AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: bystander

form_srcid: bystander

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: bystander

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2005/10/23 22:15:36, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 01 2005,14:35)
See F does not equal MA as in your stupid remarks. F is proportional to MA and the formula requires the addition of a constant which varies with the system of units, usually written F=ma/gsubc  and in the engineering system the constant of proportionality is 32.2 lb mass ft/lb force sec**2

Sorry F=MA full stop. American's need the proportionality because they don't use metric units. It's not some kind of universal constant.

Force is in Newtons . Meter2
Mass is in Newtons
Acceleration is in Meter2


Date: 2005/10/23 22:40:12, Link
Author: bystander
Interesting topic but who defines what is useful. I think that as most companies and government are run by lawyers and accountants, I think that their view of value is very narrow and science not showing immediate returns will suffer. Having worked as an engineer with engineers and scientists for a long time, I worked with some arts types for a while and it grated at first but found that the differing perspectives caused a good gestalt. It still grates but I think that it the nature of it as well as the jokes:

Q:What did the arts graduate say to the engineering graduate in McDonalds.
A:Do you want fries with that?

I think that all disciplines should be supported. I think that the people who do arts and history can create a great counterpoint to the engineering and sciences. Anything to lessen the number of accountants and economists.

For instance, I think those with a good historical perspective could see the hollowness of the ID/Creationist approach as well and after reading about classical Roman and Greek times is going think we a currently in a moral miasma.


Date: 2006/04/27 21:50:49, Link
Author: bystander

(k) The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

Coincidentally I have spent a couple of interesting hours on the infidels site and it appears that almost nothing in the old testament holds up archeologically from before David. The book The Bible Unearthed sounds like a good source of info and I'll be looking for it in my bookshop.

Date: 2006/05/02 21:18:35, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stephenWells @ May 01 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

Back to reality, I was reading on the forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events).

Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it.

Date: 2006/05/02 21:18:35, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stephenWells @ May 01 2006,13:00)
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,05:54)

As for the 2 accounts of creation ... which came first?  Animals or Man.  No time now ... stay tuned!

How much time could you possibly need to answer such a simple question? I'll help you out and give you three options:

A) Genesis 1 is correct (animals before man ) and Genesis 2 is wrong.

B) Genesis 2 is correst (man before animals) and Genesis 1 is wrong.

C) The man and woman created in Genesis 1 are not the same as the man and woman created in Genesis 2 (traditional attempt at reconciliation, leading to e.g. Lilith legend), further details to follow.

Now all you have to do is type A, B or C and then explain in more detail later. Easy, eh?

Back to reality, I was reading on the forum about the OT document theory which is (excluding apologists) the current most accepted theory about the OT origins. The theory is that there were a number of authors and a couple of editors for the OT. Genesis was written by two authors and blended by an editor and when you read genesis split like this it makes more sense as a narrative. So genesis 1 and genesis 2 have different authors. I suppose rather than throw out one of the myths they kept both (A little why the contradictions in the Gospels were kept and even a modern biography might have different versions of the same events).

Though Cain's wife has me flumoxed. Even 3000 years ago people were not stupid. You think they would have put in some explanation around it.

Date: 2006/05/03 16:40:14, Link
Author: bystander
Hello Carol,

My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling.

Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls.

There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced.


p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely:

. No evidence of Jews being in Egypt
. No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years.
. Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle.
. Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down.
. Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened.

The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job.

I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could.


Date: 2006/05/03 16:40:14, Link
Author: bystander
Hello Carol,

My post was meant for the evdence based people on this forum who might be interested in the current mainstream position. I am not able to come to these forums enough to hold any kind of debate. Sure this position might be overturned but that's science *shrug*. Your comment about scholars sounds more like sour grapes than anything else because rather than holding a party line they seem to spend most of their time squabling.

Carol, I have seen you talk about what you believe but not the details (I think we are supposed to buy some book or other). Has it been debated anywhere on the internet? If not why not put forward you position in the Bible Criticism and History area of the Internet Infidels forum. I know that it is an atheism site but a lot of Christians and other Theists go and debate there (quite a few are knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek) as the site is generally free of fundie trolls.

There was a debate their recently about explaining Genesis based on a "Gap" theory. This was also based on reinterpreting the original Hebrew which sounds similar to what you are trying to do. Although, his translations are a trifle forced.


p.s. It would also be good to see a defence against the archaelogicial evidence of the Bible namely:

. No evidence of Jews being in Egypt
. No evidence of a large group of people wandering around the desert for forty years.
. Town of Ai that was supposed to be conquered had ceased to exist long before the supposed battle.
. Jericho didn't have walls around the time the walls were supposed to have been blown down.
. Prophesy that Tyre was to be razed to the ground never happened.

The current people defending these aren't doing a particularly good job.

I find it ironic that all this effort is being spent by DI and the creationists on evolution when archaeology and Bible scholarship are quietly doing more damage to their beliefs than evolution ever could.


Date: 2006/06/01 20:50:01, Link
Author: bystander
As a lurker, I have got to hand it to you guys for your patience. AFDave is channelling stuff to you straight from AIG. Even though he mentions TO he obviously hasn't read it as most of what he mentions has been dealt with there. If he had read it then he would be trying refute what TO says. Wake me up if he actually says anything that is new.


My Prediction:
AFDave: The world was flat at the time of the flood (Quote out of context some bible verses) so there was not really  that much water required. Also that the water was held up in the "vaults" of heaven. This layer by the way protected the early people against radiation. We don't have this protection anymore and so our DNA has been degrading ever since. Also throw in something about the grand canyon looking like the mud gullies in Mount St Helen. Mutter about fossil layering reproducing where the animals were struck down in flood

Reality Based People: Talk about Physics of that much rain washing out all of the oxygen in the air. "Kinds" not making much sense. Asking about what happened to insects and salt water fish and trees and what did they eat after they came off the ark and no Koala fossils in the middle east. etc etc etc

AFDave: Non Sequitor response to criticisms

same old same old. I should replace AFDave as I know most of this off the top of my head.

Date: 2006/06/02 01:41:49, Link
Author: bystander
.. Oh forgot to say that as nobody knows what Gopher wood is, it must be some superstrong timber that doesn't flex etc. etc.


Date: 2006/06/07 16:25:20, Link
Author: bystander
Not just rum but Bundaberg Rum please

Date: 2006/06/08 20:40:04, Link
Author: bystander
We are having a similar debate in Australia at the moment and I can't see what is the conservative's point. Gays currently live together, some have marriage ceremonies.

All this debate is about. is to allow these people (and/or goats, or whatever turns you on) have recognition that they have a significant other person (or goat) in a legal sense. This doesn't mean the government condones it. It allows them the same rights to insurance, superannuation, hospital visits. What's this got to do with sex? That will happen anyway whether the law passes or not. If Thordaddy doesn't like certain combinations to have sex with each other then outlaw the sex. If the act is not against the law why for FSMs sake not give people equal rights.


Date: 2006/06/08 21:23:41, Link
Author: bystander
What does what boil down to?

The way the current laws stand. Imagine two nice spinsters living together. No rumpy pumpy just two women who never got married to anybody else and a firm friends. Now, if one get's critically sick and into hospital the other might not get to see her. In fact her brothers and sisters who have not seen her for 40 years have more rights than these two ladies. If one dies then the superannuation (In Australia) goes to the family. Similarly things like insurance etc etc. This is what this is all about. A way that co-dependant people can have legal rights and recognition.

Thordaddy, you and the bigots are making this about sex. Gays already have sex and live together. Because you don't like what people do in their bedrooms (and on chandeliers) you want to deny them some basic human rights.

Anyway my last comment to you on this as I was talking to the reality based people.


Date: 2006/06/25 17:36:08, Link
Author: bystander
Guys, Guys, Guys,

You are confusing poor AFDave, you are pulling him in all directions. Poor guy

Dave my friend, pal and buddy,

Ignore all the rest of the guys. I basically want to stop working for a living and have a cunning plan. I'll write me a creationist book. My biggest stumbling block is the fossil record. No I don't mean to tear apart the Evilutionists version of it. That's easy and been done.

I want to be able to explain it. You see the same animals seem to pop up in the same layers world wide. The layers seem to appear in the same order worldwide.

I tried by looking at how big they were but you have itty-bitty creatures mixed in with the big guys. I thought about how fast they could run to get to higher ground but still no good as the big slow guys are mixed in with the little fast guys.

What's even worse when you cut across the layers you have fossils that look like they were buried in a desert in sand underneath fossils that look like they were buried in a sea underneath fossils that look like they were buried in a quiet lake.

You're going to have to do something quick as my wife is going to insist that I get an honest job pretty soon. I'll give you 25% of all sales. If you can't help, I going to have to go with the ID crowd and a man has his dignity (besides how many ways can you say -- if it looks designed then it is, unless it isn't.

Date: 2006/06/29 20:27:28, Link
Author: bystander
Is there another reason for the apparent number of engineer creos is that engineers along with scientists were the early adopters of computers. Most of this debate is done on computer. Outside of the web, I get the impression that most of the Creos are Lawyers of MDs.

I'm 44 and have been using computers for 28 years and so have most of my engineering comrades. Even when I graduated in 1980 most of the non-engineering types (Law/commerce etc) were getting their thesis done on typewriters.

Lets look back in another 5 years and see how many people  from other professions are in the debate.

Date: 2006/06/30 01:39:46, Link
Author: bystander
I went from Mechanical Engineering to writing software.  Nothing in Biology but I used to do those things from Scientific American (Game of Life and Core Wars etc).

What always got me was that you could get quite complex behaviour out of quite simple systems and it so doesn't surprise me that life can self organise.

I surprised that Mr Tard reading Scientific American over the same period as me didn't do the same things. Although he does say he believes in Front Loading which I suppose is the same as a great software writer in the sky writing his own core wars.


Date: 2006/06/30 01:51:07, Link
Author: bystander
Going back a bit, Dave talks about his belief in front-loading. I assume that this means that everything was loaded in the original DNA. What does this mean exactly?

Does this mean that you could find in a jellyfish DNA the information to create a human? If it does then it's testable isn't it?

If it's just that God created the initial ancestor and started it all, how is that different from Evolution?

The only other thing I can think of is that the original critter had DNA that created everything and DNA gets thrown out as species develop. That is as the first amphibians left the water they threw out the fin making genes and the fish knowing that amphibians had evolved throw out the genes for making legs.

Or is it just me trying to get that pitiful level of detail stuff.

Date: 2006/06/30 01:55:52, Link
Author: bystander
.. and don't forget the Aussie Spiders - Redbacks and Funnel Webs.


Date: 2006/06/30 16:35:53, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (steve_h @ June 30 2006,11:32)
If you look carefully, you'll find code for detecting when the time is right for the next planned mutation(s) to take place, and machinery for executing those none-random mutations. If you find a front loading fan who is not averse to pathetic levels of detail, he will happily point out exactly where that code is.
One prediction of front loading is that if you keep cloned bacteria isolated from each other but otherwise in identical conditions they will all experience roughly the same mutations in roughly the same order. Naturally, no so-called scientist who is part of the conspiracy would ever dare to do the experiment.
Front loading also explains why certain identical features are found in diverse places in the 'tree of life'. Conventional Darwinism can't explain that so they normally just deny that it happens. The common ancester was a single celled organism which had dna code for producing high intelligence and opposable thumbs, but that code usually only gets executed if you are human. However, if you zap the right 'call' instruction into the dna of a bacterium (or change the call address of an existing one) it will instantly acquire those traits.  See, for example, the famous picture of a mouse suddenly spouting a human ear. That set the Darwinists in a real panic and they had to invent a rather implausible alternative explanation.

So It's testable? So they should test it. If they truly believe that things are designed there are a lot of things you can test. The things I can think of are:

1. Front loading --- should be findable in the DNA
2. Intervention  --- IC I suppose. I think the current examples have enough doubt thrown on them. In fact if ID was sincere they would be trying to falsify these themselves and systematically searching for new versions. I'm sure that SETI would try to falsify any signals they found.
3. A single creation or Multiple creations. This is where God creates each of the kinds separately. I'm sure a study could actually define the original "kinds". Things like vestigial legs on whales has disproven this but I am sure that a sincere IDist could think of experiments to falsify common descent.

There are a few biologists around here. If some sincere Creo came up to a univeristy with a fat cheque and no strings attached would they assist in any experiments?

Also I know that Dave comes here. I wonder if he is brave enough to take the next step and open discussion in UD about real experiments to prove ID (Not strawman experiments that they think disprove evolution).


Date: 2006/06/30 16:52:16, Link
Author: bystander
Has anybody mentioned the fact that Jericho didn't have walls at the time they were supposed to have been blown down and that the town of Ai didn't exist when it was supposed to have been attacked.


ps Yes Jericho did at one time have walls and Ai existed but that screws up the bible dating (all those begats and when they were supposed to be in Egypt).

Date: 2006/07/05 17:54:55, Link
Author: bystander
Wow guys, I've learnt a lot over the last couple of pages. Keep the science coming.

I don't expect anything meaningful from Davie boy because he has too much ego tied up in his position now but hopefully  there are a few lurkers starting to slowly see that the YEC position is untenable.

It might also be dawning on Davie as well but I don't think he will ever admit it.


Date: 2006/09/01 02:19:51, Link
Author: bystander
Just want to add my thanks to all of the good work you guys have been doing. I have just been to Steve Locks site and it has brightened my day.

It talks about de-conversions also how they are asymmetric. That is there are many cases of professional apologists/ministers/theologians deconverting and very few "professional" atheists converting. In fact he could only find two.

Reading  the stories many remind me of Dave where they came to convert the heathens and got converted themselves. Dave watch out it may take a decade but the subconcious meme has already been planted.

It is interesting to read the stories. From it I believe that Dave currently believes his dribble but is stretching reality to fit his beliefs. A lot of the people said that they needed counselling after being deconverted to get over the mental gymnastics they were forced to perform to maintain their former belief.

T.O. also has a section on creationist deconversions and this was a pretty typical quote:

From Edward T. Babinski:
"My belief in young-earth creationism died the death of a thousand qualifications. It didn't change overnight. I kept having to stretch it to accommodate more and more info that didn't fit with young-earth creationism until my belief in young-earth creationism and especially "Flood geology," snapped."  

So bad luck Dave, your chances of converting anybody here is almost nil, in fact you are probably doing a wonderful job of deconverting the fence sitters and will probably eventually deconvert yourself.

What I would like to see is one of the kids Dave is poisoning see this thread and sue his pants off. It's one thing to unknowingly teach falsehoods but this thread showed that he was exposed to the truth and still went forward anyway.


Date: 2006/09/01 11:30:16, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,08:49)
What I would like to see is one of the kids Dave is poisoning see this thread and sue his pants off.
This one statement speaks volumes about you.

 This one statement speaks volumes about you.

And the fact you ignored the substantive part of my post speaks volumes. The point is that in any INFORMED debate about christianity or science the conversions tend to go one direction only. What does that tell you. Ofcourse you know that's why you try and get the kids before they can get educated.

The fact that you haven't:

1. Explained why the fossil record supports common descent not a flood. Handwaving about body size or speed does not explain the sorting.

2. Explained away the high correlation between dating methods which support an old earth.

As has been noted you have plumbed the depths of AIG and have found nothing that could stand up to any examination. In fact the original thing that shows your lies is your original promise to show "new" evidence for global floods etc. Everything you presented was straight from AIG. Everything you presented was already dealt with in T.O.. *ho-hum* another boring creo.[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Date: 2006/09/04 00:18:16, Link
Author: bystander
As an amateur in all this, I think that the fossil record is the most powerful piece of evidence for common descent for non-scientists. It's easy to understand and doesn't lend itself to any other interpretation.

This is the second time that Dave quoted the AIG tract and again it got the same response that the sorting has nothing to do with body size or brains or speed but follows the tree of life.

I'll bet that Dave doesn't come back to it with a theory of sorting consistant with the actual fossil record.

Date: 2006/09/23 15:32:10, Link
Author: bystander
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either)

1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size?

2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come?

Jordan (age 9)

Date: 2006/12/15 01:41:49, Link
Author: bystander
This can't be a coincidence. From Iain M Banks "Against a Dark Background" chapter 13:

His Majesty King Tard the Seventeenth, Lord of Despite, Seventy-fourth of the Useless Kings, Lord Protector and Master of Pharpech, its Dominions, Citizens, Lower Classes, Animals and Women, Prime Detester of God The Infernal Wizard, Exchequer of the Mean and Guardian of the Imperial Charter


Date: 2006/12/16 21:29:16, Link
Author: bystander
I'm strictly an amateur here but I am curious that there is emphasis on how our DNA life came to be. Is there any research creating life of any kind? Also is there any freely available documents from the above?


Date: 2006/12/22 04:30:11, Link
Author: bystander
With the angst over the blasphemy challenge the main worry is if the atheists deconvert. However, this is pretty rare for an educated atheist:

These links show that the traffic is decidedly one way.


Date: 2006/12/22 04:38:58, Link
Author: bystander
Aussie boy, Born and bred in Sydney and moved 140km south when the beaches got too crowded.

Date: 2006/12/31 19:44:20, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 30 2006,14:15)
I'm afraid Heddle is back to saying really stoopid things:

Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.

Or, it should tell you something about the nature/process of regeneration which is not
1) I hear the gospel or read the bible
2) I accept it as reasonable
3) I eventually believe
4) I am regenerated (born again) as a reward for my belief
If that's the case, then you are correct in your assessment of Cal Thomas on this point. However, if the actual process of conversion (then one I believe is supported by the bible) is:
1) I, like everyone else in their natural state, find the gospel and the bible to be utter foolishness
2) Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done)
3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish
then he is right (on this point.) In other words, like all atheists, especially the smarter ones, you assume that you are an atheist because you weigh and easily reject the evidence. The reverse is actually true. You have the process bass-ackwards. You are stuck, from all indications and hopefully just for the moment, on step 1 of the second flow chart.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 05:11 PM

Well this is testable. We should find a stack of atheists waking up being Calvanists. Unfortunately, the conversions are one way, educated Atheists never (with one exception) never reconvert.

Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.

Or, it should tell you something about the nature/process of regeneration which is not
1) I hear the gospel or read the bible
2) I accept it as reasonable
3) I eventually believe
4) I am regenerated (born again) as a reward for my belief
If that's the case, then you are correct in your assessment of Cal Thomas on this point. However, if the actual process of conversion (then one I believe is supported by the bible) is:
1) I, like everyone else in their natural state, find the gospel and the bible to be utter foolishness
2) Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done)
3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish
then he is right (on this point.) In other words, like all atheists, especially the smarter ones, you assume that you are an atheist because you weigh and easily reject the evidence. The reverse is actually true. You have the process bass-ackwards. You are stuck, from all indications and hopefully just for the moment, on step 1 of the second flow chart.
Posted by: David Heddle | December 29, 2006 05:11 PM

Well this is testable. We should find a stack of atheists waking up being Calvanists. Unfortunately, the conversions are one way, educated Atheists never (with one exception) never reconvert.

Date: 2007/01/04 14:56:08, Link
Author: bystander
Too late now, but one thing that gets me is that the creo's love to point out gaps in our understanding in science, however, there is no way they can support the literalist's view of the world. Except for a brief quote from AIG on fossil sorting which is so bad it is not even wrong, they have no explanation for the fossil record and the rock strata in general. AFDave would babble on about everything else but refused to address fossil sorting and I am sure that dgszweda is the same.

Isn't there a saying about taking out the log in your eye before the splinter in your brother's eye.

Date: 2007/01/07 22:00:46, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 08 2007,12:38)
Based on the teachings of the New Testament I believe physical bodily resurrection is taught.   I would think this also necessitates a heaven which is a physical location.

I went to a catholic school and we were taught that it was a physical body, that the soul doesn't contain your personality and my reading of the bible seems to agree with this  

Is this true for all demoninations? If so I would have thought that the John Edwards of the world would be blasted from the pulpits, or is it just a case of Christians (You even hear of pastors saying that someone is with God when they die) not knowing their religions.

Date: 2007/01/10 01:20:10, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 10 2007,08:45)
I've heard of people getting maybe 50 or 60 per hour, so I'd expect that 20 times that would be extremely rare if it exists.

best I ever did was 240/hr for a specialized database app. for a University back around 2000.

now the best I can do is 65/hr.

I've met folks in SF that during the .com boom managed over 600.00/hr working for multinationals in the city.

not no more.

never met anybody making 1000/hr for ANY kind of programming, ever.

not even high end net techs on call 24 hrs. at the same multinationals made that.

I figured SF during the peak of the .com boom would pretty much exhibit what was possible; has someone actually confirmed such a salary for a tech position?

Sorry a few pages on but I knew a guy that got around $1000k an hour baby sitting a system overnight from 31-Dec-1999.

Around 1998 until 2002 we were regularly paying $750 per day (we don't pay hourly) for experienced code cutters. It is around $650 per day at the moment. Note that most of these guys are also pay agencies around 15%.


Date: 2007/01/12 14:40:09, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 13 2007,05:37)
How about something I haven't addressed yet?

The fossil record. Why the fossil record supports common descent so well and does support sorting by size, speed, brain size etc. Rhino's and Triceratops are not found in the same layers, neither are Utahraptors and Lions.

I have asked a few times...


Date: 2007/01/13 04:16:51, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 13 2007,15:14)
Zero exceptions?  What if I show you some?  How about you tell me what order they are supposed to be in and I'll find you some out of order.


This is you hypothesis, remember. The fossil column supports common descent. But this is not about evolution. Finding exceptions is beside the point.

Your hypothesis is that the Bible is the literal truth. Explain the geological column according to your theory. This includes fossils but also includes forests sitting on top of each other, intact dinosaur nests etc etc. The AIG cut and paste does not match reality. That's why I asked again and this is the third time you have pasted this and this is the third time it has been torn apart.

Dave, you see this is important for your hypothesis. Outlaw biology and radiometric testing if you like but anybody can go into the bush and see that the geological column doesn't show any evidence of a flood. In fact it didn't need Darwin for geologists and civil engineers to figure out that something was wrong. I read recently about somewhere there is evidence of 40 forests sitting on top of each other.

Dave, you have got to solve this as everything else is just hand waving. This is a test of your honesty.

Date: 2007/01/13 17:32:45, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 14 2007,06:17)
Oh no.  I'll get it going soon enough.  But did you see my new blog?  I think I'm going to put all my "Best of AtBC" there before I really get cranking at Dawkins.  My new blog is not as pretty as Dembski's new one, though.  Did you guys check that out yet?  Knowing how much you guys like flagella, I think you're gonna like it!

Crabby--  If you want me to check out your "paleosol", you're going to have to post a picture that looks more convincing than JonF's and more convincing than Faid's non-existent one.

Dave are you going to include how you ran away from the fact that the actual geological column and fossil sorting does not support Bible literalism. All you have posted so far is the little AIG screed which is so bad it is not even wrong and some mumbling about fossil trees. Almost any National Park I have visited goes into great depth about the local fossils and the geology. They can tell us what the local flora and fauna were going back millions of years.
Creationism has been around awhile, you would think that they would be able to give us similar detail on what happened over the year of the flood and the evidence for it. They don't because anybody going out and getting their hands dirty can see that the world is old. There are no flood layers. That each layer contains all kinds of fossils and the creatures change as you move through the layers. No Hippos with the Triceratops.

Date: 2007/01/19 17:04:44, Link
Author: bystander
It's true. We have some Lyre Birds in the hills behind my home and they can make a great assortment of calls. Friends of mine had a cockie which makes a perfect imitation of their telephone. Something about Aussie birds I guess although I have more interest in the other type (especially as it is now summer).

Date: 2007/01/20 19:29:40, Link
Author: bystander
One of the best things I have noticed about Attenborough's documentaries is that he constantly mentions the word evolution and millions of years. It must drive the creo's crazy.

Date: 2007/01/28 18:44:28, Link
Author: bystander
Another classic thread! I wonder how many lurkers will be de-converted based on Mr Hunter's vague hand waving and the factual replies given.

I wonder how long he'll last before he slinks off. For a professional purveyors of anti-science the internet can be a pain as your debates are there forever for all to see.


Date: 2007/02/18 18:13:12, Link
Author: bystander
This is an excellent thread. The emptiness of Mr Hunter's arguments have been clearly shown with no real insults. I think that Mr Hunter regrets ever posting here but also realises all of the potential suckers that will google his name and find this thread, so he keeps coming back but unfortunately digging himself deeper.

Date: 2007/02/19 19:45:47, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (lkeithlu @ Feb. 20 2007,11:35)
Did I read somewhere that Davescot claims to ba banned from realclimate? I didn't see that in their reply to his post.

I think DT put in a second post which never appeared.  After their initial knockdown am I sure that it was full of Dave's usual profanity


Date: 2007/02/20 05:02:01, Link
Author: bystander
On UD I noticed a debate between D'OL (or is it Doh) and Robyn Williams. Robyn is a well known science journalist in Australia. Robyn comes off well and D'OL as very unconvincing, although I think that Robyn could have made the point around ID being unscientific and untestable.

What's frustrating in this is that D'OH is painting herself as somebody sitting in the middle of the debate and thinks there may be something in ID. As we know all her writing is about how Darwinists are wrong and there is a huge atheist conspiracy.  I noticed on PT that WAD was saying something similar in a debate he recently had, where he believes most of evolution. Again his blog writing is all about the evil Darwinist atheists and poking holes in evolution where he can. Honestly, these guys couldn't lie straight in bed.

A classic from DOL was where she started in on Dawkins and admitted that she hadn't read any of his books.


Date: 2007/02/20 15:09:46, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 20 2007,22:23)
Are you talking about this "debate" from last August?

And could you give us a link to Denyse admitting she hadn't read Dawkins?  I mean, it's pretty obvious from what she writes about him, but I'd like to see her admitting it.

No this is recent from UD. You have to listen close to the end of the podcast where Robyn asks D'OL if she has read Dawkins. Her reply paraphrased is that Dawkins is far down on her reading list. She would rather read the more intelligent Atheists and that Dawkins is a has been.


Date: 2007/02/21 20:53:38, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,13:38)
Someone got DaveScot really, really angry.

How dare PZ infer that Dave has a friend.

Date: 2007/02/21 20:59:22, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 22 2007,13:52)
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2007,04:38)
Someone got DaveScot really, really angry.  :angry:

So he's denying he said this?


I doubt they could afford me even if I wanted to come out of retirement. I'm just an interested observer. I don't have cancer or know anyone who does (at the moment). The guy who started the DCA site discovered DCA by reading my articles on Uncommon Descent so I have a personal interest in how it turns out. There is now one person writing there who obtained a supply of DCA (works in the medical profession so was able to order pharmaceutical grade dichloroacetate acid sodium salt from TCI America), put it into 500mg capsules, and is taking two doses of 1000mg per day for 25mg/kg as used in the congenital lactic acidosis phase 2 trial. He's also taking 500mg of vitamin B1 to counter possible side-effect neuropathy. He has metastatic prostate cancer. We'll all know in 60 days or less whether DCA works in humans or not. If not for avarice we could have known two years ago. If it turns out the stuff works I don't know how the discovers will be able to sleep at night knowing they sat on this for 2 years trying to find a way to profit from it.

Posted by: DaveScot | February 17, 2007 12:18 PM

No just that he has a friend

Date: 2007/02/27 18:57:57, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 28 2007,09:25)
Senator Finney (no relation to Col Sanders) has an online survey that I have been having fun with.  Help him assess his 07 priorities by completing it here.

I've put in my opinions. I'm sure he will value opinions from Australia


Date: 2007/04/03 16:54:38, Link
Author: bystander
As a non-science type guy I think it is a shame that FtK will probably not contribute here.
Although she only repeats the standard ID memes I am curious around her non-questioning of the ID leaders in non-scientific areas. A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book. Except for a brief flurry about the drawings of THOSE embryos. There has been silence.

Even if I didn't understand the take-down myself, the silence from those on the ID side should be telling in itself and I would be asking why.

I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.


Date: 2007/04/03 19:40:35, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:38)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
A good example is the PT detailed take down of Well's book.

I'm sure you meant Wells's or Wells'.

Written language has never been my strong suite

Date: 2007/04/03 21:24:48, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ April 04 2007,10:46)
Quote (bystander @ April 03 2007,17:54)
I don't think that it is dishonest to not know why something like "SLoT disproves evolution" is a stupid argument. I do think it is dishonest to just repeat ID memes and not ask the hard questions of yourselves.


I wouldn't say it's dishonest. I think if you see Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer who's never calculated (delta)S once in his entire life, and he claims that all the scientists in the world are wrong about SLoT, I think if you see that and it doesn't immediately occur to you that Philip Johnson probably has no idea what he's talking about, you're not so much dishonest, it's just that for whatever reason you don't have the brains god gave a goose.

I think that it is dishonest stupidity is not an excuse. If you support the minority position and blog on it, it is your responsibility to ensure that your side covers all of the bases. We see EF, NFL, SLoT and the rest of the Creationist cannards being brought up again and again without the criticisms being addressed. When a substantial (substantial in the number of pages not content) piece of creationist/ID work is produced the PT crowd will fisk it in no time flat. Isn't it dishonest of the ID to only pick and choose to what they respond. Isn't it dishonest of the people like FtK to not take them to task for not responding.


- I personally think that there is nothing wrong in a non-expert questioning an expert but you do have to listen to the answer.

Date: 2007/04/07 06:35:41, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,16:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 06 2007,23:42)
OK, you made me read the paper, too.

I have a question for FtK.  Dembski published the EF book years ago. What, five years or so?  Or more?

Since Dembski published a means to detect design, and this is a question for FtK, how many designs have been detected or proven by the EF?

There must be ten zillion biological thingies out there that were designed by the Great Designer, He who must not be named and for the sake of this argument I won't invoke the designer.

So, FtK, I'm curious to know what biological systems in the past decade have been proven or even indicated to have been designed based on Dembski's EF.

I know that I'm only a poor chemist but for the life of me I've searched high and low and I can't find a single example.  Not one.  Not a single one.  Not even a whiff.  A snippet.

Educate me, FtK, I sit at your feet.

9 years, and still unused:

I had a read of the thread you linked to and have the opinion that Jason like most other ID proponents haven't read the Dover transcripts just other's reactions to it. They seem to focus on just the stack of papers and the astrology bits. Anybody who read the entire transcript can see that Behe made an idiot of himself through his entire testimony and I think that the peer review and tonne of dirt moments are even better. It is the funniest read I had all year. Anybody who hasn't read them, you also need to read the examination of the scientists as well before hand as it set's the scene for Behe.

Date: 2007/04/17 06:53:47, Link
Author: bystander
Luckily I live in a fairly secular area in Australia. I first got interested in the Talk.Origins site around 10 years ago. The main things there were talking about the aquatic ape and the "man as old as coal guy". There was also a discussion about ID and IC. I can't remember if Behe was the actual participant but the threads had reduced to mutual abuse so I could not pick up the gist of the arguments for and against. At the time I thought it was a shame because even through I was and am an atheist, I thought it would be powerful evidence for a god or an alien designer if IC could be proven.

A lost interest for years and got interested again when some guy on a left wing political blog in Australia started to carry on about ID and how it should be taught in schools. I googled some links and found PT. This was around the lead up to the Dover trial which was very entertaining (I still believe nobody on the ID side actually read the transcripts) and basically stayed for the  fun.


Date: 2007/04/17 22:17:41, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (guthrie @ April 18 2007,09:57)
Surely Theology counts as humanities, and engineering as sciences, roughly.

It would be nice to separate the engineers from the scientists. More to show that not all engineers are ID nongs.

BTW I am an engineer.

Date: 2007/04/18 01:11:50, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 18 2007,17:10)
Interesting: nobody reads lots of Scientific American.  They must have put up the prices to counter dt's cancellation of his subscription.

(who actually has a degree higher than a PhD.  Unfortunately, the certificate is in Finnish, so I'm not sure what it's in)

I used to in the 80s until it got boring but I could only make one choice

Date: 2007/04/19 05:41:29, Link
Author: bystander
-- removed --

Date: 2007/04/20 01:54:15, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ftk @ April 20 2007,13:31)
Ya ever get the feeling that Dave posts stuff just to get a reaction from you guys.  Wake up.  Sheesh.

Doubt it as he has posted similar stuff in the past. Weren't you saying earlier that Dave doesn't have a sense of humor. To say that they are just "joking" is a way the people in the ID/Creo world avoid criticizing the more extreme people

Date: 2007/04/20 02:01:41, Link
Author: bystander
Somebody linked to this Morton's demon on PT I think. I think this would explain Ftk quite well.

On a similar note there are blogs criticizing a recent PNAS paper. Gee this is how science works. Complete opposite to ID where no criticism is allowed.

Date: 2007/07/08 07:43:10, Link
Author: bystander
I think that there is problems with both sides of the argument. There is simply not enough information to tell either way. Nothing reliable from the first century. Bits and pieces from the second century (Most of this is people such as Eusebius writing in the fourth century quoting lost documents from the second century)

Not having heard Robert's actual argument, I am sure that it is no different to any fundie argument (I just hope it is better then the standard circular arguments of how the gospel was true because it was written by honorable men. We know they were honorable because the gospel tells us they were*). However, the mythical Jesus argument is still based around starting assumptions around certain documents being more authentic than others.


* Another favorite of mine is that the gospels are correct about the resurrection because the gospel said it was witnessed by 500 people.

Date: 2007/07/11 07:05:08, Link
Author: bystander
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 09 2007,00:57)
I'm not sure what difference a historical Jesus would make.  After all, we know with absolute certainty that there was a historical Mohammed, and that doesn't make people convert to Islam in droves.

On the other hand, we haven't a clue whether there was actually a historical Lao Tzu, and that doesn't seem to have bothered the Taoists any.

Alas, with the fundies, it ain't the message that is important, only the idol-worship of the messenger.  (shrug)

Mohammed was not necessarily historical either.

Date: 2007/07/14 01:03:10, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 13 2007,13:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 12 2007,20:38)

Biblical Scholar, Dr. Robert Price and Autodidact Robert O'Brien discuss whether or not history adequately supports that Jesus existed.


Emphasis mine.


It's not a good sign when one self-identifies as an auto-didact.  ???

True in this case as Robert was self taught in the subject but Dave Springer use has changed the meaning to selfdidact=ignorant super tard.

I listened to the podcast while on my walk. Robert you were not bad for a first try especially against someone as good as Bob Price. It would have been better if you had a lot more experience at debating.

The arguments you made were interesting. I'm an atheist but agnostic on whether Jesus actually existed, we just don't have enough information.


Date: 2007/07/19 17:52:39, Link
Author: bystander
To me the definition of neo-darwinism allows the slippery IDers to duck and weave when cornered. It allows them to separate the science of evolution from the religion of neo-darwinism.

Ftk is a prime example, she will start by saying that evolution sucks and is wrong, but when presented by actual science will say that she has nothing against evolution, except that the neo-darwinists will not consider any alternatives.

In time this can change to they (the tards) knowing that evolution was always correct and they (the tards) were just pointing some holes in the theory which the Darwinists refused to considered, and that though the holes were eventually filled in it meant that they (the tards) were always correct as they were pointing out problems that needed to be filled and actually not saying the science was wrong it was just the darwinists (damn them) making out that they were saying the science was wrong. In short Tards correct, science correct, scientists (darwinists) wrong as always.

Sorry for the convoluted sentence but that's what happens when I put my tard hat on. The same has already happened in Australia with politicians and global warming.


Date: 2007/07/31 18:07:38, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Zachriel @ July 31 2007,06:32)
scordova: Electrical Engineers like myself describe our circuits with imaginary currents and voltages. Do such imaginary things really exist?

His specialty.

scordova: 3 people in a room are actually +8 people and -5 people in the room {only in our imagination, but it’s correct mathematically}

There's eight people in a room and five leave. (Don't forget to carry the naught.)

8 - 5 = 3

Extra credit: If zero is nothing then how can it be something (a number)?

scordova: Upon finishing our calculations for predicted voltage we have a real part and then an imaginary part. The professors admonish there students then, when they go to the lab to make measurements, they throw out the imaginary part, since it can’t be measured. Maybe these imaginary parts were never there to begin with, just a gimmick to make the math of solving differential equations easier.

Imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than any other number and usually represent vectors in multi-dimensonal space. In electrical engineering, imaginary numbers typically represent phase vectors. To convert to a scalar, you may eliminate the imaginary component. Vectors are essential to understanding alternating current, communications, motors; in other words, virtually everything in electrical engineering.

Electrical phase is very real, can be measured, and the imaginary part can kill you.

He's and electrical engineer and thinks that reactive power is not real. OMG. How did he ever pass his exams. How did he handle field theory?


Date: 2007/08/31 21:25:00, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 01 2007,10:10)
Sal will have his work cut out.
Over at UD Atom asks    
Since, Sal, you have declared that if your questioned is answered either "Yes" or "No", you will win the argument, will you write up a post showing the details of this? A refutation paper of sorts, showing how her paper fails on either count, so therefore, the paper is erroneous
Will Sal even ackonledge the request? Or will he just add it to the ever growing pile of pending research?

I think Sal should think about what his purpose is. I thought it would have been to gather converts to the ID cause. However, we have all see him do this before. He takes an irrelevant point in a debate and turns it into a YES/NO answer and so think he wins the debate. Sure the faithful will think he is kewl but what about all the lurkers? Any lurker who is undecided will see that Sal has not actually covered the real issue and is full of it.

Thats one thing that the reality side does well. I think that everybody is aware of the lurkers. We may be mean and nasty but every troll's question will still get answers followed by questions sent back at them. UD will just say it's been answered and ban them.

I'm optimistic. I think that good science blogs and stupid tactics by the opposition will all but kill off creationism within this generation. People like FTK will never change but her kids might.


Date: 2007/09/01 16:28:39, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2007,06:13)
Thanks, Rich, that Alexa site is pretty amusing. What's with all the Aussie traffic at UD? It looks like the traffic from Oz equals the traffic from the US! The population of Australia is less than 10% of the US population; are there that many loonies in Oz?

Re the "Say no to UD day" it looks like you could detect a daily drop in traffic with the data shown at the Alexa site. It might be tough to keep the secret from the tardmeister; he would undoubtedly try to bump up traffic that day!

I'll leave the details to those who know more about the intricacies of the intertubes; I'm just a concept guy, y'know.

Sorry that must have been me.

Date: 2007/09/01 17:22:17, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 02 2007,06:56)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,12:22)

Our prediction was correct. FTK is going public again sometime in the future.

We're probably 95% of her customers, so I should hope so.

I wonder if FTK ever reflects on the fact that no one who agrees with her bothers to visit her blog?

Oh, BTW, FTK is sick of being a pirahna and isn't gonna take it anymore:

10:18 am

Provide the evidence for ID they say!

You have to submit to mainstream journals in order for the scientific community to take you seriously, they say!

Yet, at every freaking turn, they shut down anything that provides even an inkling of possibility to address their demands?

Livid thats what I am. My gosh, I hope Ben Stein has done his homework, because I am bound and determined to get every theatre in the country filled to the brim so the nation can see the crap that is going in the scientific community, ie. Eugenie and her merry men.

I do hope that when the public becomes aware of this censorship of ID, that they come away with the understanding that it is not science (or scientists in general) that is at the root of the problem, but that it is a core group of very loud and nasty philosophical naturalists who are responsible for putting a stop to anything that questions their Darwinian worldview.


That boldfaced line reminded me of Joe Gallien and his fantasies of singlehandedly humiliating the Darwinists in the next big trial.

It never occurs to FTK that when the IDers publishes anything that it gets reviewed at least on the blogs. Why does she think that if anything by an IDer got submitted for review would get a better reaction?

Also why don't they have their own peer review periodical ... Oh yeah they do, when was it last published again?

Date: 2007/09/03 00:54:28, Link
Author: bystander
So is an ati-FAQ at ATBC going to be created? There doesn't seem to be much there that is not boilerplate. It could just be pointers between fTK and Talk-Origins.

Date: 2007/09/03 17:02:12, Link
Author: bystander
It would be interesting to see what Baylor have to say about what happened. Wow the chip on Dembski's shoulder will be huge after this.

Date: 2007/09/06 21:35:09, Link
Author: bystander
I suppose it is all grist for the humour mill but I am a bit disappointed. The half a feather/eye arguments are pretty old and silly and can be easily destroyed after spending 5 minutes on the internet.

It shows how after all of those years in evo debates her faith in her God is so weak that she is scared to do any real investigation.

So I suppose it helps our case. Anybody genuinely look for answers will quickly see that she has nothing.


Date: 2007/09/23 00:46:41, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 23 2007,01:30)
Now we know why Dave bailed out on meeting Blipey earlier this year.  He doesn't seem to understand that Texas' concealed carry law refers to handguns.
Programming languages all start looking alike after a while with the possible exception of FIG Forth which is really weird to anyone who doesn’t carry an HP RPN calculator around in a hip holster.

Anyone want to speculate where the following calculation will lead?

Clown [enter]  Davescot [+] HP33S [+] Cheesypoofs [+]

all languages start to look the same? The boy doesn't get out much does he. There are many languages around that look weirder than Forth.

Date: 2007/10/23 20:15:41, Link
Author: bystander
My opinion is that Dave is only half-hearted when writing about ID and that his passion is in his other hobby horses. I think he stays because it makes him feel important to be the Banninator and part of a movement.

Look how lost he was when he left UD for a shortwhile.

However, idiotic as he sounds he is miles ahead of BA77 and the other tards. Imagine how it must feel when these guys are your audience and have (probably) been told by WmAD to go easy on them.

I started reading this just before the Dover trial, I vaguely remember that Dave in those days use to give it to the other tards as much as he gave it to the Evo side.

Date: 2007/10/30 20:49:48, Link
Author: bystander
[quote=Albatrossity2,Oct. 31 2007,08:38]
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,14:27)

I like how BaffledAgain77 supports his genetic entropy blather    
As well I would like to point out that the “parent” species of sheep (mouflons)
“surprisingly” had no problems with inbreeding (thus, safely reestablishing the genetic diversity found in wild mouflons) when a single male and female were introduced on a island from a Paris zoo!

This fits in well with the Theistic prediction of ID… (front-loaded) diversification from a parent kind!

Interesting that the "parent species of sheep" is actually the parent species of only the sheep mentioned in the Bible. I guess our N. American Bighorn Sheep don't count... And even more interesting to BA77 (if he could read) is the observation that the European mouflon is one of TWO contributors to the gene pool of the sheep he seems to love so much. I wonder how the genetic entropy "theory" would deal with the fact that the "parent species of sheep" actually has parents of its own (and grandparents, etc.)

Maybe I can bring this up if he shows up on Behe's Amazon blog again...

I know this is pretty obvious to all you sciencey Guy/gal types.

So if this is a prediction of ID then ID has been falsified, not even by science. It was enough me reading my wife's donkey breeding books. In fact a any breeder of animals or plants would look askance at Ba77

[1] He seems to think that a single sheep has a diversity of genes which is wrong by definition. I think he gets confused with pure bred animal populations having a low diversity and breeders bringing other breeds into their population to bring in some hybrid vigour.

[2] The parent species contains all diversity. Another bit of BS. Again, the breed books will note when and where a mutation first occurs.

BA77 should do an experiment and crash breed wolves and see if he can get a Dalmation. What a maroon

Date: 2007/11/06 16:51:04, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (theloneliestmonk @ Nov. 07 2007,09:32)
I believe that her answer is because those mean darwinians won't take it seriously because it is not in a darwinian journal. You really can't win.

I always thought that it was weird about the peer review schtick the IDers keep going on about. There is nothing magic about any of these journals except for their reputation. If they have the stuff they could publish and peer review their own papers. Also, Why doesn't Liberty U or another Fundie University fund an ID department.

I think that they know, Dembski knows, the DI knows that they have nothing more than "it looks designed and I think that it is really really improbable that it evolved". The sciency stuff they have published so far has fallen flat.

Also, everything that Dembski or Behe have put out there has been peer reviewed (torn to shreds).

Date: 2007/11/06 16:52:44, Link
Author: bystander
The whole transcript is a gem.

Date: 2007/11/06 22:52:01, Link
Author: bystander
As a non-scientist, it has been hard going, but rewarding, educating myself on the whole HIV issue so I can see the holes in Behe's argument. It still boils down to
Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this
Others: What about all of these studies?
Behe: Insignificant
Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z.
Behe: Gratuitous Insults
Others: Wanker

What burns me up if that I take the time to study the evidence so I can understand the majority position. Ftk on the other hand reads nothing and declares it all on gut feel.

Date: 2007/11/08 05:54:38, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ERV @ Nov. 08 2007,09:46)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 06 2007,22:52)
It still boils down to
Behe: X and there are no studies contradicting this
Others: What about all of these studies?
Behe: Insignificant
Others: They are not insignificant because Y and Z.
Behe: Gratuitous Insults
Others: Wanker

Can I steal that?  I will reference you!


Sure, 'tis nothing compared to your great putdowns!

Date: 2007/11/09 16:27:54, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (dhogaza @ Nov. 09 2007,12:34)
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

I suppose it's too much to hope for that he got sick after reading his own words while preparing for the press conference ...

or got sick when the lawyers replied "You want to what .... ha ha ha ha he he he ho ho ho"

Date: 2007/11/11 23:43:06, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 12 2007,13:13)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 11 2007,20:00)
From BornAgain77, as noted by RTH    
For me to even discuss such high level matters on the web is extremely humorous to the highest degree, for I was a homeless alcoholic for over 12 years, before I managed, with a lot of help from the Lord, to turn my life around. What is extremely funny is that even though, I should not be able to so easily refute such high level critics of ID, I do so (albeit as you have pointed out, rather clumsily) with relative ease.

It's nice that he turned his life around, which can't have been easy, but that bit of biography certainly explains a few things.

Who knows whether he's telling the truth.  Internet identities are so easily created. ;)

It could be my suspicious mind but it could be he saying that he can't wriggle out of this argument but I win because I have had a harder life.

Is there a logical fallacy named after this?

Date: 2007/11/12 17:30:15, Link
Author: bystander
come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker*

Date: 2007/11/12 18:16:55, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ERV @ Nov. 13 2007,11:06)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 12 2007,17:30)
come on give the guy a break. It's not easy to try and find quotes to mine when you haven't read the primary literature. He might sneak some science in around post four or five. Maybe he should get the guys at UD to help, or Lee Merrill at IIDB seems to be doing well *snicker*

Lee defends Behe better then Behe defends Behe.

Sadly that's not saying a lot.

Date: 2007/11/13 15:30:32, Link
Author: bystander
Lets see latest post:

. Abbie is a meannie
. Misquotes Abbie (I wonder if he got it from Sal?)
. The change is minor so irrelevant

Date: 2007/11/14 14:59:14, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 15 2007,07:17)
getawitness shoots, scores:  
Bugsy, are you sure you understand the math well enough to say that?

I’ll be the first to say that much of the math is beyond me. I’ve been trying to educate myself by reading the writings on Dr. Dembski’s site and the evolutionary informatics lab. The papers there are very interesting.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what happened to the paper with Dr. Marks called “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites”? It used to be listed as “under review” at the evo-info lab but it’s not there any more. Does that mean it’s coming out in a journal? Where can I get a copy?

Emphasis added.


That comment will go over the UDers head but is snarky enough to be one of you guys and I bet I know who!!1!!!one!!

Date: 2007/11/15 00:05:38, Link
Author: bystander
I'm betting that getawitness, poachy and bugsy are sockpuppets.

Date: 2007/11/15 20:09:54, Link
Author: bystander
Can somebody explain the last paragraph of Behe's statement. I can't see how this is not what we expect from Evolution, why does it support ID?


ps. I can't wait until this thread moves to page 7. I find the photo at the top disturbing for some reason

Date: 2007/11/18 16:00:49, Link
Author: bystander
Where's Dave? I'm starting to get worried about him.

Date: 2007/11/19 19:59:24, Link
Author: bystander
It could be my paranoia but I wonder if UD is generally letting the trollery (?) to occur so they can eventually say: "Look they are always complaining about us censoring comments so we stopped censoring comments and look what has happened, we are overrun with trolls making stupid comments"

Date: 2007/11/23 19:00:46, Link
Author: bystander
We Aussies vote today. Hopefully this will be another step in the path of removing the extreme right and anti science from the world. Although the Labor party also has a pretty conservative platform as well, polling suggests that people want to move away from the current government due to Greenhouse issues, iraq and social justice.

One thing that is nice is that Dr Karl a popular science presenter and ignobel* prize winner is running for the senate. I am not sure but the guy would have to be at least a strong agnostic.

* Won for his study on the contents of belly button lint.


Date: 2007/11/23 20:55:22, Link
Author: bystander
His wiki entry Dr Karl

Date: 2007/12/02 15:18:58, Link
Author: bystander
She has been doing a fair few hit and runs lately. She was on PZ's blog as well. It's strange that she defends what I call the BAD arguments. PZ was writing about West's presentation. The presentation was basically that belief in evolution leads to eugenics.

West said it Ftk thinks that it is true. I am optimistic enough to think that most of the Americans believe this stuff because they haven't heard the full story. I think that a chink would have appeared in some people's belief at the West forum when  reality was put forward as a rebuttal and that the questions were critical but respectful.

As long as stupid and easily challenged arguments are part of the DIs and Ftks toolkit, I think it will damage them in the long term.

Date: 2007/12/03 15:24:51, Link
Author: bystander
Gee you go away for a day and what happens ...

This proves my earlier point. Ftk and her ilk do harm to those potential allies that are just ignorant. I think that in the real world the creationism cultural wars generally registers a zero. When Expelled is released, the backstories are going to be released as well. Has Ftk read the backstory about Sternberg (rhetorical as I know these guys don't read anything not sanctioned by the DI)? The guy is pretty odious generally and was not above lying.

Also Gonzalez had not done enough to get tenure, let alone any influence that ID had on his case.

Date: 2007/12/05 14:44:29, Link
Author: bystander
We forget that the DI doesn't ever actually do anything except write press releases. They piked out of Dover and  they were going to sue over the Nova program. I think they are stupid enough to think that ISU will quietly negotiate a settlement with GG.

GG himself is quiet in all this. I wonder if the DI went to him and said don't worry we'll talk to ISU and try and get you tenure. GG thinking that there'll be some quiet high level negotiations.

However, he opens his paper and is currently saying WTF!!!!111!!one.

Denyse is pushing the persecution card a little strongly lately isn't she. maybe nobody is buying her books.

Date: 2007/12/05 15:33:47, Link
Author: bystander
My favourite Sal lie is when he debated some guys on a geology forum. He denied saying something anybody could scroll back a page and see.

Least favourite is his reprehensible behaviour all through his ERV debate. Unfortunately Ftk doesn't like the sciency stuff so she has no way of judging.

It's strange, Sal supposedly disappeared because he was worried about his university work but he still posts at young cosmos. could he see the writing on the wall with UD and the DI?


Date: 2007/12/06 13:30:19, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 07 2007,01:40)
I find it extremely interesting that none of you ever address what I've said several times about your own antics.

What makes Sal an asshole in comparison to what all of you do ON A DAILY BASIS?  


Big difference. ATBCer laugh at the unintended humour from the IDers. Sal lies to make debating points.

Date: 2007/12/06 13:50:26, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 07 2007,05:18)
I didn't ask for a rant, I asked for specific instances where MY behavior, on a daily basis, seemed comparable to Sal's. If your rant doesn't include that, but continues to paint "all of us" with the same brush, please save your electrons.

Again, very interesting.  When I comment and post at UD and YC, somehow my name is supposedly tarnished due to anything that *they* may say that you feel is inappropriate.

Yet, you can freely wash your hands of everything said by the posters at this forum where you peruse and comment almost continuously throughout the day.  

And in the meantime, since you can still post at UD, you might wander over there and point out to those who are gloating over their perceived vanquishment of Maya, another female graduate student, that her disappearance is in fact a banning.

I've not read any of that yet, but I fail to see why you feel it my duty to go over there and confront them for something you seem to think is inappropriate, yet you never give a thought to addressing the individuals here who make inappropriate comments.

And, for all I know, she was a sock puppet set up by someone at AtBC.  Posing as a "female graduate student" would be just one more thing you guys could pounce on.  

It was a very poor decision for some of you to go over there and take the role of someone who is clearly not who they say they are.  There were obviously several floating in and out, and it is impossible to know what you people are going to come up with next.  Those little incidents, in fact, are another thing that you or someone else who perceives themselves as honest and forthright needs to address here.  

BTW, you might think about the little antic you pulled on me one time as well.  Remember that??  Thought so.

Who knows what you guys will pull next.

Big difference ATBC pokes fun, UD is being dishonest.

Date: 2007/12/06 13:58:35, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 07 2007,03:54)
On PT I read a comment that GG's attorneys (pro bono)are also working for Huckabee's campaign.  YOU connect the dots.

That explains a lot. When I first saw the article I was wondering whether his advisors have been slapping him around the head for those comments. While people like Ftk might cheer he will instantly lose all the people in the middle who have heard of Dover. These are the people that the Republicans are going to have to win over in the election.

You can be sure that his rivals will start to point out the losses in every state that has tried to teach a variant of ID in the schools

Date: 2007/12/10 21:13:35, Link
Author: bystander
--- quoted wrong post

Date: 2007/12/11 02:12:18, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2007,15:31)
Slimey Sal gets the GMBM treatment...

That's truly stupid. Fourier transforms are just a way of describing wave like behaviour. He is supposed to be an electrical engineer for goodness sakes. I worry about the degrees in the US if Sal can graduate with such a fundamental misunderstanding of his tools.

I was a mechanical engineer and we used Fourier transforms to describe spring like behaviour.

You might as well say that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples and 1 quark + 1 quark = 2 quarks reveals something fundamental about the universe.

Date: 2007/12/14 00:48:36, Link
Author: bystander
It's something I have been thinking about. When I was in High School I was quite religious and our Christianity was nothing like theirs.

We were more into going out and helping the poor rather than following people down the street telling them that they will go to HELL if they don't repent. We weren't obsessed with what gays were doing, we were trying to change the world for the better, even if just locally.

Looking back now as an atheist, I don't think that we were very theologically correct but we were given the impression that Jesus would have been happier with the Hippies then, rather than the evangelicals of today.

-- edit to say credit to Ftk

Date: 2007/12/18 15:47:42, Link
Author: bystander
I agree with ERV that Dembski is definitely unhealthy. He reminds me of stalkers. Everybody has a stalker story, but my friend broke up with his girlfriend who then:

1. Took out an AVO on him. He didn't care.
2. The next day called him up to go out for a drink
3. Was caught breaking into his house and stealing his cat and started beating at him when caught.
4. Rang up again as though nothing had happened and went into abuse when told to go away.

I think you swap the boyfriend for science/Baylor and  Dembski as the girl in this case. I think deep down that Dembski loved the short time he had in real Academia and is acted as a jilted lover.

Date: 2007/12/18 19:33:50, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 19 2007,09:21)
Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 17 2007,19:41)
I made a comment over three hours ago over here:
Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims

But the comment is "still in moderation," so I'll post it here just in case:
6:33 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Gil wrote: “…we must demonstrate that our stuff can actually work in the real world, or at least that it has a reasonable prospect of working in the real world. ”

That’s right, we have to provide mechanistic descriptions. We produce models.

Tell us, what is the ID model of the history of life? Oh, that’s right you don’t have one; IDists excuse themselves from that.

That’s why great majority of Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers find ID to be useless. (On what basis can I speak on behalf of these groups? It’s the same basis you have.)

BTW, for any of you who don't know, I am an engineer myself.

Rev. Barky is an engineer, too. I get a lot of people saying "I'm an engineer, too" at my blog, and ranting "How can these twits say this shit!"

I’m waiting to hear why "so many doctors and veterinarians" are creationists. Now there's a poser. [Bill Frist: "I hear the ape's heart in my stethoscope; it makes you feel so connected to them." No duh! Huckabee, the poorer man's Frist.] :)

I'm an engineer as well. I think that engineers seem to be over-represented because all of the reality based engineers don't pepper their posts with "As an Engineer ... " unless the subject is about engineering, whereas the creationists are right into credentialism. This is pretty much the same for everybody at ATBC, I know we have some pretty heavy credential, but very rarely does somebody say "As a double Phd in flapdoodle ...".

Date: 2007/12/19 19:36:01, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2007,02:09)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 19 2007,10:01)
Post of the week right here!


Bwa Ha ha ha ....

Closer to being one of the posts of the year. I can just see Dembski in his little Major Generals outfit singing this.

Date: 2007/12/22 15:54:12, Link
Author: bystander
My question is that appears that you version of evolution in the book is a simplisitic kill or be killed version. There has been a lot of work over the last 20 years around altruism and co-operation. This is seen now as an important part of evolution and is in many popular science magazines and book. Why didn't you include this in your book?

Date: 2007/12/27 04:42:15, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,13:40)

dcost is not long for this world. 20to1 the response will be that the gaps in the fossil record show frontloading and with Darwinism™ we would expect a gradual change.

I thought it would be interesting to make a model of the fossil record. Plug in the probability of a creature being fossilized and the probability of a fossil being found and compare this with the real fossil record. I'm sure the gaps would be of similar size. I also thought that this has already probably been done.

Having just started a business based on waiting on phone calls I realise that randomness is not a thing that we humans deal with at get level very well. I keep converting the numbers of calls per day into a trend.

I think that this is half of their problem.

Date: 2007/12/27 16:37:46, Link
Author: bystander
My journey was more an intellectual journey but I have read where for some it is a hugely emotional experience. IIDB has a large number of deconversion stories.

Date: 2007/12/27 17:42:53, Link
Author: bystander
I'm sure he is just using hyperbole in that comment and isn't quite that stupid but doesn't he realise that once comments like that are in the public domain that we will use it against him, forever.

Date: 2007/12/29 03:19:02, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,12:12)
Statement: God Exists.

Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument.

This assumes a 50-50 split over God's existence which is a weak argument and incorrect.

1. Christianity is based on the new and old Testament. Well science and archeology have proven that most of the old testament was basically made up. For the New Testament there is little contemporary information to see what is true or not, but we do know that the various birth and resurrection stories are contradictory. That if the miracles happened (particularly graves opening) there would have been a lot of contemporary records. There could have been a Jesus, but a miracle worker, unlikely.

2 Religions contradicts each other, even different kinds of Christianity contradict other types of Christianity.

3 Additionally, there is much to be said that belief in higher Gods could be an innate survival trait in humans.

4 Also, events seem to be random. Good/Bad luck seems to effect people equally whether they are Good or Bad or what they believe.

5 As science explains more the gaps that God can hide in gets smaller.

I can't say that there is definitely no God but it appears extremely unlikely she exists.

Or in other words, if there is a God, then she doesn't seem to interact with the universe at all except for perhaps getting the ball rolling, so what's the point acting if she exists?

Date: 2007/12/29 16:15:49, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,05:20)
Those are indeed your reasons but they're not rational ones, sorry.  That is to say you may be right but you're not making a reasoned-based argument.  I hope you see the difference...maybe one day.


I don't need any steenking evidence, I'm just right.

I usually stay away from threads that mention atheism because they either consist of atheists patting ourselves on the back for being rational or a theist presenting zero positive evidence telling us that we are not rational.

Skeptic calling himself a sceptic is the same as Ftk calling herself reasonable.

"The skeptics guide to the universe" had an interesting definition of a sceptic. It is not enough to just question everything, to be a true sceptic you need to change you mind when the evidence is contrary to your current beliefs.

Date: 2007/12/29 20:39:48, Link
Author: bystander
Isn't this just the courtier's reply ala PZ and Dawkins.

Date: 2008/01/02 20:34:44, Link
Author: bystander
My prediction will be the production of two more books by DI fellows that be touted as causing  the death to darwinism.

Contrary to what is above I think that Expelled will be like Dover. 90% of the media and most people don't care about the ID debate although they will have their default positions. When Dover happened, the media picked it up and saw what scuttled out from under the rocks. The DI lost the PR war before the judgment was given. I think this will be the same. Expelled will be released to packed houses, all the creos will cheer but the media will get interested and start investigating and come out with counter documentaries.

The ID movement will then even lose more of the middle ground. I think the ID movement does well when it can stay vague and below the radar of the major media. When it sticks it's head up with verifiable facts and a major presence, they get their head kicked.

edit: A  number of school boards will be voted out after risk large legal settlements

Date: 2008/01/18 17:50:24, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 19 2008,08:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 18 2008,21:05)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 18 2008,12:48)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 18 2008,12:31)
Oh whoopee it's the American equivalent of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch (If unfamiliar, Google it, it should be on YouTube)!

You pampered Yankee pussies know nothing. *I* had it tough.

There were 126 of us living in shoebox in t'middle o'motorway. I used to have to get up at 10:30 at night, half an hour before I went to bed, and lick the road clean with our tongues, eat a handful of cold poison, work 28 hours a day at mill AND pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when I got home, our dad used to murder us in cold blood and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah". And we were lucky!

If you told the young people of today that, they wouldn't believe you.


P.S. It was uphill on the way to work AND on the way back and it always rained cold, sleety rain right into the gap in my hand-me-down eighth generation clothes. Shoes? HAH! We'd eaten the shoes fourteen generations ago as the leather was like best chateubriand steak to us. You soft bastards don't even know you're born. We thought posh was getting out of the bath to pee, and I didn't see a banana until 1953. Etc. Blah drone waffle. When I say "bath" I mean a puddle of lukewarm tramp saliva gobbed at us by posh folk like lepers and that.

Holllllllley Fuck that is hilarious.

Louis I nominate you for Yahweh.  Or at least Best. Post. Evvvvvvvarrrrrrr.

Jesus man don't disappear so long next time I thought maybe you had Ron Day Voooood with FtK and perhaps had either converted to her cult or you both perhaps had died in a bizarre fetishist electoschocking accident involving a walrus, a weedeater, two jars of peach preserves, eleven and a half styrofoam life preserver rings, alligator clips and 3 phase power box.

See?  Bloody southern ponces.

When I were a lad, we used to 'ave our bizarre fetishist electroshocking accidents wi' two bits of old stick, a shovelful of gravel and next door's Jack Russell.  Mind you, that's before times got tough and we 'ad to sell t'shovel.

TWO bits of old stick?



Try telling that to the kids of today and they wont believe you.

Date: 2008/01/27 00:46:04, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 27 2008,16:39)
So hes a nobody, then?


All the more strange how Lucy DEMANDED a pic, linked to Lucy, HAD to be taken down.  So Lucy doesnt do shit all day but play on the internet, hunting down references to himself, feeling important by conversing with the 'nobodies' he finds linking to him.

What a bright light in the ID movement.

Well, he has to do something all day now that nobody gives a tinkers about ID anymore.
The intelligent side of the equation bailed out at Dover and the creos have moved back to the AIG.

Date: 2008/01/27 00:47:51, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2008,17:41)
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.

Oh, the ID version of peer review

Date: 2008/01/27 23:48:21, Link
Author: bystander
* edit: repeated myself

Date: 2008/01/28 00:19:45, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Jan. 28 2008,11:03)
Eversince I read Faith and Fratrice: The theological roots of anti-semitism, by Rosemary Radford Ruether, I've had real trouble keeping a straight face when reading comments like Ben is spewing. I can't remember learning anything about the history of Jewish-Christian relations back in school (perhaps kept quiet on purpose?), but this book was an eye-opener. Centuries of systematic persecution and pogroms on the Jews all over Europe, before Adolf came goose-stepping, and now we only hear from Disco how its all his fault (cuz he read Darwin, you see).

My father was East European and I am sure that a lot of his neighbours welcomed the Germans to rid them of the Jews and Moslems. They were "good" Christians and would have been aghast if they thought that Hitler was an atheist.

It's strange that the side of the science debate that has a lot of the anti-gay/anti-brown/anti-moslem* people on it's side think that Evolution supporters are the Nazis.


Date: 2008/01/28 00:25:52, Link
Author: bystander
Behe probably believed that the Nobel would be his after this book. What is it 10 years later and he gets beaten up by a graduate student and has to go on a radical Christian radio station to get a warm welcome.

Date: 2008/01/28 00:55:28, Link
Author: bystander
Sal is going off the rails even for Sal. I wonder if it is because he is finding his studies a little tougher than expected. Uni is different in the US compared to Australia, but I assume that until now he would have survived by just using the tools he was told to use. But going from

"Use a Fourier Transform to solve this equation" in lower grades


"Why would you use Fourier to solve this problem?" in higher grades would be a problem to somebody like Sal who has no idea about the underlying philosophy of Fourier transforms.

I have found some of the same kinds of problems with his comments on genetic computer programs.

Date: 2008/01/28 17:12:44, Link
Author: bystander
Question 5 is interesting given ERV and others revealing that Behe didn't even do a basic google search for his latest book.

Date: 2008/01/29 20:04:05, Link
Author: bystander
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. No professional trader or group of traders can move the market for more than a few minutes at a time. The big meltdown last week was cause by SocGen closing out the truly enormous trades put on by their rogue trader and that only lasted a day.

The real crooks in the markets are and always have been the salesmen. They push the gullible into buying instruments which they do not understand. Books such as FIASCO and Liar's Poker are fascinating reads, shame Stein has never even read the popular books on market manipulation.

Short sellers have been the boogy men in the markets ever since the 1930s Wall street crash. It's like blaming the undertaker for somebody dieing.

edit to add: I don't know why everybody is surprised that the NYTimes keeps him on. They don't get rid of people because they are wrong, they get rid of them because they are boring.

Date: 2008/02/02 21:15:18, Link
Author: bystander
How can somebody who refuses to learn the facts about biology and maths accuse somebody of not understanding something. It's not opinion but there is enough out there to show that Dembski and Behe's ramblings are just souped up god of the gaps and easily refuted. Brown is the easiest to refute with only high-school physics.
The ATBC, PZ and PT crowd may be rude and noisy but they are not dishonest they will only get rid of people who have continually trolled over months, not get rid of somebody who has asked a question apparently answered before. And they would never ban somebody and pretend that the person has not been banned.

Date: 2008/02/05 05:52:18, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,17:58)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 05 2008,00:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2008,22:51)
About Ftk's two sons:
No one need worry about my boy‘s education

Your right, Ftk. Not there education.

I wonder if she'll get the joke.

Doffs cap.

Doff's Cap

Date: 2008/02/16 17:44:20, Link
Author: bystander
I think Sal is becoming one sick puppy. Has anybody been to his University? Would it be apt to point one of the campus welfare people to his blog.
It would be terrible to sit back and laugh at him one day and then find out that he decides that he is the hand of God.

My guess is that it is not just failing grades. I'd say that he is debating one of his professors and he is finding that in real life it is not as easy to pretend to win a discussion as it is on a blog.

I wonder if Ftk ever bangs her head on the table when she looks at who is on her side or she is so totally under the spell of Morton's demon that she can't really see the difference.

Date: 2008/02/26 15:55:21, Link
Author: bystander

When I was fourteen (32 years ago), I believed in all kinds of woo and firmly believed that science was blind. Unhappily (but fortunately) I found that each guru had feet of clay until I have become a confirmed sceptic. These guys have a good story and if you use them as your only source of information it is easy to be seduced.

A lot of the people you see around here have been fighting anti-science for over 20 years. Instead of ignoring ID science and simply attacking the people (which is what Berlinski, Behe etc would like you believe) these guys have done detailed critiques of their ideas. It's all easy to find on the internet if you research. The reason that a lot of people on this board and people like PZ seem angry is that the ID people never address the critiques.

I believe that this movie will be like the Dover trial. The more popular the movie, the more likely somebody will do another documentary where they do look under the rocks, where they do do the research (I have a great title "Duped").

Date: 2008/02/26 16:29:14, Link
Author: bystander
But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.

Unfortunately con men tell us that these are the easiest people to con.


Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute?  Their goals and objectives?  Of course we did. We researched them extensively and conducted interviews with numerous Discovery fellows.

Did you interview their critics? Gave people they criticized (basically the science establishment) a chance to rebuff. Spend a weekend reading the archives of Panda's Thumb to see the other side of their various press releases. They also have some interesting critiques of Berlinski.

Please don't think we are being mean. BELIEVING that there may be more to existence than what science has shown is fine and dandy. BELIEVING that some scientist somewhere will find this is also fine. We are more curious as to why hitch your wagon to these particular characters?

It doesn't take much research to discover that these guys are wrong, dishonest or both.

Sternberg -- there was a senate investigation. read the appendix, this guy was pretty odious and would have been sacked from any private company.
Gonzales -- Wasn't expelled just not promoted. Didn't take any students to Doctorate. Brought in hardly any research money, Did hardly any research. He did write the book privileged planet but didn't develop this any further.
etc. etc.

Date: 2008/02/27 06:36:16, Link
Author: bystander
I think that you miss the point. The idea that my religion is true and all other religions are false is a relatively recent thing. Before this I think that most people believed that their god and everybody else's god were real, so having a god that could do cooler miracles than somebody else's god was an advantage.

Date: 2008/02/29 04:36:25, Link
Author: bystander
Kevin was a bit of a disappointment. He was happy to discuss philosophy but nothing about the specifics of the movie. You would think a movie maker would be interested in the "other side" of the whole expelled thing. I know that I would be nervous that I may have been taken in by the DI crowd, and appear as a fool.

The only thing that I can derive from what Kevin has written is that he thinks that Science is not including the supernatural it doesn't matter that they are promoting liars (Well he didn't seem interested in defending any of the ID gang here) and slandering scientists.

Date: 2008/03/01 15:55:36, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 01 2008,06:45)
That requires making an assumption about his intentions and I'm not prepared to make that assumption.

Also, there is a certain school of thought that says faith is required because if not the choices to follow God would be easy.  If he's obvious and accessable then there's no reason to doubt him and too much pressure not to stray.  Almost like what O'Donnell says, there'd be no more free will.

Moses and the Jews certainly knew god when they left Egypt and they still strayed. Why was the unchanging god so keen to have himself known then and not now. Even in the Acts of the apostles has overt acts of God.

I once heard a good comedy riff where god had used up his advertising budget by 100AD and all he could afford now was the occassional impression on a piece of toast.

Date: 2008/03/03 15:05:51, Link
Author: bystander
I assume (because you didn't mention it) that the writing is the usual appalling O'Leary style. I wonder who proof read it for her?

Secondly, I am convinced that O'leary has never read any material first hand. I heard her on an interview once. After spending many minutes criticizing Dawkins, she revealed that she had never read any of his work. This was because she didn't find him interesting. I wouldn't be surprised that she had only read reviews of Dennett's work and that is why it's arguments aren't discussed.

Date: 2008/03/07 14:46:43, Link
Author: bystander
I agree with David and I don't think that this is a good idea. I think a better idea would be to recognise homeschooled kids officially and enforce a ciriculum on the kids. This means that the homeschoolers can teach any crackpot things they want but they must also teach a minimum of english, math, science etc.
You would do this be having standardized testing every couple of years.
This happens in Australia with homeschooled kids and private schools. They have to teach the ciriculum first which includes evolution before anything else.

Date: 2008/03/08 16:29:56, Link
Author: bystander
All those with websites and blogs will have to make sure they link to it so it goes up the google charts.

Date: 2008/03/11 02:48:22, Link
Author: bystander
I agree with Heddle on this. I was basically taught to think of it as a play. God not only created the universe, wrote the history of the universe and wrote himself a part in the story of the universe. So the perfect universe and story of the universe requires these miracles not because the plan was imperfect but they were a neccessary part of the plan.

Of course as I am an atheist, I will note that there is a relationship with miracles. The greatness of the miracle is in direct proportion with how many years they occured before the present and indirectly proportional to the number of witnesses.

Date: 2008/03/12 17:05:02, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2008,23:53)
For daring to have a lecture series for children Dakwins is going to fry!
That Dude is going to fry...srly. I've never said that about anyone before because no one can read another person's heart or know God's plan for them, but Dawkins seems to me to be assured a seat at the right hand of his fellow hater of the Divine...

Yet when FTK sits her children down and teaches them the lies of Gish as truth that's somehow OK by Jesus?

When FTK teaches her children that Dino and Man shared a planet at the same time it's somehow fine? Does lying make you a "hater of the Divine" also FTK? If so, get those asbestos pants at the ready!

FTK you have some serious problems!


I think this is why Christianity is going to implode. This you are going to hell unless ... stuff used to be constrained to the red states in the US but the rise of the religious right have emboldened even more moderate pastors.

In Australia schools have a scripture class once a week (Our kids opt out of course*) but the Angican teacher told the kids last week that if they don't read the Bible they are going to hell. A number of parents have pulled their kids out and put them in the Bahai class instead. A similar thing happened a few years ago when an instructor said that they have to love God more than their parents.

Most Christians in Australia like their religion on Sundays, Christmas and Easter and that's it.

* My Daughter said this morning that she was sad that none of her friends didn't believe in God so she could have someone to sit next to in non-scripture class. I hope Dawkins brings out the God Delusion in picture book form.

Date: 2008/03/20 18:50:10, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ndt @ Mar. 21 2008,03:28)
Regarding Stein's motivation, I'd like to offer an additional possibility besides True Believer and In It For The Money. I think it's possible that he sees the religious right as a useful, easily manipulated voting bloc, much the way Nixon regarded southern racists. This whole exercise could be an attempt to keep them voting for the Nixon-style "conservatives" whose views Stein agrees with.

Looking at Stein's financial writings, I think that he enjoys going against the crowd and this is probably what attracted him in the first place. The idea that he thinks that people are generally sheep and being different marks him as being an independent thinker. Also the DI guys can present their ideas quite seductively if you have not been exposed to the other side.

Date: 2008/03/23 21:23:48, Link
Author: bystander
No doubt many of you would have read  Dawkins' review of the movie. I wonder if Kevin will include this and enlighten us where it was unfair? I think that it might have been too facty for him.

Date: 2008/03/23 21:25:44, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 24 2008,04:54)
Hey Richard: As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. As a journalist supposedly reporting the news for a major daily, Cornelia Hunter is.

That's the first step - admiting to not being objective. How many steps until the admission that the movie is just outright lying. Is it a seven step program like AA?

Date: 2008/03/24 21:39:24, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2008,12:28)
Getting to the nub of it, how can a society be non-Darwinian? Every social structure and every meme has descended with modification.

Perhaps Dawkins is confusing or conflating this inescapable process with social Darwinism.

I think that there is a distinction between the evolution of societies and a particular society that runs based on survival of the fittest. I think that Dawkins' is talking about the second.

Date: 2008/04/03 17:34:11, Link
Author: bystander
Kevin reminds me a lot of FTK. Even worse in a way as you would assume that for any movie you would do hundreds of hours of research (at least to find out what criticisms that your opponents are going to throw at you).

Kevin is yet to give any specifics details on who is being repressed what are the actual doubts about evolution and answered any of the rebuttals about the Darwin->Hitler rubbish.

We even have a quote from Kevin's boss Mathis about Sternberg being sacked. How many seconds research does it take to know this is rubbish.

I think Kevin represents the Goebbels school of writing, no lie is too outlandish as long as it pushes your POV. The only question is how much is Morton's demon and how much is actual lying.

This is why Expelled will not get much traction. The people who have already drunk the koolaid will like but that vast rump of Americans who would be sympathetic will get turned off by the lies.

This is why I think that the creationist nonsense will only grow to a certain level. As soon as they get too public, sensible (relatively) people will take notice and kick it back down to where it belongs.

Judge Jones did a good job in Dover, but I think that what killed ID was the daily reporting of the foolish statements of the school board and Behe that got enough people to notice and reject it.

Date: 2008/04/05 01:17:16, Link
Author: bystander
Wes you left out

M. I have already shown this so many times, I'm not going to do it again.


Date: 2008/04/10 02:33:47, Link
Author: bystander
I'm reading all of the reviews in the Sciam site. Some choice quotes:

"The movie's one-sided version is either the result of shoddy investigation or deliberate propagandizing—neither of which reflects well on the other information in the film."

This is discussing the section on Sternberg. Well Kevin which one is it?

Sciam Article Link

Date: 2008/04/17 04:57:21, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (didymos @ April 17 2008,21:39)
Wow.  Shermer really pissed off Luskin.  There's a two-part denunciation on the DI "blog":

Must have melted their site. I can't connect.

Date: 2008/04/20 17:39:49, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (BathTub @ April 21 2008,10:13)
Usually split heavily towards the studio for the first couple of weeks.

So the theatres will be losing money on this turkey (unless the fans like to eat the godless popcorn and choc tops). I'm sure that that they wont be keen on showing the next Premise Media epic.

Date: 2008/04/24 17:32:54, Link
Author: bystander
Having just escaped from being one, Paul reminds me of managers dealing with staff. An employee comes up to you with an idea. For what ever reason you don't want to pursue the idea and don't want to say no to the person. You just say for the guy to come up with a full proposal on their own time. When the guy does it say that you need some time to study the proposal or pick up some minor point and send them back for more research (on their own time).
With luck they will get bored.
I think that if anybody thinks that Paul is doing anything other than wasting your time are being scammed. Reading through these pages, he has never said that he would actually do anything with the data.
Behe when faced with reality say's "irrelevant". Paul says "Interesting, could you research it for me and I'll get back to you". Dembski of course calls the National Guard and publishes your kids school's on the web.

Date: 2008/04/30 18:37:41, Link
Author: bystander
The last time that ID made the major Australian media was during the Dover trial. Here is an article in the Australian:

Ferris Bueller's way off as creationist damns Dawkins

I actually had to read a  fair way into the article before I realised that they were dissing the movie. The Australian is a conservative broadsheet.

Looking around at the reviews, I am seeing quite a few that should be sympathetic that are panning the film. Ben Stein and company can easily dismiss most of the criticism as liberal slant, but when the target market starts to move away from the movie they should start to get worried.

I think that they have jumped the shark with this movie. Note that even Davetard disagreed with the Nazi connection. I think that in 6 months time the movie will be buried as an embarrassing mistake and there will be few if any DVDs sold in Church basements.

Date: 2008/05/01 17:44:17, Link
Author: bystander
Is it lazyness or is it
1. Just hard to make up this crap otherwise why recycle the same stuff over and over again. Dembski has had two ideas in how many years. Behe took a long time to make up enough stuff for his
2. Most of the stuff is so contradictory, keeping it all in one place would be embaressing.
3. Because of two -- who could peer review something that totally contradicts their own position. they would end up fighting amongst themselves and not the real enemy the elite left wing liberal atheist Muslim Darwinist media.

Date: 2008/05/05 17:21:55, Link
Author: bystander
Phyllis Schlafly has a review of Expelled and it is ofcourse positive.

I've also been googling news on Ben Stein for reviews and my favourites are the ones from conservatives and the religious. Here is another one from

The Corner.

The religious tend to say that he has points but has gone overboard and the conservatives tend to say that he is an embarrassment to conservatives.

Date: 2008/05/15 22:59:22, Link
Author: bystander
Least it's proof that Dave does read this thread.

Date: 2008/05/19 19:14:35, Link
Author: bystander
We have our denialists as well, but after all the years of drought  they are few and far between. I think it came as a surprise to the previous Australian conservative government how much of their traditional base (DTard's idealogical cousins) believed in global warming, I think they assume that we follow the US in everything.

These guys at the UD can make their armchair announcements on these things without having to face anybody suffering or actually doing anywork on the subject.

I'd like to see Dave visit western New South Wales and tell everybody that GW is a left wing conspiracy and anyway it's good or you.

Date: 2008/05/21 02:42:52, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 21 2008,13:44)
Quote (nuytsia @ May 20 2008,10:09)

It could be worse, you could be living in Tasmania.

Think I might be the most isolated lurker here.
I wait to be proven wrong. ;)

We could perhaps argue that one - North Shore of Auckland, New Zealand is where I work and play.

And yes - rugby, watching, not having played since secondary school (it hurt).

Before this, living in Islington and working in Covent Garden, London. Once long ago 2 years in Bethesda, Md, just out of DC.

A small town 2hrs south of Sydney so a long distance hello to you both.

Date: 2008/05/21 22:27:50, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 21 2008,21:48)
I always marveled at how FtK could write something in one comment that she would then completely contradict in the next comment. It's a marvelous talent, even if it doesn't contribute much to any productive discussions. But she really shows off that talent today. She writes a post wondering if the Church Burnin' Ebola Boys wanted to donate money to her, and in the very next post writes that she thinks that this slander      
These guys are a nasty piece of work
and this one          
It's not like they're capable of being what you might call honest or anything.
about the very same folks are "spot on".

Marvelous "framing". Just... wow.

So has she said where the ebola boys are dishonest? We can point to plenty of places where she and the rest of the IDiots are dishonest but has she ever pointed out something dishonest from this side?

Looks like she wont be seeing Jebus when she dies.

Date: 2008/06/02 17:43:54, Link
Author: bystander
Not to mention 50 years ago, thrashing your children to within an inch of their lives was seem as something that upstanding christians do. "Spare the rod spoil the child". How can she say that she is worried that morals become relative under an atheist agenda when they have obviously been relative for all of history.

Date: 2008/06/02 17:45:05, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 02 2008,19:41)
FTK jumps on another bandwagon - Vaccination and autism.
So often we hear that there is a connection between the two. I don't really lean either way in this debate, but here's an interesting article on the subject.

FTK, there are news sites out there that do more or less the same as you. I.E provide links and summary's of news and nothing more. Why do you bother?

If you "don't really lean either way in this debate" why are you bothering to post that particular story? There are no doubt 100's of things that you are also too ignorant of to form an opinion on, why don't you post similar articles about them too?

Or is it another example of the big bad science kings keeping research suppressed for X reason?

Your (and the ID movement in general) desperation is showing.

More interesting would have been all of the studies showing no link. What a loser. Insteading of looking at Scienceblogs for articles to troll she should actually read a few of the science articles.

Date: 2008/06/10 22:32:38, Link
Author: bystander
I've just read about e coli on PZ's blog and the whole UD crowd are blithering idjits. So the logic runs:

Behe: two mutations are almost impossible
e coli paper: three mutations occured here to enable the trait
Behe: Ah ha, I am vindicated
UD: Stoopid darwinists

Or the more probable explanation is that Behe skimmed the paper and nobody else at UD read the paper.

Date: 2008/06/13 17:22:16, Link
Author: bystander
I look forward to this book selling 12 copies.

Date: 2008/06/16 00:45:00, Link
Author: bystander
You have to give Wally some credit, at least he gives enough information of his model so that it can be unambiguously refuted.

Ofcourse, even then kooks like Ftk and AFDave still try to defend him. I don't think that even Wally believes in his model that strongly. I remember in the IIDB debate with AFDave, Wally must have been watching the outcome as he was changing his model to suit. Unfortunately, he would remove one problem and show 2 or 3 others.

If Ftk over the last three years read the science in the science blogs rather than finding things to concern troll over, she might have learned enough to see that Wally is a kook

Date: 2008/06/16 01:53:07, Link
Author: bystander
This is always the big question around what they really believe. I think that Walt knows that his theory is crap but but also KNOWS that the world is only six thousand years old, so if he keeps plugging away he'll come up with the right answer.

I put Behe in the same camp, he initially believes what he has written. When the sloppy scholarship is revealed it is O' crap back to the drawing board (Never admiting the problems though). At least with Behe, I think he has had some interesting ideas and if ID was science this would be the kinds of things that it would do.

I differ from most and think that Dembski actually believes the stuff he has produced and his bitterness comes from nobody that matters acknowledging his brilliance.

Date: 2008/06/16 02:10:07, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Chayanov @ June 16 2008,13:44)
He doesn't have to believe it. He's got poorly educated fanatics hanging on his words who are more than willing to waste their lives promoting it for him. All he has to do is sit back and enjoy the fawning.

I think that this is what makes them sloppy. I think that if the audience actually looked at their work critically then Wally would have pulled out the calculator and Behe would have actually checked the literature first.

I also think that this is what makes Ftk uninteresting as she hasn't changed her position 1 iota over all of these years. No matter how many times these guys lie.

Date: 2008/06/16 03:46:47, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (keiths @ June 16 2008,15:25)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,23:37)
According to that thread FtK has been defending Brown's nonsense for over three years. That's sad. 3 years is long enough that starting from scratch, she could have learned algebra, then trig, then calc 1 and 2, then Physics 1 and 2 and a little geology and been equipped, by now, to do the simple calculations herself and understand that Brown is talking nonsense. Instead, she's spent the whole time trying to convince people who know better of things which aren't true.

A question for long-time Ftk-watchers: In all seriousness, do you think Steve is right?  Are obstinacy, lack of motivation and psychological defense mechanisms the only obstacles to Ftk's mastery of basic trig, calc, physics and geology? Or is there something else about Ftk's brain that makes learning all of those things, and then critically applying them to Walt Brown's "theories", as impossible as training your goldfish to recite the Gettysburg Address?

I would say a bit of both. When I was young I always thought that you could teach anybody anything. After having staff for a number of years, I found that I was wrong and some people's wiring is just different and they can't be taught to do everything. The bigger disappointment was much later when I found out that I could not do anything I put my mind to.

In this case you have to put your faith in some authority or other. This doesn't excuse Ftk, however, as the people she puts her faith into are shown time and time again to lie and to censor any dissent.

Ftk does however perform admirably as a modern day Simplicio for the lurkers

Date: 2008/06/16 05:43:43, Link
Author: bystander
The hysteria part that gets to me and this is what will cause them to eventually fall apart. They force everybody to make a cultural choice where none is really needed.

I think that if you asked most of the religious here (although we do have some creos, they aren't great in number) in Australia, their murky idea of science and of their own religion, means that they can reconcile them to each other and they don't have any issues. I spent nearly 10 years reconciling my own growing scientific knowledge with the Bible without any real issues. In the US, however, you are told that biologists are atheists and believing in evolution and deep time will take you to hell, so people are primed for the fight and if they see any cracks in ID or Creationism they tend to turn their back completely on Christianity.

What is faintly amusing in this is while the biologists and geologists are being demonized, archaeologists have been, over the last 25 years, quietly disproving almost the entire old testament with barely a peep from the wider religious community.

Date: 2008/06/16 16:37:38, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richard Simons @ June 16 2008,20:22)
What I find odd is the way she keeps coming back here even though she has nothing to say. It seems to all boil down to 'Brown, Behe and a few others have interesting things to say and I think you are all mean for not taking them seriously. Also, it is only fair to teach all views in schools.' In addition, she thinks atheists lack morals and has made a few comments about religion. Other than that, has she actually ever said anything?

At least Afdave had strong views and would put forth arguments that were initially entertaining but became frustrating when he never listened to anyone else.

It might sound sexist but I think she comes here because
1. She likes to mix it with the bad boys (and girls). Except for Sal and DT most of the UD crowd are pretty dry, if you don't understand why they are funny.
2. She also needs to have the last word

Date: 2008/06/20 18:02:22, Link
Author: bystander
Ftk came here and pretty much managed to say nothing. I am no scientist but can think of a half dozen reasons why common design doesn't make sense or paints the designer as an incompetent boob. For one, has she actually looked up why PT is called the Panda's Thumb.
She comes spouts common design is true and runs away without defending it. Her willful ignorance is horrifying.
She calls us closed minded but never backs up anything she says with evidence or actually refutes anything.

Date: 2008/06/21 22:01:34, Link
Author: bystander
I would have been a fly on the wall during the interview, McKnight certainly did his homework.

I wonder if Stein is regretting the movie yet. This seems to be the first sighting of Stein outside of finance for quite awhile.

Date: 2008/06/22 18:59:36, Link
Author: bystander
What is the common design argument? To me the spectrum consists of God using the same template everywhere. This doesn't explain why the Tasmanian Tiger looks like a wolf, but looking deeper has more in common with a Kangaroo. Why not just plunk a wolf down in Tasmania? Why are the marsupials all clustered together in Australia? Why have marsupials at all? Stupid designer.

The other end of common design is the trivial answer that God based Kangaroo and Tasmanian tigers on the same template and modified them to meet their particular environmental niches which is identical to evolution except you have God continually zapping beneficial mutations.

I basically agree, Ftk has no curiosity about the world and picks up Creo talking points without spending a millisecond to see where these ideas actually lead. These guys are their own worst enemy as they do this out in public for all to see.

Date: 2008/06/25 02:03:27, Link
Author: bystander
... at least there is some honesty and consistency there, compared to Ftk and the other Uddites who dance and sway to imply the same but avoid actually saying anything of substance.

Date: 2008/06/28 00:47:53, Link
Author: bystander
Is there a psychiatrist/psychologist in the house. I would really like to understand the Ftks of the world.

She comes onto this Forum and bleats "Common Design" answers all without a shred of supporting evidence and ignoring any discussion of it.

Says that scientists are arrogant because they believe that they have disproved all of the creo arguments, without saying which disproofs (?) are incorrect.

Date: 2008/06/29 00:32:22, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2008,11:43)
I don't like fossil fuels but I have some understanding of physics and economics so I'm grimly aware of the problems of replacement fuels. I've been a reluctant fan of nuclear power, and generally opposed to solar energy on a price per kilowatt-hr basis, but two new technologies have changed that opinion. Solar Thermal Energy, and now, this mirrors-plus photovoltaics stuff.

This is what is annoying about Australian politics, both parties are about outdoing each other on giving tax cuts to make oil cheaper. Which I think is very short sighted. What we need is a cut in consumption to give us time and a motivation to get the alternatives.
The oil lobby doesn't help with the "lets drill for oil here and everything will be peachy". They don't tell us the fact that the Middle East oil fields are so freakishly large that all of the new proposed fields are small in comparison and that the Middle East fields are running out.

Date: 2008/07/01 20:17:08, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JohnW @ July 02 2008,03:48)
Quote (Ra-Úl @ July 01 2008,12:39)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2008,14:11)
Quote (Ra-Úl @ July 01 2008,15:04)
The 'lunar craters were caused by a battle between Satan and the Angels' is a classic for the ages, with a lovely and admirably executed 180 by Dave; when a poster quoted one of Dave's beloved creo sources as having said that, Dave said "knee slapper", only to say this a few posts later: "Wow. I stand corrected. He DID write that on pp 66-67. Yes, I have the book. Amazing. I do see where he's coming from now though and I can follow his logic although I think it would be an impossible to theory to validate until we get to Heaven and ask God in person." Thomas Pynchon could not invent this guy.



So sorry. I thought I had :

Everyone should go read that thread right now.  Do whatever you need to do.  Quit your job.  Postpone your wedding.  Ignore the contractions.

This is where argument-from-authority leads, kiddies.  Just say no.

The site is down for maintenance --- Boo hoo hoo. Maybe the tard melted it.

Date: 2008/07/01 21:27:41, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 02 2008,01:48)
Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:08)
There are millions of people who THINK they are Christian.

Real Christians follow God's Word and believe it as such.  If you're going to say, "Well lot's of Christians feel that Evolution and the Bible can both exist", obviously aren't.

I don't mean to offend anyone but how does one say thy ar a full Christian when they pick and choose which parts of God's Word they wish to believe?

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:30)
For other Christians, I offer up only what I read in the Bible.

I don't judge them so I won't say what happens to them.  That is up to God.

As far as Kosher, I am not a full on vegetarian, I eat fish though no shell fish, shrimp, etc., and I'm lactose intolerant.  So no "meat with milk" for me.  So yes, I think I do.

Trust me we've had many "open and intense discussions" at church about following God's Laws.

Quote (lcd @ July 01 2008,14:41)
Do I smell a hypocrite here?

Well I certainly do.

Anyone else?

I used to be a real Christian, I even followed all the stuff that contradicted the other stuff.

(HT to Homer Simpson)

Date: 2008/07/03 01:18:35, Link
Author: bystander
DOL suggests that she could be in the extras part of the DVD *shudder*

Date: 2008/07/03 17:37:39, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (lcd @ July 04 2008,04:55)
Okay all you Nazi Evolutionists*

(* is this better Lou?)

Don't bait those that are trying to just get me mad.


Okay, I need to deliver up a "Theory of Information".

So I say that there is Information in DNA.  I am also saying that this Information can be destroyed but idea that useful info can come about over random processes is not possible.

Now what type of Information is there in DNA?  I doubt that the analogy that it is a Document while easy to understand is a very accurate statement.  After all we really haven't mapped out the human DNA yet, right?  So it will be tough to accually see what's going on.

But we can still do this:

1:  My Theory is that DNA has Information that can be destroyed.

2:  IT also includes that DNA has Information that is front loaded in the DNA.  These parts become active when other parts become de-activated.

3:  The prediction that I will state for now, yes I'll do more but I have to learn the terminology better and I'll have to do more studying, is that when you change DNA the function it controls is lost.

As I said, more later but the family is home.

Happy 4th everyone.

This is where the Dembskis of the world are actually evil. For people like lcd it is not a matter of learning new stuff, it is a matter of unlearning the wrong things. Saying "Information cannot be created" doesn't make sense at any level and Dembski and co are still trying to find a definition of information for which this is true.

Whats wrong with the following:

1. A mutation happens which changes DNA
2. The mutation gives an advantage to an individual.
3. The individual survives to have more offspring.
4. The mutation gets fixed in the population

I know that for the experts I've left out a lot of detail but lcd needs to show why this is wrong.

Date: 2008/07/04 00:13:02, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Badger3k @ July 04 2008,09:12)
Given that, to many creationists, there can be no beneficial mutations by definition, most of what you suggest is just not possible.  If it is beneficial, it is either front-loaded, or else the signature of Teh Designer Which Is Not G-O-D.

It would be nice for them to prove it someday.

I feel another afdave thing happening. I wonder how many posts between beneficial mutations never happen to beneficial mutations rarely happen

Date: 2008/07/04 20:13:38, Link
Author: bystander
The problem for Schlafly is that he has pretty much implied that if the data is correct then he is wrong.

Date: 2008/07/07 23:44:54, Link
Author: bystander
Yes Mike would be left with well grounded people like Joy.

Date: 2008/07/09 02:31:55, Link
Author: bystander
This was about the closest I ever got to joining UD. Those idiots saying "atheists think this", "atheists have a problem with that" really got my goat. Disagreeing with atheism is fine but inventing what we think and feel is annoying.

Date: 2008/07/09 06:22:16, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 09 2008,17:51)
Then there's Nelson's ridiculous claim that his posts here have been edited...

Everyone with moderation privileges at AtBC is saddled with having a notice of change appear on all posts that they edit. That is a global setting in the ikonBoard software. If any moderator edited post shows the edit notice, all moderator edited posts show that notice. Example edited post.

I've edited posts to fix formatting problems, especially long, broken URLs that throw off the width of the tables used for content. On PT, I removed, with notice, the personal contact information for Bill Dembski posted by one of our commenters.

I have found no reason for myself or any moderator at AtBC to alter Nelson's words, and the pristine condition of his posts sans visible edit notice testify that they are unaltered. Nelson indicts himself quite adequately.

I think only those who have drunk deeply of the kool-aid would have thought otherwise. Guts just digs himself deeper and deeper.

The thing that Guts should realise that much more people lurk around Atbc than around TT. So for people like me, the first introduction to Guts is the effluent he spewed over the last 20 pages.

If I was Mike Gene, I would dump this guy as soon as possible.

Date: 2008/07/13 22:55:25, Link
Author: bystander
Although the family reasons is true, the stuff with Guts could push him over the edge.

Using the Dr Dr D EF filter I make two ID predictions:

1. Mike finds that in real life people down fawn over him and he is back within a month.

2. With Mike gone it reaches the popularity of Overweening Evidence as anybody with the slightest bit of intelligence is banned.

I think that it is like UD. Dembski is the only reason that the denizens put up with the environment.


Date: 2008/07/13 22:56:01, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 14 2008,09:25)
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2008,18:38)
Guts/Nelson Alonzo/Whoever goes nuts and makes Telic Thoughts look like a den of fools, and a week later Mike Gene flees the site. That's an interesting coincidence.

I noticed that also, but there's no reason to suspect that Mike is being honest.

Freudian Slip?

Date: 2008/07/15 02:02:06, Link
Author: bystander
Coincidentally, I googled intelligent design and probably 80% were critical of ID. The first Australian links were from local papers talking about Dover and the next link was for a web design company. The positive sites seemed to consist mainly of the sites from the UD idiots.

This just shows that ID supporters make up a tiny percentage of the population (0.5% of the US population went to see the movie) and the Evolution Supporters far outweigh them.

Date: 2008/07/15 02:06:11, Link
Author: bystander
And bystander's Fathers younger son would agree.


Date: 2008/07/15 16:16:22, Link
Author: bystander
Thanks Guys, but being on the other side of the world. I get my happy birthday when I already have my hangover. I'm no good at lolcats but here is a picture of where I live. I'm on the ridge on the right hand side of the mountain in the distance.

Date: 2008/07/15 17:17:32, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2008,04:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 15 2008,16:19)
Quote (bystander @ July 15 2008,17:16)
Thanks Guys, but being on the other side of the world. I get my happy birthday when I already have my hangover. I'm no good at lolcats but here is a picture of where I live. I'm on the ridge on the right hand side of the mountain in the distance.

I think I hate you now.

Agreed. I was going to wish you a happy birfday but now...oh wait...


Oh Noes the water is now 14 degrees*. Oh Waits it's winter it is supposed to be Chilli.

In proper degrees not those imperialistic running dog farenheit.

Date: 2008/07/16 02:11:32, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 16 2008,06:22)
Happy birthday old thing.

I leave you with this to let it brighten up your day as much as it did mine.


That's one of our favourite LOLcats. Thanks

Date: 2008/07/16 17:11:28, Link
Author: bystander
Shouldn't Dave had made a comment that Creationists use the term Darwinism and they have yet to produce a definition. Scientists study evolution.

Date: 2008/07/17 18:23:47, Link
Author: bystander
I've always thought that the YECs lost the battle 200 years ago. Ftk (and Sal) like to say atheist conspiracy, but these guys were mostly Christians and through their work, which was applied science (a lot of the people using this were engineers) they found that a young earth and flood geology could not fit what they were seeing.

Date: 2008/07/20 20:39:35, Link
Author: bystander
I think that it is good. It weakens the evolution == atheism link. The fact is that you have DOL writing "No True Christian" posts shows that it is working.

Date: 2008/07/22 19:31:25, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 23 2008,05:20)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 21 2008,11:19)
Not at all. All that I am saying (as someone who moves in evangelical circles) that these are the type of speakers that evangelical Christians listen to. They're not going to pay any attention to the Pope, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or any other liberal minded Christian leader for that matter. C.S. Lewis is still widely read and quoted in evangelical circles here. I'm not sure who the modern day equivelent is.

No one is trying to convince the unconvinceable. There are a lot of religious fence-sitters out there who are being told by the fundies that most of science is anti-religious. Having a substantial number of clergy people refuting the contention is aimed at them.

Yes, I agree that it is one of those "at the margins things" and while people like Ftk will never be convinced she'll end up more isolated.

It's like homophobia, it is hard to maintain when somebody you know is gay and open about it. As the homophobia disappears more and more people will come out of the closet causing more homophobia to disappear. A virtual circle.

Date: 2008/07/22 23:08:03, Link
Author: bystander
I had what we would call a liberal Catholic upbringing but I think that we reconciled it by saying that God didn't do evil but allowed evil to happen due to granting us free will.

I think that the whole Buddist wheel of life thing makes more sense in that having bad things happen is a way to allow us to evolve to the perfect beings or whatever.

Date: 2008/07/22 23:15:21, Link
Author: bystander
On less philosophical grounds the problems I a non professional have with front loading is:

1. Where the heck do you fit all this front loaded information
2. Doesn't Lenskis experiment cause a serious problem for front loading?

The third issue is that I thought that frontloading would be a fertile area for making and testing hypothesis but still there is silence other than them saying that Junk DNA is not Junk.

And even with Junk DNA is not Junk but hold some special code, should some analysis tool be able to tell us that there is some thing there?


Date: 2008/07/23 18:07:41, Link
Author: bystander
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ July 24 2008,01:47)
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:41)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 23 2008,12:33)
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:27)
The ancient law was a shadow of what was to come. Jesus' law is much more severe. You don't have to murder to get an eternal death sentence, you just have to hate someone or call your brother a fool.

Well, that sucks, because I hate my brother.

Well, for Christians that's the point. The Jewish law could, at least in principle, be obeyed. With Jesus' law there is no possibility. Who doesn't hate someone? Who hasn't lusted? Who hasn't called his brother a fool? But, for Christians, that's the good news. The impossibility of us saving ourselves through obedience means that someone else has to save us.

For Christians it is, rest of the world's population it isn't. Why is a being who sets such impossible and draconian laws even worth worshipping? That's beyónd cruelty and barbarism. That you're doomed to suffering hellish agony's for eternity almost per definition, beleiving things like that and beleiving that they're good and just honestly shock me.

Still, even you are choosing what to beleive, how to interpret the texts you read. You are no different then any other human being on that matter.

This whole discussion is silly given that the last 20 years of archaeology has contradicted the old testament up to around 600 BCE. It's only because it is NOT being taught in schools, that it isn't an issue like evolution.

So it again comes down to evidence. Evidence supports evolution not the Bible.

Date: 2008/07/24 02:04:03, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2008,13:53)
21 July 2008
PZ Myers and Abbie Smith - An Hour of No Cursing!

PZ Myers and Abbie Smith have an hour-long video conference here. A few surprising things, not the least of which is neither of them thought to bolster their points with the cussing that characterizes their blogs.

Oh lordy! Abbie said cuss words! I believe I'm comin' down with tha vapohs!!!!!!!

Hey Dave--Abbie's problem isn't with cussing. It's her deranged lack of apostrophes. Get with the program, numbnuts.

Of course Dave has never been known to utter an unclean word.

Date: 2008/07/27 02:57:08, Link
Author: bystander
Happy Birthday, I have pioneered 47 for you and it isn't bad so far. Nothing has dropped off yet, Well nothing that I ever use much anyway.

Date: 2008/07/28 22:07:37, Link
Author: bystander
It is also that LCD has bought into it has to be God or Evolution false debate.
I'm an atheist now but I went to a Catholic school and we had no problem with science. Jesus talked in parables so why couldn't God have talked in parables when He inspired the OT. We were taught that Genesis was written to highlight origins and the nature of free will and sin rather than to try an be a science textbook. If you were God and had to teach stuff to a tribe with attention deficit order (Moses was gone for 5 minutes and already they were worshiping a golden calf), would you tell them that the universe is 12 billions years old and they evolved from monkeys or would you teach them morals and what happens when they don't follow orders.

Date: 2008/07/29 07:25:14, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,19:21)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".

I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Hehe, good one.

Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe.

I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

the problem is that most of us did and then we started to actually read the Bible

Date: 2008/07/31 02:11:50, Link
Author: bystander
I'll have to grab a camera. The most common non-bird critters around our place are red bellied black snakes. Even though they are poisonous, they leave you alone unless you step on them. I always think that these guys are pretty cool and like to watch them until they disappear.

Blue Tongued lizards under scrap sheet metal (until the Dogs get to them).

We sometimes find  Echidna's curled up next to the house and in the mountain behind us there are Wallabys. There are a lot of Wombat holes around but we haven't seen one yet.

As for birds, Where I live is supposed to have the highest diversity of parrots in the world. Our favourite is the Black Cockatoo. Their call is not as raucous as the white Cockie.

Wes would like the Wedged Tailed Eagle. Another bird that is fascinating to watch, especially when the dive to grab a rabbit or lizard.

Date: 2008/08/02 01:35:30, Link
Author: bystander
This is another difference between the two camps. They will rarely if ever criticize anybody in their own camp.
I think that PZ DOES have some camp followers who agree with everything he says, but there is always vigorous debate about the issues and the various approaches

Date: 2008/08/02 02:08:16, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (nuytsia @ Aug. 01 2008,05:32)
Quote (bystander @ July 30 2008,18:11)

We sometimes find  Echidna's curled up next to the house and in the mountain behind us there are Wallabys. There are a lot of Wombat holes around but we haven't seen one yet.

As for birds, Where I live is supposed to have the highest diversity of parrots in the world. Our favourite is the Black Cockatoo. Their call is not as raucous as the white Cockie.

Wes would like the Wedged Tailed Eagle. Another bird that is fascinating to watch, especially when the dive to grab a rabbit or lizard.

Bystander what part of Australia are you in?

Blue tongues are cool as are echidnas.
This was my very first echidna I saw in Tassie. :-)

I also agree on the black cockies. Their call is just so eerily gorgeous. Here in Tassie they tend to be a mountain bird, but during the winter they come down into Hobart and strip the cones of the pine trees and ring bark the branches of elms.
All good fun! :-)

Quote (dhogaza @ July 30 2008,21:28)
We passed a very large plowed field full of white birds that back home, in winter, might've been mew gulls or the like.  Sulphur-crested cockatoos, a thousand or so of them, more than I've *ever* seen in a pet store in North America! :)

Black cockatoo are cool, won't disagree with you on that score.

Lorries, parrots, cockatoos ... nice.

When I first got to Tassie I saw a field full of Sulphur crested Cockies and Forest Ravens. It was a most bizarre site.
According to my local guru, in Tassie you rarely see these birds feeding with any other species, but when you do it's almost always this combination. He reckons there's some kind of stand off between them.

Think my favourite parrot has to be the galah.
On my very first visit to Australia I spent an hour watching a flock in Kalbari play on a climbing frame and in the sand pit below (and I do mean play). It was the first time I'd really seen a bird expend so much energy doing bugger all.
It was fascinating!

Apparently the locals don't like them that much as they keep destroying the lawn and they killed the top of the Norfolk Island Pine in front of the police station.
I read a report that a flock of Galahs was observed to fly straight into a twister, apparently just for the hell of it.

I live on the coast 140km south of Sydney. Another strange bird when you see it in the wild is the lyrebird. I often see them crossing the road when I go to customer's houses further up in the hills (almost ran one over yesterday). They have a strange hopping run using their wings for balance and speed. It reminds me of some of the CGI reconstructions of feathered dinosaurs, very much unlike any other birds.
Although it is probably the animators using a lyrebird as a model for the dinosaur.
Another thing about Lyrebirds is that they are fantastic mimics and it is common to hear them imitating a chainsaw.

The cassowary is another bird that seems ancient. I was bicycle riding through FNQ and when I heard a loud noise in the forest, I always wondered if it was a Cassowary, although I don't know if I would want to meet one.

Galah's are funny but do a lot of damage.

Date: 2008/08/02 18:43:08, Link
Author: bystander
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I think that there are people that need the kind of Atheism that PZ represents. I think that it would be useful for young Atheists who are being made piranas in their communities and families. Imagine living next to Ftk. One day she will tell you that you are her best friend and it is a matter of interpretation of the same data. The next day she would scream "Atheist, baby eater, you are going to hell".

The only problem with (the public) PZ is that he is becoming a caricature of himself, where Dawkins never tries to live up to his publicity.

Also stepping back from the bloggersphere you can see that there have been some very public backdowns over the last 12 months when people have dissed atheists. I think that is thanks to the PZs of the world.

However, I live in an area where it is pretty much live and let live and as nobody preaches at me, I don't preach back at them.

Date: 2008/08/02 19:14:35, Link
Author: bystander
Unfortunately, the letter was badly written and I don't think that it clearly said what the author intended. The way it is written it is easy to dismiss by saying "when doing ID science why should you care about a co-workers religion."

Instead I think his argument should be around when DrDr accuses "Darwinists" of belonging to some kind of cult, why doesn't he hold Wells to the same standard.

Date: 2008/08/02 19:20:15, Link
Author: bystander
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 03 2008,07:00)
sigh.  PT religion wars anyone?

it would help if everyone were to state their desired ends before such a discussion ensues, because invariably there is much talking past one another.  

i loved crackergate.  the comments for the most part were patently stupid.  i have quit reading them for the most part.

My point is that the only bad argument is when somebody says that their way is the only way.

Date: 2008/08/07 01:40:46, Link
Author: bystander
the most amazing thing is that Ftk gets comments on that drivel.

Date: 2008/08/11 08:26:45, Link
Author: bystander
It's not just what is defined by IC, it is the definition of IC. Originally Behe said the flagellum is IC because there was no precursor to the flagellum. When som precursors were found, Behe said that the gaps were too large and there is no way that it could have developed through small steps.

When scientists proposed an evolutionary path to the flagellum, Behe then said that it was still IC until scientists proved that this was the actual path that occured.

There was also something to do with blood clotting. This was blown out of the water as well and I don't know if Behe is still claiming it is IC.

But generally, the ID people will claim anything is IC if you do not know the exact path that something did evolve. If somebody proposes a possible path they are accused of making just so stories.

Date: 2008/08/11 17:27:10, Link
Author: bystander
DT conveniently ignored the fact that Dembski lied about knowing where the video came from and it never went to court because Dembski stopped using the video.

Date: 2008/08/12 17:42:05, Link
Author: bystander
Yes Behe gets to talk at important science venues such as Christian talk shows (and gets sent up on the daily show).
I think that debating ERV would be a step up for him.

Why would Barbara Forest want to debate DrDr? It would be like a scientist debating lab rats.

Date: 2008/08/21 18:21:09, Link
Author: bystander
Darwin's black box is doing better at #9,146. I guessed that it might be doing well. My impression is that if a fundie buys only one book on ID this would be the one.

I think that the "God Delusion" holds a similar place for atheist literature, not that other books on the subject do as badly as the other ID books.

Date: 2008/08/24 17:49:13, Link
Author: bystander
It's even worse if we compare the two

uncommon descent v science blogs

Waterloo, Darwinism is definitely crumbling.

Date: 2008/08/25 18:07:46, Link
Author: bystander
I think that the vagueness on anti-evolution is a symptom of a bigger problem with western governments at the moment.
Everything is so carefully managed that it is difficult to find much difference between the candidates and it doesn't pay to have any vision or take any risks.
I think that the danger here is that the US is at the edge of what could be a long and deep recession, admitting to it would be to somehow be un-American*. The problem for the US is that unlike other recessions, the Asian internal markets are developed enough to probably keep on growing.
In five years time my prediction will be that, unless something is done, China will be the superpower and a lot of the best research and universities will be done in Asia.

* In Australia, the opposition party blames the government for the downturn because they were "talking down the economy"

Date: 2008/08/28 20:46:40, Link
Author: bystander
Leave us hanging!! I wants to know the answer  :angry:

You left out disembodied telic entity pushing the termites around using wormholes in the space time continum.

Which is the correct answer no matter what your mere evidence shows. Teach the controversy !1!!one!!

Date: 2008/08/28 20:58:28, Link
Author: bystander
I was just listening on the radio about a local Edward Steele.

The guy talking (I think he wrote a book about him) made a lot of noises that sound a lot like the type that DI makes (Neo-Darwinists suppressing outside ideas etc etc).

How is he viewed? Is he a nut or just somebody on the edge of scientific consensus?

I read the Wikipedia and his ideas look "interesting" and he doesn't seem to be a nut. Like Ftk I mean interesting in the sense that it make sense to a mere engineer, but unlike Ftk I am open to education.

Date: 2008/09/01 20:37:28, Link
Author: bystander
I wouldn't call Pallin Ftk. Although I disagree with most of her politics, it sounds like she is strong willed and stands by her convictions. Ftk, on the otherhand twists and turns when confronted by anything she *implies* she believes in.

You would think after all these years that Brown would be elevated from someone who's idea's are more than *interesting*.

Date: 2008/09/03 16:57:43, Link
Author: bystander
But wasn't it always thought that emus etc had lost the ability to fly? I remember seeing it in "Walking with Beasts" so that makes it at least 10 years, but I have the feeling that I had always been taught that the ancestors could fly.

Date: 2008/09/05 05:32:22, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 05 2008,06:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

I heard bits of her speech and thought she was very well spoken but I knocked me over how many errors in fact she said in one speech. I also thought that people like FTK would lap it up liking spin over substance.

I thought it was quite scary and more like something you would hear on LGF rather than something that an informed future leader would say.

But I suppose there are a lot of people like Ftk who never let facts stand in the way of forming an opinion.

Date: 2008/09/06 01:20:43, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (intelekshual @ Sep. 06 2008,08:25)
Thank you. I'm delighted people are reading it, and excited to get to the conclusion. :)

I liked the description of Anika ... Can't wait to read the rest of the story.

Date: 2008/09/10 17:15:32, Link
Author: bystander
I heartily disagree. I think the attacks are good. In the past everytime there has been an attack by the dems, there has been a manufactured outroar and the dems have backed down.

The polls are currently neck and neck. This is not because of the attacks but because of the convention boost. Think about it, you suddenly have all the right wing fundies suddenly saying that they will vote (there were a lot that said that they would never vote for mcCain), but the boost has only been a few percent. I think that the republicans lost a lot of votes from the middle purely because the lies and hypocracy is being pointed out by the Dems and it is working.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the swing go back to the Dems if Obama keeps holding McCain/Pallin to the fire.

Date: 2008/09/10 17:27:47, Link
Author: bystander
I think that all this end of the world stuff is good for science, it gets the collider on the front page and people may actually get interested in the facts.

Date: 2008/09/10 17:32:43, Link
Author: bystander
So what happened with the DI denying they had anything to do with the movie?

Part of the cost goes to support the Casey Luskin DI tour bus.

Date: 2008/09/10 17:35:22, Link
Author: bystander
We haven't heard from Sal or Kristine lately. I hope they haven't met, you know what happens when a moron and an anti-moron collide.

Date: 2008/09/11 01:06:14, Link
Author: bystander
Would the resultant particles be HEXons and Jeebons?

Date: 2008/09/11 01:25:42, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 11 2008,12:28)
Cause, Effect, and Cannabis.

Category: Accidental • Medicine • Science
Posted on: September 10, 2008 11:43 PM, by Mike Dunford

You have to give Uncommon Descent poster DaveScot credit. He's not one of life's overly specialized intellects. He's a good, old fashioned generalist, able to talk about absolutely any area of science with exactly the same degree of spectacular incompetence. Today, he's turned his attention to the intersection of mental health and substance abuse.



countdown to daveScott disappearing his entry ....

Date: 2008/09/12 06:00:12, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2008,05:24)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 11 2008,08:52)
I'm kind of disappointed that the world didn't end. Apocalypse by Black Hole had nice Calvinistic overtones.

We still have hope. The cross section for pp-->Rapture is small. Wait to the LHC is running at full luminosity.

It is kind of amusing to think that those huge gamma ray bursts are civilizations turning on their own LHCs. That would constitute a solution to Fermi's Paradox.

I could see a sciencefiction story in that -- Somebody (A brave Calvinist Science Student) decoding a message prior to a gamma ray burst realises what  will happen and the only people he can convince is a washed out DrDr Mathematician and an ex Dell engineer.
They travel to europe to try and stop the test but are continually EXPELLED

Date: 2008/09/14 16:54:27, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,04:39)
I love the fact that Casey is verbose!  That's why he's one of my favs.  He's thorough and always links to great supporting articles providing more information to study and learn from.  

OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

Of course, most of the time, ya'll prefer to carry on about religion and Jesus rather than discuss evolution.

Says the person who runs away  from every discussion about macroevolution and who over the years has not learnt enough elementary physics to know that Brown is a crank.

Just another liar for Jesus.

Date: 2008/09/15 20:21:48, Link
Author: bystander
The media (via the internet) certainly doesn't like Palin, although she has given them a lot to choose from. I had a quick look at Fox and they aren't criticising her but they aren't gushing over her either.

The creationism bit was interesting, like global warming she has gone vague on her beliefs since the nomination.

Date: 2008/09/20 21:30:33, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 20 2008,10:11)
Gil Dodgen speaks, wrapping science, politics and religion into one big happy bundle.  For the record:




9:42 pm

blah blah ... This was a major factor in my conversion from militant atheism to Christianity in 1994.
.. blah blah


Is there any evidence for this? Or does this translate to when he was a normal christian and turned kook.

Date: 2008/09/21 16:25:53, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 21 2008,22:26)
*Comedy. I actually think she CAN learn. Chips on her shoulders might need to be removed first.

I don't think so. Her latest foray here started with a blast on how scientists will not discuss the science. Ignoring the fact that she has run away from any scientific discussion (answering "yeh whatever" doesn't count). I just noticed that the top of this page she talks about common design again, after being shown that common design would not look like common descent.
Some people just get stuck in a loop.

Date: 2008/09/21 23:22:33, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 21 2008,21:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 19 2008,23:44)
Bear in mind that the geologic column was also originally devised by creationists before 1860 who believed more so in catastrophism rather uniformitarianism. The so-called "periods" and "eras" were later added to fit the evolutionary theory.  

As usual, wrong. Where do you get this carp?

The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth took place in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner,among others) divided the rocks of the Earth's crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a "Tertiary Period" as well as of "Tertiary Rocks." Indeed, "Tertiary" (now Paleocene-Pliocene) and "Quaternary" (now Pleistocene-Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.


The identification of strata by the fossils they contained, pioneered by William Smith, Georges Cuvier, Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy and Alexandre Brogniart in the early 19th century, enabled geologists to divide Earth history more precisely. It also enabled them to correlate strata across national (or even continental) boundaries. If two strata (however distant in space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, chances were good that they had been laid down at the same time. Detailed studies between 1820 and 1850 of the strata and fossils of Europe produced the sequence of geological periods still used today.

The process was dominated by British geologists, and the names of the periods reflect that dominance. The "Cambrian," (the Roman name for Wales) and the "Ordovician," and "Silurian", named after ancient Welsh tribes, were periods defined using stratigraphic sequences from Wales.[7] The "Devonian" was named for the English county of Devon, and the name "Carboniferous" was simply an adaptation of "the Coal Measures," the old British geologists' term for the same set of strata. The "Permian" was named after Perm, Russia, because it was defined using strata in that region by a Scottish geologist Roderick Murchison. However, some periods were defined by geologists from other countries. The "Triassic" was named in 1834 by a German geologist Friedrich Von Alberti from the three distinct layers (Latin trias meaning triad) —red beds, capped by chalk, followed by black shales— that are found throughout Germany and Northwest Europe, called the 'Trias'. The "Jurassic" was named by a French geologist Alexandre Brogniart for the extensive marine limestone exposures of the Jura Mountains. The "Cretaceous" (from Latin creta meaning 'chalk') as a separate period was first defined by a Belgian geologist Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy in 1822, using strata in the Paris basin[8] and named for the extensive beds of chalk (calcium carbonate deposited by the shells of marine invertebrates).

British geologists were also responsible for the grouping of periods into Eras and the subdivision of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods into epochs.

{emphasis added}

Geologic time scale: History

Pretty much everybody was a creationist in those days. It is like saying that it was done by Homo Sapiens. Silly argument but plays well in church.

Date: 2008/09/24 00:17:47, Link
Author: bystander
I keep thinking of the knights who say ni when I see the title of this thread. Damn you Monty Python

Date: 2008/10/15 22:01:43, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 16 2008,08:53)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 15 2008,13:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 13 2008,18:05)
The only path to atheism is through a careful study of scripture.


Science is about as atheistic as plumbing, or auto mechanics. Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to reflect the fact that science can neither confirm, nor refute the existance of a diety.

But a careful study of the Bible will make most people atheists. There is an old joke, "What is a seminary? It is place that good Christians go to become atheists."

I wouldn't be surprised if more people in forum debates deconvert based on the bible rather than science.
With the science people like ftk can keep themselves ignorant and cry improbable unless the contents of millions of papers are summarised in words of one syllable.
In a scripture debate the shoe is on the other foot and they are the ones required to prove the case of the Bible, and the atheist just needs to pick holes in the explanations.

Date: 2008/10/18 17:21:32, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 19 2008,03:50)
Cross-posted from Pharyngula:

By the way, here is a poll to crash:

It's "Expelled," asking "Do you think Darwin's theories are outdated?"  Now forget the pedant's response, where you'd say "Of course they're outdated, that's why we don't call it 'Darwinism' like the lying propagandists do."  Partly they're counting on that, I suspect (that is, they know they're lying).

Right now it's 57% "yes," 14% "no," and 29% "maybe".  "No" should be at the top, in my estimation, since their point has always been to conflate "Darwin's theories" with modern evolutionary theory.

Glen D

I just voted and it is suspiciously 50%/25%/25%. I wonder if it has been reset.

Date: 2008/10/18 17:27:28, Link
Author: bystander
I just hit refresh and I got the 57/14/29

Date: 2008/10/19 15:56:46, Link
Author: bystander
unbelievable, they cannot even do an honest poll!

Date: 2008/10/20 16:56:43, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (ERV @ Oct. 21 2008,04:23)
lol!  Ive tried it at a few IPs with different answers (tried yes, no, and maybe)-- 50-25-25, 57-14-29 with all of them.


A true scientist, repeat experimentation.

If they were going to fake it, you think they would put a little code in it to vary it slightly.

Note the message about no1 documentary for 2008. Shouldn't they take that down now that the other documentary has passed it?

Date: 2008/10/28 15:47:44, Link
Author: bystander
I think that Dembski thinks that he has done some ground breaking work with EF, CSI and NFL and is stumped as to why nobody can actually use it for anything useful or develop it further.
I think he knows that the creationist crap in his latest books is actually crap but pays the bills.

Date: 2008/10/31 02:17:09, Link
Author: bystander
If the mind is separate, does he explain why we get drunk? or sleep?

Date: 2008/11/01 15:54:45, Link
Author: bystander
So if you volunteered, you would get access to the code and could make yourself a super secret administrator and do all kinds of mischief.

Lucky we are all above that kind of thing.

heh heh heh

Date: 2008/11/02 05:04:43, Link
Author: bystander
I don't think he is being dumped, I just think his skills stopped at c programming at Dell. I agree though that DT would be lost without UD

Date: 2008/11/03 14:21:05, Link
Author: bystander
The interesting thing is that I think that scriptures actually support a more materialistic view of the mind. Remember that Jesus (and a few of the old testament dudes) get taken up "bodily" to heaven. The whole end of the world stuff revolves around the dead rising and getting new bodies.
From what I have learned, the idea was that the soul doesn't have a mind or any real existence without a body.

Date: 2008/11/03 19:33:49, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (RupertG @ Nov. 04 2008,04:45)
It's all very high woo. The best thing about it is that you really don't get very far in the philosophy of mind stakes without some pretty swish thinking; it's all so ethereal that there are any number of daft ideas swirling around, so the IDers will have tough competition in there. It's not like evolutionary biology, where there's not much competition in the "anywhere but the mountain of facts" niche.

And besides, there's nowhere to go with non-materialist ideas of materialist phenomena. Well, apart from religion and fiction.

I that is the problem that it is still discussed at the level of philosophy. I heard a radio program where the scientists studying this stuff want the philosophers to STFU as the physical science is bolting ahead of the philosophy.

Date: 2008/11/04 14:54:37, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 04 2008,17:51)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 04 2008,01:51)
Remember the vigor? The vitality, that UD used to have?

O UD! What hast thou become? Where be your gibes now, your gambols, your songs, your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar? 'Tis now an unweeded garden, That grows to seed; things O'Leary possess it merely.

It isn't a good time to be O'Leary.

According to the Foundation for Thought and Ethics Newsletter, they had to terminate the Design of Life blog. Oh, also, Design of Life has been an overwhelming success and they are broke. Send money.

Further, based on this comment, O'Leary's contract to be the site owner for Overwhelming evidence also expired.

So, if you are in Toronto, be on the look out for a grandmotherly figure pushing shopping cart and holding a sign that reads "Will Destroy Materialism for Food."

I always wondered if DOL got paid for her work. She didn't seem to have a regular paying job and the cronic cross posting seemed to be a desparate attempt to gain traffic for all of the sites.

I wonder if her story will change at all now she has been dumped

Date: 2008/11/04 19:40:18, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 05 2008,07:24)
Forget about my last post. Either UD got hacked or someone suddenly likes Dawkins a lot. His vid replaced every single post and it's in the sidebar, too.


So was this the new webmaster?

Date: 2008/11/04 20:15:35, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2008,07:46)
Note that webmaster != moderator.

Sure but it probably depends on how they set up the security.

Date: 2008/11/04 21:10:39, Link
Author: bystander
Well the election seems to be going Obama's way although by Cricky, I like the way the networks call the results for a state when only a couple of percent of the vote is counted.

Date: 2008/11/05 15:17:21, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 06 2008,00:23)
The "hosted by" item in the bottom right hand corner has changed from "SWT" to "Network Omega".   AFAICT no pages have gone missing despite the fact they would have had a ready-made and plausible excuse. They must be slipping :)

ETA: but the about page doesn't feature the contributors now (and as has been pointed out, D'ol and friends are no longer on the banner)

I think that here too, that D'ol was being paid to contribute. I think that she might have to go back to writing about trucks

Date: 2008/11/05 17:51:18, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 06 2008,03:23)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 05 2008,15:09)
The graciousness of McCain's concession actually kind of startled me, too. Almost made me feel sorry for the guy.* I think he wanted to close out his career on a more upbeat note than being the asshole who spent 3 months calling Obama a socialist terrorist. His audience wasn't all on board, tho. They booed very loudly the first couple times he mentioned Obama's name.

I don't think Caribou Barbie has made any kind of statement, tho. Alaska just re-elected senator Stevens even though he's now a convicted felon facing possible jail time. So of course they're talking about Palin running for his seat after the Senate kicks him out next month.


A few weeks ago I got the impression that McCain made the mistake of following his parties election strategy rather than just doing his own thing.

I reckon that McCain is a decent guy and should have followed his instincts rather than pander to the people that his advisers considered their core.

Too late now. Anyway I like Obama and just hope he can realise his potential. Obama has united an unlikely group of people. Good luck to him.

We do live in interesting times. A curse according to some, but a blessing according to me.

In my lifetime I have seen America move from segregation to electing a mixed race president. Fascinating. Good luck!

I was thinking the same thing about McCain. If you look at the popular vote he still got 48% even with the media loving Obama.

The social conservatives remembered what he was like and didn't want to vote for him (although Palin got these voters back). The moderates were listening to what the party was making him say now and didn't want to vote for him.

What you would have to figure out is that if he hadn't picked Palin and kept true to himself, would he have picked up enough moderates to make up for the conservatives who wouldn't have voted.

This Slate article is good and reflects what I saw on Michelle Malkin's blog last night. The fault lies either outside the party or because McCain wasn't like them.

Date: 2008/11/06 14:31:06, Link
Author: bystander
I've got it! Dembski is so gullible (think Bible Codes and Healers) and so believes his self importance, that he thinks that he is going to be targeted by the new government. He has now removed his name from the blog and has removed the more inciteful posts.
Note that most of the recent posts have been by O'bLeary who as a Canadian must feel safe (Where does DLH live?).

Date: 2008/11/06 14:47:13, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Wheels @ Nov. 06 2008,22:10)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 05 2008,17:51)
What you would have to figure out is that if he hadn't picked Palin and kept true to himself, would he have picked up enough moderates to make up for the conservatives who wouldn't have voted.

This Slate article is good and reflects what I saw on Michelle Malkin's blog last night. The fault lies either outside the party or because McCain wasn't like them.

I've thought myself, and seen this thought echoed across the interwebs, that if the John McCain of 2000 were running instead of the 2008 version we saw, it would have been a much closer race and he might have stood a good chance of winning. This sentiment cropped up again right after McCain's concession speech.

It's my position (at the moment) that the McCain campaign lost because they tried to embrace the far right-of-center votes almost at every step and alienated the moderates. Of course if somebody feels that's incorrect, I'd surely like to hear their views. I'd like to see if there's some information relevant to how many votes he would have lost on the Conservative side if he tried to appeal more to the centrist position compared to the moderate votes he would have gained, but I really don't think it would have balanced out. I doubt many of them would have voted for Obama out of protest.

In short I think this election went to Obama because the other side pandered to a further-right view than most people were willing to accept, and one that was at odds with the candidate. I'd be extremely disheartened to learn that the party's response is not going to be an overhaul of their position (or at least their image) towards moderates, but instead a further retreat right-wards.[B]

I generally agree but I don't we don't know the numbers. There were people reported to say before Palin that they wouldn't vote at all but was this 10 million people or 50 people. The same for the moderates who left when McCain was pushed to the right, were they 10 million people or just 50 people. My opinion is that the party did the maths and thought that the numbers on the hard right being lost was high enough to more than make up for the moderates that they would have kept.

The fact is that 48% still voted for the McCain ticket. Who are they and what are they thinking? On the intertubes, all of the right wings sites I have seen say that they lost due to being too far to the left. Do these people represent the 48% or are they the fringe.

Date: 2008/11/10 19:07:12, Link
Author: bystander
but but but .. I thought that Christians were the ones being discriminated against.

Date: 2008/11/10 19:36:17, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 11 2008,11:05)
OK, I know it is in the crudest of popular science magazines, but Discover has a CID related article that says exactly what I've be saying for years. 1) Physicists accept that the constants exhibit fine tuning and 2) The multiverse is the only alternative to God and 3) The multiverse, ultimately, is not amenable to any direct test (meaning a detection of another universe).

Carr's money quote on p. 3:

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

That's been the essence of my CID argument all along. Man it has gotten me into some trouble.

And posting this makes me feel kind of retro. Makes me feel so 2005.

Isn't another alternative that the constants are not independent or have physicists disproved that idea?

Date: 2008/11/11 06:06:35, Link
Author: bystander
To take this to a less scientific basis. Even if the fine tuning was solved without the need for a god, there is still the question of Why anything?

I know that it is more of a question for back in the teen years over a bong or two but I still find it mind blowing.

However, I don't think that the theists should find comfort in this because like most atheists, I find that organised religions are unconvincing and people who talk about a vague god principal are basically making things up.

I have a hypothesis, that the ultimate answer to everything will be solved by an AI. Humans, however, will not understand the answer or the proof. It would be like teaching an ant calculus.

The best explanation that the AI can give to humans is that everything exists because it has to.

Date: 2008/11/11 21:55:57, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Nov. 12 2008,10:10)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 11 2008,16:28)
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 11 2008,15:47)
I wonder if Barry the lawyer has ever wondered why the legal system that employs him exists. It seems to me that fear of judgement and punishment by other human beings plays quite an obvious role in keeping religious people as well as atheists in line

Which leads to the obvious question: Why do we all, atheists as well as believers judge and punish other people?  why are we not indifferent nihilists? How many atheists are nihilists?

And what about animals? They have no 'God', but they definitely are capable of moral behavior.

I believe they actually use the atheists-not-being-nihilists as an argument against atheism. Something like 'see, they don't believe in God yet they hold themselves accountable to some higher force... clearly they want to believe in God really! How can they maintain that we're just animals and not go around murdering innocent people, their whole argument breaks down yadda yadda'. It is on the face of it a compelling argument; I mean, I personally can't explain why I have a conscience, or why I desire to do good when I could easily get away with doing nothing, or even being bad. But it becomes another argument of the gaps; is God filling that gap which explains my morals (which I arrived at independently, as far as I can tell)? Given the success this line of argument has had in the past, that doesn't seem likely.

As for animals: whose morals are they following? I don't agree with that.

I think that in the comments on UD that they are saying that Atheists live miserable empty lives, always on the verge of murder and having sex with ferrets.

When they are shown the facts that atheists are no more or less fufilled than any theists, they will retreat to your position.

I don't find it difficult to see why we have developed morals, because societies with people that don't have morals don't survive. What the UDiots don't see is that morals have evolved over the last couple hundred years - 2 hundred years ago most good christians believed that slavery was okay and negros were subhuman and you need to beat your children to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Now, except for some notable exceptions this is a minority view even on the right.

Date: 2008/11/12 17:16:04, Link
Author: bystander
Strange that Daniel doesn't apply the same reasoning to his own religion.
Think about it tens of thousands of fossils all in the correct places according to the theory. DNA testing showing the relatedness of life again all fitting in with the fossil evidence. A long way to go but the molecular mechanisms underlying evolution being pushed forward day by day. A lot of work being done on possible pathways for the creation of life being done.

Daniel is on the side saying I wont believe any of it before you prove the entire thing.

Daniel unfortunately doesn't do the same with his own religion. The old testament is contradicted by archaeology. There is no verifiable external evidence of the new testament (What Daniel is asking for to prove evolution is the same as asking what did Jesus have for breakfast on June 3 28AD).

Daniel talks about opening up and accepting God. Can he show how this is different from the paranoid delusions my dear depart grandmother use to have.

Daniel can sit on the sideline as long as he like. His kind have had 150 years to put up an argument against evolution.
America has spoken and have rejected anti-intellectualism and the post-modernist belief that all view points are equal.

Date: 2008/11/12 19:08:13, Link
Author: bystander
Has somebody told WAD that there are atheists on the site? Have they lost the bannanation button? Stay tuned ...

Date: 2008/11/13 00:11:34, Link
Author: bystander
A bit of a dilemma for Dave. He has been pwned but can he actually banninate somebody from Nature.

Date: 2008/11/14 15:44:17, Link
Author: bystander
Well, that's the end of UD. We all know that DrDr is a pompous twit but to the fundies DrDr is a bit of a star. I wonder if DT will stay. The last time DT left, I get the impression that the only reason he came back was because of the DrDr.

Date: 2008/11/14 16:56:30, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2008,17:24)
I blogged about the out-to-lunch-or-further-ness of Georgia Rep. Paul Broun and his speculation about Barack Obama playing 'what would you do if you were Hitler'.

Rep. Broun didn't show up in the comments, but a very conservative fellow did pop up to defend the Bush administration and castigate Obama, who he consistently refers to as "the socialist bastard".

It does go some way toward showing that politics and opposing religious antievolution are not completely correlated, since I happen to know this fellow, and he has been active in opposing creationist efforts. But we are having quite the back-and-forth over the current administration and the next one. As I note in my latest comment:


It wouldn’t hurt to be alert to abuses in any new administration, but I confess that I really don’t understand the exceptional animus displayed by Broun and now you concerning Obama.

The depth of emotion that some people have in reviling Obama does catch me by surprise.

I've had a look at the right wing sites and you have post after post of Obama is a muslim, antichrist etc. I think that this is the ultimate outcome of the republican methods and it is quite worrying.

They are obviously wrong, I think that even if it isn't real, Obama won on the messages of inclusiveness and being reality based. White people over 30 voted for McCain. White people under 30 voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Outside of these bastions of the right, the web is overwhelming liberal and reality based. I have been using Digg and found out that based on Diggs, that left wing to right wing is around 100 to 1. Internet penetration isn't universal yet but what is it going to be like in 8 years time?

Date: 2008/11/14 17:12:35, Link
Author: bystander
warm up your sockpuppets

Barrys welcome post says

We have decided to loosen our moderation policy somewhat.  Trolls and abusive commenters will continue to get the boot – we have no interest in allowing this site to degenerate into an obscene PT-style free-for-all.  On the other hand, we want to encourage all commenters who come to us in good faith and respectfully, even if (or perhaps “especially if”) they disagree with us or exasperate us by requiring us to squash the stupid “who designed the designer” argument for the 10,000th time.  

Date: 2008/11/14 17:57:49, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 15 2008,10:50)
HAHAHA, hadn't seen that before I posted!


We live in exciting times.  The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards.  These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles’ disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down.  I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from “menacing colossus astride the globe” to “non-existent,” the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness.


Yes, the American people have spoken, they have voted in a Pro ID president and vice president.

Date: 2008/11/14 19:52:10, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 15 2008,12:10)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 14 2008,19:51)
I've finished half of the abiogenesis papers now and I must say that the thing that strikes me most about this subject is, quite frankly, the silliness of it all.

From this paper, written by a veritable 'who's who' of abiogenesis researchers:            
We envision at least three phases in the evolution of the genetic material, beginning with an acyclic system, then making a transition to RNA, and finally settling on DNA.

My immediate reaction to this is to ask "Why?". blah blah etc. etc.


I was wondering rtfp stood for. I googled it and in the IT world we say rtfm.

Is Daniel for real. Did he really write "why would molecules do this". I'm calling sockpuppet.

Date: 2008/11/14 20:23:55, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2008,13:07)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 14 2008,20:52)
Is Daniel for real. Did he really write "why would molecules do this". I'm calling sockpuppet.

I've finished half of the abiogenesis papers and I agree that the thing that strikes me most about this subject is, quite frankly, the silliness of it all.

That's why I prefer to think that an all powerful being used pure will to assemble the first cell or cells. Just like how people assemble automobiles.

So god is a blue collar worker. That explains a lot. Life on Earth was definitely a Friday afternoon before knock off job. God forgot to tighten the anti-cancer bolts.

Date: 2008/11/15 18:21:58, Link
Author: bystander
Clicking on the Paypal, Amazon, or Google links is, and will be, strictly voluntary.  Nevertheless, we hope our readers – if they find this site valuable – will help us financially so that we can improve the quality of the product we deliver to the internet ID community

saying this can actually get you banned from Add words.

Date: 2008/11/16 15:42:13, Link
Author: bystander
Davey cant write about global warming and this in the paper today:

NASA gets temperature records wrong


Date: 2008/11/16 21:54:19, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 17 2008,06:29)
Granville Sewell does a great impression of one blind man and the elephant in his post Fine-tuning of the constants AND equations of Nature?  He writes some silly things about the Schroedinger equation.
The Schrodinger partial differential equation of quantum mechanics is the heart of atomic physics. This elegant PDE governs the behavior of all particles under the fundamental forces, but, unlike other PDEs, it cannot be derived from simpler principles. Like time, space, matter and energy, it “just is”. To quote from one of my PDE books, “Schrodinger’s equation is most easily regarded as simply an axiom that leads to the correct physical conclusions, rather than as an equation that can be derived from simpler principles…In principle, elaborations of it explain the structure of all atoms and molecules and so all of chemistry.”

First, Schroedinger's equation is a good first approximation for the understanding of atomic physics (electrons plus nuclei), but it won't work for two other fundamental forces: weak and strong interactions.  You need a relativistic quantum theory for those and the Schroedinger describes the non-relativistic limit.  No creation or annihilation of particles, no photons even!  Second, it can be derived from a more fundamental theory: it is the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation in quantum electrodynamics.  Schroedinger's equation misses the relativistic spin-orbit coupling (a rather significant interaction at the heavier end of the periodic table), while Dirac's gets it right.  
The Schrodinger equation contains a parameter, h, called Planck’s constant, which is one of the many constants of Nature that is very “fine-tuned”: change it a little bit and you get a universe that cannot support any imaginable forms of life. Now I know enough mathematics and physics to be sure that most changes to this equation itself would result in a universe that could not have supported life; the properties of the elements in the periodic table certainly depend sensitively on the properties of this magnificent PDE. There may be some ways to modify it without disasterous results (I doubt it); but there is no doubt that the Schrodinger equation itself is very fine-tuned for life.

Actually, Planck's constant is now simply viewed as the conversion factor between frequency and energy, in the same sense as the speed of light c is the conversion factor between the units of time and length (the SI no longer has an independent standard of length: it is based on the standard of time).  The one and only* physical parameter in atomic physics is the fine-structure constant alpha = e^2/h-bar c.  This parameter determines the properties of atoms and thus affects chemistry.  For a while, physicists have tried to find out "why" alpha has the value of approximately 1/137.036.  Now we know that alpha is not a fundamental constant of nature: the Standard Model of particle physics predicts (and particle experiments confirm) that alpha grows at higher energies.  One can of course say that the parameters of the Standard Model are fine-tuned for life, but sooner or later we'll find what determines them and creationists will just move on to the next gaps in the knowledge.
So I think to explain our existence without design, we not only have to imagine some cosmic random-number generator which churns out values for Planck’s constant and the other constants, but also a cosmic random-equation generator. Are we to assume that in all these other universes imagined by man to explain our existence, the behavior of particles is still governed by the Schrodinger equation, but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck’s constant have random values? Or perhaps the behavior of particles is governed by random types of PDEs in different universes, but there are still many universes in which Schrodinger’s equation holds, with random values for Planck’s constant? No doubt there were some universes which couldn’t produce life because the governing equation looked just like the Schrodinger equation, but with first derivatives in space where there should be second derivatives, or a second derivative in time where there should be a first derivative, or the complex number i was missing, or the mass was in the numerator, or the probability of finding a system in a given state was proportional to |u| rather than |u|^2??

Ironically, Dirac's equation is linear in the spatial derivatives and it is valid in our Universe.  What a bunch of nonsense!

*ETA: apart from the electron mass.

now that UD is open and  free, why don't you post this there.


Date: 2008/11/17 00:14:30, Link
Author: bystander
I wonder if Davey will be seen outside of UD anywhere to have a vent.

Date: 2008/11/17 21:46:45, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Nov. 18 2008,12:40)
[quote=Jkrebs,Nov. 16 2008,08:30][/quote]
Added in Edit: and there is now a bunch of Google ads above the recent comments.  Looks like "serving the ID Community" means "make more money."

Yes, and they can't even spell basic words like that properly:
"Advertisments Visit to Support Us"

Very professional.

Perhaps they were trying to emulate British pronunciation.

I can see them losing their AdSense privileges. You are not supposed to encourage people to click adds. It is a part of the T&Cs. I suppose it is like scientific papers and they just read the first paragraph

In order to ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers may not request that users click the ads on their sites or rely on deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks. Publishers participating in the AdSense programme:

   * May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as "click the ads," "support us," "visit these links," or other similar language

Adsense Program Guidelines

Date: 2008/11/18 19:58:27, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 18 2008,14:52)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 17 2008,21:46)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Nov. 18 2008,12:40)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 16 2008,08:30)

Added in Edit: and there is now a bunch of Google ads above the recent comments.  Looks like "serving the ID Community" means "make more money."

Yes, and they can't even spell basic words like that properly:
"Advertisments Visit to Support Us"

Very professional.

Perhaps they were trying to emulate British pronunciation.

I can see them losing their AdSense privileges. You are not supposed to encourage people to click adds. It is a part of the T&Cs. I suppose it is like scientific papers and they just read the first paragraph

In order to ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers may not request that users click the ads on their sites or rely on deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks. Publishers participating in the AdSense programme:

   * May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as "click the ads," "support us," "visit these links," or other similar language

Adsense Program Guidelines

How about "buy my book"?  'Cause I think that one's a deal-breaker.

Some body must have noticed. It just has the word advertisments now. Maybe somebody also told O'Leary about the link farming.

Date: 2008/11/24 20:35:22, Link
Author: bystander
Looking at the display adds.  It would be fun to do an adwords campaign (You can target particular content sites now) with adds such as

Creation or Evolution?
Find out why O'Leary can't
write english good like

Pity that most of you are starving academics and I decided to be self employed during the worst market downturn in 70 years as it wouldn't cost much (I doubt that it would be more than $1 per click, given the competition).

Date: 2008/11/24 20:55:00, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 25 2008,13:14)
Maybe Baylor Bear* found the cartoon here.

Maybe one of the sock puppets loyal readers should remark about having unattributed artwork on the site given all of fun that DrDr had in the past.

Date: 2008/11/24 22:55:23, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 25 2008,14:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 24 2008,19:01)
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 24 2008,15:32)

Any idea who Baylor Bear is? New poster? Marks? Dembski?

Marks. Gotta be.

Let's see.  Shoddy sense of humor and a willingness to share it with the world.  Marks by a nose!

You left out scant regard for copyright.

Date: 2008/11/24 23:04:54, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 25 2008,13:35)
Looking at the display adds.  It would be fun to do an adwords campaign (You can target particular content sites now) with adds such as

Creation or Evolution?
Find out why O'Leary can't
write english good like

Pity that most of you are starving academics and I decided to be self employed during the worst market downturn in 70 years as it wouldn't cost much (I doubt that it would be more than $1 per click, given the competition).

Missing Dave Scott
Click for non stop
Tardalogues. Now with added
mother jokes.

Date: 2008/11/25 14:26:47, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 26 2008,06:05)
That's going to play so well in court.

I'm not an Obama fan, but I do have some hopes that his science advisers will be this side of reality from Deepshit d'Oprah.

I know a lot of IDiots were counting on the Supreme Court changing in their favor. Perhaps they should go back to their test tubes, if they have 'em.

I don't think that it was coincidental that DrDr D left UD just after the election. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody with a modicum of sense said that the only way to move forward in an Obama administration is to start to look sciency again and nix the culture war stuff.

Date: 2008/11/25 20:15:23, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 26 2008,11:35)
This isn't about UD, at least not directly, but comments are disabled on the PT post about it.

LGF reports an essay competition being run by Yahoo O'Hara (or his Turkish cousin, I can't remember . . .). They're looking for    
comprehensive and convincing information on the subject of all the Darwinist dilemmas that prove the invalidity of evolution

Lots and lots of lire for the winners.

Folks, it's Sokal Time! I would dearly love to submit an entry just to see how it does.

Anyone - especially sciencey types - wishing to contribute is invited, nay, implored to do so on this thread on my blog.

Here is my contribution you chance-lovers.

I feel better after that, kind of more relaxed.

I might have to get a sock puppet and have my own thread on this forum.

Date: 2008/11/26 16:47:03, Link
Author: bystander
On Design detection

Date: 2008/11/26 20:44:41, Link
Author: bystander
If JackInHofe* is here. If they don't give you traffic for UD, you can get detailed stats for the post-darwinist

post-darwinist stats

It has a lot more traffic than I expected over 300  visits per day on average.

* I just got the joke name. Gee I am thick sometimes.

Date: 2008/11/28 23:02:22, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 29 2008,13:28)

28 November 2008
Children are born with a belief in God
Andrew Sibley

Researchers from Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind have found evidence that children are predisposed to believe in God or a supreme being.

And some adults just can't seem to outgrow their childhood fantasies.

I know that they try to spin everything to their advantage but isn't this just saying that we are wired to see design everywhere and to believe in god.

this should weaken their case enormously

Date: 2008/11/29 16:47:54, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 30 2008,08:55)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 29 2008,18:48)
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 29 2008,13:04)
Whither the attempt by scientists to show that mind is made of matter? Surely they must know that science can never demonstrate such a connection empirically. It can speculate, using imaging and other surrogates, but science lacks the descriptive power to trace any given thought to specific brain substances and processes in even the most rudimentary fashion.

Never say never.

Brain implant allows mute man to speak

Patient with paralysis* controls speech synthesizer with his mind.

An electrode implanted into the brain of a man who is unable to move or communicate has enabled him to use a speech synthesizer to produce vowel sounds as he thinks them.

The work could one day help similar patients to produce whole sentences using signals from their brains, say the researchers.[...]Nature News

* He is affected by locked-in syndrome. I don't have access to Nature from home, otherwise I'd have quoted more of the article.

What a contrast.

On one hand we have applied science that can help people in terrible conditions (locked-in syndrome sounds particularly hideous).

On the other hand we have semi-literate loons opining about the 'spatula brain'.

That's what makes me angry about the ID folk.

Every scientist constantly has to read scientific articles to stay up-to-date in his/her speciality and every scientist probably wishes he could read twice as fast because there are so much more articles that he needs or wants to read.

Not so if you're an IDist. For an IDist it's enough to skim through SciAm or watch a documentary every now and then to know exactly what's going on "in science" in general. Even better, without having any background  they're able to separate the wheat from the chaff and to tell the scientist where they're wrong or what they'll never find out.

And they probably don't have the slightest clue how unbelievably, mind-stunningly arrogant and offending that is.

I get comfort when you look at the fact that PZ could have a blank posting and have 200 comments and then add to that the comments on all of the other good science blogs.

What do we have on ID side - UD, Telic Thoughts and the O'Leary train wreck. UD is getting up to 20 comments per post lately, but once everybody gets banned it is going to be 5 comments per post. Not only are these guys in an echo chamber, they are in a very small echo chamber.

Date: 2008/12/01 22:40:40, Link
Author: bystander
Olofsson is a good writer and the discussion so far has cleared something up for me. I was reading the earlier thread and thought that the idiots were saying something jaw droppingly stupid but thought that I misunderstood the jargon. But with Olofsson there I realised that it was true, they are jaw droppingly stupid they are basically saying:

To calculate the probability of a protein or what ever evolving you use the probability of all of the pieces falling together at once. You are allowed to do this because the darwinists cannot give the exact probability of the actual evolution of the structure.
So until you hand us the entire worked example we will use the worst possible probability number.

That is amazing. It even ignores the fact that other proteins could be used and if it is a structure like the flagellum, The bugs could have found other modes to move around like a jet pump of a "back and forth" rowing motion.

Date: 2008/12/02 20:53:52, Link
Author: bystander
Reading that thread it is obvious that Barry is going to have to start booting people. Whoever ribczynki is, he/she is a very clear writer and is doing well against the tards, and the IDiots can't maintain the paranoia that the science establishment has nothing better to do than to prop up an ailing theory.

Although the paper that Barry links to is very strange. OOL has nothing to do with a Cosmological model. The physicists could be wrong about string theory and the multiverse but it doesn't change the fact that life started around 4 billion (?) years ago.

Date: 2008/12/02 21:28:44, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 03 2008,14:10)
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 02 2008,20:53)
Reading that thread it is obvious that Barry is going to have to start booting people. Whoever ribczynki is, he/she is a very clear writer and is doing well against the tards, and the IDiots can't maintain the paranoia that the science establishment has nothing better to do than to prop up an ailing theory.

Although the paper that Barry links to is very strange. OOL has nothing to do with a Cosmological model. The physicists could be wrong about string theory and the multiverse but it doesn't change the fact that life started around 4 billion (?) years ago.

Hmm.  "Rybczynki" and "Bystander" have exactly the same number of letters.  Coincidence?  I think not.

No, I could never write as clearly as him/her. I suffer from O'Leary's inability to write coherent sentences, that's why I became an engineer, but
1. I do check what I have written
2. I dont profess to be a professional journalist.

Date: 2008/12/08 22:06:49, Link
Author: bystander


Here is ribczynski’s handle and post at the other website:

he goes by “keiths”

“Posts: 808
Joined: Jan. 2006
Posted: Dec. 08 2008,14:22

Someone at UD (possibly Patrick) has put me under moderation. I don’t feel like playing comment roulette, so it’s time to doff the ribczynski sock.

Carry on, fellow puppeteers!”;st=3750

I'm getting dizzy, they are quoting us now. Both sites are going to disappear into self-referential blackhole.

And Joseph was given a severe talking to,

Date: 2008/12/08 22:54:27, Link
Author: bystander
Will Patrick (if it is Patrick) come clean about the silent bannination?

Date: 2008/12/13 17:25:40, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (George @ Dec. 14 2008,06:46)
Borne said:  
Bio-informatics, semantic biology, systems biology…
These are all sounding the death knell of Darwinism.

What is this?  The biology of making meaningless shit up?

So I guess that everybody in these fields would say that they believe in ID?

Date: 2008/12/16 19:03:46, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 17 2008,10:11)
I think they are realising that if they let the light in just a little bit it still makes them look like fools as even a little, moderated light still exposes their often idiotic and undefendable positions. Exposing the shallowness of their reading and thinking by input from outside their little circle jerk they got going on just makes them look fools on a daily basis. As documented here ;)

How long till UncommonDescent goes "comments off" like almost every other ID blog out there.

Ever wonder why is read only Barry? I think you are finding out why.

Davescot appeared to have the right idea, at least as far as protecting the public image of ID on UD goes.  Let the harmless lunatics like BA77 and KF witter on, shielded from rational thought. Keep everybody else on a tight leash, lots of bannations. Allow a token evilutionist or two to make their case. As the Dr Dr never really engaged in dialogue with his critics, even on his own blog, it mattered not.

They bring DaveScot back with his old rules (hi Dave!) 20/1
They just turn comments off 15/1
The close the whole thing down 100/1
Barry has a nervous breakdown 10/1

I don't think they will close it down as it might sell odd book or two still. And at this point it's basically about $$$.

1/1 As the interesting contributors get banned, interest in UD will disappear and we'll be back to bad Mother jokes.

Date: 2008/12/21 19:29:51, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 22 2008,09:29)
I can't say I was surprised.  As banninations go, mine was actually pretty satisfying, because the whole affair accomplished the following:

1. It informed (or reminded) UDers of this thread's existence.  You can bet that many UDers have been over here already to see if they are mentioned in our hallowed pages.  They will return. (KF, for one, was deeply disturbed to see his name mentioned here).

2. It made them aware of the long, well-documented history of banninations at UD, including my own original banning.

3. It made them aware of the double-standards at UD, including the practice of keeping the comments of ID critics in moderation for hours or deleting them entirely.

4. It provided yet another demonstration of a UD moderator (guess who, Clive) jettisoning principle for the sake of his own fragile ego.

5. And last, but certainly not least, it provided some entertainment for you folks here at AtBC.

Not bad.  

And ribczynski lasted a while -- his first comment was way back on November 18.

UD is like the Simpsons, nothing ever changes. Within a week:

1. they will have stopped looking here.
2. Within a week one of them will state that darwinists leave UD because they are defeated by their superior intellects.
3. wonder why it has gone quiet.

Date: 2008/12/24 02:35:31, Link
Author: bystander
Merry Christmas all. My EF tells me that Santa will be flying through here in 4 and a half hours. So after a nice Salmon meal prepared by Mrs Bystander, we are going to relax and watch Christmas eve TV until the littlies fall asleep.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:08:21, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 29 2008,09:06)
Kairosfocus is still smarting from the charges of windbaggery:
Onlookers, how many even basic proofs in Geometry can effectively be presented in 200 words in a context where challenge is likely? As noted previously, that is the length of a synopsis that needs immediately present backup, not a serious case. Or, why do corporate presentations not simply stop at the Executive Summary? or, why is it often said that "the devil is in the details"?

KF, it's not just the length of your comments.  It's the absurdly low ratio of useful content to bulk.  People might be willing to wade through your verbal hemorrhages if they packed a rhetorical punch or delivered novel information and insights, but all that readers get for their efforts are repetitive arguments and verbal preening.

For example, what purpose does the following sentence serve that isn't purely masturbatory?
The effect in the end of the substance of 156 (as, in the end, a capstone to several substantial comments and one outstanding one at 21) — whatever real or perceived defects one may find in style or length — speaks for itself.

The reason people hate your long comments, KF, is that they feel cheated after reading them.

The best thing about KF is that we must have all run into a KF in our lives. He is the guy at meetings who insists on a 2 hour presentation with 50 powerpoint slides on some point that could be dealt with in 5 minutes.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:42:18, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 30 2008,07:32)
The best thing about KF is that we must have all run into a KF in our lives. He is the guy at meetings who insists on a 2 hour presentation with 50 powerpoint slides on some point that could be dealt with in 5 minutes.

Oh, FSM!  I've had flashbacks to mildew and rust meetings.  Imagine doing that with real slides.  That get stuck in the slide projector.

We once let that guy rabbit, just so we could find out what he was doing.  Except that after an hour and a quarter we still had no idea (Kronecker got mentioned at some point), so even the chairman gave up.

They are in all walks of life. In corporate life, you will usually find them in Human Resources and the talks are on the new way to define a "Lost Time Injury" and its 15 sub classifications.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:42:57, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 30 2008,07:31)


Date: 2008/12/29 15:06:14, Link
Author: bystander
I did engineering and we never had slides. The lazy teacher would have a roll of clear plastic, that they would use on an overhead projector. the roll would contain the whole semester's worth of work. Australia went from imperial to metric units 5 years before I went to uni and one lecturer still taught us with his roll that was in imperial units.
the good lecturers just filled up blackboards with equations. Seems archaic now just spending lecture time copying down information. Does this still happen? In office life you get a printout of the seminar, which you then can mark up with additional notes if you like.

Date: 2008/12/31 01:38:29, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 31 2008,03:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

He should actually give examples of factual errors. I can't see him being able to write any rebuttal, his type are just used to disappearing criticism. Anything he wrote would make him look more like an idjit.

"Whine, Whine, they are so mean to me. I am the Isaac Newton of everything"

ETA: It is interesting that going through the history, that there is very little vandalism. In fact most of the edits are to do with people putting in things that couldn't be cited.

Date: 2008/12/31 01:49:05, Link
Author: bystander
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.

Date: 2008/12/31 18:28:56, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2009,09:50)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 31 2008,07:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Through the Wikipedia page on Dembski I found this:

I guess we can add "gullible sucker" to the list of Dembski's other shortcomings.

I just read that. Jesus christ. That's sad. What a poor dupe. That's a shame.

Too bad he goes on being Todd Bentley to other people.

The sad thing is that it wont really make WAD think.  A skeptic's next question would be to research to see if they are all fake and would expand the search to all miracles.

WAD on the other hand will just jump onboard the next great thing and try that. Notice that he mentions prayer and fasting. I wonder how much he has tried that without success.

Date: 2008/12/31 20:31:38, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 01 2009,08:27)
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,01:49)
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.

Your wish has been granted.

Ha ha. So translating it they agree that it is still OK because even though it functions with parts removed, it is a different function and therefore evolution is false. and when somebody pipes up and says this is what we expect from evolution they accuse people of bending meaning. (Head hits keyboard)

Do these guys have feet left? There are so many bullet holes in them.

Date: 2009/01/03 14:39:24, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Chayanov @ Jan. 04 2009,05:03)
Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field microflatearthism. Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that macroflatearthism must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots!

Once again, a creationist fails at analogy. A field may look flat, but if you put all those supposedly flat pieces together, you get a rounded form -- just like how microevolutionary changes add up over time. The tabletop analogy is just stupid. Now who's the moron? Oh yeah, the creationist.

Looking outside the flat table, there is a lot of evidence to prove that the entire world is not flat.

For evolution looking to the horizon is examining the fossil record, which seems to confirm evolution.

Date: 2009/01/04 17:50:03, Link
Author: bystander
You can see the same thing at UD. It doesn't matter how lame, they have to defend one of their own (I don't see them thinking that Fuller is one of their own).

Behe said that to be IC that removal of any part will stop the system functioning as anything. not it has to have the same function, not that it has to function perfectly, but it has to stop functioning.

By saying that the Bicycle is IC, they are admitting that IC systems can evolve.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

Date: 2009/01/04 17:53:33, Link
Author: bystander
It's strange that none of them actually went to the FSM site to actually read what it means.

The are against the openly creationist school board members who want to sneak creationism into the classroom.

Date: 2009/01/06 14:15:10, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 07 2009,06:22)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2009,12:54)
My interpretation of Fuller is that he's an academic, and he sees what he's doing as an academic exercise.  So how this would play out in the real, political, world isn't so interesting to him.  He wants to show how ID an advance as a science.  Which is fine, and very funny to see how it's being resisted.

Then he's even dumber than I thought (despite his nationality). Everybody knows that nobody in the real ID "community" wants to have it "advance as a science". It's a culture war, and a sociologist should know that better than most of the UDiots!

You would think that being a philosopher that he would be interested in the cultural underpinnings of the entire creationist movement.

I do find it hard to focus after a paragraph or two, but I think that Steve Fuller's message is changing as he thinks it through. I give it another few posts before he declares that ID is not science.

Date: 2009/01/06 14:19:51, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 07 2009,06:25)
Actually, a peaceful exchange with the participation of Zachriel, myself, gpuccio, and kairosfocus has been going on for the last few days at Mark Frank's blog.  KF has already flounced once and returned.

Interesting and very clear explanation of why CSI doesn't work. The ID replies seem to boil down to:

"I don't need to calculate CSI because the value is obvious. The values for proteins are based on them being randomly put together in one go because I don't believe your science."

I don't know how you can be so patient with these guys.

Date: 2009/01/15 18:55:37, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (raguel @ Jan. 13 2009,14:00)
I partly agree with SD (if for nothing else, concern trolling a known concern troll = lulz). Being a former "fundie" (Southern Baptist, literalist) I find most creationists infuriating. I took a step back and tried to analyze why I take it so personally. Mostly it's because I detest con men and snake oil salesmen but I think it's also partly because I'm embarrassed to have been one of them.

I'd like to think I was never that intellectually dishonest and uninterested in actual science, tho.

I don't know any fundies personally. Do you think most are like you (able to be convinced given evidence) or like FTK (fingers in ears going la la la)?

I agree with you about the kids however. Whenever I talk about atheism, I always say that this is what I believe and why and that others have other beliefs.

I probably bend over backwards to give the kids the message that no matter what they will be welcome to our home.

I think that with Ftk she is going to have a lot of problems - either they will end up being extreme like her (which will cause them problems with their peers as I think all this crap is receding with the young'uns) or end up extreme the other way.

Date: 2009/01/15 19:05:06, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,11:39)
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2009,13:14)
Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.

Roadblock? Realizing that they don't know something is why scientists do research in the first place - it's the primary motivation. Without that there would be no advances in science.


It's a "roadblock" if you can't get past it.

What haven't they gotten past? Science as far as I can see is making leaps and bounds, especially in biology.

Daniel in the Bathroom Wall reminds me of the crazy guy in the toilet at a bar. I am sure that I am not the only person that peeks in to see if he is still here.

Date: 2009/01/20 14:05:17, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 21 2009,06:31)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2009,13:19)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.


Publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not exactly a big accomplishment.  If you want me to congratulate Dembski on rising to the level of a graduate student, I can do that.  Break out the champagne!

@olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet).
If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it.

The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

Date: 2009/01/21 18:04:46, Link
Author: bystander
I'm seeing a lot of interesting comments on Dr DDs post. They wont last long.

Date: 2009/01/24 14:44:45, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2009,07:35)
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 24 2009,12:02)
Not that I am siding with all you atheists and science fascists, but I have to admit that I've met a few designers and I've never met or even heard of one that didn't want to be identified.

What about the possibility that the Designer actually created life on Earth as some sort of bootleg or knock-off? We could be a cheap Chinese replica of the real thing!

I never had these depressing-type thoughts until I learned about evolution, and I wonder what professor Davison would think? Does the Designer have to be dead, or is He just keeping a Low Profile?

You know, that would explain a lot.  Perhaps the original spelling is "Erth" and we're just the cheap knock-off.  Seriously, that line of thought does fit with what we know of the Gnostics and the Demiurge.

So we are like the no name brand peas from the supermarket.

Date: 2009/01/26 14:54:04, Link
Author: bystander
My initial thought* on this was that as Solar cells are expensive and mirrors relatively cheap, that if the efficiency was maintained then somebody would have already have done it. I suppose the frying of the solar cells would be a limiting factor.

If heat is a problem, how about a mini boiler-turbine set. I think one was going to be setup in South Australia years ago.

* UD style science -- pulling facts out of my a***.

Date: 2009/01/31 18:17:43, Link
Author: bystander
UD is so predictable. I can imagine the discourse.

proposed FAQ:The probability of structure x evolving is 10^60000000

Rationalresponse: That assumes that all of the proteins came to gether randomly in one go. Evolution acts incrementally. Here are some precursors to the structure and the fact is the structure can work without all of the proteins.

UD: Give me the maths. You don't understand probability. Tell me the exact probability of the structure evolving. Show me how the first cell came from nothing. You are stupid and biologists  know nothing. Atheists are immoral and eat babies if they could. Buy my book. You are insulting and are banned. See the Darwinists have nothing.

Date: 2009/02/05 14:18:44, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 06 2009,06:01)
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,12:10)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,01:30)
My girlfriend and I are in the often invisible "Deliberately Childless" group. We both love our free, independent adult lives too much to have kids.

Check back and see if she still feels that way when she's 41.

I did.

I still do at 58.

You lucky, lucky lady. Mine did the old switcheroo on me!

{shakes fist}



Congrats, I was lukewarm on kids until I had mine and now I (in another time and place) would be happy to have five.

Date: 2009/02/05 19:38:47, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 06 2009,11:32)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2009,16:21)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:07)
My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some.
Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant.

Daniel, do you doubt common descent?*

What is your current belief regarding the age of the earth? It occurs to me that you evaded giving a current reply.

*The usual fine print vis early HGT.

Define "common descent".

As for the age of the earth - forget it.  I have NO opinion at the present time on that.  If you want to quit "going around the mulberry bush" why do you keep bringing that up?

Daniel in one quote says that he believes godidit because of the "state of current science". Then he comes up with this statement about no opinions on deep time.

He can hardly say that he does not believe in Evolution because the science is unconvincing when a lot of the evidence for evolution involves at least general knowledge around geology and dating and paleontology, which proves deep time. So in effect he knows very little about the state of current science.

What a maroon

Date: 2009/02/22 15:25:29, Link
Author: bystander
What was the crowd like? Was it a sellout? Was the crowd pro ID?

Date: 2009/03/03 15:26:32, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 24 2009,08:54)
This must be the strangest fish (YouTube video) I've seen so far:
Macropinna microstoma: A deep-sea fish with a transparent head and tubular eyes (press release by Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute).

The greenish globes inside the head are the eyes. The black spots at the front are the fish equivalent of "nostrils".

[edit]The video was removed from YouTube but can now be found at the press release link[/edit]

ID predicted this

Date: 2009/03/03 15:27:12, Link
Author: bystander
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 19 2009,07:06)
A report of an omnivorous early dinosaur has created two new gaps in the fossil record.

So when the lion lies down with the lamb, this guy can lie down in between, eat the lamb's lunch for the salad course, then eat both the lion and the lamb...

ID Predicted this

Date: 2009/04/27 07:36:13, Link
Author: bystander
Interesting about Gil. I was always suspicious because he

o never got involved in the Weasel simulations
o AI is a meaningless marketing term (to me at least unless you arre actually trying to model humans or building a computer action game)
o Only has two achievements he keeps going on and on about.

Now it's StephenB to be woken up about his "expertise" in logic and theology. Although he is so bad at logic he never knows that he has been pwned.