AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: cogzoid

form_srcid: cogzoid

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.170.136

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: cogzoid

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/09/26 10:35:55, Link
Author: cogzoid
I think T. Russ should be commended.  In the nature of these arguments it is very difficult for people to admit to an overstatement, much less concession of a point.  Give the guy a break.  You don't want to scare away a serious debater (which he appears to be) by pounding him relentlessly after he, in some way, admitted to being wrong.

The only people that are immune to constant abuse are the evopeaches out there.

Date: 2005/09/27 08:11:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
evopeach says: "10**-10000 to say 10**-5000"

If you are going to make up numbers, keep it on the Intellectual Honesty thread.

Date: 2005/10/06 08:06:40, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 06 2005,08:48)
Many many of the major advances in science preceded Darwin and were accomplished when ID  and Creationism were teh majority view.

ID deals with original design not the assertion that the designer is still directly involved. The idea is that microevolution and designed in adaptive capacity is sufficient to explain variation and darwinism is not.

Thus more and better science will result from using an information and systems viewpoint than from assuming random ,chaotic processes and such.

Quote
Many many of the major advances in science preceded Darwin and were accomplished when ID  and Creationism were teh majority view.


I fail to see why you think this is relevant.  Many, many more major advances in science occured AFTER Darwin had taken over Creationism as the majority view.  In fact, I'd say the rate of new scientific breakthroughs have accelerated after Darwin's paradigm shift.

Quote
ID deals with original design not the assertion that the designer is still directly involved. The idea is that microevolution and designed in adaptive capacity is sufficient to explain variation and darwinism is not.


Perhaps you can describe how these things can be faslified and/or tested.  The problem here is that there is nothing an omnipotent designer cannnot do.  In fact, he could make things appear as though they took billions of years of slight variations to form (which seems to be the case).  Or, he could've even made the entire universe just as it is one second ago, and planted memories in everyone's brains.  Is there a way to test/falsify that idea?  The answer is "no" and because of this, it is not science.  The same goes for seeing evidence of a designer.  Anything could be a result of his actions, and hence anything he does is unfalsifiable and untestable.  And as a result, cannot be science.  Science can only deal with theories that have the potential to be falsified.

Quote
Thus more and better science will result from using an information and systems viewpoint than from assuming random ,chaotic processes and such.


What is "an informations and systems" viewpoint?  And how would it differ from the viewpoint you think scientists are using now?  Do you believe that random, chaotic processes don't occur, or just that they aren't valid?  Please go into detail how "more and better" science will occur using your viewpoint.  Do you think scientists are at a standstill now?  What else should/could they be doing?

I would like to re-issue the challenge for you to produce a paper on Intelligent Design that explains how it can be falsified and tested.  I will then read and pick apart what exactly the content of the paper is.  Because that is what scientists do.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/06 09:27:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

You are (yet again) dead wrong.  Helium is formed in stars (like our very own sun) by the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei.  Hydrogen is the main fuel of every star you can see at night.  Hydrogen is, always was, and will always be the most abundant element in our universe.  All the way from the time when the bath of quarks cooled down enough to form protons to the very second you read this to the time when our universe has expanded to the extremes of coldness.  At no point has Helium ever been more abundant than Hyrdogen in this universe.  Perhaps you can point out the source of your information.

This, however, is just a side issue to your point.  But one that illuminates your ignorance and stubbornness (at least to us).  Why should anyone listen to someone who not only can't get basic facts correct, but also refuses to admit it, and correct the error?  I'm certainly tired of your baseless rantings.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/06 11:53:42, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Unfortunately your logic breaks down after working through the semantics.  Irreducible complexity is a false notion.  Evolution doesn't always arrive at a system by adding things to simpler things.  Sometimes complex things can get simpler.  But, that complex predecessor did not have to be irreducibly complex.  It could've arisen from a series of small incremental increases via a straightforward pathway.  Your "irreducibly complex" system could just be in a "local minimum" of complexity.  But, that does not mean that it wasn't the result of small incremental changes.

You are also being held back by your own definition of life.  At one point in abiogenisis, there were chemical chain reactions that repeated themselves (this isn't an uncommon feature in many chemical reactions).  At what point these repeating reactions became "life" is a subjective decision.  Don't get bogged down in the semantics.  (Think of the similar fetus/embyro definitions relating to abortion.  They are both extremely difficult to absolutely define.)

Quote
For instance the first replicator or life form would likely have had no extra parts... thus it is irreducibly complex and alive while any previous step is not alive, can
not by evolutionary means reach stage two.


What if the "first replicator of life" wasn't very far from the chemicals that are already found in nature?  And what if the most "irreducibly complex" replicator was only a small probability away from a natural chemical replicator?  The details, of course, aren't well understood.  But we cannot simply throw our hands up in the air and turn to supernatural causes just because we don't understand at the moment.  The universe is not limited by our lack of imagination.  There is alot of science to be done in the areas of abiogenisis.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/06 13:01:07, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

I would like to know what you think of what I said about Irreducible Complexity.  Because you seem to be hanging alot of what you say on it's explanatory power.  Is what I said wrong?  If so, why?

"Our best people"...  Are you just making this stuff up as you go?  Only a few curious scientists have been studying abiogenisis.  Most of the efforts in the biological disciplines are directed at understanding the current situation, not primordial happenings.  Things like protein pathways, cycles, and regulation in our living cells are difficult enough to keep biologists busy for over 100 more years, too.  If your argument is that "scientists have tried and failed, clearly supernatural means are the cause of life."  It surely is a weak one.

A common theme is for creationists to point out a few examples of scientists that have given up/changed fields/converted as proof that the other hundreds of thousands of scientists are wasting their time.  I'm not suprised you chose that well worn path as well.

Date: 2005/10/07 10:22:12, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/07 14:38:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
Your ignorance is appalling of your own theory.


Why do you call this my theory?

You said in a previous post (emphasis mine):
Quote
If after the big bang the majority of all matter overwhelmingly was helium and through stellar processes formed the precursor molecules (carbon for instance, the basis of all biological life) for abiogenesis and all that followed then helium is the prenultimate source of the human brain.


Apparently reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.  

In your latest post on this thread you point out sources that say:
Quote
Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

And...
Quote
In fact, it is observed that upwards of 25% the Universe's total matter consists of helium---much greater than predicted by theory!


However, maybe you don't realize that the "protons" that combined with neutrons to form Helium are Hydrogen!  And yet to this day there is less Helium than Hydrogen.  I wonder if you think that the Helium atoms broke down into Hydrogen, to form the way we see the universe now.  They portion of Helium that turned into heavier atoms is an insignificant fraction.

Here is the relevant part from one of your sources:
Quote
Era of Nuclear Reactions
# Nuclei can begin to hold together, e.g.
p + n => 2H + Photon
# At this time the baryons are divided into about 87% protons 13% neutrons.

End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei


It's one thing to be cocky.  It's another thing to be cocky and wrong.  I hope you'll be the big man and apologize for your error.  Maybe you can modify the apology that you wrote up for Midnight.  Although I'm not going to hold my breath.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/08 08:29:53, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evopeach,

Just for the record, I learned my information while taking a graduate level survey course in Galaxy formation at Caltech from a hotshot Caltech professor.  I also learned the same info in another course called Open Questions in Physics (it was concerning dark matter and dark energy as one of it's topics).

I see where you were misread the information on the websites.  You saw how Helium is much higher in that chart.  But, you failed to realize that those are percentages compared to each other.  If you'll notice Hydrogen isn't even on the chart.  Hydrogen didn't form by means of nucleosynthesis (the protons didn't have to do anything to become Hydrogen).  The other elements, however did form via nucleosynthesis and are on the chart.  Perhaps you forgot to notice this next to the chart: "The predicted abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen, as a function of the density of baryons in the universe (expressed in terms of the fraction of critical density in baryons, Omega_B and the Hubble constant, h)."  I've also pointed out from your sources where they say "90% of the universe was Hydrogen, the other 10% Helium".  It amazes me that you are keeping this up at all.

I thought I could guide you to the correct information, but apparently you can't comprehend anything that opposes your viewpoint.  Try, try again.

I hope to hear an apology soon.  By replying with more cockiness and insults you will only make things worse for yourself.

Quote
So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.


Just so you know, absolutely nothing in science is "incontrovertible".  Theories do change and adapt as new evidence comes to light.  Everything in science is open to criticism.  Not everything is as stubborn as you are.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/08 08:52:22, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I am not a genius as my IQ is only 144 and genius I believe is about 160.
I've never heard an intelligent person mention their own IQ before.  I still haven't.

I'd love to hear the evidence that shows that any decay rates have changed in the universe's history.  For this would require that the fundamental constants are shifting around.  And THAT would be exciting.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/08 09:39:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 07 2005,15:22)
Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

Still waiting...

C'mon Evo, you clearly have the free time to address my issues.

By the way, what does "scientific" mean to you?  This isn't a trap question, just an honest question.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/08 16:04:52, Link
Author: cogzoid
You're exactly right, Henry.  But, I like to think of the Helium discussion Evo makes as representative of his ignorant braggadocio.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/10 08:14:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
Everyone knows that hydrogen is the primary matter now but thats not the discussion. Rehearse please... helium gas to the human brain not protons to the human brain.. helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.


Where in the world are you seeing this?!!  In one of the sources you cite they draw a timeline.  If you'll notice, at 15 seconds the universe only has photons and electrons/positrons.  At 3 minutes (a full minute AFTER the first two minutes you claim) "Nuclei can BEGIN to hold together."  And at 3 and a half minutes the universe is still only 10% Helium.  I really have no idea why you are incapable of reading your own sources.  But, I do get a chuckle at your stubborn ignorance.

Just to see how far you'll take your fallacious argument... what happened to all the Helium?  I'd love to hear what you make up to support your stubborn stupidity.

My only hope is that you are just the joke of an intelligent person.  Someone might be playing the satire of a creationist and I've fallen for it.  If that is the case, you got me.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/11 13:26:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
Keith,

Quote
The same sources say that the entire current theory illustrates that since helium is not.. not.. not being produced in stars or anywhere else today all of it was made at the very beginning  as I have quoted them.

Maybe you should alert these guys to that fact! Or you might want to read up on some basic facts about Helium.

Quote
So every element is composed of hydrogen atoms and not really an element.. plus electrons and nutrons of course. What a moron.


Let's get this straight.  Every nucleus has some protons in it (and usually neutrons, too).  When the nucleus only has one proton we call it Hydrogen.  When it has two protons we call it Helium.  Three, Lithium etc.  Hydrogen is just as much an element as any other element.  Just becuase it is the first, simplest, smallest, most abundant, and least understood by you doesn't mean that it isn't an element.

Quote
Lets take hydrogen and helium both if you wish ... does that make it easier for you to tell me how they became a human brain... ready.. set... go!!


Unfortunately, I am unable to spend the time to describe how hydrogen (and helium) eventually became the human brain to you.  Your incredulity argument, however, does not falsify the theories that describe such a transition.

My goal was to point out that you were completely unable to admit to being wrong, even to a simple statement of fact.  You have made my point soundly for me.

You originally said:
Quote
In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.


To which I said:
Quote
This, however, is just a side issue to your point.  But one that illuminates your ignorance and stubbornness (at least to us).  Why should anyone listen to someone who not only can't get basic facts correct, but also refuses to admit it, and correct the error?  I'm certainly tired of your baseless rantings.


I've given you ample time, information, and opportunity to correct your statement.  Are you willing to do so, now?  I'm sure you'll get a round of applause from the forum.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/12 09:50:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
Keith,

I've never met a more stubborn person than yourself.  It's amazing that you can be presented with the facts repeatedly, yet still hold on to your ridiculously ignorant ideas.

Quote
I am obviously 99.9999% correct and your team is 0.0001% correct.


At least we are making progress.  But, unfortunately I don't have enough patience to teach someone with such a slow learning curve.

I've definitely learned alot about the nature of creationists during this discussion.  Thank you for your time.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/14 09:37:09, Link
Author: cogzoid
Feeling bored, I'm going to post a recap of the arguments between Evo and the rest of the board on the nature of the amount of Helium  vs. Hydrogen in the universe.  It is a small, minor point.  But, the nature of the argument really illlustrates the stubbornness of our resident troll.

First Evo makes the offending statement:
Quote
In that case the cause is the predominent element after the big bang helium gas... period.. beyond dispute.

But people point out that, in fact, Hydrogen is the current element du jour.  Me:
Quote
Hydrogen is, always was, and will always be the most abundant element in our universe.

Evo is asked to show his sources.  He names three:
Quote
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html

And reads into the papers the following conclusion:
Quote
So helium was first, 90% formed then prior to hydrogen according to the several incontrovertable sources.

It's pointed out to Evo that indeed the websites do not agree with him:
Quote
"During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons, the building blocks of atoms, formed"

Proton = nucleus of hydrogen atom. Helium is made by fusing these, so there's no way it could come first.

Evo is resilient to change:
Quote
Helium, duterium and lithium were the first to be created and that is the concensus of these people and the entire field.
and starts forming his strawman:
Quote
I guess your point is that every element in the universe is essentially  hydrogen because they have protons in their nucleus. Lets just rewrite the periodic table so only elements without protons are really elements because the're really all hydrogen in various forms.

Up against repeated criticism he makes his point finer:
Quote
...helium, lithium and the isotope of hydrogen duterium was first and of those helium was dominent  IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES IDIOT.
 Once again it is pointed out that this is not the case.  From one of Evo's sources:
Quote
At 3 min:  Era of Nuclear Reactions
# Nuclei can begin to hold together, e.g.
p+ n => 2H + [photon]
# At this time the baryons are divided into about 87% protons 13% neutrons.
At 3.5 min End of Nuclear Reactions
neutrons have been "used-up" forming 4He
Universe is now 90% H nuclei( p+) & 10% He nuclei
But Does this stop Evo?  Nope, then he starts to make the "nucleus not atom" argument.
Quote
The NUCLEUS of the most common isotope of the hydrogen atom is a single proton. (Got that.. just the nucleus not the entire atom.)
 And then to continue the argument he establishes this:
Quote
Helium on the other hand was formed as a complete atom with all its electrons and everything from elementary particles which of course includes electrons, protons and nutrons. Two protons, two nutrons (electrically neutral) and two electrons, atomic mass of four.
GTC points out that according to one of Evo's sources Helium didn't form into an atom until much later than the 2 minutes Evo suggested:
Quote
10^6yr
4000K  
Era of Recombination
nuclei & electrons "recombine to form atoms
Universe becomes transparent

Finally, though, it seems people have made a difference in Evo's thinking:
Quote
Thus under your assumption hydrogen became the human brain of course along with the other life molecules through a process of chemical predestination?


But, the question remains.  Will Evo ever ADMIT to being wrong about his ideas?  He made a big fuss over Midnight's error in another thread.  He even went through the trouble to write a letter for Midnight to post.  I wonder if he can do the same when it is his own errors that are pointed out.  One also wonders if all of the insults he spewed at his educators were warranted.  If one looks through Evo's posts you will find many instances of "moron" and "idiot" even when the poster he is replying to was patiently pointing out an error of Evo's.  Will he apologize for those unnecessary insults too?

My guesses are No, and No.  Care to prove me wrong, Evo?

I hope this recap has brought a slight smile to your face, and has illuminated the behaviors of stubborn, uneducated people.

Have a great day.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/14 10:58:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
This from aguy who thinks a proton is the entire hydrogen atom. You are a moron.
 When precisely did I say this?  Don't be afraid of the quote feature of this message board.

Quote
I recant nothing because helium was an atom and you continue to confuse a proton with the hydrogen atom and its only the nucleus.
Absolutely no atoms existed until 10^6 years AFTER the big bang.  Until then, the electrons were too excited to be bound by any of the Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc. nuclei.  Your claim that Helium existed before Hydrogen is wrong.  Especially your "Two minutes after the Big Bang" claim.  

Quote
Is there a name for something stable that is just the helium nucleus ... no of course not.
It's called the Helium nucleus.  And the papers descibe just that.  A hydrogen nucleus is called a proton.  Now if you had stated: Helium nuclei existed well before Hydrogen atoms, then you'd be correct.  However, you would be comparing apples to oranges.  Lithium nuclei also existed well before Helium atoms!  Does that mean it should be Lithium to the the Human Brain?

Quote
How about this an inert gas became the human brain...
 Hydrogen is not inert.  Maybe you are attempting to shift your argument to Krypton, Xenon, or Argon?

Quote
now can you elucidate the sequence
I get the feeling that even if I could elucidate the sequence you wouldn't be able to understand it.  So far you've demonstrated that you don't understand simple concepts about the elements.  Why should anyone bother trying to educate you on more complex things?

I'm starting to wonder if this would better fit your world view.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/14 11:47:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
And when you come up with something I can't quite grasp just send it over and go ahead... include the integral signs if necessary.... mr leafman.


No problem, bronco!

"Hydrogen has always been, is, and always will be more plentiful than Helium."

For some reason you just can't quite grasp such a concept.

Another concept you can't seem to grasp is the realization that you are wrong.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/14 20:29:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
I'm only relying on scientific grounds that you have supplied, Evo.

What scientific grounds are you standing on?

Date: 2005/10/17 12:15:46, Link
Author: cogzoid
Ha Ha Ha!

Evo says:
Quote
But nevermind you have spouted off your mouth once again without thinking just to belittle a person of certain credentials you have never met strictly because he disagrees with you... a typical evo.


But Evo also says, only 7 MINUTES later:
Quote
I take it that all the evos have great confidence that Barbara Kook is a superior expert witness than Mike Behe.  


Following Plato's teaching that philosophers should be full participants in civic life, Dr. Forrest actively participates in efforts to promote church-state separation, the integrity of public science education, and civil liberties.  She serves on the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, having served on the board of directors of the Louisiana affiliate.  Her other supporting memberships include People for the American Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the National Center for Science Education

How did she miss the CPUSA and Red Diaper Babies of America Assn.?


There is no way that Evopeach is for real.  No possible way.  Surely, even he can see the irony of his own stupidity.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/18 07:44:18, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

I've long given up trying to teach you anything.  You seem to be lacking some thinking skills.  (You STILL are arguing that Helium is more abundant than Hydrogen.)  Instead I thought it would be fun to point out the hypocrisy of your posts.  My intention is to simply have fun at your expense, not to educate you or even listen to your demands.  I'm trying to do so cleverly, without resorting to name-calling or other childish means of derision.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/18 14:45:59, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
3) I know which between 300,000 and 10**6 which is the larger number

And why do you think I wouldn't?

Can you tell 10^-8 from 10^2?

What you say:
Quote
Let's suppose that in the span of 10**-8 seconds that hydrogen nuclei were created before helium atoms or nuclei.
 

Now, once again, what do the sources (the ones you supplied even) say:

3 minutes into the big bang, nuclei (like He) can BEGIN to hold together.  

Three minutes is alot longer than 10^-8 seconds, wouldn't you agree.  Now you're off by 10 orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^10).  And those protons (Hydrogen nuclei) had been around since ~10^-6 seconds after the big bang.  When exactly were you claiming that Helium was more abundant than Hydrogen again?

At 10^6 years nuclei and electrons combine to form atoms.  

Now, I realize that 10^6 isn't a dead certain number.  The sources you cite don't show error bars on the calculations, because they are for the laymen or armchair scientists.  I would never assume that 10^6 was an exact number.  I bet the error bars are a factor of 10 or so in either direction.  Are you claiming I don't understand something because two of your sources are within a factor of three  from each other?  I definitely know that 3 < 10^10.

I'm on the edge of my seat to see what you'll reply with.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/18 18:52:01, Link
Author: cogzoid
GTC,

The formalism Newton used to describe force was the one regarding the change in momentum:  F=dp/dt.  F=ma is of course equivalent, and easier to understand by pre-calculus students.

Evo is hung up on the units.  For some reason he thinks the gsubc coefficient is important at all.  In reality it is just a kludge to get different units to work in the equation.  As long as one is consistent it is irrelevant what units one uses.  Physicists rarely plug any real numbers into their equations until they've solved for what they want completely.  It's common to set persistant constants to 1 to get them out of the way:  h = 1, and c =1 are typical.  As a result it's common to see things like "the mass of that particle is 32 MeV."  MeV is a unit of energy, but since it's easy to convert to mass (by dividing the energy by c^2) physicists leave it like it is.  At the end of the day though, when it comes time to check theory with experiment, they have to go back and re-insert all of those c's and h's.  It's actually not so hard to do.  All one has to do is make sure the units match up.

One has to take into account that Evo claims to be an engineer.  He probably has to work with SI and Imperial units all the time.  As a result, it's best that he remembers the gsubc, so he can keep things straight.  Even though it's just a unit kludge.  I'm betting it's what he learned in school, and it's not wrong.  It's just not what physicists use.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/19 12:45:04, Link
Author: cogzoid
Oooh, a friendly wager.

I'm definitely in.  What are the terms and stakes?

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/20 08:42:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quantum theory is probably the most tested theory in science's repertoire.  This is due to the fact that quantum mechanics typically applies to small things.  Small things fit in labs.  The measurements are also simple.  The spin of an electron in the z direction is either +1/2 or -1/2, for example.  That's easy enough to measure.  But, the math is complicated and rich.  Resulting in alot of interesting and non-intuitive things that are directly testable by scientists.  The non-intuitive nature of quantum also inspires scientists to try and stump the theory.  For a long time scientists were looking for any experimental evidence that could debunk quantum theory.   Simply for the reason that it didn't jive with their every day experiences.  But, alas, quantum has ALWAYS triumphed.  I would suggest that you find another, less tested theory to try and debunk.  And if you start with appealing to one's "common sense" you're destined for failure.

By the way, don't confuse Quantum with General Relativity.  They are completely different beasts.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/20 08:59:38, Link
Author: cogzoid
Don't forget Helium!

Date: 2005/10/20 10:10:17, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Check the definition of "strawman".

Quote
Evolutionists say either the universe, life etc. are all the result of natural law driven phenomena or they are driven by supernatural interventionist acts that are purely and wholly expressions of religion.

Who says this?  (Don't be afraid of posting sources.)

I thought it was the IDers that argue that if Evolution isn't true then ID must be.  THAT is a false dilemna.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/20 11:45:01, Link
Author: cogzoid
How do we konw the court reporter isn't a evil Evo?!  I'm sure we should take it as a COMPLETELY UNBAISED report.  Ha!

(Sorry, just trying on an Evopeach costume, in the spirit of the upcoming Halloween.)

Date: 2005/10/21 13:19:58, Link
Author: cogzoid
Evo,

Quote
Because the court reporter actually has a skill, a brain, can read and write and doesn't need a herd of people standing around pumping her up and telling her how smart she is.


Where did you get this information?  What are your sources?

By the way, did you read the testimony?  Did you see where ol' Behe agrees that astrology fits under his definition of science?  Did you see what he considers "rigorous peer review"?  I'm curious as to what you have to say about those comments.  I'd love for you to explain how a 10 minute phone call was rigorous.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/22 09:16:05, Link
Author: cogzoid
Here you go Paley.

Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe.  As long as you are willing to disregard any facts that disagree with you.

I thought this was a funny quote from the website:
Quote
Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

Date: 2005/10/28 09:14:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Alright, I'll bite.

One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.  As far as I know, (I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary) they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics.  Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

It is not obvious from a creationism standpoint that any such tree of life should exist at all.  I'm sure you have a convoluted argument that you're going to share with us now.

-Dan

Date: 2005/10/28 10:44:07, Link
Author: cogzoid
Once again I am no expert on this stuff.  I'm not going to ignorantly paint the wrong picture of evolution so you could point out that it's wrong.  But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/01 11:18:23, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.

The question of the ages...  Why do any of us waste our time here?  No one has changed a single postion about anything here.  Except maybe Evopeach realizing that Hydrogen came before Helium.  Read the 4th comment.  It seems our little Evopeach has really learned something!

Date: 2005/11/01 13:20:43, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Lottery winners are special cases, Paley, and you're right: large windfalls don't result in permanent happiness.  It's usually just temporary.  But, on the other hand, Americans overall have a high level of contentedness.  It is difficult to discover the source of that happiness.  Sure, you say that we're more religous, it must be due to that.  This guy and his study show that happiness is not the whole of the equation.
 
I'm actually curious what you have to say about his data.  I'm sure you have our own explanation as to why the more religious country (ours) has more murders, abortion, and STDs than the more secular countries in Europe.  I'm going to guess that you are going to dismiss it outright.

Date: 2005/11/02 07:34:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
How can I dismiss data that I can't see?


Fair enough.

Here's data on murder rates by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Notice how the US is in the top 25 in between great countries like Bulgaria and Armenia.  While most of civilized (and secular!) Europe have half or less of the murder rate.

I found this bit of data on abortions:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_abo_cap

And finally rapes:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap

Are you noticing a trend?

Aren't we the moral ones?  Maybe those other secular countries are just lying about their immorality.  They're the type, afterall.

Don't focus on the author's interpretation.  Focus on the data.  Let's have your interpretation.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/02 08:17:16, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

The data I gave you did not take into account race, creed, or social status.  It is only giving you the numbers.  There are plenty of other stats on that site that you can look at to see those things.

The problem here became clear to me while reading your post.
Quote
Remember, Mr. Cogzoid, academics really, really loathe white, heterosexual Christian men, and this influences their work.
I don't think this is true at all.  In fact, most academics ARE white, heterosexual Christian men.  You might as well make another baseless claim like "Jesus ate babies!"  I think you are confusing race caused crime with socio-economic caused crime.  Are blacks more likely to commit crimes, or are poor people more likely to commit crimes?  What about middle class blacks, do they commit crimes?  What about poor whites?  Do you have any numbers to suggest that race is the bigger factor than the size of their paycheck?

Crime, abortion, and other social ills are a product of the society, and we are all apart of that society, even the white, heterosexual, Christian men.  Our nation's religion doesn't seem to be doing much to thwart the tide of those social ills.  It's an empty statement to say that religion helps our nation in any way.  Show me the numbers, man.  I showed you the numbers that suggest that a lack of religion doesn't hurt social ills.  Just look at the liberal Dutch.  They even teach evolution in schools there!

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/02 14:25:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Paley,

Quote
Serious Assault per 100,000.
1. Australia 713.68
2. England & Wales 405.20
3. United States 357.94
Taiwan 37.30
Spain 23.94
Japan 15.40

Why don't your numbers match these numbers?

I trust nationmaster.com a little more, as they are not trying to make a social point about anything, just supplying data.

I agree that blacks are disproportionally responsible for crime in America.  However, they are also disproportionally poor.  I'm not convinced that being black makes you a criminal.  I am convinced that being poor increases your chances of a life of crime.  And that being black increases your chances of being poor.  The question is, if whites were more likely to be poor, would whites be disproportionally responsible for crime.  I would say yes.  But our society hasn't run that experiment, yet.

Quote
Thus if you remove homicides committed by blacks (total: 21862, Blacks:9316), and assume a proportionality between number of offenders and number of offenses, you can extrapolate US homicide offender rate of only 2.6/100,000, lower than Germany (3.27) and France (3.91).
Your logic is flawed.  For in removing black crimes you are also removing poor crimes in America, while not removing poor crimes from the other countries (which they certainly have).  This flawed logic of yours seems to be a theme.

Quote
Think about this: if Christianity is so useless in creating a stable society, then why did America's exploding crime rates coincide with the secularization of the public sphere in the mid-sixties?
 When the baby boomers reached their late teens crime increased.  That's when people do crime.  No suprise there.  The coinciding was a coincidence.


Quote
And why did crime rates start falling after Reagan assumed office and Christians resumed a more active role in public life?
Because that happens to be about 20 years after Roe v. Wade.  Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.  And since more unwanted children were aborted after Roe v. Wade there were less criminals 17-20 years afterward.  Simple math.  And it relies nothing on Reagan.


Quote
And morality is indeed tied to crime: check out Giuliani's application of the "Broken Windows" theory to New York City. Get rid of the hookers and grifters, and watch the murder rate drop. Liberals predicted the utter failure of this approach, which of course demonstrated its usefulness to any rational mind. Its subsequent success was practically guaranteed.
 But crime plummeted in cities that DIDN'T apply Giuliani's theory.  All across our nation.  There is no consistent correlation between crime fighting methods and less crime.  You are confused with correlation and causation.  Giuliani may have been in charge when crime fell, but that doesn't mean he was the cause.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/03 08:23:59, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Try here if you want some background.
 And why do these numbers disagree as well?  Can you explain the discrepency?  I didn't read all of that, as I don't have the time, nor do I really care all that much.  But if you want more, seemingly different data, check out figure 2b on this.


Quote
But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
Numbers?

Quote
My cipherin' suggests a period of 8 years. But then, I never did get the New Math.
Clearly math is not your strong point at all. Crime rates fell in 94.  Roe Vs. Wade was decided in 73.  That makes 21 years.

Here's an article that explains the logic.

Quote
Not really. I don't have a source handy, but much of the decline was attributable to a handful of big cities such as New York and Boston.
 Simply false.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/03 15:17:50, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
Hey, I'm not the one who mistook a newsblurb for a scientific survey, and then switched to a different set of figures when pressed for more detail.
 I never mistook any newsblurb for a scientific survey.  I merely did some Google searches for data on the subject at hand.  I didn't find your data, I found other data.  And multiple sources of data so you couldn't claim that I was cooking the numbers.  I'm still not convinced that the vicitmization methodology is superior to raw numbers.  I see flaws in both systems of data gathering.  I really don't care enough to get into a debate on which one is better.  However, I'm glad that you were able to explain the discrepency between the data per my asking.


Quote
But the time from Roe v. Wade to the Reagan presidency was only 8 years, just as I wrote, apparently to no avail. And that's when crime started falling.
   Naturally you point to a few years of less crime in the '80s and ignore the 20% drop in crime in the '90s.  Your link shows such a drop.  I'm not talking about the year to year fluctuations here.  I'm talking about the plummeting trend that happens to be 20 years after Roe vs. Wade.

You seem to not understand the difference between people trying to take credit for change, and people being responible for that change.  I couldn't care less that you find papers where people claim to have made the world better.  Correlation and Causation aren't the same.  If I cared more and had the time, I'd bother to find published arguments that claim that Guiliani is not responsible for the majority of the crime drop in NY.  I'll give credit where credit is due though, and say that a good portion of the drop IN NY was to his policies.

I'd like to point out that yes, the murder rate fell mostly in the major US cities.  But that is hardly suprising.  That is where the poor and violent live.  And when the inner-city poor have access to abortions there will be less unwanted children to commit crime in the future.  Simple logic.

Quote
But New York’s experience has not been unique; over the same period, the number of homicides has dropped in San Diego by 68 percent, in Boston by 65 percent, in Los Angeles by 60 percent, in San Antonio by 60 percent, in Houston by 43 percent, in New Orleans by 42 percent, in Detroit by 26 percent, in Philadelphia by 23 percent, in Dallas by 21 percent, and in Chicago by 18 percent.
Wow, Guiliani was good!  His policies helped the entire nation, that or the Republican factions in Los Angeles, San Diego and Boston finally took charge.  Thank goodness.  What you are left to show is that the synchronous crime drops in each of these cities was due to independant policy changes.  (Certainly it wasn't due to a pan-American policy change such as *gasp* abortion!)

I grow tired of your tireless unwaranted self-aggrandizing.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/04 09:41:43, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Thoughts about the victimization methodology.

At first, I thought the victimization methodology would be a valid way to determine crime statistics.  But then I realized what's going on in those studies.  You're asking these liberal people in foreign countries if they feel victimized.  Surely, you can see the tendency for error that will result.  But, I thought, what's a better way to do it?  Small crimes have a tendency to not be reported or over sensationalized.  But, murders don't.  Our police force is pretty good about counting bodies and no one can claim that they "felt murdered" in a survey.

If we're going to look at one statistic to determine crime, it might as well be murder.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/04 12:53:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.


Are whites the only members of society?

Date: 2005/11/16 14:34:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Heck, just look at the statements on this forum. "We never should have come down from the trees", "We must evolve, or die [the evolution part involving the surrendering of our culture, apparently]", "Physics and mother earth to humans: %$&* off![O.K.....that last one may be a little approximate]". Believe me, I could go to any atheist board and get much more along these lines. Could you find as many counterexamples? I bet not.
Quote
But looking at isolated cases gets us nowhere; we should instead focus on general trends.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

If you get enough people together debating religion, science, philosophy and politics, you are sure to find some inane comments  in the mix.  I'm amazed that you consider these quotes as evidence for your point.  Surely, you know better than that.  One could just as easily head on over to Dembski's blog and find equally enlightened quotes from his followers (if you're willing to actually check, I suggest you read the comments on any post that mentions Islam).    

Your challenge in backing up this claim (that acceptance of evolution causes spiritual malaise) is to get some numbers, not anecdotal evidence.  What are the trends, Paley?

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/17 13:54:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
(which I won, in my humble opinion)
I expect no less from you Paley.

If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's.  You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing.  You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country.  You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all.  I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related.  If "winning the debate" means convincing you of something, then I've a snowballs chance...

You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account.  Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries.  You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either.  Humble opinion, indeed.

Quote
In any case, the fair question is: do white Americans commit murders more frequently than white European Americans? I suspect not; in fact, when lily-white American border cities are compared with Canadian cities of similar population density, America often comes out ahead.
 I still fail to understand why we have to neglect the minorities of this country to massage the result that you want.  Blacks and Latinos are Americans too, and they are also religious.

But, besides that.  What about these cross-national surveys?  I probably didn't see them.  Can you point them out again?

Date: 2005/11/18 09:44:21, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
I cited your study which claimed that crime rates dropped in cities across the country including, if I recall correctly: Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and New Orleans.  Are you claiming that Guiliani's and the Republican's influence affected all of these locations?  You're really straining the logic, my friend.

Quote
4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.
And went up during G.H.W. Bush's  term.  Fluctuations happen, what's your point?  Notice the trend in '94.  WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS IN OFFICE.  I like how you point to Reagen when crime slightly drops in the '80s and Newt when crime plummets in the '90s.  I'm not going to let you claim victory for this one, I'm sorry.

Quote
 And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing.
I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?
 This is known as confirmation bias, Paley.  You only remember when Republican predictions are correct and Liberal predictions are wrong.  There are plenty of Republican predictions that are plain old wrong.  Global warming and WMDs in Iraq immediately come to mind.  (Much more grave incorrect predictions if you ask me!)  In Levitt's Freakonomics he points out that all parties were guilty of fear mongering over the youth crime wave in the country.  He reminds a Republican politician (I can't recall specifics) about his '94 quote something along the lines of "blood will flow in the streets".  Later he was accused of saying "bloodbath."  He bothered to draw the distinction between the comments, like a good politician.  Let's not even get into the discussion of how Republicans distort scientific findings to fit their agenda (mercury levels, global warming studies, abstinence-only effectiveness... etc).

Quote
And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study.
Why?  You seem to have already reached your conclusion.  You just need to keep massaging the data till you've made your point.  Or maybe that's what you mean by "further study"?

I'm very skeptical of your "Color of Crime" study.  Does it take into account the fact that blacks are targeted by police at higher rates.  I read some study that pointed out that blacks use some percentage, say 15-20%, of the drugs in this country but account for, 50-60%, of the drug arrests.  I don't walk around with a list of all sources that I use to form my opinions, sorry.  This study seems to conflate "crimes committed" and "arrests made". But, that is a minor point overall.  Blacks may have higher crime rates.  I'll concede the point.  However, you haven't yet justified why you have to exclude blacks when looking at our country as a whole.  Are they not as American as you and your white neighbors?  Are they not religious people?  Aren't they part of our society, whether you like it or not?  I believe this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked you this very fundamental question.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/20 17:09:37, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
My point is that Guiliani was really responsible for the crime drop in New York City, an assertion you didn't challenge. And do you really trust N'Awlin's finest to compile accurate crime statistics?
And my point is the drop occured all across the nation, L.A., San Diego, Denver, N.O., N.Y., etc.  And yes, I do trust N'awlin's finest to be able to compile statistics.  Just because the southerners talk slow doesn't mean they can't count bodies.   Your theory that Guiliani is responsible for the drop of crime in NY works if you only look at NY.  When one looks at the crime drop in all of the cities, it seems more likely that there is another, more US-spanning cause.  Of course, I won't rule out the possibility of multiple causes.  I've given an explanation.  You've given Republican trunk-waving.

Quote
 It seems like I'm equivocating, doesn't it? But I'm not. Focus on the accomplishments, not who was in charge, and you'll see that the 80's and mid 90's were much more conservative policy-wise than the 1988 - 1994 period. Even with Bush Sr..
Your theory is becoming more and more contorted as you go.  What are these accomplishments I should look at?  Can you show me the "anti-accomplishments" of the '88-'94 period?

Quote
My purpose is not to bash black people, nor suggest that they are genetically predisposed to crime. I'm just saying we should control for as many variables as possible. If you want to adjust for SES, then do so. But let's compare similar groups, like, ohhhhhh....middle-class white people, for example. I'm afraid you won't like the results, however.
You want it both ways, Paley.  You don't want to include blacks of our society.  Yet, you haven't removed the minorites of the secular Europeans.  As well, you will need to remove entire sections of inner-city populations of the cities in Europe, for that is what you do for the US while you are removing the blacks.  I tried to find the necessary data to do this myself.  Either the Europeans don't post  racial data on the web, or I give up too easily.  I'm sure you are more capable, however.  Your point is as hollow as W's head without such data.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/21 09:10:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Given the events post-Katrina, forgive me for being a little more skeptical of their corpse-counting abilities. But if I need a plasma TV at a super discount, I know where to go, that's for sure.
Counting bodies during the evacuation of an entire city is a little different than counting bodies in the morgue on a typical Friday night.  Your skepticism is duly noted.  What about every other major city in the US?  Perhaps no one is good at counting bodies except NY.

Quote
No but our drawls can drive a Paris-born French teacher over the edge. Trust me on this. :D
You a southerner too?  I was raised in Slidell.  And I've got Cajun relatives that make me look cosmopolitan.

Quote
Don't forget the victimization studies, which also show America in a good light, without making any racial adjustments whatsoever.
And don't forget the less subjective murder rates of all of those same countries.  Which don't put the US in such a good light.

Quote
Don't blame yourself; there's a very good reason these stats aren't readily available.
It must be nice to not need any stupid numbers or data before you reach your conclusions.  If only we could all live in your world, Paley.

Quote
You're pulling my leg again, aren't you, Cogzie? Don't you remember all those articles bemoaning the Contract "on" America, or bashing the Gipper? The media noticed the difference; why didn't you? On the other hand, all I remember during the Bush administration were Dan Quayle jokes and an obsession with Presidential malaprops. Of course, many complained about Bush Sr.'s foreign policy, but that doesn't impact our discussion.
We're not all timeless spirits, Paley.  I, in fact, wasn't old enough to care about politics in the eighties.  Perhaps you can euclidate the accomplishments and anti-accomplishments that I asked you for previously.

So, to make your point you have to throw out a major section of our crime statistics, and you seem unable to make the same cut for the other nations that you wish to compare to.  You don't see a problem with that?  Tell me again how you feel that you've "won the debate"?

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/21 18:31:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
At least with New York there has been an attempt to verify the official stats. You can check it out in this thrice-quoted paper.
Are you implying that the other cities can't count bodies well?  What would that imply for statistics of the "softer" crimes?  

Quote
 I see you're not going to let go of this, so let me support my hypothesis that white American homicide rates beat Europe's.
  Take Canada, for example. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Canadians are especially prone to violence. If memory serves, Canada has traditionally had lower homicide rates than many European countries, even before recent immigration trends. So let's compare our honkies to their crackers. How? By using the approach suggested in the original debate - by comparing crime rates in demo-and geographically similar territories. Here is one study that does just that:
This succeeds in demonstrating that homicide rates are low in rural areas with no racial clashes, even when including the bustling Twin Cities.  To compare this at all with Europe you'd have to find equally rural and racially consistent areas there.  Something you have yet to do.  

Quote
Notice that this study covers the period before the big G and Newt worked their magic, so if anything, the study is slanted agin America (although Canada's rates also dropped during the 90's).
For this to be true one has to believe that the big G or Newt had anything to do with the drop in crime in America.  I do not take that assumption as blindly as you do.  And you have yet to show it.

Quote
This paper also makes no adjustment for the undoubtedly higher minority population in the surveyed states.
HA!  Have you been to any of those states?

Quote
First, as I stated several times, I'm don't have to throw out anything; the vic surveys prove my point all by their lonesome.
But the murder rates flatly disagree with you.  And since victimization is subjective to the victim, I think those statistics should carry less weight than murder rates, which are as objective as one can get.  You have yet to give a good argument as to why murder rates are NOT a good single statistic that we can look at.  (Besides murder rates not helping your point.)

Quote
Second, you never answered my question about confounding factors.
And you never answered my questions about what accomplishments and anti-accomplishments by the Dems or Rebs resulted in the crime fluctutations.

Quote
Third, you never responded to my evidence that the FBI and local cities cook the books.
Would they fudge more or less murders as they cooked these books?

Quote
Fourth, the very fact that the crime rates are in doubt utterly destroys your original contention that the U.S. is peopled by Bible-toting thugs.
You doubt the crime rates, not me.  You want to look at victimization, not me.  I like to look at objective numbers, such as murders.  Which are counted as bodies, not counted as arrests.  And my revised contention is that being religious doesn't help us keep down murders.  In fact, our murder rates our worse.  I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills.  I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others.  And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities.

Quote
Admit it, Cogzie - you were lied to by your media, teachers and government. Aren't you glad you finally met someone capable of cleaning the Aegean stables?
Your welcome.
Please, keep the self-aggrandizing and conspiracy theories to a minimum in the future.  I tire easily of unnecessary and unwarranted gloating.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/22 10:12:27, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Perhaps they can count bodies (but given the recent scandals attached to municipal police forces across the land, fogive me for being skeptical), but whether a killing is classified as a murder, self-defense, or suicide allows for more latitude than most people realise.
Are these scandals related to how they count bodies?  I can't imagine that many suicides are wrongly attributed to being murders.  Conversely, murders that are dressed up as suicides would do nothing but give the appearance of lower murder rates.  This systematic error would apply to all countries, and doesn't help your argument in the least.

Quote
But the authors did compare similar regions in America and Canada. Canada might not be Europe, but their low homicide rates serve as a suitable proxy when direct comparisons to the Old Continent are unavailable. And look what happens when we can make a fair adjustment - America wins. Against some of the most gentle, laid-back citizens in the entire world. Doesn't this suggest anything at all?
America didn't "win" it was comparable.  And it was only the low population states of America that were compared to the low population states of Canada.  Why didn't they use the data comparing the higher population states of America, with the higher population states of Canada?  I've got a reason in mind.  And no, the low population states of Canada are not a suitable proxy for the Old World countries.  You're smarter than that.

Quote
Oh, I think murder rates are very relevant. But I like to look at the totality of violent crime because I also don't want to be assaulted, raped, or mugged - weird, I know. These crimes have the ability to wreck a person's life, and must be accounted for in any analysis. I also worry about the distibution of violent crime.
And once again you missed my point entirely.  I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate.  There are plenty of unreported rapes, robberies, and other crimes.  There are also definitional issues.  Some places lump frat guys taking advantage of a drunk girl as equal to a jogger getting dragged into the bushes in a city park.  Are both equal rapes?  There are alot of subjective statistics.  Which is why the data from my sources and your sources often disagree.  Which is also why victimization surveys are prone to error.  But a murder results in a tangible dead body, or a missing person.  It's easy to count those up.  No one "feels" murdered.  They either are or they aren't.  All of those other crimes are surely important and wreck a persons life, but they simply aren't prone to accurate statistics.

Quote
Many of our homicides "victims" are themselves criminals, so that carries less weight than, say, a schoolteacher. Sorry, but if rival gang members like to shoot each other for trivial reasons, it's not the same as a thug preying on the civilised. In other words, if Bill Cosby ever gets murdered, I'll be depressed; Tupac, on the other hand, richly deserved what he got. And no, I don't give a toss about white, asian, or Jewish thugs either. Screw them. And the liberal hoss they ride on.
And why wouldn't this logic apply to all countries?  Don't they all have thugs?  Or is your point going to be that they don't have as many as America?  Boy, wouldn't that be a stupid point to make.

And don't try to pass off white thugs as being liberal.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/22 11:27:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Ol' Wolfram gave a talk at Caltech a few years ago.  After his spiel, which was interesting, no doubt, a panel of prominent Caltech scientists on stage discussed the possibility of A New Kind of Science being some sort of paradigm shift.  All gave a short, well thought out answer to the question.  Each trying as politely as possible to say "no" to Wolfram in front of a large audience.  Wolfram replied, "If this is a paradigm shift then you answered exactly as you should have."  A quick thinking professor (Dr. John Preskill) replied "If this isn't a paradigm shift then we answered exactly as we should have."  The whole auditorium laughed as they shuffled out.

Afterwards, I saw a sign-up for some sort of Wolfram bootcamp for graduate students.  *sigh*

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/23 09:04:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
Get the images hosted online first.  Do a google search for "image hosting" and pick one.  It's easy to do, if not a little time consuming.  But you wouldn't be here if you didn't have some time to kill.

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/23 09:27:33, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Great source, Paley.  An article written by a dentist and an optometrist in Colorado for "a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization" that just happens to sell "What Would Reagen Do" bracelets.  You'll pardon me if I don't trust every source you shill.  There are online articles to back up almost ANY possible viewpoint.  Just because you find them doesn't make them important.

The question, however, is if such bad counting continues today.  A 9 year old article (the source of your source) is hardly the best for judging the current numbers, which is what I am focusing on when comparing to other nations.

(Just to explain, we are having multiple arguments at the same time.  The drop in crime in the US in the mid-90s and how the US compares to the rest of the world.)

-Dan

Date: 2005/11/23 12:13:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
As an example of the myriad of opinions able to be found online.  This recent article hints that present day New York may be mistallying statistics.  Can this be true, Paley, under Guiliani-endorsed Bloomberg's watch?

Now, I'm not going to sit here and whine about such statistical manipulation.  I'm just proving the point that almost any opinion can be found online.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/01 11:03:58, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I have to say, Bill, I can't tell whether you really know what you're talking about or if you're just a great spinner of tales.
Here are some clues, Eric:

Quote
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
Unjustified call for multiple dimensions.  He could've picked 777 dimensions just as easily.  He also doesn't explain why a 7 dimensional ensemble would have 0 thickness in our 3 dimensions.  To help you imagine this for yourself, a 3D object still maintins a 2D length.  Why wouldn't a 7 dimensional ensemble maintain a 3D volume?  Paley is just spewing senseless jargon.

Quote
Now, this is the summation from n=1 to n=15, any more terms is too much for little evolutionistic minds to fathom.
Needlessly working out lenghty expansions.  Don't let it impress you as much as he wants it to.  His basic assumptions have yet to be justified by anything.

Paley, don't worry about going over anyone's head here with the math.  You surely won't go over mine.  I'm eager to see how much time you'll waste with your theory.  Although, I certainly shouldn't call it a waste, it gives me a great laugh.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/01 18:02:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Once again, I'm not tweaking you, and I certainly don't want to revisit the debate, so I'll let you have the final response.
You don't want to revist the debate, but apparently you want to bring it up anyway.  You'll have to pardon my tardiness in replies lately.  I often get bored by your condescending drivel.  But lately I'm also recovering from the removal of God's little gift to humans, the appendix.

Quote
1) In our crime stats debate, you equivocated over what represents an "objective" counting stat. Early on, you compared our rape rate to those of European countries, but then balked when I brought up assaults, claiming that only murder could be accurately tallied. Surely you realise that rape has to be one of the most subjective crimes around, as many "rapists" have found to their abundant surprise (it doesn't help that victims frequently invent incidents to spite boyfriends or male coworkers - and no, I'm not speaking from personal experience, thank God).
You're correct, I decided to throw out the rape, assaults, car thefts, etc. data, as I feel that those things are too subjective, or inaccurately gathered.  I'm allowed to refine my argument as we argue, am I not?  Was I not clear when I said "I'm not saying that murders are the only crimes that matter.  I'm saying that murders are the only crime statistic that is accurate."

Quote
2) When I asked you why you were so careless about confounding factors, you never answered, nor defended your decision to compare heterogeneous populations - a practice that practically begs for an eccentric outcome, which arrived in timely fashion.
Pardon me, I thought you were just being condescending.  And I generally don't reply to rudeness.  I thought that I had explained my reasoning for comparing heterogeneous populations:  "I prefer to look at all of our society, simply because I believe that we are all responsible for our society's ills.  I don't like to pass my responsibilty on to others.  And I sure hope that you don't claim that you or our fellow religious Americans have no impact on the crime problems of our inner cities."  You gave no comment to this, perhaps you passed over it?  Perhaps now would be a good time to explain how the religious Republicans are only responsible when crime is prevented.

Quote
3) You were strangely indifferent to the results from scientific surveys, which are often used by professional criminologists to verify police stats. Sure, victim's interpretations can differ, but that's why researchers avoid ambiguous questions. This practice is standard, and well known to beginning statistic students. Yet you seemed unaware of this.
I'm sorry, is this a question?  My apathy and surgery pain prevent me from replying to this one.


Quote
I realise I wasn't being clear here, but I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that the n dimensional objects must inevitably map to n-1 shadows in n-space. Consider the Klein bottle, a two-dimensional manifold (or surface) that can only be physically realised in four spatial dimensions, but can be reduced to a one-sided Moebius strip! And yes, Cogzie, my source includes the relevant mappings and parameterizations just for you........
Sure, higher dimensional objects don't have to be renderable in lower dimensions.  What 7 dimensional object is our star pattern then, such that it doesn't have 3D volume.  Perhaps you'd care to Euclidate.  I just don't want you to get a free ride on the Theory of Everything.  Why did you pick 7?  Or is it because that is a Godly number?

All I can stomach at the moment,
Dan

Date: 2005/12/02 09:24:58, Link
Author: cogzoid
Thanks, Paley.  I'm sure I'll be back in the saddle soon.

Date: 2005/12/02 17:37:44, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,

I'm catching a slight bit of energy, and I'd like to point out some aspects about your theory.  Rather than fill pages of text about it's problems, I'll just focus on a small aspect at a time.  In general, I have no problem with the equations or substititions that he made, although I cannot follow it that well due to some formatting errors in the written text.  An example is this:
Quote
the value of ƒàƒ|ƒn(Evolutionists, being basically stupid often need this explained to them.)
I guess I'm pretty dumb for not knowing what ƒàƒ|ƒn means.  I don't blame you of course, but I'd like for you to fix this eventually so dumb evos like me can follow.

My focus today will be on:
Quote
Of course, there are still a few unexplained parts in equation 10. Indeed, those of you who actually bothered to read the paper in question and find out the evolutionists who wrote it meant the equation to be applied to solids will dismiss my application of it to this kind of problem as utterly bogus, but that is just another evolutionistic presupposition, not a reality. The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of ¡§nothingness¡¨ allows you to believe in a ¡§vacuum.¡¨
 I'm curious about the nature of your ether.  A perfect crystalline solid, eh?  My understanding of crystals is that they are ordered "atoms".  Table salt for example being a lattice of Na and Cl atoms, that generally are in a simple "every other" pattern.  What are the "atoms" of ether made of?  Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?  If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?  How do the stars get trapped in it?  Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  Is this the same as Michelson and Morley's ether?  (I'm assuming you'll claim they couldn't find any because the earth isn't moving afterall.)  Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?  Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies?

That's all I have for right now.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/05 18:54:57, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no.
 Let me try to understand this.  The stars are caught in a perfect crystal of dark energy.  Of course, bringing quintessence into this only raises more questions.  First off, what do you mean by "their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament"?  Don't be afraid of concise physics jargon, Paley.  I'm certainly not.  Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale?  That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement.  Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure?  Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options?  Every crystal has axes.  Why would quintessence crystals be different?  Of course, I know the real reason they have to be.  Because you are afraid of proposing a theory with falsifiable consequences.

Quote
for thought itself can move objects of differential size.
experiment?

Quote
I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had.
You're getting ahead of yourself, little breeches.  What proof?  You haven't even finished your theory.  Besides, I haven't even started with the critiques, my friend.

Quote
Empirical support for the quintessence can be found here. Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well
 I think you meant "Empircal support for super-fluid solids is here." Nothing is mentioned about quintessence.  Nothing at all.  The properties of baryons cannot be transferred to other forms of matter.  Not even fermions.  Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?

You forgot some questions, Paley:
Quote
Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?  If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal?  Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?  How do the stars get trapped in it?  Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?  Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies?
You want to start with a clear theory, don't you?  You don't want to be accused of dodging honest questions about your theory.

So far, I've given you nothing but honest, straight questions about your theory, Paley.  I'll need you to flush it out more (and correct the previous formatting errors) before I can begin to critique it.

--Dan

Date: 2005/12/05 19:04:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
J.G.,

Quote
Note: would anyone with a background in physics like to challenge scordova's use of quantum theory?
Addressing Sal's claim of quantum theory being the foundation for information theory isn't a good usage of time.  The equations he posted are about as fundamental as can be.  Many, many things can be derived from them alone.  Sal's claim is Sal's to demonstrate, himself.  Of course, we all know he can't and won't demonstrate it.  So, why waste our time with it at all?

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/06 08:33:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Something quick before I head out,

Quote
Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter.
I didn't dichotomize between the two.  I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new.

Quote
My condensate aether, while baryonic in structure, possesses many properties that founder Darwin.
Don't hide behind obfuscating language, Paley.  What does "baryonic in structure" mean?  Either the balls display Bose-Einstein statistics, or they don't.  And why is Darwin the constant measuring stick for a scientist.  All of this stuff was developed long after his death.  You might as well say "properties that founder Newton" as at least he was in the relevant field.

Quote
For example, my condensate can slow light, fiddle with refractive indices, and thwart friction: these properties prevent your feeble attempts at pigeonholing.
BECs aren't magic, Paley.  They are a straightforward product of the BE statistics in thermodynamics and stat mech.  The only pigeonhole preventer here is your deliberately obfuscating language.  (By design, I'm sure.)

Quote
Of course, the traditional condensate is extremely temperature sensitive, which would seem to preclude its existence in a universe with appreciable background radiation, but I will show that this objection is quite specious. Y'all should feel grateful that I've blessed your board with Nobel-level physics.
Citing Nobel-level physics is easy.  Understanding it and using it are entirely different beasts.  So far you've demonstrated that you know how to look things up, but your lack of understanding comes through in your exposition.  You clearly don't know what you are talking about.  And unfortunately for you, I'm not prone to having the physics wool pulled over my eyes.

You still have many questions that you need to address.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/06 08:39:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
J.G.,

Now you're catching on!  This is how New-Science should be done!

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/06 11:10:49, Link
Author: cogzoid
I just realized that I made a mistake.  I was talking about dark energy when I said "Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?"  But, when Paley said: "Be careful about dichotomizing the universe into Apollonian baryons and Dionysian dark matter." I should've pointed out his error, instead of saying this "I didn't dichotomize between the two.  I asked whether your dark matter is made of baryons or fermions or something new."

Now, let me describe the error.  Dark Matter is most definitely NOT Dark Energy.  They are completely different beasts with completely different effects on our universe.  Despite the fact that E=mc^2, even.  Dark Matter is a kludge to properly accomodate for the dispersion of rotational velocities of galaxies.  The stars on the fringe of the galaxy are moving way too fast, if the visible matter is all there is.  Of course, there was a recent paper about this problem being solved by a complete usage of GR in the calculation.  The basic idea is that the Newtonian approximations weren't good enough, afterall.  I'm not sure of how this paper has been accepted yet.  Dark Energy, on the other hand, is another kludge, but on a universal scale.  Dark Energy is used to explain why the universe seems to still be accelerating in it's expansion rate.  Until recent data showed otherwise, we assumed we were in a universe that was slowing down it's expansion, as gravitational forces took their toll.  Now it seems that not only is our universe not slowing down, but it's speeding up.  This surely won't help our future star travel prospects.  Paley, confused Dark Energy and Dark Matter.  I did too.  I hope this fixes any confusion.

Quote
A wavefunction describing superfluidity in a perfect crystal.   Zhai/Wu, 2005. Journal of Statistical Mechanics.

   This should also give the Cogzser something to chew over. More later.
This paper, once again, has nothing to do with quintessence.  It describes more about our friend, super-fluid Helium.

I think you are under the impression that because you use the same words as they do that they are supporting your argument.  But, you made an assumption: that there is a sphere of supersolid, crystalline quintessence.  These people are writing papers about supersolid, superfluid Helium.  Now you have to connect the two, before you claim any evidence for your theory.  Surely, you can claim that your theory relies on these supersolid theories.  But until you demonstrate some evidence of the nature of your quintessence, these Helium experiments and theories don't support your theory at all.  As an example, you can make a theory that requires the earth to be hollow.  But until you demonstrate that it is, theories about how basketballs are hollow do not support your theory.  I'm not sure what logical fallacy this is, but it's a big one, and I hope you stop using it, now that I've pointed it out to you.

Cheers,
Dan

Date: 2005/12/06 14:22:49, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I was just mimicking the loose language used on this board.
You really should hold yourself to higher standards.

Quote
Are you trying to ask, "Is the condensate composed of fermions, bosons, or fermions mediated by bosons?" Or are you asking me to which type of fermion the condensate belongs?
I'm asking you to concisely describe your crystalline quintessence.  You lead, I'll follow.

Quote
I realise that the condensate cannot obey the Pauli exclusion principle, so scientists would normally classify it as boson-like. But as recent research reveals, neither God nor Nature obey man's dictates.
Sigh.  I guess I'll never get a straight answer out of you.  I'm not asking you to divulge info about someone else's thoery.  I'm asking you about your own, Paley.  Are you afraid of somehow being wrong?

So, I'll help you out.  Let me know what part of this I have wrong, if any.  Then you can correct that part.

Ether is made up of a crystal of quintessence particles.  Each little particle is differential in size and behaves like a boson.  Together they form a super-solid crystal that can flow without friction, much like the recently discovered Bose-Einstein Condensates and the recent work on Solid He4.

Now, you still have plenty more questions to answer.

Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand?
What forces does quintessence interact with?  Gravity, Strong, Electro-Magnetic, Weak?
If the ether interacts with different forces, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it?  
If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators?  
What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? (differential is the size of the "atoms" but how far away are they from each other?)
Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky?
How do the stars get trapped in it?
Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter?  
Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether?

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/07 10:52:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
As I thought, already way over your head, Paley.

Can you hold it in your hand?
Quote
Certainly not, it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.

What forces does quintessence interact with?
Quote
Since the quintessence conducts electricity, it also interacts with the electroweak force (of course of course)


Apparently, you don't understand what allows us to hold things in our hand.  The atoms that make up your skin push on each other.  It is not the nucleus that does this pushing, but the spinning electron clouds that are interacting.  The electro-weak force is the force that keeps the ground below our feet "solid".  Quarks have nothing to do with it.  In one sentence you say I can't touch it.  Then you say that it reacts to the electro-weak forces.  Which is it?  I hope you can see how you making such a simple and basic mistake undermines your future endeavors in my mind.  Already your understanding is inconsistent with small things.  How can you be trusted to come up with a consistent grand unified theory?

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/07 14:41:33, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley, you almost make a good point.  Photons react with the electro-weak force.  But we can't hold photons!  What gives?!

Photons, however, still react with our atoms.  Put your hand between the screen and your eyes to demonstrate.  One can't "hold" the photons for a number of reasons.  Firstly, they get absorbed by the atoms.  Secondly, they go the speed of light, so they would need to be trapped some how.  A trap, maybe like the lattice of some magic crystal, would suffice.

You still failed to understand that there is no "requisite quark structure" to hold something in your hand.  It's all electric.

Quote
Now, now, your mamma taught you better than that, Cogzie. Besides, there was a gentleman here who once warned me of the dangers of self-aggrandizement, so be careful lest he admonish you as well.
Maybe you should look up self-aggrandizing.  Saying that you are over your head when you demonstrate lack of understanding of fundamental physics while attempting to formulate a GUT doesn't seem like a ridiculous comment to me.

Quote
Wow, Cogzie, you're such a good tutor that I find myself understanding your points before you even make them. Now if only my skills would let me return the favor, or at least allow you to understand me in the present.
I'm also teaching the non-physicists that are reading this thread, Paley.  Your sarcasm is unwarranted.

Quote
It takes leptons or heavier particles to do that, of course.
Particle physics not a strong point, eh Paley.  Looking at your website it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.  First paragraph, too.  I'm dissappointed, Paley.

But, please, don't let these details slow you down.  I'm still waiting for the next installment with bated breath.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/07 18:31:56, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Sloppy wording on my part, yes.
It's not just sloppy wording.  It's incorrect language.  And it speaks volumes.

Quote
Gee, I've really been misinformed:
Nope, you just are unable to read.  I didn't say that quarks are unrelated to a particle's structure (a completely different point).  I said that there is no "requisite quark structure" for one to be able to "hold" something (apparently you disagree).  Unfortunately, your source says nothing about this, but offers great definitions for your future discourse.  And you demonstrate that you still fail to understand the (important!) subtleties.  And do you still have to rely on tired sarcasm?  *sigh*

Quote
leptons or heavier particles (for the most part, at least. Neutrinos are an exception)
And just so no one reading this gets confused: Neutrinos ARE leptons.  I don't know why Paley seems to imply otherwise (more sloppiness?).

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/08 10:51:19, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Cogzoid, you are priceless; you're not just a peach, you're an Evopeach! With your permission, I'd like to dub thee "Roshi" - you've certainly earned the title. But I digress.
And now name calling?  C'mon, Paley, let's keep this civil.

Quote
1) Did Paley confuse dark matter with dark energy?
Not really. Paley was just following the train of Cogzoid's thought. Since we were discussing matter at the time, Paley correctly divined Cogzoid's real meaning. Since Cogzoid owned up to this gaffe, the discussion wasn't harmed.
A careful re-reading of the posts at hand will reveal that indeed Paley was the first to refer to dark matter.  Specifically "Dionysian dark matter".

Quote
2) Was Paley wrong when he used the phrase, "requisite quark structure"?
As Cogzoid so elegantly explained, electrostatic forces govern intermolecular attraction...
Yes, quark structure is sufficient.  But it is not necessary.  One could hold Positronium in your hand, although for an exceedingly short amount of time.  You can see that muonium could also be held, and for longer (a couple of microseconds).  Look, ma!  No quarks!  So no, "requisite quark structure" isn't required for exotic materials to be held in one's hand.  One could imagine an even more stable material that could be held in one's hand for longer.  Also, let's not be fooled.  Electrons aren't required for something to be held in one's hand, either.  The only thing that is "requisite" is that the material reacts with the electroweak force.  Something that Paley's material does.  It was a fair question, and it recieved an answer that demonstrated a lack of understanding on Paley's part.

Quote
But in gloating over this error, Cogzoid made a mistake of his own in implying that protons carry the electromagnetic and weak forces:
Electromagnetic and Weak forces are one in the same.  No mistake on my part, no need for forgiveness on yours.

Please, continue with the theory.  I'm genuinely curious where it will lead.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/08 12:51:14, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
At the very least, your statement was misleading. Why can't you just say, "Sorry, bad wording guys"?


I said:
Quote
it's apparent that leptons DO NOT carry the electro-weak force.  Photons and W and Z Bosons do that.
I fail to see what I need to apologize for.  It's a simple fact.  And it's 100% correct.  Typos and awkard phrases happen.  (And yes, I saw your pRoton typo, and let it slide, because I know what you meant.)  However, this is not a typo or awkward phrase.  It's a correct phrase and you're still complaining.  Stop stalling and get on with the theory.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/08 15:11:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Just like my lepton statement, taken literally, was 100% correct. But the two statements are still misleading. Why do you think I asked this question in the very next post?
I am not held to answering all of your questions, Paley.  I was clear in my original wording.  Your misunderstanding of a simple statement is not my fault.

Quote
I know, I know, you think I'm making a lot out of nothing, and you're probably correct. But this stubborness, this inability to admit the dreaded amateur might have a valid point to make, is symptomatic of the gulf between scientists and the public
Hey, buddy, I'm listening to your theory.  I'm not dismissing it outright.  I'm just asking questions and pointing out some small inconsistencies in your language.  But, at the moment we're discussing some fundamental physics which you are not contending.  Hence, we are both accepting the standard model.  The standard model doesn't have alot of flexibility.  Don't pretend that you're making some grandiose strides in electroweak theory, and that I'm upturning my nose.  You've made some mistakes and I'm correcting you.  Keep in mind who is challenging who, regarding your developing of this theory.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/10 23:42:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Nope, no guess from me.  I'm not good at celebrity spotting in general.

Date: 2005/12/11 18:12:11, Link
Author: cogzoid
An athlete who is educated and a good person.  He sounds like a fine role model.  It's too bad that there aren't more like him.  But, what's your point, Paley?

Date: 2005/12/12 08:01:55, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Likewise, scientists deride the credentials and reputation of ID folk, but this doesn't mitigate the quality of ID argumentation.
Maybe you're reading other stuff than I.  But mostly I see scientists attacking the claims and arguments of anti-evolution folks.  And scientists back up their attacks with some hard-hitting science.  For example, have you read Meyer's Hopeless Monster at Panda's Thumb?  It is 6000 words attacking Meyer's arguments.  I'm not going to claim that all scientists argue above the belt though.  Overall, I think your complaint is unwarranted.  If you don't think the ad hominems are worthwhile, don't read them.  There are plenty of scientists that address the arguments of creationists alone.  You can spend your energies addressing these folks.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/12 08:05:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Note this lack of correlation applies over more than 24 orders of magnitude of population size and is therefore exquisitely precise.
Where do your numbers come from?

Date: 2005/12/13 08:43:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
Righti-o, we all agree.  Adressing arguments: good.  Ad hominems: bad.  Appearances: decieving.  Death and taxes: inevitable.  Let's get on with the universe spinning around us.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/15 09:53:02, Link
Author: cogzoid
You are too much, Paley.  And with Jack T. Chick as a coup de grace?  Thanks for making my day.

Date: 2005/12/15 13:15:51, Link
Author: cogzoid
This is more like it:


Quote
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science.  Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator.  When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.  It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.

Quote
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
Misunderstood, denied?  By whom?  Who do you think theorized spin, afterall?  I can make baseless claims, too.  Creationists eat babies.  Hitler was a geo-centrist.    

Quote
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"?  If not, I'd love to hear your source.  And what are these non-material characteristics?  I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.

Quote
Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable.
This is really a bad way of getting an intuition for spin.  Spin is wierd.  It is completely intrinsic angular momentum.  It can be shown that for electrons to have the magnetic moment that they have (due to their spin) they would have to spin faster than the speed of light.  Pretending that the little electrons are physically spinning will put you on the wrong path.  Just pretend that particles just have spin, kind of like a "color" or maybe just a name.  This color or name, however, also displays properties of angular momentum.  It's wierd, indeed.

Quote
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this?  Window glass slows down light, too.

Quote
The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the near-earth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.
What is this equation that relates quintessence flux to speed of light exactly?

How does your model account for the effect "evolutionists" call gravitational lensing?  

Quote
This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.
What are its properties in our space exactly?  And how do they vary because it moved in "hypercomplex space"?

Quote
* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology.
What violates "evolutionistic" ontology exactly?

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/16 08:13:16, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
In the meantime, I want to avoid glib answers, especially since I smell a trap.
Don't worry, Mr. Paley.  Answering honest questions about your theory shouldn't be a trap.  Unless that trap is inherent in the model you're presenting.  This is how science is done.  You come up with a theory and others try to find reasons why it doesn't make sense.  If it stands up, it stands up.  If you get "trapped" then perhaps the model needs some work.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/21 08:41:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,

I hope you're not giving up on geocentricism.  You can't leave us hanging right after introducing the complex spin of your quintessence condensate ether crystal.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/21 12:37:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,
Thanks for the concerns.  I'm up to 98% recovered.

But, unfortunately, I'm not very good with trivia, so I can't answer your question.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/22 10:19:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you  tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology.
You keep bringing up this "ontology" and making baseless claims.  How exactly is spin outside of "evolutionistic ontology"?  You can start with a definition of this ontology and your source for said definition.  (Or is that in the Bible, too?)

I'll wait till there is more content about your theory before I reply.

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/22 19:28:16, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
So now you're appealing to the authority of a book. What is it that makes the bible better than any other human opinion???
Because the bible says it is the final authority.  Geeze, that was an easy one.

Date: 2005/12/22 19:42:15, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge.
So you say.  
(I think that's the punchline to the philosopher stumper joke.)

Sorry for being a little dense, but can you lay out these presuppositions for me.  Which presuppositions do typical scientists make?  And how do yours differ?

-Dan

Date: 2005/12/24 06:50:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
That sucks, Paley.  While you're waiting for the moderators to fix the problem perhaps you can flush out your theory and address some of the questions I've posted about it.
-Dan

Date: 2005/12/30 08:33:55, Link
Author: cogzoid
I'm looking forward to your continuing of your geocentricism theory.

Date: 2006/01/06 14:57:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
Dean's content-less posts should be ignored by all.  Let's see some theories, Paley!

Date: 2006/01/09 12:18:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
I must say, I do love when the under-educated nutjobs scan over the latest developments in the forefront of science, claim that they were right all along, and try to cram highly technical papers that they don't understand into their kludge of a theory.  The nutjobs that do this are dime a dozen, and unsuprisingly their theories never make it past the web or a self-published pamphlet.  It's great to be able to converse with one, and get an idea of what makes them tick.

Now to the latest questions for Paley's theory:

Quote
This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.
Where does this come from?  I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.

Quote
This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2)
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.

Quote
Casmir ripples in the quintessence flux create the redshift phenomenon of stars, producing false correlations between redshift and stellar distance.
Casmir forces, another favorite for crackpots.  Let's see what we have so far: Dark Energy, BECs, Quintessence, Casmir forces, Quantum Mechanics, Super-fluidity, Perfect crystals, superfluid solids, multiple dimensions... Did I miss anything?  Most nutjobs stick to just a few of these per theory.  You are nothing if not ambitious.

Date: 2006/01/10 10:24:28, Link
Author: cogzoid
Once I saw Keiths get banned for disaggreeing with DaveScot, I was pissed.  Keith was probably the most patient poster I've ever seen.  I flat out called the blog a sham (comment #45), and yet, still no boot for me.  I don't plan on reading that crappy site anymore.  Who wants to read a bunch of morons aggreeing?  I had to use FeederBottom as a handle, as Cogzoid saw the axe for previous naysaying.

Date: 2006/01/11 09:24:57, Link
Author: cogzoid
Yet another distraction that keeps Paley from answering my questions.  (sigh)  Showing the inanity of your theory is only fun if you actually respond to my statements.

Maybe it's best this way actually, I'm much more productive when I ignore the silly online debates.

Date: 2006/01/14 13:38:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,

I understand that you are spreading yourself a little thin.  I'm going to regroup some of my questions regarding your ToE so you don't have to ferry through pages of this thread to try to find questions to answer.  These are remotely in chronological order.  And I'm only asking the ones that you should be able to answer quickly.

Quote
However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid.
Why seven?  Did you just pick that out of your hat?

You have claimed multiple times that your ether/quintessence is a crystal.  What is the structure of this crystal?  If you are going to claim that since it is constantly changing (and hence can't be pigeon-holed) then it is no longer a crystal.  It's more like glass, which, while hard, does not have a crystalline structure.  

Quote
The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨

Quote
Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model.
So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist.  Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell.  I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?

And more recent questions:  
Quote
This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate.

Where does this come from?  I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.

Quote
This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2)

Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure?  I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.

When you get time away from your Guts to Gametes diatribe, perhaps you can answer these questions.  To be honest it looks like you've realized that you're painting yourself into a corner, and rather than finishing the work, you're setting down the brush.  I'm a tad dissappointed, but not surprised in the least.  You'd rather argue with people that don't require as much proof or on topics that are unprovable.

-Dan

Date: 2006/01/16 19:00:14, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
By the way guys, continually questioning someone's sincerity and using terms like "nutjob" aren't the best motivational strategies.
 I humbly apologize for insulting you for attempting to rewrite the bulk of astronomy and biology in one thread.

Quote-mined from the first few pages of this thread:
Quote
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!
Quote
Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter.
Quote
The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives!
Quote
Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists.
Quote
It's nice to know that some scientists are using their grant money on serious research rather than the usual allotment of beer, crank, and hookers
Quote
No rino, I'm 100% Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian man! I have not been "diluted" with the moral poison of evolutionism as you have!

Perhaps I can learn something about civil discourse from your examples.  
-Dan

Date: 2006/01/18 08:40:39, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I just find your motivational strategies counterintuitive.
Who says I'm trying to motivate you?

I've been thinking about your theory and my arguing about it.  I've also been thinking about why I'm bothering at all.  Why should I waste my time to pick apart one of the most convoluted theories I've ever heard.  I've certainly read my share of nutjob theories.  But, this is the first time where I've been in discourse with the guy trying to sell the theory.  I was wondering how far you could get before trapping yourself.  Seeing as you haven't been able to answer some of the basic questions concerning your theory, I think we've found your stopping point.  Now, I do find it fun to point out the inconsistancies of your theory and watch as you invoke more convoluted mechanisms to support it.  But, eventually you'll reach an impasse.  It might as well be earlier than later.  That way you can say "Gee, that was a foolish theory." and move on with your life.  I have a feeling that this won't be the case though.  You'll maintain that you're just not done with it yet, or that it's a work in progress, or that you just need some grad students to help you work out the details.  I think you're going to say that because all nutjobs eventually say that.  Part of being a nutjob is that you can never admit defeat.
Quote
I haven't backed out of a challenge yet, and I'm not going to now............
And I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have spiritual capital invested:
Quote
As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge.

The ball is in your court, Paley.  You can either continue on with your theory, answer some questions and make some predictions, or admit that this whole tirade is foolish.  I'll be waiting either way.  And I've made my predictions.
-Dan

Date: 2006/01/18 14:30:10, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Oh don't worry - I ain't licked yet. I didn't want to mention this before, but I've been having sinus troubles lately that have affected my concentration and contributed to my tardiness (yeah, boo-hoo right?). Plus, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff. I know you and Eric want answers and I'm working on them, but I must continue to beg for your patience. Mods willing, I'm not going anywhere so you'll have me to kick around for a while. I find our dialogue fascinating and I'm trying to get Eric involved too. But hey, ya got Larry to punt around in the meantime, plus Evopeach is still around from what I hear. Plenty of "trolls" to thump.
I know how pain can sap your energy.  I hope you feel better soon.  Thanks for the suggestion to go beat up on other trolls, but frankly, they aren't as much fun.  It took weeks of beatings for EvoPeach to understand that Hydrogen was around before Helium.  I need a little more rationality in my discourse for it to be pleasurable.

Date: 2006/01/19 11:48:27, Link
Author: cogzoid
Yes, Dean, we realize that there were other threads in this forum and that Paley is posting in them.  I understand that you want to keep hounding Paley, wherever he goes.  But, please, stop making this thread longer than it has to be with your contentless posts.  We all know how you feel about GoP.  By all means, though, add content if you wish.

Date: 2006/01/19 16:15:26, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
The redshift comes from the stars wobbling in the crystal sphere. Since the speed of light is greatly reduced in qunitessence, small changes in distance due to wobbling will cause frequency shifts in light that would make objects appear to have large recessional velocities assuming a uniform speed of light c.
Sure, as the star traveled in one direction, there would be our normal doppler red shift.  But, as the star traveled back (to complete the wobble) it would have a blue-shift.  But, the stars never change their red/blue-shift (except binary stars in small amounts), only an extremely tiny handful of stars are coming towards us, and they are in our galaxy.  So, it's almost as if the stars are all moving away from us, constantly, and never wobbling back.

Quote
In addition, why should recessional velocity have anything to do with distance anyway? If a chicken in India is moving away from me at whatever speeds chickens move, does that mean it is closer to me than a jet plane taking off from Hartsfield-Jackson airport located a whisker south of where I live? Even evolutionists can probably admit, chicken velocity is much smaller than jet plane velocity. Hence, according to the evolutionists and their Big Clang theory, the chickens on the Ganges are closer to me than the airplanes buzzing outside my apartment! I love the accuracy of the predictions of evolutionism! Talk about an absolute confirmation of Romans 1:22! The stupidity of evolutionists is exceeded only by their immorality!
Recessional velocity is not inferred by measuring the distance.  Recessional velocity is measured as well as distance.  And they seem to be proportional to each other.  Your chicken-jet analogy is simply ridiculous.  That farther objects are moving away at a faster rate than closer objects is a measured effect, not an inferred one.  The stupidity of creationists is not exceeded by anything.

Quote
No, In our creators' infinite wisdom and grace, seven happens to be the integer that maximizes the surface area of an n-sphere of n-dimensions. He created the geometry based on his perfect number. This number of dimensions allows the widest topological latitude and hence enables quintessence to have all of the special properties it possesses.
I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and  you post it in here as justification.  Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence.  Which is more than a small gap in your explanation.

Quote
Cogzoid, quintessence exists throughout all of space. Indeed, the properties of this medium determine c, contrary to the commie evolutionist Einstein and his theory of relativity. Quintessence is far denser in the sphere of the fixed stars than at the surface, and that is what enables it to slow light and hold the stars!
First off, when did Einstein and his theory of relativity determine that properties of media don't affect the speed of light?  I really take offense to your mischaracterization of Einstein's theories.  I expected better from you.  More and more you demonstrate that you are as ignorant as the rest of the trolls.  How does quintessence hold the stars when:
Quote
it doesn't have the requisite quark structure.
??

Quote
A 1969 paper describes the refractive indices of both Lithium Niobate and Lithium Tantalate and shows, by shining a laser, how these materials can have these measures 1. This is how quintessence works. The charge in the Empyrean is used as an infinite energy supply to generate light, which raises the refractive index of the already dense quintessence. The supply of unpaired negative charges ensures energy will never run out. As previously explained, while light might not be a laser, in seven-dimensions it behaves as one, for all electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency in hyperspace.
Charge used as an infinite energy supplyl?!?!  Paley, you just may have solved all or our energy problems with a few strokes of your keyboard!!  Quick, tell us, how do we get energy out of electrons?!?!
You need to explain why light in 7 dimensions has the same frequency.  (By the way, what frequency is that?)  Lasers aren't just light of the same frequency, the bigger importance is that they are coherent.  So you'll need to explain how light becomes coherent and singular in frequency in 7 dimensions.

Finding the stupidities of your posts is becoming easier, but somehow it's more fun.  You're like the little kid who gets caught in a lie and has to keep stretching the truth to explain himself (...and then Aliens took Billy's baseball and threw it through the window).  I'm glad you're planning on continuing with the theory.

-Dan

Date: 2006/01/20 07:57:56, Link
Author: cogzoid
So far, the only thing Paley has demonstrated is just how much a fundamentalist is willing to delude himself to protect a fragile worldview.  If you take his words at face value (that he actually believes this stuff, and isn't just making a point) then that delusion must run pretty deep in other areas of his life.  Sad, really.

Date: 2006/01/22 12:42:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Cogzoid, could you please state why the digamma function is inappropriate for my model? Please include as much detail as possible.
What does this question even mean?  Why would a mathematical concept be inappropriate for your model?  You might as well be asking: "Show me how the sine function is inapporpriate for my model."  I guess it takes more than vocabulary to discuss mathematics.

Eric and I have given you plenty of problems with your model to address.  Perhaps you can spend your time addressing them.

-Dan

Date: 2006/01/23 08:18:29, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
And Cogzie, you claimed that I made an ad hoc adjustment to my model when I used the digamma function to justify my choice of dimensions (or should it be dimentias?). This implies a misuse of the underlying math. If so, could you please explain your objection, or describe exactly where you need more detail? Thanks.

Here's what I said, with the complaint emboldened:
Quote
I love how you make an assertion, that the hyperstructure of quintessence is in 7 dimensions, then you go out and find a math article that deals with hyperdimensions and the "perfect number 7" (well, close enough to 7.257...) and  you post it in here as justification.  Yet, you haven't shown what the surface area of your hyperspheres has to do with the special properties of your quintessence.  Which is more than a small gap in your explanation.

Date: 2006/01/23 08:39:27, Link
Author: cogzoid
DaveScot must lead a paranoid life.  Why does he care if people at another forum are making fun of him?  I certainly don't care what he thinks of this forum.

Date: 2006/01/24 09:01:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  Then you can ask your questions about evolution that are worth replying to.

-Dan

Date: 2006/01/26 10:39:53, Link
Author: cogzoid
I think the argument is that IC implies ID, not the other way around.

Quote
And if IC can be disproven/refuted, IDC collapses no?  If this is true why isn't the entire scientific community pounding IC with a sledge hammer?
Sadly, this isn't really a scientific battle.  And better arguments aren't going to change a fundamentalist's mind.  So most don't bother with hammering IC.  They have real work to do.

Date: 2006/01/26 16:04:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
You can do it, Paley.  I'm rooting for ya.

Date: 2006/01/26 20:48:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
I think the best argument against a conspiracy theory involving 9-11 is simple.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of people would've been involved in the cover up.  All of these people would have the weight of thousands of innocent deaths on their consciences.  Yet, absolutely none of them has blown a whistle.  NONE.

How do the cranks answer that question, Eric?

Date: 2006/01/27 08:53:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Of course, the answers can't come in a paragraph post.
I love linking to this fantastic explanation of Evolution.

Date: 2006/01/27 10:22:11, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I have now conclusively proved my model and discredited the evolutionistic alternative.
You haven't proved a single thing yet, Paley.  Where did this 2pi/24,000 year frequency come from?  Was there a measurement made to support this number?

Quote
One big hole in the big clang theory that even members of the cult of evolutionism have noticed is that the stars seem to be receding from us at an accelerated rate.  This requires a continuous force acting upon them the big clang does not provide.
Actually, Paley, the "big clang theory" allows for a cosmological constant, which takes the shape of Dark Energy.  This Dark Energy is sometimes called Quintessence.  So, you have the nerve to steal a concept from another theory, then claim that that theory doesn't contain your concept.  How could a strong Christian such as yourself be so dishonest?  You can take your bald faced lies and misrepresentations to more receptive sites.

Quote
The mathematics behind this is probably simple enough that it could even be taught to some members of the ACLU!
Well, I'm not a member of the ACLU, so you can give me a shot.  Where are these mathematics that you speak of?

Quote
Cogzie, check out this website for a good introduction on how this can work.
I don't understand crank-speak very well.  Can you translate?  I skimmed the site and couldn't find anything about electrons being an infinite source of energy.  Perhaps you can fill in the relevant details or highlight the parts of the theory that are relevant.

There are plenty of questions you haven't addressed in pages 40-41.

I must say, I'm perplexed at why it takes you so long to produce the maths that support your theories.  You've already reached your conclusions, you consider your theory proved, yet you can't produce the math to justify any of your claims?  Simply amazing.

-Dan

Date: 2006/01/28 15:27:18, Link
Author: cogzoid
*Gasp!*

I wonder who Otto might be?  He has the power to un-ban people at Common Stupidity.

Date: 2006/01/28 15:39:07, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
2 Pi/24,000 years means to me the same thing as (2Pi)/(24,000 years). Which works out to approximately 2.29 hours.
Eric, you are quite wrong here.  1/time has the same meaning as a frequency.  You're getting confused because you're not realizing that the unit "years" is in the parentheses.  He left it in this form so it would be easy to see the period, which is, indeed, 24,000 years.

Date: 2006/01/29 09:31:13, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
In any event, I'll leave the hard math questions to you, Dan, and I'll ask the easy non-math ones, like how does Bill believe astronomers are right about dark energy, but wrong about comparatively simple things like stars with a parallax of more than a parsec and a half or so, and where does parallax come from in the first place?
You're asking great questions, keep it up.  I just wanted to keep you from wrongly hammering on a point for too long.

Date: 2006/02/03 11:25:38, Link
Author: cogzoid
Picked apart is right.  I'm hoping to see you try to answer some questions in the future.

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/06 13:30:09, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,

How long must we wait for answers before we accept your inability to answer questions as a concession?  Are you waiting for scientific papers on tachyons so you can kludge that into your theory?

Certainly you should be able to address the questions that deal with showing your work.  Unless, of course, you skipped all the work and jumped straight to the conclusion!

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/07 11:11:37, Link
Author: cogzoid
I'm guessing that you are talking about photons here.  It's really only a problem conceptually, because as a human we have problems concieving of massless and timeless things.  Our bias doesn't affect the reality of those particles though.

Date: 2006/02/07 11:29:21, Link
Author: cogzoid
Actually, C.J., photons are quite timeless.  As they are traveling at the speed of light they experience infinite time dilation.  So, for them, their creation, reflections, refractions, and eventual absorption happen instantaneously.

Stephen, the difference is that photons can be measured.  And the theory of their existence makes testable predictions.  Don't equivocate just because there are a couple of similarities between God and photons.  It really is a supid argument.

Date: 2006/02/08 07:26:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
Stephen Elliot,

Electrons are not massless at all.  They weigh 9 x 10^-31 kg.

Every particle, though, has a mass.  But some do not have a "rest mass".  Let me explain.  Photons have energy (planck's constant times the frequency), and E=mc^2, and because of that all forms of energy react with gravity.  Most particles that we know of (protons, electrons, neutrons) have a mass even when they are not moving, we call this a "rest mass" for obvious reasons.  Because E and m are related by a simple formula, physicists typically stick to the energy units.  Most physicists will say that the mass of an electron is .5 MeV (a unit of energy).    

You're right that only massless particles travel at the speed of light.  In fact, they are required to.  The only ones I can think of right now are photons (light waves) and gravitons (gravity waves). But, I'm sure I'm not thinking of all of them.

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/08 08:59:08, Link
Author: cogzoid
Stephen Elliot,

Wikipedia is always a great place to start.  I think you were confused by the loose language that people use.  Free electrons typically move quite close to the speed of light.  And compared to our snails pace, they effectively do.  But in reality, they don't, just really close.  It's completely understandable that you got the wrong idea, but I thought I'd nip it in the bud before others get confused.

And after re-reading my last post I realize that I may have confused more people.  I used loose language and appeared to contradict myself.  If you need me to re-explain, let me know.

GCT,

I tried to come with something witty to say, but I cannot compete.  Bravo!

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/08 10:15:22, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Cogzoid,
Is that mass not dangerously close to a plank measurement; Therefore fairly meaningless?
Nope, not at all. .5MeV is quite large.  For comparison, room temperature is 1/40th of an electron volt.  500,000 >> 1/40.
Quote
I am not sure. But from electronics education, we are taught that electron speed is=light speed.
For electronics applications .999999 is about 1.  But "about 1" isn't equal to 1.
Quote
There are things such as atmosphere and medium that efectively slow them. But that is also true of photons.
Even in the best possible vacuum, electrons will never go the speed of light.  This is because of the fundamental rules, not because things are getting in the way.  And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light.  You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
Quote
I am working from memory here, so could very well be wrong. But I thought elementary particles always traveled at light speed (depening on media). Electrons are elementery particles but Neutrons and Protons both comprised 3 elementary particles (up and down quarks).
Your memory might need some refreshing.  Quarks have a rest mass as well.  Check The Standard Model for their rest masses.
Quote
If you could post some links it would be helpful. If you can, I promise to read them tomorrow.
I linked to Wikipedia in my previous post.  You can also google "The Standard Model" for plenty of info on particle physics.  There are plenty of great resources online, and you're just as capable of googling them as I am.  Good luck!

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/08 10:49:30, Link
Author: cogzoid
The Standard Model is fairly standard.  Unless, of course, you're homeschooled and learn FDT.

-Dan

Date: 2006/02/23 13:20:50, Link
Author: cogzoid
Ghost of Paley would score 90% of those points, easily.  I'm really proud of him.

Date: 2006/02/25 14:28:23, Link
Author: cogzoid
I thought old Dave Springer was banned from posting here (one of the very few I might add).  I guess he doesn't have much respect for other people's moderation policies.  Dave Springer is a class A a$$hole.  He has to hide his fragile opinions on a blog where any dissenters are banned, while circumventing his own ban on this message board.  What a coward.

Date: 2006/03/07 15:32:40, Link
Author: cogzoid
I was posting for a while at UP, but recently grew tired of waiting for hours to have half of my posts not make it.  It's laughable how DaveTard will reply inside of my post, but not allow me to retort or even clarify.  As far as I'm concerned they can bury themselves in their stupidity.

Thank goodness that here my post appears instanteously with no childlike scribbling in bold!

Date: 2006/03/09 08:02:15, Link
Author: cogzoid
I'll throw my 2cents in as well.

I switched to Mac two years ago, and I love it.  I think the effort they put into design really pays off.  Using my computer is easy and rewarding.  I won't say it is optimal, but what is?  It was worth the money for me.

Date: 2006/03/09 17:04:07, Link
Author: cogzoid
"I asked you a question first.  As soon as you answer it I will answer yours."

How childish can a guy get?

Any bets on whether or not he's going to answer his question in the end?  I think he knows that he can't just post a googled response and fool us (like he tried with the NASA single-photon calorimeter link on the blog he runs).  So I'm betting he'll scamper away for another week or so, hoping that we'll forget.  Wasn't someone else known for "drive-by-postings" that never got backed up?

Date: 2006/03/10 07:23:11, Link
Author: cogzoid
Dave Springer says: "SirRamic asked for a minimum number of photons that can be given a temperature and how that minimum number is derived.  No one provided him a numerical answer.  It appears SirRamic won that point by default."

Dave Springer originally asked: "You said that a group of photons can have a temperature.  What precisely is the minimum number of photons required in such a group and how is this number derived? "

Unfortunately, he didn't finish the question.  He didn't specify how precise he wanted the temperature to be.  For example, I'm sure with a few hundred photons one could calculate a temperature that is accurate to a few hundred kelvins.  But, with a few billion you could get to a kelvin or two, I'm sure.  It's all about statistics as people have pointed out so frequently to him.  More photons means more accuracy.  The fact that he didn't even recognize this fact demonstrates alot.

He asked "How many photons to calculate a temperature?"  Which is akin to asking "How much do rocks weigh?"  "Well," one has to reply, "which rock are you talking about?"

The minimum of photons it requires to calculate a temperature depends on statistical mechanics.  I'm not going to bother trying to  teach a brilliant engineer like Dave Springer statistical mechanics.  For that would surely embarass such a (deservedly) proud man.  Afterall, he worked at DELL!  And currently moderates the most prominent Intelligent Design Research blog on the planet!

Date: 2006/03/10 10:26:57, Link
Author: cogzoid
Dave Springer says: "We can't know what actually emitted it from just its wavelength.  An ideal blackbody is a theoretical construct that doesn't exist.  For instance that photon could've been born a soft-xray from a star at the edge of the observable universe redshifted down into the visible light range.   However we can still convert easily enough from blackbody peakwavelength to temperature or vice versa."

And we can't even know if that photon represents the peak of the curve.  It is a sample of one, afterall.  Notice how broad the spectrum is when you looked at the your Wein's Displacement Law graphics?  ANY blackbody (theoretical or real world) can give off at least a single 700nm photon.  Yet you make the poor assumption that your one photon represents the peak of a blackbody spectrum from a 4140 K.  Is this how you do your "engineering" work?

"This conversion is important in electronic applications where we use (for instance) filters for specific infrared frequencies to detect objects of certain temperatures.  One common application is in security devices.  Motion sensors that look for moving objects around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit so they trip on person walking but not on a curtain fluttering."

Don't you find it confusing that all of these obvious applications of black body radiation rely on looking at many, many photons?  It's almost as if the makers of them understood that a single photon doesn't represent a single temperature.

As a moron often repeats: "This is too easy!"

Date: 2006/03/11 11:52:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
"Well, there goes my irony meter again. Dang! I just bought it!"

Stop getting the Chinese knock offs.

Date: 2006/03/15 07:12:19, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
But as you point out, Bill seems to be hopelessly lost when it comes to the subject. His oscillating quintessence seems to be an attempt to accommodate the fact that some stars' radiation is redshifted and some is blueshifted, but if he actually reads the literature, he's going to find it basically impossible to come up with any combination of oscillation modes that will fit the pattern of red- and blueshifts observed.
Just to play devil's advocate: In general there is always a combination of oscillating modes that can produce a particular pattern of redshifting and blueshifting.  It's just a matter of how ridiculously complicated it has to be.  But, Paley's theory is impervious to complexity, naturally.  He'll have to argue that God worked very hard in trying to deceive us.

Date: 2006/03/21 08:20:06, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
So, by your logic, if the supernatural is part of the truth, then science and scientists will have no chance at all of discovering the whole truth.  If science only seeks limited truth, by what rights do scientists have in claiming that the scientific way is the way to truth.  Why do they imply that other forms of knowledge, like religion and mysticism, have less truth?  Why do they teach the layman to trust science and scientists?  Science is about things that can be measured repeatedly.  But nature is a lot more than that.  My thought in writing this note will never be repeated again in the future.  So my thought or mind is not a subject of science.  When the most important phenomenon of nature, consciousness, is not a subject of science, scientists should stop fooling the laymen that they should only trust science as their only way to understand nature.  Indeed, people are not that easy to be fooled and religion remains popular, even among scientists.


That's right, science can only explore testable phenomena.  If other phenomena exist, science will not be able to explain it.  This is not a failing of science that you think it is, this is merely it's limitation.  It is still the most robust method at arriving at truth, however.  Can you tell me what robust truths tens of thousands of years of mysticism has produced?  I can name hundreds of robust truths produced by science in the last century alone.

Consciousness is not out of the realm of science simply because you can't repeat a thought.  This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.  You should look into the exciting things that neuroscience has been discovering lately.  For example, my friend (a neuroscientist in training) relayed to me an interesting tidbit about how information is stored in our brain and why humans often have difficulty thinking of a particular word or name, when alll we can think of is a similar word or name.  Models are being constructed that explain the data.  It's difficult, slow, and often times wrong, but through daily work by these scientists we are approaching the truth.  Repeatable, measurable truth at that.

By the way, you claim that scientists are saying that science is the ONLY way to understand nature.  Who is saying this exactly?  And what other ways are there to understand nature?  (I can't think of any as sometimes I get stuck in a rut with science.)  Perhaps you know about a better way?  Science CAN be superceded by your better methodology, if you have one, that is.

Date: 2006/03/21 08:25:42, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
When you do not take all things into acount, how do you expect to explain all things?

And yet, somehow, science is still able to explain many things.  Odd, isn't it!

And we still haven't run out of things that we can/will explain.  Until we have, your "equations don't really exist" argument is kind of silly.  Why does everything have to be so absolute?  Do you not like progress?  Why do you fear science so much?

Date: 2006/03/21 09:27:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Shi,

By the way, there is a whole branch of physics which relies on the fact that particles are completely indistinguishable.  Fermi-Dirac statistics only describes such particles.  This is just one counter-example to you simplistic 1+1~=2 argument.

Date: 2006/03/21 11:01:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
The brouhaha is over this music teacher showing elementary students the play Faust and saying it is a great part of our civilization and Western culture while prohibiting Christmas songs at their “winter concert”. Christmas songs aren’t a great part of our civilization and Western culture?

Then over at Panda’s Thumb Matt Young and the usual suspects are whining about this teacher being disciplined over it. Incredible. These are the people we are up against. I have absolutely had it with people like Matt Young and their concerted effort to censor traditional American culture and values and replace it with their own new age crap. Get out of my country, Young. Right now. Pack your trash and g-e-t o-u-t.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 3:49 pm


This is hilarious!  The "winter concert" was in the end of January.  Not your typical Christmas music season.  In fact, the only evidence that DaveTard has that Christmas music was banned at all was from this article which says:
Quote
On Jan. 9, 10 and 11 she showed her first-, second- and third-grade classes about 12 minutes of highlights from the video.

"They were on the edge of the seat," Waggoner said of the students' reaction. "Nobody came to me crying, no one wanted to leave."

But on Jan. 13, she received a call from the mother of a second-grader. "She said, 'I basically do not understand why do you not let the kids sing Christmas songs at their winter concert, but you would teach them about the devil. Are you not a Christian?' "

Waggoner said she was shocked at the question and offered to meet with the parent, but the woman never took her up on the offer.


Thanks, DaveTard, for all the laughs.

Date: 2006/03/21 11:17:02, Link
Author: cogzoid
I guess if someone calls DaveTard and accuses him of prohibiting Christmas music he'd have to leave the country.

Date: 2006/03/25 20:25:07, Link
Author: cogzoid
How many people here help out with Evo Wiki?  It seems nice to have a place where any brilliant arguments or points or scientific evidence can go down in a repository.  I encourage everyone to help out.

Date: 2006/03/26 14:11:23, Link
Author: cogzoid
I'm waiting to see what brillliant insight will show up on this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/959

Of course, I'd want to point out the "missing link" stupidity, but I doubt that'd make it through the DaveTard Filter.

Date: 2006/03/27 09:02:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
What's with the "!!!!!!!!1111" thing in the title?
It's just a stupid internet joke.  Probably stemming from the L33T (elite) playful mispellings.  It's a typo that only results from the keyboard layout.  Also common is "PWNED" rather than "OWNED".  For added humor it's common to see people spell out the 1 just to show that it was intentional!!!11one1

Yes, it's stupid.  Most internet jokes are.  But, now you know.

Date: 2006/03/27 16:11:53, Link
Author: cogzoid
Let's break this down so we can understand.  Maybe a composition class is in order.

Quote
Why are there NO debates between science and the public school system outside of the ID versus evolution which is really a debate between science and the school system versus IDists.
I know of no debates between science and public schools.  There are debates about how science should be taught in public schools, but that is a completely different thing.

Quote
The public school system represents at its core something antithetical to science.  The public school system is a one-size-fits-all system.
 Why is a one-size-fits-all system "antithetical" to science?  When in fact, science is constantly looking for "one-size" theories that explain "all".  (By the way, your "one-size theory" of schools clearly doesn't reflect, the remedial, normal, honors, and gifted reality that is the public school I attended.)

Quote
Integration, equality, conformity and anti-discrimination are all attributes of the public school system and yet there are no scientific debates.
How is this connected at all?  Kids in school don't understand science yet, how can they be ready for scientific debates?

Quote
All these attributes necessarily eschews measurability?
Yes, vague terms posted by a troll on the internet eschew measurability.  What do you want to measure and why?

Quote
How can conventional scientific wisdom stand silent in the face of a public school system that regularly denies realities of life and the science that bolsters that reality?
What realities of life are public schools denying?  Can you specifically show and explain these denials, because I simply don't see them.

You're really going to have to slow down and spell your ideas out, when you go a mile a minute, you really make no sense at all.  You are not preaching to the choir here.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:37:18, Link
Author: cogzoid
I must say that I tire of the religion mocking.  I understand that religion serves a very valuable service to people in this country.  I really pity people that feel that they are the only ones with THE correct belief system.  This goes for zealous-atheists or fundies.

It seems that evolution boards draw an atheist crowd.  There is a simple reason for this.  They are not here to defend science, as much as they are here to attack fundamentalists.  If creationists were attacking General Relativity there would be piles of atheistic comments on the GR boards.  But, this is where the battlefront is.  Anti-religious types hang around and throw in a jab at Christianity every now and then.  I think this really detracts from the boards.  I understand it (no one here claims to be a saint), but I still dislike it.  I firmly believe that such comments only anger the other side, and prevent any sort of learning from each other.  It's hard to learn from a teacher that spits insults between every other sentence.  We need to have more patient and understanding posters here.  There are plenty, but we could really use more.  I like arguing, and I love science, that's why I'm here.  Not to attack Christians.

Date: 2006/03/31 07:35:59, Link
Author: cogzoid
How do you know each cell is NOT conscious?  You just jumped to that conclusion.  Have you tried listening to a single neuron?  I mean, really listening.

Date: 2006/03/31 07:52:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Also, just to drive you all mad, my daughter spoke to me from the womb a week before she was born.
What did she say?

Date: 2006/03/31 11:37:41, Link
Author: cogzoid
Why do you think laws can or should follow science?

Date: 2006/03/31 11:41:38, Link
Author: cogzoid
thordaddy,

What is your definition of consciousness again?

Date: 2006/04/03 08:52:23, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
As for chaos, is the sun chaotic?  Are the orbits of the planets chaotic?
Actually they are.  The orbits of the planets cannot be predicted analytically (by using a simple formula) but rather have to be calculated numerically.  Numerical solutions always have errors, whereas analytical solutions are exact.  Read more here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_body_problem

The sun's dynamics (sun spots, magnetic pole flips, etc.) are extremely chaotic.

The universe is a messy place.

-Dan

Date: 2006/04/03 15:18:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
It seems that you are making the argument that since living things are symmetrical this implies design.  That or you are mocking that argument.  Which is it?

Date: 2006/04/04 08:39:05, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Sure, messy, but yet sunspots and things like the Jupiter red spot are kind of like bits of order in chaos, arent they?

Chaos doesn't mean disorder.  It basically implies unpredictability in it's dynamics.  There are dynamical systems that are well understood (a single planet orbiting a star) but most things out there are quite complex.  Chaos is not a well defined idea, but from what I know chaotic systems are heavily dependant on initial conditions.  For example, if you put a drop of water on the back of your hand it will roll off.  But, at some angle of your hand the drop will have a tough time "deciding" which way to fall.  At this point tiny imperfections (the shaking of your hand from blood flow) may have a large impact on the outcome.  This is considered chaotic.  It really has nothing to do with disorder or information.  Just unpredictability.  Gleick's Chaos is a fabulous read for the inclined.  Lots of pretty fractal pictures and interesting topics.  It's aimed at the learned layman.

Date: 2006/04/04 15:51:37, Link
Author: cogzoid
Gay people have kids all the time.  What's the logic behind the "refutation"?

Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on.

Go return the straw from where you stole it from.

Date: 2006/04/04 17:48:17, Link
Author: cogzoid
First of all, I think this whole gay gene idea is a load of crock.  Care to cite any studies to back your claim up?

But, barring that, I'm able to think abstractly and pretend that a gay gene exists.  Then ponder it's implications on our theories of science.

Quote
So natural selection is really a meaningless term?
Care to flush out your logic?  You jumped straight from "gay gene" to "natural selection is meaningless".  How do you get from A to B?

Quote
And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?
Certainly, but that doesn't stop gay people from pretending to be heterosexual.  Thousands of fathers come out of the closet every year, much to the devastation of their wives.  Did you see Brokeback Mountain?  Gay people that are "scared into the closet" will often times have families to seem normal.

Quote
So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
There's a chance of this, yes.  Perhaps the gene is recessive (like red hair) and only shows up when the kid happens to recieve two recessive gay genes.  This is standard practice for genes and straight out of 7th grade biology texts.

Quote
What would a "gay gene" entail?
Exactly!  What would a "gay gene" entail?  Where did you hear about them?

Quote
This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.
What?!  Who drew what conclusion?

Date: 2006/04/05 09:03:30, Link
Author: cogzoid
On the "get Beckwith Tenure" thread they are asking:
Quote
1. If you’re involved with intelligent design (director of a center or a fellow, etc.) we ask that you do not make mention to that. Baylor is already bothered by the intelligent design movement from the time of Dr. William A. Dembski and might be afraid to associate themselves with Dr. Francis J. Beckwith if a mass amount of emails come in saying how dynamic Beckwith is in the intelligent design field.


They are embarassed about their own "science"?

I'm sure DaveTard has already started using "Beckwithed", but I probably missed it.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:37:30, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
DT's just taking his cue from the Religious Right, as usual. This is how the fundies sneak their candidates into school boards and such.
Actually, Isaac himself is behind this one.

Date: 2006/04/24 07:57:14, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
If the bible hadn't mentioned a flood, nobody looking at the evidence on the ground would ever have had even the slightest cause to suspect one.
Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't exactly true.  There are many, many independant flood stories in different cultures.  It's not just the Christian creationists that believe in a large flood.  And the reason is simple.  Almost every culture has come across a fossil of a seashell way up in the mountains somewhere.  Humans need answers to explain such puzzling phenomena.  Not knowing anything about geology, they do know that sea shells hang around bodies of water.  Conclusion: water must've been high to cover the mountians!  Hence, there must've been a big ol' flood at one point.  Everyone likes a good story.  Modern day creationists just prefer a good story over the cold hard facts.  There's something endearing about that.

Date: 2006/04/24 10:28:44, Link
Author: cogzoid
The only thing Paley has shown on this thread is just how much he  is willing to twist, contort, make-up stuff, and attempt intimidation to show that his badly flawed ideas have merit.  As a physicist, I truly enjoyed his explanations of how the quintessence that holds heavenly bodies has imaginary spin, and is vibrating at exactly the correct frequency to simulate redshifts of the actually equidistant stars.  Of course, he was never able to back up any of these assertions.  This thread shows just how delusional GoP can be.  Especially when he's out of his element.

I get the impression that GoP is the smartest and loudest person in his bible study group.  His bragadaccio holds no water here however.

Date: 2006/04/25 07:16:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I suspect that most homophobia derives from the phobic's own severely repressed fears as well as some kind of baboon-level competitiveness with other males. That is, if I can convince myself that gay men are horrible and convince others that you're gay, then I have a way of establishing some kind of cheap dominance over you. You get to maybe work your way up one more notch toward coveted beta male status.

This seems quite true, but paradoxical to logic.  If anything, straight men should be completely accepting of gay men.  Gay men are voluntarily taking themselves out of the competition for women.  I'm all for that.  Not that I have trouble attracting females, but every little bit helps.  Lesbiand on the otherhand, increase my competition.  Sure, I find them attractive, too.  But, logic says I shouldn't.

Date: 2006/04/28 11:02:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
DaveTard says:
Quote
As long as the law views ID as religion the believing that ID is science is protected as religious belief.


This has got to be one of the stupidist ideas I've ever heard.  Springer has really lost it this time.  "ID's not religion, but it should be protected as if it were!"

My BELIEF that you're outta here is constitutionally protected too! -dt

Date: 2006/05/03 16:42:42, Link
Author: cogzoid
At first I was willing to have you pursue other models, rather than selfishly vote for geocentricism (and argue with me).  And looking at my schedule, I was afraid of making a commitment.  But, since there are two other votes for geocentricism I'm all for it.  I think it will be more fun for everyone to watch you attempt to rewrite hundreds of years of physics.

My vote: geocentricism.

Date: 2006/05/04 06:14:02, Link
Author: cogzoid
For anybody interested, his old "LUCA" thread took some wild tangents, eventually ending up at geocentricism, where calls for explanations were eventually met with silence.  But, there are some great assertions that he refused to back down on, such as the imaginary spin of 7-dimensional, super-fluid, crystalline quintessence that makes up the firmament that holds the stars.  Man, just writing that makes me giggle.

Date: 2006/05/04 08:58:37, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
(2) GoP is going to expound some kind of sophistry along the lines that, since there is no border to the universe, you can justifiably call any point the center.
It's much much more sophisticated than that.  Trust me, he's really diving headfirst into the empty pool of mathematics on the LUCA thread.  Or don't trust me, go back about 5-10 pages from the end and skim for the good stuff.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:13:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
Why bother with any further discourse with this fool?  Let him keep his bigoted opinion.  

At least Paley and AFDave can read and are interesting.

Date: 2006/05/05 13:17:01, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
cogzoid,

Do you really think other forumites need instructions on who and who not to respond to or what subject to or not to respond to?

Everyone needs some pushing in the right direction every now and then.  They certainly don't "need" instructions.  But what's the harm in throwing in some peer pressure every now and then?
Quote
What a patronizing "liberal."  In fact, many of you give "liberal" a bad name with your codified way of thinking.
Who said I was a liberal?  Do you get that idea just because I find you to be bigoted?  I guess everyone looks left when you're burning crosses in yards.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:21:18, Link
Author: cogzoid
k.e.,
I've seen Rev. Billy give a powerful service at Burning Man last year.  Wierd to see him turn up in a conversation at AtBC.  Just thought I'd share.

Date: 2006/05/15 09:20:12, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Do you understand the difference between validity and factual?  They are mutually exclusive concepts.  
Puck, I don't think you meant to say "mutually exclusive."  I think you just meant to say independant.  It's quite true that many factual concepts are even valid concepts!

Date: 2006/05/15 12:51:29, Link
Author: cogzoid
Not to be nitpicky, but you might want to look up what mutually exclusive means.

 
Quote
A thing may be both valid and factual....

but validity is simply being logically valid
while factual is a comment on the actual truth of an idea.
If something can be both "valid" and "factual", then the concepts of "validity" and "factual" can not be mutually exclusive.  As an example, mutual exclusivity belongs to concepts such as "semantics" and "interesting discussions".

Cheers.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:48:14, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
My whole belief system hangs on two major premises for which I have found overwhelming supporting evidence:

A--The Wonders of Nature can best be explained by a Supernatural Agent
B--The Bible can best be explained by a Supernatural Agent


Everything else I say flows naturally out of these two premises.  And it is these two major premises which I am seeking to show my evidence for on this thread.

Here is a quick but important question:  What possible evidence would not support such premises?

Date: 2006/05/19 09:27:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
At least DaveTard used naturalistic explanations.  I agree that he's an idiot for thinking that he just disproved natural selection.  But, at least his ideas are testable.  You have to give him credit for trying.  He11, I think more people should do science in the kitchen.  I wonder if he realizes that he represents the entire laboratory research program of the Intelligent Design movement.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:17:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley,

I eagerly await renewing our discourse.  I'm even feeling generous enough to allow you to forget all of the ridiculous ideas you made up on the LUCA thread.  It seemed you started to paint yourself into a 7th dimensional corner.  Go ahead and start with a fresh thread whenever you're ready.  Besides, I grew tired of sifting through that behemoth in an attempt to keep track of everything you claimed.  And I'm sure you did.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:23:37, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Now, lesbian couples tend to be fatherless...
Just a quickie. Just because lesbians don't have a penis doesn't mean they don't have enough masculinity to supply a "male" role model to properly raise a child.  Many real lesbians seem like they have more testosterone than I do.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:29:51, Link
Author: cogzoid
Skeptic,

If you aren't a troll, then ignore the attack dogs.  They are battle weary from the real trolls and are quick to assume the worst.  Kind of like how cops start treating everyone like criminals soon enough.

Here's a great information source for the evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/  Read the whole thing, it's chock full of experiments and explanations.  You'll see that your claims about evolution are unfounded.  The education of evolution is flawed, but the theory is not.

-Dan

Date: 2006/05/25 11:22:40, Link
Author: cogzoid
I was about to start a thread soon anyway.  But, I'll wait till I get the signal.

Date: 2006/05/31 08:16:52, Link
Author: cogzoid
Well, the time has come.  Ghost of Paley is ready to present his geocentric model for the enlightenment of all interested.  Buried on the "LUCA" thread, Paley made some claims that he seemed to have difficulty backing up.  I won't hold those past claims against him.  I think that due to the difficulty of the task ahead of him, Paley should be allowed to present fresh ideas or old ideas, if he so chooses.

GoP has stated that he will not feel obligated to answer the questions of anyone except myself, ericmurphy, and vicklund.  He may, of course, answer questions on a whim.  Unfortunately, I find myself on the brink of summer travels, and I may be unable to post for a few weeks.  But, I know that GoP is in good hands here.  For the rest of you, feel free to chime in with humorous quips, but let's be clever.  (If I see another joke about an exploding irony meter my cliché guage will surely malfunction.)

Thanks to all those that voted.  Grab some beer and popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Take it away, Paley.

Date: 2006/05/31 12:24:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
It turns out that I'll be around for another few weeks.  But, since I'll be entertaining visiting friends and family, I'll still be rather busy.

Paley, I was hoping that you'd start fresh with your model.  Many people weren't paying attention to the LUCA thread initially, and I don't really wish to sift through it again.  Perhaps you can start by telling us what you think the evidence shows.  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?  Then we can start discussing the simpler implications of your model.  We can discuss epicycles and our deep space probes.  Some eager listeners don't know the basics of your model yet.

-Dan

Date: 2006/05/31 13:51:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
Settle down, Steve.  First he presents his model, THEN we point out it's flaws.  We've waited a long time for this model, we don't want to scare him back into his hole before getting to the good stuff.  Patience.

-Dan

Date: 2006/06/01 08:22:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley, let's step back for a second and establish what we know.  You are working on a geocentric model.  You're starting with some topology and quantum mechanics.  Why not start at the basics so everyone can follow?  What does your Biblically-based solar system look like?  Can you compare and contrast with the post-Galileo accepted worldview?  You seemed to have lost some viewers already, while alluding to your super-fluid, crystalline, quintessence.  Perhaps now is a good time to re-explain.

-Dan

Date: 2006/06/06 05:17:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley, it really seems that your only motivation is to lose people.  You keep using these condescending words, as if your audience is stupid, then you show all of this hideously approached math and explain none of it.  For example, what exactly do the parameters u and v physically represent?   What do the partial derivative dot products that you so eloquently found represent?  It's simply amazing that you would bother putting all of this math up and not explain such simple aspects of it.  It makes me wonder if you understand what they represent.  It's a simple question, and one I think most of these professed non-mathematicians would like answered.

Also, I asked a few questions on the first page, and I never got a response:  What does our solar system look like?  What does our galaxy look like?  What does the universe look like?  Are we spinning in place, or are the stars wizzing around us?

-Dan

Date: 2006/06/06 08:22:45, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
For whatever reason, I am losing people, and need to address that problem. Part of my difficulty is the sheer tedium of using the image hosting site. I try to defeat it by skipping some steps, but that dog's not hunting.
The reason you are losing people is because you provide absolutely no motivation for your maths.  And until you do, Stevestory's "model" seems to be as explanatory as yours is (care to disagree?).  Pick up any math textbook, and you'll see all of the words that go between every equation.  Those words are explaining the motivation behind the math.  And I know you think posting a paragraph of terms of a dot product is important, but it really isn't.  I have faith that Mathematica didn't drop a term.  What you need to portray is the motivation behind the math.  I asked you to explain your parameters, not for my sake (I know a parameter when I see one) but for the many other people that are reading the math.  It seems that if you were actually trying to teach people things, as opposed to just overwhelm them with tedious math, then you wouldn't have to be asked to explain why you are working out such lengthy equations.  I know a blowhard when I see one.

Date: 2006/06/07 19:35:29, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Comtemporary human metabolic theory says that I burn about 500 calories per hour pumping iron at Gold’s Gym. Add a conservative factor of 1.5 for freaking out. That makes 750 calories. Multiply that by 4.184 joules per calorie which makes 3,138 joules, which equals nearly three BTUs. Divide that by 60 to get a minute’s worth of freak-out BTUs. At that rate, all the Darwinists should burn out in about 20 years.
 I guess ol' GilDodgen doesn't realize that the Calories we eat are really kilocalories in a scientist's units.  Who would've guessed that he didn't get a solid scientific education?

Date: 2006/06/08 08:29:50, Link
Author: cogzoid
Paley exposes his ideas in this post, however.  And it's something that I think is worth discussing.  Now, I haven't seen Hostel, but the previews make it look dark and disturbing.  Paley is attempting to connect the depravity of the characters/situations with evolution.

I for one, am curious as to where he gets these ideas.  Why does he think that people take their morals and ethics from a scientific theory?  Further, how does he know which scientific theory they got their morals from?  Perhaps they were angry heliocentrists.  Disillusioned general relativists?

Let's face it, this meme is a dangerous one.  Paley is attempting to conflate a lack of morals with a trust in the scientific method.  He, of course, uses the subtle propaganda method of mentioning these ideas (without backing any of it up) and hoping that people that read such drivel won't think about it on their own.  It's amazing how easily people are swayed by ideas like this.  Especially in the bible study group Paley attends, where he is clearly the dominant, intelligent, and influential leader.  I'm not suprised that he would stoop to such levels, but I'm no less disappointed.

Date: 2006/06/10 06:36:24, Link
Author: cogzoid
You don't.

Date: 2006/06/12 11:46:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
So I'll try to describe my geocentric theory qua toy universe. Just don't expect a lot of math right away.
Fantastic!  We can save the math for later, don't worry.  My guess is that we won't get that far.

Date: 2006/06/13 09:42:02, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Not always. But in any case, I'm playing by "your" rules now, so you should be happy. I also realise that everyone was set up to attack one presentation, and was unprepared for my actual argument, and is therefore trying to force me into more hospitable territory. But I'm OK with it.
Don't flatter yourself.  We are quite prepared for your argument.  You seem to be the one that is unprepared to supply it.  In fact, you'll notice how there have already been many counter-arguments on this thread in preparation of yours.  Will it ever come?  I'm not holding my breath.  We're not trying to force you into hospitable territory, we're trying to coax you into ANY territory.  Draw a cartoon or something!

Date: 2006/10/14 13:43:38, Link
Author: cogzoid
GoP,

I must say I'm quite impressed with your trolling.  I will freely admit that I bought into your ruse.

I wished I could've continued our discussions, but a lack of time has forced me to only read AtBC every now and then.  I was spending a monumental amount of time arguing online and I needed to stop.

Anyway, your admission has brought me out of my lurking to congratulate you.  I guess both of you.

Date: 2006/10/14 18:43:33, Link
Author: cogzoid
Allen MacNeil schools Dembski check it out before the thread disappears.

Summing it up, Dembski mentions 8 symptoms of groupthink, inviting comments about which ones describe academia.  Allen gives him a frank answer.  Dembski threatens to boot him.  Then sparc tries to get booted by using nothing but Dembski's own words.
 
Quote
6. sparc  // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:25 pm

   5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;

   …

   8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

William Dembski:

   For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum

Comment by sparc — October 14, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

Date: 2006/10/16 10:48:59, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote

68. russ // Oct 16th 2006 at 1:16 pm

Chris Hyland wrote:

“The argument isn’t so much about government and education it is that the science curriculum should be based on accepted science. ”

How is this legitimate if Big Science is actively and aggressively suppressing alternative theories using large amounts of U.S. taxpayer money? Was Darwinian evolution “accepted science” 100 years ago? If not, then should skeptics have worked to destroy proponents of Darwin’s ideas?

Comment by russ — October 16, 2006 @ 1:16 pm

69. JasonTheGreek // Oct 16th 2006 at 1:21 pm

My point exactly Russ. Darwinism is the mainstream today, but if NDE groups had their way- nde would have never had a chance, because we could have all just said- ‘golly, the mainstream consensus is special creation- we will not allow any question of it…we will ban Darwinism.’

They owe their pet theory to questioning the consensus, but then their double standard demands that they attack ID because it’s not mainstream, thus it’s clearly bogus. I guess I’ll agree with them. That means that since special creation was consensus for most of the history of science- it must be correct. :) Afterall- TRUE science is clearly what the NAS says it is, and special creation was the accepted paradigm first!

Comment by JasonTheGreek — October 16, 2006 @ 1:21 pm


These tards are made for each other.  How does one explain to them that the NAS and NCSE are not trying to ban ID research, in any way, shape, or form (how would one do that anyway?).  But, they are trying to keep ID out of science class because it's not a science.

But, let's all reflect on how Darwin was pushing to get his ideas into high school before he had done any research.  It makes me glad to know that the NCSE didn't exist back then!

Date: 2006/10/16 16:16:53, Link
Author: cogzoid
Many people elect to work with the mentally handicapped.  Although usually their intentions are more pure than just trying to be the "head of the class."

Date: 2006/10/17 16:03:11, Link
Author: cogzoid
A while back, I remember seeing a review on Panda's Thumb for a book on how scientists measure time.  Apparently it discussed everything from day to day clocks to geologic timescales.  It was aimed at laymen.

I forgot the name, and tried to search for the book on PT, but "time" is a rather common word.  It's not on PZ Myers'  book list, either.

Anybody vaguely remember what I'm talking about?

I was hoping to give it to my mother, so she can stop thinking the world is only 6,000 years old.  Or at least, she'd understand why scientists think the way they do.

Date: 2006/10/18 08:01:41, Link
Author: cogzoid
Bones, Rocks, and Stars.  That's it.  Thanks alot guys.  I knew the forum would pull through for me.

Date: 2006/10/18 14:36:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
0 = the number of people that understand that drivel.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:49:59, Link
Author: cogzoid
An oldie but a goodie:

Quote
11. Scott  // Oct 19th 2006 at 10:23 am

methinks Dr. Collins doth not know what biological ID is and the arguments which support it.

Comment by Scott — October 19, 2006 @ 10:23 am


Clearly if someone doesn't agree with ID, then they must not understand it.  And this condescending Shakespearian speak helps prove my point.

Date: 2006/10/31 16:42:29, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
PZ certainly does fit into the “All blog, no research” category very well.

Comment by HodorH — October 31, 2006 @ 9:10 pm


This is always my favorite style of humour of those UD comedians.  The dry wit.

Date: 2006/11/11 12:14:34, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 10 2006,23:51)
Quote
So, as soon as ID theorists stop spending all their time writing press releases and participating in debates, and start spending time in the field and in the lab doing actual scientific research, there might be a place in science for what they discover. As long as ID theory remains essentially parasitic on biology and the other sciences, it will never be recognized as science. Interpreting other people’s discoveries in the light of different theoretical models doesn’t cut it. That’s why Nobel prizes are awarded to the people making the discoveries, not to the people who figure out what they mean.


I disagree with that, in several ways.  First, Allen is misusing "theory".  ID doesn't have a theory.  At best it has some speculations.  Even if you grant their ideas the status of hypotheses, they don't seem to be testable hypotheses.

Second, there's nothing wrong with reinterpreting other people's results in light of a new model or theory or paradigm.  If you can prove the new paradigm, more power to you, and if it's significant enough I think you could get a Nobel prize.  However, reinterpretation does not rest on rhetorical argument, especially cheap and false rhetorical tricks and misrepresentation.  Also, at some point, you do need some actual data or something that can demonstrate the superiority of your interpretation.  All they've got is word salad that twists and turns and evaporates into vapid nonsense on close examination.

Lastly, although I'm sympathetic to the literature / literary criticism analogy, I'm not even sure that that is accurate.  I've read some bits of literary criticism that were quite insightful and helpful.

Just to be clear.  Ol' Einstein didn't get his Nobel for Relativity.  He got it for explaining the photoelectric effect.  Where, oh where, did the low hanging fruit go.  But, I agree that there is plenty of science to be done in reinterpreting data into new paradigms.  The key is to be able to explain the existing data while predicting new results.  It's quite funny to watch the IDiots squirm when this is pointed out to them.  

"New predictions?!?!  No, you don't understand, we're being repressed!"

"What about the Templeton Foundation trying to give millions into any ID research program?"  

"Uh...  um... Sternberg?"

Date: 2006/11/12 13:51:51, Link
Author: cogzoid
DaveScot explains bad design by bringing up phylogenetic stem cells.

Quote
16. DaveScot  // Nov 12th 2006 at 4:10 am

Mark Frank

Quote
Well of course you can always say there is some mysterious factor we have not taken into account. My “better” design is very straightforward. The nerve goes straight from the brain to the larynx. I look forward to some imaginative explanation as to why it needs to go all the way round the aorta and back .


From a design POV I’d guess it’s because it simplifies the assembly process and allows the greatest amount of flexibility in the end product.

Let’s say that you know ahead of time your design has to easily accomodate necks varying from none (fish) to a giraffe (meters). Early in the assembly process you make all the basic nerve connections and the nerves themselves are designed to simply lengthen as required. Later in the assembly process you can add a neck (or not) and there doesn’t have to be any modification of the nerve pathways laid down earlier. This accomodates all kinds of spatial separations in the eventual end product while never needing to complicate things by having more than one basic layout.

It appears to be a simple engineering tradeoff between assembly simplicity and amount of nerve fiber required. Instead of having a whole bunch of different initial layouts tailored to the end product you simply waste a little nerve fiber in order to preserve the commonality in the earlier embyryonic stage.

This fits well into a front-loaded design where you begin phylogenesis with a single cell that has the potential to become anything from a single celled protozoan to a fish to a giraffe. In order to simplify the design you’d need to keep as many things in common between disparate organisms as possible. That’s why humans and bananas have about 50% of their DNA in common. It wouldn’t be feasible to have the initial cell (which I term a “phylogenetic stem cell”) contain a wholly unique genome and development process for each different end product. You’d need to consolidate as much as possible.

So there.

Comment by DaveScot — November 12, 2006 @ 4:10 am

Date: 2006/11/22 21:20:22, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
The Theory of Evolution predicts that (absent human genetic tampering) any new species will descend by evolutionary processes from existing species.

DaveScot doesn't understand what "predict" means. If I say that I will dig in a particular place and find gold, that is a prediction. That the gold has been buried there for eons is irrelevant to it being a prediction. So when a scientist claims that he can examine 40 million year old strata in the wastelands of Egypt and find a novel cetacean with legs — and then does so — that is is a validated prediction. Each validated prediction adds support to the Theory. Enough such predictions, and it becomes a trend.

Now, I understand that DaveScot accepts Common Descent (though for some unknown reason he doesn't take up this issue with Joseph who strenuously argues otherwise). The question, then, becomes one of mechanisms. Environmental and sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation, population dynamics, recombination, gene repair mechanisms, viral invasions, etc. are all observed phenomena. There is also very strong evidence of mechanisms of macroevolution, such as extinction, adaptive radiation, founder effects, allopatry, etc.

There is no observational evidence of any so-called design events. Evolution in graduated stages from common ancestors remains an empirical fact. Nearly all biologists believe that natural mechanisms explain the evolution of life on Earth. But, even if it could be shown that the *currently known* mechanisms are not sufficient to account for all evolutionary change, such a gap in human scientific knowledge would not justify a design assertion. Human ignorance is not evidence.


Top work, Zachriel.  I just wanted to compliment you on your succinct post.

Date: 2006/12/12 13:23:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Jesus called people names, and so does DR. Dembski.  Don't you see the parallels?  What a bunch of whiners.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1853#comments

Date: 2006/12/22 14:56:17, Link
Author: cogzoid
Tardbune7:
Quote
There have been a lot of recent legal/philosophical/religious threads but that seems mostly to be driven by the actions of our opponents.

IOW, it looks like we won the science part of the battel and the everything-is-an-accident crowd is down to using Wizard of Oz gambits through religion (BlasphemChallenge) and the law (Cobb County consent decree) to maintain its status.


Earlier in the same thread, Scott says:

Quote
Dave, if I may quote you…

   
Quote
Don’t you just love unilateral declarations of victory!?


I always felt bad laughing at the mentally deficient.  But, that doesn't stop me from doing it occasionally.

Date: 2007/01/12 19:01:48, Link
Author: cogzoid


Dad?!?!

Date: 2007/01/22 13:24:25, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side.


Let me get this straight: You didn't follow the trial, but you have reached your conclusion.  And now you're accusing Jones of only looking at the evidence from one side?

I personally did follow the trial.  I read the daily transcripts, not just the news bites.  I read the decision multiple times.  ID had a fair hearing, and that's all there is to it.  They brought the best they could offer (those that weren't too afraid that is) and got shut down.  Read the transcripts to find out why.

Date: 2007/02/06 21:06:06, Link
Author: cogzoid
BFast explains
Quote

WinstonEwert, “Allright, who can expound on the method used to achieve “IC”?”

I haven’t analyzed the source code of this particular project terribly closely. However, if two “mutations” are required to achieve a given result, then the pair of mutations would technically, barely, be considered “IC”. This would be achieved as follows: a “mutation” happens that “at least does no harm” so it is permitted to continue — then a second mutation happens that completes the “IC” scenerio.

Now, if the number of possible “mutations” is extremely limited (5^100), this scenerio can happen fairly regularly. If the number of possible “mutations” is huge, the chance of getting a matched pair becomes really low. Further, Behe’s recently published paper shows that it is possible, in bacteria (short lifespan, smaller genome) to get 2 component IC once in a blue moon. Getting 3 component IC is much harder, and 4 gets into the zone of rediculous. The number of “matching” mutations that would be required to assemble a bacterial flagellum from known components is, like, 20. Such is the nature of “a little bit IC” (2 component) verses “very IC”, flagellum.


Alright, we're making headway!  First ANY IC shows that evolution isn't possible.  Now, small amounts of IC occur naturally.  If only BFast would grace us by defining "a little bit IC" and "very IC".

Date: 2007/02/22 19:42:21, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-top....t-92596

http://pubs.acs.org/cen....al.html

That is a pretty bitchin' animation.


Forget animation.  Dancing hippies makes for a funnier demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww&eurl=

Be patient, the good stuff starts a few minutes into the video.

Date: 2007/05/21 12:45:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

I'm a huge fan of David Wong's comical writings.  But every now and then he writes a serious piece.  This is one of those times.  It's not perfect, but I've never read a clearer, more civil and moderate position than the one he takes.

Read, laugh, enjoy.

Date: 2007/05/21 19:37:27, Link
Author: cogzoid
Kristine, I don't think you got the point of the article.
 
About Falwell's death, there certainly are those that cheered.  I just caught this cheering by Bill Maher.  And the author links to people in his own forums doing the same thing.  I'm not saying that it was "en masse", but that certainly didn't happen "en masse" with Paul Wellstone either.  It is exactly this type of exaggeration of the opposition that David Wong addresses in this article.   Calm down from your hard day and read it again.

Remember that this article isn't trying to show who's right and who's wrong.  It's trying to encourage temperance and extinguish the hate speech from both sides (see Maher's cheering again).  How can one disagree with the suggestion to lead by example?

Did you disagree with any of his 10 points?

Date: 2007/05/22 15:18:43, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
Pretty lame piece if you ask me. Being happy that someone has passed naturally and can no long spread their specific brand of hate is nothing to be ashamed of. I didn't wish the man dead and had nothing to do with his death, but if his time had come, I can in a clear conscious rejoice that he is no longer around to continue with his actions. There are bad people that don't deserve my pity or faked sorrow.

That's just a childish way of looking at the world. The world is not always a happy playtime jungle-gym. Sometimes it sucks and sometimes it sucks specifically because of certain people. When they die I'm not going to show some false emotion. If they've moved me in one way or another I'm going to say what I think.


I don't think anyone is asking you to mourn someone's death falsely, or show any false emotions.  Of course, exaggerating what other people say so that it's easier to argue against is only human (as explained in the article).  The only thing he's saying in the article is that in general one comes across as a dick when one celebrate someone's death.  I personally think it doesn't reflect well on one's character, and it comes across as just another type of hate.  It's tough to rise above it, however.  I certainly wasn't sad with Falwell's passing.  But, a great deal of American's did like the guy.  Imagine what I'd look like through their eyes if I laughed during his funeral.  Would that help or hurt the "culture war?"

Date: 2007/05/22 15:23:06, Link
Author: cogzoid
A couple of other musings by David Wong that are relevant are:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

and

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/horror.html

Mind you, this is a comedy site.  Don't take everything so seriously.  But, he does make a few points worth considering.

Date: 2007/06/12 14:59:08, Link
Author: cogzoid
I have some questions about sharks as well.

My girlfriend is really afraid of sharks.  We like to surf.  You can already see the problem.  Most of the time she's fine, especially if the water is clear.  Knowing that she has a chance of spotting an approaching shark helps her cope.  But, she's always sort of afraid of sharks.  And we got to brainstorming about ways to diminish attacks.  I remember some "Discovery Channel fact" about sharks having a keen sensitivity to electricity in the water.  How sensitive are they?  Can they be driven away by an annoying amount of electrical signals?  Or will it just attract them?  I'm a pretty hands-on type of guy and I told her I'd be willing to put an electrical device into her surfboard if it'd help keep her mind at ease.  I just want to make sure that I won't turn her into shark bait in the process.

Thanks.

Date: 2007/06/21 15:37:52, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote
IF A=C and G=T.

A code could be (on 1 strand) A C G T A T .

You would then know that its matching code =C A T G C G

So although it looks like 4 choices of bits, it is actually only 2. ) Kinda like having a logic stream where 0 or 1could be represented by 1 of 2 voltages.

Example: Logic 0 could be 1 or 9 volts and logic 1 could be 3 or 7 volts.


Nope, you really do have 4 choices.  

A ~= T
G ~= C

A and T are only complements, like G and C.

The redundancy of both sides of the DNA strands being complements of each other is taken into account when computing genome length.

If you want to expand your electrical metaphor, you'd have to add another bit to designate the sign of each voltage.

Date: 2007/06/29 11:32:16, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 28 2007,17:30)
So once again, it's just the same tired old fundie obsession with penii and what people are doing with them.

If we're going to use latin, let's use it right.  I believe the proper plural of penis is penes.  Not every latin plural noun ends with an "i".

Sorry for the pedantry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.  Back to your regularly scheduled mockery.

Date: 2007/07/04 10:39:38, Link
Author: cogzoid
Dr. Dr. Dembski says:

 
Quote
Coyne contra Behe in The New Republic; Behe contra Coyne at Amazon; and now Coyne contra Behe at TalkReason. The following comment by Coyne caught my eye:

 
Quote
   Both Richard Dawkins (in his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New York Times) and myself have noted Behe’s remarkable reluctance to submit his claims to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If Behe’s theory is so world-shaking, and so indubitably correct, why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course: his theory is flat wrong.)


Let me suggest another reason: Coyne is wrong and doesn’t want Behe upsetting his applecart.


So, the reason Behe doesn't submit his ideas to peer review is because: "Coyne is wrong and doesn't want him to."  Makes sense to me.  Who's going to be first to agree?  Borne?

Date: 2007/07/04 13:27:17, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 04 2007,12:00)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:50)
When based in Belize I saw a USA news programe that interviewed USA citizens, The majority had no clue what 4th July celebrations/holliday was all about. Shocking!

I once saw a survey indicating that most Americans don't know which nation the US won independence from ("France" was the most popular guess).

I was once asked by someone if the British had a 4th of July.  Sure, I replied -- it comes right after the 3rd.


Alas, we are a nation of utter morons.  The only reason we've lasted this long is that we can just beat up any nation that doesn't like us.  (sigh)

If you ask enough people on the streets easy questions, you'll get some dumb answers.  Not only are many people stupid, but even normal people get flustered in front of the camera and are more likely to say stupid things.  

A recent one I saw featured the question, "In what month did the September 11th attacks happen on?"  Boy we Amuricans sure are dumb!

Date: 2007/07/05 19:23:00, Link
Author: cogzoid
Ou Krokodil suggests
Quote

Somebody should also start a site for teens about the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for evolution.


Priceless.

But sadly, I'm sure his tenure at UD won't last much longer.

He's going to be Sternberged!

Edit: I'm a dumbass.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:08:34, Link
Author: cogzoid
Lest we forget the classic: "Go in peace, but go."

Date: 2007/12/03 16:03:57, Link
Author: cogzoid
The stack of papers being referred to here are about the evolution of the bac flag, right?  They present testable hypothesis of varying plausibility, right?

The IDers, from Behe to Dembski, say that those hypotheses don't exist, or they are not sufficient.  Well, what do they have to offer for an alternate theory?  That "someone" did "something" at "sometime"?  How exactly do we test that theory?

How do you think science works, FTK?

Date: 2008/01/09 00:33:13, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote

Big Bang:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

The Avalon Explosion:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

The Cambrian explosion:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It seems that evolution is evolving into creationism. It won’t be long before creationism will be taught in schools, only it will be the evolutionists teaching it. The irony is just too rich.

Oh, it's rich alright.

Date: 2008/01/09 23:17:08, Link
Author: cogzoid
Credit, where credit is due.  King Tard actually made me chuckle.

Gerry Rzeppa
 
Quote

“So the potential miracle cure for cancer… will remain untested forever all because no one can figure out a way to make a profit from it.”

But huge profits can be made from drugs that are not patented! Nicotine and caffeine come to mind…

DaveScot
Quote

Folgers and William Morris refused too. The tobacco company representative is rumored to have said “DCA is not addictive and neither is nicotine but the unfortunate situation is that DCA doesn’t have that great tobacco flavor and pure smoking pleasure that people love so much.” The coffee company rep said DCA was too easy to make. “It’s like table salt. You don’t need Juan Valdez putting his heart and soul into growing and harvesting salt beans at the peak of perfection. DCA tastes like crap too.”

Date: 2008/02/06 15:06:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 06 2008,14:47)
As you guys love funny anecdotes, I'll point out that once a Christian group on my campus came up to me and asked if I wondered at the marvel of creation that was the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. He challenged me to name him how such a process could evolve and what intermediates were possible. I simply responded if he'd like to start the discussion with ametabolism, hemimetabolism or holometabolism first.

He just happened to be unlucky enough to encounter me after I had written an essay for zoology on the evolution of insects. He quickly took the first opportunity to flee.

Not being a biologist, I wikipediaed ametabolism, hemimetabolism, and holometabolism to see what all the fuss was about.  In the process I found the name for the damn bugs that I perpetually find in my house (Shield Bugs).  That's why I love this forum.

Date: 2008/02/14 19:01:32, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (okboy @ Feb. 14 2008,17:22)
doh, i just got my first comment through moderation and the whole thread gets obliviated. i would have thought all that bible code training and thinking up acronyms would have made my hidden message easy to spot.

Quote
That's absolutely right. Don't they all realize? Do they all really deny that atheism = rigid dogma? Think about Richard Dawkins: he says the atheist's raison d'etre is to abolish religious doctrine, but they all revere darwin!

It took me a few seconds to find it.  How beautifully sublime!

Date: 2008/04/15 13:58:56, Link
Author: cogzoid
Has anyone posted a link to the version in Expelled?  Wasn't it in a youtube trailer?  I gave up searching, because I can only take 3 minutes of Ben Stein's voice at a time.

Date: 2008/04/15 18:37:02, Link
Author: cogzoid
Just in case, here's what it read the first time around:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPELLED Producers respond to Dawkins, Bolinsky, XVIVO, etc. regarding copyright of its animation
William Dembski

The following statement is from the Executive Producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.

   Since we began working on this very interesting project, the producers have been the subject of any number of groundless accusations, most of which we found amusing. The vast majority of these accusations we chose to ignore given that agitation is typical with any provocative documentary. We also recognized that as the film took form, it would specifically disturb a vocal minority of academic elites, and tread on what some people involved with science and academia consider sacred ground. We therefore expected a high level of criticism against the film from this particular group, who view themselves as self appointed gatekeepers. We accepted in good humor many of the crazy insinuations that they made as part of the cost of pursuing our project.

   However, the latest claim concerning the copyright status of our proprietary animation is so ridiculous, bogus and misinformed that we must respond. Premise Media invested significant time and money into the research and original creation of the animation used in our film to illustrate cellular activity. Our own team of experts created the highest quality of animation that is available. In fact, the animation we use in the theatrical release of our movie is only a small portion of the animation we have created and plan to use in future projects.

   Concerning the intriguing smear campaign being carried on by long term activists on one side of the evolution controversy, we are completely confident of the validity of our copyright on our originally created animation. We can assure any opponents of free speech that the rights granted in the United States Constitution are extraordinarily strong, and most especially strong related to protecting film productions.

   We look forward to ordinary Americans from a broad range of backgrounds seeing our film.

   The Executive Producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

   **********************************

   Following the discovery of the kinesin in the late 1980s there were investigations into the locomotion method used for propulsion giving two models with one being an “inch worm” model and the other being the “hand over hand” model. We illustrate the hand over hand mechanism in the transport of a vesicle.

   A variety of papers, micrographs, illustrations and animations with depictions of the cellular transport system of kinesin were used and are freely available on the internet. We invite you to learn more about this incredible little transport engine through the following links:

   http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/december10/kinesinproof-1210.html
   http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/kinesin.html
   http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/reports_bmm.html
   http://www.umich.edu/news/MT/04/Fall04/story.html?molecular
   http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/july-06-NobutakaHirokawa.html
   http://bioweb.bio.uci.edu/sgross/NaturesNanotech.htm
   http://www.goldmanlab.northwestern.edu/images/iftransportcartoon.gif
   http://www.goldmanlab.northwestern.edu/intro.htm


This entry was posted Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm and is filed under Expelled. You can leave a response[HA!], or trackback from your own site.

Date: 2008/04/17 11:37:47, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Zachriel @ April 17 2008,11:34)
Quote (sparc @ April 17 2008,11:15)
         
Quote
  89 pages (single-space, 8½x11)
 40805 words
 239671 characters
most of it is copy/paste, isn't it?

That sounds like a factually challenged, logically incoherent position to me. I find it interesting that in a context where science — rightly understood  — is an empirically anchored, open-ended, provisional search for the truth about the world we experience and observe, there is now a resort to proposed undiscovered laws to explain what I wrote. There is a basic factor in the platonic chance-necessity-art trichotomy [though even Plato seemed to think it was immemorial in his day]. Namely, lawlike regularities are associated with outcomes of low contingency. And, it has to be a law of contingency that bears complex, functional information. There IS an observed regularity on that — intelligence. Onlookers, simply compare what I excerpted and discussed above. We can further take it as a given that if the argument in the main [that, contra Heller, design is evident in the cosmos and in cell based life and that it is not Manichean heresy to see that] were easily overturned, it would have been, so your resort to one red herring after another; leading out to one strawman after another (then duly pummelled – at least, not soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion), is indicative of the balance of the case on the merits of fact and logic. And, not to his advantage. Having noted that general point, we need to address the usual cluster of tangential red herrings, yet again, so that certain points may be made clear. [...]

I hope that answered your question satisfactorily.

One has to wonder how YOU read that stuff.

Date: 2008/04/28 19:22:35, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 28 2008,19:10)
Quote (olegt @ April 28 2008,09:25)
Excerpt from Intelligent design documentary creates stir in Dallas News:
 
Quote
Nearly $4 million was spent on producing the movie and "a multiple of that" in distribution and marketing so far, Mr. Craft says.

Hey the print version of this article used the term creationism in it.  I read it Sunday morning with my coffee.  Interesting that they changed the name for the online version.  I also wrote the author.  Weird.

Don't worry, they're interchangeable.  Even the ID proponents have stopped pretending.  When is the last time they tried to say ID is not creationism?

Date: 2008/07/02 09:34:14, Link
Author: cogzoid
It's not possible to be shouted down via text.  You can choose who and what to reply to with every posting of yours.  You chose to respond to the attacks, and you steered clear of the honest questions concerning science.  This is a telling sign.  If you were to respond to a science question of your choice, and have a vigorous discussion about, say, information, or went through a thorough demonstration of the explanatory filter, all of the evil Darwinists would be able to focus on the questions you did answer and not worry about the ones you didn't.

By the way, it is worth mentioning that the Theory of Evolution is an explanation for how life developed on this planet.  It's not a moral compass.  Nobody here is advocating culling the weak, or slaughtering the unfit.  Just like the Theory of Gravity explains why things fall towards earth.  It doesn't mean we should go around making things fall.  It's an explanation for how our universe works.  We don't have to help it any way.  It is what it is, and our morals are what they are.  Blaming mass murderers on Darwin is like blaming a bridge collapse on Newton.

Date: 2008/07/03 22:04:50, Link
Author: cogzoid
lcd,

There was an attempt at providing an example of the fruitfulness of the Explanatory Filter.  Despite this challenge being issued on a creationist forum, the host was unable to provide a single example of the Explanatory Filter.  To his credit, he was very civil and honest about his attempt.  If you've got the time you can read it here: http://thesciphishow.com/forums....c=114.0

I was BottomFeeder in that forum.  I kept pushing for numbers to be used in the mathematical formula.  It never happened.  I'm curious to hear if you've ever seen an example of the Explanatory Filter in use.  Perhaps you'd like to show us!  If the math of this filter works, you can just show us.  Numbers are hard to refute.

I'm going to guess that you haven't seen an example done.  But, you've heard it's effective, and it helps to prove your side, so you believe it.  But, I challenge you to be the most critical of your own theories.  It's what good scientists do.

Date: 2008/08/22 12:10:11, Link
Author: cogzoid
I wish I did the same thing.  A physics prof I had in college described his method when he was a student.  He would recopy the entire lecture in pen in a new notebook every night, correcting mistakes and carefully redrawing diagrams, etc.  He still has those notebooks and uses them to construct his own lectures.  Most undergrad physics hasn't budged in a hundred years, so they work just fine.  Of course, I didn't hear the story until I was done with classes in grad school.  By then it was too late!

Date: 2008/10/24 12:00:41, Link
Author: cogzoid
You should also make it clear that "Try 2" means to put 2 into the population box.  I personally didn't understand what was meant at first.

Otherwise, great work!

Date: 2009/01/14 12:45:19, Link
Author: cogzoid
Joseph is a tard under the hood as well.
Quote
I once put platinum spark plugs in my Grand National because I figured they would allow it to run better. Wrong! The spark reached its destination too soon throwing off the timing!


As a physicist and backyard mechanic, I know that there is no way that the few millimeters of platinum at the tip of the spark plug could possibly speed up the spark.  This guy is a complete moron.  There may be other reasons why the spark plugs didn't work, but the platinum was not it.

Date: 2009/05/14 17:30:13, Link
Author: cogzoid
A better way to think of it is this.  Things were so energetic, noisy, close together, etc. that light could not travel very far.  Physicists consider the universe pre~380,000 years old to be opaque.  The reporter discussing how far back the Hubble could look must have heard wrong.

Date: 2009/05/20 12:43:39, Link
Author: cogzoid
The debt our country owes to you, Wes, is incalculable.

Date: 2009/10/23 11:09:43, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 23 2009,10:08)
Does anybody know what the dominant religion of the Caribbean is?

When I was 15 I went on a church youth group trip to the Bahamas.  We ran a vacation Bible school for a week for our "sister church".  The general consensus was that in the Bahamas 95% of people will call themselves Christian if you ask them their religion.  About 20% actually attend church semi-regularly, and the rest are just paying lip service.  I'm guessing it's similar across the Caribbean.  The locals will call themselves Christian, while performing daily voodoo rituals just in case.

My guess is Gordon Mullings of TKI doesn't have many friends outside of church.

Date: 2009/10/30 14:14:54, Link
Author: cogzoid
What's going to happen first?  The ToE being overturned or Rapture?!?!

I'm on the edge of my seat...

Date: 2009/11/15 23:04:03, Link
Author: cogzoid
Alright, I'll delurk, on request.  I've been reading this site for many years now, and I used to post frequently, back in the days of evopeach and Ghost of Paley.  While I no longer gather the tard, I do enjoy your harvests.  As a bragging right, I asked DaveTard the question that he famously answered by saying that he violates the SLoT every time he types.

But I'm also going to point out that fair use copyright laws make a clear exception for scholarship and education.  How could anyone think that RationalWiki isn't using his paper for that?  He's obviously trying to make the criticism go away.  It must be embarrassing having that on your "permanent record."

Back to my shadows.

Date: 2009/12/04 20:41:23, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 04 2009,15:25)
Quote

ID isn't science -- shouldn't the Dover decision provide some protection to the CSC?

No. Dover was a Second Amendment case regarding whether the school district was teaching a religious viewpoint in science class. I think the new anti-evolution tactic of "teach the controversy" might lend itself to suit on viewpoint discrimination grounds, but I am not a lawyer and could be way off base on that.

Are you sure Dover was about the right to bear arms?

Date: 2010/02/24 10:51:29, Link
Author: cogzoid
Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

Date: 2010/02/24 12:09:48, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:56)
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51)
Joe,

Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want?

What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work.

Thanks!

Please explain what that has to do with the topic of the thread.

Or just admit that you are an asshole...

When people ask you to back up what you say, you call them an asshole.  What exactly are we supposed to teach in schools again?  You have no experiments, no evidence, no math.  I think name-calling class is called recess.

So what would a typical ID class syllabus look like?  Book reports on Dembski's books?

Before you start asking to get taught in schools, why don't you guys get to work in the labs.  Fill up those journals you so easily start.  PCID, JOEI, etc.  Once you have something to teach, then you can ask politely.

Date: 2010/03/07 15:14:12, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 07 2010,12:34)
Holy crap... I'd forgotten how greasy they could be. Check out their attempts to imitate the other side on the Rube Goldberg Machine.

   
Quote
Above all, please remember that the marble machine only appears to be designed. There is absolutely no evidence in this video that it was designed. After all, any visual evidence that it was designed is only that: the visual, the apparition, the appearance. . . no way past it. . . no underlying meaning, nothing but a phenomenom whose ultimate being can be explained only by those precursors which survived and explain all that we see, they explain everything. . . oops, that is, er . . . oh, nevermind.


   
Quote
I like your humor Tim. I’ll try my hand at it.

No irreducible complexity here, I mean, obviously the marble could be used as a small little round ball, and the wood could be used as smaller pieces of wood, such as firewood, toothpicks, or trash. Not to mention that you could take any one piece, large enough, of that machine and use it for a whittling stick. So obviously all pieces were used in one of those ways, and the firewood, toothpicks, trash, and whittling sticks got together with the ball and decided to self-assemble themselves into a one “self-assembled” self, by accident, of course, of some whittling sticks being more useful than others, some trash more trashy than others, some firewood more firey than others, and toothpicks more picky than others.

How does trash, toothpicks, firewood and whittling become relevant to a complex marble machine, you ask? Well, I don’t have to explain, because it’s enough to show that the individual pieces served other functions, how those functions have any purchase on the current function is only a question that an ID person would ask, we evolutionists don’t bother ourselves with such inanity. It is enough to show that a mousetrap could be reduced to a tie clip, and the question of efficacy and relevance of catching mice by holding ties in place need not bother us evolutionists. ;)


Nice, Clive. Fancy doing some work on ID, now?

I reckon it must be like the way some oppressed minorities take insults and turn them into self-labels (like 'queer'), except they do it with criticism. 'We don't have a mechanism! We don't have a theory! Get used to it!'

When I saw the title of this post, I was sure it was going to be about OK Go's recent music video, which I helped design/build.  I have seen the horror of watching someone's work get turned into fodder for poorly conceived creationist arguments.  I'm so glad that was about someone else's machine.  (And what a triumph of engineering and woodwork it is!)

Date: 2010/03/07 17:21:57, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 07 2010,15:40)
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 07 2010,16:14)
 
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Mar. 07 2010,12:34)
Holy crap... I'd forgotten how greasy they could be. Check out their attempts to imitate the other side on the Rube Goldberg Machine.

     
Quote
Above all, please remember that the marble machine only appears to be designed. There is absolutely no evidence in this video that it was designed. After all, any visual evidence that it was designed is only that: the visual, the apparition, the appearance. . . no way past it. . . no underlying meaning, nothing but a phenomenom whose ultimate being can be explained only by those precursors which survived and explain all that we see, they explain everything. . . oops, that is, er . . . oh, nevermind.


     
Quote
I like your humor Tim. I’ll try my hand at it.

No irreducible complexity here, I mean, obviously the marble could be used as a small little round ball, and the wood could be used as smaller pieces of wood, such as firewood, toothpicks, or trash. Not to mention that you could take any one piece, large enough, of that machine and use it for a whittling stick. So obviously all pieces were used in one of those ways, and the firewood, toothpicks, trash, and whittling sticks got together with the ball and decided to self-assemble themselves into a one “self-assembled” self, by accident, of course, of some whittling sticks being more useful than others, some trash more trashy than others, some firewood more firey than others, and toothpicks more picky than others.

How does trash, toothpicks, firewood and whittling become relevant to a complex marble machine, you ask? Well, I don’t have to explain, because it’s enough to show that the individual pieces served other functions, how those functions have any purchase on the current function is only a question that an ID person would ask, we evolutionists don’t bother ourselves with such inanity. It is enough to show that a mousetrap could be reduced to a tie clip, and the question of efficacy and relevance of catching mice by holding ties in place need not bother us evolutionists. ;)


Nice, Clive. Fancy doing some work on ID, now?

I reckon it must be like the way some oppressed minorities take insults and turn them into self-labels (like 'queer'), except they do it with criticism. 'We don't have a mechanism! We don't have a theory! Get used to it!'

When I saw the title of this post, I was sure it was going to be about OK Go's recent music video, which I helped design/build.  I have seen the horror of watching someone's work get turned into fodder for poorly conceived creationist arguments.  I'm so glad that was about someone else's machine.  (And what a triumph of engineering and woodwork it is!)

Is that really done in one take (presumably after many attempts)?

The final version wasn't one take, but it could've been.  There were some human errors that had to be spliced out.  It was a lot of work to film, and we plumb ran out of time.  We got an A shot of the upstairs and an A shot of the downstairs.  We tried until 3am to get an A+ shot of both, but the band had to catch a flight at 6am.  I think one more day would've resulted in a seamless video.  As it stands, it's not so bad.  :)

As for what I did...  I was responsible for the stuff from the TV to the paint cannons.  That doesn't mean that I built it, or designed everything, but it was my job to manage the awesome team we had, and keep everyone on the same page.  My hands got dirty too, but I mostly delegated.  I wish I could've been more of a builder, but someone had to step up and manage.  It was a heck of a lot of work, but I think the end result was worth it.

Date: 2010/03/08 12:28:43, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 08 2010,11:53)
Quote (cogzoid @ Mar. 07 2010,18:21)
The final version wasn't one take, but it could've been...

Cool.

Do you have an opinion on the infamous 2 minute Honda ad? I find it impossible to believe that they pulled that off with no edits and no CGI.

Most of what I know I get through public sources just like yourself.

But my opinion is that they undoubtedly edited, changed speeds, etc.  We did a little of this stuff as well, but that's what you gotta do to make sure it's as entertaining as possible.  The fact that we pulled it off at all is a miracle.  

That machine stole 3 months of my life.  And it's hard not to be extremely proud of it.  I'll quit with the boasting and go back to lurking and laughing at the morons at UD.

Date: 2010/04/07 10:41:04, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

Who's worrying about ID?  A handful of morons gather on the web and discuss how evolution is on its way down.  They produce no output except barely read books.  They can't even keep enough steam to publish in the many journals they start then soon abort.  Evolutionary science meanwhile churns out massive amounts of new research every day around the globe.  It's full of positive evidence.  And if you had the ability to comprehend any of them you'd see this.  

Ignorance is one thing.  Your proud, stubborn ignorance is shameful.

When are you going to get elected to a school board?  I'd love to see you introduce your pseudo-science into public schools again!

Date: 2010/05/21 17:53:36, Link
Author: cogzoid
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 21 2010,16:09)
Quote (JLT @ May 21 2010,15:59)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 21 2010,21:42)
 
Quote
warehuff @ 136, what is so hard about proving materialism true??? there either is a solid material particle (”atom” as per the Greeks who formulated materialism) at the basis of reality or there is not. Since it is conclusively shown there is  NOT a solid material particle at the basis of reality then materialism is falsified in no uncertain terms of its primary postulation.

bornagain77

That is some serious stupid.

An oldie, but a goodie.

I had an older version of that tract, Big Daddy.  And the gluon panel was different.  It didn't mention them at all.  My guess is that Jack Chick had a someone tell him about gluons.  So, he had his righteous student character casually dismiss the idea, and moved on.

Who said it's a God of the Gaps?


I love that tract so.

 

 

 

=====