AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Tracy P. Hamilton

form_srcid: Tracy P. Hamilton

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Tracy P. Hamilton

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Tracy P. Hamilton%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/05/17 04:46:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 16 2006,19:39)
Good Lord, what ridiculous foolishness. Does Dumbo's Man deliberately advertise for idiots?

Materialism seeks to rank people by status, or demographic profile. Christianity rather ranks doctrine by its fruits (outcomes).

READ: if you're not a Christian, you only care about status and wealth. Christians don't care about those things. And those are the only two categories of people. Everyone on earth is either a selfless Christian or a selfish materialist. And no one is both materialistic and Christian.

Haeckel’s erroneous materialist doctrine bore Monism as its fruit, which resulted in the death of millions.

READ: Darwin = Nazi. If you believe in evolution, you will probably kill 6 million people.

Don't they EVER get tired of this?

The cornerstone of Haeckel’s work was Lamarckism,

Wait, I thought DARWIN was their super-villain! Are they getting confused here?

as was Darwin’s work. “Inheritance of acquired characters” became the cornerstone of the Nazi Monism religion. Neo-darwinism rejects Lamarckism replacing it rather with Natural Selection (survival-of the fittest).

Another boob who gets his evolutionary theory from a Jack Chick comic.

No, 'Darwinism' replaces Lamarckism. Or did Lamarck 'recant on his death bed', too?

Making neo-darwinism “the cornerstone of modern science” raises this doctrine to the level of a religion

Um, why does making something the 'cornerstone of modern science' make it a 'religion'?

which rejects creationism.

Creationism? I thought we were talking about Intelligent Design! Isn't there supposed to be a difference? ?

It could easily be coined “Neo-monism”, but rather is called “New Age”.

Wait, what the fuck? People who believe in evolution are New Age? Does this guy even know what 'New Agers' are?

ID seeks to replace Neo-darwinism as the cornerstone of modern science, but is currently being rejected by the shapers of our world.

'Shapers of our world'? ? ? Biologists are 'the shapers of our world'?

That's much more palatable for him to say than "scientists all agree that Intelligent Design is a load of shit". That statement would make his argument a lot more complicated.

The word “corner-stone” here is key (pun intended). There is but one such stone that bears the fruit of life. Can I say “Jesus” on this blog? While ID at least recognizes the possiblity of a creator, it is still not a confession of faith, no matter who advocates it.

True. It also 'recognizes the possibilty' of space aliens, WINK WINK.

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Also Eph 2:20 Mat 21:42 Mar 12:10 Luk 20:17 1Pe 2:7)
Eph 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”

Didn't you guys say Intelligent Design had nothing to do with religion?


Good Lord, what ridiculous foolishness. Does Dumbo's Man deliberately advertise for idiots?

ID is a great walk-up business - no need to advertise.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:06:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 18 2006,21:07)
well, i suddenly realized i have now spent more time on PT/ATBC than i have on any other form I've ever been on, including, and the popular photography forum.

....and after 12 plus years, I've also suddenly grown weary of my handle.

time for a change.

so, for a little bit of fun, I'd like to throw it out to those who've seen me at my best and worst, for about 2 years now.

I'll leave this open for a couple of weeks and select what suits me at the end of that time.

no need to be tasteful, just "fitting"  ;)

(and original)

cheers, and thanks


Dyslexic Ebola Burning Church Boy

Date: 2006/05/25 03:59:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=skeptic,May 24 2006,22:21][/quote]
Ok, here's the problem with that statement, minus the purposeless attacks,  the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.

Are you aware that there was a period in this 150 years when natural selection was out of favor, and why, and why it came back into favor?  How would that be consistent with a record of interpreting everything as if the theory was true?

What I'm wondering is if we erase the assumption that the current theory is true and we start over do we eventually come to the same conclusions.

That is exactly what happened in the time period I am talking about.

I'm trying to get you guys to think objectively because 200 years from now we won't be working with this theory but its descendant and how will that theory differ?

Perhaps it is you who needs to learn a bit more, before suggesting that biologists are close-minded.  For one thing, neutral theory is as important as natural selection.  There may also be: horizontal gene transfer, species selection, and perhaps other mechanisms I can't recall.

Date: 2006/05/30 08:13:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Beervolcano:I have no problem with the idea that CFCs can destroy ozone or that human made CFCs make it into the stratosphere and destroy some ozone (which becomes replaced.)

What I personally have a problem with are all the scare tactics that were used to persuade people to stop using CFCs.

If the naysayers would not start off denying the evidence for an effect, maybe they would have some credibility on the "scariness" issue.  It would at least show they can argue based on the scientific facts, rather than wishful thinking.  Early attempts at modeling fell short of the observed depletion, because it turns out that reactions at surfaces of ices and aerosols enhance the depletion of ozone over gas phase collisions.

Ozone depeletion has been seen primarily in the antarctic, some in the arctic.  Increased UV is expected and seen.
Increases in skin cancer have not been seen, but those take years to appear, and there are trends that lead to a decrease in skin cancers (awareness of exposure risks).
would with the effects from that (DNA damage, leading to cancer).  Effects on other organisms are not well known (at least to me).

Date: 2006/06/12 11:02:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,June 12 2006,15:29][/quote]
As if proving that A is wrong somehow demonstrates that B is right….

No, but showing the holes in A reveals the necessity for something else, for which I propose B.

No, it all depends on the nature of the "hole", and B appears to be all hole and no donut.  In all of the history of science, NO theory was discarded until another alternate was developed in considerable detail.  And it turns out that no generally accepted theory (that I know of) in the past 200 years has been completely discarded.  Classical physics is still "true".

Date: 2006/06/13 17:36:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

Why do I keep think of the Washington Generals vs. the Harlem Globetrotters?

Hey, the Washington generals do manage to score some of the time.  AFDave doesn't.

Date: 2006/06/15 13:15:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Re: Mr. D.SS the flying turd and the claims he has an IQ of 150+...... I ask why would he make a mistake like that...... what with the anal attention to minute details and stuff that sort of brain power  demands.

Maybe AFDave got the 150+ from the airspeed indicator.

Bombs away - you're outta here! - dt

Date: 2006/06/21 05:04:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (guthrie @ June 21 2006,05:24)
The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background - computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs.

I guess Berlinski has been practising his rhetoric.  Thats quite an impressive piece of nastiness, however things have moved on a bit since the 18th century, and rhetoric like that doesnt get you anywhere in thw wide world when your opponent is armed with scientific data.

What is Berlinski's background, again?

Date: 2006/06/21 06:00:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,09:05)
Well, since you don't have an argument, you lose this one.  BTW,"there's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument".  
OK, fine.  But I won't type it for you ... how about a scan?  How good are your eyes?

Well, it looks like noise near the detection limit.  

Some have statistically no radiocarbon.  

Given that the background correction depends on the type of sample, who applied the "standard" correction: the RATE people?  Were any comments made on the reliability of the results done by the lab analysts, specifically addressing this issue?

Radiocarbond correction

Date: 2006/06/28 04:50:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
As for my IQ, I am sure it is not what it once was due to the ravages of age, alcohol and dealing with Darwinian mysticism. When it was tested back in the late 1940’s it was 146, thankfully below the 150 mark indicating genius. I have no idea what it is now but I am confident it is not yet in the room temperature range as apparently is the case with some of my adversaries.

Comment by John Davison — January 28, 2006 @ 10:03 am

My IQ is room temperature.  In Kelvin. :p

Date: 2006/07/03 11:29:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
2) "Much study has been devoted to the subject of the mechanics of meandering rivers, since it inbolbes engineering problems of considerable importance.  In particular, extensive model tests have demonstrated that the phenomenon of meandering is associated only with non-resistant banks." [***** Did you hear that?  NON-RESISTANT BANKS *****] (Joseph F. Friedkin: [i]"A Laboratory Study of the Meanderings of Alluvial Rivers," Vicksburg, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi River Commission, 1945.) (Quoted in TGF, p.154)  

Bottom line here:  DEEP CUT MEANDERS = SOFT RIVER BEDS = GLOBAL FLOOD RUNOFF.  You simply don't get this type of incised meanders in solid rock eroded over millions of years.  Sorry!  Long Agers lose!

The rivers pictured do not have soft beds or banks.  They are meandering canyons in ROCK.  The WES report is talking about a different situation, like the Mississippi River, which does not meander through rock, but has changed its course many times in the past couple of centuries.

Date: 2006/07/05 11:22:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton


I see that there was some confusion created by my citation of the Mississippi River Commission Study and I think I understand why ...

You asked me about incised meanders IN ROCK and I gave you a study about incised meanders IN SOFT MUD.  

Here's the deal ... I assumed (wrongly) that you guys understand that the Grand Canyon WAS SOFT MUD during the Flood Period ... silly me ... of course you don't understand that ... you don't believe the Flood happened.

OK, so let's try this again ...

1) Creationist theory says that the sedimentary layers of the Canyon were formed during the Inundation Phase of the Flood.
2) The canyons were cut during the Receding Phase of the Flood, upon breakage of natural dams and the subsequent release of large volumes of water

BZZZT!  Large volumes of water through soft sediments do not meander!  They barrel straight through and over any obstacles.


3) The canyons were cut very rapidly because the sediments were still soft
4) Sediments hardened shortly thereafter and the formation appear today much as they did 50 years after the Flood.

By what process did these sediments harden so quickly?  And what was the shape when they solidified?  Were these steep walls of soft mud - ever try to dig a hole in soft dirt with vertical sides?


The reason, of course, for citing the Mississippi Study was because it involved SOFT SEDIMENTS and really provides the only viable explanation for the phenomena of INCISED MEANDERS.  Uniformitarian explanations that I have read don't cut it.

Your explanation does not cut it.  The main reason: the river does not follow the lowest, easiest path with the landscape as you have described it being formed.  Uplift at a pace slower than erosion is the only way it could have happened.


A river flowing over hard rock over millions of years does NOT cut an incised meander.


I suppose you have a reference to back this up?

Date: 2006/07/06 09:28:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=ericmurphy,July 05 2006,16:34][/quote]
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 05 2006,16:22)
A river flowing over hard rock over millions of years does NOT cut an incised meander.

I suppose you have a reference to back this up?

But Tracy, this is the beauty of argument from assertion: you don't need references, or even evidence, to back you up. You merely make a statement. The flood happened. Radiometric dating is based on flawed assumptions. Adam had sex with his sister. The Tyrannosaurs on the ark didn't eat the sheep. The flood involved "lots" of water. God "poofed" the flood into existence. The Grand Canyon sediments hardened to the consistency of rock in less than a year.

See? It's easy.

What is amazing is all of the "adding" to the Bible they have to do to support a foolish literal interpretation.  For example, the Bible says the animals that went into the ark were mates, not juveniles.  The Flood story also says nothing about earthquakes and mountains forming.

Date: 2006/08/07 10:44:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=stevestory,Aug. 07 2006,13:03][/quote]
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2006,13:12)

Not sure since ID proponents never recognized the Wedge document as the gospel. Despite what anti-ID\’ers have tried to make it. But hey, \”any port in a storm\” eh?
Unrelated note: How\’s the evidence going which supports the Darwinian claim that NS + RM can produce novel cell, tissue, or body plans?

You want 7 years to answer that? I should probably give you more time.

Comment by Scott — August 7, 2006 @ 12:50 pm

ID proponents never recognized the Wedge document? The ID organization, with The ID proponents, issued the Wedge document.

Peter did not recognize Jesus when Peter was asked if he was one of Jesus' disciples.

Date: 2006/08/09 09:35:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2006,07:11)

The last photo is a satellite shot, the crater is left-center. Notice that pretty brown exposed sandstone, where tiny spiders leave tracks in the layers and dance on Dave's pinheaded skull.

I thought it was a picture of AFDave's arguments.

Date: 2006/08/15 07:11:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,09:09)

1) The rocks are dated by the fossils.
2) Then other fossils are dated by the rocks just dated by fossils.

Obviously this is not circular.  Circular would be using the other fossils" dates to date the original fossils.  In other words 2) is not used to support 1).   AFDave, you can't even get the basics right.

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,09:09)
3) Sprinkle some fake RM dating onto the whole mess to help it not stink so bad!!
4) Feed it to the public and then pat each other on the back about what great scientists we are!!

Nothing to do with circular, since 3) and 4) also are not used to support 1)

Date: 2006/08/16 05:12:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (incorygible @ Aug. 15 2006,13:22)
Dave, since you've established the "circular reasoning" of geological dating, maybe you could help me out?

I have a clock at home that I last set according to an online atomic clock (I know you probably don't believe that atomic time-keeping stuff -- how can we know?! -- but bear with me).

Last month, I got a new watch.  I set it according to the clock in my house.  Now, when I'm out and about, it would probably be most accurate for me to check that atomic clock again, but that's often either impractical or impossible, so I make do with the time my watch gives me.

Two weeks ago, the power in my house went out.  Being lazy, I reset the clock in my house according to my watch.

Now, weeks later, it seems that, despite my abhorent circular reasoning -- I set my watch by my clock, and then set my clock by my watch! the horror! -- both the clock and the watch are giving me accurate times.  I know this because they match every other clock I encounter.

Is this a conspiracy?

If you couldn't see when the power went out, you could call this story the Blind Watchsetter.

Date: 2006/08/16 05:30:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,12:51)

Tracy-- It's circular, my friend.  I abbreviated the logic and probably confused you.  Let me explain it in more detail ...

1) Evolution has occurred.  (Really?  How do you know?)

Well, all we have to do is stop right there.  1) is not used to date fossils or strata at all.

You lose again, even sooner this time.  Perhaps next time you could actually support your original argument rather than futilely trying to make it look better in comparison by making another, even worse argument?

Date: 2006/08/17 12:02:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,10:17)

Scientist continued investigations,
Yeah, why?  Because they are hard workers and Creos are lazy?  No.  Because 2.61my doesn't fit the "Evo Fairy Tale" ... 1.8 does.        
and discovered that the tuff was mixture of material that is older than the formation of the tuff and material that was formed when the tuff formed.
Oh, oh, oh!!  I see ... hmmm ... and they didn't know this before huh?

They did know this before.  From the Fitch and Miller paper:"From these results it was clear than an extraneous argon age discrpancy was present, and that it would only be possible to date this tuff by careful extraction of undoubtedly juvenile components for analysis."
AFDave is wrong again.  

* During all this, Ian McDougall in Nature reported "a distressingly large range of ages" when considering previous dating.  He reported Fitch and Miller got everything from 0.52 to 2.64my on one set of concentrates and 8.43 to 17.5my on another clast before settling on the 2.62 my figure.

Umm, didn't Fitch and Miller also report a distressingly large range of dates?  It was their dates!  McDougall was merely reading the original literature.

He also accused Curtis et. al. of disregarding results of 2.01-6.9my before settling on 1.6my - 1.8my.
* After "calling the other kettles black" then,the "pot" -- Ian McDougall then stated how remarkably concordant his own dates were at 1.9 Myr after removing from consideration samples that gave ages of 4.11 and 7.46 Myr. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I diid not see any accusing.  Nor was McDougall calling the other kettles black.  That is purely your fevered imagination.

Question:  How many dates of 1.9 Myr were there, compared to 4.11 and 7.46 (ON THE SAME SITE), from the other sites?

Question:  What percent contamination by surrounding strata via erosion into a BASIN would cause the ages to be that large?

Question:  What was the amount of argon contamination in Fitch and Miller's original samples, which led to a "a distressingly large range of ages"?

Surely you can make some more crap up to answer these questions.

Oh, and incidentally but not very important,
Hey, Jon ... "incidentally" MEANS "not very important" ... you're from MIT, right?

Jeez, not only do you know nothing about Portugese, your inept command of language extends to English.

Date: 2006/08/31 04:40:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2006,18:28)
Ah, dammit, wrong picture...ummm...HERE..Gaze upon this, O mortal, and fear!!

deadman, that picture brings up a question that has been bugging me.  Aren't the devils in he11 to be punished?  It looks like they are having a grand time torturing the humans!

Date: 2006/09/12 06:53:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Recall the original assertion by AFDave, that  "It is interesting to note the increase in popularity of the method beginning in the 50's and continuing to the present from the Google Scholar searches below.  I suppose this confirms Snelling's statement that continues to remain the most popular dating method. (RATE Book 1,p.37) Why?  Because it's cheap I guess.  I think JonF says Snelling is wrong about this too, but I'm not seeing that, Jon.  From the data below, I see 2600 search returns for K-Ar vs. 391, 299, and 1150 for Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb respectively.  Maybe you could back up your statements with data?JonF..."

Which JonF did do.

Quote (JonF]Those aren't counts of dating studies performed @ Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.[/quote)
If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks.  It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.        

Well, shouldn't a sampling of a recent journal be the appropriate way to see if K-Ar is the most popular?  Your method is incompetent, just what we have come to expect.

Quote (JonF]And they're terifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web @ you picked a particular set of keywords[/quote)

Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?

Is there something about the meaning of "all" that confuses you?

Apparently yes.  Remaining twaddle deleted - it is all the same old crap.

Date: 2006/09/16 10:51:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,07:51)

We have been discussing Argon dating which falls into the general category of "Model Age Dating."  

Now we move to the second general category of dating methods called the Whole Rock Isochron method.  Both this method and the Mineral Isochron method can be represented by the generalized charts above.  Let's talk about Whole Rock Isochron "dating" first.  Sometimes it can be very confusing to separate data from conclusions, so let's start with the data first.  The data is shown in the chart on the far right.  You can see that this represents 6 samples from a "cogenetic suite"  which means, for example, that you might have a 1 meter thick layer of igneous rock and you take 6 samples that are fairly close to one another in the same layer.  Now if you do this and send the samples off to the lab, the lab crushes them and does a chemical analysis.  What do you get from the lab?  In our example above, we get particular concentrations of parent and daughter (we'll call them "units" for simplicity and ignore the ratios).

The plots are goofy.  Isochron plots plot isotope ratios.

Doing multiple whole-rock isochrons can be used to derive the age of source material instead of solidification of the igneous rock.  Particularly instructive would be isochrons from individual minerals within the same sample.

Proximity is not enough to guarantee cogenetic origin.. Are these the same lava flow, or not?

Date: 2006/09/17 06:45:28, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 17 2006,08:12)

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 16 2006,16:51)
The plots are goofy.  Isochron plots plot isotope ratios.

Yup.  Wonder where he got 'em.  There are lots of good illustrative plots on the Web, our Davie managed to dig up a lousy and misleading set.
Doing multiple whole-rock isochrons can be used to derive the age of source material instead of solidification of the igneous rock.

Davie-doo doesn't even know the uints of the axes, he doesn't have a prayer of understanding how that works.
Particularly instructive would be isochrons from individual minerals within the same sample.

Do you mean a mineral isochron, in which each sample is an individual mineral,

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 17 2006,08:12)

Davie did mention mineral isochrons, but he seems to think that theer's a mineral isochron method and a whole-rock isochron method, while in reality there's an isochron method that is applied to different types of samples.  But that's nothing compared to his other misunderstandings.
Proximity is not enough to guarantee cogenetic origin.. Are these the same lava flow, or not?

Are you thinking Austin?  I considered the possibility. Davie-diddles stated that they are hypothetical samples.  He may be lying.

I suspect the plots are from the "RATE" book.  Just a guess.

Date: 2006/09/17 08:04:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,06:05)

So they contain different amounts of parent and daughter. But in an isotopically homogeneous source the ratio of isotopes of the same element is constant throughout the relevant volume, and at solidification all minerals that solidify from that source contain the same ratio of isotopes of the same element as the parent melt did.  That's the extra information that allows us to get the original amount of daughter at solidification, because the amount of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter in the samples doesn't change over time.
OK. So let's say our hypothetical example in the chart above are from the same lava flow so Tracy will be happy.

Then there should be only one point, not a line!

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,06:05)

(Oh, and Tracy, the plots are not "goofy" ... they do plot isochron ratios.  As I explained, the ratios are not shown for simplicity.)  So we select 6 samples and do a Whole Rock Isochron analysis.  Let's also assume that we are doing a Rb/Sr analysis, so in this example, the non-radiogenic daughter product that JonF refers to would be 86Sr.  The radiogenic parent would be 87Rb and the radiogenic daughter would be 87Sr.  This means that the "daughter units of abundance" (vertical axis) is really the ratio 87Sr/86Sr (now are you happy, Tracy?).  And the "parent units of abundance (horizontal axis) is really the ratio 87Rb/86Sr.  

So here is our data again from the lab (I just eyeballed the charts) ...

Sample 1:  P=1.1, D=1.8
Sample 2:  P=1.7, D=2.3
Sample 3:  P=2.1, D=2.35
Sample 4:  P=2.2, D=2.8
Sample 5:  P=2.8, D=3.2
Sample 6:  P=3.3, D=3.6

The this would mean that parts of the same lava flow are chemically different.

Do you see the problem yet?

Date: 2006/09/18 05:17:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 17 2006,17:57)

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 17 2006,14:04)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,06:05)
OK. So let's say our hypothetical example in the chart above are from the same lava flow so Tracy will be happy.

Then there should be only one point, not a line!

Er, maybe, maybe not.  In a message to AfDave I pointed out that samples from different parts of one lava flow commonly have different makeups of minerals, and therefore whole-rock methods can and do give rise to different points on an isochron plot.

If the magma was not completely melted.  You have to put it in very simple terms for AFDave.

One wonders if he will acknowledge the clear statement of the history of which method was most popular in radiometric dating.  Maybe AFDave will get Tyred of it.


Date: 2006/09/21 08:27:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=JonF,Sep. 18 2006,12:18]
[quote=Tracy P. Hamilton,Sep. 18 2006,11:17]    
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 17 2006,17:57)

From Dickin's Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, section 3.2.2:

"Another development of the Rb-Sr method (Schreiner, 1958), was the analysis of co-genetic whole-rock sample suites, as an alternative to separate minerals. To be effective, a whole-rock suite must display variation in modal mineral content, such that samples display a range of Rb/Sr ratios, without introducing any variation in initial Sr isotope ratio. In actual fact, perfect initial ratio homogeneity may not be achieved, especially in rocks with a mixed magmatic parentage. However, if the spread in Rb/Sr ratios is sufficient, then any initial ratio variations are swamped, and an accurate age can be determined. Initial ratio heterogeneity is a greater problem in Sm-Nd isochrons, and is therefore discussed under that heading (section 4.1.2). Schreiner's proposal actually preceded the invention of the Rb-Sr isochron diagram, but some of his data are presented on an isochron diagram in Fig. 3.4 to demonstrate the method.

Fig. 3.4. Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron for the "red granite" of the Bushveld complex, using the data of Schreiner (1958). ...

Schreiner, G. D. L. (1958). Comparison of the Rb-87/Sr-87 ages of the Red granite of the Bushveld complex from measurements on the total rock and separated mineral fractions. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. 245, 112-7"

(By a stroke of luck, the Royal Society Archives are open now, but that link won't work after December).

Note "especially in rocks with a mixed magmatic parentage", clearly meaning that the method applies to rocks with single magmatic parentage.

Ah, now I see.  They are allowing the varying mineral composition at different spots to substitute for isolation of individual minerals.

Date: 2006/09/22 10:27:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 22 2006,13:30)

I was going to put a lengthy explanation of how crystal structure selection and formation was related to the limiting element in the melt front.  And if the limiting element was depleted then the structure of the crystal would change in that area.

However, as I walk up and see JonF's response this is what I find:

Not much left there for me to pick-apart.  Good Job JonF.

Obnviously AFDave was piloting it!  He must have mistaken his IQ for his altitude.

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 22 2006,13:30)

AND AFDave said
Hey, Jon ... what would I get if I plotted this on a "normal" graph?

Pretty near a horizontal line, my friend!  See what the range is?  

0.0057 !!!!!!!!!!!
Is an order of magnitude greater than what JonF said
The range of Snelling's 87Sr/86Sr values is 0.000507.  

See what you get when you miss the decimal place.

Mike PSS

And the x axis is another two orders of magnitude!  :p

Date: 2006/09/25 15:06:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,17:24)

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 25 2006,17:12)
Half the width of the Atlantic in 40 days?

If you look at the little diagram Dave posted of Dr. Brown's "hydroplate hypothesis," it's apparent that all this continental "drift" (if that's for the word for it) happened in one day. Which on the face of it implies that the Atlantic ocean formed in one day, which means that North America surged away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at something like 100 MPH. Or more, if it didn't slam to a stop instantaneously when it ran into—what?—the Pacific Plate? Which seems to have escaped unharmed, given the obvious lack of mountains off the California shoreline (at least I've never seen them, from my vantage point on the California shoreline).

Can anybody calculate the size of the tsunami that would result?  The Flood would pale beside the devastation that would wreak.

Date: 2006/10/19 12:18:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2006,15:03)
The IP is indeed the DI.

Ohhh, caught with hands in the cookie jar.

Perhaps Truthologist was relying on the fact that you can't detect who the designer of anything is. :p

Date: 2006/10/25 09:49:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 25 2006,13:56)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 24 2006,22:58)
I wonder more about Dembski.  He must have started out with all his Ph.D.'s expecting to set the world on fire and hoping to change intellectual history, but look at where he is now and the people who inhabit his reality.  That has to rankle.

My sense about Dembski is when he first set out to do ID, he was a zealot who really believed all the hype about how ID was going to vanquish 'materialism' and 'naturalism' from science once and for all. (And of course it's safe to assume he thoroughly believed this was what God wanted.) So he took the gamble of staking his entire career on what was/is essentially a fringe theory. He bet the farm on it, basically.

People who take that kind of gamble are of course rewarded handsomely if the fringe theory in question triumphs, but they're fucked if it tanks or stays out on the fringe. Given how things have actually turned out for ID, it's essentially shackled Dembski to something that's in disgrace, and which has destroyed his career.

ID had its shot, the inevitable happened, and Dembski's left with nothing to do but sell redundant books to the rubes and serve as a 'scientific advisor' to the likes of Ann Coulter. I think Dembski senses this, but most of his followers are no better than the Japanese soldiers hiding out in the jungles, still fighting World War 2 twenty years after it's over.

He could admit he was wrong, and do something useful.

Think that likely, given his personality?

Date: 2006/11/17 11:49:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Seven Popes @ Nov. 16 2006,18:08)

Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood,one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere.

That, Dave.  
That's the bit they pulled out of their ass.
Why are you repeating failed arguments?  We Just fisked this rubbish 2 pages ago.
Oh, that's right.
This is all you have.
Sorry it's rubbish.

Dave has presented an excellent argument - for not believing that the flood was the major source of fossil fuel!

AFDaves argument is argumentum ad absurdum, he just lacks the wit to recognize the absurdity.  There is NO way the biosphere could support 500 times more life than it does now (the absurdity).  Hence, the premise is flasified (that the carbon came from a biosphere buried in a flood).  :p

Date: 2006/11/17 16:36:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)

Jim Wynne and Tracy--  Try to engage my points directly instead of blowing your mouths off.  You'll sound a lot more intelligent.

FYI noting that the earth cannot support 500 (or 176 to choose another number from the YEC nonsense) more times the life than it does is not "blowing my mouth off".  It is a simple fact.  It is up to you to demonstrate why this is even remotely feasible in order to use the "fact" that the fossil carbon was buried all at once in Ye Floode.

A: You can't. Please try, though - we need more entertainment and self-contradiction.

Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)

Improvius ...    
So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.
I've heard you and several of your cohorts here say this kind of thing often, yet you cannot seem to come up with anything coherent that shows specifically HOW and WHY I'm full of crap.

The devil is in the details, Improv.

Metaphysician, heal thyself!

Date: 2006/11/29 15:15:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,13:38)

Supposedly very old samples ... many of them supposedly MILLIONS of years old ...

They should be "C14 dead" if Long Agers are correct.

But they are not.

Hmmmmmm .......

Well, this just showcases AFDave's general cluelessness of science in general, and radiocarbon dating in particular.  No scientist would ever use an analytical technique without considering sources of error, in this case ASSuming that there is no reason to consider other sources of C-14 such as contamination.

For example, from one of the papers near the top of AFDaves table:

Title: Carbonate C-14 background: Does it have multiple personalities?
Author(s): Nadeau MJ, Grootes PM, Voelker A, Bruhn F, Duhr A, Oriwall A
Source: RADIOCARBON 43 (2A): 169-176 Part 1, 2001
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 8      Times Cited: 7      Find Related Records Information
Abstract: Measurements of the radiocarbon concentration of several carbonate background materials, either mineral (IAEA C1 Carrara marble and Icelandic double spar) or biogenic (foraminifera and molluscs), show that the apparent ages of diverse materials can be quite different. Using 0.07 pMC obtained from mineral samples as a processing blank, the results from foraminifera and mollusc background samples, varying from 0.12 to 0.58 pMC (54.0-41.4 ka), show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of the contamination. In light of these results, the use of mineral background material in the evaluation of the age of older unknown samples of biogenic carbonate (>30 ka) proves inadequate. The use of background samples of the same species and provenance as the unknown samples is essential, and if such material is unavailable, generic biogenic samples such as mixed foraminifera samples should be used. The description of our new modular carbonate sample preparation system is also introduced.

In other words, different species in the  same sample will have different amount of C-14.  Now why would that be, AFDave?  If they were the same "young" age, shouldn't they have the same C-14 content?

Date: 2006/11/30 15:37:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 29 2006,17:08)
Abstract: Measurements of the radiocarbon concentration of several carbonate background materials, either mineral (IAEA C1 Carrara marble and Icelandic double spar) or biogenic (foraminifera and molluscs), show that the apparent ages of diverse materials can be quite different. Using 0.07 pMC obtained from mineral samples as a processing blank, the results from foraminifera and mollusc background samples, varying from 0.12 to 0.58 pMC (54.0-41.4 ka), show a species-specific contamination that reproduces over several individual shells and foraminifera from several sediment cores. Different cleaning attempts have proven ineffective, and even stronger measures such as progressive hydrolization or leaching of the samples prior to routine preparation, did not give any indication of the source of the contamination. In light of these results, the use of mineral background material in the evaluation of the age of older unknown samples of biogenic carbonate (>30 ka) proves inadequate. The use of background samples of the same species and provenance as the unknown samples is essential, and if such material is unavailable, generic biogenic samples such as mixed foraminifera samples should be used. The description of our new modular carbonate sample preparation system is also introduced.

In other words, different species in the  same sample will have different amount of C-14.  Now why would that be, AFDave?  If they were the same "young" age, shouldn't they have the same C-14 content?
Notice that they call this strange too high C14 "contamination".  this is precisely my point.  They are committed to Deep Time, yet they see this extra C14 and have to explain it somehow.  What are they to do but ASSUME it is "contamination?"

Dave, is not what you said an ASSUMPTION (i.e. that there should be no C-14 in sample X only because it is very old)  .  What is strictly correct to say is that IF the only C-14  in a sample is from what remains from C-14 that was originally in the sample, then there should be none left.  

Assumptions can be tested.  I already asked the question which showed that the sample of two different species in the same time and location have DIFFERENT C-14 levels.  This means they did not have the same original C-14 levels (which would be an amazing mystery - care to put forward any testable hypotheses?), if there was no contamination.

Here is another article which may hint at what the REAL situation is about "old carbon"

Title: E/Q and ME/Q(2) interference in the two models of C-14 Tandetron systems: towards the 21st century
Author(s): Nadeau MJ, Lee HW, Litherland AE, Purser KH, Zhao XL
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 18      Times Cited: 2      Find Related Records Information
Abstract: All C-14 accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) systems exhibit backgrounds mainly from sample contamination and target preparation. The imperfections in the associated mass spectrometric systems are at present lower and near C-14/C similar to10(-16). In view of the increased interest in much lower mass spectrometric background, <10(-18), for the measurement of natural hydrocarbons, a short review of the existing C-14 systems based upon the Tandetron accelerator will be presented. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Now why would somebody need an instrument to measure C-14 in hydrocarbons if they were all young?  Current methods are limited to 100,000 years ago.  This instrument will get about 7 more half-lives, a total of 40,000 years more.  We can explain "too high" levels easily enough - high levels of C-14 are everywhere on this planet, even the air you breathe.  Your problem: explaining why there is ANY hydrocarbons without high levels of C-14.

Date: 2006/12/08 16:41:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Ogee @ Dec. 08 2006,14:37)
Some better questions:

Is there any evidence that the there is such a thing as a "configurational entropy hurdle"?  Is this an accepted concept in chemistry or physics?  Is there peer-reviewed support of this sort of work?

Good luck!

No.  There is an entropy from the number of ways a single material can have configurations, all of which have the same energy (such as solid CO, which is oriented one of two ways, i.e two distinct microstates).  In other words, entropy is the number of ways to distribute energy.  

An ensemble of many molecules made of a single peptide sequence has a "configurational" (conformational) entropy, but that is due to thermal effects (energy spread among discrete quantum vibration, rotation and translation energy levels, and hence nothing more special than the vibrations in water molecules), and its entropy would be zero at absolute zero (as any other perfectly ordered crystal would be).  A random mix of peptides with the same number of molecules would have the same entropy.  Yes, it is a peer reviewed article.

Date: 2006/12/10 15:34:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (GCT @ Dec. 10 2006,13:21)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,12:21)
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

Oh, so maybe I should cancel my trip to Goodwill that I had scheduled for today.

Because the stingy atheists didn't donate clothes for you to buy, eh?  :)

Date: 2006/12/18 08:59:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 18 2006,02:51)
Flatulence removed"

Flatulence removed from “The Judge Jones School of Law”
by William Dembski on December 17th, 2006 · 7 Comments

The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

Dembski has documented the fart that brought down evolution and began the reform of all science.

In other news, the Iraq war is going splendedly, the Republican Party did not lose Congress in the last election and several prominent conservative preachers did not declare that they use crystal meth.

Note how the overt flatulence only has been deleted.  The silent but deadly (to Darwinism) flatulence remains.   :D

Date: 2006/12/18 13:09:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 18 2006,12:19)
HAHA. Bad plagiarist tards.


Date: 2006/12/23 10:13:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 23 2006,02:12)

I always wondered about the Muslim crap. Joe is supposedly from Maynard, MA, and the probability that there is even a single Muslim in Maynard would have to be expressed in scientific notation, unless you want to use an inconveniently-large number of zeros to the right of the decimal point.

The probability is less than the Universal Probability Bound, so it must be by design that there are no Muslims in Maynard, MA!  :p

Date: 2006/12/24 12:11:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 24 2006,01:06)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Dec. 23 2006,15:46)

This whole thread is hilarious.  DaveTard is arguing with someone who obviously has superior knowledge regarding matters of law, but now he is resorting to character assassination since he knows he's been smacked down.  What an a##.  DaveTard never fails to disappoint, that's for sure!

Thanks for that link. As far as I can recal, this is the first time I have seen somebody competent in a subject posting in defense of ID over at UD. So what happens? Mr. Springer tries to stomp all over them. So bleedin funny.

That thread is bound to be heavilly "revised" soon.

If dopderbeck would just reflect a little bit, perhaps he would realize that perhaps, just perhaps, "criticism" of evolution by these very same know-nothings is also crap.

Date: 2007/01/02 15:08:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 29 2006,06:07)
it's unbelievable. Perhaps this is how they think science works.

a) Scordova makes a unsupported claim based on somebody else's work he's likely not even read
Humans only 94% similar to chimps, not 98.5%

b) Then follows it up with the reason this supports ID
Darwinian evolution simply does not have the population resources to fix that many base pairs of difference (not enough individuals, not enough mutations, not enough time).

The problem with the big tent strategy is that too many clowns get included.

Date: 2007/01/10 09:00:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton


Actually it’s you that’s wrong about wheat not being able to reproduce asexually. Wheat flowers are hermaphroditic (pistil and stamen is present together on the wheat flower) and seeds normally set through self-pollination. It’s arguable (I know your penchant for resorting to pedantry when you make a mistake)whether “asexual” should include self-pollination but it’s not arguable that the results of self-pollination are essentially the same as asexual reproduction.

Go pollinate yourself, homo! - ds

Date: 2007/01/13 15:38:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2007,13:02)
Uncommonly Dense's theme song is "Let's Get Retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas.

and they probably think it is "Let's Get it Started"

Date: 2007/01/15 14:09:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 15 2007,13:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2007,13:32)
6 ah, ID art.

You idiots kind of gave away the game right there, didn't you?

Dude, that is so, like, last century. ID inspired art has moved forward since then.

Ah, Divine Wind Dembski's inspiration!

Date: 2007/01/16 17:59:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 16 2007,17:15)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 16 2007,18:09)
... and current and ongoing research in the areas of both natural and guided evolutionary concepts.

Well it suddenly gets vague right there, doesn't it. Very specific, and then some vague language about evolution research.

I suspect this research consists of sitting in a chair and looking at something and saying, "That shure looks designed".

But I could be wrong.

edit: anyway, maybe he'll bring a little brains to the table. Beating up people like Salvador and JoeG is...well, we're not picking on somebody our own size, that's for sure.

edit 2: of course, this is Uncommonly Dense we're talking about. There's no surer way to get banned than to have some idea what you're talking about, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

No danger of that happening to Lee Bowman!  He has posted to occasionally.

"The banana obviously appears designed, with it's tear along ribs,
taste, and texture.  The curve simplifies eating, since the wrist can
be held straighter.  The taste consists mainly of the esters Octyl
Acetate, and the texture is due to a unique cellular structure.  The
'asexual' Cavendish banana has no seeds, is highly edible, and has
become a staple for much of the world's developing countries.

Why and how did it come into being?  Darwin theory doesn't attempt to
explain it.  Any thots?

By the way, I can't swallow the idea that human intervention made it
edible.  The variety that's eaten has a reproductive structure that
negates the need for seeds.  It's theorized that a random mutation
"many thousands of years ago" removed the seeds, thus making it
edible.  Wasn't that thoughtful of nature?  Interesting that when the
seeds left, an alternate system of reproduction fell into place. "

How about another:
"Anything can exist in this universe.  If you postulated quarks prior
to the 70's, you'd have been labeled as 'nuts'.  If quarks and other
subatomic particles exist, Why is it so hard to accept non-physical

It's still an open question as to whether or not you are just 'you'
(the physical body), or if the body itself is simply a vehicle for the
real you.  Out of body experiences are common, and there's been tons
of books written on the subject. "

Date: 2007/01/26 16:19:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,16:12)
PLease gentlemen, form an orderly queue.  One question at a time, or our guest will be overwhelmed.  
Just pretend you are British for a day or two.
We have good beer in compensation.

Hear, Hear!

Wes' question is closest to mine (which I will not ask).

Date: 2007/01/27 18:39:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2007,16:01)
Anyone who would suggest anything other than an honest mistake in the above diagram is really avoiding the real issue about similarities.

It's strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. The fact remains, and I'll rephrase the question Wesley and the rest of you are ignoring, why are some similarities--my brother is about 6'3 and I am 6', and we both have blonde hair--considered evidence for a close evolutionary relationship, whereas equal and greater levels of similarity--brad pitt is about 6' like me, and has blonde hair--are rejected?

Dumb old evolutionists.

Steve,  I see no blond in the picture.  Am I supposed to color it in?  It may take a while - the DI has my crayons.

Date: 2007/01/30 09:11:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 29 2007,23:53)
Academia is not responsible for searching for kernels of truth in such things as claims to have created a perpetual motion machine.  

ID is disqualified from science in part because it is a bad idea (do we still talk about phlogistons and the 'bad air' theory of disease?).

We still talk about the 'bad air' theory of flash animation.

Date: 2007/02/14 14:38:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2007,13:04)
Some quality DaveTard:

Mike Dunford

old air is usually a lot drier than warm air

No Mike, it isn’t. It’s just as close or far from saturation as air of any other temperature. That’s why you have deserts in the hottest parts of the world. You have a layman’s understanding of what wet and dry air are which is why you are so lost when it comes to understanding climate.


Someone help me with this:

The McMurdo Dry Valleys is a desert - in Antarctica!  Why they think anybody would listen to such ignoramuses on any science is beyond comprehension.

Date: 2007/02/16 08:12:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Feb. 16 2007,07:36)
Out of morbid curiousity, is there anything at all about which the tard-meister has been non-trivially correct?
It appears that his only skills are bluster and an inability to get anything at all genuinely correct.

Shirley Knott

I think I should ask DaveTard for his stock recommendations, so that I can short them.

Date: 2007/03/01 14:01:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 01 2007,13:46)
Ed Brayton - a great read:

But for the moment, just this bit:

Bill Dembski's grant was not for the book 'No Free Lunch.' Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book.

Isn't that, erm, stealing?

Not if there is no difference between ID and religion. :D

Date: 2007/03/02 21:47:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 02 2007,21:28)
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 02 2007,20:10)
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.


Fess up.

Which one of you guys is BobMort?



I can wait as long as you can, people.


That was genius - a troll post complaining about troll posts, tearing up the big tent, and tweaking them about the lack of a ID curriculum.

I rate that post an 11!

P.S. It wasn't me, I only wish I were that clever and funny.

Date: 2007/03/04 13:50:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2007,11:54)
4 March 2007
Why the predictions of ID’s demise are false

1. The general acceptance of Big Bang cosmology focused attention on the mathematical probabilities of Darwinism. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the world inside the cell turned out to be much more awesomely complex than anyone had realized. So, just when it should have triumphed, Darwinism received a one-two punch from reality. It is no accident that so many of the ID guys are in math, information sciences, and biochemistry, bioinformatics, etc.

2. Not surprisingly, the current generation of Darwinists operates on faith, mostly. The recent involvement of key ultra-Darwinists in the activities of the Church of Atheism is, under the circumstances, a normal and foreseeable development. You see, once you commit to materialist atheism, something like Darwinism must be true. That lifts a crushing burden from the shoulders of the Darwinist.

And the Darwinists themselves are largely responsible for the success of ID. The ID guys are smart enough to serve their turn, to be sure, but they have also been lucky in finding so many meatheads among their opponents. The persecutions of Rick Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez, to name two, left little doubt that Darwinists did not expect to succeed by convincing anyone of the sweet reasonableness of their cause or their methods.

But there is another factor that many observers miss:

4. The fact that Darwinism is the creation story of materialism says nothing, one way or the other, about whether it is an accurate account of origins - but an important consequence follows. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it was an accurate creation story. The fact that it is any kind of a creation story at all means that it tends to be treated as both science AND religion. Those who affirm Darwinism often have a heavy emotional investment in it, in a way that they do not have in, say, continental drift. People notice this fact (it’s hard not to). That raises the justifiable suspicion that many arguments for Darwinism are put forward to boost faith, far beyond the argument’s actual strength.

"There are 4 reasons.

To three shalt thou count

Date: 2007/03/09 09:33:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 08 2007,22:14)

Dembski gets Paid:

#11  None of the defense’s expert witnesses participated pro bono. All listed their fees— typically $100/hour, $200/hour in Dembski’s case— in their expert witness reports.

That is the only way they can convince people that ID is worth anything - charge for it!

Date: 2007/03/12 08:26:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 11 2007,21:16)
Have a look for yourself.

If after watching this, you still think that the theory of plate tectonics is sound science, then you really don't know what science really is. Science should examine all evidence, but Mr. Adams has uncovered evidence that is too scary for tectonicists and they will never abandon their faith in the religion of plate tectonics. They must be afraid, because they refuse to teach this theory as an alternative to plate tectonics. They refuse to even admit that this is a scientific theory, even though they see the evidence before their very eyes. Please call your local school board and ask them to at least consider teaching their students that there is a controversy in the field and that plate tectonics is not the only theory of origins of the continents and the oceans. The days of plate tectonics are numbered. This is tectonicists' Waterloo.


Date: 2007/03/14 21:10:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=phonon,Mar. 14 2007,17:21]    
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 14 2007,13:53)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 14 2007,13:22)
I watched that Global Warming Swindle last week. I thought I had seen some of those graphs before on the Discovery Channel or something like that. Pretty much the same graphs. There was also an issue with one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle claiming to be taken out of context. Actually, from what I remember in the film, all the people interviewed seemed to speak at length enough to where any context was pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about this one guy. I was surprised at some of the names and positions of the people that were global warming skeptics. I mean, the co-founder of Greenpeace?

I wish someone would also address the 800 year lag between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature from ice core data...

I would also be interested in that. Trying to source actual data has been beyond my ability.

The video sounds pausible to me.

It wouldn't be a Swindle if it didn't sound plausible.  The alleged documentary, that is.

A good source for all things climate is, and stoat's blog on

The 800 year lag would be pretty much condemning (if it is true).

No it would not.  Global warming from CO2 is a feedback process.  


I think the explanation has to do with CO2 solubility in water. Gases are generally less soluble in warmer liquids and more soluble in colder liquids. I think as temperatures rise, CO2 is gradually released back into the atmosphere from the ocean.

That is certainly part of it.


edit2: On second thought, maybe the CO2 thing from ice cores could have something to do with the debate. If CO2 concentration in the atmosphere had such an effect on global temperature (or at least the temperature around antarctica where the ice cores were drilled) then wouldn't you see a non-linear correlation with temperature? As CO2 is slowly released from the oceans, shouldn't temperature rise more rapidly as CO2 concentrations increase? Instead, it appears (in a plot of both temp and CO2 concentrations rescaled to make the lines coincide) that the correlation is pretty linear. But, wtf do I know?

Phonon, is Beer's law linear?  

Absorbance = epsilon * b (usually 1 cm) * concentration

However, percent transmission of radiation is not.

Date: 2007/03/15 16:16:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2007,14:35)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 15 2007,14:07)
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Mar. 15 2007,13:42)
The downside is, it's ridiculously hard to find and they don't even make it every year.

Not to worry, Arden.  I'm righteously haute, but even I don't make it every year!

But what percent alcohol are you?


Yeah, but does it cure cancer?

Date: 2007/03/16 15:38:08, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,13:50)

Calm down a bit please. I for one, do tend to pay atention to the scientific evidence if I can understand it. I doubt phonon is any different.

A few simple questions to you.
Is it true that in the historical records CO2 rises lagged temperature rises by aproximately 800 years?
Is it true that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming?
IF both previous questions are answered as yes, then why does this not result in a positive feedback loop that eventually boils the Earths oceans?

The absorption of IR by CO2 is exponentially decreasing as CO2 concentration increases.  As in absorption of light by any chemical species.  I = I[0] exp{-ebc}.  I is the intensity of transmitted light.

The larger epsilon is, the more absorption, and less intensity of light getting through is.

The higher the concentration, the more absorption, and I is smaller.

b is path length, presumably not changing for the atmosphere.

This is regardless of other factors tha scatter light vs. absorption.

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,13:50)

I have been reading over at realclimate but it is much harder on the eyes than this site and also apears to be as entrenched as any ID/evolution site and I don't have the relevant education to spot lies/distortions (and no, I am not saying "all climate scientists are in some conspiracy").

Couldn't simple human building projects also be causing the warming? Isn't it at least possible that paving over green land with tarmac and other syntheticaly produced material be adding to global warming?

The big issue with the heat island effect is not letting it compromise temperature measurements of average temperature.

Date: 2007/04/03 13:02:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,11:02)

Yeah, good angle!

"Dear Boss,

Please pay for me to go to the ACS conference in New Orleans next year for two reasons:

1) I want to see some excellent chemistry (see refs X, Y and Z)

2) I wish to inject much needed cash into that wonderful city's economy after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Mainly around the Bourbon street area.


I can see that going down VERY well. Scientific AND moral! Who'd-a-thunk it?


I highly recommend Gordon Biersch down by Harrah's casino.  There was a fabulous chemistry seminar given there recently.  See pages 3 and 4 of for info on the speaker.

Date: 2007/04/04 16:37:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (argystokes @ April 04 2007,16:17)
Recently, some enlightened denizens of the net have informed the tards here at AtBC that biology is an easy science, not like them smarty pants sciences like math and physics. Since they were unable to come up with any kind of evidence supporting this notion, I've taken it upon myself to do it for them. However, having just a BS in Biology, I'm not sure how to read this data.

I think the major factor for the low biology score for the biology majors is the sheer number of doctor hopefuls (including many who have no idea of where they stand relative to their peers) who feel that it is their best major to have a chance of doing well on the MCAT.  However, a mediocre student is a mediocre student no matter which discipline they go into.  

Some universities have "premed" as a major.  Ours does not, so the student must choose biology, chemistry, etc.  All majors who wish to be doctors take more than the minimum biology courses.

Date: 2007/04/08 22:49:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (GCT @ April 08 2007,17:39)
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2007,18:30)
Quote (phonon @ April 08 2007,17:53)
And Dembski could pull it off, too. After all, William Dembski may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth.

Like Davetard, that guy got his scientific training by reading SciAm and watching science fiction.

Does their craziness extend in other directions as well? Do they watch a few episodes of Emeril and then imagine themselves expert chefs?

Well, they are qualified biologists, climatologists, doctors (especially in studying HIV), mathmeticians, information theory experts, engineers, computer experts, design detection extraordinaires, etc.  They are the James Bonds of the real world.  So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn what DaveTard can do in the kitchen with some cheesy poofs.  I mean, he obviously knows how to eat (just look at the pic) so he must know how to make good eats, right?  Bam!

They may watch Emeril but cook like Sandra Lee.  Cook the controversy!

Date: 2007/04/11 08:38:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 10 2007,22:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 10 2007,21:18)
Sorry to hear about Reciprocating Bill.  

I understand he died well. Took an IET and saved a lot of his compadres. Here's to Bill.

Reciprocating Bill the Grey is gone. But Reciprocating Bill the White returns!

Bent, but better for it.

Ah, so you are Dembski as he should have been!

Who is Sauron?  Grima?  Mouth of Sauron?  

Maybe Egnor is Denethor (driven mad by looking at Sauron).

Date: 2007/04/13 12:09:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Somebody keep the lifeline handy, I am going into the Tard-mine!

Salvador: Renowned DNA researcher Andras Pellionisz


Salvador:I’ve been delayed in reporting that a peer-reviewed paper in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences by Richard Sternberg gives an acknowledgement to several ID proponents.

The scientific progress is dizzying!  A crap paper by an IDer
in 2002 acknowledges other IDers!:

salvador: In On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System it says:

   I also thank Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood (alphabetical order)for their very helpful criticisms of the manuscript.

Congrats to all those involved.

Uncommonly Dense

Date: 2007/04/18 14:29:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,23:01)
Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2007,17:20)
The sequel to the movie "Hot Shots" was called "Hot Shots Part Deaux".

Interestingly, 'Hot Shots Part Deaux' gets 330 Google Hits, while 'Hot Shots Part Deux' gets 50,900. I say 'interesting' cause I don't think 'deaux' is a word...

"Deaux!" is what Cajun Homer Simpson says.

Date: 2007/04/24 09:19:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 24 2007,08:50)
"But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate."

I doubt you consider them seriously, but at any time will you be actually weighing up the "arguments" from both sides of the "debate"?  Or you gonna STAY open minded?

Hey, I'm open minded about astrology, tarot cards and the vegatarian T-Rex.  Should I be taken seriously?

Behe says you should be taken seriously!

Date: 2007/04/24 17:50:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,15:44)

Hold your hat, I'm going to be blunt. I've been discussing things with creationists and their recent ID incarnations for about 14 to 15 years now, frankly if I'm honest I suffer regular bouts of being bored witless by you reality denying individuals and getting quite annoyed with you, BUT (and this is kind of a key BUT here so pay deep attention) I'm an optimist. I live in hope that one of you will one day provide a substantial, honest, interesting argument and stop finding excuses to run away from difficult questions. I also hope that one day the "scientific creationism" (read unreconstructed bullshit designed to gull the scientifically illiterate) of Ham, Brown, Hovind, Gish, Morris etc.

Why am I an optimist FTK? I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm in love. That's the whole deal, total, mind buggering, jaw dropping, aching love. What or who with? The universe. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss WHAT the universe is, what is real, true and what is not. It doesn't bother me. If your god is real and the earth is 6000 years old and an "Intelligent Designer" did it all then I am as happy as a sandboy on large quantities of opiates and happy pills. What I DO care about, and care very very deeply indeed, is HOW we know what the universe, what reality is. I want to get the best, most accurate, most reliable, most consistent, most reproducible, most predictive picture of what the universe is and what reality is that I can possibly get. Guess what FTK, IDC, YEC, OEC etc are not good pictures. They are failed ideas, ideas that have long since be consigned to the scrapheap. They are old, bad, poorly developed ideas. Not because I say so, not because I don't like their conclusions, but because they are not in any sense supported by the evidence and they are often not even coherent. Sorry, I know you don't like this and I know you don't want to admit to it, but it's the case. Wake up, smell the coffee and join the rest of the thinking world outside of your tiny little ID shell.

Now are you going to grow a pair (metaphorically speaking of course) of cojones and actually support your claim that science is being fitted to conform to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or are you going to wave your hands, run away, make up some feeble excuse, insult people like you have done so far?

For shame FTK.


Amen, brother Louis!  The Ftk's of this world will never understand us.  If the evidence was in favor of the earth being 6,000 years old we would not care!  We have no emotional need to have the answer 6,000 or 13,500,000,000 or infinity years old for the age of the

For example, an ID argument goes like this:  The Bible said the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang theory shows the universe had a beginning, therefore the Bible was right about that long before physics was.  What great evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired!  Now if scientists were merely interested in believing something just to avoid facing the "implications" of this argument they could say: look at this evidence that points to an infinite universe, and quote Fred Hoyle's outdated falsified ideas.  But we don't.  

If YECs or IDers have what it takes to convince scientists - they will believe you!  It is abundantly clear that the  founders of ID, YEC, etc. have a pre-determined answer that they MUST have be true, or else their "worldview" is wrong, and that would be EMOTIONALLY devastating.  It is also abundantly clear that YECs and IDers don't have scientific evidence - YEC and ID is getting NO traction, even among the roughly 50% of scientists who are Christian.

Date: 2007/04/25 14:01:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2007,09:24)
I've been a semi-coffee snob for a couple decades, and I've never thought of good coffee as coming from particular countries. In my experience, good coffee is simply a matter of who chose, prepared, and roasted it. Peet's is the best -- just about any fresh dark-roasted house blend or French roast from Peet's will be superb, even if it's from some unglamorous place like Guatamala, Indonesia or Kenya, while a $30/lb JBM or Kona is usually a disappointment, esp. if it's light roasted. So 99% of good coffee is buying it from people who know what they're doing and then preparing it properly at home.

I'm still not as hardcore as my brother-in-law. He actually roasts his own beans, which I think is going way overboard.

Roasting is trivial with the right equipment, you get fresher coffee, and the green beans from Sweet Maria's are about half price of roasted coffee, plus I like lighter roasts in general (more acid).

Roasting coffee is one of my three hobbies, five if you count drinking the result a hobby separately.

Date: 2007/04/25 15:45:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (jeannot @ April 25 2007,14:59)
If you're getting bored by someone who dodges scientific questions, there's a first-class creo over at PT ("uncommon despair" thread), called Philip Cunningham. He sounds like an average AFDave, and he apparently doesn't fear venturing on (pseudo)scientific grounds.
You could attract this beast to AtBC.

He is a pantsfront loader.

Date: 2007/04/26 13:58:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 26 2007,11:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 26 2007,09:43)
The big picture is priceless...

NFL player / middleweight boxer?

Some daft redneck with man-boobs.

Vicious dogs, Dodge Phallus and man-bra notwithstanding, it's the butterfly landing on the aerial that captures the essence of DT's response.

Does the SLT near the lower left corner of the rear window stand for "Second Law Thermodynamics"?

Date: 2007/04/30 07:57:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ April 29 2007,22:03)
The problem with the term Postmodern is like the problem with all superlative names. If you call something New Technology, what do you call its replacement, years hence? I think an example I saw was Supercollider. What do you call its successor? Ultracollider? What about the Ultracollider's successor? You run out of superlatives pretty quickly.

Your comment reminded me of E. E. "Doc" Smith!

Date: 2007/05/01 20:35:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (argystokes @ May 01 2007,15:51)
Pretty convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS in humans is the fact that HIV/SIV chimeric viruses can cause AIDS in non-human primates:
J Virol. 1996 May;70(5):3189-97.

By animal-to-animal passage of simian/human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) in pig-tailed macaques, we have developed a macaque model of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) disease in humans. Passaging was begun with a chimeric virus containing the env gene of HIV-1 HXBc2 and the gag and pol genes of simian immunodeficiency virus SIVmac239. SHIV was passaged serially in cohorts of two macaques each, using bone marrow-to-bone marrow transfers at 5, 5, and 16 weeks for passages 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The fifth passage was done by using cell-free virus isolated from cerebrospinal fluid of a passage 4 macaque. The virus became more virulent with each passage. Virus replication was restricted in all three animals in passages 1 and 2 but not in five of the six animals in passages 3, 4, and 5. In these animals, intense virus replication in the lymphoid tissues resulted in almost total elimination of CD4+ T cells within weeks of inoculation, and three of these animals developed AIDS in less than 1 year. The more uniform virus-host interaction initiated by the cell-free virus in the passage 5 animals contrasted with a more variable pattern of disease initiated by infectious bone marrow cells during earlier passages. The virulent cell-free SHIV can now be used to screen the efficacy of vaccines directed against the envelope of HIV-1.

That's about as close as you can get to directly infecting humans with the virus and seeing if untreated people progress to AIDS.

How do we know those monkeys weren't doing drugs or engaging in homosexual activity?

Date: 2007/05/14 14:02:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 14 2007,13:28)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 14 2007,13:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 14 2007,12:49)
Larry Fafarman says
It is ironic that after making such a fetish over “peer review” in falsely claiming that there are no peer-reviewed papers about intelligent design, the hypocritical Darwinists would urge the denial of tenure to a pro-ID professor whose number of peer-reviewed papers — 68 — vastly exceeds his university’s benchmark of 15 peer-reviewed papers normally expected of candidates for tenure.

Can anybody spot his deliberate error?

None of his published papers had anything to do with ID?

Also, is that the correct number of papers?  I thought I saw the number 55 bandied about somewhere...

(Not that it makes a huge difference I guess, since the number of published papers is probably not an automatic guarantee of tenure...)

Well, I looked up Gonzalez' published record in Web of Science, at least what pops up with Iowa State and Gonzalez, G*

First of all it doesn't matter how many papers you SUBMIT.

What matters is number of papers published since you came to the University, and their quality.

The record is poor.

In reverse chronological order are:

Author(s): Vanture AD (Vanture, Andrew D.), Smith VV (Smith, Verne V.), Lutz J (Lutz, Julie), Wallerstein G (Wallerstein, George), Lambert D (Lambert, David), Gonzalez G (Gonzalez, Guillermo)

With a many author paper the question always is: what was his contribution?

Gonzalez G
The chemical compositions of stars with planets: A review

Tautvaisiene G, Wallerstein G, Geisler D, et al.
Chemical abundances in the Sagittarius galaxy: Terzan 7
IAU SYMPOSIA 13: 210-210 2005

One page abstract - hmm.

Gonzalez G
Indium abundance trends among sun-like stars

Gonzalez G
Condensation temperature trends among stars with planets

First paper to have been cited - 5 times!

Gonzalez G
Habitable zones in the universe

out of his field

Gonzalez G
Misrepresenting intelligent design
SCIENTIST 19 (16): 8-8 AUG 29 2005


Giridhar S, Lambert DL, Reddy BE, et al.
Abundance analyses of field RV Tauri stars. VI. An extended sample
ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL 627 (1): 432-445 Part 1 JUL 1 2005

First journal of quality, an excellent journal, again what did Gonzalez contribute?

Geisler D, Smith VV, Wallerstein G, et al.
"Sculptor-ing'' the galaxy? The chemical compositions of red giants in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal galaxy
ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL 129 (3): 1428-1442 MAR 2005

Probably another fine paper.

Laws C, Gonzalez G
A reevaluation of the super-lithium-rich star in NGC 6633
ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL 595 (2): 1148-1153 Part 1 OCT 1 2003


Laws C, Gonzalez G, Walker KM, et al.
Parent stars of extrasolar planets. VII. New abundance analyses of 30 systems
ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL 125 (5): 2664-2677 MAY 2003


Wells LE, Armstrong JC, Gonzalez G
Reseeding of early Earth by impacts of returning ejecta during the late heavy bombardment
ICARUS 162 (1): 38-46 MAR 2003

PhD work?

Gonzalez G
Colloquium: Stars, planets, and metals
REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS 75 (1): 101-120 JAN 2003

Candia P, Krisciunas K, Suntzeff NB, et al.
Optical and infrared photometry of the unusual Type Ia supernova 2000cx

Armstrong JC, Wells LE, Gonzalez G
Rummaging through Earth's attic for remains of ancient life
ICARUS 160 (1): 183-196 NOV 2002

Reddy BE, Lambert DL, Laws C, et al.
A search for Li-6 in stars with planets

Gonzalez G, Brownlee D, Ward PD
Refugees for life in a hostile universe
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 285 (4): 60-67 OCT 2001

Total of 18, of which a number would be PhD and post-doc work, some not peer reviewed, some abstracts,
some reviews.

Date: 2007/05/15 12:00:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ May 15 2007,09:51)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 15 2007,03:08)
Dumbski gets it wrong!

And I have to wonder why he admits it? Could it be that he realises how absurd it would have looked for him to be attacking Dawkins when his record of peer-review is, erm, what would be a polite way to put this? Differently abled to that of Dawkins....

Good thing you saved this!  It has been Poofed to Oblivion!  Jeez - maybe they could start a letter-writing campaign over at UD to complain and whine about censorship of ID.

Too bad FTK is not with us to comment on it...

Oh, the Irony!  After not doing his homework on Dawkins, then deleting the post, comes:

15 May 2007
John Derbyshire: “I will not do my homework!”
William Dembski

Date: 2007/06/14 13:33:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Working in the Tard-mine: (just saw Bob's post on previewing mine!)

Renowned Darwinist Sean Carroll is by all counts part of the Darwinist varsity. He made a lame attempt to refute Behe’s recent book in a review published by the prestigious journal Science.

Carroll writes:

pyrimethamine resistance in malarial parasites (6)–a notable omission given Behe’s extensive discussion of malarial drug resistance

Carroll argues Behe omitted mention of pyrimethamine resistance! But what did Mike actually write? He did not omit mention of pyrimethamine resistance:

One successor drug is called pyrimethamine. Interestingly, malaria can counter it with a single amino acid substitution. That single amino acid change makes malaria one hundred times more resistant to the drug.

Is Carroll’s fabrication the best the Darwinist varsity can offer? Mike Behe has written the editors of Science regarding Carroll’s mistake, along with other mistakes. I look forward to Mike answering his Critics, and this is just a taste of things to come.

[end cordova's inept quoting out of context]

Sean Carroll was talking about multiple mutations, such as type W2, which has three amino acid substitutions to
give high resistance, compared to the single mutation in type HB3 that give it moderate resistance.   Cordova of course has no clue, not having read the reference that Carroll provided, or understood it.

Science magazine, PLEASE print Behe's answer to this criticism, so that readers can see just how clueless even Behe is!

Date: 2007/06/14 17:22:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

About your picture with the cactus - I did not know that cactus was a woody plant.


Date: 2007/06/18 08:26:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 16 2007,11:40)
IMHO good humor, particularly good satire, packs measures of both pleasure and aggression - about which these folks are notably conflicted. As does eroticism, in perhaps different measures.  How erotic are these people?


Date: 2007/06/27 08:49:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ June 26 2007,19:12)
Sod it all, if it's allowed (technically not sci fi although it DOES have robots) THIS is my pick. I must say though, basic knowledge of the greek myths is needed, just so you know just how badly they got it wrong.

Did you see when Hercules went to New York?

Hercules in New York

Reminds me of a clip I saw from a movie with Arnold
Schwartzenegger as a cowboy with a ridiculous dubbed

Date: 2007/07/06 09:16:15, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 05 2007,19:28)
Quote (cogzoid @ July 05 2007,19:23)
Ou Krokodil suggests    

Somebody should also start a site for teens about the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for evolution.


But sadly, I'm sure his tenure at UD won't last much longer.

He's going to be Sternberged!

Edit: I'm a dumbass.

For teens?  What the hell is that about?

By the way cogzoid, something must be wrong with your link.  It goes to a nonexistent comment.  :p

Date: 2007/07/12 14:53:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 10 2007,17:39)
Breakfast:  Beer.

Lunch.  Beer.

Dinner:  Beer.  And half a block of cheddar cheese.



1.5 cheese and chicken quesadillas with chipotles.
To drink:

brewmasters list, July 11, 2007
       STYLE OF THE MONTH: Light Lagers, which a couple of us misremembered as Light Hyrids and responded accordingly.
       1. Eku 28.
       2. Petrus Oud Bruin.
       3. Rogue’s Charlie 1981, commemorative in honor of homebrewer Charlie Papazian.
       And the Serious stuff. Just look at what’s first up!
       4. Budweiser, in a 24-ounce can no less.
       5. Doug’s Lawn Mower Beer, a Wit, homebrew.
       6. Dennis’ Lager, homebrew.
       7. Tracy’s Cream Ale, made with a bit of corn, homebrew.
       8. Kim’s Lager, “a backwards Cream Ale,” homebrew.
       9. Doug’s “Coors With Hops”  homebrew, 7% corn.
       10. Miller Chill, cutting out the middle man at Corona bars.
       11. Sol.
       12. Yeungling Lager, in a 16-ounce can.
       13. Yeungling Lager, in a bottle, and most agreed there was a difference.
       14. Brooklyn Lager.
       15. Spaten.
       16. Peroni Nastro Assurro.
       17. Kronenbourg 1664.
       18. Palma Louca.
       19. Tecate.
       20. Dos XX Lage Especial, the green bottle.
       21. Abita 20th Anniversary Ale.
       22. Left Hand Haystack Wheat.
       23. Weihenstephaner.
       24. Cabana

Slice of sourdough bread.

That is where the record-keeping ends.  Alas, Yuengling Porter is not widely available.  The brewer named Doug got into homebrewing because of Yuengling Porter.

Date: 2007/07/12 21:33:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2007,13:24)
I'm especially partial to Szechuan cardboard, myself:

Beijing Steamed Buns Include Cardboard

Thursday, July 12, 2007\(07-12) 09:00 PDT BEIJING, China (AP) --

Chopped cardboard, softened with an industrial chemical and flavored with fatty pork and powdered seasoning, is a main ingredient in batches of steamed buns sold in one Beijing neighborhood, state television said.
The report, aired late Wednesday on China Central Television, highlights the country's problems with food safety despite government efforts to improve the situation.
Countless small, often illegally run operations exist across China and make money cutting corners by using inexpensive ingredients or unsavory substitutes. They are almost impossible to regulate.
State TV's undercover investigation features the shirtless, shorts-clad maker of the buns, called baozi, explaining the contents of the product sold in Beijing's sprawling Chaoyang district.
Baozi are a common snack in China, with an outer skin made from wheat or rice flour and and a filling of sliced pork. Cooked by steaming in immense bamboo baskets, they are similar to but usually much bigger than the dumplings found on dim sum menus familiar to many Americans.
The hidden camera follows the man, whose face is not shown, into a ramshackle building where steamers are filled with the fluffy white buns, traditionally stuffed with minced pork.
The surroundings are filthy, with water puddles and piles of old furniture and cardboard on the ground.
"What's in the recipe?" the reporter asks. "Six to four," the man says.
"You mean 60 percent cardboard? What is the other 40 percent?" asks the reporter. "Fatty meat," the man replies.
The bun maker and his assistants then give a demonstration on how the product is made.
Squares of cardboard picked from the ground are first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda — a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap — then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver. Fatty pork and powdered seasoning are stirred in.
Soon, steaming servings of the buns appear on the screen. The reporter takes a bite.
"This baozi filling is kind of tough. Not much taste," he says. "Can other people taste the difference?"
"Most people can't. It fools the average person," the maker says. "I don't eat them myself."
The police eventually showed up and shut down the operation.

The guy must have been Disembowel-Meself-Honorably Dibhala, the Agatean counterpart to Cut-My-Own Throat Dibbler of Ankh-Morpork.

Date: 2007/07/12 21:35:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2007,18:17)
i only had Tecate once, but i thought it was foul. What do other people think?

I find all of the Mexican light lagers the same.  The amber lagers like Negro Modelo and perhaps Dos Equis ore decent.

Date: 2007/07/19 15:28:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
jerry is a genius:


As you say NS can never create novelty. The process only selects, not creates. All novelty must come from some mechanism as yet undetermined and NS just chooses from what is presented and then eventually eliminates possibilities."

Well, isn't that special?  Now what could a mechanism that generates novelty be?  Let me see, could it be...

MUTATIN' ?!?!?!?

Date: 2007/07/23 08:14:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (djmullen @ July 23 2007,05:04)
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ July 20 2007,11:32)
Well, guys n gals, we had a decent run. However the scurrying lickspittle must be dispatched to update the sign on the TardMine floor:

This Facility has operated for 0 days without an irony-meter-related injury

OSHA regs.

Get well soon, Rich. Everybody else, PLEASE adjust the gain on your meters! Tard level is orange. Repeat: tard level is orange. Manual irony filtering is not recommended.

Do you have a gut feeling that Tard will attack this summer?

I see that Joe G. has responded in his thread.  Weren't we supposed to fight them there so that we wouldn't have to fight them here? :O

Date: 2007/07/23 17:32:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JAM @ July 23 2007,16:34)

You should update your description of the turtle quotations from page 24, because it doesn't include the second paper that they quote-mined:

How the Turtle Forms its Shell: A Paracrine
Hypothesis of Carapace Formation

They are still being completely dishonest, however. Here are the partial quotes from that second paper:
Because "the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly," Gilbert and his colleagues argue that evolution needs "to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace [shell]."

The first in context:
This reptile [Proganochelys] had the characteristic derived trunk morphology now associated with turtles. Thus, the distinctive morphology of the turtle appears to have arisen suddenly. We can propose a hypothesis that may explain at least part of how this might happen. The key innovation is to getting the ribs into the dermis. Once there,
variation in the population might enable some individuals to use this heterotopic placement of ribs to form a shell. If they could form a positive feedback loop between the rib and the CR (e.g., through Fgf10 and Fgf8), they could co-ordinate rib and carapace growth. When the ribs undergo normal endochodral ossification, the BMPs would induce the costal bones that form the plate of the carapace. (This may involve overpowering natural inhibitors of BMPs that are secreted by the dermis.) This mechanism, wherein the displacement of a tissue allows it to induce structures at new locations, has been proposed by Brylski and Hall (’88) to account for the rapid emergence of the fur-lined cheek pouches of pocket gophers. The compatibility of our findings with those of the
turtle fossil record has been noted by paleontologists (Rieppel, ’01).

The second in context:
These observations indicate that the ribs act as initiation centers for the dermal ossification of costal bones. The ossifying regions of the dermis extend towards one another to eventually fuse. The data reported in the present report confirm and extend these observations and permit us to frame a hypothesis to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace.

There's nothing resembling the context added by Paul and his lying colleagues, and omitting the detailed explanations offered is completely dishonest and deceptive.

Oh, come on JAM!  Surely a bright high school student could come up with the hypotheses above after reading only the part the EE book quoted!  After all, why else would they leave out the hypotheses :p

Date: 2007/07/25 11:11:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)

Emperical science cannot comment upon anything except that which can be observed under controlled conditions - repeatedly. Singular events are out of bounds.

So observation-based methods can't comment on one-off events like the formation of the moon, or the continents?

But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  

A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

and global warming denier.  It is obvious he will swallow any any psuedoscientific garbage uncritically.

For example, anybody remotely interested in ozone depletion could
consult the ozone-depletion FAQ, and find:

"Subject: 4.1) CFC's are 4-8 times heavier than air, so how can they
        reach the stratosphere?

This is answered in Part I of this FAQ, section 1.3. Briefly,
atmospheric gases do not segragate by weight in the troposphere
and the stratosphere, because the mixing mechanisms (convection,
"eddy diffusion") do not distinguish molecular masses. "

Date: 2007/07/25 13:21:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 25 2007,12:10)
you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world

Anyone shopping for a new sig? :p


Date: 2007/07/26 15:09:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 26 2007,12:36)
When can we expect to see some results from ID research?

Hotness:  oh why bother.

Hotness: 10^150   :)

Date: 2007/07/27 09:47:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Steverino @ July 27 2007,06:53)
LOL...whenever I glance this thread name...for some reason, my mind reads it or sees it as "Libations and Combustibles"

Just makes me chuckle.

Although not a scientist and I have never played one on TV, I am a fan.....huge fan who supports the fight and the effort you all make in the name of truth.

Having said that...if you all ever get to Unv. of CT way...drinks are on me!

I have the same problem with the "Discussing Explore Evolution".
I keep reading it as "Dissing Explore Evolution"

Mandatory thread content - last night had a

Date: 2007/07/31 13:05:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2007,11:15)
Dedicated to exploring the possibility that all universe and life have come into existence very recently by an act of Intelligent Design

Well, Sal is a good sport to acknowledge what we've known all along, namely that there's no principled difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Or would Sal object that "Young Earth Intelligent Design" is a very different thing from Young Earth Creationism?

Sal Cordova is a huge liability to any pretense that ID is not religion.

Not to mention other liabilities, such as quote-mining.

Date: 2007/07/31 14:05:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 31 2007,09:11)
Quartic decay (as Dr. Cheesman suggested) of light intensity vs. distance would suggest the universe is not 13,000,000,000 light years in "radius", but rather the square root of that, namely 114,000 light years across

Oh, it needs it's own thread. However, the only problem will be the lack of participation over there. There are simply not enough kooks to keep OW, UD, Brainstorms, and youngcosmos amusing. The most notable thing about most of those sites is the lack of discussion, in comparison to something as inane as "pokemon forum" which gets almost 50,000 hits in google, for example. And I imagine most of them get more traffic the all the ID forums combined!

I have less trouble than most regarding 6 literal days for creation as meaning the stars were made in those 6 days.

It's nice to see Sal openly admitting the depths of his folly though.

Well, SN1987A is 169,000 light years away.

This distance is independent of the speed of light decaying or not!  A counter-intuitive result, but one
you can check for yourself.  

SN1987A formed a ring, and light from the supernova bounced off the ring and arrived at earth 400 days later than the supernova.  To keep the analysis simple, make a right triangle (the ring is not perpendicular but tilted in reality).  

The angle is 1.66 arc seconds or 1.66 / 3600 degrees.  The sine is the diameter of the
ring.  The cosine is the distance to the supernova.  The hypotenuse is the light bouncing off the ring.  The path length difference is 400 days, since the hypotenuse and cosine are very close to the same length.  Now assume that the speed of light was ten times faster for one year.
Both rays of light travel the same distance (10 light years), with the remaining distance to be travelled still 400 light days different, and the light arrives 400 days apart.

Date: 2007/08/01 09:58:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JohnW @ July 31 2007,16:38)

IDers say we can only detect design, and can say nothing about the identity of the designer.  Therefore the hypothesis that God made the arrowheads, and left them lying around for the Native Americans to find, is just as valid.

The designer left the arrowheads scattered around the black monolith.

Date: 2007/08/03 09:03:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 03 2007,08:15)
yeah ussher is the culprit.  no ussher, no wacko 'creation science' for they have attempted to affirm the consequent.

see Sal 'i believe the earth is young because of the genealogy of christ'.

edited:  gaah consequent for antecedent

I imagine Sal Cordova at a geology conference holding a sign that says 6K years old, and waving it while shouting "The genealogy of Christ compels you!  The genealogy of Christ compels you!"

Date: 2007/08/03 12:43:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 03 2007,07:44)
Unfortunately, I couldn't access the full text but I'm not sure that this gets to the heart of my question, hard to tell though without getting into it further than the abstract.  Thanks anyway, I'll get a print copy on Monday and take a look at it in depth.

BTW, I was pretty sure I couldn't do much harm if indeed I did derail the current discussion as it's not really going anywhere but I apologize to any who disagree and I'll try to keep the sidebars to a minimum.

mentions many cases are where the dominant is a functioning enzyme, recessive is not.  Both are expressed, however.

Date: 2007/08/14 07:54:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 13 2007,22:18)
While I think black holes exist, your logic is incorrect.

Before Newtonian gravitation, nothing explained planetary motion as well as epicycles. However, the lack of an alternative explanation, at that time, did not confirm the existence of epicycles.

The best you can say is that the (indirect) evidence is so strong, that most physicists accept that black holes exist.

No, my logic was okay. Epicycles were based on math that seemed to work at the time, but which had no underlying theory to explain it. Black holes were predicted by a theory that was already verified by other evidence. That's a big difference.

Granted, the "confirmed" is of course subject being overturned by future discoveries. That's why I added the condition "unless there's something else that produces effects indistinguishable from those of black holes".


Epicycles was just curve-fitting, where the curves were circles.  :)

Date: 2007/08/14 09:47:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
UD warming up to denial:


Granville Sewell


5:33 am

This is not my blog, so I can only suggest, but I suggest you create a separate blog to discuss global warming.

This issue has become widely associated with ID, not only in this blog but worldwide, even though it really has nothing to do with ID. Of course I understand the similarities: in both cases we have a scientific majority that is more driven by politics or philosophy than science, that has convince the main-stream media that the debate is over, when it is obviously not over, and uses heavy-handed tactics to root out dissent.

It couldn't possibly be a clueless minority!

However, there is one very important difference: the is a slight chance the majority might be right on the global warming issue; there is no chance they are right on the other issue.


Date: 2007/08/14 14:47:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 14 2007,14:06)
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time

You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?

Lord Kelvin, hero of YECs comes to our rescue!  :p

By now, Joseph Fourier had developed a theory of heat conduction. It was based on avant-garde mathematics that a lot of people couldn't accept. Then, in 1862, a British scientist, Lord Kelvin, used Fourier's theory to calculate the age of the earth. He knew the earth's temperature increased one degree Fahrenheit for each 50 feet you went into the ground. He guessed that the earth began as molten rock at 7000° F. By solving Fourier's equation, Kelvin found that it must have taken a hundred million years for the earth's temperature to level out to one degree every 50 feet.
 Emphasis by TPH.

Date: 2007/08/22 13:13:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 22 2007,12:18)
PaV: If you fly to Rome, you can enter St. Peter?s Basilica and find, off to the right of, and just short of the main altar, the body of Pope John XXIII. It?s in a glass sarcophagus. It doesn?t look air-tight, although it probably is. There are no tubes connected to the sarcophagus, no lines, no nothing. How would you explain the fact that his very material body lies incorrupt there in St. Peter?s 44 years after his death?

Formalin (embalming).

You materialist, you! :angry:

Date: 2007/08/22 13:22:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 22 2007,03:05)
Mira Pzones Salvador!
? ? ?  
Thus I suppose one can provisionally accept the universe must be at least 30,000 years old. That is reasonable, and should be kept in mind.

He never gives, up, he tries to "explain" the tail away

? ?  
The local interstellar medium didn't have a powerful gust (for lack of better word, I will use wind analogies) which drove the tail backward. Even a stationary object moving at 0 km/s can have along trail if a medium is moving moving fast relative to the object, such as:

If you read the thread G. P. Jellison is educating Sal on some basic facts. I bet Sal is wondering how he can ban G. P. Jellison and save face, especially as G. P. Jellison is practically the only person posting on hte board now that Sal's banned everybody else!

Do you think that Sal realizes that once he provisionally accepts 30,000 years, that this fact alone shows that Setterfield's idea is bunk, and hence the universe is 13 billion years old?

Of course not.

Date: 2007/08/23 13:31:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 23 2007,13:26)
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 23 2007,12:56)
? ?
Rocket is no longer with us. ?WmAD

Do not seek to know the identity of the Designer, ever.
So saith [redacted]!

And later in the post, we have a post from old friend and Seeker -Of- Truth FTK applauding the bannation. ?Jesus Christ has she sunk herself in the mire.

Should Dembski have said "Rocket is EXPELLED."?

Post 100, can any of you guys top that? ?:p

Date: 2007/08/30 13:14:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
russ is a tard:

Where did the information that produced dark moths come from?

Creationist argument in a nutshell:

1) NS doesn't explain where the variation comes from in RM+NS.  Where does it come from?

2) RM doesn't provide any direction in RM+NS.  Where does it come from?

3) Those Darwinists just can't see the validity of our reasoning because of blind materialism! :p

Date: 2007/08/30 13:33:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 30 2007,13:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 30 2007,13:13, quoting slimy sal)
Yes. I am studying through the Whiting School of Engineering, and only got my acceptance confirmed 2 days ago.

That figures...

Reminds me of when people choose sides for sports teams. ?Who was always picked last?

Date: 2007/09/05 13:54:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
More puffery!

For example:
September 5, 2007: ?Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University? ? The widely read Evolution News & Views blog reports on the controversy.

Now why would people need to be told that something was widely read?

Sal Cordova was a treasure trove of puffery...

Rob Crowther interviews renowned pioneer of technology Walt Ruloff

My friend Casey Luskin, an attorney and scientist at the Discovery Institute, reports

A prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences, Masatoshi Nei, trashed neo-Darwinism in the recent peer-reviewed article: The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution.

More posts titled:
UPDATE: If it?s been edited out, it didn?t happen?!

Date: 2007/09/06 14:23:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 05 2007,11:48)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the "Debate" page on the EE website is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.

? ?We're giving Pilate two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman Imperialist State, and if he doesn't agree immediately, we execute her.
? ?Cut her head off?
? ?Cut all her bits off. Send 'em back on the hour every hour. Show them we're not to be trifled with.
? ?And of course, we point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and that we shall not submit to blackmail!
? ?No blackmail!
? ?They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.
? ?And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
? ?Yeah.
? ?And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
? ?Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
? ?The Series of Tubes?

Date: 2007/09/11 08:32:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Fross @ Sep. 10 2007,23:00)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 10 2007,22:03)

Do you think the younger races have more information for skin color than the younger races?

I wonder, is the "information" to which this refers simply the amount of melanin being produced in the skin?

If so, then even if that quantity is larger or smaller in one races than in another, how is that more or less "information"?

It's not like the lighter races don't have melanin at all; doesn't everybody (except albinos) have some of it?


In the summer, I use sunscreen with an SPF of 50.  It blocks the extra information from getting to me.

SPF - Second-law Protection Factor? :)

Date: 2007/09/16 21:06:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (factician @ Sep. 14 2007,14:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 14 2007,14:36)
Dippy Joe, pure Tard:

Aren't they worried they may some day run out of Tard?

Pitching your Peak Tard theory again?

Date: 2007/09/18 11:17:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:29)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:26)
Supersport does support SOME programs to help poor people:


"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21

yes, that is one of my personal favorites as well.....just trying to help out!

"Hey mom, what's for dinner?"

(Looks in oven)

"Awww, not gay swan again!"

"And it tastes like Listerine!"

"Don't whine, my little supersport, Listerine is necessary so that the others swans don't catch teh gay.  Besides this is safer than roadkill. Remember when pa was eatin' roadkill and got hit by that truck?"

Date: 2007/09/18 11:31:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:08)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?

You've heard about "erosion", right? how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the have no scientific explanation.

Rain CAN do it.

Are you seriously suggesting rain can't wash earth away similarly or better than tools?

Ye gods.

I read that wind can cause erosion.  By supersport thinking, that means rain couldn't have done it!

Another Darwinist contradiction!!!!one!!

Date: 2007/09/18 12:00:17, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:24)
I can't stop reading that FSTDT page

"I mean if modern day humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, then where are all the skyscrapers from years gone by? Where are all the books and artifacts? Where are the planes and cars?"

Supersport, Discussion Forums [Comments (50)] 2006-Dec-05

Why didn't Jesus post on the internet?

Blessed are the geek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:52:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 18 2007,16:02)

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting...

well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?  :D

Date: 2007/09/20 08:09:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lufeld @ Sep. 20 2007,06:17)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 20 2007,08:41)
Does anyone aside from me think it is utterly hillarious to have a series of links to uncommondescent and evolutionnews and subsequently proclaiming this to be 'media coverage'.

You are not alone. Here is a link to an analysis of the "media coverage":

OH, boy!  Another link for Dembski to add to his media coverage! :O

Date: 2007/09/20 08:19:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (djmullen @ Sep. 20 2007,03:27)
“Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you’re out. –WmAD”
Have you been getting anonymous email complaints, or is that appeal only wrong when issued by your enemies? -FJB
Comment by fbeckwith — September 19, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Could this possibly be the Francis J. Beckwith who pressured Baylor into giving him tenure?  Is this the beginning of a dividing line in ID?

That was surely Francis Beckwith.  I wonder if he will ever realize that he has been duped by sciency sounding talk.

Beckwith argued that:

1) ID could constitutionally be taught in schools if it could exist on its own as science.

2) Dembski and others have a scientific theory of ID

For those who need help, 2) is false and 1) is debatable.

Date: 2007/09/20 11:49:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (factician @ Sep. 20 2007,10:25)

Anyone who thinks that the fact that girls are not as good as boys in math means that girls do not rule is obviously not in contact with many girls.

Ummm...  Huh?


"Math is hard!" - Barbie

Date: 2007/09/20 16:34:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 20 2007,16:13)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2007,10:21)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2007,12:11)

I accept the evidence for an asteroid impact.  But there was never any such period in real history known as "The Cretaceous."  This is an artificial time demarcation created by those who believe the earth is very old.  And most evidence indicates that it is not very old.  So I guess that makes the answer 'yes' and 'no.'

OK, so do you chalk up what geologists call the Cretaceous as a brief time period in a young earth timescale, or do you think of it as an artifact of deposition during the Noachian Flood?

The latter.

so the asteroid impact happened after the flood?

and nobody noticed it.

What foolishness YEC is!

Date: 2007/09/21 12:18:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2007,08:56)
and nobody noticed it.
An asteroid hitting the earth way off in the vicinity of the Yucatan (where nobody probably lived yet ... this asteroid probably hit pre-Babel)

Probably?  You are just making stuff up and calling it an answer!

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2007,08:56)
was probably not a newsworthy event to a people who had just survived a cataclysm the nature and scale of the Global Flood.  Big event, yes.  But not even close in comparison to the Flood event itself.

I can top that.  The Egyptians and Chinese didn't notice the Flood in the middle of their civilizations.  It is amazing how such inattentive people can survive.

Well, let us think a bit more about asteroid impacts, and their frequencies.   There are 150 major impact craters - none of which were noteworthy enough to put in the Bible even though the authors sure did put in a lot of pointless begats.  Go ahead, tell us why none were noticed - were all of these "probably" after the Flood?

Date: 2007/09/21 12:39:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 21 2007,12:20)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2007,09:56)
and nobody noticed it.
An asteroid hitting the earth way off in the vicinity of the Yucatan (where nobody probably lived yet ... this asteroid probably hit pre-Babel) was probably not a newsworthy event to a people who had just survived a cataclysm the nature and scale of the Global Flood.  Big event, yes.  But not even close in comparison to the Flood event itself.

With all the crazy shit going on in the world, I'm sure nobody would even really notice if this happened:    
The meteorite's estimated size was about 10 km (6 mi) in diameter, releasing an estimated 500 zettajoules (5.0×1023 joules) of energy, approximately 100 teratons of TNT (1014 tons),[1] on impact. By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba or Emperor Bomb, had a yield of only 50 megatons, which would make this impact 2,000,000 times more powerful.

The impact would have caused some of the largest megatsunamis in Earth's history. These would have spread in all directions, hitting the Caribbean island of Cuba especially hard. A cloud of dust, ash and steam would spread itself from the crater. The pieces of the meteorite would have rained all over Earth, igniting global wildfires. The shock waves would have continued hundreds of kilometers into the planet, causing global earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The emission of dust and particles would have covered the entire surface of the earth for several years, possibly a decade, creating a harsh environment

I mean, not to the point that anyone would write it down or anything.

Debris was ejected a quarter of the way to the moon!

I have to wonder about throwing in another catastrophe right after the flood.  Make that about a 150 major sized rocks.  AFDave's God sounds like the neighborhood juvenile delinquent.

Date: 2007/09/21 12:46:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,09:26)
Looks like supes is a pariah now, like FtK.

I know he was annoying, but seriously, don't you think that was a bit hasty?

I think a useful strategy for piranhas is to discuss their original question only, but to ignore the troll's further utterances.  That way, it would be clear that the original post was incoherent.  This would be done by responding only to each other after initial responses.  Or ridiculing the further posts that are particularly ridiculous.  It makes boggarts go away, perhaps it will work on internet trolls.

Date: 2007/09/25 14:00:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 25 2007,13:52)

I particularly like the fact that you left all of joe's misspelled words and wandering grammar intact!

ID predicts that he will pounce on you for misspelling those words...

Meanwhile, on the Baylor University news front, here is a news release from Baylor announcing a new NSF award to three members of their engineering faculty. One of them is Bob Marks, who apparently has been able to move on, despite his disappointment about the persecution and the loss of his broom-closeted postdoctoral fellow.

Alllow me to predict the quotemine of the press release, with the to be quoted part in bold

To conduct the project, each of the three researchers will bring a unique set of skills to the table. Dr. John Davis, an associate professor of mathematics at Baylor, is the group's leading expert in mathematics of time scales. Dr. Robert Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor, acts as the "idea" researcher by providing insight and a general strategy on making the mathematics useful for engineers. Dr. Ian Gravagne, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor and the lead researcher on the project, applies the mathematics to engineering problems like high-gain adaptive control and controller-area-network bandwidth optimization.

Dr. Robert Marks, distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor, acts as the "ID" researcher by providing insight and a general strategy on making the mathematics useful for engineers.  :)

Date: 2007/09/26 15:02:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,06:01)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?

They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.

That's not true.  

So you claim.  Can you do it?

Let me choose automobiles, from the present and from the past (since I know nothing of your machines and I can presume you know something about automobiles).

Make a nested hierarchy of

Vega (1971, 1977)
El Camino (1959, 1987)
Model T (1908, 1927)
Model A (1903)
Model A (1927)
Corvair (1960, 1969)
Corvette (1953, 2007)
Porsche 911 (1964)
Altima (1993, 2007)
Avalon (1995, 2007)
S-10 (1982, 2004)
F150 (1948, 2007)
Metropolitan (1954, 1962)
Stanley Steamer (1903, 1923)
Edsel (1958)
Murano (2003, 2007)
Coupe Deville (1949, 1993)
Crossfire (2004, 2007)
Miata (1989, 2007)

Be sure to tell us what it is based on:
safety equipment, engine design, number of doors, etc.

Date: 2007/09/26 15:15:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2007,14:00)
DaveTard, wants "science" changed:




10:59 am
If the definition of science doesn’t allow for the possibility of the actions of intelligent agency in the universe then the definition needs to change. Intelligent agency is a proven quantity. It’s proven that intelligent agency can do all sorts of things from building spacecraft to manipulating the DNA sequences in living things.

There is no rational basis for thinking that human agency is the sole instance of intelligent agency at work in the universe. If materialist philosphy refuses to admit any other intelligence then it’s a philosophy in denial of the plain evidence before it.

Statistical mechanics tells us what to expect from undirected laws of physics operating on matter/energy. Statistical mechanics is rational and reliable about explaining and predicting what we observe. However, when we observe something that appears to defy the predictions of statistical mechanics then we’re either missing something in our calculation or an intelligent agency has intervened to cause organization that shouldn’t otherwise exist.

A space shuttle can, in principle, assemble from the undirected interaction of matter and energy. However, statistical mechanics informs us that the probability of a space shuttle assembling without guidance is so improbable in a finite universe the size and age of ours that we can confidently predict we’ll never observe one. Yet there’s a whole fleet of them.

The actions of intelligent agency explain how things almost impossible become quite possible. Statistical mechanics is a reliable positive indicator of intelligent agency. It doesn’t work in the negative - it can’t rule out the actions of intelligent agency but rather it makes it unneccessary.

This is the real basis (or should be) of rational materialist science. It attempts to explain what we observe without resort to the actions of intelligent agency. It’s quite reasonable to resist any inference of intelligent agency by all rational and evidentiary means because, after all, it remains a fact that there is just one observed instance of intelligent agency and its actions are bounded in time and space. If evidence of intelligent agency acting outside the scope of human agency is presented I have no problem with taking extraordinary pains to find an explanation that doesn’t involve agency. I’ll resist such an explanation as long as reason allows but no longer. I won’t take the unreasonable position that there is no possibility of non-human intelligent agency.

However, there must come a point when it becomes reasonable to make an intelligent design inference. At some point all other explanations for observed organization become inadequate. I think we’ve reached that point in trying to explain the organization of organic life without resort to intelligent agency. The final nail in the unintelligent coffin for me was the observation of random mutation & natural selection working over billions of trillions of generations in p.falciparum and generating nothing in the way of non-trivial organization. This was a fair trial for RM+NS and it failed to produce what neo-darwinian theory predicted it would produce. It obeyed the predictions of statistical mechanics as ID proponents held. Unless there’s some other unknown unintelligent mechanism that IS adequate the only reasonable explanation still on the table is intelligent design. It’s time to admit it as the best explanation. That’s not to say it’s the only possible explanation but it deserves top billing at this point in time. Anything less than top billing is understandable given the inertia of the RM+NS theory but active suppression of the intelligent design explanation is driven by irrational desire and/or hidden agendas rather than honest and open scientific inquiry and education.


Its all crap, but just the first bit for now:

Keep going with the "zero wavelength radiation" thing. That was promising for hilarity and tinfoil hat sales.

DaveTard, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.  :)

Just go to , go down the page and imagine DaveTard doing the polymath.  :p

Date: 2007/09/26 17:47:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 26 2007,17:25)
In case you may have felt that seismic tremble in the Tard Force, here is a possible explanation. Supersport has blundered into FtK's blog.

Methodological naturalists, beware. Resistance is futile.

Ah, a "nonevent" horizon develops around the black hole of knowledge.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:16:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Fart-based animation from Baylor President Lilley

passed on by Dilliam Wembski,

followed by many replys of outrage in UD

followed by a post from William Dembski:

Dilliam Wembski just meant it as a parody, folks!

Date: 2007/09/28 13:15:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,05:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

So what I hear you saying is that the equidistant sequence space between Cytochrome-C among the various groups is more a function of time than anything else.  Is that correct?

That is incorrect.  Time doesn't come into it, but a nesting based on differences.  It really is quite simple in principle, which is why you should try making one.  Biologists don't have to for extant life, since Linneaus did that hundreds of years ago.

I gave you a list of cars (including first and last years the model was made) to make a nested hierarchy from.  Can you do so on the basis of time?

Date: 2007/10/02 12:51:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow.  By YOUR definition of assume we will never prove whether my assumption is right or not.

Date: 2007/10/02 12:53:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:04:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to :

1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.

Did you read Barthalt's work?  What particle size distributions are obtained?  Are these particle size distributions seen in "layers" in nature?

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.

The polystrate argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of geology - that geologists assume that since many strata take millions of years to form, then geologists assume that all thick strata took millions of years to form.

Date: 2007/10/02 13:26:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 02 2007,02:10)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 30 2007,16:13)
Linné's classification was flawed. His nested hierarchy is largely inconsistent across characters, it is full of contradictions.
And I fail to see how this undermines Darwin's prediction. Linné formulated no hypothesis behind his classification, expect perhaps something similar to common design, which can predict anything (hence nothing).

Linnaeus first published his Systema Naturae in 1738.  How could it not be flawed by today's standards?  
You are right that he formed no new hypothesis based on his hierarchy, but he was an adherent to natural theology - so that would be his "hypothesis" I suppose.
The point is that a nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time so how could it be a prediction?

Of course Linnaeus' hierarchy was flawed.  Linnaeus' idea was not flawed.  This is why biology students still have to learn classification.


Organisms unknown to Linnaeus or Darwin will fit into the nested hierarchy.  That is, we do not have to depend on Linnaeus to make the decisions, and in fact could not have if we call Linneaus' decisions flawed.  A prediction is something that must be true if the theory is correct.

This hierarchy would still hold for the majority of characters not considered originally by Linnaeus.

Extinct organisms will fit into this hierarchy.

Genetics will form the same nested hierarchy.

The mechanism - descent with modification - forms the same kind of pattern.

I took the liberty of moving one sentence to the bottom here:

Hierarchies and evolutionary trees are still hotly disputed amongst those who classify organisms.

It is trivially true that if one is looking at a statistical process using 95% confidence intervals that you will be wrong about 5% of the time.  The remedy is acquiring more data, which sometimes confirms the conclusion or changes it.

Date: 2007/10/02 16:39:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,16:16)
Well, now that Dembski has disappointed all of us by disabling comments on his lawyer-driven apology, and even denied us the excitement that could have come about if he had hired someone from the firm of Luskin, Farfarman, and Calvert to represent him in those negotiations, we have to go back to regular UD tard.

But this is a good one, from barrya, and if you need something for your sig, it's a contender. Please turn off your irony meters before reading further.    
Finally, I suspect Darwinism because it is clear that it is held by many Darwinists on religious, not scientific, grounds not because of the evidence but in the very teeth of the evidence.

Man, talk about projection!  This is BarryA:

Date: 2007/10/02 17:28:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:10)

But then without a polystrate fossil, how do we know when a layer did or did not take millions of yers to form?

Without making assumptions, but actually looking at the strata involved - what the deposition mechanism is.  For example, the Joggins "polystrate" fossil was figured out 150 years ago by J. W. Dawson.

Date: 2007/10/02 20:33:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 02 2007,19:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 02 2007,17:48)
I have just been told by a secret informant that this detail was negotiated as well. As it stands now, Dembski's family gets to eat at the cafeteria, but they can't order pie.

I heard that the deal was that they don't get any more free lunch.


Date: 2007/10/03 11:54:08, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 03 2007,02:52)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,08:48)
It is interesting that, when asked questions, those who accept the theory of evolution answer in their own words, with links to sources, while those who don't accept it cut and paste more or less lengthy excerpts of other people's writings.

I can't win!  First I'm told to bring it back to the subject - which was Schindewolf's take on horse evolution - then I'm chided for quoting Schindewolf!    

{snip quote}

You want me to explain Schindewolf's position without quoting Schindewolf?
OK, basically, Schindewolf believed that a lineage's evolutionary path was set from the first saltational event that created that type.  He documented what he interpreted as evolutionary patterns throughout the fossil record - which he then used to construct the framework of his "typostrophic theory".  This theory consisted of three stages; "typogenesis", which was the saltational evolution of types; "typostasis", which was a period of gradual development in a way that was constrained by the original typogenetic phase; and finally, "typolysis" which was a period of over-specialization that would usually end in the extinction of the species.
He did not believe that anyone was guiding these processes, he believed them to be totally self-contained.

Grasshopper, now you show comprehension.  A kindergardener can cut and paste Einstien's writing - what does that show about their understanding of relativity?

I was talking to my son about his AP history class, and he said that his instructor discouraged the use of quotes.  I told my son that I approved such an attitude.

Why is that?  It places the burden of what you claim on you.  You can't make excuse that because you use some of Einstien's prose that the meaning of that prose read in isolation is something Einstein "said".

Now we can ask:  what do we know now about genetics and development that Schindewolf did not?  We know about HOX genes, and that saltation (the simultaneous multiple mutation model) doesn't work nor is it needed to explain radical morphology changes.

Schindewolf was familiar with the relatively new science of genetics:

I.E. Schindewolf knew as little as everybody else, joined a school of thought that turned out to be wrong.  An excellent reason NOT to quote him, eh?


That does not address the question. The question was "How do these 'internal factors', whatever they might be, get translated into mutations and changes in gene frequences?" In other words, how do the required changes in the DNA (that he could not have known about) take place? What makes a specific alanine change to leucine? Please answer in your own words.

He believed that these saltational changes took place during ontogeny.  He cited the many ontogenetic phases documented in the fossils of ammonites, corals, and other lineages in the fossil record as evidence of this.      

So there is no genetic mechanism that explains why the specific mutations (of which many at once are required for saltation) can be ensured.



Linnaeus first published his Systema Naturae in 1738.  How could it not be flawed by today's standards?  Hierarchies and evolutionary trees are still hotly disputed amongst those who classify organisms.
You are right that he formed no new hypothesis based on his hierarchy, but he was an adherent to natural theology - so that would be his "hypothesis" I suppose.
The point is that a nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time so how could it be a prediction?

Hierarchies are hotly disputed? Perhaps at some level, but they are being refined all the time. There is general agreement about the broad outlines and many of the finer details. Could you give an example of a hot dispute in taxonomy?

A nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time? Could we please have a reference.

I think you still have not grasped the significance of a nested hierarchy and are confusing it with Linnaeus' use of a nested hierarchy in his classification scheme. The crucial thing as regards evolution is that it predicts the nested hierarchies will all be the same and that is what is observed.

You just said Linnaeus used a nested hierarchy to classify organisms.  Linnaeus did this more than 100 years before Darwin.  Yet you want me to show that a nested hierarchy was postulated before Darwin's time?
As for your second point.  Maybe you're right.  I'm assuming that nested hierarchies based on morphological characters, or homologous characters, or analogous characters, or genetic sequences will all be different.  I haven't seen how they all line up.

I believe it is I, not Simons who said that Linnean taxonomy is a nested hierarchy.

If you wish to see how they line up, go to  There is text that describes the characteristics used for that level of the family tree.

Date: 2007/10/03 15:48:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:04)
John F

Constanacy now is a far cry from how it was in the past.  We have no way of knowing that it has been constant all through time.

Speak for yourself.  


Creationists have done the RATE project and found too much helium in the crystals.

How ironic that you uncritically mention a project that uses a method KNOWN not to be constant to derive "dates"! :D


The creationists, who have PhD degrees in geology can better explain isochrons than I can.  

Perhaps they can also explain to you why methods based on radioactive constants is not as good as using diffusion.

Date: 2007/10/03 15:54:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2007,13:53)
So in a strict sense, even “Darwinian algorithms” in computer science are not really Darwinian. I would suggest the proper term would be “Blythian” not “Darwinian”.

Michalski’s work raises scientific questions such as “what is the implication of No Free Lunch on Machne Learning?”

No Free Lunch theorems still place a bound on what systems with the ability “learn” (such as Michalski’s mahcines) might actually be able to learn. I do not have answers to the implication of No Free Lunch theorems on Michalski’s work but that would be a good topic of exploration for an Evolutionary Informatics research program, exactly the kind of research program which scientists like Robert Marks pioneered.

I like the way Sal is always ready with what should be done. Very little of the doing. He was the same over at his youngcosmos blog. "Expermients need to be done", "one day it might be discovered that..."

Sal is just an IDEA man.

Date: 2007/10/04 16:08:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,08:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

Wieland: "Responding to the Joggins ‘forest’ claims, Wieland started by expressing surprise that Willis did not use the better-known example at Yellowstone National Park. However, neither case involved forests fossilized in situ; all the trees have their roots broken off, and there is no trace of the fossil soil in which the ‘forests’ must have grown—the trees had clearly been transported there [see The Yellowstone petrified forests]."


Dawson: "In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

Fossil soils and in situ roots that Weiland said are not there.  If you call getting the facts wrong a successful rebuttal, then I think we have very different sets of ethics.

Date: 2007/10/09 12:09:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2007,04:46)
Ok, I now have a post up on this topic at PT.

I entered the following comment over at William Brookfield's weblog in the thread where he whines about critics not responding on his schedule to EIL online essays.


The "Unacknowledged Costs" paper critiquing Schneider's "ev" has unacknowledged errors. The conclusions in another of the essays are tainted by reliance on the bogus numbers in the "ev" critique.

Tom Schneider had responses up back near the beginning of August in his usual place for such responses. It doesn't seem that Brookfield's search could be described as assiduous.

I've been awaiting substantive replies from Dembski on several of my critiques for years. Will Brookfield draw a conclusion about Dembski from that datum?

Wesley R. Elsberry

What do you suppose the odds are that it will make it through moderation?

The post is up on the Pleasurian site.

Date: 2007/10/10 12:04:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2007,08:07)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2007,17:28)
Should we have a pool for when the removal of essays from the "Evolutionary Informatics Lab" due to errors becomes a topic of conversation on UD?

Of course, "never" should not be an available time for betting.

Regardless, I'll offer to hold the pot until there's a need for a pay-out.

On UD, Denyse quotes Marks' lawyer in the Waco Tribune:

As counsel for Baylor Distinguished Professor Robert J. Marks II, I was amazed and discouraged by the controversy surrounding his rather routine yet scientifically exacting Web site that was shut down by the dean of his Engineering Department.

So scientifically exacting, one of the three papers fell into a memory hole already.

Date: 2007/10/10 12:07:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,10:27)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2007,16:16)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2007,10:15)

Let's get it on!


Mate, if I could get into the one on the right, Steve and I would probably REALLY be good to go! And vice versa, obviously.

Although, given Steves diet as expressed on the Libations and Comestibles thread, I reckon we're looking at something more like this:

I wonder if he has a wide stance?


Is this Steve after eating too many bean burritos?

Date: 2007/10/12 12:59:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:45)
Hi All,

Listen to Louis, he might be on to something.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not.

I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view.  It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis.

BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is?

Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses?

I don't have access to Amazon comments.  Would someone who does please ask the question for me?

Considering that I did research with Fritz Schaefer from 1987-1991, I think I know him better than anybody else here.

Looking for consciousness to be a quantum effect is not going to work, because there is no way to have a specific superposition of individual particle wave functions in the brain.

Date: 2007/10/18 12:21:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 17 2007,19:41)
Actually I'd love to be slender. Tennis is killing my arches.

Are you playing on soft courts?

Date: 2007/10/19 13:53:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
This is Spinal Tap - 11  :D

Date: 2007/10/23 11:02:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton


10:49 am
Patrick, thanks for the link to the video clip.

I’m glad to see DavidBrennan gone. He was a work of art. This site kicks people off more quickly that I would, but I’d have kicked Brennen off in a heartbeat.

Works of fart are welcomed, though!

Date: 2007/10/23 13:12:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 19 2007,06:37)

Please come back and answer questions about dating methods.

He is taking the intellectual cowardice route.  Not that I am surprised.

Date: 2007/10/23 13:45:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 23 2007,11:58)
A discussion of the pine pollen is here :

So you will fall for anything that supports young-earth creationism, even if it is shown to be wrong by another young-earth creationist (Arthur Chadwick)?

Burdick was just plain incompetent.

Date: 2007/10/23 16:19:28, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton is a tard:

Yesterday, the Australian press pushed a global warming story. Members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had announced that the situation is even more grave than previously thought. The CO2 levels for the period 2000-2007 were 35% higher that what they themselves had predicted.

This was given the spin by the press that we should try even harder to urgently reduce carbon emmissions.

It made me ask if they can’t predict with precision what will happen over a few years, can we trust their long term predictions?

The *increase* in CO2 is higher by 35%, not the amount of CO2.  It depends on how fast we burn fossil fuels, for example whether it is scenario A or scenario B, etc. (as in Hansen's 1988 paper)

Date: 2007/10/25 13:53:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2007,13:49)
Mr. Gieschen needs to put down the AIG type nonsense and get a decent biology education. That would make it harder for him to accept the obviously false claims of the nuts.

However, he is doing a great job demonstrating that the way to maintain a YEC belief is by perserving massive ignorance, not just ignorance of a few things.

Date: 2007/10/25 16:29:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 25 2007,16:03)
Barry Arrington States:

"An Object Cannot Rise Above Itself"

Barry, can a child grow taller? Can a sprinter beat his best time? Nothing happens in temporal isolation. Barry, are you dishonest, or stupid?

Barry, can you get any stupider?  :p

Date: 2007/10/30 16:31:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 30 2007,15:59)
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2007,15:50)

Holy Shit!  That is some list of words....

I'm thinking  that this is part of the plea-bargain deal his attorney was able to work out for BA77.  Under the terms he had to rat out all the other members of his Christo-Right / Fascist First / Posse Commitatus, which he was happy to do.  He also has to stay at least 5 miles away from schools, and libraries, and of course, as is clear from his Nanny filter, terms of the deal include stipulations that forbids him from using all of his favorite words.

BatShit77 - It's not just a name.

Well, I think it is possible that some of those would get through the filter; he types them with the "^" character inserted to ensure that they get through. I recall one time he resent a message with some explanatory note like "Had to resend, the baby sitter filter ate mur^der." So it is not clear that all of these words are verboten, or if he is just being extra careful with words that he thinks should/could be banned.

We need to get the Darwinian Pressure Group to work on the nanny filters pronto!  New words to filter out:







Date: 2007/10/31 08:45:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2007,07:51)
Heng and Green make the same error that Dembski and Marks do in misrepresenting Dawkins's "weasel" program. "Weasel" doesn't "fix" correct letters; all positions are open to mutation at every copy operation.

Added: I have sent an email to Prof. Green about the problem with the webpage.

Do you think it will take them seven years to recognize the error?

Date: 2007/11/02 10:41:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Nov. 01 2007,16:54)
Quote (Leftfield @ Nov. 01 2007,16:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,15:30)
There may be trouble, ahead..




3:25 pm
Patrick (46)-

What can you calculate the complexity of? I can’t figure out how to calculate the complexity of anything.

Yeah, somebody help me out, I wasn't expecting to get an actual answer!

I just wanted to join the banned!

leftfield aka congregate

Patrick is basically saying that complexity = length of word, and that Zach's program can't jump from a five letter word to a fifty letter word if there are no similar words intermediate in length between them.

The evolutionary answer to this is 'Well, duh'.

If the phrasenator was German, it could!  :D

Date: 2007/11/02 10:50:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,18:14)
Guys, go take a look the sob stories by the cranks and crackpots (not just IDers) that Ben is publishing on his site

There is some SERIOUS fun to be had.  .Ben is becoming a magnet for weirdos and I plan to introduce him to a few new ones :-)

From  Timecube, perhaps?

Date: 2007/11/02 11:02:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 02 2007,06:58)
In case you were looking for another good reason to visit Waco TX (besides the Dr. Dr. Dembski Memorial Closet and Cafeteria Chair), here is a link to, an organization devoted to preserving and exhibiting an incredible collection of Columbian Mammoth skeletons found near Waco. Baylor University, despite the fact that these skeletons have been dated pre-flud (68,000 years ago), is a partner in the endeavor.

If Baylor keeps up these kinds of shenanigans, Dembski won't want to be associated with them at all. :)

If they had any meat left on them, maybe Dembski could barbeque them!  That is one way of dealing with inconvenient evidence!  :p

Date: 2007/11/03 10:57:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2007,21:49)
My demise came about as I stuck a needle into one of DT's known soft spots, that being randomness and probability.

Ah, a form of assupuncture!  :p

Date: 2007/11/05 11:19:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2007,08:40)




9:29 am

In another application of ID say we examine a piece of fling and determine it’s an arrowhead. What can we infer about the designer from that? We can infer a designer with some skill in knapping flint.

Emphasis mine.

Poor Dave can't even play his own game. Knapping is a mechanism. If the flint was perfectly honed at a molecular level, that'd be a different designer with different capabilities. There a a few ways you can sharpen a flint;  by smashing  with another heavy object, by placing a flint in a fire and having it "explode" along lines of moisture in the flint or by Pressure Flaking if you're a bit more sophisticated. Each one will give you a different flint..

Daves's discussion of mechanism is materialistic - alert Dense Buy-my-book O'Leary !  No CSI computed, alert Dembski to the heresy!

Date: 2007/11/08 15:04:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,12:46)

The usual list + bonus "Turin shroud + fulfilled prophecies" material..

Ah, that good old resurrection radiation!  :O

That sounds like a materialistic explanation to me, by the way.

Date: 2007/11/08 15:25:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,14:32)
EF This:

Parody or slimey Sal?

Slimey Sal.  The writing style, like Dense O'Leary's, is (and should be) inimitable.

Note the fluffing up of credentials -

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover).
3 degrees in scientific disciplines
Present during an interview by prestigious journal
for a major story

Date: 2007/11/08 15:28:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Ridiculed because of attacking Naturism

Date: 2007/11/08 15:49:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,15:11)
Tyke tweaks Tard's toes.




3:57 pm
It’s a little disingenuous to claim bias because the PBS documentary features two Darwinists, when Michael Behe himself was offered a chance to contribute, but refused to participate in the show.

Now he may have good reason to decline, but that doesn’t make the claim in this video clip any more credible.

Comments disabled on Youtube.  

How can the Darwinist conspiracy censor the Discovery Institute if they won't let us post?  :angry:

Date: 2007/11/13 15:53:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2007,15:49)
Why these nutters are dangerous, Park 2:

But, as the text states, Yahweh allowed the situation as an effect of the guilt of the adults’ rebellion. (The babies sure didn’t bring this on themselves.)

So what is right? The feeling of evil you (like me) would have surely had on seeing an invader bash the babies heads, or Yahweh’s decision to send in the invaders to make a mess of them?

So being a Yahwist, I would have to side with Kierkegaard and say that no moral argument, Nature Law or otherwise, can deal with a situation like this. Yahweh’s will trumps our assessment.

my emphasis. This is by a long time UD poster.

Ve vere just followink Yahveh's orders!

Date: 2007/11/13 21:28:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2007,19:25)
This PBS show is pretty good so far.

The Discovery Institute not replying was a HUGE mistake.

ID is PWNED!!11ONE!!11!!!

Date: 2007/11/14 14:38:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2007,09:43)
well, the picture is by TroutMac so if it's deeply dishonest then he's happy to go along with it.

Ironically, the mousetrap (labeled IC) that Behe is holding in that picture is broken.  LOL.

Date: 2007/11/14 15:54:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
My ID inference:  The banninator button is broken.

Jason Rennie's remark:

Don’t be too hard on PBS. If you have an agenda to push and the facts get in the way then you just need new facts.

You can’t really blame them for adopting the tried and true approach to such things.

Of course, if they want to present it as science then that might be a problem. Unless of course it is ok to politicise science in this fashion. Darwinists seem to think so.

Poachy's response:
Seriously. They really ought to spend some time in the lab rather than just cranking out textbooks full of their unsupported assertions. The whole world would be better off it they’d just do some science.

Date: 2007/11/15 10:59:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 15 2007,10:06)
In other news, theism predicted this.

Perhaps it was one of those eureka moments, when the scientists realized they had discovered a new dinosaur with mouth parts designed to vacuum up food.

Very droll.

Date: 2007/11/19 11:49:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 17 2007,10:25)

Marks said:        
"Before the LifeWorks gift is expended, I plan to attract additional funds for Dr. Dembski's support. Ultimately I would like to raise sufficient soft money for a perpetually endowed position so that Dr. Dembski could, if he so chose, join my group full time. He has not agreed to do so."

For you nonacademic types, soft money is the kind that doesn't go clink in the collection plate.



   But the LifeWorks grant, which she said "circumvented the standard funding evaluation programs," could have "been vetted completely differently if it had gone through the academic side."

So Baylor had an effective design filter in operation, but Marks and Dembski schemed to create a false negative.

In any normal proposal, Dembski would have been a co-P.I. (a named principal collaborator), or a 'Senior Personnel', or a "Collaborating Scientist".  Hiding him away as a post-doc  was evidently intended to sneak him in under the radar.  It is additionally worth noting that Marks gets considerably less institutional credit for a non-vetted donation than for a competitive academic grant.


Ironically, Marks got a whole lot more blame for going through this channel.

Date: 2007/11/19 12:04:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 18 2007,21:29)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 18 2007,18:41)
The trollery and puppetry actually make the place somewhat less entertaining. It's the genuine idiocy I enjoy most.

I agree.  That is why I suggest that all trolls unmask.  I recall that I suggested the first of December.  Just post to the top thread at UDer failure (a cow with no milk) that you have been a troll that the DI/ID infected twits failed to detect.

And then kick back.  It just does not seem funny to make fun of crap that is phoney from the start.


I will be the first to unmask myself.  Yes, I post at UD as William Dembski.  :p

Date: 2007/11/26 11:59:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Nov. 26 2007,10:19)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 26 2007,10:11)
The text of it:
Review of JibJab’s Darwin Daze: Sock Hop
Uncommon Descent - Mon, 2007-11-26 04:37

The long anticipated Darwin Daze: Sock Hop, produced by the innovators at studios, has premiered on The musical stars are Dick (The Artful Dodger) Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Eugenie Scott, Sammy (the Bull) Harris, and Sam Elliot as a small headed Darwin.

The Review is at An excerpt:

Although yours truly was concerned that the transition from atheist bully to entertainer was beyond the reach of all but Elliot, I must confess my error. Dick Dawkins’s smirk and Sammy (the Bull) Harris’s know-it-all glare are freshly squeezed lemons in the cool clear water of Elliot’s unflinching professionalism, Chris Hitchens’s sweet sugary smile and Eugenie Scott’s cooling ice.

Click HERE for a link to the video.
Copyright © 2007 Uncommon Descent. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact so we can take legal action immediately.

Um... aren't you breaking copyright by posting that here then?

How can he be copying something that never existed?  :p

Date: 2007/11/26 18:26:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 26 2007,15:40)
Quote (dhogaza @ Nov. 26 2007,15:25)
Dembski swears "it wasn't me who stole that video from harvard!"

Better yet
Comments are closed.

Dembski:  I am only guilty of theft by receiving!

Also, at the end it says "Conception and Scientific Content by Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue", implicitly admitting that the voiceover had no scientific content!

Date: 2007/11/28 12:40:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 28 2007,09:57)
Oh, kind of like showing staged moth photographs as an illustration of crypsis gets to be, "Fraud, fraud, FRAUD!"

I'll repeat what I posted at the Pandas Thumb:

One thing that bugs me about the criticism of the photographs as fraudulent. Is a family photograph fraudulent because you don’t find families standing shoulder to shoulder, unmoving and facing the same direction?

Date: 2007/11/28 17:42:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 28 2007,17:30)
Design Inference!!!

cdesign proponentsists is a troll!!!

Lutepisc is a genius, isn't he?

I love the followup reply:




6:25 pm
Lutepisc, if you are really into Intelligent Design then you will engage this person and attempt to save their soul for Christ, the Designer. These trolls just come here hoping that someone will lead them to the Lord, and that is the only thing we have on this Earth to accomplish. No amount of stealing materialists arguments to fight materialism will save one single soul.


Date: 2007/11/29 13:00:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 29 2007,12:08)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 29 2007,11:59)
Good Old Joe. So actually, GG's subpar publication record is ACTUALLY a sign of just what a superb researcher he really is! He's actually BETTER than those eggheads who manage to publish, since they're obviously not doing research!

Well, the difference is that researchers such as (gasp) biologists have their subjects right in front of them, so they can do their research and publish their data right away, and not have to deal with something that's light years away, and have to peer through a telescope for years waiting for something to move. The hidebound chance-worshiping idiots in GG's department, and the rest of the university, obviously don't understand this.

Except for the biologists doing tortoise research.  :p

Date: 2007/12/01 09:40:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 01 2007,09:12)
My latest post has been deleted, so I 'll try it this way:


Dead wrong. Mice and humans share 100.0% of their genes. The number present in one and lacking in the other is in the single digits. There goes your hypothesis...

If they share 100,0% genes then it back ups frontloading very well I would say. It would mean that also regulatory genes are the same and it was only due to rearrangements of pre-existing genes in DNA that led to the difference between mice and  human in the distant past.

(In that case the possible explanation could be also different composition of cytosole in gametes and zygotes of both species and consequently the difference between man and  mice could be only epigenetical. But is sounds too "German", neglecting the role of DNA in ontogenesis,  doesn't it?)

Hold on, Daniel.

It would appear that VMartin is "mistaken".

Anybody wishing to see how similar the house mouse and human genomes are just need to go to


Perhaps VMartin thinks novel genes are those that have fiction books written about them.

Date: 2007/12/04 08:08:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 04 2007,00:38)
Quote (Art @ Dec. 03 2007,22:42)
What new genes need to be added to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum?

Um, none.

Classical molecular microevolution.  (Which, when it refutes IC, is NOT accepted by IDists.  Apparently.)

What, you mean the Romans had syringes at the end of those things?

Egads, they were even more advanced than I thought.

Oh, wait a moment.  Pila being placed in bacteria to form Type III secretory systems?  I think we've found our intelligent designer, folks.

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Date: 2007/12/04 22:15:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 04 2007,20:59)
D@mn, I missed this; MacT quoting Luskin's piece on the Gonzalez tenure case:

From the full article:
“Dr. Gonzalez is not teaching intelligent design in classes. The majority of his research is based on astronomy and cosmology. He has stellar reputation as cosmologist and astrologer. Why wouldn’t you want a great scientist like that on your staff?” Luskin said.

A “stellar reputation as” . . . an astrologer?

That's too funny.

Maybe Gonzalez asked Behe to be one of his external reviewers for tenure.  :p

Date: 2007/12/05 08:31:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 05 2007,00:28)
Hey, all you people who've actually voted on tenure?

Does alluding to a potential tenure case before it comes up actually open a review board to lawsuits? If so, what's the justification behind the legal precedent in question? It seems like it'd be a bizarre prohibition to me, but if there is such a prohibition it's the only part of the entire case that isn't founded on bad logic from the very beginning.

No.  Faculty affairs committees do annual evaluations of tenure-track faculty, to give them guidance about what they are doing that will or will not help their case for tenure.

If the department faculty are not unanimous come tenure decision time, then upper administration will usually not approve it.

Date: 2007/12/05 08:46:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2007,08:31)
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 05 2007,00:28)
Hey, all you people who've actually voted on tenure?

Does alluding to a potential tenure case before it comes up actually open a review board to lawsuits? If so, what's the justification behind the legal precedent in question? It seems like it'd be a bizarre prohibition to me, but if there is such a prohibition it's the only part of the entire case that isn't founded on bad logic from the very beginning.

No.  Faculty affairs committees do annual evaluations of tenure-track faculty, to give them guidance about what they are doing that will or will not help their case for tenure.

If the department faculty are not unanimous come tenure decision time, then upper administration will usually not approve it.

Just want to clarify, the discussion should only be among faculty affairs committee or tenured faculty in the department, depending on how the procedure is outlined.

Date: 2007/12/06 13:31:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 06 2007,10:31)
lol. no. I'm asking because I'd like to accurately estimate the number of drinks in various form of delivery, the better to choose what to buy depending on the occasion. If you want to merely get tipsy, for instance, you don't want to miscalculate and find yourself roaring drunk.

A drink is one 12 fluid ounce (A volume measure, abbreviated fl oz) regular strength beer.  So, 5% times 12 oz is 0.6 fl oz of pure alcohol.

Wine at 15%, to have 0.6 fl oz should be 4 fl. oz in a drink.

Liquor, at 40%, to have 0.6 fl oz should be 1.5 fl. oz.
32 fl. oz = 1 quart = 946 mL, so a drink of usual strength liquor is 44 mL, pretty close to your 50 mL.

This ends the units conversion lesson for the day.

*Edited because I could.  [Nelson Muntz] Ha-Ha! [/Nelson Muntz]

Date: 2007/12/06 19:10:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 06 2007,15:15)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 05 2007,23:19)
When Humans and Baboons had their presumed common ancestor ~ 6 mill years ago, (bold mine - afarensis) that should be the last time when E Coli in our bowel had a common ancestor with E coli in the bowel of Baboons in the wild.

So apparently, babbons split off after gibbons, orangs and possibly gorillas, but before chimps. Feh! I wonder if having factually correct data - cercopithecoids split off around 23 MYA not 6 MYA - would change his predictions?

Edit: Simply to prove that a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin, with a cranial capacity of 410 cc can edit.

This stupid statement also implies that E. coli is only vertically inherited.

So the outbreaks of E. coli from hamburgers means....

Hamburgers are people!  :p

*Edited to remove a typo. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Date: 2007/12/07 08:27:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 06 2007,22:12)
True. However, the book is out now, and there are a number of package delivery services to choose from. If FTE won't cough up a review copy, I may be able to borrow one from elsewhere.

But I figure I should give them the opportunity to do the right thing, or to fail to do the right thing. I'll post on PT about how that turns out.

Maybe they are uncertain about where to send the package, given that the MSU lab will be put out of business by Dembski and Marks.  Any day now.

Date: 2007/12/07 08:31:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 07 2007,08:17)
I'll weigh in and say that, IMHO, reviewing a book without reading it is poor practice in any context. Confirmation biases make it difficult enough to digest information objectively, without seeing what we expect to see. Reviewing a book without having read it virtually guarantees that one will only reproduce one's expectations. The fact that those expectations prove to be true, or are likely to prove to be true, is no defense. Plus it's plain lazy.

Kwok did a "review" of Stuart Pivar's Lifecode nonsense, explicitly stating that that is the first time he had ever written a review without reading the book, and stating the reason why.

(Not putting money in Pivar's pocket to file lawsuits against reviewers like PZ Miers)

Date: 2007/12/10 13:43:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 10 2007,09:17)
Poachy, as last man standing, should probably press the issue regarding the failure to calculate the amount of CSI in a crunchy* peanut butter sandwich.  What a shame to ban an inquisitive bright young lady over a culinary debate.

*it can be smooth.  We never got the downlow which had more CSI, smooth or crunchy.

At least we know who the Intelligent Designer is:

Booker T. Washington

Date: 2007/12/10 21:21:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 10 2007,15:37)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2007,14:43)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 10 2007,09:17)
Poachy, as last man standing, should probably press the issue regarding the failure to calculate the amount of CSI in a crunchy* peanut butter sandwich.  What a shame to ban an inquisitive bright young lady over a culinary debate.

*it can be smooth.  We never got the downlow which had more CSI, smooth or crunchy.

At least we know who the Intelligent Designer is:

Booker T. Washington

You mean George Washington Carver.


At least it wasn't a complete waste - I watch the Booker T and the MG video.

Date: 2007/12/11 13:10:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=Kristine,Dec. 11 2007,11:40]
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 11 2007,10:14)
Someone with a brain responds:



12:01 pm
I am not an atheist, but I really struggle with the rush to blame them for every tragedy. So let me pose another interesting question.

Murray had been in the Youth With a Mission program and appears to come from a good Christian family (he was homeschooled and his brother apparently attends Oral Roberts University). Rather than blaming atheists should consider that perhaps the Christian community needs to figure out more effective ways to minister to the needs of mentally ill individuals?

There's always exorcism.

Date: 2007/12/12 10:45:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 12 2007,08:56)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 06 2007,13:31)
32 fl. oz = 1 quart = 946 mL, so a drink of usual strength liquor is 44 mL, pretty close to your 50 mL.

Only in the US system. In the UK it is 40 fluid ounces to a quart.

I've just been trying to explain the UK/US system to a group of Canadian adults who are only familiar with litres. The US system is even crazier than the UK system, with different sizes of barrels and quarts depending on what is in them, tons that are noticably smaller than metric tonnes, grain that is measured in bushels but converted to tons using different conversion factors for each crop and so on.

After that, I really feel in need of a soothing drink. . .

A note for those used to a UK pint being 20 fl. oz:  what many US bars call the "pint" glass is really a 13 oz "standard" glass.

Date: 2007/12/13 10:27:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (ooberman @ Dec. 13 2007,10:15)
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 13 2007,10:08)
Quote (ooberman @ Dec. 13 2007,09:53)
I'm new and am still working out where I can post. So, sorry to post in an unrelated thread. I'll be happy to delete it and move to another section.

Here's my question. Would anyone be willing to stop into another forum and address the "resident" ID'ers issues?  Kind of a Science Response Squad.

It would be nice if you could provide a blog name and/or a link...

I didn't want to assume anyone would take me up on it.,711.0

He is ReasonedFaith.

And the advice to read up is understood. I understand that engaging them is dangerous if you don't know, but I have been slapping him silly in the philosophy/religion section - and got a little ahead of myself.

How do I know he's wrong? I don't. But there is so many oddities about his statements and he seems to overturn 200 years of science sometimes. I will be happy to accept if I am wrong... well, not happy. Begrudgingly.

He is just a blowhard.  Don't worry about it.

Stick to your strengths.

Date: 2007/12/13 19:20:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=Rob,Dec. 13 2007,17:29]
Quote (ooberman @ Dec. 13 2007,11:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2007,10:48)
I noticed this bit in the thread at IAP:




The Specified Complexity filter was peer reviewed and published.

It was published anyway. The work has never been reviewed in the appropriate journals.

Nonsense.  Dembski submitted "The Design Inference" for peer review and publication.  It was reviewed, adjusted, accepted and published by Cambridge University press.

Dembski had been asked to bring his documentation of the CUP review process to his deposition for the Kitzmiller v. DASD...

Anyhow, thanks. For the sake of not letting a blowhard have free reign, I hope one of you guys will stop in, but I will heed the advice and stick to my strengths.

When someone waxes technical on Dembskiism, it's always for show -- there's no substance underneath.  Ask them really basic, fundamental questions, like:  What evidence does Dembski have that design, as we know it, does not fall in the law and/or chance category?  [Answer: None.]  Where are the data to support Dembski's claim that all observed specified complexity of known origin is designed?  [Answer: There aren't any.  No studies have been conducted on specified complexity.]

Edit: "data" singular -> plural to look cool

Also,  can the blowhard cite which calculations of CSI in biological systems Dembski has published?  Insist on detailed references.

The answer may surprise you, and no, I am not giving it to you.  :p

Date: 2007/12/14 11:54:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,10:40)

There was a day when we had nothing to do for some reason (I don't recall the circumstance) and so the old guy who was my mentor took me to this big room where they had a computer much more like a modern one - CRT (green text on black of course), tower, keyboard, blah blah.

Don't know.  Though I seem to recall they called it "Aida", I was (years later) told that that was the programming language, not the program.  I've been googling, but can't find a reference to it.  Though I'd like to know for my own personal amusement, it's irrelevant really.

I think you may be thinking of ADA.

Date: 2007/12/16 21:11:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 16 2007,21:05)
Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 16 2007,20:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 16 2007,11:39)
Engineer for ID gets slapped down:

From one of the excellent comments there:

Isn't a "field engineer for NCR" a cash register repair man?

Fridge repairmen, cash register repair men, ID has them all!

The Maytag repairman does nothing, so he is the perfect researcher for ID!

Date: 2008/01/03 09:14:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.

Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality.  A good argument.  One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim.  FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.  

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality).  This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.

I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.

Date: 2008/01/03 12:01:15, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,09:48)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 03 2008,09:14)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 03 2008,07:06)
I have to say that I have always disagreed with the argument that atheism (or darwinism) leads to immorality, because I find such an argument unbiblical. The bible certainly teaches what we would call natural law, that all men have a moral compass. So in a way, just like you would say if you believe evolution is responsible for morality, it is not the lack of a moral compass that is the issue, but the willingness on the part of some to ignore it.

As far as this particular controversy goes, I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement. At some level I agree with her—if the crime were truly victimless I wouldn’t care if it were not banned—because I see no call in the NT to make sin (and yes, from a Christian standpoint bestiality is certainly a sin) illegal—you are supposed to avoid sin regardless of whether or not it is a violation of civil laws. But given that the animal is a victim, let’s keep it illegal on that basis.

Now here is a rarity - a Christian making an argument for morality.  A good argument.  One where the counter would be to argue that the animal is not a victim.  FtK could really learn something from David Heddle.  

Amorality is what would properly be described as the absence of morality (no compass) vs knowing better and ignoring the compass (immorality).  This is a distinction few people take the care to make, but might be useful for FtK to consider.

Furthermore, even if I was brought to a frothing rage by her post, to go after it even via a fair fisking would violate one of my taboos. Call me old fashioned, but even on the internet I think minors should be treated with kid gloves.

I agree - it is nothing more than bullying.

It's interesting that you support Heddle but condemn me, because I completely agree with him...except for this:

More's the pity that you don't recognize the problem.  The problem is one of the argument, not the conclusion!
Heddle made an argument, Skatje made an extended argument, you make NO argument at all!  

I would agree that it was an egregious example of quote-mining. I read PZ’s daughter’s post as an attempt at a nuanced approach and not as any sort of endorsement

It was not quote mining.  Quote mining is taking a quote out of context and making it appear as if someone agrees with something that they don't.  

Sal falsely provided a context where Skatje wants a collard peccary for a husband.  The label humor does not absolve Sal, since one can make fun of beliefs people actually have, as well as ones they do not.

It is defending behavior like this that undermines assertions of morality on your part.  Why, I do believe one is coming up next:

Skatje believes that zoophilia is an acceptable practice for people who *want to* engage in that act.  It can be meaningful for them.  I believe that zoophilia is immoral, so I would point out that is *not* okay for them engage in that behavior, even if they enjoy it and it's not hurting anyone.  My belief has nothing to do with making it illegal or not.

Skatje's post was about if there were compelling arguments to outlaw bestiality.  She went through them, and argued that there were none that stand up to scrutiny.  Her post started with the fact that she asked you why bestiality is immoral/illegal ("against" could be taken to mean either).  The reason she did that particular post was that she would be a hypocrite to expect you to provide an argument if she herself was unwilling to do the same.  Her post itself was an excellent opportunity to critique her points.  If you have actually made an argument ( "I believe that zoophilia is immoral" is not an argument), I have been unable to find it.  This makes you look bad, not Skatje.

Date: 2008/01/04 08:02:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,18:31)
In your world, FtK, do bears steal picnic baskets and pull pranks on park rangers?

and did she condone it?  :)

Date: 2008/01/04 11:32:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 04 2008,11:06)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 04 2008,09:11)
Perhaps he's passed the mantle of King of the Meltdowns on to Sal.


He's basically fobbed UD off onto Granny Spice. Can you imagine what Dave must think of that?

Granny Spice's latest:

"Questions in evolution: How do jellyfish, crustaceans and beetles just suddenly appear?

Animals suddenly appear … and after that nothing much happens. Why? How?"

In the case of jellyfish, they also suddenly disappear from the fossil record, yet here they exist.  Can she figure out the conundrum?  Maybe the designer is going through a nostalgia craze.

Date: 2008/01/04 16:09:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Dziner signachur in UR Fossilz

Date: 2008/01/07 11:47:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 07 2008,10:05)
Sal's a librarian.
The unititiated however, upon looking at this method of information storage would be inclined to criticize the designers as incompetent. I heard biologists say exactly that, “a competent designer would not have made DNA copy mechanisms which require error correction, he would have made a copy process which got it right on the first pass.” I shook my head in disgust, and I then proceed to set them straight on principles of information science.

So a error free copy process is impossible for any designer?  Is there a manuscript so heavy that God can't copy it?

Date: 2008/01/08 15:30:17, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 07 2008,18:08)
Going back a bit:

BarryA 1. We are discussing theories here. You enter: “some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge.” This is just another way of saying, “We have no idea.” “We have no idea is not a theory that competes with design and NDE. It is an admission of ignorance. It is not a theory at all.

Earlier Barry gives us a humble example of something much better than "We have no idea".
The next question is, what do ID proponents make of this whole sudden appearance and stasis matter? How does it fit into a design framework? I believe there is a diversity of opinion on this matter, but one view is that in a front loaded design framework the designer put a sort of “timer” into living things that causes the pre-existing design to manifest itself in bursts.
(my bold)

That makes me think of the appendix as a timer.

Praise the designer!

Date: 2008/01/08 15:32:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 07 2008,18:19)
I don't think tards at UD, especially the likes of Barry, realize how dumb and stupid they make their intelligent designer look.  If I were a christian I'd resent the IDC crowd for making god look like such a complete dumb ass/doofus.

yeah god puts these little timers off inside of DNA, they're set to go off every 20 million years.  

That's an awful long time.  I wonder if god ever got bored during the last couple of billion years as he watched his little timers go off.  "oh look, a 75 million year timer just went off.  now we have a multi-cell organism.  Oh boy this is great!  just wait and see what happens when the 1.3 billion year timer goes off!

Well, that is a lot less cumbersome than having a timer go off everytime a "bun has to go into the oven".

Date: 2008/01/08 15:40:53, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (themartu @ Jan. 08 2008,03:08)

“It is impossible for a random number generate to call heads 10,000 times in a row"

I'd like to see the proof for this - why hasn't Dembski corrected him? For a mathematician this is one of those statements that makes you scream 'idiot'.

OK maybe only idiot when you're faced with such arrogance, sometimes it's just 'please learn some probabilty'

Dembski needs to make him watch a movie:

Borel: Mathematical Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Tardistan


Date: 2008/01/09 09:40:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 09 2008,06:34)
Quote (1of63 @ Jan. 09 2008,00:32)
If ID takes off in Florida, could give a whole new meaning to CSI: Miami.  Can't you just see the Complex Sweater Idiot snapping off the cool shades and talking sideways at people?

They'd have to change the soundtrack, though.

ID has nothing to say about The Who.

Very clever.  Go ahead and slap the post of the week sticker on your post!

Date: 2008/01/09 17:40:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 09 2008,13:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2008,13:40)

Evolution is a lie," Laura Lopez, 38 of West Palm Beach, told a crowd of about 75 at Everglades High School in Miramar. "Satan is telling people these lies and people are believing them."

Lopez, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Don't condone what God condemns," has three children in the Palm Beach County school system.

All Science so far!

That word (condone) seems to be getting a lot of press lately...

And if someone could point me to the place where "God condemns" evolutionary theory explicitly, it would be greatly appreciated. I couldn't find it anywhere in Leviticus.

Now, now, we all know that Leviticus is not very detailed about what is allowed!  :p

edited to correckt a speeling eror, and to add another now, now.

Date: 2008/01/10 15:04:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 10 2008,13:09)

I don’t wish to start a flame war, but I think it is clear what I mean by “new atheism.” It is not meant as a pejorative, only to describe the trend in the last decade or so for atheists to demand , more vocally, their rights and fair treatment. Even if the term has no official standing, that’s what I take it to mean. Usage is king, and if most people take “new atheism” to mean some amorphous group of outspoken atheists fighting for their rights, well that’s what it means.  And maybe I am wrong that one of the goals of present-day atheists is to make it safe for atheists to come out of the closet, but I don’t think I’m wrong.

I think it is more like the situation with smoking.  For decades nonsmokers had to put up with smokers blowing their smoke everywhere.  When the number of smokers was very large, they acted as if the minority had no right to impose upon the smokers freedom.  After all, freedom to smoke does not need freedom from smoke, eh?

One strategy to start with, when you had a great number of smokers, is to attack the habit itself.  Imagine if someone had written a book titled "Smoking is not Great: How smoke poisons everything" or "The Smoking Delusion". The only solution was to get "militant" and tell the rude boors that maybe not everybody cares to inhale smoke, and not let them impose it upon others.

Date: 2008/01/13 10:29:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 12 2008,12:34)
If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad.
Seems as if Gil accepts some kind of selection, though only with respect to airplanes.

Gil's airplanes are probably being selected out. :D

Date: 2008/01/15 09:16:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2008,08:02)
I was going to become an astrophysicist this weekend, but with Phreaky Phred Phelps coming to town, I might have to postpone that 'til next weekend.

I think I will just listen to some Queen albums for my astrophysics training.

Date: 2008/01/15 15:25:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 15 2008,07:55)
Naughty bits on the head, like female dragonflies?

or that shitty SNL sketch from the 70s-80s.

Har Har this is you Martin

We are from France Slovakia!  :D

Date: 2008/01/15 15:34:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
“Converesely, I see Tiktaalik as a negative for ID. If the designer has designed fish, and then wants to design something for the land, why bother with a transitional?”

I would expect designs to live in transitional environments. There are flying fish and mudskippers but I don’t think anyone claims they are turning into anything.

However I think that this fish will turn out to be like the coelacanth, another lobe finned fish which was claimed to walk and hyped as the ancestor to tetrapods until it was actually discovered swimming in the ocean.

I thought I was descended from a man I called a grandfather.  However, once I discovered him swimming in the ocean, I knew he couldn't be my grandfather.

Date: 2008/01/28 13:00:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 25 2008,14:53)
Okay, I have my weekend reading cut out for me. I just got my free copy of The Spatula Brain, by Beauregard and O'Leary, courtesy of the Clergy Letter Project.

If I survive the experience intact, I may write a review for Amazon.

And if anyone else would like to look at this thing after I'm done with it, shoot me a PM and I can spread the joy your way.

Bob, I am going to quote mine your message, to highlight your Freudian slip:

" After I'm done with it, shoot me ... "


Date: 2008/01/29 13:01:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 28 2008,10:30)
It appears Casey Luskin is not happy about his picture being posted on the internet and has been rattling his lawyer sword at those who realize he is a public figure.

We should have a "Is Anyone Dumber Than Casey Luskin Day" where everyone who owns a blog does a story using their favorite (dumbest) Luskin quote ever and of course post his picture.  

I obtained this secret photo from a recent seminar...

Date: 2008/01/29 15:33:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 29 2008,15:19)
q: Who's dumber than Casey Luskin (aka "Lucy")?
a: Not Casey Luskin

I love it!

If you are referring to the photo, it is the plant making the disclaimer.

Date: 2008/01/30 13:10:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 30 2008,12:49)
GilDee notices a problem:

This points to a serious problem for ID that perhaps deserves its own UD thread. ID is subject to sound-bite attack but is not amenable to sound-bite defense. We all know the standard one-line attacks that consistently appear in mainstream media and elsewhere: ID is really creationism in disguise. ID is religion, not science. And it’s also not science because it’s not testable and makes no predictions. It’s a science-stopper because it says goddidit. ID’s central claims (e.g., IC) have been refuted over and over again. ID is not represented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – etcetera, etcetera, and so forth.

These attacks cannot be readily addressed in the sound-bite fashion in which they are delivered, which puts the ID proponent at a serious disadvantage.

The "ID is not represented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" can be dealt with quickly - by citing what ID publications are in the peer reveiwed literature.  Oh, they don't exist!

Not only that, but if these papers existed, they would include the long extended arguments to deal with the other sound-bite attacks!

Date: 2008/01/31 08:28:19, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 31 2008,04:13)
Has Mensa ever rejected a membership application? Given that their main saleable commodity is support for those with self-esteem issues, you'd have to be sceptical.

But in case there exists a group of such people, I propose a new association for those who didn't quite make it but who whose lives would be enriched by celebration of their  aspiration to mediocrity."

No need for your cunningly named organization, one already exists - it's called DENSA.  Do I  have to help you find it? :)

Edit 1: to correct a grammar mistake.  Would want anybody to think I was a member of DENSA!

Edit 2: That should be wouldn't, shouldn't it! D'Oh!

Edit 3:  to add the words "edit"

Edit 4: to click the enable emoticons button.  All done here, now?

Date: 2008/01/31 08:41:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 30 2008,21:43)
Sal's idea for a blockbuster movie, featuring the fluud and Walt Brown's hydroplates in action, got panned by Evil Bender. But Sal won't be dissuaded. He presses his case, and introduces a particularly novel abuse of the apostrophe.      
But consider the fact that Noah had 3 sons, they were married. That means that his sons and daughter-in-laws had relatives and friends that would die in the flood. Possibly likely the daughter’s-in-law had living parents and sisters and brothers before entering the ark.

Most movie renditions of the flood do not account for the trauma these women would have to endure. And what if the sons had friends and cousins and uncles that died in the flood, you get the picture. Drama in the making….

To say nothing of the incest, potential for bestiality, and all of the other things that make Sal salivate.

Box-office magic, no doubt about it!

Or Sal could get them to show drowning babies - yeah, that would be great - NOT!  :angry:

Date: 2008/01/31 14:48:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2008,12:29)
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 31 2008,11:41)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2008,10:31)
It's me being a tard. I should really proof read. Or hire one?


Are you calling Kristine a tard or a proofreader?



Date: 2008/02/03 10:16:07, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2008,06:58)
Does DaveScot say more them he means to?
How can we say whether or not random mutation and natural selection was sufficient to produce the end state when we don’t know what the start state was?

Should somebody tell DaveScot that the reason that evolution is scientific is that we can get a reasonable idea of what the start point was?  For example, the last common ancestor of chimps and humans would have the same genetic makeup as that which humans and chimps have in common, is a huge start.  Then perhaps a really clever person could make a tree diagram using various levels of ancestor - descendant relationships.  It is a pity that it can't be done, or else a genius like Dave Scot would have done it. :)

Date: 2008/02/03 13:28:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2008,12:43)
This is fantastic - from an genius, but anonymous contributor:

Sir / Madame, I salute you, and doff my Tardcap.

Great picture.  Good thing he didn't use Casey Luskin's picture, or else he would get a severe ankle biting!

Date: 2008/02/04 15:48:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Must really be cranking out the results!  Go to

Oops, my bad.  it is

Date: 2008/02/06 15:02:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (REC @ Feb. 06 2008,12:31)
I love the website....

As for the physical plant.....its in lovely Class B office space:
Biologic inst.

(Probably not exactly zoned for research labs)

Oh, and what nice neighbors:

Addiction Treatment Center

I'm sure they'll be rocking out top-tier publications in no time

Does the Treatment Center treat Tard Addiction?  If so, it seems conveniently placed, should anybody decide to plan an intervention for Douglas Axe.

Date: 2008/02/07 11:34:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 07 2008,10:14)
Given Marks' reported comments on evolutionary computation, I am going to enjoy making a response to the essays of the EIL whenever and wherever they appear, if ever.

The fact that neither Dembski nor Marks can apparently read the few pages in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" describing "weasel", but instead rely upon a long-rebutted misrepresentation of it will be a prominent feature.

Back in 1997, my talk at the DI-sponsored "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" was itself a bit of a retrospective of the Wistar conference. I took Schutzenberger's mistakes as a case study, and delineated how subsequent antievolutionists enshrined those mistakes, never noting the existence of the evolutionary computation literature that showed the original stuff to be mere poppycock.

Schutzenberger said it, I beleive it, that settles it!  I wonder how many of the antievolutionists have actually looked at the Wistar symposium proceedings?

Date: 2008/02/08 08:05:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 08 2008,06:19)
As always happens in discussions of academic freedom at UD, Rick Sternberg is paraded as an ID martyr.  Daniel King asks:
Does anyone know what Sternberg is doing now?

Richard von Sternberg has served out his term (5-Jan-04 to 4-Jan-07) as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian and is now serving another term (15-Nov-06 to 14-Nov-09) as a Research Collaborator.  Neither is a paid position, so he has never been a Smithsonian employee.
STernberg's CV at his web site.
Smithsonian Research Associates in 2004
Smithsonian Research Associates in 2005
Smithsonian Research Associates in 2007

How does he support himself?  Repairing refrigerators?

Date: 2008/02/08 21:52:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2008,16:49)
Also Patrick misses the point once again.
“cdesign proponentsists” was conceived as a term of mockery by Darwinists. But there are people who support both ID and creationism. So if you're comfortable with the term you can use it if you want.
The joke is the article the comment is attached to! Check it out!  
As Religious Conservatives, we should never be ashamed of our past, and thus I say we should embrace the label "cdesign proponentsists" every bit as much as the evolutionists champion their imaginary common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. The differences is of course we can show *our* common ancestor, in black and white...

As creationism and ID are the same kind, the evolution from one to the other is just microevolution, no difference in kinds at all.  :p

Date: 2008/02/13 08:06:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 12 2008,23:22)
Except that she thinks creationism is a revolutionary idea.

Yeah, creationism is revolutionary.  Sun revolving around the earth.

Date: 2008/02/13 13:21:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 13 2008,12:10)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 13 2008,11:48)
Attenshun everyone!  GROUND YOUR IRONY METERS NOW!

DaveScot complains about D'OL being called Douchbag For Christ.  But what about this comment of yours, Dave?

No one should pass judgement on Denyse until they, at least, know her middle name.

Denyse “Hussein” O’Leary?

THAT was funny!

Props to sparc!

The main reason I posted was to check my new avatar.  Do you think the DI might be interested in using it in a logo, or something?

Date: 2008/02/13 19:25:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 13 2008,16:54)
:D JHC, you guys, which one of you is vesf?
Can Mrs. O’Leary, like, get one of the Discovery Institute’s lawyers to go after this libelous piece of trash?

No human being should have to be subjected to such filth. I feel like I need to take a shower after reading that.

Prenez une douche yourself! Now I must clean off my screen. Thanks. :)

There have been a bunch of LOL moments from that UD thread.  I like when vesf suggested that everybody should buy Denyse's book.  Which one of you is vesf - keep it up, they haven't caught on yet!

Date: 2008/02/14 13:09:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 14 2008,09:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2008,08:12)
The ink seems to have broken... how convenient!

It's broken on purpose.  When I saved the thread last night the link was, which still works.  The current thread links to  It differs by one letter.  Nice job, Dave.

Proof that a point mutation destroys information, evilutionists!

Date: 2008/02/16 14:57:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 16 2008,13:17)
Venus Mousetrap
7:06 am

...If molecular shielding exists to protect nucleotides from macroevolution, then it must be capable of not only deflecting radiation, but also has a physical component to prevent unwanted chemistry. It’s a perfect forcefield on an atomic scale. The possibilities if we could get access to this power are amazing… we’re looking at totally real forcefields capable of stopping both matter and radiation. The US military would kill for stuff like that. Even better, because it is nano scale to begin with, it can have more mundane, practical function in materials; wire shielding, radiation suits, overalls.

From the ID's "predictive prowess" thread. I like his style...

NB: From 220 posts to date in that thread, WmAD got 3 predictions.

Apparently none of the knuckleheads (it is obvious venus mousetrap is toying with them) know what a molecular forcefield is.  That just shows they have no CHARMM.  ;)

Date: 2008/02/19 12:34:08, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton Prestigious scientific journal Nature on CDK

Decreasing speed of light models postulate some sort of exponential decay. As time moved forward, the changes became less and less, but they were noticed:

   “If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained … There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it.”

   M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 24 March 1934, p. 464.

   u M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, “The Velocity of Light,” Nature, 4 April 1931, p. 522.

Look at the graph right above this text in Sal's post.  The irony is that the speed of light "increased" from 1935-1945 and has stayed there!  :O

Date: 2008/02/19 13:14:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

Charles Walcott, secretary  of the Smithsonian, had found the equivalent of Noah’s Ark. He found every animal phylum, or - as physicist Gerald Schroeder puts it - the “basic anatomies” of all animal life forms today.

Could someone who knows all the rules tell me which animal phyla are clean and which or unclean?  I am trying to calculate how much room Noah's Ark would need, and need to use seven for clean phyla, and two for unclean phyla.  Of course, that means a bit of microevolution since Noah's Ark, but hey, they are still phyla!  :p

Date: 2008/02/20 14:35:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
I swear I am not making this up:
Dave Scot:
Joseph  [DS's question deleted]

I suspect you’re beyond reasoning with when it comes to these things.


Keep fighting the good fight.


Date: 2008/02/22 12:21:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 22 2008,01:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 21 2008,17:06)


There is discussion around the maximum number of mutations per generation that NDE can withstand. I contend that NDE cannot withstand more than one mutation in active DNA per generation.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Anybody who knows anything about genetics would laugh upon hearing that. Uncommonly Dense is the three stooges in lab coats.

Intercom: Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Dr. Howard...

Date: 2008/02/23 21:03:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 22 2008,16:41)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2008,21:07)
Why isn’t ALL life extinct? by DaveScot: One method is called a “factory restore”. In this method a protected image of the known working software load from the factory is used to replace the evolved load.

In biology, we call it "replication". If a bacterium makes a bad mistake, there are all sorts of other little copies ready to take its place.

ID prediction #5: some people are big-endian and some people are little endian. I personally am little d'oh-big endian.

I-I-I-I-I Like Big Ends, and I cannot lie!

Nice predictions.

Date: 2008/02/26 13:53:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2008,13:29)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,02:55)
Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier.

No, the qualifier doesn't absolve you here. You're passing along obviously bogus claims and then when you're called on it, blaming others. Learn something about science and the philosophy of science and understand why your film is stupid propaganda.

Research the ID claims to see if what they claimed was actually true?  Heaven forfend! :O

Date: 2008/02/26 18:08:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 26 2008,18:01)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:06)
can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories?

Before they do that they need to come up with a theory. If they ever manage to do that, then there will be something to test and scientists will start to be interested.

While interviewing for the film, did you ever ask anyone what would constitute evidence that ID is not correct? That is an essential requirement for any notion to be considered a hypothesis.

About half of scientists are religious.  They certainly wouldn't care if a scientific theory was religiously motivated.  Maybe the reason that those scientists won't accept ID is because it is not a theory, plain and simple.

Date: 2008/02/27 16:50:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,09:48)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 27 2008,09:07)
DaveScot has apparently been learning about the SLOT
Blah, blah, blah.

It strikes me that DaveScot could prove his point via mathematics rather then verbiage.

Is this the right question to ask?:

What does statistical mechanics have to do with how atoms chemically bond and chemically interact?

I found a relevant(I think) line at wikipedia:

The study of long chain polymers has been a source of problems within the realms of statistical mechanics since about the 1950's. One of the reasons however that scientists were interested in their study is that the equations governing the behaviour of a polymer chain were independent of the chain chemistry.(bolding added)

Does that mean the motions of atoms and molecules in space(to be sure, a very oversimplified definition of statistical mechanics) is not relevant to the organic chemistry of living things?  Or, at least, minimally relevant?  Louis?

Is this a request for a stat thermo lecture?  DaveScot is right about one thing - it is about the probable vs. improbable.  The IDiots' problem is that they don't know diddly squat about how to compute probabilities for molecules.  "Contour lines of stability" is just gobbledygook.

Your specific reference about polymers is for an ideal chain - with no chemical interaction, just a rule that when the chain crosses itself, it can't pass through becuase that would require breaking the chain (which involves breaking a bond).
The random walk example is for a single chain, which gives an average size (radius of gyration, which can be characterized by light scattering).  If you string together a bunch of organic molecules, like ethylene, into a polymer (polyethylene), it is pretty much chemically inert.  The physics of how multiple polymer chains behave can be modelled by long spahetti noodles that move around.  One mode of moving among a tangle is like a snake (reptation).  Pierre deGennes got the nobel prize for that work. and follow the contents links for some pictures

Date: 2008/02/27 16:56:53, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 27 2008,16:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 27 2008,15:37)
Your sentiments are appreciated, Kristine, although, unfortunatley not widespread.

Au contraire. I too will miss Buckley. Even if you didn't agree with him, he made you think. Unlike the troglodytes who pass themselves off as conservatives these days. They just make you angry.


Date: 2008/02/27 21:00:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,20:25)
The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!

Thankyou, Louis, for trying anyway.  You did actually tell me what I needed to know.

I think I can follow on.  DT is reducing all of chemistry to statistical mechanics, a radical and unjustified oversimplification, as exemplified by his statement here
Obviously you have no understanding of the hierarchy in science. Biology is explained by chemistry. Chemistry is explained by physics. Physics is explained by law and statistical mechanics.

Atoms don't just combine in completely random ways.  If they did chemistry would probably not be possible.  Chemistry is more than the random tumbling of atoms; atoms bond only in definite(though many and varied) ways.  Though statistical mechanics may determine when atoms have the chance to get together (and the thermo of the situation the energy available before the reactions) once together they follow laws that are far more dominant than the stat/mech that brought them together.  Of course if DT gives up that stat/mech is dominant then he will have to give up that complex molecule are impossible.

Equilibrium statistical mechanics actually determines the "laws" as well.  Equilibrium assumes that the colliding around has gone on so long that everything that can happen, with probability X%, has happened X% of the time.  The most likely configuration of atoms and molecules, complete with how the energy is partitioned, is equal to the time average, so that is what is computed instead.


When I read this piece of Dave's my first thought is that Dave knows nothing about the physics or chemistry he pontificates upon.

After almost nine hundred pages you didn't know this yet? :p

 That you still have correct.

The Wikipedia article you quote is bang on in one sense.


I wouldn't read to much into that line from wiki.  It was dangerously close to a quote mine.  I really happened on it by chance.  I only wanted to refresh myself on the stat/mech as I only thought of it as the science that subsumed the kinetic theory of gases.

That is a pretty good way of looking at it.


 Unlike DT I know what I don't know. I ran over that line and it almost seemed too perfect a statement in isolation.  Especially since DT seems to be fond of the words "'polymeric amino and nucleic acids".  Your explanation on cyclisation placed it in context far better than the wiki article did.

If DT would think about it, proteins have to "overcome" the massive number of ways it can be folded to find the one actual structure.  Obviously this does not violate the SLOT, since it happens with regularity.  Protein folding is a hot area of research, you would think that ID should be out there clamoring that we shouldn't study it, because uniquely folded proteins are so unlikely.  Perhaps a "Folding at Home - NOT!" project?


Tracy P. Hamilton,
Is this a request for a stat thermo lecture?

Umm, no.  But I am all ears if you are game.  I knew DT was using stat/mech in an illegitimate manner, but did not know how to state it well.  I may still not be doing so, but I thank the two of you for your effort.
Pierre deGennes got the nobel prize for that work.

REAL SCIENCE!  Amazing what real science looks like when contrasted to the tard.

You asked for it!  The calculation of thermodynamics for molecules is based on the fact that atoms and molecules have quantized energy levels.  The bonding energy is calculated by solving the electronic Schrodinger equation for E(el).  Even at zero degrees Kelvin, there is vibrational energy, computed by the quantum harmonic oscillator problem.  Add that to E(el) to get E(0). At finite temperatures, other energy levels get populated, the ratio of a particular excited state to the ground state is given by the Boltzmann distribution. The energy levels are for the translational energy (particle in a box quantum problem), vibrational energy (harmonic oscillator already mentioned), and rotoational energy levels (rigid rotor approximation - spherical harmonic quantum problem).  One creates an ensemble of all possible ways to partition a fixed total E in a fixed volume V with a fixed number of particles N.  This is called the microcanonical ensemble.  (Other ensembles exist, for example the canonical exist where total E is replaced by the average energy, characterized by temperature T).  The probabilites of each microstate is given by the partition function, which is then related to thermodynamic variables.

See wikipedia for some of the terms for equations.

Date: 2008/02/29 12:50:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 29 2008,11:37)
A voice crying in the wilderness.
I think it is legitimate to ask who really is the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" : DO'L is close to 1000 points at Overwhelmingboredom while the WMAD is still at -15.

Is there a person famous X for link farming?  We could call Denyse the "X of ID theory".

Date: 2008/02/29 13:06:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Speaking of your PEH, I've been reading "Questions of Paleontology" by Otto Schindewolf, and it occured to me:
If evolution was saltational, doesn't that eliminate the need for long time frames?
I'm new to the concept of dating and determining ages, and I haven't got far enough in the book to see if Schindewolf covers this, but I'm getting the impression that the entire dating framework is based on the long periods of time thought necessary for gradual evolution to take place. Since all evidence points to sudden, directed evolution, aren't the methods of dating and their calibrations subject to reassessment?

There never was a need for long time frames.  Don't project your shortcomings (needing to have X be true for emotional reasons) onto scientists.  Scientists need to understand the universe as it is.

The dating framework is not based on "periods of time thought necessary".  The dating framework is based on physical processes that enable ages to be derived reliably.

You are also making a logic error:  if speciation is faster than previously thought, that does not mean the ages need to be reassessed.  Suppose I find out that a house can be built in 7 days by watching extreme makeover, rather than the 6 months I thought should take.  Is that a reason to reassess the age of my house?  Have you forgotten the statements about stasis?  That takes time, too, you know.

Date: 2008/03/03 12:51:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

My opinion of Darwinist paleogeologists is only slightly higher than for paleo anthropologists. I found their speculations appallingly bad and in violation of reasonable interpretations of standard physics. Darwinism and physics don’t mix, neither does paleogeology and physics…

The prestigious scientific journal Nature explores a highly important topic:

Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382.

Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324.

Did the above stratification take millions or thousands of years. NO!

If the density (rho) of one kind of sediment is different than another, a fluid mixture of these subtances can cause stratification. This is not too far from Archimedes Principle. This is sophomore physics….

Do we have examples of stratification that might be candidates for spontaneous stratification? Hmm….

Did it take millions of years? Was Lyell right? The jury is still out.

Hmm, sounds like speculation to me.  Looking up the well-hidden information on the Grand Canyon, one sees for example:

Cardenas basalt.  Tell us Sal, how is lava "sediment" which would sort among the others by density?  Maybe it is not lava, the jury is still out! :p

What about all the fossils, Sal? Would they settle slower than fine particles?  Have you checked the size distributions of particles in each layer, to see if they are what you expect from the Nature paper?

Date: 2008/03/05 15:06:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 05 2008,14:05)
It's like watching a boat sink, except it never quite goes under the waves completely.
The only negative to using NFV is that it assumes Darwinism to be true if that term is used to encapsulate everything.

NFV = Non-foresighted variation.

When I saw NFV, I thought "No Free Vegetables".  That would be a great title for a Dembski book.  Like Wolpert's "No Free Lunch" but without any meat to it.

Date: 2008/03/06 14:53:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Sal: “Peter was admonishing believing wives that the best way to convert an unbelieving husband was to keep quiet and refrain from their natural tendency to preach and lecture others on how to run their lives.”

Rzeppa: "Of course he was. Because it’s not the wife’s job to “lecture her husband on how to run his life”. The place of a wife in the God-given hierarchy of human relations in helpful submission to her husband."

No comment necessary.

Date: 2008/03/06 21:20:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2008,19:21)
Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 05 2008,04:38)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2008,18:33)
Schindewolf speaks at length about Orthogenesis.  If I understand it correctly, his views were that evolution followed repeatable patterns, was irreversible, eventually led to overspecialization and ultimately ended in extinction.

Of the description you quote I'd say this much applies to Schindewolf's view:            
Orthogenesis ... refers to the idea that an evolutionary lineage changes [in a] steady, uniform way with no reversals. Species [are not] evolving steadily towards a goal, [rather the path they were set on was "decided" by the saltational event that first formed that type].  [T]his trend was [not] caused by some “mysterious inner force” (to use Simpson’s words) of the species that compelled it to evolve. [Rather, Schindewolf] would say that once a trend got started in a lineage, it would unchangingly continue until extinction occurred.

Thanks for the clarification.

GG Simpson and others who worked in the field found that Schindewolf's orthogenesis theory did not fit the evidence of horse evolution:

Schindewolf used the example of horse evolution as evidence for an orthogenetic trend towards phyletic size increase. (See figures 3.130-35 on page 292)

I think your chart fairly supports that conclusion as well.

The thing I'm finding most often is that those who criticized Schindewolf often don't seem to have taken the time to try to fully understand his positions and the reasoning behind them.

florida natural history museum says

"Were all fossil horses larger than their ancestors?
Archaeohippus means ancient horse
Though many horses became larger than their ancestors, Archaeohippus actually became quite a bit smaller! Archaeohippus descended from the larger Miohippus. Nannippus is another example of a horse that was smaller than its ancestors."

Another theory slain by TWO ugly facts.

Date: 2008/03/06 21:40:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2008,19:03)
Quote (swbarnes2 @ Mar. 05 2008,12:12)
I think that a fair bit of what any of us would have to say has already been covered in the panda's thumb review of this paper.

Another example of “scholarship”

I also add the contents of "the onion test"

Junk DNA, Junk Science, and The Onion Test

And Daniel, if you fail to say anything intelligent or fact-based in response...well, we'll know that you have neither anything intelligent nor factual to say.

No one will be surprised.

I read the panda's thumb review.  One thing I noticed is that Ian Musgrave, the panda's thumb author, focused in on one fairly insignificant element in the paper - reproductive rates - and used perceived mistakes relating to said rates as an excuse to ignore the rest of the paper.

In other words, Ian Musgrave points out that their explanation for Fugu's lack of junk doesn't hold water, and you call it a fairly insignificant point about a paper that claims junk is essential????

Ian:"The Fugu data is not the only evidence that most non-coding DNA is functionless. To start with the single celled amoeba has a genome 200 times larger than the human genome, most of it repetitive DNA. It would be hard to argue that the amoeba needs far more repetitive DNA than humans to organise its genome."

Doesn't sound like ignoring the evidence for junk being junk, and just nitpicking about reproductive rates.

"Furthermore, we have evidence from sequence conservation. If the repetitive DNA has a function, then its sequence should be conserved (for example if it serves as binding sites for regulatory proteins). However, the majority of the repetitive DNA is not conserved. Indeed, Kimura famously predicted that humans should have around about 1% protein coding genes based on mutation patterns (Kimura and Ohta, 1971). We actually have roughly 1-2% of our genome coding for protein (Nusbaum et al 2005). The sequence conservation data is compatible with over 90% of our genome doing not very much at all (either as regulatory sequences or protein coding sequences). Now, about 3-5% of repetitive DNA is conserved, which suggests that it might do something (Nobrega et al, 2004; Nusbaum et al 2005). So, what happens when this conserved repetitive DNA is removed?

The answer is “beggar all”."

What's that?  Somebody actually deleted this DNA that is claimed to have a function, and it makes no difference to the organism?  Another idea that doesn't survive scrutiny.

How do you choose which papers you accept at face value, and which you do not?  Is it based on the fact that you like the conclusions, or on the reasoning used to arrive at them?

Date: 2008/03/10 13:55:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,10:50)

Thanks for posting the link to my UD article.

Do you think Prothero should have reprinted the Romanes / Haeckel drawings?

I'm not albatrossity, but I would say no.  There are much better figures out there.

Enough about the mote in Prothero's eye, though.

For example, you claim Prothero has confused von Baer's claim with Haeckel's.  It is clear he has not.

You claim the figure caption is wrong - it is not.  You fault it for what it doesn't say.  This is a book about fossils primarily, after all, not one on embryology
or developmental biology.

The first link doesn't support any argument that embryogenesis did not evolve by descent with modification.  I have no idea what you mean by "conservation of embryogenesis".

Keeping this on topic, is there a page in Exploring Evolution that deals with embryology?  :)

Edited to add smiley.

Date: 2008/03/11 12:09:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,20:06)
Tracy, Prothero's term "well-developed gills" is a character found in adult fish (and some amphibians).  The term "fish-like," which Prothero repeatedly uses, refers to fish -- again, the morphological standard of comparison is an adult organism, not an embryo.

No, it doesn't.  Hence the term "fish-like" rather than fish.  The error is purely one of your imagination.

And thus Paul Nelson's little house of cards, which I have deleted, collapses.

Date: 2008/03/11 12:12:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 11 2008,05:03)
Davetard misses the point - as usual.
Quite often when confronted with the problematic nature of explaining the arrival of the first life capable of supporting descent with modification an evolutionary theorist will say the theory has no bearing on how the first life came into existence - the theory only explains what happened after that.

Is this true?

Well, yes and no. Evolutionary theory doesn’t explain exactly how the first life was created and doesn’t demand any particular modus operandi. However, that’s not to say it doesn’t make any assumptions at all. It assumes that the first life was a simple cell and the mechanism(s) described by the theory made a simple common ancestor (or perhaps a few simple common ancestors) into the complex and diverse spectrum of life we observe today.

BZZZT!!  Wrong!  The only people who assume the first life was a cell are creationists stating what they believe science believes.  And they are wrong.

Even the simplest cell is enormously complex - much too complex to have formed by chance.  Cells are the result of a long period of Darwinian evolution adding information a few bits at a time.
If you want to find out if NDE really cares about how life originated just try asserting that life originated as very complex forms that were programmed to diversify in a prescribed manner. Try saying the original form of life on the earth was like a stem cell in that it contained the unexpressed potential in it to diversify into many different forms with chance playing little if any role in the diversification process. Or better yet, for some real shrieking and howling rejection, try proposing that life originated as very complex perfect forms such as described in the Garden of Eden and the story of evolution is really a story of devolution from originally perfect, diverse forms.

This theory is even worse than the theory that the first life was a cell.  Where does all of this information come from, Dave?  Scientific theories all assume that the first "living thing" was a simple self-reproducing molecule or, at the most, several molecules which manage to reproduce themselves.  Low information, either way.  Low enough to form by chance in a million years or so.

The reason scientists howl at the idea of the first cell incorporating all of the information to make all forms of life we see today is because that would require a tremendous amount of information and people who propose such ideas never have a way of accounting for this information.  Ditto for complex creatures poofing into existence.  Where does all that information come from?

Creationism's answer to this question, of course, is Goddidit.  Which just leads to the next obvious question: where did God come from?  It takes billions of bits of carefully ordered information to make any kind of intelligence powerful enough to make a living thing.  When you figure out where God (or The Designer if you insist) got that high information intelligence from, let us know and we'll stop laughing at you long enough to look at your evidence.  Until then, carry on.  We're enjoying it.

How would you know, Ceiling Cat?  Were you there?  ;)(see my avatar)

Date: 2008/03/12 09:53:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 11 2008,17:20)
Since I'm not likely to read EE, I took the time to go to the EE website and read the blurb on turtles.

I quote from EE:


Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The
order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million
years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the
fossil record without intermediates.

Now, my understanding of creationist jargon is that "sudden appearance" and "fully developed" mean they, turtles, were created or designed.

Is this correct, Paul, or not?  Is EE claiming that turtles were created?

Second, I have a question about the last sentence about intermediates.

To paraphrase, "turtles appear in the fossil record without intermediates."  Intermediates between what and what? Do turtles share common descent from earlier reptiles?

Tell me more about turtles, Paul.


And do you mention that Homo sapiens does not suddenly appear in your book?  Why or why not?   Let's explore this!

Date: 2008/03/14 10:57:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 14 2008,06:56)
As the logo is obviously blurred on the UD version I can only conclude they were fully aware they were stealing somebody else's work. Or will Dembski have yet another excuse why it's OK to steal...

Is this a design inference?

The original picture was unerasably complex.

Date: 2008/03/24 16:14:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Allen MacNeill:

Not only is it a huge loss for you, but the tenor of the preceding comments speaks volumes about what kind of people most of you are.

Let us grant for the moment that PZ Myers is not a gentleman when describing ID or discussing it. Does that mean that those supporting ID should be just as venal as he is? What kind of witness do you wish to present to the world? That you attack individuals using unsubstantiated hearsay, or that you conduct yourselves at all times as gentlemen who respect their opponents as people at the same time that you attack their ideas?

When Will Provine and I invited John Sanford to our evolution course at Cornell, we did exactly that. John wrote us a very gentlemanly email in which he thanked us for our courtesy toward him and for the opportunity to let him make a presentation to our students (many of whom, BTW, attacked his ideas vigorously while treating him as a person worthy of respect).

Reread the comments above and ask yourself: if you had not made up your mind about this subject, would you like to be associated with people like you?

Can a double secret banning be in the offing?

Date: 2008/03/25 17:07:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Poachy, about the Premise Media press release  on the fiasco:
Beautiful. I’ll say this about our side, we have some darn fine press release writers.

Those guys are unbelievably dim (UD)!

Date: 2008/03/28 15:12:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
JPCollado is full of The Argument Regarding Design:

I just want to know what they mean by “high molecular evolutionary rate.” It can’t be mutations, since there is no such thing at the molecular level. You need genes for that. So what are they referring to? These scientists are so blinded by evolutionary dogma that they are having trouble making the appropriate distinctions.

Should somebody tell JPCollado that genes are made of DNA, which is a molecule?

Date: 2008/03/28 15:20:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
I just hope ID is right. Won’t we look silly.

ID is wrong.

Q.E.D., literally.  :D

Date: 2008/03/31 11:11:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Here's an example:

"Decleor Hydra Floral Anti-Pollution Moisturizing Cream is a new generation moisturizer.  It features the drip-feed hydration system, reinforced by the technology of aquaporins, true water channels, combined with an anti-pollution plant active ingredient.  Like a bouquet of moisture beneath a veil of anti-pollution care, this smooth textured nectar cream immediately relaxes the skin and quenches its thirst, intensely replenishes, provides continuous hydration and protects against pollution."

Peter Agre got the Nobel prize for discovering aquaporins, and he finally got a remark from his mother that he had finally done something useful.  Note:  this is just the jist of it, I can't remember all the details from when I heard him talk about aquaporins.  

Off-topic article about Agre trying to run for a Senate seat:

Date: 2008/03/31 16:59:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 30 2008,21:43)
bFast fails at design detection:


10:26 pm

You said this was on Panda’s Thumb? You sure that wasn’t It is tooo funny!

TheBrites? Really?

That video is way too funny to be on TheBrites.

Date: 2008/04/01 12:30:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2008,10:01)
What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures?

As to that I'm sure I've seen some stuff about primates doing things out of spite...

Maybe Sal can quotemine (would that be a sign-mine?) Koko the gorilla as saying she once beat a puppy.

Date: 2008/04/01 12:35:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 01 2008,11:01)
He should use that'ar cluster analysis on the CSI in the names of current Baylor faculty vs those who have been Expelled from Baylor.  Surely there is some design there and stuff.

There should be a statistically significant cluster of Expelled people just outside the Baylor cafeteria, trying to sneak in.  Also one near Brazos barbeque, although that lunch is not free.

Date: 2008/04/01 14:12:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Denyse's writing is grate:


I enjoy your posts but your style can sometimes grate (I speak only for myself, of course).

Date: 2008/04/01 14:18:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
A PhD just means, take computer science (my own domain) for example, that you’ve gone deeper and more specialized in a specific area of informatics. It does not mean you’ve become a superb thinker.

I wonder what Dr. Dr. Dembski thinks of this comment?

Date: 2008/04/03 14:06:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ April 03 2008,11:51)

Today this post is gone again and we find another one instead:        
Welcome to Biologic Institute – a scientific research organization pioneering a fresh approach to biology.
Contact Us
April 3rd, 2008
Biologic Institute
16310 NE 80th Street
Redmond, WA 98052
United States
Posted in research | No Comments »

Obviously, their traffic gained some momentum. It will remain their secret though, why they don’t archive their posts and, more importantly, why they post “welcome” under research.

Research is welcome, because they don't have any?

Date: 2008/04/04 14:05:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Sal's an idiot, part 6:

Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection: the death sentence for Darwinism
Consider the following claims:

Blah, blah blah.  You know what is missing form his post?  Any argument that Fisher's Fundamental Theorem is a death sentence for Darwinism.

Date: 2008/04/07 15:56:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 07 2008,07:53)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 28 2008,02:30)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 26 2008,03:18)
A creationist claims:

"Dr. John Baumgardner is the worlds number 1 expert on plate tectonics."

I don't know, he seems to be a bright scientist, creationist, but #1 on that subject, I would like to know?

Baumgardner was mainly a code monkey.  His work was not on plate tectonics.  As I recall, he worked on seismic data related to nuclear tests.

He wrote a well-known but now largely outdated geophysical modeling program called TERRA.  It was the first useful computer model for (IIRC) mantle convection and other large-scale dynamics.  Recently he's been tweaking the program to support his idea of the Noachian flood.  With advances in computer modeling generally and discovered weaknesses in the TERRA program, Baumgardner's program is no longer state-of-the-art even for computer models.

Baumgardner is working hard to rediscover GIGO.

Date: 2008/04/10 14:59:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (tacitus @ April 09 2008,23:43)
I honestly don't see how they postpone the premier.  Unless they were so dumb as to not get any legal advice about making their own version of the animation (admittedly, they could be that dumb) then they will probably already have been told by a lawyer that they've done enough to squeak past any lawsuit over copyright.

So they'll probably go ahead with the movie and then attempt to tough it out in court.

Yes, but was the lawyer ---- Casey Luskin?

Date: 2008/04/10 15:17:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2008,15:04)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 10 2008,14:59)
Quote (tacitus @ April 09 2008,23:43)
I honestly don't see how they postpone the premier.  Unless they were so dumb as to not get any legal advice about making their own version of the animation (admittedly, they could be that dumb) then they will probably already have been told by a lawyer that they've done enough to squeak past any lawsuit over copyright.

So they'll probably go ahead with the movie and then attempt to tough it out in court.

Yes, but was the lawyer ---- Casey Luskin?

I'm hoping for BarryA. Or that More Law Center that did so well in Dover.

A couple more possibilities:  Larry Farfromsane, or more seriously, the fear-inspiring Wendell Bird.  :p

McLean vs. Arkansas - drafted the bill that became Act 590, and EPIC FAIL

Defended state in Edwards vs. Aguillard, EPIC FAIL.

Association of Christian Schools International vs Stearns, EPIC FAIL

Date: 2008/04/10 16:06:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
I love poachy:



3:52 pm
XVIVO has no standing.

Peter Irons must not be much of a legal scholar as easily as you outflanked him.

Date: 2008/04/11 11:02:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Maya @ April 11 2008,10:19)
12:27 am
Someone needs to explain to me how they get video of Meyers, Dawkins and all the Darwinian materialists saying all this stuff. I mean did Ben just go right up to them and say “hi were doing a movie called Expelled (no intelligence allowed) and its about exposing your side for the psychopaths that you are. Just for the movie’s sake can you please give us your side of the argument as blatantly and as vile as you can possibly say it?

And then they set up the HD cameras?

From what I have seen that they have captured on tape, this movie is gold.

Hmm.  Maybe they lied?

It is called video-mining.  :D

Date: 2008/04/14 16:13:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
DT has another <0.3 moment

Eh, no.  Dr. Emmanuel reversed his position on hurricanes.  (Edit* No he didn't)Comments from the Usual Gang of IDiots:

1) How brave he is, just like those Expelled people!
2) scientists have bias, this one was honest
3) Break out the comfy chair and soft pillows — he’s going to need them.
4) rambling
5) DT bloviates, trying to show off how science-y he can sound
6) nonsensus about consensus

Date: 2008/04/15 12:04:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 15 2008,02:01)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 14 2008,22:12)
kairosfocus to leave us?    
Now, on why I have taken the effort to make this now extended — and BTW, drawing to a conclusion (have patience, soon you will not have to “bother” with me here at all . . .) — blog visit to UD:

Are we going to lose kf?  What will the world do for jocularity?

Well maybe he has a terminal condition.  Oh, we all have a terminal condition.  My bad.

Maybe he has a more proximate terminal condition.

Well, I know I am going to die before he ever shuts up!


Date: 2008/04/17 14:32:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ April 17 2008,03:16)
From the same thread as the last few, we discover that, hey it's all ID research! sagebrush gardener explains:

But if ID is true, then all research is ID-related and no competent, honest researcher can help discovering evidence for design. The only question is whether the researcher admits it or not. The famous XVIVO animation for example clearly supports design for anyone with eyes to see.

The laboratory does not need to say “ID Research Department” on the door. I don’t see why someone whose eyes are open to design can’t work (”undercover” if necessary) alongside design-deniers and let the results speak for themselves.

So no need to dye your hair blond, either.

Date: 2008/04/18 15:55:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2008,01:25)

Total number of posts in the 8 month history of Young Cosmos: 787.

Number of posts on PZ Myers's Expelled thread, last 30 hours: 1173.

Give Young Cosmos a break!  After all, it is hard to post as much when you only have two people allowed to post to the blog.  No expelling at Young Cosmos, nosirree! :p

Date: 2008/04/18 15:59:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Somebody is obsessed with HO-MO-Sexules!

Date: 2008/04/18 16:01:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

I would like to provide the readers a link to Dr. Davison’s An Evolutionary Manifesto.

Because I have been working tirelessly on many things of late, this weblog has not been given as much attention as in the past, but it is not dead.

I encourage our readers to learn wisdom from a long-time professor of biology, Dr. Davison.

John, my sincere apologies for not devoting more time to highlighting your fine work.



1 Comment »


     Thank you very much Sal. Our weblogs have much in common. Neither produce many comments. I take that to be a good thing.

     “The applause of a single human being is of great consequence.”
     Samuel Johnson

     “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

     Comment by John A. Davison — April 17, 2008 @ 6:23 am

No, Davison.  

Sal's blog: many posts, no comments.  
Davison's blog: one post, thousands of comments

Date: 2008/04/22 14:38:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ April 22 2008,09:19)
Quote (Annyday @ April 22 2008,16:55)
Quote (guthrie @ April 22 2008,03:04)
Quote (Annyday @ April 21 2008,22:23)
I've never liked Arthur C. Clarke's writing much, outside of his idioms. See, the joy of sci fi for me is, to a great degree, wondering what a technology would do or how you'd make it. Clarke breaks out that indistinguishable-from-magic stuff for all the important things, which I find a fantastic buzz-kill. When you have technology that's indistinguishable from magic and/or acts of God, why bother making it sci fi at all? The monolith could have been constructed by voodoo and not a lot would have been lost!


I have to defend Clarke here.  In terms of "magic technology" he was no different from any of his contemporaries.  But he did also write some decent hard SF, I recently re-read "A fall of moondust", and it was about as hard SF as you're going to get, certainly more so than anything I have seen on the shelves today.  Clarke couldnt go "nanotech!" every time he wanted to do something odd.

You're probably right. Actually, even when his stories fill up with psychics and alien-gods there's some great, down-to-earth sci-fi going on during the lead-in.





Date: 2008/04/22 14:40:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,13:38)




12:59 pm
Sal Cordova: Darwin himself had a deformed daughter. I suppose he could not bring himself to advocate Eugenics lest he sacrifice his own. One can also speculate that Darwin wished Eugenics were practiced, and thus he would not have supposedly been in the predicament of having a deforemed child….who knows…..

Which daughter would that be? Anne Elizabeth, Mary Eleanor, Henrietta Emma, or Elizabeth? What deformity did she suffer from?

Your speculation about eugenics is just a rather nasty vicious slander about a man who by all accounts dearly loved his children and was heartbroken when his daughter Anne died from tuberculosis.

Your mean spirited speculations reflect very poorly on you. I could speculate about your character, but you have made its defects clear.

Bravo, Sir, Bravo.

But, but Darwin had a death's head walking stick!

Date: 2008/04/22 15:30:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56)
sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

Your opinion is worth nothing.  

Louis' opinions are worth quite a bit more.

I really have to wonder about people who are "skeptical" of science, when it is abundantly clear they haven't mastered the basics.

Date: 2008/04/22 15:35:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,07:16)
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,08:11)
tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here.

Then produce some evidence for your claim.


Scientific fact:  There is currently more energy absorbed by the earth than is emitted.  

Q: What does the first law of thermodynamics say will happen?

Let us see if skeptic can think at a high school level.

Date: 2008/04/22 15:44:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,14:57)
no problem C.J., I'll compare your links to the 5 papers from Climate Dynamics that I'm currently reading and see where that leads.  I would point out though that your comments rest on two assumptions that may well be unfounded.  One, that we are at a point where a variation can cause a rapid shift, i.e. tipping point and, two, that the trillions of tons at this time point can have a significant enough impact upon the system to achieve this rapid shift.  For this scenario we have no direct observational evidence and must rely on models for the predictions.  Also, you're actually a multi-variable response including rainfall distributions, humidity changes, soil and mineral variations, sunlight to cloud ratios, and probably dozens more variables that may are may not be significantly tied to slight temperature increases over the next hundred years.

I am reminded of this classic bit from cinema:

Otto: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid
would be an insult to stupid people!

I've known sheep that could outwit you.
I've worn dresses with higher IQs.

But you think you're an intellectual,
don't you, ape?

Otto:  Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto.

They just don't understand it.

Date: 2008/04/23 13:18:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,16:43)
that's a very interesting statement regarding relative opinions, I'll have to keep that in mind.

Also, I'm not skeptical of science just it's interpretation and misuse.

just to entertain: what is the largest heat sink on the planet?

It doesn't matter!  

The problem is one of balance in radiative flux in and out at the surface (which coincidentally is where we live).

Air has a low heat capacity, so its temperature rises readily.  Once heated, transfer of heat from the air to the ocean is very inefficient.

A sophomore level explanation (note the lack of discussion of heat sinks) is at

Yet again you show that your opinion of your own scientific knowledge is a sterling example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.  

Are you getting the message yet?  For your opinions to "count" you must actually know something relevant to the issue.  I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, with some background in drug design, and has invested some effort into thinking about science, religion, philosophy in general.

Date: 2008/04/23 17:38:07, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Oh, boy.  Angus Menuge posts his impressions of his debate with PZ Myers.  Summary:  I won.

Longer summary:  

1. Angus Menuge says materialism is bad.  
2. Bad!  
3. Did I say materialism is bad?

1. PZMyers said a book about neuroscience is better than the Spatula Brain!  Why does he say that?
2. More brain talk.
3.  Didn't Myers know the debate topic was "Does Neuroscience Leave Room for God"?

Q and A of each other:

"Wishing to expose the way Methodological Materialism can be held indefinitely, no matter what the evidence, I challenged Myers to define what could convince him that materialism was false, pointing out that if all materialist explanations were working or very promising, I could be persuaded that theism was false."

Not realizing that PZ Myers merely requires that somebody show a *reason* to think something exists.
In essence, admission that Menuge has no proof *for* anything spiritual, and carps about why others won't accept his assumptions, how it is discrimination against scientists who want to sneak in said assumptions as part of science.

"I also argued that Myers’ attempt to reduce science to the physically measurable was inadequate, because science postulates theoretical entities that may or may not turn out to be observable."

Yet must have properties determined by their nature, and other properties that are contrary to said nature.
Let us see what Menuge come up with:  first example particles.

Hmmm, look at one that has not been observed - the Higgs boson.  Now if it didn't have well-defined effects, then how would we know one when we saw one?  He then spouts some bullshit that shows he doesn't know quantum mechanics.  Look up Higgs boson, follow some links in Wikipedia, and then tell me that is the same as saying there might be some indetectable nonmaterial something that makes things just so.

"Second, as I mentioned, Myers denied that science is really about truth. I had to wonder why it was so important for him to exclude design from science if all that matters is what works."

Because it doesn't work!  The IDers can't make it work, or else PSCID would be growing, not dying on the vine.

Date: 2008/04/23 21:09:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ April 23 2008,18:36)
The Expelled producers reply:

Executive Producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Statement on Lawsuit by Yoko Ono

The fair use doctrine is a well established copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song Imagine in our documentary film.

Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do in EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed .

Premise Media acknowledges that Ms. Yoko Ono did not license the song for use in the Film. Instead, a very small portion of the song was used under the fair use doctrine.

Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry. Unbiased viewers of the film will also understand that the Imagine clip was used to contrast the messages in the Documentary and that the clip was not used as an endorsement within Expelled.


They should start immediately with producing a new movie.

I have some music suggestions:

Poor, poor, pitiful me, by Warren Zevon.

If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all, Hee-Haw gang.

Liar, by Henry Rollins.

Wonderful World (don't know much about [Nazi] history, don't know much [evolutionary] biology) , by Sam Cooke

Date: 2008/04/25 09:40:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2008,09:21)
What I want to know about the list of papers at the Biologic Institute is which ones support the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

Shapiro JA, von Sternberg R (2005) Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function. Biological Reviews 80: 227-250. Review. PMID: 15921050

von Sternberg R, Shapiro JA (2005) How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 110: 108-116. PMID: 16093662

Axe DD (2004) Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 341: 1295-1315. PMID: 15321723

Lu H, Macosko J, Habel-Rodriguez D, Keller RW, Brozik JA, Keller D (2004) Closing of the fingers domain generates motor forces in the HIV reverse transcriptase. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279: 54529-54532. PMID: 15385563

Keller D, Swigon D, Bustamante C (2003) Relating single-molecule measurements to thermodynamics. Biophysical Journal 84: 733-738. PMID: 12547757

As far as I can see, none of them even come close! Mind, I've not read the papers in question but.....

The first paper is junk.

No idea on the second paper.  Similar line to the first, from the title.

The third paper doesn't show protein evolution is unlikely.

Fourth paper: It's got motor in the title!

Fifth paper:  I know what the paper is about: how it "supports" ID is unimaginable.

Date: 2008/04/26 19:34:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25)
Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it.

Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right.

Here is the graph of actual temperatures vs Hansen's 1988 paper (projections started in 1984).  The only significant difference is that Hansen included a large volcanic eruption in 1995, and one actually happened in 1991 instead.

Date: 2008/04/26 19:37:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richard Simons @ April 26 2008,11:02)
Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,19:55)
The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I wouldn't be surprised if skeptic has tipping point and runaway greenhouse effect confused.

Date: 2008/04/28 10:28:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Quidam @ April 28 2008,10:23)

Inspired by Pharyingula today

Post of the week, there!  I hope it can get the notice of Pharyngula.

Date: 2008/04/29 11:49:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 29 2008,10:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2008,10:29)
I can imagine Dembski and him sniggering over IM about how funny The Brites is. When you've got no science to fill your day...

Seriously, is there anything more pathetic than sitting around all day making jokes at the expense of your ideological enemies? Probably just one thing.  And that is doing so while affecting a hoity-toity British accent.

Yes, there is something more pathetic.  Sitting around all day making jokes at the expense of your ideological enemies that are not funny.

Date: 2008/04/29 11:58:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (charlie d @ April 29 2008,10:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 27 2008,13:53)
The Numbers estimates that Expelled! will have grossed a total of $5,281,787 after this weekend, dropping to number 13. It experienced the largest percentage drop in revenues weekend to weekend of any of the films currently in the top 15.

This is kind of fishy: Boxofficemojo still lists last weekend's numbers for Expelled as "estimates".  The Numbers has the amounts for Friday, (oddly, in a different color than the rest), and doesn't even list Expelled among the movies for either Saturday or Sunday.  

It almost looks as if someone is being unusually coy regarding the smashing success of their ground-breaking documentary.

Time for Dembski to make a wind-breaking documentary!  :D

Date: 2008/04/29 14:36:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2008,13:41)
Sal's latest diatribe. He must be out of retirement:

Its a solid nugget of Tard, and ends with this.

Freedom has visited the children of Florida to explore evolution! May this freedom visit all the children of the USA one day!

Fuck right off. If there was a switch that would change all the kids into 6k fundies, you'd flip it.

editation for teh spelinks.

Another Tard nugget:
However, I am a gung ho about exploring evolution in public schools. [A very good outline of how to explore evolution is provided in the book: Explore Evolution. ].

More gung ho than Paul Nelson in the Explore Evolution thread here? :O

Date: 2008/05/01 11:43:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Pazu1982:I read in Prothero’s book “Evolution what the fossils say”, that they couldn’t date any rocks older than that because of the constant recycling of the earth’s crust.

If it’s constantly being recycled then we can’t really know for sure that those igneous rocks are actually that old or that young? well i don’t know I am just guessing.

So if people are constantly being born and dying, how can we know for sure how old someone is?  'Tis a puzzle to IDiots.

Date: 2008/05/01 13:51:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Sal's a genius:  
To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess. As our instrumentation improves, what will happen if we discover Quasars are only 5000 light years away, or the great galaxy in Andromeda is 100 times closer?

The distance to SN1987a can be measured using triangulation.  It is 168,000 light years, just as the distance was thought to be for the Large Magellanic Cloud before the supernova was observed.

If Andromeda were 100 times closer, then it would have to be 100 times smaller, and the stars 1,000,000 times closer together than they are in our galaxy.  (volume scales as distance cubed, star density is number of stars (one trillion) divided by volume.  Maybe Sal could propose that stars can be 100 times smaller!  :p 

Not only that, but Andromeda would be 6 times closer than SN1987a.


Further, if the light intensity to distance ratio obeys an inverse-quartic law, it would lend confirmation to the YEC cosmology which I currently subscribe to. If this test fails, I think I’ll owe Dr. Cheesman a beer. If it succeeds, he can by me a beer [I don’t drink beer, but I would for that occasion.]

So there you have it. I’ve laid it on the line what would seal the deal…

Now Sal, where is my beer?  Beside the bottle of single malt Scotch?

I would like my beer to be a Dark Lord from the Three Floyds, please.  :)

*Edited to make numbers correct, and because I can.

Date: 2008/05/01 21:19:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dogdidit @ May 01 2008,16:23)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 01 2008,13:51)
Sal's a genius:                        
To cut to the chase, our best instruments can only measure out to 400 light-years using triangulation. Anything beyond that is a guess. As our instrumentation improves, what will happen if we discover Quasars are only 5000 light years away, or the great galaxy in Andromeda is 100 times closer?

The distance to SN1987a can be measured using triangulation.  It is 168,000 light years, just as the distance was thought to be for the Large Magellanic Cloud before the supernova was observed.

If Andromeda were 100 times closer, then it would have to be 100 times smaller, and the stars 1,000,000 times closer together than they are in our galaxy.  (volume scales as distance cubed, star density is number of stars (one trillion) divided by volume.  Maybe Sal could propose that stars can be 100 times smaller!  :p

The sun's diameter is approximately 100 times that of Earth's. Good luck with stellar nucleosynthesis there, Sal! :p

BTW, the triangulation using SN1987A and its reflection off the planetary nebula actually computes the time delay from the supernova event, not the distance. IOW the trigonometry tells us that the supernova occured 168,000 years ago - independent of the speed of light! The distance is therefore 168,000 LY if we assume s.o.l. is constant.

Sal, of course, can choose to weasel on geometry, or argue that the s.o.l. is anisitropic, or started out fast and then slowed down after a year. Or just quit screwing around and invoke GAWDIDDITism.

Speaking of weaseling:                
I think the issue of the univrse’s age is open for more inquiry. I have my biases, but I’m officially undecided at this time.

Sal is a liar.

Actually, according to some YECs, the sun didn't run by fusion, but the heat was generated by gravitational collapse.    With that "theory" the earth could be very small, very cold star.

JonF is right - the distance to SN1987a does not depend on the speed of light being constant.  

However, I will admit to a boo-boo:  the distances between stars is only smaller by 100, not one million.

Date: 2008/05/02 11:02:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Mats thinks he is clever:

Why are people waisting time on the non-existing controvery?

Because the religious nuts are waisting the scientists time with their controvery!  :)

Mats seems unaware that this is a science and religion center, hosting a conference on God, Nature and Design.

There is no scientific controversy.  If IDers made clear that the controversy was religious and political, we wouldn't have to.

Lately there seems to be a lot of creationists, YEC even,  hanging out at the old ID blog lately.

Date: 2008/05/02 20:33:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 02 2008,19:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 02 2008,18:05)

And then aussie idnet idjwit opines, bringing the science right back to a place where the average UDer can understand it.  
IMHO, the theological need to hold YEC is usually about the origin of death and suffering. If sin brings death and Jesus defeats sin, then Jesus defeats death. If, in an old earth, death comes before sin, then defeating sin does not seem to necessarily defeat death. This is a big problem.


It's clear that these folks have completely dropped the ID=science camouflage. How they ever expect to win a court case with that argument is beyond me; all you have to do is point a judge or jury toward the "Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary, and friends."

That is what you get when you implement the big tent strategery.  I love the sock puppet who called it the big top  strategy with nary a peep from the clowns.

Date: 2008/05/02 20:37:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 02 2008,18:05)

Don't worry, Jonathan Sarfati is there to set him on the YEC straight and narrow(minded).


Date: 2008/05/02 20:42:56, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 02 2008,17:50)
Thanks for thinking of me Kristine.  I actually had a double of Mark Mathis at the Baptist Press where he said something to the effect of no one can claim anything in the movie is not true.  Something super-zilla tardish like that.  Anyhow, after I read the whole article my fever was gone and the shakes had stopped.  I'm full on tard now and I should be good for another day or so.

I'll see if I can find that BP article again and I'll link to it in case any others here are also going through tard withdrawl.

Man oh man I wish Ben would do another Christian fundy television interview.  I was buzzed on that for days.


Found it!

'Expelled' producer happy with box office

Mathis also noted "Expelled" targeted conservative religious people

There is not anything in the film that you can point to and say, 'This is dishonest. This is manipulation

Amazingly the Baptist press quotes the NY Times and another source that slammed Expelled.  I thought that was cool.

Anyhow, enjoy your shot of Mathis tard for the day!

There is nothing in Michael Moore's documentaries that is dishonest or manipulative.  Just ask him!  :p

Date: 2008/05/03 12:19:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (William Wallace @ May 03 2008,12:00)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 03 2008,03:53)
William, simple question. Was Steinberg fired or not?

That is sort of like asking if a victim of waterboarding was killed or not.

Not if the accusation is that he was killed!

So, was Sternberg expelled (lost his job for IDiocy) or not?

Date: 2008/05/06 14:54:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (BopDiddy @ May 06 2008,14:27)
My calendar says it's a Tuesday, but it feels very Friday:

6 May 2008
Who’s in it for the money?
William Dembski

Critics of the ID movement often complain that we’re fabulously well funded by right-wing extremists and in it for our own aggrandizement. Fortunately, money leaves a trail. When one follows it, Darwinists seem to be doing much better financially than ID theorists (perhaps an indication that they are serving Mammon more faithfully). Let’s consider a few better off Darwinists: ...

No Free Lunch, indeed.  Rough Visa bill this month, Dr^n?

Uh, sure Dr. Dr. Dembski

Charles Darwin's fortune couldn't be related to the fact that he was related to Wedgewood.

Dawkins' success as an author couldn't possibly be related to the fact that he writes well, and thinks.

Ken Miller is a popular textbook author, no doubt the reason he went into evolutionary biology in the first place.  By the way, have you compared Design of Life to Miller's book, for a few hints about what makes a good textbook?

"Darwinism has always been an upper-class movement. "

sounds a lot like ""We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" Rev. Ray Mummert

Bop Diddy, I do think the glow of fervor for Jesus in your eyes is stronger since you have been banned from UD.

Date: 2008/05/06 18:04:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,16:08)
Trying to bring it back to biology:

AB is the biggest importer or rice in the US. That's why your beer is so sickly sweet. They use crap loads of rice.

Real men drink gourmet civet beer.

That is not why Budweiser is "sweet".  It is because the
hop truck only drives by once.  The rice is actually 100%
fermentable, lightening the body with no extra residual sugar to speak of.

Date: 2008/05/06 20:20:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Annyday @ May 06 2008,19:59)
Barry spelled the Friedrich in Friedrich Nietzsche wrong. Also, he's guilty of some kind of reverse No True Scotsman fallacy. Instead of saying people on his side aren't really on his side when they behave deplorably, he says people are only really "Darwinists" or "materialists" if they're bombastic nihilists or eugenicists or similar. If you're well-adjusted, you're not really a materialist, or you don't profoundly and courageously confront the implications of Darwinism, or something.

The No True Strawman Fallacy

Date: 2008/05/07 09:13:15, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,23:53)
Willy Wally posts where only the anointed few can:


William Wallace


11:40 pm
Well, sir, this is a well written and well reasoned blog entry. I agree. Period. Thanks BarryA!

However, I fear that these very deep questions will lead to schisms.

Ah, never mind. We’re much bigger people than the close minded evolanders. We know that a seed planted today might take awhile before it sprouts, grows, and bears good fruit.

Meanwhile, who is afraid to disagree? Not this side.

Who's disagreements make it through moderation...?

DaveScot's.  :O

Date: 2008/05/07 09:41:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Things were looking interesting...

Edited to add - D'oh! This was the link to two years ago for DaveScot's disemvowelling and Denyse's puzzlement.
And to change sentence tenses   :)

Ofro's original question:    
Come to think of it: What is ID’s explanation for this apparent lack of evolutionary change?



11:12 am
Dembski's Answer: Redesign (technological evolution) itself requires design, and lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don't need to be redesigned.

How is this any less tautological than “they survived because they were fit and we know they were fit because they survived”? Can ID quantify the “wellness” of design and state objectively why things are well-designed? Or do we know they are well-designed by the fact that they have never been redesigned?

No answer ever appeared, even after two years. :)

That’s fair. But your answer seems to imply that, at least occasionally, things get redesigned in Nature. And if so, why weren’t they designed well enough in the first place?


taciturnus tried to help Dembski:
That is also a fair question, but it is irrelevant to the question of the existence of design. That would be the “bad design means no design” fallacy.

steve steve pointed out to taciturnus:      
Ofro did not say bad design means no design. You might have encountered that argument before, but Ofro didn’t make it. And if you take a look, Mr. Dembski said that “Redesign (technological evolution) itself requires design, and lots of things are designed so well in the first place that they don't need to be redesigned.” was ID’s explanation, he did not say it was an explanation beyond ID.

What a shame the disemvoweling distracted from the disembowelling of Dembski.

Date: 2008/05/07 17:06:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dheddle @ May 07 2008,16:58)
This is not quite as entertaining as a NASCAR race but definitely more fun than one of those Formula-1 pseudo-races. I can hardly believe that Dave has posted a FSM pic. It's time for a pool as to when crash and burn will occur--or is there already one up and running?

So, is the only reason you read UD is hoping for a crash and burn?

Date: 2008/05/14 15:41:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JohnW @ May 14 2008,12:08)
Evolution in action!  We started with an existing pattern:
Personal incredulity.

Buy my book.

Now we've had a mutation, causing a duplication of some of the material:
Buy my book.

Personal incredulity.

Buy my book.

This mutation is neutral - it adds no information, while making the post no worse.  (I read it with and without the first paragraph.  It's bollocks either way.)  But now, there's the possibility of a  beneficial mutation, which adds information to the message (although it's highly likely to still be bollocks).  I'll be on the lookout in future for something along the lines of
God did it.

Personal incredulity.

Buy my book.

or perhaps
Buy my book.

Personal incredulity.

Scientists are Nazis.

Exciting times indeed for ID!

The next step:

Watch my movie.

Personal incredulity.

Scientists are Nazis.

Date: 2008/05/18 15:23:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Poachy invokes the Joe Gallien theory of simulation:


When a computer simulation of reality doesn’t match up with reality we (speaking as a computer scientist) usually consider the model to be the source of the error instead of reality.

If they really wanted to model climate, they really should be subjecting the computers to swings in temperature and humidity. But, I am willing to bet that they aren’t.

Date: 2008/05/19 13:20:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dogdidit @ May 19 2008,10:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2008,09:54)
Quote (dogdidit @ May 19 2008,09:44)
Hey guthrie, DT is talking to ya! :p

Shouting over the fence from the safety to Tardonia...

I thought it was "Tardistan".

They seem to be non-stop on AGW denialism these days. Ran out of ID research to talk about, I suppose. With the Old Testament off limits, there's not much left to discuss, so anti-AGW it is! Uncommonly Warm!

Their falling for global warming denial is merely a symptom of a much larger science deficit.

Date: 2008/05/19 16:06:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2008,14:01)
ID predicts: There will be no math in this thread...

Barry A:

You know nothing else about the tree other than what you can infer from a visual inspection.

That is the IDers problem in a nutshell.  They know nothing about biology, in this instance, trees.


Date: 2008/05/21 09:16:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,08:40)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 21 2008,02:52)
Not faulting Allen, of course, but I would have taken the socratic approach.

I think Allen MacNeill (if his belief is that ID is scientifically vacuous and his aim is to convince UD (and Telic Thoughts for that matter) posters and lurkers of the fact) is wasting his time.

I know I've said this before but if all AtBC sockpuppets and anyone else* with such honourable intentions would stop holding a mirror up to the likes of UD regulars, I predict the thread content would quickly deteriorate to the level of the resident acolytes. Scientific ID is an ex-concept, and support may drift away more quickly without the stimulus of having to address or ignore awkwardly rational points.

*@ Bob O'H

Bob, I always enjoy your posts there, but I wonder if they don't regard you along with Mr MacNeill as their resident tame evilutionist.

I think their readership is mainly mockers and scoffers, and that the readership is much more scientifically literate than the writership!

It is certain that the readership is more literate than the writership!  :p

Date: 2008/05/29 21:23:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton



11:07 am

Tard Alert!

M Caldwell

Sadly, progress in SPS has been glacial over the decades I've known about it. The biggest problem is the cost of getting material into orbit and little has been done in developing a low-cost method of getting material into orbit.

Taht is because gravity is the strongest force in the universe, DT!  :p

Date: 2008/06/02 16:25:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ June 02 2008,11:32)
Then there's most of the field of psychology. The placebo and Clever Hans effects are especially relevant.
I guess what people experience with phone calls is hindsight bias.

If you have hindsight bias with Clever Hans, you're looking at the wrong end of the horse.  :)

Date: 2008/06/03 12:06:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
DLH doesn't know what universal means, and gives The Argument Regarding Decay:

See NIST’s Constants in the category ” Universal constants Which of those address dating methods?

The decay constant for U-238 is not the same as the decay constant  for K-40 is not he same as the  constant for Pu-244 is not the same as the constant for ...

DLH also can't figure which part of the government to look at for nuclear data.

Date: 2008/06/04 15:47:46, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ June 04 2008,15:19)
Actually, Occam, we already teach the strengths and weaknesses in all other courses.  A real good example is the critical analysis currently underway with string theory so why should evolution be any different.  The truth is both sides have an agenda and neither has much to do with science education.

Which high school course would enable students to comprehend string theory, much less understand its strengths and weaknesses?

What strengths and weaknesses did you imagine are taught about any theory in chemistry, for example?

Date: 2008/06/04 15:54:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Annyday @ May 17 2008,10:14)
GASP! God's a Chinaman! We've been wrong about it being Jesus all along.

Further confirmation: the Chinese character for a boat contains the number 8,  just like the ark (a boat) had 8 people.

Date: 2008/06/05 13:25:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,00:44)
In chemistry we explore the different models of the atom and at successive points replace these models with the next.  

Really?  Tell us more.  

I teach chemistry, by the way.  In yesterday's General Chemistry I lecture I pointed out that the atom is composed of a very small, heavy nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, with electrons distributed probabilistically, with lower density as the radial distance from the nucleus increases.  What are the weaknesses of that theoretical description that I should point out to these students?

In the same way that we apply a classical representation of gravity and then replace it with a relativistic model.

In a high school?  


 Every theory we have is a snapshot in time as a reflection of our current level of knowledge but no theory is complete and correct.

Students by definition don't  know the technical details of the theory yet.  How are they supposed to evaluate strengths and weaknesses?  It would be like Miss South Carolina judging whether Stephen Hawking's description of black holes is well founded or not, based on its strengths and weaknesses.

How is that global warming investigation going?  Have you looked at the sophomore level explanation (note the lack of discussion of heat sinks) at yet?

Date: 2008/06/05 13:36:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2008,12:48)
WmAD is pissed!!
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s signing of a transgender anti-discrimination bill points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design

Great, just great! The cross-dressers can now eat in the Baylor cafeteria and he still can't.  And, to add insult to injury, he can't make fun off them anymore, either.  Damn liberals! Always screwing up his fun!

Aren't transgendered people an example of people who made a design decision about their gender?  The rest of  make do with random chance, a great evil apparently.

Date: 2008/06/05 21:52:37, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2008,18:13)
I have previously worried that the Fountain of Tard from the ID movement was going to dry up.

Well I worried too soon.

F&%$ing WOW.

5 June 2008
Stylus paper (from Biologic Institute) published
Paul Nelson

It’s open access check it out

I wonder if Stylus will take up the CASP challenge.

That would be EPIC FAIL.

Date: 2008/06/06 10:26:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (keiths @ June 06 2008,06:52)
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus in this thread.

From that thread:


So yes, I think it's clear that this argument holds up perfectly well:

1) Computers operate according to deterministic law (or law + chance)
2) Computers are bona-fide intelligent agents
3) Therefore ID can draw no distinction between law+chance and intelligent agency (aka "guided" vs. "unguided" processes)


No, you really are mistaken completely. I am regularly suprised (and usually disappointed) by what my programs do.

The computer program has  sinned!  :O

Date: 2008/06/10 12:54:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 10 2008,01:25)
Gil thinks E Coli and man have exactly same evolutionary mechanisms at their well as similar environment landscape changes I guess..

Gil, honey, this thing you think you're researching...... ain't evolution.

Gil's head and E. coli are in the same environment.

Date: 2008/06/10 13:11:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ June 10 2008,09:06)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 10 2008,07:37)
Fact is if "design" theory was real and produced results people would use it. People are interested in results. What results has "design" given us?

Oh I know this one, I know this one!  Call on me!!!


Design Theory has given us these results:

1.  The Discovery Institute - Home of offices and fund raising that gives money to Christians to subvert the Constitution.
2.  William A Dembski - Fashion model, and religious writer and Christian, and a sometime Comedic Genius.(Usually on Fridays).  
3.  Denyse O'Leary - Owner / contributer of 50 blogs, and a couple of sentences that make sense to someone somewhere, somehow.  
4.  A Bad, Boring Movie
5.  Dover!  Waterloo!  Dover!
6.  FTK - Frenetic Theoretician from Kansas.

and last, but not least,

7.  ATBC Blog! - We couldn't have done it without ID Theory.

These are the things that ID Theory has give us.

Aside from the Disclaimery Institute,  sweater fashion, O'Bleary blogging, Intelligence Expelling, Friday meltdowns, predictions of evolutions's demise any day now, marching morons, and the peanut gallery, what has ID theory done for us?

Date: 2008/06/15 22:04:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ June 15 2008,18:52)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,18:45)
Salvador, Telic Thoughts, and Walt Brown

The tard density threatens to tear a hole in the Space Time Continuum.

That thread is pretty long.  Here is a direct link to Sal's comment on Brown.

ETA: Walt's name was brought up by Thought Provoker who offered this delightful euphemism:
Hi Mike,

I think, therefore I am.

I can only presume that other people think at all, much less what they think unless they present it.

I find it difficult to trust people who do not honestly and openly present what they think and defend it.

I offer Walt Brown as a religiously oriented thinker willing to honestly present and defend his hypothesis.

I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there.  He's a good sport.

TP has quantum on the brain, so to speak.  :D

Date: 2008/06/17 17:05:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 17 2008,11:01)
Poachy goes over easy:

9:22 am

By popular demand poachy is no longer with us.

Poachy, please delurk!

Date: 2008/06/19 12:45:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 19 2008,10:17)
Maybe if I illustrated my point about feedback. Suppose you have a robotic car whose steering mechanism makes frequent, minute, random changes to the left or right.

Suppose each small change of direction is followed by a yes or no response from a sensor that detects deviations from the center of the road.

Perhaps this isn't as intuitive or efficient as having the sensor simply command a jog left or right, but I can't see that it would fail to work.

Bah,  you keep losing information about being offroad!

Date: 2008/06/19 13:10:17, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 19 2008,00:06)
Frank Beckwith shows why he didn't deserve tenure either:        
For example, who was the genius who told Gulliermo Gonzales it was a good idea to remain a DI fellow and publish his book before he earned tenure? Everyone knew that this was an accident waiting to happen. Imagine if GG had received wise advice from friends to resign his DI fellowship, back off the ID stuff, publish more peer-reviewed articles, apply for more grants, etc. Do you think he would be at Grove City College now? I doubt it.

The only way Gonzales would have gotten tenure would have been if he'd:

A: Come up with some kind of idea for a research project.

B: Convinced granting agencies that the idea was worth funding.

C: Convinced telescope operators that his idea was good enough to get telescope time.

D: Had at least one grad student get his PhD.

Like it or not, that's the way big time astronomy is done nowadays.  Since he did none of these things, he was justifiably let go by Iowa and is now comfortably ensconced at Grove City College, whose expectations are hopefully low enough to suit Dr. Gonzales' ID-quality intellect.  

And every time Frank Beckwith fills our browsers with poorly researched IDtard, I realize that Baylor was right when they denied him tenure and they never should have gone back on their original decision.

Now ceiling cat, even though it is you who is touching me in the icon, I must argue for leniency in Beckwith's case.  If Gonzales hadn't been messing around with irrelevancies, maybe he could have accomplished these action items.

Francis Beckwith was the best legal ally ID had - a lawyer prof who made what I think is a constitutionally
arguable point:  IF ID has a scientific basis independent of religion, it would be teachable below college level.  Poor Beckwith was fooled by the so-called experts, he thought that Behe and Dembski had something.

Date: 2008/06/19 15:43:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Maya @ June 19 2008,15:04)
Quote (JohnW @ June 19 2008,12:02)
-..  .-  ...-  .  ...  -.-.  ---  -    ..  ...    .-    .-.  .-  ...-  ..  -.  --.    ..-.  ..-  -.-.  -.-  .--  ..  -

- .... .- - .. ... .- -. .. -. ... ..- .-.. - - --- ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .-- .. - ... . ...- . .-. -.-- .-- .... . .-. .

--- -.- .-.. .. ... ... . -. ..- .--. --..-- .... --- -- --- ... -.-- --- ..- - .... .. -. -.- .. -.. --- -. - ..- -. -.. . .-. ... - .- -. -.. -.-- --- ..- .-. -.. -. .- - .- .-.. -.- .. .- -- ..-. .-.. ..- . -. - .. -. -.. -. .- .- -. -.. -- --- --- -. -- .- -. -.-- --- ..- .-. . --- ..- - - .- .... . .-. .

Date: 2008/06/20 15:25:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Backpacking at Philmont Boy Scout Ranch with my son.

Going to Cincinnati to see my daughter get married.

Date: 2008/06/23 10:36:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2008,18:35)
I think I'll invite Judge Jones to the 3rd Annual Drinktastic Dover Drinkoff, but his judicial impartiality might require him to decline.

You may want to reconsider.  I heard that Judge Jones farts a lot. *Expel*  :p

Date: 2008/06/25 09:14:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 25 2008,03:14)
The Shlafly - Lenski exchange is not to be missed. Nor is the associated talk page. I'm amazed, really, that WAD saw fit to link to them, because Shlafly is shown to be a dishonest blowhard and a fool who deserves the contempt he receives.

It's like the Hardees commercial: a Friday meltdown on a Wednesday.

Date: 2008/07/16 14:31:28, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dnmlthr @ July 16 2008,13:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 16 2008,19:49)
It sounds like we need to sign Chuck up for the Internet Tough Guy Olympics.  Imagine getting him to compete against DaveTard (and his dogs).

It would be... wonderful!

Hey, watch what pictures you post!  We don't want the Ghost of Paley to reappear.  :p

Date: 2008/07/26 10:29:56, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
A big public-relations problem for ID theory in the scientific community is that leading theorists have associated themselves with the ID movement.

No s*%#, you think a new set of ideas that attempt to explain what we observe around us is just going to magically gain acceptance without a need for a movement???

Tell us all about the relativity movement, and the quantum mechanics movement, F2XL.  Inquiring minds want to know.  ID minds don't.

Date: 2008/07/27 21:24:08, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
A Simpleton Gene Origination Calculation

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.

That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.

Date: 2008/07/30 21:52:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ July 30 2008,18:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 30 2008,18:41)
good lord.

get ready for duh stoopid.

One conclusion from this world salad:  Granville Sewell is now a scientist.

These elaborate plant traps did not arise by Darwinian evolution, as taught in school, because it is implausible that - at every stage of their construction - they helped the plant survive and leave seeds. They could not likely have helped the plant in any way before they landed an insect.

So, Granville, you wouldn't find any plants that only had parts of the traps, huh?

A protocarnivorous plant (sometimes also paracarnivorous, subcarnivorous, or borderline carnivore), according to some definitions, traps and kills insects or animals but lacks the ability to either directly digest or absorb nutrients from its prey like a carnivorous plant. The morphological adaptations such as sticky trichomes or pitfall traps of protocarnivorous plants parallel the trap structures of confirmed carnivorous plants.

Don't quit your day job, Granville.

Evidently Granville couldn't find out about protocarnivorous organisms because they have been overlooked at conservapedia.

I find it amusing there is only an English version of conservapedia.

Date: 2008/08/02 15:44:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Smart People With Dumb Ideas

I’m currently rereading Bill Dembski’s No Free Lunch.

I stopped reading right there.  With my quote-mining approach, Gil Dodgen is right for once.  :D

Date: 2008/08/05 11:12:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 05 2008,10:32)
Is there a way in which somebody could make money due to a species being endangered? Outside of a scientist maybe getting a salary from studying the species, I can't offhand think of one.


I think the underpants gnomes could manage a profit off of endangered species, by a suitable adaptation of their business plan.

Date: 2008/08/05 16:24:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2008,15:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 05 2008,15:15)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 05 2008,10:17)
Joseph: tRNA just “grabs” the corresponding amino acid. But how does a “dumb” molecule “know” how to do that?

It doesn't "know", Joseph, any more than Mars knows when to go retrograde.

Well, according to this nice little Jack Chick tract called "Big Daddy" that I found on the floor of Atlanta Hartsfield airport yesterday, Jesus actually holds all the atoms together. If he can manage that, it should be pretty easy for him to get various molecules to hook up.  Sort of like


Um, thanks to Sal Cordova, I read an account of a YEC who does exactly that!



Dr. Charles W. (Bill) Lucas
    Dr. Charles Lucas earned his doctorate in Intermediate Energy Physics from The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1972 and then performed post-graduate research on pions at Catholic University in Washington, DC. He has derived a universal electro-dynamic force law that describes physical phenomena on all size scales throughout the universe including what he terms "the pulse of life," on the molecular scale and a new paradigm for medicine. Using the universal force law he has refined the ring model to describe the complete set of elementary particles, their decay schemes, reactions, and excited states by introducing the classical concept of stable elementary particles being composed of primary, secondary and tertiary level three dimensional closed strings that reflect the chiral symmetry of the universal force. This classical model conserves energy, total number of charge strings, and unique angular momentum configurations of the primary strings in all decays and reactions. Bill is a frequent speaker at science conferences and has been featured in many programs by Cornerstone TV on a syndicated program titled "Origins." This past year (2007) Bill presented a three credit 45 hour seminary course on creation at the International Baptist Bible College of Ukraine in Russian based on the universal force being identified from the Bible as the Divine force. From the universal force alone Bill was able to describe many aspects of the creation, the mechanism causing Noah's flood, what happened to all the water after the flood, and what caused the division of the continents 101 years later.

Date: 2008/08/07 13:44:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
DaveScot on global warming:

6 August 2008
Global Warming Alarmists Wrong Again
Contrary to last year’s hysteric proclamations that arctic sea ice would completely vanish this summer it has instead increased to an extent not seen since 2004.

Forecast, from


Chances that the 2008 ice extent will fall below last year's record minimum is about 8 percent, researchers forecast after having run a number of different models predicting the fate of the Arctic sea ice this summer. But there is still reason for concern; the scientists are almost certain the ice extent will fall below the minimum of 2005, which was the second lowest year on record  


Date: 2008/08/08 09:56:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Tulle @ Aug. 07 2008,20:17)
Nothing to potent over there right now, but I think I got enough to keep the withdrawal symptoms at bay until tomorrow.

We got Zakrzewski
Also, don’t we have this new principle that Science is whatever scientists do? So if scientists are racist eugenicists, that’s Science.

Where did that come from? Kinda reminds me of what my sister the art major told me when I ask here what is art. She said, "it's what an artist does." My sister was alway kinda a dick.

and Zakrzewski

I think that in the end the safest thing to say is that if Darwinism does not lead to racism, it at least provides an excuse for it. Religion may have been used to justify ethnocentrism as well, but the essential lesson is that Darwinists are every bit as fallible as anyone else- a reality people like Dawkins seem to reject.

Like religion may be bad but Darwin is just as bad, yep that argument will get me to church this Sunday. Ugh.

Not great stuff but gotta do until tomorrow.

(edited to fix links -steve)

Zakrzewski is trying to be clever, and actually succeeding.  Of course, it is based on a misconception of what is meant by "science is what scientists do".

The description of the scientific method in high school is presented as prescriptive, but in reality it is a simplified description.  There is no reason to expect that a complex endeavor such as science can be pigeon-holed in a simple list of items.

Louis' Feynmann quote comes close to the essence.

When one examines some of the history of science, one notices that
1)religious concepts or beliefs were mentioned or assumed as a matter of fact, and
2)that prejudices colored observations.  

These people were scientists.  Eventually 1) was dropped because it did not work. If ID were useful, then scientists would use it. 2) is something everybody has to struggle with, in all aspects of life.

Date: 2008/08/11 13:08:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,07:41)
lcd, the answer is right in your hands, you're just not liking the answer.

Look, you have a question about science.

Scientists produce science.

Creationists do not.

"Which one to believe?"

It's not that hard.

Would you watch a McCain TV ad to find out Obama's positions?  It depends on what you are looking for.  If it is validation you want about Obama, watch the McCain ad.

Date: 2008/08/12 10:24:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 11 2008,21:28)
Davey is hanging on our every word here:
Message for “Maya”:  In regard to your demand that I debate you in a neutral forum I’ll do that right after Barbara Forrest agrees to debate Bill Dembski in a neutral forum.

Two words: Dover trial.

Date: 2008/08/13 10:25:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 13 2008,10:02)
Denyse admits her divorce from reality is final in this screed about why she thinks ID is winning

The first two replies indicate the evidence suggests otherwise.

To be fair, Denyse does not say exactly what ID is winning.  Maybe she means ID is winning a boobie proze or something.

Boobie proze?  Is that what Denyse writes?

Date: 2008/08/13 10:35:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 13 2008,10:02)
Denyse admits her divorce from reality is final in this screed about why she thinks ID is winning

It was not a divorce, but an annulment!  :p

Date: 2008/08/13 17:00:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Aug. 13 2008,15:15)
I suspect Gonzales work is going to be just like Dembski's; sloppy in all the areas where the argument is, rejected by science, but fuel for creationists. Hey, I've already had a creationist give me the eclipse argument.

edit: italic

Such as in:

   26. Observation of highly complex life and bio/eco system requires a creator.
   a. The size of the sun and moon, while the ratio to earth is hundreds of times distant from earth they are exactly the same size during most eclipses.


There is nothing new under the sun, even the moon.  :O

Date: 2008/08/13 21:09:46, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

Date: 2008/08/19 08:40:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 14 2008,11:55)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 13 2008,20:09)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2008,18:34)
Did anyone ever tell him the moon hasn't always been the same distance from earth as it is now?

Yeah, but the moon was designed to be at just the right distance when humans were to be designed.  And the earth-moon system was designed to have the earth's rotation be 365.25 days at just the right time to match the calendar!

Could've they have designed a calender in which the months are all the same length, and equal to a integer number of weeks? :p


No.  The solar system was designed to encourage man to discover real numbers.  :D

Date: 2008/08/27 10:27:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2008,17:39)
We should kick back with some beverages. We've already, on this thread, done more actual Information Theory work than the IDiots have done in 15 years.

Q: Is there more information in a copy of a message, such as the second copy of steve story's post?
A: Yes.  That information is that stevestory had already kicked back with some beverages before posting.    ;)

Date: 2008/08/28 16:46:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (KCdgw @ Aug. 28 2008,16:26)
Nowers believes that microevolution should not be brought up at all because that is fact.



So we shouldn't bring up atoms in chemistry, because that is a fact?  LOL, indeed.  :p

Date: 2008/09/04 16:48:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 04 2008,15:22)
I have to say that in ten years of forumizing, UD is the only forum that has banned me. It took six posts, all of them rather simple questions asking for clarification.

They were not done rapid fire. They hardly could have been rapid, since they were in moderation for at least a day each. Most were addressed by someone going by the name of Patrick.

I have never told anyone here what my UD name was, and I didn't call attention to my UD posts on any other forum, so it isn't like I was out to make fun of UD. I simply like asking questions, and questions are not worth much if they aren't hard. I suppose that admitting I was there to ask hard questions contributed to my demise, since that was when I got canned.

Too bad for you Patrick was doing the moderation, instead of the very fair DaveScot, who would never ban anybody for nontrollage (WESM says so!).

Date: 2008/09/04 16:55:15, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 04 2008,14:48)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 04 2008,13:06)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 04 2008,18:30)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 04 2008,09:01)
Psst, don't show this to your better halves.

The Guitar Hero guitar in the background sorta spoils the mood I think he's trying for.

I'm just going to have to note that lack of ability to be self reflective seems common on Teh Intertubes. In what universe does Arden that guy think he looks good in that photo. He looks like a Klingon who has let himself go.


I just got an email from Davie.

He wants to know where you got that picture of the Floating Command Center's First Mate?

First Mate: Well Endowed Stud Muffin!  :p

Date: 2008/09/11 09:14:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 10 2008,15:56)
That persecution fantasy is turned up to 11:

Slaughter of the Dissidents:
The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters

Great scientists like Galileo, one and all.  :p

Date: 2008/09/12 12:45:07, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 12 2008,03:20)
Also, if this turns out to be repeatable:
Rübhausen says the difference in bond lengths could help explain some surprising results he and his collaborators reported last year. His team was comparing RNA made with ordinary organic molecules to RNA made of those molecules’ mirror images. Their goal was to shed light on why life always uses one type of molecule rather than the other.

Chemically, the molecules and their mirror images should be identical. But the researchers found small differences in the energy it takes to excite electrons in the two types of RNA — but only when the RNA molecules were suspended in ordinary water. When the researchers repeated the experiment in heavy water, the differences disappeared.

It will quite possibly be very important.

Betcha it won't be replicated.  Pun intended.

Date: 2008/09/12 13:02:08, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 12 2008,06:54)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 12 2008,03:10)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 12 2008,05:12)
The extra neutron is electrically neutral, and can interact with the electron cloud only weakly (literally),

Is it that it interacts weakly with the electrons, or simply that it doubles the inertia of the atom it's in, making it more resistant to getting shoved around by outside forces? (Also heavier gravitationally, of course.)


The second one.


Ah, hadn't considered momentum. I heard hoofbeats and thought of zebras. Great discussion, Louis and BWE! Though it's more science than I can handle right now (7:30 am and in a seriously un-caffeinated state). I'll flatter myself by pretending I'll read up and understand it later.

BTW Henry J is right, we shouldn't be ignoring gravity; why, it's the strongest force in the universe doncha know!  :p

The following may take a bit of work, but it will be worth it for those who really want to understand the PRIMARY kinetic isotope effect.  Here is a wikipedia article with a picture that may illustrate why H and D have different bond properties.

See those green horizontal lines?  They denote harmonic vibration energy of (v+0.5) times Planck's constant times frequency.  
Frequency is sqrt(k/mass), where k is the curvature of the parabola.  
E=1/2 k (r-re)^2, the second derivative of E with respect to r is k.  
Force is -dE/dr, or -k (r-re).  
F = -k (r-re) is Hooke's Law.

H is lighter than D, so the frequency is higher for H than D, and the green lines are higher for H than for D.  This analysis carries over to the blue curve, and blue horizontal lines, just more complicated.  However, you can't get out of the green well, which is infinite (i.e. harmonic oscillator breaks down), so in real life you have the blue curve.

The lowest energy any molecule can have is with v=0.  The v=0 level is lower for D, so the D0 is larger for D.  D0 is the bond energy.  So R-D bonds are stronger than R-H bonds.

What about bond distance?  The bond vibrates back and forth, but one can see from the blue curve that for a particular energy, the amount of stretch exceeds the amount of compression, so that the average distance is greater than re.  Since the energy level for D is lower than H, the stretching and compression are both smaller, but the stretch more so, so that re is shorter for R-D.  

R is boring organic stuff of interest only to Louis.

Date: 2008/09/12 15:08:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 12 2008,13:35)
I wrote down the equations from the Wiki page and tried to figure it out but I'm sadly lacking.

I'm reading "A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion: The Essential Scientific Works of Albert Einstein" right now because I told myself I'm going to understand relativity thoroughly before I die. Halfway through the general theory I figured out the equation in the special theory that explains why mass has a discrete energy value.

In QM I've figured out some of it, like I can calculate the Hamiltonian sometimes, given enough info (I understand that doesn't make sense too :) ). And I can follow the examples for Schrodinger's equations. But the second I put away my notes and books, I can't do shit with it.

And now, even though there's a new LGH powered up, and we can build computers and nanomaterials and cosmology and all that, I have a sneaky suspicion that no one really gets relativity. Or at least not most people who ought to. Is there any justification to my suspicion?

Just use my equations, and the picture from wiki.  It will be much easier.

Date: 2008/09/24 10:08:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 23 2008,20:16)

If one or more of the long fatty acids develops a "kink", ie two Carbons double bond and dump a Hydrogen, the stack can not pack as densely, and thus becomes a liquid at room temperature. This is an unsaturated oil. If there is one kink, it's a monounsaturated oil, and if more than one, it's a polyunsaturated oil.

Trans fats are like the unsaturated one you mention, except that the double bond does not introduce a kink, so trans fat does not lower lipid density like the good unsaturated oils.  The health risk of trans fat is actually higher than saturated fat.


Denaturation, the unwinding of the protein, is a result of broken Hydrogen bonds. Extreme heat or pH will denature a protein, and since shape determines function, a denatured protein will cease to function properly (or at all). High fever for instance (body temp of 42 or 43°) will denature the body's proteins and cause death. Death is bad.

I find denaturing of protein at 42 hard to believe! It is possible I suppose.


Functions of Proteins

Receptors ---> I apparently forgot to write down what Doc said about this.

Receptors are proteins that "receive" ligand molecules and in turn produce a change in the receptor that produces a signal of some sort.  Regulation is done via the production of these molecules.  

An example is G-protein coupled receptors.

Date: 2008/09/24 10:19:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 20 2008,13:18)
4. Phospate Group

A Phosphate Group is a Phosphorus bonded with two negatively charged Oxygen atoms, one regular Oxygen atom, and double bonded with one Oxygen atom. It's molecular formula is PO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup> or sometimes OPO<sub>3</sub><sup>2-</sup>, to separate the double bonded Oxygen.

Here is where the lecture ended. Although I asked in a later lecture about the odd bondings here that seem to break the rules that we earlier set forth, Doc basically said, "It's complicated, and you don't need to know that for this class, though you'll learn about it in a Chemistry class if you take one." Ok, fair enough.

Chemical education discourages the use of the double bond in phosphate, and in sulfate groups as well.  As you noticed, it violates the octet rule, and does so unnecessarily!  There are some molecules where we chemists violate the rule out of necessity, such as having five atoms bonded to P, which requires 5 bonds.

The double bonds in phosphate and sulfate are historical, hence the biologists still use it a lot because that is how they learned it.  :O

Date: 2008/09/24 10:28:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 21 2008,00:21)
In order to digest cellulose, water and cellulase are needed. Animals don't make cellulase in their bodies, and so can't digest cellulose. Hearkening back to the termite lab, remember that termites subsist on a diet of wood. Wood is made of cellulose. How do they do that? They depend on little microorganisms to digest the cellulose for them.

Some animals do produce cellulase!  Termites are an example.


Scientific Correspondence

Nature 394, 330-331 (23 July 1998) | doi:10.1038/28527
A cellulase gene of termite origin

Hirofumi Watanabe1, Hiroaki Noda1, Gaku Tokuda2 and Nathan Lo3

The traditional view of cellulose digestion in animals is that they cannot produce their own cellulase, and so rely on gut microorganisms to hydrolyse cellulose. A classic example of this symbiosis is that between phylogenetically lower termites and the unicellular organisms (protists) that colonize their hindguts: cellulose fermented to acetate by the protists can be used as an energy source by the termite1. There is evidence for the production of endogenous cellulase components by termites and other wood-feeding insects2; however, an unambiguous origin for such enzymes1 has not been established, to our knowledge, until now. Here we describe the first insect cellulase-endoding gene to be identified, RsEG, which encodes an endo-beta-1,4-glucanase (EC in the termite Reticulitermes speratus

Date: 2008/09/24 18:24:19, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2008,11:50)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 24 2008,11:28)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 21 2008,00:21)
In order to digest cellulose, water and cellulase are needed. Animals don't make cellulase in their bodies, and so can't digest cellulose. Hearkening back to the termite lab, remember that termites subsist on a diet of wood. Wood is made of cellulose. How do they do that? They depend on little microorganisms to digest the cellulose for them.

Some animals do produce cellulase!  Termites are an example.


Scientific Correspondence

Nature 394, 330-331 (23 July 1998) | doi:10.1038/28527
A cellulase gene of termite origin

Hirofumi Watanabe1, Hiroaki Noda1, Gaku Tokuda2 and Nathan Lo3

The traditional view of cellulose digestion in animals is that they cannot produce their own cellulase, and so rely on gut microorganisms to hydrolyse cellulose. A classic example of this symbiosis is that between phylogenetically lower termites and the unicellular organisms (protists) that colonize their hindguts: cellulose fermented to acetate by the protists can be used as an energy source by the termite1. There is evidence for the production of endogenous cellulase components by termites and other wood-feeding insects2; however, an unambiguous origin for such enzymes1 has not been established, to our knowledge, until now. Here we describe the first insect cellulase-endoding gene to be identified, RsEG, which encodes an endo-beta-1,4-glucanase (EC in the termite Reticulitermes speratus

See, Doc specifically talked about the microcritters producing the cellulase for the termites. I'll have to point him to that.

Thanks for your input here, by the way. I appreciate the assists.

The microcritters also produce cellulases!  I merely pointed out that the animals were once not thought to do it.

Date: 2008/09/24 18:25:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2008,14:25)
Sigma and pi are molecular orbitals and s and p (and d and f) are atomic orbitals.

Ah. I was wondering what the sigma and pi represented. Until now they were Greek to me. (ha ha.)


You don't want to know about the capital letters S, P, D, F etc and Sigma, Pi, etc.

Trust me.  ???

Date: 2008/09/24 18:31:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2008,11:04)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 24 2008,09:19)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 20 2008,13:18)
4. Phospate Group

A Phosphate Group is a Phosphorus bonded with two negatively charged Oxygen atoms, one regular Oxygen atom, and double bonded with one Oxygen atom. It's molecular formula is PO<sub>4</sub><sup>2-</sup> or sometimes OPO<sub>3</sub><sup>2-</sup>, to separate the double bonded Oxygen.

Here is where the lecture ended. Although I asked in a later lecture about the odd bondings here that seem to break the rules that we earlier set forth, Doc basically said, "It's complicated, and you don't need to know that for this class, though you'll learn about it in a Chemistry class if you take one." Ok, fair enough.

Chemical education discourages the use of the double bond in phosphate, and in sulfate groups as well.  As you noticed, it violates the octet rule, and does so unnecessarily!  There are some molecules where we chemists violate the rule out of necessity, such as having five atoms bonded to P, which requires 5 bonds.

The double bonds in phosphate and sulfate are historical, hence the biologists still use it a lot because that is how they learned it.  :O

So is the proper way to do it to put a - sign on three of the O's and a + sign on the P?

YES.  Don't listen to the old fogey Louis.

What Louis says is correct, though.  

Chemists have this resonance idea, but the question is which is more important:  a structure that obeys the octet rule but has +1 on P and -1 on each O, or a structure that disobeys the octet rule and has charge 0 on P, and 0 on one O.  Is having a positive charge on P so bad, and having negative on O so bad?  Answer: no.  Louis finds it offensive, apparently.  :p

I wonder if Louis would draw BF3 with a double bond or not, and whether there is any pi bonding in it (his justification for drawing P=O in phosphate).

Date: 2008/09/24 18:33:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2008,14:12)
The details would get into quantum mechanics that's over my head. But roughly, each type of orbital has a characteristic shape that and a minimum size. The 1st shell is simply too small to hold a p, d, or f, and the 2nd is too small for d or f, and the 3rd is too small for f.

Actually, it is a math thing.  The jellium model of the nucleus has "orbitals", where 1p, 1d functions etc are possible.

Date: 2008/09/24 18:34:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2008,14:23)
It has those real world consequences that I hear so much about!

What, argument from consequences? ;)

It keeps me employed, for example.  :)

Date: 2008/09/24 20:33:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2008,19:34)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 24 2008,09:19)

Chemical education discourages the use of the double bond in phosphate, and in sulfate groups as well.  As you noticed, it violates the octet rule, and does so unnecessarily!  There are some molecules where we chemists violate the rule out of necessity, such as having five atoms bonded to P, which requires 5 bonds.

The double bonds in phosphate and sulfate are historical, hence the biologists still use it a lot because that is how they learned it.  :O

Well my issue here is actually not just that there is an extra bond there with the one Oxygen.

On top of that Phosphorus in particular only has three unpaired valence electrons to begin with, so should only be able to form 3 bonds (according to the rules), not even four, let alone five.

There is that also.  Usually, a bond is formed when one electron comes from one atom, and the second from the other.  Therefore carbon has four bonds and no lone pairs usually.  Phosphorus usually has 3 bonds and one lone pair.  However, if electronegative atoms are also involved (especially fluorine, all of the electrons can be used for a bond.  PF5 can be made, PH5 is rather dubious (oh how some chemists would love to make something like that).  All seven valence electrons of iodine can be used to make IF7.

Date: 2008/09/24 20:39:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2008,19:38)
Ok, by "spin", are we talking about a physical spin, a rotation of the electron about a given spatial axis? Or is "spin" something more esoteric?

If the former, is that spacial axis relative to the nucleus, or is it more absolute, or neither?

Yes.  :p

Seriously the electron has no size, so no axis to spin around.  The value of its spin angular momentum cannot be changed, to do so would mean it is not an electron.

If the electrons spin was an integer by the way, there is no Pauli exclusion principle, all electrons could be in the lowest orbital (like 1s^6 for carbon) and there would be no chemistry.

Date: 2008/09/25 11:08:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2008,20:56)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 24 2008,21:39)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 24 2008,19:38)
Ok, by "spin", are we talking about a physical spin, a rotation of the electron about a given spatial axis? Or is "spin" something more esoteric?

If the former, is that spacial axis relative to the nucleus, or is it more absolute, or neither?

Yes.  :p

Seriously the electron has no size, so no axis to spin around.  The value of its spin angular momentum cannot be changed, to do so would mean it is not an electron.

If the electrons spin was an integer by the way, there is no Pauli exclusion principle, all electrons could be in the lowest orbital (like 1s^6 for carbon) and there would be no chemistry.

Wait. "No size" like in 0? It has mass, so wouldn't it then be a little black hole, infinite density, etc?

The rest of that is crazy talk, over my head still.

First you say "yes" then you say "no" and then you're talking about angular momentum in reference to an object you just asserted has no size, so I'm really confused now.

Physicists don't let trivialities such as infinity bother them, the just renormalize things.  :O

If a particle is not made up of anything (a fundamental particle like the electron for example) , but has a finite size, we could make out a top half.  What is that top half made out of?  Wikipedia "point particle".

An example of the infinity business, in quantum field theory the electron interacts with itself.  Now via coulombs law, the energy is infinite since the electron distance from itself is zero.

Date: 2008/09/30 10:07:20, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 28 2008,21:19)

Frankly, I have to agree with Steve.  This has gotten pathetic and all I can feel is pity for her. While I doubt I would ever have common ground with Palin, I think she could have been a respectable pol with sufficient seasoning*. She just wasn't ready to be on the stage at this level and I cannot escape the feeling that the McCain campaign has her on a extremely short leash and won't allow her to do anything other than act the beauty queen and regurgitate the sound bites that they feed her.

* Garlic powder, cumin, a pinch of salt, and maybe some ground ancho pepper.   :D

Sarah Palin and seasoning:  her nickname should be Bible Spice.  :D

Read on the intarwebs somewhere.

I can't work up any sympathy for a person who volunteered to be embarassed.

Date: 2008/10/07 16:42:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 07 2008,15:44)
Advice needed.

I have tried, several times now, to cook bratwurst in beer and use the reduced beer to make a gravy. I have tried this with Shiner Bock and Guiness.  In both cases, the resulting gravy has a bitter edge to it that spoils the dish.

I need suggestions for a style of beer that has alot of flavor, but doesn't have that bitter finish to it. What say you?

Bottled Guinness is definitely too hoppy (and astringent from roasted grains).  Shiner Bock surprises me, but then it is not really a bock either.  Googlage shows 13 IBU for Shiner Bock.  BJCP guidelines for dark american lager say 8-20 IBU.

You need a beer with very low hops.  Maybe a hefewiezen.  Maybe a dunkelwiezen for more flavor.  In the BJCP guidelines the range is 8-15.

Or maybe you just need more malt, try a doppelbock like Paulaner Salvator.

Lambics also don't use much hops, and frequently have fruit in them - cherry reduction from a Kriek might be good.

Date: 2008/10/07 17:26:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
7 October 2008
Score one for Scientific Creationism ?!
In another venue where I participate this article published in Arvix, Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance, and previous articles from the same source published in recent months, is undergoing a lively discussion.

In a nutshell, a couple of earth based research programs measuring the half lives of radioisotopes have a significant seasonal variation in the raw data values which correlate with distance from the sun. It was brought to our attention by scientific creationists who are constantly on the lookout for things which might dispute the widely accepted yardsticks used to measure geologic age.

Yeah, the scientific creationists predicted that decay rates would depend on the distance from the sun! :D

Date: 2008/10/07 17:32:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Quack @ April 19 2008,04:26)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 18 2008,15:59)
Somebody is obsessed with HO-MO-Sexules!

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

By the way that post has been double-reverse unnixplained!

Lately, Sal has managed to post two straight blog entries without obsessing about Teh Gay.

Date: 2008/10/09 13:13:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
[quote=PTET,Oct. 09 2008,06:32]
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2008,03:04)
Obama and Islam
The odds of Obama being truthful in his claim that he converted to Christianity are less than 100 to 1 against it, as fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
is worthy of Dr Dembski himself as it's the sort of specious reasoning he is wont to use.

I loved this line from the "Talk" page of the Obama article...

We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair

These morons are apparently the future elite of the Christian Right...
College for the Home-Schooled Is Shaping Leaders for the Right

No amount of ridicule is enough to humiliate these idiots.

That should be alleged college.  ;)

Date: 2008/10/17 10:00:56, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 17 2008,06:31)
I'll have a donut with my Bradley Effect, please!

Just stopped at 7-11 for some coffee. Mostly minorities inside. The large cups: one stack of McCain cups, and one of Obama cups. I don’t want them to think I’m a racist—what should I do??

This did just happen, and I’m partially serious—that very thought crossed my mind. I’m just saying that I can appreciate the reality of the Bradley effect.  Interesting dynamic.

They already think you're racist - buy that McCain cup!  :D

We'll see if the Bradley effect is countered by the cell phone underpolling effect.

edited to add: Didn't see Drew91's identical reply until after I posted.

Date: 2008/10/27 15:02:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (bfish @ Oct. 25 2008,20:28)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 25 2008,13:15)
Have I mentioned that we just began breeding melanogasters in my Bio 111 lab?

Red eye/white eye inheritance experiment.

Oooh!  Ooooh!

I know that one! I know what's gonna happen!!

Palin will say that they are still fruit flies?

Date: 2008/10/29 09:27:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Two straight "Buy My Book" posts by Dembski.  Will a link farm be next?

Date: 2008/11/01 08:18:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bing @ Oct. 31 2008,13:25)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2008,08:01)
Quote (Bing @ Oct. 31 2008,05:55)
Keep this up steve and Madhur Jaffrey will come to your house and slap you about the head with hot naan fresh from the tandoor.  Or maybe Mario Batali will come and beat you with pasta rags.
Okay, well, if Mario Batali is discovered dead one day, having been drunk under the table and buried in a thin greasy pile of papadum, you'll know what happened. :D

Mario, dead drunk under your table?  If what Anthony Bourdain (himself no slouch in the "legendary appetites" department) has written about Mario is even halfway true then he has nothing to fear from you.    
Oh, Mario! Oh great one! They shut down Molto Mario--only the smartest and best of the stand-up cooking shows. Is there any more egregiously under-used, criminally mishandled, dismissively treated chef on television? Relegated to the circus of Iron Chef America, where--like a great, toothless lion, fouling his cage, he hangs on--and on--a major draw (and often the only reason to watch the show). How I would like to see him unchained, free to make the television shows he’s capable of, the Real Mario--in all his Rabelasian brilliance. How I would love to hear the snapping bones of his cruel FN ringmasters, crunching between his mighty jaws! Let us see the cloven hooves beneath those cheery clogs! Let Mario be Mario!

But you keep making those Italian curries.  Unfortunately they are to cooking what afdave is to science education   :)

So, Italian curries are a blend of French and Spanish cuisines?  :p

Edit to correct for fat finger typo.

Date: 2008/11/03 10:00:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 03 2008,06:56)
What is everyone's Libation / Libation & Food Creation Of Choice to properly celebrate Tuesday Night?

I will be having a bit of Participation Lager from Magic Hat, on Wednesday for sure.  Maybe a California BBQ Pizza clone Tuesday night, with Sonny's sweet BBQ sauce, since CA is going to sink McSame's campaign.   Yum!

Date: 2008/11/04 09:41:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 04 2008,04:19)
Maybe they finally banned everyone  :)

Comments seem to have been in decline, but I think the total loss of comments is due to it being broken - hence Dembski's point 4 on his Administrator skills list. I suspect he wants to swith hosting companies because he blames the current one (either for the breakage or the inability to restore) - but of course all of this is pure speculation.

If they are switching sites, it may take a few days to get everything fully up and running and for the domain name change to kick in. They may have to go back to a standard WordPress layout for a while.

Rats! Might have to get a life.

It is like the Onion Radio report:  Internet outage throws America into productivity.  Except for the periods when people were checking to see if the internet was working again.

Date: 2008/11/04 12:06:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
I also referenced the SPCA and HSUS because sometimes people use 'animal rights' and 'animal welfare' interchangeably.  I mostly associate them with shelters, as those are the two main groups in my area that run them.

HSUS does not run animal shelters to my knowledge.   Not one. The AHA does.  Are you sure you are not confusing the two ?

Date: 2008/11/05 12:38:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (khan @ Nov. 04 2008,22:29)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2008,23:23)
Lewdies and gropenmens, I give you the 44th president of the United States: Barack Obama.

p.s., Texas Teach: You should see the other photoshops I could've posted, including the "Palin: No More Bush" one... Hawt! Okay, truthfully, I can't find her very attractive when she's not too bright. Smart = sexah , for me. Her jeans-encased bootay was sloshing around when they showed her voting, though.

edit: I'm watching McCain's concession speech, and I have to admire his decency in that. Good show, there.

Yes I am rather impressed.

McCain's speech was very well done.  Sounds like he has been working on it for weeks.  :)

Date: 2008/11/05 12:43:01, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 05 2008,08:41)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2008,06:29)
She startled me with almost the exact comment I made on here or Brayton's blog--that this could happen only in America. She used two of the same examples--she could not imagine a Moroccan leading France or a Turk in Germany.

Blacks have been in the US since well before it was the US. Turks have been in Germany and Moroccans have been in France for less than 50 years.

Ah, yes.  I remember studying about the Africans who emigrated to the US for jobs, just like the Turks into Germany, or the Moroccans into France.  :O

Date: 2008/11/05 12:49:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 05 2008,10:40)
I reckon UD has reached the opposite of critical mass.

UD has always been an uncritical mass.  :p

Date: 2008/11/05 12:52:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 05 2008,08:55)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2008,03:42)
The professionals will keep flogging IDC to the limits of funding. They may have a harder time picking up a numerically significant following, but as long as the ones they get come with cash, I don't see a stop.

A bottle of malt says "obscurity* by the anniversary of Senator Obama's election to the presidency."

*i. e. Uncommon Descent folded and not replaced.

Anniversary of the first term election or the second? :)

Had to twist the knife, there.

Date: 2008/11/05 13:00:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 03 2008,10:27)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 03 2008,06:56)
What is everyone's Libation / Libation & Food Creation Of Choice to properly celebrate Tuesday Night?

This, from the great state of Delaware.

Had one.  Thanks for the suggestion Albatrossity, if that is your real name.   ;)

Date: 2008/11/06 10:08:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 04 2008,19:40)
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 05 2008,07:24)
Forget about my last post. Either UD got hacked or someone suddenly likes Dawkins a lot. His vid replaced every single post and it's in the sidebar, too.


So was this the new webmaster?

Reminds me of the conservapedia logo affair.

Still funny, and also google trusworthy!  Perhaps Sarah Palin designed that logo.

Date: 2008/11/06 10:10:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2008,19:41)
I'll spare you another update on the tired and angry JAD/VMartin saga at OE, except to note that according to VMartin we're "drunken neodarwinian AtBC forum".


Who is he calling neoDarwinian?!  :angry:

Date: 2008/11/06 20:55:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 06 2008,15:59)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 06 2008,15:55)
That's talking about the fine tuning constant, not the particular amount of gravitational force at any particular location.


Do you mean the fine structure constant?  It has nothing to do with gravity, it involves electricity and quantum physics.  I just can't imagine why gravity needs to be fine-tuned for life.  Can someone provide the context?

Maybe they mean the gravitational constant G?  I remember long ago when people were trying to see if it was changing.  Those fools didn't realize that the universe couldn't exist if G varies by 10^-40.

Date: 2008/11/06 21:05:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Decided to go to the horse's mouth for the gravity fine tuning argument:

Like Little Bear's porridge, the laws of physics that govern the universe must be "just right." For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible. To be exact, gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 1040 (that's one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

I love it when they talk sciency, such as showing us the number with 40 zeros meaning the same as 10^40.

This is only one example of the fine-tuning necessary for human life. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose concluded that if we jointly considered all the laws of nature that must be fine-tuned, we would be unable to write down such an enormous number, since the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe! Just as we "fine-tune" a shower in the morning to make it tolerable, the entire universe is fine-tuned to support human life.

We all know that the temperature must be withing 10^-40 degrees (let us be generous - Celcius).  :D

There are many more examples of design that could be mentioned. To put it simply: the evidence for design in the natural world is compelling. Learning to see God's fingerprint in nature will not only help you ward of skeptics who challenge why you believe in God, it will also encourage you profoundly in your personal faith. To help make the scientific case for design understandable, I recently partnered with mathematician and philosopher William Dembski to write, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language.

I read that as "Palin Language."

Date: 2008/11/07 12:14:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 07 2008,06:49)
Denyse writes,

Changes at Uncommon Descent

Some kind readers may have noticed that we have been changing things around a bit here at Uncommon Descent.

We are retooling the blog to serve you, our community, better, and will let you know of key developments as they come on stream.

Yes, we've noticed that it no longer says it's Dembski and O'Leary's blog but all the ads are now just for their books, that no one is commenting on anything, that DaveScot has disappeared, and that some of the most egregious anti-Obama posts seems to have disappeared also.  Just exactly how this will all serve the ID community better remains to be seen.

Retooling the blog.  Does that mean new tools are going to be posting? :D

Date: 2008/11/10 21:43:28, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 10 2008,21:35)
Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

By BEN EVANS – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

We have to come up with a term for nutcase assertions about Obama which you can't distinguish from parody.  How about Poe-bama?  :p

Date: 2008/11/11 11:10:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 11 2008,08:05)
Whenever you hear the words ought or should, you can be sure that a moral truth is being espoused.

Gid Dodgen should not post since it confirms that he is an idiot.  And that's a moral truth!  :D

Date: 2008/11/11 11:14:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Nov. 11 2008,03:36)
Oh BarryA:

Fross, your comment at [5] fascinates me. You use words and phrases like “good quality,” “fair,” “good people,” “should be treated,” “should have the opportunity,” “should [not] be taken,” etc. Yet, you seem oblivious to the fact that if your fundamental premise is correct, it follows as surely as night follows day that these words and phrases are utterly meaningless. The way you manage the cognitive dissonance is a wonder to behold.

Yes, sir. If there's no God, then we as a society can't know what is morally acceptable and what is to be condemned. Humans need an Authority to get that kind of information.

BarryA and his kind would be more than happy to be that Authority.  Erm, tell you what that Authority said.

Date: 2008/11/17 09:53:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 17 2008,08:06)



8:15 am

Rutherford appears to have given up

It looks like you sacred him off with logic and evidence.

I love the typo "sacred".  Freudian slip, anyone?

Date: 2008/11/17 10:29:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 17 2008,06:30)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 17 2008,00:14)
I wonder if Davey will be seen outside of UD anywhere to have a vent.

Keep an eye on Telic Thoughts, the only other ID site above the freezing point.

Maybe Denyse will let DaveScot write for one of her many blogs.  :D

Date: 2008/11/24 14:19:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 24 2008,12:04)
What would happen if you held a video contest and nobody entered?

How embarrassing. 1 month gone and still no entries.

1 video. From Stein. They say "students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech" except nobody has so far.

When will they learn....

The UD page announcing this says
“On Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (Feb. 12, 2009), we want students everywhere to speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution”

And yet posters on the thread seem to be quoting posts that are no longer there. Censorship? I think so...

Did they announce the video contest at overwhelming evidence, where all the hip teens hang out?

Edited to add:  somebody beat me to the punchline, at UD no less!

Patrick's response:
OE’s purpose changed quite a while back, becoming open to non-students.

In other words, underwhelming response.

Date: 2008/11/26 17:06:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 26 2008,09:44)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 26 2008,09:30)
gpuccio is not pleased.  I'd be pissed.


10:15 am

I hope you have not deleted my review of that paper permanently, because I did not have a copy. If it still exists on the serve, could you please send me a copy of the text by e-mail?

Please notice that I have never been aware of any guideline against long comments. I would have appreciated if you had informed me before deleting the text.


You'd think those idiots would be used to capricious and ever-mutable "moderation" policies over there. Has anyone ever complained when whole threads go missing?  Or do they even notice?

Too bad for gpuccio that they made Wes stop archiving UD.  :(

Date: 2008/12/04 09:59:53, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
If I may offer Dembski some advice:   :)

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 03 2008,20:40)
The Big Kahuna himself.
William Dembski:

(2) The challenge for determining whether a biological structure exhibits CSI is to find one that’s simple enough on which the probability calculation can be convincingly performed but complex enough so that it does indeed exhibit CSI.

That is one of two problems.  The other problem is why design does not require a probability calculation, so that we can see which is more likely of the two possibilities.

A convincing calculation is going to be heavy on conditional probabilities, and I can't recall ever seeing one from IDers.  For example, what is the probability of evolving a flagellum from previously existing secretion systems?  What are the structures of all possible flagella?


(5) There’s a paper Bob Marks and I just got accepted which shows that evolutionary search can never escape the CSI problem (even if, say, the flagellum was built by a selection-variation mechanism, CSI still had to be fed in).

Is there a part of their work that selection can't be the process "feeding in" CSI?

Date: 2008/12/04 10:10:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 04 2008,07:13)
Your morning tard:  
7:50 am

One should be careful to not confuse common ancestry with common descent. They are wildly different concepts and yet evidence for one is used to conclude the other is true.

There's more but not everybody has had their coffee yet.

It is now safe to post the rest, now that my coffee is gone (all over my screen).  :D

Date: 2008/12/04 14:16:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
The one time I read a Densye O'Leary post, I had to follow the link farm, I find out that I missed a lecture by Dr. Egnor on where eugenics came from (Darwin, of course).  My loss! :D

Date: 2008/12/05 10:21:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 04 2008,23:55)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 03 2008,19:09)
K.E. - miss me much? ;)

NO! ....looks around guiltily

You're not K.E., but an imposter named  K.E..  :angry:

Date: 2008/12/05 10:25:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,10:14)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 04 2008,10:25)
rationality, planning, and purpose are missing from non-engineered life

Organs and organisms are not optimized, they are subject to the limitations of evolution, including those of natural selection.  

Have you ever taken a good look at enzymes?
Seriously.  Every enzyme I have studied so far has been
A) optimized
B) rational
C) purposeful

I guess you're going to explain to me how that happens via your accidental+arbitrary mechanisms now huh?

Delusion is a scary thing.

Enzymes are rational?  When did they learn how to think?

Purposeful?  What is the purpose of enzymes that allow antibiotic resistance?  Who should we "thank" for that?

Date: 2008/12/05 19:08:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 05 2008,15:06)
The filmmakers plan to use viral marketing, as well as other strategies, to ensure that EXPELLED reaches students.

No wonder Ruloff was annoyed at her interview.

Did O'Leary tell Ruloff about the website Underwhelming Everdense?

Date: 2008/12/11 08:51:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2008,17:44)
Patrick nails it
The key point is that simulations like AVIDA are set up precisely so they can produce results…NOT necessarily that they strictly follow nature as a guideline. The question is what can Darwinian mechanisms do under the much broader constraints of nature without intelligence (active information) being involved.


Inactive information sits on the sofa and eats bon-bons all day.  :O

Date: 2008/12/11 08:56:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2008,23:48)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 10 2008,22:41)
Holy fuck, look what the head IDiot just did!  Order, counterorder, disorder!

10  December  2008
Reinstating the Explanatory Filter
William Dembski

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

After a Zeppelin-sized ego masturbation like that what is left to say?

Better yet, what will DaveTard say?   :p

Well, since Behe compared himself with Galileo, it's only fair that Dembski considers himself one of the most brilliant ever too.

Christopher Langan?  :D

Date: 2008/12/11 09:04:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 10 2008,21:41)
Holy fuck, look what the head IDiot just did!  Order, counterorder, disorder!

10  December  2008
Reinstating the Explanatory Filter
William Dembski

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

After a Zeppelin-sized ego masturbation like that what is left to say?

Better yet, what will DaveTard say?   :p

The Friday meltdown came early this week!

What Dave should say:  "Dr. Dembski, please don't make any more sharp turns in direction.  Last time I broke my nose."

Date: 2008/12/11 17:32:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 11 2008,16:39)
@Denyse O’Leary,

Congratulations! This is no doubt due to your tireless efforts in the face of constant and virulent attacks. Your enemies (and I’m sure they are as the sand of the sea) must be seething with envy and rage. It’s hard for me to refrain from laughing out loud.

I agree. After this bit of self-promotion
Note: If you like this and other related posts archived at Colliding Universes, you can vote for Colliding Unverses at the Canadian Blogger Awards, sci-tech division. Vote early, vote often, and vote for me, of course.

(and I'm sure she posted that on her other blogs as well) she was able to get 31 votes. Now we know exactly how many people read DO'L's posts and like them.

Truly laughable.

Oh, correction: The blog which got the 31 votes is Post-Darwinist. Colliding Universes didn't even make it into the best five (only 17 blogs were nominated, three of which belonged to DO'L...).

Maybe Dembski was adding the votes for all of D'Oh Leary's blogs to give her enough votes for third place.  :p

Date: 2008/12/15 20:52:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 15 2008,18:42)
Kudos, Hermagoras.  What was your final comment that pissed Barry off so badly?

Given the trends, I'll cross-post my latest comment here lest it be zapped:


[cool point deleted]

2. The left hemisphere controls the right half of the body, and vice-versa. When the connection between the two is cut, this results in bizarre behaviors indicating the presence of two “wills” in the same skull.

One patient was seen to pick up a cigarette with her right hand and place it in her mouth. Her left hand plucked it out and threw it away before the right hand could light it.

In another case, a man attacked his wife with one arm while defending her with the other.

If a single, immaterial mind were running the show, this would not happen.

Maybe it was Satan possessing the arm that attacked the man's wife?  Not sure about the cigarette thing though, since the denier position is that Satan would be the person knocking away the "not proven to cause cancer" cigarette.  :angry:

Date: 2008/12/16 08:02:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 16 2008,06:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 15 2008,23:27)
I am looking forward to more of this Donald.

Donald M sounds a lot like this guy, also named Donald M. He is a sociologist.  Pretty sciency, for sure...

You are almost certainly correct.  Donald McIntosh is going to provide plenty of entertainment for us.

Date: 2008/12/16 13:25:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 16 2008,11:38)
Since my question to KF, Jerry et al. didn't appear at UD:
Did Dembski or Behe ever use the term FCSI?
I guess it was KF who coined it.

KairosFocus: the Gottfried Leibniz of Information Theory.  :D

Date: 2008/12/17 19:36:43, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 17 2008,16:58)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Dec. 17 2008,16:27)
Have you noticed the 'Put a sock in it' page of stuff UD doesn't want to answer questions on has been updated with recent events, like Dembski's Eggplantery Filter?

Good lord, that page runs to over 14,000 words. They may as well shorten it to "We will not tolerate any dissent".
I did like this heading though:    
Lenski’s Research on Citrate-Eating E. Coli Refututes Behe’s Edge of Evolution Hypothesis

Edited to add emphasis.

Well, Dembski seems to like the sound of "tutes", as he put them into his Judge Jones animation.  :D

Date: 2008/12/17 19:41:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2008,17:20)
Oooooh!  DaveScot takes on Barry A!

Dave gets in the first shot, and tosses in a snide remark about Barry A's new moderation policy...


As a materialist most of the time I feel qualified to point out that what materialists generally think is an illusion is consciousness that is independent of a brain. I suspect few if any would agree that consciousness itself is an illusion. The previous poster, now banned, made a legitimate point.

If Dave was moderating those good points would never have seen the light of day!  :p

Date: 2008/12/22 14:17:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (bluescat48 @ Dec. 22 2008,13:51)
because the earth’s stronger magnetic field in the recent past reduced the atmospheric 14C production rate,

?¿ What does the magnetic field have to do with C14 production?

Magnetic fields influce the incidence of cosmic rays, which produce thermal neutrons, which produces C-14.  Of course, the actual variation of C-14 is known for a long period of time, and is no way consistent with Snelling's YEC yarn.

Date: 2008/12/22 19:20:51, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 22 2008,18:35)
A little googling (or, sigh, a design inference) leads me to believe Samuel Chen, longtime shill for ID, to be the person who constructed those profiles/blogs.
As a student, I’m required to submit nearly all my papers to a website called helps professors check for plagiarism in papers by reporting how much of a particular paper was derived from other sources (books, other papers, websites, etc.).  Professors typically allow up to 10%—nicer professors, 15% —of verbatim copying, because doesn’t account for properly cited quotations.  Typically, a paper of which 20% or 25% and above is not original receives a failing grade, either for plagiarism or for simply not using one’s own ideas. We are always told that a paper should be our ideas and analysis of a certain topic, with proper guidance by others (the sources).  A paper should not be someone else’s ideas and analysis guided by us.

Fails at copying himself.

My students writing lab reports have 5% maximum flagged by Turnitin for copying, and they have been examined closely by me.  My students don't copy at all.  I haz Dezine infrens! :)

Date: 2008/12/31 07:23:47, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 31 2008,00:08)
Someone named "Earvin Johnson" noticed the same word choice that I did. He/she asked, at UD, 'If edits are “scrupulously” removed, what’s the problem?'

I predict that Earvin Johnson will disappear like Magic.  ;)

Date: 2009/01/11 14:21:03, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 11 2009,11:11)
Quote (Jasper @ Jan. 11 2009,11:48)
It's funny how the comedian that writes the Creation-Evolution Headlines doesn't even know how to use scientific terminology correctly:

If you are wowed by circular reasoning, wave your tetrapods.

I tried, but an 80 lb golden retriever is a bit too much for me to wave around.

Plus, I don't think he liked it.

Does a rubber chicken count?

Date: 2009/01/14 14:09:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 14 2009,12:57)
Quote (cogzoid @ Jan. 14 2009,12:45)
Joseph is a tard under the hood as well.  
I once put platinum spark plugs in my Grand National because I figured they would allow it to run better. Wrong! The spark reached its destination too soon throwing off the timing!

As a physicist and backyard mechanic, I know that there is no way that the few millimeters of platinum at the tip of the spark plug could possibly speed up the spark.  This guy is a complete moron.  There may be other reasons why the spark plugs didn't work, but the platinum was not it.

Zapped by the god of the gaps.

I LOLed.  This is why I read this discussion board, and the UD thread is my favorite!

Date: 2009/01/15 09:17:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,18:20)
Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 13 2009,06:00)

One: Mutations. The problem here is, front loading cannot work unless the front-loaded genetic material has been perfectly, 100% shielded from any and all mutations. Without that kind of anti-mutation protection, the odds of front-loaded genetic material managing to avoid getting zapped by mutations are small enough to make Creationist estimates of the probability of abiogenesis look like a sure thing.

1) There are already protections in place aimed at preventing mutations.  Who's to say they haven't always been there?

Do these protection in place have names?  Have you searched to see if all organisms have these protections?

If there is a protection to prevent mutation, isn't that proof that mutations happen?  What is the rate of mutations that get prevented, and the rate that slips through?


Two: Genetic variance. Specifically, there's just too much genetic variance for it all to have ever existed in any 1 (one) critter.

1) We don't know if it was just one critter, it could have been hundreds.

There goes the ark story!  :O

Date: 2009/01/20 12:04:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,21:05)
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2009,20:47)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Are you referring to Crocker's book about integrity in science?

I'm talking about the book described here.  Usually if I read about a book "to be published" sometime in the near future (or, in this case, the near past), I expect to have some inkling of it (even, at least sometimes, self-publications).  Not in this case.

Is this the book "about integrity in science", or has she written another book doesn't know about?

(BTW, just in case it needs stating, I'm really not in a rush to delve into Dr. Crocker's literary output.)

There is another Crocker who is obsessed with Intelligent Designers who use a "poof" mechanism:

Date: 2009/01/21 08:19:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 20 2009,23:30)

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]

Would that piece of equipment be a finger, by any chance?  :O

Date: 2009/01/26 08:57:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2009,22:11)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 25 2009,21:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 25 2009,19:53)
Earlier this season there was a brilliant episode of My Name is Earl where the ex-wife tries to win a science fair by disproving evolution. Her plan:  Making a fish try to evolve legs to get the food she has placed out of reach.  Unfortunately for her she uses a tadpole.  Her conclusion on seeing the results: "I guess we don't have to go to church any more."

I very much imagine our friends at UD at that level in their efforts.

But she actually performed the experiment.  Doesn't that put her one up on the UDenizens?

LOL yep. They would just sit around and blog about what would happen.

But what if they could not?  :D

Date: 2009/01/27 08:03:40, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2009,00:21)
LOL If I had a sock puppet over at UD I'd say

"Irreducible Complexity...
Complex Specified Information...
Explanatory Filter...
Functional Complex Specified Information...
Law of Conservation of Information...
Systematic Functional Complex Specified Information...
Ontogenetic Depth...
Active Information...

These are a few of my favorite things.... :)

Date: 2009/01/28 12:52:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2009,12:27)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 28 2009,07:20)
Second, I feel honored of being compared to Salvador Cordova.

That's it. I've got to bail. I can't take this concentration of tard right now. Back later.

I have a theory, which is mine.  My theory is this:

There is a black hole from which none of The Arguments Regarding Design may escape.  The arguments pass through the singularity, and come out of a white hole, located at UD.

As proof of my theory, note that white holes have the same properties as black holes outside the event horizon.  Massive gravity.  In other words, they suck.

Date: 2009/01/28 17:37:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2009,15:49)
2) so I am Richard Dawkins worst nightmare

It's worth adding a link to the source of that, for full amusement value
I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist, who finally realized that everything he believed about everything that mattered was wrong.

He goes on to say
I am curious. Where are the Safe Harbor organizations founded by fundamentalist atheist groups like those promoted by Richard Dawkins?

And then, possibly most amusing of all, in the comments he says
Denyse is working on my story. She is far more eloquent than I.

Beat that!

That does it!  Gil Dodgen must be playing UD like a Ben Stein-way!

Date: 2009/01/30 12:00:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (deejay @ Jan. 30 2009,09:45)
So what are people eating/drinking for the Super Bowl ™ Big Game?  

I'm headed here to pick up meat for some chicken and andouille jambalaya.  According to Wikipedia, I make it the inauthentic way by cooking the rice separately in chicken stock and adding it to the pot afterwards, rather than by cooking the rice in the pot with all the meat juices and added stock.  It's still good by me, and I'll be pressed for time on Sunday.  

We've got some Dogfish Head 60 minute IPA and Guinness Draught on hand, plus I can whip up some margaritas with fresh squeezed lime juice.  

I'm fine withy my inauthentic jambalaya, but I'm more militant with my margaritas.  It's supposed to be a 3:2:1 ratio of tequila : triple sec : lime juice, or apparently 7:4:3 according to the IBA.  Either way, it's half tequila and no sugar.  Go to a bar and order a margarita, and it will be half sour mix, which is of course sweeter than soda.  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.

Pulled pork BBQ
Chili (chipotles in adobo sauce included)
black bean salsa
Homebrew: Oatmeal Stout and India Pale Amber

Date: 2009/01/30 16:24:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 30 2009,10:38)
I would love a nice warm room temperature Guinness to go with them, but it's just not as good in the bottles.

Depends on which bottle.  The Draught bottles (and cans) are pretty close to the draft Guinness.  The bottled Guinness with the tan label - different recipe!

Date: 2009/02/03 12:04:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 02 2009,20:40)
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?

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...]

ID is a LACK of religion?   :p

ID is more like the skull cap which actors use to pretend they are bald, but are obvious to anybody with the ability to recognize what "cdesign proponentsists" means.

Date: 2009/02/05 14:21:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 05 2009,13:42)
wtf was all that

A F1 tardnado.  It's gone now.

Date: 2009/02/12 11:27:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 12 2009,10:07)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,20:18)
My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, but please urge your sister to regularly see a doctor if she's going to continue to drink milk. Surely seeing a doctor doesn't threaten your faith if the doctor confirms that your sister is having no problems.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

That is right Kristine.  Lactose tolerance is a loss of information about being lactose intolerant.  :p

Date: 2009/02/13 12:06:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Gil Dodgen on Evolution Poll

It wasn’t until a Christian friend suggested that I read Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis that I slapped myself on the forehead and realized that I’d been conned.

Why would a Christian friend do that.  Using anti-evolution as an apologetic approach perhaps?

Perhaps church is one of the few places where people are likely to be exposed to the scientific problems with Darwinism.

Why would a person hear anything against Darwinism in church, Gil, if the opposition was not religiously motivated?  Is it normal to discuss scientific theories in church, like how large an atom is so we can figure out how many angels can dance on one?

Peter indulges in a fantasy:
I wonder what the breakdown was for those who attend church regularly and have an advance degree. I must not have been good for the evolutionists or it would have been emphasized in the article.

Or how about an advanced degree in a scientific field ?  Let us see these numbers!  Oops, 5% creationist view, 40% theistic evolution, 55% just evolution with no theism component.  :D


Oops, last sentence–Meanwhile, in order to maintain their power, the badly educated install public schools to render the uneducated uneducable and immunize them forever from the influence of the well educated.

Exhibit 1, StephenB?

Very amusing seeing them try to argue that language is designed, when it clearly evolves.  CJYMan valiantly tries to save the day, saying language has  telic component.  Obviously, human language does, but that doesn't work for DNA as a language (without assuming the conclusion, which is of course par for IDiots).

Need I point out that this languages evolving is anti-Biblical (anti-Babelical).

Date: 2009/02/16 11:30:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)
Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

No.  Bad Dog!  :angry:

Date: 2009/02/17 07:55:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 16 2009,22:59)
For example, no human engineer has designed technology that can hold as much information in such a compact way as the DNA found in cells, he said.

I suspect that a human engineer would have trouble keeping a job after designing a file copying system that randomly changes a few hundred bits each time it copies a 4 billion bit file.


Supervisor to Bill the Engineer: Your file system copying mechanism has too much CSI.  We want there to be only one possible outcome, so that p*log(p) = 0.  In other words, we detected CSI, so your system is not well designed.  You're fired.  Given that those who can't do, teach, perhaps our outplacement  service can find you a faculty position at a Bible college, with full cafeteria priveleges.

Date: 2009/02/19 08:59:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Paul Nelson is out of his ontogenetic depth:

Darwin said:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Maybe Paul Nelson should read something (for the express purpose of comprehension vs the purpose of finding quotes) written after the KJV.

Date: 2009/02/19 14:43:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.  

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  

The banded iron formations, that's who.

Date: 2009/02/23 17:43:17, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Reg @ Feb. 23 2009,17:28)
Has there been some censoring and banning going on?

In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.
Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out.

And Rob's posts on that thread have all disappeared. Dave Scot seems to think there's something wrong, bad or offensive about suggesting that a measure which gives different results when different people measure the same thing isn't useful? And that "accurate to within a factor of 10" is the only usefulness criterion for a measure? Jeez. I'd hate to buy a pair of trousers from the Acceptable To Dave Scot Tailoring Company. "Inside leg: anywhere between 3 inches and 25 feet. Waist: somewhere between very small and quite a bit. All depends on who used the tape measure."

DaveScot speaks from experience.  His IQ is measured at 150, but is off by factor of 10:  the actual value is 15.  :O

Date: 2009/02/25 13:04:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,11:42)

William Dembski


5:23 pm

To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed.

Does this mean that Dembski lost bannination privileges?

Even on his own threads?

ETA for hopefully better English.

Who will rid of this meddlesome anti-priest?

Date: 2009/02/26 17:15:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 26 2009,15:01)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 26 2009,10:43)
For your amusement, I offer a compelling question from a writer who thinks that Robert Marks "...ranks up there with the likes of Newton and Einstein" and has a "...genius level knowledge of statistical models...":
Is Robert Marks the Greatest Scientist of our Generation?

But wait, there's more!

Huebsch has another piece  on the same website in which he discusses working in the Baylor cafeteria.

"The downside to working with Baylor Dining Services" is not followed by "is keeping Dembski from sneaking in, repeatedly."

Date: 2009/03/01 21:07:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
 Denyse, no longer content with torturing logic, resorts to cooking it:

*reduction ad Hitlerum = Tell the world that your opponent in some discussion would have endorsed Hitler and the Holocaust. It is an excellent way to seriously complicate and throw confusion into a discussion about, say, which firm should get the contract for fixing potholes on paved highways, come spring, or whether a doofus dressed up as an erect penis should be lecturing about sex at a girls' high school. People used to say "He's the Devil's man!" Now they say "He's Hitler's man!" It amounts to the same thing, really. It is not, in itself, an argument.

Is reduction ad Hitlerum made using wine from the Mosel?

Date: 2009/03/11 21:34:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 11 2009,15:38)
Preserved just in case any random mutations should happen to the comments:



3:08 pm
DonaldM @ 26

Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do. Evolution is all about science (or so we’re told), as such its founder clearly held racists views drawn directly from the science. If you have a similar connection between racism and ID, we’re all ears.

Thank you for asking, it is actually quite simple.

Eugenics is a form of directed evolution in which a favored ‘race’ is ‘encouraged’ to propagate at the expense of less-favored races which are allowed to dwindle away to extinction as they lose the competition for resources or are actively eliminated.

Intelligent design must also be a form of directed evolution if the Designer does anything other than allow natural selection to follow its course. However if, as must happen in the case of design, the Designer arranges things so that the course of evolution is shaped or directed towards a chosen end, in other words, if the Designer for whatever reason has chosen to favor the survival of one ‘race’ over all the others, then that Designer and the Intelligent Design program itself are both eugenicist and racist by definition.

Anybody seen J-Dog lately, or is he a victim of Design?  :O

Date: 2009/03/14 13:18:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,07:27)
I have never posted at UD. I have never run a sock puppet account here, there or elsewhere. I am wondering if my rep as a big ol meanie would mean that I am pre-banninated at UD.

I am tempted to discard my burdensome UD virginity and whore my intellectual parts over at that brothel of bewildered bumptiousness that is UD. However, I suspect the results would be predictable and so I shall resist temptation. Anyway, my status as possibly the only non-banninated AtBCer is valuable, and should not be abandoned on a whim.

Wrong, Lou sir!  :p

Date: 2009/03/14 13:26:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
added to edit... :angry:

Louis is not the only one here never to post to UD.

Date: 2009/03/16 18:21:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,10:23)




11:36 pm

Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,




11:40 pm


If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.

He should call himself IGNoramus.


Reptiles are para-kindic, or in less technical language: parabaraminic.

Date: 2009/03/24 08:58:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 23 2009,16:04)
The cake  described by Joe raises interesting questions that currently can not be published at UD:
- Is this cake irreducibly complex?
- Has anybody tried to reduce certain ingredients or to remove them completely?
- What about cakes with of higher complexity?
- Where is FSCI in this recipe?
- Is the complexity rising when energy is added to the system?
- If so, does it make a difference if energy is introduced the American (°F) or  the European (continental) way (°C)?
- Is CSI higher before or after baking?
- Do designers need recipes?

One question remaining for ATBC contributors:
Will anybody try to re-engineer the cake?

edited for spelling corrections

Not only that, but random mutations can create new recipes.  For example, one story about the origins of brownies are of a failed cake.

Date: 2009/03/24 11:44:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 24 2009,10:52)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 24 2009,18:48)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 24 2009,10:40)
That would explain deliquency and obesity in America

Hey now!  Don't you be making fun of Americans. I know plenty of Okies that would be happy to teach you a lesson or two!

Arden's Mom?

Arden's Dad?  :O

Date: 2009/03/25 15:14:46, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 25 2009,14:27)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,13:12)
It would seem I was under a rock.

I've never seen that before.

How do you ever expect to make it to the UD show with that kind of graciousness?

You get right back in that editor and explain how what Wes referenced has nothing, NOTHING, to do with what you were saying and that clearly your concept of measurement is far superior to the barely recognizable, poor imitation that was clearly planted after the fact to make you look bad, mister.

with latching!  :D

Date: 2009/03/25 15:26:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (khan @ Mar. 25 2009,13:19)
What happens if the cake is left out in the rain?

I don't think I can take it!

'cause it took so long to bake it,
and I'll never have that recipe to calculate the CSI again, oh no! :)

just for you, khan.

Date: 2009/03/30 08:25:56, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2009,03:14)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 29 2009,18:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2009,02:30)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,12:49)

dal-said-volcano-monitoring-is-wasteful#comments]Ha ha ha, I crack myself up sometimes[/URL].
Well, I'm sure that Jindal is convinced now that volcano "watching" is "wasteful." The volcano still erupted, didn't it? Scientists didn't stop the eruption, did they? Because scientists don't know anything, and we should funnel more funds toward faith-based initiatives that can actually do something, like exorcisms. ;)

But do you want to be that it's true? :)

Sacrificing virgins used to work.

I find sacrificing virginity is a little less messy, a lot more fun, and equally effective, when it comes to preventing volcanic eruptions.

To be honest, I think you're wrong here. Sacrificing virginity is messy in many ways. Quickly chucking the nearest virgin into the volcano to appease it is the very definition of a hygienic and speedy resolution to god appeasement.

It should be reinstated, especially for really ugly virgins.


Louis, great idea!

[pushes Louis into volcano]

Date: 2009/03/31 13:01:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 31 2009,12:48)
I like the ones with women and snakes .....but not talking snakes ......huge huge anacondas
so does UD's own DLH although he left out the best parts of Glicksman excercise your wonder article:
But Mrs. C. gleefully concluded her story by telling me that as she leaned over to console him in his misfortune, she inadvertently brushed her hand against his inner thigh resulting in Mr.C. quickly experiencing a very firm erection.
I think most people would agree that in order for the homonid species to have come into existence the male external genitalia with its associated functions was absolutely necessary.  The male penis serves two purposes: the release of urine and its chemical contents derived from the kidney, and the release of sperm and seminal fluid during ejaculation for reproduction.  The latter function is what concerns us in this column.

The condition now known as erectile dysfunction, but up until recently more commonly as impotence, points to a serious matter that requires a neo-Darwinian explanation.  For not only does impotence refer to the inability to have an adequate erection to engage in sexual intercourse, but the word itself strikes at the heart of all that is sacred and holy in the life of an evolutionary biologist.  To be impotent is to be; ineffective, powerless, or helpless, all the characteristics of a life form that is surely destined to fail in the battle for the survival of the fittest.  Being impotent is mutually exclusive to the concept of fitness and therefore its opposite, the development of potency, which is a necessary function for neo-Darwinism, needs to be explained in logical and scientifically verifiable terms.

Penile erection is achieved by hydraulic pressure.  Running the length of the penis, surrounding the urethra and above and to each side of it, are the corpus spongiosa and the corpus cavernosa.  These are tube shaped venous chambers that are surrounded by strong fibrous tissue.  They have the capacity to be filled with blood, upon proper neural stimulation, by dilation of the arteries supplying blood to this region, which combined with partial occlusion of venous outflow, results in erection.
the hydraulic system for adequate penile erection to allow for human sexual reproduction and survival of the species is irreducibly complex at both the gross anatomy and neurophysiological levels.
One needs the properly outfitted penis, the internal genital organs for sperm and seminal fluid production and transmission, and the neuromuscular set-up for controlling the action of sexual reproduction.  But we as yet have not addressed what is going on at the biomolecular level and it is to this now that we turn.  For without a  full understanding of what is going on biochemically, one cannot appreciate the genius, worthy of the Nobel prize, behind the creation of Viagra.  Evolutionary biologists are likely to be among some of the people who have benefited from this discovery, yet it seems to me that they have never bothered to ask themselves how the human male developed the capacity for proper erectile function (sans Viagra) in the first place.  

What a baculum head!

Date: 2009/04/02 13:44:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Kristine @ April 02 2009,09:05)
Quote (tsig @ April 01 2009,18:09)
Quote (k.e.. @ April 01 2009,17:39)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2009,01:22)

Holy FUCK!!!

He fell for the two rocks contain more information...

..... no no folks not just any old information but Shannon Information.

What a frikken turkey.

He wouldn't know <k.e.. rolls eyes> "Shannon" Information if one bit his both his arses.

Hey Joe

Rocks contain Rock OK?

Joe has smart rocks.

Shannon is gone I heard -
She's drifting out to sea.

I wonder if two bags of hammers has more Shan-fo than one bag of hammers. :)

ETA - Joe is the Shan-wow guy. :p

I have a new theory of information for Joe, illustrated by the game "Rock, Paper, Hammer".  It seems to unify many of his "thoughts".

Rock holds down paper.  Rock > paper, so has more information.  Two rocks hold the paper down even better, so even more information is in the rocks.  Especially if the rocks are shaped like a face.

Paper covers hammer.  Paper > hammer, so paper has more information, especially if the paper has a cake recipe written on it.  Super especially if the recipe is for rock cakes.  Two sheets of paper have double secret super special information.

Hammer breaks rock.  Unless wielded with Joe-like skill, in which case rock defeats hammers, and the primacy of cake recipe information is not in danger of disappearing because of the transitive property.

QED (Quod Erratum Demonstrandumb)

Date: 2009/04/09 12:36:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2009,11:08)
Atom: This one bases fitness on the distance between the target’s ASCII sum and the string’s ASCII sum, providing indirect information about the target. This differs from CRC32 in that the ASCII sum will always be similar for similar strings (as far as I know), so it should be a smooth function without surprises.

It will quickly find strings with the same ASCII sum.

Atom: Please relay anything useful and relevant here.

Rather odd not to look over here.

Atom is afraid he will catch teh "A".  :O

Date: 2009/04/13 21:07:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 13 2009,18:41)
StephenBS's and Frosty's physics are a little (~100yrs) behind the times. It's positively, deterministically, pre-classical:    
1:43 am

Where is the logic police when you need them. Any theory which has at it’s heart the mechanism of random luck to explain the origin of specific structures is not a good theory at all.
Quantum Mechanics has savaged all these "something from nothing" and "OMG! Randomosity" arguments.
Quantum noise appears to be part of the fabric of the universe, and this noise can feed any number of selective ratchet mechanisms, producing "something" from "nothing".

Oh, yeah?  Vacuum energy sucks.  :D

Date: 2009/04/15 14:36:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (zagnik @ April 15 2009,01:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 14 2009,22:24)
Ms. Tuchman describes these groups as "Tard-Venus" (always in Bold Face in the book), which means "Late-Comers".

I thought O'Leary was the Tard Venus

DaveScot was Tard-Xenu.  Write that down.

Date: 2009/04/22 16:46:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2009,16:23)
UD is brilliant right now. Way to Kill ID, Moderators.

The Big Top strategy (expanding the circus to let literalist clowns in) strikes again.

Date: 2009/04/23 12:46:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (ERV @ April 23 2009,07:53)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 22 2009,14:36)
Casey Luskin on a roll in Texas.

"teeters and students"

Creationists are such charismatic speakers.

Maybe he was thinking of the phrase "Teeters or GTFO".

Date: 2009/04/29 08:39:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 28 2009,21:20)
A little more information on AKKK:    
I’m a vegetarian. So I guess I must be an idiot then.

Seriously. Anybody can tell a just-so story like this fat->memory is an adaptation BS. Get some frickin’ data first.

Attitude is definitely DT-ish. Do we know anything about Dave's dietary habits apart from cheesy poofs and provocatively shaped mushrooms?

Maybe DaveScot has a strange urge to eat white asparagus.

*Your* the HOMO! - dt

Date: 2009/04/29 08:51:02, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ April 29 2009,08:23)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 29 2009,15:38)
Joseph: That being no one even knows what makes a chimp a chimp nor a human a human.

A chimp is a chimp and a human is a human because they inherited their natures from their respective parents. Chimps resemble humans because they inherited traits from their common ancestor. Chimps and humans resemble other mammals because they share a common ancestor with other mammals.

Stupid Creationista

Does he think Chimps actually smoke cigarettes?

A Chimp walks into a bar and asks for a lighter the barman asks why? The chimp replies I can't wait for a lightning strike.

k.e. here is a smoking chimp (or izzat Louis?):

Date: 2009/04/30 12:10:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ April 30 2009,09:11)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 29 2009,23:17)
under my classification there are at least two different species at UD.  the application of T.A.R.D. is not equivalent across these categories.  

Your theoretical work has been well-received. It is contradictory to my own stated position that ID is best described as a monoculture of semantic confusion, but you do raise some important points.

I notice your recent abstract in the journal Nature (of Tard). Congratulations! I look forward to studying your latest advances.

Don't get excited, Ras!  Zachriel meant scientific advances.  :p

Date: 2009/05/06 12:31:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Marion Delgado @ May 04 2009,12:06)
I think the Big Bang is a terrible idea - it'd be the biggest detonation in history, the radiation would be unparalleled, no one knows the consequences, and much of what you read about it is hype, not hard facts.

We need to organize in our neighborhoods against this crazy scheme! If we speak up, our voices shall be heard!

If you allow big bangs, next thing you know you are pregnant with universes!

Date: 2009/05/08 09:00:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Touchstone @ May 07 2009,15:41)
So, beelzebub says:

Funny how most of the best scientists, such as the members of the NAS, happen to be deaf to those “screams”. Who would have thought there was a correlation between scientific ability and deafness?

StephenB, curiously, responds with:

But the best scientists are not deaf to those screams. The best scientists are always in the minority. This is news to you? The vast majority of scientists are dutiful little worker bees and most of them are atheist/agnostic by preference. Accordingly, most are not trailblazers; most are followers.

Heh. "Remnant theology" projected onto the NAS. This is very hard to square with the idea that we are talking about the National Academy of Sciences here. Most of the members of the NAS are "followers"???

beelzebub is surprised at such clumsy treatment of his idea:
Where did you get the idea that NAS members are “worker bee” scientists who “really don’t advance their discipline that much”?

Becoming a NAS member is akin to being elected a fellow of the Royal Society. It’s a huge honor, and not one that is bestowed on “worker bees.”

Yeah. beelzebub's got a sharp edge on his sword, but here he doesn't go where I would have gone: WTF?? You don't even know what the NAS is!!! I haven't done any Googling on the guy, but he's clearly presenting himself as informed on modern science. How does a response like his get put out there like that? NAS "worker bees"?

StephenB hasn't responded, one day later. Perhaps he still will. I can't help but think the guy ended up Googling "NAS" and got his first introduction to the National Academies of Science... whoops! Boofed that one, dude.

Suggest that StephenB google National Academy of Design Science.

Date: 2009/05/09 19:52:12, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,18:01)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:00)
Nils, it's been about six hours since you asked that question.  So far we have had five real live biologists, two student biologists and one person who was trained in biology, but works in another field respond to you.

Ok, I was wrong, there are indeed many scientists in the field of biology on this forum. This means your opinions here might be relevant for my questions.

There are many biologists in the ID movement:
Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien.

Three in the ID movement vs. 5 just commenting on this website.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

Date: 2009/05/09 19:53:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 08 2009,16:07)
Edit: Does anyone know who this StephenB character is IRL?

His name is (apparently) Stephen Bussell.  He claims to be an "academic," but he's not listed in the thesis and dissertation databases.

As I noted once on UD, if he's an academic, he's surely not a philosophy professor.

More like Joe Bessel.  :D

Date: 2009/05/09 19:59:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bueller_007 @ May 09 2009,14:47)
A have a comment/question/request about evolution and the 2nd law.

This guy David Waite is claiming that the standard "the 2nd law says nothing about order/disorder as we normally understand them" refutation of the creationist argument is flawed. He seems to be arguing that evolution causes an increased number of informational microstates (in terms of genes available) which represents an increase in entropy, and that this is not only compatible with the 2nd law, but what we should EXPECT from the 2nd law.

I would like to request that people watch these videos and tell me if they think his argument is fatally flawed, or if I'm just losing my mind.  The first video is a description of entropy in terms of microstates, so you don't need to watch that if you already understand.  The second video is the flawed part of his argument:

I have provided him with at least five peer-reviewed references saying that he's wrong--informational microstates and thermodynamic microstates are not interchangeable so the 2nd law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to say about informational entropy--but he refuses to listen.

In my opinion, he's making EXACTLY the same mistake as the creationists, but I would like some of the others here to give me their feedback.

A couple of the better ref's:
*Denbigh, K. G. 1989. Note on entropy, disorder and disorganization. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 40: 323-332.
*Lambert, F.L. 1999. Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms — Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!
J. Chem. Educ. 76: 1385-1387.

Ask him if information is an intensive or extensive property, and see what kind of answer you get.

Entropy is extensive - double the system means double the entropy.

Date: 2009/05/10 15:33:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 10 2009,04:07)
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 09 2009,22:28)
Behe is a biochemist, not a biologist. Also, that was not the question you asked of us. You asked "who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?" Has Jonathan Wells done any research since he completed his PhD? So you are down to one.

BTW I don't want to give the impression that biochemists and others, including people who ask good questions, have nothing to contribute but Nils was specifically limiting his question to biologists.

I think that's unfair - biology is a big field, with a lot of sub-specialities.  Biochemistry is one, and I don't see how that stops it from being biology.  You might just as well argue that Haldane, Fisher and Wright were doing mathematics, not biology, when they were inventing population genetics.

No, I'm not a biochemist.

Bob,  Louis and I are both chemists, and for the record we don't want Behe considered as one of us.  Biologist Behe is!

Date: 2009/05/14 21:00:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 14 2009,15:20)
BarryA snarks the prebiotic soup.

Yeah, but there has never been enough prebiotic soup to fill a pot!  :angry:

Date: 2009/05/19 08:42:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 19 2009,08:11)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 19 2009,08:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2009,16:52)
It's telling that we have memes, and they don't (the sound of XXXX assploading is now extinct).

We have lolcats

The have memes
I don't understand, therefore god
Why research when we can make it up

And a few more

ID is not creationism
evolution=religion but ID is not religion
you don't understand ID, so go read Dembski/Behe/Wells etc.

Buy my Book!
The Spatula Brain

Date: 2009/05/22 14:43:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 22 2009,11:57)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 22 2009,11:03)
i guess for someone studying the rhetoric of "science" communication these have to be golden days.

of course if you have to argue about what is science probly not so much.

And for "sciency" communication, even better! Perhaps that is why DO'L is going to the Canadian Science Writers Association conference.

I was quickly reading the last part as "Canadian Science Writing Assassination Conference" :D

Date: 2009/05/26 11:45:30, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 26 2009,11:40)
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 26 2009,11:54)
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 26 2009,10:37)
I haven't seen JAD posting on UD for a while. Is he still erupting on other sites, or is he completely offline?

As of May 17, John A. Davison, interstellar space cadet, was still alive and posting here.

I got this very strong Bates Motel vibe out of the interaction of JAD/VM over there!

The Kook Exclusion Principle does not apply to bozons.

Date: 2009/06/04 16:57:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 04 2009,12:38)
Quote (ppb @ June 04 2009,13:32)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 04 2009,12:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 04 2009,11:40)
It just takes three steps.

1. Actual conservation laws are well-regarded.
2. My idea needs to be well-regarded.
3. My idea is a conservation law.

Since it's that easy, I propose the following:

The Law of Conservation of TARD--Any idea which begins as TARD will remain TARD no matter how many sciency sounding words, equations, or simulations it is put through.

This law is my law which is mine, etc...

TARD in, TARD out.

That is the SLoT - Second Law of TARD.

The First Law of TARD is that TARD in motion will remain TARD, and TARD at rest will remain TARD.

It is by will alone I set my TARD in motion.
It is by the juice of sopho that TARD acquires speed,
the bits acquire strings.
The strings become CSI.
It is by will alone I set my TARD in motion.  :O

Date: 2009/06/07 08:22:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (afarensis @ June 05 2009,19:35)
Does Paul Nelson need enzyte? He certainly has a weird obsession with size being the be all end all of evolution:

There’s no arguing the fact that normally humans can range anywhere from 4 1/2 to nearly 8 feet tall. But this is not to say that if you found a short human in the fossil record that precedes a tall human who appears later on in the column, that this can be extrapolated to ape-likes evolving into humans. This applies to many of the other minor traits as well such as proportions, hair color, eye color, nose shape etc… From what we know and observe, there are genetic boundaries in which these traits can vary, and these boundaries are defined within the genetic makeup of the organism.

Seriously, dude, get a clue as to what paleoanthropologists actually claim. :angry:

How does Paul Nelson explain PYGMIES and DWARVES?  :D

(Phrase from obscure nut who wrote PZ Miers at Pharygula)

Date: 2009/06/10 09:18:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2009,07:04)
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 09 2009,21:30)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 09 2009,18:54)
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,20:33)
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:            
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

I can sympathize with GilDodgen. When constructing a version of Dawkins' simulator, the weasels made a heck of a racket when we put them in the mainframe.

Slightly of topic from UD, but on topic of Bull Shit Creationist programs "simulating" evolution, there is a program called "Mendel's Accountant." Is anyone familiar with it?

It is being discussed on TWeb.

I've been taking a look just recently. The user interface doesn't provide enough information to see exactly how it works, or if it is doing what it purports to do.

But you never see a significant increase in fitness above one even when using a beneficial-to-detrimental ratio of 1 or even 100. {From the manual it seems 1 should be certainty, but it accepts 100.} That means fitness can only decrease, which will always happen sooner or later in finite populations.

It's broke.

Are you saying the program should be renamed Enron's Accountant?

Date: 2009/06/10 09:22:19, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 09 2009,14:42)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,14:11)
ahhh suicide sock.  it's hard to flame a bunch of flamers

Legendary's post should have been followed by a cry of Banzai! just before the fireball.

A suicide sock should have the handle "Leeeeroy Jenkins!"

Date: 2009/06/12 08:44:10, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 12 2009,00:40)
O'Leary was really a festival of crappy writing tonight.

Submit one of her posts to the Bulwer-Lytton writing contest and see what happens.

Date: 2009/06/13 10:28:24, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 12 2009,17:02)

What's new is his claim that meltdown affects sexual populations.  I should check the evolution of sex literature, I'm sure they (Sally Otto and Nick Barton, amongst others) showed that it doesn't happen.  In his book Sanford ignores the recent evolution of sex literature.

Is Sanford practicing abstinence from the sex literature?  :)

Date: 2009/06/15 08:45:52, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
This talk of bringing dt back prompted me to check what the Church Burnin' Ebola Boys are up to.  It appears that they have gone mainstream:

Date: 2009/06/18 12:51:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 17 2009,22:53)
From the Joseph Campbell thread



10:40 pm
Mr Jerry,

There was a lot of that kind of analysis carried during the quasi-latching war, and more is available over at AtBC. You would actually have to write extra code to make the letters fix, the text is describing a simple algorithm, and would have need to go on and say explicitly that letters fix if that was the behavior desired. In general, these algorithms, called mu,lambda evolution strategies, do not fix individual parts of the genome.

Really, you should go over to AtBC, you are famous there!

Why, folks would pay money and stop burning churches to watch a conversation between Jerry, Ras and Bob O'H

Or is jerry already here?  PM me you magnificent bastard!

Date: 2009/06/19 11:21:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Luskin Fail:"ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge."

Darwinist: Nonsequitur.  Code does not equal language.  

Information is the result of applying information theory (formally or from an intelligent being applying context), and implies nothing about intelligence being related to the phenomenon it was applied to.

and so on...

Date: 2009/06/22 21:54:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Chunkdz, after the "people would call Wes a creationist if..." epic fail, and after the "Wes tolerates vulgarity" ploy falls on its face (chunkdz is not a culture warrior - ROTFL), we get more reading incomprehension...

Quote (chunkdz @ June 22 2009,20:32)
Wes: Since I have long self-identified as a creationist, I'm not sure what damage having someone else call me that would do, nor why it should require me to do anything in particular.

As it goes, on the personal level, I agree with you. I couldn't care less if Jerry or PZ called me a creationist either. But then, I am not a culture warrior and I'm not busy trying to convince theists to join my cause.

The point was that this faction of culture warriors is trying to marginalize your work at the NCSE and smear you professionally as a bunch of dishonest liars. I was just curious if your plan was to ignore these attacks or if you intend to confront them head on.

How is the cabal going to marginalize half of the scientists?  

Why should the National Center of Science Education be concerned about something that would not affect the quality of science education?  It is one thing to state the empirical fact that there are very many religious scientists who think scientifically about evolution (the fundamentalists did not like that one bit and filed a lawsuit), and another to say that it has particular philosophical implications (caveat lector).

Date: 2009/06/23 16:47:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:09)
"Jerry Coyne says you're a hypocrite" - substantiate or retract, please.

If Wes wishes to now distance himself from the NCSE's hypocritical stance then I'll gladly retract.

Ah, a double hypocrite accusation! So ineffective when not backed up with any argument or evidence.  When all is said and done, we will have another example of moral weakness on chunkdz's part - accusations without basis.

Careful with the plank in that eye - makes it seem like motes are everywhere!

Date: 2009/06/23 16:50:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,16:47)
Saying "no, the Bible has nothing to say about the differential success of alleles" is simply fact


Well, for all you theists desperately searching for the word "allele" in your Strong's Concordance, we at the NCSE advise you to instead enjoy the theological meanderings of Phina Borgeson, our resident priest.

Jürgen Moltmann stresses God’s suffering with God’s people, drawing on the Hebrew concept of shekinah and the kabbalistic concept of zimzum along with the Christian understanding of the kenosis (self-emptying) of God (Moltmann 2001). WH Vanstone pointed out in prose and hymn that the image of God as a creator, omnipotently, serenely, and detachedly presiding, then occasionally condescending to manipulate things to his will, is totally incongruent with what Christians know in the divine self-emptying of Christ (Vanstone 1977).

But of course, the NCSE has "no position" on faith. We just want to teach everybody else how to correctly interpret Judeo-Christian scripture!

That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

Keep flailing, chunkdz!

Date: 2009/06/23 19:33:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (chunkdz @ June 23 2009,17:05)
That passage is descriptive, not proscriptive.  

Are you kidding me? Read the whole piece - she's refuting ID via metaphysical arguments.

Do you think that the NCSE should be interpreting scripture, or making metaphysical arguments about why a loving God would allow suffering?

We can talk more tomorrow.

The purpose of the article, as stated by the author:

"NCSE members are well informed on the scientific objections to "intelligent design". Many may not be aware that a number of scholars and religious leaders have raised theological objections, too. Here is a brief review of some of those points. I offer it in the hope that it will be helpful especially to our supporters and activists who are people of faith, and to other grassroots organizers who have asked for approaches that can counter "intelligent design" theologically."

This is not the language one uses for saying you must read the Bible this way or that.  It would be strange for an organization that does not claim you even need to read the Bible at all, and a substantial percentage of the membership I expect are atheists.

More fail, please!  I am sure you will oblige...

Date: 2009/06/24 17:20:19, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (chunkdz @ June 24 2009,13:09)

Tracy wrote:

The purpose of the article, as stated by the author:

"NCSE members are well informed on the scientific objections to "intelligent design". Many may not be aware that a number of scholars and religious leaders have raised theological objections, too. Here is a brief review of some of those points. I offer it in the hope that it will be helpful especially to our supporters and activists who are people of faith, and to other grassroots organizers who have asked for approaches that can counter "intelligent design" theologically."

This is not the language one uses for saying you must read the Bible this way or that.  It would be strange for an organization that does not claim you even need to read the Bible at all, and a substantial percentage of the membership I expect are atheists.

Actually, it's exactly what would be expected. Good Lord, it's a talking points memo for "supporters, activists and grassroots organizers"!

Let's parse a couple of key paragraphs. Be aware that this is not an objective overview of various theological arguments. No, this is the opinion of Rev. Phina Borgeson, the NCSE's Priest, speaking on behalf of the NCSE.
The little we know about God from "intelligent design" is not congruent with an understanding of God that takes Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously.

Those ID'ers don't understand God, but we at the NCSE do understand God. This is because the NCSE takes the Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously - more seriously than Bill Dembski who doesn't take the scriptures as seriously as we do.

These are fairly characterized as talking points.

Ways to to talk to people who object to evolution for religious reasons to consider points that theologians have made with respect to religion and evolution.  That is the whole point of reaching out - to get people on board, and some may even become so active that they write articles.

Claiming (as an organization) the Bible must be read way X?  No.  Saying that some might consider interpretation X as better?  Yes.  

Some call this pandering.  Some don't care.  Chunkdz trying to stir up trouble is futile.

Date: 2009/06/25 12:17:00, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Tracy @ June 25 2009,11:59)

My name is Tracy, and I have a tardcrush on Joe G.

This tardcrush consumes my waking hours.  It burns with the heat of a thousand suns.  It makes Mark Sanford’s lust for his piece of Argentine tail pale by comparison.

Every utterance, every insult, every intelligence-free statement committed to teh intertubes by Joe G only makes my crush for him grow.  This tardcrush is truly the love that dare not speak its name.  But yet, speak it – nay, shout it – I must.

Please, help me.  For the love of God, help me.

I swear that is not me!

(Do I protest too much?)

Date: 2009/06/25 21:42:09, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2009,13:19)
I've pitched my hat in the ring.


if this doesn't go through you can become a student at a real university like UAB and do the study abroad in Antarctica.  :)

I did a search and it appears that MSU is a real university after all, with a study abroad in antarctica.

Vote 17.

Date: 2009/06/26 07:17:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ June 26 2009,02:24)
OK, so looking over the Pandas stuff from Stephen B that's been quoted, I found a real gem. Man, StephenB is just...uh....words nearly fail. It's almost a flawless, glittering jewel shining with the light of the purest of pure tard:





4:51 pm

Echidna Levy:

—-”The term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists”

What is it about these Darwinists that render them impervious to reason. The scenario you have copied from Barbara Forrest didn’t happen. It is so funny when folks like you try to send someone like my [sic] to an intellectually banrupt [sic] site like Pandas [sic] Thumb to “learn something.” I have a bit of homework for you.

You did find a real gem.  Perhaps the Nope Diamond of denial.

Date: 2009/06/27 09:37:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ June 27 2009,09:10)
jerry asks:    
By the way has David Kellogg or others admitted to kairosfocus that it was shown that Dawkins used a latching mechanism in the book, the Blind Watchmaker, for the Weasel program. If one is going to complain about grudgingly admitting something then maybe people should apologize for that episode. Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.

I am sure Gordon appreciates this.

jerry, PM Ras, please!  He can't take the suspense anymore.

Date: 2009/06/27 21:17:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (keiths @ June 27 2009,21:06)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 25 2009,17:56)
Quote (dnmlthr @ June 25 2009,11:54)
Bah, I can't believe noone has posted this car before.

ETA: The only car actually worth posting.

I once rode with a friend in his pacer, which was brand new at the time.

He had a photo of Paramahansa Yogananda on the dash.

Somehow that still fits.

During my driving years as a teenager, my family had a '73 aluminum-block Vega, a '74 Ford Pinto station wagon, and a '76 Vega station wagon.  When I got to college, I bought a '79 Chevette and my girlfriend had a '76 Pacer.

Every car I've owned since then has been a dream by comparison.

I had a 1976 Chevy Vega.  Engine actually did very well.

I laughed at the Chevette owners.  Kind of like we say "Thank God for Mississippi" here in Alabama.

Date: 2009/06/29 19:30:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 29 2009,17:48)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 27 2009,10:37)
Quote (olegt @ June 27 2009,09:10)
jerry asks:      
By the way has David Kellogg or others admitted to kairosfocus that it was shown that Dawkins used a latching mechanism in the book, the Blind Watchmaker, for the Weasel program. If one is going to complain about grudgingly admitting something then maybe people should apologize for that episode. Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.

I am sure Gordon appreciates this.

jerry, PM Ras, please!  He can't take the suspense anymore.

hahahaha i am predictable.  i am now hunting a new shtick


I was thinking jerry was sincere, but that first statement takes the cake-CSI!

Date: 2009/07/01 09:30:17, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 01 2009,01:44)
Gil is going to be a suicide someday.  He'll be flying his hang glider and just won't pull out of a dive.        




9:08 pm
I don’t care about funding, motives, or religious convictions, I care about evidence and logic.

So what "evidence and logic" will Gil serve up?      

The reason for the hang-glider crash?  Too much weight because he was carrying a computer to do hang-gliding simulations.  :O

Date: 2009/07/02 09:31:18, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2009,21:34)
Clive tried argument by creationist.

He must be a YEC. Has he ruled that out?

I think Clive is a YEC.  All part of the Big Top, er Tent strategy.

Date: 2009/07/02 09:38:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ July 01 2009,19:41)
Clive: Math?  We don't need no stinkin' math!  
I’m just being consistent with the measurement. Anything that describes things on the bodily level is bound to separate into races if one wants to see it that way, even on a genetic level as Lewontin shows, which is why I prefer a qualitative measurement, like the soul endowed by their Creator, (which cannot be a quantitative measurement), to dispel the notion of race. Quantitative measurements won’t do it.

Words fail me.

Quantitative measurements = pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2009/07/03 14:28:26, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ July 03 2009,13:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 03 2009,04:23)
cannuckain yankee is a genius

And based on that assessment, Darwin began to make all kinds of ridiculous predictions, which turned out not to be true - such as the idea that there’s this constant struggle for survival among species - where’s the evidence? - that’s certainly not the case with humans. While we struggle to survive, the “material world” we have created has shown that it is not “constant.”

Hey, Cannuckitard? Please stare at this image for at least a month, with minimal interruption:

If you still think the same thing afterwards, go pick a fight with a wolverine.  They're totally laid-back and non-competitive.  Really.

Cannuckian Yankee only sees cuddly puppies in that picture!

Date: 2009/07/06 20:35:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,18:12)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2009,15:52)
EDIT: See Clive and Upright spooning. response to a comment that isn't even there any more. How brave.

And Upright manages to completely miss the point about ad hominems.

What is Latin for person who is banned from replying?  We need that category for UD: argumentum ad .

Date: 2009/07/06 20:37:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,17:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2009,14:58)
LOL - I'm sure there will be plenty more :)

Here ya go, courtesy of Joseph:

As a matter of fact everything we have observed falls in line with the Creation baraminology.

However that leaves me in a bind because I do not accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of books.

Yeah, that's a real bitch Joe.

Joe, however, would get quite upset if you called the Koran "just a collection of books".   ;)

Date: 2009/07/06 20:38:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,19:43)
Clivebaby gets stupider:

Clive Hayden


5:45 pm


Sure, I’ll agree with you up to that point, but the information content and meaningfulness isn’t physically transported in the ability to see, nor in the material composition of your computer screen, it is immaterial.

Clive must have been reading the Spatula Brain.

Date: 2009/07/08 17:23:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
DATCG tells us more about his family than I think we should know:
In regards to Eugenics, please read Darwin’s own descendents use of Eugenics and Darwin’s beliefs. See: Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin.

Should somebody tell DATCG that cousins are not descendants in most families?  :O

Date: 2009/07/11 07:41:58, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ July 10 2009,23:11)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 10 2009,20:30)
i've never seen another presentation so succintly demonstrating the descent without modification of ID arguments from standard YEC fare.  beautiful.  too bad you are wasting it over there on deaf eyes and dumb ears.

I haven't even posted that one over there, since my barrage seems to have killed that thread for now.  It gets even better.  I found Behe's entire immune system argument laid out in  Dec 1970:

Only God Could Have Made The Defense Systems Of The Human Body

Oscar L. Brauer, Ph.D.

(delicious YEC sausage of science and religion deleted)

Behe's just an Oscar Brauer gleaner!  :)

Date: 2009/07/13 15:17:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 13 2009,13:06)
CY keeps repeating this same horseshit over and over again, or at least other tards at UD are

I hinted on this issue in a previous post (can’t remember where) when I stated that information can exist without a conduit. matter requires information, but information doesn’t require matter. As Dr. Meyer has pointed out in several media interviews regarding his new book, a blank CD weighs the same as a CD with information recorded on it.

who the fuck cares how much it weighs?  a mole of water weighs the same as a mole of H2 gas plus half a mole of O2.  where in the shit is this even supposed to matter?  what a bunch of tards

they bitch about somethign coming from nothing and that concepts of 'emergence' are poof strategies, and then this is how they define 'information'

no fucking wonder the only place in the world this happy horseshit is given the time of day is on a creo-fundie tribute to Stupid People known as


You have inspired me to pustulate an ID theory to explain why homeopathic* medicine works.  Start with a solution containing the medicine, which has a given amount of CSI. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution, but since CSI must be conserved, no CSI is lost.  Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.  The final solution** has exactly the same amount of CSI as the original.***

*I know what you're thinking HOMO! - dt
**I know what you're thinking Hitler-worshipping CBEBS! - dt
***This part is true, since there is no such thing as CSI.****
****This means that the amount of CSI is constant, so there IS a conservation of CSI.  QED*****
***** Quod Eratum Demonstrandumb

Date: 2009/07/16 09:12:27, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ July 16 2009,05:04)
Frost elaborates on his "Materialists hate gravity" remark:



3:48 am

Jehu, it is caused by the curvature of space as predicted and explained in Einstein’s GR theory. But the materialists want to attribute this curvature to more matter because by increasing the matter in the universe the origination makes more sense- but the bottom line is that there is no real reason to postulate more matter - a lot more btw like 90% more- as the answer to gravity’s origin- which is the cause of what you are seeing with the curvature of space. Gravity pulls curves space which causes the traveling light curve with it.

If you asked creationist Walt Brown he’d probably say it is because made “stretched out” the material universe like a thin cloth- as Einstein use to use the image of a cloth with a ball in the middle curving the cloth around it to explain gravity’s shape.

That didn't help.  In fact, it seems like he's now saying materialists like gravity so much, they can't help but believe in and want more of it, and so they invented dark matter to satisfy this gravitational yearning.  But yes, surely: let's ask Walt "Hydroplate" Brown to solve for us our cosmological conundrums, a task for which he is so eminently qualified. I look forward to seeing "Flood Cosmology" on shelves across the land.

I think the rejection of Dark Matter is a subconscious rejection of "His Dark Matter" trilogy by atheist Philip Pullman.

Date: 2009/07/20 18:13:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 20 2009,17:21)
Was expelled really the turkey everyone on the Panda's Thumb has made it out to be ? Not according to Wikipedia:

Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, more than any other documentary before it, and grossed over $2,900,000 in its first weekend, the third biggest opening for a documentary. As of May 13, 2008 it had earned over $7 million, making it the twelfth-highest-grossing documentary film in the United States in nominal dollars, from 1982 to that date. In July, the movie was re-released allowing groups of 300 to book private screenings in theaters.

That doesn't look like an absolute bumber to me. Guess I can't use that argument any more on the YEC discussion forums. Who gets the profits ? Is it the Discovery Institute ?

Cost to make this movie and advertise it?  Not much information specified.  IMDB estimates 3.5 million just for production.

Domestic Total Gross: $7,720,487 from box office mojo.

Compare to Religulous $13,011,160 gross, estimated 2.5 million to make.

Date: 2009/07/28 13:17:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 27 2009,23:43)
i'd say there is a surprise awaiting him

ETA  and i betcha Gordon Mullings has to apologize for his sex regularly.  As regularly as it occurs anyhow.  

Or how it occurs - Onlookers!  :O

Date: 2009/07/28 13:25:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 27 2009,22:12)
Tard Alert!!!!

VMartin now has a blog.  he and JAD have been taking turns playing doctor with each other.  see if we can get Joe G to comment there.  should be dumb fun!!!

Since VMartin is Electrotechnical Faculty, perhaps he and JoeG can discuss refrigerator repair or drop computers from airplanes.

Date: 2009/07/29 08:54:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Telamon @ July 28 2009,21:45)
Hi, I'm rather new to this forum. I came here in search of some rational minds to help me with a small dilemma I'm having. You see, I decided to debate a YEC online, but I am not sure how to respond to his latest comment. I'll post his comments here, hopefully someone can provide me with some advice, answers, and resources.

Note: We were discussing Russell Humphreys' "White Hole Theory" and the age of the Earth. For those of you who do not know, Humphreys is an AiG "scientist" who created a hypothesis to explain the distant starlight conundrum.

Here is the YEC's post:

"I didn’t intend to claim that geologists always assumed the Bible to be untrue. Steno was one of the founding fathers of the science of geology, and he was a biblical creationist. However, it is a terrible shame that most Christians compromised so quickly when these unbiblical ideas began to be introduced. The big changes in geology began happening when people proposed, instead of one global flood, many catastrophes, in contradiction of Scripture. Uniformitarianism was even more contradictory, and the fact is it is a philosophical assumption, and a framework in which to interpret the evidence. They assumed the Bible was untrue from the outset, and then went about doing their research and interpreting the evidence in their new system. As a result, you can’t take any of the “findings” of secular geology and use it to attack the Bible, because that would be circular.

Do you think Big Bang cosmology is testable? Is there any set of observations that could falsify the theory (e.g. not enough matter in the universe  )?

People have tried to challenge Humphreys’ cosmology on scientific grounds for 15 years, and failed. The fact is, as far as we know it remains within the realm of the possible, and it is consistent with the Bible. How many cosmologies do you know that have both of these things going for them?

I can see by your trust in "dating methods" that you have a lot of faith in what scientists tell you. I think if a scientist makes a set of unprovable assumptions in order to calculate a date for something, and the result conflicts with Scripture, I would question his assumptions and not Scripture.

I don’t think Humphreys “upholds” the dating methods used for the universe, because they all assume the Big Bang. He’s just trying to solve the starlight travel time problem (and remember, the Big Bang has its own starlight travel time problem)."

Basically, Humphreys is saying that when the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, it is in God-years.  Yeah, right.

Date: 2009/07/29 17:56:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JLT @ July 29 2009,12:34)
Someone seems to feel a bit hurt by Ian's challenge...

ETA: Or maybe he didn't like Ian's verdict about his Baptist press article.. Or both.

    This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

I draw your attention to the last clause: there was “a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.” One would think that this would constitute “scientific evidence” for global cooling.

One would think that if one was an uninformed IDiot.  There was a series of cooling events (not a trend) because of a series of volcanic eruptions.  Indeed the cooling in the 1970's press reports was based on proposed Milankovitch-like cycles which happened to not pan out.

Date: 2009/08/06 09:28:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 05 2009,22:09)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 05 2009,21:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2009,19:36)
we've been found out!

You gotta love the list of textbooks that were graded "D or F for their uncritical reliance on Darwinian theory". As if they were capable of critiquing a biology textbook. And it's truly hilarious that most of them are 1998 editions; several of those textbook authors are either dead or retired!

Perhaps we should see if FtK is on their board of directors. They do seem to have a chapter in Kansas...

(They have the Campbell and Reese 5th edition from 1999. We use the 8th edition.)

I love when they whip out Piltdown Man. That cracks me up. The "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher" (Appendix A) are pretty special, too.

In their defense, the article was written in 2002.  However, like all TARD, it is timeless.

Date: 2009/08/06 09:40:33, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton


I am not seeking to verify LCI. In fact Dembski/Marks make it clear what LCI will do:
   “Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life,the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms.”

Yes, and what I’m saying is that their claim is, as a matter of easily verifiable fact, untrue. Including Marks’ and Dembski’s work in your arsenal of sources detracts from the otherwise stellar credibility of your arguments.


Date: 2009/08/10 17:03:35, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 10 2009,16:44)
The DI has a video on YouTube:

Ziggy in the Cell

I thought it was Ziggy, but I didn't see Ziggy.  Thank Monkey for that!

Anyway, Meyer comments in the video that just after a protein is sequenced it enters a "barrel shaped machine" where the protein is folded.

What the hell is he talking about?  Barrel shaped machine?  It's been a while but I thought the final conformation resulted from the secondary structure (cross-links) derived from the primary structure (amino acid sequence).

Need education on this please!

(I know it may be a shock to some of you that old Doc Bill doesn't know everything, but there you have it.)

Also, comments are currently open on YouTube (hint, hint).

Doc Bill,

The barrel shaped protein is a chaperone.  Of course, the designer had to use one to get the proteins to fold.  ;)

Date: 2009/08/12 12:31:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 12 2009,12:27)

Doomsday Smith


11:49 am

Sorry, Clive, I didn’t see that until I submitted that post.

What will Clivebaby do?  Will Doomsday's MENS REA land him in MODERATION? What will the word count of Gordon's inevitable conniption fit be?  Stay tuned, Onlookers!

Same bat-shit time, same bat-shit place!

Date: 2009/08/12 22:05:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (JonF @ Aug. 12 2009,19:48)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 12 2009,17:46)

But it's probably supposed to be "intuitively obvious to the casual observer".*

*commonly used phrase in college math classes.

IIRC, usually translated as "would take me at least three lectures to lay out the astoundingly complex proof".

I would show you how to calculate FCSI, but it won't fit in the margin.  ???

Date: 2009/08/16 21:14:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 16 2009,19:28)
That's in Chapter 1, just after a whole section on the Pimples of Science that talked a bit about McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Fixed that for you.

Date: 2009/08/18 16:17:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 18 2009,14:47)
18  August  2009
The Water Strider: Evolution’s Gratuitous Explanations
Cornelius Hunter

New research is telling us more about how water striders, those bugs that walk on water, get such long legs. Read more
at the source of the tard

guess what you get when you follow the tard to the source.  that's right, even dummer


No, Ras, don't follow the links!  Corny is blog whoring like Densy O'Dreary.

Hmm, has anybody ever seen Cornelius Hunter and Denyse O'Leary together?

Date: 2009/08/19 11:14:49, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

Is it Friday already?

Start saving comments to preserve in the Obliviation thread.

Date: 2009/08/21 14:38:39, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 21 2009,02:53)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 21 2009,10:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2009,17:58)
Before they go:

...add to that BillB's comment:            
PZ’s critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly.

If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them.

As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M’s conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven’t done themselves any favours.

Clive (hi Clive!) has essentially reopened comments for Dr Dembski's closed thread, in a well thought out plan.


The question has to be asked.

Where the Hell do Marks and Dembski think they are going?

Where ever it is, they have the front seats on the bus.

The bus is so short the back seat is also the front seat.

Date: 2009/08/22 08:40:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Goffr @ Aug. 22 2009,02:36)
Dumski thinks he is a clever dick. From his paper

E. Partitioned Search
Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure
best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character


Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters


Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are
shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these
letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new
letters and obtain


Oh wait what is that random phrase reversed?




oh ha ha.

It's a shame Dawkins' program DOESN'T MUTATUTE EVERY CHARACTER EACH GENERATION. Man is this guy full retard.

Demski is backward masking, and there is a hidden Freudian message in the forward order:


Poot.  Denyse is Hot. I are a Nut, SOL.

Date: 2009/08/25 13:11:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 25 2009,11:20)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 25 2009,17:32)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 25 2009,09:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 25 2009,09:27)
hahah. Dembski:
But at the next Dover trial, as the body of peer-reviewed work supporting ID continues to grow (Marks and I have plenty in the pipeline, and there are other labs now getting into the act), it will no longer be possible for the next Judge Jones to dismiss ID for lack of peer-reviewed papers (even at the Dover trial, Jones was mistaken to claim that no peer-reviewed work supports ID).

The argument just keeps rumbling on …

Comments disabled.  They allow men without balls to live in Texas?

Yes, they are known as steers.

I would note that, for all his bravado in that post, WmAD has repeated his Dover performance by hiding from questions.



The US Chamber of Commerce is asking for a trial of global warming.  Global warming is about to meet its WATERLOOOO!

I predict UD will post in favor of such a trial within 24 hrs.  Possibly by DLHagen.

ETA to add linky: linky

Date: 2009/08/29 10:58:48, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 28 2009,21:29)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 28 2009,18:44)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2009,18:27)
Why do I suddenly feel like invading Poland?

Oh gee, I couldn't imagine. . .

(Miss Poland 2009 -- a Friday night gift for you guys.)

ETA: I hear O'Leary has the same swimsuit.  I give with one hand, take away with the other.

Maya - What time did you tell her to be here to present me with my gift????

Denyse will be over to "link" to you at 8:00 p.m.

Date: 2009/08/30 22:14:31, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Barrett Brown @ Aug. 30 2009,20:39)
Howdy, guys-

I just wanted to note that I've written another article attacking Uncommon Descent, particularly Clive Hayden's strange rant regarding the Wired article. It may be found here. Hail Satan, etc.


Barrett Brown

Nice ending, linking to  :)

Date: 2009/09/02 09:58:36, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton

Isn't it GCUGreyArea's B-Day, too?

Date: 2009/09/02 12:04:19, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 02 2009,10:38)
Oh, and happy birthday to BillB too!


Sorry, my bad.  Too many Bills here, not enough in my wallet.  :angry:

Edit to add picture as an apology:

Date: 2009/09/02 14:28:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 02 2009,12:57)
Hi Guts, I'm sure you know I can't respond. Is your nick meant "ironically"?

Crick: It is tempting to wonder if the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA.

That doesn’t predict the rRNA is carrying out the peptidyltransferase activity.

If the ribosome made proteins and it is constructed entirely of RNA, then ribosomal-RNA made proteins. If you read the paper, Crick wrongly presumed that proteins had coopted the transferase activity for greater precision.

Guts: If it had turned out that proteins played the catalytic role, Zach would probably be quoting Crick to defend the RNA world – "he predicted “the presumed polymerase, may now be protein, having been replaced because a protein could do the job with greater precision.""

Yes! Now you got it. Even in 1968, even while thinking that many of the functions of protein synthesis had been coopted by proteins, the evidence was such that Crick was already suspecting that the ribosome may have once been made entirely of RNA. Since then, we've seen the discovery of ribozymes, and the determination that the ribosome *is* a ribozyme.

RNA World is alive and well.

Cech, mate!

Date: 2009/09/03 15:38:55, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Dwimr @ Sep. 03 2009,07:43)
This is my first time posting here. I have two questions.

1.Has Dembski ever publicly acknowledged whether he's a YEC or not? I noticed he can't stand theistic evolutionists. That brings me to question #2.

2.Isn't Behe Catholic and therefore a theistic evolutionist? Why doesn't Dembski ever criticize Behe?

Both Behe and Dembski are not YEC.  Not great thinkers either, putting out rationalizations of "Ohh, life is so complex, God must be necessary to make the changes."

Date: 2009/09/05 13:12:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
dheddle pointed out who the world class software engineer is in UCD thread 2:

but a bit of the code (as in Bible code) disturbs me...

ST SciPlot is a full-featured GEM application

I knew it!  GEM of TKI is a Turing test (complete with teh gay).

Date: 2009/09/06 11:47:15, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 05 2009,21:39)
How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

Wow, that's sig-worthy!  I [heart] Gil.

Consider it stolen.

Date: 2009/09/07 11:01:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (mitschlag @ Sep. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,07:40)

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.


Gordon had no choice.  I give him credit for fessing up.

And I've archived his admission.

A WTF (What The Function) moment.

Date: 2009/09/15 10:48:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,06:31)
Some days I just love UD
Mapou runs face first into reality:        
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.
Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!

What "causes" inertial motion is conservation of energy and momentum.

Date: 2009/09/17 10:15:04, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,23:22)
StephenB sounds like he needs to come over here and debate some
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?

—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”

School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.


This is the right time and place. How about it StephenB?

LOL@Bolded bit.

New hit tune: "She Blinded Me with BlogScience!"

A good discussion of BlogScience of global warming at
Denial Depot

Date: 2009/09/17 21:05:21, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 17 2009,18:13)
Is anyone at all even slightly surprised at the course of this "discussion"?


Didn't think so.

Actually I'm surprised.  I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them.

Date: 2009/09/21 17:45:57, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 21 2009,17:14)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,17:12)

And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.


i mean, ESPECIALLY on the culture war front, but it's purty good on the sientz frons too!!!

FL is a prime example of why the Big Top Tent strategy is an EPIC FAIL.  Creation Science, ID, what is the difference?  None, since both are apologetics.  The only difference is one group wants to support a specific dogma, and others won't be specific (ironically yammering on about specified information). :D

Date: 2009/09/28 23:04:44, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2009,21:04)

but the best part is Frances Beckwith getting in some playa hatin' time

7:41 pm
“This is why it’s so important that theologians and ministers get on board with ID — so they can avoid this unintentional bleeding of the ranks.”

It would be one thing if the ID advocates were only offering their point of view as a mere hypothesis subjected to the usual give and take in scientific and philosophical discourse. (In fact, my earlier work on ID assumed as much). But that in fact is not the case. It has over the years morphed into a movement that treats the soundness of its arguments as virtually essential to sustaining the rationality of theism itself.

{snip supporting argument, compared to Floyd Lee, Beckwith looks like Hume, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Newton and Einstein combined}


I have respect for Beckwith's arguments, past and presumably future.

Francis Beckwith made the argument that IF ID was truly a scientific enterprise, then it could not be denied being taught in public schools in spite of it supporting a certain religious doctrine.  Beckwith, not being a physical scientist, was fooled by the Dembski, Behe, et al. bafflegab, but I think he is slowly wising up that there is no content in ID (PCID the journal of ISCID is a big clue).

Date: 2009/09/30 22:05:59, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 30 2009,14:05)
her towering intellect (magnified by close proximity to Casey Luskin)

Oh, c'mon! There are things growing under rocks that could appear intelligent in close proximity to unibrow Luskin!

edited to correct fatal gramatical paradox

Gives me the excuse to post this picture again:

Date: 2009/10/01 15:26:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 01 2009,15:10)
I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science".

of course some of y'all done long pointed out that THAT ship sailed many moons ago.  

Ship's name: Titanic

Date: 2009/10/08 00:30:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 07 2009,16:21)
Dammit, I find FL so disgusting I don't think I can bear to post at 'his' thread anymore. Even Ray Martinez is more fun; he's at least consistent in his stupidity.

FL is the poster boy for why the book "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" has such an apt title.

(They don't use their mind.)

Date: 2009/10/09 11:40:05, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 08 2009,22:05)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,18:38)
What the..?!? Why are you damned Euros all drinking avocados and wearing pasties?  And why does "avocat" and spanish "abogado" sound like an avocado? Do they expect some damn fruit to become a lawyer over there? Never mind, don't answer that, you'll probably show me some fat european lawyer in a speedo smeared in avocados and wearing pasties.

Frankly, you Europeans should be ashamed of yourselves.

Wildly off-topic, but y'all have broken the chew toy anyway...

I had a student a few years back who simply couldn't prevent herself from calling 6.022*10^23 Avocado's number.  I always had to suppress a giggle.

Avocado's number is a guaca-mole.

Date: 2009/10/13 14:17:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Stomata don't count as nostrils?  Not nephish enough, I guess.

Edited to add:  Damn you, Didymos!

Edited again: You stole my sig, which I stole from olegt!  :angry:   Back to the old one.

Date: 2009/10/13 14:27:50, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.

LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."

Date: 2009/10/13 17:25:42, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,17:15)
Here's a question for the entire house.  Given the following statement:

"Evolution has no goal."  (Sources already cited.)

Does ANYBODY in this forum disagree with that specific statement?

Does water flowing downhill have a goal?

Is God required for an explanation of that?

Date: 2009/10/19 12:24:32, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,12:12)
got a link?  I don't think you ever answered it.

So now I gotta go back through 50+ pages and show you what you missed/omitted/didn't address/whatnot.

It is a very simple question, and you have NOT answered it.  No need to wade through 50 pages, just provide a simple, direct answer.  The relevance of the question is obvious to anybody with enough neurons to make a synapse.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:53:53, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,08:56)
Okay, back again.  Mostly working on the items previously stated.

Those theories of evolution that are not based on absolute materialism are completely compatible with evolution.

And which textbook-taught, classroom-taught, theories of evolution would these be?  Please specify.  

Meanwhile, here's the real deal:

"Solely materialistically." -- Ernst Mayr, SciAm
"Purely materialistic." -- Douglas Futuyma, EB3
"Completely mindless process." -- EB3

Kind of like how YOU say we should describe water going down hill scientifically, hypocrite?

Date: 2009/10/30 15:36:54, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2009,13:39)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 30 2009,13:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2009,11:02)
Sneaking this is here even though its not technically UD.

And I have to unfortunately tip my hat to Fundy Tard Vox Day for finding it.

Giving the Governator an F    [John J. Pitney Jr.]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made American political discourse a little cruder — which is saying something. As California journalists noted, he sneaked an obscene acrostic into a veto message. The first letters of the middle paragraphs lined up to spell “F*** you.” A spokesperson for the governor half-heartedly suggested that it was a coincidence. Yeah, right. The odds against those seven letters appearing in that specific order by chance are 8,031,810,176 to one.


We has design inference, of the 'bible code' type.

What are the odds of any phrase? Also "8,031,810,176 to one" is 26^7 which assumes a uniform distribution of letters in the English language at the start of words.


If you look at the actual document, it's pretty blatant:

But he coulda had a 'tit fuck' you for not much more effort. Unless he was concerned with it being hyphenated.

Maybe the Governator was channeling Jar-Jar Binks: The letters spell out F*** You-sa!

Date: 2009/10/31 16:30:23, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2009,12:40)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 31 2009,10:37)


hummus man
3:07 am

Here, here. All through engineering school and my professional career, I never really thought of myself as a scientist. But, since I use the scientific method. I guess I can be one.

that's really really really really good.

I believe hummus is trying to be a PITA at UD.  :O

Date: 2009/11/02 09:10:34, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 02 2009,07:54)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 02 2009,07:44)
What is really sad is that she was [URL=

this-just-in-water-runs-downhill/#comment-335575]told over a month ago[/URL] that the film had a distributor.

COFFEE!  Well, she didn't get to be called "Dense-ee" by being the brightest candle in the shining fimament of ID Stars.  She earned that title, you know.  The hard tard way.  COFFEE!

Going by her writing, I suspect IRISH COFFEE!!

Date: 2009/11/04 09:07:14, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 04 2009,03:08)
Baraminologist Todd Wood says that religious antievolution apologetics amount to idolatry.

Floyd Lee needs to read that!

Date: 2009/11/05 08:11:11, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:57)

How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?

Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.)

I recall one ID article that was basically "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A TURBINE".


Date: 2009/11/06 10:59:38, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 06 2009,10:18)
Boy, are [URL=

ow/#comment-338819]these guys[/URL] dense!        
Hmmm Nak just how committed are you to the “material” photon not being destroyed? Would you forsake your faith in your bearded Buddha? Or is that to much to ask?

Photons get created and destroyed by the trillions when they interact with matter.  Boreagain [URL=

ow/#comment-338569]keeps[/URL] [URL=

ow/#comment-338579]mentioning[/URL] this fact as if it invalidates the first law of thermodynamics, a.k.a. energy conservation.  It doesn't.  

Emission of a photon
of energy E is accompanied by the loss of the same amount of energy by the atom.  The total energy is conserved.  

Absorption of a photon increases the atom's energy, so again energy is conserved.  

Why does Clive let boreagain run around unsupervised?  Beats me.

There are operators in quantum mechanics for annihilation and creation of photons, for crying out loud!

Date: 2009/11/08 09:17:22, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 07 2009,04:10)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 06 2009,17:36)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)

In a survey, most Catholic Priests prefer 13 year-old boys.

Well at least Polanski passed the heterosexual test

More power to him, that sucker is hard.  I had to take it like six times before I finally passed.  Fortunately I had a patient instructor.

Did you keep finishing the final exam too early?

Or no lead in the pencil the first five times?

Date: 2009/11/09 21:50:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,20:49)
jitsak: Are deuterostomes “really different” from each other? They are all just modified tubes, right?


Topologically just like a donut.

[Homer Simpson] MMMMM, deuterostome! [/Homer Simpson]

Date: 2009/11/09 21:52:06, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (dmso74 @ Nov. 09 2009,18:23)
jerry wants a list of evolutionary novelties in birds since their first appearance. how about:
UV vision
color-producing nanostructured tissues in feathers (structural colors)
ability to hover (hummingbirds)
strutted bones
air sac system (only partially present in dinosaurs)
complex muscular system for controlling tail
keeled sternum
over 6 different types of feathers
digestive system (crop and gizzard)
syrinx (unique vocal organ)

all trivial microevolution to him, I'm sure

Not to mention the amazing variety in their next most important organ, the beak.

Date: 2009/11/16 13:47:45, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 16 2009,13:27)
Denyse is so clever:
Coffee! Neuroscience: Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?


I found this chilling:

That is pure genius.  Let me tell ya, they can't teach that in journalism school.  You've either got it or you don't.

[Col Klink]  Denyse, maybe you would like to spend some time in zee Kooler, for murder of the English language.  Koffee! [/Col Klink]

Date: 2009/11/17 08:54:41, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2009,20:47)
What is that supposed to be, a blog or "The Village People"?

Young man,

It's fun to assert

F-C-S-I !
F-C-S-I !

Date: 2009/11/19 12:42:16, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 18 2009,17:21)
ICR has a new propaganda film out, The Mysterious Islands.

Everybody knows how mysteries end: "and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you Darwinists!"  :angry:

Date: 2009/11/20 11:38:25, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
Prediction:  Since UD is inhabited and run by credulous morons, they will soon post on the release of hacked CRU emails as an example of how modern science is corrupt.

Date: 2009/11/30 11:33:29, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton
God's iPod is a 9-11 Truther!



Gods iPod


10:15 am

“for those of us STILL attached to reality”

Yeah, and for those of us that are still attached to SCIENCE, the EVIDENCE that 911 was an inside job is astounding. I thought we believed in following the evidence where it lead? Your reaction to 911, is the same that AGW’ers have towards you. Maybe you should think of that!


Date: 2009/11/30 11:35:13, Link
Author: Tracy P. Hamilton