AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: argystokes

form_srcid: argystokes

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: argystokes

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2006/01/25 14:58:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, the only animal genomes that have been sequenced are humans, rats, dogs, chickens, and fruit flies.  I'm unaware of any studies (and I'm sure your internet search is as good as mine).  I don't suppose there's really any impetus for the comparison.

I'd guess we're about as similar to dolphins as we are to cows, as they both belong in the same clade.  The higher intelligence of humans and dolphins would be an example of convergent evolution.

Date: 2006/01/31 18:09:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, it's good to see the SW is back up to their normal quality.  The article last week on Reichert and the Green River Killer was atrocious.

Date: 2006/01/31 19:28:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Ug.  I retract my statement.  The writer compares the Dover plaintiffs' legal team to the Steelers' offensive line, when we've got a 3-pro-bowler O-line right here in Seattle.  Sheesh.

Date: 2006/02/07 04:46:59, Link
Author: argystokes
####, too slow already!  Maybe they realized that intelligently-designed antibiotic resistance wasn't consonant with their theology, erm, science.

Date: 2006/02/08 09:20:26, Link
Author: argystokes
A hilarious "Oh Sh!t" moment from JAD:

Check out comments 18 and 19 in particular.

I love it so!

Date: 2006/02/22 15:41:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.

Date: 2006/03/09 20:09:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Silly Milly, that's (-1) points for referring to yourself in the 3rd person!

Date: 2006/03/14 06:33:38, Link
Author: argystokes

My take: The poll is significant because my opinion (as a lay-person) counts just as much under the Constitution as the opinion of someone in the National Academy. Darwinists, with their elitist mentality, are trying to violate my equal protection RIGHTS under the 14th amendment and have me be ruled by those of a class not recognized in the Constitution: “scientists” (by the Academy definition)

Comment by Ryan — March 13, 2006 @ 8:53 pm

That's right folks.  Under the equal protection clause, ALL aspects of EVERYTHING have to be taught.  Imagine replacing "scientists" with "historians" and see where it takes you.  I hope this guy sticks around, he may be near as dumb as Red Reader.

Unless I get some evidence that anyone here is dumber than Red Reader, this will be your last post -ds

Date: 2006/03/15 11:35:19, Link
Author: argystokes
Shi slides on in here and declares:

Almost all facts that appear to falsify Darwinism have been explained away by invoking ad hoc hypothesis. I have recently found a fact that can falsify Darwinism. To my knowledge, this fact has never been previously recognized as odd by either the creationists or Darwinists. No one seem to have paid attention to it. But that is not surprising because none of the present ideas will lead people to it. I came to it from a novel perspective which I will share with the public in the future. This fact is the only one you need to use to falsify Darwinism because no Darwinists that I have met had any clue.

... and is now preaching to scientists about humility?  Holy macirony!

Date: 2006/03/15 14:05:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,19:14)

Please do not misrepresent me.  To make the record clear, I believe most people (scientist, ID people, religious people, Darwin people) are honest human beings.  But all it takes is one single individual to cause the majority of the society to think in one way or the other.  If that individual is an honest truth seeker, we have a major advance in knowledge, as illustrated by countless individuals in history.  On the other hand, if we have an influential individual that is honestly fooling himself and the society, we will have the majority of the society repeating together with him what he is telling us.  In such a case, I would not accuse the majority of people being dishonest.  Rather, I would call that influential individual a fool if he is honest and a liar if he is dishonest.

It's really too bad that science doesn't have some sort of method of review by scientific peers to make sure this doesn't happen.

Also, for what reason would you doubt the common ancestry of chimps and hunams?  The molecular and paleontological evidence is certainly striking.  What other origin for chimps would you suggest, if they are not closely related to the other great apes such as humans and gorillas?

Date: 2006/03/21 13:07:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Tiax @ Mar. 21 2006,18:26)
I put up a post saying "I don't think Jingle Bells is on par with Faust," just to see if I can get Dave to kick me out of his country.  I'm not even sure that Jingle Bells is a christmas song, but it seemed like a good enough choice to get Dave's permission to call myself an unamerican devil worshipper.

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

Jingle Bells is most certainly not a Christmas song, but rather a "sleighing song" (or perhaps, if one is so inclined, a slaying song).  Nevertheless, my sister's elementary banned it for being a Christmas song.

I also noticed that the post was filed under "Intelligent Design."  Is part intelligent design's scientific toolbox identifying acts designed to be non-fundiChristian?  It would appear so.

Date: 2006/03/26 17:47:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Tiax, your comment in the missing link blog is a thing of beauty.  And when Dembski's Hand of Justice finds out what "dt" means, you'll join us among the banned.  Congrats!

Date: 2006/03/26 18:54:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Hello, Uncommon Descent denizens.  This is the place where we gather to make mockery of your blog moderaters, and sometimes your fellow commenters.  It's sort of like MST3K.

If you're sick of the antics of the crowd over there, please grab a beer, sit back, and join our little forum as we take a lighthearted look at the ricockulous antics of WAD et al.

Date: 2006/04/04 21:04:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Henry J-

Yes, it would require two viruses in the same cell.  If there are two viruses in a cell, then there are two sets of DNA (or RNA - depending on the virus) in the cell as well.  While packaging up its DNA into a new viral partical, Virus A might "accidentally" pick up some DNA from Virus B as well.  This is the type of scenario that is being proposed for the conversion of H5N1 from an Avian flu to a really nasty Human flu.

On topic, from Michaels7 in the ACLU thread:
Not familiar with constitutional law, but could any of you tell me what specific ‘constitutional right’ is being protected or enforced? Is this the establishment clause? And thus ID = religion meme?

In reality, the only way it could be against the constitution even with the prior false ruling of establishment clause to the contrary is if a “teacher” specifically states while teaching ID, that the Designer is God, Allah, Bhudda, or any one of 3000 Hindu Gods. I’m not sure how this case was lost unless the judge had intent to squash it all along or the ID lawyers could not make this point of distinction stick clearly.

I think the next case should be brought up by a teacher who challenges with ID as scientific, utilizing IRC and CSI.

Yeah, if Behe had been on the stand to defend irreducible complexity, there's no way ID would have lost!

Date: 2006/04/12 18:36:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Henry J,

As I understand it, a zygote is a single cell, a blastocyst is a clump of cells, and an embryo is a clump of cells that has implanted into the uterus.

Date: 2006/04/26 19:06:19, Link
Author: argystokes
...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?

Date: 2006/05/01 17:14:55, Link
Author: argystokes
I think Fross is about to go....


“The rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang (Gen 1:1) would cause a time dialation effect …
Which in turn would cause mankind to argue about the age of the universe ..”

That is true and I never thought about that! Spacetime would be distorted and this would also make a spherical earth look flat from a certain vantage point. Seriously, I think those ancients were onto something here.

Comment by Fross — May 1, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

Date: 2006/05/04 19:33:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Evolution isn’t seen after the fact. It’s presumed after the fact. Big difference. -ds

Oh, absolutely.  A trait has a particular abundance in a population at time point A, then has a different abundance at time point B.  But it's presumed that the population evolved, cuz, you know, the population might still be the same, even though it's different.  Or something.

On the other hand, that laughter hypothesis does seem pretty asinine.

Date: 2006/05/06 19:14:15, Link
Author: argystokes
When the mormons knock on your door, do you argue with them all day, trying to convert them?

On the other hand, if you ask them to mow your lawn, there's a pretty decent chance that they will.

Date: 2006/05/08 15:40:21, Link
Author: argystokes
... and it's gone...  what was the post about?

Date: 2006/05/09 10:24:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Hi AFDave,

I'm looking forward to your thesis on why common design is a superior interpretation of the evidence than common descent.  I'd like to make sure you include a section on endogenous retroviral sequences and how they factor into your hypothesis, keeping in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not ERVs have function, but only that we can recognize ERV sequences as such.

Date: 2006/05/12 16:36:15, Link
Author: argystokes
Hi AFDave,

Let me see if I can add something to the conversation.

You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO").  You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it).  That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO.

If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO.  This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species.

So there are two possible scenarios:
(1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies).  This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon.

(2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C.

It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above.  Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population).  Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that).  Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other.

I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario.  With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1).

I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model.

So how's about it, Dave?  Shall we do some science?

Date: 2006/05/16 05:12:16, Link
Author: argystokes
AF Dave wrote:

If Scenario 1 above is confirmed, then it is perfectly logical to assume that the Creator designed apes and humans separately, then mutations later caused the GULO gene to break independently in both.  What is so unbelievable about this?

Lack of parsimony (and remember, it's not just apes but monkees too).

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.

Date: 2006/05/16 05:46:30, Link
Author: argystokes
How does common design suggest that these breaks occurred multiple times independently?

Well, jeez, we've had a whole 6 thousand years for it to happen, that's how!

Date: 2006/05/16 06:06:42, Link
Author: argystokes

If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together.  Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings.  Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well.  And there's no such thing as a bignose club.

Kids with big noses and other features that look alike is in an entirely different universe than what we are talking about.

So in other words, you accept the principal of parsimony only when it's convenient.  Got it.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:32:25, Link
Author: argystokes
If you had 5 billion TIMES 5 billion years, it would still not be a plausible story to me, the odds are so staggeringly small for life as we see it to come into existence and develop the way evolutionists say it developed.

What the phalloidin are you yammering on about now?  Didn't you use the cosmic fine-tuning argument as your primary proof for God just a few days ago?  Are you seriously saying that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, but not fine-tuned enough for life to exist without divine intervention?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:35:17, Link
Author: argystokes
argy stokes!

Date: 2006/05/16 12:02:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Ha!  Now I'm the author of the two most worthless posts ever, sucka!

Date: 2006/05/17 04:03:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh, by the way ... maybe I should have clarified this earlier ... YECs have no problem with the idea of Apes and Monkeys having a common ancestor.  We actually agree that they did.  I think Noah took a pair of genetically rich "ape/monkeys" on the ark and these diversified into the many varieties we see today.

You believe in the diversification of hundreds of primate species in just the last few thousand years?  My friend, you're a bigger believer in macroevolution than anyone else here!

Date: 2006/05/17 17:36:14, Link
Author: argystokes
I suppose that we're living in the year 36 ABB*, then.

[strike]And answer the question, superdeaddude's just looking for a number, it shouldn't take that long to type.[/strike]  Aaaaaaaaand, now I'm the one lacking reading comprehension

*After Beatles Breakup

Date: 2006/05/18 06:31:25, Link
Author: argystokes
This is my first proposal on this thread.  Do you seeing anything about an "inerrant Bible"?  I don't.

From the preamble in the first post of the thread:

There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!

So you claimed that you would show that the Bible is literally true (ie, inerrant).  Go jump in a lake, Dave.  Your pants are on fire.

Date: 2006/05/18 18:29:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Thomas Neal?

Date: 2006/05/18 20:12:27, Link
Author: argystokes
I know we're not supposed to post his comments here, but I can't resist.  This is the most sensible (and awesome) thing JAD has said in decades, I'm sure.  From his NEW blog:

Larry's forum is interesting. When there is no moderation, the mindless jackals of cyberspace are attracted like flies to meat to vent their hideous spleens in gay abandon.

And there's your new handle, STJ.  "Hideous Spleen."

Date: 2006/05/21 13:56:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote Discussion Board welcomes our newest member johnnyb making a total of 604 registered members.

I hope he's here to defend the stupidity documented here in this thread.  I'm sick of AFDave, anyway.

Date: 2006/05/22 05:09:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"

Yeah!  And if I want to kill my children, and I was the one who created my children, then how can you say, "No, that's wrong?"

Date: 2006/05/22 05:18:03, Link
Author: argystokes

Can we get that post archived (1141) on the mirror site?  Something tells me it won't be around for very long.

Date: 2006/05/22 06:43:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, ye olde Thylacine.  Here are some videos of the last known survivor.

(Wipes tear)

Date: 2006/05/24 08:55:42, Link
Author: argystokes
OK, I just have a couple quick questions for AFDave on his Creator God Hypothesis (in bold so it doesn't get lost in all the comments)

1.  Did humans have an immune system before the fall?
2.  If so, why?  If not, where did it come from?

EDIT:  If your answer is "I don't know," then what would you predict?

Date: 2006/05/24 17:13:03, Link
Author: argystokes
For Stockwell et al,

It is probably imprudent at this point to try to try and educate AFD any further on scientific matters.  He's admitted he isn't interested in the science.  What he wants is science's best arguments for things that contradict his literal reading of the Bible so that he preemptively teach the 6 year olds the "refutations" for the evidence.  That way, when they hear the evidence at school or read it in a book, they'll think "I've heard this before, and that nice man Dave Hawkins showed me why it was wrong," without examining the evidence for themselves.  Remember the very first thing he said when he came here?  "Give the 5 best arguments for evolution in your own words."

At this point it really is time to force Dave to come up with arguments and evidences of his "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis," which should really be just as amusing as watching him dance around scientific explanations with deliberate obtuseness.  You know, annoying Lenny style, or variations thereof.  Otherwise we're just helping him lie for Jesus.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:43:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ May 25 2006,05:32)
World Book, 1993 edition, "Evolution" entry ...      
Evolutionary theory holds that all species probably evolved from a single form of life which lived about 3-1/2 billion years ago ... The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from many scientific fields.  When a theory is supported by so much evidence, it becomes accepted as a scientific fact.  Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact
Keep in mind, the kid reading this is assuming ToE=All life from single celled ancestor=Proven Fact.  The article then sprinkles in a fair amount of truth regarding speciation, etc. and then under "Evidence of Evolution" under the heading "Direct observation of evolution", we read ...        
Other examples of rapid, observable evolutionary change have occurred among certain insects and disease-eating bacteria ... Some disease-causing bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics in a similar way.
So what does the kid take away from this?  ToE=All life came from a Single Cell ancestor=Scientific fact, and by the way, disease resistant bacteria proves it.

Only if the kid were an idiot.  The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you?  It says

1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and
2. Evolutionary change has been observed and
3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution

Now don't lie about it again.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:58:39, Link
Author: argystokes

I suppose that counts too, doesn't it?

OK, Dave, forget all that stuff except where I told you not to repeat the lie.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:23:22, Link
Author: argystokes
You know, the ones resistant to phage infection.  I'm sure that's what he's talking about, right?  What I want to know is what are "disease-eating bacteria?"

Date: 2006/05/25 07:15:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Argystokes ...
1.  Did humans have an immune system before the fall?
2.  If so, why?  If not, where did it come from?
Good question.  I'll look into it and see if anything can be determined.

Hey, remember that part where I said, "If the answer is, 'I don't know,' what would you predict?"

How about some predictions of your Creator God Hypothesis, and fewer analogies?

Date: 2006/05/25 15:11:25, Link
Author: argystokes


Date: 2006/05/25 15:43:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Great Ape is anti-ID.  His comment was definitely parody.

Date: 2006/05/25 15:54:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Then you must be an idiot.  Because I'll wager that you read just this kind of stuff in World Book and National Geographic and at the museum and so on when you were a kid and combined with everything else you learned about evolution, you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no need for a Creator God because look ...

If you really must know, learning evolution had nothing to do with me "losing my faith" (if a 9 year old can have faith).  It was simply lack of evidence (no prayers answered, never any miracles occurring, etc.).  And lack of evidence is still the reason for my atheism.  I don't remember if I'd learned about evolution yet.  Definitely knew a lot about dinosaurs at the time, though.

Date: 2006/05/25 16:28:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Careful Steve, it would be a great shame for Godwin's Law to be invoked on the greatest thread in history.

Date: 2006/05/25 18:04:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Sheesh, this is getting pathetic. He almost sounds like he believes his own denials.

You know what, I think he does.  And he probably really is insane.  It's probably best not to egg him on at all.  That'd be like making fun of the kids in the special olympics.

Date: 2006/05/26 07:02:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Hey, Dave, about that immune system...

Date: 2006/05/26 07:22:42, Link
Author: argystokes
One does not need to be able to identify all the original kinds in order to have a valid hypothesis that there were, in fact, distinct created kinds.

Yeah!  He doesn't need to ape your pathetic level of detail!

Date: 2006/05/26 12:26:45, Link
Author: argystokes

It's a flat circle, ie, a disc:
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

"22": It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

"23": That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
(KJV Isaiah 41:21-23)

Date: 2006/05/27 04:03:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, Dave, when are you going to answer my question about the immune system?


Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

I think that these things should be answered before Incorygible gives you any more answers.  Right, Incorygible?

Date: 2006/05/27 10:00:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Hey Argy ... this betrays your mistaken impression that I wanted some info from Incorygible.

Hmm, I wonder where I got that impression?


I have analyzed your '1985 Evolutionary Predictions' piece ...

Questions ...

You say you start with the fossil record back in 1985 ...

1) How did you come up with the 8mya and 5mya numbers?  
2) On what basis did you propose that gorillas diverged at 8mya, then chimps and humans diverged at 5mya?


If you will recall, he said it was important to him to hear my analysis of his piece.

Ah, so your analysis is "I dunno, I'm too lazy to look up some of the pertinant information.  You look it up for me, but don't get back to me."  Got it.

Oh, and do you predict that humans had an immune system before the fall?  If so, why, and if not, where did it come from?

Date: 2006/05/27 15:17:15, Link
Author: argystokes

4. I'm sure there are others

Some allow the bacterium to pump the drug out of the cell.

Date: 2006/05/28 07:54:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Yeah, I've heard this argument used before.  It was by some guy called Half-Life on IIDB a few months ago.  That guy actually realized (or pretended to realize) the error of his ways and freaked out a bit, then disappeared.

Questions for Dave:
1.  How do you know the writing is 5500 years old
2.  Immune system before the fall...?

Date: 2006/05/29 07:25:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, are you going to answer my immune system question?  I'm beginning to think you are insincere about your belief in your UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis.  In case you forgot,

Does your hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?  If so, why, and if not, where did it come from?

Is there something particularly embarrassing about this question that makes you ignore it repeatedly?

Date: 2006/06/01 06:51:24, Link
Author: argystokes
I will hereby consider your silence regarding my immune system question, which I have asked half a dozen times, to be admission that your model cannot make any prediction regarding this.  I won't be back.

Date: 2006/06/01 07:11:22, Link
Author: argystokes

While I think a case could be made that AFDave's intentional deception of children and his discouragement of their critical thinking may be a form of abuse, I think accusations of molestation are over the top and inappropriate.  Unless you can demonstrate that Dave derives some sexual pleasure from brainwashing the kids, you ought to stop referring to Dave as a child molestor.

Date: 2006/06/03 04:09:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Dude, we've got a whole thread dedicated to that blog.  No need to post their crap here.

Date: 2006/06/05 05:54:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Just something comforting --for the 300,000 children under the age of FIVE who die each year of AIDS--eh, GoP?

Based on global prevalence, this seems to be too high by an order of magnitude.  Do you have a source for this, Deadman?

Date: 2006/06/05 06:13:52, Link
Author: argystokes
I would doubt that engineers are more likely to be creationists than most other people.  I think that scientists are much less likely to be creationists, for obvious reasons.  Engineers, however, often seem to think of themselves as scientists, so they feel qualified to pontificate at length as if they are an authority on the subject.

I think Chris' equation fits the bill pretty nicely.

Date: 2006/06/05 06:21:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, that 610,000 is for children under 15 years, not under 5, but I'll not belabor the point.

Date: 2006/06/05 07:16:44, Link
Author: argystokes
I yield, God Damnit!

Date: 2006/06/05 08:54:27, Link
Author: argystokes

Well, I said I was done, but since you've been answering questions today, I think I'll try again (6th time I believe):

1.  Does your Creator God Hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?
2.  If so, what was it for, and if not, where did it come from?

Date: 2006/06/05 20:04:42, Link
Author: argystokes
PT is more, uh, uptown than ATBC...

Nonsense!  I heard it from Andrea Bottaro that PvM's going to try and top Steve Story's Poll with "Who is most likely to produce fertile offspring with a chimpanzee, Larry Fafarman, Dembski, or Berlinski?"  And he'll also find a way to sneak in the phrase "Scientifically vacuous" or "Scientific vacuity."

Well, at least one of those things is true.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:08:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 06 2006,20:48)

Argystokes ...      
1.  Does your Creator God Hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not?
2.  If so, what was it for, and if not, where did it come from?
I don't know.  I'm spending all my time studying the RATE Group now, so I'll file this away and let you know as soon as I find out.  I have not done a search to see if ICR has a position on this.


They don't.  Neither does AiG.  I'm not asking about them.  It's your hypothesis (see the thread title?).  What do you predict, disregarding outside sources.  It's OK to be wrong... science sometimes is.  I'm just looking for a two sentence explanation.  No need for research; just pick which makes more sense to you.  H311, just go with how you feel, since according to Doug Moran, that counts as evidence too!

Date: 2006/06/06 20:46:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Arden, that's quite the facelift!

Did you do it for Thordaddy?  I hear he does like those smooth cheeks...

Date: 2006/06/06 20:52:49, Link
Author: argystokes
No, but there is one for what T-daddy likes.

Here's another:
         ---| ^|        
        /     \/     (__)
       /Tdad\\    (oo)
       |  /---^^---\/  
       | /|         ||  
       || ||------|||

Date: 2006/06/06 21:13:38, Link
Author: argystokes
All DNA uses three base codons, the codon patterns are the same, etc.

Survey says:


Date: 2006/06/07 12:09:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense!

Date: 2006/06/08 21:00:03, Link
Author: argystokes
As Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Date: 2006/06/09 05:24:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Immune systems basically distinguish ‘self’ from ‘non-self,’ which would be important for maintaining bodily integrity even in the pre-Fall world. Of course such systems became even more important in the post-Fall world, to protect against such disease-causing organisms.

Maintaining bodily integrity?  In a perfect world?  What does that even mean?  I'll tell you.  It means that Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland are delightfully stupid.

Date: 2006/06/09 13:04:05, Link
Author: argystokes
I for one would love the ID folks to change to IE and start including theistic evolutionists in their big tent.  Then they could really send the message, "It's not science we're fighting, it's atheism!"

Which would get them totally boned in every court case, as they have for the last 25 years.

Date: 2006/06/10 17:37:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2006,19:01)
Did Paley fail so badly in modeling a geocentric universe that he suicided his thread?


no, it's still there, and he thinks he's about to make a "revelation" of some kind.

Take a look at today's post on Good Math/Bad Math.  It's about geocentrism.  If Paley ever finishes his model someone ought to send it to Mark.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:24:29, Link
Author: argystokes
You have this exactly backwards.  Since we're comparing the differences, 40% is the more accurate figure.  You are just being mentally blocked by what you call your own "common sense" - which is really just another way of saying "willful ignorance".  I suspect you are just trying to brush off the "1/2%" amounts as margins of error, when that is simply not the case.

But you see, Dave knows 8 year olds won't know the difference, and that's all that matters for Honest Dave.

Did you ask your fighter pilot buddies yet about that term for what a dishonest shirker is called?  It starts with Shi…

I remember that guy... I guess now we know where his name comes from!

Date: 2006/06/12 05:29:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Looks like Michaels7 might want to cut back on the smack

Is heroin a call? Not by us, but thru Him, all things are possible.

No, dear, that's addiction calling, not Him.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:42:28, Link
Author: argystokes
So, Dave, are chimpanzees genetically more similar to humans or gorillas, and is this difference statistically significant?

Date: 2006/06/12 06:39:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Whoops, it looks like you missed my question.  AFD, are chimpanzees statistically significantly more similar genetically to humans or gorillas?  I'd like to hear you answer this question directly.

Date: 2006/06/12 07:19:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:09)
Whoops, it looks like you missed my question.  AFD, are chimpanzees statistically significantly more similar genetically to humans or gorillas?  I'd like to hear you answer this question directly.
Sure, if by 'statistical significance' you mean a difference that we can measure.  Obviously, we can measure 1/2%.

But it is nothing to write home about if you are using the data to try to show how much closer chimps are to humans than gorillas are.

No, that's NOT what statistical significance means, and I'm not making up new definitions for it, so you haven't answered my question.

From StatSoft, Inc.
The statistical significance of a result is the probability that the observed relationship (e.g., between variables) or a difference (e.g., between means) in a sample occurred by pure chance ("luck of the draw"), and that in the population from which the sample was drawn, no such relationship or differences exist. Using less technical terms, one could say that the statistical significance of a result tells us something about the degree to which the result is "true" (in the sense of being "representative of the population"). [technical definition follows]

Date: 2006/06/12 07:37:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (BWE @ June 12 2006,10:33)
Davey, why do you ignore the point that I accepted your bet and you never paid up?

Or do you still think that you could win?

He also deleted your conversation with him on his blog. Possibly the whole post; I don't remember what the original topic was.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:49:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,08:43)
In other words ... JonF is tired of being shown how his rebuttals aren't working and can only come up with vague one-liners.

Good.  We will move on to the next topic.

I don't think those questions are particularly vague, Dave.  Let's see your calculations.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:53:52, Link
Author: argystokes
post removed by author

Date: 2006/06/14 07:03:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (incorygible @ June 14 2006,09:17)
Quote (argystokes @ June 14 2006,10:49)
I don't think those questions are particularly vague, Dave.  Let's see your calculations.

argystokes, there HAS to be a better way to celebrate your birthday!  (Have good one.  ;)  )

Heh, already did (yesterday).  Now I'm just avoiding studying for prelims.

Date: 2006/06/15 08:02:43, Link
Author: argystokes
You apparently don't understand the issue of separation of church and state.  You need to read 'The Myth of Separation' by David Barton.  Here is an article from him, but you should read his book.  David Barton's works are some of the best documented you will ever find.  He is one of the few academics that I know of that almost exclusively uses the higher legal standard for documenting his quotes.  Most academics use a lesser standard than this.  Here is what he says ...

Uh oh, Dave.  Barton has been caught using unsourced quotes (likely made up by himself) and forced to admit it:

Of course, I know you've read this page for two reasons:
(1) I pointed it out to you on your blog.  Then you deleted the entire thread (why would you do that, Dave?)
(2) Your description of the "higher legal standard" comes directly from the intro paragraph to the page where Barton admits the quotes are unsourced.

But if Barton uses a "higher standard" for sourcing his quotes, then why do the fake ones appear in his book anyway?  He is essentially arguing, "Since once in a while I source my quotes, and sometimes other academics don't source quotes, I use a higher standard of excellence in my work than them."  Ridiculous.

Now you have a new project:
Prove that most academics use unsourced quotes to bolster their claims.  Here, I'll throw you a bone:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson a made-up quote.

See, this stuff is easy to find.  I'm sure you'll be able to prove that folks who write books that say the US was founded on freedom of and freedom from religion are just making stuff up, right?

Date: 2006/06/16 06:02:52, Link
Author: argystokes
Stephen -

Check out the thread on board mechanics.  In short, you can find the invisible posts by changing the last number in the url.  For example:

CODE=02;f=14;t=1950 change to CODE=02;f=14;t=1958

Date: 2006/06/19 05:15:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, some people say you're boring, which I just can't understand.  The hilarity of conversations that go like this is just impossible to not laugh at:

Dave: Here's a sentence in 3 languages to prove portuguese is french and spanish mixed!

Arden: Here's 3 more languages to add.  See, they all look the same.  It's called a language family.

Dave: My chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than your chart of 6, which includes my chart!

Date: 2006/06/19 06:14:14, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm talking about this:


Here's the chart AFD gave:

Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

Here are three additional languages Dave neglected:

Romanian: avea om corp noapte fiu facut bun si
Italian: avere uomo corpo notte figlio fatto buono e
Catalan: haver home cos nit fill  fet bo i

Linguistic evidence, Dave, linguistic evidence.  OK.  Fine linguistic evidence.  I've given it several times.  Here it is again.  Arden, your chart shows that your 3 languages belong to the same family ... wonderful.  We knew that already.  Not very novel info.  But again, my chart gives more detail in that it shows a definite influence on Spanish by French to produce Portuguese ALL WITHIN the same language family.
(my emphasis)

Of course, having to synthesize two parts of a chart is very difficult, so the illustrious hairless Chatfield did it for you (see p. 74):
Dave, you ignored this the first three times I posted it. I want your comments now.

You posted a cognate set with French, Portuguese and Spanish that you (delusionally) thought supported your argument.

I have doubled the data. Here it is, again:

Portuguese: haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
Spanish: haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Catalan: haver home cos nit fill  fet bo i
French: avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et
Italian: avere uomo corpo notte figlio fatto buono e
Romanian: avea om corp noapte fiu facut bun si

Now, with your amount of basic data DOUBLED here, would you like to tell me why your original data proved your point, and why this new data does not completely destroy your theory?

Are you suffering from brain rot?

Yip.........Yip.....Yip...Yip...YipYipYipYipYipYip, ahhhhh huh, ahhhhhhh huh

Date: 2006/06/20 14:40:34, Link
Author: argystokes

Without ever backing out in my claims, I pointed out to him how wrong he was... and we claimed he won.

Beware them typos, there be quote miners in these waters... (this message will disappear upon correction of typo)

Date: 2006/06/22 06:45:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, Randy has finally "come out" against eating polyester and wearing shellfish:

That’s okay. They’ve already excised inconvenient verses from Leviticus. Why not move on and excise Genesis? The question is…at what point do they stop being ‘Christian’ and become something else?

Comment by rmagruder — June 22, 2006 @ 11:36 am

Don't hate homos?  Accept modern science?  What kind of a Christian are you?!

Date: 2006/06/22 06:55:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Boh Ring!

More fluddinark, please.

Date: 2006/06/22 07:21:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ June 22 2006,10:08)
Quote (afdave @ June 22 2006,11:45)

It was interesting to read the latest psychoanalysis of me and to hear your responses to the new guy.  I have often thought it strange that some of you guys are worried about the lurkers "converting" to YECism here.  Personally, I don't expect it now and I never have.  It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception.  Everyone is familiar with the 'Love is blind' concept.  Well this is the same way.  Skeptics can't stand those "goddam christians/muslims/jews/hindus/" and the feeling is so strong that, like the love-struck teenager, they cannot see the glaring errors in their theories.  

Woo-hoo!  Now that's the stuff I've been waiting to hear.  Man, I thought Dave was never going to come right out and say it.

Personally, I'm waiting for the "I used to be an atheist, because I was angry with God" testimony.  That one always gives me the giggles.

Date: 2006/06/22 12:06:29, Link
Author: argystokes
Fine.  I agree GENETIC distance is close.  What's your point?  My point is that if all you look at is genetics then you are blissfully naive and hopelessly misguided.  You've had a virtual lobotomy and you don't even know it.

Tell me Dave, what [edit: are the units of] hereditary material of organisms called?  You probably learned it in elementary school.

Date: 2006/06/22 12:17:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, Eric, you gave it all away!

Dave, forget my last question.  It's summer.  Go grab a mitt and throw a baseball around with your son.  Seriously.

Date: 2006/06/23 08:23:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Here's a question, Dave.  Early on in this thread you said you believed that the evidence convinced you the Bible is correct absolutely, rather than the other way around.  My question is, which evidences for a young earth/implications of a young earth with flood disaster would you believe if you had never even heard of the Bible?  Obviously it can't be all of them; for example, your only "evidence" for N. American Amerinds having written language is based upon the Bible.

As an aside, in your opinion (since churches disagree on this matter), if one dies never having heard of the Bible or God, do they go to ####?

Date: 2006/06/23 09:04:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2006,11:58)
Thou shalt not kill never applied to God ... people are owned by Him ... He can do as He pleases with them.
This is why muslims call themselves Slaves of Allah.

Date: 2006/06/23 13:24:24, Link
Author: argystokes
My question is, which evidences for a young earth/implications of a young earth with flood disaster would you believe if you had never even heard of the Bible?
Other historical records would be the best.  Then stratigraphy, C14, dendro, etc.

I guess I was unclear.  I mean which of the evidences that you have talked about over the 87 pages of comments here would you support having never heard of the Bible.  A worldwide flood?  Catastrophic movement of the continents?  Earth created in 6 days?  Common ancestry of siamangs and chimps, but not chimps and humans? Age of the earth? Age of stars?  Separate creation of languages?  Vapor canopies?  I'm sure you can think of others.

As an aside, in your opinion (since churches disagree on this matter), if one dies never having heard of the Bible or God, do they go to ####?
This is just opinion ... I cannot quote you a Scripture passage on this ... I think people can learn about God from Nature and can believe on Him.

(I'll take that as a yes).  I suppose that explains the high prevalence of omnimax monotheism among peoples never introduced to the Abrahamic religions.

Date: 2006/06/24 04:13:51, Link
Author: argystokes
Looks like I got forgotten this morning.  Here's my question again:
I guess I was unclear.  I mean which of the evidences that you have talked about over the 87 pages of comments here would you support having never heard of the Bible.  A worldwide flood?  Catastrophic movement of the continents?  Earth created in 6 days?  Common ancestry of siamangs and chimps, but not chimps and humans? Age of the earth? Age of stars?  Separate creation of languages?  Vapor canopies?  I'm sure you can think of others.

Date: 2006/06/24 18:20:15, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,21:15)
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

Se, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Perhaps I'll try.

Dave:  Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data.

Date: 2006/06/25 08:22:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 25 2006,11:07)
Okay, Dave, Let's look at your "unbiased expert" Don Batten, who says    
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
 Unbiased? Uh, yeah, right.

Such is the same for the rest of Dave's sources.  From AiG:
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

and ICR:
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific[sic] and historical as well as moral and theological.

Of course, we atheistic scientists also have a statement of faith.  From the Federation of American Graduate Schools in Science:
The goal of science is to exterminate faith in Christ, whose teachings are antithetical to our secular humanist worldview.  Data suggesting consonance between natural history and Biblical scripture should be viewed with skepticism, and rejected if contradicted by data that favors a godless worldview.

Fair is fair, I guess.

Date: 2006/06/25 09:32:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (plasmasnake23 @ June 25 2006,12:28)
This is a very small point but I fail to see how all of genesis can be an eyewitness account when man isn't created until the sixth day.

It's an eyewitness account by God!  And who are you going to believe, scientists, or God?

Date: 2006/06/25 12:38:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 25 2006,15:13)
Quote (Joseph Beres @ June 25 2006,16:38)
From dave
[Admin Announcement] Get Back to Intelligent Design

I’ve been lax in keeping the topic here on intelligent design and away from everyone’s favorite religion (or lack thereof). I’m as guilty as anyone. To remedy this situation I’m going to be deleting any comments I see with gratuitous references to religion until further notice. I’ll make an exception for any of our authors who’ve PhDs in both theology and mathematics.

PhDs in theology and mathematics huh? Guess that leaves Dembski out.

Dembski has a 13 page CV.

Get a grip. May I suggest a 14th page to include what he had for lunch and top 5 breeds of Dog?

That's not really very long.  I've seen CVs over 100 pages.  Of course, that requires extensive publishing in peer reviewed literature.

Date: 2006/06/26 04:46:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 26 2006,07:25)
Guys, I find your various speculations about my motivation, education, etc. to be quite amusing, but ya'll might be overthinking the issue a bit. Ya'll are trying to pigeonhole me, but if there's one thing I am, it's different. Also, I look at the broad picture....what's a lifetime of "foolish" beliefs to an eternity of bliss? If I'm wrong (and I'm not, that's where faith comes in) I haven't lost anything -- I might not be a good Christian but God has given my life purpose, so it's a win-win situation.

Unless the Muslims are right.  Or there's a joker God.

Date: 2006/06/27 09:28:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Larry's brother is Dave.  A sensible enough guy, it seems.  I think he's an NCSE member.

Date: 2006/06/27 11:56:00, Link
Author: argystokes
I would be glad if someone C&Ped a Bible verse that supposedly show this.  Here's a verse that shows that Isaiah knew that the earth was round ...  

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Um, Dave, that doesn't say anything about the earth being round... quite the opposite, really.  Maybe it's a poor translation?

Date: 2006/06/28 16:47:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Click back a couple of pages and you'll see a couple more threads totally about 50 more pages. Ay Eff Dee-licious!

oh, and,

Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible

I think that's about the tenth time you've been asked, by at least 3 different people.

Date: 2006/06/29 11:55:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 29 2006,09:10)
Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible
Here's some ...

1) Written historical records back to 100,000 or so BC instead of 5500 BC
2) Lots more 'humanoid' fossils than we have now and lots less equivocal ones
3) Existing 'sub-human' cultures found in various parts of the world.
4) Evidence for a Super-Homo-Sapiens race such as the one Hitler thought he had.
5) A true transitional nature of the fossil record -- it is woefully lacking in transitional forms
6) Demonstrated macroevolution in the lab -- like the creation of some Super Fruit flies or something.
7) Observation that mankind behaves just like an animal, nothing more.
8) Archaeological finds contradicting the Bible

There's just a few for you ...

Read the question and answer again.  Especially the parts about "data" and "methods."

Date: 2006/06/30 06:51:10, Link
Author: argystokes
The question that you keep DODGING is what criteria are you using to evaluate the data?  The answer would seem to be that you simply dismiss any data that disagrees with your bible.

Wow ... you're a tough one to make happy.  What criteria?  Let's see ... how about whether the data are consistent with what I read in my history book - the Bible?  How do you argue with that?  Examples:  the Bible talks about Hittites.  We go out and do some digging and see if we can find Hittites.  Voila!  There they are.  The Bible talks about king Ahab of Israel.  Let's go dig ... Voila!  There he is on Shalmaneser's Stela ... and so on.  There have been literally HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of finds confirming the historicity of the Bible.  And to me, some of the most spectacular ones are the finds in Mesopotamia confirming that civilization did in fact begin in Mesopotamia, and it was a very high level of civilization--neat architecture, agriculture, music, metallurgy, etc--just as my History Book (the Bible) said.

The context of the question is what would CONTRADICT the Bible?  Do I need to ask my question again, or will you just continue to not answer it?

Date: 2006/06/30 07:28:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ June 30 2006,10:23)
The context of the question is what would CONTRADICT the Bible?  Do I need to ask my question again, or will you just continue to not answer it?
If you want a real world example of something, Mormon archaeology is a good one.  In short, there IS NO Mormon archaeology because they cannot find any of the places listed in the Book of Mormon, such as Zarahemla and Bountiful, etc.  Here's what respected Mormon archaeologist  Professor Dee F. Green said,  
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists ... If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a ccorpus of data with which to deal.  We do not. ... no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography.  Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were and are. ... a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed.   Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Summer 1969, pp. 77-78.

What I am saying, Argy, is that there has been plenty of opportunity for archaeologists to refute the Bible.  This has has been done with the Book of Mormon and it has been proven by this and many other ways to be a fraud.  

But not so with the Bible.  Many an archaeologist would have loved for the Bible to be proven false, but it has been proven accurate instead.

So I am at a loss to tell you how to proceed in disproving the Bible.  I am afraid you are in for a tough challenge.

I see.  It is conceptually impossible to refute anything in the Bible.  One can only lack confirming evidence.  Geez, Dave, since EVERYTHING is consistent with the Bible, why are you railing against evolution?

Date: 2006/07/01 04:19:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Man, if Dave says "Scientists think the Colorado River flowed UPWARDS," I might kill myself.  From laughter, of course.

Date: 2006/07/02 13:35:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 02 2006,15:17)
Creationists "habla espanol" quite well, thank you ...

Creationists hablan espanol!

Date: 2006/07/04 20:06:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave and Deadman,

I was just perusing AiG's arguments that creationists should not use, when I came across this one:

“There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, so the earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.”

This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

So perhaps, Dave, it is time for you to set a precise date for the flood.

Date: 2006/07/05 05:36:35, Link
Author: argystokes

Of course they support his view.  He can't even imagine something that wouldn't.

Date: 2006/07/05 15:22:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Eve and Adam must have both been hermaphrodites.  Otherwise Eve would have been XY when created from Adam's rib.

Date: 2006/07/06 06:04:50, Link
Author: argystokes
5. Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?

5) You lie and fudge and twist and stretch and swallow elephants because you guys need support your bogus 200,000 year history of mankind

Ah, accusing the entire mainstream science community of scientific fraud.  Conspiralicious!

Date: 2006/07/06 09:34:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,16:55)
Glenn Morton, former AFDave type who smartened up, said:

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't think AFDave is lying. He simply can't believe anything which opposes his religious conviction. It simply must be false, somehow.

I think the most blatant example of an AFDave lie was when he said that the evidence convinced him the Genesis story was true, rather than vice versa.  This is evidenced by the fact that he cannot even imagine what data contradicting Genesis would look like.

Date: 2006/07/16 08:07:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Whoa!  Did I read that right?  One day of continental drift?  VROOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Date: 2006/07/17 20:14:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Alas, now I'll never get the boot with a bold-tard comment:

WAD said...
Here’s your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I’ve done it as has DaveScot. That’s now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule.

Was there anything particularly embarrassing for Dembski in that thread, or was it just JanieBelle posting a bazillion comments?

Date: 2006/07/18 09:51:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Looks like a photo of a book.  That line on the right would be the page split.

Date: 2006/07/18 15:42:58, Link
Author: argystokes
I don't think we'll miss Dave as much as some people think.   More Biblebabble, less antiACLU rants, and I suppose that means less variety. O'Leary is a sure thing to provides oodles of Bible-stupid, and Dembski's attempts at science are always hilarious.  Tkae, for example,
July 18, 2006
Molecular DNA Switch Found to be the Same for All Life

   The molecular machinery that starts the process by which a biological cell divides into two identical daughter cells apparently worked so well early on that evolution has conserved it across the eons in all forms of life on Earth. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley have shown that the core machinery for initiating DNA replication is the same for all three domains of life — Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya.


Given that, according to Carl Woese, the three domains are not descended from a common ancestor (see here), is it plausible that this same switch could have arisen apart from design three times?

Which PvM has already handled here..

Date: 2006/07/18 18:24:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Edit: Argy beat me on my own thread. I see the student has become the master.

DaveTard once said something very similar of me.  With as much time as I waste hanging around here, I suppose it's inevitable.

Date: 2006/07/19 06:00:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ July 19 2006,08:42)
I remember building a model of the battleship Missouri when I was a kid.  So I guess in Dave's world, a child with some glue, a pair of tweezers, and some appropriately-shaped plastic pieces can produce a full-scale, functioning WWII battleship in just a couple of days.

No, this analogy is wrong.  A GIANT child with an assload of glue, monstrous tweezers, and big ole plastic pieces DID produce WWII battle ships.

Date: 2006/07/20 06:08:48, Link
Author: argystokes
3. Abuse involving race, religion, social class, sexual preference, et cetera, is a banning offence. We judge people on the strength of their arguments, and expect the same treatment from others.

So no more picking on atheists, right? *sputter**cough**choke*

Date: 2006/07/20 06:58:01, Link
Author: argystokes
The thought of anyone taking lessons on not being windy from Glen brings an effluence of chuckles and tears...

Date: 2006/07/21 07:20:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh, and note that his initials are DT.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

What's more, he normally signs his posts Dave T.

Date: 2006/07/21 13:46:20, Link
Author: argystokes
I hope you will clarify your comment for me, because for the life of me it looks like you are suggesting that the words, “Fross, how about” constitutes commentary on what follows. I know that neither you nor any other reasonable person would ever say anything that stupid, so please clue me in on what you really meant.

That's one to remember and use against Barry next time he asks a question on UD.  Just answer, "How about, [insert irrelevant quote here]," then when called on it, say you weren't making commentary, just posting.

And it's good to see Dembski posting papers having nothing to do with ID, and declaring them "ID research papers," when he clearly hasn't even read anything but the abstract.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:04:50, Link
Author: argystokes
He probably had an automatic disemvoweller set up for certain IP addresses.  SteveS, when you got disemvowelled, were you posting from a different location than when your comments got through?

Date: 2006/07/21 17:31:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Did Dembski change the thread title, or did I just notice the term "unwitting?"

Date: 2006/07/22 13:29:25, Link
Author: argystokes
So maybe you could point Puck to the answer instead of having to explain it for him?  Or do you just <b>know</b> that the answer must exist?

Date: 2006/07/22 15:34:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Birds=Dinosaurs is one of the best ones I've heard yet on this thread ...

The next thing you know, these silly evolutionists will be saying birds are chordates!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2006/07/24 19:30:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Over on that Cornell blog, Sal leaves a gem (comment #22):

Let me suggest this thread would not be a good place to peer-review of Dembski’s math. We can proceed with the discussion without delving into the higher recesses of it. Especially the math that is already well accepted in the disciplines of statistics.

Hey now!  Don't look at that math!  Just trust me, Dembski's a genius.  And when I'm really good, sometimes he lets me have a biscuit.

Date: 2006/07/25 15:19:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,17:56)
What did I concede?

That the Bible you use to form your opinions on reality isn't inerrant.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:12:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Argy ...    

That the Bible you use to form your opinions on reality isn't inerrant.

No, I'm not conceding anything ... you need to go read Diogenes' post ... the original text is inerrant ... the copies are not.

You see?  Why is that so hard to grasp?

Um, you said that you use the NKJV.  That's not the original text.  It's a copy.  As you said, the copies are not inerrant.

QED, bitch.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:25:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote Discussion Board welcomes our newest member Alexandra making a total of 666 registered members.

Hard times coming Dave; the beast is upon us.  Or Nero perhaps.

And you're right, I can't "admit" a perfect God, who is, as you say, unpredictable and unexplainable.  It's meaningless.  And that was too many commas for such a short sentence.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:43:13, Link
Author: argystokes
I fixed it for you...
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,20:31)
OK.  One more time real slowly for those among us whose heads are spinning in circles ...

1) You stumble across this book see?  Commonly called the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ...
2) You hear some fundies claiming that it's supernatural, so you investigate
3) After a thorough investigation, you agree
4) You conclude from your examination of the evidence that this book is supernatural ... superintended by a Supernatural God, who apparently created all things
5) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince doesn't have one of those "Any similarities between event or people in this book..." disclaimers.
6) There are many claims in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which cannot be proven, but there are many which can
7) Considering the huge amount of statements which can be proven and which HAVE BEEN proven to be true, you conclude that the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince just might be true

No circularity.  Just logic.

Date: 2006/07/26 05:59:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Important scientific questions for the design movement to answer:
Questions: (1) Leaving aside Calvinism, is Howard Van Till a Christian at all? Would he even accept that designation? (2) Given that he has veered so far from Calvin College’s statement of faith, is it legitimate for him to maintain his formal affiliation with the school as “professor emeritus”? Are professors emeritus held to the same standards as nonretired faculty?

Date: 2006/07/27 08:22:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ July 27 2006,11:17)
I can "assume" that my apartment building was built in 30 seconds by billions of microscopic apartment-constucting fairies 75 years ago, and that certainly explains the existence of my apartment building, by your logic.

Your theory of how YOU cam into existence is almost that fantastic!

Well, you see when a man and a woman love each other very much...

Date: 2006/07/27 19:38:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Aftershave ... no, I'm NOT sorry I said the NKJV is not without errors.  I'm quite sure it has a few.  This has no bearing on the concept of inerrancy of the originals.  Get a clue.  Go back and do your remedial reading.

Now that the original texts of the Old Testament have been found, I'm sure you'll read up and see which parts have been translated correctly to the NKJV...
Old Testament Original document found! Not In Hebrew!

A couple of boys interned in an israeli guarded palestinian "neighborhood" unearthed what religious scholors are calling the "Greatest Find In History"- A perfectly preserved scroll which turned out to be the original copy of the old testament. In Swahili! The various translation difficulties that have plagued translators throughout the ages are resolved. For example, many famous scholars have argued that Yohm can mean either "Era" or "day", chief among them is a man named Mr. Lando Calrissium who published a brilliant scholarly endeavor proving conclusively that it means "Era" in Genesis so we don't have to think that the earth is only 6000 years old. THis emmensely important work reconciled huge swaths of scientific investigation with the words of the Bible. Other important contributions have included his much more accurate translations of the flood story to show that it was definitely describing a local event and therefore also was not contradicting important scientific discoveries.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered that there were serious errors in the Hebrew translation. "All our work is bunk" lamented Lando. "After reading that disclaimer inside the front cover we were all feeling pretty foolish."

The scrolls had a sticker, stuck to the top of each scroll. The sticker, made of ultrafine lambskin and affixed with a clearish milkyish glue, read:

   This scroll contains material on the chronology and events of creation. This information is not a fact regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered as the pure allegory for the human condition that it indeed is.

   Approved By
   Yamashukalevi, grand Archmage of the tribe of israel written in the language of the swahili, the language which brings the listener closer to this god that we are making up.
   Thursday, March 28, 4021 BCE.

Lando is busy at work on his new translation of the Swahili where he will prove conclusively that aliens built the pyramids.

Welcome back, BWE.

Date: 2006/08/02 18:05:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Lets throw this out to the group, what do you guys mean when you say random mutation?  I'm now very interested to see what we come up with.


Date: 2006/08/03 11:05:59, Link
Author: argystokes
For example, when confronted with a novel toxin (i.e. antibiotic), do bacteria indeed rely on a strictly random search for resistance (akin to stumbling in the dark), or do their genomes have the ability to trigger (and bias) changes towards specific gene sites so that the right enzymes are produced in enough organisms to ensure  the survival of at least a remnant?    If a bacterial genome had to roll fewer genetic "dice" to come up with winning numbers, all the more power to it.  That "Roman Emperor" of nature - natural selection- would surely have given the thumbs up to any such genetic search engine and perpetuated it (assuming it exists as I envisage).

This hypothesis is scientific in that it can be tested.  

It has.  I'll see if I can dig up the paper, but this discussion deserves its own thread.

Date: 2006/08/03 11:21:12, Link
Author: argystokes
This review came out a couple of years ago.  It dismisses the concept of directed mutation; that is, the idea that cells sense what area of the genome "needs" to mutate in response to its environment.  The main thrust of the paper, however, is that cells can increase their overall mutation rate in response to environmental stressors, leading to an increased chance of achieving beneficial mutations.  This kind of hypermutation remains controversial, and rebuttals to this article have been published.  Here's the introduction; I don't want to violate any copyright laws:
Adaptive Mutation: How Growth under Selection Stimulates Lac+ Reversion by Increasing Target Copy Number
John R. Roth1* and Dan I. Andersson2,3
Microbiology Section, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616,1 Department of Bacteriology, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, S-171 82 Solna,2 Microbiology and Tumour Biology Center, Karolinska Institute, S-171 77, Solna, Sweden3

From the time of Darwin until about 1950, a controversy continued over whether selective stress induces mutations or only affects the relative reproductive success of organisms with different genotypes (30). The controversy was resolved by the classic experiments of Luria and Delbrück (27) and of Lederberg and Lederberg (25), who showed that some bacterial mutants arise prior to application of the selection that allows their detection and thus could not have been caused by selective conditions. However, these experiments used lethal selections and therefore did not eliminate the possibility that another fraction of total mutations might be formed in response to stress and be detected only by nonlethal selection. Shapiro and Cairns et al. reopened the controversy by pointing out this caveat and presenting data that seemed to support stress-induced mutation (7, 45).

Because very few genetic systems behave in ways that suggest stress-induced mutation, the rare cases that seem to exhibit such behavior have attracted close attention. In one case, mutants were later shown to preexist selection (14, 28, 29, 44). For the system devised by Cairns and Foster (5), we suggest that reversion occurs by a multistep process initiated prior to selection and the appearance of stress-induced mutagenesis results from growth under strong selection.

Proponents of directed mutation, which seems to be a necessity for any kind of front-loading hypothesis, should also check out:
Foster, P. L., and J. Cairns. 1992. Mechanisms of directed mutation. Genetics 131:783-789.

Date: 2006/08/03 14:51:03, Link
Author: argystokes

I've begun a new thread to discuss directed mutation.  It can be found here

Date: 2006/08/03 16:40:57, Link
Author: argystokes

I'll bet you an e-beer that Apollo at least attempts to engage the issues.  I'm not getting the exteme arrogance vibes that usually accompany IDC visitors here.

Date: 2006/08/03 16:44:33, Link
Author: argystokes
That paper looks like a good read, Chris.  Perhaps I'll have some time for it later on, but for now, I'm going to spend some time with my favorite bitch.

Date: 2006/08/03 20:10:39, Link
Author: argystokes
or would you plead the 5th amendment if I asked you if you downloaded tunes?)

We pirates thieve for ourselves, not for others!

Apollo asked:
I gleaned two possibilities from this post: pre-adaptations and/or adaptations that occur under the gun of strong selection.  Both are certainly possible.  However, could some (or most?) pre-adaptations result from "preferential" mutation systems?  Who is to say that only strong selection could trigger this alleged mechanism.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying here.  Could you clarify?  I think you might be using some idiosyncratic terminology.

Septic said:
Anyway, just reading the intro seemed to leave the possibility open for further review, unless I was missing something.

Well, papers don't often say, "We have conclusively disproven Professor B's hypothesis and recommend no further research."  Why doncha read the whole thing; it's not too long, and should be easily comprehensible for a biochemist.

Date: 2006/08/04 10:44:15, Link
Author: argystokes

Thanks for not having me put hours into a detailed explanation only to have it ignored or deliberately misconstrued, as others have.


That's one e-beer to you.  Make it a Hale's Red Menace, straight outta Ballard.

Date: 2006/08/04 15:12:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, that smells like poo to me...

Date: 2006/08/04 16:15:52, Link
Author: argystokes
Finally given up, eh, Steve?  Ease up on that vodka, we don't need you turning into another JAD or GHurd...

Date: 2006/08/05 14:46:34, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2006,17:40)

it does beg the question about why so many “famous’ people are declaring they are homosexuals.

The minor annoyance of 'beg the question' aside, has anybody else noticed 'so many' famous people declaring their gayness? I haven't.

When you're a 20 (or so) year old in a Bible Seminary, 1 in 200 probably seems like a lot.  I mean, seriously, how many openly gay individuals do you think there are at that institute.  I bet less than one.  And that's the way he likes it!

Date: 2006/08/06 20:09:52, Link
Author: argystokes
You (and JonF and Deadman) really have not figured me out yet, have you?  Good.  This serves my purpose very well.

Oh dear god.  Poe's Law?

Date: 2006/08/07 09:42:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Hello, Dave.  Are you writing a book?

Date: 2006/08/08 11:38:36, Link
Author: argystokes
JasonTheGreek on theistic evolutionists:
This is what always gets me. So, a theistic evolutionist would say that he just thinks that God guided evolution, though he has zero evidence to back up the belief? Isn’t a belief without a shred of evidence to back it up just idiotic to begin with?

This on a site where most of the commentators believe in Noah's Ark and Zombie Gods.

Date: 2006/08/09 06:04:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh.  Dear.  Grawd.
Paley updated and videoized

Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 10:49 am

Date: 2006/08/11 12:38:14, Link
Author: argystokes
I think O'Leary's been rubbing off on Dembski.  That woman makes k.e sound like HL Mencken.

Date: 2006/08/11 12:57:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2006,15:44)
Quote (argystokes @ Aug. 11 2006,18:38)
I think O'Leary's been rubbing off on Dembski.  That woman makes k.e sound like HL Mencken.

lol. I used to hate KE's posts, but now I look at him as like a crazy hippie poet, and his posts aren't bad.

I feel the exact same way.  But truly, the Church Lady writes like a 9th grader.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:35:25, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm sure it's fun to annoy STJ, but really, now.

Date: 2006/08/12 15:13:28, Link
Author: argystokes
When it comes to research, less is more!
The very fact that the Darwinist side presented a stack of *58 books and articles* on the immune system, shows that it in fact has *no* “detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.”

If it did, it would only have to read out *one page* in all those 58 books and articles where it is. That they didn’t, proves Behe’s claim that there is *no* such “detailed testable answer… to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.”

Stephen E. Jones

Comment by senojes — August 12, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

I suppose he imagines the immune system as comprising two types of little dudes, one who captures particles and the other who declares, "Take him away!" or "He's OK.  Let him go."

6 ebeers points if anyone gets that reference.

Date: 2006/08/12 20:25:20, Link
Author: argystokes
Barry Arrington brags:
I take heart in the fact that my main point, after over 100 comments on this site and all the comments on PT, remains unrebutted.

Gosh, it's so impressive that his points remain unrebutted when rebuttals are not allowed to be shown.  Good ole honest Barry.

Date: 2006/08/15 18:28:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Congratulations, Dave!  You've won an award!

Date: 2006/08/16 06:07:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave's comments are getting more and more Farfromreality.  He used to jump from topic to topic, and actually respond to the occassional question (though rarely answering it).  Now he's just stuck on repeating one nonsense thought.  I half expect Dave's brother Hersey to come here and apologize for him, and for Dave to accuse his brother of being Ed Brayton in disguise.

Date: 2006/08/16 21:12:44, Link
Author: argystokes

Date: 2006/08/17 07:44:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Faid, I'm afraid you're terribly wrong.

I have no names to describe you, dave. You are beyond name-calling. You are truly pathetic.

While you may have no names to describe AFDave, he is certainly not beyond name-calling.  Observe:

Dave, you are a chancre on the bellend of honesty.

See, it's not so difficult.

Date: 2006/08/17 10:54:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Meanwhile, Joel is making posts utilizing my favorite of Waldorf Story's pictures:


Date: 2006/08/17 13:40:49, Link
Author: argystokes
At first, I read this and thought it was actually pretty funny, in an intentional way
Unfortunately, there is no cure for cancer-induced ID.

Comment by Benjii — August 17, 2006 @ 5:27 pm

Then I read it again.  And I don't understand. :angry:

Date: 2006/08/21 04:44:20, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Mark Frank @ Aug. 21 2006,04:32)
Can anyone work out the current censorship policy at UD? When Dave retired it seemed like things got a lot more rational, so I started making the odd comment. I really like to discuss things where there is a large community who disagree. But most of my recent comments for Denyse have  failed to make the grade.

What is the experience of others? Anyone found any rules for getting published? How does Sophophile get away with it?

I'm on the permanent shitlist at UD, but I've tried posting at O'Leary's blog a couple times.  Both were comments were pointing out that she had written something factually incorrect.  They never appeared.  She fits right in with Dimski et al.

Date: 2006/08/21 05:55:42, Link
Author: argystokes
It's good to have the Tard back.  I guess he found out that JanieBelle and Corporal Kate were Dembski and O'Leary, respectively.  Anyway, here's Dave saying that dogs evolved from parasites:
What I told Nick was two basic facts related to the dog cancer cells which derive from a belief in common descent (a belief I hold).  First of all, tumor cells are (generally) cells which have had the more recently ***evolved mechanism of apoptosis turned off.  They have in fact reverted to their ancient ability to be immortal by not having any restriction on how many times they can divide into two daughter cells.  So in the case of tumor cells multiplying out of control it’s nothing new but rather it’s something very old.   As biologists I’m sure Nick and Andrea have a good understanding of that.  What amazed me was that they didn’t immediately apply this same thinking to the cancer cell turning into a free living cell.  The ability of the cell to live independently (at least long enough to move from one dog to another) is an ancient capability from the days when the cell line in question wasn’t a dog cell but was a free living single celled common ancestor to the dog.  It then isn’t an old dog learning a new trick but rather an old dog recalling an old trick.

It's nice to have Dave around, because it gives me a nice square meal of stupid.  Stupid programming from Sal, stupid english from O'Leary, stupid random articles from Dembski, and stupid science from Otto.

Date: 2006/08/21 10:54:30, Link
Author: argystokes
As a young earth creationist that has been investigating ID quite avidly for the last few weeks, I can say creationists would do well to familiarise themselves with ID. Many of the ID arguments are much the same as ones put forward by creationists, but more formalised. So thank you for doing the hard work for us.  


Date: 2006/08/21 11:49:51, Link
Author: argystokes

If I pray really hard to the god of your choosing, will you make the next topic Noah's Ark?  Please?

Date: 2006/08/21 12:30:13, Link
Author: argystokes
(See if you can figure out why I ask ...)

You think he's been patting you on the head?

Date: 2006/08/24 05:28:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (don_quixote @ Aug. 24 2006,08:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 23 2006,17:39)
On a lighter note, I've been looking over the posts and Stupid's responses and dammn, there's some funny crap there.

Hey, Deadman, any examples that could be forwarded to 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things'?

Dave, you might win an AWARD!!

He already did!  First award for this month, as a matter of fact (All time cutest fundie award).

Date: 2006/08/24 07:26:47, Link
Author: argystokes
That's a lot of nuts!

Name that film for a pilsner!

Date: 2006/08/24 08:11:26, Link
Author: argystokes
AFDave: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
Deadman: I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
AFDave: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style!

Date: 2006/08/25 09:32:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Bob, I think that comment was in the Darwin Youth thread.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:02:16, Link
Author: argystokes
But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing?  That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave.

Date: 2006/08/26 04:27:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,07:20)
But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing?  That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave.
Oh come on, guys.  I think you're thinking of those bare root plants you get from Spring Hill and you're thinking about how nice and tidy the roots are.  Well, I'll tell you what ... take one of those and dip it in water and watch what happens.  Now imagine it's in raging, swirling water with a bunch of sediments--sand, silt, what-have-you.  Not very difficult to imagine many of these plants getting "planted" in an upright position.

Come now!

I can imagine them upside down, too.  How many upside down trees are there?

Date: 2006/08/26 13:57:03, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2006,16:45)
After a brief visit to UD while drinking mango-flavored vodka, I came over here to suggest a drinking game where you do a shot everytime they say "Richard Dawkins". It occurs to me as I write this, however, that such a game would almost certainly lead to fatalities.

Date: 2006/08/27 07:46:21, Link
Author: argystokes
The only way I can see teaching about ID in a classroom is to analyze its use in the 'culture wars.' That could be appropriate in a suitable university level humanities class.

I agree with this.  Maybe Kitzmiller could be mentioned in a civics class, but my vote goes for C.

Date: 2006/08/27 15:34:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Jerry explains why ID isn't just an "it's too complex, so goddidit" hypothesis:
Because of this discrepancy between these philosophical points of view and reality people are searching for an alternative. One of alternative explanations that has appeared is Intelligent Design. It is that simple. Some of the discrepancies or events which these ideas cannot explain are unbelievably complex. For example, the origin of life. Thus, many people have said it must be an intelligent force that caused the event.

Surely, there must be more...
It is that simple.

Comment by jerry — August 27, 2006 @ 8:08 pm


Date: 2006/08/29 06:21:16, Link
Author: argystokes
comment redacted.  I'll read the instructions next time.

Date: 2006/08/30 04:33:44, Link
Author: argystokes
To those who have expressed an interest in coming to my church, I truly would welcome you.  You think fundies are green-eyed monsters with horns?  Well, maybe some are.  But I'm not.  And the ones at my church are not.  Come and see for yourself.

And please, make a donation for Christ, for blessed are the people who bail my church out of massive debt.

Date: 2006/08/30 04:44:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 30 2006,07:37)
who bail my church out of massive debt.
Who would that be?  I'm not aware that anyone has done this or has plans to.  Could you be specific?

Um, I think his name is Kaiser Soze.

Date: 2006/08/31 14:59:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,16:39)
so, it seems that the general agreement is that alcohol is required to deaden the nerves before one can successfully navigate a complete thread on UD?

would that be the consesus opinion?

No.  I have no faith in the reasonableness of humanity, so stupidity usually serves to amuse.  But don't let me dissuade you from imbibing.

Date: 2006/08/31 15:05:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Aug. 31 2006,17:14)
Yeah dave. And if my senior consultant ever tells me "Congrats, Faid- you seem to have barely managed to find your arse with both hands today", I guess I should consider it a compliment, right?

Oh no wait- Is that what you thought all your life? Whoops!

Thanks, Faid.  I read that as "Congrats, Faid- you seem to have barely managed to fit your arse with both hands today" and got a horrible mental picture.  I suppose, something like when Dave covers his ears...

Date: 2006/09/01 05:07:54, Link
Author: argystokes
It talks about de-conversions also how they are asymmetric. That is there are many cases of professional apologists/ministers/theologians deconverting and very few "professional" atheists converting. In fact he could only find two.

This isn't really fair.  There are a lot more Christians than atheists in the US, professionally and otherwise.  Even if the two views were equal, we would expect many more conversions to atheism than from it.  Regression to the mean, ya know.

Date: 2006/09/01 06:52:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2006,09:36)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 01 2006,11:07)
I was thinking of that thing about the ACLU suing the military to stop prayers.

Wasn't it DaveTard who fell for that one? The whole 'ACLU persecutes virtuous praying Marines' angle was WAY too much for him to resist.

The funny thing about that one was how after he admitted it was an urban legend, he essentially said "it doesn't matter, it might as well be true".

Good times.  :)

Ah, but don't forget:

"Right on!"

Date: 2006/09/04 14:58:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth? Especially as this is supposed to be his Creator God Hypothesis.

Because writing appeared about 5000 years ago!  Prehistory is inconceivable.  We know that this is when writing appeared because radiometric dating tells us so.  And Dave agrees, radiometric dating is reliable.  Or something.  Brain off, Tim.  Brain off.

Date: 2006/09/06 17:30:03, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm also told that trees are musicians.

And dern good ones, too.  Mostly Lanegan.

Date: 2006/09/07 12:40:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 07 2006,15:13)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 07 2006,11:41)
I apologize for my post regarding DaveScot's service in the Marines.  I will try to be more tactful in the future in my disparaging remarks about intellectual cretins.  A new baby and lack of sleep have caused a lapse in judgment.

Congratulations on the new arrival.

I see you've been putting that PSoTaS to work!

Date: 2006/09/08 06:48:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Sep. 08 2006,09:35)
OK guys, I'm out of my depth (which is not too surprising.)

Read the latest at

Then popped over to see the entire article UD refers to at PsyOrg

The ID folks seem to be jumping in their jeans (witty pun) over how this destroys another "long held belief" of you evil evos.

But here's the questions I have--being a layman I really don't have a good background so I am counting on you:

1.  Just because the gene "jumped" to another chromosome, why can that not still be random?  To prove it is not random wouldn’t you have to document that other genes jumped and that all the genes jumping resulted in positive, not negative, results?

2.  If the jumping genes produced a variety of fly that can, when mating, produce sterile offspring, I wouldn't think the ID folks would consider that an evidence of "Intelligence"--would I intelligently create a flaw in my design?

3.  Could not these changes have resulted from selection pressure and random mutation?

4.  Does the mechanism of speciation have any bearing on the ID v. RMNS debate?  How does this "back door" to speciation change anything for ID?

Remember, I am a layman so type slowly using small words.  Thanks.

Here goes...
1.  That's exactly right (though I'd replace "all" with "statistically significant.")  They're still random in that we cannot predict the change in fitness of the organism that has a transposon event.

2.  HOW DARE YOU BRING THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE DESIGNER INTO THIS?  We cannot know His will, outside of a certain object involving thin slices of dead trees and ink.

3.  Do transposon events happen because of selection pressure and random mutation?  I don't know; it's certainly possible that certain environmental conditions would instigate a "jump," but I wouldn't bet on it.  Transposons probably did originally arise by random mutation.

4.  That depends on who you ask.  "ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree."  In terms of the most minimalist definitions of ID, it's almost indistinguishable from theistic evolution.  But most IDist are creationists who believe in separate creation of the genera, and common descent from there as a result of the fall (as far as I can tell).

Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf.

Erm, I mean, argy.

Date: 2006/09/08 07:07:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Flint @ Sep. 07 2006,14:44)
A brief dose of reality here: There *really is* a current major league baseball player named Angel Pagan.

It's too bad he wasn't on the Indians when they had both Milton Bradley and Coco Crisp.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:56:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:52)
Stephen Wells...
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?

No, no, no, that's Stephen Elliot, our resident ex-AFDave.  He's probably the only one here who thinks you aren't beyond hope.

Date: 2006/09/09 14:27:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,12:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

Joseph is among several extremely dumb commenters over there, notably mung and jerry.  But no one combines the arrogance of DaveTard with the cluelessness of AFDave quite like Joseph over there.  He must have gotten his engineering degree from Oregon University.

Date: 2006/09/09 17:39:19, Link
Author: argystokes
The scary thing would be to have some system OTHER than the Judeo-Christian as some countries still have.

Why do you hate America, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/10 14:08:17, Link
Author: argystokes
And that's about it, folks. Dave claims the biblical prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed, and left uninhabited forever, has been fulfilled, despite the fact that Tyre is now, and always has been, inhabited. Show of hands for those who think Dave "won" this argument?

Date: 2006/09/11 06:34:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Has anyone noticed that I have never yet characterized evolution supporters as "evilutionists" or "conspirators" in any way,

Yeah, just people who constantly falsify data and produce fraudulent papers, and never call each other on it, even though the Truth is plain to see.  But not conspirators, no!

Date: 2006/09/11 06:59:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Nope.  Never said anything like that.

You have repeatedly accused scientists of throwing out discordant dates in order to make the various dating methods correlate.  That's fraud, and every scientist knows it.

Date: 2006/09/11 13:39:00, Link
Author: argystokes
BarryA threatens to bury his head in the sand
Carlos writes: “I wanted a term that would capture what makes human culture different from chimp culture.”

If we use any meaningful definition of the word “culture,” chimps don’t have a culture. Don’t bother providing counter arguments. I don’t argue for the obvious. I just point it out from time to time.

Comment by BarryA — September 11, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

I must admit, that's a tactic I've never seen before.  I wonder if he uses it in court.

BarryA:  There is no separation between church and state, your honor.  We won't bother with the plaintiffs' counter arguments.  I don't argue for the obvious.

Judge:  Um, I'll be the judge of that.  That's why they call me Judge.

BarryA:  You just wait till I get back to Uncommon Descent where I get to be Judge!

Date: 2006/09/12 04:09:42, Link
Author: argystokes
I've always thought that Heddle should be a good ally.  It's good to see him getting pissed when the IDs come after cosmology:
I am amazed at how common the theme on this blog is centered around what amounts to a conspiracy among scientists.

As for how many commenters will still believe the standard model after reading the paper you linked too, I surely do. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. It is not limited to the cosmic background, but if it were, I would still place in on ground that is as solid as many other cherished theories in physics. Does it still face challenges? It does—cosmology is a complicated field that, unlike ID, actually does experiments, which is the only reason there is a paper with a surprising result. Since we see no real experiments that, for example, set out to prove something is designed, or set out mathematically demonstrate that it is designed, it may be that a experiment with a contrary result should, to people in the ID mindset, cause an immediate paradigm shift. But that is because the ID community is only versed in playing science, not doing science. In real science, sometimes experiments present surprising and conflicting results. The same thing happens in General Relativity, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. We don’t abandon successful theories because of a single result, at least not until the conflict is firmly established and alternatives are ruled out—and then we would first look to modifying the standard model to accommodate the new data. The Big Bang has survived many challenges—in some cases it was modified (inflation) and in some cases the experimental problems, such as a lack of super nova remnants, is demonstrated, over time, not to be a problem. What will happen with the missing microwave shadows? It is way too early to say.

Of course, maybe cosmologists are meeting at this moment to plot how to save the big bang theory by any means possible so that the Christians can’t gloat.

Date: 2006/09/12 07:11:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 12 2006,10:03)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,10:39)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 12 2006,10:01)
Hey, side question...

A while back, one of you had posted a funny quip at the end of the post...something along the line of:

"I feel like I'm staring at the sun except, its made of stupid"

Is that the exact quip???

The quip in question (hey, two Q's! ) was "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Except I didn't make that up -- I ripped it off from some place. I think maybe Pharyngula.

Thanks!....I'm going to have that made into a tee-shirt.

Front "Intelligent Design"

Back "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".

Hmm, if it's on a T-shirt, you may want to be sure to use right proper grammar.  I believe the correct use of the subjunctive is "if the sun were made of stupid."  But then again, I always get this one wrong.

Date: 2006/09/12 07:56:23, Link
Author: argystokes
A'ight, forget what I said.  Go with the linguist!

Date: 2006/09/12 16:31:32, Link
Author: argystokes
This renders him basically useless as a scientist

I don't think this is fair at all.
Baryonic Weak Interaction Study in the Microlaboratory of &#923;-hypernuclei - group of 3 »
H Bhang - Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2003 -
Page 1. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 43, September 2003, pp.
S71&#8764;S77 Baryonic Weak Interaction Study in the Microlaboratory of &#923;-hypernuclei ...
Cited by 1 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct

Nuclear Theory, abstract - group of 2 »
M Oka, Y Tani, T Inoue, K Sasaki - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/9811033, 1998 -
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/9811033 v1 10 Nov 1998 Roles of Quarks in Strong
and Weak YN Interactions M. Oka, Y. Tani, T. Inoue (a) and ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nuclear Theory, abstract
T Inoue, M Oka, T Motoba, K Itonaga - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/9708041, 1997 -
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/9708041 v1 22 Aug 1997 Non-mesonic Weak Decays of Light
Hypernuclei in the Direct Quark and the One-Pion Exchange Mechanisms ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nuclear Theory, abstract - group of 2 »
K Sasaki, M Izaki, M Oka - Arxiv preprint nucl-th/0411104, 2004 -
Page 1. arXiv:nucl-th/0411104 v1 26 Nov 2004 Sigma Exchange in the Nonmesonic
Decays of Light Hypernuclei and Violation of the &#8710;I = 1/2 Rule ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nonmesonic weak decay of &#923; hypernuclei within a nuclear matter formalism - group of 4 »
E Bauer, F Krmpoti - Nuclear Physics, Section A, 2003 - Elsevier
Page 1. Nuclear Physics A 717 (2003) 217–234 Nonmesonic
weak decay of &#923; hypernuclei within a nuclear matter formalism ...
Cited by 4 - Related Articles - Web Search

MDA KHAN, TK DAS - FIZIKA B (Zagreb), 2001 -
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search - BL Direct

&#960; Emission from hypernuclei and the weak I= 3/2 transitions
M Oka - Nuclear Physics A, 1999 -
Page 1. Nuclear Physics A 647 (1999) 971104 &#960; + Emission from hypernuclei
and the weak I = 3/2 transitions Makoto Oka 1 Department ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Nonmesonic Weak Decay of the double-&#923; Hypernucleus 6
JH Jun - Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2002 -
Page 1. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 41, No. 3, September 2002,
pp. 298&#8764;308 Nonmesonic Weak Decay of the double-&#923; Hypernucleus 6 &#923;&#923; He ...
Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

Models of the nonmesonic weak decay - group of 3 »
M Oka - Nuclear Physics, Section A, 2005 - Elsevier
... Lett. B 90 (1980) 41; M. Oka, K. Shimizu, K. Yazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. S 137 (2000)
1. [13] CY Cheung, DP Heddle, LS Kisslinger, Phys. Rev. C 27 (1983) 335. ...
Related Articles - Web Search

He does a #### of a lot more science than PZ, and I sure don't have any reason to believe it's shoddy.  I also respect that he concedes that cosmological ID is a religious and not scientific position.  I don't see any real difference between someone like Heddle and Ken Miller, other than Heddle's super-sensitivity about his religion.

Date: 2006/09/12 16:42:40, Link
Author: argystokes
11) Worst defender of evolution.


12) Best defender of ID.

Ah, why not?  For the worst defender of evolution, I suppose it has to be Gary Hurd, for his bizarre outbursts at other PT contributors.  Although the new PvM is tempting.

The best ID defender?  Definitely Jesus.

Date: 2006/09/12 18:08:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Here are the results from a pubmed search for "myers pz"

Dudkin EA, Myers PZ, Ramirez-Latorre JA, Gruberg ER. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye.
Neurosci Lett. 1998 Dec 18;258(2):124-6.
PMID: 9875543 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Stachel SE, Grunwald DJ, Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in the pregastrula zebrafish.
Development. 1993 Apr;117(4):1261-74.
PMID: 8104775 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):127-43.
PMID: 8423468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper.
J Neurosci. 1993 Jan;13(1):115-26.
PMID: 8423467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Myers PZ, Bastiani MJ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video.
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1991 Jan;34(1):27-33.
PMID: 2036787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Metcalfe WK, Myers PZ, Trevarrow B, Bass MB, Kimmel CB. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish.
Development. 1990 Oct;110(2):491-504.
PMID: 1723944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Myers PZ, Eisen JS, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish.
J Neurosci. 1986 Aug;6(8):2278-89.
PMID: 3746410 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Eisen JS, Myers PZ, Westerfield M. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurones in live zebra fish embryos.
Nature. 1986 Mar 20-26;320(6059):269-71.
PMID: 3960108 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Myers PZ. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish.
J Comp Neurol. 1985 Jun 22;236(4):555-61.
PMID: 4056102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Green DM, Myers PZ, Reyna DL. Related Articles, Links
Abstract CHROMPAC III: an improved package for microcomputer-assisted analysis of karyotypes.
J Hered. 1984 Mar-Apr;75(2):143.
PMID: 6546940 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I suppose that makes him a productive graduate student and postdoc, but perhaps only one paper since becoming a full professor.  I don't think this is uncommon for a someone who is primary a teacher at a small liberal arts school, and he is responsible for 4 courses.  Developing an undergraduate curriculum is surely time consuming, and few researchers (at least in my department) do so.  That said, it seems to me he puts more effort into Pharyngula than his research program (completely unverified).

Date: 2006/09/13 19:47:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 13 2006,20:13)
There's another billion plus people you can throw in the ring in favor of creationism.

Hey, Dave, the number of Muslims in the world is expected to surpass the number of Christians in a couple decades. When that happens, will Islam then become true and not Christianity?

Silly Arden.  The rapture will happen long before then.  Of COURSE Muslims will be the majority in 20 years, all the good Christians will be gone!

Date: 2006/09/14 05:27:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Do you have any idea how many manuscripts have it as 666?  A lot. This is typical of skeptic thinking ... close your eyes to the massive evidence for one position, but open your eyes to the tiny shred of contrary evidence, then loudly proclaim that your position is correct, then  heap ridicule on your opponent ...  hmmm.

Um, it's more than one.  I assume you know the difference between "exactly" and "at least?"  Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the oldest known manuscript say 616?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:11:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah ... I see that you think my idea of "founding fathers" is limited to post 1776 personalities?  No, my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to the Mayflower.

Pff.  Well my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to Rome!  Seriously, Dave, this argument is your worst since "3 quotes is more detailed than 6, which contain all 3 quotes" back in the Portuguese discussion.

Oh so who do YOU think he was referring to here?  Walt Disney? ...

Read the passage again, and perhaps you'll understand.

I'm curious, from where is your engineering degree?  The Air Force Academy?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:31:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Argy ... American history goes back to the Mayflower, not Rome.  This is very basic stuff.

Geographically, American history goes back much longer than that.  The history of the United States begins in the late 18th century.  Where's that degree from, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/15 05:43:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,08:35)
Argy ... I've already said where my degree is from ... maybe if you try a polite approach and tell me what degrees you have and where they are from (telling me what your occupation is would also be a nice touch) I will tell you again ...

I have a Bachelor of Science in Cell & Molecular Biology from the University of Washington, class of 2005.  I am currently a second year (as of today) graduate student studying outer membrane proteins of Treponema pallidum as vaccine candidates for syphilis.  And I can answer deadman's syphilis question (although the answer is ludicrous, it's biologically feasible).  And with all that information, you might even be able to figure out my real name!  Would you care to reciprocate?

Date: 2006/09/18 19:26:07, Link
Author: argystokes
He's been talking about that site since December.

Ghost of Paley = William Dembski?  It would be fitting to call himself "the Wizard."  Or is that Berlinski?  Whatever.

Date: 2006/09/19 08:28:15, Link
Author: argystokes
If everyone stopped buying meat I would expect farmers would slaughter nearly all their animals and use the land to grow crops.

It could be an ecological disaster. Might not though, uncertain.

But what do you suppose the animals are eating now?  In the US, at least, it's not like the cows are out grazing in pristine ecologically sound fields.

Date: 2006/09/20 09:27:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,08:21)

I'm a bit puzzled.  The black dots represent individual meteorites, and are placed based on their ages calculated using Rb-Sr and Sr-Sr dating, right?  What are the red dots, and why do neither the red dots nor the black dots add up to 23?

Date: 2006/09/20 10:44:56, Link
Author: argystokes
OK, so let's see if I have this right.
1) Dave is presented with data
2) Dave agrees, the data suggests that two particular dating methods have a high degree of correlation if one trusts the data presented
3) Then Dave says "What if the data looked like THIS:" and adds a bunch of red dots to the chart
4) Dave goes on to prove that the imaginary data points have very little correlation, thus proving a young earth

Perhaps the term straw man should be replaced with "Red Dot."

Date: 2006/09/22 17:06:49, Link
Author: argystokes
You could dress up as a tiger, then kidnap a 6 year old boy and go as Calvin and Hobbes.

Date: 2006/09/23 14:52:34, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2006,16:24)
Quote (PennyBright @ Sep. 23 2006,16:40)
The other possibility includes me on door duty dressing up as Carmen Sandiego while the Bee and her Da dress as detectives and scour the community for me while collecting candy clues.

That's pretty cute.

Plus, that's TWO StrongBad outfits in one group.  Fantastic!

Date: 2006/09/24 19:13:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Not only did the designer design the HIV virus, but he cures it on demand, as well!

The account that I heard over the weekend about a person being clinically diagnosed with fullblown AIDS and then being medically declared free from AIDS following intercessory prayer must be one of those “delusions” us Christians are so prone to. I wonder if the attending Dr was delusional as well?

Date: 2006/09/26 14:56:06, Link
Author: argystokes
From OE:
My name is Samuel Chen and I am a student at the Honors College at Baylor University in Waco, Texas (though I am from Pennsylvania). I direct the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center ( and am a representative of the Access Research Network ( and a member of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Center (

They have a research center?  Full of undergraduates?  I wonder who the head PI is?

Date: 2006/09/27 11:58:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Good god, look who's one step away from becoming a full blown CBEB:
23. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 4:51 pm

David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye.

Comment by William Dembski — September 27, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

EDIT:  Shemps too fast for me.  My eyes!

Date: 2006/09/27 12:09:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?

Date: 2006/09/27 13:17:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Dern, that thread just keeps getting better.  From the constantly silly Mike1962:
I’ve never seen him invoke the Rev Moon in any of his arguments. Have you? I don’t give a rat’s rear what his motivations are. All that matters is the products of the research. Either it stands up to rational scrutiny or it doesn’t.

So we've gone from "we don't need no stinkin research" to "the research is all that matters.  Soon to be followed by complaining that no one understands what ID is.

Date: 2006/09/30 09:00:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Same thing here ...


This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.

So what's your take on Glenn Morton?

Date: 2006/10/02 07:20:08, Link
Author: argystokes
You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium?

Well, Dave, how similar or different do you think modern bacteria are?  And how what percentage of living bacterial species do you think we have discovered (putting aside the difficulties in defining bacterial species)?

Date: 2006/10/02 07:36:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Yes, in a truly neutral region of DNA (i.e., a molecular clock), a 500 myo bacterium is MUCH different than a modern bacterium. Exactly as much as a human is. If you want to talk about non-neutral, CODING regions (does that remind you of the human-chimp table?) that are under the purview of natural selection, we can expect that modern bacteria are more similar to ancient bacteria than humans are (but we can't know how similar, unless we can study fossil morphologies to make educated guesses about certain genes).

Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA.

Date: 2006/10/02 15:30:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Would I be doing you a favor if I did not warn you of the danger of not submitting yourself to the Great Creator and Judge of Mankind?

Who?  Hitler?

Date: 2006/10/02 15:52:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.

Hoo, boy, are you in for a surprise!

Date: 2006/10/02 20:05:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Ha ha.  The "Jesus Didn't Exist?" banner is back up on UD.  It links to TheGodMovie.  I can't imagine Dembski's happy about that.

Date: 2006/10/02 20:08:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 02 2006,15:01)
OverwhelmingEvidence's most prolific blogger wishes it to be known that he has just been sacked.

Nice try, Steve Story.  But too bad your ass got saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacked.

Date: 2006/10/03 17:00:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,19:41)
Uh ... Deadman ... you might want to actually read what my (and Denton's) claim is, OK?

I have no argument with the observation that similar organisms have similar sequences.  I think it's strange how you think this proves evolution, but I certainly agree that humans and apes have similar sequences, corn and sunflowers do also, etc, etc.

However, this has exactly NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

I think what Dave has latched onto here is a claim by Denton, who says that evolutionary biologists expected (in the 1950's and 1960's) that similar-looking organisms should have similar DNA sequences.
No.  Cory is right.  This is NOT what I think.  And Denton did not claim that.

I'll tell you what, guys ... I'll explain my claim again in the morning very simply so everyone can understand it (I think Cory does already ... we have that going for us at least.)

Instead, why don't you answer Mike question about what your objections are to his executive summary?  He's been politely asking for days now.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:25:16, Link
Author: argystokes
When I read that little essay, a beautiful scene emerged in my mind:
Dembski stood beneath the oak, smirking and delighting in the admiration of his young apprentices.  Just as he was about to recommend his latest book for purchase, he saw a short man wearing sunglasses and a dark blue T-shirt approaching.

"Away with you, Heddle," said Dembski.  "You do not belong amongst these ID luminaries."  Dembski, upon seeing that he was in fact only surrounded by the likes of Salvador Cordova and Gil Dodgen, quickly pulled out his personal mirror to stare at his reflection.

Heddle cast aside his sunglasses, revealing a light of determination in his aging eyes.  But he did not reply.

Dembski became wary, and he thought he could hear music coming from the skies.  As the silent Heddle stalked closer, the music became louder.  Dembski recognized it as The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  It grew louder.

"Don't you dare approach me," Dembski admonished.  "Please take your message to my research assistant."

"That's me!" an eager Joel chimed in.  Dembski glared.

As Heddle grew near Dembski, he reached behind himself.  Sparkling in the sunlight, a golden cross the length of a golf club and as thick as Dembski's wrist appeared in the now upraised hand of Heddle.  The music became thunderous, and a chorus of angels could be heard singing, "MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY OF THE COMING OF THE LORD!"

Dembski went pale.


Heddle raised the cross above his head with both hands.


Heddle swung the cross.  Gil, Joel, Sal, and the others looked on in horror, but could not move.


The blow connected with Dembski's face, lifting him from the ground.  As he flew through the air, the voices thundered:

OK, it's a little violent, but keep in mind that all these people are two-dimensional images to be, so it should be imagined as cartoon-like.

Date: 2006/10/04 08:47:04, Link
Author: argystokes

it came from my brain, but I put it in a quote box to separate it from my, um, commentary on my own commentary.

Date: 2006/10/05 06:03:48, Link
Author: argystokes
But: one issue I've never quite seen addressed by Heddle, the main remaining issue I think, is why a non-Christian should care about cosmological ID.

Heddle has called cosmo ID an apologetic.
Heddle has said apologetics are only useful in defense of Christianity, but will be unconvincing to skeptics.
Therefore, he'd probably agree that non-Christians shouldn't care.  But he sure does seem to be compelled to spread the Good Word.

Date: 2006/10/05 08:20:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Over on OE

SecondClass describes Dembski's work, referencing one of Dembski's papers
Dembski's CSI metric is nothing more than an indication that a given class of events is improbable under a given hypothesis. As such, the most that CSI can do is rule out competing hypotheses. It offers no positive evidence for ID.

In fact, Dembski has repeatedly stated that design inferences are eliminative. See his article "Design by Elimination vs. Design by Comparison" at

Patrick, OE moderator tells him to read the literature:
More like no positive evidence for ID that you find personally acceptable... Read the literature. Positive and negative arguments are discussed in there.

And then deletes a post by HodorH where he asks for a reference for where Dembski has calculated the CSI for a biological molecule.  (can't quote it, its gone).

Good grief, is the best way to become an ID blog moderator to not even know what the "prominent" ID folks arguments are?

Date: 2006/10/05 10:06:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 05 2006,11:33)
I just received my stealth banning from OE, along with the disappearance of a few of my posts (which were polite and, as far as I can tell, objectively factual).  Can someone explain to me the ethics of targeting a site at kids and then surreptitiously removing counterarguments, making it look like opponents are empty-handed?

First sentence of comment by Patrick:
Basicially it comes down to a debate over indirect Darwinian pathways and Co-Option. This subject is discussed here:


(A gil dodgin post)

Last sentence of same post:
Oh, and I'd appreciate it if people would write their OWN blog posts and not simply link to an anti-ID site and say "what about this?".

*Shakes head*

Date: 2006/10/06 06:09:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Holy shit.  I just popped on over to Dave's Lies4Kids site, and clicked on the word "HEART" in the top right corner.  What did I get?
"Children need to know God's word now, before it's TOO LATE"

Very classy, Dave.  Threaten the kids with eternal damnation.  That's pretty sick.

Date: 2006/10/06 17:10:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here:

A Metaphor Still Isn't Science
carlson | Sat, 2006-10-07 02:27

ID bashers only wish to avoid analogies and metaphors because they are embarassed to admit they have no rebuttal of them. This business about "let's move beyond metaphors and talk about science" is nothing more than a deflection.

Metaphors don't increase the body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is created through the process of scientific inquiry; namely forming and testing hypotheses. The answer you propose is that something is designed if it has CSI. You follow that with the statement it is superfluous to calculate CSI because the thing in question appears to be designed. But, without actually applying a calculation of CSI in a rigorous manner, it is an empty concept and the whole deal boils down to the assertion that something is designed because it looks designed. It is an interesting apologetic, but it doesn't rise to the level of scientific discourse.

You have stated the hypotheses that it is DNA is designed because it is highly improbable that it formed through natural processes. And you have a tool called CSI that allows you to quantify those probabilities. So, why the reluctance to apply the tool to the hypotheses? You may consider it superfluous, but the people you are trying to convince apparently don't. They want to dig into the details because that is how science works.

Are you saying that if I go to the park and see some geese, I'm not allowed to claim that there are geese at the park unless I count them first?

You are saying that DNA has CSI, but it is completely unnecessary to do the calculation. You are basically saying that "DNA is designed because it looks designed to me." That is an argument by assertion. So, more accurately, what I am saying is that you can't claim that the geese are really squirrels and expect people to believe you unless you are willing and able to positively compare the animal in front of you to the known morphology of a squirrel.

Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that, if the presence of language on a stone tablet indicates intelligent authorship, the presence of language embedded in a complex molecule like DNA indicates intelligent authorship as well? Is it just because you know that author must not be human? Really… just what IS the problem here?

There are undoubtedly many scientists who are familiar with the structure and functioning of DNA who may not necessarily agree to your assertion that DNA is designed. By virtue of their knowledge of DNA, they are going to want to have discussions about (guess what?).....DNA. CSI is a measure of the improbability of something having formed naturally. If you are going to assert that it is improbable that DNA formed naturally, then you have expect to be asked very specific questions about DNA, the calculated probabilities, the confidence intervals, and the methodology you used to calculate it. Appeals to archaeology and rune stones won't get you very far with biologists.

So the problem I am struggling with is why go to all the bother of even defining a complex probability function like CSI if there isn't any effort to apply it in a rigorous manner. It is reduced to the biological equivalent of a Potemkin village. Which, unfortunately, raises the question of who exactly it is you are trying to convince.
login or register to post comments | 0 points

Date: 2006/10/06 17:36:49, Link
Author: argystokes
You can't tell me that Z was the only one who believed this in 1965.  I guess I am going to have to figure out a way to get access to these journals online.

Go to your local University Library.  They'll have online access to most journal articles since around 1995, stacks with major journals going back to the 50s, less prominent journals going back to the 80s, and articles available in reserves upon request.

Date: 2006/10/09 13:26:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 09 2006,16:22)
Yeah yeah, so you don't understand the point of extended explanations, and must fault what you don't understand.  Nothing new in the promotion of know-nothingness and a preference for reductive simplicity.

I noted when responding to Martin that scientists often don't respect philosophers, thanks to people like Martin.  On the other hand, the contempt of the unknowing scientists who have to put down philosophy for not boiling down to single sentences puts a strain in the other direction.  

Then again, if I quoted Einstein's philosophical writings without crediting him, you'd probably make the same benighted and unsupported assertions, simply because you don't know or care about covering the bases.  

Besides which, you don't even get my name right, showing just how little you paid attention to what I wrote, and how prejudicial you are being.  Sorry I can't be as glib and unlearned as yourself in philosophical affairs, but then I never wanted to be.

It's just attack, with about as little concern for the truth as Pim evinces.  You don't, and presumably can't, back up your claims any more than he can, however you will fault what you don't understand.  It's the usual anti-intellectualism, fed by egoism and a lack of concern about what others know.  Had I faulted you for trite and glib answers, you might understand what I mean.  But I haven't, since I do recognize the need for various voices in response to pseudoscience.  Too bad that you do not.

Glen D

Shorter Glen D:  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

Date: 2006/10/09 14:12:51, Link
Author: argystokes
Get fu__ed, moron.

argystokes shows nothing better than bullying

Interesting.  I believe you have misunderstood the content of my brief comment.  Based on your usage of the term "bullying," and your replication of the sentence structure of "Don't be an a-hole, stupid" with your own lovely characterization of my self, I believe you have confused
Shorter Glen D:  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

Shorter, Glen D.  Don't be an a-hole, stupid!

If, however, you read me right, and want to turn what I considered to be a light-hearted jab into an all-out flame war, send me a note on the bathroom wall and we'll have an all-out naked mudwrestling, erm, mudslinging contest.  I bet I can insult you at a higher density than you can me (self-disparaging double entendre intended).

Date: 2006/10/10 07:28:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2006,10:22)
On the one hand, I think the P2P approach of things like OverwhelmingEvidence is smart, it gets around the court system. On the other hand, it's a case of middle-aged adults trying to act 'hip' and 'radical' to teenagers, so I'm not too worried it'll succeed.

With two whole comments in the last 23 hours, it's good to see OE off to a roaring start.  Of course, when you ban folks willy-nilly, and all you have left is a homely graphic designer and the artist formerly known as Gumpngreen, it's hardly surprising.

Date: 2006/10/10 15:10:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Rumor has it the film will have an official debut at a massive Christian apologetics and ID conference at Mclean Bilble Church this November: Loving God With All Your Mind. It is hard to express how personally delighted I am ID is being welcomed into Christian and creationist circles. As someone who has fought alongside my comrades to get ID a hearing in Christendom, I can assure you all there have been challenges to getting ID accepted and appreciated in these circles. This is cause for celebration.

Oh, Sal, where would we be without you?

Date: 2006/10/11 07:28:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,10:21)
I was wondering why I find OverwhelmingEvidence so boring. Part of it is, OE is not very popular and there's only a few comments per day. But I think another part of the reason is, OE is a post-Dover event. It's kind of like finding Japanese soldiers in the pacific, still unaware the war is over. They're not a threat, they're just pitiful.

It's inevitable how that place is going to turn out, if it ever gets popular.  Just another Christian Forum, with kids making the most dunderheaded "I didn't come from no munky" comments and the occassional atheist swinging by to make fun, before quickly being banned.

Date: 2006/10/11 17:01:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,19:50)
OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?  Any explanations for HOW they are transitional and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?

BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously.

Psst, follow the links...

Date: 2006/10/12 05:59:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 12 2006,08:33)
A much more observant reader that myself emails to tell me:

JAD was not banned from PT. He was confined to his very own thread, which he stopped posting to after it dropped off the front page.

So he could come back anytime he wants.

Are you sure?  I suspect that his last comment was enough to have Wes pull the plug:
Posted by John A. Davison on May 27, 2005 09:12 AM (e)

Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished.
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics.

John A. Davison

Date: 2006/10/12 17:39:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2006,20:11)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...  
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

You should read the whole article here ...

WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?

Actually, that one might not be mined.  It's from 1962!

Date: 2006/10/15 13:43:21, Link
Author: argystokes
All over the web we're told that the designer could be anyone, including by the nauseatingly boring TRoutMac.  But lo and behold, he's changed his mind and cleared things up:
If Christians DID believe in "other gods", then they wouldn't really believe in God of the Bible. It turns out that to believe in the other "gods" requires a great deal of faith. Blind faith. But to believe in the Christian God, THE God, requires only that you look around. The evidence is everywhere.

And a note for the newly registered Zachriel:
Dude, don't bother trying to debate over at OE.  You'll get banned even faster than at UD, and the tards over there aren't as funny.

Date: 2006/10/16 08:56:03, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 16 2006,09:56)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 15 2006,09:17)
Meanwhile over at UD, TroutMac is expanding the repertoire of devastating arguments.  In addition to Mount Rushmore and the Rosetta Stone, he now offers up crop circles.

Attention Darwinians!  The end is nigh.  They have a trinity of metaphors that you can't respond to.

I have pursued the discussion at Overwhelming Evidence. The latest is that DNA is an actual language rather than a metaphor. (It has letters, you see.) Anyway, for support TRoutMac provides these, and other references:

   "Robert Pollack ... takes the popular metaphor of DNA as language."

   "Let's continue with the metaphor that DNA is a language."

It's as if he can read the words, but can't understand the meaning, presumably some sort of mental block as to content contrary to his position. It's a metaphor!

Uh, let's not forget that using language as a metaphor to prove something is designed is rather silly, seeing as (unless I'm horribly mistaken) language itself is the product of evolution rather than design.

Date: 2006/10/16 13:47:21, Link
Author: argystokes
From the OE:

Zachriel Blocked
Patrick | Mon, 2006-10-16 22:29

I was made aware by other moderators that Zachriel had previously been banned at UD for bad behavior and as such he is now blocked here.

Told ya so!

Date: 2006/10/17 10:15:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Hey, Stephen I hope you're feeling well.  One of the headlines from this week's The Stranger:
Stephen Elliott gets beat up by girlfriend

On another note, one of the machines in my lab has a timer that plays "My Bonnie lies over the ocean."  And yet today, when I heard it go off, what pops into my head?  "The lurkers support me in email, the lurkers support me you'll see."  Which one of you goons do I have to blame for that silliness?

Date: 2006/10/17 16:55:32, Link
Author: argystokes

Your posts are all showing up on UD eventually.  If you say something worth commenting on (which you have, check back a couple pages), it'll show up here.  But I don't see any reason to copy/paste all your posts from a single thread onto a comment thread whose sole purpose is to, well, make fun of you.

Date: 2006/10/17 18:22:20, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 17 2006,21:01)
No Drew, it is a real sence.  As real as sight.

Date: 2006/10/18 05:48:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim

I dunno Jim.  It's possible that he remembers the exact quotes.  After all, Dave spent his entire childhood memorizing Bible quotes.  Too bad he was never taught to read for content.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:57:46, Link
Author: argystokes
19. mike1962  // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:53 pm

By the way, I had a random thought come to me today that “junk” DNA may harbor instructions that affect *other* species rather than the carrier, that might be transmitted via a bite or a sting, and might alter the victim. Anyone hear of any research along these lines?

Hey, yeah!  DNA that gets injected, and then invades cells and coopts the victim's cellular machinery!  A perfect mix of eukaryotes, viruses, and tard!

Date: 2006/10/19 06:14:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave's new definition of genetic richness:
1) A large degree of heterozygosity as I explained thoroughly this morning, and
2) Relative absence of harmful (or neutral) mutations

Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation?  I don't think #2 makes any sense at all.

And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1?

Date: 2006/10/19 08:34:52, Link
Author: argystokes
Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"

It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids.  And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase.  So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:53:25, Link
Author: argystokes
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.

Date: 2006/10/19 17:22:32, Link
Author: argystokes
And now, time for some Deep Thoughts.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

If you saw two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you think liked dolphins the most? I'd say Flippy, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong, though. It's Hambone.

Life, to me, is like a quiet forest pool, one that needs a direct hit from a big rock half-buried in the ground. You pull and you pull, but you can't get the rock out of the ground. So you give it a good kick, but you lose your balance and go skidding down the hill toward the pool. Then out comes a big Hawaiian man who was screwing his wife beside the pool because they thought it was real pretty. He tells you to get out of there, but you start faking it, like you're talking Hawaiian, and then he gets mad and chases you...

If you're a Thanksgiving dinner, but you don't like the stuffing or the cranberry sauce or anything else, just pretend like you're eating it, but instead, put it all in your lap and form it into a big mushy ball. Then, later, when you're out back having cigars with the boys, let out a big fake cough and throw the ball to the ground. Then say, "Boy, these are good cigars!"
I wouldn't be surprised if someday some fishermen caught a big shark and cut it open, and there inside was a whole person. Then they cut the person open, and in him is a little baby shark. And in the baby shark there isn't a person, because it would be too small. But there's a little doll or something, like a Johnny Combat little toy guy---something like that.

Date: 2006/10/20 04:54:39, Link
Author: argystokes
One more time, in case you missed it:
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.

Date: 2006/10/20 06:21:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,08:24)
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours.  How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios:

(1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square.
(2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other.
If I understand correctly, in case 1, you would have an "MmMm" situation (to stick with the AIG Punnet square example) and in Case 2 you would have an "MMmm" situation, which as far as I can tell, would statistically have the same effect in their descendants.  Do you agree?

Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right.  So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?"  Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:00:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Why I think it matters is because Genesis records a supernatural creation of Adam first, then a supernatural creation of Eve from Adam's side ("side" is a better translation ... "rib" in KJV).  This would imply that Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup.

Um, what?  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as your scenario implies.

Date: 2006/10/20 13:38:03, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2006,16:00)
My feeling is that is going to be sacked soon. There hasn't been a new post or comment in 31 hours.

Well, when all you have left is two middle aged morons babbling nonsense back and forth at each other, it's not hard to see that the kids weren't drawn in.  And also using the words "wacky" and "zany" on the front page probably wasn't a good idea for a site trying to attract kids older than 8.

Date: 2006/10/21 19:51:43, Link
Author: argystokes
In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?

Have you seen dave's blog?  If he's an imposter, he's managed to find a pretty old picture of the real Dave Hawkins.  Unfortunately, the email for Hawkins on k4t doesn't seem to work, so I can't verify.

Date: 2006/10/22 16:24:13, Link
Author: argystokes
OE isn't completely dead yet. We get treated to part 5 of the worst ID theory in history:

I think we might be getting taken for a ride.  Mark Nutter doesn't exactly seem ID friendly, based on his blog.  Maybe a woo woo spiritualist or something.

Date: 2006/10/23 15:11:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,17:37)
It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?

Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.

Date: 2006/10/24 03:43:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 23 2006,23:17)
Sure, I'll just hop on up I-5 till I hit 405 in Renton, stay on that till bellvue where I hop I-90 and I'll be right there. Where should I meet you guys?

Who's all coming?

Forget going east BWE, Earl's on University Way.  Two long islands. Done.

Yes, sir!  But then, the new Earl's has a little less flavor than the old.  I prefer the College Inn myself.

Date: 2006/10/24 06:02:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

Date: 2006/10/24 06:10:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Been a while since I was in Seattle. (Other than an energy trade show in June and I didn't get out that time.) Maybe University way, hold on, Is University Way the same as University Avenue? has changed a bit since I was there last. It used to be the place for the hippies and trippers. Is it still?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of my best friends are hippies and trippers.

Yes, yes, and yes.  And 405 is now way worse than I-5, but obviously more direct if you're going to Chicago.

Date: 2006/10/24 08:16:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (don_quixote @ Oct. 24 2006,10:36)
Thunderbird and Bubble-Up.

I've not heard of the latter, but I do remember overindulging in Thunderbird in my teens. I don't know if they still sell it in the UK, though.


I just saw this:

Amazon river 'switched direction'

Explanation please, Dave.

I remember Bubble-Up from listening to When Radio Was, that show that replayed old timey radio from the 30's and 40's.  Just how old are you, Deadman?

Date: 2006/10/24 12:26:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

One more time, in case you missed it

Date: 2006/10/24 14:42:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,15:26)
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 24 2006,09:02)
Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information?

One more time, in case you missed it

Well, I'll ask one more time before I go to bold caps...  it's a pretty simple question, requiring just 2 or 3 letters to answer.  Granted, of course there will be a followup.

Date: 2006/10/25 17:02:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,19:56)
You know Cedric ... it's interesting what has transpired here over the last several months.  I have been increasingly amazed at some of the enormous knowledge gaps that people here have had in areas I was led to believe they were experts in ... the latest two examples being a guy that's in a PhD program in neuroscience having a completely backwards idea of what information is and a guy that really seems intelligent otherwise who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of population genetics.  What I'm saying to you is that way back then when I was told that Dr. Wieland was wrong about the chromosomes, I believed those who told me that.  I think it was Jeannot and others.  Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if I find out that in fact it was Jeannot and all of you that were wrong and Dr. Wieland was right.  It is beginning to appear to me that many of you have a very backwards view of reality.  But we'll see.  I assure you I am anxious to hear Dr. Wieland's reply in any case.

Dave, you little cutie, you don't need to take our word for it that Wieland is atrociously wrong.  You can look it up yourself.  Try googling "DNA antiparallel" and see what you get.

Date: 2006/10/25 18:50:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Artist in trainig @ Oct. 25 2006,20:29)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,22:24)
And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?

That's what we call "learning".

Ouch, Dave.  You've just been given the proverbial smackdown by both Scary and Artist, both of whom (if I'm not mistaken) came here as creationists.  So why are they laying into you, Dave?  Are they blind and cannot see the evidence for creationism, because they have the need for Darwin to be right?

Date: 2006/10/26 18:35:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 26 2006,21:30)
Wimp Lo: Take a close look. 'Cause I rule, baby.
Chosen One: And who do you rule, the large-dark-nipple people?

Source: ibid

Oh, man, you're about 4 months behind.  Did you catch the first set of Kung Pow! references in this thread?  So appropriate, so classic.

Date: 2006/10/27 06:15:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Why? Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism.

Dave, remember back in the spring when I was berating you about whether Adam and Eve had immune systems in the garden?  Well, eventually you pointed me (or else I found on my own, but I think it was you) at an AIG article which said the immune system "maintained body integrity."  Hmm, saying nothing of fighting disease.  After all, there was none in the garden.  So don't humans perform specified functions now that weren't performed in the past?  You know, increased specificity?

Does it hurt to be disemboweled constantly for 6 months?

Date: 2006/10/27 06:33:00, Link
Author: argystokes
They simply were genetically rich, meaning nothing more than they had a significant degree of heterozygosity.  How much?  I cannot say.

Dave, I thought you'd given up on this being a meaningful statement.  So, what's the maximum number of alleles that could have been contained by a given "kind" on the ark at a single locus?

(a) 2
(b) 4
© depends on how many genes affect the trait
(d) Screw Punnett!  As many as I can imagine!

Date: 2006/10/27 06:36:27, Link
Author: argystokes
OK, one more question, and then I'm done for now.  If sickle cell is necessarily deleterious, why is it increasing in areas endemic for malaria?

Date: 2006/10/28 10:24:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Bwahaha!  Tardmac gets told to shut up, unless he has that disease that Robin Williams had in "Jack"
TRoutMac - How old are you anyway? According to the introduction to a Podcast with Sam Chen on Intelligent Design The Future, this site is described as follows:

"Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution. ... This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts."

I'm too old to post here but enjoy reading what I assume to be the opinions of a young contributorship. I can go elsewhere to find what high school graduates are thinking.

My apologies if you just look older than you are or if the intent of this site has changed.

Of course, I can see how one could be confused, as Tardmac certainly does express his ideas at a middle school level.

Date: 2006/10/29 11:41:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 29 2006,15:29)
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 29 2006,15:52)
To clarify things, I emailed Dr. Schneider to get his opinion on the issue. The question I asked was whether a signal constructed from white noise could convey information to a receiver.


The email was a great idea, I wish I had thought to do it myself. But it still won't work.  You see, Dave can't comprehend the concept.  No matter how many words you try to use, the concept gets lost in Dave's internal noise.

Ironic, no?

Dave tries throwing Drew a knuckleball, and...

Yet another 3 run home run.  (Un?)fortunately, soft tossers like Dave never have their arms get tired.

Date: 2006/10/29 14:27:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Plus, next door at the Paradox you can catch some sweet shows (I most recommend Jason Webley).  And one can just head down the road to Hale's Brewery and get the best beer in the area.  Ah, Ballard, how I love thee.

Date: 2006/10/30 03:55:31, Link
Author: argystokes
As Joseph would claim that the entire universe is designed, including the planetary orbits, it certainly isn't outside the realm of reasonable questions.

Really?  Do you have a link for this one?  Is good ole Joe G a gravity denier as well?

Date: 2006/10/30 06:30:29, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 30 2006,10:17)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 30 2006,05:08)
Dear Concerned Homeowner,

Daschunds, Wiener Dogs, in fact any dog under 75 cm tall are frankly rats with good PR (or for those with proper pets: lunch).

Wait a minute, Louis. Gonna have to disagree with you here. Speaking as a renter living in a city with a population density of ~10,000/hectare, I can say with some assurance that wienerdogs rock (all other small dogs suck.)

The reason wienerdogs don't suck is because they are completely and utterly unaware of the fact that they are, in fact, small dogs. Wienerdogs have in abundance the one dog characteristic I value above all others: a complete lack of self-consciousness.

And if you need further evidence of the sterling qualities of wienerdogs, look no further.

Ugh.  No, there is no dog worse than a dachshund.  By "unaware of the fact that they are... small dogs" I assume you mean that just like most small dogs, they're always ready to bite another dog, no matter what its size.  Nearly evert small dog owner I've met has said the same thing about their dog. This coupled with the fact that their owners always find it cute when their little crap dog gets nasty, so the behavior is encouraged.  The only small dogs I've ever found likeable are Papillons and Havaneses.  Plus, JAD has a dachshund, and so does James Dobson, which he beats.

*sorry for the rant... neighbor had a dachsund which she allowed to wander around offleash, crapping in our yard and screaming furiously whenever I took my pups out.

Date: 2006/10/30 06:35:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 30 2006,10:29)
Weren't they bred to hunt badgers or something?

Yes.  Dachshund = Badgerhound.  Brains of a hound (dumb), disposition of a terrier (nasty).  And extraordinarily popular.

Date: 2006/10/30 07:11:06, Link
Author: argystokes
I've never heard one bark in all the time I've lived out here.

*shocked silence*

Date: 2006/10/30 10:55:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 30 2006,14:32)
Are all living bacteria genetically equidistant from eukaryotes?

(The chart on the tree-of-life website indicates that, but it also describes a couple of alternate versions of the tree that apparently hadn't been ruled out at that time.)


It depends on whether you count archaea as bacteria.  If you do, the prevailing view is that, no, archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than the eubacteria (true bacteria), with bacteria first diverging from archaea, then eukaryotes splitting from archaea.  Of course, things get really sticky when you consider that mitochondria are probably the descendents of eubacteria, making us chimera of sorts.

Date: 2006/10/30 11:57:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Mike PSS ... great picture!  You're not gonna like me very much after tomorrow when I talk about HLA  :-)

OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant.  Just a fair warning.

And does the gain of the ability to fight disease count as an increase in specificity/information (2nd time)?

Date: 2006/10/31 06:23:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,10:17)
There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?

But Dave, you already said that you can't even imagine hwat evidence contradictory to the Bible even would look like.  Now, granted, that was many moons ago.  Have you thought of anything?  And you promised us HLA today!  I'm afraid all the runners just got to advance one base.

Date: 2006/10/31 06:44:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Ha, ha, it's a fundie purgefest this week!

40. jaredl  // Oct 31st 2006 at 12:23 pm

Sal -

If what you mean is that this blog is a place where a certain orthodoxy of thought shall be enforced - be it theological, philosophical, or scientific - then perhaps you aren’t being harsh.

It is, after all, a private place, and you’re free to place any restriction on the expression of ideas you wish.

I simply did not understand that this blog was not for discussion, but rather simple cheerleading and villification of heterodox opinions. Sometimes, I have problems discerning the unspoken rules.

Let the cheerleading continue.

Comment by jaredl — October 31, 2006 @ 12:23 pm

Date: 2006/10/31 11:59:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores?  Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took?  And the new "creationist" is named bwee?

Bee dubs, come out from under that mask!

Date: 2006/10/31 15:07:34, Link
Author: argystokes
Sal left this laffer over at Pharyngula:
I estimate, if criticisms of Darwinian evolution are ever admitted in public schools from peer-reviewed literature (like Stephen Meyer's paper), a 75-80% rejection rate would occur. Some polling esitmates show 90% rejection rate could be achievable if sufficient exposure to ID materials is allowed (such as simplified editions of Michael Denton's book or Unlocking the Mystery of Life).

Ah, some polling estimates.  Presumeably the poll went something like this:

DI Poller: What percent of kids would reject Darwinism if they saw our cool videos?

Meyer: 25%
Behe: 55%
Minnich: 60%
Gonzalez: 45%
Dembski: 20%, but 90% if they buy my book.

Date: 2006/11/02 16:00:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Intelligent Design. The study of patterns in nature that
are best explained as the product of intelligence.
Intelligence. Any cause, agent, or process that achieves an
end or goal by employing suitable means or instruments.
Design. An event, object, or structure that an intelligence
brought about by matching means to ends.

Hmm, I guess good old fashioned darwinian mechanisms count as intelligence (they achieve and end I'd say, though not a goal).  Intelligence: anything that happens.

Date: 2006/11/02 17:59:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Good grief, when I perused that first chapter, I assumed it was aimed at early highschoolers.  Apparently I was wrong:
College level ID textbook to be released March 1, 2007 (chapter 1 available online)
by scordova on November 2nd, 2006 · No Comments

The Design of Life

   …this book is poised to become the authoritive textbook on the theory of intelligent design.

Keep reading &#8594;

Filed Under: Intelligent Design

Then again, I suppose that any college that would use this tripe in their curricula would be on about the level of Pensacola Christian College.

Date: 2006/11/03 04:56:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Someone (steve?) may want to archive this thread before it's disappeared.
More antics from PZ Myers?
by scordova on November 3rd, 2006 · 9 Comments

You be the judge. Here is what professor Tim McGrew had to say:

Let me put that more bluntly: Myers is lying through his teeth. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.

   And not a single commentator on Panda’s Thumb for the past two months could be bothered to check Myers’s quotation against Wells’s actual words to see whether Myers was telling the truth.

This can be found in the comment section of My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Douglas Groothuis.

Of course, we find the truth is... somewhat less fantastic.  The quote Myers attributed to Wells was completely accurate.

EDIT: The comment (by Franky172) pointing out Myers's response has been deleted.  BWAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2006/11/03 05:17:15, Link
Author: argystokes
And the awesome just keeps coming.  MacNeill stops by to bring the pain:

Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit, and that Myers’s original statements were, in fact, exactly as he represented them.
Why is it so difficult to admit this?

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 am

EDIT:  Uh, oh, trouble at the farm.  Asstastic moderator Patrick has posted PZ's scanning of the infamous pp. 35, and criticized Sal for not fact-checking!  I give this thread about 20 minutes before it disappears (that's be about 8:35 PST)

Date: 2006/11/03 07:44:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Someone wondered whether TardMac was a YEC.  Not only does it seem so, he's using Hovind arguments:

Right On The Numbers
TRoutMac | Wed, 2006-10-11 15:07

Okay, I did a little research. The elevation of the Colorado River just below Glen Canyon Dam (before the river enters the canyon) is actually about 3150 feet or thereabouts. The canyon rim where the river cuts through the Kaibab Plateau is close to 7000 feet.

Scutus, I don't know what relevance your answer has to the problem. You might notice that every river's lowest point is sea level, except for rivers which are tributaries of larger rivers.

I also don't know what the Colorado River has to do with the Great Lakes. The Colorado River originates in Colorado north of Granby, and flows southwest through Colorado, Utah, Arizona, then flows past Nevada and California before making the final stretch through Mexico to meet the Sea of Cortez.

Everyone knows water doesn't flow uphill. (except in a siphon) I want to know how the Colorado River managed to flow from an elevation of 3150 feet to an elevation of 7000 feet, gaining 3850 feet in elevation before it began to "carve" the canyon. Or, I want to know, if the Kaibab Plateau rose up underneath the river, why didn't the uplift force the river into a new route?

Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Date: 2006/11/06 04:27:47, Link
Author: argystokes
What you have is the most common HLA-B alleles in N. Am. on top descending to the least frequently occurring at bottom.  Let's analyze each line individually ...

B4002: Significant (~16%) for N. Am. and Australia.  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B3501: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~13%)  Next closest is less than half as frequent.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B4801: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Oceana with only ~4%.
No support for Mike's statement above.

B2705: Significant ONLY for N. Am. (~9%)  Next closest is Europe with only ~3%.
No support for Mike's statement above.

Are you getting the picture?  Do I need to keep going?

So Mike, kindly demonstrate HOW your statement is supported in detail or retract your claim.


Dave, this is your stupidest post since the red dots incident.  Yes, the alleles that are most common in N. America have their highest incidence in... N. America.  But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.  You also still haven't answered how we got all those darned advantageous alleles to begin with.

Date: 2006/11/06 04:49:42, Link
Author: argystokes

But they're still widespread throughout the globe.  Mike has nothing to retract.

No, they are not.  We find LESS THAN HALF the incidence in the next closest frequency of any allele you might pick.  There is no way any rational person can look at this data and conclude this ...

He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
Also, you are showing your lack of understanding of "experimenter selectivity" by bashing my "red dot" chart.  You totally missed the point of all the information I gave regarding Isochron Diagrams.  It apparently is good enough for you--a non-expert in RM dating methods--to blindly accept all RM Dating in spite of the fact that you were shown how RM Dating is "calibrated" by the use of fossils.  Why would you blindly accept this?  All I can conclude is that you WANT ToE to be true and that you NEED RM "Dating" to support your ideas.

Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points.  And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart.  I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave.

Date: 2006/11/07 10:52:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Um, OK, so all the HLA-B alleles arose between Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel?  I'm still not seeing where all these alleles come from.

Date: 2006/11/07 16:00:22, Link
Author: argystokes
More antics from DaveScot?

I report, you decide!  Does Springer admit to manually delisting UD himself?
DaveScot  // Nov 7th 2006 at 4:32 pm

I can’t really think of a particularly good reason why someone would do this unless they had some kind of personal grudge against Dembski or one of you.


Or if UD accidentally broke one of Google’s rules.


We didn’t break any of the rules. Now connect the remaining dots.

Date: 2006/11/09 20:23:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, they fixed Weiland's/LeJeune's error on the creationontheweb site... sort of...
EDITOR'S NOTE: This magazine article, written in 1979, is retained for historical reasons, but the principal argument it contains, even though it was presented by one of the most distinguished authorities in the field at the time, should not be used. It has been known for a considerable time that the information on a strand of DNA can be read in either direction. That does not of course mean that humans descended from chimps, merely that it is not appropriate to use this argument to indicate otherwise. As we have stated elsewhere, we should always be 'hanging loose' about any particular argument, prepared to abandon it in the face of information to the contrary.

(my emphasis)

The reason for the correction, however, is still totally wrong.  A strand of DNA is only read in one direction (5' to 3').  The issue at hand is that DNA is double stranded, and that the strands are antiparallel (which has been known since the days of Watson and Crick).  Therefore there is no objective "head" or "tail" to a chromosome.  Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.

Date: 2006/11/09 22:49:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 09 2006,19:57)
Argy ...  
Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong.
This from a guy who thinks his ancestor is a chimp ... and further back than that ... pond scum!!  And he's serious!!

Actually, I don't.  On either count.  Please retract.  You wouldn't want to lie about someone, would you?

I mean, this incident has to be embarrassing for them; not even knowing how DNA is read, which is AP highschool level biology.

EDIT:  You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from?  Good grief, I'm going to start putting up pictures of obese felines if you keep this up.

Date: 2006/11/09 23:15:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Holy shabit, something serious is coming down the pipes in the ID world!

2. Joey Campana  // Nov 9th 2006 at 2:41 pm



Please contact me ASAP about a matter of great importance. jccampana at gmail dot com

Comment by Joey Campana — November 9, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

Nah.  It's probably just a memo to DO'L reminding her to learn how to write coherently before taking up yet another blog.

Date: 2006/11/09 23:39:52, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, well, Dave scores his first point against the forces of ignorance:
Dr. Wieland is now in a separate creationist organization from AIG and he has put the author's note in his instance of the article at
The editor at AIG has also been informed now directly by Dr. Wieland and I expect that the AIG instance of the article will be changed shortly also.

An AiG search for "Wieland LeJeune" yields
Cytogenetics - another blow to evolution
... by Dr Carl Wieland. Professor Jerome LeJeune, a very distinguished French cytogeneticist
and holder of the chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris ... - 34k

Clicking the link...
Page Not Found

Your browser requested information that was not available on the Answers in Genesis web server. If you followed a link from another page to get here, please notify us so we can try to take care of the problem on the page that links here. If you typed in a URL that was advertised on TV/radio or a magazine or newspaper, check to make sure that you typed it in properly—it should not include punctuation (eg. '.';) at the end.

Date: 2006/11/10 11:05:46, Link
Author: argystokes
And if you are somehow successful in deploying a convincing argument for that, then why do you still find 61 alleles in 250 years difficult to conceive, given by citations of studies regarding rapid polymorphism in the MHC Complex, of which the HLA-B is one gene.??

61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations??  If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows?

Also, Mike, it's a good thing you only have 70-500 alleles to work with, here.  If there were several thousand, there's a chance their frequency would all be under 1%, and wouldn't count!

On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause.  Your service is appreciated.

Also, Dave, one son with a Cubs hat and one with a Cardinals hat?  That's a broken family just waiting to happen.

Date: 2006/11/14 11:10:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!;).

Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?

Date: 2006/11/14 12:49:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,10:18)
Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it!.

Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike?
I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would ask such a question.  Are you just being obtuse like Eric when he says my evidence is NOT evidence?  Or have you simply not read my statements and my linked articles?

And I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't answer the question.  Do you have the data, or not?

Date: 2006/11/15 11:33:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2006,09:27)
Dorothy Parker once said about somebody, "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'." I'm beginning to think that applies to goddam salvador cordova.

The Empire Strikes Back, New Book by Woodward with foreword by Dembski
by scordova on November 14th, 2006 · 12 Comments

what do we see, a little while later?
Another pro-ID book rolled out: Tom Woodward’s...

'fraid I don't get what's going on here.

Date: 2006/11/17 18:21:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (IAMB @ Nov. 17 2006,15:31)
Quoth slpage:
"Random" names - no, he used MY name, a name he KNEW was real.  He used it in an attempt to make me look bad.  The irrational person he is, he glommed onto me for reasons unknown to me and began, among other things, of accusing me of being 'GWW'.

Unless you are, during normal operation, far more vitriolic than I suspect, it's pretty hard to imagine someone thinking you were GWW. Then again, DT's design filter doesn't seem to be working according to spec... erm, predicted spec, that is.

Ah, GWW: proof that evolutionist forums will occasionally ban one of their own.

Do you have a link for where GWW got banned?  I could go for a good laff.

Date: 2006/11/17 19:50:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (IAMB @ Nov. 17 2006,16:34)
Do you have a link for where GWW got banned?  I could go for a good laff.

Give me a little time and I'll find you something if I can. If I remember off the top of my head the "last straw" comment had something to do with either fellatio or child molesting, but don't quote me on that.

It was around the same time a His Tardiness got the boot, so if you dig around the PT archives for April and May 2005 you might find it. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I can dig it up.

Found the end of GWW.  Not nearly as exciting as I expected.

Date: 2006/11/21 00:32:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 20 2006,21:13)
Piltdown was not old science.  It was a hoax perpetrated with the sole intent of proping up a theory under attack.  Piltdown was believed because it was exactly what was predicted at the time and therefore accepted in full.  It is only in retrospect that we can see the inaccuracies in this prediction but at the time it was fully embraced.

It's not only in retrospect; the fraud was uncovered because Piltdown didn't fit with all the other data, and thus required further examination.  The purpose of the fraud wasn't to prove evolution, it was to prove that humans evolved in England.  National pride sort of thing.

Date: 2006/11/21 10:44:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Uh, oh, Grandma O'Leary wags her finger...
2. HodorH  // Nov 20th 2006 at 9:37 pm

Additionally, Denyse, unless you are in fact “Great White Wonder,” Larry Fafarman, DaveScot, or John A. Davison, I’m pretty sure that you have access to the Panda’s Thumb. Just post a link in any of the comment threads.

Comment by HodorH — November 20, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

6. O'Leary  // Nov 21st 2006 at 10:49 am

From moderator Denyse:

HodorH, watch it. I complied with an academic’s request to publish information on my blog that he had originally wished to appear on the Thumb. I would not run errands in such a venue, and that much ought to have been obvious to you. - d.

Comment by O'Leary — November 21, 2006 @ 10:49 am

How dare someone talk to their elders and betters like that?  Why, back in my day, we could execute any of the peasants who talked to the queen that way!

Date: 2006/11/22 00:40:15, Link
Author: argystokes
This is awesome.  Dave's biological gaffes are always my favorite.  This whole confusion on chromosomes vs chromatids ranks up there with when he said that eukaryotic DNA is a double helix, but bacterial DNA is circular.  Just when AFDave starts getting boring again, UD gets funnier.

Date: 2006/11/22 11:17:51, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh, Joel, let's take a look at the distribution of posts on your wonderful weblog, Stop Lying to Us:
# Administrative (2)
# Book Review (2)
# Christian Culture (11)
# Christian Worldview (20)
# College Education (2)
# Emerging Church (3)
# Inspirational (2)
# Intelligent Design (2)
# Just for Fun (3)
# Media (14)
# Movie Review (1)
# Music Review (2)
# Random (1)
# Secondary Education (4)
# Secular Culture (10)
# Teen Culture (21)
# World Events (6)
# World News (4)

Good grief, Joel.  I know you're at a seminary, but I'm sure there are still plenty of hot girls your own age hanging around.  This teen culture obsession is getting creepy.

Date: 2006/11/22 19:10:07, Link
Author: argystokes
OK, Steve, admit it.  You've been playing DonaldM all along:
5. DonaldM  // Nov 22nd 2006 at 6:30 pm

Esssentially, the Darwinists cannot find enough fundie whackos to discredit the idea of design in nature, so they are compelled to impersonate them.

You know, Denyse, I’ve never considered this possibility before. You might be on to something big here. Maybe all the so-called “whacko fundies” that the Darwinists having be been bashing on lo these many years, don’t really exist!! Maybe all of them are Darwinians impersonating the fundie stereotype in order to provide entertainment to the Darwinian faithful on the anti-ID blogs and newsgroups! That way they can make themselves feel intellectuallly superior, while carefully avoiding engaging in real discussion and debate on real issues raised by really smart IDPs!! Then, when the IDPs are a bit too visible to ignore, the Darwinist just lable them “whacko fundies”, and then keep beating the straw men they create.

Whaddya think? Possible?

Comment by DonaldM — November 22, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

You know, I understand that I am one of those "fundamentalist atheists" that they're always harping about.  I suppose at least someone over there must realize that they are the whacko fundies, but it sure isn't Donald or Denyse.

Date: 2006/11/22 19:46:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Jibs, I just can't think of anything snarky to add to this one:
26. Ekstasis  // Nov 22nd 2006 at 7:25 pm

Back to the Near Death Experiences (the other NDEs), the evidence is overwhelming:

Oh sure, the Materialist waves his or her hand and dismisses NDEs as delusions or hallucinations. But this is a bit of a stretch, considering that:

1. NDE experiences occur even in situations where no brain activity can be measured,
2. Conversations are heard and sights seen that are simply not possible from the location of the body, e.g., seeing scars on the surgeon’s scalp, describing medical equipment and procedures, etc.,
3. Person blind from birth able to see for the first time, including colors never seen,
4. Young children telling of seeing Angels, etc even though they are raised in secular families and no reason exists for them to anticipate such things.

We can all argue about theology, but the evidence is overwhelming for the soul existing outside the physical body. But of course, as we all know, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for some people. Deep in their psyches they reject any spiritual realities because along with it comes the concept of accountability and responsibility, awards and penalties. Terrifying, isn’t it????

Comment by Ekstasis — November 22, 2006 @ 7:25 pm

Date: 2006/11/23 01:02:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (UnMark @ Nov. 22 2006,22:19)
[quote=deadman_932,Nov. 22 2006,22:29] here's something I found about ...ah, a year ago? Something like that...anyway, keeping in mind all such online "tests" are suspect:

Interesting link.  I'm not sure what to make of my results, though. . . .

Well, that was boring.  Anyway, my scores:
Your Aspie score: 37 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 148 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

And that picture in the beginning is totally a girl.

Date: 2006/11/23 13:12:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,10:31)
Chris Hyland ...
Russell ... McNeill doesn't have a mechanism There isn't a mechanism, there's lots, I believe several are mentioned on those UD threads.
Great.  Could you list some please?

But Dave, I thought you'd read all about evolutionary biology.  Why would you have to ask, when you can simply recall from memory all that stuff you've learned from the major names?

Date: 2006/11/23 14:20:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 23 2006,11:39)
RM + NS doesn't work.

What else IS there?

I say there's nothing ...  feel free to prove me wrong.

Hopeful monster?  Punc Eq?  Alladin's lamp?

I'm all ears ...

You're saying that not one of the evolutionary biologists you've read so much of haven't proposed another mechanism of population change than RMnNS?  I'm thinking you haven't been doing much reading at all.

Date: 2006/11/24 00:35:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Didn't think you could ... Thanks for proving my point ...

Don't think I have another proposed mechanism other than random mutation of the genetic code coupled with natural selection for generation of variation within a population?

Would you like to make a wager?

Date: 2006/11/24 12:24:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, to take that up?
Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.

Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.

Date: 2006/11/24 14:39:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Some Christian love from Borne...
#### is the penitentiary, the insane asylum, of the moral universe.

If there is no ####, there ought to be one.

Otherwise no real justice will ever be done for the infinite dammages laid upon the universe by the rebellious who have disobeyed the law of love to do what is right in their own eyes.

Wow.  I'm doing infinite damage.  Never knew I was so powerful, but I guess I should have known better.

Date: 2006/11/24 19:51:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 24 2006,10:24)
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 24 2006,07:42)
Here's the deal, Daveychild....I'm not even going to give you HINTS, stupid, given that you claim to KNOW this material:
Didn't think you would.  Because you cannot.

You have at least one person asking if you want to bet them on this topic, to take that up?
Sure ... the bet is that you have no other PLAUSIBLE mechanism.  Alladin's Lamp and Bippety Boppity Boo don't count.

Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet.  Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet?  I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog.

My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible.  You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible.

Hey now, you're not going to welch are you?

Date: 2006/11/24 20:31:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, are we going to finalize the terms of our bet, or are you going to welch?

And if it's the latter, at least answer this question: How would you measure whether or not a mutation is beneficial?

Date: 2006/11/24 20:56:09, Link
Author: argystokes
And... he's gone, after sticking around for easily long enough to see my post.

Hey, Dave, I thought of a commercial that both you AND your kids could star in:

Date: 2006/11/25 09:09:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Argy...there is no need for your bet anymore.  Chris Hyland already gave 8 supposed mechanisms to serve as an alternate to the dead Primary Axiom.  But feel free to give some more if you like.

But aren't you looking forward to winning an easy bet against one of those children corrupting, atheist scientist types?  Especially when the alternative is flaunting your welchishness all over the internets.

Date: 2006/11/28 10:07:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, bad time to change the subject, Dave.  I just invited a guy from Answers in Genesis to come give you some help with your hypothesis (he said he'd consider it).  Pharyngula was a little too much for him, so I thought he might enjoy it here.

Though I suspect he won't show.

Date: 2006/11/28 10:17:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 28 2006,08:09)
When business is slow, D*mbski either

* Takes 'the brites' down, or
* Puts 'the brites' back up.

1. zapatero  // Nov 28th 2006 at 1:23 am

Will it be funny this time?

Comment by zapatero — November 28, 2006 @ 1:23 am

Date: 2006/11/28 12:23:19, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 28 2006,08:48)
Argy ... Who did you invite from AIG?

Daniel J. Lewis

Date: 2006/11/29 10:43:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Now ... can we please get back to discussing Biological Information?  (which you claim I don't understand?)

Dave, I asked you two weeks ago about how you would measure biological information.  Why don't you write a useful definition, that we can all use to determine relative amounts of information, so that the discussion can move forward?  It's simply a waste to spend your whole morning writing reviews.

EDIT: Note that I am asking for how you measure biological information, not a definitition of biological information.  That way we don't have to spend 3 days arguing about how to measure information before you get bored and change the subject again.

Date: 2006/11/29 12:18:59, Link
Author: argystokes
To this I would answer, "Do you have a rigorous, mathematical means for determining that my friend's old rusty 1972 pickup truck has deteriorated?"

I have a nonsubjective way of measuring.  I don't need to rely on my intuition.  Why can't you do the same with bioinfo?

Date: 2006/11/29 15:33:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Wonderful theory, Shirley.  Can you name some real world examples of mutations in which this has occurred?

You do work in the real world, don't you?

Google or wiki "Ames Test"

Date: 2006/11/29 17:30:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Ok.  So what is my "creation-diseased" mind supposed to glean from this that will finally set me straight?

You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.

And I'm one post late on my measure of degradation of your friend's truck.

Here's one (I'll bet you can think of many more): Square inches of rust.

Date: 2006/11/30 01:14:01, Link
Author: argystokes
A leading light of ID pipes in with some deep thoughts:
13. francisbeckwith  // Nov 29th 2006 at 9:46 pm

Finally, a secular Wedge document. It is, however, far more militant than its counterpart. For this secularist version is calling for a full-orbed atheocracy including public marginalization of all heretics. Here’s a tip: whenever someone thinks he is advancing Reason’s march through history, the enemies of Reason are disposable (if they are not willing to shut up and stop shaping their communities). This is a secular jihad.

Comment by francisbeckwith — November 29, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

Run for the hills! The Atheists are advocating REASON!

Date: 2006/11/30 10:15:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Argy ...    

You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction.  I gave one to you.

Sorry, but I did not see an example of a reverse mutation in that link.  Could you post the exact snippet that you think contains this?

In the test several strains of Salmonella typhimurium that carry mutations in genes involved in histidine synthesis are used. The bacteria require histidine for growth. The variable being tested is the mutagen's ability to cause a reversion to growth on a histidine-free medium. The tester strains are specially constructed to have both frameshift and point mutations in the genes required to synthesize histidine, which allows for the detection of mutagens acting via different mechanisms. Some compounds are quite specific, causing reversions in just one or two strains. [1] The tester strains also carry mutations in the genes responsible for lipopolysaccharide synthesis, making the cell wall of the bacteria more permeable, [2] and in the excision repair system to make the test more sensitive. [3] Rat liver extract is added to simulate the effect of the metabolism, as some compounds, like benzopyrene, are not mutagenic themselves but their metabolic products are.[4]

And if you want specific examples of successful Ames tests, you could always click the links to the PDFs at the bottom of the wiki page.  Or google.

So, Dave.  Do these mutations represent a decrease in information?  What about the mutations that made it so the bacteria couldn't synthesize histidine?

Date: 2006/11/30 10:49:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Nov. 30 2006,08:29)
Argy, we had the same discussion ("discussion" as in, I asked and dave ignored me) many months ago, when we were talking about antibiotic resistance in the "prove evolution to AFDave" thread. I had asked him to explain this: If a point mutation that makes a bacteria lose it's ability to synthesize an enzyme (making it imperemeable to an antibiotic), is in fact a decrease in information, then what does another point mutation, in the same point, that substitutes the original base, do?
Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer, so don't get your hopes up.

The funny thing about all of this is that I could swear that a couple of months ago I berated Dave for awhile asking him if he believed a mutation could never increase information.  Eventually, he answered "no!"  So if memory serves, he's been contradicting himself the last few days.

I'd been waiting for months to use the Ames test example, since it represents a beneficial mutation that we can observe happening in real time, if we were patient enough to stare at an incubator all day.

Date: 2006/11/30 11:10:03, Link
Author: argystokes
This does not say that a bacteria mutated and lost function, then mutated back again and regained that function.  Or if it does say this, I sure am not seeing it.

Good grief.  Read the sentence following the bolded ones.  And then answer my questions.

Oh, and yes, the loss of function mutations were engineered in. If that fact is important to you (it shouldn't be - it's still a mutation), then answer this additional question: Is this loss of function mutation a decrease in information when it occurs in the lab?  What about in the wild?

Date: 2006/11/30 11:45:02, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm not sure I can explain the Ames test more clearly than that wiki article.  Why don't you tell me how you think the Ames test works, and then I can figure out where your misconception is.

Date: 2006/11/30 13:34:01, Link
Author: argystokes
I know what "reversion" means but I am challenging Argy to SHOW me an example of this occurring.  I see nothing that says this has occurred in the article he has posted.

Uh, YOU posted that article, Dave.  The actual example showing where it works is in the PDF linked at the bottom.  Do you understand how the Ames test works, or not?

Date: 2006/11/30 13:53:51, Link
Author: argystokes
From the 1st PDF:
We constructed the tester strain, TA1534, by introducing a
uvrB mutation (14) into the strain with the frameshift
mutation hisD3052 that was described by Oeschger and
Hartman (19). They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen,
ref. 12) as well as by hycanthone and 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide
(21); it was not revertible by 2-aminopurine, an agent that
causes only base-pair transitions (20).

Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 69, No. 11, pp. 3128-3132, November 1972

Blech.  Don't you like lay-friendly summaries of methods better? The thing is, Dave, that this is all old news (11 years older than me!;).  Why would anyone find this surprising?

Date: 2006/11/30 17:13:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave gets creamed, and then instead of admitting he was wrong, he lies about it.
2) We can say that it DOES NOT increase as a result of mutations.  Of course ToE advocates try to say that the miniscule number of "beneficial" mutations such as nylon eating bacteria somehow represents an increase of information, but they cannot defend this.  The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information ... and a few of them happen to be beneficial within a very narrowly defined context. (Broken car heater in Antartica analogy.)

Of course, the whole reason for this little exercise is your claim that mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible.

You're the best.

Date: 2006/11/30 20:48:55, Link
Author: argystokes
I see Argy is running from my spotlight on his reversion thing ... and claiming I'm a liar.

Um, what am I running away from?  Did you have a question I didn't answer? EDIT: And, as I recall, it was YOU who welched on our little bet.
But are you so foolish as to think this is an effective engine for "upward evolution"?

What the fuck is upward evolution?  You keep using this term, but I don't think anyone else here has except when quoting you.

Oh, and as for calling me a fool, you can be assured that my foolishness begins and ends with Seahawks football.  Yours, however, apparently subsumes every subject of your interest.  But hey, life's not about how smart you are, it's about how happy you are.  Ignorance.. nirvana.. or something.

And my wife's way hotter than yours.

Date: 2006/11/30 21:03:28, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm too tired now, but tomorrow I'm going to take you through the math of the Ames test. So be forewarned: I'm going to use terms even more exact than "bazillion".

I'm looking forward to it!  Do you think our resident mendacitor will even read it?  I don't, but don't let that stop you.  Also, any opinion on its usage for determining the carcigenicity of a compound?  I think Ames himself has railed a bit against its misuse, as it has suggest that things such as coffee are ubernasty.

Date: 2006/11/30 23:33:46, Link
Author: argystokes
So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him.  And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor?

Date: 2006/11/30 23:48:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, right you are, King Elvishfantastic!

Date: 2006/12/01 09:32:50, Link
Author: argystokes
I already answered your question, Dave. Before you asked it, actually.  See here and feel free to read the whole PDF if you have any other questions.

By the way, I'd like to see you answer Faid's question on information.  It's another one of those easy yes/no type questions:
Because simply, a message whose context is white noise, contains more information, in the Shannon definition, than a message whose context is a Churchill speech.
Do you disagree with that? Do you think Schneider says otherwise? Be careful how you answer; I will hold you to that.

Date: 2006/12/01 10:15:15, Link
Author: argystokes
See OA, you've parsed this one incorrectly, so Dave's not lying.  See,

AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.

"Which is nothing more than lying" refers to the active verb in the preceding clause, which is "enjoy."  Stallwort Dave the Christian Soldier isn't enjoying himself, he's grimly meting out the justice of God's terrible swift sword.  Therefore, he's not lying, at least by his own definitions.

Also thanks to Faid, who by teaching me the word glossolalia, has given me the second cool new word for my vocabulary of late (Panjandrum, used by PZ and directed at Brayton, was the first).

Date: 2006/12/01 10:43:12, Link
Author: argystokes
They induced hisD3052 with the frameshift
mutagen ICR-364-OH (12) and showed that it was reverted
by ICR-364-OH and ICR-191 (another frameshift mutagen
ref. 12)

Or, if you prefer, from later in the paper which you say you read...
Our data l)resented here and the recent data of Ames, Sims,
and Grover (16) onl polycyclic hydrocarbon epoxides show
that various chemical carcinogens are frameshift mutagens.

The only way to revert a frameshift mutation is with another frameshift (OK, or introduction of a complementing gene... but you have to do that yourself or pray the perfect phage has contaminated your culture).  You, uh, do know what a frameshift mutation is, right?

And if you don't believe I can explain the Ames test in my own words, well, you're welcome to make a bet with me.  But it's generally not a good idea to do so.  I don't lose often.

Date: 2006/12/01 11:07:14, Link
Author: argystokes
If a codon mutates to another codon that codes for the exact same amino acid, in what way is that mutation not exactly neutral?

Eric, some organisms have a codon bias due to unequal amounts of tRNAs containing the same amino acid but different anticodons.  Thus, if the organism is producing a large amount of protein, having a synonymous change could actually have an effect on the efficiency of translation because the tRNA supply begins to get exhausted.

In lab, when we're using E. coli to produce large amounts of a particular protein, sometimes we optimize the sequence of the gene we're expressing in order to use E. coli's "favorite" codons.  I don't imagine this sort of thing is ever much of an issue with proteins produced in normal conditions, though.  Just a bit of something to look out for in the lab.

Hmm, that was kind of technical.  I'm happy to reexplain it with more, but less sciency words if you like.

Here's another thing I agree with Dave on: Dave Hawkins is one of the most degenerate humans in the history of the planet.

Date: 2006/12/01 12:01:38, Link
Author: argystokes
So what caused the frameshift?  One MORE or one LESS nucleotide?

The exact opposite of what caused the original frameshift.  The paper doesn't say if the original frameshifted strains were shifted by deletion or by insertion.  If you dig around the literature for TA1531, TA1532, and TA1534 you might be able to find out.

And did the second frameshift mutagen EXACTLY reverse this?

At least one fourth of them will have.  See Russell's post above.*

Now, don't you have a backlog of questions you need to answer?

*EDIT: Whoops, just realized that this is wrong. 5 points if you can tell me why.

Date: 2006/12/01 12:32:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Wonderful.  But how is this simulating natural processes if it is the lab technicians picking the mutagen to cause the reversion?

The reversion is selected for, but not targeted.  No intelligent input necessary.  And any agent could be used as the mutagen (even water).  As Russell's math shows above, an increased rate of mutation is not necessary to cause the reversion.

But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information?

Date: 2006/12/01 16:00:56, Link
Author: argystokes

Why don't you explain what you think MacNeill means when he says the modern synthesis is dead?  I've answered every single one of your questions, so I think this one is fair game.

Date: 2006/12/01 18:45:52, Link
Author: argystokes
And while you're pondering that (assuming you ever actually ponder anything), maybe you'd like, as a bonus, to come up with a mechanism that prevents humans from radiating out into, say, a thousand species of hominids over the past five thousand years, along with all the other "kinds." I don't think "genetic richness" will do it, Dave.

Eric, don't be ridiculous.  The Rapture is coming within the next 10 years, quite possibly the next 10 weeks!  We don't have to worry about that kind of stuff.

Date: 2006/12/01 19:35:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, I hope that Dembski's ascendency to the top of the phylogenist mailing list is a symbol of increased power in the ID community.  Please tell me he's the new director of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture.

Date: 2006/12/01 22:00:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 01 2006,19:37)
You know, the more I think about it, the more astonishing it seems.

afdave was an "electrical engineer", but he's clueless on how to interpret a pretty simple graph.

Either his skills must have faded since his electrical engineering days, or I must have an inflated idea of what it means to be an electrical engineer.

Bah, he graduated with Honors (I can't say that for myself).  It's the arrogance leading to the miscomprehension if you ask me.  The funditude is a symptom, not the cause.

Date: 2006/12/02 14:09:43, Link
Author: argystokes
And Dave, that's DR. Russell Durbin to you, buddy. *rolls eyes*

Date: 2006/12/03 01:22:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Steve, I think the time to close the thread will be when everyone loses interest in talking with Dave.  I mean, there is a whole lot of science learning going on here, just not by our resident Air Force vet.
Earlier I suggested that Dave's behavior is due to his arrogance rather than his funditude.  Now I think I might be wrong.  Perhaps he believes that our words are directly from Satan, and thus must be lies, even when they're technically true.  That would explain his inability to admit he's wrong on subjects not related to his CGH.  It would also explain why he insists he "answered his own question"* of why Adam couldn't have hundreds of alleles at a locus, and he "figured out the Ames test on his own"* after beautiful explanations by Stephen Wells and Russell.  It's not that he can't be wrong, it's that we can't be right.  Maybe I should start up a fight with Russell on internal ribosomal entry sites, and force Dave to take a side.

Date: 2006/12/03 10:29:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh come on, I've admitted many of you have been right on many points.  No, I don't think your words are directly from Satan.  Gimme a break.

Righto.  I'll stick with the arrogance hypothesis.

Date: 2006/12/09 16:12:33, Link
Author: argystokes
The second half of this is untrue.  Where have I admitted that mutations can "produce completely brand new, never been seen before, novel functions." ??  Please produce the evidence or issue a retraction.  Then you would also need to retract the statement that I am being intellectually dishonest.

So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function?

Date: 2006/12/09 19:30:25, Link
Author: argystokes
You think it was a preexisting ability?  What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism?

Date: 2006/12/09 21:06:01, Link
Author: argystokes
As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.

So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.

Date: 2006/12/10 01:21:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 09 2006,19:27)
I admit nothing ... but please, enlighten me when you find out something.

Um, you're the one making the claim (that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon).  I'm not doing your research for you.

Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information?

Date: 2006/12/10 10:17:21, Link
Author: argystokes
AFDave:  And of course, skeptics enjoy taking things OUT of context, which is nothing more than lying.


As for you folks that want to know about nylon-eating bacteria ... please do some Google searches.  You'll find lots of material.
So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions?  Why thank you, I think I shall.

I suppose I can presume your misrepresentation of my quote was accidental...
Why thank you, I think I shall [research nylon-eating bacteria.]

When I write, Dave, I try to establish a normal continuity of thoughts.  I try to achieve this by using normal sentence and paragraph structure.  Now, perhaps I don't always succeed, but I don't think the quote above represents a failure to present my thoughts clearly.  To me (and I suspect to most folks), a regular reading of my quote would inform the reader that "I shall [take that as admitting you can't answer my questions]," rather than "I shall [research nylon-eathing bacteria]."

Knockout?  What or who did you knockout?

Well, I was saying I figuratively knocked you out, but really, I just worked you into a corner and you knocked yourself out.  Remeber?:
Dave: Biological information can't increase!
Shirley: What about if there's a reversion?
Dave: Bah, can you give me any real-world examples of such a thing?
Argy: Ames test!
Dave: I don't get it.
Russell and Stephen Wells: (patiently explain what it is and why it's relevant.  Russell goes on to explain how the Ames test also invalidates two of your other ideas)
Dave: Ah, I figured out the Ames test on my own.  Also, I never said information couldn't ever increase

Surely you haven't forgotten that whole exchange? It was funny. (note - I am referring to the exchange as funny, not the Ames test.  There's absolutely nothing funny about testing for carcinogens)

So are you going to back up your claim that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon, and why you think that would be a good thing for the organism?

Date: 2006/12/10 18:12:26, Link
Author: argystokes
I suspect this nylon-eater is a similar case ... but feel free to prove me wrong if you like.

Um, OK.  Here's all the evidence that a nylon-digesting organism existed before the invention of nylon:  

I win.

Date: 2006/12/11 00:02:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 10 2006,20:33)
Argy's explanation for why the Ames Test proves ToE ...  

Um, what OA said.

Perhaps there's no use in flogging a dead dolphin, but are you going to even attempt to back up your claim about nylon-digesting bacteria?

Date: 2006/12/12 00:19:02, Link
Author: argystokes

I haven't been following this thread, but what are you going on about in that last post?  Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Date: 2006/12/12 14:55:02, Link
Author: argystokes
What really happens is that the nearly neutrals continue to get passed on with the beneficials (are there any really?)

Yes, and you've admitted such.  So stop with the ubersilly.

Date: 2006/12/13 13:33:29, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 13 2006,10:35)
While I of course echo improvius's emphatic yet understated, "No", that's too easy for us and too hard for Dave.

So instead, Davey, could we continue your 'logic', but make a slight departure from sunshine, daisies and butterflies?

By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

Hint #1: we're talking about the parasite that causes malaria, Dave.

Hint #2: since you have the requisite information to inform us on at least some of the wonderful "designed purposes" of Lepidopterans, there's no real reason to plead ignorance on the purpose of these malaria-causing little fiends, now is there?

Oh, balls yeah.  I'm going to second the suggestion that Dave takes on the purpose of Plasmodium parasites, since this is an area where I can actually claim a modicum of expertise, having a coauthorship on a paper about... Plasmodium evolution.

So I'll repeat...
By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks!

Date: 2006/12/13 15:18:10, Link
Author: argystokes
What I do know is that Scripture teaches that all things were created "good" in the beginning, but that many things changed at the Fall and Curse.

Um, like acquiring the new function of being infectious?  I thought you said that kind of thing couldn't happen.

Davey, you really should look into the complexity of Plasmodium some time. (Maybe argystokes is willing to enlighten you a bit?)

Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric.  And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread.

Date: 2006/12/13 19:38:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Eric, what's the primary difference between a microprocessor and a sycamore?

Give up?

SIZE.  A sycamore is WAY bigger than a microprocessor.  And since we know the microprocessor is designed, then so must be the sycamore!

OK, OK, a substantive post on Plasmodium is forthcoming... in a couple of hours I hope.

Date: 2006/12/13 21:57:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Or, "Everything I Could Think of Without Doing Research."
As requested by Eric and Cory.

Plasmodium is a genus of protozoan parasites (what your middle school teacher would have called a ‘protist’) that causes malaria in several species across the animal kingdom, most notably humans.  It is transmitted from one individual to another by the Anopheles mosquitoes, a genus of mosquito which is currently confined to tropical regions of the earth.  Malaria is endemic in most regions of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as South America and Asia.  It’s not a particular vicious disease, at least not compared to something like AIDS, but since it’s so widespread that it’s among the big 3 infectious diseases receiving the most attention in terms of vaccine development and new drug treatments (along with TB and AIDS).  About 2 million people die every year of malaria, most of them very young children.  Almost all of these deaths are attributable to infection by species Plasmodium falciparum (as opposed to the other 3 species of Plasmodium).  There are some subtle differences between the life cycles of the different species of Plasmodium, but I think everything I will be describing here is applicable to all species, except where noted otherwise.

Plasmodium’s life cycle can essentially be broken up into 3 stages:
1. Mosquito stage
2. Liver stage
3. Blood stage

1. Mosquito Stage
The parasites within the mosquito are horny little buggers, constantly having sex and recombining their genomes and creating all kinds of diversity.  They replicate and then travel to the salivary glands of the mosquito, apparently causing the insect little or no discomfort and being generally noninfectious.  When a mosquito takes a blood meal from some poor African kid, these motile parasites are injected into the bloodstream and quickly swim their way to the liver.  If I recall correctly, the parasites first traverse a layer of immune cells called Kuppfer cells, by quite literally charging right through the cells themselves.  This allows the parasites to reach the liver cells themselves, which they invade.  

2. Liver Stage
During invasion, the parasite acquires part of the liver cell’s membrane, which it uses to separate itself from the rest of the cell. (Imagine blowing a bubble with some bubble gum, then pushing a rock into the bubble until the invagination closes on itself.  Then the bubblegum surrounding the rock pinches off from the rest of the bubble, leaving a rock inside a bubble inside a bubble).  The parasite then start to reproduce asexually, growing and dividing and stretching the limits of its envelope and the host cell itself.  Eventually, through unknown mechanisms, the parasite escapes both its envelope and the liver cell itself, and shuffles its way back into the bloodstream.

3. Blood Stage
The blood stage of Plasmodium is much it’s liver stage, in that cells are being invaded, the parasite resides in a host-derived envelope, divides lots and lots, and escapes the host cell.  As wikipedia describes the blood stage :
From the hepatocytes, the parasite replicates into thousands of merozoites, which then invade red blood cells. Here the parasite grows from a ring-shaped form to a larger trophozoite form. In the schizont stage, the parasite divides several times to produce new merozoites, which leave the red blood cells and travel within the bloodstream to invade new red blood cells. Most merozoites continue this replicative cycle

As one might expect, this causes the destruction of a lot of blood cells, and leads to anemia, which in some cases can be quite severe.  Some of the parasites differentiate back into the sexual form, which can be taken up when a mosquito takes a blood meal, and the cycle continues.  Wikipedia also has an interesting hypothetical evolutionary scenario for the origin of this life cycle:
This life cycle is best understood in terms of its evolution. It is thought that Plasmodium evolved from a parasite spread by the orofaecal route which infected the intestinal wall. At some point this parasite evolved the ability to infect the liver. This pattern is seen in the genus Cryptosporidium to which Plasmodium is distantly related. At some later point this ancestor developed the ability to infect blood cells and to survive and infect mosquitoes. Once mosquito transmission was firmly established the previous orofecal route of transmission was lost.

There is a pretty nice animation showing the whole process here:

var genes, pathogenicity, and immune evasion
During any infection, the pathogen must avoid detection by the immune system until it has multiplied enough to make transmission to a new individual easy.  Plasmodium accomplishes this in a pretty interesting way.  Most cells have a mechanism of presenting all the little bits of its innerds to circulating immune cells.  The immune cells check to see if the presented bit is host-derived or foreign.  If the immune cell recognizes foreign material, it will bombard the poor infected cell with nasty chemicals, leading to the destruction of both the infected host cell and it’s freeloader (for more detailed information, wiki or google MHC Class I and Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte).  By infecting red blood cells, however, the parasite avoids this arm of the immune system.  Red blood cells are enucleated, and thus don’t produce any DNA, RNA, or protein.  They therefore lack any kind of machinery for blowing the whistle on the parasite which is living inside them.

However, living in red blood cells (RBCs) presents a different problem for the parasite.  The cells are constantly circulating and must travel through the spleen, the organ responsible for destroying old and crappy RBCs.  Through mechanisms which I do not understand, cells in the spleen are able to recognize infected RBCs, and destroy them.  This is apparently not a total death blow to most species of Plasmodium, but it does appear to keep most infections from becoming lethal.

Except when it comes to Plasmodium falciparum.  P. falciparum has evolved a mechanism to evade having to go through the spleen.  When the falciparum parasite is within an RBC, it produces PfEMP1 proteins.  These are encoded by var genes…
To avoid confusion, or perhaps cause it:
DNA -> RNA -> Protein
Var -> var RNA -> PfEMP1
The PfEMP1 protein is exported from inside the parasite all the way to the RBC surface.  This process is extremely fascinating, as it requires the parasite to set up machinery outside of itself in order to properly transport the protein through the envelope in which the parasite resides and all the way to the RBC membrane.  The parasite can’t co-opt host cell machinery, since RBCs don’t have any.  This process is still being figured out.  Anyway, the PfEMP1 protein is able to bind to certain receptors that are on the surface of the blood vessels.  This tethers the infected RBC to the blood vessel, preventing the infected cell from reaching the spleen where it would be destroyed.  PfEMP1 can also attach to uninfected RBCs, which essentially cloaks the infected RBC with uninfected RBCs, making it harder to “see.”  Infected RBCs also can stick together, forming big ole clumps of cells.  All this sticking is pretty bad, and becomes lethal when cells start clogging up passageways in the brain.  Cerebral malaria causes hemorrhaging, and is one of the main causes of malaria-associated deaths (along with pregnancy malaria and severe anemia).

So the stickiness is all well and good for the parasite, but by putting a piece of itself on the surface of an RBC, it has exposed itself once again to the immune system.  Before getting into the beauty of antigenic variation, I’ll need to do a quick aside on how adaptive immunity works.
Adaptive immunity is absolutely ridiculous.  Basically, when a T cell or B cell (henceforth lymphocyte) is made, the part of its DNA that encodes the T cell Receptor or B cell Receptor undergoes recombination that is pretty much random.  There are enough possible permutations of the DNA to produce proteins that just happen to be capable of binding to just about any other protein.  The lymphocytes that have receptors that can bind host cells are weeded out and destroyed, while ones that can’t are allowed to get into the blood stream and look for trouble.  The body cranks out enough of these cells that just about any foreign protein can be recognized by a small handful of cells in the body (and there are ways that the body uses to increase the odds of this interaction occurring, which I won’t go into).  Once a lymphocyte recognizes something (hopefully a pathogen), it will start dividing and cranking out antibodies (which are soluble B cell receptors, so are very specific), and the infection can be pretty quickly cleared.  Some of the lymphocytes will differentiate into memory cells, which can start the process of cranking up the adaptive immune response to the same foreign material much more quickly than if the body had to start all over again.
Back to malaria.  The falciparum parasite has about 60 different var genes in its genome, but only expresses one at a time.  The immune system recognizes the PfEMP1 protein on the RBC surface, cranks up a response to it and then… the parasite switches what var gene it is expressing, and hence changes the PfEMP1 protein on the surface.  And the immune system has to start all over again.  The switching of var genes isn’t fully understood, but it appears to be a general low rate of switching, followed by selection for newly exposed PfEMP1s, rather than a preprogrammed sequence of gene expression (but we DO see that in Trypanosoma brucei, the African Sleeping sickness parasite… but that’s another sto-ey).  This process is known as “antigenic variation,” and is found in both protozoans and bacteria.

I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.  If one strain is endemic in a region, eventually people’s immune systems will have figured out a good deal of the different var genes.  But when a new strain enters the region, once again the immune system needs to learn a whole new set of proteins to recognize.  Thus, it is beneficial to the parasite to have a different set of vars than its relatives, because it will evade the immune system more easily just by being different.  Clearly, this shows a scenario where a very high proportion of mutations would in fact be good for the parasite, simply because they make the parasite look different.

The Theory of Evolution easily explains why there is so much var gene diversity amongst different strains of Plasmodium.  Mutation creates the diversity, and diversity is selected for.

How does Dave’s UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis explain it?  Were all the strains created as different kinds (and remember, these bugs had to have been on the ark, maybe in some poor hapless dinosaurs?), or did they gain all these special new abilities?  Have the species of Plasmodium that lack var genes lost their ability to produce them, with God creating more lethal parasites to start with?

Please, Dave, what does your hypothesis predict for the origins of this nasty parasite and, in particular, the very valuable antigenic diversity contained between different strains?

Date: 2006/12/13 22:19:27, Link
Author: argystokes
And here I thought Dave was busy typing up a response to my little post.  But no, 20 minutes after it goes up, he runs away.  I guess it is sleepytime in MO, and I'm sure I can count on a substantive response in the morning.

Date: 2006/12/14 10:08:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, you didn't actually read my whole post, did you?  If you had, you wouldn't have said something as silly as this:
I don't see anywhere that you show that "mutation creates the diversity" if by "mutation" you mean "random mutation" which I think you do.  Diversity is built in as Ayala clearly states.

After all, I said:
I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite.  But it goes beyond that.  Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes.

It's like the HLA thing again, Dave.  Mutation-free recombination doesn't create new alleles.  You do remember what an allele is, right?  And you do remember admitting they arise by mutation, right?

Interesting hypotheses from Dr. Bergman on the acquisition of HIV and syphilis.  Here I'd been told that the most likely scenario for the SIV/HIV jump from non-human primates to humans was because of unsanitary butchering processes.  Now I learned it was from hot wild monkey sex!  Furthermore, it is certainly surprising that he thinks that we got syphilis from Enumclaw style sheep sex, since sheep don't get syphilis.

As I expected, you couldn't answer my specific questions because you couldn't find anything to cut and paste:
I do not have an answer for this particular bug, but the information I have posted clearly explains how various other "nasties" fit quite easily into the Biblical world view.  Why wouldn't this "nasty" also fit quite well when more is known?  (I would guess that some creationist scientist somewhere has addressed this specific bug ... if I run across one, I will let you know.)

I didn't ask you about Plasmodium in general, I asked you about a specific pathogenic mechanism, and what your hypothesis PREDICTS about its origin.  It's OK for a prediction to be wrong - that just means that a modification of the hypothesis is necessary.  But if your hypothesis makes no predictions at all, other than "I bet I can find the answer to that at AiG," then it's completely vacuous.

You also haven't answered how a nonpathogenic organism can become pathogenic without gaining any function (you ought to address the PfEMP1 proteins specifically, since everyone here knows all about how they work now).

Now also might be a good time to address a question I asked of you in May, since you've had 7 months to think about it:
What did the immune system do in the Garden of Eden?

Date: 2006/12/14 13:46:15, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 14 2006,08:12)
Jerry Bergman ...currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics.  He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.  
I'm curious. Where does Bergman currently teach "at the college level"? Where can I read about his research on cancer genetics?

Oh, and on the "complexity vs. reproduction" thing?
Too stupid for words.
This just has to be a joke.

Jerry Bergman has a PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University.  A quick google reveals:
Court Orders Columbia Pacific University
to Cease Operating Illegally in California
Stephen Barrett, M.D
In December 1999, the Marin County Superior Court ordered Columbia Pacific University (CPU), of Novato, California, to cease operations within the State [1,2]. On February 21, 2001, the judge denied further appeals and entered a final judgment ordering CPU to:

Pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education for violating Sections 17200 et seq. and Sections 17500 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code
Permanently stop operating or offering any educational programs in California.
Notify all students enrolled from June 25, 1997 to December 1, 2000 of the injunction and of their right to a refund.
Provide refunds to all students within 30 days of their request.
Provide a status report to the Court by June 30, 2001.
Failure to comply with the above order in California would constitute contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment [3]. CPU moved to Montana but closed about a year later.

Read the whole thing here.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:26:02, Link
Author: argystokes
1) Don't read Eric's posts ... Eric confuses you with the sheer volume of his posts ... never mind the putting words in my mouth, self-contradictions and misrepresentations ... what do you expect I guess ... he's a lawyer (sort of) ... stick with reading the objections of the science guys ... Russell, Argystokes, Incorygible, and others.
Choking, choking, ...*gasp*... too... much... irony... PfEMP.. uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Date: 2006/12/15 22:07:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 15 2006,19:50)
Second, much of what Jones copied was simply wrong. For example, during the trial biochemist Michael Behe was presented with articles discussing the evolution of the immune system. Jones writes that Behe said these articles were "not good enough." That was a direct quote copied form the ACLU. Actually, Behe said "It's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to different subject." Judge Jones not only copied the ACLU--he didn't pay attention during the trial.

That's from SChen24 at

I'm eventually going to have to resign my commission, because there's no proper response to this which doesn't involve lots of cursing and spitting.

Um, I worked in one of the labs that produced one of the infamous papers in ye olde big f'n stack (but the paper was before my time).  Uh, yes, they do evolution of the immune system there.

Date: 2006/12/16 08:53:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Dave, don't you think it would be considerate to answer some of the outstanding questions before you started demanding answers to your own?

EDIT: You can also bet I won't be answering your challenge until you've clearly defined what you mean by "factory" and "machine."  I can smell conflation miles ahead.

Date: 2006/12/17 10:49:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, it's hard to reconcile these two thoughts from afdave:
The alleles come from random mutation ... where ALL alleles come from.

And why should I drop the "evolving" part? Wasn't evolution responsible for the explosion of biodiversity after the Flood?

Not if you mean "mutations".  It was pre-existing variability.  Remember my friend, Francisco?  (Ayala)

So, a 1000x increase in species without adding alleles.  I would ask Dave to expand on this hypothesis, but I'd rather he discuss my question on parasites or get into some post-flood ecology.  Of course, he won't, since he can't find the answers on AiG or ICR.

Date: 2006/12/18 10:14:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 18 2006,07:51)
This is just too tiresome to keep up. For now, let me just say that in dave's last post, every single point he addressed to me is wrong. Every one. Completely.

If anyone other than dave is at all confused as to why, or wants to see it laid out in detail - let me know. But if it's just for dave's benefit, I'm too busy today.

No need.  The misrepresentations are obvious.

Date: 2006/12/18 21:36:53, Link
Author: argystokes
I guess we'll have to add computer science to the list of things about which AFDave is as ignorant as a tree stump.
(aside:  that's a METAPHOR Dave, it doesn't mean I think you're a REAL tree stump)

Pff. That's a simile, not a metaphor.  Therefore, God.

Date: 2006/12/19 11:27:56, Link
Author: argystokes
I do not want to be distracted with "complexity tests" because they have ZERO to do with my argument.  I notice that you have no complexity test for the artifact mentioned above, yet you admit that it was caused by an intelligence.

So that whole butterflies must be designed because they're more complex than watches argument was just a red herring?  Is there any part of your "hypothesis" that isn't completely vacuous?

Date: 2006/12/19 12:13:57, Link
Author: argystokes
You are not reading carefully.  I have no interest in quantitative complexity tests that Improvius is talking about.  I am only interested in shining a spotlight on the fact that no quantitative test is required to determine that a butterfly is "higher tech" than a watch.  Just as it is intuitively obvious to Improvius that an ancient artifact was designed--no quantitative test required.

Now ... what part of this do you not understand?  Or are you just being intentionally obtuse perhaps?

I don't understand the part where Improvius is making an inference based solely on his intuition.  You wouldn't want to misrepresent Him (her?), would you?

So now according to you, the amount of biological information is determined based on intuition, and the amount of complexity is determined based on intuition.  Bricks.  Hammers.  Toast.

Oh, and it takes quite a bit of intentional obtuseness to follow your arguments, Dave.

Psst... parasites... you said you'd be willing to discuss them.  Don't tell me we're going to spend another week on arguments from analogies.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:05:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Do you have a "Design Meter" to determine a hammer is designed?  If you do, I'd like to see it!  Fact is ... you don't ... it's not needed. This is my point!

Of course, my method for detecting design says that the organism that caused this was not designed, whereas yours says it was.
Maybe you should use a method which might actually be somewhat objective for determining design, rather than "because I say so."

Date: 2006/12/20 12:12:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2006,09:16)
Weeping Davetard, confused agnostic / functional theist.

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
by DaveScot on December 20th, 2006 · No Comments
I found the images of young people in “The Blasphemy Challenge” giving up their immortal souls on a dare disturbing enough to make me weep for them. I’m not rationally convinced we have immortal souls to give up but certainly the possibility exists. Imagine on judgement day that was you in the video and it was being replayed. There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose in this. Please join me in a simple prayer for the young victims of this stunt.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

Back when I was in Junior High, there was this peculiar fellow who had recently switched over from Christianity to atheism.  He had a binder full of "Soul Contracts" which by signing you could sign your soul over to him.  He'd also hollow out the "B" in EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPERS, and walk around telling people, "I'll give you a Godstopper... for your SOUL!"

I held out for two.

Date: 2006/12/20 18:34:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2006,16:23)
So who does deliver Lenny's pizzas, anyway?

Some guy from Seattle, I think (that's quite the trip to Florida).  Word on the street is he wears a big hat to cover up the rather pointed shape of his cranium.

Date: 2006/12/20 19:13:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2006,16:25)
I have emailed Mr. Magnuson of Intelligent Design Advisor to Chapman 08 and asked him if he wants to participate.

(If he does, keep in mind he's a teenager and don't be inappropriate.)

Why? Or, should I ask, participate in what?

Date: 2006/12/21 17:49:41, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm also from Seattle.  And am still here.

Date: 2006/12/21 18:05:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Simply because we know of a case where a discus REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, official competition discuses.

So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a discus in nature might also require a designer.

Or, perhaps not.  You know, that model Dave put up looks an awful lot like the Type III Secretion System.  Ever get cholera back in your jungle days, Dave?  Wasn't that an elegantly designed infection?

Date: 2006/12/21 21:21:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (creeky belly @ Dec. 21 2006,16:39)

Sounds like a couple of us are at the U perhaps....

Yep, finished undergrad there in 2005, now am in grad school, Pathobiology department.

Date: 2006/12/21 22:38:04, Link
Author: argystokes
More on cholera tomorrow!

Could we do malaria instead, if it's all the same to you?

Date: 2006/12/22 00:44:50, Link
Author: argystokes
From the Spy vs Spy taxonomy thread:
3. TRoutMac  // Dec 21st 2006 at 6:33 pm

I find this very interesting… As I read the various comments here I notice that most (if not all) of you commenting on these issues understand SO MUCH more about biology than I ever will.

Uh, when UD contributors have more knowledge of biology than you ever will, it's time to stop holding forth as OE's biggest contributor.  Or perhaps that makes him overqualified.

Date: 2006/12/22 10:33:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Also, how about that Virus piece from Bergman I posted.  How many of you realized that viruses are ESSENTIAL for life on the planet?  Russell (the virologist), did you know that? Be honest now.  Guess what?  You were informed of this by a CREATIONIST.

Yeah, Russell. And did you know that there are, like, zillions of beneficial bacteria in your gut?!  Ever heard of CRE recombinase before?!  Man, these creationists with undergraduate degrees sure know a lot more than you do!

Date: 2006/12/22 11:35:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:41)
It's easier to pretend like I'm stupid for asking if Russell knew this fact than to come out and admit he (and you) didn't, isn't it now?

Indeed, I find it difficult to outright lie, unlike some people on this board.

You promised me parasites!

PfEMP1, Dave.  Now's the time, the time is now!

Date: 2006/12/22 22:34:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 22 2006,19:28)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 22 2006,12:39)
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  
I love it!

Oh really? The world-famous ID advocate Joe G. begs to differ. And he claims to be an engineer.

Is Joe G really famous? I argued that guy to a standstill on Telic Thoughts for like two months last year. He's pretty much as bone-headed as Dave (although more of a Johnny One-Note, and doesn't have nearly as many completely wacky ideas as Dave).

His main thing was to insist on absolute proof of the Theory of Evolution, and anything short of "proof" was not even considered "evidence." Except, of course, when it came to Intelligent Design.

But his arguments re ID were essentially identical to Dave's. If you can't prove something evolved, it must have been designed.

OA has the info for sure, but Joe G is indeed famous for getting himself fired after he threatened someone over the internet.  I think he was booted off Telic Thoughts, and now spends his days dropping catchphrases on Uncommonly Dense.

Also of note, Dave's fellow YEC Troutmac also makes the design IS a mechanism argument:
Hawks wrote:
"What mechanism did a supposed designer use?"

Design IS the mechanism, particularly for the production of information.

I'm a graphic designer. Since I do everything digitally, it only "exists" in the form of some sort of code stored on a hard drive. But the mechanism that produces that information is design. The mechanism for RECORDING that information is computer hardware and software. But that information is a product of my intelligence. The mechanism for producing that information is design.

He also argues that all mutations decrease information in that same thread, so I guess Dave's one step ahead of that guy, assuming that Dave has changed his mind and now agrees that mutations can increase information.

Dave, should I give up on my hope that you'll ever respond to my big long malaria post?

Date: 2006/12/22 22:47:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh man, just came across this at OE:
This article should have been titled "junk post" - it has been deleted by consensus of the moderators.

We hope you don't think you can come to OverWhelmingEvidence and spout off ridicule against modern science (as well as common sense) and get away with it.

I think (many of) these people sincerely believe that all them Darwinists know they're wrong, and are just trying to cover up the Truth in order to avoid accountability to the Telic Agent.

Date: 2006/12/23 00:08:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 22 2006,21:06)
We need to convince AFDave, Joe G, and Troutmac to form a superblog. That would create some kind of Black Hole of Dumb.

They could get someone with a few PhD's to put his picture at the top and add in a cranky 'agnostic' ex-marine, and give the blog a catchy name, like "Uncommon Descent."

Date: 2006/12/23 00:13:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Eric, here it is. Joe G goes by Joseph on UD.
Joseph is actually Joe Gallien, a moronic legend in the C/E discussion world and a Tard’s Tard if ever there were one.  His exploits include:

Claimed to be a qualified “scientist” because he has a Bachelor of Science, Engineer Technology degree.
Claimed to be a Muslim so people wouldn’t call him a YEC
Got caught using an anonymizer and posting under *dozens* of multiple aliases so he could agree with himself and pat himself on the back
Claimed that there are alien cities on Mars and the Moon

His normal MO has been to C&P the standard antiscience crap, then get into insults and mud slinging with those who rebut his stupidity, escalating to him making threats of physical violence against his perceived “enemies”.  I know for a fact he has been kicked off of more than one board for this behavior.  He did the same thing with me before over at NAIG, but when I called his bluff and gave him a place and time to meet he chickened out, of course.  Funniest time was a few years ago when the tard was making physical threats from his work computer, and someone reported it to his company.  You never saw someone scramble and lie so much in order to cover his ass and avoid getting fired.

Looks like he’s finally found a home with the other ass kissers at UD.  Comments that point out his extraordinary stupidity get edited out, so JoeTard can keep his temper.

Maybe he wasn't fired after all.  But still, funny stuff.

I guess you should have warned Zachriel before allowing him to get in the exact same argument over whale evolution.

Date: 2006/12/23 14:26:04, Link
Author: argystokes
And Eric calls ME the idiot.  And Russell doesn't get it either.

I'm beginning to think that intelligence is inversely related to # of years in secular life sciences education.

You know Dave, you've lost all the high ground that you might ever have had.  You've begun flinging insults (sure, you didn't exactly start it*), so you've lost the politeness high ground.

You've been caught blatantly lying, so you obviously don't have the honesty high ground.

All that's left for you to try and salvage is the science.  So enough of this tedious argument from analogy.  Why don't you pick up on some post flood ecology, or finish the HLA-B discussion.  Or better yet, the PfEMP1 discussion.  Do you need a permalink?  It's interesting that you've stopped responding to me now that my posts have gotten more sciency.

*though you did say many things at the outset that would be considered insulting to any scientist, so don't quote me as saying that the insults were started by those on the "evo" side.

Date: 2006/12/24 20:07:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,04:51)
Think they're not getting desperate?  Think again.  Even other-wise-level-headed Argystokes is finally jumping on the "Liar-liar-pants-on-fire" bandwagon.  Argy ...    
You've been caught blatantly lying, so you obviously don't have the honesty high ground.
Of course, he doesn't bother to say WHAT I lied about, much less prove it.

The thing is Argy, when your team calls me a liar almost every day for 8 months, sometimes several times a day, it kinda loses it's force.  Honest people begin to recognize that I'm not a liar at all.  They realize that you're just miffed and can't think of a substantive thing to say at the moment.

Good thing for me Faid keeps your lies nice and handl-y...otherwise I might need to search the thread for a few minutes:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

I will note that the second quote is from the day after the first quote. So yes, I don't have any trouble backing up my claim that you've blatantly lied on this thread.

Why do you have to lie, Dave, if you have the truth on your side? A lurker wouldn't even need to understand the science to know you're full of it.

Date: 2006/12/24 20:48:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,18:21)
Oh I see ...

Silly me ... I always thought a LIE was an intentional misrepresentation.

I forgot that there are special Darwinist definitions for many words ... now we have proprietary definitions for


... anything else?

So, you're saying that you can neither keep track of your own arguments nor remember what you said the day before? I'll retract my most recent liar claim if you admit both of those.

Date: 2006/12/24 20:53:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Someone around here linked to TRoutMac's real-life person web page.  I'm sure he could be contacted through that.

Date: 2006/12/24 23:18:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Um, I brought up the Ames Test specifically to contradict your claim that mutations couldn't increase information. You caved on that point. It also demonstrated the ability of a beneficial mutation to quickly spread through the population, but that was explained by Russell, not me.

And you know what it'll take for me to retract my claim that you lied about the information thing. The two choices are exhaustive, you know. It's your choice.

Date: 2006/12/25 13:02:51, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 25 2006,10:51)
Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,18:10)
;)  Hi!  Here I am.  Thanks for your interest.

Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

Just curious. Do you know how many active members of the Communist party there are in the U.S.? Any idea what percentage of the popular vote the Communist candidate for U.S. President typically gets in presidential elections?

I would think Chapman would have bigger things to worry about.

Well, if you look at his blog, Chapman's definition of communism is broad enough to encapsulate elements such as income tax, property tax, estate tax, and the Peace Corps. But enough with the politics.

Bring on the limitless se... um, evolutionary biology!

Date: 2006/12/27 15:59:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)
We can't let those Brits beat us to the brew!

By dint of careful counting (no toes were injured during this process), I've got the Seattle contingent numbering at least six:

Da Pinhead.
creeky belly

Surely that's enough to hoist a few (or foist a hew)?

The Barking Dog?  The Hilltop Alehouse?  Weeknight?  Weekend?  Broad daylight?

Heck, we could give the DI a call and see if they would like to send a rep (but only if they promise to imbibe the Beano first...).

Oh: 56; lawyer defending civil cases...

evenings are probably best for me, weekend or otherwise.

Oh, and grad student, 23 yo.

Date: 2006/12/30 21:32:24, Link
Author: argystokes
I would like to know if there are other sources who include controlled changes in their definitions.

The fact that a common molecular biology method is termed "Site-directed mutagenesis" might be a hint that controlled changes are considered mutations.

Here you go, Russell ...


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

  For other senses of this word, see mutation (disambiguation).

In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation.

Do you see anything in there about recombination being a "kind" of mutation?


And he calls me a moron.  Wow.

Uh, you do realize that recombination "changes the base pair sequence of genetic material," right (the genes themselves aren't necessarily disrupted, but sometimes they are)?

One ought to be careful about shooting one's fingers off at someone with advanced knowledge in a subject, especially if one's is at a 9th grade level.

Date: 2006/12/30 22:19:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Still waiting for any other definitions of "mutation" that include "controlled changes" ...

Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:
Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome

Is that authoritative enough for you, or should I check the bible too?

Date: 2006/12/30 23:21:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,20:51)
Argy ...    
Here you go, from The Molecular Biology of The Cell by Alberts et al:
Heritable change in the nucleotide sequence of a chromosome
Oh, well that's a real shocking revelation.  Very good, Argy.

Where is the part about "controlled changes" ?

The first two words.

If I look up "cookie" in the dictionary, and it doesn't include the word "snickerdoodle," does that mean a snickerdoodle is not a cookie (not a rhetorical question!;)?

Also, congrats to Russell on passing the 1000 post mark today. I kind of hope I never achieve that.

Date: 2006/12/31 10:05:40, Link
Author: argystokes
(Not going to post Alberts' entire definition are you, Argy?  Just going to keep spouting "heritable change, heritable change, heritable change" and trying to make a parallel with snickerdoodles)

That was the entire definition, as provided in the glossary. So yeah, I'll keep spouting the actual definition of the word you, um, keep asking the definition for.

And I'll call you an idiotstick.

Date: 2006/12/31 11:16:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2006,09:00)
Quote (Ved @ Dec. 31 2006,11:17)
Maybe Russell has the right idea; just walk away from it.

I sympathize. But in the history of the internets, no troll thread ever ended because all the sensible people decided to quit it.

I steel myself, for I am easily baited. But nonetheless:

Dave, you are incapable of honestly upholding your end of scientific conversation. You are undebatable. If you want to play with the skeptics in a thread titled YOUR HYPOTHESIS, you are going to have to respect the rules of honest scientific inquiry. Otherwise, you are going to have to deal with the fact that your supposed hypothesis is not science and is illegal to teach as science in public schools in this country.

Date: 2007/01/01 17:39:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Icthyic came with smell of fish
Seizure stopped his salad tossing


Date: 2007/01/02 11:13:12, Link
Author: argystokes
I’ve been guilty of devoting too much energy to arguing with the box of rocks that is Red Reader.  I try not to do such things any more; for one it’s downright cruel.

Oh, is that where former dumbest commenter on UD ran off to? Can't say I'm surprised.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:20:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from?

Eric, he's already said they came from mutations. That was shortly before changing the subject and henceforth refusing to discuss it.

Date: 2007/01/02 15:08:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Assuming this is a serious question (though my troll alarm is going off), the benefit of measles is to the infecting virus, not to the human (the symptoms probably make it easier for the virus to transmit itself to a new host - I could look this up if you're up for a serious discussion).

Can't think of any particular benefit of cancer to the host.

Date: 2007/01/02 21:04:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,18:55)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 02 2007,20:42)
Think carefully before you answer.

After 11,000+ (let's not forget the original "Creator God Hypothesis") comments, what on this green earth makes you think he'd start now?

Hey, don't forget the Chimpanzee thread AND the original Dave has questions about evolution thread! I think those add another 40 pages or so.

Date: 2007/01/03 13:10:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,10:53)
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 03 2007,10:38)
I do believe the Bible is a reliable record of man’s experience with and understanding of the Judeo/Christian God.  I believe it is reliable mostly because the canon was not settled until the 17th century and that meant the books that were eventually canonized had, over hundreds of years, become known throughout the church as those that best represented their faith.

You may believe that but your belief is not biblical.  II Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".  The scripture was inspired or in Greek theopneustos, or literally "God breathed". The Bible was settled immediately after it's writing.  It was scripture the second the pen began to write on the parchment.  It was not written by the will of man, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).  It is not a record of man's experience, but a record of God from God.  

We did not need to wait until the 17th century nor was it settled in the 17th century.  The Old Testament was self authenticated by Christ, through His use of the scriptures while on earth.  The New Testament Cannon was agreed upon long before the 3rd century A.D, and in many cases was self authenticated by the apostles by quoting from earlier New Testament Scriptures.  The apocrypha and Gnostic gospels were never in question, not even at the Council of Nicea.

While the Da Vinci Code might have been good fiction it was not an accurate potrayal of scripture.

If you think Doc Scary gets all his bible info from Da Da Vinci code, boy are you in for a surprise!

Date: 2007/01/03 18:58:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 03 2007,16:51)
I can't find that list of pseudoscience points. You know, how many points your get for comparing yourself to Galileo, etc. Anybody know what I'm talking about?

I thought it was called the Crank Index and was found on, but now I'm not finding it.

EDIT: It's the crackpot index, and can be found here:

EDIT EDIT: A stiff middle finger to you, Lou, and a wagging tongue towards the girls!  :angry:

Date: 2007/01/03 19:45:43, Link
Author: argystokes
p.s.  Dave, since I believe in radiometric dating techniques does that make me an idiot or a liar?  You said that once, do you want me to find the quote OR DO YOU TRUST THAT YOU SAID THIS!

Oh, come on, Mike, Dave can't even remember what he said on the previous day. Do you really think he can remember what he said weeks or even months ago? I think the fast times and jets may have smoked his brains, and the fast women junked his balls (maybe a bit of neurosyphilis as well?).

Date: 2007/01/04 00:24:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (snoeman @ Jan. 03 2007,21:21)
So, about two or three pages ago there was some noise made about Seattle-based AtBC lurkers/regulars actually making human contact, i.e., meeting to drink beer.

If there is actually any interest in doing this, may I propose the following:

74th Street Ale House
Saturday, January 20, 2007 @ 7:30pm

Or, make your own proposal for an alternative date, time and/or venue

It's on the calendar!

Date: 2007/01/04 10:38:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (thurdl01 @ Jan. 04 2007,05:18)
Quote (CloneBoySA @ Jan. 04 2007,02:05)
PS I can't help feeling that all Dave's have been given a bad name, by Afdave and DaveScot...

As a fellow David, I know the feeling.  Glad to know there's more of us on the correct side of this whole thing.  Maybe we need a sequel to Project Steve.

Yeah, it's my name too. And with David being a top-10 name every decade since the 50s, I'm reasonably certain we could beat project Steve.

Date: 2007/01/04 17:14:19, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2007,10:17)

I appreciate your concern for accuracy in encyclopedias.  I too desire all scientific information in encyclopedias to be accurate.  This is in the interest of us all.  But to say that an article in Wikipedia, which is based upon information from arguably the world's most important cell biology textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, seems desperate, if I may use the terminology of someone famous.  I would also ask, "Have you have voiced your concerns about accuracy to the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica?"  My understanding is that they typically employ PhD's who are specialists (such as youself) in their respective fields to author the various technical articles.

Funny, usually when somebody like Hawkins has an ace authority, a quote is provided. No quote here. The question is, was Hawkins too tired to provide the quote, or did he not provide the quote because that would bust his bluff?

I don't have an Encyclopedia Britannica handy, so I don't know whether or not they make the same error that Wikipedia had. Therefore, I have not contacted them.

After the evidence in the discussion went up that your sentences were clearly more accurate than the original, I changed the entry using your suggestion. A couple hours later, it was changed back. Is that likely someone from wiki freezing a page during ongoing discussion, or is it more likely we've got a jokester trying to cover up THE TRUTH?

Date: 2007/01/04 17:17:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 04 2007,15:09)
I just want to ask Mr. BJU physicist one question.


Looking at an Rb-Sr Isochron plot of meteorites....

Scanned from Dalrymples Age of the Earth. 1991

At what point was the radioactive decay "alterred" by Gawd to give apparrent rather than actual age?

Here's a simpler graph from the RATE I book I beleive.

Simple question for someone with such solid faith.

Mike PSS

You liar and fraud. You took out the red dots!

Date: 2007/01/04 17:55:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2007,15:52)

After the evidence in the discussion went up that your sentences were clearly more accurate than the original, I changed the entry using your suggestion. A couple hours later, it was changed back. Is that likely someone from wiki freezing a page during ongoing discussion, or is it more likely we've got a jokester trying to cover up THE TRUTH?

I don't see that in the edit history.

Strange. Well, I promise I did it, and now I'm going to do it again.

EDIT: When I went to the "edit this page," my changes were already there, but hadn't taken effect on the main page. Now it appears they have. Weird.

Date: 2007/01/04 20:52:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Ooo, more updates from the genetic recombination wiki thread:
In spite of Dr. Phippard's comments, the sentence, as it stands ...

   Recombination therefore only shuffles already existing genetic variation and does not create new variation at the involved loci.

is a correct statement. Dr. Elsberry is wrong when he states that it is completely incorrect. Note the following quotes from ...

Annu. Rev. Genet. 2002. 36:75–97 doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.36.040202.111115 Copyright c° 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved RECOMBINATION IN EVOLUTIONARY GENOMICS David Posada1,2, Keith A. Crandall3,4, and Edward C. Holmes5 1Variagenics Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 2Center for Cancer Research,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, 3Department of Integrative Biology, 4Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, and 5Department of Zoology, University of Oxford,Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom

   Recombination can play a dominant role in the generation of novel genetic variants through the rearrangement of existing genetic variation generated through mutation." (p.81)

So while novel alleles can arise through recombination, these novel alleles are simply the rearrangement of existing genetic material which, the above authors believe, was originally created through mutation.

This article also says ...

   "Although both [homologous and non-homologous recombination] conform to a broad definition of recombination—[that is,]an evolutionary event that has as a consequence the horizontal exchange of genetic material..." (p.76)

"Horizontal exchange of genetic material" is not a phrase which gives the impression of anything truly novel being created.

Dr. Elsberry's proposed wording ...

   Because coding regions are relatively uncommon, in most cases recombination breaks and rejoins genetic material outside those regions, with the effect of "shuffling" already-existing loci. But since recombination does not respect reading frame boundaries, from time to time it will bring together parts of differing alleles, resulting in the production of a novel allele.

would lead readers to believe that new genetic information is being created, when in reality, previously existing information blocks are being reshuffled in a way that is not yet completely understood.

I would be interested to see what Albert's most recent textbook (2002 version) has to say about this, since this article was based on the earlier version of his textbook. I will comment on that when I can obtain a copy. --David W. Hawkins 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And the chromosomes still only contain the same 4 bases! No new information, no new information!

EDIT: I checked Alberts 2002, couldn't find anything about allelic recombination. It's a damned heavy book, but it doesn't have everything!

Date: 2007/01/04 21:15:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,19:00)
Novice alert:  I have no clue what I am talking about

It seems to me Wesley's statement was perfectly clear--it doesn't introduce "new" material, but combines existing material in a new way creating novel material.

Isn't that clear or is it just me?

That's right. The physical material itself isn't new, but the new combination of genetic material can lead to distinctly new properties in a novel protein. And since Dave says we determine information gain/loss by using our intuition, your intuition that says that the material is novel implies that there's been an increase in information!

Date: 2007/01/04 21:56:20, Link
Author: argystokes
You are making the mistake with equating geocentrism with Christianity.  Geocentrism was a small sub-set of Christian belief.

Really? You don't think geocentrism was a widespread belief for thousands of years BCE (I don't have any evidence on hand, but I've always just taken it as true. As Heddle would say, I subscibe to the The Ancients Were Idiots position).

EDIT: Forget it, I don't mean to derail your thread. As Doc Icky says, this is but a tangent.

Date: 2007/01/05 00:19:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 04 2007,22:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2007,01:13)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 05 2007,01:01)
and I think I could with most people, except stevestory, who as an "authority" figure, I wish to demonize as cruel and tyrannical in order to foster a sense of common hatred. (Hi, steve! :)  )

Ever consider that maybe I'm just a figurehead? Maybe EricMurphy or Arden Chatfield or Russell is the real moderator, but they installed me as eye-candy so you'd all be distracted.

See. Now you don't know who to suck up to.

(Takes another swig off a 40 oz Icehouse)

Yep. That's what I am. Eye-candy.

Gee steve, you sure are wise and you are the best moderator ever - I wish I was half the man you are.

From the amount of Molson and Icehouse it sounds like Steve drinks, there's a pretty good chance you are!

:D  :D  :D

Date: 2007/01/05 01:01:34, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2007,22:40)
Don't give me a hard time--this is beer we're talking about. It's not like I'm guzzling Bacardi 151.

Anyway, this whole 'not drinking constantly' thing you guys are doing is a fairly new social trend. For much of american history, guys pretty much drank all the time. I'm trying to bring that back.

"I drink too much. The last time I gave a urine sample it had an olive in it."
--Rodney Dangerfield.

No, no, no, that was a FAT joke, not an alkee joke. I can't imagine you as looking like anyone but Statler, though.

Date: 2007/01/05 14:39:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Btw, under NDT, why shouldn’t there be many such human-sized (or bigger) bugs? If NDT were true we should see huge insects just as much as huge mammals! It’s 'easy' for evolution we are told! Their 'fitness' for survival would likely be greater than ours.

Or, as our old friend Timothy Birdnow said, "Where are the giant mammaried mosquitoes?"

Date: 2007/01/06 14:34:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 06 2007,08:24)
You shouldn't take dave much seriously, Scaryfacts. Remember: He believes in a God who rewards those who follow his commands (even when those are to eradicate an entire nation), and condemns to eternal torment those who do not worship and suck up to him, even if they have done nothing but good in their lives.

Dave's god is a grumpy, petty, jealous god. He is a god with issues, for people who have issues. And oh boy do they have issues- remember dave's post about the 18-wheeler smashing through someone's head (I think it was argy)? I was startled then- I was wondering how anyone could type something like that, even as a lame joke.

Now I know.

No, I don't think it was me he made the comment to. Knowing me, that sort of thing would have set me off on a mocking spree. Deadman perhaps.

Not that I take many people's religious views very seriously, but anyone who repeatedly compares their god to Hitler probably isn't worth listening to on theological matters.

Date: 2007/01/06 14:38:15, Link
Author: argystokes
After 5 years of this, the chief (he was also a witchdoctor ... they are real, BTW, and can truly communicate with evil spirits ... I have no doubt about that)

Well, I guess that answers Lenny's question about witches. I'm glad to hear Sr. Hawkins didn't burn them at the stake, though.

EDIT: Hey, I guess we made one bit of progress. Per Dave's new sig, he now admits the universe has the appearance of old age!

Date: 2007/01/06 14:48:29, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm sure you guys who've had the stomach to pound AFD for the last 6 months can produce even better bon mots, but for me the definitive shark-jumping moment in the Portuguese thread -- the real money shot -- was when AFD proclaimed his data set was more reliable because it contained LESS data than the one I presented.

HA! But it was even dumber than that. He said his data set was more detailed than yours, even though your set contained all the information in his, plus more.

And having slogged through the entire thing, I would grant that that moment was certainly in the Top 5 (along with red dots, can/can't increase information, and drag racing continents. You could add a fifth, but that would make your list less detailed than mine).

EDIT: And since Dave's leveled the charge of quotemining, I'm sure he'll remove that ellipse from the quote at the beginning of the post, since he's such an honest guy.

Date: 2007/01/08 12:53:27, Link
Author: argystokes
God holds “all things together” (Col 1:17) seems a lot like a reference to gravity.  Would Paul have known that in the first century?  Am I reading more into this than was intended?  Possibly, but Paul is talking about the creation of the natural world.

Actually, Paul is talking about the forces that hold atoms together, known as Jebons:

Full story here

Date: 2007/01/09 23:43:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,21:11)
have there really been no new comments at Tiger Beat oops I mean OE in 2.5 days?

Yep, and by tomorrow morning, that one comment will be the only one in the past week. I guess Patrick, Troutmac, and Sam got tired of pretending to be teenagers.

Date: 2007/01/10 13:49:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 10 2007,11:23)
You have to be f***ing kidding me, DaveTard.  I can't believe you use arguments like this:

15. DaveScot  // Jan 10th 2007 at 1:42 pm


Down syndrome is not a carried disorder — its not like the child gets it because the parents are carriers. Rather it is a weak point in the genetic code that sometimes causes a chromosome to duplicate, giving the person a chromosome triplet rather than a pair. Ie, it is a weak spot that exists in everyone that allows for a genetic accident to take place.

You say that like “accident” isn’t synonymous with “mistake” in that context. If you substitute “mistake” for “accident” in your assertion does it change the meaning at all?

I suggest you think a little harder before commiting your thoughts to comments.

Comment by DaveScot — January 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

Accident vs. Mistake???  You are a joke.  Get psychiatric help for that Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  DaveTard, for an IQ of 150, you'd think that you could spell "committing" right.  Dumbf**k.  I suggest you use a dictionary more often before committing your cranial flatulence to comments.

Perhaps I'm exposing my ignorance, but isn't Down Syndrome caused by chromosomal nondisjunction during meiosis rather than a duplication of the chromosome?

Date: 2007/01/10 15:52:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 10 2007,13:34)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 10 2007,13:49)
Perhaps I'm exposing my ignorance, but isn't Down Syndrome caused by chromosomal nondisjunction during meiosis rather than a duplication of the chromosome?

Of course, dt is wrong on this. First he confuses genetic code with genome, and it's not a chromosomal duplication, which would mean that a DNA replication would occure twice for a chromosome during one interphase in the germinal lineage.
Maybe there are genetical predispositions to nondisjunction, but an important factor is the age of the mother, which greatly increases the risk.

Careful, according to Wikipedia, DT is rarely right
Rarely, a region of chromosome 21 will undergo a duplication event. This will lead to extra copies of some, but not all, of the genes on chromosome 21 (46,XX,dup(21q)).[11] If the duplicated region has genes that are responsible for Down syndrome physical and mental characteristics, such individuals will show those characteristics. This cause is very rare and no rate estimates are available.

Bring on the boasting!

Date: 2007/01/12 19:17:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Good to see they've got the conspiracy mongering right on the front page, as part of the mission statement or whatever
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

Date: 2007/01/15 10:24:31, Link
Author: argystokes
I have to do a call out from Mike's list of Tardity:
The argument that ID is not "testable" and that it "doesn't make any predictions" isn't true and most definitely isn't relevant.
As to the actual testability and prediction making of ID, however, I am not an expert and would rather have one respond to these questions.

And that's from the DIRECTOR OF THE UNDERGRADUATE INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH CENTER. Ah, the future leaders of ID. Don't know what testable predictions ID makes, and don't think it even matters. I'd drink to the future of ID, but I think it's still just a little early here on the Left Coast. Could ya knock one back for me, Mr. Elliot?

Date: 2007/01/15 10:36:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,08:31)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,10:24)
Could ya knock one back for me, Mr. Elliot?

Consider it done. Any particular toast that you would like? I default on "cheers", so that is what you will get unless you have a more complex specific inference that you prefer.

When in a particularly good mood, I like to add unnecessary obsceneties to the ends of my thoughts. For example "Cheers, crunk slurping monster trucker!" can translate that into actual profanity if you like. But it's kind of funny as is, too.

Date: 2007/01/15 11:20:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 15 2007,07:22)
How will you recognise each other?
A cuddly panda on the table?  A photo of Dembski in a vice?

Ah, well, we could PM photos of ourselves to each other. Or I could just bring my copy of Origin.

Date: 2007/01/15 18:42:51, Link
Author: argystokes
Ha, ha. Joseph challenges Lenny to a physical fight.
This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

(and clarifies he does mean a physical fight in the comments)
The OP is all about physical confrontation, ie fighting

Oh, man. Lenny, you should definitelyagree to meet him somewhere, preferably in the middle of nowhere. Then follow Dembski's lead.

Date: 2007/01/15 19:40:00, Link
Author: argystokes
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Date: 2007/01/15 20:53:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Wait a minute, that isn't the k.e that I know...
Quote (ke. @ Jan. 15 2007,18:31)
DT Sexy Fat Bastard

Save It For Queen Dopplepopolous!

Date: 2007/01/15 21:55:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 15 2007,19:04)
very first comment on that post:

I too have read "Of Pandas and People", and I can strongly recommend it to any family who wishes to immunize their children against the godless doctrines of darwininan evolution.

Is there anything more to say, really?

It's too late for logic to help this person, and they make yet another datapoint supporting the idea that this kind of religious viewpoint is little more than cultism.

Only serious intervention by a professional psychologist could unwind the broken compartmentalization this person exhibits.

I'm pretty sure both the OP and the first comment were parodies.  That site attracts parodists far better then actual highschoolers.

Date: 2007/01/16 11:21:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Faid, there's no need to be surprised. It's apparently fairly typical behaviour:
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 09 2006,13:05)
Joseph is actually Joe Gallien, a moronic legend in the C/E discussion world and a Tard’s Tard if ever there were one.  His exploits include:

Claimed to be a qualified “scientist” because he has a Bachelor of Science, Engineer Technology degree.
Claimed to be a Muslim so people wouldn’t call him a YEC
Got caught using an anonymizer and posting under *dozens* of multiple aliases so he could agree with himself and pat himself on the back
Claimed that there are alien cities on Mars and the Moon

His normal MO has been to C&P the standard antiscience crap, then get into insults and mud slinging with those who rebut his stupidity, escalating to him making threats of physical violence against his perceived “enemies”.  I know for a fact he has been kicked off of more than one board for this behavior.  He did the same thing with me before over at NAIG, but when I called his bluff and gave him a place and time to meet he chickened out, of course.  Funniest time was a few years ago when the tard was making physical threats from his work computer, and someone reported it to his company.  You never saw someone scramble and lie so much in order to cover his ass and avoid getting fired.

Looks like he’s finally found a home with the other ass kissers at UD.  Comments that point out his extraordinary stupidity get edited out, so JoeTard can keep his temper.

Date: 2007/01/16 17:09:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Woo Who, new UD contributor!
Lee Bowman
A businessman in the Phoenix area, Lee Bowman’s employment began in aerospace, and consisted of involvement in the development and production of the Minuteman Guidance system, and ‘SINS’, the ‘Ships Inertial Navigation Systems’ project at Autonetics, in Anaheim, CA. Subsequent employment was with Baxter Healthcare and the Arizona Hospital Association. On July 1, 1982 he founded Westlab Scientific, a biomedical engineering firm in Phoenix Arizona, performing field service in three states. Current projects are the anticipated establishment of Westlab Multimedia by the fall of 2007, and current and ongoing research in the areas of both natural and guided evolutionary concepts.

Date: 2007/01/16 20:13:56, Link
Author: argystokes
a) I do not follow GoP threads closely, because I frankly don't find them very interesting and don't trust GoP to be serious. With that said, I don't believe that GoP has ever said anything inherently racist (he's proposed some odious ideas that would affect some races more strongly than others, but I think the ideas could stem from boneheaded philosophy rather than racism), and I think you've leveled that accusation against him. So for that I believe you (and others) have misrepresented GoP's public views.

b) In light of this statement
1) I have developed an abiding loathing of the Troll.
I would suggest you ban yourself from the forum, or at least abandon the GoP threads. He's been far less poluting (ie, stirring shit in threads and trying to change the focus of the thread to himself) since "coming out." You should be here for fun, and I can't imagine hating someone is actually fun.

As for who stays and goes, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't really know why GoP continues to hang around here. Is he making actual contributions to threads (eg abiogenesis thread, which I don't read at all), or is he still existing just to be inflamatory?

Date: 2007/01/17 13:39:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,11:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2007,11:47)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 17 2007,12:18)
I can't answer that. Too drunk ATM.

Coward! That just makes it more fun.

GOP has violated board rules and if Wesley bans him I won't think twice about it. Anywho, because of this thread I decided to go look at the LUCA thread. Haven't been there in forever. GoP smartly adhered to requests to stay in his ghetto threads where he wouldn't be as noticeable. I think I drove by that part of the hood once or twice in the last six months. And hardly anyone ever goes there, is the impression I had. That thread was barely on the edge of my perceptions, which is how it survives, annoying and worthless as it is. It certainly didn't suck up all the oxygen like AFDave's thread did. So I click on the link, and I go to the last page, and I see

Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by StephenElliot
Posted by Louis
Posted by GOP
Posted by Louis

etc etc.

So as far as the board goes, GoP is a tiny nuisance with a very small audience of people who apparently find some reason to engage him. It's not any threat or burden on the health of the board, and so I let it go.

Coward? WTF am I scared of here?
GOP has certainly broken board rules. I do not deny that. I just don't want him banned if it is avoidable.

Now why are you calling me a coward?

Ah, now that's the kind of drunken reaction we all like to see!

Read again, discard your initial impression, and I think you'll get it.

Date: 2007/01/17 19:44:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 15 2007,11:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 15 2007,13:51)
Tell me which thread(s), and I will see if I can fix it.

So far only on the 'uncommonly desnse' thread. It seems to occur when a new pages starts.. I get the old page (as the last page) whilst new posts go on the new page.

Interesting. I've had the opposite problem of late. When the 30th comment appears on a page, by clicking the last page, I get a page with nothing on it, and need to go back a page to see the comment.

Date: 2007/01/21 19:16:43, Link
Author: argystokes
After the others left, clayman and I talked about trying to arrange some scrambly hikes in the Teanaway River area, in the Cascade range to the east of the crest (over Snoqualmie Pass via I-90) and north of the little burg of Cle Elum.  This is several hours closer, but has some of the same amenities as his favorite hiking area, the Pasayten, in the NE part of the Cascades up near the border.

I went on a snowshoeing trip at Teanaway a couple years ago with the UW Wildlife Society, with the intentions of perhaps following some cougar tracks around with some professional trackers. We were surprised and delighted when we began our little tracking excursion, as one of the trackers announced they'd treed a cougar and we could watch them take it down and microchip it. Definitely one of the cooler experiences in my life...

Date: 2007/01/23 22:51:59, Link
Author: argystokes
I can have sympathy for someone who finds themselves the subject of horde of questioners while lacking the time, energy, and/or knowledge to answer all the questions. I can understand why you wouldn't want to reply to someone who brings out accusations of dishonesty rather than starting a fresh conversation.

But it reflects very poorly on yourself when a knowledgeable person attempts to explain a concept to you, and you reply
What you seem to be saying is that the slot is not a general rule that we can see happening unless we have a specific set of numbers and take all other forces into account. So if a pot boils and cools off, I have no business attributing it to the slot. the slot only applies to people with math degrees who can pick the system apart minutely and explain every equation. It doesn't actually apply to the real world.
That sounds like some pretty hardcore anti-intellectualism, so you shouldn't be surprised when people don't take you too seriously when you declare that you are unimpressed with the arguments of someone like Ernst Mayr.

Date: 2007/01/23 23:28:58, Link
Author: argystokes
He told you you were wrong, and did a bit to explain why.

Your response sounds like, "I don't understand what you're saying, but I know I'm right, and you can't convince me otherwise."

If you don't get what he's saying, perhaps you should ask for a clarification. That's how one learns.

Date: 2007/01/24 13:21:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Hi Avo,

I can't answer your whole question, but I can clear up this bit until CB comes by:
Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

ln (that's a lowercase L, not an I), is the natural logarithm function. Creeky has not "switched" anything, but rather has expressed the function differently. The natural logarithm of X times Y ALWAYS equals the natural logarithm of X plus the natural logarithm of Y.

Date: 2007/01/24 19:33:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,17:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,19:36)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,18:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,19:19)
GrrRRRrr. I like cake (the band). Davetard likes cake, (the comfort food).

You could maybe get Vanilla-vanilli Ice Cake, which sounds scrummy, from your collection.

Are you a fan of other horrible bands, or just Cake?

I play disco and funk, Steve. "Bangin' awwwse" and all that. "The distance", "Frank Sinatra", "Short skirt long jacket" - how can you now love these tunes?

The music part is fine. It's that guy who talks over it in a monotonous voice that I can't stand.


On this it's good to find someone who agrees with me. Most of my friends seem to like the band, or think it's creative to make songs that sound exceptionally bad. I recently played a poker night with Cake in the background the whole time, which would have been absolutely painful if I hadn't won the thing.

Date: 2007/01/24 19:37:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,15:46)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 24 2007,11:44)
So tell me what is wrong with that!
Is there a better way to live than beer and sex?

None that I can think of.  Certainly I enjoy beer and sex, particularly together.

But it'd be nice to have some SUNSHINE, so the beer and sex can move outdoors at any time of the year.  


Pansy-ass southerner. Real Seattle Men drink beer and have sex in the rain. :angry:

Date: 2007/01/24 20:15:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,17:47)
Yeah, basically everyone I know likes the band. Maybe they're capable of tuning out the lead singer talker and listening to the other sounds, and I'm just not, I don't know.

or think it's creative to make songs that sound exceptionally bad.

Huh. Maybe that's what it is. Because I honestly don't know how it could be exceeded. If I were charged with recording vocals which had to sound worse than Cake's, I think I would put my cat in front of the microphone and start poking her with a fork. I'm not even sure that would do the job.

Now that idea sounds awfully familiar...ah, here it is.

Date: 2007/01/26 15:31:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 26 2007,13:11)
It is strange that evolutionists never get around to addressing the scientific issue. Wesley Elsberry appears to be denying convergence, but that can't be true. If he has an explanation for convergence then let's hear it. If not, then admit it. Here is the question for evolutionists: How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?

Hey, a real-life Disco Institute CRSC fellow.

You aren't really saying that no one's ever replied to your convergence issues are ya? Because the internet has a long memory.

Oh, and let's put this in a new thread.

Date: 2007/01/29 01:06:30, Link
Author: argystokes
My understanding of antibiotic resistance is 1) that it is being found that bacteria have a way of turning on mutations that are directed toward solving a problem

I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

Date: 2007/01/29 14:21:15, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 29 2007,12:09)
I'd be very interested in your source which states that any mutation is specifically directed. I am aware of papers that show an increased mutation rate under certain stress situations (such as application of antibiotics), which would naturally lead to a faster rate of "finding" an antibiotic resistance mutation. But I am not aware of any that show specifically directed mutations in bacteria.

It gets turned on in response to the environment, is confined to speific loci in the genome, and is turned off when it's job is done. The mutations which occur under those conditions are random. Thus it took (if I understood the article) 3 months to produce the nylon eating mutation(s) but apparently that was not the only time it occurred. Spetner mentions it being discovered accidentally 30 years after nylon was invented.

What gets turned on? And the letter above does not describe any experiments showing directed mutations. Spetner asserts that the enzyme could not have evolved "randomly," but makes no note of how selection might impact the evolution of the enzyme.

Are you interested in discussing papers that actually test whether or not directed mutations exist (in given experimental conditions, of course)?

Date: 2007/01/29 15:29:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Man, Gil's so smart.
An opening quote by Albert Camus at the beginning of the book gives away Monod’s agenda. I’ve read Camus (best known for The Stranger) and Camus’ philosophical compatriot, Jean-Paul Sartre (best known for Nausea), the famous French existentialists who were instrumental in promoting 20th century nihilism. I read them in the original French, in pursuit of my Masters degree in French language and literature.
He read them in the original French, which means that Monod is a nihilist and so is the institution of Darwinism! And he's got the degree to give his proclamations authority!

Date: 2007/01/30 16:38:08, Link
Author: argystokes
That post is over 2 years old, Rich. It's never surprising to find ole Sal when you start digging through the crap.

Date: 2007/01/31 16:02:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 31 2007,13:43)
Dave has a new post up entitled:
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers

Well duh, Dave, we know all about it already from OE.  Me, I've been manufacturing the stuff by the gallon ever since I read Krazy Kazmer's peer-reviewed article.

Wait, that's not it?  Oh well, carry on then...

"Agnostic" Mike1962 chips in:

Please God, let it be so.

Date: 2007/02/01 19:48:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Joseph cites yet another prominent scientist:

Kevin Trudeau (”Natural Cures” fame) talks about how (some) cancers cannot surivive in an oxygen-rich environment. And that is the reasoning behind intravenous peroxide drips.

However not enough money can be made by employing that method so it’s not popular in the USA.
Didn't he put a disclaimer in his newest book saying that you shouldn't take any of it seriously, most likely in order to avoid getting sued?

Also, Dave says something peculiar:
It was also done on rats infected with human cancers.

I'll have to do some research on this one, and maybe D'Tard's right, but it seems to me that the nature of cancers (except perhaps some of the virus-induced ones) are necessarily species-specific. As in, a proliferation of the individual's own cells.

My money's on my intuition over Dave's interpretation of a study... we'll see.

EDIT: I lose!
A cell suspension of A549 cells in PBS (3 × 106 cells per injection) was injected subcutaneously into nude athymic rats. Rats were divided into control (no treatment), prevention, and reversal groups, and two protocols were followed. In protocol a, rats were followed for 5 weeks: the prevention group was treated for 5 weeks and the reversal group for 3 (weeks 3–5). In protocol b, rats were followed for 12 weeks, with the prevention group treated for 12 weeks and the reversal group from week 10 to week 12. In both protocols, DCA (0.075 g/l) was added to the drinking water. By measuring the amount of water consumed, we calculated and adjusted the concentration of DCA required to achieve a daily dose similar to that used clinically (50–100 mg/kg) (McMurtry et al., 2004 and Stacpoole et al., 2006) Rats were observed weekly for the appearance of tumors at injection sites, and tumor size was measured every week with calipers in the three groups.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:34:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh, I remember when...
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2006,07:13)
New Award:

Best Icon goes to Argystokes.

But now, I am cast off, replaced by some new young stud with a flashy animation to fit Steve's fancies.
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 02 2007,21:56)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 03 2007,00:54)
Also, UndercoverElephant has the coolest avatar.

that IS pretty slick.

gotta admit I've never seen that one before.

It even took a while to figure out how the animation worked by looking at it.

What's so badass about it is, mathematically, it actually works out. The circle, and the hole, and the rates and the calculus involved, it actually works out that the little ball slides through the hole.

Pretty cool.


At least I'll always have my pooflinger...
It's also the fault of your most excellent avatar choice on AtBC that kept you in mind.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:58:42, Link
Author: argystokes
I would say that the mutation rate is increased (not sure how without reading the referenced papers that claim this) when the bug finds itself in a starvation condition.

Chris Hyland posted this image on another thread back in August; it might be helpful for discussion on hypermutation events.

Date: 2007/02/06 17:30:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 06 2007,15:16)
Is this the pub in Phinney or Greenwood?  I'm having a memory lapse...


Greenwood. On Greenwood Ave, as a matter of fact.

Date: 2007/02/13 21:36:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Faid @ Feb. 13 2007,17:08)
And let's not forget his "haploid fiasco" with meiosis I...

He was feeling SO insecure after that, he even visited JAD's blog, and "casually" mentioned it, hoping to get some form of argument he could use from the old man.

Truly pathetic.

Oh, and then there was that time that he said that eukaryotic DNA is a double helix, but bacterial DNA is circular! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2007/02/14 15:11:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (improvius @ Feb. 14 2007,12:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:54)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 14 2007,12:28)
Interesting. Back when AF Dave was posting his 20k posts of drivel here at AtBC, the site would slow to a crawl and be unreachable for long stretches of time. Now that he's posting his 20k posts of drivel to, that site has slowed to a crawl and is unreachable for long stretches of time.

It seems that Dave amounts to a one-man DoS attack on evolution websites.
The Evo-Servers see me coming and they cower in fear of the daily Truth Assault!   :-)

Was that a joke Dave? I hope so, as that was one funy statement.

Probably.  I'll bet Dave's been all laughs and smiles ever since he got them to change the Wikipedia entry for genetic recombination yesterday.

That's me that changed it. I don't think anyone other than Dave will be left thinking "new allele through rearrangement of existing variation" means "no new information!!!" I might change it back, though, since I just realized the first sentence of the next paragraph already contained the change.

Date: 2007/02/15 12:28:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Good ole honest Dave has shut down comments on his blog again, on all pages as far as I can tell. And deleted all existing comments as well, of course. So many hypotheses, so little time. Ah, who am I kidding. With the Dawkins forum down, I have all the time in the world.

Date: 2007/02/15 21:39:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Mrs. Stokes is a middle school (that's 12-14 year-old students, for you non-Murkins) science teacher/intern. The school has only been teaching a semester of science each year (a travesty!) and evolution hasn't really made its way into the curriculum. Eighth grade science is going to be expanded to full-year next year, and evolution will be taught. When Mrs. Stokes went to the library today, she found that there were only two books on evolution, both of them horrid. Both books consisted entirely of proposing what animals in the future will look like, with all the crazy examples you'd expect in a science fiction novel.

I'm looking for suggestions for good evolution reading materials or even lesson plans. Most of the stuff on the Berkeley site is more directed at high schoolers. If anyone has any ideas for some good stuff (books or even lesson plans) for 13-14 year-olds whose previous exposure to evolution will be pretty small, please give me your suggestions.


Date: 2007/02/16 13:56:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ Feb. 16 2007,11:55)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 16 2007,13:49)
I'll tell you what's REALLY funny is that the only way the Myth of Darwinism™ can persist is if the Smithsonian harasses ... er ... controls ... "renegade  scientists" and  "Open Minded Science Forums" *cough* ... like AtBC move my posts--like my "Thought Police" one above--from the thread where they were posted to the Bathroom Wall.

Do you guys think no one notices this stuff?  How long do you  think you can keep up the charade?

We have science on our side, Dave.

We win.


Welcome back, Dr. RGD! You've been missed.

Date: 2007/02/16 21:32:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Thanks, everyone! (not to discourage further contributions, of course). She did teach a very short evolution unit about a month ago, which was unfortunately massively disrupted due to snow-related school cancellations. The good news: no complaints from parents, and the thing that the students wanted to learn most about that they didn't was human evolution.

Date: 2007/02/17 15:41:55, Link
Author: argystokes
Josh Bozeman is just a legendary rightwing fundie and hapless dingbat from his mother's basement in Evansville, Indiana.

Here's HIS headache-inducing website, if you're feeling masochistic today.

Oh. My. God. Josh Bozeman looks like... me.

Date: 2007/02/17 16:59:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Feb. 17 2007,14:50)
Seems to me that PZ has a bio/evo booklist somewhere in his archives, which includes a section of younger readers.

I'd go look for a link, but I'm late for a movie!

Thanks, Pinhead, i've found it. I won't be able to join you folks tonight, by the way. Have lotsa fun!

Date: 2007/02/20 01:27:25, Link
Author: argystokes
On OE, Sam Chen has a post called MUST READ:
Dr. Phillip Johnson, often considered the father of the ID movement and also the author of numerous books on the intelligent design and evolution controversy, including the famed Darwin on Trial, recently wrote a piece for the Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) on the current state of intelligent design.

This article is definitely worth reading and is entitled "Intelligent Design in Biology: The Current Situation and Future Prospects." It can be found here:

Clicking on the link does indeed give the current situation and future prospects:
The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded

Date: 2007/02/20 09:42:29, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 19 2007,23:32)

it's just one of those cases where the link wrapped around and had a space in it.

It's just poorly constructed (go figure).

try this one:

Yeah, I know. I cut n pasted the thing into the url box and came up with a same-old-shit DI article. Don't have any idea why Sam thought it was so special.

Date: 2007/02/20 23:04:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2007,21:01)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 20 2007,22:29)
Surprise surprise. AFDave started an unnecessary new thread at, and the moderators intervened.
I wonder how long it will take Steve to figure out that I didn't start the new thread.  

It lists "afdave1" as the author of the topic "Afdave1's New Topic".  Are you saying that is some other afdave1?

Ay yay yay!

Nah, Steve's got it backwards. The mods intervened when Dave declared a new topic, and split off his original thread then closed the old one. Kind of the opposite philosophy of this place, I guess.

Date: 2007/02/20 23:12:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Me: How many cheesypoofs can DaveTard eat in a day?
God: More than you can imagine.

You heard it here first.

Ha! I asked Him the same thing this morning, almost. According to God, DaveTard can eat about 100 in one sitting.

Date: 2007/02/21 09:49:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 21 2007,00:31)
transformers... more than meets the eye.

Is that TRoutMac dressed up as Optimus Prime?

Date: 2007/02/21 18:50:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Yeah, Dave's been using the Humpty Dumpty strategy throughout his posts in the Dawkins forum. I'm pretty sure he's explicitely said macroevolution is disprovable, but not falsifiable. As improvius has pointed out, he's clearly said so implicitly.

Date: 2007/02/22 21:17:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,18:35)
DaveScot uses the tried and true Appeal to Mockery.  
The New and Improved Tree of Life ... This is your brain on NeoDarwinism: ... This is your brain on NeoNePlusUltraDarwinism ...

And here I thought that ID was "ok" with common descent and that NeoDarwinism had to do with mechanisms.

Well, ID is down with common descent so long as the information's frontloaded into the first living being. The tree dt posts has crossing branches, representing lateral gene transfer. I don't suppose frontloading can account for that. But never underestimate the power of tard.

Date: 2007/02/26 13:37:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 26 2007,11:14)
Which animal has the stronger bite: the hyena, or the American Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier? Does anybody have any data on this? Is there even a reliable way to measure bite strength? Just curious, cause I hear so many different claims.

I've heard that there isn't any way of measuring bite strength (from folks opposing breed-specific legislation). I suppose one could measure the amount of pressure put on something as a dog/hyena bites it, but I imagine getting the animal to bite as hard as possible might be difficult.

Date: 2007/02/26 16:47:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 26 2007,14:38)
You're telling me in a nation of 300 million people they can't find 10 fundies with BS degrees in biology, who could populate their blogs and write about biology and not sound like complete retards? JoeG and Troutmac and the UD regulars are the best they can do?


PaV does have a BS (or maybe a BA) in biology. Considering the elementary errors he routinely makes, though, I suspect it's from either Pensacola University or Washington State.

Date: 2007/03/01 00:06:03, Link
Author: argystokes
This site is intended to be a safe haven for students honestly interested in knowing more about ID. We do not want these students to be harassed. If you're not a student please try Uncommon Descent. While the rules are not specifically listed the intention for OE is that it's "mostly" limited to students who are interested in ID. I say "mostly" since there are several adult ID proponents from UD who are here to add content and to moderate.

Any blog posts or comments that betray a purposeful distortion of Intelligent Design or that equate ID to Creationism will be deleted without notice. Quite frankly, Darwinists are not welcome. Attempts to sneak under new user names will not be tolerated.

Now if you're a student who is a Darwinist we do make allowances based upon good behavior. Otherwise I'll have to ask you to refrain from posting on OE but feel free to join UD.

And how, pray tell, does Patrick expect to tell apart real students and trolls when he's got people like TRoutMac and O'Leary as his most prolific writers?

Maybe I should head on over there. I am a student, after all.

Date: 2007/03/02 20:10:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.

Date: 2007/03/04 16:01:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 04 2007,12:17)
great_ape is a tard

“Who, exactly, doesn’t think there is a war on between materialists and non-materialists?”
There shouldn’t be any such war. The line between materialism and non-materialism, properly understood, is obliterated by the modern paradigm of information and process. Who ever new what the heck “material” was anyway? Much less “spiritual.” These days, however, I think “materialism” and “non-materialism” only serve as proxies for, “rational empiricism” vs. a conception of the world that is essentially not grounded in experience and/or logic. Personally, I think religious and non-religious people fall on both sides of that particular chasm.

At times, I read several paragraphs and think 1 I have no idea what was just said 2 I don't think my time is best spent rereading what was just said. Now is one of those times.

I've translated it for you, Steve:
Materialism:Empirical Rationalism
Non-materialism: making shit up

Don't think I'd call that a tard comment, though the prose does make me imagine that he's talking with a mouth full of tardberries. I'm not sure, but I think great_ape might be a scienceblogger.

Date: 2007/03/04 17:50:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 04 2007,15:31)
Not only is most of Ichy's rant delusional but it and GCT'c response fall into the sterotypical liberal elitist trap, namely that you're the only smart people in the room and the only voices that deserve to be heard.

Um, are you now arguing that Coulter has something worthwhile to say, rather than just funny chain-jerking? Or are you whining that you have a "voice that deserves to be heard" whilst saying absolutely nothing?

Date: 2007/03/04 20:50:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Problem - I can't be part of the problem because there is no problem.  One consequence of freedom of speech is that anyone has the right to say what they please and accept the results of said speech, in her case that result is money and in your case, Ichy, it's your demostration of intolerance.

And the consequence of stupid, hateful speech is ridicule and scorn, which is what this thread is about. Why do you only decry the reaction to rank idiocy, rather than the idiocy itself? This isn't a free speech issue. Nobody's argued on this thread that Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak her mind. But I will argue that no one should listen to her, at least not with the purpose of gaining insight into the topic of her rants (the rants themselves may give valuable information about current conservative political strategy, I suppose).

Date: 2007/03/04 22:16:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Angry, I must disagree.  The entire theme of this thread is that she shouldn't be allowed to speak, period!  If the point was that no one should listen, which is what I am saying, then it should start right here and this thread would not exist.  There should have been no response from any gay advocacy groups or Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy.  All that does is add fuel to the fire.  If they wanted to treat this comment with the context it deserved than someone should have called Micheal Richards and asked him for his comment but not a sitting US Senator.

Please supply the quote which you believe implies that there is someone here who believes Coulter's speech should be censored. I say that no one should listen to Coulter, but since some do, there is legitimate reason to vocally and vehemently oppose her. So it's now your position that there should never be any replies to political speech, so long as it's kind of funny? You're getting dangerously close to "free speech for me but not for thee."

If you want to blame someone you'd better start looking at the 30+ million people who think this way.  I honestly have no idea how big this segment is but you've got to do a #### of a better job convincing millions to change their way of thinking then to just kill the messenger.
Yeah, convince them otherwise by ignoring the messenger. Great plan! I nominate you for head of the RNC.

Date: 2007/03/06 17:43:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2007,15:40)
Tims's UD post reminds me, at one point last year Dave Heddle turned on Dembski. Said he was going to write a big explanation of where Dembski's math was in error. I went there a few times last year to look for that post, but all I saw was Jesus and NASCAR, and disliking both, didn't hang around. Does anybody here go to his site and know whether or not he wrote that essay?

I check it frequently enough to not miss much. I don't think he ever ended up writing the essay.

Date: 2007/03/06 21:12:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Account creation has been re-enabled until 11:00 PM EST tonight.

Date: 2007/03/09 09:44:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Wow, I just found out that I'm working in an ID lab!
The funny thing is, a lot of scientists who don’t know it (or won’t admit it) are doing ID research. If nature really is intelligently designed, anyone who looks will find evidence of it whether or not it says “ID RESEARCH DEPARTMENT” on their door.

Just kidding. I always knew I worked in an ID lab. Of course, Sagebrush Tardener means Infectious Disease, right? No? I guess I'm studying the intelligently designed mechanisms of syphilis pathogenesis, then. What a sicko this Telic Entity must be.

Date: 2007/03/09 19:28:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (2ndclass @ Mar. 09 2007,16:00)
It looks like Patrick's post is indeed plagiarized from Michael Crichton.  Whether he copy-and-pasted it from an online pirated copy or typed it in himself, I don't know.  But it's a fictional news story, Patrick plagiarized it, and he presented it as nonfiction.  That's beyond bizarre.

Oi! It's a real news story, I'm surprised you hadn't heard it when it happened a couple of years ago. See Woo-Suk's wikipedia page:
Hwang Woo-suk (&#54889;&#50864;&#49437;) (born 29 January 1953[14]) is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and
2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.

The "article" itself was probably pulled from the prologue to Crichton's book or somesuch. Not giving the reference makes it plagiarism, but the story's not fabricated.

Date: 2007/03/10 10:15:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, this is just beautiful. Patrick backtracks:
On a side note, I'll make certain to check my sources better in the future...and to not forget to list them. I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to make certain (I was in a rush since the book was due back at the library). Thanks to Alan Fox for pointing my error out.

But of course, Alan Fox's comment pointing out the error has disappeared. T-t-t-t-t-tard.

Date: 2007/03/10 11:40:51, Link
Author: argystokes
huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

WTF? That doesn't square with his "needing to return it to the library" excuse. He probably got forwarded the quote from Dembski, and like any good toady, reproduced it without checking sources.

Date: 2007/03/19 16:46:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Wasn't there a movie about an Afghan girl who dressed up as a boy so that she could freely move around in a man's world?

It's called Osama. Apparently it's great, but when I watched it, I just thought it was boring.

Date: 2007/03/30 01:04:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Henry J, they do not contradict each other.  When Louis says there is no empirical basis for a belief in God that implies that there exists an empirical test that could make that measurement.

No, it really doesn't imply any such thing. That's just truly a bizarre statement. And your failure to provide any doctrines of atheism is duly noted.

Date: 2007/04/02 15:20:26, Link
Author: argystokes
In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all.  The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

Well, if you'd like to inject a little science into our forum here, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people to discuss with. AFDave sure did.

Date: 2007/04/02 15:26:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Good to see the new comment moderation policy has gotten rid of the trolls at OE:
There's definitely more to faith-based professionalism than science is willing to admit. My dad once hired a plumber who came and ran a bunch of copper pipes into an addition containing a new rumpus room and kitchen extension. Then, without ever testing to see if the pipes leaked, he had the drywall contractor seal it all up in the wall. My dad asked him why he didn't at least test them first and the plumber replied that he had prayed before he handed his work off to the drywaller, and that he was righteous man and that this had always worked in the past. Sure enough, when we finally turned on the water to the addition there were no leaks at all, as far as we could tell.

Sometimes prayer works better than experimentation. I wonder if the plumber had doubted his prayer and tested his pipes by pressurizing them BEFORE sealing them up in drywall if perhaps God would have taken this as a doubting of faith and made the pipes develop a slow leak AFTER they'd passed such a test. I don't know; the plumber obviously knew what he was doing.

Date: 2007/04/02 15:50:14, Link
Author: argystokes
FtK said,
It really makes no difference who you were addressing.  It’s irrelevant.  You decided to post on this forum and chime in with the others.  It’s a bit hypocritical to assert that you are someone who is sincere and respectful and then find you here joining in with those who are not interested in respectful dialogue.
in regards to this:
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2007,07:31)
Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

Background info and website

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Ah, I see. The ridicule contained in the post above is what made FtK decide to hold up Albadave's posts. His association with CBEBs, I assume, necessarily makes him insincere.

Come on FtK, bring undo me the science! Show me a peer-reviewed paper that you've read and found impressive!

Date: 2007/04/02 16:02:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:55)

It’s interesting that you are still use the “astrology” canard.

I’ve addressed this many times in the past because Behe corrected this assumption at a lecture I attended:

“Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe alluded to astrology being considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

And, here.

Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial.

Date: 2007/04/02 16:20:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:16)
"Ah, so ID has the scientific content that astrology had in the 14th century. I'm not exactly sure why you would find this a strong defense of Behe's astrology comments during the trial. "

Cute comment... a real classic for this particular forum.

Exceeded only by the cuteness of the commenter. Shall I assume that you indeed have no science to present here, and are simply on a cultural crusade?

Date: 2007/04/02 18:29:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:18)
Oh, btw, yes, I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles.  Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me.  I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

But, I can ~guarantee~ you that this is the very last place on earth I would discuss anything in those articles.

A nearly-nonmoderated forum with a mix of scientists and laypeople is certainly a bad place for discussing the peer-reviewed literature. Better to do it behind the curtains of comment-screened blogs. So the truth gets out, ya know.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:58:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,16:49)

I really have no idea how posting that supports your case.  You have to use a lot of spin to suggest that from that deposition Behe believes that astrology is currently (meaning *in our modern scientific world*) a valid scientific theory.

Clearly he's talking about history.

Frankly, I don't see why that matters. I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me the degree that something is science can't ever decrease. Since science is all about finding testable explanations for the natural world, the scientific content of any field of study is the number of experiments and the explanatory power of the possible results of those experiments. Astrology to my knowledge has never had any experiments to test ideas, and there certainly aren't fewer experiments that one could perform today than in 1369. So it's just as scientific today as it ever was. Likewise with ID.

Date: 2007/04/02 19:35:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:29)
FtK was disappointing. Hopefully at some point in the future she'll want to argue the science and come back.

Not likely. I've just taken a look at her blog, and there isn't any science there either. A complete lack of understanding of science is apparent, however:
But, let’s say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis don’t particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesn’t usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.

Date: 2007/04/02 19:54:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:42)
Yeah, we found that mind-boggling comment a few pages back.

Bah. I knew it looked familiar. OK then, here's another
But, in regard to evolution and the origin of life, we are talking about a historical inference and I believe any literate person can research these issues for themselves and understand them quite well as it’s certainly not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious that those leading darwinists pushing their views on evolution are not involved in the debate merely due to the scientific evidence.

Clearly, laypeople can understand abiogenesis research just as well as the scientists themselves. Also, I wonder what she thinks of rocket scientists, of whom I suspect there are very few YECs. Perhaps rocket science is no design detectology.

Date: 2007/04/04 15:35:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Oooh did I spy data upthread?

Someone mentioned GRE scores. Ah 'twas Argy. Excellent, care to elaborate, Argy?


P.S. Can I be the first to state that some tests (I don't know about the GRE, what is it?) can be biased to certain types of intelligence. After all, IQ is important but not the sum of intellect etc ad nauseum.

Hmm, I'll see if I can hunt down the data itself. Obviously there are many explanations for the data (assuming I'm remembering correctly). Gender bias, self-selection, etc. I suppose that could even be an interesting discussion! Now I've got to go load a gel and stink up the lab.

Date: 2007/04/04 16:17:07, Link
Author: argystokes
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. From we see that we bio majors are almost as stupid as premeds:

OK, so there are lots of explanations for this data. Bio majors are stoopidder, biology programs don't prepare their students for the critical though required by the MCATs, and perhaps some more subtle explanations for the data. This thread is for exploring the possible reasons for the data above.

Date: 2007/04/04 16:22:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Cheers, enjoy your gel (What are you running btw? Professional curiosity!).

Polyacrylamide gel with whole E. coli lysate (hopefully) expressing a Treponema pallidum protein.

I agree it could be a very illuminating discussion about stats and their proper use, it might also get into cognition etc. I look forward to learning something.

I've put up a new thread for it.

Date: 2007/04/04 16:35:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,14:30)
More detail:

The raw means aren't as good as having the granular data. Meta-data does not lend itself to analysis so easily.

Yeah, but that means that we can make up any explanation that we like. Isn't it much more fun to not be constrained by things like evidence?
I have no idea what a premed curriculum looks like. At my school, if someone replied to the question "What's your major" with "Premed," you knew they were an idiot, because there was no premed major at my school. They were the folks who hadn't figured out yet that they might want to major in some sort of science, likely biology or biochemistry, in order to learn the necessary info for entrance into med school.

Date: 2007/04/04 17:28:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,15:03) wonder there are so many engineers who support ID.

Yeah, and how many bioengineers do you have on your precious lists?

And weren't you the one complaining about too much snark and not enough science around here? Let's hear the analysis, FtK!

Date: 2007/04/04 18:11:20, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,16:01)

I could catch a monkey!

Date: 2007/04/05 00:43:01, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm not sure any of those were even mildly funny.  Oh well; I wouldn't expect anything more.  She doesn't know why the first two were funny in the first place.

Well I thought at least 4 of those were funny. We could I suppose discuss some really funny science-related stuff, like Noah's ark and the blind pussies.

Date: 2007/04/05 10:40:19, Link
Author: argystokes
What are you working on T. pallidum for? Studying basis of neurological damage?

Nay, molecular mechanisms of attachment and invasion. And it is indeed T. pallidum pallidum that I'm working on, though I only get to play with the bugs every 9 days or so. As I like to tell people, I don't have syphilis, but I'm working on it!

Date: 2007/04/05 11:14:19, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Louis @ April 05 2007,08:43)
Nice one Argy!

A mate of mine was working on developing a better process for the Viagra synthesis (this is after they'd discovered its "interesting side effect") he'd always say things like "It's hard, but we're getting there" and "I'm working on it but #### it's hard!" etc etc etc.

It was really funny. The first couple of times! ;-)


I've worked in a related field for a couple of months, actually! During one of my lab rotations (explanation if requested) I was studying phosphodiesterases as a potential drug target for P. falciparum (that's malaria for you non-microbiologists). Cialis, Viagra et al are all phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Now, anti-malarial phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors would certainly be targetted against Plasmodium PDEs and hopefully have minimal reactivity with human PDEs. But I always like to imagine men people lining up at the clinic to get their malaria cured and enjoy a bit of "levitation" at the same time.

Date: 2007/04/06 21:53:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,18:46)
Quote (stevestory @ April 06 2007,20:25)
What part of Wes's argument sucks? Where was Wes's reasoning poor?

The whole not evidence for the bible / god / young Earth bit.

I guess flirtytime is over.

Eh, she posted at what, 8:30 her time on a Friday night? Chalk it up to crankiness-inducing wine coolers. It'll be good when she comes back tomorrow renewed and ready to discuss the paper's flaws.

Date: 2007/04/07 10:17:43, Link
Author: argystokes

Looking over your blog, it appears that you think Mike Egnor has some good ideas. Now, mostly he seems to be on the Darwin => eugenics train, which is obviously just meant to be bad PR for evolutionary theory. But he has made a couple of scientific claims. For one, he challenges PZ Myers,
How much new specified information can random variation and natural selection generate? Please note that my question starts with 'how much'- it's quantitative, and it's quantitative about information, not literature citations.

But alas, he goes on to admit that it was a trick question, as he can't identify a way to meaningfully measure biological information:
My question about the information-generating capacity of RM+NS was rhetorical. I know you can't answer it. Now you know, too. The scientific debate about Darwin/ID turns on the issue of biological complexity. We are still struggling with the issue of how to quantify it. Information content seems the most promising, but, as my question demonstrates, it's deeply problematic. Empirical verification of your claim that RM+NS is sufficient to explain biological complexity is necessary for you your theory to be a 'fact'. As you have so clearly demonstrated, it's not a fact, so far.

Until Egnor can ask a meaningful question, his objections are (tautologically) spurious. Now, I can name new biological functions that can be generated by mutation and selection, and it would seem that this is all that is necessary for evolution to work, regardless of whether or not mathematics can be used to quantify the changes. Do you have any objections to mutation and selection as a viable mechanism for the generation of new biological structures and functions? Our former resident creationist does, but I think you'd be embarrassed to have him as an ally.

Date: 2007/04/07 13:15:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Find me some IDers who aren't motivated by either Jesus and/or DS's reactionary politics and I'll Repent My Wicked Ways.

It is hard to believe, isn't it?

Date: 2007/04/07 15:26:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,13:09)
Let's not have too many challenges going at once.

FTK is a layperson, it's not her job to explain things to our satisfaction. I think a freindly chat around Wes' paper would be a great starting point?

Sounds reasonable to me. FtK, you can forget my question about biological information etc. At least for now.

Date: 2007/04/07 17:10:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2007,13:42)
What's odd about this thread is that people accuse me of distorting/making up these anecdotes, and yet the behaviour of the so-called freethinkers on this board matches the behaviour I've been writing about. I'm not offended -- I think it's funny, actually. The irony is so thick you can almost cut it.....

Perhaps more freethinkers are sitting politely than you think.

Date: 2007/04/07 18:08:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ April 07 2007,15:58)
GoP, where I think the Court was wrong is this same distinction in Roe v. Wade.  By inventing rights that do not exist in the Constitution and then establishing that as the law of the land any further debate on the issue is fruitless.  Precedent takes hold and whether decided rightly or wrongly, it stands.  Abortion should be a State issue, school prayer should be a local issue, but they are not and based upon bad law.  Whether or not the result of the Court seems to be ok for the most part, as in the case with school prayer, the precedent and bastardization of the Constitution are the true problems.

So, you seriously believe that the constitution doesn't guarantee a separation of state from church? You would accept (that is, agree with the constitutionality of, not necessarily agree with) the adoption of Sharia law so long as Islam is not declared the official national religion?

EDIT: These are not rhetorical questions.

Date: 2007/04/07 19:27:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ April 07 2007,16:56)
Quote (argystokes @ April 07 2007,18:08)
Quote (skeptic @ April 07 2007,15:58)
GoP, where I think the Court was wrong is this same distinction in Roe v. Wade.  By inventing rights that do not exist in the Constitution and then establishing that as the law of the land any further debate on the issue is fruitless.  Precedent takes hold and whether decided rightly or wrongly, it stands.  Abortion should be a State issue, school prayer should be a local issue, but they are not and based upon bad law.  Whether or not the result of the Court seems to be ok for the most part, as in the case with school prayer, the precedent and bastardization of the Constitution are the true problems.

So, you seriously believe that the constitution doesn't guarantee a separation of state from church? You would accept (that is, agree with the constitutionality of, not necessarily agree with) the adoption of Sharia law so long as Islam is not declared the official national religion?

EDIT: These are not rhetorical questions.

The Constitution absolutely places a barrier between the state and religion, in the interest of protecting RELIGION, not the state.  Go back and read what I said, and Lenny, read what you just wrote.  If the Founders had intended a seperation of church from state then they would have written it that way rather then the way they did, which was a seperation of state from the church.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the topic of thread, or are we through with that?

You didn't answer my question. Would Sharia law be constitutional?

Date: 2007/04/08 23:49:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2007,21:13)
Quote (Tom @ April 08 2007,21:48)
Blipey and anyone elso who might be wondering, Ftk used to "discuss" science topics at the Kansas Citizens for Science website.  If you are interested, here is a thread in which she is defending Walt Brown(father of the Hydroplate Theory):;f=3;t=001475;p=1  It's a long thread(10 pages), but I think you might find it interesting.

Wow, I didnt know Creationists didnt 'believe in' the Oort cloud.

What about plate tectonics? *GULP* ???

Plate techtonics, Arden? Surely you know about Walt Brown's continental drag race hypothesis?

Date: 2007/04/09 12:28:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:20)
You also wrote:

"I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!”

Are you for real?  I'm having trouble believing that all "creationists" are complete idiots.  I've never heard anything like that coming from people who attend the lectures I've been at.

Is there a particular lecturer you found especially impressive, whose take on any scientific concept you consider superior than conventional wisdom? Perhaps this would be a better subject to discuss, since it is one which you will likely have the upper-hand knowledge-wise.

Date: 2007/04/09 12:35:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:30)
Louis, sweetie, why on earth would I discuss science with you people?  Seriously?  You know all the arguments.  I know all the arguments.  

Different interpretations....that's all.  You're "facts" are no more supported by empirical evidence than mine are.

btw, who is this AFDave guy and where is this long thread he was involved in that you guys keep talking about?

If you sort the forum topics by length, you'll see the Dave topics at the top. For quick reading, however, I would recommend the "Formal" debate between our very own Deadman (and now Eric Murphy) and AFDave which is ongoing right here. I'd be fascinated to know your reaction to the debate, and would love to discuss any topic brought up within it.

Date: 2007/04/09 12:58:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,10:51)
LOL...Louis, I wouldn't even attempt touch on those questions in this particular forum.

Why not? AFDave did it for 9 months. It's a good place with many scientists, light moderation, but not so many members that you're likely to get overwhelmed.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:21:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,11:15)
It's a complete waste of time to discuss these issues.  I'm hopeless.  I'll never be able to accept the notion that the mechanisms of evolution have the "power" to produce everything we observe in nature.  I don't care what the "scientific consensus" is.  It's simply not logically sound, IMHO.  

I'm convinced worldviews skew our ability to understand each other.  You think I'm a dishonest liar, and I cannot fathom how in the world you can actually believe that the mechanisms of evolution are as powerful as you believe them to be.

On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. I promise to take what you say at face value, and discuss items without regard to current scientific consensus.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:38:03, Link
Author: argystokes
"On the contrary, I don't think you're a dishonest liar, which is the reason I am engaging you. It's also the reason I'm not discussing anything with AFDave anymore. "

Sigh...well, that's sweet of you to say, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long before you would change your tune.  

F'instance, Dave said something simliar at one point but when he couldn't convince me of macroev., he simply concluded that I'm being disrepectful of his knowledge and have nothing other than a religious agenda.  He questioned my honestly and thinks I have no interest in the scientific issues, but am merely interested in shoving my religion down students throats.

Well, no worries since I doubt I'll be able to convince you of anything. A conversation about science would be beneficial to this board, as it does have readers that do not or rarely contribute.

Date: 2007/04/09 18:22:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Uh oh, this thread's doing the CGH thing... page doesn't turn over at the right time.

Date: 2007/04/09 19:25:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Now the FCC controls and monitors the public airwaves and the purpose of this event is not (supposedly) religious in nature.  Does this constitute endorsement by the FCC for allowing this behavior on the public airwaves?  And if so, does this violate the Establishment clause?  How does this event differ from a high school football game or graduation?  And, most importantly, are you offended and feel oppressed by this event?

I know these questions weren't addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

1. (FCC). No, this does not constitute endorsement, as it is a message from a private corporation.

2. (Football prayer). It depends on whether the prayer is student-led or faculty-led. Students are not government employees acting as government officials (whereas teachers are), and thus the speech is protected by the first amendment. If the school specifically sets aside time for the prayer [explicitely because it is for prayer, rather than setting aside time for a student graduation speech which the student used to offer a prayer], I would consider it a violation of the establishment clause. But that's pretty close to the line.

3. I'd be annoyed, but whatever.

Date: 2007/04/09 21:36:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Let's discuss the supporting evidence for macroev. and common descent.  That is at the root of my inability to accept the "facts" that evolutionists keep trying to sell.

Well, we've been around the bush once with GULO. So maybe this would be a good time for endogenous retroviruses. I'll have time to discuss those tomorrow, but for an introduction, it's one of Theobald's 29+ that has been referenced a couple of times on this thread.

Date: 2007/04/09 21:46:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ April 09 2007,19:42)
Sorry to come late to the party but I'm confused.  I missed soemthing over the last few months.  Was AFDave banned?  Is Ftk a real person or just Dave's new name?  What's the website that keeps getting referenced?  Sorry, again, I should be up of these things but I'm not and I'd like to know a little more before I participate because if this is just Dave Part2 I think I'll pass.

Well, it might be AFDave part II, except this time Dave's a MILF nice young lady.

Date: 2007/04/10 10:12:29, Link
Author: argystokes
I just need to just get the heck out of here, and that should put an end to this.  I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss, but I realize that “morons” like myself come in here and talk about the same issues endlessly, and you guys have to repeat yourselves time and time again.  ~I know how frustrating that can be~.  

It would be better to discuss that sort of thing on a lightly moderated forum, rather than a heavily moderated blog such as your own. And I don't think ERVs have been discussed extensively here, so people shouldn't be as cranky about it as they might be over, say, calibration curves for C14 dating.

Date: 2007/04/10 13:05:13, Link
Author: argystokes
I do think that endogenous retroviruses would be an interesting topic discuss

Well, if you ever change your mind, here's Ashby Camp's rebuttal to Theobald on ERVs: (it's at the end). Of course Camp's arguments are flaccid, but if you have the curiosity to find out why, you'll have to start talking some science.

Date: 2007/04/10 18:58:22, Link
Author: argystokes
GCT, I know I'm not an authority but I can not recall the ACLU EVER fighting for a student's right to pray.  I'm going to have to do alittle research on that one.

That shouldn't take very long. Let's see...
ACLU to appeal federal judge ruling on school uniforms
Or even better, take Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District:
Facts of the Case

A New York law authorized schools to regulate the after-hour use of school property and facilities. The Center Moriches School District, acting under the statute, prohibited the use of its property by any religious group. The District refused repeated requests by Lamb's Chapel to use the school's facilities for an after-hours religious-oriented film series on family values and child rearing. The Chapel brought suit against the School District in federal court.


Did the District violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech when it denied Lamb's Chapel the use of school premises to show religious-oriented films?


Yes, by a unaminous vote. The Supreme Court's holding consisted of two parts. First, the District violated freedom of speech by refusing the Chapel's request to show movies on school premises solely because such movies were religiously oriented. While non-public schools are permitted under New York law to restrict access to their premises based on subject matter or speaker identity, such restrictions must be reasonable and "viewpoint neutral." In this case, the District's restriction was neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral, since it allowed the presentation of all other views about family values and child rearing - except those which were presented from a religious perspective. Second, a grant of permission to the Chapel to use the District's premises would not have amounted to an establishment of religion. This is because the showing of the films would neither be school-sponsored during school hours nor closed to the public.

Who represented Lamb's Chapel? The ACLU, of course. It sounds like you've been reading some pretty bizarre sources, given your views on church/state separation and your ill-formed opinions on the ACLU. I would recommend Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars for church/state issues.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:05:09, Link
Author: argystokes
On her blog, FTK said:
I’m not sure how to address your comment above, because I disagree with it completely. I will say that I believe it is asinine to actually believe that scientists have an “atheist conspiracy”.

Well, at least she disagrees with Dembski,
Uncommon Descent holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:34:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Here's a question for Skeptic:
Do you think that it is currently illegal for a student to pray during school hours? Note that this is a question of fact, rather than of opinion.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:53:05, Link
Author: argystokes
The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing.

As opposed to Dr. William A. Dembski, who was appointed by God.

Date: 2007/04/10 23:09:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 10 2007,20:26)
Quote (2ndclass @ April 10 2007,20:21)
To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Wait a minute.  Did he really say Dembski sued the Dover legal team, as in the Thomas More Law Center?  Can that be right?

When Dembski insisted on having his own lawyer rather than the TMLC lawyer, they fired him. He insisted on getting the 200 bucks per hour he'd put in on research for the trial. At least, that's how I remember it.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:48:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.

Well yes. The ID folk had the opportunity to present whatever evidence they wanted, and put those mean scientists in "the vice," and had the good fortune to do so before a conservative, Christian judge. The fact that the defense could provide no evidence of ID was telling.

Date: 2007/04/12 12:35:23, Link
Author: argystokes
I have read parts that made me shudder because I know how the ID guys would respond to Miller et. al.  if there were dialogue *with* rather than *at*.

They had every opportunity to respond. The ID guys had the opportunity to crossexamine Miller, and present their own experts to rebut him. They failed, as always. But hey, the DI put out another OP-Ed last week!

Date: 2007/04/12 17:52:45, Link
Author: argystokes
You want debate? Start here. The ID folks haven't shown up yet, but will always be welcome when they have something to present.

Date: 2007/04/12 18:01:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,16:00)
In an on-line forum?  The public isn't like to find exactly where you want to hide these little on-line debates.

There's no media coverage, and it's unlikely that one would have the fortitude to scan through all the ad homs, etc. to get to the meat.  People tend to get to the subject much more quickly when face to face.

College campuses are the best place to discuss these issues, IMHO.

Um, that "here" is a link. The underline is often a hint that you may want to mouse-over.

Date: 2007/04/12 18:45:03, Link
Author: argystokes
Con - STD’s, unwanted pregnancy

I'd like to introduce you to somebody:

Date: 2007/04/12 19:28:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Now, don't give me the song and dance about people not using birth control because of their religious beliefs.  Sex ed has been taught and supported in the public & private schools for eons.  Problem is, that in the heat of the moment, shit happens.  So, unless we shoot all our girls up with birth control early on, we're screwed (and knocked up quite frequently).

Not a bad idea. But they have pills now. I think they call it, "The Pill."

Date: 2007/04/12 20:34:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Via Pharyngula, I present John A. Davison, in his own words. And voice. I'm seven minutes in, and unfortunately he hasn't said any of his catchphrases yet.

Date: 2007/04/13 16:24:22, Link
Author: argystokes
It's also interesting that you don't think it's a problem to present these issues at the universities, yet on the SMU thread, people are outraged about the conference taking place this weekend on university grounds.   Would that be because there are actually ID advocates running the show rather than anti-ID professors teaching a class in regard to these issues?

I don't think you can support this statement. Also, I'd like to second Steve's question at the top of this page.

Date: 2007/04/14 20:37:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ToSeek @ April 14 2007,18:12)
Quote (Ftk @ April 14 2007,17:58)
I'm not lying. ID is not creation science.  The only simliarity is that they both support the notion that there has to be a source of intellect responsible for the information and complexity we observe in nature.

ID is creation science cut down to the absolute minimal claims that the creationists think are closest to being able to pass scientific legal muster.

I fixed it for you.

Date: 2007/04/15 18:30:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,16:12)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 15 2007,15:23)
Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesn’t taste bad?

Why is it that the dung which dung beetles need to survive doesn't taste bad to them?

Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Well there's something we have in common. For me, there's something in some chocolate that tastes like peanuts too... that "you shouldn't be eating this" taste. But I definitely don't actually have the physical reaction to it. Ever had that happen?

Date: 2007/04/15 18:55:00, Link
Author: argystokes
So, FTK, will you be providing support for Egnor's latest over at your blog?
The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer. According to Dr. Novella’s reasoning, brain tumors ought to be generating quite a bit of "meaningful and even useful new information." Better neuroanatomy and better neurophysiology ought to be popping up "easily." Better frontal lobes and cognition, from cancer. Better temporal lobes and memory, from cancer. Better cerebellums and coordination, from cancer. If random mutations and natural selection—Dr. Novella’s "two stroke engine"—is the source of all functional integrated biological complexity, brain tumors ought to help our brains evolve in some way.

Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.

I'm just a rube, not a Darwinist from Yale. But I’ve never seen cancer make a brain better.

I assume that even a layman such as yourself can see the blatant stupidity of this reasoning. How can you continue to take these DI folks seriously?

Date: 2007/04/16 17:04:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Nope, I'll just pop in every once in a while to throw in a comment or talk dirty with Richard....until I get banned that is.

Get down from there, we need the lumber.

Steve, you might as well post the comment over at her blog. I think she'll let it go through.

Date: 2007/04/16 18:30:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 16 2007,16:19)
As I'm sure everyone here knows, my opposition to creationism/ID is political in nature.  One of my best friends is from Iran -- his father was a military chief of staff under the Shah -- and he has seen firsthand what happens when religious nuts are allowed to gain political power.  I have no intention whatsoever of allowing that to happen here.

You can read all about it in Lenny's new [a href="" target="_blank"]book[/a]!

I came upon the issue in the summer of 05, when I was looking for experiments on the effectiveness of acupuncture. Teh Google led me to the skeptic's dictionary, which had all sorts of fun topics, including something or other written by Jason Rosenhouse. I began reading evolutionblog, panda's thumb, and pharyngula pretty regularly, and landed in this forum when making fun of UD became formalized.

Date: 2007/04/17 15:26:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Woo Hoo! Polls are back up.

So, is molecular biology soft science, or does soft science mean the social sciences and psychology?

Date: 2007/04/18 20:13:21, Link
Author: argystokes
The videos are up.
"Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ..."

Hmm, doesn't sound much like an islamoterrorist attack, does it?

Date: 2007/04/18 21:46:10, Link
Author: argystokes
You'll never hear any predictions that the ToE is on it's last leg coming from me.  It's a solid theory, except when you get to the part that is based soley on atheist philosophy.  LOL...

Vacuous comments don't become better when you add "lol" to the end of them.

Date: 2007/04/19 00:15:18, Link
Author: argystokes
But, right off the top of my head, it seems to me that the fact that information about ID is being spread all over the internet, and much of it is being translated into other languages, is kinda a hint that it is growing like gangbusters.  


Yep, growing like gangbusters all right.

Date: 2007/04/19 23:17:47, Link
Author: argystokes
My feelings are that neither evolution, ID, or creation science will ever reign as ~the~ theory that ousts the others.

Uh, evolution's had a stranglehold on biology for nigh onto 150 years. I find it startling that you are unaware of this.

Date: 2007/04/23 20:50:44, Link
Author: argystokes

I'm playing a game of 20 questions, and the most recent question is "Does he have a silent h in his name?" The person in question has a "th" in their name pronounce as in "thousand." Should I answer yes or no? Wikipedia's entry on silent letters is unclear:
"exocentric" digraphs, where the sound of the digraph is different from that of either of its constituent letters. These are rarely considered "silent".

The person in question also has an "ei" in his name that sounds like a long e, as in "ceiling."

Date: 2007/04/23 21:14:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2007,19:01)
blah blah blabbity blah.

There you go, insert appropriate comment here followed by out of context insult.

I think that just about covers it.

Are you as impossible to talk to in real life as well as on the internets? Because I haven't seen anything from TP to warrant this response. Your inability to defend a position on any subject has been noted. I suppose I should be happy that we apparently agree on very little.

Date: 2007/04/23 23:09:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 23 2007,20:04)
Quote (argystokes @ April 23 2007,20:50)

I'm playing a game of 20 questions, and the most recent question is "Does he have a silent h in his name?" The person in question has a "th" in their name pronounce as in "thousand." Should I answer yes or no? Wikipedia's entry on silent letters is unclear:      
"exocentric" digraphs, where the sound of the digraph is different from that of either of its constituent letters. These are rarely considered "silent".

The person in question also has an "ei" in his name that sounds like a long e, as in "ceiling."

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me whether in words like 'thousand', if the 'h' is silent? No. 'Th' is a digraph. But I can see why someone might think the 'h' was silent.

Try 'Keith'.

Thanks, that was my question.

Date: 2007/04/24 10:29:45, Link
Author: argystokes
No, I don't trust any of you.

Won't you keep an open mind?

Date: 2007/04/24 18:53:32, Link
Author: argystokes
But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.

You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?

Date: 2007/04/25 15:54:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (blipey @ April 25 2007,13:02)
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.

Oooh, sounds like fun.  While talking about drinking is all well and good, actually drinking is better.  And drinking a bit while discussing (cussing?) things with a creationist is best.

If it's this guy, he's probably quite a bit smarter than Dave. I've invited him over here.

Date: 2007/04/26 11:28:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 26 2007,09:21)
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.

Vicious dogs? Damned unlikely. I always get a kick out of the way Dave always goes on about his German Shepherd, which looks like a Shepherd-Lab. I guess labradors aren't manly enough. Blipey could almost certainly walk right up to those dogs with a burger in each hand, tell them to sit, and hand-feed them while Dave stands steaming 20 feet off.

Date: 2007/04/26 13:57:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 26 2007,11:44)
Why are so many people so jocular about Dave (Springer) Scot?
There is nothing too weird about the way he looks. A USA citizen a tad overweight (shock horror).
An ID proponent who has lied (shock horror).
C'mon. Is anyone really surprised? And what would you have to say if the situation was reversed and some ID suporters' main criticism of a pro-evolutionist was about looks/figure?
Yes I know it isn't exactly the same (the fool has said too much shiz for that to aply), just saying.

It's the irony of Dave making fat jokes about Ed Brayton, in conjunction with his bragging about his own physical attributes.

Date: 2007/04/26 14:13:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2007,00:07)
Quote (deejay @ April 25 2007,22:29)
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,19:06)
Several times lately people have pointed me to Moose Drool. I'll have to check it out.

Hi Steve-

I lived in Montana for 12 years, and as much as I'd love to be a homer for the local stuff, I still prefer most of the brews from Deschutes, particularly Black Butte Porter and Obsidian Stout.  Deschutes makes a pale ale called Mirror Pond, and lots of people like it, but I much prefer Sierra Nevada, which is my default beer.  

I agree with Wes on Spaten Optimator, but I have worlds more international beers still to try.

I will second the Black Butte Porter.  It slipped my mind; I do like it more than Moose Drool (which is still a good beer).  The Obsidian is decent as well.

As for a Varsity Drinking Team name, here are my proposals:

1.  International Society of Creative Imbibers & Drunks

2.  World-wide Association of Drinkers

3.  We may be drunk but we know that beer was invented more than 6,000 years ago.

4.  Sorry, DI who?

You can do pretty well with the Northwest brews.
IPA -- Bridgeport
Other good lighter ales -- Redhook Copper Hook
Hefeweisen -- Widmer or Pyramid
Mediumish Ale -- Hale's Red Menace, Mack n Jack
Porter -- Black Butte

I really disliked the Obsidian the one time I got it.

Date: 2007/04/26 14:26:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,12:20)
Funny thing, I still think a really good dark Irish, English, or German beer beats the best American microbrews 95% of the time. Even a mediocre Irish stout beats the best Pacific NW stouts (in my not at all humble opinion).

Sure, the little microbrew numbers are vastly better than mainstream American mega-brewery beers, but that's setting the bar awfully low...

Tis true, I haven't found a stout out here that I particularly like. Well, Hale's has a good one, but you've got to go to the brewery to get it.

Date: 2007/04/27 22:25:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Is realpc Charlie Wagner?

Date: 2007/04/30 15:43:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 30 2007,13:36)

I find several things about this hilarious.

First and foremost is this: I couldn't give a suppurating rat's arsehole whether anyone on an internet message board likes or dislikes me. Granted it is better to be liked than disliked and equally granted it is better to have the respect of one's peers, but ultimately it's pretty irrelevant.

Better than all of this it's totally irrelevant to anyone's impression of GoP. If Alan and Faid and you and Steve E and Arden and GCT and Phonon and....(the list goes on a long way) hate my guts because I am a rude, contemptuous trolling evil bastard

What the #### made you say that? Hate your guts? That is ridiculous.

Breathe, Stephen! You've misread Louis. He's saying it doesn't matter whether or not you (and several others) like him or not. Not that he thinks you don't.

Date: 2007/05/01 15:51:41, Link
Author: argystokes
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.

Date: 2007/05/01 18:25:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2007,16:10)

Comment #172968

Posted by realpc on May 1, 2007 5:48 PM (e) | kill


Not everyone agrees that the HIV test measures viral load.

Realpc doesn't seem to understand that the antigen test is not the viral load test.

I haven't followed realpc very closely in his evolution denial threads, but his response or nonresponse to my latest comment should reveal whether he's actually taken in by crank hypotheses or just trolling. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

Date: 2007/05/02 14:01:12, Link
Author: argystokes
If Vyoma is right, realpc is, well...
Posted by Vyoma on May 2, 2007 1:39 PM (e)

All your points in terms of AZT have been addressed already. you’ve brought up nothing new nor valid, especially considering that there are other drugs in use, and research on new ones continues. Including a class of compounds called laccases. Please, feel free to share your intensive research into and knowledge of laccases and their effects on HIV.

Moreover, your lack of an answer has certainly been very revealing. Clearly, you are, indeed, the loony who calls himself ankh_f_n_khonsu.

So, how’s that Holocaust “revisionism” working out for you? Conjured any good spirits lately? How many of your replies here have been written under the influence of drugs? That would explain quite a bit of what you write, really.

Folks, this guy is a crackpot. He thinks he’s a magician who can control the universe with the power of his mind. Nobody is ever going to convince him of anything; he’s as much of a religious fundamentalist as any evangelistic Christian or Wahabi Muslim fundamentalist. I would add my voice to those calling for his ban, since absolutely nothing but garbage will come from communicating with him. Although that would probably wind up as a merit badge amongst his crackpot friends, so the choice is up to you. Personally, though, I doubt he’s going to go away just because he’s ignored. As long as a soapbox is provided for his fantastically inflated ego, this blowhard occultist will continue to hang around here and spew nonsense. His brain has been far too damaged by prolonged drug use to permit for anything else.
HIV denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial, AND 9-11 conspiracy. I'd like to see this guy go toe to toe with Larry Fafarman.

Date: 2007/05/03 00:04:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Here's a about you post a picture of your mug so we can see how extraordinarily handsome you must be.

Blardy har har! You show me yours I show you mine.

Date: 2007/05/03 00:31:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Patrick explains why nobody ever comment at OE anymore:
The "intention" IS for this site to be for students. Problem is, I'm not sure how much advertising it has received--people can't talk on a site if they can't find it online. Most of the people here found it via uncommon descent or a Darwinist page. Also, I imagine that conversation has died off recently due to impending exams.

Yeah. Everybody's been studying the last month or so. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Date: 2007/05/03 16:51:27, Link
Author: argystokes
I am unable to make any links or post pictures because h t t p (no spaces, of course), gets changed to 'e' whenever I hit post (or preview).

For example, I am right now typing the address for Panda's Thumb:

<a href="e://" target="_blank">e://</a>

Date: 2007/05/04 09:31:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, Dave just made this claim at RDF:
have been banned from AtBC since about a month ago.

Quietly. In the middle of the night. No communication from Steve Story. Just BLIP ... my login doesn't work anymore.

Maybe he was hoping I wouldn't notice.

Oh, but I did. My "Wesley Elsberry Bans Creationists" article on my blog will be updated with this new low-down attempt to censor informed creationists.

Did he get completely banned in the end?

Date: 2007/05/04 19:24:36, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm available most nights, I think. And weekend days, though sometimes I have an unforeseen need to go to lab.

Date: 2007/05/04 19:28:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 04 2007,17:13)
But the mods are a bunch of certifiable namby-pambies.  It's a thankless job, as well stevestory knows, but the dawkins-net crowd seem even more dedicated to enforcing phony "civility" instead of "ethical" behavior than several of the pc police at PT.

"Fuck tha police"

--N.W.A., 1988


Heard Public Enemy's cover of that one? Bitchen. Love blasting that one in the lab, drives the older ladies nuts!

Fuck the Police Fuck the Police Fuck 'em!

Date: 2007/05/05 00:47:49, Link
Author: argystokes
It sure would be nice if Linkin Park did a cover . . . . Or Disterbed.

Ew. Just ew.

Date: 2007/05/08 12:55:20, Link
Author: argystokes
Wow. You can't get worked up about science unless someone's talking about god at the same time? I'd say that displays no love for science whatsoever, only for apologetics.

Date: 2007/05/08 13:33:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm, if I can make it I think I'd prefer either of the Ballard options. Queen Anne is a bit far for me to be going, especially if I get confused and have to walk again!

Date: 2007/05/09 16:35:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 09 2007,14:33)
If I may step in to make an unendurably pedantic comment, that subtitle should be "I wish to see thy face". Not 'thine'.

'My' is to 'mine' as 'thy' is to 'thine'.

I'm sorry, I'll find my own way out.  :(

But, but, but, the song goes "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord"

Surely we can allow the same poetic license here!

Date: 2007/05/09 16:40:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Ugh. Now I know what it feels like to be a creationist arguing with real biologists.

Date: 2007/05/09 17:14:27, Link
Author: argystokes

Date: 2007/05/10 09:37:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,05:46)
It's really pathetic that you claim to know what's good for school children and yet you don't understand this.

I'll tell you what's really pathetic....the fact that you believe evolutionists are the only people who have a right to educate the public on these issues.  You instill the false notion that every scientist, doctor, etc. who rejects the historical inference of the ToE has the IQ level of a baboon.  

If it was just myself who wasn't able to grasp the "facts" surrounding the theory, I'd have to write it off as ignorance on my part.  But, unfortunately for all of you, there are plenty of extremely intelligent folks that feel the same way I do.  AND, THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING...

 "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."   Options rotated 1-3, 3-1

  Guided by God  God Had  God Created in Other/
                                 No Part   Present Form  No Opinion  
    11/06    36                 13          46              5
    11/04   38                  13               45              4
     2/01    37                  12               45              5
     8/99    40                   9                47             4
    11/97   39                  10               44              7
     6/93    35                  11               47              7
     1982    38                  9                44              9

But let's not facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Date: 2007/05/10 17:47:19, Link
Author: argystokes
I understand that you can't test for "Heaven and Hell", but I can guarantee you that the atheists here believe that science has ruled them out.

Well, I'm here and I'm an atheist. And of course science hasn't ruled them out -- except as physical locations in the sky and below the earth. I bet few disagree with me. Your guarantees are apparently worth very little, much like your scientific opinions.

Date: 2007/05/11 12:17:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,10:03)
Yes, the pro-ID clubs that require you to be a Christian in order to hold office, even though ID "has nothing to do with religion."

Yeah, kinda like the way you must teach as a naturalist leaning towards materialism in order to keep from getting fired from teaching a public school science class.

Funny, the physics teacher at my high school was unabashedly Christian. Still managed to teach physics properly.

A (marginally) better reply would have been to point out that IDEA clubs have changed that policy.

Date: 2007/05/11 21:07:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, I might be able to contribute something once in a blue moon. Do I have 500 posts? I'll find out real soon...

Date: 2007/05/18 23:49:49, Link
Author: argystokes
She's getting around! Last seen at Ed's Emporium:
"And remember, folks, this is the voice of the "moral" majority."
Hmmm...I guess I hadn't realized that the "moral" majority had a dude designated as their "voice".

In fact, if I've read my bible correctly, there is no one who is considered morally perfect. Falwell certainly had his moments -- just like everyone else.

That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater...

She'll be please to know that Ed probably will ban her if she keeps hanging around. All this nonbanning might be hurting her martyr complex.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:02:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!

Give the man credit. His use of kowtow and cattle in the same thought was certainly clever, if intentional. Although it would have been even better if he'd yanked the "lowing" descriptor and called you a lowly bully. And refer to your post as udder bullshit. Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

Date: 2007/05/23 17:11:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Gee, just think of how much better this all would be if you two knew how to mind your own posts instead of bullying someone who never bothered you, until you tried to silence me (since I'm not a stupid fuck-up like either of you, effectively curtailing what I want to write is close, perhaps tantamount, to your desire to de facto censor me).

Could you point out the specific place where someone tried to silence you?

Date: 2007/05/24 15:40:54, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 24 2007,13:30)
btw, did anyone catch that Pumpkinhead is another Loki-project of the entity sometimes referred to as the Ghost of Paley?

Really? Where was that one revealed?

Date: 2007/05/24 18:11:00, Link
Author: argystokes
I haven't seen GoP since the "Are Radical Atheists going to Ruin Society" or whatever thread got locked down. Was that accompanied by a ban? Steve?

Date: 2007/06/01 15:15:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 01 2007,11:26)
One thing Heddle has never really assimilated is that Christian arguments are not compelling to non-Christians. He's a very smart guy, but he seems to think that Calvinist dogma is another form of scientific law right up there with the physics he learned as a grad student.

Oh no, I'm sure he's aware of this. He's always quoting some Bible verse that says that Christian beliefs will always appear foolish to non-Christians. As far as I understand it, he evangelizes because the Bible instructs him to, but he doesn't expect it to make any difference in the beliefs of unbelievers, as only God can make them "see." Or somesuch.

Date: 2007/06/01 19:50:25, Link
Author: argystokes
I too am busy on the evening of the 9th. I might be able to swing by around 10 or so, though.

Date: 2007/06/02 16:53:45, Link
Author: argystokes
Folks, the pictures above aren't enough for describing Walt Brown "Hydroplate Theory," which FtK apparently supports. Behold, THE VIDEO:

***Warning, by clicking on this link you will be freebasing the hard tard***

Date: 2007/06/06 01:12:24, Link
Author: argystokes
How do you differentiate between speculation or a just-so story and a hypothesis confirmed by evidence?

Date: 2007/06/07 18:13:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,16:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Red Hook's best brew IMO is their Copper Hook, formerly named Chinook. Normally I don't like sweet beers much, but that's a good seasonal brew.

Apparently Red Hook has a brewery tour that costs a buck, and nets you 5 small beers. It's something that's kind of permanently been on my agenda to do, but I've never gotten around to.

Date: 2007/06/07 21:30:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 07 2007,17:37)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2007,19:01)
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,18:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Thick and Fruity.  Initials R.H.  Man, I have this feeling that there is a joke in there somewhere, but I just can't seem to place it.  ;)

I'm not drinking anything right at the moment, as I have a lawn to mow.  But I do have a 2002 Familia Zuccardi Malbec that I am itching to pop the cork on.




Excuse me, but according to the United States Supreme Court, a tomato is a vegetable:
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a tomato was classified as a fruit or a vegetable under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, which required a tax to be paid on imported vegetables, but not fruit. The case was filed as an action by John Nix, John W. Nix, George W. Nix, and Frank W. Nix against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of New York, to recover back duties paid under protest... the court unanimously ruled in favor of the defendant, that the Tariff Act used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable"—where a tomato is classified as a vegetable.

Date: 2007/06/08 00:46:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (snoeman @ June 07 2007,20:21)
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,18:04)
Issue Number 1:

I'm currently drinking a Red Hook ESB ale. It's kind of thick and fruity. Discuss.

Didn't realize that Red Hook had made it out there to the East Coast.  The Red Hook brewery that argystokes mentioned is about 10 miles outside of Seattle.  It's sited near a slough that has a bike trail that's very popular on the weekends.  The bicyclists riding north toward the brewery ride in much straighter lines than those riding south away from it...


Red Hook was partially bought by Anheuser-Busch. That happened roundabouts the time I started drinking beer, so I'm not sure if the quality suffered (though I'm told it didn't).

Date: 2007/06/08 13:56:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 08 2007,11:39)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 08 2007,12:59)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 08 2007,12:19)
I assume you have this classic?

Yeah, that one IS a classic. It perfectly (and no doubt accidentally) captures the smug arrogance of the creationist, as well as the disdain that folks like that have for universities, professors, etc. And, best of all, the professor who gets converted seems to resemble PZ.

There are some very deep undercurrents in that little tract. I've always thought it was telling how the evil evolutionist wears a beard and looks Jewish, while the saintly creationist is clean-cut and looks Nordic.

Yeah, and it isn't just that one. Look through the tracts, you'll see a whole lot of jewish-looking folks playing the villians and cheesy moustached nords playing the heroes. It could be unintentional I suppose, or maybe I'm even wrong. I don't think I feel like digging through them all to make sure, though.

Date: 2007/06/08 20:06:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (snoeman @ June 08 2007,17:50)
We are on for tomorrow:

Hales at 7:30pm, with at least:


and perhaps clamboy

AND perhaps Argy.

Date: 2007/06/10 18:21:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,15:58)
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, we'd expect to find feathered dinos -- and we do.

Do we?

et cetera

Date: 2007/06/14 14:54:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2007,11:44)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 14 2007,10:39)
It's pretty quiet over there.... I get the impression that Dembski, Denyse and DaveScot et al are getting a little tired of their lying for Jebus, I mean lying for ID act.

The PN (Posting Numbers) are down, the TQ (Tard Qotient) is way down, and I am getting just a little concerned.  Should we dial 911 and have someone go over and look them up, make sure they are all okay?  

Hey FTK - you still have posting privaleges over there.. . give them a shout out, make sure they are still breathing.

this is the only thing said on Overwhelming Evidence in the last 3 weeks:


Marketing Agreement

I'd agree that this site definitely needs marketing. It's slowly starting to creep up on google hits (as in, it shows up on the first page with certain searches) but otherwise I haven't seen OE mentioned too much elsewhere.

Fri, 2007-06-08 17:41
login or register to post comments | 0 points

Hmmm, and what are those google searches? For "overwhelming evidence," #1 is OE, and number 2?

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our ...

In good company, it seems.

Date: 2007/06/14 16:59:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Thanks, all! May the attempts at government-sanctioned religion be as hilariously inept in this coming year as they were in the last. I'll be following the Odessa Bible Curriculum case pretty closely, I think.

Date: 2007/06/15 15:21:54, Link
Author: argystokes
I dunno, JAD calling DaveScot a homozygous pile of garbage still makes me chuckle.

Date: 2007/06/15 16:13:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:10)
Because for something to be science requires empirical evidence. might want to rethink that statement.

ID is no different than Darwinian evolution in that sense.  Inference, luv, inference...

uh huh. And what would empirical evidence against ID look like?

(Steve, you ought to move this whole conversation to the appropriate thread)

Date: 2007/06/18 18:33:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (skeptic @ June 18 2007,16:05)
The mistake you make, Bill, is to assume that Behe is no longer a part of the scientific community.  He will tell you himself that he is a heratic but he is still a scientist.  He is trained and educated in science, he has published in peer-reviewed journals as a scientist.  His single sin is that he has turned his back on the established rheotoric and attempted to juxtapose his overridding belief in God with the data as he sees it.

He hasn't given up on science but the scientific community has given up on him, lol, I couldn't resist.

I've read the first book and I'm reading the second book and I always find him interesting even if I disagree with his method.  I suggest you read his books and you may find them interesting but you will certainly see how badly Behe wants them to be true.

And, Ichy, I'm actually suprised that you haven't read them.

Hmm, most recent 5 results on Pubmed from Behe MJ:
Behe MJ, Snoke DW.
Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
Protein Sci. 2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64. Epub 2004 Aug 31.
PMID: 15340163 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
White S, Meier W, Lovell F, McCoy A, Robinove CJ, Creelan TF, Brun R, Gordon I, MacWest R, Collier IE, Gish DT, Hartmann WK, Behe MJ.
Related Articles, Links
No Abstract Educators have hard choices; nationally, not just in Kansas.
Science. 2000 Aug 11;289(5481):869-71. No abstract available.
PMID: 10960317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Behe MJ.
Related Articles, Links
Abstract Tracts of adenosine and cytidine residues in the genomes of prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
DNA Seq. 1998;8(6):375-83.
PMID: 10728822 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Behe MJ.
Related Articles, Links
No Abstract Embryology and evolution.
Science. 1998 Jul 17;281(5375):348. No abstract available.
PMID: 9705708 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Mahloogi H, Behe MJ.
Related Articles, Links
Abstract Oligoadenosine tracts favor nucleosome formation.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997 Jun 27;235(3):663-8.
PMID: 9207216 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Is he still a working scientist? Does he only publish in journals not indexed by Pubmed (yep, I'm too lazy to crosscheck other databases)? Seems like he's completely quit ever since DBB was published in 1997.

Date: 2007/06/24 02:12:21, Link
Author: argystokes
FTK opined:
Also, there are soooo many other things to consider in regard to macroevolution.  Just one such example of *many* would be animal instincts, which I believe to be something that defies evolution.

WTF?! You're a dog owner! Variation and selection are the cause of all the different dog breeds, which I'm sure you know have rather different instincts. Ever been around a heeler or corgi puppy, and had them nip at your feet and ankles? That's a damned specific instinct not too common in bloodhounds, for example. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that someone who should have intimate knowledge of this subject could be so completely unaware.

Date: 2007/06/24 18:40:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Galapagos Finch is almost certainly William Dembski himself.

Date: 2007/06/24 22:11:24, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 24 2007,18:05)
Quote (argystokes @ June 24 2007,18:40)
Galapagos Finch is almost certainly William Dembski himself.

Not that I'm doubting you, but why do you think so?

If so, it seems that he saves that pseudonym for most of his excursions into adolescent silliness. Note I say 'most'.

IIRC, Dembski used to link to thebrites as himself. He stopped doing that around the time Galapagos Finch showed up. Plus, the humor just seems like his own (eg fart noises, darwin in a vise).

Date: 2007/06/25 00:59:53, Link
Author: argystokes
Beautiful avatar, Tom!

Date: 2007/06/26 19:01:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Does anyone know what happened to k.e? It's been awhile since we've been blessed with his... whatever.

Date: 2007/06/29 15:12:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 29 2007,12:26)
It appears that nobody at UD has conceded anything on their misguided defense of the recently-sentenced Holocaust-denier in Germany. The latest comment on that thread, by someone named Mung (shouldn't that word begin with a "D"?) asks for EVIDENCE to support the assertions previously posted by geraldharbison and the RevBigDumbChimp. I guess he can't read German...

Then he writes (please turn down the gain on your irony meters before reading the next sentence)  
Frankly, I don’t believe any of you “deniers” because you fail to supply the evidence which would substantiate your questionable claims.

I really have to wonder about that Mung fellow. He seems too dumb to be anything but a parody (uh...). Plus, consider the user name. For those who don't know, look it up on (warning: really gross).

Date: 2007/07/02 09:48:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Eww, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. Looks like DaveScot has found a new denialism to take up the cause for (brace yourself, Kristine):
...That said it’s not wholly unlikely that HIV is a symptom rather than a cause of AIDS. From my POV 23 years of considering it the cause of AIDS has not moved us any closer to a vaccine.

2 more UD contributors, Sal and PaV, are putting one foot on the bandwagon. I suspect we'll see this as a front page topic on UD within the next week.

Date: 2007/07/11 10:39:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Recently got back from Newport, Oregon, where I visited the Rogue Brewery. Got myself a nice "kobe" beef burger with a Rogue American Amber. The burger was made of cows fed exclusively on American Amber. Delicious.

Date: 2007/07/11 22:11:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 11 2007,10:58)
FTK sez:  
I was pointing out Lenny's ridiculous obsessive multiple post disorder. He does it all the time and everyone knows it. Of course I could back it up...he used the tactic on virtually every thread I posted on.

Bwa ha ha ha ha.

Sure, I could turn lead into gold, I just choose not to.

FTK could come over and post and example of the specific behavior in question and regain posting privileges, "she" just chooses not to.

Gotta luv the curve ball, rewriting of history, memory is a odd thing morphing of a very specific allegation into a very generalized "tatic".

FTK, to refresh your memory I recommend you re-read the relevant threads. I can sympathize, memory will edit out bits and it's not surprising big chunks of your "escapade" here are simply missing from your recall.

I could repost the relevant parts but TBH everybody reading this read that already so why bother. Your comments about this situation are obviously aimed at people who only read your site and as such they'll have to take your word for it.

have a nice day.

I could dance like that... if I wanted to!

Date: 2007/07/13 19:36:37, Link
Author: argystokes
Seeing the ellipse in that quote made me curious as to what the whole thing says.
Angiosperms appear rather suddenly in the fossil record during the Jurassic [b][208–145 million years ago (Mya)][b], with no obvious ancestors for a period of 80–90 million years before their appearance. Nevertheless, the existence during the Jurassic of all known sister taxa to the angiosperms implies that the angiosperm lineage must have been established by that time [1]. However, this ancestral lineage, coined ‘angiophytes’, is unlikely to be equivalent to angiosperms as known from the Cretaceous (145 Mya) through to recent forms because it might have lacked many of the characteristic angiosperm features [2]. It is presumed that angiophytes went through a period of little diversification during the Late Triassic (220 Mya) and Jurassic, either because the diversity-enhancing features, such as flowers, of the crown-group angiosperms had not yet evolved in stem angiophytes or because the diversity among angiophytes was inhibited during the Jurassic by environmental conditions or biotic interactions [2].
(my emphasis).

The removed portion describes the range of the Jurassic period, rather than the "Big Bloom." But a couple paragraphs later, some more interesting detail is given:

The fossil record provides excellent evidence for this rapid diversification in floral form during the earliest phases of recorded flowering plant history [5]. Only 10–12 million years elapsed between the first fossil records (not, vert, similar130 Mya) and clear documentation of all of the major lines of flowering plants 1 and 6. This diversification of angiosperms occurred during a period (the Aptian, 125–112 Mya; Figure 1) when their pollen and megafossils were rare components of terrestrial floras and species diversity was low 1 and 6. Angiosperm fossils show a dramatic increase in diversity between the Albian (112–99.6 Mya) and the Cenomanian (99.6–93.5 Mya) at a global scale 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Figure 1).

Shockingly, Figure 1 is a "gradually branching tree," which these mysterious critics say the data does not support. It's too bad the sample cuts off there; I'd like to know what these critics do think the data supports.

I also have a brief question for Paul Nelson, if he does show up. Do you honestly believe that this is a college-level textbook, appropriate for use at the University of Washington, for example?

Source:Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Volume 20, Issue 11, November 2005, Pages 591-597

Date: 2007/07/18 11:23:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Sam Chen is making stuff up...
Others have said that if a president or presidential candidate lends an ear to ID, he or she should be impeached. What is everyone's opinion on this? Should political candidates be ousted for lending an ear to ID?


I suppose he's trying to beef up his resume with some good ole lying-for-jesus, so that he too may one day become a Discovery Institute Fellow. Good luck Sam.

Date: 2007/08/15 19:09:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Anyway, let's look at an easy one.  Love.  We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love.  We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels.  Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc.  Does this tell us what love feels like?  Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child?  Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved?  Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Bull. Give me infinite technology and take away my sense of medical ethics and I could devise experiments to test each one of those questions, and produce results indistinguishable from the "real thing." Do you really think that a "love potion" is theoretically impossible?

Date: 2007/08/16 15:48:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Any particular reason for the influx of spammers on this site?

Date: 2007/09/06 11:04:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,07:19)
Has anybody experienced anything threatening from Joe G?  He recently responded to a comment on his blog by identifying me by name and by my institution.  I responded on my blog and his, but I'd like to know of previous instances like this.

PM Occam's Aftershave. I know he's got some stories!

Date: 2007/09/10 17:27:44, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 10 2007,15:13)
I don't know what to make of this.  Tom English, a Dembski debunker and a member of the banned, is now an affiliate of the Evo Info Lab.  And Dembski still isn't listed.

I can't tell if Dembski is really off the project or not.  As of Sept. 7, he was still saying, "Bob and I are committed to doing good work and letting the results go where they will."  But if English is in and Dembski is out, I think the lab will be legitimate.  I don't think that English will put up with having his name attached to junk pseudoresearch.

This is a very surprising twist in this story.

IIRC, there are two Tom Englishes (Toms English?), one who is an ID supporter or maybe even a DI fellow. This caused a bit of confusion when Good Tom appeared on UD last year, with Salvador being very deferential until he figured it out.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:09:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,18:35)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.

Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?

Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.

I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.


sorry that's an assualt to the organism, not an internal response to a changing environment.  Big difference.  Show me a trait generated by the animal itself and show me how science has proven it can't be inherited.

Um, OK. I was born in June, meaning I was conceived right at the end of summer, when my parents were nicely tanned.* I came out really pale. Shockingly.

*That's an internal response to a changing environment.

But if that's not internal enough for you, then I'll let you know that even though my parents had chicken pox as children, and thus became immune, I did not inherit this protection. I feel like I'm talking to a 7 year old.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:43:49, Link
Author: argystokes
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

What a fucking idiot....

This is how Supersport justifies this moronic position - you see, if any structure associated with the nervous system is involved - and this includes the endocrine system vis a vis the hypothalamus and pituitary - then by his own tadry definition, "the mind" is really in control.

The stupidity of his position has been explained to him probably 2 dozen times, yet here he is, posting the same old garbage.

Wait, does he have a position on what controls gene expression in plants or bacteria? Do they have 'minds' too? Or has he not thought that far?

Date: 2007/09/19 15:42:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 19 2007,13:33)
Me most nights too, though not this Thursday (tomorrow the 20th, which would be too soon anyway) and not most Saturday or Sunday evenings.

Though that certainly doesn't rule out every Saturday evening (he quickly adds, seeming to recall that that night works best for somebody...).

I guess three's enough for fun, but it's be good to hear from Snoeman and Argy and ...

Mondays and Thursdays are always bad, and the next weekend as well as Oct 13th weekend is bad. I've moved to Mountlake Terrace, and am actually working a regular work schedule (no more 10 oclock starts for me), so I won't want to show up if it's too late on a weeknight.

But I can drive myself now! Course, that means that I'll be drinking more coke than beer, since I'm a lightweight.

Date: 2007/09/19 22:56:31, Link
Author: argystokes
I think Dr. GH is an archaeologist. Or something. What about afarensis? Deadman's been hanging around iidb, and could probably be lured back here.

Date: 2007/09/26 09:08:25, Link
Author: argystokes
BTW, I may not be a math wiz, but I have an uncanny knack for spotting bull shit a mile away, and I've run across lots of it from your side of the tracks.  That's why I don't always take what you "experts" write as fact.

Interesting. When I don't understand a subject, I trust those who do understand it to inform me, and I tend to believe them unless I can come up with specific objections. FTK, how do you tell when a highly-trained individual in a given field is spouting "bull shit" in their own field of work?

Date: 2007/09/26 10:23:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Hi, FTK.

I know you've got a lot of questions in the queue, but since the one I asked doesn't require any research, I thought you might answer it (and I promise to answer any questions you might have for me). Again, how do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?

Date: 2007/09/26 10:33:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 26 2007,08:30)
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 26 2007,10:23)
Hi, FTK.

I know you've got a lot of questions in the queue, but since the one I asked doesn't require any research, I thought you might answer it (and I promise to answer any questions you might have for me). Again, how do you tell when someone highly trained in a subject is bullshitting about that subject, when it is a subject that you admittedly don't understand?

Because of the bad suit and desire to drink cheap wine?

We should start a pool to see when Ftk will address this question.  It really is pertinent.

I don't believe that she will ever answer it.  Creationists and science deniers are never interested in questions because they don't truly understand the purpose of a question; to a creationist a question isn't a useful thing.

If questions were important, the possibility that they could be answered in a manner inconsistent with your a priori beliefs would exist.  This is not allowable.

Creationists don't often answer questions and rarely even acknowledge them.  But what's more interesting to me is that they almost never ask them.  Sure, they state quitea few things but never bother to ask anything--with the occasional exception of religious questions.

Hey, be nice! I bet she'll answer my question by noon PST today.

Date: 2007/09/26 23:54:40, Link
Author: argystokes

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question, but I'm afraid you answered a different question than I asked. I think the relevant portion of your response was,
What I’m getting at is that when I see BS being flung in regard to things I do understand, I question those same “experts” in the areas that I don’t fully comprehend.

This is an answer to "How do you get the truth out of an expert who is BSing." But giving this answer presumes you have already detected the BSing involved. The question is how do you know they are BSing? Perhaps in other words, what sets off the BS detector?

Fortunately for me, Blipey has taken the end of a bet that he cannot live to collect upon. Sucker.

Date: 2007/09/27 00:33:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Richard (and FTK),

I do see what you are getting at. Unfortunately, that might make BWE's reinterpretation pretty darn close to accurate. Assuming that Rich Simons's interpretation is a fair representation, I suppose a followup question is "Even if a person who makes layman errors in fields that you understand (such as PZ and religion*), why would you assume they are particularly prone to make errors in their own field of expertise?"

And since dialogue is a two-way street, um, you should ask questions, too.

*this is neither a critique of PZ's opinions on religion, nor an endorsement of FTK as knowledgeable on the subject**

**Nor was the first disclaimer a rejection of FTK's implied knowledge of religion.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:36:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Okay, I'm realizing that this dialogue on how to spot BS is probably the most asinine conversation I've ever been involved in on-line.  I mean, come on, how the bloody heck would I ever convince Darwinists that *I* can spot BS.  Lordy...

Well, that was rather rude. I thought they were totally reasonable questions. Ones that even a Brownist could answer.

Also, "crock of bull" is a mixed metaphor. I'm a pedanterast.

Date: 2007/09/27 10:37:02, Link
Author: argystokes
My point being that most of you people NEVER GO TO THE SOURCE.   You just demonize the source and rely on your own interpretations rather than ever come in direct contact with the *source of evil* in order to carry on meaningful discussions about these issues.

Now that's hilarious. How many primary literature science papers have you read, FTK?

By the way, I think it's great Blipey tried doing a little research about a particular method of teaching before pestering the teacher about it. They've got enough on their hands.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:07:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 27 2007,08:43)
By the way, I think it's great Blipey tried doing a little research about a particular method of teaching before pestering the teacher about it. They've got enough on their hands.

That would be BS right there.  Detectors buzzing...

He can research all he likes, but he shouldn't condemn the concept before he knows what he's talking about.  

And, it certainly wouldn't be "pestering" the teacher.  My kid's teachers were thrilled when parents actually took the time to be concerned about their child's education.

Besides that, if she were paying attention in the first place and talking to her child about what he was learning, she'd have understood the method from the start.

Which part was BS, FTK? The less generous interpretation of your words would be that you think I'm lying that I agree with Blipey's approach to finding out about a subject. The nicer interpretation is that you think that I don't know what a teacher would prefer, and am pontificating about a subject I know nothing about (do you know my profession, FTK?). And did I commend Blipey for condemning a subject (no, because he didn't):
Can anyone tell me what I'm missing and why this concept would be used to teach addition.  Or even if this is a common approach to teaching addition these days?

I think that contact with the teacher and interest in the child's education are on separate axes, though normally correlated. I'd suspect all teachers love the latter, but your mileage may vary with the former.

I felt compelled to reply, but your conversation with jack is more interesting than this one, so I don't expect a response. But I have no idea what you are talking about in the last paragraph (who is "she?").

Date: 2007/09/29 20:59:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,18:51)
Considering the sexual acts they seem to be promoting and the fact that these type of acts are usually for gratification only with no intent to form a loving, caring relationship with another person, YES...I do.

Hmm. Much like watching football. Is watching football equivalent to pedophilia?

Date: 2007/10/04 16:10:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Hmm... FtK wrote:

Gag...seriously.  Back to those damn religious freaks trying to put a stop to science again, Dave?

Reminds me of what the guy who introduced Miller said at one point....he accused IDists as *wanting* to stop scientific exploration.  What a crock.

There is no way to test or repeat macroevolutionary assumptions.

*shakes head*

Date: 2007/10/04 17:22:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Lots of private money being contributed to creationist research as well, but that certainly isn't going to get them published in mainstream journals.  

Then why not publish in, say, PCID?

Date: 2007/10/05 17:56:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 05 2007,15:22)
I'm not sure I could do this, as it compromises my own principles. It is not science. Can a school ask that a teacher cover material that their professional organizations say is not appropriate? What if a student brings it up, then the teacher proceeds to tear it to shreds? What would the parents think then?

How irritating.

If you're in the US, it's illegal to teach creationism in science class. And that's the only explanation necessary to give to students, parents, or administrators (though I would personally give a more extensive explanation to the students).

Date: 2007/10/10 14:27:24, Link
Author: argystokes
It's interesting that we're suppose to believe that militant atheist scientists are only interested in defending science rather than literally building an army against religion.

Wow. Is this one of those misuses of "literally," or do you actually believe that atheists are building little militias of persecution?

Date: 2007/10/10 22:55:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2007,17:58)
Last week a local university cop told me they're trying to put together a 'Tac Team' in the wake of Virginia Tech. If you follow legal blogs you'll see that local police departments are increasingly using paramilitary-style SWAT Teams to break into your poker game and shoot your dog. Today I see the talk of the news is that a 14 year old has shot up another school. No doubt this will inspire more rules, more surveillance, less liberty.

Are we headed toward a police state? Or not? Discuss.

Radley Balko's blog is a great resource for that stuff. Not so much for anything science-related, though.

Date: 2007/10/16 20:11:36, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 16 2007,17:47)
John W,

So let me get this straight, according to the tree of life, we are all just animals.  So if I terminate your life, it doesn't really matter, as it is no different from a spider eating the same species of spider.

It doesn't matter to the spider. It might matter to John's family. What does that question have to do with science?

Date: 2007/10/17 12:57:45, Link
Author: argystokes

In my field, generally it requires carefully reading a manuscript, writing up a general impression of the manuscript, then pointing out specific objections you may have to the experimental methods (such as lack of controls) or conclusions drawn from the experimental results, such as suggesting further experiments that are necessary before the authors' conclusions are justified. I can PM you an example of a review if you'd like.

Date: 2007/10/18 11:36:42, Link
Author: argystokes
here's FTK Classic ™? Does that mean we'll soon be getting Diet FTK ™ which is even lower on substantial content and drinking too much of it gives you a headache and the shits?

I believe Diet FTK was discontinued in June.

Date: 2007/10/19 16:28:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,14:02)
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 19 2007,15:29)
Now about those questions that you are so eager to answer:


1.  Is it okay for ID proponents to post personal information of the internet?

2.  Do you think that Wes and/or steve would not remove your personal information from the board if someone posted it?

3.  Do you think that the Baylor curators and other officials post their home addresses and phone numbers to the internet?

4.  Why re you back posting here at AtBC?

5.  How does Behe know what is in a group of books without ever having read the books?

6.  What is the point of the Behe/unread books discussion?

7.  According to ID Theory, how did the immune system develop?

8.  What is gained by jettisoning ToE and saying God did it?

9.  In the light of a science teacher teaching that the study of beetles is not a scientific effort and possibly that spiders evolved from insects (if evolution were true), how is ID theory driving kids toward science?

10. Why don't IDers pursue RESEARCH GRANTS, from the Templeton Foundation, for example?

11. Are you afraid to examine the sequence evidence for ToE?

11A.  Added.  Do you understand what sequence evidence is?

12. Where did Albatrossity2 claim that his students were religious freaks?

12A.  Added.  Where did blipey claim that his nephew's teacher was "a source of evil"?

13. Why don't IDers publish in PCID?

14. Why hasn't PCID been published in over two years?

15. Do you believe that Darwinists have kept PCID from being published?

16. How?

17. Can ID be called a theory when it hasn't made even one prediction?

18. Yes or no: ID wouldn't benefit from publishing any articles, anywhere.

19. Yes or no: Your children should be taught the historical insights of the Bhagavad Gita?

20. What sort of Waterloo can we look forward to on February 8, 2008?

Interesting side note. Just came across this comment back on page 102 where you berate people for not having read the pertinent books.  Which begs several more questions I'll put here.  Why is reading material important?  Do you think it might have been important for Behe to read some books before commenting on them?  Have you read the textbook that Albatrossity2 sent you?  Have you got that list of peer reviewed articles you've read ready to go?  Are you seriously arguing that we should read books and that IDers don't have to?

21. What are IDers doing to garner respect?

22. Given that you believe ID is science because of "design inference", why is ToE not science because all it has is inference?

23. Can any human being know what is contained in a book without having read the book?

24. If everyone died in the Flood, who wrote all the different stories down?

25. What year was the Flood over?

26. What year was the height of the Egyptian Empire?

27. What was the population of the world in that year?

28. How did 8 people (6 really) make that many people?

29. Is Dembski a creationist?

30. How would monogamous gays destroy heterosexual marriage?

31. How did Koalas get from Ararat to Australia?

32. Do you believe that the FLOOD is a scientifically tenable idea?

33. Are the people who run Baylor Darwin Police?

34. Are those same people Baptist?

35. What does this mean?

36. Given that HIV cannot have evolved (Behe), which of the 8 (6 really) people on the ark were carrying HIV?

I'd hate for people to get the impression that you're only interested in ragging on atheists and making children stupid.

Say one more word about my kids and I'm going to hunt you down and rip off your clown nose....swear to God.

Hey, no fair taking a head start on Richard!

Date: 2007/11/13 16:40:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2007,13:49)
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.

And one that used to claim to be an agnostic, at that.

Date: 2007/11/15 16:38:23, Link
Author: argystokes
Fascinating. Human acquired genes from coral while swimming in reefs? This should be even better than GoP's guts-to-gametes bluff!

Date: 2007/11/20 16:52:46, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 20 2007,13:46)
Just FYI, and I can't believe it's taken me this long to remember to mention this:

If you haven't seen it already here we have fundamentlaist christian movie reviews, the CAP Reports.

It's got all the fundy goodness of FSTDT. Whenever I'm having a hard day I read the South Park: The Movie review and laugh myself hoarse.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a heartless bastard, I know, I know. But come on, aren't allowed to laugh at earnest whackjobbery? Is this the face of a murderer? Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury I beseech you....oh what's the use!


ETA: The H2G2 review contains the damning complaint "Darwinism". Damn you Darwin. DAMN YOU!!!!!

Wow, that's some funny stuff. For example:
ICE AGE (PG) -- ...a bright and dazzling achievement in computer animation with a warm story ... to indoctrinate your children to the theory of evolution.

Date: 2007/11/27 19:24:55, Link
Author: argystokes
I just knew one of those naughty boys at ATBC would be the first to figure it out...surprising that it took them all day though.

So she knew it was a fake photo when she posted it? Color me skeptical. She shouldn't be surprised that it took all day, though, seeing as the photo doesn't display.

Date: 2007/11/30 17:44:28, Link
Author: argystokes
Truthfully, they're full of it when they make comments like this. Surf the forums for a while...the materialists base their faith on the supposed fact that science trumps religion and evolution negates a designer.
(my emphasis)

And here is why a true believer cannot be convinced by evidence. Some folks here took a lot of time going over silly things like facts and hypotheses without taking the time to understand the view of the fundamentalist: Science does not provide a way of explaining anything that contradicts dogma.

I will say, however, that it's nice to actually see a bit of commentary, rather than cut & pastes of articles that she (presumably) agrees with.

Date: 2007/12/02 21:16:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Blipey's about the only person whose comments I delete from my blog.  If the rest of you use your real name, I put you through unless you are overtly nasty or throw out an insignificant one liner.

This is false. I recently posted a comment on a post which had a long quote excerpted asking if you'd meant to put any commentary on it. Didn't think it was particularly rude or insignificant, yet you didn't let it through. After paying closer attention, I've realized that quotes without commentary are standard issue for Reasonable Kansans.

Date: 2007/12/02 22:44:56, Link
Author: argystokes
If I let the nasty, voidless banter go through, I am basically stating that I approve of that type of conduct.

You must have one hell of a theology.

Date: 2007/12/06 11:10:37, Link
Author: argystokes
MC Hawking states it plain:

Not much more amusing than Stephen Hawking talking about capping.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:06:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (George @ Dec. 06 2007,12:32)
I'm surprised we haven't seen Sal or some other IDist mine this quote from a contemporary newspaper account:

"Darwin has been arrested on suspicion of fraud, police said today.  The 57-year-old... was picked up in Basingstoke last night and will today be taken back to Cleveland for questioning."

Maybe along with a suitably hysterical title like First Darwin, then Piltdown Man.  What con job will the dastardly evolutionists pull next??!!??!

Well, then we could just present this article title during a presentation:
ID scam paid for couple's luxe life, cops say

Date: 2007/12/06 15:33:40, Link
Author: argystokes
It's easy to determine quite quickly whether someone has come to my blog to engage in serious dialogue in which both sides can learn something.  That is what I'm interested in.

You just have to go to their webpage and see if they're displaying one of red A's, right?

Date: 2007/12/07 14:26:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 07 2007,12:14)
I work in the same building with a secret lab! But I can't tell you what they're working on.

I coach kids' basketball less than a mile from the Biologic Secret Lab. I might have to go check it out.

Date: 2007/12/19 20:52:02, Link
Author: argystokes
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 19 2007,16:39)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 19 2007,17:46)
BarristerA continues to ignore Ftk. His critique of her comment vis "compromise" was the occasion for his post, but he continues to ignore her reply to that post. He has otherwise addressed responses to Sewell, bFast, Jerry, StephenB, and Semiotic 007 by name.

Ftk, I think you've been hung out to dry by your OWN team.

Ouch! The dreaded Double Piranha. Has FtK been, to put it in the vernacular, DPed?

Oh no oh no oh no. Shame on you. I suppose as long as we stay away from discussing DVDA, it'll stay off the bathroom wall, though.

Date: 2007/12/21 17:55:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Meh, sounds like a highschooler to me. One that apparently doesn't believe in all sorts of things (s)he learns in his/her biotechnology class. Aside from evolution, I wonder what those things could be. Independent assortment? RFLP? Inquiring minds want to know. Unfortunately, this one smells like a drive-by.

Date: 2007/12/29 14:17:44, Link
Author: argystokes

Do you really think that Brown will agree to a formal written debate online? Because I think I know of someone who will take him up on it, and has read his book.

Date: 2007/12/29 14:35:43, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:29)
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 29 2007,14:17)

Do you really think that Brown will agree to a formal written debate online? Because I think I know of someone who will take him up on it, and has read his book.

Oh, believe me, he'll do it, but he WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES discuss religious issues.  If your friend is interested in the religious aspects of this debate, forget it.  Brown is absolutely adament about this.  It would also have to be planned and professional.  

I hope that your friend has a PhD?  And, the written debate is preferable because it would cover so much ground.

Awesome. I'm pretty certain he'd agree to any of those terms. I'm not certain he has a PhD (I think he does), and he's a fellow engineer.

I'll drop him a line. Where is the forum where the formal debate would be held?

Date: 2007/12/29 14:54:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:43)
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 29 2007,14:35)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,12:29)
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 29 2007,14:17)

Do you really think that Brown will agree to a formal written debate online? Because I think I know of someone who will take him up on it, and has read his book.

Oh, believe me, he'll do it, but he WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES discuss religious issues.  If your friend is interested in the religious aspects of this debate, forget it.  Brown is absolutely adament about this.  It would also have to be planned and professional.  

I hope that your friend has a PhD?  And, the written debate is preferable because it would cover so much ground.

Awesome. I'm pretty certain he'd agree to any of those terms. I'm not certain he has a PhD (I think he does), and he's a fellow engineer.

I'll drop him a line. Where is the forum where the formal debate would be held?

Written debate:  HERE

No on-line forums...that is unprofessional and difficult due to the length of what should be covered in a debate like this.

I just looked over Brown's requirements, and it looks like he does not actually want a debate. Rather, he wants to republish his book with a scientist making rebuttals in between.

Date: 2007/12/29 14:59:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Ah, in true creationist fashion:
12. Each side is encouraged correct errors in its case. Corrections or deletions of previously made arguments are allowed if they do not exceed the word limit. If, however, a correction is suggested by an opponent’s rebuttal, that error can be changed only as described in paragraph 13 below.

13. When the fourth submission has been made and all new issues have been answered, each side can propose that certain of its arguments be deleted or modified. This “bartering process” between debaters is intended to aid the reader by eliminating, in balanced fashion, earlier statements that are superfluous, inaccurate, or have been effectively rebutted. The editor will try to facilitate the bartering process.

So rebutted arguments go unseen, and only those not addressed (as would have to be the case) make it into the public eye. You can't really see this "challenge" as serious, can you?

Date: 2007/12/29 15:08:30, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,13:04)
If you guys don't want a thorough debate, chose the phone debate.  Simple.

Does Walt even know you are committing him to a "written" debate?

Certainly does.  I've talked to him several time in the past, and he always encourages me to try to find someone to do the written debate.  It is very enticing to me because of the amount of information that would be covered, and the debate topic is the ultimate question we are all asking.  

btw, I contact many authors when I have questions...even Ken Miller, so don't think that I'm in cahoots with Brown in some devious way.

Do you know the requirements of the phone debate? If Brown hears a question or statement that he feels is the result of inaccurate reading of his book, he gets to declare "strike one" (two, and three). Three strikes, and the debate's over! My last question, by the way, was not rhetorical, though I can see how it may have read that way.

Date: 2007/12/29 15:54:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,13:39)
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 29 2007,14:59)
Ah, in true creationist fashion:
12. Each side is encouraged correct errors in its case. Corrections or deletions of previously made arguments are allowed if they do not exceed the word limit. If, however, a correction is suggested by an opponent’s rebuttal, that error can be changed only as described in paragraph 13 below.

13. When the fourth submission has been made and all new issues have been answered, each side can propose that certain of its arguments be deleted or modified. This “bartering process” between debaters is intended to aid the reader by eliminating, in balanced fashion, earlier statements that are superfluous, inaccurate, or have been effectively rebutted. The editor will try to facilitate the bartering process.

So rebutted arguments go unseen, and only those not addressed (as would have to be the case) make it into the public eye. You can't really see this "challenge" as serious, can you?

That applies to both sides, and I've *no doubt* that the person debating Brown will want to rethink a few of his "facts" after considering Brown's rebuttal's as well.  

I would think that a somewhat rigid set of rules would be preferable so that everyone knows up front exactly what to expect rather than get into it and end up with the flame wars like we see on the Internet every day.

This is ricoculous. If a debate point is lost, it should be shown to be lost, not just "disappeared." The final product would be a collection of unrebutted points, which would of course favor the person who wrote most prolifically (hint: the person who already wrote the book to be C&Ped into the "debate"). I seriously can't believe you can't see how stupid this is.

Would you ever agree to a debate where all the arguments you win are disappeared?

Date: 2007/12/29 16:11:15, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,14:03)
each side can propose that certain of its arguments be deleted or modified.

That is not a free for all.  You can't just pull anything you don't want to show.  It's a "bartering" process.  That means that both sides are involved in what does or does not get published.  

If Walt said, "Oh, shit, I'm pulling that argument because I really sucked at my rebuttal", Mr. Evolutionists would say...."the hell you are, Brown, I'm part of this bartering process and you can perhaps consider pulling the issue we discussed yesterday, but not this particular issue".  

Get it?

Oh, I get it (my questions were not rhetorical, by the way). You'll note that my post described a scenario where no competent rebuttals existed in the book. I can't imagine why anyone would disappear arguments they made, except out of dishonesty. Noting that the argument has been withdrawn would be honest. Pretending like it never happened would be creationist.

EDIT: I see you've gone, which is a good thing considering it's Saturday afternoon. I hope you'll answer my questions when you get back.

Date: 2007/12/29 18:56:35, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,16:21)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 29 2007,18:11)
This is what it is all about for me:
But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future.

Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference?

Okay.  So, when discussing morality with an atheist, how would one go about starting that conversation?

I would start by asking what the atheist's moral system is.

Date: 2007/12/29 19:22:22, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:21)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 29 2007,18:11)
This is what it is all about for me:
But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future.

Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference?

Okay.  So, when discussing morality with an atheist, how would one go about starting that conversation?

What happened to Assassinator?  I'm curious about his anwer to this question.

I feel that I have been perfectly civil toward you, Ftk, but in return I have received nothing but rudeness. Is your ignoring of my posts intentional, or are you just grazing the thread?

Date: 2007/12/29 19:31:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:23)
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 29 2007,19:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:20)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:21)
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 29 2007,18:11)
This is what it is all about for me:
But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future.

Darwinism has nothing to do with morality. Science is, as I sad before, describing things how they are. Not like morality, who says how things should be. See that crucial difference?

Okay.  So, when discussing morality with an atheist, how would one go about starting that conversation?

What happened to Assassinator?  I'm curious about his anwer to this question.

I feel that I have been perfectly civil toward you, Ftk, but in return I have received nothing but rudeness. Is your ignoring of my posts intentional, or are you just grazing the thread?

Sorry, lost ya.  What post are you refering to specifically?

The questions are:

"Do you consider Walt Brown's debate offer to be serious (as in one where a reasonable person would consider taking him up on)?"

and "Would you ever agree to a debate where all the arguments you win are disappeared? "

And I answered the question you posed to Assassinator in this quoted thread on page 177.

Date: 2007/12/29 19:32:51, Link
Author: argystokes

Shoot me a PM tomorrow if I forget to reply to your question tonight. I'm off to celebrate my Grandma.

Date: 2007/12/30 02:03:25, Link
Author: argystokes

I am an atheist, as you inferred. My moral system is close to a humanist rule-utilitarian system. In short, I try to follow rules that will lead to the greatest happiness for all human parties affected by my decisions. I am pragmatic rather than idealistic. It's pretty easy to follow as generally a do-unto-others practice will align well with the system. It does mean that I value happiness above freedom, which I think would put me at odds with most of the people here (in the stupid movie, I'd take the blue pill). But since it's a pragmatic philosophy, and because I think that freedom almost always leads to happiness, that's not actually a big deal. Both theists and non-theists can follow this ethic, so it wouldn't be properly termed an atheist moral system. I don't think you can found a moral system on atheism. It would be like forming a variation on baseball based on atheism.

EDIT: I haven't gone into what I think about ethics as it relates to non-human animals, largely because I don't have any fully coherent ideas put together on it. But I personally don't have any problem ethically with horse-buggery. That does not mean I would recommend it. I mean, if that's what makes you happy and all. *shudder*

Date: 2007/12/30 20:12:06, Link
Author: argystokes
And, for Argy...Since horse “buggery” is ethically okay for an atheist, why do we most of us instinctively *shudder* at the thought?

It would certainly be a reproductive disadvantage to have sexual attractoin to things that would not increase one's reproductive capacity. Things that I instictively think would be gross to have sex with: Non-human animals, children, old people, men (especially Arden), trees, anthills, and hot apple pie.

EDIT :p : I don't presume to speak for other atheists on whether it's "ok for an atheist." It's ethically ok for me.

I hope you understand that these:
What do atheists base their morals upon?

How did human life attain a relatively standard across the board sense of morality (there are weird acceptions (sic) I know)?

are completely different questions.

Date: 2007/12/30 22:07:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Argy and Skatje realize, that from an atheist position, there should be no moral problem with bestiality, yet they both seem to feel icky about it.  

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I thought I had sufficiently emphasized that atheism is not the basis for my opinion. It is a form of utilitarian humanism that is the basis for my opinion, which is a philosophical stance that could be taken by theists just as readily as by atheists.

Date: 2007/12/30 22:15:10, Link
Author: argystokes
Sometimes I cook by throwing ingredients into a pan and seeing how it turns out. I think I have about a 75% success rate on decent tasting food. Tonight's one-pan special:

Some water
2 eggs
about a cuppa flour
table spoon corn starch
half bag o frozen carrots, corn, peas
some chicken strips
a layer of taco seasoning
some garlic
some creole seasoning
bit of allspice

Mix well, toss into skillet at medium heat. Stir irregularly.

Damn, wish I had some pepper jack to put on top at the end.

Date: 2007/12/31 02:45:49, Link
Author: argystokes
That is why IDists always harp on moral Darwinism.  Morals are obviously connected to and the result of evolution.  If you are an atheist, that is the end of the story.

No, it's not. Did you actually read my comments on morality for content, or did you just read the part where Argy thinks bestiality is A-OK?

Christ = "new covenant" - ultimate sacrifice which replaces OT sacrificial system.  OT law codes a thing of the past.

I guess we can agree that morals have evolved!

Date: 2008/01/01 03:39:07, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2007,22:57)
Ugh. New Year's Eve at Jack Spratt in Chapel Hill. Top Shelf vodka for everyone. Best wishes everyone.

woooooooooooooooo libations!

Date: 2008/01/02 16:09:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Look, I think the problem here is that people are using different definitions of the word 'condone.' Alba et al appear to be using this one:
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

There's no evidence that Skatje approves of beastiality. If Ftk thinks so, she needs to provide more support than she has done so far. But I think that Ftk is using this definition:
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like)

I think there is sufficient evidence that the young Ms. Myers disregards such behavior even though she finds it personally objectionable.

What any of this has to do with moral relativism, I have no idea. (just kidding. I know that it's a common talking point to call someone a moral relativist when they believe in giving people greater freedoms). I don't think Ftk knows what moral relativism is.

Date: 2008/01/02 16:56:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Incorygible wrote:
That being said, considering the rest of FTK's 'arguments' on this and other matters, I'm going to go take a shower and pray that she doesn't now identify me as part of a rapidly dwindling subset of reasonable sorts with whom she'd deign to converse. The horror . . .

Did you know AFDave is still citing you as one of the people he's met online that he likes? You sure do know how to get some good creationist luvvin!

Date: 2008/01/02 19:39:26, Link
Author: argystokes
FtK, what you and Slimy Sal are doing is called innuendo and slander. You want to insinuate that the children of Darwinists are immoral who will allow bestiality and incest to run rampant; you want to claim that atheism leads to heinous offenses against civilized culture.

You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance. That's all Skatje is advocating: that we can't lock people up for non-harmful, private acts. She only opposes bestiality as a crime against animals, and there are already statues in place to handle that.

But yes, you are incredibly creepy. So creepy that if every I were unfortunate enough to meet either you or Slimy Sal in person I would not shake hands with you, unless there was a washroom handy and a bucket of disinfectant available.

It's the dungeon for you. Good riddance.

Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2008 8:30 PM

Anyway, Ftk, if you ever want to continue down this conversational path, I think you should drop the word 'condone.' It has two easily confused definitions (and you've used them both in this conversation - you said you don't condone Sal's post). To me, condone most commonly means "approve of" or "support," which is the second definition in the dictionaries I've looked at, but appears to be the one that most people associate with the word. Skatje's clear that she means that she would tolerate the act, and that's probably the word you should use in the future. Otherwise the comments reek of inappropriate innuendo.

Date: 2008/01/02 22:28:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

What the fuck? PZ hasn't ever, to my knowledge, suggested any legal changes that would threaten individual religious freedom, and thinks that there shouldn't be any legal repercussions for being religious. You might even say he condones religion!

Date: 2008/01/02 23:32:16, Link
Author: argystokes
Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!

Skatje. That's what her whole post was about. You know, the thing that helped set off this whole kerfuffle?

Date: 2008/01/02 23:49:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 02 2008,21:37)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2008,23:32)
Who said anything about intolerance from a legal standpoint????!

Skatje. That's what her whole post was about. You know, the thing that helped set off this whole kerfuffle?

That is not what I was refering to when I stated that PZ was intolerant are you know that.   I've been reading his blog for 3 years and there is not a week that goes by without him displaying horrific intolerance against religion.

It is you who hasn't been following the conversation. It started with PZ writing:

You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance.

Tolerance in this sense is the same as your use of the word 'condone,' ie, allow without interference of legal force. I know this because that's what Skatje said, and this statement is meant as a source of agreement with Skatje's comments.

Then you rebutted,
Baloney.  PZ is horrifically intolerant!  His intolerance of religion and anyone who even questions Darwinism is demonstrated on a *daily* basis at his blog.  I can’t even believe he has the audacity to claim that he’d allow tolerance to “run rampant”.  The gall of that man is unbelievable.

If you were using the same definition of (in)tolerance as PZ, my retort is wholly appropriate. If you are using a different definition of tolerance than PZ (such as using it to mean 'respect'), then I hope it is because you have misread PZ's intentions.

Date: 2008/01/02 23:55:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Oh, and as for this [QUOTE][quote] (Skatje paragraph on people's relationships with their pets
That sure sounds like advocating the experience to me.

Well, let's go right to the horse's mouth  :p
Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.
(Emphasis in original)

Date: 2008/01/03 12:39:15, Link
Author: argystokes
As far as the Sal deal.  You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue.  Replace the word "condone".  I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place.  I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO.  She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it.  I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one.  


Or better yet:
disregard, excuse, forgive, overlook, pardon.

Date: 2008/01/03 14:25:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:22)
She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances.

I'm sorry, but that is NOT how I read this paragraph:

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting[sic] in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?

Then you should read it again. Or parse it very carefully to show us how we are all mistaken, because everybody but you reads it the same way as Cory has described.

Date: 2008/01/03 14:33:03, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,14:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:12)
Does that help?  Not at all as it doesn't answer the question.

Do you believe, if he had written that post, it would not have been linked to by Darwin advocates?  Do you believe that the comments that ensued would have been without ridicule, jokes, and condemnation?

Answer the question, and you had better be truthful.

Thanks for the insult. How would you know what "truthful" is for another person?

I was truthful. It didn't read like Sal had written it. It made sense. It didn't use the pejoratives darwinist or materialist. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not advocate bestiality. Contrary to your reading of it, it did not talk about the moral aspects of bestiality.

So I would have ignored it, or assumed that Sal didn't really write it, as I previously said.

And that's the truth. Sworn on a virtual stack of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

So now how about the truth re Walt Brown's peer reviewers?


Is there anyone here who will admit that they would have used that post as a running board for ridicule if Sal had written it.

I've seen how you guys lay on the ridicule, disgust, name calling....there is no way that you can honestly say that you would not have gone off the deep end with that post had Sal written it.

I agree with Skatje, and I would agree with Sal if he wrote it.

EDIT: Though, like Bill, I would suspect satire, since it would not be consilient with Sal's other opinions.

Date: 2008/01/03 16:49:21, Link
Author: argystokes
I said his work was peer reviewed.  That means *reviewed by his peers*.  He told me about several of them in a phone conversations, and I certainly do not believe that he is lying since I know the man well enough to know that he would not put forth theories without having scientists within the fields of study he writes about reviewing his work.

This is about the silliest thing I've read all day. I suppose if I wrote a paper about how we inherited our genes from bananas (by eating them!), and showed it to one of the resident geneticists here (who would laugh her ass off and tell me it's crap), I would be justified in calling my paper peer reviewed? Really? Seriously, I'd like you to answer this question.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:16:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,15:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 03 2008,17:00)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,14:29)
I also know that he discussed his hydroplate theory with Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the founders of the Plate Tectonic Theory many times.  They even became friends, so I can't imagine that he is the lying crank that you all believe him to be.  In that case, it was not a formal peer review, but I can think of no one better to discuss his theory with.  Granted, Dietz didn't agree with his theory, as he had his own.  But neither would he debate him, even after stating that he would and helping Brown form the debate agreement.

According to your link, Brown's interactions with Dietz were regarding the terms and conditions of a possible debate.  Dietz was not part of a peer-review process, even an informal one.  It's pretty clear, even from the creationist source you provided, that Dietz would have not been kind to Brown's work* if he had reviewed it.

*My contribution to International Understatement Week.

Hello?  I already stated that Dietz did not provide a formal review.  Are you not reading what I wrote?  I wrote exactly what I meant.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Why did you say 'peer reviewed' rather than reviewed by peers? Since peer review has a well-understood definition, ie formally refereed after submission to a journal, it strongly appears that you were intentionally conflating your colloquial definition with the normal one. Why do you insist on expressing your thoughts with as little clarity as possible (eg, refusing to use a synonym for condone)?

Date: 2008/01/03 17:47:22, Link
Author: argystokes
If there is some rule among scientists as to how and when to use those words, I am simply not aware of it.

Did you really think that all this fuss about peer-review was simply whether or not it had been read by scientists?

I still don't even know what the other definition of condone is.  No one has posted it unless I've missed it somewhere.

You missed it when I originally defended your use of the word here.

Frankly, I find your behavior over these word issues to be bizarre. When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!

OK, I'm sorry for putting this in the Sal thread, is there any way to move the conversation back where it belongs?

Date: 2008/01/03 19:34:59, Link
Author: argystokes
Ftk wrote:
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.  They can say that some forms of bestiality may by hazardous to your health for a variety of reasons.  But, they can't say they are immoral.  It is not "immoral" to sleep with your brother, it is not "immoral" for a women to have sexual relations with another women just because they met in a bar and felt the need to achieve orgasm - no strings attached.  It is not "immoral" to cut a child from it's mother's womb at 24 weeks of pregnancy.  

There is nothing to base "morality" on.  Acts are either good or bad based on how people at a given time and place time feel it will affect others.  Those beliefs can change *over time*.

This isn't quite right. There are a number of ways of viewing morality. The most common is to do what feels "right" and abstain from what feels "wrong." To a Christian Fundamentalist, these feelings are infused into our souls by God. To someone who takes a more materialistic approach it is the result of either biological evolutionary processes which have made it so there is a reproductive advantage to following the feelings of right and wrong or that the evolutionary development of cooperation allowed societal forces to shape morals. The majority of posters here appear to favor the latter.

But the evolutionary/historical explanations for this sense of morality is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it tells us why we have a particular moral code, but not that we should follow that moral code. In other words, it is not necessarily true that what we feel is right really is right by an objective moral standard. It is thus possible for an atheist to take a different view of morality than the one you have assigned to "true atheists."

In a principled moral system, moral rules are in place to achieve a specific end. For the Fundamentalist Christian, that end is the Will of God. {As an aside, this means that even god-given morals can change as the Will of God changes. In fact, you brought up the New Covenant, which is an example of such a change.} Different Christians will have different interpretations of what the Will of God is, of course. Furthermore, (and this may sound bizarre to you), it is a subjective decision that it is good to follow the will of God. But one can have a non-theistic viewpoint and remain principled. A moral system can be used by someone who thinks that the ultimate good is to maximize individual liberty. Thus, all actions would be morally judged on whether or not they restrict one's liberty. Likewise, a utilitarian's ultimate goal is to increase everyone's happiness. Thus, actions that increase people's happiness on the balance are good, and those that decrease it are morally wrong. These are both legitimate bases for an atheist's morality.

Date: 2008/01/03 19:37:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Ftk (and others),

In the interest of organization, I've left a lengthy (for me - not for Louis) reply to Ftk's statement that atheists have no basis for morality in the Ftk thread. I'm not demanding that I get replied to first, but perhaps we should move that discussion back over there.

Date: 2008/01/03 21:26:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Bwahaha, for the first time in my life, I just got a scam snail-mail from a prosperity gospel church. It's reported on here:

Mine is even cornier than the one cited in the report, and includes a paper "prayer rug" featuring a picture of the big J with his eyes closed... only his eyes appear to open when you stare at it!

Anyway, I've consulted my atheist moral system, and concluded that it is right to make these fuckers spend some money on me rather than using it to prey on fools. Time to put all those credit card offers I've been getting in the pre-paid reply envelope. If they continue correspondence with me, I think I'll include some valuable stones from my back yard "collection."

What name should I give them? Sa|vador T. Cordova?

EDIT: I also have to tell them what I need a blessing for. I think it will be for the strength to defeat Darwinism. I think the Salvador name would be a good choice, since it's a pseudonym, but they can cross-check the name and mission on the internet.

EDIT: More details on the fuckers:
They made 26 million on this scam in 1999. And all of it is tax-free.

Date: 2008/01/03 21:47:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,19:40)
argy and some folks here know FtK's real name too.

Mebbe you can get them both prayed on.  For Free.  In the Designers Name.

And THEN mebbe they will form like Voltron into a giant Red Straw Herring beating a Dead Horse in a Quote Mine.  Waterlooooooo!!!!

I don't know her name, but I imagine it as Karen. Though the smart money would be on Mary.

Date: 2008/01/04 20:08:13, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,17:31)
:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

One girl / one guy / period.

I'm pretty sure that's forbidden in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. He'll be unclean for a week, or something.

Date: 2008/01/05 13:47:58, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,11:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 05 2008,13:06)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,13:02)
The discussions were all based on morality, not legality.

Not all of them; Skatje's post, quote-mined by Sal, was discussing legality.

And Sal's post is still a quote-mine.

How do you believe the facts support that position, Dave?

Here is what she wrote:

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?

That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.

The paragraph that Sal quoted from had been written in regard to the moral aspect of the act, which IS WHAT WE HAD BEEN BLOGGING ABOUT.  She then wrote the next paragraph stating her position of the legality of the act, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE HAD BEEN BLOGGING ABOUT.

i simply don't understand why you don't get it.

Maybe she thought you supported legal action. That would explain why she wrote a post on legality of bestiality.

Date: 2008/01/05 14:05:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Professorsmith claims that s/he is a researcher. While most of us here associate that with doing scientific research, it is not necessarily so. Anyone that studies anything for a living can call themselves a researcher, and this person's probably doing his research in the arts, rather than the sciences. Obviously readers are intended to come away with the impression that this is a scientist, so this is another case of intentional misleading without technically lying.

Date: 2008/01/05 14:19:06, Link
Author: argystokes
1.  I believe that bestiality is morally *wrong*.  I believe that it is unquestionably unacceptable to have sexual relations with animals regardess of the circumstances.  

Even if God orders you to?

Date: 2008/01/05 14:27:42, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2008,12:16)

No, he/she claims to be a scientist:
My purpose as a scientist is to try to understand the world.  We see patterns in the world: Nature is full of hidden messages for us to decipher.  Poor materialist scientists have no way of knowing this: they are short-sighted and see only randomness.

The quote is wickedly funny, by the way.

Well, that's interesting. Also interesting is the contempt he shows for his "colleagues." There's a lot of dishonesty within the ID movement, but very few people are willing to make false claims about their own self (Joe G comes to mind). Maybe he has a Bachelor of Science, and thus considers himself a scientist. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's not tenure-track.

Date: 2008/01/05 14:58:41, Link
Author: argystokes
I don't think this discussion has hastened or prolonged anything.  I think the point here is that there are so many flames being thrown from both sides that simply should not be thrown.  Nobody talks *to* each other, they merely talk *at* each other.  I have been *determined* from the start of my involvement in this debate not to play that game.

It has been my attempt throughout to talk *to* you. Am I to infer that you've simply been talking *at* me this whole time?

Date: 2008/01/05 21:42:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2008,13:27)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2008,14:59)

I don't think so, either.  But here is professorsmith:
And, no, you can’t get me to give up too much back story. I’m three years from tenure and I’m not going to wind up like Gonzalez. But, I am curious as to why you can “conclude” that I’m not a physicist nor a biologist. Is it because of the canard that no true physicist or biologist supports ID? Well, I’ll have you know that there are more of us out here than you know.

“I think that understanding our world and the design behind it is progress in itself.”

what an odious bellend.

He's obviously not read Gonzalez's book. But I like how he called it The Privileged Planter.

Date: 2008/01/05 21:47:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 05 2008,16:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 05 2008,05:58)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 05 2008,00:37)
I do feel sorry for Larry sometimes.

I actually do too, sometimes.

But he does go out of his way to make it extremely difficult.

The brother incident was hoot.  Has he ever acknowledged that it was really his brother?

Yes, he did. He dropped the pretense that David F was an imposter and started doing this very sibling-rivalry bickering with him. Pretty funny, really.

Don't feel too sorry for Larry. In addition to his other charms, he's a Confederate apologist and a Holocaust denier.

Really? Could you find the link for that, or tell me what a good search keyword might be? Last I checked, he was still accusing Ed Brayton of impersonating Dave, while simultaneously impersonated Dave himself.

Date: 2008/01/07 01:18:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,21:16)
Hmm, Richard, you think I'm not an evilutionist? I'm probably more of an evilutionist than you are.

Yeah, Dick, he believes that all the species evolved from pairs of a relative handful of kinds just a few thousand years ago.

Date: 2008/01/17 22:08:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Jim Sherwood said...

   Cartoons like this look cute. But the Darwinist notion of evolution is that it's driven by chance and natural selection: i.e., by blunder,struggle, death and slaughter. So our hominid forebears supposedly gave rise to us today, largely by competing with each other, and bashing each other's brains out!

   Darwinism makes butchery out to be a major creative process. That's why it's been so socially harmful, whenever people have believed in it.

How long do you think it will take until Ftk realizes she has her very own P-A-R-O-D-Y hanging around on her website?

Date: 2008/01/20 04:15:40, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2008,23:13)
off to the left, where you can't see in the pic, I've got about 4 people trying to take my money. Bitches!

You look like Ed Brayton. I'm stuck with looking like Josh Bozeman.

Date: 2008/01/22 18:54:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,16:43)
Nothing can top Ftk asking "What on earth is the world coming to?"

That just can't be taught.

(shameless prodding)

Apparently for Ftk, marriage is all about sex and nothing else:
What on earth is the world coming too (sic)? I mean, what is the point of marriage these days? It's as though sex means nothing more than any other bodily function.

She can thank scientists for the advent of therapeutic phosphodiesterase inhibitors for saving her marriage in about, oh, 2 years.

Date: 2008/01/22 20:45:01, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2008,17:50)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,19:43)
Nothing can top Ftk asking "What on earth is the world coming to?"

That just can't be taught.

One sign you're getting old is an interest in, and objection to, the sexual depravity of the young.

You'd think so, but then there was that undergraduate research of Dembski's (who I want to call Joe Borowski, but that's the shitty Indians closer). Maybe it's really a sign of not getting any, which would become more common as folks get old and as folks become research assistants for William Dembski.

Date: 2008/01/23 11:37:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,18:54)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 22 2008,21:45)
(who I want to call Joe Borowski, but that's the shitty Indians closer).

Whoa whoa whoa there, fella, Borowski saved 45 games last year, most in the AL. His saves are often not pretty, but he somehow manages to get the job done - like Bob Wickman a'fore him.

Yes, yes, he managed to "save" a bunch of 3 run leads in the 9th. The Indians are a well-run organization, but they'll regret bringing him back.

Date: 2008/01/23 16:26:38, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 23 2008,14:01)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 23 2008,12:37)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,18:54)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 22 2008,21:45)
(who I want to call Joe Borowski, but that's the shitty Indians closer).

Whoa whoa whoa there, fella, Borowski saved 45 games last year, most in the AL. His saves are often not pretty, but he somehow manages to get the job done - like Bob Wickman a'fore him.

Yes, yes, he managed to "save" a bunch of 3 run leads in the 9th. The Indians are a well-run organization, but they'll regret bringing him back.

That's one more testable prediction than has been generated by the entire ID movement in ten years.

Eh, it's still a bit horoscope-like. Here's the prediction: Joe Borowski saves less than 12 games on the season, and is replaced as closer by Rafael Betancourt by June. Sorry, got baseball on the mind. Now back to your regular Ftk-watching.

Date: 2008/01/24 00:40:20, Link
Author: argystokes
This is a continuing discussion from the UnReasonable Kansans thread, that I thought should have a thread of its own (hey, if we can have a guitar thread, baseball threads gotta be OK, right?).

Reciprocating Bill wrote:
I'm not sure on what basis you'd expect Borowski's productivity to drop so dramatically. He saved 36 games for the Marlins in '06, and he was healthy all last season.

The main basis for my prediction of Borowski's decline was his atrocious ERA, which topped 5 in 2007. He was the only one of the top 30 save-getters in the league to "achieve" this feat. His 8 blown saves isn't very good, but isn't abominable either. His tolerable save rate despite the poor ERA means that he gave up just enough runs to not lose, or that he blew up a few times which ruined his season averages. Looking through his game log, he only gave up 3+ runs three times (4,4,6), so it's more of the former. Anyway, I don't think there's any evidence that Borowski "gets tough" when he's blown the lead down to one run; rather it's more likely that he happened to let up his runs when he was lucky enough to have just enough of a lead to maintain it.

However, I am a little less certain now about my prediction than I was when I made it. I took a look at Borowski's peripheral numbers, and perhaps he didn't perform quite so badly as his traditional numbers indicate. While his ERA was 5.07, his Fielding Independent Pitching score was an almost-respectable 4.08. This means he allowed more runs than expected based on the number and type of balls he allowed to be put into play. There are several things that can cause these discrepencies, but the stat that jumps out at me for Borowski is his very low LOB%. Once players got on base, they scored more often against Borowski than against most pitchers. This is a statistic that is notoriously unpredictable year-to-year, and can greatly affect ERA.*

So my final analysis of Borowski is that he was unlucky to give up as many runs as he did, but lucky to give them up when he did. All in all, he's still not a very good pitcher, and will be turning 37 in May. He's been in and out of the closer's role for years, and I don't know how much confidence Eric Wedge has in him, but I suspect he'll be yanked at the early signs of ineffectiveness.

*The debate in baseball of scouting vs  sabermetrics has some interesting parallels and antiparallels with the science vs creationism conflict. On the sabermetrician's side is all the science and math, whereas the scouting side relies heavily on tradition, as well as mystical concepts** such as "grit" and "team chemistry." However, in some manner the roles are switched in the baseball debate as compared with the evo conflict. In baseball, the people who tend to staunchly defend the traditional way of managing baseball franchises are the long-time players and managers themselves (the practitioners of baseball being analogous to the practitioners of science). Conversely, the sabermetric movement is a populist movement; anybody with some good math skills and the willingness to crunch numbers should be able to assess a player's value.

**This is apparently not reserved to baseball scouts. One of the girls in my high school biology class was the daughter of a scout for the Baltimore Ravens (that's Futbol Americano). Apparently some of the things that the older scouts looked for in players was just bizarre. For example, quarterbacks with pale blue eyes were thought to have poor leadership abilities (eh, Blipey, maybe that explains Damon Huard's season!).

Well, that's enough for now.

Date: 2008/01/24 01:27:04, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 23 2008,16:21)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 23 2008,17:26)
Eh, it's still a bit horoscope-like. Here's the prediction: Joe Borowski saves less than 12 games on the season, and is replaced as closer by Rafael Betancourt by June. Sorry, got baseball on the mind. Now back to your regular Ftk-watching.

Ok, prediction duly noted. We'll check back on it during the season.

Betancourt is a MACHINE and I love to watch him pitch, but I'm not sure closer is a good use of his skills. He'd be a factor in fewer games than when used as setup man. Plus he is capable of pitching 2 innings with a fair frequency, another resource likely to be underused. He also slows the game down so much I can catch a 30 minute snooze during the eighth without missing anything.

I'm not sure on what basis you'd expect Borowski's productivity to drop so dramatically. He saved 36 games for the Marlins in '06, and he was healthy all last season.

(For those of you who find this discussion OT, just remember that baseball is far more interesting and entertaining than ID or Ftk on their best days.)

I have decided to start a new thread for baseball here.

Interesting that the three of us talking sports right now are aligned with the three most suffring US sports cities: Cleveland, Seattle, and Kansas City.

Date: 2008/01/24 10:13:00, Link
Author: argystokes
BTW: do you do fantasy baseball? The stats at your fingertips, and your familiarity of stats vis players who aren't local, suggests that you do.

Indeed I do, as part of a three-sport keeper league (I just traded the Timberwolves' Al Jefferson for the Colts' Joseph Addai - how cool would it be if real franchises could do such things?). Joe Borowski is on the roster right now, but unlikely to make the cut.

Date: 2008/01/24 14:44:44, Link
Author: argystokes
We had an interesting incident involving a what I think was a sharp-shinned hawk:

Date: 2008/01/24 15:27:48, Link
Author: argystokes
I think you had better tell us the rest of the story!

The picture is from almost exactly a year ago. I was hanging around the apartment and saw a hawk kinda hopping along the ground. I pointed it out to my wife and we both agreed that this was peculiar behavior for a hawk, so she went outside to see if it was all right. The fact that she was able to capture it with a towel confirmed that it wasn't. Unfortunately, it was a Sunday evening, and all the wildlife rescues were closed. We planned to take it up to the nearest rescue first thing in the morning. We wrapped it up and kept it in a box for the evening to keep it warm and from fluttering around and hurting itself. My wife couldn't resist taking a couple of pictures while it was out, though. Tragically, it didn't survive the night.

Date: 2008/01/24 16:51:57, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 24 2008,14:41)
i think i like this 3 sport keeper concept.  are there rules for which sports can be involved in deals, or how many athletes of each sport you must keep?  while i probably shouldn't spend much time pursuing the 3 sport fantasy league, i'm  tempted...very tempted.

You can keep 10 baseball, 6 football, 6 basketball. Players, picks, players to be named later, etc are all eligible to be traded (no loaning players, though). It was started by a friend of mine with his college buddies; I joined when one of them couldn't properly pay attention to his team (meaning I inherited a bunch of crap). We run the league ourselves. I don't know if there are any public 3 sport leagues that one can join.

Date: 2008/01/25 18:02:12, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 25 2008,14:48)
Borowski is toast.  Those DIPs / Component ERA's are just not that good for a reliever.  

I have been a sabre guy since 1984, when I read Bill James in college.  But, performance analysis must be married to good scouting to be effective.  The A's, I think, proved that in the less-than-stellar "Moneyball" draft.  

Well, actually their analysis was just bad.  High OBP, low slugging college players do not develop as well as higher slugging types.  But that's what their scouts told them too...

Was the Moneyball draft really that bad? I'm not sure of the probability of success for top-40 picks, but Swisher is clearly a good major leaguer and Teahen is well on his way. Considering draft position, etc, is 2 of 6 really that bad? (perhaps this comes from being a Mariners fan, who haven't drafted a major leaguer in the 1st round since Gil Meche, though Adam Jones is looking likely to succeed)

EDIT: I'm looking at the 2002 draft. Almost all those guys are in the majors now. I had no idea.

Date: 2008/01/25 19:39:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (snoeman @ Jan. 24 2008,23:09)
Recently, in the core neighborhoods of Seattle, there has been an uptick in the population (or at least sightings) of coyotes.  There's a site dedicated to tracking them.  If you look at the larger map that links from the site, you can see the high concentrations of sightings east of I-5, north of I-90 and south of SR520.  That area (Madrona, Madison Valley, North Captiol Hill, Interlaken Park) is apparently a nice haven for coyotes, and it's barely 2-3 miles outside the downtown core.

Recently there's been a coyote spotted in my neighborhood.  This one apparently likes the taste of Magnolia Domesticated House Cat.  Fortunately, the city asked the Fish & Wildlife Service to leave the little guy (gal?) alone.

We used to hear coyotes when we lived by Magnuson Park, and of course there are coons all over the UW campus. And this one time I caught a cougar by the tail...

Date: 2008/01/25 23:28:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 25 2008,19:18)
Swisher is clearly a good major leaguer and Teahen is well on his way

I am a Royals fan and I think Teahan will, most sadly, not be a quality outfielder.  Not enough power for the corner spots.

Swisher looks very good, I must admit.  Perhaps I am colored by their sheer number of first round picks.  Maybe it would have cost too much to take all "normal" first round picks.  Time will tell.

And thanks for Meche.  Really.

The way to rebuild the Royals is definitely spending 12 million on average pitchers. Good thing the M's didn't do that with Carlos Silva... oh. Blanton was part of the Moneyball draft, too. But he and Swisher had scouts all over them too, if I recall. It was the second rounders/sandwich picks that were all stat-based. And all busted, so I think your point stands.

I think scouting probably becomes less important once evaluating big leaguers (as long as you pay attention to injuries). If you're there, you've got talent.

Date: 2008/01/28 21:00:56, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Zarquon @ Jan. 28 2008,17:23)
Somebody understands cricket
Understanding cricket

(via Cosmic Variance)

You've gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket.

Date: 2008/01/31 17:41:50, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 31 2008,15:15)
Spring training has begun at last!  That always makes me hope that a future will exist that was better than last year.  My nephew reports next week.  If he can only hit the damn ball this year he'll get to play next year!

Who is your nephew?

Date: 2008/02/05 11:37:51, Link
Author: argystokes
I drove by the address for the BI yesterday evening. I couldn't find the place, but it was late and I didn't really want to be prowling around. Hopefully this Saturday I'll be able to check it out during the day, and maybe come back with pictures.

Date: 2008/02/06 15:41:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 06 2008,12:13)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 06 2008,11:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 06 2008,10:57)
Here it is.  A veritable hive of activity, judging from the parking lot.

It's near Leary Way? Huh.

No, it's in Redmond.

Well, near Leary Way in Redmond. It's right in the Redmond Downtown area.

Date: 2008/02/09 20:11:52, Link
Author: argystokes
There is some truly painful irony in this post in light of Ftk's recent declarations on gender issues, which have all the sophistication of the He-Man Woman Haters Club. She's been on and on lately about so-called "alpha males" and her belief that strong independent women are inherently emasculating.

What's especially ironic is her complaint that the feminist movement meant that women now have to work two jobs (career and homelife, because men can't manage a home), while simultaneously getting in a huff every time someone calls her a housewife, and proudly brags about how she is gainfully employed. It's all double-think all the time.

Date: 2008/02/09 20:21:18, Link
Author: argystokes
I went over to the Biologic Institute today to do a bit of scouting. I had generally assumed it would be office-only, conceivably only a mailbox, but a possibility of containing a small lab. Anyway, it's part of a 3 story office building, and occupies part of the bottom floor. There appeared to be one door in, with a sign that said Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture: Biologic Institute. I didn't know that the Biologic Institute was officially part of the DI.

Unfortunately, all the blinds were closed on the outside windows. This was only the case for the BI, the rest of the office building had blinds open. One could speculate that they close the blinds to keep people like me from verifying that there is no lab space, but there are plenty of other reasons to do so. So the contents of the BI remain a mystery to me.

Conclusion: There is certainly enough space in the office building for a lab. No one was working there on the weekend, so they probably don't have a lot of employees.

Date: 2008/02/09 22:53:06, Link
Author: argystokes
I don't get "in a huff", I simply don't appreciate the way people use the word "housewife" like it's a menial job held only by those lazy women who have no drive to do anything other than stay home with their kids.  Honestly, we should be commending "housewives" for doing so.

I can agree with that. Cheers!

Date: 2008/02/12 17:15:13, Link
Author: argystokes
I had been considering telling fittick that her post "Gotta love blackmail" didn't describe blackmail, but it looks like someone
already did.

I could edit this post, but I won't.

Date: 2008/03/05 18:11:02, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 05 2008,15:31)
Was someone from the Seattle area going to drop by and snap some photos?  I will be in Seattle soon on business but I don't think I'll have time to go to Redmond...If I am in fact able to do that I'll not only knock on the door and see who's home I'll snap some shots of this super secret ID bunker.

I did (some of) that, but the photos are of the outside and totally uninteresting. It's an office building.

Date: 2008/03/12 12:32:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 12 2008,10:08)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 12 2008,10:55)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2008,10:58)
* Surely?  Seriously?  Surly?  Do they ration vowels in Kansas?

Well clearly, working brains are in short supply...

Is Douglas Adams 'frying' now?

Of course, as will any science teacher that teaches evolution.

Date: 2008/03/15 22:54:32, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2008,20:49)
Speaking of kooks, anyone seen AFDave lately?

last seen several weeks ago on, and has yet another new blog, Still an unabashed liar.

Date: 2008/04/15 18:06:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 23 2008,14:01)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 23 2008,12:37)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,18:54)
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 22 2008,21:45)
(who I want to call Joe Borowski, but that's the shitty Indians closer).

Whoa whoa whoa there, fella, Borowski saved 45 games last year, most in the AL. His saves are often not pretty, but he somehow manages to get the job done - like Bob Wickman a'fore him.

Yes, yes, he managed to "save" a bunch of 3 run leads in the 9th. The Indians are a well-run organization, but they'll regret bringing him back.

That's one more testable prediction than has been generated by the entire ID movement in ten years.

Eh, it's still a bit horoscope-like. Here's the prediction: Joe Borowski saves less than 12 games on the season, and is replaced as closer by Rafael Betancourt by June. Sorry, got baseball on the mind. Now back to your regular Ftk-watching.

Prediction confirmed! Borowski to the DL with a chronic case of suck-arm. Betancourt leading candidate to replace him.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:11:06, Link
Author: argystokes
Sal Proclaims!
The phrase “Natural Selection” is like saying someone who is homeosexual dying miserably from AIDS is “gay”. That person in anything but “gay” in the traditional sense. Darwin was a rhetorician skilled in double speak.

What is a homeosexual? Someone whose sexuality has been serially diluted a hundred times?

Date: 2008/06/01 17:51:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2008,15:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 01 2008,15:15)
Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2008,14:57)
But in the context of recent posts the above, directing the same to FTK doesn't seem at all warranted.

How so?

What exactly did I say or do that was so horrible?  

Do you read English, Ftk?

Apparently not, and the frightening thing is that I read it 3 times before posting because I couldn't believe that *you* were reading this conversation and feeling that that way.  I read "warranted" as "unwarranted".  

I apologize profusely.  Truly.

There are only two things that people are ever described as doing "profusely:" Apologize and sweat. I wonder why that is?

Date: 2008/06/09 14:58:18, Link
Author: argystokes
Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.  Creation scientists would study retroviruses in the same manner evolutionist do.  It's merely their philosophical viewpoints that would differ.

You don't know what a retrovirus is. You need to learn before you continue to argue along these lines. Wikipedia's always a good place to start.

Date: 2008/06/09 17:04:29, Link
Author: argystokes
Design is a theory in regard to the origin of life.  It has absolutely no bearing on considering microevolutionary changes in organisms.  It’s like comparing apples to oranges here, Dave.  No one is questioning microevolution or commonality between organisms when discussing the inference of design.

So ID makes no scientific predictions at all. Yes, we already knew that, but it's nice to hear it restated by an advocate.

Date: 2008/06/12 19:00:59, Link
Author: argystokes
So, I give up...I have no way of knowing who's right, who's wrong, and whether the answers are assumptions, facts, or wishful thinking.

Yes, you do. You could learn the basics of the science being discussed. With a little practice you might learn how to tell the difference between a fact and an assumption. But it takes effort, which you've not put in in the last year plus you've posted here, and I strongly suspect ever.

Date: 2008/06/13 21:44:03, Link
Author: argystokes
A fish is a fish is a fish is a that?  

This idea actually introduces how different predictions can be derived from the theory of common descent and Ftk's proposal of common design. Fish are a polyphyletic group according to common descent; that is, some fish are more closely related to non-fish (like us!) than they are to other fish.

So let's think about what different predictions would be made given these two paradigms. What would we expect the similarities in genes to be if we compared some (non-fishy) genes shared between 3 species - A bony fish, a human, and a shark for example.

Roughly,* common descent predicts that the genes** will be most similar between the bony fish and the human, having diverged more recently than the bony fish and the shark. Common design would presumably predict that the shark and bony fish genes would be most similar, since "a fish is a fish is a fish."

I haven't done this research, but I'm sure it's doable. By anyone. On the internets. Interested in finding out some results, Ftk?***

*At least, they should fit into nested hierarchies
** particularly unselected genes. Gill-related genes might still be more similar between the fishes.
***Might all be too diverged to get interpretable results. Such is science!

Date: 2008/06/20 15:18:16, Link
Author: argystokes
I'm going to teaching school, so I can join the athedarwinofascist indoctrination brigade.

Date: 2008/06/24 00:13:14, Link
Author: argystokes
Went to the local library today. Interestingly, Edge of Evolution was in the science section, but Unlocking The Mystery of Life was in the religion section.

Date: 2008/06/24 11:03:08, Link
Author: argystokes
Funny that "Richard Paley" makes an appearance in that article. He's the head of Objective Ministries, the excellent parody site which unfortunately doesn't update very often anymore.

Date: 2008/06/25 00:44:47, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 24 2008,16:29)
Conservapedia seems to be like an Uncommon Descent populated by total idiots rather than total morons.

They don't even know their own kind.  One of the Conservapedians suggested that Behe could take ownership of some of Lenski's bugs.

Behe is a biochemist, Conservamoron, not a microbiologist.  The only time Behe comes in contact with E Coli is when he's flinging poo, although, in retrospect, he might have more experience than I give him credit for.

How about Casey Luskin?  He's a scientist. Won't he do?

Biochemists work with E. coli all the time. It shouldn't be a problem for Behe.

Date: 2008/06/26 16:18:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ June 26 2008,14:11)
Nice... I signed it with the sockpuppet name so that you could put the two names together.

:O You. liar.  I cannot believe you have the audacity to lie about this.

That was what I immediately thought of when you said he "screwed up." So, let's see the transcripts!

Date: 2008/06/26 16:41:27, Link
Author: argystokes
Ftk, for a long time I've thought you to be 'not dishonest,' and expressed so to others. However, you claimed Dave 'admitted' to apparently forgetting that he was sending you an email from his own email address (something so stupid I wouldn't believe anyone on this board being dense enough to do), but then neglected to provide that evidence, deciding to paraphrase instead. Why are you so reticent about providing the requested transcript?

ETA: And there it is! Nevermind!
ETA: Although with no admission, as charged!

So if I had signed the email I sent you "Argy," would you assume I had forgotten I was sending from my real email address? You really do presume everyone to be far stupider than yourself.

Date: 2008/06/26 17:06:48, Link
Author: argystokes
At the risk of blowing it,* your site deserves to be followed because it promotes obvious stupidity. Stupidity on the part of ID proponents helps people understand the scientific vacuity of the movement. Dishonesty is even better. Did you know that ID supporters have been "converted" away because of these threads? So please, keep Reasonable Kansans going, and try to find yourself a wider audience.

*Not really risky. As anyone who's ever encountered Lenny Flank knows, they just can't keep their mouths shut.

Date: 2008/06/26 19:25:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (PuckSR @ June 26 2008,17:11)
All of this fun is almost enough to get me posting again

Wow, there's a name I haven't seen in a while. Next thing you know Russell will be popping up.

Date: 2008/06/30 14:58:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 30 2008,12:25)
Knowing our little Stevie, it will be rum cake!

And if we're lucky, there will be little tabacky morsels in the frosting. Chewy goodness!

Date: 2008/07/01 12:12:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Very interesting that this fellow is a fan of Kids4truth, since that organization's founder got his antievolution start right here at AtBC! Shall we dig up the blatant lies of AFDave / Dave Hawkins? Shouldn't take too long.

Edit: Ah, a little more reading before posting was warranted. Poor parody.

Date: 2008/07/04 12:37:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Also, if she wins her suit, it would make it perfectly acceptable for other teachers to email their staff and other educators when guys like Dembski, Behe, et. al. are lecturing in their area.  

It already is. Obviously.

Date: 2008/07/05 00:58:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ July 04 2008,22:28)
Don't quite know who you are, but Happy Birthday.

We're going to have to discontinue this tradition if BuyVi4graCheap gets their own birthday thread.

Date: 2008/07/08 16:41:31, Link
Author: argystokes
Over on the comment thread in discussion, Joy said:

Though as a mere nuclear physicist, I obviously don't know much. I expect Heddle would agree.

Joy is a nuclear physicist? Really? I find it hard to believe she's ever been a scientist of any kind.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:25:41, Link
Author: argystokes
Read Brown's book.  It ='s creation science.

Read Dembski's no free lunch.  It ='s ID

OK. But is Of Pandas and People a creation science book or an ID book?

Date: 2008/07/09 17:31:52, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,14:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 09 2008,16:10)
FTK:  As others have asked: How can Of Pandas and People have the exact same definitions for both Creationism and ID and not be proof that the two are the same?

Straw man.  Seriously.  There is a massive difference between ID and CS, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that every single one of you understands the differences.

The use of this ploy is merely to confuse the public as most of them have never cracked open the book Of Pandas and People.  No doubt after listening to folks like yourselves, they're expecting to walk into religious curriculum that covers Noah, his wife, sons & daughters and a worldwide flood.  ID don't go there, folks.  It only postulates whether one can detect design in nature.  Most advocates of the theory also support teaching the controversial issues surrounding the ToE.  That's just good science....doesn't have a darn thing to do with shoving religion into the science class.

Blah, blah, blah. My question re: OPAP wasn't allowed to see the light of day on Reasonable Kansans (a few months back), and still here Ftk refuses to answer the question.

How about some straight talk, Ftk? OPAP: Creationist or ID textbook?

Date: 2008/07/10 16:24:50, Link
Author: argystokes
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,14:20)
Quote (olegt @ July 10 2008,16:17)
Hon, by smearing I don't mean name calling.  You're putting words in Rich's mouth.  He does not admire Kwok.  Find the courage to apologize.

Yes, Ftk, How'd you like it if I put things in your mouth?

Hey now, she says you're a twat, which would make that girl-on-girl, and you know how she feels about the homersexuals. That is seriously not OK. However, I have no reason to think that she doesn't enjoy a little mung now and then.

Date: 2008/07/10 16:53:39, Link
Author: argystokes
Edited by Dr.GH on July 09 2008,22:47

Is Gary a moderator here now? Or is there a way for all of us to do the edit stamp?

Date: 2008/07/23 21:56:00, Link
Author: argystokes
Even if I don't agree with everything you people tell me, I certainly want to know what it is that makes you believe what you believe so that I don't relay inaccurate information to others.

Which is why you show Kent Hovind videos in your Sunday school class. Of course.

Date: 2008/08/05 04:08:25, Link
Author: argystokes
Ftk's back, and it's votin' time! I'm impressed; she's actually voting against this guy:
Detrich is an artist who produces sculptures that combine religious and dinosaur themes. His Web site,, includes comments that say "evil-utionist=ape-iest=malarki-ologist

Then again, her favorite dude has campaigned for mandating the teaching of intelligent design in public school.

Date: 2008/09/22 19:55:49, Link
Author: argystokes
Evolution can only be taken back so far....then you're screwed as far as empirical evidence is concerned.

Interesting! How far back is that, Ftk?

Date: 2008/09/22 20:06:11, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,18:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2008,19:32)


Your comment is irrelevant to what I wrote anyway.  Moderating my blog doesn't have anything to do with Wes trying to understand where a guy like Walt is coming from by actually having a long series of respectful conversations with him.

The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, I've had discussions with creation scientists, sometimes pretty lengthy and with a beer or two. That, though, doesn't make a speck of difference to the fact that Ritland's essay shows why you are making a bad argument with the "early geologists did science 140+ years ago, so stop criticizing these guys who aren't doing anything like that today and who don't even believe the same things as those guys did".

I think someone earlier in the thread advised "chill". You might take them up on that.

Are you threatening to ban me??

Date: 2008/09/22 20:15:05, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2008,18:12)
I think we need to take up a collection and get FtK a plaque. You couldn't ask for a better opponent than her. Even AFDave didn't act this ridiculous.

I guess you didn't follow him much after he left here.

Date: 2008/10/09 18:28:17, Link
Author: argystokes
I had an enlightening exchange with a student today as we began to wrap up the evolution unit. He was all in all pretty confused about what we'd been learning, and told me that he didn't believe that humans were related to other animals. I explained to him that what he believes is his own business, but that he needs to understand the evidence that convinces scientists of our heritage. His reply:

"I can't understand if I don't believe."

I hope his case is not entirely typical, but the more I follow creationists like Ftk, the more I believe it's the case.

Date: 2009/02/22 11:50:28, Link
Author: argystokes
I would be curious if anyone familiar with high school biology curriculum (TexasTeach, Albatrossity?) would like to comment regarding whether Lynn Margulis or the Cambrian Explosion really need the Discovery Institute's protection.

We cover endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts. We might or might not do the Cambrian Explosion - the curriculum focuses more on mechanisms than on timeline. Maybe I'll work it in there.

Date: 2009/02/22 21:33:26, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,19:14)
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,20:44)
So 'someone' from Seattle is leaving threating (ie you better shut up) and sexist comments on Caseys Butthurt thread.

Who here is good with IP addresses?  I can only get the city.

Never mind.  The troll is a high school kid.  How sad.

A high school student in Seattle? Better not be one of my kids!

Date: 2009/02/22 22:06:17, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,20:01)
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,21:45)
(grabbed Carlsons arm as he walked away with the 'right answer', just in case he didnt know it, because I didnt know it was Carlson :P )

'tis true. I told her in advance what I would be wearing, but apparently wasn't specific enough for Abbie to ID me.

The real me.

What Abbie was looking for

Blipey wasn't in attendance, was he?

Date: 2009/02/22 23:02:09, Link
Author: argystokes
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,20:12)
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 22 2009,21:33)
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,19:14)
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 22 2009,20:44)
So 'someone' from Seattle is leaving threating (ie you better shut up) and sexist comments on Caseys Butthurt thread.

Who here is good with IP addresses?  I can only get the city.

Never mind.  The troll is a high school kid.  How sad.

A high school student in Seattle? Better not be one of my kids!

You all already know him.It was this kid.

Actually, Carlson, I was looking for this:

Not kidding. "Ill have a quarterhorse shirt on!" LOL!

Not actually a highschooler:
FreedomFighterXL said...

   I guess if people quote me as being 17 (I would go even lower then that but I never go 10 years below my real age when posting on the web, and besides that blogger would prevent me from saying I'm younger than 13), then they must view me as someone of significance if they are willing to look that far into my profile. Glad you're paying attention.

Date: 2009/03/09 22:34:48, Link
Author: argystokes
Quoth StephenB

George Farquhar,

I offer you my congratulations. You have been very successful in your mission to disrupt the theme of this thread and lure several ID advocates into a discussion on intelligent design. I take my hat off to you.

What is it they say? Ah yes...


Date: 2009/05/07 20:31:57, Link
Author: argystokes
What ever happened to Steve Story?

Date: 2009/06/12 21:35:21, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, with all the birthday threads, I figured this was a bigger deal and merited its own thread. Here's to Louis and new spawn!

Date: 2009/06/17 18:00:33, Link
Author: argystokes
Well, my birthday proper kinda sucked, as I was spending most of it writing papers. The good news, however, is that I will very shortly be certified to indoctrinate today's youth into the Church of Darwin!

Date: 2011/11/30 11:22:32, Link
Author: argystokes
It doesn't seem particularly wise to me for members of any disadvantaged group to wail about every perceived slight. Doing so diminishes the legitimate claims of injustice, because it becomes easy to conflate serious concerns with the trivial ones. With regards to feminism, I think that feminists have plenty of legitimate gripes, including but not limited to opportunity in the workplace. But there are plenty of people out there who see feminists as a bunch of whiners who want to take away everybody's fun and complain about things that don't matter. There are people who haven't yet made up their minds. Is someone whose first exposure to feminism reading about bunnies in skirts more likely to start to support feminist goals, or are they more likely to write the movement off as inconsequential?

These points regarding feminism can be equally applied to anti-racism, gay rights activism, and any other movement-ism. As for getting past atheism as a movement, I don't think it's necessary. Atheists have legitimate grievances, though I don't think it's much of an issue where I live. I think the initial response to the GelatoGuy was appropriate, though the refusal to accept his apology (whatever that means) by PZ was simple preening.