
70% of women who get abortions identify as christians

Employing a design inference, Christianity appears to correlate with the number of women who get abortions.

Perhaps Gordon and William should consider promoting atheism.

Date: 2017/03/30 15:54:40, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Now that Alex Jones has issued a notpology for promoting the false Pizzagate conspiracy, will Mullings & Murray desist in fomenting their agit-prop?

Of course, Alex only said what he said to avoid being liable for punitive financial damages...it's not like he really believes Pizzagate isn't true.

Right M&M?

Date: 2017/05/13 21:52:58, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
On Tuesday, I'm returning home, driving through South Dakota, and will have time to spare.

I'm curious if the Agate Fossil Beds are worthwhile to stop and see?

Or if anyone has recommendations for something else to stop and see?

Already have plans on camping out at Devil's Tower that night.

Date: 2017/06/12 20:51:38, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 12 2017,16:25)
A conservative Christian transsexual just ripped Barry and KF a new one by showing them how moronic their views on homosexuality and sexual identity are.
   
Quote
SteRusJonJune 12, 2017 at 3:45 pm
I see there have been several posts related to my comment #26.

Let me address portions of various ones.

First, I did not actually state that I am transgender. But, for the record, I will now so stipulate.

I do not believe I am defective or disordered or pathological. I believe that it may be some defective or disordered or pathological process or event is responsible for my present state. There was a time, long ago, that I thought there was something defective with me. I implored for healing. It never came. God left me to my own devices to deal with a state of being that is fully male anatomically and more female than male mentally/psychologically. I know some hold that my mental state is subject to my will but I assure you that it is in fact contrary to my will. For those of you who hold that gender identity is a choice, I ask, “Can you tell be what was that time and place that you made the choice? Do you awake in the morning and choose your gender for the day? Do you think you could “will” yourself to be of the opposite gender for the day?” I do not, any longer, believe I am defective. There is discussion of what is “normal’ in the comments above. I do not believe there is a normal. There is a spectrum of mixed “sex” related characteristics in individuals. Instead of “normal”, I see that there are “ideals”. An “ideal” male and an “ideal” female with all of us actual persons distributed somewhere in between. Fortunately, most are clustered on one end or the other of the spectrum.. Problem is, without the omniscience of God, I have no idea what the correct blend of characteristics, both physical and psychological, would be to satisfy those two ideals. What I have come to realize is that just as the Psamlist knew he was knit together by God in his mother’s womb, I know, so was I.

Kf seems to believe that I and others like me are intent on destroying western civilization in some great conspiracy. I am not part of some grand scheme. I and so many of others who are marginalized in one or more ways want nothing more to live or lives in peace. Those of us who are essentially conservative have been forced to make unholy alliance with the enemy of our enemies to press for protection from those that would prevent that. Those of us who are more liberal are not convinced switch sides by rhetoric that demonizes us individually by claiming we are out to destroy the world system in some grand scheme when all we want is to keep our job, not be spit upon, keep our families together, have our children attend school safely and come out as productive members of society, Live in the neighborhood of our choice in a home within our means instead of denied housing.

There is discussion of morality. What is moral about a father and mother casting their teen-aged child out onto the street for a deviation from the ideal? Where is the morality in firing and otherwise acceptable, even exemplary, employee when it is discovered or revealed that they are transgender thereby causing them and their family to suffer great losses? How is it moral to refuse to rent to an obvious transgender person who has the means to pay and the character to be a good tenant? I know that a major flash point is the bathroom issue that has been brought to the fore in an effort to save our civilization from decay. I am sympathetic to the concerns of many. But I, also, know that much of what the conservative right puts forward in making its case is deceptive, at best, or downright wrong in many respects. The harm that these laws are ostensibly meant to prevent are already legislated against by uncontroversial legislation. God knows these laws are rooted in the need for some to protect our civilization from the perverts who would destroy us all. I won’t go any further on that topic. Point is, we are judged by God on how it is that we treat one another as individuals. Not on how well or hard we worked to fix the world. If we did a much better job of caring for each other the world would be a much better place, automatically.

I acknowledge that there are some who have gone to extreme in their reaction to the harms done to us in the past. I can understand the the over-reaction but I am not in favor of it. But, please, recognize that that there has been and there continues to be actions that harm us as human beings made, imperfectly, in the image of God.

Te plight and struggles of each transgender individual are unique to themselves. While many who try to live more as their inner identity dictates have difficulty and continue to struggle, but with different problems, there are many more that succeed in making their live more fulfilling. I wonder if those who are so staunchly against the decision of transgender individuals to live in accord with their inner identity have ever read the autobiographical accounts of anyone who has made a successful transition. How can one begin to have empathy for the someone with out hearing their story? Many of us have stepped back from the brink of suicide before making the choice to become and be the person within either by changing the anatomy or ignoring the anatomy that indicates the contrary. I assure you, if it was a simple matter of a willful choice, it would have been easy. If you think it is simply a choice, that is proof positive you have no idea what the true situation is.

The orthodox Christian view is that the soul resides in the body. I ask those who agree with that, “Do you believe the soul more closely conforms to the anatomy or to the psyche?” Keep in mind that in the resurrection, Jesus tells us, “They are like the angels, ….” when speaking of whose wife the widow would be. I think sex anatomy is a temporary state intended for procreation in this physical world and is not even carried over into the next. If God where to be merciful to me and grant my request to heal me, (not that I any longer believe I need healing,) I wonder if He would change my identity as a person to conform to my anatomy, or, change my anatomy to conform to my identity as a person? Do you have such wisdom so as to make the correct call?

Stephen (aka Stephanie)

PS This is an edit. I see that there are post that were made while I put these thoughts together so this does not cover everything above.

Soon followed by a response from that loving Christian victim we know as StephenB:
 
Quote
The problem is that most in the LGBT “community,” the major institutions, and a dumbed-down culture, all salivate at the prospect and the reality of persecuting *us.* It is we who have been slandered and accused of hate for defending the family, abused by courts who attacked our institution of marriage, violated by schools who brainwashed our children with pro-homosexual propaganda, flattened by a gay juggernaut that destroyed businesses and businessmen, and deprived of our constitutional right to practice religious liberty by an unrelenting gay lobby who once told us, as the transgenders are telling us now, that all they really wanted was economic justice and fair treatment.

Date: 2017/06/13 13:44:28, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Each time Larry posts the picture of him with Meyer, something about Meyer reminds me of another image:

   

Date: 2017/07/27 10:06:54, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ July 26 2017,04:45)
Quote (Joe G @ July 25 2017,20:04)
Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 16 2017,20:55)
Over seven years, Joe, and you still can't come up with anything new, but have to plagiarize yourself? You lazy schmuck, at least Gary G keeps cranking out new stuff. Put down the toasters and pick up the crayons, kid!

For anyone who doesn't know, I am referring to Joe's reissuing of a 2009 pile of crap from his blog as an original post at TSZ. Sad, yes, but not worthy of pity:

Same old same old

What a dumbass. I cannot plagiarize myself. And what I posted in 2009 is still relevant. Clearly you are one of the willfully ignorant assholes it pertains to.

Yup. Frequency = Wavelength, ice isn't water, and watermelon ticks. Relevance abounds.

Don't forget that a granite (or hail) sphere with the the exact same dimensions as a baseball is not the same size as a baseball.

Oh and a recipe for teh caek.

Don't banned socks of the banned get banned again at UD? Are the psycophants there unable to recognize Joe's droning, repetitive drivel? Especially after "ET" links to Joe's own UD guest post and parades his favorite flailing analogy of Stonehenge?

Date: 2017/08/16 09:54:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote
Mung August 16, 2017 at 3:22 am
keiths: I’m willing to bet that this thread will devolve into an exercise in word weaseling by Mung. It appears to be headed that way already.

I’ll donate $100.00 to charity if you define cumulative selection. 🙂


I don't see where Mung indicates it has to be an accurate or accepted definition of cumulative selection, so any old definition should work.

As Mung routinely holds people to their written words, will someone please post some sort of definition, hold him to his written words, ask him to stay true to his words, and pay up?

Date: 2017/09/06 21:01:46, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,20:38)

My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.

Then it's abundantly clear by your own words that you do not have a cognitive model Gary, since you are not taken seriously by anyone.

Date: 2017/09/10 22:23:06, Link
Author: Tony M Nyphot
Same as it ever was

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 09 2017,19:26)
I think I'm going to have to stop reading this forum.


Same as it ever was

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2016,19:56)
Now that things are going great at Reddit and elsewhere I may soon need to stop posting in this cesspool of a forum. I had enough arguing with assholes.


Same as it ever was
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 05 2016,20:21)
1. Everyone here remembers what it really means when you say "things are going great" at another forum (see my signature for an example)

2. You will always need to post in this forum as it is one of the few where you can get a fix when your attention-whore addiction fails to be satiated by delusional self-aggrandizement

3. As N. Wells notes just a few posts preceding this one, the asshole you find conflict with most frequently is yourself...not sure what you can do about that

 

 

 

=====