AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: clamboy

form_srcid: clamboy

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.80.46

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: clamboy

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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'clamboy%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/25 11:36:27, Link
Author: clamboy
Hello, I...well, this is my first time. I mean, my first post! My technique may be lacking, but I have enthusiasm and could probably do this for hours.

afDave, I would first like to thank you for your numerous threads. I have been following them avidly since they began, and they have provided me with the opportunity to learn more in several disparate fields: genetics, linguistics, the nature of the scientific process, etc.

I do, however, have one question for you that has, to my knowledge, not yet been raised by anyone else here. You have used the term "General Theory of Evolution" in several places, and I wonder what you mean by that. I admit to having simply a layman's understanding of evolution, but I have read fairly extensively in the topic (including slow slogging through certain complicated bits of Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology," 3rd ed., a gift from my wife) and have never come across the term. Now, I do have some idea as to where you might have picked up the phrase "General Theory of Evolution," but it would not be right for me simply to guess. Could you please explain where you found this term, and what it entails? Many thanks!

Date: 2006/05/25 11:49:16, Link
Author: clamboy
Yep, next time the ACLU asks me for a donation above my membership dues, I think I'll send them a bog ol' check, and ask them to send a thank you note to davescot.

As a new member here, I would like to thank you all for this thread. I have no interest in reading Uncommon Pissant, there are only so many hours in the day. However, coming here every morning to see the latest foolishness puts a smile on my face as I wait for my tea to fully steep.

Date: 2006/05/28 07:49:59, Link
Author: clamboy
After reading of SteveB's banning, and comparisons to Potemkin villages, I reexamined my previous mental analogy of "Dembski:DaveScot as Lenin:Stalin" and came to the conclusion that I prefer "Dembski:DaveScot as Kim Il-sung:Kim Jong-il." It's true that DaveScot has Stalinist cachet, but I prefer the Kim pairing for its ultra-weird, ultra-cultish, ultra-worker'sparadisedon'tlookoverthere factors.

Although I could go with (give me some leeway here) Behe as Lenin, Dembski as Stalin, ... and DaveScot as Enver Hoxha!

Date: 2006/05/28 13:26:13, Link
Author: clamboy
stevestory, thanks for asking afDave what he thinks of the revised "Big Daddy?". Several pages of posts ago I asked afDave what he meant by, and where he had found, the term "General Theory of Evolution." He replied:

"It is very hard to nail evolutionists down on terminology, so I use my own which I think helps differentiate concepts best.  When I say General Theory of Evolution, I mean "All Evo Baloney" which for me includes abiogenesis for which ToE advocates don't even have a theory, and macroevolution, and all uniformitarian geological assumptions, such "the rocks are billions of years old" and the "Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado river over millions of years" and other related malarkey.  It's handy to just lump all the baloney together under one name -- "The General Theory of Evolution."  Can be confusing, though, I admit.  You will hear me most often just talking about "macroevolution" and "abiogenesis" and "uniformitarian geology" etc."

Now, that is pretty much what I would expect from him. Arrogance, ignorance, and a complete dismissal of everything that doesn't conform to his idolatrous, almost obscene worship of the bileball. But here is my point: the term "General Theory of Evolution" is straight outta Hovind, and is used by Hovind as shorthand for the six points the professor in "Big Daddy?" writes out on the chalkboard at the urging of True Christian White Boy. So it appears to me that afDave, despite his early assertion that he relies only upon respectable "scientific" sites and organizations as ICR and AiG, is really just a wannabe Hovind. I wonder when he's going to open up a lame theme park (I mean, really, have you looked at Hovind's own pictures of the park? LAME! LAME! LAME! LAME!;).

But, afDave, I find I have something else to thank you for. You see, a while ago I made the decision that I was going to really try to engage a creationist, any creationist, in a discussion as to why he or she rejected mainstream science. No debate, just discussion, with the aim of gaining some better understanding of what drives people to such decisions. I would have been glad to discuss with this creationist my reasons for rejecting religious stories as trustworthy explanations of the history and workings of the universe. But, thanks in no small part to you, afDave, I see now that such a discussion would more than likely be futile. I should also thank Michael Behe, William Dembski, Kent Hovind, everyone at AiG and ICR, Casey Luskin, Nancy Pearcy, and so many others, for showing me that rational engagement with creationists about their creationism (getting all metacognitive here) is, ultimately, impossible.

But that leaves more time for beer!

Date: 2006/06/01 09:53:18, Link
Author: clamboy
Silly OA, they're both lies! Yet, if you could only think as they do, you would see that either or both can be true, and either or both can be false, depending on context. Your obsession with reality denies you the pleasure of believing two contradictory things at the same time. AFDave knows that there'e no such thing as the real world, it's all a matter of convincing yourself of the right interpretation. If you believe you rise up off the floor, and someone else believes they see you doing it, well, it must really happen!

Date: 2006/06/04 19:20:24, Link
Author: clamboy
You wish to be hacked to shreds, Dave? You have been pureed, minced, liquified, atomized, and pulverized so many times in your numerous threads that I have lost count. I applaud those who have taken the time to do so, however the reason that I continue to read these threads is simply that every moronic assertion you make is actually answered, with evidence, and thus I have a chance to learn more about this wonderful universe in which we live. Every single one of your "evidences" has been shown to be ludicrously wrong, but (and for this I thank you again) those who show this to be true have provided me with the means to continue my self-education.

Your original intent here was, obviously, to dismantle mainstream science, from biology to cosmology to geology to you name it. However, your perception of these fields is so extraordinarily perverse, "so wrong that the light from wrong won't reach it for a million years," that any attempt to pull you into the realm of the rational will obviously be more than a fool's errand, it will be more of a fool's circumnavigation of Jupiter in a dinghy. You *can't* be reasoned with, because you are incapable of reasoning. I mean you no insult with these words, I am simply pointing out a fact.

However, you do provide this long-time lurker with a lot of amusement, and some opportunity (through the efforts of others) to learn, and so again I thank you.

Date: 2006/06/06 15:25:28, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 06 2006,15:15)
No Paley, we don't worship Foucalt, we aren't advocating locking up people with your beliefs, many of us have families, and we're not busy killing babies for satanic rituals. We're not burning churches. We don't rob banks.


We don't? We aren't? We do? We're not? We're not? We don't?

Oops.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:47:46, Link
Author: clamboy
The question to me is, why the h-e-doubletoothpicks is the state involved in this thing called "marriage" anyway? If people want to establish a legally recognized relationship based on mutual affection, or based on some shared interest in keeping property together, or because they want to raise children together, or because they each want the other to be the primary "decider" in emergency medical situations, or whatever, then let's have a standard legal means by which to establsh such. Then, if people want to go through a ceremony to call attention to the commitment they are making to each other, whether it be based on a religion or not, go for it.

In terms of what is commonly called "gay marriage," my problem is always this: those who are against "gay marriage" always place the onus on those in favor to provide some explanation as to why "gay people" should be allowed to marry. To me, that is such an unAmerican perspective. This country was founded on the rights of individuals, and if certain rights are to be accorded to some and not to others, it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment. If we recognize that those above a certain age have the right to make decisions about their lives, and if we value the 1st amendment in full, then what possible justification can there be for denying two people of the same sex the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship, when that same recognition is granted on those who are of different sexes?

AND ANOTHER THING (sorry, went into afDave mode there): gender reassignment is a reality, folks, and a good thing, too. So here's the question: if a person legally changes his/her gender (read: state-recognized sex), and this person wishes to get married, what must the sex of the person he or she marries be?

*phew* Okay, that's enough, I know most everyone reading this gets it, I just put this up here hoping that t-diddy's head would 'splode.

Date: 2006/06/06 21:07:35, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,00:13)
clamboy,

Which one is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above


thordaddy,

why do you hate America?

Date: 2006/06/07 05:31:03, Link
Author: clamboy
I understand the conundrum you are in, thor of finland. You're invoking the one argument the "againsts" always and finally use, ye 'ol slippery slope. Sorry, but that dick don't come. Let me just say 4 words: two nonconsanguinous (sp?) rational adults.

And I say thordaddy is not only fabulous, but super spiffy, too!

Date: 2006/06/07 05:53:59, Link
Author: clamboy
Why, he's so thor he can hardly pith!

Date: 2006/06/07 17:25:24, Link
Author: clamboy
thordaddy,

which of the following is straight "marriage"?

A) Brad and Janet
B) Bob, Carol, and Alice
C) Bo Duke and Daisy Duke

Before we can continue, we must define just what the heck we mean by straight "marriage."

But(t) seriously, defend yourself: you grant a particular right/privilege/legal recognition to a certain relationship between a schminkie and a hoohoo (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), but when it's two schminkies (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.) or two hoohoos (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), you say, "NYET!" From a traditional American principle of equal standing under the law, it is your duty to justify this arbitrary denial.

Come on, hot stuff, let's hear it. Parading around in those short shorts under those lights must be getting tiring, so why not give us the benefit of your 12" of wisdom?

I ask again, why do you hate America?

Date: 2006/06/07 20:31:41, Link
Author: clamboy
And so we see what thordaddy's arguments add up to: a slippery slope coupled with an appeal to "tradition." I understand what you're saying, thordaddy, but that dog don't lick its own balls. You still haven't explained why you demand an arbitrary denial of rights based on chromosomes.

If you really give a dookie, thordaddy, I'll provide longer answers to your questions. But why should I bother? You present some pretense of interest in discussion, but you ignore the important points raised by folks such as, well, myself, and this tends to lead folk like me to decide to have another shot of Lagavulin rather than take you seriously.

Date: 2006/06/07 21:04:14, Link
Author: clamboy
Tsk, tsk, thordaddy, please point to where I said, "schminkie+hoohoo=BAD." You know I never said that, so, like afDave, GoP, and others of your ilk here, you deliberately misrepresent the positions taken by those you disagree with. Remember, I only asked you to explain why, if "schminkie+hoohoo=GOOD," why does "schminkie+schminkie and hoohoo+hoohoo=BAD." Of course, I did ask you to explain this in light of the Consitution, and in the light of a respect for individual rights. Go for it. I really want to know, you small-waisted stud, you!

Date: 2006/06/08 06:15:47, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,08:14)
Hey, weren't the slippery slope and the traditional definition of marriage the arguments used against allowing mixed-race couples to marry?


And against granting voting rights to women.

Date: 2006/06/10 20:09:41, Link
Author: clamboy
Oookay, so I voted as "atheist," due to my having sold my soul (for a heck of a great deal, including a lime green El Camino) to the one true lard Athe, but I notice there is no choice of "Elvis," which would be the most appropriate definition of my faith. I mean, why do you think I come here?!? It ain't evolution, it's Elvislution. Together we can defeat the forces of the anti-Elvislutionists, and it ain't just Micheal J. Fox any more! William Dembski has no Elvis in him. DaveScot has no Elvis in him. Elvis might be in afDave, but he's trying to get out! He's trying to get out, Davey!! Let the pink-gelled light of Elvis break through to you, afDave!! Come on, sing it with me!!
Elvis is everywhere!!
Elvis is everything!!
Elvis is everybody!!
Elvis is still The King!!

Date: 2006/06/13 16:20:13, Link
Author: clamboy
My wife (not I) just said, "Ann Coulter is the Republican equivalent of Nancy Spungeon, only with looser morals and fewer brain cells." Then she said something about end-stage syphilis. Then she double-dog dared me to start a thread titled "Ann Coulter is so loose..." followed by something about squat thrusts on a fire hydrant being hampered by knee callouses.

Again, not me, my wife. Notice that *I* am not engaging in personal attacks.

Date: 2006/06/13 19:16:44, Link
Author: clamboy
Ichthyic - my wife would like to be flattered by being called a "goer," if only she know what it meant. As for her starting a thread here, I think she enjoys being on the sidelines more, musing about what miracle of circumstance at Ann Coulter's birth led Ms. Coulter to her current lofty position, instead of "doing donkey shows in Tijuana," then opining that "being the Republican party's hosebag is probably pretty much the same. Perhaps even worse, I don't know, but I know which one I'd choose." My wife has, though, offered up a supernatural explanation for Ann Coulter. She maintains that Ann Coulter is God's punishment against Republicans for their lackluster response to the AIDS crisis, since Ann Coulter is "so diseased, and so loose, that she could take on the entire Republican party at once, thus effectively taking them out all at once."

Again, please note that I am merely relaying my wife's thoughts. I explained this thread, and its current Ann Coulter theme, and my wife calmly and rationally explained her perspective on Ms. Coulter. I remain solely a messenger.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:35:31, Link
Author: clamboy
I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Article 11 from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams with no fuss:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

I also find it amusing that fundamentalist Protestants railed against the Constitution for its lack of mention of (their) God for centuries, until they all of a sudden changed their tune in the 1950s-1960s to claim that the Constition is based on Christian practice and principles.

Oh, and this is relevant because of Dave's umpteenth claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, founded on Christianity. Dave would be right at home with some (notice I said "some") of the academics I encounter in my work - they hate the Enlightenment, too!!!

Date: 2006/06/15 11:35:09, Link
Author: clamboy
Y'know, I said back there that fundamentalist Protestants had railed against the Consitution "for centuries." That was stupid. I should have said, "since its inception."

Mea maxima culpa.

Date: 2006/06/16 17:10:37, Link
Author: clamboy
I hope you all will forgive me for running on stage and yelling:

MAN AS OLD AS COAL!!!!

and running off stage again.

Date: 2006/06/19 17:21:05, Link
Author: clamboy
I know that there is another thread whose title addresses this basic subject, but hey! Here is where the action is, so if I may:

Let us assume that a worldwide flood occured ~4,500 years ago. All life forms (and for the sake of argument, we'll leave it at land life forms) were destroyed except for the diverse representative kinds that were safe aboard a very large ship built by a very old (by today's standards) man named Noah, who with his family (including some in-laws) were spared.

We have learned in this thread that the subsequent ~4,500 years were enough to produce all species of monkey, ape, etc., from a male and female representative of their kind. This has been estimated by some as requiring an average of 17 years per species since the end of the flood, and is characterized by such words as "hyperevolution."

I don't know about that. 17 years is, well, a while. I started thinking, "Hmmm, why not?" But then I thought, "What about other types of animals? Say, beetles, for instance?" I went to our friend wikipedia, and found out that there are ~350,000 known species of beetle. So, if we assume a male and female of the beetle kind left alive after the flood (as we did with apes and monkeys), that makes an average of...hold on a sec, I'm a putz with math...hmmm, carry the 3, no, I mean, the 7, no, I mean, oh heck....ah! ~78 new beetle species per year since the end of the flood, or....one new species every 4.7 days! And that's on average!

17 years per species, and you call that "hyperevolution"?!? Pshaw, I say, P-SHAW!!!

Date: 2006/07/16 08:27:08, Link
Author: clamboy
Hey, how about that "Rupture Phase"? (which I can't say without laughing) That was simply a few hours!

"fountains of the deep" - KASPLAAASSSHHHHHHH-O!!!!

oh, and asteroids and comets! - KA-WHAM!!! KA-BLOOOOEY!!! KA-POW!POW!POW!!!!

and let's not forget those freezing mammoths! - KASSSKKKKRRROOOOIINNNNKKKKLLEEEX!!! <--- the sound of a mammoth freezing very quickly

I tell ya, no one got any sleep.

Date: 2006/07/17 17:51:33, Link
Author: clamboy
HA!!! Mt. Saint Helens, I knew it, I knew it!!! I get to take a drink!

Really, Dave, your predictability is wreaking havoc on my liver.

Date: 2006/07/19 15:21:26, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 19 2006,16:50)
Oh, by the way, I'll also be using Bully for Brontosaurus to support my Darwin -> murdering Germans claim. See everyone tomorrow!


Perhaps GoP means that he'll be using "The Most Unkindest Cut of All," one of the essays in Dinosaur in a Haystack. In this essay Gould addressed what he called "the absolute ultimate in all conceivable misappropriation" of Charles Darwin's work; that is, the Wannsee Protocol, produced at the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942. This was perhaps the document outlining the final solution - that is, "murder - total and unvarnished." (DIAH, p. 311, paperback edition) Adolf Eichmann, the author of the Wannsee Protocol, used some evolutionary language, including "natural selection." What makes this essay powerful is Gould's unflinching presentation of how the ideas, language, and products of science are too often abused and twisted to satisfy the needs of evil people.

Now, I recognize that GoP is incapable of understanding how utterly and completely stupid it is to say that the work of Charles Darwin was simply and only one of the necessary steps towards the horror of the Third Reich. As I have said before, blaming Charles Darwin for the Holocaust is exactly like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11. But to see, once again, Darwin's good name trashed in this most reprehensible manner, well, it makes me realize that a person such as GoP deserves nothing more than to be spit on.

Date: 2006/07/19 15:36:41, Link
Author: clamboy
Oh, and I almost forgot: while GoP is talking about Nazis, perhaps he should explain just exactly what he meant in his talk of "diseased cultures" threatening "Western culture" that he brought up in his "modest proposal" thread. And maybe he should explain why his plan of forced relocation is good, and the Nazi plan of forced relocation was bad.

Date: 2006/07/19 17:37:20, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2006,20:55)
Quote (clamboy @ July 19 2006,20:36)
Oh, and I almost forgot: while GoP is talking about Nazis, perhaps he should explain just exactly what he meant in his talk of "diseased cultures" threatening "Western culture" that he brought up in his "modest proposal" thread. And maybe he should explain why his plan of forced relocation is good, and the Nazi plan of forced relocation was bad.

Simple. The Nazis were liberals, so their forced relocation plan would therefore be bad. Paley, being a conservative, would have only good forced relocation plans.

Haven't you been paying attention?

I'm a slow learner, but I think I have it now:

Trail of Tears - "diseased culture" being removed/destroyed to make way for conservative "Western culture" - GOOD!

Stalin's treatment of the kulaks - liberal evolutionist marxo-fascism removing/destroying conservative pre-industrial "Western culture" - BAD!

The pogroms - conservative "Western culture" removing/destroying other conservative "Western culture" - SPLIT DECISION!

Is that about right?

Date: 2006/07/20 14:40:27, Link
Author: clamboy
*ahem*

I, clamboy (herein, "clamboy") did indeed misrepresent the views of the poster known as The Ghost of Paley (herein, "GoP") when I used the term "forced relocation" to describe said views, and do fully retract this misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was not deliberate, but based on an overly cursory reading of GoP's postings in the thread titled "A Modest Proposal," a reading which was cut short by the intercession by a person here unnamed with a proposal for a much more pleasant, physically-based activity. I hope that my mistake will cause all readers here to ensure that they are fully cognizant of an author's position prior to criticizing/joking about it. Also, had not my work demanded my time today, I would have posted this retraction much earlier.

And if I may address one remark to GoP: I see that you spelled my online moniker incorrectly. I am sure it was due to your upset over my misrepresentation of your views, but in order to avoid confusion among newer readers, I will make sure that it is clear: it's "clamboy," not "clambake." Or were you...oh, I see! How droll! "Clambake"! What wit!

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, GoP's views are still not only vile but wrong, and his coupling of Darwin with the Nazis is still reprehensible and wrong.

Date: 2006/07/20 15:49:23, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 20 2006,19:44)
####, guys! I just lost a Franklin!

Just kidding.

Apology accepted, clamboy.


Well, after all, creationists always recognize and apologize for their gaffs - why, I simply had to look to afDave for guidance.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:26:21, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (afdave @ July 21 2006,14:51)
 ... dunno.  


The most honest word out of afDave's mouth/keyboard in 117 pages.

Date: 2006/07/21 16:04:30, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Ichthyic @ July 21 2006,20:40)
not only honest, but complete.

dunno is where he started, and based on his lack of learning ability, is where he will end.

I can't recall any individual i have ever met who could spend this much time investigating any subject, and proceed to learn absolutely nothing in the end.

like i said, he evidently never progressed in ability beyond middle school.


My thoughts exactly. Thank you. Though it is true that I tend to mock certain afflicted folk like afDave, I took this thread seriously when he started it. As I think I have said before, I had set for myself the goal of engaging with a true-blue creationist such as afDave, not with the intention of debate but with the intention of understanding. I really do wonder what it is that makes a person disregard the whole of mainstream science, and embrace ignorance over knowledge in the name of a belief system that has no underpinning in the real world. afDave might say that he feels the same about those who do grant provisional acceptance to mainstream science, but the distance between his wondering and mine is an incalculable gulf (and I am sure afDave would agree).

But now, after reading along with this thread since its inception, I realize that arriving at understanding with someone like afDave is impossible (I may have said this before as well, but I just wish to reiterate it). Much as I want to, I can't understand how a person willfully and joyfully dismisses the world of reason, and furthermore, I recognize that afDave truly hasn't the capacity to understand the position of mainstream science, nor does he wish to. As others have said here, afDave must not treat established science with anything like curiosity or respect. To do so would be the negation of his self, and while I know that afDave will flounce in with something about how I am "psychoanalyzing" him, I also know that what I have said is true. Either that, or people such as afDave really are insane and stupid. I just wish that they weren't elected to high office so often.

Date: 2006/08/02 14:46:59, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (BWE @ Aug. 01 2006,21:19)
You are a very bad man.

BWE said this to afdave somewhere up there, and I think it is a sentence that bears repeating, making sure to name the one for whom it is intended.

afdave, you are a very bad man.

Date: 2006/08/04 17:40:16, Link
Author: clamboy
Every few days, a reminder has to be posted:

afdave, you are a very bad man.

Date: 2006/08/13 19:13:28, Link
Author: clamboy
Okaayay.......this has realllly got to...got to...oh, sh**.........got tpoopo...SSSTTOP.

AWrtight, see, it's like this... . ..  I made a BETTYT!! with myself. I bet thatttt afdavee sxsweoulfd, um, woufdl, um, WOULDC, make certain claims and taht thesea claims woudl be the usuals and regular claism gthat are seen all the friggggin time on talkorigins that i have beeeen readingb for a long time and that thesxy woudl be the same and this has bveen the case and so i seethat aFDEAVEW is without a doubt the most creationsaist of all the creaetionsistss. afdave hsa faollowed every prediction i have madde, and so, becasue3e this was a driunlking game, I am now going to be entering rehab.

AND HERE SI THE POINT - afdave has said notheing, anfd i mean NOTHING, tjhat has not been said by a creationist before, and that has not bveen souhndly refuted. he has nothing to offer to any deabate about the origins or develoipment of life, his arguments are paptently ridiculous, and, and, well,,,

Here is the real point: if I had been playing a drinking game based on the typical creationist objections to mainstream science (geology, astronomy, biology, etc.), afdave would have worn through the livers of Dorothy Parker, Dylan Thomas, Ernest Hemingway, and Shane McGowan in no time. afdave, you have said NOTHING here that other creationists have not said before. All of your points have been well-refuted before, here and elsewhere. I have been following the conversations between dark-ages fanatics such as afdave and people who live in the 21st century BCE for years, and it pleases me to know that the arguments of afdave and his ilk are, and have been for a long time, dull (not to mention completely wrong).

So yes, afdave, you are a very bad man. But the fun part is, you are also a stupid man.

Date: 2006/08/25 14:35:57, Link
Author: clamboy
Earlier today afdave said the following:

"I DO read people's posts ... and I read the links IF the premise seems to be sound which the link purportedly supports."

This got me to wondering what, for afdave, constitutes a "premise [that] seems to be sound." This statement also, to me at least, grants us further insight into afdave's, um, thinking process, and how anti-scientific it is. For afdave to take the time to read an article from, say, Nature, it must first provide him with what HE considers a "sound premise." If, in afdave's self-considered infinite wisdom, the article lacks the proper "soundness" in its "premise," then that article is, de facto, persona (articula?) non grata in afdave's Whacky World o' Creationy Science n' Stuff. However, give afdave an article with a title like "Millionsofyearsism done et up mah Maw!" and afdave will nod sagely and say, "Ah, yes. A most cogent and articulate article this is, with a sound premise, well-supported argument, and a conclusion firmly grounded in the peer-reviewed literature of the Creation Sciences."

Date: 2006/08/29 12:58:59, Link
Author: clamboy
And I would like to thank you, ghost of paley, for reminding me why I am an atheist and an anarchist.

Date: 2006/09/05 14:32:33, Link
Author: clamboy
I see that noone has seen fit to add *my* question to "The Boffo List o' Questions afdave Goes 'Duuuuhhhhhhh....' Over":

W H E R E DID ALL THOSE DANG BEETLE SPECIES COME FROM? W H E N C E CAME THE MULTITUDINOUS SPECIES O' BEETLE? 5! 5! 5! F-I-V-E DAYS PER SPECIE SINCE THE TIME O' TH' ARK, OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS THAT WAS CLOSE TO F-I-V-E DAYS!!!

<Mr. Burns voice>There really are a lot of beetle species on the earth, you know.</Mr. Burns voice>

Date: 2006/09/18 16:28:09, Link
Author: clamboy
Once again:

SSSHHHHHWWWAAAAAAAA-PA-PA-POWWW!!!!! went one newly-formed continent.

VVRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM-KA-BANG-BANG!!!!!! went another newly-formed continent.

ZZZZZIIIIPPPPPPHHHHHAAAAA-SHKLA-SKROINKLE!!!!!! went the third newly-formed continent.

The point is: N O O N E  G O T  A N Y  S L E E P. Thus, they were all awake to record the events of Ye Olde Testamente, just like afdave says. So, nyah.

Date: 2006/09/20 15:18:52, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59)
It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years, but now he's mad because there's an alternate view out there being promoted to kids.

Just think how mad he'd be if we were TAX FUNDED like his view is AND mandated in all the public schools!

Whooo ... baby!

*************************

Oh, I see that people looked at my chart and are pretending not to know what the word "hypothetical" means ... oh well ... what am I to expect from this crowd.

More pretty pictures tomorrow!


afdave, you are a very bad man.

Date: 2006/10/06 06:03:52, Link
Author: clamboy
afdave says, "Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome".

If that's true, then I feel so sorry for their kids, what with the cystic fibrosis, Usher syndrome (I, II, AND III!;), sickle cell anemia, I could go on all day....

Of course afdave then says that they were "fewer mutations," which is the helpful contradiction to explain why there were no genetic disorders to be passed along. With afdave, you can *always* have it both ways!

Man, there is so much caca in that post of afdave's. But let me tell you, I am so glad afdave has moved on.

Date: 2006/10/09 18:01:00, Link
Author: clamboy
afdave, you are a very bad man.

Date: 2006/11/15 20:48:33, Link
Author: clamboy
It hasn't been said for a long time, so in reaction to the past several pages:

afdave, you are a very bad man. BUT:
afdave, you are also a very very weird man. and that's "weird-oogy," not "weird-cool." AND:
afdave, you are a very very very pathetic man. and that's NOT "pathetic-like-a-rain-soaked-kitten," but "pathetic-like-rick-santorum's-kids-in-that-picture-all-over-the-internet-in-other-words-pathetic-gross-not-pathetic
-cute."
perhaps, instead of "Liar Dave" and such, y'all could just say "afsantorum" for a while? just a suggestion.

Date: 2006/12/10 14:27:48, Link
Author: clamboy
What time does afdave go to the doctor?










Truth-hurty! :D  :p  :)  ;)  ???  :(  :angry:  :O

Date: 2006/12/16 12:08:37, Link
Author: clamboy
Louis,

I hope that you will not mind me dropping the discussion down to the Homer Simpson level temporarily, but I have an opening question concerning this:

'3) A series of effector molecules/physical scaffolding/chemoselective processes which allow for a relatively high level of "copying fidelity".'

I understand that this is a hurdle, but how high is it? Since we are talking about repeating chemical processes occuring in (I assume) a basically stable environment, what is it that stands in the way of "copying fidelity"?

Please understand that my level of reading is Dawkins/Zimmer/Gould/Mayr/talkorigins, so while I am not completely ignorant I am certainly no expert. If you just want to point me to an lay person's "Guide to Problems with Copying Fidelity and How They Can Help Lower Your Monthly Payments," cool. Or if you want to sigh and give me your take, that would kick ass too. And I thank you.

Date: 2006/12/17 13:46:28, Link
Author: clamboy
Louis -

Thank you!!! I actually understood the vast majority of your post, and it certainly clarified the problem/hurdle of "copying fidelity" admirably.

And you didn't even have to pull some bogus probability estimates out of your ass!

Date: 2006/12/23 04:21:16, Link
Author: clamboy
Yet another Seattleite raises a tentative, non-confrontational hand. Though originally from the Boston arear (yeah, that's the right spellin - whatayou, a re-tahd?), then Colorado, Chicago, and (briefly) Corvallis, OR.

Date: 2007/01/02 21:57:02, Link
Author: clamboy
And beetles? And beetles.

Howdy, afdave, I wonder if you would have the courtesy to answer one question from this here lurker afore this thread is closed for good and proper:

Have you been granted, for many months now, potentially limitless time and internet space here in which to defend your "Creator God Hypothesis"?

That's it, yes or no. Please let me thank you now, though, for the opportunity to see a real live biblical-literalist creationist in action. I understand that perspective much more clearly now.

Date: 2007/01/15 13:09:36, Link
Author: clamboy
I haven't been checking that thread, but please count me in. 80%, anyway, as I need to check schedules with she who knows all things social (like, is there another wedding to attend? are we invited to dinner somewhere?).

Date: 2007/01/20 22:43:05, Link
Author: clamboy
On my way!

Date: 2007/01/23 11:15:30, Link
Author: clamboy
One small correction to the minutes: while it is true that I have been lurking for, like, friggin' ever at talk.origins, it has been since about 1998 or so, not '96. All I know is, McCoy was there when I arrived, and hasn't said *one new thing* since!

Date: 2007/02/05 11:45:00, Link
Author: clamboy
I'll put the 17th on my calendar. This time, let's get kicked out for loutishness.

Date: 2007/02/15 11:32:07, Link
Author: clamboy
I'm still hoping to make it. And you know, I might go past lout to scallywag, or even ruffian!!! I'd hate to be a dustbin on Phinney Ridge Saturday night...

Date: 2007/02/17 20:04:06, Link
Author: clamboy
Well, dang, looks like I won't be able to make it after all. And I have such a great story to tell youse all, about some frightening christian intellectual dishonesty! Maybe I will just have to revive that thread. Meanwhile, have fun, those in attendance, and at least *try* to make the 11 o'clock news.

Date: 2007/03/07 18:55:43, Link
Author: clamboy
Prussian Blue are the anti-Shaggs. The music of The Shaggs is infused with the secret ingredient...love, dammit! The Shaggs were pure, The Shaggs were one of the 7,000 names of GOD, only GOD could create The Shaggs, while only The Lord of Lies/Flies could cause to exist the wretched banal schlock that is Prussian Blue. Heed the words of one who knows.

Date: 2007/03/07 19:11:50, Link
Author: clamboy
And besides, Prussian Blue are so 2004, people! I got bored with them over a year ago. The Shaggs, however, stand outside of time.
(oops, that Primetime was quite a while ago. But, still, my words on The Shaggs ring even more true today than they did then, when I didn't say them)

Date: 2007/03/08 14:56:05, Link
Author: clamboy
"If we can judge music on the basis of its honesty, originality and impact, then the Shaggs' Philosophy of the World is the greatest record ever recorded in the history of the universe." - Bruce D. Rhodewalt, L.A. Weekly

"The Shaggs' integrity and purity of vision shine through like a 50,000-watt lighthouse on a stormy night. Listen to the record. It will change your life." - Op magazine

"The Shaggs. Better than the Beatles - even today." - Frank Zappa

Date: 2007/04/01 12:38:08, Link
Author: clamboy
What are your predictiations as to how the DI, Michael Egnor ("That's DOCTOR to you, Darwinianist!"), and all the other ID whiners will react to one of the greatest April Fool's Day pranks ever? Will they:

- ignore it?
- acknowledge it with a "oh, ha ha, but Darwinism still can't explain blah blah blah"
- threaten legal action against PT for use of copyrighted images/appearance/whatever?
- whine?

This is how I know I'm on the right side: we have the best jokes!

Date: 2007/04/06 00:08:36, Link
Author: clamboy
Dagnabbit! Consarnit! And hang ten! Egnor et. al. have decided to ignore the glorious wonder that was the PT April Fools' joke (so far as I can tell).

Poop, I really wanted *something*. What a bunch of wimpy dorknuts.

Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy.

GOT THAT, EGNOR??? YOU ARE A WIMPY, WIMPY, WIMPY WIMP.

Date: 2007/04/06 21:01:31, Link
Author: clamboy
While I bow before carlsonjok's mad skills, may I suggest:

Jesting As Creationist Kookoos And Similar Sciency-ness.

Or:

Dembskian Uttering of Mind-Blowingly Asinine Sciency Statements.

Date: 2007/04/21 21:24:39, Link
Author: clamboy
clamboy, me. i've met a few o' yez, and i've posted here a few times, but mostly i (like some others) like to read and watch the well-edumicated make mincemeat outta the tards.

i'm a sign language interpreter and, if i weren't bound by my code o' professional conduct, could tell you some frightening stories of creationist bushwah ejaculations i have had to interpret in university-level classes. ew ew ew!!

Date: 2007/04/21 21:30:46, Link
Author: clamboy
Wrong, Lenny! You mean, "You could be a Ramone." Like I aspire to.

And may I say, now that I have wiped the drool from my chin, you all SUCK. Gimme gimme gimme!

Date: 2007/05/08 10:37:26, Link
Author: clamboy
*snaps to*

Did someone say cider?

June 9 should work for me, I'll just come and sit and listen to you educated folk, not make a nuisance of myself.

Date: 2007/05/08 23:57:30, Link
Author: clamboy
But, but, the cider!

Well, the more in attendance the better, I would say, so let's have it at the venue most amenable to all. I have never been to the Hi-Life, so am interested in that spot.

Date: 2007/06/07 11:39:35, Link
Author: clamboy
I'm still hoping to make it on th' 9th. Hoping, hoping...

Date: 2007/06/09 12:19:11, Link
Author: clamboy
Hale's, eh? Cool. Still in "not sure" mode, but closer to "yes, oh, yes!" than before.

Date: 2007/06/16 11:15:05, Link
Author: clamboy
At the recent meeting of the Seattle ATBC (motto "Dim lights and beer? Okay, I'll be seen in public."), I asked if anyone had read Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis," which I had just finished reading. I liked it quite a bit, though Stenger gets a bit into his own individual maybe-crackpot maybe-genius theories (but he clearly states, "This is *me* talking now, not the current scientific concensus!"). What impressed me was how he calmly and dispassionately addresses various arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God, and through evidence from the universe shows how those arguments fail.

Anyone else here read it yet?

I'm reading "god is not Great" now, which I think is quite well written; no matter what I think of Hitchens' substance, it is a page-turner. Since the topic is important to me, I have taken some time to look at some of the more reasoned reviews, such as that in "The New Yorker," and I think that a number of the reviewers focus almost solely on Hitchens' excoriative language, which does a disservice to the book. Hitchens has not written something like "An Atheist's Reply to 'Godless,'" which is how it could be perceived if one reads only the reviews.

Date: 2007/06/17 12:13:17, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (SpaghettiSawUs @ June 17 2007,10:55)
Please forgive the crosspost from here - it is very much on topic I promise.

AFDave's attempt at humour:
   
Quote
OK ... I'm in a good mood so here's a joke for you to sleep on. The old timers already know this one,so this is for the new timers (?)

Why did the evolutionist go to the dentist?

Because he had a truth-ache.
[Dave inserts three *lol* emoticons here. No, really.]
(Sorry ... I'll go to bed now)

I rest my case :)

Geez, afDave told that one here yonks ago! I replied with my own lame-ity:

What time does afDave go to the dentist?

Truth-hurty!

-three "LAME!" emoticons-

Date: 2007/07/03 21:23:05, Link
Author: clamboy
Yeah, I saw that, and was hoping to make it, but my wife and I have to do our drinking a little closer to home, and more importantly, together, tonight. May I can turn into one of alter egos, Adulatory Fan Boy, on Friday.

Date: 2007/07/04 21:35:01, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Kristine @ July 04 2007,19:29)
*Extends foot for kissing*

Muchas smooches from el Con-KISS-tador!

I know, I just jump in for fun when the fish are leaping into the pan, like afDave. But fer real, *skeptic*, you are a hoot. Where do you get your talking points, The Dittohead Daily? I know, I know, it's only perjury when a Democrat does it, blah blah blah, (yawn) (shrug) as Lenny would say. Really, do you have *any* thoughts not previously filtered by the editorial board of the Washington Times?

Date: 2007/07/05 01:02:41, Link
Author: clamboy
Well, I'll be danged. The Washington Times actually editorialized thusly (quoted at dailykos):

"Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction [of] justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not."

Tepid, yes, and full of the usual conservative culture of victimhood, but that's as close to a criticism of Bush that one will ever find in that paper. When the Washington Times tut-tuts a Bush action, you can pretty much tell that that particular action was beyond any definition of "proper," or "legal," or "Constitutional."

Date: 2007/08/13 19:41:09, Link
Author: clamboy
Ooooh, this waste of time, material, and effort, excuse me, film, has been endorsed by Michael Medved???

Wow. Wowee wow wow.

What a...hmm, "coup" is not the right word, nor is "achievement"...okay, how's this:

"An endorsement from Michael Medved?!? Wow, what a stinking pile of 'So fucking what'."

Date: 2007/08/14 20:41:35, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 09 2007,09:02)
OMG He noticed!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-at-ud

*sigh*

Error 404 - Not Found

Not surprised.

Date: 2007/09/08 02:42:18, Link
Author: clamboy
A few more words about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation: though I can't provide dates, times, and so forth, the EFF has been a staple of local conservative talk radio for some years. Yes, they are a mouthpiece of the privatization of schools (called "school choice"), but they are also one of the "property rights" proponents: this has tended to mean, against any and all governmental regulation on the use of privately held lands. 'Nother words, a mouthpiece for industry while pretending to stand up for the regular Joes who want to ride their ATVs through wetlands.

So, I guess the point is that here is another connection between very very conservative politics and I"All Science So Far!"D.

Date: 2007/09/12 22:25:00, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,21:17)
Should that be 10?

GCT is of the second type, it would seem.

edit: Beaten to the punch!

Date: 2007/09/12 22:27:07, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 12 2007,22:24)
Re "Is there ayone there who isn't a complete moron?"

What would an incomplete moron look like?

Henry

Francis Collins?

Date: 2007/11/12 22:10:45, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 12 2007,21:49)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 12 2007,20:00)
I've got a little bit of hearing damage and I probably couldn't tell my setup from an extravagant one anyway. And given how allergic audiophiles are to double-blind tests, some of them probably couldn't either.

Have you been following [URL=http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bullshit/updated-journalist-accepts-1-million-challenge-do-7250-cables-sound-better-or-not-311034.p

hp?retitled]this amusing battle[/URL] between James Randi and fans of the $7250 Pear Anjou stereo cables?

Oh my, yes! Honestly, Randi be danged, I have found the Pears to be *the* cables through which to play the split LP "Earslaughter" by Extreme Noise Terror and Chaos U.K. They bring out the warmth in E.N.T.'s "Bullshit Propaganda", as well as enhancing the tastes of oak and cherry found amid the high ranges of the entire 12".

And, of course, those 1210s are de rigeurwhen listening to Sore Throat's "Unhindered by Talent," as well as their magnum opus "Disgrace to the Corpse of Sid".

Date: 2007/11/13 00:34:06, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 12 2007,22:55)
Quote (clamboy @ Nov. 12 2007,23:10)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 12 2007,21:49)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 12 2007,20:00)
I've got a little bit of hearing damage and I probably couldn't tell my setup from an extravagant one anyway. And given how allergic audiophiles are to double-blind tests, some of them probably couldn't either.

Have you been following [URL=http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bullshit/updated-journalist-accepts-1-million-challenge-do-7250-cables-sound-better-or-not-311034.p



hp?retitled]this amusing battle[/URL] between James Randi and fans of the $7250 Pear Anjou stereo cables?

Oh my, yes! Honestly, Randi be danged, I have found the Pears to be *the* cables through which to play the split LP "Earslaughter" by Extreme Noise Terror and Chaos U.K. They bring out the warmth in E.N.T.'s "Bullshit Propaganda", as well as enhancing the tastes of oak and cherry found amid the high ranges of the entire 12".

And, of course, those 1210s are de rigeurwhen listening to Sore Throat's "Unhindered by Talent," as well as their magnum opus "Disgrace to the Corpse of Sid".

I hope this post is a joke, because it's f'n funny.

The truly funny part is that I actually own those albums, and take great joy in their playing. What is it that makes a human being revel in horrendous ear-splattering tonesofdestruction whirlwind tornado ultrahurricane pure brutality noise? Or does that question contain its own answer?

Date: 2007/11/18 10:50:42, Link
Author: clamboy
I watch too few movies, but many that have been mentioned on this thread score quite high. To add, though: just about always at my number one spot is Wim Wenders's Wings of Desire. About as perfect a movie as one could ask for. Of course, this means that the Hollywood remake, City of Angels, is the most execrable piece of shit ever to waste celluloid. Couldn't watch it all the way through.

Another topper for me, at least when I saw it in the theater: The Fast Runner. That movie made me experience time differently: it unfolded with the seasons and the years, beautifully slowly.

Let's see, what else must one watch to have truly lived?
The Philadelphia Story
My Man Godfrey ("Godfrey loves me! He put me the shower!")
Hot Fuzz (best watched with other males with beer)
Big Trouble in Little China
They Live (best. fight. scene. evarrrrr!)
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (surprisingly deep!)
Dodgeball
Freaks
North by Northwest
Mystery Men
Super Troopers (for the opening, and for "Bear fucker! Do you need assistance?" or however that line goes)
The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (the most original version one can find. our wedding cake was modeled on that movie.)

Oh, right! His Girl Friday roolz!

Date: 2007/11/23 21:32:30, Link
Author: clamboy
Oh hell, I forgot to mention Young Frankenstein.
And, of course, Young Frankenstein.
Then there's Young Frankenstein.
But no list would be complete without Young Frankenstein.

My wife and I went to see the stage musical version of, of all things, Young Frankenstein, here in Seattle, with what's-her-name from Will & Grace, the one with the aa-OOO-ga!!! curves. She was good. The musical, while fun (and, as a former strutter and fretter of the stage, I can say it was an excellent balance of talent and effects), was not the movie. Too many scenes cut for music numbers.

Date: 2007/12/19 11:20:09, Link
Author: clamboy
While I was reading the article, Keith Robinson's comments automatically were in the voice of Derek Zoolander in my head. Some autonomic program in my brain must be able to predict tard.

I tried to force the voice of the comics guy from The Simpsons, just to see what would happen, but my brain rejected the switch.

Date: 2007/12/28 18:09:08, Link
Author: clamboy
skeptic's armchair psychoanalysis of Mr_Christopher's posts makes me chuckle, as the same thing happened to me just recently. I had made disdainful remarks about religion in an e-mail to a, I guess now former friend, and he wrote back wondering who had done what to me in my life to make me so mean-spirited and angry. Fascinating that atheists are unable to express their perspective without someone assuming that it was some awful experience or other that made us atheists.

BTW, I say "former friend" because, although I sincerely apologized for my word choice and tone (in the interest of keeping the friendship going), he would not accept my apology and has decided that I am a poisonous person and wants nothing to do with me.

Date: 2008/01/04 14:24:10, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2008,13:34)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 04 2008,10:11)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2008,09:51)
Just I thought - I hope Dembski wasn't down there in a 'professional' capacity. Huckabee would eat that nonsense up and ask for seconds. I suspect Obama would politely tell him "no thanks". Just as well the Republicans have no chance this year. I think for every fundy that Huckabee switches on, he turns three rationals off.

I hope you're right. The last 7 years have made me suspect that all the Democrats have to do to lose elections is to just be Democrats. I personally am not comfortable pondering the outcome of an Obama/Huckabee matchup.

If Huckabee gets the nomination, his past statements (and his sermons that he won't release) will come under much greater scrutiny, though I'm not sure it'll be enough.

Oh, I think it will be - but if not, then I think a Huckabee presidency will give Americans everything they need to get the gunk out of their systems...

I'm not saying I'd look forward to that hangover, mind you...

By "gunk," I assume you don't mean the hoards of sane people swarming over our borders into Canada and Mexico, or the mass marriages of convenience to Danes, Swedes, French, Germans, Italians, Belgians, etc., that will occur in the wake of a Huckabee win.

Either I would have to leave the U.S., or I would have to quit my job, sell everything I own, buy several bullhorns and travel the country in my car, visiting every district he won, calling every person I see there a moronic moron. I'd be like that immortal character in Life, the Universe, and Everything, the one who insults the universe.

Date: 2008/01/04 21:26:20, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 04 2008,15:54)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2008,15:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 04 2008,14:39)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2008,15:33)
We need each other to keep ourselves relevant, and we need process – this isn’t just about “heroes.”

You're making an awful lot of sense... I'm afraid I'm gonna have to nomnate YOU for President.

That means I gotta pick a science advisor. Hmmm...

Can you start Monday? ;)

Thanks, but I think I am more qualified to be in charge of Monkey Business.  :)

It's a pleasure, Senator Hart...

Date: 2008/01/20 01:03:16, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 19 2008,11:45)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 19 2008,09:11)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 19 2008,10:31)
To illustrate:  Recently a local breeder of prize dogs had nearly her entire kennel wiped out in a flash flood.  Neither natural selection nor artificial selection could stop that.  These dogs were selected against because they were not ducks!

Show me a GA that can realistically simulate that and you'll have something.

Daniel

The evidence seems to be mounting that you may indeed be as dumb as you appear. This comment implies that you think that natural selection based on fitness is the only mechanism that evolutionary theory predicts for the removal of organisms from the gene pool.

Is my inference, based on the evidence in your comment, correct?

From what I've seen, natural selection is given an almost god-like quality amongst many believers in the currently held theory.  It is talked about as if it is all-knowing, all-powerful, and able to predict the future and select the optimal solution for any and all potential problems.

So, to answer your question: I wouldn't be surprised by any "power" ascribed to NS by the currently held theory of evolution.

Now I understand, having quietly held back and read the thread during its progression, why Daniel Smith has such a problem with "Darwinism." Daniel, I am no more a biologist than you, but even I understand that your post shows that you have no grasp of the idea of natural selection, much less a grasp of the theory of evolution. You really think natural selection is about finding "the optimal solution for any and all potential problems"? You really think natural selection is seen by actual biologists as "able to predict the future"? You say "From what I've seen...", but of course you have no evidence beyond those words. I will not call you stupid, just grossly misinformed and willfully ignorant.

It disgusts me that our educational system churns out millions of "Daniel Smith"s per year. He is not just pointed the wrong direction, he's like an aircraft carrier going that way at full steam. Just to turn to face the right way will require miles and miles and hours and hours of effort.

You poor, pathetic kid, Daniel Smith. On the one hand I'm sorry for you, but on the other I'm repulsed at your determination never to learn about what it is you have chosen to criticize.

Date: 2008/01/20 17:54:44, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 20 2008,14:21)
Quote (clamboy @ Jan. 19 2008,23:03)
You really think natural selection is about finding "the optimal solution for any and all potential problems"?

No.

Well done, Daniel. You've quoted me out of context and so distorted the obvious intent of my question. You've learned your creationist tactics well. From what I wrote, it was clear that I meant your portrayal of the prevailing view of actual scientists who study evolution, not your opinion.

But it can't hurt to try again, I guess. *ahem* You really think that natural selection is viewed by evolutionary biologists as a process intent on finding "the optimal solution for any and all potential problems" encountered by organisms? From what you wrote above, your answer must be

"Yes."

Date: 2008/01/28 01:13:32, Link
Author: clamboy
My boys, the Red Sox, are gonna go all the way again this year, kicking all your sorry asses all over the place! Hell, yeah! That's what I'm talking about!

Unless the Cubs can bring it. That's the one team I could stand to lose the Series to.

But how about we just shut you all down again, you mofos? We took it in 4 on '04, we took it 4 in '07, we can take it in 4 this year.

We are the Red Sox nation, and we are fuckin' legion, baby!

Date: 2008/01/28 01:36:21, Link
Author: clamboy
Hey, did anyone else but me note that when the poster known as Daniel Smith provided his quotes from (first name omitted) Darwin, the book he quoted was "Origin of the Species"? Does anyone here know when any particular person with the surname Darwin (Daniel Smith failed to give a first name) wrote a book with that title? He also failed to provide edition number, publisher, ISBN, etc.

Daniel Smith, on the off chance that you have read the book you are quoting ("Origin of the Species"), could you provide this information so that curious readers such as myself could find it and make sure your quotes are accurate? I enjoy reading books on evolution, but I have never seen one by someone with last name Darwin titled "Origin of the Species." It sounds fascinating.

Date: 2008/01/28 10:41:45, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,06:35)
But you've got your numbers wrong about the series: Boston beat Cleveland 4-3 in the World Series last year. And the best team won.

There were a few exhibition games after that.

Right, wasn't that against the Washington Nationals?

Date: 2008/02/19 21:49:45, Link
Author: clamboy
I suspect that, were I to read Shermer's book, I would agree with much of Sandefur's review, as I have found some of Shermer's writing lacking in the same ways he does. I have no interest in addressing Sandefur's economic or political philosophies, but there is a point that I would like to see addressed by others.

Sandefur's disallowing of comments to his posts grates me to no end. That is what the Discovery Institute does. What has always impressed me about "our side" is its willingness to engage with, well, let's just say skeptics, and how it requires a truly bad act to be banned from PT or ATBC. Sandefur has the right to disallow comments if he wishes, but it strikes me as an act of someone belonging to what Michael Shermer calls "the unlikeliest cult," that of the followers of Ayn Rand. By disallowing comments, Sandefur establishes himself as an unquestionable authority, unwavering in his stance as he, and perhaps a select few others, pronounce The Truth. This is a tactic practiced by a diversity of opinion-holders, from Maoists to Baptists to Randists to most talk-show hosts in America, and I object to it being practiced at The Panda's Thumb. I am not a POMO scientific relativist, like Dembski et al., and he can ignore all comments if he wishes, but I think that Sandefur should allow people to talk about what he says, where he says it.

Full disclosure: I have never commented on PT, but I have found the comments sections on many posts enormously valuable.

Date: 2008/02/20 22:46:09, Link
Author: clamboy
And so I say, "Gotcha," and "Good point." I hadn't considered the "tending" that would be required. While I think that ATBC is not equivalent to comments right on the PT thread, I concede that yours, Wesley, is the proper position. I withdraw my comparison of Sandefur's practices with those of the DI.

Date: 2008/09/06 18:26:12, Link
Author: clamboy
I agree that taking this up with Jason is best, but I think you are misinterpreting his words. He is clearly not endorsing YEC as a reflection of reality, but is instead saying that YECists at least have consistency in their perspective, while TEists are a mix of contradictions.

I have some sympathy with that position. Christian YEC says the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, perfect and factual, and this perfection is maintained in, say, the King James version. Thus, the evidence we gather to understand the universe must all be interpreted in that light. YECists do this. They are wrong, of course, utterly, but they are consistent in their wrongness.

Christian TE, however, is in a bind. If we are not to trust the Bible on certain details, such as the age of the Earth, the Flood, as well as the timeline of the creation of the universe, why should it be trusted when it comes to Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, his godhood, and other necessary beliefs if one is to claim the title of Christian? Jason is saying that TEists have conceded huge swaths of land to science, but insist that the supernatural still holds sway in some small patches of earth, and also that the Bible is actually really science-y if you squint a lot. He appears frustrated with TE's insistence on having it both ways.

Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."

Date: 2008/09/09 14:15:48, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.

So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!

Date: 2008/09/10 00:06:06, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 09 2008,17:44)
Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 09 2008,20:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2008,09:30)
...let me reiterate my view.  If the question is "How Ought We Live", I am saying that this ain't it.

So your view is that the American political system is not optimal. Well, you've certainly gone out on a limb there - next you'll be suggesting that ursine mammals void their bowels in sylvan environments!

I thought that was the Pope.

Damn, wrong again!

Indeed! In that particular case one ought to say, "Next you'll be suggesting that the oligarchically-elected dictator of the pre-Lutheran Christian establishment maintains his faith in that specific denomination!"

Date: 2008/09/16 22:51:59, Link
Author: clamboy
To bring this slightly back to topic, erasmus is kinda reminding me of Ray Martinez, T Pagano, and others of their ilk over at talk.origins. Asked for, challenged on, and finally called on the carpet for not providing an actual *point* (other than "Everything said by persons other than myself is wrong."), or *suggestion* (other than "Give up."), they simply repeat the same show-stopper. For Ray Martinez it's something like "mockery = inability to refute"; for erasmus, it's out of context Shakespeare. It really is pointless to use any aspect of reality to argue with ones so happily walled-in, as they are utterly sure that the bricks they gaze upon represent true enlightenment.

erasmus compares those arguing with erasmus here to creationists, while using card after card from the creationist deck.

Date: 2008/10/05 12:55:20, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2008,01:49)
"McCain's black baby"

Obama's fathered two black babies!!!

Date: 2008/10/20 23:28:07, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 20 2008,22:37)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 20 2008,20:52)
And who spent 6 years in jail for defending their country? I know wingnuts are bad at geography, but Vietnam is not in the US.

Further, what the hell does that have to do with being president?

Would you vote for Charles Manson because he's spent time in prison? Do you learn economics there? How about diplomacy?

Nerull, Vietnam may not be in the US.  My geography
is sometimes bad but I'm positive Bataan was in 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
.................................................

"Would you vote for Charles Manson because he's spent time in prison?"

No, but didn't Jesus say, "In my father's house are
many Mansons."?

Zero

clap clap clap clap clap

Well done, Zero, in your avoidance of the questions put to you. Your lessons in modern conservatism/Republicanism have served you well.

Date: 2008/11/10 18:26:05, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 10 2008,15:27)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 10 2008,16:11)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 10 2008,14:45)


(from Corpus Callosum)

I'm calling Poe on that one--and I sure hope I'm right.

Their page on W states:

   
Quote
George Walker Bush (born New Haven, Connecticut 1946) is the greatest President in the history of America. He was the Governor of Texas (1996-2001) and has served as the Republican President of the United States of America since 2001. Campaigning on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building (a stance that would later be modified after 9/11 changed everything), he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of Florida. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. Democratic contender Al Gore initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, in which Jesus Christ influenced the Supreme Court to vote in favor of Bush. It was the greatest moment in American history.


Nobody who is that much of a fundy writes that well.

And their featured article:

 
Quote
The Roman Catholic Church, often referred to simply as the "Catholic Church", is the largest criminal organization in the world, with about one billion adherents. It comprises one of the three great divisions of false Christianity, together with non-Baptist Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Church consists of those who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, who is generally called the Pope, currently ex-Nazi Pope Benedict XVI. The Church falsely teaches that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, whom Catholics regard as the original leader of Christ's apostles and as the first Bishop of Rome.


Now really...

I hope it's fake. I think it's impossible to guess. A lot of that material seems to be lifted from Conservapedia, which isn't fake.

Poe as Poe can be. From the "Trivia" about George W. Bush:

He has not slept since 1997.
His boyhood friends called him "Ace."
He wears size 14 shoes.
Although he seems to have a bit of trouble with English, he speaks eight other languages fluently.
His favorite film is Akira Kurosawa's 1952 classic "Ikiru," and he has memorized every word of the dialogue in the original Japanese.
His favorite color is blue.
He won the 1967 Yale Chess Championship.
At dinner parties he amuses the guests by crushing charcoal briquettes into very small diamonds.
He prefers Fords to Chevys.
His urine can be used as a powerful motor fuel.
His favorite TV show is "24."
While visiting Asia, he dove for pearls and stayed under water for 11 minutes before resurfacing for air.
Doctors have measured his manhood at 21 inches long and 9 inches around, flaccid. He uses two belts to strap it to his left leg, so the bulge in in pants will not unecessarily excite too many ladies.
While visiting his brother in Florida in 1992, he rescued a small child from the jaws of an alligator.

Yay, a new phun site!!!

Date: 2008/12/11 18:44:37, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 11 2008,13:18)
The Worm Squirms

I heard this during my drive to work this morning and laughed out loud in my car. The silence is deafening near the end when Duncan has literally NO answer to the question - is it accurate to say that the Republican Party has been too close to the religious right?

Thank you so much. I have never really understood the meaning of the epithet "tool" - that interview opened my eyes. What a tool!

Oh, and a slimy Mc-slimerson.

Date: 2008/12/30 12:32:59, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Dembski sez, "Colleagues who try to correct misrepresentations find their edits scrupulously removed."

Lesse, "scrupulously," hmmm, what could that mean. What's ol' Merriam Webster's say? <page page page> Ah, here it is!

"scrupulous <snip etymology> 1: having moral integrity : acting in strict regard for what is considered right and proper  2: punctiliously exact : PAINSTAKING ... syn see UPRIGHT, CAREFUL"

Le mot juste, Dr Dr!!

Date: 2008/12/31 00:08:01, Link
Author: clamboy
Someone named "Earvin Johnson" noticed the same word choice that I did. He/she asked, at UD, 'If edits are “scrupulously” removed, what’s the problem?'

Date: 2009/02/11 00:46:13, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:51)
This is from you Louis

"Dear All,

Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things.

1) What actually motivates us to do this?"

---snip BLAH-DE-FRICKIN'-BLAH-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD-DID-YOU-THINK-YOU-WERE-BEING-ORIGINAL???-REGURGITATED-CRAP-MY-E
FFING-GAWD-RFJE-YOU-ARE-REPEATING-BULLSPIT-THAT-WAS-OLD-TWO-DECADES-AGO-LOUIS-IF-YOU-DON'T-CALL-THIRD-STRIKE-YOU-ARE-A-SPINELESS-LOSER-AFDAVE!AFDAVE!AFDAVE!-WHAT-AN-ARROGANT-BASTARD-IS-RFJE-MAKES!-ME!-FRICKIN!-SICK!!!!---

CHEEZ WHIZ, JREF, FREJ, WHATEVER - there was as time, a few years ago, when I wanted to have a good long talk with a creationist, but thank you very much again for convincing me that such an endeavor is...utterly...USELESS!!!

I am getting my breath back now. RFJE, people like you should never be in a position of power. EVER.

RFJE, YOU ARE THE MOST ARROGANT, IGNORANT, HUBRISTIC LOSER SINCE afdave MOVED ON TO OTHER PASTURES. ARGH, YOU SICKENING SICKENING INTENTIONAL IGNORAMUS!!!

Date: 2009/02/12 10:43:51, Link
Author: clamboy
Louis, you have been far too gracious, but that is a fault to celebrate. Also, you have been educating - your chemistry posts are always enlightening, thank you.

RJFE, your posts make you appear arrogant, bombastic, disdainful, insulting, egotistical, vain, rude, base, conceited, ignorant, mean, crass, of an exaggerated self-opinion, insolent, presumptuous, disdainful, smug, snooty, snotty, stuck up, and all-around not nice at all. As a Christian professor I once worked with said, when speaking about the mega-church movement in the United States, "What ever happened to humility?"

Date: 2009/02/18 00:25:35, Link
Author: clamboy
Daniel Smith will not answer the question of mechanism, ever.
Creationists do not answer questions, ever.

The ginger vodka may be working its magic, but at least I know these two truths.

Date: 2009/03/02 10:12:33, Link
Author: clamboy
I iz testing a sig! Thankz, "I'm a real doctor!" Eggy-weg.

Date: 2009/03/26 18:35:09, Link
Author: clamboy
I find it hard to believe that no one...NO ONE, I say...has pointed out that Joe G's cake recipe calls for:

1) adding the WET ingredients to the DRY ingredients

AND.....(dear lord! *choke*).....

2) adding them ONE  AT  A  TIME!!!!!

This is supposed to be a cake! A CAKE, DAMN YOUR EYES!!! NOT.....MUFFINS!!!!!!!

Date: 2009/03/31 11:10:52, Link
Author: clamboy
BREAKING NEWS!!! JOEG MADE FOOLS OF US ALL!!!

I knew something was fishy about his "cake" recipe, so I pulled out our copy of "The Joy of Specifically Complex Cooking" and did a little recipe research. You all thought, all this time, that his recipe was really for cake, didn't you? Didn't you??? Well, have I got news for you: it's really a recipe for (very eggy)....

CORN BREAD!!!!!!shift-one!!

Joe had us chasing down the rabbit hole of cake information, while he played us all like his little organ.

(Seriously, here's what "The Joy of Cooking" has to say about cakes: "Because the same ingredients combined in a different order, mixed differently, or even used at different temperatures result in quite different cakes (or failures), good bakers are dedicated to the small things that produce beautiful cakes that taste heavenly." There's a lesson there, Joe - a delicious lesson.)

Date: 2009/03/31 11:55:14, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 31 2009,11:20)
Quote (clamboy @ Mar. 31 2009,19:10)
BREAKING NEWS!!! JOEG MADE FOOLS OF US ALL!!!

I knew something was fishy about his "cake" recipe, so I pulled out our copy of "The Joy of Specifically Complex Cooking" and did a little recipe research. You all thought, all this time, that his recipe was really for cake, didn't you? Didn't you??? Well, have I got news for you: it's really a recipe for (very eggy)....

CORN BREAD!!!!!!shift-one!!

Joe had us chasing down the rabbit hole of cake information, while he played us all like his little organ.

(Seriously, here's what "The Joy of Cooking" has to say about cakes: "Because the same ingredients combined in a different order, mixed differently, or even used at different temperatures result in quite different cakes (or failures), good bakers are dedicated to the small things that produce beautiful cakes that taste heavenly." There's a lesson there, Joe - a delicious lesson.)

uh huh..

...so what you are saying is that if the designer was say......French  

Joe's blamange could be a crouton?

I'd say his creme caramel would be runny scrambled eggs.

Date: 2009/04/03 21:44:15, Link
Author: clamboy
Today's take: starlings too numerous to mention; 3 great blue herons; several American coots (not including me); classic mergansers, male and female; bubbleheads; what looked like a pond turtle, but should not be; several red-winged blackbirds; red-tailed hawk; shovelers; pied-billed grebes; cormorants; Anna's hummingbirds; crows; violet-green swallows; an American goldfinch; a Northern flicker; black-capped chickadees; robins; Canada geese; junchos; mallards; wrens; warblers; and a gold-crowned sparrow!

Date: 2009/05/12 00:38:41, Link
Author: clamboy
Last weekend: muskrats; ravens; pigeons; deer mice; pocket mice; barn swallows; violet green swallows; some other species of swallow; red-winged blackbirds; a kingbird; a phoebe; canada geese; a gopher snake; a house finch; yellow headed blackbirds; cormorants; tree frogs; (probably) spotted bats; big sage brush; stiff sage brush; cheet grass (an invasive species); (heard) ring-necked pheasants; (heard) coyotes; a song sparrow; osprey; wild onion; etc.

Date: 2009/05/21 12:07:46, Link
Author: clamboy
The past few weeks: quaking aspen; noble fir; grand fir; douglas fir (not a true fir! pretender!); ponderosa pine; lodgepole pine;

the larch;

white bark pine; sub-alpine pine; vine maple; some other kind of maple; oregon grape; trillium; vanilla; western hemlock.

Western tanagers; evening grosbeaks; purple finches; mountain chickadees; black-capped chickadees; stellar's jay; mule deer; a cougar print; tree frogs; ants in stumps; elk poop; deer poop; osprey flying over Mariners stadium (eta: excuse me, Safeco Field) with Mike Lowell up to bat; ravens; hairy woodpecker.

Date: 2009/06/02 22:55:17, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (rhmc @ June 02 2009,21:24)
inxs "dear god"?

I am thinking you mean XTC, not INXS.

Date: 2009/06/02 23:05:42, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (rhmc @ June 02 2009,21:24)
we are tasked with converting to cd.
i be has isb turntable.
i am considering what to slide onto said cd's as payment.

suggestions?

I'm thinking Diamanda Galas, or anything from Current 93's "Dogs Blood Rising."

But then, I am kind of a purist when it comes to that Satan-y music

Date: 2009/06/08 11:35:40, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Louis @ June 08 2009,08:24)
Ok, ok, last one. No more baby talk, but this one I had to do.

Introducing the all new LOLbaby:



Apologies all. I LOLed.

Louis

He has his father's facial expression!

Congratulations indeed!

Date: 2009/06/19 02:41:37, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (didymos @ June 19 2009,00:32)
From the ID Arts Blog (which looks to have mostly become another of D'OL's solo projects) ...

No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
2 Comments (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments

Date: 2011/04/24 14:17:57, Link
Author: clamboy
(posts again after a few years, 'cos Lou and dhogaza inspired me with their stunning recent photos - thank you both!) - edited to spell "dhogaza" correctly

I got out my Sibley's and my binoculars and headed out to see what I could see at a semi-reclaimed wetlands area near UW the other day. I dared not risk hoping for pied-billed grebes, but there they were! In addition, we had mallards, a score of northern shovelers, some beautiful ring-necked ducks, goldfinch, common mergansers, crested cormorants, buffleheads, red-winged blackbirds, great blue herons (there are at least five nests outside the Allen CSE building on UW's campus), northern flickers, American coots, and, according to Sibley, what looked very much like a juvenile peregrine falcon. Numerous songbirds escaped my definite identification, which shows how rusty I am. I had the opportunity to discover how great this place is a few years ago, while interpreting a class at the U with a professor and TA who were skilled birders, and try to return each Spring.

Date: 2011/04/24 21:06:47, Link
Author: clamboy
"The journal had to publish a retraction because of what was published." (in the blurb below the video)

Oh, they had to, did they? And anyway, isn't that statement something of a blatant shading of the truth? As least as I understand the word "retraction."

You are all brave, brave people to sit through that. Less than ten minutes into Mr. Brimley's horrible delivery and I had to walk away.

Date: 2011/04/25 10:10:13, Link
Author: clamboy
Kristine's comment liked by one more. Oh, and go like the second comment. I did!

Date: 2011/04/26 10:52:54, Link
Author: clamboy
Wow, I am bowled over by the photographic excellence on display. I might, if I tried really hard, be able to sneak up on a daffodil to get its picture.

Date: 2011/05/08 21:35:36, Link
Author: clamboy
OgreMkV, thank you for calling out Joe G, and for handing him his posterior. But I am sure others have noticed that, once again, an IDiot/creationist/whateverthehell has claimed knowledge and unique insight into a plethora of topics, the mastery of which would require years of study per topic; yet, as per usual, said IDiot/creationist/whateverthehell displays his ignorance as a shield, all the while telling you and others that he is the only one to truly get these topics. Madre de dios, it reminds me of afDave, only less "aw shucks." It makes me wonder: how many of these autodidact  IDiots/creationists/whateverthehellists can there be out there?!?

Date: 2011/05/09 10:07:21, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2011,06:29)
Sociologist Steve Fuller must be a remarkable pratt.  Denyse talks about his upcoming book in which he says that:    
Quote
... we are witnessing the emergence of what Fuller calls “Protscience” – all sorts of people, from the New Age movement to anti-evolutionists, claiming scientific authority as their own. Fuller shows that these groups are no more anti-scientific than Protestant sects were atheistic.
He left out astrology.

"Protscience"?? More like "Pratscience."

Date: 2011/05/09 15:21:18, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Louis @ May 09 2011,13:55)
One word of disagreement with Clamboy. These IDCist/Creationist/Whatevers are not autodidacts. They are not self taught. They are not even taught. That would imply they have learned something.

They haven't.

Ever.

Louis

Louis - my mistake, mea culpa. I of course meant to say "autoanalcephalics".

Date: 2011/06/12 12:20:13, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (socle @ June 12 2011,09:06)
DeNews:
 
Quote

“Dawkins as Hitler” refuses to debate Craig

News

Here’s a hilarious YouTube that won’t be up very long …. great uniforms too, more’s the pity.


At least this one was uploaded recently.  It's a Hitler "Downfall" parody---WTF does she mean by "great uniforms"?

*yawn* That is, like, soooo two years ago.

Date: 2011/06/26 11:49:35, Link
Author: clamboy
Professor Myers also pointed out that The God Delusion was, oh, what's that word...successful. Additionally, what with all those propagating fleas, apologists owe Richard Dawkins a debt of gratitude, for keeping them in sweaters for years. For Kevin Miller to think that there is some kind of comparison, along those lines, between Dawkins's book and that execrable waste of celluloid that is Expelled is just so damned silly.

(While my opinion matter not a whit, I will add that my reaction to The God Delusion was akin to Kristine's. It read like the book Dawkins felt he had to write, rather than truly enjoyed writing, like The Ancestor's Tale.)

Date: 2011/06/26 11:58:04, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 27 2011,10:45)
I just wanted to mention (probably not for the first time, sorry) that several of us occasionally get together for drinks at the 74th St. Alehouse in Seattle (N. 74th St., d'oh, and Greenwood Ave. N, in the Greenwood, d'oh, - Green Lake neighborhood).

Some of us on this board (JohnW and others) used to do the same thing, several years back.

Any Seattle-area AtBCers are ALWAYS welcome to join us in our current version of this floating drink-fest.

When I have sufficient notice ahead of time, I'll try to post an invite in this column (or whatever drinking-related thread is closest to the top of the heap).

It's usually me, RAFH (Robot Architect From Hell, who used to post in the Davey Hawkins' fludde threads, if memory serves -- which it probably doesn't), our young friend ericv00 from the now-defunct Dawkins forum and Talk Rational forum, and maybe Wolfhound (though she hasn't actually made it to the 74th yet, but to our alternate venue down in Kent...).

Anyway, I'll try to let y'all know!

Now that I have become present again in this iniquitous den, I hope to hear of your next get together, and, um, join in. Thanks!

Date: 2011/06/26 12:11:46, Link
Author: clamboy
But to add to the meat of the discussion, as it were:

I took my wife to Le Gourmand for her birthday last night, where we had local mussels in a wine sauce with nasturtiums; a composed salad of local greens, asparagus, endive, radicchio, more; I had wild salmon wrapped in grape leaf with their signature gooseberry and dill sauce (the gooseberries coming from the owner/chef's personal garden just down the road), while the love of my life had duck breast in a smoky morel sauce. My dessert was eastern Washington strawberries with rum-soaked cake and an amazing vanilla ice cream, while the girl I gave up Lent for had a pistachio cake with yoghurt sorbet and some kind of sauce.

We had a bottle of wine, what it was I can't remember, but it was French! Yeah, that's it, and from 2002! The kicker was having grappa as a digestif after it all, from a third generation grappa maker whose grandfather made straw hats but had a still on a cart that he would take around to the farmers for their skins, pits and stems. It was the first grappa my heart's desire had ever had. Ohhh, did her eyes light from the delicate rocket fuel.

No point to this, except to note that the 3.5 hours flew by, and while we had been planning on going dancing at the Vogue or Mercury afterward, we were too stuffed and mellow to stand the latest Laibach knock-offs. Every so often, money and waistlines must be ignored.

Date: 2011/06/27 18:17:53, Link
Author: clamboy
vjtorley's post, the comments therein, etc., make me rethink the notion of good vs. evil. For a long time, I have thought of "right vs. wrong" as a measure of degrees, that it is truly sinister to divide the universe into "the realm of my god" and "the realm of my devil." Well, the denizens of UD have made me realize that there are situations in which it is appropriate to assign labels of "good" and "right" versus "evil" and "wrong."

Those scumbags at UD ARE.....EEEEEE-VILLLLL!!!!

No, wait, I changed my mind. They're simply dickheads of the first order. Banal, evil, wrong, vile, puke-inducing and, above all, boring, predictable, hackneyed, shopworn...dickheads.

Date: 2011/06/27 18:22:58, Link
Author: clamboy
I posted the first result to a Google search of "5538 maxanet ham," but decided that that was wrong.

Date: 2011/06/27 18:29:19, Link
Author: clamboy
"i don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but i think that Dembski's got a sick sense of humor, and when i die, i expect to find him faaar-tiiiiinnng..."

Date: 2011/06/28 00:41:14, Link
Author: clamboy
Albatrossity2, how are YOUR EARS after all that YELLING that TENDED to come WITHOUT WARNING???

Date: 2011/07/28 10:21:43, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2011,17:38)
Quote (Patrick @ July 27 2011,16:16)
Hey, a guy's gotta have dreams....

To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
...
To reach the unreachable star!

Or not?  :O

TO TEACH...

THE UN-TEACH-A-BLE.....

TAAAAAAARRRRRDD!

Date: 2011/08/11 21:17:24, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 11 2011,21:05)
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 11 2011,14:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 11 2011,21:28)
So, if computers can design computers, then... what does mean?


"I'll be back"?

"I'll be Mozart"?

Date: 2012/05/03 13:50:14, Link
Author: clamboy
TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but  he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

Date: 2012/05/07 17:39:28, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Soapy Sam @ May 07 2012,15:55)
Quote (George @ May 07 2012,14:19)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 07 2012,10:45)
   
Quote (Amadan @ May 06 2012,19:16)
The solution is to link to any fluffy bunny you can find. If poor little Pinkie above is shy, who are we to interfere?

Greyhound? What greyh . ..  oh, ah, nothing, just, ah, taking it for a walk before dinne . .  for a walk. Yeah.

I just wanted you to know that the links leads to AtBC - wasn't sure if it's meant to.

It was meant to.  As a reminder not to feed the troll.

While we're on (sorry Joe, I know it's supposed to be about you), a big fat Troll Award should go to William J Murray. Barely a thread goes by before another epistemological, ontological, let's-talk-about-me-athon. He's readable, articulate and not over-long ... but he's getting awful samey, and he knows all the right buttons.

Yep. As I said in the TSZ thread, William J Murray is a dick. It's hard to describe such a self-involved, self-aggrandizing, pompous buffoon with any other one-word, one-syllable, epithet, which is all he's worth (tool? ass? jerk? dweeb? spit?). I applaud the good Doctor Febble for her patience with him, although I do note that she has had to warn him just recently.

William J Murray provides the best evidence of the egotism that underlies ID. He is absolutely sure of his own greatness, and of the lunacy/obtuseness of those who inhabit what an outsider might term "reality." What a dick.

Date: 2012/05/11 22:10:14, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (JLT @ May 11 2012,18:30)
Quote (sparc @ May 11 2012,21:03)
     
Quote (JohnW @ May 09 2012,11:30)
I don't think any of us have ever provoked a Gordshite meltdown.
Obama just did exactly that.

     
Quote
And yes, the evil that is now upon us, homosexualisation of marriage and family -- thus, of community, education and law -- in defiance of the patent creation order, is the full moral equivalent of slavery.
 
Quote
Likewise, we should note the implication of "members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together."  It should be quite clear from reading between the lines that Mr Obama has long immersed himself in the ideology of the homosexualist activist sub-culture.
 
Quote
So, should the law now be perverted to pretend that marriage -- a key aspect of creation order for humanity (as the very complementarity of the sexes testifies) --  can be extended by human fiat to same sex unions, that will be what is taught in school, and what will be enforced by the police, by force of law. If you disagree, you will be deemed the moral equivalent of a racist bigot, and subjected to criminal prosecution. Indeed, eventually, you will be seen as a scapegoat for social ills.
 
Quote
And of course, that ugly issue will be twisted about to blame the victims of the persecution: fanatical bigots, wanting to turn the clock back, hating those who are different from themselves, etc etc.  Sadly, we have been down this sad and dangerous road to persecution before, and Stephen has had many who have followed in his shoes. Worse, even this will be twisted in hostile minds to say that there is a stubbornly hostile and probably insane persecution complex here

KF's mind must be a dark and frightening place. "Insane" definitely was on the list of adjectives that I considered while reading that. Although I enjoyed the part about Obama being immersed in the "homosexualist activist sub-culture".

As expected, it's all the fault of those evil scientists:
     
Quote
Yes, the erosion of the moral fabric of our society traces to the imposition of evolutionary materialism in the name -- and under the false colours of  --"science."

Good lord n' butter, it's the monologue li'l Suzie recites to her friends in several Chick tracts!

Date: 2012/05/18 00:54:50, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (NormOlsen @ May 17 2012,15:25)
jonnyb brings on teh gay

     
Quote
You will not come out as Zorro prancing from the shadows with your blade.


Yes, well, I guess if you're going to 'come out' you might as well dress up like Zorro and do a bit of prancing.  No shame in that.  But I do think you should leave your blade sheathed.

"Say something like a sissy boy."

Date: 2012/05/29 21:51:50, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Woodbine @ May 29 2012,20:24)
Great news Kristine!

(so who tells her there's only a head?)

Now, now, don't overlook that 1/2 of a paw.

Date: 2012/05/29 21:56:58, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Febble @ May 29 2012,11:53)
I made a transcript here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-14178

I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

Thank you for the transcript, Dr. Liddle.

Did anyone else read that with Ms. O'Leary's voice in your head sounding like an unpleasant combination of Roseanne, Judy Tenuta, and Fran Drescher?

Date: 2012/05/31 14:41:25, Link
Author: clamboy
Gals are just so darn lucky to have us guys around to tell them how to respond to unwanted advances!

Just remember, ladies: 1) be flattered; 2) never hurt a man's feelings; 3) men are rational creatures: no matter how aggressive, excuse me, assertive they are, they will always respect your space and calmly accept "no"; 4) because of (3), there is never an inappropriate time, place, or method of come-on, so deal with it; 5) always follow up "no" with "thanks so much, I'm really flattered, but I'm not sure I can handle such virility"; finally, 6) I thought you wanted equality!

And really, come on, egg sacs, why do you have to make such a big deal out of everything? I'm just asking.



(I will now stand by to be labeled "pussy whipped.")

Date: 2012/06/01 01:22:19, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 31 2012,19:32)
Quote (clamboy @ May 31 2012,15:41)
(I will now stand by to be labeled "pussy whipped.")



Exeter Cathedral. The Martyrs' Pulpit (Bishop Pattison Memorial Pulpit) by Cornell University Library.

"[S]ome of you men (you should know which ones) are clearly pussy-whipped." - Thewholetruth, 5/26/12, p. 592 of The Roomba Thwall.

Isn't there a martyrs' memorial at Oxford? Must investigate...

Date: 2013/03/25 17:59:08, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 25 2013,12:50)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 25 2013,12:48)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 25 2013,06:11)
This ones better

How can that one be better? It's an udder failure! :p

k.e., don't be cowed by his criticism, he's just trying to milk the latest AtBC pun-fest for all it's worth.

Every time I read GiGi's latest, I think, "What a load of bull! I've never herd such nonsense"

Date: 2013/04/03 15:30:08, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2013,03:26)
In this case the blind belief that a Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible has no scientific hope of winning against one that is.

Theoretical theorizing about theories that are scientifically impossible is USELESS in the face of REAL THEORY that is TRULY scientifically impossible! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

TREMBLE before GG Aulin (I've been waiting to use that one)!!!!

Date: 2013/04/08 13:18:50, Link
Author: clamboy
I am enjoying the uptick in TSZ's postings and conversations, mostly for the education, but certainly not least for the return of...

(heralds sound)

His Most Royal Tardiness, William J Murray.

I mean, No Neck Joe and GG Aulin get the job done, but when William J Murray posts, I feel like Screwtape taking in the luscious air of a Torquemada. His arrogance, His dismissiveness, His air of lese majeste when addressing Lizzie's posts about Dembski (or replies to His Own comments), His refusal to answer or even acknowledge questions or define His terms, His condescension and derision and insults...ah, I think I could never surfeit on the black bile that is the soul of William J Murray!

Date: 2013/04/08 15:04:41, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 08 2013,14:46)
Design detection filter says probability of flounce is one hundred percent. Expulsion: zero percent.

All that He does is a flounce. Each snide remark, each disdainful word dripping with snobbery, reads as a flounce.

Date: 2013/05/18 14:35:11, Link
Author: clamboy
I appreciate Joe's misunderstanding of {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} having the same, as it were, size, because it made me think about how I would interpret that, or better, how would a Deaf person versed in set theory present that information. (Right! Self-introduction again for those not knowing: I am a professional interpreter [English -> ASL, ASL -> English], and I work most of the time in university settings.) A visual linguistic representation of the simple explanation as to why these sets have the same size proved to be quite interesting and, to me, clearer than the written word. Perhaps if Joe were Deaf, I could sign the explanation to him and it might sink in.

Date: 2013/05/19 13:05:46, Link
Author: clamboy
I'm looking for videos in American Sign Language that explain set theory to lay people. Problem is, ASL also stands for the Association for Symbolic Logic, so I have had to refine my search!

I've seen videos made by Deaf STEM professionals and academics, but these were produced on VHS years ago, and I don't know if I can find them again.

Thanks again, Joe, for the linguistic challenge! Like I always say, if I am going to interpret something, I had better darned well understand it myself. Interpreting linear algebra the first time was difficult, but the instructor was great and the Deaf student brilliant, so my work was made much easier.

Date: 2013/06/02 15:09:19, Link
Author: clamboy
It is an objective, absolute, and inherent fact of the universe that William J Murray is a dick.

Date: 2013/06/05 09:11:43, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.

Today is Opposite Day!!!

Date: 2013/06/10 19:42:02, Link
Author: clamboy
GG Aulin  *is*  Jack Nicholson  *as* Phinneas Gage  *in*  The Wild Man Fischer Story!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....1Rql5r8

Date: 2013/07/20 13:18:59, Link
Author: clamboy
Thank you, keiths, for your latest post on TSZ. I read that blog because I always learn something from the discussions.

I am absolutely certain, however, that William J Murray is a dick.

Date: 2013/07/29 01:46:18, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 28 2013,07:55)
And you'll be happy to hear that Murray is back to his old tricks, accusing "atheists" of "stolen obligations."  

Never mind that <I>twice</I> I called Murray out on his whole "stolen concept fallacy," and pointed out that it conflated conditions of validity and conditions of genesis --
and that never mind that on neither occasion did he ever try to provide a counter-argument to my objections -- he just conveniently exited the conversation -- now he's back, recycling the same old bullshit that he's been called out on dozens (at least) of times before.  

Murray's utter lack of intellectual integrity makes him a perfect cdesignproponentist.

Thank you for starting that thread at TSZ. I need to think some more on what you propose about how to address The Doubt.

However, I think it is perfectly natural, and rational, to conclude, beyond any Doubt, that William J Murray is a dick.

Date: 2013/08/02 21:36:13, Link
Author: clamboy
Well, I declare. William J Murray is, indeed, a dick, but my stars, how much more He has revealed of Himself in the "Ball State" thread at TSZ: paranoid, nutzoid, conspirazoid, Illuminatizoid, etc. We can recognize him now as a complete crank, as well as being an utter dick. Yes, it's honest, but dull, and a little disappointing, if only because so predictable.

Date: 2013/08/13 17:55:14, Link
Author: clamboy
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 13 2013,14:53)
Quote
PZ appears to have seriously put is foot in his mouth and it now kicking his own ass.


What a bucket of snakes. Is there any place to get the story of what PZ said and the background of what Shermer allegedly did, with all the hysteria?

I'm sorry, the the posters to all the discussions are too busy trying to hack each other to bits to deal with mundane things like facts.

Huh. That is a conundrum.

Well, one could, I suppose, actually read what Myers posted.

But perhaps that is asking too much, I apologize!!!

Date: 2013/08/18 21:51:31, Link
Author: clamboy
Goodness, those two threads on morality have driven William J Murray into heretofore unwitnessed fits.


William J Murray, this is going to be harsh, but it needs to be said:


William J Murray, go have sex with someone. That's an order.

 

 

 

=====