AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: beervolcano

form_srcid: beervolcano

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: beervolcano

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2005/12/13 10:16:34, Link
Author: beervolcano
It's now obvious why Noah didn't send an Archeopterix to retrieve a twig from a fig tree!

Date: 2005/12/13 10:48:03, Link
Author: beervolcano
I am a member of the American Chemical Society and get the weekly magazine Chemical & Engineering News. The latest issue has a lot of articles that would be interesting to anyone in the evolution/creation debate. The articles had no intention of applying to the debate, but it was just coincidental that they all were in the same issue. Oh, and one was a letter.

I just wanted to post them because they have certain buzzwords or "buzzconcepts."


I am a chemist working in an engineering environment. I recently saw something through an optical microscope that I did not expect to see. In fact, it sent my heart racing. Molecules of hyaluronan, a biomacromolecule, appeared to self-assemble before my very eyes. I repeated the experiment several times and found that the results were reproducible. The highly ordered and crystalline structures showed a periodicity and a long-range order that I never thought was possible.

As a good scientist, I captured all these images and searched for a scientific answer. It appears that the light source from the optical microscope causes mixed oligomers of hyaluronan to self-assemble spontaneously. Perhaps the light sources removed water from the hydrated oligomers and caused them to crystallize into incredible structures that already existed in solution. I am not sure about all the details, but I thought I would let the readers get a peek at the diversity of the spontaneous structures I found.

The crystalline matrices seen in these images certainty open the mind to a number of possibilities. Hyaluronan, a versatile biopolymer and chief architect of the extracellular matrix and the human eye vitreous, never ceases to amaze me. Its properties outside of human tissue have far-reaching implications for biomaterials research. I envision the first biocompatible integrated programmable device. I suspect this technology will blossom, and I recommend that such devices resulting from this technology be called Nano-BITS, for Nanoscale Biocompatible Information Transfer Systems.

I can't wait to tell more.

Raymond E. Turner
Cambridge, Mass.

Buzzwords: self-assembly, information storage


Mammalian Amyloid Has Useful Role
Fibers that have amyloid structure serve as templates for melanin biosynthesis
Stu Borman

Amyloid, an insoluble and fibrous protein aggregate, is usually thought of as a bad actor. It's associated with disorders like Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes, so preventing its formation is considered highly desirable. Now, however, researchers at Scripps Research Institute find for the first time that amyloid also plays a useful or even essential role in mammals (PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e6).

In mammalian cell experiments, chemistry professor Jeffery W. Kelly, cell biology professor William E. Balch, and coworkers have found that the protein Pmel17 adopts an amyloid fold in cell organelles called melanosomes and provides a template that approximately doubles the rate of polymerization of melanin, a biopolymer that protects cells against UV and oxidative damage. The amyloid also binds and possibly mitigates the toxicity of reactive compounds in melanosomes. The Scripps work elucidates the mechanism of melanin biosynthesis and could also lead to a better understanding of amyloid pathology and to the discovery of other functional, nonpathologic amyloid.

Amyloid with normal function has been found in bacteria and yeast and in spider silk but never in mammals. Amyloid generally forms insoluble “plaques” that can be highly toxic to mammalian cells. “So the finding that amyloid can be beneficial in higher organisms is a significant step forward in understanding the nature of this alternative form of protein structure,” comments Christopher M. Dobson, professor of chemical and structural biology at Cambridge University, in England.

Kelly, Balch, and coworkers propose the name “amyloidin” for functional amyloid, “with the expectation that the number and diversity of structures of this type will continue to grow,” they write.

“This paper adds a new dimension to the increasing evidence that the amyloid structure is a generic form of protein structure,” says Dobson, whose group has demonstrated that many ordinary proteins, not just those present in disease states, are capable of forming amyloid fibrils. The new study “should fuel still further the search for more examples of the functional use of the amyloid structure.”

Robert Tycko of the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., a specialist in amyloid structure, says the work is “quite interesting” and comments that it “will undoubtedly stimulate future efforts to find additional functional amyloids, elucidate their mechanisms, and possibly develop new uses for amyloid fibrils based on their biological roles.”

There are caveats, however. A researcher in the field who requests anonymity comments that the paper's experimental evidence for amyloid-templated biosynthesis “is weak. The rate acceleration provided by the fibrils is only 2.2-fold, and if the mechanism invoked by the authors was operating, I would expect at least an order of magnitude greater acceleration.”

Buzzconcept: Usefullness from a normally deleterious biostructure


Tracking Cellular Machine Assembly
Technique observes how parts of a macromolecular complex bind in real time
Amanda Yarnell

By combining isotopic labeling and mass spectrometry, researchers have devised a way to study how huge cellular macromolecular complexes assemble in real time (Nature 2005, 438, 628).

James R. Williamson, Megan W. T. Talkington, and Gary Siuzdak of Scripps Research Institute demonstrate the power of their technique on the bacterial 30S ribosome. The 30S ribosome is part of the bacterial protein-making machinery and contains a large RNA molecule and 20 different proteins. Using their technique, the team measured the rates at which 17 of the 20 proteins bind to the RNA during 30S ribosome assembly.

“The elegance of their experimental design should allow it to be adapted to a wide range of such complexes,” comments Sarah A. Woodson of Johns Hopkins University in an accompanying Nature commentary. A clearer picture of how large cellular complexes assemble should improve our understanding of how such complexes evolved and may guide the development of materials that mimic their properties, she adds.

To track assembly, the Scripps team introduced isotopically labeled components during a certain time window during complex assembly. They then measured the isotopic ratios of the resulting complexes and their individual protein components by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry. By varying the length of the isotopic “pulse,” the researchers were able to calculate the rates at which each protein binds to the complex.

By repeating the experiment at different temperatures, Williamson and coworkers obtained results allowing them to conclude that, contrary to previous observations, assembly of the 30S ribosome doesn't irreversibly stall under less-than-perfect conditions. “This suggests that the assembly of key macromolecular complexes such as the ribosome might proceed via an energetic landscape of multiple pathways,” a situation that might have evolutionary advantages, Talkington says.

Buzzword: bio-machinery
Buzzconcept: Things don't have to be perfect for life to work

Protein's Lipid Coat Revealed
High-resolution structure of membrane protein captures its lipid environment
Amanda Yarnell

Relatively little is known about how membrane proteins interact with the lipids that surround them because structural studies typically fail to capture these proteins' lipid environment. Now, a high-resolution structure of a membrane-embedded water channel protein has opened a window to how lipids pack around membrane proteins (Nature 2005, 438, 633).

“The key to an effective membrane is to get the packing of the lipids and proteins right,” explains Anthony G. Lee of the University of Southampton, England, in an accompanying Nature commentary. The new structural data “clearly illustrate how this packing is achieved.”

Thomas Walz of Harvard Medical School and coworkers captured the 1.9-Å structure of aquaporin-0 (AQP0) immersed in an artificial lipid bilayer. AQP0 is a water channel that is the most abundant membrane protein in the lens of the eye. They used electron crystallography, a well-established technique that employs the beam of an electron microscope to produce diffraction patterns from frozen two-dimensional crystalline arrays. It's particularly powerful for imaging membrane proteins, Walz says, because “it allows them to be imaged in their native environment, the lipid bilayer.”

Previously, crystal structures of a number of membrane proteins have revealed a small number of specifically bound lipids. But the AQP0 structure, which Walz solved with the help of Tamir Gonen, Yifan Cheng, and Stephen C. Harrison of Harvard and Yoshinori Fujiyoshi of Kyoto University in Japan, provides a very different picture.

In the structure, a thin shell of lipid bilayer surrounds the hydrophobic midsection of the protein. The lipid is dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine, a non-endogenous lipid with a zwitterionic “head” and two 14-carbon fatty acid “tails.” The lipid molecules stack tail-to-tail, with their fatty acyl chains packed tightly around the protein's bumpy midsection. The resulting shell provides a uniform surface against which the rest of the lipids in the membrane can pack. Their heads interact with charged side chains on the hydrophilic portions of the protein that would typically be at the membrane-water interface.

Walz suggests that the lipid-protein interactions observed in the structure may be representative of the “nonspecific interactions that occur between any membrane protein and the natural lipids in cell membranes.” The lipid used in this study, however, is not found in natural membranes, so it remains to be tested whether endogenous lipids make similar interactions with AQP0, he admits.

Eventually, structural biologists hope “to determine at a molecular level the arrangement of proteins in cell membranes,” notes James Allen of Arizona State University. He calls the new study “an exciting advance toward that goal.”

Mark S. P. Sansom of the University of Oxford adds that “from a chemical perspective, this detailed picture of lipid-protein interactions should help us sort out the design rules of how to lock a macromolecule into a membrane.”

Buzzconcept: gaps in knowlege being filled

Date: 2006/02/21 14:28:50, Link
Author: beervolcano
The best rebuttal is in the journal that Demski refers to in the review.

It links to a paper in Stat Sci that thoroughly debunks the Bible Code.

While I'm at it, I'll laugh at their blog comments.

" Very good! There’s an independently given pattern there. The result however isn’t very complex as on any given day the odds would be 1:1000 for that result. Dembski defines the universal probability bound where a design inference is warranted as one out of ten to the 150th power (1/10^150) which is almost infinitely smaller chance than 1/10^3. But you’re thinking along the right lines! -ds"

Did you catch that? Almost infinite!

WOW! I'm almost at infinity, I can see it!

This is in a post about how the lottery and the bacterial flagellum are analogous.  :D

That's right, they say that the formation of the flagellum is much like a family whose members all win the lottery consecutively. Ah! How could I be so blind?

Silly Putty indeed!

Date: 2006/02/27 04:13:09, Link
Author: beervolcano
New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Charles Darwin would undoubtedly be both pleased and chagrined.

The famous scientist would be pleased because a study published online this week provides the first clear evidence that natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.

What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.

Read the whole thing.

Since this is a statistical study, Demski should see this as a chellenge, whether indirect or direct, to his statistical work. Or at least Demski, if he felt so inclined to do actual research, would attempt to analyze this work and find weaknesses or holes in their analysis.

I really doubt it will ever happen, but I think he should do something to refute the findings of this research. That is if he cared.

Date: 2006/02/27 04:15:53, Link
Author: beervolcano

If I could delete this post, I would. I didn't realize there was a thread on this already.


Date: 2006/02/27 04:27:29, Link
Author: beervolcano

You've nailed it.

This is why religion is so strong in the US. It is the chief organizing social factor in most of the US, especially in the south and midwest. Kids are in church a lot, more than just sunday morning. They have all kinds of activities and camps to keep kids busy and hearing the word.

This leaves little room for competing viewpoints and leads to a very narrow, and I dare say immature, worldview.

This is the beginning. There is more to it, but the main thing is that the church is the main focal point of most socializing in this country.

Date: 2006/03/03 11:20:53, Link
Author: beervolcano

This is funny.

If you ever felt the need to play the role of the Intelligent Designer here is the game for you!

There is only one Intelligent Designer. He is the alpha the omega...

No really, I've always wanted a detailed model of how intelligent design is supposed to be carried out by the intelligent designer. O wait, am I supposed to capitalize it?

So seriously, I guess since this is on DaveScot's blog, this must really be the way ID people envision the intelligent designer, peace be upon Him, doing His work.

Someone please enlighten me.

Date: 2006/03/03 11:43:47, Link
Author: beervolcano
Yet another example of DaveScot's hilarity.

Apparently DaveScot has allowed William Demski to make this absurd post on his blog.

March 3, 2006
Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID:
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 8:06 am

The comments are really where it's at.


     The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better….

     Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law.

     All in all, a wonderful link!


     Comment by scordova — March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 am

     Wow! Great example of the beauty of simplicity!

     Comment by jacktone — March 3, 2006 @ 9:22 am

     According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

     I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

     Comment by ftrp11 — March 3, 2006 @ 11:29 am

     Pretty impressive. Usually I don’t care for that argument, but he presented it well.

     Comment by Teddy — March 3, 2006 @ 11:52 am

     It’s presented well, but it is a fallacious tautology he presents. Here is a simple counter-example: A highly improbable event would be for energetic water molecules to start sticking to each other in an ordered, symmetric way. Yet, it is made more probable by simply reducing the temperature of the system. (Frost in your fridge.) Heat leaving the boundry of this open system is how this is possible. How does his tautology explain such an event?

     By the way: what is the 4th Law of Thermo?

     Comment by danb — March 3, 2006 @ 12:04 pm

     So it sounds like his argument has little to do with thermodynamics, but is rather just a restatement of ID beliefs—that NS+RM is extremely unlikely to have produced the complexity and diversity we see. There certainly doesn’t seem to be a claim that any physical laws are violated.

     Comment by physicist — March 3, 2006 @ 1:53 pm

     ftrp11 wrote:
     “According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law.”
     –This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct.
     –That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theory–the origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin.

     Bingo, ftrp11!
     “Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the argument’s reasoning, should not be there.”

     Comment by Red Reader — March 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

     ftrp11 wrote:

     “I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.”

     What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.

     Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

Date: 2006/03/07 11:34:54, Link
Author: beervolcano

I just saw that!

A friend of mine is using directed enzyme evolution to simplify and cheapen the synthesis of ribavirin monophosphate.

The technique has been around for a few years now (but this is a more sophisticated version using site-directed mutagenesis).

The way that the original version of directed enzyme evolution goes, it's very trial and error. The enzymes are picked (selected) from a library of random mutants. It's like breeding dogs, but with enzymes.

This new technique just takes a lot of random hunting out of the equation. How Demski exptrapolates this to an Intelligent Designer designing all the species of life on Earth is beyond me.

I mean I just saw what was a few posts before.

Date: 2006/03/09 16:03:20, Link
Author: beervolcano
A post from:


From the article:

The idea would be to one day be able to design an enzyme synthase that would evolve along a specific functional pathway to yield a desired molecular product, then introduce it into microbes for mass production. In addition to synthesizing therapeutic drugs, other possible applications would include flavors, fragrances and nutraceuticals.

So let’s say 500 from now all records of this of this research are lost, but the molecular products are still out there and are discovered. Would a future scientist assume it was produced by evolution and construct an evolutionary history accordingly, or would there be hallmarks of its intelligently designed origin? If it is the latter, then why assume that nothing we observe today could have the same intelligently designed origin. If it is the former, then clearly the history of its origin is incorrect. 500 years from now, would it still be the case that the correct, intelligently designed origin hypthesis would be considered religious, but the the incorrect evolutionary origin story would be considered scientific?

Makes me wonder…

Comment by DonaldM — March 7, 2006 @ 10:31 pm

Forget most of what he said, but reword the question a bit and we have an excellent proposal for some actual Intelligent Design research. Let's say it was 500 years into the future and the above scenario did play out. There would be no record of the directed evolution research that altered the genes, but the bacteria from the research were still living and reproducing. Some of the bacteria were inadvertantly sampled and were being studied. How would anyone be able to tell that the DNA had been tinkered with?

Another scenario is that you find a random culture of E. coli in a random microbiology lab. How would you propose going about the task of figuring out whether or not the genome had been altered artificially? How would you differentiate naturally mutated and evolved genes from ones that had been artifically tinkered with?

If ID is valid, there should be some method that can reliably distiguish designed genes from evolved genes. Even if the bacteria were not tinkered with, then the method should be able to determine that also.

The ID "researchers" say that this is what they are all about. They are all about detecting design in nature. I'm not saying that ID people have to perform such a difficult task. I would just be happy if they could outline a general strategy. I just want to hear some concepts from which a method might be derived. Anything. So how's that for Intelligent Design Research?

Date: 2006/03/11 11:07:43, Link
Author: beervolcano

March 10, 2006
Brits to Teach the Controversy

Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.

The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September.”

more here…
Filed under: Intelligent Design — dougmoran @ 8:46 am

I'll post all the comments too in case they're erased.

     Either religion and science are describing reality simpliciter, or religion has no content. There must be a publicly available point of contact between heaven and earth, and it seems biology is it. But then, I’m a fool who thinks Dembski et al have actually won on the issues (they’re right!;), and the rest is a PR fight.

     Of course the debate should be taught, and science class is appropriate since that’s where we study reality, as opposed to religion or philosophy courses, where we study opinions. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable contradiction between the Darwinian dogma and the historical claims of any branch of Judeo-Christian religion.

     Comment by jaredl — March 10, 2006 @ 9:25 am

     clarification: religion courses study religions; they don’t test their claims.

     Comment by jaredl — March 10, 2006 @ 9:27 am

     clarification: religion courses study religions; they don’t test their claims.

     OK but wait- If one religion course made the claim that the “Allah of Islam” was different from the “God of the Bible”, that claim could then be tested. And if tested properly would be found to be a false claim.

     Comment by Joseph — March 10, 2006 @ 9:45 am

     However it looks like it is time for Great Britain to Take the 3 Hour ID Challenge.

     Comment by Joseph — March 10, 2006 @ 9:50 am

     The English teach the controversy

     England is teaching the origins controversy in science classrooms, BBC reports:
     The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September. . . .
     The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, wh…

     Trackback by The Design Paradigm — March 10, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

     England is unlike America with regards to Education. I believe the government funds both secular and religious schools that are ‘public’.

     I wonder if the US Judges who routinely like to quote ‘Euro-precedent’ and World Standards will now follow a new Euro standard?

     Comment by Michaels7 — March 10, 2006 @ 1:36 pm

     Don’t worry folks, Professor Dawkins is on the case. Just a few hours after this was released he was able to take some time off finishing his new book to make sure he warns everyone of this ‘infection’ that is coming over from the USA and may be abused by ‘notorious’ schools for dastardly deeds…

     Go to follow the links to listen again - it @43 minutes

     Comment by antg — March 10, 2006 @ 3:03 pm

     “Dr” Dawkins should take the challenge or just “stifle it”.

     I wouls also ask ALL ID critics and anti-IDists:

     Considering the alternative to ID is multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple chance collisions, coupled with multiple lucky events, all wrapped up in multiple universes, who in their right mind would say that ID isn’t scientific?

     Only the wicked… ;)

     Comment by Joseph — March 11, 2006 @ 8:30 am

Ok, so basically here, they are admitting that ID is a creationist theory.

I gues they don't care anymore.

Date: 2006/03/17 08:55:19, Link
Author: beervolcano

March 16, 2006
Biologists Are Not Design Experts

Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm

I guess DaveScot thinks that the only thing biologists do is taxonomy.

Of course BIOLOGISTS ARE EXPERTS in detecting design. They are experts in detecting the design of evolution. They are quite adept at detecting the signs of evolution and hence would be experts of detecting whether or not something is the result of evolution or not.

DaveScot is not an expert in anything (except making a fool of himself.)

Date: 2006/03/17 09:02:55, Link
Author: beervolcano


Thanks for the clarification. Just again to clarify, in my life as a biologist I do see evidence of design…


Thanks for the clarification… I understand where you are coming from.

Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm

Thanks for your post, mattison. It’s always encouraging to hear when biologists are honest about the design they observe in living systems. :)

Comment by Scott — March 17, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

But since, according to DaveScot, mattison0922 is not an expert in such matters, he should keep his mouth shut.

If another biologists left a post saying "I'm a biologist and all I ever see is the result of evolution." Then DaveScot would go apeshit on him and tell him to learn his place.

When are YOU going to learn YOUR place, eh? I suggest you get back to your repetitive grunt work and leave the decision making to the senior staff.-ds

Date: 2006/03/17 12:53:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Also, there are a few different types that may be "gathering data" depending on where the gathering is going on.

If you're in an academic lab, there are grad students "gathering data" on experiments they designed or designed with the help of their advisor, or post-docs, or fellow group members. This is not gruntwork and usually not mindless and repetitive.

A lab tech working in a manufacturing plant (probably not biology) would normally be someone with a bachelor's degree or maybe even a master's. I've met some people like this and there are those with experience that could "run circles around a postdoc" but there are others, even with experience, that I don't think would ever "get it" enough to do any circle running. It just depends on the person.

DaveScot makes it sound like all the ideas come from the top down. The grant writing will happen at the top, and the general ideas might be generated there or close to it, but devising experiments and figuring out how to carry them out, from my experience (in chemistry), is done by grad students, postdocs, and labtechs. It's far from mindless gruntwork. Also, when I was a grad student, I went to my adviser with ideas for new research, and he was supportive. We, no I, went after some preliminary results so that he could write up grant proposals based on my ideas. Of course in the experimental design part, there was a lot of back and forth about what would work before we tried some things out.

DaveScot has a very limited idea about how research is carried out and what scientists actually do all day.  

I think he said something about biology being nothing more than stamp collecting and pipetting. I think he has some sort of intellectual inferiority complex.

Date: 2006/03/20 13:13:56, Link
Author: beervolcano
Yes, this is the best. Not quite, but whatever.


Kyoto, as you may know, is a system of greenhouse credits and debits. You get points for reducing emissions (credits) and points taken away for producing emissions (debits). The original Kyoto protocol awarded generous greenhouse credits for planting forests which work as CO2 sinks. The United States is the most prolific forest planter in the world. When the other parties to the protocol found out how many credits the U.S. was claiming for reforestation they balked and reduced the amount of credits for that activity. George Bush then told them to go suck an egg as the protocol became unfair and different from what the United States had agreed to in principle. What they did is called “moving the goalpost” and Bush would have no part of it. This was written up years ago in Scientific American I believe while Clinton was still president.

Comment by DaveScot — March 20, 2006 @ 5:58 pm

Hmm, so Bush balked while Clinton was president. I see.
Are you sure he didn't have to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to do that?

Date: 2006/03/21 10:24:10, Link
Author: beervolcano
Wow, you guys are fast.

I was going to comment on Dave forgetting about 3 mile island.

It was 3 mile island and Chernobyl that started the regulatory demise of widespread nuclear power. I don't remember too many "environmentalist wackos" really going nuts over nuclear power enough to actually influence the regulatory process. If anyone had influence in that arena, it was the "moguls" as DS puts it.

Date: 2006/03/22 11:56:18, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Renier @ Mar. 22 2006,07:34)
This is about the puppet play of Faust. Snotnose Dave thinks it's no big deal for a teacher to be fired. Must have the same attitude as his lord and master Dembski, who was willing to sponsor a teacher for breaking the law (teach ID in science class). Christians should be ashamed to have Dembski as one of them. Offering money to people, to break the law.

Well, what would you say to someone paying black people to sit in the front of the bus in 1950s Alabama?

That's the way these people see this "culture war."

I think most of the Faust discussion is needless once one remembers that the actual video tape was in the school library and had been for 20 years.

Date: 2006/03/24 09:22:30, Link
Author: beervolcano

This thread is telling ID followers "What ever you do, don't threaten violence against people who don't support ID."

To me, this means that they HAVE to tell their followers not to get violent.

In light of what happened in Kansas, I think this is a good idea.

But does this also apply to nonviolent threats, such as those made by DaveScot toward Judge Jones? They had to do with losing his job or any prospect of being "promoted" to a higher office.

I like the Mann Coulter reference in the article though.  :)

Date: 2006/03/24 10:18:49, Link
Author: beervolcano
Uh Oh,

the Grand Darwinian Conspiracy™ is slipping up!!

They let this paper through that basically says that all evolution research is bogus.

I can't believe the Grand Priests of the High Church of Darwin let this even see the light of day.

Now the whole empire of deceit will come crumbling down and a new age of design detection and inference will begin, culminating in science's ultimate defeat by Christ Almighty.

IOW, if there were some grand conspiracy to silence all science that contradicts anything about the theory of evolution, then this paper surely would not be published. Will the ID people slowly come to realize this? Nah, consistency isn't one of their tactics since it doesn't really seem to be necessary.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:46:58, Link
Author: beervolcano
That got me banned real quick like.

I started posting little questioning posts, like I needed someone to coax me along into an ID thought process.

Then I started gearing the questions to have a more directing ability. I'd start asking questions of Dave about his thoughts. he loved to tell me exactly what he thought and teach me.

Then slowly he realized that I was subtly backing him into a corner of accepting natural selection as extremely likely. I think he was trying to tell me about saltation, and after a couple of replies with that, he made his version of saltation sound like rapid natural selection. I didn't even need to point it out to him. He figured it out within the day.

Then, Boom, instantly banned and all posts on that line of thought erased.

Date: 2006/03/31 09:47:06, Link
Author: beervolcano
I guess the UD crowd are incapable of seeing this part of the article:

The researchers have developed a way of predicting bacterial genome content using two bacteria that have evolved from E.coli.

Yeah, and drawing such a sweeping conclusion based on knocking out genes from existing bacteria is totally fallacious.

Just because bacteria are relatively simple forms of life doesn't mean that they are the simplest or representative of the earliest forms of life.

O well. Here are some other parts that are invisible to the UD people.

“Being able to predict the content of a genome based on the ecology of an organism is useful because we could potentially use it to predict gene content at different stages of an organism’s evolution.

“This will help us understand more about how the genome of different organisms have evolved over long periods of time and should also inform attempts by experimentalists to construct minimal genomes by gradual evolution in the laboratory.”

But surely they are able to see this:

Similar methods might also be used to build a blueprint of a bacterium with desired metabolic properties, for example identifying which genes would a bacterium need to efficiently digest specific waste chemicals.

LOOK! These bacteria are the product of intelligent design!

Again, we're back to exposing ID for what it can't do but says it can. ID says it can detect design in biology. Well, then it should be able to distinguish engineered bacteria from non-engineered bacteria. It should even be able to determine if apparently non-engineered bacteria, or any life form, is actually engineered or not, presumably by an/the intelligent designer.

They always say that ID is about detecting design in biology, but name one part of biology where design has been "detected." I can hear Dave now waxing Rumsfeldian about false negatives and false positives.


Jack Krebs said

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

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

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

Well Dave, how would you positively identify engineered bacteria or even those with recombinant genes?

You ask the engineers, dumbass. - dt

Date: 2006/03/31 16:04:38, Link
Author: beervolcano
I think this may add to this thread:

So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood.

So creatures without red blood aren't living.

Then PZM hits it on the head. I think this is a better score than he may realize.

What I'd really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they'd go through when it's pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh.

The early embryo has no red blood, therefore according to the Bible, it is not living.

This page:

details how creatures who lack red blood are not considered living from the Biblical perspective. IOW, they have done the work of proving that decades of religious righteous indignation was all based on poor Bible study skills.

God hates squid. God also hates embryos (because they look all squishy like squid and that grosses God out.)

Date: 2006/04/04 12:52:14, Link
Author: beervolcano
“We need to plan our collapse rather than just let it happen to us.” One could almost think this is an invitation to bioterrorism.

Um, so when George Bush says we need to plan for a terrorist attack, that means Bush is inviting terrorism?

Sound logic to me.

They need to rename the site Little Green Flagella.

Date: 2006/04/04 13:07:07, Link
Author: beervolcano
This Pianka guy just sounds like all the gloom and doom kooks from the 60s and 70s. They said we'd run out of food. They said we'd run out of fresh water. The land can't sustain more than 4 billion people and all that crap. Well, technology saved the day.

And really when you think about it. You can't develop high technology without a huge population. You need a certain population level to have a certain level of economy so that certain raw materials are at disposal and that there are enough people to buy products. You have to have a certain financial base (taxes or profits) to fund research and a certain number of people doing research to have a good rate of technological progress.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but picture a world with only 200 million people spread like they are now. Would this be enough people to have, say, a space program like NASA?

Date: 2006/04/04 13:11:58, Link
Author: beervolcano
Not certain based upon this limited information, but would Ebola Zaire gaining the capability to go airborne and “be transmittable via respiratory function” be constituted as the creation of CSI? If so, that’s a point of discussion relevent to the ID debate.
Filed under: Evolution, Biology, Intelligent Design, Darwinism — Patrick @ 11:53 am


     Not unless the relevant probability were less than the universal probability bound. Here’s what’s needed: specify the exact viral genome which would retain the Ebola killing properties while adding the environmental changes necessary for airborne transmission, quantify the difference between that genome and the existing genome, and calculate the probability of the one coming from the other due solely to point mutations. If said probability is less than the universal probability bound, then we don’t have to worry about it happening sans intelligent intervention. So, if it does happen, someone made it happen.

     Comment by jaredl — April 4, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Is it rude to call these people retarded?

Yes, the Plague and the 1918 Flu were engineered by someone to wipe out a large portion of the population. Didn't you know that? Duh.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:05:49, Link
Author: beervolcano
So Dave isn't impressed with a scientific discovery unless it has a practical use?

What practical use comes from inferring an Intelligent Designer?

What practical use would come of detecting the work of a nameless Creator in nature?

Jack Squat. That's what.

(PS - ID isn't a scientific discovery anyway.)


Looks like a big mudpuppy to me. :roll:

This is evolutionary biology at its finest though. Sort of like stamp collecting.

The practical benefit from this “great discovery” is exactly zero. Again like stamp collecting.

Comment by DaveScot — April 6, 2006 @ 1:44 am

I take it back. A practical benefit occurred to me.

As long as these ebola boys are playing with fossil skeletons they aren’t communicating their dreams of exterminating the human race to innocent young minds.

I guess every cloud DOES have a silver lining.

Comment by DaveScot — April 6, 2006 @ 1:50 am

Date: 2006/04/06 06:12:43, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Drew Headley @ April 06 2006,11:10)
[quote=beervolcano,April 06 2006,11<!--emo&:0]Do Dave isn't impressed with a scientific discovery unless it has a practical use?

What practical use comes from inferring an Intelligent Designer?

What practical use would come of detecting the work of a nameless Creator in nature?

Jack Squat. That'w what.

The usual excuse they give is that it allows them to mimic nature in engineering. How intelligent design facilitates that more than evolution is anyones best guess.

Ok, we can mimic nature all day and all night and none of it has to have anything to do with Intelligent Design.

You knew that. I just wanted it said.

Actually, the two are totally disconnected. Figuring out how a biological structure works and then attempting to mimic that is completely disctinct from attempting to determine the origins of that particular structure. Well, maybe not. It would only be USEFUL to understand the origins of that structure IF the structure had evolved. Then the precurors and analogs to that structure can also be studied. Afterall, the design of the structure isn't perfect and may not even be optimal. A precursor or an analog may be better suited to the task we have picked as opposed to its function in nature.

Date: 2006/04/06 06:26:02, Link
Author: beervolcano

Guess that makes a platypus a link between ducks and otters.

Comment by kathy — April 6, 2006 @ 9:35 am

Wow, I didn't realize there were fossil Platypuses found in the Cretaceous!

(Um, besides mammal skeleton/bird skeleton. Um, yeah.)

Date: 2006/04/06 18:35:05, Link
Author: beervolcano

'Gospel of Judas' gives new view of Jesus' betrayer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday.

In an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching, the Judas gospel shows the reviled disciple as the only one in Jesus' inner circle who understood his desire to shed his earthly body.

"He's the good guy in this portrayal," said Bart Ehrman, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "He's the only apostle who understands Jesus."

The Judas gospel's introduction says it is "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." Later, it quotes Jesus as saying to Judas, "You will exceed all of them (the other disciples) for you will sacrifice the man who clothes me."

"The idea in this gospel is that Jesus, like all of us, is a trapped spirit, who is trapped in a material body," Ehrman said. "And salvation comes when we escape the materiality of our existence, and Judas is the one who makes it possible for him to escape by allowing for his body to be killed."


So Judas isn't a traitor afterall.
What else have Christians got wrong?

Date: 2006/04/07 07:11:12, Link
Author: beervolcano
So I'm a bit confused by Dembski's latest post.

April 7, 2006
Evolvability is testable

In the following article, ask yourself if “the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable,” what this means for the testability of evolutionary theory and ID should nature be constituted so that no Darwinian pathways exist for certain proteins.

   Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins
   Daniel M. Weinreich, Nigel F. Delaney, Mark A. DePristo, Daniel L. Hartl

   Five point mutations in a particular ß-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of 100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance ß-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the ß-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 7:12 am

I skimmed the whole paper ( a tad out of my area, had to look some terms up ), but anyway, why is he posting this.

This in no way says anything about Intelligent Design.
What it does say is that RM + NS can be predictable since the viable pathways can actually be pretty few in number.

OK, great.

It very much supports and adds to "Darwinian" theory and in no way detracts from it.

Demski thinks that by this method somehow someone will be able to find a protein that exists that has no accessible selective pathway.

Now, how would this protein ever be found? If a lab experiment monitored mutations and checked for some enhanced function (like increased antibiotic resistance), and no selective pathways existed to evolve a fitter protein, then no enhanced function would be observed. If it were observed, then it would be assumed that there was an accessible selective pathway.

Would you assume that the protein was Intelligently Poofed during your experiment? How can anyone discriminate between Intelligent Poofing and a selective pathway?

Date: 2006/04/09 07:22:03, Link
Author: beervolcano

Dave, the Sun won't fry the Earth for another 4-5 billion years.

Can you tell me that lizards won't be the ancestors to what actually makes it permanently off the planet?

Date: 2006/04/12 09:59:34, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (stevestory @ April 12 2006,07:53)
Go take a look at the Wesley's Biology Test post on UD.

It doesn't even make sense.

I would laugh, but people are going to take it seriously and that makes me a sad panda.

Date: 2006/04/12 11:47:59, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (sir_toejam @ April 12 2006,16<!--emo&:0)
I'd completely forgotten about that SP episode.

Any chance you could dig up a transcript of that one?

Here's one. I don't know how accurate it is.

Date: 2006/04/13 08:10:06, Link
Author: beervolcano

Jesus! Who farted?

Date: 2006/04/13 10:40:50, Link
Author: beervolcano


This will post will likely never see the light of day here, given that ID sites ironically appear unwilling to discuss competing theories to intelligent design, but here it goes…. The Urey-Miller experiments are typically referenced in textbooks in the context of “some people have explored naturalistic mechanisms” but it’s usually pretty darn clear that we don’t know jack about what happened, when it happened, etc.. Nobody I know is claiming otherwise; you’re arguing against a strawman, folks. That’s why we Darwinists don’t wish to argue origins. It’s pointless to do so from either side of the debate. No one knows enough to make that argument anything other than an excercise in loosely grounded, futile speculation. You ID folks lure Darwinists into rational discussions by ostensibly debating evolution theory (the stuff that is being taught in classrooms), then you deftly shift gears to origins. There we all have an equal footing because no one knows anything whatsoever.

There’s nothing deft about it. The evolution of life is a continuum that didn’t miraculously begin with a cell that popped into existence out of nowhere. Or maybe it WAS a miracle. That seems like a far more important question to me than what’s the proper place in a phylogenetic tree for each new fossil find or each new species discovered. The path of evolution is well enough explored so it now seems like overkill trying to refine phylogenies even more. The mechanism of evolution is exceedingly dependent on how that first cell evolved and what its capabilities were. No matter what the mechanism behind past evolution it works so slowly today that it doesn’t make a bit of difference whether RM+NS can generate endless forms most wonderful as unless we want to plan on observation period millions of years long we aren’t going to see anything new emerge. Dodging the question of origins is a deft move by NDE proponents to duck the most difficult thing for a non-intelligent cause to explain. You don’t get to discount ID by picking a starting point for evolution where the hardest part is already done! -ds

Comment by great_ape — April 12, 2006 @ 6:39 pm

This is some lovely logic by Dave.

great_ape: "You ID folks lure Darwinists into rational discussions by ostensibly debating evolution theory (the stuff that is being taught in classrooms), then you deftly shift gears to origins. There we all have an equal footing because no one knows anything whatsoever."

"Shifting gears into talking about origins is pointless because we don't know enough."

DS: "The evolution of life is a continuum that didn’t miraculously begin with a cell that popped into existence out of nowhere. Or maybe it WAS a miracle."

IOW: "It's a legit topic because nobody knows enough about it."

Then there are some great one-liners embedded in there.

"The path of evolution is well enough explored so it now seems like overkill trying to refine phylogenies even more."

IOW: Paleontology is pointless anymore.

" Dodging the question of origins is a deft move by NDE proponents to duck the most difficult thing for a non-intelligent cause to explain. "

IOW: Forget what I said earlier about us not knowing squat about origins because the real reason Darwinists can't answer the origins question is because they simply refuse to acknowlege that miracles happen.

"You don’t get to discount ID by picking a starting point for evolution where the hardest part is already done!"

IOW: Look, whenever you don't know how something works or came to be, miracles are always a possible explanation.

Date: 2006/04/13 11:24:50, Link
Author: beervolcano
I like to go to this site from time to time to get a nice chuckle and see how someone can twist logic and argue against evolution from the typical creationist standpoint.
The little [sic] things all over get really annoying though.

Here they ignore the fact that there are 18 viable pathways for the mutations to grant the bug resistance to antibiotics, but that's not the funny part.

They are’t talking about adding new genetic information or function, but rather losing function (susceptibility to the antiobiotic) in such a manner that each stage doesn’t kill all of the organisms in one fell swoop.

That's right. A function of the bacteria was to die when it met a particular antibiotic. The mutations made the bug LOSE this function of death. See? Mutations only degrade the genome, no matter what, period.

If this principle applies, as they suggested, to larger scales of biological organization, then the neo-Darwinian gig is, for all practical purposes, over.

I don't know what they mean by "larger scales" when they talk about missense mutations, but whatever. I just think it's funny that they say "if there are only 18 ways to get there, then Darwin is done."

This makes “the protein tape of life” predictable?

Yeah, that's what they said, ain't it?

Friggin creationists.

Date: 2006/04/17 10:06:50, Link
Author: beervolcano

DS writes:

2. Some of the minds found in nature are irreducibly complex.

We only have one mind to examine in nature and we don’t know what causes it to exist. Therefore we cannot say that it is irreducibly complex. Given 2 is a false premise and is Sober’s first flaw.

I guess DS has to define "mind" here.

No one knows if the universe is finitely old as physics has no means of describing what came before a singularity known as the big bang nor does physics have a means of describing what if anything existed outside the singularity.

So DS has no problem with describing things that are not explained by biology. But for physics, well, we can't go around assuming things not described by it. Jeez, I mean come on. It's physics. It's certainly not pipetting and stamp collecting.

Also, I've heard many creationists (nay, anyone trying to convince me that there must be a God) come at me with this argument.

The universe is finitely old. Every effect is preceded by a cause which was preceded by it's cause and so on. Therefore there must be a "first cause," a cause that was uncaused itself. This "first cause" is God. (Of course, I KNOW that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may you be touched by His Noodly Thingie.)

But then DS rejects this logic outright.

6. The universe is finitely old.

No one knows if the universe is finitely old as physics has no means of describing what came before a singularity known as the big bang nor does physics have a means of describing what if anything existed outside the singularity. This is why we speak of an “observable” universe. The observable universe appears to have a finite age but there is no way of knowing what, if anything, is beyond the bounds of the observable. Sober lacks a basic understanding of the limits of physics in describing the universe. This is flaw number five.

7. Causes precede their effects.

This is also something physics does not unambiguously demonstrate. It is not demonstrated by any means that the observable universe is deterministic. There is a wide belief among quantum physicists that quantum uncertainty is real and not just an artifact of incomplete knowledge. If quantum uncertainty is real and quantum events influence macroscopic events then effects can exist without cause. This is Sober’s sixth flaw.

IOW, effects (like the appearance of design) can result from NO CAUSE AT ALL.

The cause of IC systems (choices):
1. mutation + natural selection
2. intelligent design
3. nothing

8. Therefore, there exists a supernatural intelligent designer.

As I have shown this conclusion is based on so many logical and scientific fallacies it is laughable. About the only thing that Sober got right was in the first assertion that irreducibly complex systems must be intelligently designed. And that itself is hotly debated too but we ID theorists accept it as a given.

This last part is rich.

1. The thought of a supernatural intelligent designer is laughable.

2. Even though a certain hypothesis is hotly debated, ID theorists accept it as a given (on Faith, I suppose.)

3. DaveScot is an "ID theorist."

I didn't realize that DS considered himself to be a theorist. I haven't seen any of DS's work on the theory myself. Maybe I've missed one of his "peer-reviewed books" or maybe his course at the Southern Baptist Bible Seminary of the South.

What you missed is the first cause of my irreducibly complex mind theorizing your unobserved ass out of here. - ds

Date: 2006/04/17 10:26:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Sober’s conclusion is based on thin air. No one knows how human intelligence works to say nothing of any other kind of intelligence. You cannot characterize something you know nothing about. Write that down. -ds

Got that? No one knows how human intelligence works to say nothing of any other kind of intelligence.

OK, I know.... don't ruin my fun....

Detect this....

We know absolutely nothing about any intelligent agency other than ourselves. To characterize something we can’t measure in any way is ridiculous. Irreducible complexity is something that can be tested by removing components and seeing if it still functions. Which component of an intelligence we know nothing about do you suggest is the first piece we should remove to see if it still works? Like duh.  

Again DS must define "intelligent agency" like he needs to define "mind." We are not the only animals on this planet with intelligence and the capability to learn. And we know things about these "intelligent agencies." I guess he means "minds" capable of "design."

IOW, he's using the "we know of no..." argument that ID people always use. "We know of no..." is a good argument for negating something, but a terrible argument for positing something. ID people like to bring in "we know of no natural means for an IC system to come about." It may negate someone's unsubstantiated claims, but posits nothing. Now Dave has brought in "we know of no minds capable of design but human minds." Doesn't this negate the/an Intelligent Designer besides humans, using ID logic? Dave is using an ID tactic against ID.

The OBSERVABLE universe is believed to be finitely old. What’s outside the observable universe in time and space is unknown. There are limits to how far in time and space our physical theories allow us to know about. We think we can follow the observable universe back to a singularity about 14 billion years ago. We cannot see inside or beyond singularities. We have no theories in physics to describe it. A little further reading here. Sober appears to have no real understanding of cosmology and is, to be blunt, talking out of his arse. -ds

UM, spacetime comprises the entire observable universe. If it happened outside of the observable universe, it happened OUTSIDE of spacetime. Space and time are what make the observable universe observable. Also, the mainstream view of the start of the BB is not at a singularity anymore. Same goes for the center of a black hole. Brane/string theory does away with singularities.

So, DS appears to have no real understanding of cosmology and is, to be blunt, talking out of his arse.

I'll be even more blunt. CYA. - ds

Date: 2006/04/17 13:14:43, Link
Author: beervolcano
I'd like to add that I spoke too soon. I'm a dolt.

String theory does not do away with singularities.

That's wrong.

In M-theory (brane theory) though, IIRC, the singularity goes from having zero dimensions to having multiple dimensions. So it becomes a surface instead of a point.

Also, OK if there are multiple universes, they would have to have spacetime. So there may be areas outside of this universe that are in another spacetime. For some reason, I don't think that's what he meant. It sounded like he meant that the BB happened somewhere in space and time, which it didn't, since it was space and time that "banged."


Date: 2006/04/19 13:21:59, Link
Author: beervolcano

jpadilla has a point. Kent Hovind is really the worst of the worst. The arguments he uses are obsolete, wrong, completely offtopic, or outright lies and he knows it. We’re talking about a guy who has been discredited by Answers in Genesis for cying out loud. Hovind has negative credibility. He’s not a guy you want to have on your side.

The 1st amendment protects even that which you most disagree with. I already stated I don’t share Hovind’s beliefs but he’s got a right to express them and he has a right for his church to be treated like a church. If people don’t like it they don’t have to go to it. It’s just that simple. -ds

Comment by Black Hole Sun — April 18, 2006 @ 6:04 am

Doesn't Hovind realize that creationism has a whole new set of arguments in ID?

And then we have a real winner:

Not really. Their future themes are supposed to be plausible futures. Pirates of the Carribean - there really were pirates in the Carribean. The Haunted House - plenty of people believe in ghosts. Not Disney but Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are real for a lot of kids. If people want to believe these things (Dinosaur Land included) that’s their business and I don’t see any particular harm in it. Believing this stuff isn’t a cause of anything, it’s a symptom of something if you know what I mean. -ds

That's right DS. Project those projections...

Date: 2006/04/20 10:24:14, Link
Author: beervolcano
OMG, that stallone thing hurt me. I'm dying!!


I wouldn’t exactly say that the conservative christians control the House, Senate etc
I think ‘have some key figures’ in these area’s which keeps them from being ‘totally silenced and side-lined’ would be more accurate. Moreover the media is probably a much more persuasive and pervasive entity than the afore-mentioned in terms of influencing popular thought and directing a population (eg the president has been so demonised in the media he’s about to be impeached by popular opinion that he’s a moron - not that he is perfect). Hence ‘THEY’ would be the ACLU, Academic elite, Hollywood, most of the judiciary and legal entities, school boards etc (- would you like me to go on?). and ‘Left’ is don’t mention anything religious or contentious in public, else the rally cry is separation of church and state etc, etc.

Just a thought… Use it, don’t use it.

Comment by lucID — April 20, 2006 @ 11:30 am

Ah! Is that the meme? People want Bush impeached because it's the popular opinion that he's a moron. Jeez, and here I was thinking it was because he broke FISA laws, lied to get us into a war, and his justice dept repeatedly circumvents the constitution. Oh, and he's a moron.

I love how these wingnuts always want to throw so many groups into one basket.

The academic "elite". I've never gotten that. How is it elite? Maybe Harvard and Yale are elite, but all of academia? Wow. And then academia has very little in common with Hollywood at all. And of course, the ACLU is the default bogeyman for the right. Down with civil liberties I say!

Then of course he brings up the media. So what if 60% of journalists are liberals? 100% of the 5 (count'em) owners of just about ALL media in the US are VERY conservative. Well, Ted Turner is really just a lunatic, but he's no Green socialist or anything. That's what determines the "slant" of the media coming out of that particular corporation.

Agreed the President is an openly religious man, but that just makes him more of a target everytime he opens his mouth. I guarentee you if he weren’t a religious man popular anti-sentiment about him wouldn’t be so huge.
Again just a thought…

Comment by lucID — April 20, 2006 @ 11:41 am

Of course! They want to impeach Bush because he's very religious. When the #### are they going to realize that Bush is NOT as religious as he wants them to believe.

What devout Christian is going to order preemptive bombing of metropolitan areas knowing full well that it will kill thousands? What Christian would say of their enemies "We're on the hunt, we're going to smoke'em out, and kill'em."

A fake one that's who.



Let me clarify my view of what this has to do with ID. As seen in the Dover decision, Judge Brown concluded that ID is the brainchild of the clearly ‘Christian’ “scientific creationism” (YEC) movement, and used that assumption as his reasoning for declaring it unacceptable under separation of church and state. This is how ID, without actually being part of any particular religious perspective, gets painted with the black paint intended for the religious communities.

Comment by bFast — April 20, 2006 @ 11:51 am


Well put there bfast, I think the association is so strong in the minds of certain people it’s quite difficult to shake off.

Comment by lucID — April 20, 2006 @ 11:57 am

I'll let those stand for themselves.

Date: 2006/04/20 10:37:32, Link
Author: beervolcano
The thing about the flood, and people looking for physical evidence of it, fail to remember that it was a miracle.

You're probably not going to find physical evidence of something that it physically impossible.

Same goes for Jesus's ressurection. You're not going to prove scientifically that a miracle occured, I don't think.

And as far as machines go, a waterfall is a machine. A river is a machine. The hydrological cycle is a machine.

The sun is a machine. The solar system is a machine.

Hurricanes are machines.

And on and on and on.....

Are all these machines intelligently designed?

Date: 2006/04/21 15:04:02, Link
Author: beervolcano
Wow, this guy believes ID, which is something usually reserved for liars.

But this guy is being totally (well, it seems) honest.


He spells out ID for what it is and what it is not. He even goes so far as to say that it is religiously motivated and an apologetic.

He also thinks that it can be part of science. I say good luck. Seriously.

If his aim is to do real science that may one day provide some sort of evidence that life had been intelligently tinkered, then I say go for it.

It won't be easy, but science rarely is.

Date: 2006/04/21 15:16:44, Link
Author: beervolcano
Describe a scientific method by which the natural evolution of the flagella can be falsified. If you cannot describe a method then the hypothesis of flagellum evolution is unfalsifiable pseudo-science. Good luck. -ds

I don't know why I love statements like this so much, but I just do.

Or things like this.

Ken Miller may argue against irreducible complexity, but immunologists and biologists study it all the time! Fairly new research of Apoptosis study irreducibly complex systems.

Comment by Apoptosis — April 21, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

Yeah, you could remove the p53 gene too. Or any number of genes and, bam, you have cancer of some sort.

Is THIS the definition of IC?

If I remove me heart, I'm dead. I guess evolution is disproved!

Well, I guess one for the road.

Darn, my quote tags didn’t work. That entire last bit is a quote and the first part about the flagellum coming first is too. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that an evolutionist would resort to using misleading evidence and testimony. Anyway, it leaves me shaking my head.

Comment by Doug — April 21, 2006 @ 7:00 pm

Oh, and I'll bet I could make a car with pistons made from lugnuts. But it might leave doug here shaking his head.

Date: 2006/04/22 12:05:15, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 21 2006,21:49)
I've honestly never minded Heddle that much. About the only thing he's got in common with most of his fellow-travellers is the smug tone of false-superiority.

He says he believes in "cosmoloogical ID" and all he really bases it on in argument is the supposedly "fine-tuned" very small but non-zero value of the cosmological constant. He typically backs away from criticizing evolution, and he's honest about his apologetics in so far as he doesn't confuse them with anything scientific.

There are a lot of people who immediately clung to the strong anthropic principle once it was devised/realized/discovered.

And many cling to it immediately when they hear of it.

It is some sort of evidence to them of their faith.

It's like the stories they heard as a child have some sort of backup, and it came from the ivory tower of science, no less.

And it is of course very philosophical and not very scientific to just rename the strong anthropic principle as cosmological ID.

O well. People need their mental crutches sometimes.

Date: 2006/04/23 18:04:29, Link
Author: beervolcano
So Dave is just going to delete all responses that meet his challenge. Then, he'll point to the lack of adequate responses in the comments section and declare victory for ID.

I guess that's how this is going to play out.

Date: 2006/04/25 12:24:12, Link
Author: beervolcano
“Formulated in this manner, ID does not invoke any entity (supernatural or otherwise) and cannot be conflated with Creationism.”

What about the definition used by this site:

“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Surely a feature of the universe as a whole must be casued (”explained”) by something outside the universe, which would be by definition supernatural, yes?

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

So Dave is saying that the intelligent cause of features of the universe is...human? Or that the universe just is and was modified at some point by inelligent beings that came made

Date: 2006/04/25 12:28:46, Link
Author: beervolcano

DaveScot: “Supernatural causes are by definition outside the scope of science. The salient question is whether supernatural effects are outside the scope of science.”

This is a critical point. “Supernatural” simply means beyond nature (i.e., beyond time, space, matter, and energy.) The universe is, by definition, a supernatural effect, since time, space, matter, and energy did not exist in order to produce it.

One of the critical insights of ID theory, which should be evident to those with practical experience in computer programming or other rigorous information-theoretic science, is that information is “supernatural,” essentially by definition. Time, space, matter, and energy (i.e., nature) are causally inadequate to explain it or produce it.

Comment by GilDodgen — April 25, 2006 @ 12:20 am

Yes, that's right. Information is etherial. It doesn't need any matter, time, or space to be produced. When I read this, the words aren't there because an electron beam is striking a phosphor caoting on a piece of glass. They are just floating in the ether joining with my mind before and after all of existence was ever created then destroyed.

Date: 2006/04/25 12:32:28, Link
Author: beervolcano

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

Dave, Demsbki claims otherwise:

“Moreover, it [the fine-tuning of the universe] is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.”

You moved the goalpost from features of the universe to origin of the universe. Anyhow, nothing says I have to agree with everything Dembski ever wrote and I strongly differ with him over the requirement that the origin of life on earth cannot be strictly physical. I know of no laws of physics that must be violated to assemble a living organism from inanimate chemicals. -ds

Comment by Tiax — April 25, 2006 @ 12:04 pm

Hmm, was it Tiax that moved the goalposts or Demski?

Yeah, it was Demski.

Date: 2006/04/25 12:40:28, Link
Author: beervolcano
I can't give up on this stupid crap. I have to keep railing on it.

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

I would call something supernatural if were able to transcend all physical anything regardless of whether they are in an alternate universe or not. The key here is transcendence. A word that old Demski used specifically to describe the Intelligent Designer.

Why does DS hate Demski so much?

Date: 2006/04/25 12:56:34, Link
Author: beervolcano
Sorry for all the mulitple posts, but Ed Brayton has a terrible post in response to UD.

I'll just C/P my post there here. Why? Beats me.

The flagellum has become the centerpiece of ID, the one shining, golden example of the inability of evolution to explain biochemical complexity. It's probably invoked more often than any other ID argument. Guess what? The entire argument was made, virtually verbatim with exactly the same descriptions of the "molecular machinery", in the creationist literature before Behe's book was published and made it famous. In fact, this was introduced during the Dover trial during the cross examination of Scott Minnich.

So what? That doesn't make the argument itself creationism. It is merely an attack of evolution. You are saying that any attack on evolution must be creationism. Is that true?

Look, just because a creationist makes an argument, it doesn't make the argument creationist, got it?

Minnich, like Behe, repeatedly invokes the flagellum as the central proof that evolution could not create biochemical complexity and therefore it must have been intelligently designed.

So what John Kerry repeatedly said Saddam had WMD and had to be taken out. I guess that means he's a Republican.

Another example of a common ID argument that can be traced directly to the creationist literature ...

Again. SFW? It doesn't matter if X's and Y's make the same argument A. It doesn't make A an X or a Y argument by default. It surely doesn't make X=Y simply because they made the same argument, necessarily.

Look. This is a terrible post and you should never have given those folks so much ammo.

You should have just pointed out that anytime anyone makes a claim that something was "designed" they mean it was "created" instead of evolved. This is creationism pure and simple. When you say something was created/designed you are using a creationist argument.

When Behe says the flagellum was designed, he's really saying it was created, not evolved. This is a creationist argument. See how easy that was?

Now retract this horrible post that you spent way too much time on.


He WANTS them to say "See? We don't make creationist arguments. We just make the same arguments as creationists."

O well.

Date: 2006/04/25 18:52:51, Link
Author: beervolcano
I know of no laws of physics that must be violated to assemble a living organism from inanimate chemicals. -ds

Great. Does this mean to imply that he thinks that some laws of physics would be broken if this process happened without being directed by some already living being?

If not, then he really doesn't need the ID hypothesis.

If so, then would the living being also have to have been assembled by some already living being?


Date: 2006/04/26 09:36:55, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2006,10:17)
Re "If so, then would the living being also have to have been assembled by some already living being?"

They are, aren't they? At least the "starting kit" (so to speak) for a new organism is "assembled" internally by its parent or parents, then self assembles from there using available raw materials.


That's what I get for not being specific.
Obviously DS means that it was done consciously as part of a plan or purpose. What the purpose could be is beyond me...transcendent, if you will.

Date: 2006/04/26 09:43:05, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Renier @ April 26 2006,01:29)
I know of no laws of physics that must be violated to assemble a living organism from inanimate chemicals. -ds

Ah, but TYPING, now THAT violates the laws!

PERFECT! I had forgotten about that one!
Yeah, someone really should ask him why he thinks that typing on a keyboard violates the 2LoT, but assembling a living organism from scratch does not.  ???


Date: 2006/04/27 08:20:42, Link
Author: beervolcano
Oh man, you beat me to it!

When I saw this:

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism ...-WmAD

I had a brain hemorrhage. After I recovered I looked at it again and now I think I'm blind.

This isn't the same world I went to sleep in last night.
Bill Demski and Ann Coulter. Who could have made a better pair?

I know it's been said before, but these guys NEVER (ever) disappoint!!!

Secularism is a closed minded philosophy, which simply states, “Man is supreme in the universe. I am a man (or woman), therefore I am supreme.”

Ah. An old strawman but a good one. I think he's confusing a strawman for atheism as a strawman for secularism. Secularism, as far as govt is concerned, just means that it's not religious. And what Atheist says they are the greatest thing in the universe? I've never met one that did.

And Dave has a crush on old lectricstix (I've seen her in person, she's 7ft tall and thin as a pencil with little needle legs that are too long for her body. she looks like a freak. and she has an adam's apple)
I don’t think partnering with Coulter can help ID. She is very extreeme in her views and often speaks just to give shocking soundbites:

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

Not really a pro-science, non-theistic standpoint.

Keep dreaming. Coulter has four books that made the New York Times best seller list. At least one, Treason, made #1. She’s an icon on political commentary shows such as Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, and Hannity & Colmes. She’s a Cornell graduate and board certified lawyer. Now she’s going to be on all those shows answering questions about evolution with the polished acid tongued rhetoric that made her so popular. This is big. I’ve been telling Bill for a year he should hook up with her on the evolution controversy as it’s right up her alley and she’s got more name recognition than Hillary Clinton. I can’t imagine better publicity for ID than this. -ds

Comment by richie — April 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

Hey, lay off her man, she sells alot of books! Dave likes people who sell lots of books, like Noam Chomsky.

I can’t imagine better publicity for ID than this. -ds

Me neither, Dave, me neither.

It's the best thing that could possibly happen for ID. Cunlt3r will turn off all but the most rabid wingnuts to ID.

This is what we've been waiting for, folks.
Coulter is the final nail in ID's coffin.

I think if there are people who would judge the merits of ID lacking by virtue of Ann Coulter’s position then those are people that the ID movement can survive without in the first place. The other side is welcome to such shallow thinkers. In fact though I think the other side already has them…  -ds

Wow, I didn't realize that Cuntl3r was such a deep thinker.

I like how Dave admits that ID is a political movement.
A movement that needs people in order to survive. It doesn't need experiments, results, and true theory. It just needs supporters, like social security reform.
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” also said :

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

I hope that my posting of her comments, taken from various sites on the internet, might give pause.

It doesn’t give ME pause. Ann Coulter is hugely popular. True, she’s prone to hyperbole but the poster child for the left is Howard Stern and propriety prevents me from even quoting the best (or worst, depending on your POV) of his speech. -ds

Dave likes the idea of killing civilians. Michael Moore is hugely popular too. Dave must like him too.

But since when is Howard Stern a poster child for the left?   No really? ???
I don't think too many femisists would agree.

After reading a Jonah Goldberg article this morning and then reading this thread at UD, I'm convinced that some people just don't live in the same reality that I do, but somehow we can talk to each other and read what each other writes.

They are in some other world...

Date: 2006/04/27 08:24:58, Link
Author: beervolcano
Intelligent Design and creationism are not co-conspirators trying to overthrow Darwinian evolution

Then what are they?

Oh yeah, the same thing.
In fact I know three agnostics, a Jew, a Catholic and a Moonie at Discovery.


See? ID isn't Christian Apologetics. We have Catholics AND Moonies, neither of which are true Christians, so see?

Date: 2006/04/28 09:28:08, Link
Author: beervolcano

I wanna paste this here in case it gets pulled.

Who Wants to Sue the University of Minnesota?
In light of Kitzmiller finding that ID is religion I decided to see exactly what PZ Myers, who votes on tenure at the University of Minnesota, said about denying tenure to people who believe in ID.

It's not religious discrimination. It's professional discrimination, which is what the tenure process is all about. Are you competent? That is the question. If you believe that religious philosophy is science, then you are not competent. Get it? I know you do.
In short order I found I was preceded in this investigation by author “Joy” at Telic Thoughts. So without further ado, especially considering what a thorough and excellent job she did, go read it there then comment here about what you’d like to see done about a University of Minnesota representative boasting about the unversity practicing religious discrimination.

More on PZ Meyers' Public Boasting
by Joy

My thoughts are that the University of Minnesota needs to censure Associate Professor Paul Myers and assure the public that he will not be allowed to participate in tenure decisions.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 12:42 pm

That's right.

Dave says that not voting for tenure for a professor that believes in ID is religious discrimination. He agrees with the Kitzmiller decision that ID is religion.

Dave, you and I both know that it's not religious discrimination to deny tenure to a professor of science who claims that religious mythology/philosophy is science. It's that simple Dave.

Date: 2006/04/29 13:57:45, Link
Author: beervolcano
Notice how the poster makes absolutely no comment about it. As if the readers of UD will automatically assume what he assumes.

This paper is very interesting, but in no way supports ID in the slightest. It detracts from evolution in no way either.

I'm waiting to see what actually makes it to the comments section.

Date: 2006/04/30 05:58:11, Link
Author: beervolcano
The band Rush.

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh.

And I like how that ID predicted junk DNA function thread is going.

UD: ID predicted there would be a function.
Ans: So did evo bio. Functions have been proposed in the past based on emprical data. This is another example of that. Where are the ID people and their data?
UD: One side can't own the data. Data belongs to everyone.
Ans: That may be, but ID people aren't doing their own research, they just try to co-opt others' work and make sweeping conclusions based on it. Why aren't they doing their own research.
UD: They'll be blackballed as if they were communists!

Oh and:


By the way, there will be a Great Doom one day. That much is certain, then all the people who predicted the end of the world as we know it will finally be right.

Comment by mynym — April 30, 2006 @ 9:17 am

Any Questions?

Date: 2006/04/30 06:13:25, Link
Author: beervolcano
I think Arden is right about the conservative equations regarding evo=homo=liberal etc.

And there is a trend of sadism inherent in people who call themselves "conservative" I've noticed. (not intended for all "true conservatives" out there)

Here's a small and maybe subtle example.

[Nevermind how entertaining it sounds to shock a dinosaur]

Keep an eye out for this kind of stuff. "Conservatives" (the ones that call themselves that nowadays in the US) love the idea of physical punishment. They are AOK with all the torture stuff. They make novelty mousepads celebrating the death of Rachel Corrie who got run over by an Israeli bulldozer. Stuff like that abounds. (I think the "Got syrup?" thing means she was made into a pancake.)

I think they just like inflicting pain. They call themselves conservative so they don't have to admit that they are really sadistic fascists.

I'm beginning to be convinced that religion is a good thing for these people. It may just be the thing keeping them from lighting kittens on fire or worse, lynchings etc.

The rest of the thread is a hoot too.

she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”


This lass is an ID believer in the making…

Comment by Gods iPod — April 30, 2006 @ 8:19 am

Wouldn't that be the Intelligent Designer's iPod?

*  “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization”

Or perhaps they are wrong about the 65 million years.

No creationism to see here. Move along.

Date: 2006/04/30 06:29:19, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2006,11:18)
The band Rush.

As opposed to Rush Limbaugh.

The band Rush were big Ayn Rand freaks, so maybe you're not totally off the mark here.  :p

I never got the Ayn Rand connection to conservatives. Maybe paleoconservatives, but not this new overly religious breed.

Didn't Rand put Man above all else?
Her philosophy, Objectivism, contends that the universe has existed eternally and repudiates the idea of its creation by a rational, omnipotent GOD.  


And judging by most Rush lyrics, I don't think you can equate them in any way with today's brand of US conservative.  :)

Date: 2006/04/30 06:53:16, Link
Author: beervolcano
WOW! :0

How long did that take? 15 minutes?

April 30, 2006
“Dinosaur Shocker”

Article Here

   Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

[Sidenote: I do think it would be entertaining to shock a dinosaur]
Filed under: Science, Creationism — Scott @ 7:48 am

The first part is gone, so what is this referring to now?

Date: 2006/04/30 12:41:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Specifically, Ward challenged Meyer to explain how the theory of ID could be tested or falsified. Meyer stated that the competing explanations of Drs. Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller concerning the bacteria flagellum and Type III Secretory Systems is something that could be tested to determine which one came first. Meyer countered that neo-Darwinian evolution had been heuristically unfruitful in leading science to think that non-encoding DNA was simply “junk.” Meyer insisted that design assumptions more readily led one to conclude there was purpose in such “junk DNA.”

The funny thing is that even if it were determined that the flagellum came before the secretion system, it would only falsify the hypothesis that it was the other way around. It wouldn't support ID in the slightest.

But that's a perfect quote of Dave's to counter all the crap he's been spewing in that one UD comment thread.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:35:33, Link
Author: beervolcano
JRR Tolkein's books are based more on actual history than you might think. Satan removed all references to Smaug from the Bible.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:07:51, Link
Author: beervolcano
My GF read it. and did so in about 3 sittings. She tore through that huge book like it was nothing.

So, it's an easy read.

She also said that it was very interesting and kept you guessing. It's a mystery novel more than anything.

I haven't read it and I don't plan on it. I might go see the movie, but I hate Tom Hanks.

Right after she also read Demons and Angels (or the other way around), which preceded Davinci Code but was about the same illuminati-secret society crap.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:15:34, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 01 2006,14:21)
DaveTard has a 'lab' at home?

Well Someone has to do ID research.

Wait, I thought Dave was a theerist, not an experimentalist...

Date: 2006/05/02 11:04:09, Link
Author: beervolcano
I really didn't want to make a whole thread out of this, but there wasn't a good spot for it.

I was looking through literature as I am wont to do and I came across 2 news items that were in the same Materials Research Society e-Matters emails they send out.

One was:
Nanogenerators Allow Self-Powered Nanoscale Devices

A new technique for powering nanometer-scale devices without the need for bulky energy sources such as batteries has been developed. The nanogenerators produce current by bending and then releasing zinc oxide nanowires, which are both piezoelectric and semiconducting.

and the other was:
Bacterium makes nature's strongest glue
Microbial adhesive is three times stronger than superglue.

Researchers have discovered a bacterium that makes the stickiest glue yet found. The adhesive made by Caulobacter crescentus is so secure that the bacterium can cling to a surface even when subjected to a force equivalent to four cars balanced on a coin. The glue is made out of polysaccharides, long sugar-based molecules.

The ID people really like to think that Nature always trumps humans when it comes to engineering and that humans should just devote their engineering energy to biomimetics. I've seen numerous comments (usually on UD) that Nature will always produce microscopic components and devices that are way better than anything humans could possibly make.

I say this is a sort of false dichotomy and humans can and will "outdo" Nature in almost all areas one day, and in a few areas, humans kick Nature's butt (as far as applicability and usability for us humans).

Sure, maybe this bacterium kicks our butts when it comes to making superglue (for now), but can it make a nanogenerator?

Now I am remembering grad school where a fellow student in my class discovered a biologically active antioxidant that was 50 times "stronger" than Vitamin E, clearly kicking Nature's butt on that one.

Can Nature make a nanocar?

If nanocars similar to this were actually found in Nature, I would really start to wonder about whether they were intelligently designed or not. It would also make me think that they were made (recently) by either humans or space aliens. I can't imagine what mysterious way God would chose to make these things.

OR, artificial insect eyes --
If you someone showed you these artificial eyes before anyone ever knew what insects were, then would you feel the same way wrt the nanocars?

Anyway, maybe a thread is ok for this.

What do you think? Can humans outdesign Nature? If so, does that lessen the "powers" of any putative Intelligent Designer? (and don't hit me with any "humans are part of Nature" beeswax, you know what I mean)

Date: 2006/05/02 11:22:11, Link
Author: beervolcano
The really funny thing about YECs bringing up Gold is that Gold thinks that life BEGAN in the deep hot biosphere.

IIRC, life has it's origins there (not at the poof of an intelligent wand.)

Date: 2006/05/03 09:06:10, Link
Author: beervolcano
I find myself in the literature again today.

And these kinds of papers are all over the place, but here's yet another example of human modifications to biological structures.

Here they changed the function of a channel protein so that it is pH sensitive.

If you don't have an institutional subscription, maybe you can see the TOC.


Open channels: Chemical modulators are developed to convert a naturally occurring channel protein into a pH-actuated nanovalve. The pH interval, sensitivity, and activation of the valve by channel opening are tunable through the design of the modulators. The valve is useful for releasing or mixing the contents of liposomes at a desired location, time, and dosage, for example, in micro/nanosensory and delivery devices (see picture).

Now, even reading the paper (or the blurb above) gives you the impression that these things are machines, by the wording and the way things are described. Doing this just makes it easier for the reader to understand. If the reader can make an analogy, then it is much easier to picture what's going on. I think the ID crowd capitalizes on authors' need to be clear to a semi-general audience, which unwittingly gives ID people plenty of analogy ammo.

Hmm, or on second thought, it's not so much an analogy. I mean these things are valves. They just are. Valves are machines, no? Whatever, it still doesn't affect any design/evolution claims.

2nd paragraph:
A particularly interesting property to control at the molecular level is transport across barriers such as biological membranes, as such control could easily lead to applications in, for example, sensing and detection and drug delivery. This effect has been pursued in a number of studies on the construction of functional nanopores with either synthetic molecules or naturally occurring channels, the latter mainly as -barrel structures.[1] Herein, we describe the rational design and engineering of a semisynthetic -helical channel protein by altering its intrinsic properties, such that it senses changes in ambient pH and converts this signal into the opening of a pore (Figure 1). To do so, chemical modulators were developed that allow tuning of the pH interval and sensitivity of the response (that is, steepness of the transition). Furthermore, the introduction of a photocleavable protecting group results in a light-activated pH-sensitive valve.

I like how they used the terminology "rational design."
Rational design, though, is a term that well-predates the recent usage of "intelligent design."

In summary, we have converted a bacterial channel protein into a pH-sensitive valve. When embedded in liposomes, the modified channels sense the ambient pH and conditionally release the liposomal content. The sensitivity and pH interval for channel opening were tuned by varying the hydrophobicity and pKa of the modulators.

But, here we are taking what our momma (nature) gave us and changing around to suit our technological needs.

I think I can make an analogy of my own and tie it into a more general statement.

This sort of thing is like finding a sharp stone and using it to cut up meat or fibers. Or making the stone ready to be used this way by chipping away at it until there's a sharp edge.

So this is what humans always do, and is part of human intelligent design. It largely consists of humans modifying naturally occuring structures and substances into something more useful toward human ends. This is pretty much the basis of technology.

I'm sure an ID person would call the unmodified channel proteins "machines" and likely would try to make a case for their intelligent design. But, why would they make this argument for these biological structures, but not the flintstone that some caveman chipped into an axe blade? I think that most Christians would tell you that God made all things, so he designed (made) the rock too. If the front of Mt. Rushmore is designed, why isn't the back? (Or are the faces on the back?)

I say, the more ID people keep making these comparisons between biological structures and human-designed machines, the more people will see that some of these "designed machines" have demonstrably evolved from some other structure. Then they'll start to question ID claims about all those other "irreducibly complex" machines that "couldn't possibly have evolved." If God, the Intelligent Designer, didn't directly design some "machines" why others?

Date: 2006/05/03 09:32:59, Link
Author: beervolcano
Man, Demski should have gone into politics. He's such a slick liar. Will anyone ask him to explain WHY because something is a coordinated chain-reaction it "points seductively toward design?"
Kirschner, who is quite critical of ID in his recent book, is here proposing a metaphor for metazoan development that underscores its elegant coordination and thus points seductively toward design.

It's really disenginuous and I'd say dishonest, also.

Why should this seduce anyone to ID, when you're so spicy and seductive yourself there Bill?
Oh, Bill you've seduced me.
Let me tell you.


Date: 2006/05/03 09:37:02, Link
Author: beervolcano
Here’s how it works: we find some amazing system in the biological realm, determine how to reverse engineer it, and then design and build a parallel system to serve our needs. But of course, the original system evolved by blind trial-and-error tinkering (random variation and natural selection). To think that it was actually designed because we had to design its human counterpart is just plain stupid.

See Bill? It wasn't so hard.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic here, but what you said above is totally true.

Why don't you try to be sarcastic more often? Maybe those evil Darwinists will leave you alone.

(Bill: When we find these amazing systems, they were there because of what? They were there because of genes, right? Well, humans didn't reverse engineer the genes and the transcription mechanism too did they? No, they just cobbled together parts that are similar and do things similar to those amazing systems. The designed systems don't reproduce. They certainly don't produce offspring with slight modifications. In fact, they don't reproduce at all. They must be fabricated every time - until humans actually can design a mimic to biological reproduction. Anyone seduced yet?)

Date: 2006/05/03 09:42:03, Link
Author: beervolcano
Well, no sooner do I post that last thing and pop over to UD, I read this:

Here’s how it works: we find some amazing system in the biological realm, determine how to reverse engineer it, and then design and build a parallel system to serve our needs. But of course, the original system evolved by blind trial-and-error tinkering (random variation and natural selection). To think that it was actually designed because we had to design its human counterpart is just plain stupid.

I think this should be quoted over and over.
When someone brings up a designed machine analogy, just say that Dembski thinks that it's "plain stupid."

Something like this:

"The original system evolved by...random variation and natural selection. To think that it was actually designed because we had to design its human counterpart is just plain stupid." -William A. Dembski

Date: 2006/05/03 09:49:00, Link
Author: beervolcano
Actually the most difficult problem is trying to explain how organisms that appear to be designed are in fact not designed. -ds

Actually, Dave, the hard part is determining what psychological mechanism is responsible for the "appearance of design." This is because there is no objective systematic way to determine what even "appears" designed. All these things that appear designed only do so because of subjective discrimination by some person, which may not be the same in another person. IOW, the entirety of ID is "yup, looks designed to me."

Date: 2006/05/03 12:19:38, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (TCE @ May 02 2006,21:13)
[quote=C.J.O'Brien,May 02 2006,14:35]Sign languages are fully grammatical 'natural languages.' There is no difference in principle between them and spoken languages for the purpose of first-language acquisition.

That just isn't true; I'm deaf myself :-)

I certainly don't "think" in sign which I learnt before I could lip read. I don't "think" in English either ;-)[/quote]
This is something that has come up before.
I hear fine and I speak English, but I don't necessarily think in English.

It's not like I sit there talking to myself in my head. Maybe sometimes but not most of the time. Actually, when I do that, I tend to start talking aloud to myself (if I'm alone).

But in my head, I can't say that most of the thinking is done in any language per se. I guess I just have notions and ideas of some sort that become translated as I speak about them or describe them, if I can.

You know, when you try to explain your thoughts on something but can't put it into words.

So, please people tell me that I'm not a freak and most people don't really think in English to themselves. That seems very inefficient and cumbersome.

edit: should have fully read CJOBrien's post above before posting...o well...

Date: 2006/05/03 12:28:27, Link
Author: beervolcano
I'm fully aware of Dembski's attempt at sarcasm, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic now.

That doesn't mean he didn't write those words. :D

Date: 2006/05/04 09:49:17, Link
Author: beervolcano
I understand that humans can design machines and structures that are far superior in one particular function than nature has so far, but this structure or machine is not part of an organism that must grow, survive, and reproduce.

Yes, we can design aircraft that can fly faster than any bird ever will. Part of the reason it can fly so fast is the choice of materials used to construct the aircraft. But, the aircraft doesn't have to eat or photosynthesize. It doesn't have to grow it's wings or any part of its body. It doesn't have to find a mate or release its spores. If these were requirements placed on the aircraft, then the human design of the aircraft is dismal compared to the natural design.

Could nature (evolution and/or intelligent design for argument's sake) produce a viable bird or bat (or pteradactyl) that had steel wings and jet engines? If there were a facile mechanism for extracting heavy metals from the environment and from that fashioning steel wings and jet engines, somehow I feel this animal would be lacking in other areas. (Of course, there are numerous ways organisms deal with metals, from mere extrusion as fine particles, to storage - iron -, to using the metal oxides/phosphates as a bone or a hard protective barrier)

The main point, though, was simply who can top whom in engineering machines and structures for specific functions and not who can produce the most viable organism.

There are things that nature can still kick our butts designing, and they usually hinge on the molecular-scale structure of organic materials. I'm thinking spider silk and this waterproof superglue here. The things in which humans kick butt are those things where density and bulk of the structure is acceptable in order to lend strength and toughness to the machine or structure.

One day (fairly soon actually) humans will have mastered true control at the atomic/molecular scale and will have the ability to rationally design and build-up structures that far surpass what nature has provided to us so far. But, we can and must still learn from what we find in nature, and also build upon it and improve it.

Date: 2006/05/04 15:11:15, Link
Author: beervolcano
OMG, the new post is about MEDICAL DOCTORS that say:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory.

I need a list of these doctors so I can steer very clear of them. Eh, what's it matter, actually? I guess they wouldn't be using evolutionary theory when they write me a prescription for Cialis (of course, I'll never need it!;)

Anyway, I'm upset a bit by this article that they also link to:,,2087-2157946_1,00.html

Am I the only one that thinks this is pisspoor reasoning?

Evolutionary biologists have traced the origins of laughter back 4m years to pre-humans slipping and stumbling in their first faltering attempts to walk on two legs.

In trying to explain why people laugh at things they think are funny, they say that early hominids laughed at things they thought were funny. OK, and...

This is saying nothing more than "we laugh because our ancestors laughed."

Pretty stupid, eh? It doesn't explain why the response to a funny situation is undulation of the diaphragm mixed with staccato vocalization.

Haven't they seen apes "laughing"? ####, all they need to do is watch some old Clint Eastwood movies.  :p

But seriously, what's up?

ps - those TIME covers had me vocalizing for sure...too funny!

Date: 2006/05/05 12:31:13, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Tiax @ May 04 2006,20:18)
The list of doctors is:

It contains an impressive 17 names.


Notice also where they are from: wingnut havens.

Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, Texas, and Tennessee

Date: 2006/05/05 12:33:40, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 05 2006,14:41)
Apparently an MD is a doctorate degree because we call MDs doctors.

But it is a doctorate degree.  Wikipedia calls it a "Terminal/professional doctoral degree".

Not everyone agreed with turning the physician's degree into a "doctorate", but the medical profession had and has clout.  But of course it still becomes no equivalent of the Ph.D.

IMO, it's harder to get an MD than a PhD. I don't think I could make it into or through medical school, but I made it through a PhD program in Chemistry. {shrug}

Date: 2006/05/09 11:15:43, Link
Author: beervolcano
This is a lesson for Darwinists — things are not always what they appear to be.

Is that a joke too? I hope they weren't joking. Obviously if they were joking it wouldn't be funny, but if they were joking it would be hilarious. Ironic, isn't it?

Date: 2006/05/11 10:15:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Darwin’s finches, which by legend is what led Darwin to his theory, do not exhibit evolution at all.


####! They figured it out!
What we see is selection acting to promote or suppress the frequency of pre-existing genes within a the gene pool of a single species.

Yeah, really. If that's anything, it's NOT evolution.

I would guess the mutations from breeding pair to offspring were few, meaning there would have been a more or less closely related chain of animals from the ancestor of the Grizzly we started with to the modern Grizzly.

If the neo-Darwinian paradigm is vaguely correct we should see chains of relatedness between all life. Currently we see great gaps everywhere.

Well, punctuated equilibrium cleared that up 40 years ago.

Maybe this guy can explain. He seems to have the jargon down.  :D

Once ID has a better grasp on recognizing which parts of the universe can be reliably detected or fruitfully researched as designed, (possibly through design constraints, retrodictive ceilings, or something of the like) I see this comparative approach being used as a “hypothetical imperative” more frequently since it doesn’t require a protracted probabilistic calculation.

Comment by JosephCCampana — May 11, 2006 @ 10:29 am

See? The grizzly retrodick got caught in the ceiling!
I have been wowwed by the bs.

It sounds like ID people can see the evidence for evolution, but they just can't bring themselves to call it evolution.

I have a challenge question for ID people (intended to force them to make YEC arguments):

Could a species be designed so that eventually it becomes two species? Or once a species is designed is that species forever fixed?

Maybe I'll start a thread and an ID person will show up to answer that. Of course, ID has no position on this and cannot answer this question whatsoever, but it would be interesting to see the "mental" gymnastics required to jibe ID "scientific" rhetoric with the underlying YEC worldview.

Date: 2006/05/11 10:33:44, Link
Author: beervolcano
{Can a Mod change my typo in the title, please?}

This is a challenge question for ID people.

Could a species be designed so that eventually it becomes two species? Or once a species has been designed (and manufactured), is that species forever fixed until it becomes extinct?

I would like ID people to explain how ID addresses this question.

If you can't tell me that, then just speculate.

You'll say something like "ID doesn't say that entire species are designed" and I'll have to ask where species come from in the first place...

We'll try to keep this going until we get some "solid answers."


Date: 2006/05/12 10:39:40, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (guthrie @ May 11 2006,16:25)
Its a good question.  
I can think of several answers, like "Yes, of course designed creatures dont change" and then they would walk about kinds and other such non evidence based ideas that allow them to say that evolution of whatever kind isnt happening.

Yes, but as you know, ID isn't about kinds.
biblical creationism is.

but I'd still like to know, from an ID perspective, where species come from, i.e., the origin of species

I'd like to hear from an ID person why a species cannot become two species, from an ID perspective. Why, once a species is manufactured from its design, it doesn't or cannot further speciate.

Date: 2006/05/12 10:48:39, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 11 2006,17:14)
Larry of course didn't get it, but over on his blog, I pursued this with him on the subject of coevolution.

Anyway, it's great to see the YECs in the 'big tent' make ID look stupid, talking about "kinds" and such. That's their only refuge from the question, though. Good luck getting anyone to answer it.


I don't think it takes YECs to make IDers look stupid, but it does make it easier to draw the obvious comparisons.

People like Behe though, will say that evolution happens, and mostly the way theory describes it. There are just various instances where God intervened (for some reason) to give certain bacteria flagella or to mutate a virus into a pandemic strain.

This is just a ridiculous line of thought, but it's not YEC.

But, I keep reading and hearing over and over YEC-type arguments about NS and naturalism, etc., from the ID crowd. They forget all about what ID was supposed to be, which is a watered-down version of creationism, and start spouting the full-blown concentrated biblical version. They just don't overtly say that it's YEC.

But still, I have NEVER heard an ID explanation for the origin of species. I just hope an ID person will explain it to me here.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:29:07, Link
Author: beervolcano
The NEW bacterial flagellum!

Jellyfish Nematocysts

This might be one of those relatively “simple” systems that could–like the bacterial flagellum–become a primary example used by ID proponents.


I tell you, I'm cancelling my satellite TV. This is all I need.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:50:33, Link
Author: beervolcano
I left a link to this thread in the I'm From Missouri blog and got a reply there. I would like that person to come here and discuss it, but whatever. (I don't like the 3 inch width of the frame on the comments sections.)

I left a reply saying to come here, as I will cut and paste the reply and then reply to it. Hopefully I'll get a response.

Well, beervolcano, I'm no IDer but I do have plenty of experience with designed items.

In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information. New information can never be gained by random deteriation combined with unnatural selection.

As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.

The working kind, and the broken-down kind.

However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.

After all, automobiles, airplanes, and the like can not reproduce.

This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!

Isn't that the definition of a species?

In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information.
By what definition of information?

If a rock falls on top of a house, does the house have more or less information?

If a knife becomes rusty and dull, does it have more or less information?

If a car starts making a weird noise that it didn't make before, does the car have more or less information?

As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.

The working kind, and the broken-down kind.

If it's broken and nonfunctional, then it can't pass on it's genes to the next generation. Or can it?

However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.
I really thought it was obvious that when I used the term "species" that I meant a biological species composed of reproducing organisms.

This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!

Isn't that the definition of a species?

Does this mean that the ID position on the origin of species is that every individual is seperately designed and wasn't born/hatched/budded from a parent?

I know this guy was probably parodying ID, but he's not far from the mark.

Please, ID people, come here and straighten me and this guy out.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:53:34, Link
Author: beervolcano

Date: 2006/05/13 08:14:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Note how he equates suicide bombers with those who kill abortion doctors ...

Look, Dave, if you're going to be a proper wingnut, the term is "homicide bombers."

So Dave doesn't see the similarity in "homicide bombing" a Mosque and "homicide bombing" doctors?

One man's "homicide bomber" is another man's freedom fighter I guess.

I wonder if Dave agrees with bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors? It sure seems that way.

Date: 2006/05/13 16:20:28, Link
Author: beervolcano
Excellent. Keep that up as long as he does.

Suicide bombers kill/wound as many as possible, they don’t know who the victims are, they don’t care whether the victims have done anything wrong (perceived or real), and in their indiscrete targeting even kill people of their own creed.

So it's ok to target people of another creed?
And if you think someone did something wrong, then it's ok to kill them?

W. T. F. ?

Check out the chart on
this page. Dave sounds like he's AOK with all that.

I guess this guy is a hero to Dave.

This is what he did:

19 Sep 1966 Eric Robert Rudolph born.
27 Jul 1996 Olympic Park Bombing, Atlanta. Alice Hawthorne is killed and 111 others are injured.
21 Feb 1997 Two bombs at the Otherside Lounge, a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta GA, one of which fails to detonate.
29 Jan 1998 A bomb at the New Woman All Women Clinic (where abortions are sometimes performed) explodes, killing off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson, Birmingham AL. Another person, Emily Lyons, is seriously wounded.
7 Feb 1998 Rudolph's truck recovered, Murphy NC.
14 Feb 1998 Charges filed against Rudolph for the Birmingham clinic bombing.
7 Mar 1998 Eric's brother, Daniel, cuts his hand off with a radial arm saw, videotaping the event in protest of his brother's... umm, something. Doctors reattach the hand for some strange reason -- clearly the man didn't want it.
5 May 1998 Eric Rudolph placed on Ten Most Wanted list.
31 May 2003 Fugitive Eric Rudolph arrested as he rummages through a dumpster, Murphy NC.
11 Dec 2003 Attorney General John Ashcroft authorizes prosecutors to seek the death penalty.
15 Apr 2005 Rudolph pleads guilty to 2 abortion clinic bombings, the 1996 Olympics bombing, and the bombing of a lesbian nightclub in 1997. In an 11-page statement, Rudolph explains his motives:

   "Because I believe that abortion is murder, I also believe that force is justified and in an attempt to stop it. Because this government is committed to the policy of maintaining the policy of abortion and protecting it, the agents of this government are the agents of mass murder, whether knowingly or unknowingly."


   "Those who call themselves Pro-Life and who claim that abortion is murder and those who use force to prevent it are just as morally reprehensible as the abortionists. For these I have nothing to say other that that you are liars, hypocrites and cowards. There is no more fundamental duty for a moral citizen than to protect the innocent from assault."


   "Any conscientious individual afflicted with homosexuality should acknowledge that a healthy society requires a model of sexual behavior to be held up and maintained without assault. Like other humans suffering from various disabilities homosexual should not attempt to infect the rest of society with their particular illness."

to Dave, the murders of Eric Rudolf are justified, yet an Islamic terrorist's actions are not.

Read Eric's thoughts. They hit a little close to home for some of the UD crowd.

Dave also must agree with this guy:


In the particular capital crime of murder, God has required the death of the murderer.  The very principle, the “image of God” in man, both prohibits murder and commands that the murderer be executed.   Just as men are required to refrain from murder, they are required to execute those who commit murder.
As with all forms of injustice in the world, God, who loves justice, will bring judgment in due time and right all wrongs.  Those wrongs of which we have knowledge but are unable to prove in court will not go unnoticed or un-addressed by God.  Vengeance is His and He will repay and He delegates to human authorities the task of executing vengeance (Romans 13:4)....

The question of duty arises.  Who is responsible to see that the guilty one is executed?  In civilizations with developed legal systems, the answer may seem to require no thought: police, prosecutors, jails, courts, prisons, and electric chairs all compose modern justice systems so that responsibility never is in question.  But in ruder or simpler societies, the question of duty might be less obvious.  Tribal Israel was informed by the Law of Moses that the “avenger of blood” (goel ha-dam) was responsible for administering the justice.  In a murder case this “avenger” is traditionally understood to be the nearest male kinsman of the victim though some scholars have argued that he may be a representative of the elders of the city, an official of government. ...

It has occurred to me that I ought  somehow, as fair warning,  to publicize to practicing abortionists my intent to take vengeance upon them should they in the course of their ill-chosen profession up happen on the misfortune of choosing to murder one of my children or grandchildren.  However, in the present irrational legal climate such a fair, philanthropic warning would more likely be taken as a criminal threat!

All that sounds very similar to the way Islamic terrorists justify their actions. They are carrying out God's justice. They have to do it because no one else will.

These are Dave's heroes.
Congratulations Dave.

ps- don't think I missed the irony of "Attorney General John Ashcroft authorizes prosecutors to seek the death penalty."

Date: 2006/05/13 16:55:09, Link
Author: beervolcano

from the linked-to article

Despite the tremendous strides made in nanotechnology, no device of similar functionality can yet be fabricated with inorganic materials. Furthermore, many questions remain about the basic principles by which molecular machines such as ATP synthase convert chemical energy to mechanical forces.

You know what? Despite the tremendous strides made in manufacturing technology, no one can produce and artificial flawless perfectly white 1 carat diamond. Those things must be intelligently designed.

It is surely one of the triumphs of evolution that Nature discovered how to make highly accurate machines in such a noisy environment. One marvelous example is DNA polymerase, a molecular copying machine only 13 nanometers in size, capable of copying DNA molecules with an intrinsic error rate approaching one part per million. Much remains to be understood about the general principles behind such impressive fidelity, especially as it is achieved in the violent thermal environment of a test tube or a cell.
Demski uses the quote in order to scoff at it, but read what he quoted again.

"It is surely one of the triumphs of evolution that Nature discovered how to make highly accurate machines in such a noisy environment."

So, I guess Demski is ruling out "Nature" as being the name of the Designer. I guess Nature just isn't intelligent enough. Even though the article is talking about statistics and everything being driven by stochastic thermal processes, Dembski sees all these processes as examples of some sort of teleology. I just don't get the mental disconnect.

Is Darwinism another form of neo-paganism?

Article:”One marvelous example is DNA polymerase, a molecular copying machine only 13 nanometers in size, capable of copying DNA molecules with an intrinsic error rate approaching one part per million”

Not to mention all those precise error-correction mechanisms that cooperate the copying process. We must simply assume all of these nano-machines are evolved and the Darwinian mechanisms is the only alternative. The gods of mutation and selection at work!

Comment by Farshad — May 13, 2006 @ 3:46 pm

Well, this is a perfect argument for the Space Alien ID. Since the PCR does make some errors and requires a complicated error correcting mechanism that doesn't always  work, this cannot be the handiwork of the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ, whose designs, you would think would be perfect (being a Jewish Carpenter and all.)

What I’m curious to know is if thermal fluctuation is also responsible for the double helix twisting and how this also might be related to folding and topology.

God, just take a chemistry class! The helix forms because of the glycosidic bond angles in the sugar-phosphate backbone.

And the reason I’d think this way is a Designer would make all things simple as possible between spatial worldviews.

Uh, but I thought COMPLEXITY was the hallmark of design?

{*the sound of a cuckoo clock going off...*}

Date: 2006/05/13 17:12:06, Link
Author: beervolcano
{*The sound of a whole room of cuckoo clocks going off...*}


I’ve been thinking… is ther such a thing as a liberal atheistic fundamentalist? Which should take their label and throw it back in their face.

Comment by jpark320 — May 13, 2006 @ 2:28 pm


It’s called Darwinian Fundamentalism. It’s killed more people than any kind of religious fundamentalism.

Yeah, man, didn't you hear about the Creationism Museum bombings?

Not to mention the church burnings and ebola spreading.

What about the Culture of Death fanatics?

They deserve to die, of course!

And the ultimate head spinning attempt at rationalization for abortion clinic bombers:

The mistake that Padian makes here goes deeper than just apparently failing to distinguish between forms of religious fundamentalism. This problem is common to all who are quick to dismiss all types of “fundamentalist religious extremism” as dangerous: For any course of action to be dangerous, it must serve as a threat to some state of affairs which has value in accordance with some other fundamentalistic conceptualization of the world. In order for a course of action to be “wrong”, it must be committed in opposition to some state of affairs that is “good”. Everybody–including Padian–has some conceptualization of “good” and “bad” states of affairs of varying degrees of importance, and at least some of them are considered worth going to some sort of “extreme” to influence. These can be said to be of fundamental importance within one’s worldview. Hence everybody can be said to fall under the category of “fundamentalist religious extremist”.

Comment by crandaddy — May 13, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

See? Abortion clinic bombers are OK because, come on, everyone is a fundamentalist religious extremist deep down. Surely you can sympathize.  :(

Date: 2006/05/14 09:54:57, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 14 2006,11:19)
Note to Dave2lot: Explain to me again how a man-made lake is not a reservoir.


A reservoir means you are reserving/storing the water (or whatever) to be used for drinking or some other purpose besides just being a lake. So if you have a man-made lake, but don't use the water as anything but a lake, then it wouldn't be considered a reservoir. A natural body of water can also be a reservoir if the water is used and regulated.

Date: 2006/05/14 10:19:01, Link
Author: beervolcano
Our sun is a type G main sequence star with abundant heavy elements. Heavy elements are created in supernova explosions. Thus our sun must have been preceded by one or more generations of giant stars that formed, burned up their hydrogen fuel, and went out in a supernova explosion that formed and scattered heavy elements that later generation stars can incorporate when they form out of condensing gas clouds. Stellar evolution is fairly well understood and we can observe in real time all kinds of stars in all stages of their life cycles. It is impossible for our sun to have formed and matured to its current state in any kind of scale measured in thousands of years. The earth is billions of years of old. Get used to it. -ds

WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution? The conclusions are drawn in very similar manners. He's got no problem with a big bang even though it's a huge extrapolation from observation. There is a fringe group of physicists who doubt the BB and use the same type of argumentation against it that the creationists use against evolution.

Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply".

This is the same kind of reasoning that creationists use. I too don't think the BB or inflation are explanations set in stone. They just happen to be the best explanations we have of what we observe, just like the epicycles of ancient cosmology. Sure there are many gaps in the theory, just like there are gaps in evolutionary theory, but Dave accepts them wholeheartedly and wholeheartedly rejects the theory of evolution. WHY?

Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.

Sound familiar?

Date: 2006/05/14 11:15:48, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 14 2006,16:02)
WHY WHY WHY does Dave have no problem with astronomical evolution, but huge problems with biological evolution?
I think for creationists there is a point where the level of what God did and did not do is fixed in their mind. This is why you get all sorts of different levels of creationists. The only other reason I can come up with is that stars are big and cells are small.

Most stars look smaller than cells to us. They both need magnifying devices. {*shrug*}

Date: 2006/05/14 15:07:35, Link
Author: beervolcano
Actually I was thinking along the lines that accepting both BB coupled with an anthropic principle, like in The Privileged Planet, as well as a prescribed, front-loaded, version of evolution, it more easily squares with the notion of a God. By thinking along these lines, you can welcome most scientific data, while still allowing yourself to be pointed "seductively toward design" and therefore God.

Date: 2006/05/15 04:38:54, Link
Author: beervolcano
Padian is a bigot who mocks anyone that takes the bible literally.

I’m deeply offended when I see attacks made not on ideas but instead on the people who hold them


Date: 2006/05/15 04:52:53, Link
Author: beervolcano

It’s obviously intended to poke fun at what ID opponents claim to be ID’s lack of scientific rigor, but I think it does a fine job of illustrating the lengths to which methodological naturalists will go to avoid the common sense simplicity of ID claims. If I were to redraw this cartoon, there’s really not very much I would change.

There is it again, the claim that ID does not follow "naturalism" meaning, I guess, that it requires "supernaturalism"? And do you mean that "common sense simplicity" that is "looks designed to me"?

One particular feature of the cartoon that strikes me as odd is that the IDist is trying to name the duck.


Date: 2006/05/15 04:56:40, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,09:51)

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a trend where people who use the phrase "I’m deeply offended" are almost always assholes?

I'm deeply offended by that characterization. :angry:

DOH!  :O

Date: 2006/05/15 12:50:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,13:44)
I don't think DM is reading off a script anymore -- I think he's just blithering now. He's redefined 'bigot' so broadly it includes anyone. Right about now he should be realizing this includes him, too. WHOOPS.

ID seems to be all about stretching definitions.

First they had to stretch the definition of science to fit in things like ID and astrology. Then they had to constrict the definition of creationism to only include a limited version of YEC, so that ID could not be considered creationism. Now on UD they redefine "fundamentalist religious extremist" to include everyone and they redefine bigot to apply to just about anyone. All this in order to "rationalize" an irrational worldview.

Date: 2006/05/15 13:20:17, Link
Author: beervolcano
I don't know if this will take off, but if you've ever seen Creation-Evolution headlines, it can be pretty funny and silly.

Lemme just start this thread and see where it goes.

Ok, there isn't anyone to directly lambast, but the site is so ridiculous at times, it must be shared and mocked.

Q: How did the Animal Plan It?  A: Not by watching the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Channel, but through the Discovery Channel of its own built-in Design Network.
   The evolution talk in these biomimetics stories (when it occurs at all) is, as Phillip Skell phrases it, “brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss” (02/28/2006).  What is really inspiring this explosion in productive research?  It’s the D word: biological design.  Once the researchers realize that the Charlie mumbo jumbo is only a bad habit, a traditional password in scientific circles that has lost its authority, a holy undergarment that only itches and gets in the way, productivity will be liberated in this exciting field.  Pretty soon the handicapped may be leaping over tall buildings like Superman and you may be scaling buildings like Spiderman.  Go, Bioneers!

Go Bioneers! You may be scientists that are misled by the Darwinian brainwashing, but go go go! We'll just sit back and re-frame all your hard work into a horribly malinformed one-paragraph blurb.
This leads to unjustified speculations such as those found here.  Notice the large amount of qualifiers in the above excerpt: might have, suggests, speculated.  Such just-so stories add an air of respectability to the Big Story: Evolution, but the only real facts we have here are that a jumble of bones was found, all of the same species, all in one place, and with no other species mixed in.  If you took off Old Earth glasses and put on Young Earth glasses, you would see just what one would expect the Genesis Flood to produce.

But then, of course, you'd have to use qualifiers like might have and such. Oh, but I forgot, a science like paleontology can really only say what most likely would have happened, or what might have happened, which is just a bunch of "just-so" stories. The Flood Story in the Bible doesn't use qualifiers or caveats, so it must be the Truth.
The press release is shamefully titled, “How did cactuses evolve?”  It should be titled, “Did cacti evolve?”  Apparently not; they were already adapted for their water use lifestyle from the start.  If “this sequence is common in evolution,” where the function already exists before the evolution begins, it sounds like creation, not evolution.
   Enough with the Darwinian tales.  Focus instead on the design features of these amazing plants.  The article rightly states, “The cactus form is often heralded as a striking example of the tight relationship between form and function in plants.  A succulent, long-lived photosynthetic system allows cacti to survive periods of extreme drought while maintaining well-hydrated tissues.”  That is design, folks, not evolution.

Enough with the science! Just look at the thing! It looks designed to you, right? No? Aren't you wearing your Young Earth Glasses?
Like Humpty Dumpty, a comet is more easily broken than put together as it makes its great fall toward the sun.  This destructive process cannot be maintained for long.  See Mark Looy’s AiG article on why this provides evidence that the solar system cannot be nearly as old as believed.  Claims of long age must invoke ad hoc scenarios involving unobserved sources of new material to replenish what we see disappearing before our eyes.

When I saw the headline, I wondered how this could possibly be linked to creationism. Then I got to the green part. DOH!
When God gives an animal a technology, he doesn’t do it halfway.

Yeah, it was the Fall that made it all halfway lookin, like deaf people:
Good news: evolution has figured out how to make your wounds heal faster.  Bad news: the required mutation makes you go deaf...
Darwinists, come back when you can figure out how to get the benefits without the trade-offs.  Your price is too high.  We’ll take the slower healing and keep the ears.

The last for this post:
Remember that this site is YEC, so life DID NOT EVOLVE IN ANY WAY. So tides would have jack squat to do with created life, no?
In this article on solar eclipses, however, Shostak’s own research arrived at two similar conclusions stated in the film: (1) solar eclipses have allowed humans to make significant scientific discoveries, such as the detection of helium and confirmation of Einstein’s theory of relativity, and (2) the presence of a moon like ours able to produce eclipses is probably linked to the hability of our planet.  “If tides really do encourage life, then worlds with tides similar to ours are also likely to enjoy total eclipses,” he conjectured.  “Maybe eclipse chasers are a common cosmic breed.”
He came to the same conclusions because the conclusions are scientifically reasonable and based on observational facts.  What is shameful is that Shostak gave no credit for prior research done more thoroughly on this question by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards in the book The Privileged Planet.  He pretends as if he were the first to think of these things.  He obviously knows that he appears in the film, and undoubtedly has watched it and understands its notoriety in the mainstream scientific community.  So we challenge Seth Shostak to come forward and admit that he got his best ideas (that design detection is a scientifically valid reasoning process, and that the earth is designed for discovery) from his predecessors in the intelligent design movement.  Intellectual property demonstrates the ontological character of information.  Acknowledging someone else’s intellectual contribution is the only “ethical” thing to do (and ethics don’t evolve).

Youch, those are a small sampling of the howlers that ALWAYS grace the pages of this "news site."

So, if you just want to make fun of stupid creationist arguments, this is the place. Unfortunately there isn't anyone to personally taunt. O well...

btw- Check out their Creation Scientists of the Day : Leonardo da Vinci !

Date: 2006/05/16 04:40:18, Link
Author: beervolcano
And all those homeschoolers!!!

Date: 2006/05/16 10:33:40, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (jeannot @ May 16 2006,14:56)
Quote (Steverino @ May 16 2006,14:49)
"Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. "

What is Dave talking about?
There is no evidence for self assembly of DNA and ribosomes, hence we don't teach that in classroom. ???

Actually, DNA does self-assemble. It does it all the time. It even does it in test tubes.

Here's something Dave can understand:

I know he means pre-biotic self-assembly, and of course, it is pretty unlikely that the first ribosome self-assembled from individual nucleotides and amino acids, but who makes that argument?

They always put up the same strawman arguments. This one goes back to the first "creation science" arguments. "DNA and proteins could not have possibly self-assembled out of their constituents, therefore evolution is bunk." Of course, no one claims they do or did, but that never stopped creationists. Or should I get Colbert on their asses and call them creationistas?

Date: 2006/05/16 10:51:11, Link
Author: beervolcano

What kind of reasoning says, “we predict there will be no evolutionary natural selection” on a process, then uses the confirmation of the prediction as evidence for evolution?  You can’t have it both ways.  The article stated an evolutionary principle: “For natural selection to shape the twilight years, postreproductive females should contribute to the fitness of their offspring or relatives.”   Notice that word should.  If natural selection is the be-all and end-all of existence, and if nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution, and if most biologists expected there to be a granny effect, then Reznick’s study amounts to falsification.  Grandparents everywhere should be relieved that another evolutionary principle has been falsified, because now their self-worth does not need to be tied to their tubes.

See? women live longer than they are able to reproduce. Evolution is fully and completely falsified.

Thermodynamics Defeats Evolution “in a Most Spectacular Way”

The second law of thermodynamics (2TD), what Sir Arthur Eddington called the supreme law of nature, does not permit evolution, argued Granville Sewall in The American Spectator; in fact, evolution violates it “in a most spectacular way.”  A mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, Sewall explained that 2TD applies to much more than heat flow; it applies to every real system.


The venue may have been a conservative rag, but the author knows what he is talking about.   :D

This appears to provide more slippage on the evolutionary treadmill (see 03/17/2003 entry).  Though the word “evolution” is involved, don’t be confused; this has nothing to do with macroevolution, like bacteria evolving into people.  Coevolution leads to exaggerated traits between two interacting species, like the beaks of hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate.  As with all other observed forms of microevolution, including Darwin’s famous finches, it involves the modification of existing traits – not the origin of new ones.
   Notice how quickly changes can result; Thompson referred to rapid “evolution” in native species in less than 100 years after an intruder was introduced.  Young-earth creationists could use such concepts to explain the rapid diversification of varieties and species within created kinds, and there would be nothing Thompson or the Darwinists could do to prove them wrong.  Studies like this do not establish that coevolution can be extrapolated endlessly into macroevolution.  In fact, the quote above seems to indicate otherwise: there are limits to the amount of change in the “coevolutionary arms race.”  World War II did not produce Superman.

Except show them some Hubble images of galaxies millions of light years away. And I like the analogy with Superman that doubly conflates life with non-life. They should have said "The Pre-Cambrian arms race didn't produce Tomahawk missiles."

And last but certainly not least...

Abortion Pill Can Kill

The power of advocacy to trump ethics and safety has been seen in this case and in the recent stem cell flap.  How many anxious women have been reassured by abortion providers that RU486 is a safe and private way to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Why have not these reports caused the FDA to pull this dangerous drug from the market?  When desire runs science, watch out.  That would never happen with a materialist wanting to remove God from science now, would it?

Yeah, Newton and Gallileo never removed God from science, now did they? I mean, haven't you ever heard of Intelligent Falling?

Date: 2006/05/16 10:57:42, Link
Author: beervolcano
I almost forgot.


Health from Unlikely Sources: Poison and Scum

Everything in moderation,” health professionals remind us during the holidays.  Some things, however, none of us would have wanted at all – till scientists found there was treasure in them.
   Botulinum toxin (botox), for instance, is one of the deadliest of biological poisons, but by now everyone knows it is being put to good use in cosmetic surgery.

4 posts above


Astronomers See Poison Around Star, Think Life

Evolutionists and astrobiologists like to call anyone who questions their views “people of faith.”  You have just seen one of their stories use the words believed, thought to be, possibly and might.  OK students, what are the observations?  100 stars with dust disks, and only one with two poisonous substances in their spectra.  Another observation is that these substances, if mixed on earth in a test tube by intelligent chemists, who have provided an appropriate surface in the presence of water, at the right temperature and concentration, will form some amino acids and one purine that is part of one DNA base.  Does the word life jump out of these observations?  If not, where is your faith?


Date: 2006/05/17 09:46:25, Link
Author: beervolcano
I also liked this in DS's post.
What’s extreme is thinking we have more than a small inkling of what’s really going on with evolution and the machinery of life.

But you're pretty sure that natural selection just cannot be the source of new species.

For example, we’ve all heard of the experiments where human subjects wear goggles that flip their visual experience upside down. After some period of time the brain/mind/soul flips things upright.

After reading that post, my brain/mind/soul hurts.

As I recall honeybees are the only species besides humans that have a symbolic language. Workers that find a rich food source can return to the hive and symbolically communicate directions to other workers on how to navigate to it.

Don't forget about macaques. (sp?)
Chimps/bonobos also use hand signals for certain things, IIRC.

o well
Does this look like a flagellum, or is it just me?

With what flippy brain/mind/soul glasses do you see an GD flagellum in those graphics? It's a GD bundle of GD nanotubes! It looks nothing like a damned flagellum.

hey, is it just me or does this bundle of nanotubes look like a membrane channel protein? no! it looks like a GD bundle of carbon nanotubes. SHEESH!

Date: 2006/05/18 15:20:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Imagine a "moral ladder,"

The first rung: Protect your life and help innocents protect theirs.


Who's "innocent" and of what? You're not starting from scratch here. You're starting from some subjective presuppositions.

The second rung: Protect your body, intellect and emotions and help innocents protect theirs.

Why? For what objective reason should I do this?

Third: Protect your property and help innocents protect theirs.

WHY? And wouldn't this be a corollary to the second rung? Or could the one rung be "protect the material interests of you and 'innocents'" which would cover it?
Again, there is no objective reason for me to do this?
It matters what you or others value. Why do you value certain things? Why do you value your own life or the life of others? Are the ultimate reasons objective?

Fourth: Restore those you have harmed and help innocents be restored by those who have harmed them.

Define harm. How broadly or narrowly should we define 'harm'? Am I harming people by helping them get to heaven? Am I harming people by telling them there is no heaven? How do I decide these things objectively?

Fifth: Cooperate when it is mutually beneficial.

Beneficial in what way and to whom? Physically benificial to one person or to all people? Those goals may be at odds with one another. Or maybe beneficial to the entire planet?

Sixth: Explore and understand the universe.

Why? What reason should I have to do this? To damage the universe and infect it with destructive life? Understand it so I can conquer it? What? What is objectively "good" or "moral" about doing this?

Seventh: Enjoy yourself!

Why? What kind of moral is this but subjective? Why is this any better or more moral than doing what monks do, depriving themselves of pleasure?

One upright of the ladder is "Protect your liberty and help innocents protect theirs."

The other is "Protect your integrity and help innocents protect theirs."

Liberty and Integrity are the two uprights because none of the moral "rungs" can stand up without them

Whatever. I don't see anything objective in any of this. They are just your opinions as to how people should live, but there's no objective reason for anyone to do these things.

What is beneficial and to whom? What is objectively good? or bad?

Date: 2006/05/19 09:34:52, Link
Author: beervolcano
Is Dave sure those weren't MAGIC Chinese mushooms?

They must have been, the way he's hallucinating...

DaveScot, brilliant ID theerist (AND experimentalist) will go down in history for disproving evolution with his magic mushrooms.



This comment is great.

There is an interesting paper here:

“The author concluded that the new knowledge related to introns supports the intelligent design worldview.”

Perhaps more relevant to this blog are papers like:

which investigate the loss and gain (conservation) of introns (information)in fungi.

Experiments involving conservation of intron information could be a rich source of empirical evidence supporting and furthering theory’s like Dr. Demski’s Conservation of Information.

IDers sucessfully take pot-shots at targets like RM+NS. Offering real evidence of advancement in the very promising new fields of research would be a more decisive indictment of neo-darwinism

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — May 19, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

To him, passing on genes is an example of Demski's ludicrous "Law of Conservation of Information."

Man, that's awesome.

even the abstract he links to says:
"Little is known about the patterns of intron gain and loss or the relative contributions of these two processes to gene evolution."


"Our data reveal the surprising importance of intron gain."


Date: 2006/05/19 10:56:22, Link
Author: beervolcano
The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

After about 2 weeks I was ready to draw conclusions then move on.

It's probably just a matter of time. 2 weeks is plenty time for peroxide to decompose, especially if there was ANY light around.

. Just one took off and when it took off it took off like there was no peroxide.

There probably wasn't any significant amount left after 2 weeks just sitting around.

Maybe he had them in the dark, I don't know.

Date: 2006/05/20 11:51:41, Link
Author: beervolcano
I liked the Colbert Report the other night. he had a paleontologist on as the guest. One of the ones who discovered Tiktaalik. I loved it when Colbert said "If evolution is a fact, then why do I have to believe it?"

Oh, my faves from the list:
35. You resent the implication that ID assumes the Designer has to be supernatural. After all, He could have been a space alien, right?

34. You believe that the laws of Nature, the fundamental constants of physics, and the configuration of the solar system with respect to the rest of the cosmos, all show signs of having been intelligently designed to make it possible for us to exist and to study Nature.

33. You believe both of the above simultaneously, though you can’t quite explain how a space alien could design the laws of nature and the fundamental constants of physics.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:25:37, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (steve_h @ May 19 2006,19:21)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 19 2006,15:56)
The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

Were you on your boat  at the time you thought this? - heroically peering into a perfectly adequate, though not quite state of the art, marine microscope while struggling with a nasty bout of scurvy?  No, I thought not. Evolution loses.

Sorry, I don't own a boat.

I'm not a biologist, so my gut doesn't shoot out biology answers to certain problems. I am a chemist and I know how reactive most peroxides can be. Light will decompose hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen. It might decompose into hydroxyl radicals depending on whether there were any metal ions around.  If it was mixed in with organics, it wouldn't take 2 weeks to be gone, even at room temp. If there was any air exchange, and if it wasn't bound up in a gel, it might have easily evaporated.

I don't know what the conditions were, but hydrogen peroxide doesn't like to just hang around for weeks without a damned good reason.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:34:51, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (keiths @ May 19 2006,23:25)
Dembski has posted a link to a list of 20 proposed candidates for the title "Fourth Law of Thermodynamics."

I think he's miffed that his "Law of Conservation of Information" didn't make the cut.

It's tough being the "Isaac Newton of information theory" when everyone regards you as more of a Wayne Newton.

My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]


That's the one I voted for at least.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:49:45, Link
Author: beervolcano

The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his God he will be fast tracked to a special martyr’s heaven. This isn’t just a problem of Islam. In this program I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well. The process of non-thinking called faith. I’m a scientist [well, actually, I just talk about science these days] and I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief.

Did Dawkins say this or did Dembski insert it?

If so, he has sooooo much room to talk.

I'm William Dembski. I'm a scientist [well, I'm not really and never was, but I write books and pretend to be talking about science when I'm really talking about religion maquerading as pseudo-science masquerading as science.]


“He refers to evangelicalism as ‘an American Taliban.’”

This is language abuse. No American Evangelicals are calling for establishment of a state religion (compare Dawkins’ U.K. where they’ve had a state religion for centuries), public beatings of women for immodesty, mandatory wearing of burkhas, public beheadings for adultery or religious conversion, the destruction of other faiths’ monuments, harboring of terrorists, etc.

If people who are known by their neighbors to be ordinary, decent folk are also “like the Taliban”, then being a Taliban is either okay, or Dawkins is recklessly slandering millions of people and depleting the word “Taliban” of it’s powerful connotations.

Comment by russ — May 21, 2006 @ 7:22 am

Have I been dreaming for the past 6 years? Isn't that what they keep harping about? And I'm sure Dawkins is a huge supporter of the state church in England.  ???

Has Dawkins never heard of the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, Hitler’s Germany? Every one of these regimes was militantly atheistic – i.e., they had the same faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism that Dawkins does.

bzzzt, try again. Hitler was militantly militant. He used Christianity as an excuse, just like Dubya. He never ever spoke for atheism or against Christianity. He spoke out about Jews and homosexuals and blacks, much like another Christian Organization with a familiar abbreviation.

But again, religion was only a tool for power for all these people. The communist ones saw religion as the "opiate of the masses" because if the people were under the control of religion they couldn't be under the control of the state. For Hitler, religion was a divisive tool (sound familiar) intended to point out the enemy within, the Jew, who killed Christ and all that.

It would be a neat experiment though- go back in time and stop all religions from originating- then see what happens.

They would spring up again. Not in the same form, but similar.

Well, gotta go.

Date: 2006/05/21 13:45:20, Link
Author: beervolcano
[quote=BWE,May 18 2006,21:25][/quote]
That's pretty harsh coming from a guy that can't wait to get to FSM heaven. (Not that I blame you, jesus, a beer volcano, I'd think I died and went to heaven, er.. nevermind)

I never said I had an objective moral code. I have an unobjective one, for sure. I admit that my faith is not built upon rationality.

I was just trying to show that once you just keep asking why, like a 6 year old, it soon appears that it's pretty difficult, if not impossible to build any kind of moral construct from purely objective principles.

Date: 2006/05/21 14:19:09, Link
Author: beervolcano

Making the conceptual step that prokaryotes cleaved off from eukaryotes is a big step towards accepting the possibility of front loading. This is because it acknowledges that more complex preceded less complex and that’s what front loading is all about. All the empirical evidence falls neatly into place when a LUCA with a complex genome is hypothesized. Nothing makes sense in evolution except in light of a LUCA with a complex genome preprogrammed to diversify into all we see today.

Comment by DaveScot — May 21, 2006 @ 4:55 am

How hard is it to imagine a certain type of life form that gets really complex through NS, then gets so genetically complex that, through NS, certain processes are compartmentalized so protein synthesis doesn't get too crowded, then through NS, certain parts of huge genomes 'slough off' to form simpler organisms?

How hard is it to say that if anything is front-loaded, it got there through NS. Why do we have to immediately jump to magical mechanisms?

Even the review article itself has a section titled:
Selection Gives and Selection Takes


Here's something in Dave the mycologist's field of expertise from a figure.
Genome sizes (in megabases) can increase and decrease in lineages because of events such as genome duplication and reductive evolution, as illustrated in this fungal phylogeny

Date: 2006/05/21 14:40:39, Link
Author: beervolcano
How do they know it's not:

Well, anyway, I know it's:

Date: 2006/05/22 11:04:07, Link
Author: beervolcano
That's the quote Ray Nagin just used after he won re-election in New Orleans. Just thought that was funny in itself, Ray Nagin, Ghandi disciple.
Even Jefferson would be on the ID side in the current debate (inalienable rights conferred on us by a creator is not the language of the French philosophes).

This post is by Dembski.

So Dr. Demski, in ID, the Intelligent Designer = The Creator?

As in THE creator?

Just trying to keep ID "theory" straight in my head.

(Oh, this photoshop marine thing is killing me. I was in a bad mood today too. Man, not anymore. I cannot stop laughing about that. GOD )

But, I too disagree with Jones:
“The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry,”
Nah, I'd say most of'em believed that true FAITH was something found in the Bible. True religion may be found at church, but faith and religion are not found in free, rational inquiry. Sorry Jonsey.

Date: 2006/05/22 11:19:28, Link
Author: beervolcano

Didn't Dembski once write that he wanted to defeat Darwin by ressurecting Paley?

ID is superadvanced, that's why it's been part of science for 2000 years. Ever since Aristotle right?

Then how can he call cutting-edge research 19th century mythology?
What are evolutionists doing trying to explain systems like this with a 19th Century Victorian Myth?

Then makes NO comment about it.

That's all there is for ID, I guess. Just point to actual research, scoff, then say nothing else. Great tactic, there.

Date: 2006/05/22 11:32:31, Link
Author: beervolcano
Sometimes the gems are in the comments.

A Darwinist friend concedes that all living things possess a will to live without which, in his opinion, there could be no evolution. Machines utterly lack such a will. Though there is as yet no materialist explanation for this “anima” he has faith that one day there will be.

That's why machines are poor analogs to living things, then, right?

Yeah, I'll bet that Euglena is just thrilled to be alive and would really hate to die.

Also, this "anima" is called freeking chemistry. If you want to call it far-from-equilibrium chemistry, then that would be even better. Or maybe the "anima" is love? [love = exergonic reactions] :)

Date: 2006/05/23 08:42:35, Link
Author: beervolcano

Interesting how pro-science has come to mean anti-ID. It reminds me of how pro-choice has come to mean anti-life.

So are you complaining about both?

If you were on the "right side" of this issue, you would have complained the other way around. You should have said "It reminds me of how pro-life has come to mean anti-choice."

Pro-life only means anti-abortion. It doesn't mean pro-life. It doesn't mean anti-death penalty or anti-death by war. It just means anti-abortion.

Also, pro-choice doesn't mean anti-life. It also doesn't mean pro-abortion. It means what it says.

Anyway, I'm still curious if these Dominionists are complaining about equating pro-science with anti-ID being the equivalent evil as equating pro-choice with anti-life.

Whatever Bill. have fun with your domain names.

Date: 2006/05/24 04:42:35, Link
Author: beervolcano
Just wanted to share my personal connection that I had recently with our Creator, um, Intelligent Designer, that endowed us with inalienable rights. I will thank Him every day from now on for showing Himself to me at the store. He's now hanging out with me in my own home! I can honestly say that I feel touched.

He doesn't come right out and say he's there, but I see him in his Noodly Glory.

Notice the nod to JAD on the package.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:56:30, Link
Author: beervolcano

too much cosmic confluence. This all must be signs of you know who.

But they picked a pic of Rollins where he's doing what he usually does, which is scream.

This pic reminds me a lot of preachers and the way they can scream and get all red and whatnot.

This guy says to read between the lines.

Which reminded me of Sam Kinison, who is famous for screaming and was once a preacher (for the money).

I didn't realize he had an album called
"Leader of the Banned". I'm telling you. All these coincidences cannot be just the result of mindless randomness.

Due to your mindless randomness, consider yourself second in command. - ds

Date: 2006/05/24 10:59:32, Link
Author: beervolcano
Just about all education can be labelled as indoctrination, but that's not what indoctrination is.

It has to be pretty forced. The child cannot decide what to believe for himself.

I guess the test would be to see if there is not just education going on, but downright coersion. That would be cultish behavior, IMO.

Date: 2006/05/24 13:06:34, Link
Author: beervolcano
Sorry for just jumping in here, but everyone seems to be talking about how the government should be involved in people's personal lives and dictate what they can do and who they can do it with.

But hasn't it occured to anyone that maybe the government shouldn't even have any influence whatsoever on marriage? I'm sure this has been brought up at some point in this massive thread.

I mean, gay people are married all over the place here. Their marriages just aren't recognized by the government. I say the government should not recognize any marriage, for taxes or any other reason.

Why does anyone want the government telling them what to do when it comes to marriage?

(Please, I'm not advocating marriages to cucumbers, although, who's it going to hurt? If Rick Santorum wants to marry a dog though, and the dog didn't consent, well, that's just wrong, eh?)

It should be obvious to anyone that gay "marriage" will consist of tax burden shift from those gay couples getting married to those that are not married.

I don't know whose opinion this is, but this is the kind of stupidity that is central to these arguments.

Any argument like this against gay marriage is also an argument against straight marriage. "The more people get married, the more of a tax burden then rest of those unmarried clods will have to bear." Give me a break. If the govt didn't make a special tax class out of married people, then there wouldn't be this "problem."

Sorry, probably won't return to reply.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:42:16, Link
Author: beervolcano

“Good science identifies weak links in what is known. Science should acknowledge the shortcomings in evolutionary science, especially as regards what is known about transition species.”

It does, but you being a molecular geneticist and all wouldn't know that.

the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Yet, a wooden boat carrying all the species of the world while a god in the sky flooded the entire planet sounds pretty reasonable.

Or, maybe you don't believe that part of the Bible. But you must believe that a man was born of a virgin, then rose from the dead to take away your least in order to be head of the IDEA club.

Date: 2006/05/26 11:24:12, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 26 2006,14:56)
I think George (who may or may not be a pink hippo) is asking for a banning:


“So far the book appears to be more anti-creationist than anti-ID, lol. I guess the authors either cannot see the distinctions or don’t care to.”

I admit that I have difficulty seeing any distinctions, especially on this blog. Would anyone be ambitious enough to do me a favour and come up with a quick list? Thanks in advance.

Comment by George — May 26, 2006 @ 11:49 am

"Geoffrey, can I zip DaveScott up?"


(sorry, this is probably obscure unless you're British, but take a look here for a clue as to what it's all about, or the more staid wiki version)

Sometimes kids shows can be pretty trippy. Sometimes they can be entertaining to adults. Recently, my GF came across some episodes of a Japanese show (she's into Japanese stuff)  called Pitagora Suicchi (Pythagorus Switch) which was both. It seemed to be geared for 4-6 year olds, but it had some pretty deep stuff in it. One episode was called "Nature is a model" and they showed how Velcro was like a thorny burr, how a bullet train is like a birds beak, and how a stain-proof wall was like a snail's shell. I thought that any second DS was going to burst through the wall and start yelling "See?! See?!"


great_ape, I think you are missing the argument. We are not saying that something has to be good all the time. Things like cholesterol, salt, etc. Point taken.

The problem is that error-control systems exist which are, in theory, created by a mechanism that relies on errors. Advantages are produced by error. In such a system, an error control mechanism (besides possibly being irreducibly complex) is an advantage that runs counter to the error-reliant mechanism which creates advantages.

A better analogy, if I can find one, is a system that requires salt producing something that requires no salt.

Comment by geoffrobinson — May 25, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

I started to drool a little while reading this.
It's almost like a system that requires legs producing a system that doesn't. (Whales, snakes.)

And do they think that error correcting mechanisms correct ALL errors? Ever hear of CANCER?

Doh! Wait a minute. That was ignorant on my part.
These error correcting mechanisms do not correct MUTATIONS, right? They correct transcription errors.

Please, someone educate me. (I'll hit wiki too, whatever...)

Date: 2006/05/26 11:40:32, Link
Author: beervolcano
Yeah, see, I got temporarily bit by the same confusion that they are feeling at UD over that post. The comments threw me.


I think the general ND viewpoint is that primitive life (viruses, archaea etc.) took advantage of high error rates to offer rapid adaptation. As primitive life became more complex, error correction ramped up and offered stability required by complex organisms with longer gestation periods.

The problem I see with ND’s assertion is that (1) error correction algorithms are essentially goal oriented,(2) error correction would have to improve simultaneously with an organisms survivability, and (3) the ND explanation is oversimplified and relies on circular reasoning - (it exists, so it must have been advantageous or it wouldn’t exist).

As in the flagellum example, ND interpolates for all the parts of the mechanism that cannot be explained by saying it must have just happened in numerous gradual successive steps.

I think ND will have an even greater problem using that logic to explain the emergence of a 6 bit parity code using all left handed weak bond polypeptides that is goal directed depending on the organisms longevity and gestation.

Comment by chunkdz — May 25, 2006 @ 10:32 am

(1)Goal-oriented? You just said that complex organisms came from less complex organisms. (Viruses likely weren't there yet). Was that process goal-oriented to you?

(2) Organisms don't evolve. Right?

(3) Not everything that exists is advantageous. No one claims this. ID would say that everything is designed with a function in mind. Well, there are plenty of things with no apparent function. (Why do men have nipples again?)

Yeah, about your theory as to how this "code" same to be. What is there besides a "puff of smoke"?

Cells appear to be making some educated guesses as when and what is a good thing to change and what isn’t. How beneficial would it be to differential reproduction to be able pass acquired characters on to the next generation? Real important would be my guess and from what I’ve seen so far that cells are doing it doesn’t seem out of line to suppose they have some “expert software” running in them able to make informed decisions about adaptation.-ds

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ!! Now we have conscious cells making "informed decisions."

Way to go Dave. You ARE a super-genius. Please, keep making those informed decisions of yours, you super-cell you! But please, make sure your error-correcting mechanism cuts out any bad posts you make. We wouldn't want you to look less than Intelligently Designed.

Date: 2006/05/26 19:47:13, Link
Author: beervolcano
So we're still in a position where protein form and thus function are largely a mystery,

Form and function are solved after the protein has folded, eh?
Functions of proteins are the first things to be noticed and demystified. The function, the effect, of the protein is usually seen first and is usually how it is discovered in the first place. The form will come later from physical and chemical methods, right?

Protein folding isn't a real mystery. The calculations that would precisley describe large-protein folding down to the last angstrom and femtosecond is just hard. It's not mysterious, just hard to do.

It's a red herring to talk about evolution and the mechanism of protein folding. Once the protein is translated and doing its thing, that's when its function (and its effect on natural selection) is realized, not while it's folding into its final shape. I mean, why not bring up posttranslational modification? You would think that would have much more involvement with and by genetic pathways.

What am I wrong about here?

Date: 2006/05/27 09:37:09, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 27 2006,03:07)
DS's motto: "Uncommon Dissent: Love it or leave it!"

now why does that sound so familiar...

Oh yeah, that's right, that's exactly what the Rush Limbaugh fans told me to do when I challenged the assertions for going to Iraq on the forum.

...and the same thing the LBJ supporters told objectors to the Vietnam War...

hmm, there seems to be a pattern emerging... I can't quite... make it out...

Whenever someone bitches about what the EPA did or that they hate that the govt funds the NEA or that the 10 commandments aren't posted in every courtroom in the land, I say "Love It Or Leave It." Whenever they complain about high gas prices, whenever they complain about high taxes, whenever they complain about anything, "Love It Or Leave It"  I tell them.

After a while of that, they start to realize the stupidity of the statement and how stupid someone looks for saying it.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:00:29, Link
Author: beervolcano
The whole ozone thing seemed fishy to me from the start.

People were saying things like "CFCs made the 'ozone hole'" as if they knew for sure that this is the case.

It's still not certain that this is actually true. It's also not sure AT ALL whether continued use of CFCs would deplete the ozone around the globe.

Its all well and good to play it safe and stop using CFCs if there are alternatives, but all these claims of certainty are not warranted. I mean, shit, a Nobel Prize was awarded for this crap.

Let's take a look at the language in the article though, which is a little better than the OP in this thread.

While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend. For the last 9 years, worldwide ozone has remained roughly constant, halting the decline first noticed in the 1980s.

When did we have the ability to start measuring global ozone levels? When we started measuring were the levels in an overall decline? Were they increasing in places and decreasing in others? Why? Now, overall global levels have been constant for the last 9 years. Why? Can we unequivocally state that it's because of the Montreal Protocol?

Thankfully, the article says    
The question is why? Is the Montreal Protocol responsible? Or is some other process at work?

It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.

And can we accurately work out what factors really affect the trend?    
Sorting out cause and effect is difficult, but a group of NASA and university researchers may have made some headway. Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.

May have ... made some headway ... into finding out.
That hardly warrants anyone claiming that CFCs definitely significantly deplete the ozone layer of the entire planet.

I guess the article hasn't been published yet, so I can't comment on it directly, but that's not the point.

To me this type of thing is not a matter of conservative/liberal, it's a matter of stating things as absolute fact when we don't really know for sure.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:43:44, Link
Author: beervolcano
Ok, to #### with it.

Second, the most obvious opposition to gay "marriage" is due to the effect of rendering marriage of any larger societal meaning.  This is the MAIN MOTIVATION behind the push for gay "marriage."

So, when gay people say they just want to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital or let them inheret their property by default or file for joint insurance policies, what they REALLY want is to undermine the "larger societal meaning" of marriage. Yeah, makes sense.

The problem is the radicalness of the "other" side and its insistence that no legitimate argument can be made in opposition to gay "marriage."
An argument can be legitimate and be totally wrong. All I have ever said, is that any argument against gay marriage that is not really based in religion will invariably be an argument against heterosexual marriage too.

Let's dissect this specifically.  First, "liberals" don't believe in "slippery-slope" arguments because a belief in such arguments would force them to face the consequences of their actions.  That's why they deny any and all "slippery-slope" arguments.  
Haven't been paying attention to the Privacy debate have you? These are all slippery slope arguments made by liberals. Oh, the NSA just says they are spying on terrorists, but it's a slippery slope and they might be spying on their political rivals or even private citizens. Net Neutrality is another slippery slope argument made by liberals. First they wall off websites that didn't pay enough, then they control your lives...classic slippery slope stuff.

Most "liberals" (especially the ones on this forum) have no real experience with real racism yet they pontificate like they were blacks in the 1960's or homosexuals in the 21st century.  Likewise, most real traditionalists have little experience with real racism because oppressing blacks or homosexuals is really only something "liberals" are always ranting about.

This is some amazingly boneheaded stuff right here.
I've never been in a war, but can that stop me from opposing war?

I don't just want to know if a particular "ideal" will benefit some particular minority.  I want to know if this "ideal" will benefit our nation as a whole?
Wow, man, wow! I'm sure I could pull out numerous analogies to show why this is totally fascist thinking. If the majority of the nation is xian, then who cares about some piddling minority like jews or athiests? If the majority is white, who cares about those damned asians? Lesbians? Who cares what happens to them as long as the rest of the country isn't "burdened" by letting them have legal marriage rights.

I say the country as a whole would benefit if the govt got completely out of the marriage business. Don't you?

It is the end game for the radical homosexuals (those that have emnity towards traditional marriage, family and children).  They do exist, no?


At least not as a political entity. There may be one or two nutcases out there that thinks this, but come on. You might not be so paranoid if you laid off the crack. Once you realize that you are being manipulated and motivated by fear, you might become more reasonable about things like this. Once you realize that Republicans are using this as a wedge issue ONLY and have no real desire one way or the other as long as it gets people like you off their butts to go vote for their corrupt asses. If those damned gays didn't want to be treated like everyone else, they couldn't use it as an issue right? Just like if those damned blacks hadn't started so much trouble, racist politicians wouldn't have a platform, would they?

Once this foundational criteria is toppled, marriage is meaningless in any cultural context.  It is simply the assertion of the will of the individual for societal validation.
Is this even supposed to mean anything?

From PuckSR:    
Honestly...I'm not at all concerned about "destroying" the sanctity of marriage.  I am also not opposed to "opening the flood gates".  I am opposed to half-ass legal reform that is selectively beneficial to a very small minority(gays who wish to get married).
That's the way I see it. get govt out of marriage altogether.

But in lieu of that, for now, most gays would settle for the half-assed legal reform.

but the majority have a problem with the enforcement of legal documents, commonlaw marriage, financial classification of marriage, work benefits for married people.

Here's an example. It's not a huge deal, but it's just illustrative.

Personally, I don't see a real need to be married. If my gf and I wanted to have kids one day, then we'd get married, for them. But until that day, there really isn't any need in my eyes to go through an expensive ceremony, sign contracts, and buy rings and all that just to be together. So we've just been living together (in sin! ) for the past 6 years. Now, I don't have dental insurance right now, but she does. It would be cheaper on both of us if I could be on her policy. But we can't because we're not married. Ah! But at her company if we were the same sex, we could. This is obvious discrimination. Non-married (legally) gay partners can apply for joint health/dental insurance policies, but non-married hetero couples cannot.

Again, this isn't a big deal to me since I could just go get my own policy for more money, but it's just illustrative of the kind of petty BS that permeates this whole "debate."

Date: 2006/05/27 10:51:39, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 27 2006,15:01)
After a while of that, they start to realize the stupidity of the statement and how stupid someone looks for saying it.

yer a fool fer sanity, BV!

more power.


'ppreciate it! But maybe you won't want me to 'power up' after disagreeing with you on the other thread.

(shrug) O well! :)

more power (of greyskull, of course) back at ya

Date: 2006/05/28 11:15:46, Link
Author: beervolcano
You need to distinguish between ordinary homosexuals and the radical activists.  Ordinary homosexuals may want these things, but this isn't the underlying motivation of the radical gays.

Ah, I see. So the goals of an exceedingly small minority of a very small minority of people (gays) should be the thing we focus on. But again, I have never heard or seen any gay activist call for the destruction of heterosexual marriage.

I think maybe you are creating a strawman here.

You mean an argument FOR gay "marriage" that isn't based on traditional marriage is a illegitimate argument?
What? Are you trying to confuse me? I'm saying that arguments against legal gay marriage may be legitimate, but that doesn't make them right. Also, most arguments against gay marriage that do not involve a religious component tend to be arguments against all marriage. They are usually arguments that there will be some sort of economic burden on the rest of us, which would be the same regardless of the gender of those getting married. I don't agree that there will be any real difference economically since we are talking about 1-2% of the population here.

So "slippery-slope" arguments are legitimate in regards to the potential negative consequences of gay "marriage?"
I made no comments to the legitimacy of any argument. I was simply correcting your assertion that liberals don't make slippery slope arguments.

No, but if you accuse someone of "racism" because they discussed interracial marriage in a critical way then you a least have to have either some experience with racism or some experience with the person you are accusing of racism.  Since I was accused of racism in my discussion of interracial marriage, I was perplexed how such a conclusion could be reached by said "liberals?"
I don't know anyone without SOME experience with racism. And an argument can be racist without the whole person being racist. The only type of argument that I can think of against interracial marriage that isn't fully racist are those that say that it would upset the social fabric, which translates roughly to "Other people are racist, so we wouldn't want to anger them, so let's not allow interracial marriage."

I say the country as a whole would benefit if the govt got completely out of the marriage business. Don't you?

Why would our society decide that traditional marriage was no longer in need of exaltation?
See? You're the one that wants special treatment for a certain class of citizens. Exaltation?

Didn't you say the motivation behind gay "marriage" was to get things on a personal level and now you want to scrap the whole institution?  Your stand is very much equivalent to the radical gay's stand.
When did I say anything about scrapping the whole institution? The govt doesn't (isn't supposed to) get involved with the institution of religion. Yet, the institution is quite deeply rooted in our society. It seems like your stand is very much equivalent to Dominionists' stand.

And if you really believe that radical homosexuals don't exist as a political entity then you must explain who is behind this push for gay "marriage?"  Who?
Regular gays.

Yes, it means that the argument for gay "marriage" is...

I want it, therefore I should get it!
No, it's "One group of people have it, why shouldn't we?"

Date: 2006/05/28 11:31:01, Link
Author: beervolcano
1.  lab studies showed exactly how CFC's affected ozone degredation.  there were hundreds of published studies on this in the 70's and 80's.  perhaps you should have read a few of them?  Heck, I even remember my old high school chemistry professor having us look at the chemistry involved in class.

I'm not retarded. I'm fully aware that CFCs (chlorine radicals actually) react with ozone. So do a lot of things. Ozone isn't terribly stable, being an odd-electron molecule and all, and lots of things can react with it.

2.  field studies with ultra-high-flying jets that could do stratospheric sampling conclusively demonstrated the effect of CFC's on stratospheric ozone in the early and mid 80's.
Did they also screen NOx gases too? H2S? The lot? Yes, CFCs affect ozone. Yes, that part isn't a mystery.

3.  global levels of ozone and CFC's can be indirectly measured via satellite sampling (looking at UV irradiance measures, etc.) and again, by subsampling directly with UHF jets.
And they've been doing this for 100 years? 200? You think they have an accurate baseline from which to plot trends?

4.  you ignored the part of the article which mentions the theoretical models that were developed in the late 70's/early 80's to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone depeletion.  these models were based on stratospheric ozone (again, as mentioned even in the news article).  Current measurements EXACTLY fit the predictions made for stratospheric ozone regeneration based on measured levels of CFC reductions in the stratosphere.
I hate to say it like this, but there were also computer models that said that the Kyoto protocol would hurt the US economy. Computer models can say a lot of things.

Of course, CFCs react with ozone. But can we make catastrophic predictions based on that? That's my whole point. Like global warming. Obiously CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, but the atmosphere/biosphere is much more complicated than simply saying, "increased CO2 means that coastal cities will flood in 50 years."

5.  Yes, the lower level atmospheric ozone is more complicated, and because of variable unpredictable inputs (like volcanic), models don't fit as well.
Volcanos spew stuff well into the stratosphere.

thanks for reminding me of some of the ridiculous arguments made against the protocol before it was finally established, and showing the lurkers here the same.
I made NO argument against the protocol. I made arguments against making doomsday claims based on minimal information.

I'm sure some of them are too young to remember.
Too young to remember 1995?

oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed
which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it.

Date: 2006/05/28 11:38:55, Link
Author: beervolcano
I used this page as a statistical source while doing a paper of the Montreal Protocol.


"In the area over Antarctica, there are stratospheric cloud ice particles that are not present at warmer latitudes. Reactions occur on the surface of the ice particles that accelerate the ozone destruction caused by stratospheric chlorine. Polar regions get a much larger variation in sunlight than anywhere else, and during the 3 months of winter spend most of time in the dark without solar radiation. Temperatures hover around or below -80'C for much of the winter and the extremely low antarctic temperatures cause cloud formation in the relatively ''dry''stratosphere. These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules.  This phenomenon has caused documented decreases in ozone concentrations over Antarctica."

"In 1984, when the British first reported their findings, October ozone levels were about 35 percent lower than the average for the 1960s. When the first measurements were taken the drop in ozone levels in the stratosphere was so dramatic that at first the scientists thought their instruments were faulty."

"The U.S. satellite Nimbus-7 quickly confirmed the results, and the term Antarctic ozone hole entered popular language."

I've seen this all before.

Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.

and he was correct in pointing out the model's failure to predict results in the lower atmosphere (missed by half; I've seen worse, but still)
When did I mention this? Never.

Date: 2006/05/28 11:50:25, Link
Author: beervolcano
From the wiki article:

There is a slight caveat to this, however. Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear: ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions. But at the moment this is not clear.

Even though the stratosphere as a whole is cooling, high-latitude areas may become increasingly predisposed to springtime stratospheric warming events as weather patterns change in response to higher greenhouse gas loading.
It's just plain complicated.

Date: 2006/05/28 13:43:49, Link
Author: beervolcano
sorry, i was evidently giving you too much credit.

I thought that was part of your argument based you quoting this part of the article:

It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.

this was in response to explaining why the model did not as acurately predict ozone changes in the lower atmosphere, so I naturally thought that's what you were pointing out.

The "ozone layer" means stratospheric ozone, not tropospheric ozone.

so sorry.

really, I think you're digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but go right on ahead, don't let me stop you.

again, it's not like I haven't seen this argument before.

And it's not like I haven't seen people making doomsday predictions based on quite incomplete data.

at this point I suppose there's little point in me reiterating that you take a gander at the subsampling studies on levels of CFC's in the stratosphere that were used to build the models to begin with?


I would have to do a lit search. Apparently you already have. Maybe you can just give me the weblinks you used to find these articles.

The same kind of objections could be made against the causes of global warming, Beervolcano.
Precisely, and the wiki quote above says that the two issues may be linked.

I agree that humans can have an impact on the atmosphere. I think you people assume I'm coming from a different position from what I actually am.

It's just that these things are systems involving the whole earth and the earth has various feedback loops to buffer (or amplify) any changes occuring in the atmosphere, which is affected by the biosphere, which is affected by the geosphere, on and on.

If we want to be safe, go ahead. Have the Montreal Protocol. If we don't know wether or not our actions may cause future catastrophe, then we'd better play it safe.

Maybe the only way to do that is to scare the pants off everyone by feeding them these doomsday, worst-case scenarios. Hey, it worked for Bush.

Hang on- Beervolcanoes argument looks very similar to that used by YEC'ers.  No insult intended.
In what way?

Date: 2006/05/28 14:02:20, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (Fractatious @ May 28 2006,18:57)
Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.

... ... I have NO idea.


Date: 2006/05/28 14:22:59, Link
Author: beervolcano
[quote=Bob O'H,May 28 2006,02:07][/quote]
For example, it is observed that introns (’junk’ to RM+NS) have Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) of the same order as human langauge.

Was human language Intelligently Designed?

The argument from incredulity vs. The argument from gullibility is a false comparison in their post.

An argument from incredulty is simply saying, "I can't believe it happened the way you purport simply because I don't believe it, despite the evidence."

As far as an argument from gullibility. Maybe there are people trying to convince you that their theory is absolutely the way something had to happen. Most people, on the other hand, say that here is one plausible scenario backed up by evidence. If you absolutely believe something had to happen, based on very limited evidence, then perhaps you are either being gullible or expressing faith in your beliefs.

Well, there's an interesting delimma. If belief in Darwinism is an argument from gullibility and an expression of faith, then belief in Christianism(ity) must certainly be an argument from gullibility. That would also mean all faith is an argument from gullibility.

Nice going, Bill. You convinced me that you are a very gullible person.

"Right on!"

Date: 2006/05/28 14:26:35, Link
Author: beervolcano
For the true Darwinian fundamentalist they are neither causes nor effects.

Right on!

Date: 2006/05/29 07:27:22, Link
Author: beervolcano
Read this page:

It explains things way better than I can.
The problem I have with this page is that it tries to discount the theory altogether. I have no problem with the idea that CFCs can destroy ozone or that human made CFCs make it into the stratosphere and destroy some ozone (which becomes replaced.)

What I personally have a problem with are all the scare tactics that were used to persuade people to stop using CFCs.
The public was left with a distorted view of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer.

Their theory was based on a fact, however. CFCs will break down in ultraviolet radiation and release reactive chlorine. The theory was that if the CFCs could be lifted into the air 10,000 meters where the level of UV would increase dramatically. CFCs would probably remain stable until they reached the ozone layer where it would be too vulnerable then break down and destroy the all-important ozone layer. It's a very unstable theory but that did not stop environmentalists. The case was most difficult for the defense which needed to prove that this does not happen. All the prosecution needed was a theory backed with highly emotional and exaggerated disaster scenarios.

When the ozone hole didn't show up during the winters of 1989 and 1992, the debate began to disentegrate but NASA came back in 1992 with new reports of high levels of chlorine in the north pole. Something that had never been seen before, an ozone hole in the arctic! But still, 8 years later there has never been an ozone hole in the north pole.

Then you'll find some pages saying that these claims are myths.

Look, it has to be extremely cold in the stratosphere for there to be an ozone hole. You need a set of fairly specific conditions. These conditions can never be global. They will pretty much remain around the poles, and major depletions have never been observed around the north pole. If global warming is right and the models that show the antarctic becoming colder, then this means less ozone no matter what.
Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.

And Al Gore can tell you that 2005 was the warmest year on record, globally. Based on what's been said before, it must have been one of the coldest years for the antarctic stratosphere. The colder it gets, the more PSCs form and you get less ozone.

Look, the OP and the article (which I still can't find, must not be on the web yet) say that the Montreal Protocol is responsible for the steady levels of ozone. While they may have evidence to back up this claim. It doesn't mean that they can claim these things unequivocally.
While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend.
Mid latitude levels fluctuate within a few percent. This is what they are measuring. Or did they just say that the Montreal Protocol ISN'T working because "the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide"? Hmm.

please tell me you didn't just take that as support for your argument??
What? That we don't know how natural the ozone hole may be? We don't. We don't know if there was one there before we started manufacturing CFCs. We certainly don't know if continued use of CFCs would give everyone cancer. Play it safe, fine with me. Don't make the things, they aren't essential for living, but don't go around saying "See See! We saved the Earth!"

are you on something?
An internet message board, you?

In my first rebuttal in incorrectly used "lower atmosphere" to refer to lower stratosphere.  However, this is what I was on about:
No biggie. I just responded to what I read.

"Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
But at the poles, it seems to not be working?
Or can we say what's working and what's not?

tell you what BV and all, if you want to challenge the findings of this paper, and all the research that lead to the protocol, go right on ahead.

feel free to show me the models that would predict the same results based on changes in H2S, or nitrous oxide, or whatever else you wish.
See? Just like the article above. It's easy for you to say that all these scare tactics were warranted because there are people who already invested lots of time to make their case. All you did was point to their work. Now, you're challenging me to duplicate years of work by 100s of people. Gimme a break.

To me, what I see is beervolcano attempting to start an argument based on his assumption that any of the variables he mentions were never covered by anyone involved with the models used to support the protocol; which is a pretty ridiculous position to take
What I can see is a lot of exaggeration. There is a theory, yes. It takes into account many variables, yes. I don't have a problem with the science that was done. I have a problem with the exaggerations and appeals to emotion made on the political level in order to scare people into believing certain things, like "If you don't stop using Freon, we'll all get cancer."

In fact, if you're really interested (are you?) i would highly encourage you to do so.
Really, I'm not that interested, but you seem to be emotionally invested in this. Did you get scared? Is that why you changed your voting habits? Fear? Hey, it works, so what am I complaining about? They are just doing what works.

I just don't think it logical to expect 30 years of research to be overturned because you thought they might have forgotten to include NoX or H2S in the models.
Gimme some links man. You've obviously read all this and know right where all this stuff is. I don't want to have to so a Sci-Finder search, that'll take all day and I've got work to do.

onto another thing.  It's been my experience that the "chicken little" argument usually comes from those that have never had to deal with Government agencies or representatives of congress.

If you want to accomplish ANYTHING, you almost HAVE to overstate your case.
Hey, worked for Bush!

And I haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet, so the war in Iraq must be working!

But ok. Maybe you HAVE to say "We're all doomed" before anything will happen at all. So, whatever. Then later you have to justify all the money spent by saying "It's working. The places we measured show steady ozone levels and we figure it's because of the protocol. Never mind the other places that don't. Our plan is a success!" (Bush version, "The war is working because people voted. Never mind the bombings and nasty things on TV. Our plan is a success!")


hmm, this does bring up a bit of an issue if we want to actually hash this out.
I just figured you had access to all this stuff. Sorry, I don't have time for this. I can't believe I've just wasted ~20 minutes typing this post out. Crap, I have to get back to work!

I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries.  the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to.  I'd bet that both you and I are in the same boat that we can't afford easy access to anything but abstracts these days.  If you can find links to abstracts to support your refutations, at least I can check them out the next time I hit the library.
I have full subscriptions to just about citation you can find. Just gimme some citations. Er, well, actually, some journals don't put things before 1995 on the web, but some have their entire archive there. We'll just have to see.

I just don't want to have to search for this stuff. I can if I need to, but you know.

and no, wiki doesn't qualify as primary literature
I thought I was using a supplied link? Maybe not.

Again, just find me the citations that you are so familiar with and I'll look them up. Heck(?), I'll even try to upload whole papers somewhere for mutual benefit.
Here's a latter article from Nature.
Will read it later.

Date: 2006/05/29 07:36:21, Link
Author: beervolcano

Just link directly to the article. If someone has an institutional subscription, then they'll see it. If not, they'll be prompted to give their password anyway.


I think there is a possibility of their leaving some stuff out.
My experience with computer modelling is more of the DFT, molecular mechanics, and Gaussian type ab initio stuff. In most of these cases it's garbage in-garbage out. What comes out is very dependent on what goes in. It can either be very accurate or very inaccurate. And when there's nothing experimental to check by, then you really don't know what you've got.

It's getting better, though.

Can I ask you if you know whether these ozone models predict utter catastrophe?

Date: 2006/05/29 09:54:04, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 29 2006,13:47)
no, BV.  You're the one who challenged the paper and the position.  You're the one who needs to provide evidence to that effect.

If it's of interest to you, feel free, but if you don't have time, don't.

It's already a resolved issue in my mind, but I'd be more than happy to examine any specific primary references you run across, including the ones you posted above.

If you actually do have some access, you can search Current Contents for any of the hundreds of references on this stuff from the 80's, but that's your job, not mine.

ah, and while we're at it:


oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed  

which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it.

well, it has nothing to do with experimental methods or results, but it has a lot to do with interpretations and the politics involved with making the protocol work.

You didn't provide the paper. You provided a news story about it.

You started this thread making some grandiose claims. (Well, citing a news story that made grandiose claims.) and then didn't say anything but nya nya those Republicans were wrong.

Wrong about what? That everyone would have cancer unless we stopped using CFCs? and methyl bromide, etc.?

Now, I have to look up 30 years of research to back up my claims that there wasn't some huge crisis to begin with?

As far as politics influencing science, I wonder if politics had anything to do with this sort of stuff:

Remember hearing that frog populations were linked to global warming?
"An invasive frog species may be implicated in the spread of a fungus linked to global amphibian decline, research indicates."

An earlier article links it to the fungus too, but darn it if they don't want to give up on global warming killing all the frogs.
Global warming spreads the fungus! Oh no!
"The fate of amphibians has previously been connected with the chytrid fungus and climate change, but scientists were puzzled because the fungus is known as a more effective killer at lower temperatures rather than the higher temperatures usually associated with global warming.

But scientists now believe they have unravelled the mystery.

General warming is causing extra cloud cover over the tropical mountains favoured by the harlequin frogs. This means cooler days locally and warmer nights, providing the conditions in which the chytrid fungus thrives. "

We needed to blame this on global warming SOMEHOW so we won't look stupid for blaming it on global warming for years. So this fungus couldn't kill all these frogs unless global warming helped it. See? It's heads global warming is the bullet, tails global warming was the trigger. Either way global warming is responsible for a disaster. I mean, that's what global warming does, right, cause disasters?

I know we weren't talking about global warming. I, though, was talking about claiming things that we aren't too sure about as absolute truth and then making catastrophic predictions based on that. Then, going back and justifying all the claims by making even more grandiose claims about the success of all their efforts in averting the catastrophe!


certainly you don't think that politics had nothing to do with the preponderance of conservatives speaking out against the protocol and the general effects of CFC's, do you?
If by politics you mean following what someone says simply because they are on TV, then of course politics had something to do with it. Just like politics had something to do with all the people that opposed them. You don't think all those people analyzed all the data themselves and came to the same conclusions, do you? Or did they listen to someone on TV, see what the other side thinks, then base their opinions on that?

edit: yikes, I didn't see all those other posts from you.

I'll have to come back to this later when I get home from work tonight. I won't mess with this until about 9pm. (It's almost 3 now).

Date: 2006/05/29 11:07:55, Link
Author: beervolcano
Ok, I've got a few minutes anyway. I hate getting into thise things because they take forever.

what can we say but that we have evidence to support a theory?
That's not the way you put it in the OP.

Basically it went like this.

1. We were right!
2. They were wrong!
3. The Montreal Protocol worked!

That's saying a lot more than "we have a theory that the Montreal Protocol had some effect in a part of the atmosphere, but wrt to other parts, whether it had an effect or not is more ambiguous."

Moreover, it seems you are conflating the "science" of the work, with the politics involved in getting a protocol to fruition.  The two are not always (actually rarely) related.
Actually, what I am doing is saying that certain people have made grandiose claims based on limited data. These grandiose claims were used to make even more outlandish claims in order to affect public policy. Later, studies are done whose conclusions are, of course, debatable. These debatable conclusions, though, are touted as being a successful report card for the earlier grandiose claims.

Is it that all of the data that went into the models predicting the effects of CFC's on ozone concentrations in situ are wrong?
Did these models predict catastrophe?

All you did was refute their work.

I did not.

Maybe Stevestory can appreciate your moving of the goalposts.

Look, we are not headed for some global disaster by using freaking CFCs.

right now, we're still left with the "chicken little" approach being the primary MO to accomplish anything in congress.
Enough of it though and the effect will wear off. It won't work after a while. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that we'd never get into another hopeless quagmire of a war after Vietnam, but hey...

It wasn't a case of republicans challenging the data with with actual research, it was a case of complete denial of the problem to begin with.
Well, anytime I see someone arguing against everyone dying because of no ozone layer, I see them coming with the same data from the same research and simply pointing to what they think will make their case. But this is on the internet. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there are objectors to this who object based on the same data being used by the proponents of the theory.

are they arguing for scientific prudence, or are they arguing for some other, rather obvious reason?
Obvious reason? It's not so obvious to me. I can understand global warming and oil. Oil is the most commonly traded commodity on the planet. CFCs - not so much. There are also alternatives to CFCs. They don't work as well, but they can be bought and sold just the same. Some have higher profit margins even. So, no I don't see the "obvious" reason for people to doubt the notion that there will be some global ozone hole.

do i need to point out the parallels between the ozone issue, global warming, and the creationism/evolution issue?
Point them out. Please. Make sure that it's all backed up by citations from the literature. Nothing less than fully annotated internet discussions, I always say.

the politics surrounding the protocol, and the science.
Precisely, and they both affect each other.

Date: 2006/05/29 11:25:31, Link
Author: beervolcano

?? In what way?

What was the Montreal Protocol intended to stop (or slow)?

I was focusing entirely on the republicans who kept denying there was a problem, at all.

If we're not going to die from UV rays, then what was the problem that Montreal was supposed to address?

From the treaty:

.Recognizing that world-wide emissions of certain substances can significantly deplete and otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and the environment,

I know you don't like wiki, but here you go:

In 1973 Chemists Frank Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, at the University of California-Irvine, began studying the impacts of CFCs in the earth's atmosphere. They discovered that CFC molecules were stable enough to remain in the atmosphere until they got up into the middle of the stratosphere where they would finally (after an average of 50-100 years for two common CFCs) be broken down by ultraviolet radiation releasing a chlorine atom. Rowland and Molina then proposed that these chlorine atoms might be expected to cause the breakdown of large amounts of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere. Their argument was based upon an analogy to recent work by Paul J. Crutzen and Harold Johnston, which had shown that nitric oxide (NO) could catalyze the destruction of ozone. (Several other scientists, including Ralph Cicerone, Richard Stolarski, Michael McElroy, and Steven Wofsy had independently proposed that chlorine could catalyze ozone loss, but none had realized that CFCs were a potentially large source of chlorine.) Crutzen, Molina and Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on this problem.

The environmental consequence of this discovery was that, since stratospheric ozone absorbs most of the ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation reaching the surface of the planet, depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs would lead to an in increase in UV-B radiation at the surface, resulting in an increase in skin cancer and other impacts such as damage to crops and to marine phytoplankton.

So after hanging around in the stratosphere for 50-100 years (how long did it take to get there?) it starts to deplete the ozone layer leading to catastrophe.

Supposedly the first ozone hole was truly measured in 1976 (or 1956 depending on whom you ask). So are the CFCs from the 1920s responsible?

What about chloroform and methylene chloride? These are volatile and can hang out in the atmosphere for quite a while. Yet we use these solvents by the train load, all over the place. We spew Cl2 straight into the atmosphere in some places, especially during the manufacture of magnesium metal (as well as others).

Look, I'm sure all these papers you speak of will take all this stuff into account. We just have to find them.

without having done so, I can imagine this argument going round and round and round.
Yes, it has already.

It's hard to seperate the science from the politics. ####, the first experiments with CFCs and ozone led some guy to freak out and head straight to the House of Representatives.

In some areas, it's hard to pick the politics out of the science. Take the hockey stick plot in the golbal warming debate.

Date: 2006/05/29 11:36:42, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,15:30)
global warming denial is a good example of moving goalposts. For a long time, they republican types denied there was any warming. While one or two still do (Rush Limbaugh, for instance), most have moved to the less ridiculous claim that it's happening, but we don't know if it'll be bad.

Actually, it's at the point over whether the temperature of the entire planet can be drastically affected by human activities.

It's definitely a possibility and we should play it safe, but...

Who knows?

Anyone claiming to know for sure is lying.


A quick aside:

The ozone "hole" is more like an ozone "crater."

Can someone explain the red ring around the ozone "hole"?

It's at the North Pole too. There is a ring of very high levels of ozone around a dip in ozone. Can anyone here explain it?

Date: 2006/05/29 11:51:54, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (sir_toejam @ May 29 2006,16:32)
If we're not going to die from UV rays,

are you now going to say that there is no evidence that there is an increase in skin cancer with increasing exposure to UV?

I'm going to stop here until i finish reading the articles you posted, and continue tonight.

Wait, I thought you said that "dying from UV rays" was a Strawman.

Date: 2006/05/29 12:02:19, Link
Author: beervolcano
Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,16:47)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,17:36)


Actually, it's at the point over whether the temperature of the entire planet can be drastically affected by human activities.

That's old and busted. Accepting that we are, but denying the consequences, that's the new hotness.

What you posted was a guy saying that "man made global warming is real" that linked to a clip of a report that simply said warming is happening. I didn't see where it concluded that "man made global warming is real."

I for one am totally on the fence on this one. I have yet to be convinced either way.

All I know is that release of CO2 by humans, which is constant and ever increasing, must eventually have some effect on the atmosphere. Whether it'll mean less deserts or flooded coastlines, I don't know either.

PEOPLE on this thread. You must understand that I am a huge skeptic. It takes A LOT of convincing to get me to totally believe something. Just because I'm making skepitcal arguments against certain politically hot topics doesn't mean anything wrt my political affiliation, of which I have none.