AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: ck1

form_srcid: ck1

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: ck1

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 'ck1%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/10/26 07:08:23, Link
Author: ck1

You said that Ken Ham's "genome is much larger" than that of an amoeba.

Actually, the human genome has ~2.9 billion base pairs.
Amoeba dubia has 670 billion bp.

So which genome has more "information" by your definition?

Date: 2006/12/30 14:25:03, Link
Author: ck1
As a long time lurker on this thread I thank you all for the entertainment and for the info provided by the regulars.  But, it seems to me that at this point, there should be some requirement that Dave address all questions before moving on to new topics.  I realize that allowing him free reign emphasizes his scientific vacuity and dishonesty (and breathtaking inanity) for all to see, but realistically, if not expected to meet any standards he seems prepared to continue in this vein for years.  Do you really want that?

I have read every word you have written on ATBC.  You have not remotely addressed the objections to your hypothesis.  At this point, I for one would like your explanation for the 627 HLA alleles - in your own words, please.  Your move to another topic only illustrates that avoidance and obfuscation (and lying) are your only strategies.

Date: 2006/12/30 17:00:41, Link
Author: ck1

Alleles from mother and father are inherited in a random mix only if they are on different chromosomes.  This is called independental assortment.

Alleles for genes on the same chromosome are physically linked and are inherited together unless the maternal and paternal chromosomes break and rejoin - this is recombination.  I think this qualifies as a mutational change.

Date: 2006/12/31 11:13:24, Link
Author: ck1
From a bystander:

The novelty has indeed worn off.  (Though I will miss the entertainment if the thread is closed)

Unless debate rules can be established and enforced this thread will just continue to deteriorate.  The necessary level of time-consuming moderation is clearly not available.

Date: 2006/12/31 20:19:25, Link
Author: ck1
"I think one of the best uses that the remaining 250 or so posts would be for the long time lurkers (are there any?) to weigh in. "

I think I qualify as a lurker, although I have posted on this thread 4 times.  I have followed this thread since the beginning because I am fascinated by the creationist mindset.  In my personal life (I am a biologist - my lab is focussed on genetics and virology), I have only met a creationist once and did not have the opportunity to find out the basis for her beliefs.  My spouse is from Kansas and I became aware of the  shenanigans of the KBOE in 1999 and I have been hooked on the subject ever since.  Dave's arrival here and his dogged persistence presented the opportunity to try to understand this cultural/social/religious phenomenon.  He failed to present a convincing argument on any of the scientific or historic subjects he tackled, but his posts and the responses were (almost) always fascinating to me as a bystander.  I applaud the willingness of this board to give him a soapbox to try to present his case for so long without censorship.

So I hope Dave finds another place to argue his viewpoint and a new audience and new adversaries.

And I thank the regulars who taught me a lot about subjects I never formally studied like geology and information theory.

But especially thanks to Eric for your cogent and spot-on arguments on such a variety of subjects - very impressive.

Date: 2006/12/31 20:43:55, Link
Author: ck1
And Faid

Date: 2007/01/21 12:15:22, Link
Author: ck1
And all male.  Anyone know the gender breakdown of regulars/readers of ATBC?

Date: 2007/02/16 06:52:27, Link
Author: ck1
I met the author of this article at a showing of Flock of Dodos last night in DC.  He was part of a panel discussion after the movie that also included Olsen, Barbara Forrest and a lawyer (name escapes me).  After the Q&A, I spoke with him briefly about this Sternberg article.  Apparently he took the info for the article directly from the House Committee Report.  He was unaware of Sternberg's prior associations with creationism (Baraminology Study Group, 2002 Biola conference).  He asked me to send him this information. So I will.

Date: 2007/04/17 19:21:01, Link
Author: ck1
So a Kansas Konnection is a big draw.  For me too.

I have a PhD in bio and my husband is from Kansas.  When I heard about the BOE plans in 1999 I was amazed, and when I started reading about it, even more amazed that this issue is still alive for so many.  I have never met a creationist in person, but have always been interested in the intersection of science and religion so I followed the story to Talkorigins where I read all the articles, the Lilith debates, and then here where I encountered AFDave, and now to the Dawkins site where Dave is still holding forth and shows no signs of tapering off...

Date: 2007/05/12 12:16:03, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Ftk @ May 12 2007,10:50)
Lenny, I'm not a "fundy", nor am I "Catholic", nor do I listen to Falwell, Pat Robertson et. al.

I'm done here until Lenny leaves or passes on to the neatherworld.

De-lurking to comment:

I am disappointed in your response FTK.  I have not read all of this thread, but it seems to me Lenny asks pointed and on-topic questions, and his own position is well-documented.  His questions and tone are not offensive.  

Why not make the effort to address these issues since they seem so important to you?  

Your threat to leave unless Lenny goes comes across as childish.  

Just sayin'.

Back to lurking...

Date: 2007/06/17 09:21:46, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2007,21:19)
For me that came far later on the science in total - the Gulo/Genetic Plagiarism article did it

I know I should know the answer to this question, but what article? Have a link?

Here it is:

Date: 2007/07/14 17:34:42, Link
Author: ck1
Question - I wandered over to FTK's blog this morning for the first time and left a comment on the Scienceblog thread.  

My comment was neither confrontational nor insulting - it was also (I admit) not particularly clever or insightful.  I was responding to a comment by DaveScot.

But after 6 hours my comment has not appeared.

What is the moderation policy over there?  Are comments restricted to a certain "in-group"? Or does it just take a long time for comments to appear?

Or is it a waste of time to attempt to participate in discussion over there?

Date: 2007/07/16 15:22:42, Link
Author: ck1
On the EE website, one of the sample pages discusses something called the "artifact hypothesis".  Is this a term used by actual evolutionary biologists?  Most of the Google hits for this term seem to be to creationist websites.

Date: 2007/07/17 20:44:48, Link
Author: ck1
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 17 2007,17:36)
I do of course realize that some of you, perhaps even MANY of you (and particularly the scientist types), will think these to be "unfair" or "unsporting" or "not nice".  Tough.  They're damn effective.  This isn't a scientific symposium, it's not a debate, it's not a polite disagreement between buddies.  It's a political war. One side will win; the other side won't.  One side will emerge alive; the other side won't.  Politics is a business full of knives, and this is a knife fight.  Sorry if the sight of blood bothers you.  If so, perhaps you too would be happier out of the kitchen and into the living room watching TV instead.

I mostly agree.  But don't you also think it is worth while keeping them talking?  Once they go off in a huff they are no longer going to make those wonderfully nonsensical statements that undermine their own arguments.

Date: 2007/07/17 21:30:43, Link
Author: ck1
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 17 2007,21:15)
"Teach the controversy" is, if not dead, then brain-dead and on life support.  I suppose it may still have a feeble pulse.  

If we're lucky, Nelson's latest magnum opus will prove to be the final instrument of death for "teach the controversy", just like "Pandas and People" was for ID. If not, "teach the controversy" will just lie in a vegetative coma for a few years until the anti-evolutioners themselves pull the plug and try to reanimate a different corpse.

OK, but it is not dead yet, and it will probably cause some damage in more than a few school programs before it gets its day in court.  In the meantime, that damage should be minimized and there may be more than one way to deal with them effectively.  This "fairness" issue resonates with a lot of people and cannot be dismissed so cavalierly.  

Date: 2007/07/17 22:21:38, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (VMartin @ July 17 2007,12:48)
Dogs are good example of the fact that evolution has nothing to do with natural selection. You can breed dogs however you like (diversity in dogs are greatest in mammals) they still remain dogs. The strongest artificial selection  couldn't change the fact. That's probably the reason no one observed selection as creative force of evolution before Darwin. It also prove the fact that the process is almost fully reversible -dogs  left for themselves would return after some generation to their former state.

Dogs prove the fact that most species are unable to evolve and they only somehow react to pressure by their innate diversity. After some point they are unable to accomodate themselves and die. Consequently what  species do under pressure is they change their alleles frequency but do not instigate evolution of new species by such process.

Dawkins mentioned the domesticated species that defy to evolve as evolutionary example against Behe.

CTVT - a novel dog-derived life form.

Look it up.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:42:24, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?

This is an understatement.  I have never used a direct quote in any paper I have written, and the only paper I can think of from a peer-reviewed journal that makes liberal use of quotes is one that Afdave (remember him?) brought up a lot.  I guess this literary device appeals to creationists (because it is a common tactic in religous apologetics).

Date: 2007/07/20 20:05:39, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,17:59)
Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  

Yes.  It is actually jarring to come across a direct quote in a technical paper, so rarely is this device used.

Date: 2007/07/20 21:17:21, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,20:32)
Quote-mining also is a favorite of the equally corrupt animal-rights movement.

It is not the quote-mining I am referring to here (although doctored quotes are an obvious issue with creationists) - but the odd use of direct quotes to support an argument rather than a simple reference to the actual data.  This is not as much a question of dishonesty as it is a question of how arguments are made by actual scientists as opposed to religious apologists.

Is this use of direct quotes also seen with other denialists (HIV/AIDs, vaccine/autism, global warming...)?

Date: 2007/07/22 10:16:56, Link
Author: ck1
Two questions:

1 - It seems that no one has actually seen this book.  Is that because it is not yet available, or because people are reluctant lend it any kind of support by paying for it?

2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

Date: 2007/07/22 16:22:47, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 22 2007,11:59)

It seems that no one has actually seen this book.

Not "no one".

Why is there no mention of this book (EE) on Amazon?

Also, on a related subject - this weekend on BookTV on C-Span2, Phyllis Schlaffly is hosting a discussion of Tom Bethell's book "Politically incorrect guide to science" (or whatever the title actually is).  His talk deals with bird flu, HIV, global warming and he also gives his unique perspective on how science is funded.  And he also explains why homeopathy works.  Any why ID is science.  The program is supposed to be repeated tonight, at least in my area.

Date: 2007/07/22 19:05:38, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 22 2007,17:34)

Why is there no mention of this book (EE) on Amazon?

AFAICT EE is only available through the DI/EE website. It could be that the publisher simply doesn't have a mass market distribution system in place; they seem to primarily publish multi-hundred-dollar texts that sell in the double to triple digits of copies. Or it could be that the DI wishes to track who is getting the book, in which case sales via would obscure information about the purchasing demographic.

Is this how Pandas was published? Same publisher?

How many copies of Pandas are in print?

Given the small size of this publisher's offerings, does this mean that there will be no formal reviews of EE in any venue that looks at science books or textbooks?

I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

Date: 2007/07/22 19:33:52, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 22 2007,19:25)
Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,19:05)
I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

There are many public school districts that would love to use EE, and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures.

Given the financial consequences and ridicule Dover had to face for their use of Pandas, I would be surprised to see any public school district take a chance on EE.

But you sound like the voice of experience.

Date: 2007/07/24 13:59:26, Link
Author: ck1
How many of the EE misquotes have been used previously by creationists, and how many have been publicly corrected in places such as the Quote Mine Project?

Date: 2007/07/24 16:46:17, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,14:24)
Those would be good things to track. I think two so far also have been in the TOA QMP.

This seems important to me.  If specific quotemines have been documented in the past, how can Nelson justify using them again in a textbook, which should have accuracy as its major goal?

Date: 2007/07/24 19:01:05, Link
Author: ck1
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,17:31)
 Well, I think the most important thing is to tie everything in the book directly to previous creationist and/or ID propaganda pieces.  

Legally, it's not against the law to publish inaccurate science "textbooks".

It IS, however, against the law to publish creationist religious objections to evolution, and pretend they are "science".

Absolutely. To tie quotemines in the book to previously debunked quotemines by creationists should document:

- their dishonesty - using known lies (not a good thing when insisting you have the moral high ground.)

- the connection between EE and creationism (not a good thing if you have to go to court).

Date: 2007/07/24 19:14:29, Link
Author: ck1
I posted 3 comments on FTk's website.  Two were comments about my experiences in Catholic schools and did not get through moderation.  The third comment asked if she deleted 50% or 90% of submitted comments - and that made it through.

Go figure.

Date: 2007/07/24 21:39:48, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (J-Dog @ July 24 2007,21:28)
Quote (ck1 @ July 24 2007,19:14)
I posted 3 comments on FTk's website.  Two were comments about my experiences in Catholic schools and did not get through moderation.  The third comment asked if she deleted 50% or 90% of submitted comments - and that made it through.

Go figure.

ck1 - Sorry I spoiled the Catholic thing for you... I posted at FTK's blog about Pope Sturbanfuhrer Benedict's recent slap at the Protestant fundies faces, and used my Catholic jargon to condemn DaveScot to hell.  
Sorry I spoiled it for you.  I will say 3 Hail Mary's and an Our Father, and it will all be okay.

I read your comments - mine were definitely more mild-mannered, but I guess she had enough on the subject.  She has let my subsequent comments through though, so looks like your penance worked...

Date: 2007/07/26 19:23:48, Link
Author: ck1
So until Paul Nelson re-surfaces, or EE becomes available, this thread is dead?

Date: 2007/07/28 22:09:32, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2007,15:43)
Quote (stevestory @ July 28 2007,14:25)
Quote (blipey @ July 28 2007,13:11)
Clearly backing up her belief that there is no conspiracy:

It wouldn't matter anyway, the Darwin elite (NCSE et. al.) would throw an absolute fit over anything remotely resembling ID or creation science being submitted for publication.

If the IDers had any new science they would publish it in their journal. Instead, it is defunct, because they've got nothing.

Perhaps someone who's still permitted to post at Casa de FTK should point this out...

I checked out that defunct journal - the last issue has 6 papers including contributions by William Dembski, John Davison, and Casey Luskin (on human evolution).

I could not make it through more than Luskin's abstract.

Date: 2007/07/30 21:39:36, Link
Author: ck1
Well, FTK responded on her blog to something I said here.  

I posted a response yesterday that has not appeared, so I guess I might as well comment here.  I did not, unfortunately, save a copy of my unacceptable post, but I can summarize what I said:

- I stated that, in retrospect, I thought my ATBC comment on the papers in the last issue of the PCID journal was flip.

- I responded to her criticism that I did not read the Luskin paper by -- reading the Luskin paper.  I then explained why this paper does not, in my opinion, meet the usual standards of scholarship for a scientific review article, namely:

---excessive use of quotes* in place of data
---lack of substantive data in table or figure form
---excessive reliance on references from books and other popular literature/review articles/encyclopedias/websites, and many fewer references to actual research papers
---dodgy science (I specifically mentioned an odd section on junk DNA)

FTK also commented on

 .....Brown's work. The only way his work would get a fair shake would be if he were able to respond to the reviewer's criticisms. That is why his written debate offer is the best way to present his work.

I responded by saying that the rest of us scientists are required to answer reviewers' comments in order to get our stuff published, so why should Brown get a free pass?

So FTK, if you are reading this, the reason I came to your website in the first place was because I am interested in trying to understand why creationists like you think as you do.  I did not come to pick a fight, but the best way to learn is to ask questions, sometimes hard questions, and pose challenges.  

OK, I went to the wrong place.

*I did not use the term "quotemine".

Date: 2007/07/31 06:35:21, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (blipey @ July 30 2007,22:47)
I find it hard to believe that Ftk wouldn't publish your comment, ck1.  Or rather I would find it hard to believe if I was a heroin addict.  That's what I meant.

Maybe she is on vacation.

Oh well.

Date: 2007/09/13 19:24:06, Link
Author: ck1
BWE,  Can you say anything about the general subject of your book?  Just curious.

Date: 2007/09/19 07:51:58, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

So DNA testing to establish paternity is bogus?

Date: 2007/09/22 17:25:55, Link
Author: ck1
Is Mike Gene a professional biologist?  Ph.D.?  

I know his/her identity is secret, but what is known about Gene?

Date: 2007/10/03 10:11:43, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 02 2007,17:00)
Peer review can be brutal. Reviewers, experts in your field, go over your work in all its detail, looking for incorrect assumptions, faulty mathematics, or places where you show lack of knowledge in the work by others in the field. It is not for the faint-hearted, or the thin skinned. By publishing popular books (and having comments on those books disabled by Amazon) Behe has bypassed that process completely. Without it, his work has no merit in the scientific world. Don't like it? Too bad. That is how the game is played. In my part of the country, the saying goes: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch".

This is a good, but partial explanation for Behe's lack of credibility in science.  I was also astounded that he testified at the Dover trial that he did not himself engage in ID research because he was already convinced.  If the most scientifically credentialed ID proponent can't be bothered to treat ID as real science, then why should anyone?

Date: 2007/10/04 19:30:41, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,17:19)
gain, Templeton. The DI. Lots of Dominionist money there. Not being used. Why?

Lots of private money being contributed to creationist research as well, but that certainly isn't going to get them published in mainstream journals.  

Most scientists have not clue one what creation science actually entails...I've talked to several who have no stake in this debate and they are clueless....simply don't have the time or desire to look into it further.  Most are just too busy.

The ones who are informed or interested are also seriously put off with religion in general as is quite obvious here at this forum as well.

So, have these researchers supported by all this private money generated actual data?  Have they tried submitting their papers to mainstream journals?  If not, why not?  And if you cannot point to a pile of rejected papers, then how do you know this work is unacceptable in mainstream journals?

Date: 2007/10/04 22:04:54, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:03)
Arden, we're talking right past each other, and I want to go do something else rather than sit here all night.

When I talk about "creationists", I'm refering to "creation science".  When I talk about "IDists", I'm talking about ID.  Two ENTIRELY different concepts.

Creationists do publish in private journals and I've posted some of them at the Q&A at my blog.  They've also published books on the subject...Walt Brown, etc.  They can't go mainstream....not allowed...considered Christian apologetics even though the subject matter is scientific.  They are screwed.

ID is not based on's based on science.  They have to go *mainstream* or they might as well hang it up.  Each time they are almost there, they are shut down by Darwin's little helpers.

So what are IDists doing to gain the respect and acceptance they seek?  

Can you point to their labs and to specific peer-reviewed research results?  Do they attend scientific conferences?  Have they submitted papers containing data based on ID to mainstream journals?  Why have I never met an ID proponent in my 30+ years as a scientist?

Or are they too busy making movies?  Writing books for popular audiences?  Giving talks in churches?  And complaining about their status as outsiders?

Date: 2007/10/05 14:49:36, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (slpage @ Oct. 05 2007,13:37)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56)
Richard,  creation science is out there in the private sector...what good is keeping it private doing them?  You've admited to never reading any of it... most people haven't.  Until fairly recently, most people had never even heard of the advancements in creation science, and it's been around for years.

Advancements?  Like what (not that I will get an answer)?

Ftk, I second this request.  I would like to know what advancements you mean here.  As a biologist, I am particularly interested in the contributions creation science and/or ID have made in that field (note - "it looks designed to me" is not an advancement).

Date: 2007/10/05 15:42:26, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:03)

What?'re not familiar with what happens to people who submit to mainstream journals?...Meiers/Sternburg

To people who advocate ID and apply for tenure at a mainstream universities? ....Gonzalez

Who try to submit to mainstream journals and get turned down because their papers question certain aspects of evolution?...Behe

To those who question Darwinism in academia?...Crocker

Who get an ID friendly lab up and running until the Darwin police arrive at the scene?...Roberts/Dembski

Why haven't you met an ID proponent in your 30+ years as a scientist?  Because current ID advocates have only been around for about the last 10 years or so, and anyone who is even remotely sympathetic to the inference had better keep their mouths clamped shut about it if they want to receive want a decent job in the field of science.


Interesting - you can name a half dozen individuals (creationists) who were criticized for failing to meet professional standards.

I know dozens of mainstream scientists who lost their jobs or had to downsize their labs due to lost grants or bad site visit reports.  I cannot think of a single senior level scientist I know who has never had a paper rejected.

Do you feel sorry for these people, forced to submit their work for evaluation and failing to gain acceptance?  Or is it only the few creationists that have had such problems that get your attention?

Do you think that creationists should be exempt from the scrutiny the rest of us go through?

Date: 2007/10/05 15:48:15, Link
Author: ck1
Whatever happened to this book?  Is it still being actively promoted?  Are sales brisk?  Or has it already sunk into oblivion?

Date: 2007/10/11 20:52:14, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (silverspoon @ Oct. 10 2007,05:02)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 10 2007,00:02)
Also, please give a citation to the part of Judge Jones' ruling where he said that ID was not science because of its religious implications. I think you are just making this up, which in my book comes very close to lying.

I second this question for Ftk. I’d like a reference for Judge Jones stating that ID could be correct, but isn’t science due to its religious implications.

Jones said the only supposed evidence for ID given in the trial was (paraphrased) ID being something an agnostic or atheist would be less inclined to accept. He did say the positive argument for ID doesn’t meet scientific standards. Nowhere can I find in his ruling where he says ID could be correct.

In summary, he said ID doesn’t meet scientific standards, and he has no opinion on it being true other than being an interesting theological argument. That’s a far cry from Ftk’s caricature of what he wrote.

Not sure if this has been discussed further.  Jones said on page 64 of his decision:

"4.  Whether ID is science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.  We find that ID fails on three levels...1) ID violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causations."

This is probably what FTK was referring to.

Date: 2007/10/12 21:35:58, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 10 2007,04:16)
1) For the atheists/agnostics etc: What if you are wrong and god(s) do(es) exist? How would you feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

3) For the scientists and people who accept modern evolutionary biology as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth: What if you are wrong and IDC or YEC or whatever creationism you care to name is correct? How would feel and what would you do? What are the social, ethical and political ramifications of this, if any?

1) How would I find out I am wrong about this?  I die and end up in hell?  I have been considering this issue for 45+ years, and it is unlikely that anything would change my mind at this point short of a miracle or dementia.  This new knowledge would likely come too late to make a difference in my life in this world (the social, ethical, political ramifications you mention).

3) I would redesign my research program where appropriate. What ramifications do you mean?

Date: 2007/10/13 22:31:00, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2007,02:25)
Incidentally FTK, whilst I think of it:

1) Please name ONE fallacy in "Darwinism" (you might need to define "Darwinism" for me because I'm sure you and I don't mean the same thing when we use that word. So I'd like to know what you mean when you say it). You make this claim a lot but seem curiously reluctant to support it.

The very last time I tried to post at FTK's site (before giving up permanently), I sent in a single question - I asked her to define "Darwinism".  My post never appeared.  Maybe she will answer you.

Date: 2007/10/14 17:32:23, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2007,01:10)
I long for smarter, scientifically literate Creationists. FtK's "You're all a buncha atheists!!!!!!!!!!111111" shtick is so Spring 2007.


The very last time I tried to post at FTK's site (before giving up permanently), I sent in a single question - I asked her to define "Darwinism".  My post never appeared.  Maybe she will answer you.

If we moderated her like she moderates us, she'd scream bloody murder.

I agree.

I did not keep track of my attempts to post at FTK's site.  My recollection -  I made 6-8 posts of which about half made it through.  Those "successful" posts did not include the posts I would describe as substantive.

Is that the way it works over there?

Date: 2007/10/19 21:00:49, Link
Author: ck1
Raising Arizona (may only appeal to Americans?)
Dr. Strangelove
Little shop of Horrors

oldies - Bogart, Hepburn (Philadelphia Story), Bette Davis (esp. All About Eve), Astaire, Wizard of Oz, Gone with Wind

as for LOTR - could not keep the "dudes" straight (except for Legolas) - but the men in the family would give it a 5+++

Date: 2007/10/19 21:10:52, Link
Author: ck1
Office space
Annie Hall
High Noon
Some Like it hot

Date: 2007/10/26 19:41:23, Link
Author: ck1
The smart money picks a theistic belief that’s suitable to his personal tastes and at least goes through the motions just in case. I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so there’s nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved),

Boy, did my parents pick the wrong version of Christianity.

And yes, RTH's 1000th post was one of the funniest things on this site ever.  Wish I had a link.

Date: 2007/10/26 20:49:34, Link
Author: ck1
Yes.  Princess Bride.
Groundhog Day.

Marx Brothers movies.

And when I was really really pregnant my husband brought home what I thought would be a really awful cheesy shoot-em-up.  Terminator. (#1)  Loved it.

Date: 2007/11/05 20:11:08, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 05 2007,08:12)
Two things struck me about that page. First, it never actually gives a clear explanation of what the theory of evolution consists of.

Secondly, it is carefully phrased to try to avoid actually lying.

Well, now I know where afdave gets at least some of his arguments and quote-mines.  As for lies, how about this:
The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of Theistic Evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.

or this misrepresentation of Popper's position based on personal suspicion:
Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.

The section on the fossil record consists ENTIRELY of out of context quotes and begins and ends as follows:
Creationists can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists: <snip long list of quotemines followed by a link to more "Fossil record quotes">

Also, Walt Brown as a genetics expert.

Sarfati as an expert on all sorts of things.

Scientific legitimacy based on polls.

Prominent mention of Meyer's peer-reviewed paper (and Sternberg's martyrdom.)

They cite Jerry Bergman!

And they give numerous examples in which science was wrong and the bible was right, like this one:
For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter

And, uh oh!  the article ends with pictures of Hitler AND Stalin!

Looks like somebody put a lot of effort into this.  Sad.

Date: 2007/11/07 17:03:50, Link
Author: ck1
So did they have their press conference, or whatever?

Date: 2007/11/13 18:21:08, Link
Author: ck1
Speaking of martyrs to the cause, what ever happened to Bryan Leonard, the high school science teacher who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt while in a Ph.D. program at, I think, Ohio State.  His dissertation defense was held up because his defense committee was improperly constructed (plus they were all creationist sympathizers) and because he failed to get proper approval for using human subjects.

Sounds like a perfect candidate for this movie.  Is he in it?

Date: 2007/11/13 22:34:39, Link
Author: ck1
The real heroes - the science teachers.  Very impressive group.

And too bad there was no time for Mike Argento.

Date: 2007/12/06 19:20:32, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 06 2007,16:17)
Right, DM ... you like telling one sided stories I know, so I hate to spoil it for you ... the other side of the story is ...

10 infractions over 4 months (RBH's idea of a short time), maybe 2 of them legit, the rest very bogus ... anyone who reads QPC and that new sticky thread in E/C knows this and can see others complaining also on my behalf.

Just over 100 posts reported in 4 months comes to less than 1 per day ... and I only reported them because RBH instructed me to.  If he had told me to stop reporting them I would have.  Furthermore, if he had told me to quit posting so much, I would have also complied ... but he never did.  

It has the appearance that the Admins were tired of all the questioning of Darwinism going on in E/C.  Does that sound familiar?  Never had any trouble in BCH and I posted a lot there too ... had people ask me to post more there.  I've had former IIDB mods PM me and invite me to RnR and many other posters including the highly respected Jet Black express their desire to converse with me and even defend me.

So, DM ... you're Theory of Origins is not the only theory of yours that is questionable.  


I do not know why you were suspended at IIDB, but I know the mods there bent over backwards to accomodate you and your "fan club".

So, since you have run into similar problems on ATBC, RD and now IIDB, don't you think it is time to take stock?  You should consider the complaints you have heard for almost 2 years, especially from those you consider your "hecklers".  You know, the people whose posts you proudly say you avoid reading.  

Read them.

I gather you spend your time on these sites to get your creationist ideas evaluated by scientists.  But if you are not willing to deal with the science honestly, then you will not be taken seriously, and the discussion degenerates into name calling and worse.  Tactics that do not work - quotemining, ignoring substantive responses, repeating refuted claims over and over, and your decision to avoid learning mainstream science from the people who actually do the work.

Not that you will pay attention to any of this...

Date: 2008/02/13 21:59:44, Link
Author: ck1
Suburban location near a stream and park.  We have squirrels, chipmunks, foxes, racoons, black snakes, box turtles, and a family of beavers.  

But mainly deer.  Lots and lots.  They eat everything.    Except daffodils.  And create problems for drivers - we have hit two of them on the road.

Date: 2008/03/02 21:41:06, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 02 2008,19:30)
So why are we devoting so much time and effort to Uncommonly Dense?

Because it's a fun thing to do.

Date: 2008/04/10 19:08:38, Link
Author: ck1
I noticed UD has a thread on ERVs.  I am a virologist and I have been working on ERVs for 30+ years, so I sent in 3 comments to answer questions that came up.  Only one of those comments has appeared.

All of my comments were focused on science -- no commentary, no insults.  Links to papers.

Was I wasting my time?

Are scientists not welcome at UD?

Date: 2008/04/10 20:06:35, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (BCtheEra @ April 10 2008,19:22)
Quote (ck1 @ April 10 2008,19:08)
I noticed UD has a thread on ERVs.  I am a virologist and I have been working on ERVs for 30+ years, so I sent in 3 comments to answer questions that came up.  Only one of those comments has appeared.

All of my comments were focused on science -- no commentary, no insults.  Links to papers.

Was I wasting my time?

Are scientists not welcome at UD?

Reality isn't welcome at UD.

Yeah, you are probably right.

Somehow I thought their moderation policy had eased up lately.

Date: 2008/04/10 20:39:52, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (J-Dog @ April 10 2008,20:19)
I think the REAL key to getting taken off moderation is
how many bible quotes did you include in your papers?

But of course, keep in mind that ID is not about religion, it's all about the science.

I somehow got the impression they wanted to hear from experts.  Guess I should have sent in my CV first.

Date: 2008/04/10 21:41:49, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (BCtheEra @ April 10 2008,21:25)
Quote (ck1 @ April 10 2008,20:39)
I somehow got the impression they wanted to hear from experts.  Guess I should have sent in my CV first.

Are you an expert in acquiring academic degrees and then advancing vacuous, long-debunked "science."  If not, you're not really their type of expert.

Ah, so that's it.  Should have avoided that Journal of Virology link.  On a thread about ERVs.

Date: 2008/09/06 10:54:58, Link
Author: ck1
Quote (csadams @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2008,19:28)
Full screed:

Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Is this the same Dave from 2005 who predicted          
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.


There is an important difference in these two predictions.  On the one hand, the outcome depends on the decision of a single highly-educated jurist, on the other, on the choices made by ordinary voting Americans:

"And in all of this we should not leave out the role of the much heralded ordinary American. One reason the Republicans find such fertile ground for their shamelessness is that this is fundamentally a right-wing country. My liberal friends find it difficult to accept this, but to me it seems obviously true. Why do you suppose that Republicans trumpet their pro-life credentials, but Democrats try to change the subject when it comes to abortion? Why do Republicans run around bashing homosexuals, while Democrats quake in terror at the thought of having to say what they really think? Why do you suppose upwards of eighty percent of the country want to have some sort of creationism taught in science classes?

The answer is simple. It is that in each case the Republicans are defending the popular position."

(sorry - don't remember how to add quote boxes here)

Date: 2009/03/13 21:51:00, Link
Author: ck1
About 4.5 hours ago I posted this on Barry's new moderation policy thread (it has not appeared):

I'm a biologist (32 years since PhD) working in genetics, virology and evolution.  I am delighted to hear of this new moderation policy and I look forward to being able to post here now.

I will simply note for now that often scientific findings are counterintuitive.  It is the data that matters, not suppositions based on common sense.

Too confrontational?

Date: 2009/03/14 20:49:06, Link
Author: ck1
Are there multiple levels of bannination at UD?

Seems like several variants have been described:

1 - Poster can register and submit a comment.  Will get a notice about comment in moderation.  Comment may or may not appear.

2 - Can register and submit, but gets no notice about moderation.  Comments never appear. (I'm here.)

3 - Can't register.

Sound right?

Date: 2010/02/27 12:07:15, Link
Author: ck1
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?

Date: 2010/11/29 15:37:44, Link
Author: ck1
Abel's "prize" is being offered by an organization he calls the Origin of Life Foundation.  This organization is based in Greenbelt, MD, which is my neck of the woods, so I took some pictures of the Foundation last summer:

Also, their list of judges is just a list of people they might ask to evaluate applications, if and when they get any they think are worth sending out for judging.