AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: W. Kevin Vicklund

form_srcid: W. Kevin Vicklund

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: W. Kevin Vicklund

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 'W. Kevin Vicklund%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/10/17 12:26:16, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I have a question for you, evopeach.  Why, when you decided to create this thread, did you choose helium over hydrogen?  Was it arbitrary, or was it by some data you ran across?  If it was data, how recently did you come across it?

Date: 2005/10/18 04:53:04, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
evopeach, you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data?

Date: 2005/10/18 08:16:22, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
evopeach, once again you ignored my question.  Again, why did you choose helium over hydrogen for this thread?  Was it arbitrary, our did you choose it because of some data?  If you chose because of data, how recently did you come across this data?

If you choose not to respond again, I will assume that you arbitrarily choose helium and proceed from there.

Date: 2005/10/18 10:00:58, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Helium was an arbitrary choice because I knew it was one of the three first elements existing according to your theory if not the first considering the difference between nuclei and atoms.

I suspected that was the case.  So why did you spend half a month insisting that it had to be helium, not hydrogen, that we had to trace the brain from, when everyone else was saying that helium did not make sense, whereas hydrogen did?  Especially in light of the fact that in late August and early September you were demanding that we had to trace the hydrogen to brain link.  It would have been so much simpler just to say that you had made a minor error in the title, point out you had previously said hydrogen, and we could have all gone on our merry way.

Instead, you decided you had to defend a choice you have now admitted was arbitrary.  You misrepresented several sources, and insisted you were accurate even after the errors were pointed out in direct quotes from your own sources.  In doing so, you have demonstrated that you are unable to admit to mistakes and will do anything, including misrepresenting and even outright lying in order to hold onto a statement you have made - even if that statement conflicts with something you said a month earlier!  If you are unable to admit to even this minor of an error, why should we believe that you would accept any explanation we give to your questions?

Date: 2005/10/18 10:48:13, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
evopeach, both the 10**6 and the 300,000 year figures came from sources you provided for our reference.  On the first post of page 3 of this thread, you provided three sources.  The second provides the 10**6 figure.  GCT is as justified to use the 10**6 figure as the 300,000 figure.  The third provides the 300,000 figure.  In essence, you are ridiculing yourself for providing two sources that were so wildly off in their estimates!

In reality, a timeline of this nature is only expected to be accurate to within an order of magnitude, which it is (eg, when mapped on a logarithmic scale, 300,000 is approximately halfway between 10**5 and 10**6, and 10**6 is preferred due to our numbering system)

Date: 2005/10/19 06:39:27, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Questions, evopeach:

Can you calculate log[379,000] (this is in base ten, by the way)

When constructing a simple timeline using a logrithmic scale, where would the above calculation be placed?

From Wikipedia:
Throughout the Universe, hydrogen is mostly found in the plasma state whose properties are quite different to molecular hydrogen. As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity, even when the gas is only partially ionised. The charged particles are highly influenced by magnetic and electric fields, for example, in the Solar Wind they interact with the Earth's magnetosphere giving rising to Birkeland currents and the aurora.

Hmm, protons and electrons that are unbound are referred to as hydrogen plasma.

You might want to check on what an alpha particle is, btw.

evopeach, you make a great Enron executive, but a lousy engineer.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:09:37, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
It was such an obvious mental mistake, I was just going to let it pass.  Obviously, he meant two protons and two neutrons.

Date: 2005/10/19 08:58:06, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
My apologies I mean two protons.. thanks.

An actual admission of error.  Wow.

VED you are a dishonest liar.. plain and simple., as to Hawkings your selective quote is neat but dishonest. Which anyone can dttermine by reading the Hawking site.

Gee, when I read the site you linked, I see that VED is correct and you are the one mischaracterizing the great Hawkings.

"Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier ELEMENTS, most notably HELIUM."

See that part that says most notably HELIUM, right after the phrase .. form the nulcei of a few heavier ELEMENTS.

See the part that says "heavier", right before elements?  Heavier than what?  Hydrogen, of course.

The next paragraph refers to electron capture.

And when a hydrogen nucleus (also known as a free proton or a hydrogen ion) captures an electron, you get a hydrogen atom.  See?  It's so simple.

The two protons are the nucleus of helium but that nucleus is not a fundamental particle like the hydrogen nucleus is. It has no other name in the sense of a fundamental particle.

Two protons and two neutrons can also be considered an alpha particle.  Just because something has multiple names doesn't mean it must be excluded from consideration.

Kevin couldn't you take that log by yourself. No problem, I am used to assisting evos with math and science.. their weak suits.

5.578639209968072    (plenty of decimal places for the wireheads)

Anything else you guys need help with today ?
I never worked for Enron either.

Actually, I did before I asked.  So you've now proven that you can perform basic math when requested - something I previously doubted.  But I can give you only partial credit, as you only answered the trivial part of the question.  20% is still failing in my book.  See, unlike you, I am a competent engineer, and I read the whole question or statement, rather than picking just the part that I want.  I also have the reading comprehension necassary to respond intelligently, unlike you.  You are a disgrace to the profession, and another example of the Dilbert Principle in action.

Date: 2005/10/19 09:51:54, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I have no doubt that you are a competent engineer but you are way too emontionally invested in supporting every aspect of the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here.

And I have every reason to doubt that you are a competent engineer.  And you are demonstrably way too invested in disproving every aspect of what you erroneously include in the evolutionary paradigm to be objective on anything said here -including anything you yourself have previously said.  Furthermore, I support the scientific paradigm, of which evolution is but a small part.

Clearly, the sentence structure in Hawkings writing refers to helium nuclei being formed and he does refer to it as an element, in fact a heavier element and of course helium is heavier than hydrogen.

That was the argument for the post it had nothing to do with the hydrogen first or helium first debate.

The previous GCT post where he denys Hawking used the term element and helium in the same context is just rediculous on the face of it so if you agree with that interpretation I just chalk it up to immaturity and emotionalism.

If you were a competent engineer, you would have realized that nowhere did GCT dispute that Hawkings used the term element and helium in the same context.  Rather, having painted yourself in a corner, you trying to change the arguments YOU were making in a pathetic attempt to preserve face.  Everyone here sees right through you .

A competent engineer can read, is objective, self aware and honest... and you're not getting a passing grade.

You're projecting again.  I have researched every data I have put on this board prior to posting, even to the point of cross-referencing so that I don't rely on a single source.  You are such a poor scholar that you denied that a free proton can also be considered a hydrogen nucleus, even though one of your own sources states that they are equivalent.  You have been caught in several lies, and innumerous misrepresentations.  You can't admit to being wrong except on the most trivial points, and that only after much hounding.  You, sir, fail the above tests, not me.

You see, when competent engineers find they have made a mistake, they immediately correct it.  You refuse to do so.

Date: 2005/11/01 11:39:50, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
the earth is not the center of the earth

Just to avoid any confusion over a typo, that phrase was obviously meant to be "the earth is not the center of the universe."  Please treat it as such.

Date: 2005/11/28 08:19:22, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Due to the fact that I'm on a DHCP server, I'm currently blocked from posting to Panda's Thumb (the IP address assigned to me today was apparently blacklisted at some point in the past).  So if someone could please post this to the original thread over at PT, I would be grateful.

<quote author="Heddle">Evolution can explain how either (a) our eyes are most sensitive to the peak of our sun’s spectrum or (b) how our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. But evolution cannot explain the happy fact that we don’t have to choose (a) OR (b), the two parts of the spectrum being one and the same. Design, of course, explains it trivially.</quote>

The problem here is that Heddle posits the wrong question for point a).  Point b) is trivial for evolution of the eye - the eye has evolved to view radiation that is abundant and has wavelengths amenable to cellular construction (the second part explains in part why we see in the 100's of nanometers {visible light} as opposed to radio frequencies, which require a longer "antenna length", or x-rays, which damage cell structures).  Evolution would favor the peak energy frequencies permitted by the atmosphere, even if those frequencies were not the peak range output by the sun.

However, evolution also can account for (the proper phrasing of) point a), which is "Why is the atmosphere transparent at the peak frequency output of the sun?"  Sound-byte answer: It's the energy, stupid.  Life that relies primarily on energy delivered by the sun will prefer atmospheric conditions that maximize the usable energy (see wavelength amenable to cellular life argument above) delivered by the sun.  And since life affects the composition of the atmosphere, differential reproduction favors a balance that keeps the atmosphere transparent to the peak radiation band.  It also explains in part why the atmosphere is opaque to harmful radiation.

Note: this doesn't prevent life from living (sorry, poor choice of words there, but I'm hitting writer's block) in opaque atmospheres, provided sufficient energy does make it to the surface to support minimal life.  It does mean that we should expect to see transparent atmospheres on planets where evolution has had time to significantly alter the atmosphere.

Disclaimer: This is written from an educated layman's perspective.  It is not intended to be a rigorous discussion of evolutionary or electromagnetic theory, and there are many places where I likely could have used better phrasing.  This is, at it's heart, speculative, based on my understanding of evolutionary and elctromagnatic theory.

Date: 2005/11/29 04:45:03, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
This is the electric field outside the sphere, which in our case is the sphere of the fixed stars, and the field is 0 inside of it. Now, since authentic discontinuities do not exist in nature, the diagrams you see in evolutionistic textbooks of a field instantaneously dropping to zero are somewhat bogus. We can know the true field inside the sphere by modeling this alleged discontinuity with Fourier series.

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

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

That said, your argument is of course complete bullocks, and doesn't match with certain other observed phenomenon, such as the aforementioned parallax (btw, it is the fact that the observed parallaxes are non-equal, not non-zero, that falsifies the spherical firmament hypothesis - a non-zero but equal parallax would indicate a wobbling firmament).

Finally, absolutely none of this has anything to do with evolution.  In fact, Gaussian theory predates evolution.  Please stop using "evolutionistic" to mean "any scientific theory I oppose on theistic grounds."  If you must use a term, perhaps Galileonic or something similar?  That would be much more accurate.

Date: 2006/03/07 05:18:54, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Sorry, I know this is responding to a five week old post, but I just saw it and realized no one had made the refuttal that was immediately apparent to me

You have forgotten to consider the vibrational frequency of the quintessence sphere.  This frequency is approximately 2 Pi/24000 years, and hence makes the period about four times the true age of the universe. At the moment of creation the intelligent designer compressed it, and then let it go. Hence, at this time in history the sphere is experiencing its maximum acceleration. One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide. However, the quintessence sphere models this acceleration perfectly. The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to
some members of the ACLU! I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.

Sorry, GoP, you need to review your trigonometry and calculus.  If the sphere starts out compressed at t=0, then the equation for its radius is r(t) = R + Asin(theta - pi/2), where R is the uncompressed (steady-state) radius, A is the amplitude of the oscillation, and theta is t/T, and (theta - pi/2) indicates that the oscillation is beginning from a minimum value of r as sin(-pi/2)=-1.  If we are currently one quarter through the cycle, then t=1/4 T, or theta=pi/2, and (theta-pi/2)=0.

Now, on to the calculus.  Just to review, r(t) is the radius at a given time, r'(t) is the velocity of the radius (and therefore, the velocity of any point on the sphere), r"(t) is the acceleration, and the positive direction for r' and r" is away from the center.  For clarity, I'm dropping (t) and substituting (x) for (theta - pi/2).  Lets run through the calculus:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Acos(x)
r" = -Asin(x)

If we substitute for (x) with the present time value (theta - pi/2) = 0, the values above become:

r = R
r' = A
r" = 0

In other words, if we are at the quarter point of the period, we should have maximum velocity (redshift) but zero accelleration.  Similarly, at maximum accelleration, there would be no Doppler shift.  In fact, for there to be maximum accelleration, the frequency must be a harmonic of the age of the universe.  For there to be positive (and increasing) red-shift and positive (but decreasing) accelleration, the current time must be at some point between the start and the quarter-point of the cycle.  It is impossible for a sinusoid to have increasing velocity and increasing accelleration simultaneously.

I'm presuming a perfectly elastic sphere, correct?  If it's not perfectly elastic, my argument still holds, but the details are more complicated (essentially, A becomes an inverse exponential function of time and the radius decays to a steady-state value of R).

Date: 2006/03/07 18:16:08, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Um, Dean, did you actually read my post?  I thoroughly trashed GoP's claim that an oscillating crystalline sphere with a period of 24,000 years could produce the current observations of accellerating redshift.

I may be pedantic, but I sure as #### ain't the Ghost.

(I apologize if I misread your post - it looks like you're accusing me of being GoP)

Date: 2006/03/13 17:40:04, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Warning!  Math ahead!

The Ghost wrote:
Sorry - Wally world is closed. The moose outside should have told you how to plug numbers into your own formulae! At this time we are around theta=Pi/2. Now, this gives a value r''=-A, consistent with the accelerating universe the big clang theory fails to explain

That having been said, there is still some explaining to do. Wally mentioned is there is zero velocity there is no Doppler effect. Given his formulae, but not his plug-ins, that is what we would have r'=0. Now, if you would only scroll down to my follow-up post you would be aware that this quinitessence sphere has an intial velocity that I will derive shortly, so, no, the velocity is not zero at this point, and we have a Doppler shift!

In light of the fact that Wally is one of  the brightest evolutionists here, and the best he can do is botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining. No wonder ordinary people don't take your religion seriously!

Gee, you don't even make it one paragraph without an egregious math error.  Please review your math.  After substituting for x in my original post, the relevant equation should read

r" = -Asin(theta-pi/2)

As indicated, currently theta should equal approximately pi/2.  So if we substitute for theta, we get the following:

r" = -Asin(pi/2-pi/2)
r" = -Asin(0)
r" = 0

When castigating someone for poor math skills, GoP, make sure that your corrections are in fact correct!  Perhaps you don't understand the concept of phase shifting - that's the reason I included the -pi/2 factor in my original calculations.  As an electrical engineer, I like to put everything in terms of sin and let phase shifts take care of the rest.

Now, I did make two minor mistakes in my original post which I noticed later that day.  I wondered if GoP would catch them, so I let them stand (they didn't alter my point).  First, I incorrectly defined theta as t/T, when it should be (2pi/T)t.  Second, the derivations should properly read:

r = R + Asin(x)
r' = Ax'cos(x)
r" = -Ax'x'sin(x)

and x' is 2pi/T.  Turns out that GoP completely overlooked the actual errors and invented one instead.  Finally, I did manage to miss GoP's second post where he talks about there being an initial velocity - I am fully responsible for any misunderstandings that arose as a result.  So let's do a quick revision in light of that.  First, I want to point out that my original equation is equivalent to GoP's equation when the sphere is compressed and released from rest, allowing for sign conventions, phase shifts, and axis shifts.  So let's rework my equation to account for an initial velocity.  Since I found how to get iB to use Symbol font, I will use the greek letters instead of spelling them out.

First, the definitions.  Instead of using theta, I will use wt, where w is 2p/T, or the frequency in radians.  f is the phase shift.  If your computer does not have Symbol font installed, my post will likely not show up properly.  A is the amplitude of the vibration.

My revised equations are now:

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r' = -Awcos(wt+f)
r" = Awwsin(wt+f)

So how does this compare with GoP's final equation?


I introduce the constant R to accomodate the observer at the center of the sphere-GoP's observer is instead located on the radius about which the sphere is oscillating (the steady-state value).  Strictly speaking, his ODE solution should have included this factor (or rather, he assigned the constant a value of zero, I assigned it a value of R - there are an infinite number of possibilities, each corresponding to an observer's position).  So that leaves my sin and his cos+sin functions.  (Note: I use a negative value for the amplitude because the system is starting from compression)

First, the trivial case where the initial velocity r'(0)=0 and the initial state is compression.  In this case, our functions become (mine first, GoP's second)

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = r(0)cos(wt)

Now, I can convert cos(wt) into -sin(wt-p/2).  This gives me

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = -r(0)sin(wt-p/2)

Thus, if we set A=-r(0) (because our sign conventions are opposite) and f=-p/2, my original equation is shown to be equivalent to his equation.

Now for the case if there is initial velocity r'(0) and an initial compressed state.  We note that GoP's cos and sin functions have the same frequency w, which allows us to perform a phasor analysis.  Since this involves imaginary numbers, I'll just give the results - I don't want ectoplasm oozing out of the computer as Paley tries to grasp the concepts involved.  What a phasor analysis does is permit us to convert two sinusoids with the same frequency into a single sinusoid of the form Bsin(wt+q).  The variables are determined as follows

B^2 = r(0)^2 +(r'(0)/w)^2
q = arctan((r'(0)/w)/r(0))

(For those familiar with phasors r = r'(0)/w + jr(0))

Our equations as modified:

r = R - Asin(wt+f)
r = Bsin(wt+q)

Again, if A=-B (difference in sign convention) and f=q, the equations are equivalent.

So what we see is that by having an initial velocity, we merely introduce a phase shift and an increase in amplitude to the oscillation (ie, A>r(0) for non-zero r'(0)).  This does not violate the fundamental relationship I earlier elucidated, the point of which GoP seemed to miss.  If accelleration is near the maximum, velocity is near zero.  If velocity is near maximum, accelleration is near zero.  Velocity and accelleration can not simultaneously be both positive and increasing.  In his original post, GoP said that the accelleration is at a maximum, which would imply that velocity should be near zero.  Obviously, that is wrong, and that is what I was pointing out.  To rephrase what I also said, if GoP's model is true, given current observations, we must currently be in the first quadrant of the rebound from compression.  If GoP is correct about initial velocity, compression, and the time spans involved, that implies that the initial velocity must have been towards compression.

In short, GoP's model has some contradictions between what he has said about it and what it actually implies.  The most likely scenario (if the model was correct) given current observations is that we are almost at maximum red-shift and at nearly zero accelleration (incidentally, that puts r(t) near the steady-state point).  That accelleration should therefore soon become negative.  Values for r(0), r'(0), and w should let us determine how soon we should expect to see this change-over.

So who exactly has "botched calculations grounded in poor reading comprehension and quote-mining" Ghosty?  BTW, your speculation about my first name is incorrect, though if you play around with the Wally World phrase long enough you might get the right one.

Date: 2006/03/13 17:56:38, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
My quote of GoP is the original version.  His modification merely clarifies what he was saying, and I don't think quoting the original makes any qualitative difference to my response, so I'm just going to let my quote stand (it's what I was responding to, anyway).

Primarily, he didn't moot the point I was attempting to make in the original (whether I successfully communicated that point is another matter, of course).

Date: 2006/03/14 13:31:13, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Actually, eric, my understanding is that the red-shift is still a Doppler effect (certainly the language used at some sites I visited the other day would indicate so), but the cause is different.  GoP is combining the intra- and extra-galactic causes (gravity and expansion, respectively) into a single cause to explain the same effect.

I don't claim any authority on the subject, though.  And my post is probably rather simplistic in regards to the causes.

Date: 2006/03/22 16:30:58, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Larry is posting as Noname in the Hunter's Distortions thread.

Date: 2006/03/29 06:33:00, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Among black Americans, the primary mode of transmission of AIDS is heterosexual sex and IV drug use - this is especially true for black women.  So even restricting it to America does not assist thorluther's argument.

I am also aware of quite a large number of social scientists who are, in fact, arguing about whether many of these topics should be included in school curricula.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:58:20, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
No, socks are the larval form of wire coathangers.  I have empirical evidence (taken from several households in which I have lived) that the rate of disappearance of socks is directly correlated with the rate of appearance of new wire coathangers.  My mother, who to my knowledge first discovered this phenomenon, has independently verified my findings in on-going research dating back to the sixties. ;)

Date: 2006/03/29 11:57:40, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
....thordaddy may become very confused about everything.....

Too late.  I have empirical evidence thordaddy is already confused about everything - I believe it to be true.

Date: 2006/04/04 06:48:17, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
thorluther is lucid compared to zero.  That's pretty scary.

Date: 2006/04/04 09:01:19, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
What's the over-under on how soon Larry attempts to post in the Just Make Bizarre Stuff Up thread?  I bet he tries to refute my comment with a case (I have a specific one in mind) that in fact supports my comment.  Another Blum v. Stenson moment, as it were.

BTW, Wesley, does Larry's ban extend to AtBC?  I've been wanting to start a thread here (at AtBC) for detailed rebuttals of various ID arguments (so we can show that the arguments are refuted without derailing the original PT thread too badly), starting with Larry's 12 (13?) claims that Judge Jones messed up.  But I don't want to violate the rules (er, anymore than I have already - it's so hard to hold back when you've got a detailed rebuttal).  The idea is to have detailed rebuttals, like those I have posted, rather than the standard Lenny responses or the one-liners.

Date: 2006/04/04 15:57:50, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
8:15 eastern time as J. Simes.  I'll say the over got it.  Okay, next one.  Over/under for Wesley deleting it?  I'm placing the line at midnight eastern.

Date: 2006/04/04 17:39:06, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
It's the internet, dude.  What else, other than posting rights, do we have to wager?

I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.  Actually, there's a hypothetical he brings up that I think is worth addressing (can an appeal be pre-emptively mooted by voluntary cessation?), regardless of who brought it up.

Date: 2006/04/05 05:25:41, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:33:32, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Wesly, any comments on my question a day or two ago about starting a Larry et al refutation thread here at AtBC?

Date: 2006/04/10 02:02:16, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Also, the endorsement test is conjunctive of purpose and effect - both must be considered together and not separately.  The 3rd Circuit has precedent that the endorsement be considered first.  Therefore, purpose and effect were inextricably entwined for the majority of the opinion (pages 15-89 at a minimum) - Judge Jones's ruling did not and could not reach his ruling primarily on the purpose of the individuals.

Another related point: the endorsement test evaluates perceived purpose and effect, whereas the Lemon tests evaluate actual purpose and actual effect.  The difference is subtle, but conceivably could cause one test to rule in favor of a hypothetical plaintiff, while the other ruled in favor of the hypothetical defendant.  This is why the 3rd Circuit set precedent to evaluate both tests (to the best of my knowledge).

Date: 2006/04/11 16:20:46, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Not surprisingly, thorluther gets his definitions wrong.  A gay is a homosexual man, and a lesbian is a homosexual woman.  Of course, gay can also be generalized to include lesbians.

Also, while homosexuality may or may not be "abnormal", it is certainly natural - over 300 species of vertebrates and invertebrates are documented to engage in homosexual behaviors.  There are a number of evolutionary advantages and explanations for homosexual behavior.

Date: 2006/04/12 06:56:38, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread.  Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.

Date: 2006/04/12 08:17:09, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Not my name, I believe it was sir_toejam's name he posted under.  It was on a little used thread about to drop off the front page at the time he did it - it was what prompted Wesley to enforce the ban.  I think, but am not sure, that it was in the Feb 15 Dan Ely thread, but the posts were deleted.

Date: 2006/04/19 01:18:50, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Woo-hoo! I made Larry's List!

Now to visit his blog... <rubbing hands in anticipation>

Date: 2006/04/19 03:36:11, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I'm composing a comment there right now (the real history of his banning).  I will be responding (over time) to his list of 19 excuses why Judge Jones's decision should be ignored.  It should be amusing.

Date: 2006/04/19 06:16:46, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Sorry, it's 18 excuses, not 19.  Though I'm sure he'll continue artificially inflating the number.

Date: 2006/04/19 07:34:31, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
He has a thread in which he talks about why he thinks he got banned.  So far, it's the only one anyone has responded to (not including his test post).  Your perspective as stated would be appreciated, GoP.

BTW, did you ever look at my revised posting regarding the vibrating shell theory?  It's the third post down onthe last page of the LUCA thread.  Just curious if you had any objections or clarifications.

Date: 2006/04/19 18:01:11, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Thanks, BWE.  Really, I felt somewhat awkward posting my definitive refutations to his 12 now 18 objections where he might be banned.  It's a relief to have a place that he can respond freely.  Question.  Do people want me to cc my responses (I'll be crafting them one at a time) to this thread, or should I just link when I make a new argument?  It will take a while to get them all done, especially since I'm a Detroit sports fan (both my basketball and hockey teams have the best record in their respetive leagues and the playoffs start this weekend).

Date: 2006/04/20 16:26:37, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ April 19 2006,11:16)
Sorry, it's 18 excuses, not 19.  Though I'm sure he'll continue artificially inflating the number.

NOTICE -- I just made a major addition to my original post: I added another item to my list, item #19. I also made two minor significant additions: (1) on item #18, I mentioned the amicus brief submitted by 85 scientists; and (2) I added a sentence to the end of item #3.

Whenever I make significant changes in my posts, I will leave notice in the comment section.

Larry Fafarman

Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:34:45 PM

Can I call 'em or what?

Date: 2006/04/20 20:35:28, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Someone with a martyr complex.

Hey, Wesley, perhaps you could clear things up for us.  What actions did the admin take on Jan 26 when four commenters (thordaddy, M, Larry, and pro from dover) were found to be using the same IP address?  We know that Rule 6 was enforced on the address itself (at least temporarily), but did any of the four actually get banned, and how did the bans (if any) get enforced?  Basically, we're trying to figure out why Larry that he was personally banned.  And your emphasis on the word "believe" tells me there's more to the story than what I can research independently.

What effect did the revelation that the IP address was a major AOL gateway have on the actions taken?

This may delve into proprietary and private information, so I understand if you can't answer.

Date: 2006/04/20 20:43:31, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Oh, this is a beauty!  Caught him in the act of discovering egg on his face, I think.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on April 21, 2006 01:19 AM (e)

This is a test

Larry just posted the above comment in the Darwin Day in New Mexico thread.  Trying to sneak it past us.

Date: 2006/04/20 20:52:33, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I think I just spent the last 5 minutes laughing uncontrollably.  Larry has got to be wondering if I ever sleep.

"Hi, Larry!" :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/04/20 21:01:50, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
"Larry Fafarman.  Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time."

"Do you know him? Is he still banned?"

"Of course I know him.  He's me."

Date: 2006/04/20 21:55:56, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Well, it's gone now.  But my response is still up. Interesting to see how Larry responds to this latest development.  Probably put some sort of blame on me.

Date: 2006/04/21 01:45:36, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
BTW, we're just trying to establish the chronology of how Larry got himself banned, not trying to get him reinstated or anything like that.  Specifically, what happened that got him posting under multiple aliases.

One last question.  What is the message that you get when you try to post from an IP address that has been banned by PT (as opposed to the message you get when on an IP address that is on the external database), and how does it differ, if at all, from the message from the external database?

Date: 2006/04/23 17:04:32, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Oh, I'm sure it'll get even better once I start posting my responses to his inane 19 reasons.  Nothing he hates more than the presentation of facts contradictory to his beliefs.  I know, promises, promises.  I helped some friends move this weekend, and injured my eye Friday morning, but I have time on Monday, and either Wednesday or Thursday to devote to this.  I downloaded the entire electronic case file from the court website - there's documents there that aren't on any of the usual sites (including the NCSE).  Lots of material for me to assimilate, though.

BTW, I'm willing to distribute any of the ECF files (by document) if people ask.  The one type of file not available are the transcripts, but those are available at NCSE.  Be warned - some documents are over 1000 pages long and are thus split into multiple files (I have them saved by document number - for example, the decision is document 342)

Date: 2006/04/24 09:21:56, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Old news, RGD.  He last posted in that thread a month ago.  No point bringing it up now.

According to Larry, some comments are slow loading.  I'm inclined to believe him - the symptoms he described matched what I was observing.  Might be the traffic he's getting.

Date: 2006/04/24 09:39:33, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
He's new to it, it's free, and it's popular (the AOL of blogging, as it were).  In other words, it's free and he doesn't know better.

Date: 2006/04/27 08:46:24, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
That's all right, we don't expect anything from you until later next year.

Date: 2006/05/08 04:57:33, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
(1) Elimination by competition.  Your concept of less-evolved is inaccurate - "primitive" tribes should be just as evolved as we are.  They may have evolved slightly differently, but not enough to be reproductively isolated in the elapsed time since divergence.  The fact that they are so similar is strong indication that the core aspects of what make us human had fully evolved before they split off.

(2) No.  The features are in fact quite different.

(3) The non-biological differences arise from two genetic traits basically unique to humans - the ability to efficiently move without using our arms and the capacity for extensive abstract thought.  Yes.  There is one ape (at least) that has learned to sign.  Yes.  Some, but not extensive.  Yes, but very primitive.

(4) That's a question for society at large to answer.

(5) No, and this is a violation of Godwin's Law.  Just because there are natural trends, does not mean that it is imperative that we follow those trends - part of our evolutionary advantage is the ability to change the environment and the selective pressures, and another part is our concept of ethics and morals.  No - again, you are entirely incorrect in your concept of evolution.  Every individual in a generation is just as evolved as the rest of its generation.  We are in fact less evolved than most apes, since they have a shorter generation period, and significantly less evolved than bacteria, speaking strictly from a evolutionary standpoint.  Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make.  These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.

Date: 2006/05/08 05:08:10, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Norm said ...
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.

There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?[/quote]

It doesn't matter whether or not we believe this.  It is an inescapable consequence of evolution.  Therefore, you can't invoke evolutionary theory to support your arguments in the context you are using.  Not with any honesty, at least.

Date: 2006/05/08 18:49:27, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I had thought about suggesting you somehow bring up Blum v. Stenson to watch his (further) meltdown, when the sucker did it himself.  What do you think of my analysis, Colin?  Spot-on, or do you want to add some clarifications?  BTW, if you didn't see it earlier, go back to the PT thread he (didn't) link to and scroll up to see my initial smack-down of him regarding Blum v. Stenson.  He initially brought it up to dispute my argument that different attorneys could get different rates (thus nullifying his 9-10 attorneys of record argument).

Date: 2006/05/11 11:42:01, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
From his 20 reasons he thinks Jones is a hack, number 17.  Here is number 17, revised to exclude arguments not then advanced:

(17) Only "reasonable" attorney fee awards are allowed under the law, but Jones never said that he was going to reduce the plaintiffs` calculated fee award on the grounds that they had a grossly excessive number of attorneys of record, 9-10... In contrast, the defendants had just 4 attorneys of record -- three from the Thomas More Law Center and one local attorney ( who might not have played an important role in the case ).

That's it.  No reasons why 9-10 is excessive, just the bald assertation that the number was excessive.  I showed how having multiple lawyers with varying pay rates could reduce attorney fees, even if there were overlapping hours (such as during meetings), compared to just using one lawyer with a high pay rate.  He invoked Blum v. Stenson, saying that it prevented variable pay rates.  It's in the Dover Trap thread on PT, about midway through.

Date: 2006/07/02 17:16:06, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Apparently, my account has had some sort of glitch for the last month.  In spite of my attempts to find this thread and a number of other threads rumored to exist, this is the first time I have seen this thread.  I'm going to need some time to catch up - over 400 comments in this thread alone.  My apologies, GoP - I did not intentionally neglect you.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:15:55, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Well, we still have Larry's blog.  Every Larry post guaranteed inane.

Date: 2007/02/13 16:25:32, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
That's probably the real reason Billy Boy let Davey back into the fold...

Date: 2007/02/21 16:52:26, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
DaveTard has his beer-Googles on again:


Tell your friend to google

"laser" "chemical synthesis" "acetic acid"

and start reading. Tell me how many of the 40,000 hits it takes to confirm that lasers are a common part of the modern chemical production toolbox.

I'm no chemist and I'm not going to bother checking but I presume the laser can function like an enzyme by speeding up and/or preferentially maximizing certain reaction products. While this is probably not something available in the high school science labs it appears to be common in industrial application. I'd really like to see more science from the alleged scientists here.

First of all, it's about 35,000 hits using your criteria. Secondly, of the first 50 page hits that I had access to the text, the lasers were used for mass-spectrometry in all but one paper, where lasers where used to create polymers (in a process superficially similar to that used for creating computer chips). Conclusion: lasers are predominately used in chemical synthesis to check the purity of the product, not synthesize the compound.

DaveScot shows his stupidity yet again.

Date: 2007/02/21 18:03:09, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
LRM42 and I expose DaveTard's innumeracy on the same thread.  Somehow 50g of sodium dichloroacetate sold at $134 equals $40 per gram in DT's world.  Last I checked, that was about $2.68.

Date: 2007/10/10 12:54:44, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
For anyone interested, the error in the results can be traced to an easily discovered bug in one of their MATLAB scripts (now removed from their site).  The error is so big that putting a number on it is dicey.  My method of estimating it is different than Tom's, and I come up with 20 orders of magnitude as opposed to Tom's 13 orders of magnitude.

That would place D&M's error at somewhere between 20-30 cDmb.  For reference, one dembski (Dmb) is an error of about 65 orders of magnitude.  1 cDmb is the error introduced by rounding to the nearest order of magnitude - any result that produces an error greater than 1 cDmb should be considered a failure.  1 mDmb is about a 16% error.

Date: 2007/10/20 12:20:05, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
There's some truly awesome tard from ba77. He conflated "six orders of magnitude" with "six-fold."

That's an 8 cDmb error!

Date: 2007/10/23 15:01:00, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
The first was a study of the Ascension Island green sea turtles.  These turtles, which are notoriously faithful in returning to their breeding grounds every year, have been geographically isolated from other sea turtle populations for 60-80 million years (since the separation of South America and Africa).  A study by Brian Bowen and John Avise (abstract) found that the turtles are too genetically similar to other turtles to have been isolated for that length of time.  Their estimate - based on a sequence divergence rate of 2% per million years - was less than 1 million years.  They then go on to postulate that these sea turtles probably interbred with other populations; this despite the fact that sea turtles have never been observed to do so.  In fact, of the 28,000 females tagged over the past 30 years (at another rookery in Costa Rica), none has ever been observed at another nesting site.

Your claims as to what Bowen and Avise wrote are rather... odd.  Let me guess: you read the abstract, but did not actually read the paper, which is freely avaible from the link you provided.  This is extremely dishonest for anyone who claims to be interested in the evidence.

First, the hypothesized isolation was 40 million years or longer, rather than 60-80 million years.  While this is certainly nitpicking on my part (since 60-80 million years is longer than 40), it suggests that you didn't read the paper - very poor scholarship indeed.  But this is merely a semantic error.  Your other errors are much worse.  For example, the study included a Pacific colony as an outgroup.  The Pacific isolation only occured 3 million years ago (as you yourself noted), yet the Pacific colony showed more changes than the putative 40 million year separation!  Another major error is that you claim they postulated these populations interbred.  This is not quite true - they considered and mostly rejected it, and gave reasons for that rejection.  Rather, they postulated that it was the result of a recent colonization event, and that these events occur periodically.  Bonus question: what is their explanation for why and how periodic colonization events occur?  Finally, you claim that sea turtles have never been observed to change nesting sites.  Yet the paper clearly identifies several instances of this occuring - in the same paragraph they largely rejected the interbreeding argument.

I highly recommend that in the future you read your sources before citing them, if at all possible.  It will help prevent you from making such egregious errors.  Unfortunately, some people never do learn this lesson, and I enjoy rubbing their face in it after the first few times they make that error.  Of course, not all articles are free, and you might find yourself taking a calculated risk to make a point.  Just be prepared for the fall-out if your interpretation of the abstract is incorrect.

For now, I will assume poor scholarship on your part, rather than deliberate dishonesty.  Keep it up, though, and you will soon find yourself being called a pubjacker.

Date: 2007/10/24 10:10:25, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Another example is a study done by Scott Baker (from the abstracts on Google Scholar, I was unsure which one corresponds to this study) between Atlantic and Pacific humpback whales - which have been geographically isolated for 3 million years (since the isthmus of Panama separated the two oceans).  Again - based on a sequence divergence rate of 2% per million years - the estimated difference between these two isolated species was 6%.  The actual difference however, was found to be 0.27%.  Again, this forced the scientists to speculate about gene flows occurring between the oceans from time to time, or much slower sequence divergence rates.

I'm going to call shenanigans on this one.  In a 1993 paper, Baker et al. took samples from three major population groups of humpbacked whales.  Geographically, these are located in the North Atlantic, the North Pacific, and the southern oceans.  The results: there was a 3.808% difference in mitochondrial DNA between the North Atlantic and North Pacific populations, which would be the populations affected by the forming of the isthmus.  That's more than 1% per million years, well within the tolerance limit of the very rough 2%/my rule of thumb.  The paper, "Abundant mitochondrial DNA variation and world-wide population structure in humpback whales," can be found at PubMedCentral.  Please note: there's a lot of information there which I didn't bother to communicate, but needless to say, it doesn't uphold Daniel's numbers.

My guess is that Daniel found a paper that dealt solely with the southern oceans population, which is sub-divided into 6 groups.  These 6 groups are not geographically isolated, as others have noted.

Date: 2007/11/02 11:43:19, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I believe I know of the paper JAM is referring to - it came up last month (hint: 10^6 is not the same as six-fold).  I haven't read it myself, though.

I think we can safely assume that Daniel will maintain that even a million-fold reduction in function is still functional.

Date: 2007/11/02 20:14:57, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Rumor has it that PZ wears a codpiece.

Who doesn't?

Date: 2007/11/26 22:03:57, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
I look at the inner workings of life as a way to learn more about God.

From a theological perspective, I can't believe that God would have "dead wood" in the genome

These are contradictory.  You claim you want to learn more about God, yet when confronted with data that contradicts your preconceptions of God, you refuse to adjust your concept of God.  You don't want to learn about God, you just want science to confirm what you already believe.

I can easily conceive of a God that would have "dead wood" in the genome*.  I know of many people who accept that God might very well do something like that.  Yours is not a theological inquiry, its a blind quest for confirmation of deeply held beliefs.

*my religious beliefs or lack thereof are private and thus any statements I make about religion are made from a scholarly, not personal, perspective - as much as I am able, at least

Date: 2009/01/21 23:17:23, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
In a coordinated assault, DB and I got Larry to storm off in a huff over at Aetiology.  Still peddling the same co-evolution BS.

And yes, I do know who DB is  :p

ETA: Larry is moderating all posts and censoring at whim.  So much for his Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers.

Date: 2009/01/22 18:18:17, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Awww, how cute  :O  Larry's having a temper tantrum.

Date: 2009/04/02 16:32:23, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Why do I have a sudden craving for dessert?

Date: 2010/01/08 14:05:22, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Jan. 08 2010,09:46)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 08 2010,09:38)

Question for Barry:  WTF????!!! Why are you watching dog porn???!!!

Barry was conducting a "research study" on what is moral. His mom caught him in the middle of one of his sessions and warned him that it would soon be a blind study.

Don't you mean double blind?

Date: 2010/09/28 16:28:12, Link
Author: W. Kevin Vicklund
niwrad refudiates himself


CharlesJ #26,27

Thank you for your involvement in the probability calculations.

Let’s look at the problem from another point of view.

My test gives near 62% 30BMP-similarity. This means that, in average, in 10000 searched patterns we have 6200 matches and 3800 mismatches. The ratio between matches/mismatches is 6200/3800 = 1.63.

In your hypothesis of two genomes that differ only 1% in average every 100 bases there is a mismatch. To simplify the scenario let’s imagine that these mismatches are uniformly distributed along the coupled genomes A and B, as the tags in a ruler. Now let’s consider a random 30 base pattern in A. In every range of 100 bases we have 70 successive positions where there are no mismatches followed by 30 positions where there are mismatches. Now we have that the ratio between matches/mismatches is roughly 70/30 = 2.3.

Since 1.63 is lesser than 2.3 I wouldn’t say that the 30BMP test agrees well with a 1% difference, rather with a larger difference.

Ah, but let's see what it does "agree well with."  I note that nimrod's ratio is generalizable to r=(1/x-30)/30, where x is the difference in decimal notation between the two species.  So given an r=1.63, what is our x?  Rearranging terms, we get:


Plugging in r and simplifying:

x=0.0127, or 1.27%

In other words, according to nimrod's own calculations, chimps and humans are 98.73% similar.

Rounded up, that's 99%.