AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: didymos

form_srcid: didymos

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: didymos

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'didymos%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/03/25 08:21:42, Link
Author: didymos
Greetings Programs.  DaveScot has helpfully updated "Dawkins, Myers, and what R.S.V.P. means":


Expelled - RSVP System

ADDENDA: 3/25 There is no way to get to the URL above from the main page The above is not a publicized address. The links from the main page all go to TOUR BUS events not movie screenings.

Nope. Not publicized. Or at least it wasn't until Dave got to it.

Date: 2008/03/25 23:16:26, Link
Author: didymos
OK, here's my personal theory as to what really happened: PZ wasn't "hustling and bothering" as Stewie Blesshisheart thought, but rather he was hustling and flowing.  He wasn't even there to see the movie at all, but was rather trying to get a demo of his latest jam "It's Hard Out There For A Shrimp" into the hands of SkinnyBrit, a.k.a HolyGhostFaceKillah, a.k.a. The Muthafuckin' MCDawk.

Date: 2008/03/26 02:30:13, Link
Author: didymos
Mr. Miller is a bit slippery, or memory-deficient.  In response to a post on the thread where he promised to answer questions he wrote:


Nestor: We didn't even have a finished rough cut of the film last October. And we didn't begin showing it to people until December. And we never showed it at an AMC in San Diego. Remember that thing I said about not trusting anything said by someone who won't even tell me his real name? I'm sorry, but you've just proven me right.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 25, 2008 at 11:42 PM

So, I responded with :


Kevin, I suggest you go here:

Please take note of the following:

CA San Diego AMC Mission Valley 20* October 11 7:00pm Done

What the hell? How hard was that?

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM

I don't have any questions to offer, just the observation that they ought to be as airtight and evidence-buttressed as possible if this is the kind of crap he can be expected to pull.

Date: 2008/03/26 06:03:58, Link
Author: didymos
Well, in this case, he did allow the reply; but you know, I figured better safe than sorry.

Date: 2008/03/26 15:20:03, Link
Author: didymos
As to the "Events and Tours" page, I made the mistake of getting all enthused about it too.  Unfortunately, it's actually only "inviting" you the bus tour thing they had going on.  Still, it the whole idea of an invitation is foolish anyway.  It's an internet marketing campaign, for Christ's sake.  The whole idea is get people to pass stuff around and promote it for you.  What, they expected mass-emailed-to-people to keep it extra-special-super-ninja-secret? If anything, one should ask why Mathis is such a dick that he wouldn't exercise some common courtesy and invite the man in his own movie to the screening in the first place.  I mean, we all know the answer, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked as often as they harp on the lack-of-invitation crap. Sons of bitches.  There.  I feel better now.

Date: 2008/03/26 17:00:13, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (factician @ Mar. 26 2008,14:37)
From one of the tards at UncommonDuplicity:

Actually, there are links to the rsvp system that come from the Evolution News & Views website.

From Evolution News & Views, click on “Academic Freedom Petition”. From there, click on “Get Expelled”. Click on “Events & Tours” and Click on “RSVP”.

I imagine there are other ways (I found this one accidentally, while reading Evolution News & Views). This showing wasn’t a secret. This showing wasn’t a private party. This had a perfectly legit way to sign up if you were interested.

This tard is right.  It works.

Nah, Factitician.  It unfortunately doesn't.  That's just the Expelled bus tour thing again.  Here's the various RSVP sites:

Bus Tour, navigable to through the standard GetExpelled site:

Next is the one Davey helpfully posted at UD, and which PZ apparently used:

Thirdly, there's this one, which figures in how-I-don't-know, but which just lists the same upcoming stuff as above, only without the completed showings:

It's that third page which refers to them as "Expelled Private Screenings", again despite them being listed on the "non-private" screening page.  And of course, it now has this little treat:


Due to unavoidable changes in the travel plans of the producers of “Expelled”, several of our screenings have been canceled or are being rescheduled to a new date or time. If you'd like to be notified once a new screening in your area is confirmed, please sign-up on one of the waitlists below.

I've run across various comments that the pages have been altered in ways besides the "TBD" on the showing dates and the message above, but haven't been able to find out what the supposed alterations are.

Date: 2008/03/26 21:34:28, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ Mar. 26 2008,19:27)
My question is something even a screenwriter should know:

1.  Who made your computer simulations of a 'cell as an automated city'?

Cause the guy listed on the EXPELLED credits as 'computer animator' says he didnt have anything to do with it.

*slaps her hand over her mouth*  Uh oh!  Pahsketti-oh!

Edited to add-- The detective powers of a student that has a test at 8 am tomorrow and is procrastinating studying-- fear them.

Seriously?  The guy had no part in the actual animation in the film. Wow. Just...what the hell? What'll they claim next I wonder: they exposed the Harvard footage to radiation and it evolved?  I really would dearly love to get a hold of the stuff from the film and do a frame by frame comparison to Harvard's.

Date: 2008/03/26 21:47:03, Link
Author: didymos
More hilarity from UD:



12:58 pm

The Expelled buzz is spreading into more mainstream.
Unfortunately Christianity Today’s fact checkers were out to lunch or have swallowed atheistic Darwinism hook line and sinker - equating intelligent design with creationism, and claiming that the Forida Academic Freedom Act mandates creationism. Let alone parroting Myers being expelled after “legitimately signed up for the event” rather than gatecrashing an RSVP private screening.
REEL NEWS, Expelled Expels Darwinist

It made it into MideastYouth Expelling the Intelligent from the ‘Expelled’, though he can’t distinguish ID from creationism, and his article fails basic logic, claiming that 700 skeptical of Darwinism means that they are creationists, and that 99.9999% etc support evolution.


Bitter much? Yes, that atheistic bunch over at Christianity Today. Bastard ass fact-checkers. I hate those guys. BTW, does anyone here know what the fuck DLH is supposed to stand for?  I mean, I could take some guesses, but...

Date: 2008/03/26 23:33:00, Link
Author: didymos
OK, I found this nifty bit from a guy who saw one of the Expelled screenings:


I saw the movie on Tuesday and was given a DVD with over 30 minutes of raw clips. We were told as teachers to show it in class and use it as a debate opportunity for our students to discuss the issue of censorship, and so on. Of course, they want it to go to people who will promote it and get our friends to come out to see the movie. (Yes, it's a vast right wing conspiracy!)

Emphasis mine. Here's the full entry

This dude is one of the faithful as well, so no axe to grind unless it's with atheists and such.  I have to say, I'm not too enthused about them telling teachers to show this in class, and you know which class they want it shown in too.  If it's like a current events or social studies thing, I'm fairly cool with that, but the only time it should be in a science class is to provide an object lesson in pseudo. I'll try to find some corroboration on this.

Date: 2008/03/26 23:35:32, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and notice how he reinforces the viral marketing notion as well.

Date: 2008/03/27 03:15:48, Link
Author: didymos
I also ran across this in Expelled Challenge FAQ:


Q: Will someone from our administration be able to screen the entire movie prior to the movie’s release?

A: There will be opportunities for screenings in certain markets across the country, but not in every market. Please email us at if you’re interested in being a part of a pre-release screening, and we’ll let you know of the availabilities in your area.

so there's another totallly public route to finding extra-special-super-ninja-secret RSVP site.  Oh, hey, did you know RSVP means "répondez s’il vous plaît"?  That's like French and stuff for "Please respond".  DaveScot taughted me that on UD.

Of course, I can confidently predict that the response to that would be that you gamed the system by misrepresenting yourself as an educator and that you are therefore an evil Darwinist scum who's NOT INVITED.

Date: 2008/03/27 05:33:04, Link
Author: didymos
Googling UD, found this:




11:17 am

It’s hard to have a debate about God without mentioning Origins. I would like to know how will Clinton R. Dawkins avoid it.

It be here.

I also used the magic wayback machine to track down the publication record dis:

One colleague recently claimed that Dawkins’s record of peer-reviewed publications leaves something to be desired. The confusion in this case was due to Dawkins early in his career using his first name “Clinton.” In fact, Dawkins has a respectable publication record. –WmAD

Got that one here.

It appears on various other archived pages, with a variety of dates.  I'm trying to track down the actual post associated with it.

Date: 2008/03/27 22:10:38, Link
Author: didymos
OK, indisputable proof of Hitler's true religious position:

Courtesy of

(edited 11/4/2008: Image broken)

Date: 2008/03/28 01:09:05, Link
Author: didymos
Gatecrashing == BAD.  But smuggling for Jesus....:

(edited 11/4/2008: Broken image)

Date: 2008/03/28 22:35:11, Link
Author: didymos
Hey, UD was actually useful for something.  Someone there posted a link to an mp3 of the conference call:

I'm gonna slap a torrent of it up and seed it for a good long while, so get it that way if you wish.  I'm using open trackers currently, and I put up on Sumotracker.  I'd have put it up on piratebay, but it won't let me log in currently.

Date: 2008/03/28 22:43:11, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and on sumo, it's named pzkilledtheexpelledstar, so search on that. I'll put it up on a couple others if I can using that name.

Date: 2008/03/28 22:57:40, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 28 2008,17:42)
On the Tuatara thread:

41 JPCollado 03/28/2008 6:02 pm

jpcollado writes:
“just want to know what they mean by “high molecular evolutionary rate.” It can’t be mutations, since there is no such thing at the molecular level. You need genes for that.”

Jack Krebs:
“A small correction, as this statement is wrong. Genes are made of molecules, and it is specific DNA molecules within genes that mutate.”

Thank you Jack, I was careless here. What I really was referring to is the darwinian evolutionary process….there is no such thing at the molecular level…a point I tried to reiterate at post #23, viz., that a change in the sequence of nucleotides on a DNA molecule offers a defective framework for studying evolution.

I'm not interested in wading in over there again, but what could "a change in the sequence of nucleotides on a DNA molecule offers a defective framework for studying evolution" possibly mean?

I'm pretty sure in IDese it means:  "I haven't the least idea as to what the hell I'm talking about"  Everything in IDese means that.  It's kind of like the inverse of Smurfian, where "smurf" can mean whatever you want.

Date: 2008/03/29 04:51:09, Link
Author: didymos
Here's a good one from Expelled at Biola — Ben Stein Receives the Phillip Johnson Award:

William Wallace:



10:33 pm

I want the movie to come out so I can stop having to worry about reading spoilers.

That is just so sad.  Funny as all get out, but deeply, deeply sad.  It's like the poor bastard thinks this is gonna be the ID movement's equivalent of...well...a real movie.


But the fact that a scientist has to have his face masked is more evidence that the PT-mafia (NCSE/TalkOrigins/Panda’s Thumb/wickedpedia) will destroy those who do not toe the neo-Darwinian line.

Evidence is some unidentified person purporting to be a scientist making unsubstantiated claims? .....Sounds about right to me.  I'm sold.

Oh, and he's gotten the PT-mafia thing all fucked up.  He forgot the fifth family: RDNet, which is of course officially tasked with all Darwinist black ops: destabilizing the administrations of Christian universities, suppressing research by rigging the peer review process, water-boarding suspected ID operatives at secret facilities in the Galapagos, planting agents provocateur within the ranks of the faithful in order damage IDs reputation by saying really stupid shit on the internet and publishing plainly ridiculous "non-fiction", infiltrating private invitation only film screenings, character assassination of ID scholars, et cetera. Oh, and plotting the destruction of Israel and the resurrection of Hitler via advanced genetic engineering learned from the aliens being held prisoner in Area 51.

I know all this because a scientist in a mask told me.  Or maybe that was just the guy cooking the meth. I haven't slept in, like, a month and it's hard to remember stuff sometimes. Whatever, I believe it.

Date: 2008/03/29 06:00:59, Link
Author: didymos
Holy Frak!  DaveScot actually said something kind of funny.  In reference to this video:

he wrote:


I wonder if she kisses the pope’s ring with that mouth.

I don't know how to feel about this.

Date: 2008/03/29 06:01:57, Link
Author: didymos
Intentionally funny, that is...

Date: 2008/03/29 06:15:45, Link
Author: didymos
He just recently posted to Pharyngula.  DaveScot banished him.  How on earth he lasted this long, I have no idea.  I've had 4 accounts just stop working for no apparent reason after only a couple posts each.

Date: 2008/03/29 06:24:35, Link
Author: didymos
Oh snap! So very nice this is:



6:12 am

Thank you for stopping Allen’s posts. I always found his presumption that he knew more about evolution than us just because he is a biology professor annoying.

And quoting Mein Kampf in an attempt to try and show that Hitler thought he was doing God’s work was a low blow. Hitler was a sociopath and distorted anything and everything he could get his hands on to justify his evil beliefs. It is just irrelevant that SS belt buckles said Gott Mit Uns. Religion is just one of the things that the Nazis twisted beyond all recognition.

A bit unsubtle, perhaps, but still pretty damn good.

Date: 2008/03/30 21:43:39, Link
Author: didymos
bFast fails at design detection:


10:26 pm

You said this was on Panda’s Thumb? You sure that wasn’t It is tooo funny!

TheBrites? Really?

Date: 2008/03/30 21:52:29, Link
Author: didymos
DaveScot raises our hopes:


9:19 pm

This is so funny. Hundreds of comments on Pharyngula and they’re split on whether this is a dig at creationists or evolutionists. Does anyone here have any doubt it’s a brilliant hip-hop mockery of scientists who think they’re smarter than everyone else when in reality they’re just nerds with no street survival skills? Smart, on the urban streets, is having a 9mm Glock and knowing how to use it not having a biology degree and knowing how to use it. Amazing. There’s nothing more pathetic than a nerd who doesn’t know he’s a nerd. I swear I’ll eat my shirt pocket protector if this wasn’t commissioned by the Expelled producers as a tool to get a buzz going.

What was that stuff about nerds?  What industry was Dave in again?

Date: 2008/03/30 22:04:13, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and please note DaveScot's detailed knowledge of the armaments of the "urban street" that he learned from some bad rap song he heard one time (probably).

Date: 2008/03/30 22:24:54, Link
Author: didymos
That fucker Kevin Miller never did explain why the Expelled site lists a San Diego screening back in October which he claims never happened.  He's worthless for getting any real answers:


Actually, Kevin, you said he admitted it, and then just assume it. He clearly stated that he's toying with you and giving flip answers:


""Okay, Nestor, you've been busted. There is no Creation Museum segment in the movie, nor was there ever such a segment."

Uh, yeah. Duh.

Why do you think I responded in the tongue in cheek way that I did?
Posted by: Nestor Makhno | March 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM"

and prior to that:

"I'm a little torn. Do I tell him that I didn't see the movie just to shut him up, or do I let him obssess over getting an answer to his stupid quiz?

Ah, I'll go with the former.

Okay, I didn't see the movie.

Eppur si movie.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | March 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM"

Plus, right before the "answer" to the museum question, was this:

"I'm guessing it's a trick question and that Stein never went to the museum. At least in the film.

Posted by: mike | March 26, 2008 at 11:05 AM"

so, it's not like it was an impenetrable ploy on your part.

So, Kevin, answer me this ONE question: why does the RSVP page list a showing in San Diego at the AMC on October 11? I don't care whether you care or not what it says, or whether it is wrong or right. Call someone and find out why the information is even listed there in the first place. Please. Thank You. C'thulhu R'lyeh.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 at 04:47 PM

Two days later:

Alright. Well, thanks for that Kevin. It's all so clear now.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 28, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Two days after that:


Ah well, I gave it a shot.

Date: 2008/03/30 22:40:26, Link
Author: didymos
Dave states the obvious:



12:33 am


I would have done the same thing if I were Myers. Probably worse. The difference is that I freely admit I’m a sociopath. To thine own self be true…

Still, I can't believe he actually posted that.  Turner's inciting comment makes it more amusing still.  Plus the insane hypocrisy, which of course, is a quite sociopathic trait in and of itself.

Date: 2008/03/30 22:53:13, Link
Author: didymos
OK, last one for awhile because my brain is about to fucking melt.  I truly hope this isn't sincere:



7:31 pm

Would it be possible to calculate [and] compare the CSI in the Bible and Mein Kampf? I know Dr Dembski wrote the foreword for a Bible code book in the past, and so this would not be the first time such issues have been raised, I imagine.


Date: 2008/04/02 00:56:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 01 2008,22:23)
I'm resisting the urge to go to Denyse's thread and ask what DLH's real name is.

This has been driving me batty.  Well, OK, driving me mildly annoyed.  Still, I wonder if it's just an initialism from his actual name or some ID inspired acronym. I imagine that if it is an acronym, and we knew what it stood for, it wouldn't make any sense and we'd all then be stuck trying to figure out what the hell it was supposed to mean.  I myself like to think it stands for Dembski's Logic-Impaired Horror.

Date: 2008/04/03 20:04:32, Link
Author: didymos
ERV: Very much interested.  I've been wanting to do an exhaustive comparison for awhile now.

Date: 2008/04/04 05:49:48, Link
Author: didymos
Oh yeah, I forgot about this.  I went to the Expelled Challenge FAQ a little while back and sent the following to the email address therein asking about screenings:


Will there be anymore?  If so, where do I get a current list of any upcoming events?  Thanks in advance.

That was on 3/26 and I finally got a reply on 4/1.  It said:



Thank you for your interest in Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  If you have signed up for the Expelled Challenge then this is how it works.

Organize a group ticketing event at your local theater and take your group to see the film.  Once your group has seen the film, collect the ticket stubs from everyone that went with your group.  We will provide and address to mail those ticket stubs along with the name of your group, the date, time, and location of when you went to see the film.  The group that responds with the most ticket stubs will be given a $10,000 grant.

As far as pre-release screenings of Expelled.  We are no longer doing open pre-release screenings at this time.  My apologies.  Thank you again for your interest and support of Expelled.  Release date is April 18th.

Jesse Wilson
Motive Entertainment

(There was also a personal email and phone number for Jesse at Motive, but I wasn't sure whether or not it was a good idea to post it here.)

Funny that: they still seem to assume that just because someone sent an email, said someone must therefore be a supporter of Expelled.  Or at least Jesse does.

So anyway,  I took this to mean they likely were still doing pre-release screenings, but only under much more restricted conditions.  From the link ERV posted here, looks like that is the case indeed. So, definitely a step up in the tricky department. I wonder what deviously ingenious method they use to determine who to let in this time around. I mean it wouldn't be something ridiculously ineffectual like asking if you go to church, right?

didymos  goes and reads comments on Stranger Fruit..................

Oh, it is. Sigh.

Date: 2008/04/04 18:06:55, Link
Author: didymos
scordova has another shining moment.  He amateurishly psychoanalyzes the "Darwinists" enthusiastic response to the "Beware the Believers" video and decides it indicates some sort of kinship to the psychology of....serial killers. No, really:


Reminds me of how the FBI once caught a serial wife killer by simply offering to promote his story if he came clean. The Serial killer was so enthralled with opportunity at “fame” he willingly went to jail so that his story could be told…..[sorry I don’t have the name of the guy off hand]

The FBI had top notch personality profilers working on the case, and they realized they had a shot by playing to the inflated ego of the serial killer.

I'm pretty sure the guy whose name he can't remember was a guest star on Law & Order or Profiler.  You've got to love the use of anecdotal evidence in which the anecdote itself isn't even complete or remotely verifiable.

Date: 2008/04/04 18:18:07, Link
Author: didymos
Shockingly, Sal actually did the research and found the case, or rather a case. The interviewers just told the guy that FBI profilers thought his case was unique and wanted to do a case study. There was no "top-notch" team involved. He agreed, eventually.  He also happened to be in the terminal stages of cancer.  Nice work there Sal.

Link to the case:

Date: 2008/04/04 18:29:29, Link
Author: didymos
DaveScot has mastered the Jedi mind trick and can even make it work over the internet.  To wit, Reg:

I think Dave Scot’s analysis of this is exactly right. As usual he’s weighed the evidence, tested the different hypotheses and distilled the most likely answer.

Date: 2008/04/04 20:43:54, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2008,18:13)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 04 2008,20:06)
i think wesley et al misunderstood my meaning. see my latest comment on the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid' post on my blog.

So Kevin, why are you guys emailing people and telling them that screenings are moved or cancelled when they're not? Isn't that, like, lying?

For Jesus.  That makes it OK.  Besides it's our fault for being evil and truthful.

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2008,18:13)

I mean, as much as you want to keep educated people away from this film, you do realize that you can't keep them away *forever*, right?

Well, at best they've got about 2 weeks of "intellectual freedom" left.  Of course, it doesn't really matter since they've already failed multiple times. They know this, hence the enforcers in night-vision gear stalking the aisles during screenings.  Maybe they can ask Dr. Gaius Baltar to develop a Darwinist detector and have people submit a blood sample along with 12 forms of identification, a letter of recommendation from at least 3 members of the clergy/academia on the DI-approved list of those religious and "scientific" professionals who reject "Darwinism", an affidavit testifying to personal academic suppresion, forensically verified photographic evidence of church attendance, and of course their ticket stub which must actually be for Expelled. That'd probably work.  

Or, they could just decide not to release the film at all. On any medium. Ever.

Date: 2008/04/05 23:32:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 05 2008,19:07)
Oh jeeze, I missed this:  
I never got around to asking my E&M professors this question as an undergrad, I was too busy just trying to learn the basic concepts to bother them with this…so maybe a little more study on my part will be the cure.

Nothing being able to exceed the speed of light is one of the most basic parts of relativity theory, Sal.

Screw special relativity.  It's goddamn common knowledge for anyone with a basic acquaintance with modern science.  Oh wait, maybe that's what wrong with Sal...

Date: 2008/04/08 02:24:49, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (godsilove @ April 07 2008,20:49)
It's clear that a variety of different influences, including Nietzsche and Luther, contributed to Nazism.

A bit unfair to Nietzsche.  The Nazis certainly used  Nietzsche, but they never really followed his actual philosophy, just borrowed the bits that sounded good to them.  A lot of his association with Nazism is due to his sister Elisabeth, who married a fanatical anti-semite and ran off with him to Paraguay to found a a pure, Aryan German colony.  It didn't work out too well for them. Nietzsche himself was not at all fond of anti-semitism or the  brand of belligerent nationalism Hitler subscribed to, and he loathed his brother-in-law.  After Nietzsche died, Elisabeth basically quote-mined her brother's fragments and notes, including altering and reordering the texts as "editor" and published it as The Will To Power.  She eventually became an enthusiastic supporter of the NSDAP and both used and allowed to be used her brother's reputation to promote the Nazi cause.

Nietzsche's real views on the Jewish people were very un-Nazi indeed.  For example, in Beyond Good and Evil, one finds this:

The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (better even than under favourable ones), by means of virtues which one would like to stamp as vices - thanks above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before `modem ideas.'; they change, when they change, only in the way in which the Russian Empire makes its conquests - an empire that has time and is not of yesterday -: namely, according to the principle `as slowly as possible'! A thinker who has the future of Europe on his conscience will, in all the designs he makes for this future, take the Jews into account as he will take the Russians, as the immediately surest and most probable factors in the great game and struggle of forces. That which is called a `nation' in Europe today and is actually more of a res facto than nata (indeed sometimes positively resembles a res ficta et picta -) is in any case something growing, young, easily disruptable, not yet a race, let alone such an aere perennius as the Jewish type is: these `nations' should certainly avoid all hot-headed rivalry and hostility very carefully! That the Jews could, if they wanted - or if they were compelled, as the anti-Semites seem to want - even now predominate, indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are not planning and working towards that is equally certain.

Certainly an idiosyncratic viewpoint, but one of little use to someone like Hitler.

Date: 2008/04/09 15:20:40, Link
Author: didymos
Gil boasts::


8:49 am

So which Harley do you own?

A 1998 Dyna Superglide, non-stock and souped up with Screaming Eagle pipes, S&S carburetor, high-performance ignition and cam, and increased compression ratio. It has 50% more horsepower than stock, and really roars.

Gil forgot:  Did I also mention my cock is *this big*? (Gil adopts a Jesus Christ Pose)

Date: 2008/04/09 15:29:33, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, Jesus...:

Gods iPod


12:44 pm

Sorry, off topic, but has anyone found any really good documentaries about the truth of global warming? Something with reputable scientists in it?

God forbid you actually read a book or something; or you know, watch the Discovery Channel.  I'm sure Davey could lend you some back issues of SciAm.  Obviously, primary literature is totally untrustworthy and out of the question.

Date: 2008/04/11 00:51:15, Link
Author: didymos
What's amusing is poor bFast.  Here,here, and here he shills (shrills?) for a new topic about how recent work seems to have placed the metazoan root closer to comb jellies than sponges.  He's absolutely convinced that this is "solidly not predicted by NDE", yet doesn't seem to have actually read the article. I think some of the wording is a bit misleading, but it's clear the work is entirely grounded in evolutionary theory from start to finish. Two evolutionary scenarios are even presented in the article:


The finding was unexpected because evolutionary biologists had thought that less complex animals split off and evolved separately first. Dunn says that two evolutionary scenarios can explain why the comb jellies would actually have been first among animals. The first is that the comb jelly evolved its complexity independent of other animals after branching off to forge its own path.

The second is that the sponge evolved its simpler form from the more complex form. This second possibility underscores the fact that "evolution is not necessarily just a march towards increased complexity," Dunn said.

The rest is here:

And if you need more data on bFast's vast and terrifying powers of observation, there's this in between pleas for the new topic:



10:00 pm

I am baffled! I went thorugh each of Poachy’s posts in this thread. None of them in any way suggest to me that he is a troll. Can y’all provide quotes from Poachy that lead you to this view so that I know what to avoid so that I don’t get flamed in the future?

Date: 2008/04/11 08:04:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dogdidit @ April 11 2008,05:07)
bfast got his wish.

Yeah, bFast even got thanked for it.  You just know he was so proud of that. Which is really rather sad. And I actually mean that:  the fact that anyone derives satisfaction by contributing anything, however small, to the perpetuation of ID or any other pseudoscience is worthy of pity. Not a lot, but at least a little every now and then.

Quote (dogdidit @ April 11 2008,05:07)

I like the avatar: L Ron Hoover, ridding a tomato of its engrams with the e-meter. ALL SCIENTOLOGY SO FAR!

Thanks.  Sort of self-defeating on LRon's part, though.  If anything is going to irreversibly traumatize a tomato, it's L. Ron Hubbard.

OT link, a personal favorite:

Date: 2008/04/11 12:17:45, Link
Author: didymos
leo found out about being thrown to the tards, and turned state's evidence:

leo stotch


12:04 pm

Wow! It appears to be the day to throw each other under the bus. Charlie and Lutepisc inform the authorities on poor ole Poachy, who promptly tattles on me. I guess I need to rat on somebody, but who?

I know, how about that Denyse O’Leary? She claims to be Canadian, but she neither end her sentences with “eh!” nor talks about hockey. That is kind of suspicious, isn’t it?

Date: 2008/04/11 21:43:30, Link
Author: didymos
OK, so UD gots this: WORLD interviews Ben Stein

You're basic Dembski cut-and-repost.  Here's the part I found interesting:

WORLD: How did you get involved with Expelled?

STEIN: I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating.

Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.

As per usual, the bold is mine, all mine.

Date: 2008/04/11 21:45:22, Link
Author: didymos
Goddamnit, I need an edit button.  Change that "You're" to "Your".

Date: 2008/04/12 02:03:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ April 11 2008,23:10)
It is The Source. It is the ne plus ultra of tard - there is none higher. Doing a line of Doug Moron or Gil Dodgen is like flying over a rainbow on a unicorn while the Care Bears sing 'Hollaback Girl' by Gwen Stefani.

You son of a bitch.  You've unrepressed all my memories of Hollaback Girl.  That's just not cool, man.

didymos  wails and gnashes teeth

Date: 2008/04/12 02:27:18, Link
Author: didymos
Here's Sally!:



8:34 am

   I don’t have a publicly available quote on hand but I remember hearing via private email exchanges that the ID proponents who were interviewed were similarly not given a full explanation of the producer’s long term intentions. I think Sal Cordova was one of them? So if it’s true that Allen was “misled” or “lied to” then so were the ID proponents being interviewed.

That is correct.

I was filmed for the movie as well…

The ID side were given the same line that this was for the documentary “Crossroads”.

I felt uncomfortable with the way they secured the interviews as it did not seem completely forthright and appeared deceptive.

Although, at this point, if there is a question of the ethics of how evidence was gathered, it will probably increase the publc interest to see the movie. Have I ever lost interest in a journalistic piece because the journalist lied in order to acquire facts (like Celeste Biever)? I can’t recall that I ever had less interest as a result…

Date: 2008/04/12 03:01:49, Link
Author: didymos
Umm, no "Crossroads" was never the title.  They used that to get scientists to participate in a pro-ID film without admitting to it being a pro-ID film.  They'd already registered the domain before requesting the interviews, and never registered any or suchlike domain.

Date: 2008/04/12 03:03:24, Link
Author: didymos
Ignore the last post please.  I didn't pay attention to where you found that image.

Date: 2008/04/12 09:35:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2008,04:04)
It'll be interesting to see how they respond.


Date: 2008/04/12 11:28:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ April 12 2008,08:57)
Is it ironic to anyone else that the pre-EXPELLED circus is more entertaining than the actual movie?

At this point?  Nah.  It's now about as ironic as ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.  Not that it's a damn bit less funny for that, though.

Date: 2008/04/12 22:33:05, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (godsilove @ April 12 2008,15:51)
Now if it's true that a creationist said Jews are biologically different, then doesn't that negate the notion that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust?

Of course not.  Nothing can negate that for the IDists.  Not even a forensically verified photograph of Hitler smiling fondly while reading a German copy of "The Design Inference" could do that.  It would however suggest that either:

A.  Hitler is still alive, and clearly hasn't gained any intellectual rigour in his hyper-senescence.

B.  The Nazis were masters of time-travel. Possibly due to the actions of a rogue Timelord. Might even be WAD himself.  The Dr. Dr. Dr.?

C.  Dembski is some sort of immortal Wandering IDiot, and can only be killed via decapitation with antique bladed weaponry or upon injection with a human scale Type III secretion system.

D.  Darwinists are still wrong.  And Nazis.  Who eat children.

Date: 2008/04/13 21:17:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (GCT @ April 13 2008,18:36)
Wait, Spinal Tap isn't a real band?  Next you're going to tell me that Dethklok isn't real.  Pshaw.

So, would you consider the ultimate message of "Go Into The Water" to be that the paths taken by evolution are endlessly unexpected and non-progressive?


We call out to the beasts of the sea to come forth and join us, this night is yours
Because, one day we will all be with you in the black and deep
One day we will all go into the water

Go into the water
live there die there
live there die

We reject our earthly fires
Gone are days of land empires
Lungs transform to take in water
Cloaked in scales we swim and swim on

We are alive, and we'll metamorphasize
And we'll sink as we devolve back to beasts
Our home is down here, and we've known this for years
We must conquer from the sea, we build an army with water steeds

We'll rise, from our depths down below
Release yourselves, drown with me
We will conquer land with water

Gone are days of land empires
Lungs transform to take in water
Cloaked in scales we swim and swim on
We swim on
We swim on

And this one's for Dave:

Date: 2008/04/15 01:58:57, Link
Author: didymos
Fun with screencaps. "Inner Life of A Cell" is on the left, and "Expelled" is on the right.

Zooming through the actin:

Actin Network:

Vesicle being walked along a microtubule:

Golgi Apparati:

Nuclear Envelope pores:

Centrosome in the distance:


Umm, not sure, really....mitochondrion?:

I can't decide if this is what the "Expelled" folk were going for in the next caps:

I kinda think it was, based on the spatial arrangement in these caps, and the implied shape in the "Expelled" one.  Not that sure, though:

Original Work?

This last one appears to be unique to "Expelled", or at least, plagiarized from some other source:

(Edited 11/4/2008:  New Image Host)

Date: 2008/04/15 02:45:58, Link
Author: didymos
Has anyone done a study on the efficacy of prayer in causing a proximate terminal condition?

Date: 2008/04/15 06:38:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 15 2008,04:18)
Ben Stein Watch

Ben's not JUST a creationist crank.  He's also an economist nutjob.
The best quote in that article:

Of course, being attacked by Ben Stein is a bit like being harangued [for] no discernible reason by a demented vagrant: an impartial observer might feel sorry for the attacker, but none of the blows ever land.

Date: 2008/04/15 06:49:29, Link
Author: didymos
I'm sure someone has noticed this before, but what the hell.  The same guy also had an entry on Expelled:

Ben Stein Watch, Expelled Edition

Date: 2008/04/15 07:06:15, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (charlie d @ April 15 2008,04:53)
what you have as "actin network" in your comparison above looks to me like chromatin in the case of Expelled (DNA wrapped around histones). Either that, or they have no idea what actin looks like.

Yeah, I forgot to add a caveat to that one as well.  I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to represent, I just thought it might be their version of the actin network stuff in "Inner Life".

Date: 2008/04/15 07:33:09, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, charlie, I think you're right on that.  I just rewatched the Expelled stuff, and I'd missed a really quick transition through a nuclear pore.

Date: 2008/04/15 08:03:01, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ April 15 2008,05:44)
This is what you guys consider plagerism?

My goodness you're some desperate folks.

I'll be more clear.  I don't think my post makes the case for total plagiarism. It wasn't supposed to.  I just posted images of corresponding processes/structures, at least as best as I could determine.  A couple are quite obviously copied, others not so much, just as obviously.  Yeah, I threw in a snarky remark about plagiarism at the end.  Sue me.

Date: 2008/04/15 21:31:41, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ April 15 2008,15:06)

The only seriously mentioned evo mat alternative
Is a quasi-infinite array of sub cosmi,
To soak up the config space,
And that plainly moves out of science into
Ad hoc speculative philosophical metaphysics.

I just felt like posting that lovely bit of doggerel. But I have no idea what it means.

This worries me, but I think I know exactly what he's attempting to talk about.  It's a badly executed summary of Lee Smolin's very speculative fecund universes idea, which is also sometimes called "cosmological natural selection".

Date: 2008/04/15 22:08:14, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 15 2008,19:56)
get the fuck off of my lawn with that bullshit.

Well, I guess in Dembski's case, Ph.D really does mean "Piled Higher and Deeper".  Question is, do the multiple Doctorings simply result in additive bullshit or exponential bullshit?

Date: 2008/04/15 23:18:17, Link
Author: didymos
Here're some great examples of how differently some of the same processes and structures can be animated depending on what the animator chooses to focus on:

Translation and Intracellular Functions


Date: 2008/04/16 01:55:38, Link
Author: didymos
Sorry about the double post.  For some reason, it didn't appear immediately. I waited a couple minutes, tried again, at which point I figured it must be a glitch in the matrix or something.

Date: 2008/04/16 20:28:01, Link
Author: didymos
What DaveScot says about the Premise campaign in Hilarious Expelled Advertisement on The Science Channel:

Premise is doing a GREAT job with this. Anyone who thinks they’re incompetents is in a state of denial.

What he should be saying:

Ow, Ow, son of a bitch, someone get this fucking Giant Redwood out of my eye!!! My Stein, my Stein, why hast thou forsaken me? Giveth me some Clear Eyes!!!

Date: 2008/04/16 22:23:58, Link
Author: didymos
Ooh, fun.  Kevin Miller helpfully points out the long version of that oh so funny commercial on YouTube.  It has nifty video of microtubules being peeled apart that I swear I've seen somewhere before:

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/04/16 22:26:02, Link
Author: didymos
Gack. Sorry.  Here's the commercial:


Date: 2008/04/17 01:22:57, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 16 2008,23:04)

And Gerry Rzeppa gets a little snarky right back:            
As a Christian his job is to make disciples of all nations, love his wife, his kids, fellow believers, neighbors, etc. It’s certainly not his responsibility to take up a career that requires frequent and sustained lying to assist the secular government in the management of the unregenerate.

And ditto for frequent and sustained lying to advance a fraudulent pseudo-science.

What I like about it is it's discussing the morality of undercover police investigation. So, No True Christian can/should be an undercover officer.  OK, so what about non-Christians undercover, Gerry?


And if he’s not a Christian, the only advice I have for him is to become one.

Well, crap, there's something else we'll have to outsource until all the now-no-longer-undercover cops quit and assume their true Christian duty to "make disciples of all nations".  After that's done, we're just fucked I guess.

Date: 2008/04/17 03:16:24, Link
Author: didymos
From the same thread as the last few, we discover that, hey it's all ID research! sagebrush gardener explains:

But if ID is true, then all research is ID-related and no competent, honest researcher can help discovering evidence for design. The only question is whether the researcher admits it or not. The famous XVIVO animation for example clearly supports design for anyone with eyes to see.

The laboratory does not need to say “ID Research Department” on the door. I don’t see why someone whose eyes are open to design can’t work (”undercover” if necessary) alongside design-deniers and let the results speak for themselves.

But sagey, pal, it's the Darwinianist Forces of Darkness who will, if given the opportunity, put you in a concentration camp should you dare to suggest it's the work of God The Ecumenically Acceptable Designer. Don't you see the evidence for that, man!? It's all around you! Did you hear that? Oh God Ecumenically Acceptable Designer! They're here......

Or you know, not.

Date: 2008/04/17 04:39:59, Link
Author: didymos
Wow.  Shermer really pissed off Luskin.  There's a two-part denunciation on the DI "blog":

Date: 2008/04/17 06:05:50, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (bystander @ April 17 2008,02:57)
Must have melted their site. I can't connect.

No such luck.  The LORD of Tubes has granted them a reprieve.

Date: 2008/04/17 06:32:42, Link
Author: didymos
I only see one problem with the idea, and that is that to a lot of Christians "Secular Humanism" is basically identical to "Satanism".  I think for some, it'd actually be better to be an honest-to-God Satanist than a Secular Humanist.

Date: 2008/04/17 08:04:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ April 17 2008,05:19)
Quote (didymos @ April 16 2008,22:26)
Gack. Sorry.  Here's the commercial:


Excuse me, but lest we forget, WAD completely agrees with Dawkins-- that a Designer is just as likely as hobgoblins or 'gremlins', if you will.

Well, I hadn't read that entry yet.  Lo and behold, the first word of the first comment is....gack.

You think we could ask Dembski do to a "Bayesian sort of thing" and give us the odds on that?  I'm pretty sure it proves the Ecumenically Acceptable Designer is teh realz.

Date: 2008/04/17 09:56:16, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, that new cell animation?  Not so different, only yet more shitlike:

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/04/18 18:35:33, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, I had four different accounts get silently re-directed to /dev/null. There was a fifth which was never even allowed through registration.  I still have no idea why.  I'd get about two posts in, then the next would get stuck in moderation for about a day, then vanish, after which I didn't even make it to moderation.  I'm pretty sure it started because I doubted the comedic value of one of Galapagos Finch's "contributions", after which my IP block was probably flagged as "trouble".

Date: 2008/04/18 19:36:34, Link
Author: didymos
The One True WAD is still a quote-mining jackass:

I’m moving it to the top of the queue because of all the fuss about Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED connecting Darwin to Hitler. Get over it — there was a clear connection!

Date: 2008/04/18 20:08:57, Link
Author: didymos
I should add that if they are going by the block of addresses within which my IPs appear, then I've inadvertently screwed UD out of many potential contributors.  There're a ridiculous number of churches in this area, and their parishioners are covered by that address pool, should they patronize the same ISP.  Given that it's ATT DSL, many of them are quite likely to be customers, and thus pre-banned.  I have trouble feeling bad about that.

Date: 2008/04/18 20:57:08, Link
Author: didymos
You know what's weird?  They still have have two upcoming screenings listed at the ultra-super-ninja-secret RSVP site:

Date: 2008/04/18 21:01:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2008,18:28)

Dave can haz firstest post:



7:11 pm

12:20pm Arbor - Great Hills, Austin

70 people

Some laughter, not a lot. Some groaning at the gratuitous God bashing, not a lot. Loud applause lasting about 1 minute from most of the audience at the conclusion.

I think he probably meant: "Some applause at the end, not a lot."

Date: 2008/04/18 21:39:35, Link
Author: didymos
Fresh from the DI:


This film is going to be a classic and there is nothing the fulminating opposition can do about it. (In recent days they even resorted to threatening lawsuits, just confirming their growing reputation for ill-liberal spite.)

The whole this is just pure awesome. But I dig this bit:

Frankly, I not only was skeptical, but also suspicious when I first heard about the film project a couple of years ago.

Frankly, I not only am skeptical about the expressed skepticism, I am also deeply unshocked that we now have the DI President and Stein confirming that the filmmakers had the whole thing planned out at least 2 years ago.

Date: 2008/04/18 21:43:04, Link
Author: didymos
That DI link was supposed to be


Date: 2008/04/19 00:29:49, Link
Author: didymos
The real reason for all those mean reviews from Matteo:

I find it amusing that it is just a nine at rottentomatoes. 18 out of 20 reviewers seem constitutionally afraid of sticking their necks out and expressing the slightest approval for anything coming from the hated “creationists”. I guess they want to hold on to their careers (and prejudices) or something. These are no doubt the same folks who wholeheartedly approve of propagandistic schlock from Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore. But no one gets in any trouble for cheering that stuff.

Yeah, either that or maybe they just didn't actually like it.  Jesus Christ.....

Date: 2008/04/19 00:51:22, Link
Author: didymos
Some more choice snippets for your consideration:


This ought to be merely the first of many well crafted excursions into the mainstream with ID.

One can only hope....

Cat continues:

With such a small crowd, I was struck to hear sustained applause, that’s rare.

Apparently, going to sparsely attended documentary screenings is something of a hobby for the Slinger, since he/she seems to have some basis for applause duration comparison.


The 7:10 showing in Memphis was sold out!!!

Notable for it's brevity, mostly.


The area where I saw the film is mostly lower to lower middle class and recent immigrant communities, which probably isn’t the best demographic for this type of film, IMHO.

Great movie, but my skeptical friend slept through half of it (he’s 70, and a regular napper).

Which half did he sleep through? If it's the latter, he may just have been 70 and really fucking bored.

Gods iPod:

I was surprised by the ending drawing the lines between Hitler and Darwin. I thought it was unnecessary, perhaps. And then, perhaps it’s time to really slap the Darwinists about a bit. I took a Catholic girl to watch the movie, she liked it too.

Suprised? Apparently, Gods iPod was avoiding spoilers. Uneccessary, perhaps? That's not quite the right word, either of them.


I was concerned that the Nazi connection would be overplayed. It was not. The central theme was the Berlin Wall. I thought it worked quite well. The reviews have been unfair and out of touch.

How does a review qualify as "out of touch"?  What, they were bitching that this newfangled technicolor nonsense was too distracting and the director needs to stop watching the Emm-Tee-Vee and get a haircut?

Date: 2008/04/19 02:04:46, Link
Author: didymos
And people wonder why anyone would have a problem with the movie. Why? This is why:


Friday, April 18, 2008

Current mood: tired

So Alisha and I just watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. That's the movie by Ben Stein about the wall that evolutionists have up against any form of intelligent design. The argument he made is not one of getting religion into schools, but rather, to simply open the field of discussion and allow the freedom for scientists to approach science from whatever view point they'd like. No matter what you do every scientist is going to do research with certain presumptions about how things work, either randomly as in evolution, or by design as in intelligent design. Therefore, since this is America, science should be allowed from either view point. He proves that that isn't happening and that any scientist who values their career must keep quiet about any intelligent design fueled discoveries  that they make. The funny thing is, a ton of the greatests scientist, such as Newton and Einstien, believed in some form of creator and even went about their work with that as an important factor in mind. Yet today, some how, if you go about your work in a scientific field with that in mind, you won't have anything you write published and you'll probably lose all funding for your research. How does that make sense? Why not just let the evidence speak for itself, no matter what you believe about Darwin and religion.
Another interesting thing that he brought up was the connection between Dawinism, Hitler, and the Nazis. Apparently Hitler was a stout Darwinist and he actually thought he was doing a good thing by exterminating lesser humans. You see, from a true Darwinists perspective, humans are merely animals, and when we die, we just die, there is no real value in human life. So when Hitler opened the concentration camps he was using them for political purposes obviously, but also to get rid of the sick, the lame, the old, and the lesser races in order to speed evolution along and help create the next generation of more advanced human beings. From his point of view this was a good thing, and if Darwinism were true, it really would be a good thing. I think we all know better that that though. I hope.
Anyway, it was an interesting movie that was simply about freedom, and the current state of persecution in science. I recommend it.

Bolding mine. So, even though they swear it wasn't really their point, the filmmaker's have now convinced someone that, yep, the Holocaust was Darwin's fault.  And, as you can see the patriotic, protect-the-underdog button-pushing worked like a goddamn charm.

Date: 2008/04/19 15:28:42, Link
Author: didymos
Otherwise Known As Kevin writes:

Expelled Exposed is supposed to reveal Expelled to be nothing more than "anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none." But all it really does is expose the NCSE as an anti-science, anti-education propaganda mill that is hell bent on stifling discussion and debate at every turn.

Shorter Miller:  Don't disagree with me.  That's suppresive. *whine*

Kev also says Expelled opened in 1050 theaters. So, taking the box-office from "The Numbers", $1,126,000, and doing a Dembski-style Bayesian thing, you get an average of $1072.38 in ticket sales per theater.  Taking $7 as the average ticket price, that gives an average of roughly 153 tickets sold per theater.  If you just divide the box-office, then approx. 160,857 people across the land actually paid to watch the soon-to-be-a-classic film.  Yeah, that sucks.  Clearly, a chilling example of the Darwinist Thought Suppression Directorate at work.

Date: 2008/04/20 12:50:02, Link
Author: didymos
Wow, Dembski's got a Nazi bee in his SS bonnet lately.

The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the Pope?:


So a film that shows how Christianity “culminated in the Holocaust” constitutes cutting-edge cultural commentary. But a film like EXPELLED, which shows explicitly how the Nazis appropriated Darwin’s ideas, is “bizarre ad hysterical.”

Thank God for EXPELLED, which is holding the secular media’s feet to the fire.

If you read the actual review he quotes, it never does call the film "cutting-edge cultural commentary" and his claim that the film argues that Christianity "culminated in the Holocaust" is refuted right there in the text above. If you're gonna quote-mine, you should try to make it just a little bit harder for people to figure out you're full of shit. Otherwise, what's the point?  

You have to wonder if Dembski's aware of what the origin of "holding feet to the fire" is. Hints for ya Billy: It was very popular during a period of successive military expeditions to the Holy Land, and it involves torture, and heretics. Oh, and you know who really came out good in that period there, guy?  Another hint: it wasn't the Jews.


Date: 2008/04/20 13:58:35, Link
Author: didymos
Well, this comment ain't long for the world:



11:51 am


I would like to have your optimism, but: “Ruloff said the film could top the $23.9-million opening for Michael Moore’s polemic against President Bush, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the best launch ever for a documentary.”


“That’s not all that bad for a documentary from an independent no-name producer.”

That’s misleading: This film isn’t “a documentary from an independent no-name producer” but the documentary with “the widest documentary release ever, at more than 1,000 theaters”.

Or this one, from DaveScot Serves Up Some Bush Strategery we get:


[…] in order to achieve the latter (See: Iraq War). Now let’s have a look at what DaveScot has to say in response to the opening weekend of Expelled: According to Box Office Prophets the projected total weekend […]

It's actually a blog link in strategeric disguise:

Date: 2008/04/20 14:02:16, Link
Author: didymos
Well the "Stragery" comment got nixed already.  Nice job.

Date: 2008/04/20 18:36:04, Link
Author: didymos
Not so fast there.  Apollos begs to disagree:


FtK, the movie will have an impact and make a difference. What you’re seeing is like a vampire’s violent reaction to sunlight.

So, getting pissed off at and/or making fun of polarizing, manipulative, and dishonest propaganda is basically the same as bursting into flames and screaming in melodramatic agony?  Or are you saying that Darwinists are not only Nazis, but Nazi Vampires.  Hey, you remember that one episode of Angel where.....


However this film is a “knocking” event, and it will have an impact, though not necessarily one that’s easily assessed from the outset.

Or, to put it another way: yeah, I know it looks like a miserable failure and for the most part everyone thinks it sucks, but trust me: 'tis a classic that shall be passed down through the ages.


   (Revelation 3:20) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

I believe knocks are being answered even as I type this. Be encouraged!

Knock knock.

Who's there?


Jesus who?

Jesus Christ, will you shut up already. The movie just fucking sucks, OK?

Oh, and apparently, Darwinists have almost ruined FTK's son's birthday party.  Are you happy now?  Huh?  You Darwinist Nazi Vampire motherfuckers?

Date: 2008/04/20 18:49:54, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, but then he turns around and does this:


If you’re so well informed on Darwin’s writings then please answer why you left out the rest of the quote. If not ignorance then it must be dishonesty. A lie by omission.

Well, you know what they say about consistency....

Date: 2008/04/20 21:47:50, Link
Author: didymos
This one's a goner:




6:52 pm

FTK - If I can amend Apollos’ post: “The movie will not have an impact, except on the uneducated, and it’s not going to make any difference long-term”, except to make IDers even more liable to ridicule, so have fun at your kid’s party!

Now that was just mean.  Funny, though.  So, a wag of the finger and a tip of the hat.

Date: 2008/04/21 04:17:36, Link
Author: didymos
What the hell has gotten into that guy?  I'm relatively new to these Tardian realms, but even so, I know there's something deeply strange about this sudden fit of rational thought.  All of sudden DaveScot is a mystery wrapped in an enigma shrouded in surprise and liberally basted with "What the fuck?".

Date: 2008/04/21 13:00:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ April 21 2008,09:38)

Mike Edmondson has owned up.  He made the the "Beware the Believers" movie.  And has this sequel.

I was right? Praise Jesus!  After I fingered him as a suspect on ERV's blog, a lot of people considered it all but certain, but I wasn't going to be satisfied until and if he actually took the credit.  I'm weird that way:  I actually like irrefutable evidence.

Date: 2008/04/21 13:14:25, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 21 2008,11:03)
Quote (didymos @ April 21 2008,14:00)
After I fingered him ... on ERV's blog...I wasn't going to be satisfied...I'm weird that way...


Son of bitch....walked, nay sprinted, into that one.

Date: 2008/04/21 13:26:19, Link
Author: didymos
Poe's Law strikes again.   Otherwise-known-as-shifty-bastard-Kev is gloating over "Beware the Believers":

Oh, and good news folks:  Chuck Norris liked it.  Sort of.  His tears cure cancer, so he must be right:

Date: 2008/04/21 13:39:17, Link
Author: didymos
This thread's turning into a rich vein.  To wit, Barb:

We’re arrogant? For suggesting that Darwinian evolution doesn’t account for the origin of life?

Actually, you're right, but not for lack of trying.


Seriously, if the best the Darwinian faithful can do is spout ad hominem attacks to defend their theory, then their theory is in a lot of trouble.

Yeah, bitches!  And Darwin was a Nazi Vampire Motherfucker who beat puppies to death for laughs.

Still, I detect a hint of woven acrylic, or maybe cotton.

Date: 2008/04/21 13:52:13, Link
Author: didymos
WAD wants to fill your chasm:

You think the following statement from the AAAS is going to help heal the chasm in our society over evolution and ID*?

Oh, so that's what Expelled is really about:  healing the rift between Science and Faith.  All that stuff on Nazi's and Academic Freedom is just a sideline.  Really, what matters is that the two camps need to come at an intersection or, what's the word I'm looking for?  Crossroads?

Hey, WAD: fill your own chasm.

Date: 2008/04/21 22:00:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 21 2008,19:31)
When you're in the mood for self-abuse (no, not THAT kind of self-abuse) you've got to read the Conservapedia article on Expelled.

It is so freaking mental.

Enh.  It just doesn't induce that gibbering Lovecraftian horror I was looking for.  C'mon wingnuts, you can do better.  I know you can.

Date: 2008/04/21 22:10:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 21 2008,20:05)
[quote=dogdidit,April 21 2008,22:51]
Interestingly, here's elfsternberg's

Elf Sternberg?  The guy from way back in the Elder Days of the Tubes?

Date: 2008/04/21 23:08:42, Link
Author: didymos
BTW, sorry for my sloppy quote edit, which I see has screwed up everyone's posts.

Date: 2008/04/22 15:21:59, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,12:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

Does anyone else see this as just a way of basically saying "No.  It was those bloodthirsty Jews"?  And, don't many Christians take the position that even though, maybe, God no longer mandates that sort of thing, at one time he did, and therefore it was to the good?

Date: 2008/04/22 19:18:15, Link
Author: didymos
Alrighty then.  Moving on....

Date: 2008/04/22 21:43:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,17:21)
Quote (didymos @ April 22 2008,20:18)
Alrighty then.  Moving on....

It's just not topical for this forum.

No, I know.  I just though it was amusing that everyone basically collectively agreed to that, and then all conversation ceased.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Date: 2008/04/22 22:29:47, Link
Author: didymos
Speaking of teh loonz,  DLH likes to preach:

I encourage you to take a break and learn more about logical fallacies and how to avoid them, especially ad hominem arguments. Also study about moral judgments, speaking the truth, accusing people of wrongdoing etc.

Pretty bad at the "practice what you" part though. Enh.  Nobody's perfect I guess.

Date: 2008/04/23 01:55:51, Link
Author: didymos
I don't know, but does this help?




6:38 pm

Very cool.

“Compass into a world bustling with riches yet to be discovered.”

Ben Stein said something about your research potentially curing Cancer. I may be mistaken, but if you do, that would make one heck of a story.

Expelled 2: How We Cured Cancer.

I just don't even know what to say to that.

Date: 2008/04/23 13:46:57, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2008,09:47)
Good article.

Great TARD in the comments.

My favorite part:


sarah - April 23, 2008:

What’s worse is when you go back further than the monkey…everything came out of slim. So is that how much you are worth….are you worth only slim?

Slim...Shady?  Fast?  Trimspa? What?

There's a good idiom lurking in there, though: "Whatever, man. That shit goes back further than the monkey."

Date: 2008/04/23 13:55:02, Link
Author: didymos
[quote=didymos,April 23 2008,11:46][/quote]
Holy crap.  Her blog rules!  It's got a  cover of "Amazing Grace" for theme music, with (apparently) guest star Kenny G, no comments whatsoever, and this post:


Do You Hate Jesus?  Posted by: sarah-luvvom | June 23, 2007

Click here if you hate Jesus.

Date: 2008/04/23 14:08:58, Link
Author: didymos
I stand corrected:  she has 28 comments.

Date: 2008/04/23 14:37:31, Link
Author: didymos
OK, I'm tenatively calling bullshit on something, but don't know if it really is.  The next-to-latest DI "blog" posting claims that Guillermo Gonzales invented the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone, as part of their ongoing "he wuz teh ekspelldz.  He can haz tenur?" campaign. As far as I know, he's just a proponent, and maybe introduced the term, as best I can tell, right?

Date: 2008/04/23 17:11:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dnmlthr @ April 23 2008,14:47)
Quote (don_quixote @ April 23 2008,22:37)
Chris has finally lost the plot:

Paranoid delusions at The Intersection

Sounds like he's taking the ball and going home.

What, like he's going to be any less mocked  or criticized because he's got a new host?  Unless he starts filtering the comments, I don't know how much it'll matter where he posts, because currently it's working not at all like a charm.
He's still annoying people.

Date: 2008/04/24 04:34:59, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2008,01:36)
But What Would Jesus Know about that?

He who lives by the tard, dies by the tard?

Date: 2008/04/24 17:35:40, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2008,09:29)
IANAL so that's about all I know there, but I understand SCO likes Dallas.

Yeah, and that worked out great for them.

Date: 2008/04/24 18:36:27, Link
Author: didymos
Here's a short but sweet review from Real Detroit Weekly (my favorite bits bolded):

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Starring Ben Stein. Written by Kevin Miller, Walt Ruloff and Ben Stein. Directed by Nathan Frankowski. Rated PG. Now playing.

Those who think that evolution is “just a theory” will probably revel in Expelled, a film in which a mountain of evidence garnered by decades of rigorous empirical study is challenged by the stuffy economics teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

In addition to the standard creationist claptrap, Ben Stein argues that there is a link between acceptance of evolution and Nazism.  To be fair, this would explain why so many of the world's leading evolutionary biologists have a penchant for slaughtering scores of Jews.  Thankfully for Stein, the name of God has never been used as a justification for heinous acts—otherwise his argument would seem laughably inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

Since this movie is more chuck-full of errors than Kim Jong Il's Ethics final, I'll direct those who are interested to

This is also where the tardtastic Mathis interview  PZ wrote about may be found.

Date: 2008/04/24 21:28:22, Link
Author: didymos
Well, this one is epically stupid.  Yeah I know, shocker.  Here 'tis:


I just got back from a couple of weeks in Israel, where I visited the ruins of the ancient city of Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and saw this stone:

<image of incredibly obvious human carving snipped>

An “expert” at the site insisted that this stone bears the marks of a 1st century Jewish stone carver.  “But,” I asked him, “as a scientist are you not bound by the strictures of methodological naturalism?  Your explanation for the markings is a classic example of the ‘stone carver of the gaps’ fallacy, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  The methods of science demand that we favor a naturalistic explanation for the markings on this stone, and it seems to me that ‘weathering’ is the best hypothesis.  Indeed, it is the only reasonable hypothesis unless we are willing to let the IDiots get a foot in the door.”

Since when are chisels agents of the supernatural?

Date: 2008/04/24 21:44:02, Link
Author: didymos
On Victimized by EXPELLED? they let quite a comment through:




12:19 am

A jerk without the courage to use a real name writes:

My God, I just read the letter, you are horrible people! How dare you play upon people’s painful emotions for your own political and religious gains? You sick, sick, individuals, you should be so ashamed. You disgusting, weak, terrible people! I can understand manipulating the facts of biology; you’ve been doing that for years. But maybe the accusations are correct; your morals really are as lacking as your intellect. You should publicly apologize for your ad hominem, and your ridiculous film.

Of course, you’ll never approve this comment, and I’ll never see it posted, because you are cowards. Prove me wrong.

The bolding is in the original, so I assume it's the loudspeaker in the ceiling again.  I guess we're supposed to ignore what the comment actually says, since anyone on UD who doesn't post using their full given and legal name can't be trusted to make a sound point.  For the most part, I actually have to agree, though not so much in this instance.

Date: 2008/04/24 21:50:28, Link
Author: didymos
Self-delusion knows no bounds:

Upright BiPed


3:43 pm

Well, well… Expelled in now projected to do $3.8 mil in its first full week (Fri-Thu)…..not bad at all.

Actually, that sucks.  Especially next to all the other stuff Expelled was "projected" to do.  And, so far, hasn't.

Date: 2008/04/24 22:00:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 24 2008,19:55)
I guess we're supposed to ignore what the comment actually says, since anyone on UD who doesn't post using their full given and legal name can't be trusted to make a sound point.



Date: 2008/04/24 22:12:23, Link
Author: didymos
Actually, the funniest part of Victimized by EXPELLED? is that clearly few could be bothered to read the actual post on Dawkins' site, because many assume:

A.  There's just one letter excerpted there.  There're actually 3:  Two to Michael Shermer, and then Dawkins' reprinting of his own sent to the guy who corresponded with Shermer.

B. The anonymous correspondent wrote to Dawkins. Nope, "David J" (apparently not the bass guitarist/vocalist from Bauhaus and Love & Rockets) wrote to Shermer, then Dawkins' wrote to him.

Note:  The above includes Dembski.


Date: 2008/04/24 22:16:04, Link
Author: didymos
OK, this is just as funny:

Thus spake Dembski:


It would just mean that someone wrote an intemperate letter and missed the care and nuance with which the producers of EXPELLED traced the intellectual history from Darwin to the Nazis.

Date: 2008/04/24 22:26:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Kristine @ April 24 2008,20:05)
Someone named BigPapaSmurf quotes a $9 million budget for Expelled. I don't know where he's getting his information, though, so I can't corroborate it.

There's this:

which is a little more concrete.  I'd say the 9 Mbuck figure is an "at least" number.

Date: 2008/04/24 23:26:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ April 24 2008,21:07)
Notes that Richardthughes wrote above:


Will he take down the big tent, or tell Dense she's androgynous?

Don't you mean Dennis?   :)

Anyone remember David Duchovny's guest role on Twin Peaks as the cross-dressing DEA agent Dennis/Denise?

Date: 2008/04/25 02:00:18, Link
Author: didymos
UD:  Bastion of Free Speech for all and sundry:



10:08 pm

Arrrrg! My comments on my own post are going into moderation. When will it end?

Date: 2008/04/25 02:20:50, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, OK, it all makes sense now:



12:24 am


You are 110% correct. I salute you, sir!

EJ Klone,

Human bodies are natural entities, but human minds are not naturalistic causes. Minds cannot be observed at all; they’re causal efficacy must be inferred from the effects they produce. This is true with all minds other than your own–even other humans.

See kids?  That's why you can't, for example, conclude something obviously carved into stone by a human was obviously carved into stone by a human, if you adhere to methodological naturalism.  Apparently, we're all supernatural agents, or something, so by definition you can't hold to methodological naturalism and simultaneously claim some guy carved some rock, even if you actually watch them do it, because ultimately it was his unnatural "mind" that did it.  It's like, a rule, or something.  Who knew?

Couple things I'm kinda tripping over:  if that's the case, then what are brains for? Burning calories?  Also, like, wouldn't you still have to use the natural body to hold the chisel and stuff?  And wouldn't that, like, leave distinctive marks you could compare to, say, a test carving you did yourself?  Just saying, is all.

Date: 2008/04/25 15:22:24, Link
Author: didymos
Kevin Miller is starting to get a bit miffed:

Hey Dominion: Before you trolls came along, this blog was about my personal life and writing projects, and that's what it's still about. Do you want me to brag about how we're still number nine at the box office? One step higher than we were last weekend? Do you want me to go on about how much money the film is making or all the positive reviews it's generating from our exit polls at the theaters? I could, but unlike some of you, I do have a life beyond this film and the topics it covers.

So if you don't like what I'm writing about, why don't you just leave? Run over to your little pals at Pharyngula or Panda's thumb and carp about how dishonest and stupid I am. That's what passive agressive little people like you who hide behind pseudonyms while committing character assassination do best, right?

Posted by: Kevin Miller | April 25, 2008 at 09:45 AM

Why would we want you to brag, Kevvy?  You just did that.  Of course, Kevin is an upstanding guy who takes full credit for his character assasination.  Also, you know, going onto someone's blog and posting, oh say, this:

Kevin (waving arms wildly about) "Hey, look over here. OVER HERE! You don't need to pay attention to that train wreck of a movie that -I- wrote. You know, the one with all the lousy reviews that I simply will not comment on...(and so on and so forth until we all puke for joy)".

Come on Kev? Don't you have anything to say about the wonderful feelings your movie has provoked in the souls of critics around the country? You were pretty quick to share the two or three positive reviews....

Posted by: Dominion | April 25, 2008 at 06:17 AM

is pretty much just being straight-up aggressive.  'Course, despite being a writer, Kev seems to have trouble using words properly.  Like "suppression", "Darwinist", "deny", or "truth".

Date: 2008/04/25 15:27:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 25 2008,12:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2008,14:09)
All science so far*

*If tinfoil-hat crackpot wooery qualifies. If it doesn't, we'll redefine science.

Is anybody else surprised kairosfocus hasn't come out of retirement for this?  I would think he could smell the tard wafting over the Caribbean.

Someone over there is posting under the nom de tard "Kairos", but so far, they've only hit a couple paragraphs tops per post, so it can't be the Real McTard.

Date: 2008/04/25 17:54:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (don_quixote @ April 25 2008,15:43)
Yeah, me too. What do you think is going on?

She's been expelled?  

For God's sake, will somebody alert the Discovery Institute?

Date: 2008/04/26 00:31:39, Link
Author: didymos
Dembski's trying to be funny again.  Or maybe not.  It's hard to tell sometimes.  Here ya go:

Yoko Ono, as many readers of this blog by now know, is suing the producers of EXPELLED for using a brief clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” One of the stanzas of the song reads:

   Imagine no possessions
   I wonder if you can
   No need for greed or hunger
   A brotherhood of man
   Imagine all the people
   Sharing all the world

Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it.

Just in case,  I'll address a couple points:

Possible:  Yep.
Trusting in the mercy of Ono:  not a good bet.

Date: 2008/04/26 00:54:38, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2008,22:48)
Passive aggressive? LOL. Kevin Miller can't get anything right.

Yeah, like I said, for someone whose profession is writing, he seems to have not had much experience with dictionaries.

Date: 2008/04/26 04:17:30, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 26 2008,01:46)
Some interesting stuff coming out over at Kevin Millers blog:
Nullifidian says:
If you knew that I was lying about having attended an October screening because you didn't start screening it until December, then the people at "Expelled" were (and are) lying about screenings that never happened, exactly what I wanted to confirm at the outset. And there's only one reason for them to be doing that that I can see, and that's to defraud the theatre chains into thinking that there's been much more of a grassroots buzz for "Expelled" than there really was.

Now all of you are reaping the rewards of that deception. You got your +1,000 screen opening, the widest of any documentary and your film is tanking.

So If some of the screenings never happened somebody was lying! I wonder if this will have relevance to the lawsuits :)

Kevin sucks. I pointed that same discrepancy out to him after he accused someone of lying about having attended a screening.  Then, I asked him straight out to talk to someone and find out why the Expelled website was claiming there were screenings last October. It's been a month and he never has bothered to respond.

Date: 2008/04/26 04:21:09, Link
Author: didymos
OK, the links to individual comments on Kevin's blog don't work.  But, in the interest of non-pseudonymous character assassination, I hereby declare my legal name to be Thomas S. Howard and that I posted under that name.  So yeah.

Date: 2008/04/26 04:28:55, Link
Author: didymos
Ah, and now I see Kevin got tricked by the one accused.  Nice.

Date: 2008/04/26 04:57:27, Link
Author: didymos
Ouch.  Expelled has to date made only $3,902,920, for a $220 per theatre average according to The Numbers.

Going by Brayton, they spent approximately $3,500,000 on the actual film.  So, even if all that money went directly into their hands, which it didn't, they'd still have only made $402,920 of profit over the seven day period, divided amongst all the various profit partners.  Now, add in the gobs of cash blown on busing people to shows, free-to-the-public-yet-invitation-only screenings, the various "we'll reimburse your tickets" schemes, ad time on multiple cable networks, whatever "Beware the Believers" cost them, all the web design and hosting fees, billboards, giant red tour bus, and who knows what else and it pretty much adds up to "Oh fuck, Yoko Ono is officially going to own our children."

Date: 2008/04/26 19:09:30, Link
Author: didymos
Well, Kev is trotting out Dembski's little opinion piece in the Baptist Press, so I felt obligated to point a couple things out to Mr. Miller:

First comment I left

OK, one thing about Dembski's piece. Notice how he says the Village Voice considers Constantine's Sword to be "cutting-edge cultural commentary"? So, it's a paraphrase from the review, right? Nope, he made it up and attributes it to them by way of implication. Nowhere in the review is anything remotely like that actually said about the movie. Here's an interesting and real quote though:

"But if [Constantine's Sword] is more provocative personal inquiry than reportorial knockout punch, it still pokes needed holes in the concept of papal infallibility and provides historical context for the dangers of linking the church and military."

Now compare that to the positive Expelled review you just quoted from in another entry:

"Watching Stein at Dachau, head in hand, comparing Darwin to Hitler, you understand that the man's on a personal crusade."

This isn't the first time Dembski has been less than honest, but even if it was, he has clearly been dishonest in that piece (most of the other claims in the piece have already been well-debunked) and so any conclusions he draws from that Village Voice review are worthless, based as they are on counterfactual "evidence". Here's the real review for those who prefer to check their facts:

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | April 26, 2008 at 04:46 PM

And the second


Oh, and let it be noted as well that Dembski imputes Carroll's conclusions to the Village Voice, when in fact, the majority of the review is a summary of the film's argument. But, per Dembski:

"So, for our culture's secular elite, a film that shows how Christianity 'culminated in the Holocaust' constitutes cutting-edge cultural commentary."

Let's actually see what follows that snippet:

"So argues James Carroll in his 2001 book Constantine's Sword and in this searching, intellectually lively documentary."

So argues James Carroll.

Not the Village Voice, who, by the way, can hardly be considered a valid stand-in for the entire "culture's secular elite", whatever that is actually supposed to mean.

It's clear that while the Voice's reviewer did like the film, he didn't consider Carroll's case a slam-dunk, but it was interesting and well enough done that it was worth seeing and raised some valid points. Yeah, I paraphrase, but here's the thing: I do so accurately.

That's multiple instances of clear dishonesty in a single sentence. But, hey, Dembski's one of the good guys, right?

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | April 26, 2008 at 04:57 PM

Kevin really does appear to have a severe allergy to fact-checking.

Date: 2008/04/28 14:34:40, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 28 2008,08:17)
On the linkfest that is cited above, tard sarfati giggles about the just-so stories that he has heard      
I once asked a list of ardent evolutionists why humans, in evolving from lower primates, had largely lost their sense of smell. Their answer was in two parts.

First, men evolved an upright posture, and evolved it in the savanna, where the comparatively unobstructed terrain allowed them to see all around them. They therefore did not need a sense of smell. This makes no sense. At night it obviously would be useful to know when predators were about. Lions are astute at using cover to approach their prey, and are the color of dirt. Horses, which have eyes at about the height of a man’s, and have good eyesight, also have an acute sense of smell. The upright-posture stuff is sheer story-telling.

Of course, it would really help if he could explain the poor sense of smell in the creatures made in his god's image, or, depending on where he was speaking, designed so poorly by teh designer. It surely wouldn't be a just-so story, would it?

Since when are lions the color of dirt?  Aren't they much closer to the color of, oh I don't know, the pale dry grass of the savanna?

Besides, if we're indeed discussing the African lion, they're often found hunting in packs of females, at night.  Or when the grass is a lovely bright green.  Neither situation really calls for looking like dirt, and green fur is kinda problematic unless you're one of those sloths with some algae pals.

I'm not even gonna bother with the commentary on horses.  

Oh and: Aslan was a lion, and he's also Jesus, so you just said the Lord looks like dirt you heretic bastard Sarfati.

Date: 2008/04/28 15:37:56, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 28 2008,12:46)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 28 2008,14:21)
Dembski Does Dinesh D'Souza:

The fact they put this ubertard forward as one of 'keen minds' of godbottery amuses me greatly. But I do believe Dinesh knows what hell is like...

Could it be that there are two Dinesh D'Souzas?  Because it is hard to believe Dembski would post approvingly about the same person he excoriated here:
In reading Dinesh D’Souza’s WHAT’S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY, I was surprised at how uncritical and historically uninformed is his view of evolution.

What you're expecting consistent, logical, well-reasoned behavior from Dembski?  The expediency of the moment.  All else goes down the memory-hole, until, of course, it's expedient again.

Date: 2008/04/28 19:13:02, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 28 2008,15:31)
- Richard Dawkins declined to debate D'Souza.

Of course, it should be noted that Dawkins isn't afraid of opposing arguments either, but just seems to dislike the debate format, especially when it's with a creationist.

Date: 2008/04/29 17:02:46, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, that's exactly how I remember it too, Sal:

The creationists at Dover did a great disservice to the cause of ID by refusing to heed the wise counsel given to them by the Discovery Institute. The creationists on the Dover school board represented themselves as proponents of ID when they themselves couldn’t even explain the basics of ID. Their indiscretions destroyed the fine work of many in the ID movement.

Few points:

1. You forgot the part where they heeded the unwise counsel and tried to push cdesign proponentism into science classrooms.

2. Sal, no one can coherently explain anything about ID, unless it's a discourse on why it sucks.

3. What fine work?

4. Oh, so they're creationists.  But, you Sal, are what? A proponent of Temporally Accelerated Rationalized Design?

Date: 2008/04/30 13:39:29, Link
Author: didymos
Man, Farfarman is a complete moonbat (I'm reclaiming the term.  I don't feel all that empowered though).  He foams:

Larry Fafarman


6:14 pm

There is no question that the Dover decision has had an intimidating effect on legislatures and school boards that want to include or allow criticism of evolution in the school curricula.

There is no question that the Dover decision has had an intimidating effect on legislatures and school boards that want to include or allow criticism of evolution in the school curricula religiously motivated vacuous pseudoscience in Biology classrooms.  Except of course, it apparently hasn't because you dickWADs keep trying.  Perseverance and tenacity aren't necessarily virtues, you know? In the wrong context, it can get you arrested, or as here, mocked as an economical form of entertainment for others.

Politicians are especially fearful of a backlash from tightwad taxpayers over the potential legal costs of a lawsuit.

I'm not buying the "politicians are afraid to waste money" excuse, Lar.


I cannot recall any other instance in American history where an unreviewed opinion of a single judge has had such a great influence.

Dude, for someone who claims mad legal skills (and also probably nunchuck skills, bow-hunting skills, computer hacking skills) you really seem to not understand how federal courts and precedents work.


The Darwinists are wrongly applying the name ID to all criticisms of evolution in an attempt to get maximum mileage from the Dover decision.

Well, whoever these "Darwinists" are, they should stop that.  All the other people who speak well of the Dover decision, however, recognize that ID is but the latest branch on the phylogenetic tree of creationism with a dash of endosymbiotic agnostic cranks thrown in.  All the truly well reasoned, supported, testable, and interesting criticisms of modern evolutionary theory are called "science" and people write articles about them in things called "journals".


specs said,

   Yikes. House bill sponsor Alan Hays was quoted as saying:

   “Find for me where a fly turned into a monkey or a monkey turned into a man.”

He was probably thinking of the science-fiction movie “The Fly,” where a man was turned into a fly as a result of a botched teleportation experiment.

Larry, that doesn't really make the statement any less moronic.  Stop helping.

<snip more of Larry helping. cut for time>

Date: 2008/04/30 13:51:00, Link
Author: didymos
Stone proves pretends ID has evidence:
A positive evidence for ID aside from artificial selection/selective breeding, genetic engineering, and the upcoming event of the first synthetic microbe?

Get your own science. Intellectual kleptomania doesn't count.

Date: 2008/04/30 14:01:44, Link
Author: didymos
You forgot to add that it was uphill both ways, in the snow.

Date: 2008/04/30 17:52:06, Link
Author: didymos
My favorite bit of "degrees" is this shrill whinging:

Religious belief is not science?  Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science?  He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs?  EXPELLED!

1. No, it's not science.
2. I doubt it, since it's manifestly obvious that the religious can teach science adequately all the way up to brilliantly.  I'm not sure what "adequate science" is.
3. Yes, they should when they're offering degrees in fields in which they've yet to get almost anything right even once.  

Expelled?  With cause and overabundant justification.  They're welcome to try again when they stop teaching counterfactual bullshit theology in the guise of science.

Date: 2008/04/30 19:03:21, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2008,16:50)
They've gotten quite bold. With 'expelled' and the current Florida Tardfest, they think they can stop pretending it isn't about god.

Well, obviously, because it's not like there's any case law at the Supreme Court level that might apply in situations like this....oh, son of a bitch....

Date: 2008/04/30 19:12:32, Link
Author: didymos
A sober look at ID provokes this wish:

Here’s a non-ironic blessing: May God grant us thoughtful critics.

I mean, other than all the ones we already have but who for some reason still insist that we're full of shit, Lord.

Date: 2008/04/30 21:49:48, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Aardvark @ April 30 2008,18:25)
Sorry if this was caught earlier, but...

unfortunately so many of our legislators just want to listen to facts and this plays right into the materialists hands


Ah, irreducible_complacency.  There's something a bit off about ol' IC.  He/she/it seems to specialize in self-contradictory, inscrutable statements:


I think we can confirm that this so-called ‘expert’ there in the Holy Land, probably does not understand the deeper implications of his unwillingness to admit that the stone block was carved by humans.

Figure that one out.

Two, playing the hyper-literalist:

JP only a materialist would suggest that just because someone is dead they cannot tell their story.

I have seen miracles myself. Some of you may remember the Statue of Liberty completely disappearing one night in the 1980s. How is THAT not a miracle?

That's a dead giveaway in bold there, for me.

Three, on our 3rd President:

It seems to me that Jefferson is no one to be lauded, but should be excoriated for his blasphemy and calumny against what we know to be true: revelation.

Four, projecting and lunacy:

Jefferson’s creator was not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is the only God that exists, and by this logic Jefferson did not believe in The Creator, he believed in an ‘agent’ that happened to be ‘eternal’. Note the very same logic that Jefferson uses (rhetorical blustering, overstatement, and the intentional use of words such as ‘agent’) used by materialist evolutionists today.

Five, from the same post:

We know that there are no such thing as natural laws. What color is a natural law? How much does it weigh? How does one observe such natural laws?

These notions steal the very same set of assumptions that are granted us by the Revealed Word of God, then attempt to turn around and deny that revelation using those assumptions. I say get your own assumptions.

Six, on the One True ID:

Your misunderstanding of ID is caused by a form of logical positivism that is shared by you and Dawkins and the other secular humanists that believe that reason triumphs over revelation, which is in direct contradiction to the Revealed Word of God.

Seven, playing dumb:
It is frustrating that I cannot respond to those who attack me in this forum. is something wrong with the board, my comments are not showing?

Eight, gettin' all kairofocus on kairosfocus' ass:

kairosfocus I think there are serious intellectual and logical grounds for rejecting the suggestion that the capitalization of Agent means anything like the hidden assumption that you have smuggled into your account that Jefferson therefore meant a Person.

The straw…materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature.

Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

Now, arguing that the latter follows from the former is simply dishonest. I did what I will demonstrate that you did, but this time there is good reason to suspect that my argument is strong on merit and not simply on form.

Defeating a mereological nihilism, with your appeals to the justified absurdity of considering ‘thoughts’ to be mere electrochemical events in the brain, sounds great and we can all get behind the notion that this is ridiculous. Even the materialists that you ascribe this position to.

Further I am afraid that your position ultimately damages the warrant for faith at all.

Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically

I am always skeptical when someone simply asserts their argument as the only way to interpret the evidence, for often this has been a mistaken view in the history of the world.

Faith is a subjective decision to believe, and no amount of information can change this. Induction and all that stuff that you already know. At some point, one must choose to impose an arbitrary decision making level. Suggesting that there is a confidence level that validates such decisions is cheapening to that faith and also inconsistent with the assumptions of such statistical models.

Therefore, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them.

of course purpose, truth and validity may have their own meanings at one’s whim. for many, the definitions are predicated upon the hypothetical existence of an ultimate frame of reference. Yet another hidden assumption that carries with it the stench of the predestination determinism that is the watermark of fascism.

My friend, I do not understand why we do not retire this point as an argument? Believers take solace in their belief that there is an external frame of reference, and this belief is validated by their decision of affirmation. Unbelievers possess the most parsimonious argument, but they can find none of the comfort that is the fruit of communion and not deduction.

the silliness that is piggybacked onto the ‘multiple universe’ foolishnesses is debilitating to clear thinking about the fundamental issues. it is as foolish to speak about multiple master reference frames as it is to speak about one. But between brothers and sisters in christ it becomes another issue altogether. But this argument cannot work against one who has not already been persuaded to believe on their own accord.

Ten, hiding in plain sight:

I’ll be impressed when involucres magically evolve the ability to grow hair and self-adjust their distance to a heat source.

Nine, pure weirdness:

I have a friend that is admittedly a bit crazy, believes in evolution and sees orbs in every photo (says they are spirits or ghosts or something, has a huge collection).

He just told me that he sees an orb in this picture just over the hood of the DarwinMobile. Was wondering if anyone else sees it? It is not spherical like many are and my friend claims this means something.

Ten, another dead giveaway:

Deynse thanks for all these links. There is some realy great information there. I like your style, especially all the links and less meta analysis so we can read for ourselves.

Eleven, taking a swipe at Dr. Dr. over Baylor:

I think some multivariate statistical analyses showing the relationships of those who made tenure and those who didn’t might shed some light on the underlying causes of this debacle.

Twelve, on plagiarism:

It seems that all of the hype about who supposedly copied what from whom could be more easily settled if we had some sort of way of discriminating between copies and originals. You know you can’t trust the darwinists and I’m sure that Ben STein and his supporters have to be very careful now that they don’t get sued by the ACLU. It just seems to me that there must be some sort of method that can sort this out. Doesn’t science help us out here?

Thirteen, now with thermodynamics:

If it is true (and I believe that thermodynamics and revelations both predict this) that things are going to get worse in the world then we must remember that the one true purpose for spreading the word of design to the unbelievers and atheist scientists is that they must be saved before they die. All else pales before that fact.

Fourteen,  Dr. Dr. again:

Turner I agree with you (sorry Dave) about the limitations of applying the Fisherian approach to ID. I was curious as to your views of the applicability of the Bayesian approach to ID.

Fifteen, more wackassery:

Open, Sez Me!!!!

sparc this is I think the secret message within the ring.

PROOF that the Explanatory Filter is indeed an empirical instrument. I congratulate Dembski and Sal for pulling this fast one over on the materialists and improbable PZ worshippers. Mathematics can never ever lie, and Dembski described this very same scenario so many years ago and all of the culture elitist and chance loving atheist jihadists just yawned and claimed it was written in Jello.

Makes me think of some great old kung fu movie lines.

We see who raf rast.

The shoe is on the other hand now!

Sixteen, helping to put ID on a rigorous foundation:

If instead we look at DNA as a program, the question of whether or not it had a designer has no bearing on our view of how it functions and is expressed. It seems that one could compare these things across taxa without even making the evolutionary assumptions. this means not drawing the trees that darwinists always point at and say see this proves you are just an animal, but the hard math is the same. Just no hidden metaphysical assumptions. Wouldn’t this standardize our observations of CSI added or subtracted between species?

I think that excerpts every comment IC has made thus far.  Definitely a hint or two million of woven, fibrous ancestry in there.

Date: 2008/04/30 21:55:15, Link
Author: didymos
Sorry, Seventeen, and possibly the best:

Venus Mousetrap (what an interesting name? what is the story?)

If ID is true then it must be true that we find evidence of design in the universe. Clearly we do find this evidence (blood clots, cells have tails, information is not free), therefore ID is true.

If ID were false then we would not necessarily see design in the world.

Date: 2008/05/01 12:26:10, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 01 2008,08:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 01 2008,11:06)
It's shameful how when the 'teach all theories' was applied to sexual education they bailed and how they wont say if they believe ID is science or not..

It’s called the ”Academic Freedom” bill and it’s supposed to give teachers the freedom to teach the ”full range of scientific views” about evolution.

But should teachers have the freedom to teach the ”full range of scientific views” about sexual education?

Republican Sen. Ronda Storms said that Democratic proposal went too far and had it voted down on the Senate floor Thursday, saying the sex-ed measure not only didn’t belong on her evolution bill but that it could lead to “prematurely deflowering kindergartners and first- and second-graders.”

Miami Herald

Only if you send the kindergartners to Catholic school. Sorry. The devil made me type that.

Date: 2008/05/01 17:30:13, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 01 2008,14:38)
Oh, snap!  This one might not last very long.



4:22 pm

As Dr. Perakh felt on his own skin, through hard labor in a Soviet Gulag, what being persecuted for one’s opinions means, perhaps he was referring to his perception of the plight of the pro-ID academics in Expelled. Or perhaps he was referring to the movie comparison of evolution scientists to Stalinists and Nazis, both of whom he was unfortunate enough to personally meet (the latter, as a WWII soldier).

You can read about Perakh’s life here:

The link leads to an essay that won't feed the sizeable ego of the good Dr. Dr. Dembski.

I see ungtss, who has recently gotten the rhetorical crap kicked out him multiple times over at Pharyngula (not that he seemed to notice) has decided to weigh in on Andrea with this:
Ah, more fantastic reasoning. From Andrea, we don’t really have an argument. Just a sarcastic statement regarding the suppression of someone else’s ideas in comparison to the significantly less severe oppression occurring in contemporary academia. Apparently the reasoning goes something like “That was worse, so quit whining.” As though the existence of severe oppression makes less severe oppression acceptable.

First off, how is that even remotely sarcastic?  Dembski asks a dumb-ass question and she gave him an answer.  I swear to The Ecumenically Acceptable Designer, all these guys follow the semantic theories of Humpty-Dumpty in the Wonderland books:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

How very.....Soviet.

Date: 2008/05/01 17:39:42, Link
Author: didymos
How's this for the irony: ungtss
I see that Uthan’s comment was deleted from the thread, making all subsequent comments incomprehensible. I hope we’re not unwittingly proving Dr. Perakh right.

Date: 2008/05/01 17:44:11, Link
Author: didymos
And some more, from mentok:

ungtss you wrote

   Personally, I’m a big believer in leading by example: let them have their say, and defeat their nonsense with reason.

That happens here on pretty much every blog. The problem with some critics i.e. the militant ID haters, is that there is no intent on a rational exchange of ideas, they simply are intent on pushing their hate agenda. They are like zombies. You can’t reason with a zombie because zombies are only interested in eating your brain.

'Course, anyone named after a Harvey Birdman character, esp. that one, may not be quite so pro-ID as they appear.

Date: 2008/05/01 17:53:20, Link
Author: didymos
Ooh, in the Stanford Fair Use entry, we've got a self-congratulatory twofer from DT and Dr. Dr..  It rocks and rules:



2:17 pm

Imagine free publicity

The positive atheists still haven’t learned the first lesson of holes:

When you’ve dug yourself into a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.


William Dembski


2:25 pm

DaveScot: Perhaps the positive atheists are attempting to dig through to the other side of the earth. This would be in keeping with their ideas about freedom and liberation.

It's like a well-ahem-oiled vaudeville act.

Date: 2008/05/01 20:58:54, Link
Author: didymos
Dembski's banned another one, apparently for this:




7:25 pm

Dr. Dembski:
I do not think that Baylor’s demand that Marks remove his web site from university servers can be equated to “suppression of freedom”, if the phrase has to have any serious meaning. Marks was able to continue expressing his opinions on ID just as freely before, except for having to stop using a private institutions’ resources to do so.

If you however ask whether Baylor’s decision was “wrong” in the sense of unfair (singling out Marks vs other faculty), or inappropriate (putting unwarranted restrictions on what a faculty can or cannot do on university servers), I think that argument can be honestly made, taking into consideration Baylor’s official rules and customs, faculty rights, and Baylor’s own right to prevent its name from being associated with ideas it disapproves of, for whatever reason. It is too bad that, publicly at least, that argument was not made, and the conflict quickly devolved into reciprocal name-calling and overblown rhetoric.

I think you hit the nail on the head, but just the wrong nail. The question with respect to Dr. Perakh’s opinion of Expelled is whether any oppression, not just a “less severe” form of it, occurred.

I am quite sure that Dr. Perakh would argue (whether correctly or not is another matter) that in the case of the Expelled pro-ID academics no oppression occurred. He would also likely argue, based on his personal experience, that evolution scientists are not even remotely similar to Stalinists and nazis, as the movie suggests. Thus, the central claims of the documentary would be - again in his opinion - fictitious, and the documentary itself a pseudo-documentary (documenting pseudo-facts).

Dr. Dr. got snippy:

William Dembski


8:35 pm

Andrea: I find your posts tiresome. Take them elsewhere.

Translation:  Andrea, this is my sandbox! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE! You're making me look like an asshole! YOU GO 'WAY!

ungtss, however, seems to pass muster:



7:03 pm

Mr. Dembski: I’m sorry I haven’t been clear. I’m not saying you have any legal or moral obligation to let evotrolls play on your playground. I’m just stating my personal opinion that it’s better to let them play a little because

1) their failure to reason is clear only when made so by superior reasoning

2) we learn a lot through dialectic — both fact and argument

3) we take the high road by permitting the dialogue they fear.

But again, it’s your playground and I’m honored at the opportunity to communicate with someone I so admire

So, unctuous, does Dembski's colon taste like a fine, well-aged scotch?

Date: 2008/05/01 22:43:37, Link
Author: didymos
I think we may be looking at a third Dembski banning in the offing.  He can't be pleased about this:




10:25 pm

I saw “Expelled” again tonight. I was more aware of the emotion-affecting use of sound to make points and manipulate emotions. I was looking at this cinematographically and comparing it with “Inherit the Wind” and “Birth of a Nation.” In some ways the propaganda was smoother than in ITW, though ITW did a better job of using entertainment to hide the propaganda. Expelled did a better job than BOAN of letting its opponents hang themselves, though it took a bit of thought to see some of the ways that happened.

I also was struck with how rich “Expelled” was in its idea content. There was a basic theme that it stuck to, yet there were other themes woven into it. For example, the scientism in Myers and Dawkins was very much on display and showed their intellectual shallowness, though they are certainly clever. The utter sadness of the case of Will Provine also struck me as well as the thesis that Darwinism has been responsible for a loss of faith in the case of virtually every opponent who was interviewed.

I am more aware of how scientism has thoroughly infected people who ostensibly are aware of it and on guard against it, as in the case of Myers and Dawkins. I wonder how subtly we might be infected with it as well since we try to ride the coattails of science like the Darwinists do. Both ID and scientific creationism do this. Have we bowed the knee to science?

I await the release of the CD with anticipation.

Bolding mine.

Date: 2008/05/01 22:44:20, Link
Author: didymos
Maybe this belongs solely over in the UD thread, but since it's explicitly about Expelled I shall risk the double post:  

I think we may be looking at a third Dembski banning in the offing.  He can't be pleased about this:




10:25 pm

I saw “Expelled” again tonight. I was more aware of the emotion-affecting use of sound to make points and manipulate emotions. I was looking at this cinematographically and comparing it with “Inherit the Wind” and “Birth of a Nation.” In some ways the propaganda was smoother than in ITW, though ITW did a better job of using entertainment to hide the propaganda. Expelled did a better job than BOAN of letting its opponents hang themselves, though it took a bit of thought to see some of the ways that happened.

I also was struck with how rich “Expelled” was in its idea content. There was a basic theme that it stuck to, yet there were other themes woven into it. For example, the scientism in Myers and Dawkins was very much on display and showed their intellectual shallowness, though they are certainly clever. The utter sadness of the case of Will Provine also struck me as well as the thesis that Darwinism has been responsible for a loss of faith in the case of virtually every opponent who was interviewed.

I am more aware of how scientism has thoroughly infected people who ostensibly are aware of it and on guard against it, as in the case of Myers and Dawkins. I wonder how subtly we might be infected with it as well since we try to ride the coattails of science like the Darwinists do. Both ID and scientific creationism do this. Have we bowed the knee to science?

I await the release of the CD with anticipation.

Bolding mine.

Date: 2008/05/01 22:56:44, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ May 01 2008,20:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 01 2008,22:36)

Andrea: I find your posts tiresome. Take them elsewhere.

"I find your posts tiresome"!!!!!!! LOL! Dembski unintentionally imitates the effeminate and mercurial Dieter.
that fits him.

Now iz ze time on UD ven ve ban!

Date: 2008/05/01 23:09:24, Link
Author: didymos
It was only a matter of time.  DT has shot his wad of wisdom onto the thread:




10:51 pm

Perakh I think is best described as addled.

DT surely knows the flavor of Dembski's colon:

Date: 2008/05/01 23:25:57, Link
Author: didymos
You know, just on that Pseudo-doc thread alone, we've seen 2 banninations, a potential third in the works, multiple WADs, plus Dennis, DT, and DLH.  I wouldn't be surprised if ungtss ends up as a UD contributor.  He's certainly got that certain sycophantic knack.  Real potential there.  Now, all we need is Sally, Nelson and the others to drop in, plus some of the loopier regulars like KF.  BA77 did drop in, but just to pimp some unrelated Godtube link.  It's almost a TARD singularity.

Date: 2008/05/01 23:34:03, Link
Author: didymos
OK, last one for awhile.  But, hey, different thread!  Anyway, Larry's been thinking again:

Larry Fafarman


10:24 pm

Here’s a thought — how can the courts argue that flag-burning is constitutionally protected symbolic free expression, but that unauthorized use of only 15 seconds of a song in a movie is not?

Because you're burning your own flag?  It might have something to do with that "unauthorized" stuff too.  Oh, and courts don't do the arguing. That's what the lawyers are for.  And, since they haven't argued about this yet: WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?

*clears throat*


Date: 2008/05/01 23:41:23, Link
Author: didymos
OK.  I lied.  Anyway, I just did a reload of the UD front page.  Dr. Dr. has removed the bit about Perakh being "the Uncle Fester of science".  I hope someone caught that before it vanished.

Date: 2008/05/01 23:58:07, Link
Author: didymos
Well, I haven't been around here long, but you seem alright, so happy birthday.  Here's some Dr. Rockso, The Rock'n'Roll Birthday Clown. He does cocaine:

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/02 00:02:23, Link
Author: didymos
OK, DT has kindly rectified the omission by revising and expanding his wisdom wad:



10:51 pm

Perakh, the Uncle Fester of Science, I think is best described as addled.

By the way, it appears Perakh removed most of his article at Panda’s Thumb. I’m seeing comments about things he said and no source for those things. Of course I also found the Uncle Fester comment while trying to find what Perakh first wrote. Uncle Fester disappeared down the memory hole too.

Date: 2008/05/02 00:37:02, Link
Author: didymos
This damn pseudodoc thread is becoming an obsession.  WAD must surely be squirming with pleasure by now:

I thought the second shot made you look cool. I have know idea why this is significant to me but it was forever reason memorable. It made the ID theorist look like the free thinker who beholds deeper truths, and is at the cutting edge as opposed to the real dimwits teaching high school biology.

Never was a vomit emoticon more sorely needed.

Date: 2008/05/02 02:27:19, Link
Author: didymos
Woo-hoo!  William Wallace appeared!  Not worth quoting though. I mean it's dumb and all, but lacks that certain, how you say? Je ne sais tard?  Here's the linkage.

Date: 2008/05/02 03:14:52, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 01 2008,23:04)
Gary Gygax's estate have released his final Dungeons and Dragons book:

Deities and DemiTards

Some great new content..

High Level Spells -

> Global flood. Everyone not lawful Good (Babies are obviously true neutral) must hold their breath for 10 D6 days or die.

>Dispel science

>Cutting flash satire..

Mine Quote

Obscure Motives

Summon Sycophant

Repel Darwinist

Violate 2nd Law

Protection from Reality

Touch of IDiocy


Exciting new classes!!

>Theistic Deceiver

>Book Salesman

Bayesian Illusionist


Autodidact Genius

Canadian Morphodyke



New, powerful magic items

>Wand of banination

>Loudspeaker from the sky

>Hounds of protection from clowns..

Mantle of Persecution

Cloak of Respectability

Staff of Irreducible Complexity

Antimaterialist Armor

Horn of Greater Flatulence

Boots of Tardkind

Date: 2008/05/02 04:01:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 02 2008,01:48)
Rats!  I was going to watch Expelled again tonight, but it closed yesterday.

Here, maybe this'll help:

Date: 2008/05/02 12:17:07, Link
Author: didymos
Regulars showing up more now.  Gil popped in:




8:16 am


   The utter sadness of the case of Will Provine also struck me as well as the thesis that Darwinism has been responsible for a loss of faith in the case of virtually every opponent who was interviewed.

It’s not only sad, but ironic, because modern science is pointing ever more forcefully toward design and away from chance and necessity.

No, Gil, that ain't the irony. You fail. Again.  See, you UD guys?  Yeah, here's an "algorithmic" visual aid:

IDiots != modern science && "pointing forcefully" == "spewing lies and nonsense"

Isn't that ironic, don't ya think?

Date: 2008/05/02 12:42:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2008,05:14)
Thanks didymos.  What's he doin' in that guy's pocket there?

Actually, he's looking for cocaine.  Looks worse than it is though, which is of course why I posted it.

Date: 2008/05/02 14:26:28, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 02 2008,10:32)
Have the tards weighed in on the Anti-Defamation League condemning the movie?

So far, not even the DI has said a word.  Guess they'd rather not appear to be arguing with Jews about the Holocaust.  I'm disappointed.  I really expected less from them.

Date: 2008/05/02 15:03:22, Link
Author: didymos
Now some Rzeppa.  I'm a bit torn over this one.  On the one hand, he disses DT a bit.  On the other, well....:

It seems that DaveScot, like many empirically-minded individuals, has difficulty with analogies and metaphors.

So, there you go: if you're not religious, it's probably because you are mentally deficient and can't think so good.  OK, so, a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger, you Rasputinian bastard.

Date: 2008/05/02 15:09:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 02 2008,12:48)
And don't even say it...I have already faced it - I'm addicted to tard.

OK, where's Quidam?  Hey, Quidam.  We need you to get a good screencap of the Robert Palmer video, replace his face with Stein's and then replace all the background chicks' faces with O'Leary's.  Stat.

Date: 2008/05/02 15:19:52, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ May 02 2008,13:11)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 02 2008,12:32)
Have the tards weighed in on the Anti-Defamation League condemning the movie?


Just from one DI 'fellow'.  We still have to wait for the official press release.

You know what?  I'm an idiot.  I did read that post, and even commented on it (I'm Thomas S. Howard there).  Well, sorta.  I mostly just made fun of some dude who was being an off-topic dick. Anyway, yeah, I forgot about that. Still, there's nothing on the "Evolution News & Views" blog, which is what I meant.  With Klinghoffer they still can just say "Oh, well, he's Jewish, you know, and doesn't represent our official opinion anyway."

Date: 2008/05/02 15:22:44, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and what d'you bet that when and if they do officially respond to the ADL, they include something along the lines of "Well, you know, some our best tards are Jews....."

Date: 2008/05/02 16:21:10, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Aardvark @ May 02 2008,13:57)
Gerry Rzeppa

A believer in common descent will see a fossil that is midway between a cow and a whale...

Whales evolved from cows?  He must be thinking of Behe...

Nah.  He's talking about molecular evidence that places whales within the Artiodactyls, of which cows and other ruminants are also members.  He's just an IDiot and therefore incapable of making non-mangled statements about evolution.

Date: 2008/05/02 16:28:22, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (didymos @ May 02 2008,14:21)
Quote (Aardvark @ May 02 2008,13:57)
Gerry Rzeppa

A believer in common descent will see a fossil that is midway between a cow and a whale...

Whales evolved from cows?  He must be thinking of Behe...

Nah.  He's talking about molecular evidence that places whales within the Artiodactyls, of which cows and other ruminants are also members.  He's just an IDiot and therefore incapable of making non-mangled statements about evolution.

Oh, yeah, and the real scientists are still debating the exact phylogenetic placement of the Cetacea.  But, you're right: "cows", which term begs a precise definition anyway, are currently not considered an ancestral candidate for whales, and never really were.

Date: 2008/05/02 23:43:03, Link
Author: didymos
DT's being kinda rational again.  I don't get him some, well, most of the time, but it's confusing when he pulls this shit:




7:06 pm


Well, you’re wrong about it not fitting into a test tube. They make test tubes as big you need these days. Putting people into test tubes is frowned upon so I suggest you do your experiment with a rat or something. Your mileage may vary. What do you think is mystical about self-sacrifice? The guy described what I thought was a rational thought process. It’s either 4 of us get dead or badly injured or 1 of us gets dead or badly injured. The mathematical solution to that question isn’t exactly rocket science.

For the context, Rasputin Rzeppa found a story about a Royal Marine who jumped on a grenade and lived with a bit of ringing in the ears and a nosebleed, thanks to his pack. He's convinced this is a genuine miracle, rather than just fairly improbable but well within the realm of nature.  

Of course, DT then ruins it with his next comment:



7:11 pm


Homer Simpson said “What if you pick the wrong religion and every time you go to the wrong church God just gets madder and madder at you?”

That said, I took up Pascal’s Wager decades ago. The wager at least makes sense.

Still, citing Homer Simpson is never a bad idea.

Date: 2008/05/03 01:21:08, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 02 2008,23:07)
Dave's had enough    

I’ve had all I can stand from you. You’re out of here.

You can read on from the quotes didymos gives - Gerry was being an idiot, and Dave did give him a subtle warning that he was going too far.

Oh and Gerry, if you're reading this, now you're not able to dig any more, Venus Mousetrap wants his spade back.

ETA: *waves fist at RTH*

Is this possibly the first ever justifiable bannination? I can't really blame Dave when Gerry started bringing Dave's children into the argument. It's pretty much the same shit that got FtK booted from Pharyngula. Aside from that, though, that makes three bans from that thread alone.  It's like a Grim TARD Reaper, this thing.  Pretty good for something based on a two sentence post from Perakh.

Date: 2008/05/03 01:26:50, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 02 2008,22:53)
Quote (didymos @ May 02 2008,14:09)
We need you to get a good screencap of the Robert Palmer video, replace his face with Stein's and then replace all the background chicks' faces with O'Leary's.  Stat.

something like...


You're a goddamn graphical ninja.

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/03 03:10:53, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (William Wallace @ May 03 2008,00:59)
Ahem, speaking of Expelled, turns out Petty Wesley made it just about impossible for me to post at Panda's Thumb.

Let's fix this and show that the PT-mafia is unafraid of the likes of William Wallace and Keith Eaton.

William, that's because you incessantly repeat yourself and act like, well, an asshole, basically.  Besides, are you sure you're banned? Maybe you're just doing something wrong.

Date: 2008/05/03 03:44:58, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>
Quote (William Wallace @ May 03 2008,01:28)

The biggest problem is the use of the footage from Inherit the wind, and the second biggest problem is lack of critical analysis of Judge Jones and his plagiarism of the ACLU.

And there you go: perfect example of that incessant repetition I mentioned. Just because you keep saying that stuff, it's not suddenly going to become accurate.  Seriously, just ask Morbo:

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)
Thank you, Morbo.

Date: 2008/05/03 03:50:17, Link
Author: didymos
Well, Frost122585 is playing with tardfire:




3:37 am

I have to admit Dave, with all due respect, I think Gerry has a point. You can’t chalk up stories like that just to training. That sounds more like a Darwinian reductionist attitude to me.

C'mon number four!

Date: 2008/05/03 06:16:24, Link
Author: didymos
Well, since your attempt to threadjack failed and we got sent to the BW, I'll post my response to your other complaint about "Judgement Day" here:

Quote (William Wallace @ May 03 2008,01:28)
The biggest problem is the use of the footage from Inherit the wind

Since your other problem is addressed, I'll indulge you on this one as well.

OK, so, for one, it's perfectly obvious that what you're seeing is footage from a movie and not stuff shot in 1925 of the events surrounding Scopes.

Two, they throw up the title shot, just in case it wasn't obvious enough:

Three, at the same time the narrator says: "Loosely portrayed in the classic film Inherit the Wind"

Four, we're talking less than 60s of footage from the movie, combined with entirely accurate narration.

Five, that 60 seconds included scenes acting as simple illustrations of the historical facts recited by the narrator:

"In that case, a high-school science teacher in Tennessee named John Scopes was accused of violating state law by teaching evolution."

"The trial turned into a courtroom showdown between Clarence Darrow..."

"...and three time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan."

And that's it. Where's the intent to deceive or mislead or alter behavior or do anything other than recite some facts with some visual aids?  Oh noes, they used footage from a movie, and by God, they admitted it right there in the narration. And they also had the unmitigated gall to say that that movie shouldn't be taken as an historically accurate document of the Scopes Trial.  Besides which, that small segment has no bearing on the facts of Kitzmiller v. Dover and is there solely to provide a tiny bit of historical context .  Oh, those horrible, horrible propagandists.  How dare they!

Yeah, whatever William. You fail.   In any case, thanks for providing me with a reason to watch an excellent documentary again.


I just discovered that Wesley has smacked you with this particular cluestick before, but maybe the pretty pictures will help you understand this time that this is really something you should stop yammering about.  I knew you fond of advancing the claim, but it's now clear that you do so knowing full well it is nothing but false. You're a hell of a guy, William.

(Edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/03 07:05:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2008,02:57)
Hey, what was your question for Dawkins

What if you're wrong?

Date: 2008/05/03 07:24:09, Link
Author: didymos
Well, hell, DT worked for Dell, so of course he would know:




4:55 am

and to be off topic for a second and a little schizophrenic Dave, with respect to our back ground with computers; posting on this site all of time, especially at night, I often have the lap top on my chest while I’m in bed. Is this bad for your body? Do lap tops emit radiation in any significant quantities? could it give you cancer?

I have always wondered this.

No wonder Frosty seems to know jack shit about, well, anything really.  Hey, jackass:  Google

Date: 2008/05/03 16:15:24, Link
Author: didymos
I find it interesting that the DI has still issued no formal press release or "blog" posting in response to the ADL's condemnation of Expelled.  So far, it's just evasive smarm from Klinghoffer in a personal email to John Kwok. As far as I know, Stein has been uncharacteristically mum on the subject as well. I haven't seen anything from the Premise people either. Kevin Miller certainly hasn't thought it worthy of blogging about, and refused to respond to a comment about it:

And now even the ADL has chimed in and said Stein, Mathis and Miller's argument about Darwin being responsible for Hitler is outrageous and trivializing.

Add that to the other problems of the film, not the least of which is Kevin's quote-mining of -Origin- for dramatic effect, and you've got a wretched, unethical and downright offensive mess all the way around.

Posted by: Jody | April 30, 2008 at 03:44 PM

Kev responded with:

I repeat my question to you, Jody. How is your point relevant to this thread?

Posted by: Kevin Miller | April 30, 2008 at 03:51 PM

It's a smart move, PR wise, to not be seen arguing publicly with pissed-off Jews about the Holocaust, but it's just so craven.

Date: 2008/05/03 16:26:35, Link
Author: didymos
The natives are restless:




7:49 am

I can’t believe Gerry has been banned. Jeesh.

DT replies:




9:20 am


Gerry’s been on borrowed time here for quite a while. I’ve been very lax in trying to keep this blog focused on science. People like Gerry who bring nothing but the bible to the conversation are the reason why the rest of us get shut out. Worse, Gerry doesn’t care about being shut out. His only goal is biblical evangelism. He knows that won’t fly in science education and would rather just shun the scientific establishment instead of modifying his own obsessive/compulsive religious fervor. “Sheesh” indeed.

Internecine TARD warfare!  I'm rooting for both sides.

Date: 2008/05/03 21:05:18, Link
Author: didymos
Definitely some division in the ranks:



7:39 am

Speaking strictly as a pseudohuman, it strikes me that there is potential for a big tent if the goal is the overthrow of materialism; if ID is a manifestation of love of God and weariness with the egotism of Big Science and its supermen. That’s a groundswell, rising with pent-up frustration, a natural cause looking for a voice.

But if the goal is nothing more than a new type of materialism, based on the amazing notion that matter can design itself, and larded with the same old worn-out caricatures and contempt for religion, then ID is no longer a resistance movement, no longer fresh and new. It’s nothing more than Darwinism with an improbable new face.

Ah yes, the brave ID Religio-Resistance striking blows against the Greater Materialist Empire, ruled with a technocratic advanced-alloy fist by Big Scientist and his nefarious Legions of Scientific Supermen, who not content to slaughter innocents by the thousands, nay MILLIONS, must also add insult to injury by cruelly mocking the ancient and sacred beliefs of their foes.

Whiner.  Oh, and, today, a special guest appearance by Beavis & Butthead:

Butthead: You said "natural cause". Heh. Heh heh.
Beavis: Yeah, Yeah, fire, fire. Burn the religious! Burn!

Thank you, boys.

Anyway, someone ought to keep an eye on this allanius character.  I see a rifle with a high-powered scope and an elevated platform in a populated area as a very real possiblity here.

Date: 2008/05/03 23:25:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 03 2008,20:50)
Next thing you know, it'll lead to dancing.

Only to dancing around the issues.

What about dancing on the ceiling?  It could happen. :angry:

(Edited because I forgot to enable the damn smileys the first time.)

Date: 2008/05/03 23:30:51, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2008,18:41)
When William learns a little bit about the dishonesty of his ID buddies perhaps he will understand things a bit more. We haven't banned anyone all year, in stark contrast to Uncommon Descent. I saw them ban 4 people this week and I wasn't paying particularly close attention.

3 in a single thread, no less, one being an advertiser. 'Course, by using his opponents children in an argument, Rzeppa kinda deserved it.  Right, FtK? Mr. Cordova?  Would you agree with that? Hello? Is this thing on?

Date: 2008/05/03 23:44:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 03 2008,06:10)
New users who have established a reputation for responsible posting can request topic creation and edit privileges.

Define "responsible".  Like, is there a hard limit on, say, average number of LOLCats per post or something?

Date: 2008/05/04 01:19:38, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, God, Sal is trying to pick on poor Charles again.  Sal is a TARD, but he's also a dick:

What does this have to do with Darwinism? Darwin argued that

   Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by sort and sure, though slow steps.”

But that is complete nonsense mathematically speaking because of the problem of gambler’s ruin. It is not surprising that Darwin could not see the flaw in his argument because he could not even do high school algebra even after substantial effort. The lack of basic math and logic pervades his flawed theory.


Sal goes on at length about stuff he clearly understands only shallowly, probably understanding gleaned while hunting for stuff to quote-mine. It's even got some anecdotal anonymous "biologist" who, unsurprisingly, was stunned by what Sal had discovered. Stunned, I say.

The really stupid part for me, though, is that apparently Sal can't tell the difference between a gene and a trait influenced by that gene.  At least, I think he can't.  It all seems very Mendelian: for each trait, a gene; for each gene, a trait.  He also seems to think Kimura and Ohta are just about the only population geneticists, ever. Probably because one sentence said something Sal liked.

Oh, and he "simulated" stuff in a spreadsheet.  It's reliable, of course, but has a couple bugs, er, features?
Sometimes pressin “F9? will cause most of the gamblers to win, and other time it will cause most of them to lose. This underscores the strong effect of random events even when one possess an inherent statistical advantage such as a gambling skill or a selectively advantaged trait.

Basically, the whole idea is that nature is a blind watchmaker, and not a hedge fund manager, therefore Darwin sucks, so does Dawkins, and Sal wins. Or something.

He caps it off by sucking up to Dembski:

2. Here is a nice pic of Bill with a standard casino die.

What is wrong with that guy? Srsly.

Date: 2008/05/04 04:43:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 04 2008,02:28)
Is that photo from the BBC documentary Dembski has been whinging about?

Indeed it is:

Date: 2008/05/04 05:09:34, Link
Author: didymos
It's on YouTube, BTW.

War on Science

Individual Parts
War on Science - Part 1
War on Science - Part 2
War on Science - Part 3
War on Science - Part 4
War on Science - Part 5

Watching it now.

Date: 2008/05/04 07:12:42, Link
Author: didymos
I just tried posting this to Kevin Miller's blog, but it got flagged as potential spam and held for his review.  Just in case it fails to appear, I'm reproducing it here:

Here's something interesting:

Expelled is being shown in venues operated by Regal Entertainment Group:

It's the largest theater chain in North America, and its majority owner is Phillip Anschutz:

Phillip is one of the funders of the Discovery Institute:

Its fellows and general weltaunschaung are of course heavily featured in Expelled. Ben even takes a little field trip there.  The DI, of course, has heavily promoted Expelled in numerous "blog" postings/screeds.

Now, Expelled has been promoted by Motive Marketing:

They also handled The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, a film produced by Walden Media:

As it happens, Walden Media is a subsidiary of the Anschutz Film Group, which is itself an "affiliate" of AEG:

Another "affiliate" is the aforementioned Regal Entertainment Group

AEG is in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company:

And, yes, the Anschutz Company is of course named after Phillip Anschutz.

Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that Expelled has managed to hold on to 1041 of an original 1052 theaters despite performing so poorly.

Date: 2008/05/04 07:35:19, Link
Author: didymos
Ah, looks like Anschutz may not have been so sanguine about the film after all, despite his ideological sympathies.  Guess it's profit that really matters:

Is "Expelled" going to show up in any theaters on April 18?

Good stuff here. Still, the incestuous interrelations are interesting in their own right.

Date: 2008/05/04 07:55:35, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 04 2008,05:48)
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2008,02:19)
Oh, God, Sal is trying to pick on poor Charles again.

Sal is a mathematical genius.
Thorp is arguably the greatest gambler of all time. He extended his gambling science to the stock market and made a fortune. His net worth is in the fractional to low billions.

Coincidently, MY wealth is in the fractional billions too.

I retract my earlier statement. That is far, far stupider than the gene/trait confusion.

Date: 2008/05/04 08:03:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 04 2008,05:02)
Sorry 'bout the meetings, I've been a little busy chasing skirts aboard the Galactica.  Y'all just argue all the time anyway.

No, lately, we've started shooting at each other too. Good times.

Date: 2008/05/04 08:12:52, Link
Author: didymos
They'll buy anything:




7:38 am

Great article indeed. I thumbed it up on stumbleupon.

I’m glad someone has done the research on the odds of a beneficial mutation taking over the population. But these statistics start out assuming a beneficial mutation has taken place.

Is there any research you could point me to to show the statistics of a mutation being beneficial? Or is that too broad of a term?

Yeah, like all this time population genetics was just waiting for Sal Fucking Cordova to arrive and tell 'em what's what.  Hey Norry, I got some overly broad terms for you.  


Date: 2008/05/04 09:00:05, Link
Author: didymos
This latest shoveling of Cordova's is gonna be a good one.  Check this out:




8:25 am

   Or is that too broad of a term?

Yes, I’d say more precision is needed. We are looking for examples of mutations that are not only beneficial in relation to fitness but also in relation to the progressive/positive creation/significant (> UPB) modification of existing CSI. But that’s a different thing than the generally used “beneficial mutations”.

Goddamn right it's different.  Beneficial mutation actually means something, and can actually be represented in real math, provided of course you actually know what the hell you're talking about.  Actually.

Date: 2008/05/04 09:07:53, Link
Author: didymos
No comment:





8:30 am

Great demonstration of the Doom of Darwin.

Now encourage you to turn the argument around and argue the Design Defense.

Take the foundational Design Principle of:
“Preserve the Design”.

Apply the benefits of the Founder’s Effect with sexual reproduction and DNA repair.

Then show by the laws of large numbers or repeated replication etc. that the Design is Preserved relative to harmful mutations.

(Within the limits of Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, of increasing accumulation of harmful mutations.)

Thus to the first order, I posit the following ID hypothesis:

If the probability of a mutation being preserved is m (under neo-Darwinian evolution)
Then the probability D of the Design under mutation being preserved is D=(1-m).

As you showed that the mutation probability m being preserved goes to zero, the design preservation probability D=(1-m) will tend to 1.

That is the general concept. Now turn it over to you mathematical types to work up the quantitative proofs and demonstrations.

Date: 2008/05/04 18:18:06, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ May 04 2008,15:17)
No more updates on Box Office Mojo?

Is there another source for the EXPELLED $$$ numbers?

Yeah, there is: The Numbers

It only shows up to 5/1 as well for daily take.  Interestingly, it and Mojo disagree on the estimated gross:

Box Office Mojo:  $6,619,000
The Numbers: $6,618,504

Not a large discrepancy, but the thing is, The Numbers is awfully precise with its total, and in fact does not even have the "estimate" disclaimer at all. Also, The Numbers has this weekend's take as well.  Strangely, they too are missing a few days, but don't provide estimates for them like Mojo does.  One big difference:  Numbers provides a figure for 4/25, and Mojo has only an estimate.

Here's the comparison:

                       Numbers        Mojo
4/18/2008       $1,208,748    same
4/19/2008       $996,244       same
4/20/2008       $765,856       same
4/21/2008       $238,804       same
4/22/2008       $227,232       same
4/23/2008       $234,596       same
4/24/2008       $231,440       same
4/25/2008       $505,000       $452,000 (est.)
4/26/2008       n/a                $529,000 (est.)
4/27/2008       n/a                $414,000 (est.)
4/28/2008       $157,191       same
4/29/2008       $162,396       same
4/30/2008       $159,273       same
5/1/2008         $158,232       same

4/18/2008      $2,970,848     same
4/25/2008      $1,394,940     same
5/2/2008        $683,552       $684,000 (est.)

Date: 2008/05/04 21:38:08, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 04 2008,18:40)

STEIN: Yeah, it`s interesting. I wrote about this already, that if you -- what`s going to happen, if you marry up eugenics and limited access to universal health care, it`s going to be you just go die, you just go off and die. Already in Germany I`m told people are given this little pill when they get old and sick and they take the pill and go to sleep and don`t wake up.


STEIN: Yes, yes, that`s happening a lot in Germany.

BECK: What`s the name of the pill? That`s being prescribed by doctors?

STEIN: Apparently it`s a super powerful barbiturate. And people take it and that`s it for them.

Yeah, Ben, I think I recall something about that too. But, I think it was actually the UK. And it's called, like, "Quietus" or something.  Lemme see, where was it I saw that?  Oh, yeah:

That's right:  Children of Men

Pretty good flick.  Hey, didn't they use some Lennon tune too?

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/04 23:47:59, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reed @ May 04 2008,21:11)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 04 2008,18:08)

Is it a religious view, per se, to be part of an advocacy campaign to encourage other people to inject their religious views into public school science classrooms? I think that promoting unconstitutional behavior inimical to the common weal deserves consideration in any professional evaluation.

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that Gonzales ID views and activities shouldn't have been considered, only that even if you ignore them completely his rejection appears justified.

IMO, there is large a muddy line between discrimination based on a persons views (and extracurricular activities), and legitimate judgment of how those reflect their suitability for a position.

I admit that I don't know enough about Gonzales activities prior to the tenure to dispute to have an opinion of where he fell on that line.

Well, for one thing, he sought and got funding for his ID pet-project:


Gonzalez brought in, at most, $200,000 during the same amount of time, $64,000 of which was used to pay a doctoral student at a different university and $58,000 of which was for his intelligent design book The Privileged Planet.

and then he used it in his tenure application:


Gonzales submitted his book The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure materials: he obviously intended that his colleagues should consider his intelligent design work part of his scholarly productivity.

My bolding.  Both excerpts from here:

Expelled Exposed: Guillermo Gonzalez

So, it's his own damn fault because he made it curricular.

Date: 2008/05/05 01:12:57, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2008,05:12)
I just tried posting this to Kevin Miller's blog, but it got flagged as potential spam and held for his review.  Just in case it fails to appear, I'm reproducing it here:

Here's something interesting:

Expelled is being shown in venues operated by Regal Entertainment Group:

It's the largest theater chain in North America, and its majority owner is Phillip Anschutz:

Phillip is one of the funders of the Discovery Institute:

Its fellows and general weltaunschaung are of course heavily featured in Expelled. Ben even takes a little field trip there.  The DI, of course, has heavily promoted Expelled in numerous "blog" postings/screeds.

Now, Expelled has been promoted by Motive Marketing:

They also handled The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, a film produced by Walden Media:

As it happens, Walden Media is a subsidiary of the Anschutz Film Group, which is itself an "affiliate" of AEG:

Another "affiliate" is the aforementioned Regal Entertainment Group

AEG is in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company:

And, yes, the Anschutz Company is of course named after Phillip Anschutz.

Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that Expelled has managed to hold on to 1041 of an original 1052 theaters despite performing so poorly.

Update:  Kevin, for unknown reasons, decided he was not going to allow the above comment through.  I don't want to go all "conspiracy theory", but that bothers me.  Everything in it is accurate, though.  The weak part is the speculation on Expelled retaining theaters as a result of seeming ID nepotism, and I appear to have been off the mark there, based on this comment:

Chez Jake said...

   Hi Jim,

   I just did a little research on how much Anschutz is pushing Expelled! As of Sunday night, he only has it booked in 141 of those 529 theaters. We'll be generous and call that 27% confidence in the film.
   March 29, 2008 9:00 PM
from here: Is "Expelled" going to show up in any theaters on April 18?

I'm still not so sure, as that figure is unsourced, but better not to commit either way without more to go on.  I suspect the guy may have just grovelled through theater locator stuff and correlated it with venues owned
by Regal Entertainment Group.  I'd really rather not do that myself, but will if I have to.  If anyone has better methods for tracking this sort of stuff down, I'd appreciate some tips.  Trawling through theater listings now is kind of a bummer too, since the film just got knocked out of a whole lot of venues.  It's also worth noting that that 141 of 529 figure leaves out how many screens REG gave the flick.  Those 529 venues add up to 6,423 screens in total, so 141 may underestimate their support for the film, depending on how the screens are distributed amongst theaters.

Still, assuming for argument's sake it's completely worthless speculation, Kevin should've taken the opportunity to nail me to a cross for it instead of consigning the comment to oblivion.  He lets a large amount of nonsense through, so why not this one, if it qualifies as such?

Date: 2008/05/05 01:36:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 04 2008,22:09)

Why do you engauge in deceitful screen capturing?

Please provide a screen capture of the mythological g-men arresting Scopes?


To piss you off.  All of us evolanders exist solely for the purpose of annoying William Wallace.  Didn't you get the memo?

Oh, and: quit picking absurd nits and accusing others of deceit.  Didn't I just tell you, as I know you've been told before, that the images are from a film that was specifically stated in the narration to be "loosely based" on actual events? And didn't I just tell you that they were just there as visual aids and don't change the fact that the narration is entirely accurate, as you've also been told before? Here, I'll answer: Yes, I did and yes, I did.   Go ahead and edit the whole 60 second "Inherit" sequence out, if it makes you feel better.  Makes not a whit of difference to what happened in Dover or the rest of the film.  I'd tell you to stop whining about it, but what would be the point?

So, go ahead.  Complain about the segment some more and call me a coward again.  I know you want to, and I'm cool with that.

Date: 2008/05/05 02:09:14, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 04 2008,22:14)
Okay, so, please explain why evolanders belly-ache about not being about to post at UD., yet they powers that be in the PT-mafia keep the likes of me and Keith Eaton from posting at PT?

Just explain this.

More like laugh at UD for its absurd and arbitrarily draconian moderation policies.  I've personally had four accounts mysteriously silenced, and I'm not really losing any sleep over it. That was basically fine with me, as it certainly was not at all unexpected. I knew full well what I was wading into over there.

So, anyway, why bother with yet another account or incessantly ranting about it in other venues in some vain attempt to re-acquire posting privileges that ultimately mean very little since few there would ever take much interest in my perspective? Know what I mean? Of course you do.

And since sock-puppetry isn't really my thing, I have no desire to try that out on UD either, though I appreciate a truly skilled and subtle practitioner of the art (that is the key: subtlety. Wouldn't you agree?).  

One very minor gripe I will cop to: a number of people do consider a public banning on UD to be a perverse honor, and I admit that would have been much more fun than getting silently consigned to /dev/null. Alas, such was not to be my lot.  I shall just have to persevere, somehow.

Oh, but you were saying about Panda's Thumb?

Date: 2008/05/05 02:21:00, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (October Mermaid @ May 04 2008,23:35)
That IS really odd.  I didn't know Kevin deleted/censored any comments over there.  Heck, he let one of my banal ones get through that added nothing to the conversation whatsoever, so anything should be fair.

It is fair to point out that it got held for moderation, so maybe something went wrong on that end, and the comment just died alone in some temp directory.  Or Kevin doesn't know how to work that side of it very well. Not trying to insult the guy, but it's a realistic possibility.  Another is that it sends an email or something in cases like that, and he simply hasn't noticed it yet.
I have no idea what the details of the TypePad blog system are, so who knows? I could quite easily be entirely wrong.

Date: 2008/05/05 04:25:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 05 2008,01:48)
Quote (William Wallace @ May 05 2008,00:09)

Why do you engauge in deceitful screen capturing?

Please provide a screen capture of the mythological g-men arresting Scopes?


Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes volunteered for the trial. He said it sounded interesting. Evil Atheist Conspiracy wanted to overturn the Butler Act, thus there was a need for a trial, which could be presented to the Supreme Court.

Anyways, who has been talking about g-men?

William is eternally upset that the "Judgement Day" documentary used footage of "Inherit the Wind" while briefly discussing the Scopes trial, despite the fact that the context makes it abundantly clear that the movie is not a historical document.  It's just there for illustrating the narration which is accurate and specifically states "Inherit" is "loosely based" on the actual events, and presumably because it documents the cultural impact of Scopes.  Specifically, he's bitching about the fact that "Inherit" takes liberties with history and has a whole arrest sequence that didn't happen, of which a second or two is used in "Judgement Day".  

I tried to use screencaps to help illustrate why he's ridiculous.  It didn't work. Sorry you asked?

Date: 2008/05/05 04:30:11, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (guthrie @ May 05 2008,01:57)
I'd like to know who Wallace's icon is.

It's John Locke, the non-Lost character/English Philosopher.

Date: 2008/05/05 04:34:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (didymos @ May 05 2008,02:30)
Quote (guthrie @ May 05 2008,01:57)
I'd like to know who Wallace's icon is.

It's John Locke, the non-Lost character/English Philosopher.

OK, that's weird.  That image:
[image struck by request]

comes from here:

which is some random content-management services company.  With a  puntastic name, I might add.

Date: 2008/05/05 05:09:07, Link
Author: didymos
Kairosfocus appeared, but he just dropped an enormous TARD from here:

and vanished with an ominous:

Have fun!

I’ll be watching this thread


PS: Very good job, Sal!

Speaking of pseudo-scientific douchebags, I'd really like to see this get more play on teh interwebs:

Date: 2008/05/05 06:32:13, Link
Author: didymos
Hey, William:  why are you stealing bandwidth from

Go get an imageshack account or something for Christ's sake.  

If someone could edit my prior post to remove the giant John Locke, so I'm not stealing their bandwidth, that'd be great.

Date: 2008/05/05 06:47:44, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 05 2008,04:14)
O'Leary has a "friend" who says of Expelled:
I believe it's #13 of all time in box office receipts after only two weekends and it's possible, if not likely, it will crack into the top ten before it's done.

Erm, #13 all time box office receipts? I don't think so. #13 in some narrow category, perhaps.
This "friend" continues on
$6 million going into the third weekend is tanking? This person needs to check out "Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden" which came out on the same weekend as EXPELLED. I don't think Spurlock's bomb (the guy who brought you Supersize Me) has even made $300k yet. That's a poor performing film. By contrast, EXPELLED is a huge success.

And compared to all those films that never even came out EXPELLED is a huge success.  This is journalism?

I got into a minor spat over at Kev's about Spurlock's flick, coincidentally. I repost the micro-fracas here, minus an intervening comment on another topic:


Um, looks like your anti-science movie is tanking at the box office.

Posted by: Boris | May 03, 2008 at 05:03 PM


Tanking I know. Hard to believe a doc on Science wouldn't do better than Iron Man.
Sure is beating Spurlocks movie though.

Posted by: Jeffery S | May 03, 2008 at 05:05 PM


Well, considering Expelled started out in 1052 venues compared to 102 for Spurlock's movie, in relative terms, Expelled is getting it's ass kicked. Especially as it's lost a fairly significant number of theatres, whereas "Where in the World" has held onto to all of its. Now add in the respective budgets for both, production and promotional, and then you might have a decent basis for what is otherwise a spurious comparison of box-office performance. Feel free to try again, Jeff.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | May 03, 2008 at 05:36 PM


Sorry, Spurlock's flick has lost a decent number of theatres.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | May 03, 2008 at 05:39 PM


You know what else I overlooked? Somehow, I don't think Spurlock is paying anyone to go see his movie. That's gotta eat into any hypothetical profit Expelled has generated, or just drive it further into the red. Plus, it's been enjoined, so they can't, unlikely as the idea is, add any more theaters to the roster. So, Spurlock? Yeah, not a box-office juggernaut, or, quite honestly, success, but who would you rather be at this point?

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | May 03, 2008 at 06:03 PM


how polite let me try this one. Spurlock was only in 120 theaters, but yet still didn't get the theater avg. Expelled got. Having low theater count should improve theater avg. Not in Spurlocks case. Expelled doubled Spurlocks avg.
Funny how the facts can work for both arguments, but common sense work for mine. BE atch

Posted by: Jeffery S | May 03, 2008 at 07:24 PM


No, read the stuff about costs of production and promotion. I corrected my original statement, which was based on theater retention. The rest of it still holds though. Plus, Spurlock isn't getting sued by anyone. If you want to add on some more, he's gotten far better reviews, though hardly stellar. You're right about the per theater average, but unless we know ticket prices and number of showings, et cetera, that's not a great metric. Just to reiterate I said:

"Now add in the respective budgets for both, production and promotional, and then you might have a decent basis for what is otherwise a spurious comparison of box-office performance."

It is worth looking at how steeply per theater average has declined for each film, however, if we are going to talk averages. Expelled started at a high of $1149 and has dropped to $152. The Spurlock film started at $432 and has dropped to $66. That's a $997 drop vs. $366. Looked at that way, Expelled is doing slightly worse. It looks even worse for Expelled when you consider theater loss, as "Where in the World" went from 102 to 72 theaters on 4/25, a much larger relative decrease than Expelled, which by contrast went from 1052 to 1041 on the same date, yet didn't suffer as drastic a decline in averages as Expelled.

My earlier, erroneous comment on theater loss was based on a figure I saw which apparently won't apply until after this weekend, and a misreading of the "Where in the World" chart.

Anyway, and again, all this ignores things like ticket prices, where theaters actually are, number of showings per day, et cetera. In any case, the really important question is, if we're gonna talk money: profit or loss? Depending on how you want to look at the facts, Expelled either "wins" or "loses" handily on that account from what I can tell.

Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | May 04, 2008 at 12:57 AM

Here's the link to the initial Jeff-inciting comment: link

I kinda screwed up at first, but it worked out alright.

Date: 2008/05/05 07:42:05, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ May 04 2008,11:38)
What's really amazing is that there are net winners in nearly every run of scordova's simulation. And yet, no one on Uncommon Descent seems capable of seeing them.

How many do you think even bothered to check?  The majority probably just accept it's correct based on Sally's "authority".

Date: 2008/05/05 15:49:14, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ May 05 2008,08:22)
scordova: Darwin couldn’t do high school algebra even after much effort and a tutor to spoon feed it to him. He doesn’t deserve to be in the “genius corner” of Westminster Abby. Perhaps we ought to transplant his coffin to the dunce corner.

Neither could Archimedes.

You know what Sally?  You're soooo right.  Tell you what: let's jaunt off to ol' Westminster, and dig him up.  Then, since you're such a blinding intellectual fucking supernova (less than 6Kyr old of course) how 'bout we just shove you into that vacancy immediately?  Why wait, Sal, when your legacy is so very secure?

Still, just to make sure you qualify for the honor, answer me this:  Why, Sal Cordova, are you such a petty little dick?  You better show your work too, or it's no genius corner for you.

Date: 2008/05/05 17:13:18, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,14:56)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 05 2008,16:50)
Doesn't matter: Dawkins sucks, therefore they should have tenured Gonzalez.

Argumentum ad Dawkins

Should we give him credit for, if not inventing the Argumentum ad Dawkins , at least developing it to it's current oh-so-useful state?

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,12:53)

3. Dawkins' last research output is dated to the Thatcher administration, yet I've not seen calls for his ouster from Oxford.

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,13:43)

And, of course, there is still the issue of dried-up Dawkins.

Edited to fix bad quote tags.

Date: 2008/05/05 17:16:21, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,15:10)
The tapering off of his productivity at Iowa State is a legitimate negative but it does not excuse the departmental backstabbing.

What proof of this do you have?  Recall, the man's anemic funding would have been even more so without his ID book, which he then submitted as part of his tenure application.  So, this backstabbing, you have some evidence, right?

Date: 2008/05/05 17:57:35, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (LawnBoy @ May 05 2008,15:14)
I don't know if this had been noted previously, but the weekend numbers are up:

15th place
$678,304 for the weekend
$6,613,256 overall so far

While I've seen $3.5 million as a low figure for the budget, I've found reports that contradict that.  One is from a supporter of the film here:

I saw a prescreening and one of the producers said it cost around $5 million to make (I've also heard $7 million including distribution) and they were planning to spend "millions" more in marketing.

I believe Mathis himself said $5 milllion in an interview, but I can't track it down.  Still looking.  Anyway, point being, even if you exclude promotion, if this thing has made any profit at all, it falls somewhere between "not much" and "jack shit".  Of course, they haven't released any figures on how many people they had to pay to see the movie. All of which makes this little exchange on UD hilarious:





10:44 am

Does anyone know what the budget to actually film Expelled was? I have been seeing banner ads for the film for months so I know they must have spent a fortune in advertising.

Wikipedia says it was 3.5 million but there’s no telling how accurate that is.

I know its only been out for a week so there’s still hope for it to do better. I was just curious and haven’t had any luck confirming this elsewhere.





11:31 am


Good question. I have no answers yet. I will say, that the marketing budget is not fixed. I expect if revenues are hefty, they’ll reinvest some in coming weeks to market it even more.

The LA Times reports Expelled’s total budget up till now is in the single digit millions. So wiki seems reasonably accurate.

Let’s say that the movie makes $30,000,000 over the next few weeks. It would be wise for the Expelled producers to invest in international and DvD markets afterwords. The nice thing at that point is that the marketing budget will be scalable to profits versus having to fork it out of their own pockets like they did at the start.

Note Expelled did better than any other movie on Sunday relative to Saturday. It is #1 in that regard. In fact that it was Stellar!! This bodes very well for the future of the movie in coming weeks!!!

The movie has energized the viral marketing. I’m hopeful the Expelled crew will be wealthy and rewarded quite well for their good work.

(bolding on Sal mine).

JABbering Stooge    


JABbering Stooge


5:38 pm

We’re Number 9! We’re Number 9!…

Ruh-roh. Guess who didn’t do so well at the box office this weekend?
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a rare documentary opening in wide release, debuted at No. 9 with $3.1 million. Released by Rocky Mountain Pictures, the film features…

Alas, no further communications from Mr. Cordova were forthcoming.  Or anyone else for that matter.

(edited for bad grammar)

Date: 2008/05/05 18:03:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Peter Henderson @ May 05 2008,10:51)
William : I assume you are "Billy" that blogs over at William Crawley's "Will and Testament" since you referred to me as "Stupid or dense" (comments which I take exception to by the way) when I quoted Billy, who I felt was calling into question my salvation for not accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis ?

What, he didn't call you a coward?  Couldn't have been him.....

Date: 2008/05/05 18:08:18, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (J-Dog @ May 05 2008,11:34)
Thanks to a link by Lou FCD, I found this Onion article that explains a lot.  (Please do not pay any attention to Albatrossity.  I am sure he is the aberration, and FTK the norm...)

30 Years Of Man's Life Disapere in "Kansas rectangle"

They also recently reported on some very interesting rodent research:
Son-Of-A-Bitch Mouse Solves Maze Researchers Spent Months Building

Date: 2008/05/05 18:23:04, Link
Author: didymos
JPCollado is achieving epic levels of TARD:




12:53 pm

Bob O’H:
“It doesn’t matter than Darwin mis-understood something”

The eliticists of the day didn’t care much about the niceties either…they just wanted to push the theory because it served their evil purposes and sort of gave them a scientific justification for subjugating the weak and/or those of a lower natural order, you know, the whole ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘struggle for existence’ mantra.

It is no coincidence that Darwin the English scientist gave great impetus to Rothschild the English banker…

(poor Abe Lincoln…if only he had obliged and not printed that fiat paper money to finance the civil war)

…and it continues to this day even though “we have gone beyond Darwin’s understanding”.

Yeah, “fundies say the darndest things.”

They sure do JP.  I think the later Darwin Impelled Eliticists of the Nazi variety may have taken some small issue with Rothschild, though:


The story of the Rothschild family has been featured in a number of films. The 1934 Hollywood film titled The House of Rothschild, starring George Arliss and Loretta Young, recounted the life of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Excerpts from this film were incorporated into the National Socialist (Nazi) propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" (Der ewige Jude) and another German film Die Rothschilds (also called Aktien auf Waterloo) was directed by Erich Waschneck in 1940.

Ooh, lookie.  There's that "Waterloo" word. Quick: someone do a Bayesian thing.

Date: 2008/05/05 18:40:28, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 05 2008,16:13)
They said it had a 3.5M budget, Logan tard or one of the others was quoted in a recent Dallas Morning News article and said they had spent "multiples of that" in distribution and promotion costs.

That's the one I was thinking of.  OK, so not $5 million.  Here's the quote:

Nearly $4 million was spent on producing the movie and "a multiple of that" in distribution and marketing so far, Mr. Craft says.

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 05 2008,16:13)

The fact it's grossed 6M does not mean they get 6M.  And I bet they had to offer theaters a sweetheart deal to get it shown in so many of them.

No, I know.  Hence the not much/jack shit.  Oh and sweetheart deal for those not owned by a guy who funded the DI (who still wasn't willing to forego profit and spam it to all his theaters).  I'd love to see the accounting on the film, in any case.

Date: 2008/05/05 23:47:35, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 05 2008,21:34)
Just thought I would pass this comment of mine on to you folks.

Sal, I’m surprised at your ignorance of the history of science:
Watson-Crick’s discoveries happened around the time of the origination of the Modern Synthesis, …

Fisher published his first big paper on the subject in 1918. Wright started a couple of years later, but his first main papers were published in the first half of the 1920s.
Crick was born in 1916, and Watson in 1928. Watson must be the world’s greatest genius if he did his big work before he was even conceived!

Why do they let you get away with stuff like that?  I've tried posting far milder criticism, and ended up with vanishing-post syndrome. I just gave up after the fourth account fell victim.  Do they have a quota or something?

Date: 2008/05/05 23:55:41, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Badger3k @ May 05 2008,21:09)
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 05 2008,22:27)
Clearly, the conservative christian creationists never expected to get rich off of "Expelled" because those who bankrolled the film are rich already.  It was a donation.

Not a donation, an offering.  Kinda like indulgences.

Which to bring it full circle, is what pissed Martin Luther off, causing him to forge Lutheranism, which purified and reformed as it was, was sure to catch on with the Jews.  Of course it didn't, which really sent Luther off the rails and resulted in that little tract "On the Jews and Their Lies".

Date: 2008/05/06 00:29:43, Link
Author: didymos
Well, Bob, apparently you're rightish, but Sal's not wrong:




11:58 pm

From Wiki:

   This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936–1947)

Watson-Crick 1953

I actually was too generous to say modern synthesis originated around the time Watson-Crick. This strengthens my original claim that Haldane and Fisher did not have access to the modern understanding of the molecular basis of heredity at the time modern-synthesis was conceived.

Thank you Bob OH for strengthening my point that neo-Darwinism originated in ignorance of the molecular basis of heredity….

(my bold)

That has got to be some sort of record for rapidity of quote-mining. I just love how Sal fucks up horribly on basic fact after basic fact and then still thinks he "wins".  Hey, Sal, you ever think that despite their ignorance, the fact they still got a lot of stuff right as later shown once that molecular basis was better understood might count for something?  Amazing how theoretical exercises can produce good, solid results like that, isn't it?  Even when, say, the theorist was working in ignorance of both the molecular basis of heredity and the mathematics of population genetics.  That's the sort of achievement that might even get you buried in Westminster.  

On the other hand, this other jackass can't apparently wrap his head around what the word "first" means in this context:

Fisher published his first big paper on the subject in 1918. Wright started a couple of years later, but his first main papers were published in the first half of the 1920s.

He probably thinks you just got served:




11:59 pm

Bob O’H,

I think the modern synthesis was first developed in the late 1930’s or early 1940’s.

Yes, and it was done in a vacuum Jerry, with no foundation of earlier work to rely upon.  You may as well believe that too.

Date: 2008/05/06 00:31:49, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and notice how he's easily able to use wikipedia when it suits him.  Dishonest is wholly inadequate to describe Mr. Cordova.  Notice also the full quote is:

This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936–1947) and was closely connected with the development from 1918 to 1932 of the discipline of population genetics, which integrated the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.

(edited because I forgot the quote, like an IDiot)

Date: 2008/05/06 01:23:49, Link
Author: didymos
Dave's being rational again.  I quote his post in full:


6 May 2008
Bass Ackwards Darwinism

There are people who believe that because Darwin provided a theoretical basis that humans and animals have a common ancestor it becomes a rationale for treating humans more like animals. Thus we get things like Nazi Germany and the holocaust.

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it.

Another equally valid way of looking at it is that common ancestry becomes a rationale for treating animals more like humans. Thus we get things like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

It’s all a matter of how you choose to look at it. It’s really more a reflection on your own soul which way you choose to see it.

Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Knowledge (like Darwinian evolution and the recipe for dynamite) is inanimate and can be employed by good people for good things and evil people for evil things.

He's not gonna let this one go. Too bad his tenacity isn't put to better use more often. Of course, it's just wasted on the crowd over there on occasions like this.

Date: 2008/05/06 06:47:35, Link
Author: didymos
Yikes.  This is just wrong:



6:08 pm

I loved the movie expelled. You actually gain knowledge from seeing this movie. It’s funny too.

No man, that's not what happened to you.  You actually gain stupid from seeing that movie.  Sal Cordova just proved it with, like, numbers and stuff.

Date: 2008/05/06 07:24:09, Link
Author: didymos


Upright BiPed


3:20 am

One might wonder. Moving the debate to the big screen was certainly a strategic flank (a move into uncontested territory), but the message of the movie was (just as clearly) a frontal attack. If I remember strategic axioms, one of the keys to a frontal attack is to not broaden your forces. The idea being that to be successful is to be aware of the defended position, attack on a narrow front, and stack your resources against the weakness in strength.

Expelled was certainly successful at these, yet I think that a great deal of energy has been spent on the Nazism angle - as correct as it may be - but off the narrow front.

Perhaps the key now is to refocus on the weakness in strength (the unequivocal evidence of Design) and make the side debate useful in some other way.


Napoleon breakfasted off silver at Le Caillou, the house where he had spent the night. When Soult suggested that Grouchy should be recalled to join the main force, Napoleon said, "Just because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you think he's a good general. I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast." Later, on being told by his brother, Jerome, of some gossip between British officers (overheard by a waiter at a lunch at 'King of Spain Inn' in Genappe) that the Prussians were to march over from Wavre, Napoleon declared that the Prussians would need at least two days to recover and would be dealt with by Grouchy.

Date: 2008/05/06 07:32:31, Link
Author: didymos
Consequences of Darwinism:


Jon Jackson


3:50 am

Cultures which have tried to institute Darwinian principles have, however, not fared so well. There you find not just the state committing wholesale murder but individuals turning others over to the state for various motives.

       (my bolding)

Eric Pianka: The Department of Homeland Security needs to interview you

Date: 2008/05/06 09:08:09, Link
Author: didymos
Dave is confusing me again:




8:20 am


Are you really going to try to compare PETA to Nazis?

That should be stupid to the point of slapstick comedy. Please proceed.

That's actually pretty funny, and it's on purpose.

Date: 2008/05/06 09:42:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 06 2008,07:23)
One wonders then why Sal does not nip over to PT and tell Dr. Felsenstein exactly why he's wrong.

He's too busy getting caught quote-mining and offering half-assed justifications for same in an effort to look like the biggest jackass possible. It's working like a goddamn charm.

Date: 2008/05/06 17:45:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (ERV @ May 06 2008,14:05)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 06 2008,15:59)
Official numbers are in.  Expelled did $100 per theater yesterday ($66,000).

See more here

They should be announcing a DVD soon.

They are legally barred from making a DVD, remember?

At least until the Yoko suit plays out.

I, er, imagine, that if they removed the cultural commentarymusical quote-mine they could start selling DVDs.  Might not be a bad idea, as they may need to have a nice stockpile of ready cash in the near future.

Date: 2008/05/06 18:04:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 06 2008,15:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,16:38)
Quote (olegt @ May 06 2008,16:28)
BarryA is a tard.  His example supposedly proving the existence of an absolute moral standard is sex with little children.  In Barry's view, there is no reason to consider it a bad idea other than god told us not to.  Hey Barry, if you flexed your considerable brain muscle, maybe you could figure out that such an activity hurts little children, both physically and psychologically?  That didn't occur to you, did it?  

And while we're on the subject of absolute, immutable, set-in-stone moral standards, what's with the age of consent?  It used to be moral to get a 12-year-old bride in Christian medieval England, remember?  Is it still moral or has morality evolved?

Probably in biblical times and in biblical countries also. I'm thinking an early start was necessary given life expectancy in those days...

If Mary existed, she was probably 13 or so when she birthed Yahweh Jr. Which makes God a child abuser.

Well, maybe it was actually unintentional.  If we assume Yahweh is rather like Kal-El of Krypton (Silver Age version), the whole Gospel tradition may represent some sort of divine PR spin after-the-fact.  Consider:

Within her body there are still tens of millions of frustrated kryptonian sperm. The single egg is now too diffuse to be a target. The sperm scatter.

They scatter without regard to what is in their path. They leave curved channels, microscopically small. Presently all will have found their way to the open air.

That leaves LL with several million microscopic perforations all leading deep into her abdomen. Most of the channels will intersect one or more loops of intestine.

Peritonitis is inevitable. LL becomes desperately ill.

Meanwhile, tens of millions of sperm swarm in the air over Metropolis.

This is more serious than it looks.

Consider: these sperm are virtually indestructible. Within days or weeks they will die for lack of nourishment. Meanwhile they cannot be affected by heat, cold, vacuum, toxins, or anything short of green kryptonite. (*And other forms of kryptonite. For instance, there are chunks of red kryptonite that make giants of kryptonians. Imagine ten million earthworm size spermatozoa swarming over a Metropolis beach, diving to fertilize the beach balls... but I digress.*) There they are, minuscule but dangerous; for each has supernormal powers.

Metropolis is shaken by tiny sonic booms. Wormholes, charred by meteoric heat, sprout magically in all kinds of things: plate glass, masonry, antique ceramics, electric mixers, wood, household pets, and citizens. Some of the sperm will crack lightspeed. The Metropolis night comes alive with a network of narrow, eerie blue lines of Cherenkov radiation.

And women whom Superman has never met find themselves in a delicate condition.

Consider: LL won't get pregnant because there were too many of the blind mindless beasts. But whenever one sperm approaches an unfertilized human egg in its panic flight, it will attack.

How close is close enough? A few centimeters? Are sperm attracted by chemical cues? It seems likely. Metropolis had a population of millions; and kryptonian sperm could travel a long and crooked path, billions of miles, before it gives up and dies.

Several thousand blessed events seem not unlikely. (*If the pubescent Superboy plays with himself, we have the same problem over Smallville.*)

Several thousand lawsuits would follow. Not that Superman can't afford to pay. There's a trick where you squeeze a lump of coal into its allotropic diamond form...

If Yahweh was actually off in space relieving some ungodly frustrations, then it's possible Mary was just on the unlucky receiving end of a divine tracjectory.

(edited because I initially used Golden Age Kal-L as my Yahweh model.)

Date: 2008/05/06 18:24:15, Link
Author: didymos
Extra-curricular tard from the DI pseudo-blog, so dumb I just had to share:

Velvet worms are thought to be descended of insects, but the evidence for this is scanty; they look a lot like worms, and they have remained unchanged for millions of years. They live along fallen leaves in tropical forests and have two nozzles, one on each side of their head, which can fire off a very quickly drying glue at their prey. These two sprays crisscross back and forth, as if lassoing the victim. Once the victim is securely ensnared, the worm bites a hole in its body, injects digestive juices, and then slurps up the dissolving victim. Curiously, this glue does not dry within the worm’s body, and its digestive juices are well contained. Imagine the difficulty if the intermediate glue dried within the velvet worm, clogging the nozzles, or dried too slowly, allowing the victim to get away before becoming ensnared.

And guess what kiddies: there's more to come! Yay!


Note: This is the first of a series of posts excerpted from my book, Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain.

Date: 2008/05/07 02:16:45, Link
Author: didymos
Does anyone over there ever check anything before posting? Well, except for the precious few "evolanders" who eke a fit bytes through the reality filter on occassion, and DaveScot when he feels like it.  Anway, this:
Nature would be a good choice of rag. It started off as a mouthpiece for eugenics.

The table of contents page of Nature's 1st issue, published Nov. 4 1869:


"To the solid ground
Of Nature trusts the mind which builds for aye." -- WORDSWORTH

   *      NEWMAN'S BRITISH MOTHS BY W.W. DALLAS, F.L.S (with illustrations)
   *      OUR BOOK SHELF
   *      NOTES
   *      DIARY
(from )

Date: 2008/05/07 02:26:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,20:50)
You should check out my latest post, however, in which I describe a My son’s first grade teacher (God Bless Her!) .

It will be enough to get the NCSE and their minor thugs worked up.

William, you fool, it just so happens that's illegal.  To save everyone the trouble, here's what this "wonderful" teacher is doing:

(edited to fix broken image)
(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/07 02:28:48, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,20:59)
Quote (didymos @ May 05 2008,06:32)
Hey, William:  why are you stealing bandwidth from

Go get an imageshack account or something for Christ's sake.  

If someone could edit my prior post to remove the giant John Locke, so I'm not stealing their bandwidth, that'd be great.

You've confused me with, which decided to steal bandwidth instead of host the image.

They're under no obligation to host your image.  So, you're abusing this board system to leach bandwidth.  It's still a result of your actions.  Nice try at shifting the blame, though.  Again:  get a free imageshack account, you weasel.

(edited to expunge vague possesive pronoun).

Date: 2008/05/07 02:53:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 06 2008,23:39)
So did you copy 'evolander' from Keith, or did he copy it from you?

I kinda like evolander.  It's catchy.  I know it's supposed to be some sort of grave insult, but it really fails when compared to, for example, IDiot, TARD,  or cretinist.  It almost sounds like a new model SUV or something:  The new Nissan Evolander.  Welcome to the evolution of performance and comfort.

Date: 2008/05/07 05:01:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 07 2008,01:59)
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,22:39)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 05 2008,03:48)
Isn't it common knowledge that Scopes volunteered for the trial.

He did volunteer, but I don't think it is common knowledge.

Well, it is cleverly hidden in all the books that deal with Scopes. Last mention I came upon was in Monkey Girl, which I'm reading now.

Not so cleverly hidden on Wikipedia:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had offered to defend anyone accused of teaching the theory of evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. George Rappleyea, who managed several local mines, convinced a group of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, then a town of 1,756, that the controversy of such a trial would give Dayton much needed publicity.  With their agreement, he called in his friend, 24-year-old John Scopes, who was Clark County High School's football coach and had substituted for Principal Ferguson in a science class. Rappleyea asked Scopes to teach the theory of evolution.

Rappleyea pointed out that while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution, the state required teachers to use a textbook—George Hunter's Civic Biology (1914)—which explicitly described and endorsed the theory of evolution, and that teachers were therefore effectively required to break the law.  Scopes could not actually remember having covered the section on evolution in Hunter's textbook, but he told the group "If you can prove that I've taught evolution and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I'll be willing to stand trial."

Scopes became an increasingly willing participant, even incriminating himself and urging students to testify against him. He was indicted on April 24, after three students testified against him at the grand jury, at Scopes' behest.  According to Edward J. Larson, Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "...all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom."  Scopes was charged with having taught from the chapter on evolution to a 1925-05-07, high school class in violation of the Butler Act (and nominally arrested, though never detained).  His bail of $500 was paid by Paul Patterson, owner of the Baltimore Sun.

Date: 2008/05/07 05:06:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,20:56)
Shifty Wesley,

Why can't you just admit you were wrong and be done with it?

Because Wesley's honest?

Date: 2008/05/07 05:21:08, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,23:20)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 07 2008,01:13)
Quote (William Wallace @ May 06 2008,20:44)
My guess is Keith is allowed to still post because he hasn't yet ticked of the petty Wesley yet.

So, basically, your statement about Keith being banned at PT was, well, a lie. Cool. Nice to have that established.

Lie as opposed to wrong...hmn...using your standard, does that make Darwin a liar?

No, I am not Keith, but he is brilliant.  He'll be banned just as soon as shifty Wesley gets annoyed.

No, William.  It's just that you've shown yourself to be somewhat estranged from the truth in the past, so when you pose a question like:

Quote (William Wallace @ May 04 2008,22:14)
Okay, so, please explain why evolanders belly-ache about not being about to post at UD., yet they powers that be in the PT-mafia keep the likes of me and Keith Eaton from posting at PT?

the default working hypothesis is mendacity. I'll take your word that you were merely wrong, so that default has been falsified.  It would now appear that you're too lazy or unwilling to verify the accuracy of your words.  To quote Mr. Chatfield: Cool. Nice to have that established.

As far as Keith the Brilliant goes: Eaton annoys everyone except you, apparently. So much for that "theory" Willy.

Date: 2008/05/07 06:45:38, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (October Mermaid @ May 06 2008,22:09)
I thought everything he said was a joke?

Isn't he.. I mean, wasn't he just a troll?

Oh, wow.

I don't think he thinks he's a troll.  But he is.

By the same token, pretty much everything he says is a joke, but he thinks it's not.  The exception is when he thinks what he's saying really is a joke, in which case only he thinks its funny.

Wow indeed.

Date: 2008/05/07 08:52:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ May 07 2008,05:15)
It would really help if scordova actually read Origin of Species instead of just looking for quote-mines.

People have already tried pointing those passages out to him numerous times.  He doesn't care.  I think he absolutely has read more than a sentence here or there of the Origin, he just doesn't know any other way to argue than using cheap rhetorical tricks and deceptive quoting tactics, coupled with a refusal to admit to anything other than the most trivial of mistakes and a propensity to claim that, once corrected, his case has actually gotten stronger. If he ever gets into a position of power within a money-making ministry at some point, I fully expect tax evasion or other white-collar criminal charges to be pressed in relatively short order.

Professional con-artists would take the guy to task for mendacity. He's so intellectually corrupt it beggars belief.  I'm not trying to demonize the guy for petty rhetorical effect with this, because I really mean it: his behavior in service to his "Christian" duty resembles nothing so much as a narcissist with some pretty marked sociopathic traits. I.e., a malignant narcissist.  The superficial charm, grandiosity, rampant dishonesty, guiltlessness, shallowness, envy, et cetera.  The best I can say about him is that he's not violent.

In summation, Sal sucks.

Date: 2008/05/07 09:01:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 07 2008,06:57)
Looks like the real DT is back on UD this morning - here's a classic lesson in logic delivered by the old Dave.  

Did someone put us here or did it just happen?

For me the operative word is “happen”.

If I became aware of myself as a conscious observer/participant in the universe one time then that proves it’s possible. What can happen once can and probably will happen again.

Thus I really tend to discount the atheist belief that consciousness is an accident, a one-time event, and when you check out, take the old dirt nap, you’re gone forever. That’s an irrational conclusion. The rational conclusion is that what happens once will, given enough time and opportunity, happen again.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

I frakkin' knew it:  Dave's a Cylon.

Date: 2008/05/07 09:07:32, Link
Author: didymos
Dave must have one confusing mental landscape.  One minute he's all waxin' mystic over consciousness, next he'll be talking sense like this:



2:28 pm


The problem with an objective moral standard given from a bearded thunderer is that unless the bearded thunderer makes a personal appearance then whatever those objective moral standards might be we mortals need to somehow agree on them and enforce them with laws and punishments.

Date: 2008/05/07 09:11:55, Link
Author: didymos
They're starting to get pretty bold with Dave.  Check it:



3:27 pm

DaveScot @ 5:

Is it in fact true that no bearded thunderer ever personally appeared and presented a transcendent moral standard? Or is it merely that you require the designer to prove himself to you personally before you’re willing to admit the possibility of design?

Watch it, Sparky. You're lookin' to attract some earthly wrath with that kind of talk.

Date: 2008/05/07 09:29:52, Link
Author: didymos
Yeah, reality is soooo like that:


Leo Hales


9:34 pm

Not surprising, really. Religion tends to put restrictions on how much money one makes and how one makes money in the first place. So wealthy people have plenty of motivation to adopt an ideology that undermines religon.

So that's why the Catholic Church is so destitute.  And poor Pat Robertson:  couldn't he just keep a little for himself?

Date: 2008/05/07 09:35:38, Link
Author: didymos
Irony thy name is Cordova:


3:33 pm

He resorted to misreading what I wrote. When someone does that, I don’t invest much time even if he had points worth discussing.

Date: 2008/05/07 16:26:31, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 07 2008,08:30)
Illegal?  Wow.  I did not know that.  Could you please tell me, oh fool, exactly which law she violated?

Did not think so.

You're the only fool, fool.

See William, this is your problem:  you call people names without backing evidence.  On the other hand, as if you hadn't provided ample support for it before, you just proved you are indeed a fool.  I'm going to quote Arden again: Cool. Nice to have that established.

(edited: left the 'to' off an infinitive)

Date: 2008/05/07 16:37:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 07 2008,11:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 07 2008,11:12)
Trick question. Is the school a public school or a Christian school? Did the teacher own the book, or did she vandalize school property?

Yeah, I think Wee Willy is jacking us around. Nowhere in any of his ditherings does he indicate that he would actually send his kid to a public school. It's not illegal to teach your kid how to be stupid in a "faith-based" school. But it could backfire on him eventually...

I don't know.  Just the sheer amount of gloating indicates that WW feels this is some sort of victory against the forces of materialism.  Seems doubtful he'd be crowing over a Christian teacher in a Christian school.  See, here:

Note: Many states have spawn NC”S”E organizations, also known as “<your-state> Citizens for ‘science‘ Education.” In Minnesota, we have one such atheist shill group, Minnesota Citizens for Science Education set up in cooperation with the National Center for Darwinian Education, with dangerous brass knuckle and steel toed boot wielding militant atheists on their advisory boards. Since members of the PT-mafia are known to monitor this blog, I am protecting the identity of this Christian first grade teacher.

But to the PT-mafia I do say, “na na na na na na.” :)

Christian first grade teachers still exist!

And they are not afraid to share their faith.

Praise God!!!!

Seems to me the whole point is this teacher is a latter day version of the brave Christians of yore defying the edicts of Rome.

Date: 2008/05/07 17:08:59, Link
Author: didymos
And they wonder why they get mocked:

Eric Anderson


1:59 pm

Bob O’H, interesting site.

- There is a prominent link on the first page to the NCSE. Hmmm, quite the objective paragon there . . .

Sez the guy on UD who apparently can't read or has a need to appear as though he's uncovered some nefarious secret of Darwinism:

Expelled Exposed created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education.


- There is a linked video on the first page about how the eye supposedly evolved. Is this a joke?

Is this some sort of reverse Poe's Law at work here?


- The site seems partly devoted to challenging ID. Keep in mind that Ben Stein is not claiming in the movie that ID is right. He is simply questioning the Darwinist tactic of not letting any other voice at the table. Challenging ID is certainly a legitimate activity in its own right, but it is only tangentially related to Stein’s larger point.

Right, because Ben "Science leads to killing people" Stein is the true objective paragon.  I propose instead that Ben merely has the appearance of Objective Paragonicity and is himself a joke, though not by design.

Date: 2008/05/07 19:59:15, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Louis @ May 07 2008,17:21)
*By my count there has been 1.0 (Biblical creationism), 1.1 (Scientific creationism), 1.2 (Creation Science), 1.3 (Intelligent Design: the early years, it's science honest guv'nor) and 1.4 (Intelligent Design: the dotage, it's all about the persecution). Did I miss any? There will be no version 2.0 btw, creationists haven't got the imagination. All versions will be modifications of version 1.0, no "speciation" will occur, the mutations are all very superficial, the core claims remain identical. You can bank on that prediction too! ;-)

Ah, but a case could be made for other species:  Islamic and Jewish Creationism/ID come to mind.  And, I think sub-species exist:  YEC, OEC, IDiot, Geocentrics, et cetera. Even those break down into infraspecific groups.  So for OECs you've got gappers, day-agists, progressivists.  Still there's a lot of horizontal transfer going on, rather like the archaea and bacteria.

Then you have the convergent stuff like Hindu Creationism via ISKCON, sometimes labeled "Vedic Creationism".  And just consider all the extinct varieties: Atumic Masturbationsim,  Ouranic Castrationism, The Ymiric Dismemberment Model of Creation, etc.  

And none of these were or are static: branchings , the acquisition of new features, hybridizing, competition....It's all there, man. The evolution of creationism is both a fact and a theory.

(edited to reword repetitive phrase)

Date: 2008/05/07 20:10:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ May 07 2008,17:30)
The biggest joke is that Wet Wally is evidently from or in Minnesota.  It's a cruel sort of joke, but a joke nonetheless.

Please don't imagine for an instant that he represents Minnesota or Minnesotans in any way.  Because I was born there and spent most of my life there, I can honestly write that even Minnesota has its "vocal but tiny and tard minority" that constantly ruin things for the rest of us.

I don't think you have to worry about that.  We're independent thinkers who can surely come up with far more rational reasons to despise Minnesota.  I mean just look at it, all bordering that Canadia-land place....stupid Minnesota. :p

Date: 2008/05/07 20:22:51, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2008,18:03)
Gil wants some math:

Funny how they don't use it in the EF, though..

The evidence of fossil eyes is there to see. You have to go with 'evilution', or recreation with meddling.

Dude, they must do this:


This NCSE eye-evolution nonsense deserves a dedicated UD thread.

The only man right for the job is Cordova.  Do it, Sal. Do it.  Just consider all the stupid shit you could say and how much joy you'll bring to materialist evolanders the world over.  This could be it Sal: the one that makes you a legend................

Date: 2008/05/07 20:31:07, Link
Author: didymos
Well, the best part is that, whether Willy is telling the truth or no, either way the theory that he's a jackass is confirmed.

You know, it's funny, but I've got a blue-fronted amazon parrot named Willy, and he talks a lot of nonsense interspersed with random pejoratives too.  I should try to teach him to say "evolander" and "goddidit".

Date: 2008/05/07 23:19:28, Link
Author: didymos
So, it's not just the ape thing then:

Comparing plants and people is like comparing apples and oranges. Actually it’s worse than that!:D

Yeah, I hate it when people compare apples and oranges too.  I mean, obviously, comparing two members of clade rosids is just so much nonsense.  What's up with that?

Date: 2008/05/07 23:52:11, Link
Author: didymos
Impressive.  Most impressive, young Collado, but you are not a Cordova yet:
But when these indians [the Huaoroni] saw and heard the Gospel in action, after a respite of a few months, their murder rate dropped about 90 percent according to anthropologists Carole and Clay Robarchek.

First contact with Gospel not quite as effective as claimed:


In 1956, a group of five American missionaries, led by Jim Elliot and pilot Nate Saint, made contact with the Huaorani in what was known as Operation Auca. Two days after friendly contact with three Huaorani, all five of the missionaries were killed in a spearing attack by a larger group from the same Huaorani clan.

Now, the 90% part is true for the murder rate, but here's what the Robarcheks actually have to say about that:


The turnaround began in the early 1960s, when a pair of missionaries, aided by two charismatic Waorani women, arrived to try to put an end to the nonstop cycle of violence, the Robarcheks said.

"The Waorani women who went in with the missionaries were able to talk to their relatives and tell them not everybody on the outside world lives like this," Clay Robarchek said. "What the missionaries provided was a new reality, a new image of a world the Waorani hadn't imagined they could have."

The promise of American-style tools and consumer goods, such as gasoline-powered fishing boat engines and shotguns to replace wooden hunting spears, helped serve as rewards for the change in behaviors, Carole Robarchek said.

So, not so much "Jesus Saves" as "I gots to have me a shotty"

Edited to add:  plus, the idea of citing missionaries as evidence of Christianity's benevolent influence on native peoples is pretty batshit to start with.

Date: 2008/05/08 00:36:40, Link
Author: didymos
I'm guessing that bird was meant for me.  So, William 'bout that image host:
Thanks to Google's Apps for Your Domain, I'm now able to offer members of the Badera family free Google GMail accounts and associated services using the domain.

Are you indeed a member of clan Badera, or are you just jacking their bandwidth too?  I mean, you're in Minnesota, and white, going by your blog. The domain registrant is in the great state of NY (oooh, the spooky magic of the "whois" command), and presumably of hispanic ancestry.  Not saying you maybe didn't marry in or something,  I just find it.....unlikely.

Now, technically, if you're willing to accept common descent, you guys are related.  Still, rather shaky justification there.  Best to GO GET YOUR OWN DAMN IMAGE HOSTING ACCOUNT somewhere.

Of course, if you are truly related to Mr. Badera in the colloquial sense, then, on this issue at least, you're in the ethical clear.  That leaves, yeah, I kinda lost count there.

Date: 2008/05/08 00:45:06, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ May 07 2008,22:02)
An aside that you can answer AFTER:

ahem,  Does Jesus know you're avatar is flipping people off?


Does that make him cry?

I'm thinkin' what Jesus would do in this situation would be to execute whatever the equivalent of flipping someone off is if you're a 1st century mediterranean Jewish peasant.  I seem to recall something about him not being too keen on hypocrites who cloak themselves in piety.

Date: 2008/05/08 01:18:42, Link
Author: didymos
Oooh. OK, WW said:


Stick around. I have a post on the scientific method in the works. Should tick the evolanders off.

 William's promised post on the Scientific Method is up.  Unfortunately, it's just a linked vid from that What You Ought To Know Guy.

Can't say after watching it I'm all that pissed off.  He's got some bits right, but he falls prey to common misconceptions about the nature and practice of science.  Thanks for providing another example of how the educational system isn't doing all it can to communicate the reality of the scientific enterprise to children, leaving them ill-equipped to judge the worth of a theory in their adult life, William.  Not really necessary, but you meant well...right?

Date: 2008/05/08 02:21:46, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Annyday @ May 08 2008,00:06)
I like how Barry says that anyone who thinks that it's possible to think that infanticide is moral is lying. That's quite a way to insulate oneself from criticism. "I am self-evidently right; anyone who disagrees must be lying." Counterexamples of people who clearly thought infanticide was a good thing under certain circumstances, such as when the kid was unlucky enough to be in Hiroshima or born to Jewish or bourgeois or Tutsi parents? Well, I'm self-evidently right, so they must have known they were in the wrong even if they gave every indication that they do not. Infanticide via exposure or willful starvation been a common and accepted custom in many parts of the world? Self-evident. Trust me.

(edited for bolding)

Date: 2008/05/08 02:37:26, Link
Author: didymos
The classics never get old:
By the way, a few weeks ago I heard a famous chemist (George Whitesides of MIT) speak at the American Chemical Society meeting in New Orleans

and he expressed some incredulity toward OOL and since like he's a super smart for reals scientist with a science degree, so like there's that. Yeah. Oh, and he thinks some ID people are smart too, so you should be nice to all of us, and I'm gonna really lay it on thick by noting this chemistry guy is:
someone who is much more knowledgeable than even most scientists.

Except, apparently, not about abiogenesis research. Or so "Chemfarmer" implies.  Since Whitesides heads a research group at Harvard, not MIT (he left in 1982), I'm thinkin' Chemfarmer may not be one of those ID people Whitesides was thinking about. Especially since there's this:

which leads to this. Oh, and the fact that he's a well-known OOL researcher among chemists:

For those of you who don't know who Whitesides is - he's a professor at Harvard who has the widest ranging research areas I know of - and is doing some interesting work in the chemistry of the origins of life. He's a hero to many young chemists[.]

So, yeah. I'd love to know what Whitesides actually said in his address.  I'm getting the idea Chemfarmer got a few details wrong.  Or he's taking a page from the Cordova playbook, in which case I suggest Chemfarmer change his handle to Quoteminer.

(edited for formatting and additional snark)
(edited again to more accurately paraphrase Chemfarmer'sQuotminer's post)

Date: 2008/05/08 02:56:56, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Louis @ May 08 2008,00:49)
LOL George Whitesides a pseudocreationist? Bollocks and utter crap! This chemfarmer chap is talking out of his puckered posterior sphincter.

As you note, George's group have been doing OOL research for years, he's no abiogenesis denialist. In fact (and I'll see if I can dig this out) a few years back he wrote an article about what major scientific questions chemistry has to answer. Guess which topic was prominently in the list?

Yeah.  I'm poking around for a transcript, but I imagine what Whitesides actually said was something along the lines of "This shit's really hard and I'm not going to pretend I know what went down. There will be surprises in store."  But, you know, more chemicalish and eloquent-like. Based on Quoteminer's accuracy, it seems pretty likely Whitesides was a bit less charitable regarding ID than claimed.

Date: 2008/05/08 03:14:56, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2008,00:56)
Quote (Louis @ May 08 2008,00:49)
LOL George Whitesides a pseudocreationist? Bollocks and utter crap! This chemfarmer chap is talking out of his puckered posterior sphincter.

As you note, George's group have been doing OOL research for years, he's no abiogenesis denialist. In fact (and I'll see if I can dig this out) a few years back he wrote an article about what major scientific questions chemistry has to answer. Guess which topic was prominently in the list?

Yeah.  I'm poking around for a transcript, but I imagine what Whitesides actually said was something along the lines of "This shit's really hard and I'm not going to pretend I know what went down. There will be surprises in store."  But, you know, more chemicalish and eloquent-like. Based on Quoteminer's accuracy, it seems pretty likely Whitesides was a bit less charitable regarding ID than claimed.

Found this summary on the OOL part of the talk:

George Whitesides (GW) gave a talk entitled “Questions about questions about the origins of life”.  It was actually a kind of homily summarizing his summaries. Ok. Let’s see if I can do better than that.  GW has been ruminating on the origins of life and has come to the conclusion that neither the physicists or the biologists are equipped to solve the problem.

The first matter that he paraded before the audience was this- is it enough to say that the world is bifurcated into two domains- alive and not alive? Is it binary or continuous? GW thinks it is continuous.  It just occured to me that prions may be a good present day exception to the assertion that it is binary. But what really matters is the question of whether life was continuous or binary during the peribiotic period while life was forming.

GW suggested that it is important for us to find examples of chemical fossils.  These would be chemical compositions left intact from that era. The problem of the origin of life cannot be answered by simple extrapolation backward from present biology because the peribiotic conditions in which life arose have not been present for several billion years. We are far from understanding the chemical and redox makeup of the peribiotic world.

The origin of life arose from reaction networks that afforded molecular species that could self amplify or self replicate in an anoxic, reductive environment.

   The question of the mechanistic origins of life is vastly different from the question of the mechanistic evolution of life.

Both are chemical phenomena and a mechanistic picture of both will ultimately be assembled by chemists of one sort or other.

and this account which gives some more detail:

I saw an excellent lecture by George Whitesides of Harvard yesterday. His official status as god-of-chemistry – and the fact that his talk was tantalisingly entitled ‘Questions about questions about the origins of life’ – meant that the small hall was packed to overflowing.

Whitesides put a health warning on the talk – there were very few facts, a lot of speculation, and no answers. Nevertheless, in forty minutes he set out a research agenda that could allow chemistry to answer one of the most fundamental questions – how life began.

Unlike the ‘puzzles’ that trouble most chemists (projects such as total synthesis of a natural product, where much of the intellectual satisfaction is in the journey, rather than the destination; where its possible to frame the question absolutely; and where its clear that there is an answer to be found), this is a true ‘problem’, he argues – it’s really not clear what questions need to be answered, or if there is even an end-point to be reached.

There has been fifty years of research into how simple biological molecules could have formed from the prebiotic components available on Earth some 3.8 billion years ago. Likewise, progress towards defining the ‘RNA world’, where that molecule acted as both information carrier and catalyst before DNA arrived on the scene, is pretty good.

But there is a hug gap to bridge between the two, says Whitesides, and chemists are best place to build it. So if you want to get started on a problem which he predicts will take generations to crack, here are a few of his suggestions:

- Work out the organic chemistry of black smokers, the underground geothermal chimneys that spew out a hot, fertile mixture of organics and inorganics

- Figure out what kind of chemistry is possible in deep space

- Work out how ‘primitive co-factors’ – enzymes that contain clunky inorganic bits, such as the nickel-dependant urease – which are common to most forms of life could form.

- Discover how ion gradients (potassium inside the cell, sodium outside the cell) can form from natural processes. ‘People ask me where life comes from,’ says Whitesides, only half-joking, ‘and I say Alberta’. He’s specifically referring to an evaporated salt sea that would have concentrated these ions in its shrinking pools.

- Likewise, how did the triphosphate energy-carrying group arise?

Interestingly, he thinks that the search for the origins of chirality doesn’t fall into this catalogue of life’s fundamental aspects. Organic chemists love chirality, which is why so much effort is expended on figuring out life’s preference for left-handed amino acids, he says – but ultimately it’s a distraction. ‘It’s a real Rorschach test for people,’ he told me. ‘Either you think it’s really important, or not important at all’. Hmmm – Ron Breslow is clearly in the former category, and indeed so am I. On the other hand, it’s a brave man that bets against Whitesides.

He argues that it’ll take new ways of thinking about chemistry to tackle the origin of life problem – and trying to reconstruct these complex networks will take a lot of hard maths (so the biologists are no use, he adds). So – anyone up for the challenge?

Neither account mentions a thing about Whitesides waxing-ecstatic about the intellect of the ID crowd.  Both pretty much confirm my guess as to the true content regarding OOL. Quoteminer it is then.

Hopefully, the ACS will make a full transcript available, because I'd love to read it.

Date: 2008/05/08 03:21:41, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and I think I found the article you mentioned, Louis:

Date: 2008/05/08 05:57:10, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 08 2008,02:39)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 06 2008,18:20)
Fark the DVD, I can't wait for the Expelled soundtrack!

I heard that John Cage's estate was looking into legal action on that.

You know, it's really too bad Lou Reed didn't have something appropriate enough for Expelled to appropriate.   Best. Lawsuit. Ever.

Date: 2008/05/08 06:04:41, Link
Author: didymos
Wrath of Dave in 3 2 1:

Eric Anderson


3:42 am

DaveScot, looks like since you weren’t able to adequately support your position on the other threads you’ve resorted to parody?

Oh, well. Certainly don’t want to spoil your fun . . .

The peasants are revolting!

Date: 2008/05/08 15:43:25, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ May 08 2008,05:34)
Hiroshima was not a significant military target.

Don't want to get into a debate about the destruction of Hiroshima, but that part is not quite true:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The Imperial Naval Academy was also located in Hiroshima Bay, and plenty of firsthand accounts of the bombing mention that military personnel were plentiful.

That said, psychological impact definitely was an important factor in picking which city to bomb.

Date: 2008/05/08 15:47:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dogdidit @ May 08 2008,07:48)
Nuggets from DaveScot  [2]:
What if the baby was Adolf Hitler and you knew what he would grow up and do. Would you strangle him in his crib?

Dave got an answer:


9:45 am

DaveScot @ 28:

   What if the baby was Adolf Hitler and you knew what he would grow up and do. Would you strangle him in his crib?

No, I’d just kidnap and quarantine him from access to Darwin’s theories.

Date: 2008/05/08 15:54:43, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 08 2008,09:50)
I'm always amused when supposedly conservative folks like Dembski and Stein play the victim card. When did this start, and when did it become the dominant mode of anti-science argument?

About 2000 years ago, give or take.

Date: 2008/05/08 16:02:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,11:02)
This crowd's fear to come discuss science at a science blog is duly noted.  

I knew you wouldn't put your actions where your words were.

Oh well, take care.

Science blog?


We are dedicated to publishing content that is generally discouraged elsewhere because it does not toe the official line. Originally interested in historical and political coincidences, but also other subjects such as academic freedom, suppression of dissent in biology, intelligent design, Theory of Evolution, and vaccines.

You left out roller-skating, the homosexual agenda, teachers who violate the law and behave unethically, crap from Gerry Rzeppa, et cetera.

(edited to remove that damn apostrophe I'm always adding)

Date: 2008/05/08 16:13:02, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 08 2008,12:19)
Sadly, I think it is reasonable to suspect an agenda might be behind the event. Normalizing cross dressing and getting students used to seeing boys dressed as girls will certainly be viewed as a perk by some “progressive” elements. Obviously, school administrators will deny any agenda, or that long term benefits to the homosexual/transgender movements played a role in approving the event.

Against the cross dressers huh Willy? Might lead to dancing huh?

Willy later clarifies:
The parents of elementary school students should decide if and when students should be introduced to the subject of persons confused about their gender.

And William, when you introduce that concept to your children what exactly will you be saying? Will you be condemning it? Neutral? Praising it? What?

William, schools have been having "Cross-Dressing" days for years.  My middle school had a whole week of different costume days: 60s day, Cross-dressing day, etc.  On evil-acclimating-children-to-transvestites/transgendered day, all the guys spent their time mercilessly mocking one another over what ugly chicks they made. Come to think of it, so did the girls. I also didn't note any subsequent decline in homophobic remarks in the ensuing years.

Date: 2008/05/08 16:37:26, Link
Author: didymos
Amusing thread at Kev's place called "A potential collector's item?".  Apparently, Kev had Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D autograph his copy of "The God Delusion".  Anyway, a commenter had  this to offer:

If only he'd put "PS Im smarter than you, I have a science degree". Then it would have been amazing.

If you do sell it you should definitely put the money towards the sequel. It could be Ben Stein fighting a wave of zombies led by Hitler zombie. Ben stein blows Hitlers head off and turns to the camera. "Streng verbo[t]en bitches" Now THATS acting...

Posted by: salty valty | May 08, 2008 at 02:02 PM

Date: 2008/05/08 19:40:46, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 08 2008,17:32)
I GET IT! *Slaps forehead*

This thread is BlarneyA's shot at a dead baby joke.

Q: "How do you unload a truckload of dead babies?"

A: "With a pitchfork. But it would be wrong."

You know, I once observed a rare crossover of the dead-baby and grosser-than-gross genres:

"What's grosser than gross?"


"A dumpster filled with dead babies. What's grosser than that?"


"One at the bottom is still alive and he's eating his way out."

Yes.  I know.  That's terrible.

Date: 2008/05/08 20:07:48, Link
Author: didymos
OK, kinda off-topic but...son of a bitch.  I'm trying to mock Sal for weasel-ness over at the Gambler's Ruin page and PT won't let me. All I get is:

An Error Occured:

Thanks Panda's Thumb! I never would've guessed that anything had gone wrong.

Alright.  I'm through carping....for now.

Date: 2008/05/08 20:52:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ May 08 2008,17:55)

Later on, Little Willy whined:

For example, Jeff Snell on KKMS yesterday mentioned the vile treatment he received over at OZ Myer's Phartngula.

OK, "Phartngula" is straight outta the Dembskiian School of Comedy.  But 'OZ'?  Are you saying PZ is the great and powerful OZ of Evoland?  Would you like to ask him for a brain?  Or are you comparing him to the other well known OZ, a.k.a He-who-urinates-on-Texan-historical-landmarks?

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/08 21:50:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ May 08 2008,19:13)
Didymos wrote:

Quote (jeffox @ May 08 2008,17:55)

Later on, Little Willy whined:

For example, Jeff Snell on KKMS yesterday mentioned the vile treatment he received over at OZ Myer's Phartngula.  

OK, "Phartngula" is straight outta the Dembskiian School of Comedy.  But 'OZ'?  Are you saying PZ is the great and powerful OZ of Evoland?  Would you like to ask him for a brain?  Or are you comparing him to the other well known OZ, a.k.a He-who-urinates-on-Texan-historical-landmarks?

I thought that that was just an accidental application of the FTK head-up-the-butt school of typing/editing.    :)

Dude, stop harshing my vibe with your parsimony.

Date: 2008/05/08 23:01:27, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,20:43)
Crosspost from PT

William Wallace wrote:  

Eugenie Scott talks about a pinhole v. lens.  But somehow I doubt she understand the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Even so, she claims that the lens is an advantage.

Without recourse to the internet or references, I challenge Eugenie to explain what the advantages and the disadvantages of the lens is v. the pinhole.

Probably too tough for an anthropologist.

William, what do you think this will prove?  All it would demonstrate, assuming she fails your challenge, is that Eugenie Scott doesn't know everything. And what does it matter whether she uses a reference or not?  You do realize that consulting a reference is usually considered a good practice before opening your mouth, don't you? Anyway, it's all got exactly nothing to do with the correctness of her statement.  Then you throw in the anthropologist crack which just demonstrates, yet again, how little you really do know about, well, anything apparently.

(edited to change HTML to iB code)

Date: 2008/05/08 23:03:44, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,20:58)
Quote (blipey @ May 08 2008,22:53)
Of course, you can't muster the time to answer a simple yes/no question such as, "Was Sternberg fired?"

But you can spend endless hours producing shit like:

"Of course I want to talk about science; just come over to my place."

First, you already know the answer to the question about Sternberg.  Second, it is not a scientific question.

Yeah, well, neither is "Who is the Designer?" or "How much CSI does a tedious troll contain?

Date: 2008/05/08 23:06:43, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,21:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 08 2008,22:51)
Willy Wally!

Is ID science?

If you do some homework, you might find this:

A review of Expelled, part 1

The answer is in there somewhere.

Of course, that is just my opinion, I am new to studying ID.

Opinions are like William Wallaces: everybody's got one.

Date: 2008/05/09 00:03:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 08 2008,18:32)
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2008,21:07)
OK, kinda off-topic but...son of a bitch.  I'm trying to mock Sal for weasel-ness over at the Gambler's Ruin page and PT won't let me. All I get is:

An Error Occured:

Thanks Panda's Thumb! I never would've guessed that anything had gone wrong.

Alright.  I'm through carping....for now.

The comment you were attempting to make was not harsh enough on Christians, and therefore you have been deemed piranha by the EAC (which doesn't exist).

You might say you've been expelled.

No, actually, as it turns out, PT hates URLs from the .info domain.  If that's intentional behavior, it needs an error message.

Date: 2008/05/09 00:23:50, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,21:07)
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2008,23:01)
And what does it matter whether she uses a reference or not?

You do realize that consulting a reference is usually considered a good practice before opening your mouth, don't you?

Yes, I realize this.  

I'd like to see if she consulted a reference before opening her mouth on YouTube.

What would it prove?  It would prove that she consulted a reference before she opened her mouth on youtube.

Thanks for making my point, slow one.

I repeat: how is that in the least relevant to what she said?  What, you're just trying to find something to make fun of her for? Good luck with that.  Personally, I don't think that was your point.  You just claim it was in order to not appear stupid.  If that's so, it didn't work out so great.

Date: 2008/05/09 00:44:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2008,11:13)
Technically WW is correct re. falling bodies, although I am not sure if the trap he plans to spring is General Relativity or relative acceleration.

He went for relative acceleration:

The time to fall is measured in the time to collide, and not only does the Earth pull a falling object down, but the falling object pulls the Earth up.

Date: 2008/05/09 00:48:46, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ May 08 2008,22:40)
Back into your cage now.  Yes, the one with the sign that says, "Total embarassment to Minnesota."

Don't feel too bad.  You guys have got Marge Gunderson.  Oh, wait...she's not real.  Ah, screw it, she's still cool.

Date: 2008/05/09 00:56:15, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Annyday @ May 08 2008,22:28)
What's black and white and red all over and has trouble getting through revolving doors?

A dead baby made of newspapers with a spear through its head?

Date: 2008/05/09 01:12:59, Link
Author: didymos
Back on topic, what the fuck is Dr. Dr.'s point?
EXPELLED “stars” in the IMDb
William Dembski

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) has a new set of entries as a result of Ben Stein’s EXPELLED. And then there are some, like Richard Dawkins, who have a long history in the IMDb:

I think it's related to this:

That's the entirety of Dembski's credits.  He left out about half of Dawkins' though.  Seriously though: what the hell is the point of this?  Dawkins has been on TV more than the poor, persecuted 'Expelled Ones' and this proves what?  Ooh. Ooh.  Lemme guess: liberal media bias?  ID is still dead ass wrong?  They forgot to credit Dr. Dr. for 'Street Theatre'?

(edited for vague pronoun)
(and a bad possesive)

Date: 2008/05/09 01:22:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,23:05)
Quote (jeffox @ May 09 2008,00:40)
"Total embarassment to Minnesota."

That would be PZ Myerscorrect.

Date: 2008/05/09 03:42:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,23:32)
Quote (didymos @ May 09 2008,00:44)
Quote (dheddle @ May 08 2008,11:13)
Technically WW is correct re. falling bodies, although I am not sure if the trap he plans to spring is General Relativity or relative acceleration.

He went for relative acceleration:

The time to fall is measured in the time to collide, and not only does the Earth pull a falling object down, but the falling object pulls the Earth up.

Come on, it is obvious that you were PZ Fan, and now you're fronting like you knew something about science.  

PZ fan wrote:  You should study physics before making absurd claims. It is common knowledge that heavier objects do *not* fall faster than lighter objects in a vaccum.

Sorry William.  Never posted on your blog.  Stopped by once for a look around a couple months ago.  Never bothered reading it until you popped up in the 'Expelled' thread.  But if believing without proof that I am PZ Fan makes you feel that all is right with the world, go for it.

Date: 2008/05/09 03:49:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,23:53)
Hmn.  Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment.

Nautilus pinhole eyes can improve focus by adjusting the size of the pinhole.  But, to fulfill your request:

Ultra Mini Pinhole Camera Set    
Our Miniature Camera Sets make Covert Surveillance a cinch with their ultra small size and simple installation. These sets are great for the DIY Market, everything you need is one box.

   * 1/3 CCD Area Sensor Image Pickup
   * 0.05 LUX Minimum Illumination
   * 92 Degree Field of View
   * 420 Line Resolution
   * Built-In Electronic Auto Iris for Automatic Light Compensation
   *Adjustable Focus
   * NTSC


   * 60 Ft. Cable
   * AC Adapter
   * Mounting Bracket


   * 1? x 1? x 3/4?

(Available in BLACK & WHITE or COLOR

(edited because I forgot link to the Nautilus abstract)

Date: 2008/05/09 04:02:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 08 2008,13:38)
this here sprinkled liberally throughout.

Linguists, attention.  Please explain just what in the fuckity hell all this is 'posed to mean.

Colgatorene Plistonomy

3.  Steven J.  

> Too much plistorine allometrically and morphometrically applied to the
> historical fossilisation will reduce the allegorical historicity of the > geographic algorithm.

But this position ignores the plesioempirical allotropy
interlocutionally attributed to, and intersubjectively retrodicted by,
the metahistorical and and oligocontinually algorithmic paracosm.
This in itself renders your position not merely contrapositivist, but
virtually devoid of historicogrammatical nuance.
-- Steven J.

cause, uh, hell i don't know what the shit he is on about there.

Are they actually serious with that shit?  It looks like Sokal-inspired postmodern biogibberish.

Date: 2008/05/09 04:25:04, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 08 2008,23:53)
But back to the video, which has a pretty graphic (again) showing that the octopus evolved from the marine snail which evolved from the nautilus which evolved from the snail which evolved from the mussel...hmmn...Something smells fishy.  Can somebody confirm or disavow this graphic?  Anybody?

You're not getting the point, or pretending not to anyway.  Mussel -> Snail -> Nautilus -> Marine Snail -> Octopus is not intended to indicate a line of descent.  Their eyes are just convenient examples to illustrate the concept of how an eye like that of the Octopus can develop over time.  If all these different levels of ocular complexity can and do exist in presently successful species, it demonstrates that an actual octopus ancestor could have done alright for itself with less visual acumen than its descendants.

I'm guessing you've heard this before, but simply don't like it, and feel like complaining about it.  Complain away.

Date: 2008/05/09 05:21:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (keiths @ May 09 2008,01:47)
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 09 2008,02:40)
As I said, it's just a guess - any other theories?

My theory is simpler:  It's sour grapes, with a bit of moralizing thrown in.

Dembski desperately wants Dawkins' wealth, but he can't have it.  Therefore Dawkins must be writing books strictly for the money, the greedy sonofabitch.

He envies Dawkins' fame, and desperately wants to be famous too.  Therefore Dawkins must be an undeserving ham thrusting himself in front of the camera at every opportunity.

He can't stomach the fact that Dawkins is an influential scientist, when he, the Isaac Newton of information theory, isn't even considered a scientist, much less an important one.  Imagine his glee when he discovered what he thought was Dawkins' paltry publication record.  

Let's hope he never finds out that Dawkins' penis is longer than his.

Oooh.  Salt in the wound:



1:01 am

He’ll be appearing in an upcoming episode of Doctor Who soon, too.

See http://entertainment.slashdot....../08/009220

(Sorry. I’m not savvy enough to do fancy links, so I’m spreading urls all over the place).

Plus, dude is married to a Timelord.  Well, Timelady.

Date: 2008/05/09 16:05:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Kristine @ May 09 2008,12:38)
Hee hee. :)

Hey, I made that.  Where'd you run across it?

Date: 2008/05/09 16:30:11, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 09 2008,09:23)
That isn't actually a pinhole camera - at least it doesn't use a pinhole lens.  It's a traditional camera but with a small lens.

The trouble is the words we use like focus, don't really apply to a pinhole.  A pinhole doesn't focus to a point, it doesn't have a focal length, it works by only allowing a narrow ray through.

So, basically, a bunch of us have been using the word focus the way creationists and IDists use the word theory.  See, the way I was thinking of it was, "focus" is a matter of degrees.  A particular image can be blurry but useful, a slightly less blurry one more useful, etc.  I wasn't thinking about it in terms of focal length or the mechanism producing the image, just how clear the image produced is.

Looks like I need to read up on optics.

WRT to the camera link:  there really are genuine CCD devices using a pinhole though, right?

Date: 2008/05/09 17:10:08, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 09 2008,14:37)
The enemies of the natural moral law are the enemies of freedom.

Did I mention that ignorance is strength?

We love you, Big TARD!

Date: 2008/05/09 18:03:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 09 2008,15:47)
Also, pointless name calling is frowned upon.

What like calling people 'coward' because they disagree with you?  That sort of thing?

Edited to add:  and yes, I've called you names, but they were descriptive.
E.g, blog posting photographic evidence of a teacher violating the law and crowing about it is foolish - hence I called you a fool for it.

Also, blaming the forum for not hosting your images and saying it's not your fault you're using other's bandwidth w/o permission is weaselly - hence I called you a weasel for it.

Date: 2008/05/09 18:22:41, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 09 2008,10:39)
Quote (William Wallace @ May 09 2008,10:26)
But I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

Then perhaps you will return the favour by acknowledging that the NCSE film did not say that the pinhole eye had adjustable focus.  It said that with the pinhole eye focusing [of an image] became possible.  Which of course it does.  A pinhole eye makes possible the production of a sharp (focused) image on a patch of light sensitive cells.

You have to be deliberately obtuse to read that as saying "the Nautilus had a variable focal length eye."

Yeah, seems to me having non-adjustable focus is pretty much the definition of "primitive focusing".  And you can still get the basic idea even if, like me, you don't have all the precise optical terminology at your command. Which is, really, the whole idea behind this 'propaganda' piece: giving people the basics of eye evolution.  I.e., William, if you want to complain that  a 3 minute video about the evolution of the eye isn't exhaustively detailed and simplifies things, well, you may as well complain that a book report isn't the book it reports on and leaves out too much dialogue and stuff.

Date: 2008/05/09 18:25:14, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 09 2008,16:17)

World's Scariest Bath"room", by Future-PhD.

I've seen much worse.  One in Tijuana comes to mind.

Date: 2008/05/09 18:45:48, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 09 2008,16:32)
I just find the images and credit them as the author intended, babe.  Go bitch to her (him?) about it.

Bitching?  I'm not bitching.  I'm sick of people claiming I'm bitching when I'm not bitching.  Which I'm not.  Bitching.  This sucks. ;)

(edited because I forgot to enable the damn smileys again.  The smiley system sucks too)

Date: 2008/05/09 19:13:20, Link
Author: didymos
So, O'Leary:

Prof sues disbelieving students. Apparently, they disputed her theories about science … No, in the famous words of Rush Limbaugh, I am not making this up. If I had that kind of imaginatin, I would beright up there with J.K. Rowlings (rowling in dough, right?)

(errors in original)

Clearly, this is yet more "evidence" of dogmatic science persecuting people, right?  I mean, it's posted on UD, and note the "disbelieving students" thing, which is standard language in these laments.  Yeah, well, reality is different:

Priya Venkatesan taught English at Dartmouth College. She maintains that some of her students were so unreceptive of "French narrative theory" that it amounted to a hostile working environment. She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will "name names."


Ms. Venkatesan lectured in freshman composition, intended to introduce undergraduates to the rigors of expository argument. "My students were very bully-ish, very aggressive, and very disrespectful," she told Tyler Brace of the Dartmouth Review. "They'd argue with your ideas." This caused "subversiveness," a principle English professors usually favor.

Ms. Venkatesan's scholarly specialty is "science studies," which, as she wrote in a journal article last year, "teaches that scientific knowledge has suspect access to truth." She continues: "Scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct."

The agenda of Ms. Venkatesan's seminar, then, was to "problematize" technology and the life sciences. Students told me that most of the "problems" owed to her impenetrable lectures and various eruptions when students indicated skepticism of literary theory. She counters that such skepticism was "intolerant of ideas" and "questioned my knowledge in very inappropriate ways." Ms. Venkatesan, who is of South Asian descent, also alleges that critics were motivated by racism, though it is unclear why.

After a winter of discontent, the snapping point came while Ms. Venkatesan was lecturing on "ecofeminism," which holds, in part, that scientific advancements benefit the patriarchy but leave women out. One student took issue, and reasonably so – actually, empirically so. But "these weren't thoughtful statements," Ms. Venkatesan protests. "They were irrational." The class thought otherwise. Following what she calls the student's "diatribe," several of his classmates applauded.

Ms. Venkatesan informed her pupils that their behavior was "fascist demagoguery." Then, after consulting a physician about "intellectual distress," she cancelled classes for a week. Thus the pending litigation.

Such conduct is hardly representative of the professoriate at Dartmouth, my alma mater. Faculty members tend to be professional. They also tend to be sane.

You know, this sort of hissy-fit rhetoric and behavior seems awfully familiar for some reason.....

IDiot, fuck thyself:
Anyway, of course science has suspect access to truth. Science's specialty is observable fact. Observable fact sometimes gives us a window into truth, and sometimes it doesn't. I suspect that the spoiler is often facts that were not or cannot be observed. But that's no reason for dissing science, as opposed to, say, social work or serious novels.

(my bolding)

Date: 2008/05/09 19:29:32, Link
Author: didymos
Someone just responded to Dense's thread with this::




5:44 pm

Haeckel Quotes

Not sure why, but it leads to a storehouse of pre-mined quotes:

The section he linked to on UD contains an inadvertently amusing  one:

Adolf Hitler  (1889 – 1945)

Decisive is the power that the peoples have within them; it turns out that the stronger before God and the world has the right to impose its will. From history one sees that the right by itself is completely useless, if a mighty power does not stand behind it. Right alone is of no use to whomever does not have the power to impose his right. The strong has always triumphed… All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.    Speech  April 13, 1923

Thus, ultimately, as they are fond of arguing over there at UD, without God putting his power behind it, "right" is meaningless.  Classic, ageless might makes right, and the Almighty is the Alrighty.

Date: 2008/05/09 19:47:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 09 2008,16:57)
That bitching should be done here.


OK, enough Wallacing.  The smiley system is fine.  I'm better now.

Date: 2008/05/09 22:34:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (steve_h @ May 09 2008,18:16)
* "Anonymous friend" complains that local theaters do not want to show world famous documentary despite potentially half-packed front rows.

Yeah, it's absurd for these people to try and turn a profit.  This is serious business with Nazis and Conspiracies.

It's worth noting that the largest theater chain in North America is controlled by a guy (Phillip Anschutz) who funded the DI, and even he wouldn't put it in all his theaters when it opened. And now it's on fewer of their screens.


* Haeckel, Ultra-Darwinist inspiration of the Holocaust, etc.

Oh, that's what quote-mine guy was doing.  I missed the reference in O'Leary's link-vomit.

A follow-up complains:
Vladimir Krondan


9:33 pm

Haeckel was known to be a fraud as far back as 1890. He was awarded the Darwin Medal in 1900. Peer review.

What Haeckel won for:

1900 Ernst Haeckel. For his long-continued and and [sic] highly important work in zoology all of which has been inspired by the spirit of Darwinism.

Got that? Zoology. Haeckel named a huge number of species and produced a bunch of monographs describing them.  That right there is quite enough to deserve acknowledgment.  I get so tired of the gnashing of teeth over Haeckel.  Stipulated:  guy had some strange ideas, especially later in his career.  Not unheard of (*cough* not *cough* remotely * as *cough* wack *cough *as *cough* Davison *coughs up lung*).  Notice that "spirit of Darwinism" bit?  What could that be about?  Oh, I don't know...the fact that Haeckel never really got fully behind natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and thus couldn't be considered a Darwinist proper, maybe?

The "known to be a fraud" claim: this is actually the first time I've run into that.  I've seen the embryo crap a million times, but that bit of creationist lore is new to me. Probably because I stop reading any creationist spew after the word Haeckel appears and it's clear it's going to that goddamn embryo shit again. Nice to know the fraud claim is itself fraudulent.  Thank you,

Edited to add:  Oh, and notice how Haeckel disagreed with Darwin and others in the Royal Society on a number of issues, and they still gave him a Darwin medal.  No expelling: a medal.

Date: 2008/05/09 22:50:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 09 2008,18:14)
Quote (didymos @ May 09 2008,15:30)
WRT to the camera link:  there really are genuine CCD devices using a pinhole though, right?
Not that I'm aware of.

They call them pinhole cameras, but all the ones I've seen have very small lenses.

Well, if I wanted to be as pedantic as William, I could still claim I'm right:  I did show him something called a pinhole camera with adjustable focus. I mean, that's how they use the term in marketing......but no: I'm still wrong.

Date: 2008/05/09 22:53:38, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 09 2008,20:30)
Quote (1of63 @ May 09 2008,17:56)
Why waste your time on these people?  They aren't going to listen.  They have their faith and nothing we say is going to change that.  

Which is fine so long as they don't try to foist - or force -it on the rest of us.

I would say just despise them - the liars, the propagandists, the self-righteous Pharisees, the hypocrites, at least - and leave it at that.

I had to look up your background to figure out who you were talking about (as most of what you said cancan't really be applied to evolutionists).

Date: 2008/05/09 23:23:00, Link
Author: didymos
This one is, like, almost 100% pure.  Have a taste:
If God ordered me to kill a baby i think I could not do it. But when He did order the killing of all first born it was to show that He is not be made fun of I think. He gives life, and takes it back, it’s like that.

But the Jewish-Christian God is a just God and is not a psychopath, He is true to Himself.

So are psychopaths. That's what makes them psychopaths: their transcendent morality detector sucks even more than everyone else's. Coincidentally, they've also been known to wreak vengeance in response to back-sass:

Jimmy Conway: I'm fucking kidding with you; you fucking shoot the guy?
Henry Hill: He's dead.
Tommy DeVito: I'm a good shot, what do you want from me? I'm a good shot.
Anthony Stabile: How could you miss at this distance?
Tommy DeVito: Kidding? How am I meant to know you're kidding? You're breaking my fucking balls.

Date: 2008/05/10 03:49:31, Link
Author: didymos
I love when they tell you what you think without ever asking beforehand:



4:36 pm

Darwinists tend to over-focus on when NS does indeed work and not when it does not. The major issue is that natural selection is apparently not operating with regard to SOME traits. As in, it’s not operating uniformly but with only limited cases.

No big surprise there.  They seem to enjoy telling people what to think about all sorts of stuff (because it's "self-evident", obviously).  Still, he is right about one thing:  Darwinists did tend to over-focus on natural selection.  But then some other Darwinists didn't. Like, uh, Darwin, for instance.  Oh, and then there were those other Darwinists who went the opposite way and rejected natural selection as a viable mechanism.  And then there were a bunch of random people who were called Darwinists for no particular reason at all.  OK, I'm getting confused here......

Alright,  I think I see the problem:  Darwinism has too many definitions and you're using the wrong one.  Stupid Darwinist.

Date: 2008/05/10 21:30:48, Link
Author: didymos
So, DI provides a link to part one of the Boteach video.  Part two is here.

Now Dawkins wrote:

Had you prepared your ranting attack in advance, or did you extemporise as soon as you read my note? Had you somehow managed to convince yourself that this really was a ‘debate’ between us, even though I was not present?

In the clip Boteach says:

My friends, I had a canned speech in my brain that I have now shelved (pauses) in light of, uh, Professor Richard Dawkins' comments.  Uh, he had to catch a plane so he's not even going to hear my comments but no doubt you will relate them to him for me.

Then he launches into the claim about the "series of debates" they had. Then he criticizes Dawkins for, basically, not drawing moral lessons from evolutionary biology.  And he does, on occasion, start getting a bit shrill and ranty.  Also, he intersperses various claims that Dawkins disputes: "when I was a Rabbi at Oxford", etc.  

Now let's look at the DI "quotes":

That was too much for poor Prof. Dawkins, who a few days ago denounced the Rabbi’s comments as “a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud.”


What I heard over that loudspeaker was a shrieking rant, delivered with an intemperate stridency of which Hitler himself might have been proud.

Close enough, I guess, but Dawkins is careful to qualify it by saying it was what he actually was able to hear that sounded like a rant.

Dawkins continues:

As I listened, I was shocked by your lamentable, but vocally confident ignorance of Darwinian evolution. And even more shocked by your shrill and vicious attack upon me. You were shrieking invective, in the belief that I was on my way to the airport.

Yep. Just watched it (thanks DI for the link).  That's all entirely accurate.

Now, the DI does something odd:

On May 8, he publicly responded to Boteach that he “did not say you think like Hitler, or hold the same opinions as Hitler, or do terrible things to people like Hitler. Obviously and most emphatically you don't.” Although this wasn’t exactly an apology, at least it was civil. But Dawkins couldn’t help himself, and so he started up again:

I said you shriek like Hitler. That is the only point of resemblance, and it is true. You shriek and yell and rant like Hitler… throughout your speeches you periodically rise to climaxes of shrieking rant, and that is just like Hitler. Incidentally, Dinesh D'Souza yells and shrieks in just the same way. I suppose it impresses some people, although it is hard to believe.

They link directly to Dawkins' response in that excerpt.  So, here's Dawkins' characterization:

I did not say you think like Hitler, or hold the same opinions as Hitler, or do terrible things to people like Hitler. Obviously and most emphatically you don't. I said you shriek like Hitler. That is the only point of resemblance, and it is true. You shriek and yell and rant like Hitler. Not all the time, of course. You also tell very good jokes, and tell them brilliantly. You deservedly get lots of laughs, as a good comedian should. But throughout your speeches you periodically rise to climaxes of shrieking rant, and that is just like Hitler. Incidentally, Dinesh D'Souza yells and shrieks in just the same way. I suppose it impresses some people, although it is hard to believe.

Oh, looky there.  DI done forgot some stuff.  Complimentary, civil stuff, bolded for your convenience.

As to the characterization itself, having just watched the video, it's pretty much spot on. He yells and shrieks and rants....periodically.  Hitler very much did exploit that dynamic (it works much better in music than rhetoric. E.g., The Pixies and Nirvana).  Hitler obviously took it to much further extremes, but, well, he was Hitler: that was pretty much true of him in everything he did.

And the last DI quote:

…when you turn to the subject of evolution, you don't know what you are talking about, so you yell and shriek to make up for it. Maybe yelling and shrieking works with an ignorant audience. It apparently worked for Hitler, but that is not a happy precedent. You should know better. Go and read some books about evolution, learn something about biology, and you'll then find that you can talk about it in a calm and civilised voice. You'll find that you won't need to yell and shriek like a madman, and you'll be all the more persuasive for it.

Boteach is full of crap on evolution: plays the punctuated equilibrium card, the fossil record card, the eminent scientist says beneficial mutations are practically non-existent card, the RM+NS+Time explains everything card (he punctuates the equilibrium with some yelling at that point), the I can't tell the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth card, the this is just semantics and philosophy and a question of what you prefer to believe card, etc.

I will credit him with the original idea that having a mutation giving you a third arm would suck.  Personally, I can see that being rather useful in a lot of cases, provided the arm was reasonably functional.  Just think: you could watch pr0n and still have two hands on the keyboard.

He also does a bit of interesting projection:  it's the atheists who think religion is only about the creation.  He then gets into the religion is about moral agency and we're not programmed organic machines schtick, which is where he really starts to rant and yell.  All of it has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolutionary biology except in the most peripheral way (weird bit of trivia:  while Boteach gets into the quiet phase of the dynamic, there's a cut to The Naked Archaeologist listening in the audience).  Interestingly, Boteach bitches a bit about a salient point:

Look, I could fight back if we were in a debate and say that atheism's the cause of most of the world's pain.

Then he plays the Marxist/Communist atheist regime card.  Then he brings up Hitler, who according to Boteach "hated religion". Of course, Richard Dawkins hates religion too right?  Yep, that's right: the Nazis-according-to-Boteach were atheists. Next up:  Nazis were Nietzscheans, with the implication that Nietzche too despised the Jews and  Hitler followed suit (actually, Nietzche rather admired them and despised anti-semitism).  Of course, by now we're completely outside the territory of evolution, unless of course you buy the obviously implied and obviously stupid idea that Atheism==Evolution.  Boteach actually tries to turn it into a numbers game:  Atheistic ideology has killed more people than Religious ideology.  Of course, many people would readily classify Naziism, Maoism, and Stalinism as religions in their own right, quite justifiably so.  The best part is, after this whole, yes, rant on atheism Boteach says:

So, I could fight back and say it's really the atheists have killed...but what's the point?  It's not atheists who did it. And it wasn't religious people who did it. It was people who exercised terrible choice, because they had no values.

Of course, the point is that Dawkins is some sort of anti-religion fanatic, and atheist zealot, and Boteach is a reasonable guy.  It's also absurd.  He then claims that the central message of religion, all of it, is: don't kill stuff.

Uh...what the fuck?  

Ah, but that's just a segue to throw out the tidbit that a lot of evolutionists once believed that blacks were inferior. He singles out T.H. Huxley in particular, claiming Huxley believed blacks "were absolutely the genetic inferiors; they were the missing link between whites and apes".  What Huxley really thought:

In his Hunterian lectures for 1864 he addressed two key questions: 1. Are the differences [between races] sufficient to justify us in [considering] them as distinct species of men? 2. Can any of the differences [between races] be considered as transitional towards the lower forms of animals? Since Huxley answered no to both questions (as would all biologists today) his views are uncontroversial. In general, his attitudes were liberal though he did not entirely escape the prejudices of his day towards non-Europeans and towards women.

Notice the genetics anachronism as well.  This of course "abrogate[s] the central religious message that we are all equally created in the image of God".  Of course, a minute ago, the central message was: don't kill stuff. According to Boteach:

There is no other rational explanation for human equality

As he says this, they fade out on Boteach, and fade in on a (presumably) Muslim woman in the audience.  After a joke, "the central message of religion" has now changed into "that what you become is all in your hands. Period." He continues:

It is the exact opposite of the message of evolution which is: you are an animal who cannot control his destiny.

Then he cites the "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright as proof that evolution means adultery is A-OK:

He's right. If you're an evolutionist, how could you believe that being unfaithful...that there's anything wrong with it?  When that''s in your genes. You can't control it.

And now:

The central message of religion is what we do is what we become, and it's the one unifying message of all religion.

This has always been the central message of religion.  As bonus, it is "the centerpiece of Western Civilization because every one of you believes it." Guess what happens if people start buying this evolution stuff. Boteach flips the rant switch again here and denounces the:

...soulless message of modern materialistic society. A godless, soulless society that says that nothing but money is the currency by which we purchase our self-esteem.

Then he starts to wrap up by saying we're all brothers and sisters, Atheist, Muslim, Black, White, et cetera because we "trace our origin to one heavenly Father".  Implication?  Evolution will destroy that.  He finishes by noting that Canada is good people.

Dawkins was far too kind, as I see it.

(edited: I forgot a couple links)
(again for formatting and a forgotten line)

Date: 2008/05/10 22:27:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 10 2008,20:09)
I watched these videos, and don't particularly have a problem with Shmuley's rhetorical style. He's passionate and bright, and intense, and pretty funny, too. "Ranting" isn't fair, as he is always articulate.

The content of his presentation is problematic, and not my cup of tea. But I rather liked his way of presenting it.

Just my 2 cents.

I have to disagree, civilly (You're just like Hitler too!!!!  ;) ).  You can define rant in various ways, but the sense I was using it in corresponds most closely to Wikipedia's:

A rant or harangue is a speech or text that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims. Such attacks are usually personal attacks. Compare with a dialectic.

In some cases, rants are based on facts and concrete information, but the key ideas expressed are what the individual personally feels.

However, some rants are used not to attack something, but to defend an individual, idea or organization. Rants of this type generally occur after the subject has been attacked by another individual or group.

I would add that the subject only needs to feel as though they've been attacked, whether it's true or not.  Boteach qualifies on various criteria found above, and I restrict that to that particular video.  I have seen little else of him on TV or elsewhere.

Date: 2008/05/10 22:31:17, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 10 2008,09:34)
Quote (UnMark @ May 10 2008,00:39)
My math indicates that an apple falling to earth causes the earth to accelerate at approximately one-half meter per second per million trillion years (3.9 * 10^-27 m/s/s).

If the apple was originally attached to a tree or dropped by a person the net effect is zero.  The reaction of the tree branch to the release of he apple is equal to the effect of the apple's impact on the earth

Your calculation is only correct if the apple originated from outside the Earth's gravity field.

Pedant. :p

Date: 2008/05/10 22:51:27, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, and it's worth reading Boteach's response to Dawkins' open letter.  It's a bit too self-congratulatory, and something of a rant itself, but I think it's infinitely better in tone and style than the speech, and displays some humility too, contradictory as that may sound.  And to be fair, Dawkins can be said to rant on occasion too, as Boteach points out.

And, I should note, I'm not even really saying playing the Hitler card was especially wise on Dawkins' part, though I get why he did and in the limited scope of the comparison, it was accurate.  As I see it, the intent was to shame Boteach for engaging in behavior unworthy of him as Dawkins saw it:

You have sensible things to say about sex and love, and you have no need to yell when you are talking sense. Unfortunately, when you turn to the subject of evolution, you don't know what you are talking about, so you yell and shriek to make up for it. Maybe yelling and shrieking works with an ignorant audience. It apparently worked for Hitler, but that is not a happy precedent. You should know better.

Of course, the whole thing is a perfect case of Godwin's Law.  In all things, it's just better to avoid Nazis entirely if you can help it.  Note, however, it was Boteach who brought Hitler into it in the first place in the midst of his rant on evolution and atheism.

Date: 2008/05/10 23:45:29, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (BopDiddy @ May 10 2008,20:54)
Of course, it's probably because I can't find anything better to do on a Saturday night than call other people on the Internet "losers."

Loser. :p

Date: 2008/05/10 23:46:09, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (olegt @ May 10 2008,21:18)
The thread The Difference Between “Seeing” and “Understanding” containing the Dembski-Galapagos dialog has been obliterated.  Someone at UD shows a dose of common sense.

I've got it open in a tab if anyone wants me to save it.

Date: 2008/05/10 23:50:34, Link
Author: didymos
Hey everybody, say hi to William Wallace and Frost122585.  They's tarded:

William Wallace


11:11 pm

Seems a bit severe to shut down a whole website. Is there anyway we can see the summary judgment?

San Francisco, huh? Hmn. Isn’t that near the NC”S”E




11:21 pm

I hope Yoko Ono has a stroke.

Date: 2008/05/11 01:49:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 10 2008,21:55)
Yes please.  Also, does anybody have that PDF?  

By the way, a big round of applause for olegt!

Yep.  I've got that too.  It was still in the /tmp directory.  Good thing I don't reboot often. Now safely saved in a different location.

*applauds for olegt*

Date: 2008/05/11 01:53:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ May 10 2008,21:58)
The staying power of a classic

After a mere 3 weeks, this classic is now raking in nearly 17 viewers per day per screen.


ETA: by my calculations, barely 900,000 people have seen this film.  I suppose that's not too bad for a documentary, but hardly classic status.

What ticket price are you assuming?  Also, are you guesstimating repeat viewers as well?

Date: 2008/05/11 02:09:31, Link
Author: didymos
Found a copy of the Iowa post in the Google cache.  Got that.  Also got the "Darwinist, Shocked by the Claims in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that Darwinism is a Necessary Component of Nazism, Suffers Heart Attack and Dies" post.  No comments on either cached version.  Don't know if there even were any.

Date: 2008/05/11 02:22:58, Link
Author: didymos
BTW, I'm going on an archiving binge for the Brites pages from the Google cache.

Date: 2008/05/11 07:34:40, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2008,05:06)
So, you don't want to discuss science here, you don't want to discuss it there.

What, then, have you to complain about exactly?

Wesley and PT moderation policy.  Shorter WW:  It sucks, therefore evolution sucks.

Date: 2008/05/11 08:57:01, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 11 2008,06:48)
There's not much to go on with just a name, if it's a code of some sort.

If the point is to use a code like an anagram as a point of satire or parody, it strikes me that the code (anagram or otherwise) should be thinly veiled, so that it's fairly obvious or at least easily deciphered to anyone who reads it.  Otherwise, it sort of misses the point.

So although it might actually be a code for an actual person, it might be just a bunch of letters.*


*In the spirit of my homonymical friend, allow me to add the caveat that I may be overestimating the literary insight of Galapagos Marx.

OK, tinfoil hat time:  the judges order was given as D08-3423.  Eighth letter of the alphabet is H, so DO8 becomes the Homeric "D'OH!"  I haven't come up with anything for 3423.  Letter-wise it's CDBC.  Umm, Charles Darwin's Bar Closes?  Probably not, but what the hell.

Date: 2008/05/11 10:41:11, Link
Author: didymos
OK, quasi-OT, but I was wondering why there isn't an "Evolution News & Views" mockery thread.  I know it's only a pseudo-blog and doesn't have tardelicious comments to rag on, but it's such pure and concentrated tard they produce over there that the comments are hardly necessary.  Basically, everything they post deserves a good group-fisking.  I know you can kinda get an overlapping thread-magisteria problem, what with UD often recycling from there plus the DI's heavy petting of Expelled, but the DI is, like, the Ultimate Ground of TARDing.  The Tao of TARD, if you will.

Of course, if done, it needs a good title, and the description must make use of this in some fashion:
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

Date: 2008/05/11 11:44:10, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 11 2008,08:46)
Quote (didymos @ May 11 2008,11:41)
OK, quasi-OT, but I was wondering why there isn't an "Evolution News & Views" mockery thread.  I know it's only a pseudo-blog and doesn't have tardelicious comments to rag on, but it's such pure and concentrated tard they produce over there that the comments are hardly necessary.  Basically, everything they post deserves a good group-fisking.  I know you can kinda get an overlapping thread-magisteria problem, what with UD often recycling from there plus the DI's heavy petting of Expelled, but the DI is, like, the Ultimate Ground of TARDing.  The Tao of TARD, if you will.

Of course, if done, it needs a good title, and the description must make use of this in some fashion:
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

We do have a Luskin thread, perhaps that would be appropriate.  Isn't he the main mouthpiece there?  (I don't read there regularly.)

Naw, they've got a whole passel of them now.  Besides Luskin, the following post pretty regularly: Michael Egnor,  John West, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Bruce Chapman, Robert Crowther, Anika Smith, and David Klinghoffer. Then you get the occasional Martin Cothran, Cornelius Hunter, or Geoffrey Simmons.  Even Berlinski shows up once in a while. A pretty good diversity of TARD.  TARDiversity?

Date: 2008/05/11 12:10:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 11 2008,08:33)
For the love of all things unholy, could we please not goad William into going down that road again?

Umm, yeah, good point.  He'll probably do it again anyway, but why hasten the process.

Date: 2008/05/11 12:13:02, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ May 11 2008,08:17)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>
Quote (didymos @ May 11 2008,07:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2008,05:06)
So, you don't want to discuss science here, you don't want to discuss it there.

What, then, have you to complain about exactly?

Wesley and PT moderation policy.  Shorter WW:  It sucks, therefore evolution sucks.

Incidentally, this is also the reason Clear Pepsi sucked.

That stuff really was hideous, though, wasn't it?  Ugh.

Date: 2008/05/11 14:21:08, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (1of63 @ May 11 2008,11:50)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 11 2008,13:30)
He totally didn't mention the Stargate program!  What kind of self-respecting conspiracy theorist could miss that????

A Goa'uld, that's who.  I'm pretty sure all those cdesign proponentsists have "snakes" in their heads.

Or, if you're going by the original movie and the actor who played Ra, one especially surprising snake in the trousers.

Date: 2008/05/12 00:35:54, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 11 2008,13:59)
This has nothing to do with evolution, but it was amusing enough that it had to be shared.

I don't know.  You might call it a unique form of physical anthropology.

Date: 2008/05/12 01:23:26, Link
Author: didymos
Well, ERV just nailed Marks' ass to the wall, complete with an AtBC shout-out/credit (as some of you already know). Our good friend WW showed up with his typical wit and wisdom. Read: dumbassery.

In case anyone ever wants the crap,  I used the Google cache to archive as much of The Brites as I could.  The images were a wash, but I did manage to use Google Images to get most of them in thumbnail form.  I need to clean it up a bit too: a billion pages all named searchSomeInteger.html isn't very useful.

Date: 2008/05/12 06:53:30, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (hereoisreal @ May 12 2008,03:43)
Quote (hereoisreal @ May 11 2008,12:22)

Home About Wallace Guidelines File 13 Privacy policy The Out
The Scientific Method
May 8, 2008 – 12:02 am by William Wallace
The scientific method explained:


The scientific method explained:


1. Take your marbles
2. Turn off the light
3. Go home

Nice.  Very Nice.

Date: 2008/05/12 07:32:22, Link
Author: didymos
Frost122585 is exasperated:



3:57 pm

This is the essence of the DE/ID debate. When is the other side going to learn that RM and NS cannot even imaginarily account for the complex specified diversity of life?

Alas, the burden of knowledge: like unto Atlas, world 'pon his shoulders! Wait: I meant "ignorance".

Anyway, Frost, you're right.  RM+NS+Genetic Drift+Gene Flow+et cetera cannot account for Complex Specified Diversity.  Mainly because, like CSI, CSD does not exist. Or rather, it does, but only imaginarily.   Thanks for acquainting me with a new bit of pseudo-jargon though.

Date: 2008/05/12 15:54:38, Link
Author: didymos
This Frost122585 character is good.  Almost too good:


4:04 pm

No, to speak of Darwinian Evolution is to speak of a false theory that is being forced on people because of it’s usefulness as a philosphical back drop to certain political agendas.

Hey,  DI:  give this cat a fellowship.  He's perfect.

Date: 2008/05/12 16:03:08, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, c'mon.  Seriously?


So I wonder about the giraffe with its long neck, to pick an easy example. The classic explanation is that giraffes with longer necks could reach leaves higher in trees, and had a survival advantage when food was scarce. That seems reasonable enough. But I wonder if the giraffes that strained and wished they had longer necks experienced some sort of stress, and giraffe-style wishfulness, that released any chemicals that could influence the odds of producing a long-necked child. In other words, do creatures guide their own evolutionary path through their desires?”

I think he [Scott "Dilbert" Adams] may be on to something.

Isn't there a JoeG over there and at Telic Thoughts?  I smell a Lamarckian rat.

Date: 2008/05/12 16:06:26, Link
Author: didymos
This speaks teh awesome for its bad self(with just a dash of my bolding):

Vladimir Krondan


9:42 pm

“it just cannot be the result of natural selection that biological forms show the same forms we also witness in spiraling minerals and in spiral galaxies.”

Prior to origin of species, we had the very interesting book on Design by McCosh Typical Forms and Ends in Creation (1857) which makes this point many times over. If Piattelli-Palmarini is correct, it is yet more evidence that Darwinism caused a 150 year long retardation of science.

Date: 2008/05/12 16:19:02, Link
Author: didymos
I think Frosty's (im)balance may be faltering.  This is just too TARDed:




10:20 pm


If you look at who is supporting DE and opposing ID they are by far leftists. The reason is that ID, while not a religion because it makes no moral or dogmatic claims about the way humans are to live- still supports most popular western religions. The NAS and the teacher’s unions prefer a more powerful state because they are state run institutions - and if you know any history it is the left that wants a larger more powerful state/ government.

The left doesn’t like ID because it touches on what science cannot directly get at. Issues of free will and such which undermine the need for a powerful state.

I need not make this case because it is totally obvious to anyone who has honestly and open mindedly studied the ID controversy.

By supporting Darwinism you need not “support” survival of the fittest. In fact most supporters of DE actually cling to “the philosophy” insidiously imbedded in it such as those “random” mutations. That (random) implies a purposeless universe which is a qualitative view that undermines any reason for belief in anything larger that materialism– but we know from observations of backward calculations of probabilities as well as natural laws that the mutations are not random. They are strangely symmetrical– look up evolutionary “modularity” and such. The random part is used to get design out of the question and make the science class room or laboratory an atheistic bastion. You need not read Marx and the like to know that they saw God, religion, spirituality, in any form as merely “the opiate of the masses.” The left looks at design and anything bigger than materialism as being a road block to their utopia. Materialism is a “belief” that almost transcends even the bounds of philosophy- masquerading as impartial science.

Another reason DE is a left wing thing is that the teachers in schools like it because it’s such a simple theory– “NS and RM are responcible for everyhting.” THis is not science and it is not where origins sceince should be. That is what the article and the interview featured on this thread is all about.

Please read David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion,- The politically Incorrect Guide to Science- and other tracks like that. I'm invoking the argument from incredulity.

Date: 2008/05/12 16:47:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 12 2008,14:41)
Prior to origin of species, we had the very interesting book on Design by McCosh Typical Forms and Ends in Creation (1857) which makes this point many times over. If Piattelli-Palmarini is correct, it is yet more evidence that Darwinism caused a 150 year long retardation of science.

He's right, the second half of the 19th century and the 20th century were pretty much a washout for science and the advancement of knowledge in general.

No, man, think about it:  this is what happened to the flying cars.  I want my flying car you fucking Darwinist bastards!!!!!

Date: 2008/05/12 23:48:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ May 12 2008,21:08)
Does anyone else have a tiny part of their brain telling them to contact the authorities?  You know, just to have them check on WW; see if he's okay.


EMT:  ZOMG, I detect NO brain activity!!!! (pauses) So why is he still talking?

WW:  Coward.  Scientific Method.  Evolander.  Sleazy Myers. Petty Wesley. PT MAFIA!!!!  Where's my Bible?

SHERIFF FROM NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD:  Yeah, he's dead. He's all messed up.

EMT:  What should we do?

SHERIFF FROM NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD: Well, there's no problem. If you have a gun, shoot 'em in the head. That's a sure way to kill 'em. If you don't, get yourself a club or a torch. Beat 'em or burn 'em. They go up pretty easy.

WW: Rumors. Investigation into religious beliefs. Divorce.

(sound of shotgun cocking)


(shotgun fires)

SHERIFF FROM NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD:  Put that thing all away on the fire! We don't want it getting up again!


Date: 2008/05/13 01:11:49, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 12 2008,22:49)
Yawn, most of the lamers can't discuss my latest post.  Ones from here that show up just come to insult.  This place is like third grade.

OK, I'll bite:  in what way is this place like the 3rd grade?


When you boys are ready to grow up, come on over and discuss your religion, ahem, I mean "science" (as opposed to science).

Yep, looks like WW is fine.  Non-comedic insults for no readily apparent reason.  Scare quotes.  Another attempt to move conversation to a controlled environment.  He's OK!

Date: 2008/05/13 01:13:02, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 12 2008,23:01)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 12 2008,10:21)
You're Ok, Zero.

I don't get this guy, but if you guys like him, I think I missed something.

You think.  We know.

Date: 2008/05/13 03:23:27, Link
Author: didymos
Denyse provides another clip:

And, as Frank Tipler has pointed out, many papers are cited by nobody at all, which implies that the authors published so as not to perish. Publications that nobody cites should not be equivalent to publications cited by several other research studies.

So, off to Google Scholar, wherein I type "Privileged Planet", submitted by Gonzales in his tenure materials:  14 results.  Two were the same paper.

Straight-Up ID/Creationist Apologetics:
The Intelligent Design Paradigmatic AND Heuristics
Does the Big Bang Demystify Creation in the Finite Past?
Reasons To Believe - Seattle Area Chapter: New & Views March 2005
Reasons To Believe - Australia Chapter: New & Views January 2005
Reasons To Believe - Spokane Chapter Newsletter July 2003: Who Is the Designer? RTB Conference Report (pain in the ass to track down, this one)
Bayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning

Theistic Evolution, I think (also the duplicated paper):


Paper Title: Evolution in Living Forms: Determinism, Chance, Purposeful Design

Uh, call it "Popular Theology":
A Wonderful Hopelessness

Fitness of the Cosmos for Life: Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning
Astrobiology: the study of the living universe

Not sure really:
Many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory and mesoscopic anthropic principle

 Example Citation in Middle School MLA Citation Guide, Bellevue School District

Sometimes Denyse, no citations really is better than some.

(edited to fix bad link)

Date: 2008/05/13 05:47:41, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Shirakawasuna @ May 13 2008,03:12)
Hrm, I can't figure out how to go back and edit that post, but I suck.  Especially with links.  Stupid message boards.

Unless you have an edit button, you can't fix errors. Wesley explained it here:

New users who have established a reputation for responsible posting can request topic creation and edit privileges. Somewhere around 50 comments entered should be sufficient to judge that.

Date: 2008/05/13 07:51:35, Link
Author: didymos
Well, I'll discuss your post, or rather part of it:

You wrote:

Tycho Brahe’s geocentric model of the solar system was incorrect, but more useful than Copernicus’ heliocentric model, at least for a period of time.

In the case of Tycho Brahe’s geocentric model, his subjective and somewhat arbitrary metric was computational difficulty.

Sentence one is correct, though for different reasons than you suppose. Sentence two, however, is wrong. I've run across the "computational difficulty" claim a few times before, never really looked into it.  Turns out, that's not at all why Brahe rejected the Copernican model.  Here's what he thought about it:

Along these same lines Tycho Brahe, the second most distinguished astronomer of the sixteenth century, remarked, "This [Copernican] innovation expertly and completely circumvents all that is superfluous or discordant in the system of Ptolemy. On no point does it offend the principles of mathematics. Yet it ascribes to the earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as fast as the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that". Thus Tycho had no problem with the Copernican system as a mathematical construction, but he believed that Copernicus fell short with respect to physics.

Brahe actually ended up proposing a hybrid model, both helio- and geocentric, eventually called "Tychonic" :

Believing that he had proved that Mars came closer than the sun, he then declared against the Ptolemaic arrangement. Interestingly, however, he did not endorse the Copernican system, but rather, he adopted his own geo-heliocentric scheme. In the Tychonic system the earth remained fixed in the center of the cosmos, with the two great luminaries cycling around it. In turn, the sun carried a retinue of planets around it. These were spaced with intervals exactly as in the Copernican system, except that the fixed earth broke the pattern...

You continued:

Tycho argued that a geocentric model of the solar system assuming epicyclic orbits allowed for simpler calculations than Copernicus’s heliocentric model with epicyclic orbits. Neither model produced better estimates than the other; but Copernicus’s model was more difficult computationally, and so Tycho rejected it on this basis.

Epicycles had nothing to do with the adoption of the Tychonic system, and Brahe actually found Copernican ideas much more elegant than Ptolemaic ones.  What kept him from committing to Copernican theory was the fact that he was unable to observe a parallax in the "fixed stars" as would be expected should the Earth truly orbit the Sun (and secondarily, that to him it appeared to contradict scripture). Eventually, thanks to Kepler and Galileo, the Ptolemaic scheme was rendered untenable, and now the remaining two models, Tychonic and Copernican, stalemated, as both could explain the extant observations and the parallax measurements needed to disconfirm one or the other just couldn't be made precisely enough. They never were until the 1800s, but by then Newton had happened along with the Enlightenment, which changed things.

So, what was the deciding factor in pre-Newtonian science?  This is where your notion of the utility of the "geocentric" model comes in (though, of course, it wasn't really a pure geocentrism).  What made the Tychonic system more useful was the fact that you could support it without pissing off the Catholic Church or other religious authorities in the Protestant world because they liked it better for entirely unscientific reasons. In addition, alot of the people who even knew about any of this were religious anyway, so it wasn't even a fear of Authority so much as a case of here was something which comfortably meshed with their pre-existing beliefs. An attitude nicely summed up here:

You may be worried that all of liberal arts will be thrown into confusion by the hypotheses in [Copernicus'] book," Osiander wrote (and I paraphrase). "But not to worry. It is the astronomer’s task to make careful observations, and then form hypotheses so that the positions of the planets can be calculated for any time. But these hypotheses need not be true not even probable. A philosopher will seek after truth, but an astronomer will just take what is simplest. And neither will find truth unless it has been divinely revealed to him"

Scripture apparently "revealed" a motionless Earth. Intuitively, it certainly seemed motionless.  Stuff fell to Earth, did it not?  Therefore, it was motionless.  Plus, Tycho's system worked and could be used to good effect by astronomically inclined Jesuits and other clergy, as well as religiously inclined astronomers.  Unsurprising then that Tycho's cosmos was rapidly adopted without much in the way of hesitiation.

Back to your post:

Interestingly, Tycho’s argument is a case where Occam’s razor lead us further from the “truth”–toward geocentricism, not closer–toward heliocentricism.

As you can see, this is incorrect as well. Not just for the reasons above, but because it is also a misuse of the term.  "Computational difficulty" simply doesn't enter into it.  Just because the math is hard, it doesn't follow that the model itself introduces more assumptions.  Copernican and Ptolemaic ideas were not evenly matched on that basis. Copernicus' model was simpler, just not obviously better observationally or in the results it produced.  Ptolemaic ideas were theologically better though, having long relied on the "Prime Mover" notion to explain motion in the heavens and enjoying centuries of support from religious authority.  By contrast, in the Copernican system, some unknown influence from the Sun, not God, was required.  If one were to apply Ockham's Razor, however, Copernicanism wins:  it posits a natural phenomena amenable to investigation, rather than a complex nesting of rigid spheres of unknown material, invisible, and spun about by God or the angels or whatever on a regular basis.  The Tychonic system requires something of both.

I recommend you read through all of the lecture from which I quoted; it's interesting for a number of reasons and bears directly on not only the topic of your blog post but some of your other interests as well:

Heliocentric harmony - Introduction
Distinctions between truth and hypothesis
Empirical proof and/or persuasion
Towards a coherent framework

There, happy now?

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/13 18:22:54, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 13 2008,15:38)
I figure she or her family is experiencing some sort of crisis.

Hope it all works out, Ftk. (And you emerge looking at your hands and gasping "What have I been typing?")

Maybe that fox returned and killed her geese, so Mr. FtK has put the whole family on the warpath.  They're out stalking in the wilds of Kansas: full camo, facepaint, illegally modified for full-auto assault rifles, the works.  Maybe they can make a purse out of it for her, unless it outsmarts them, which seems likely.

Date: 2008/05/13 19:01:29, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (J-Dog @ May 13 2008,06:03)
Didymos - Post Of The Week IMO, but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears.  William will run right back to his Goat Herder Epic and see if if agrees with what they thought back then.

Enh, no problem.  I learned some new stuff at least.  I actually think I can guess how the "harder math" myth got started:  Copernicus had epicycles as well, and more of them in some formulations, because he too bought the "self-evident" notion that orbits would of course be perfectly circular.  The thing is, there's a myth in the exact opposite direction, saying it was the Ptolemaic system that had more epicycles.  Both of them probably came about because there wasn't a Ptolemaic or a Copernican model, but a whole slew of variants created as new observations came in or because the person creating the variant didn't like this or that feature (equants or whatever).

If you want something truly scary about scientific literacy in the US, rather than misunderstandings of astronomical history, check this out (bolding mine):

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

To someone like that, evolution must seem positively incomprehensible.  What I'd like to know is whether there're some out there who readily accept the evidence of evolution, but think it took place on the stationary center of the cosmos.

Date: 2008/05/13 19:08:32, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 13 2008,16:10)
Except that is when Dawkins claimed that evolutionary studies lead to atheism and that he, unlike other scientists, was honest about that fact.  Then the little old lady nearly shouted, "I knew it!"

Way to score Richard.  I think the phrase is "Own score!"

I think the ball was so close to that particular goal a light breeze would have knocked it in.  Hell, it may have been in the goal already, as her exclamation demonstrates.

Date: 2008/05/13 19:24:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2008,15:18)
Quote (Annyday @ May 13 2008,17:14)
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2008,16:01)
Has there ever been a website which Expelled more people than Dembski's clownatorium?


We need an expulsions per registration ratio / coefficient.

Surely, the DI blog wins based on it's policy of total pre-emptive bannination, which is just an excuse for me to mention this:

When it comes to citing examples of purposeful design, nearly every author likes to point out the hen's egg. It's really quite remarkable. Despite having a shell that is a mere 0.35 mm think, they don't break when a parent sits on them. According to Dr. Knut Schmidt-Nielsen,

   A bird egg is a mechanical structure strong enough to hold a chick securely during development, yet weak enough to break out of. The shell must let oxygen in and carbon dioxide out, yet be sufficiently impermeable to water to keep the contents from drying out.

Under microscopy, one can see the shell is a foamlike structure that resists cracking. Gases and water pass through 10,000 pores that average 17 micrometers in diameter. Ultimately, 6 liters of oxygen will have been taken in and 4.5 liters of carbon dioxide given off. The yolk is its food. All life support systems are self-contained, like a space shuttle.

All hen's eggs are ready to hatch on the twenty-first day. Every day is precisely preprogrammed. The heart starts beating on the sixth day. On the nineteenth day the embryo uses its egg tooth to puncture the air sac (beneath the flat end) and then takes two days to crack through the shell.

That's it.  That's the whole thing:  Just look at it, man!  It's like, totally designed, yah?  I mean, dude.  Duuuuude.  DUDE.  The chicken, it like: Sits. On. The. Egg.  Sits on it!  And it DOESN'T BREAK!  What is up with that shit?  I mean, C'MON!   Dude, you know what sounds awesome right now?  Scrambled Eggs.  And Tabasco sauce.  Can you drive?

Date: 2008/05/13 20:41:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 13 2008,17:52)
Quote (didymos @ May 13 2008,07:51)

You continued:

Tycho argued that a geocentric model of the solar system assuming epicyclic orbits allowed for simpler calculations than Copernicus’s heliocentric model with epicyclic orbits. Neither model produced better estimates than the other; but Copernicus’s model was more difficult computationally, and so Tycho rejected it on this basis.

Epicycles had nothing to do with the adoption of the Tychonic system, and Brahe actually found Copernican ideas much more elegant than Ptolemaic ones.  

Regarding your deceitful non-rebuttal "Epicycles had nothing to do with the adoption..."  Epicycles were a common trait of both models, and nobody ever said one was favored over the other due to epicycles.  Can you read?

Can you?  I bolded it for your convenience.  You wanted someone to discuss your blog post.  I did.  I never said it was a rebuttal. I was correcting you on the historical development of astronomy.  Even had you not mentioned epicycles, it was still necessary to clarify the actual reasoning that went into the development of the Tychonic system.  Your claim was that the computational difficulties were the factor, in which context you brought up epicycles.  As I clarified in a later post, the number and form of those epicycles are often cited as evidence for why one or the other model was preferred, and calculating a result in either model requires taking into account....epicycles.  So, basically, no matter what you say about it, epicycles are relevant to the "computational difficulty" idea. Don't shoot the messenger, Willy.  How about you go read the actual lecture I quoted?  Then you can pretend that neither I nor my "deceitful non-rebuttal" had anything to do with you being wrong about something.

Date: 2008/05/13 21:00:04, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 13 2008,18:43)
Quote (stevestory @ May 13 2008,21:33)
did you mean to put that on the bathroom wall?

Uh... (carefully scrutinizes Steve, looks for Lou, listens for Wes ) ...yes?

ETA: I'm lying. I stuck it here intentionally, to provoke WW.

He's seen it.  He tried to take ERV to task over it on her post about it:

Assuming Mr. "God doesn't play dice" was an atheist, why does that make you feel better?
Just curious?
Posted by: William Wallace | May 12, 2008 10:04 PM

O'Brien's contributions were much better as trolling goes:
I respect Einstein for his contributions to physics but that's it. We theists have far more and better.

Posted by: Robert O'Brien | May 12, 2008 10:18 PM




   The non-believers get the pantheists, the deists, and most of the transcendentalists on their team.

   You believers get to keep Fred Phelps, Rev. Wright, Lois Farrakhan, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Osama bin Laden, etc.

   Hope this helps.

Your protuberant stupidity is just precious. Let's take a look at who else is on our team:

Newton, Gauss, Euler, Cauchy, Archimedes, Plato, Socrates, Leibniz, Pascal, Fermat, Descartes, Lagrange, Bolzano, Brook Taylor, Colin Maclaurin, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Heisenberg, Goedel, Dante, Boethius, Aquinas, Fibonacci, R.A. Fisher, Schroedinger, Robert Boyle, James Clerk Maxwell, George Stokes, Maria Agnesi, Plotinus, Roger Bacon, Longfellow, Tennyson, Elena Cornaro Piscopia, Michael Faraday, Handel, Rousseau, Gregor Mendel, Kelvin

Among others.

Posted by: Robert O'Brien | May 13, 2008 2:23 PM

Extra points for superciliousness and the classic "But my list is bigger, longer, harder, faster, has more girth, et cetera" tactic, too.

(edited to note: see what I did there?  Now, it's on topic)

Date: 2008/05/13 21:14:53, Link
Author: didymos
Poor  Kev.  All he has left are pro- and anti- trolls.  He tries to post about comics and all he gets is:

Thats nice and all Kevin. But what about Sternberg?? Expelled is a comic book, a comic book full of lies. I HATE YOU!

Posted by: Jeffery S | May 13, 2008 at 09:09 AM

Its great to see all these incredibly entertaining concepts, that Im sure you plan on twisting and distorting with your creationist lies. Leave it alone Kevin. Stick to the 700 club or Left Behind comics please.

Posted by: Billy Reuben | May 13, 2008 at 09:55 AM

Willow Creek sounds good. I hope you get the rights to it. If so give Ben Stein a cameo as someone who gets mauled by a werewolf. I think that should make all of your critics happy. You get bonus points for using PZ as the werewolf that kills him, he already has the facial hair so its not much of a stretch...

Posted by: Salty Valty | May 13, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Date: 2008/05/14 00:28:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 13 2008,21:10)
"Sometimes avoiding that trailing preposition simply results in a clumsy sentence"

Is this one of those rules introduced by 18th century grammarians on the grounds that you can't do it in Latin, which everyone knows is the perfect language?

According to, appropriately enough, CBC News, it's not even that "justified".  Basically, it comes down to some English bishop who thought it more polite not to.  End sentences with prepositions, that is. I tracked down the source and discovered he (Robert Lowth) only objected to it in formal settings:

The preposition is often separated from the relative which it governs, and joined to the verb at the end of the sentence, or of some member of it...[t]his is an idiom, which our language is strongly inclined to: it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing: but the placing of the preposition before the relative is more graceful as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style.

Apparently, he did have a fondness for analogies to Latin, but wasn't foolish enough to think the two languages must share as much grammar as possible.  Others, apparently, decided to run with the Latin ball anyway.

Date: 2008/05/14 00:40:21, Link
Author: didymos
Fresh O'Leary!  This one's about Aliens and Faith:

For example, I have no idea what the religious opinions of an extraterrestrial would be. It would be just my luck to run into a hopelessly conflicted alien who believes that space travel is sinful … but it feels so good anyway that he just can’t … and so his shrink says … (O’Leary yawns and switches off tape … )

I have a feeling what happened with evolution was something like "O’Leary yawns and closes the book. O’Leary yawns and looks for another magazine in the doctor's office. O’Leary yawns and changes the channel.  O’Leary yawns and falls asleep in biology class."

In other news:  O'Leary, Irony still not on speaking terms:



11:20 pm

But, nullasalus, it IS a sin to let an alien finish any sentence that begins with “My therapist thinks that I might be … ” Wilful death by boredom is a form of suicide.

Date: 2008/05/14 00:48:06, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2008,22:37)
The fact they are theists / atheists is not really an argument, unless you can show how they used their theism / atheism when doing science.

Yeah, and the point of ERV's post of course is not what Einstein thought about God, but rather that theists should stop claiming him "for their team" as if that actually means anything.  Kind of a "Look, arguments from authority aren't that useful anyway, and now you've got one less, so knock it off with the Einstein stuff already."

Date: 2008/05/14 04:31:48, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 14 2008,00:55)
Quote (William Wallace @ May 13 2008,19:52)
Debating evolanders is like playing chess with pigeons.

How would you know? Nothing on this thread, or for that matter on your blog remotely resembles a "debate" in any way.

William, why don't you tell us where to see these "debates" you claim to have had with evolanders? Or are they all in your head?

I think WW thinks we all obsessively read every "evolander" blog or whatever, as he apparently does.  I just ran across this after searching on "pigeons chess" at Google, thinking the phrase was vaguely familiar and WW was trying to deliver some sort of devastating riposte (we would all surely catch the allusion, being members of La Panda Nostra after all):

Playing Chess with Pigeons?

Playing Chess with Pigeons is the weblog of Troy Britain.

The title comes from a very amusing description of what it is like to debate creationists about evolution (apparently) by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer made in a comment on regarding Eugenie Scotts’ book Evolution Vs. Creationism: An introduction (2004):

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

Thanks William.  I'd seen the name around before, but had totally forgotten about it until now and never visited the site.  The quote alone was worth it, but I also got an image out of it, allowing me to say for the very first time:


(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/14 09:07:46, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (PTET @ May 14 2008,06:47)
(I forget the title of that science fiction book written by a Canadian where aliens visited Earth and it turned out they were theists and said the existence of God is pretty obvious from creation.)

I didn't know they made IDiot porn... Sounds ghastly.

Actually, not a bad book at all.  The cover blurb is here.  The "God" in the book, however, is absolutely nothing like the Christian concept besides being involved in the creation and unfolding of the universe.  It's closer in concept to the eponymous Star Maker of Stapledon's book.  It's definitely an intervening intelligence, even fiddling with various species, but it has its own motives for what it does and is not concerned with individuals or worship or anything like that.

The author is no IDist, though.  That I'm sure of:

Although most people might consider the two nouns ("science," "god") to be the key words in that phrase [the title of the piece is  "Science and God"], for me the most important one is that little conjunction in the middle.

That's because the alternative wording would be "Science or God" — which seems to be the choice many want to offer these days. Take Stephen Jay Gould, for instance: he calls science and religion "nonoverlapping magisteria," insisting that some things are properly matters of science and others are only appropriately considered as questions of faith.

Now, I'd never put All in the Family's Archie Bunker on the same intellectual plane as Gould, but old Archie did say precisely one thing I agree with, during all his other rants: "You want to know what faith is? Faith is when you believe something nobody in their right mind would believe — that's what faith is!"

So Gould's dichotomy, filtered by Bunker's definition, leaves us with what I find to be an untenable position: some questions are best answered by science, and other questions can only be addressed if you're willing to consider the irrational.

I flat-out reject that. I'm convinced that science is the only legitimate way of knowing. Not received wisdom from putative holy texts. Not mystical insight. Science.

(edited because I forgot the quote)

Date: 2008/05/14 21:31:52, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quidam @ May 13 2008,08:19)
Fortunately the paparazzi were there to capture the moment

you haters talkin' bull, don't you know that this Dick is un-cock-frickin' blockable?

Date: 2008/05/15 16:49:05, Link
Author: didymos
William Wallace responds elsewhere:
I am not sure what didymos’ beef is. Trying to play gotcha on minor details unrelated to the point of this entry? Don’t know.

OK, for one, you were complaining that no one was discussing your blog post here.  So, I picked part of it and discussed it.  I wasn't aware of a rule stating I had to agree or disagree with it as a whole or address every last bit of it.  Probably because there is no such rule.

For two, you introduced the example of Tycho to support one of your points.  However, you have the facts wrong.  You talk about computational difficulty as the deciding factor, and it wasn't.  Simply not true and thus a bad example.  I never made the claim that I was discussing anything other than your mangling of science history.  

However, and for three, it's not unrelated at all, because the real history shows that it's not simply about evidence culling bad theories, but rather how convincing the evidence combined with the "correct" theory is.  That depends in turn on other observations and the beliefs and knowledge of the one evaluating the theory.  For Tycho, again, it was a combination of two interrelated factors:

1. The physics he knew seemed to demonstrate that the earth was not mobile.  I'll quote my source again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Yet is ascribes to the earth, that hulking, lazy body, unfit for motion, a motion as fast as the aethereal torches, and a triple motion at that". Thus Tycho had no problem with the Copernican system as a mathematical construction, but he believed that Copernicus fell short with respect to physics.

2. As a Christian believer, he felt it contradicted scripture.  That belief, in turn, was informed by centuries of Church-backed Aristotelian hegemony in physics.  I'll get back to this later.


It does not detract from the point of mentioning Tycho in the least. Tycho’s theory was wrong, but useful.

So was the Copernican, if for different reasons.  The thing is, though, that at the time neither it nor Tycho's model were considered "wrong but useful" at all. The problem was the lack of observational evidence needed to prefer one over the other.  Which is, yet again, where other considerations came into it: theological and physical.  You hold Brahe up as an example of the scientific method leading us further from the truth by way of Ockham's Razor, and it was nothing of the sort. It goes directly to another point of yours, however:

Experimentation’s major value is quality control on the hypothesis or theory. Experimentation attempts to identify bad hypotheses and theories by attempting to falsify them. Ancillary to quality control, observations made during experimentation can also be used to generate additional hypotheses and theories.

Since I wasn't disputing that, but rather reinforcing it, I didn't bother to mention it.


Epicycles were present in both systems as I indicate, though I don’t explain why. Epicycles explain observed retrograde motion. Both systems started off assuming circular orbits with uniform speed, but epicycles were necessary adjustments.

Never said they weren't. The reasons for introducing epicycles in the first place are totally irrelevant. As that sort of non-relevance is something you dislike when you think I'm doing it, just thought I'd point that out.


Epicycles are not necessary when elliptical orbits and non-uniform speeds are included (per Kepler).

And you say I'm hung up on minor details unrelated to the point.  "Scientist" observe thyself.  Besides, did you not read what I put in a follow-up post?  Apparently the answer is "yes" since I had to state it again in a second follow-up (I'll bold the key part):

Even had you not mentioned epicycles, it was still necessary to clarify the actual reasoning that went into the development of the Tychonic system.  Your claim was that the computational difficulties were the factor, in which context you brought up epicycles.  As I clarified in a later post, the number and form of those epicycles are often cited as evidence for why one or the other model was preferred, and calculating a result in either model requires taking into account....epicycles.  So, basically, no matter what you say about it, epicycles are relevant to the "computational difficulty" idea.

In other words,  I don't have some sort of epicycle paraphilia.  They're just unavoidable when discussing the astronomy of the time in any detail. Though it does raise an interesting question: what exactly do you think the computational difficulties were?


That Tycho actually advocated a hybrid of geocentricism is true (some planets orbited both the earth and the sun in his model), but beside the point.

Still wrong, unless that's just a poor wording choice.  The earth was stationary and orbited by the moon and sun.  Everything else orbited the sun.  Technically, the Moon and Sun were considered planets, and the system of Sun+other planets orbited Earth, so in that sense, yes, planets did orbit both the Earth and Sun.  That by the way, is what real nitpicking looks like.


   didymos wrote:
   Eventually, thanks to Kepler and Galileo, the Ptolemaic scheme was rendered untenable, and now the remaining two models, Tychonic and Copernican, stalemated, as both could explain the extant observations and the parallax measurements needed to disconfirm one or the other just couldn’t be made precisely enough.

I think he may be muddying the waters here by claiming that Tycho’s scheme was stalemated after Kepler analyzed Tycho’s data (after Tycho’s death).

No, you are neglecting history again.  Kepler did more than just analyze Tycho's data and produce from it his laws.  Strange you should not know this, what with being so well acquainted with optics:

Through most of 1603, Kepler paused his other work to focus on optical theory; the resulting manuscript, presented to the emperor on January 1, 1604, was published as Astronomiae Pars Optica (The Optical Part of Astronomy). In it, Kepler described the inverse-square law governing the intensity of light, reflection by flat and curved mirrors, and principles of pinhole cameras, as well as the astronomical implications of optics such as parallax and the apparent sizes of heavenly bodies. Astronomiae Pars Optica is generally recognized as the foundation of modern optics (though the law of refraction is conspicuously absent).

The above, though seemingly a digression, is actually pretty important. For one, it had a practical result:  allowing Kepler to correct for distortions introduced by the atmosphere into the astronomical data. For two, Kepler had a thing for light, and most especially the source of all light, as he saw it, the Sun:
[O]f all the bodies in the universe, the most excellent is the the sun, whose essence is nothing else but the purest light....It is a fountain of light, rich in fruitful heat, most fair, limpid, and pure to the sight, the source of vision, portrayer of all colors, though himself empty of color, called king of the planets for his motion, heart of the world for his power, its eye for his beauty, and which alone we should judge worthy of the Most High God, should he be pleased with a material domicile and choose a place in which to dwell with the blessed angels....For if the Germans elect him as Caesar who has most power in the whole empire, who would hesitate to confer the votes of the celestial motions on him who already has been administering all other movements and changes by the benefit of the light which is entirely his possession?....Since, therefore, it does not befit the first mover to be diffused throughout an orbit, but rather to proceed from one certain principle, and, as it were, point, no part of the world, and no star, accounts itself worthy of such a great honor; hence by the highest right we return to the sun, who alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited for this motive duty and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover.

That right there was Kepler's motive for embracing the Copernican system: his personal theology and metaphysics combined with his physical intuition.  He, through his studies of optics, eventually refined those ideas, as described here, coming to believe the sun exerted some other immaterial influence that, like light, fell off with distance as it spread out.  He thought it might be magnetism, which was making the intellectual rounds in Europe during the same period. He in fact came awfully close to Newtonian gravitation.  He just never made the final unifying conceptual leap of Newton, and of course lacked the needed mathematics to run with it anyway. Still, he basically got it:
If the earth should cease to attract its waters to itself all the waters of the sea would he raised and would flow to the body of the moon. The sphere of the attractive virtue which is in the moon extends as far as the earth, and entices up the waters; but as the moon flies rapidly across the zenith, and the waters cannot follow so quickly, a flow of the ocean is occasioned in the torrid zone towards the westward. If the attractive virtue of the moon extends as far as the earth, it follows with greater reason that the attractive virtue of the earth extends as far as the moon and much farther; and, in short, nothing which consists of earthly substance anyhow constituted although thrown up to any height, can ever escape the powerful operation of this attractive virtue. Nothing which consists of corporeal matter is absolutely light, but that is comparatively lighter which is rarer, either by its own nature, or by accidental heat. And it is not to be thought that light bodies are escaping to the surface of the universe while they are carried upwards, or that they are not attracted by the earth. They are attracted, but in a less degree, and so are driven outwards by the heavy bodies; which being done, they stop, and are kept by the earth in their own place. But although the attractive virtue of the earth extends upwards, as has been said, so very far, yet if any stone should be at a distance great enough to become sensible compared with the earth's diameter, it is true that on the motion of the earth such a stone would not follow altogether; its own force of resistance would be combined with the attractive force of the earth, and thus it would extricate itself in some degree from the motion of the earth.

The above comes from Astronomia Nova, the result of Kepler's work on Tycho's data, finished in 1605 but not published until 1609 due to litigation with Tycho's heirs.  It only contained the first two of Kepler's laws, as the third would have to wait about a decade before seeing print.  Yeah, I know that seems like irrelevant detail, but it's there to demonstrate the non-overnight nature of the work. Now you have to add in the time it took for Kepler's modified Copernicanism to gain general acceptance.  This is where the stalemate I talked about comes in.   After Kepler published, Galileo made his observations of Jupiter in early 1610, showing it to be a Copernican system in it's own right, what with its various moons.  And then later that year was Venus:
But meanwhile, toward the end of 1610, Galileo made another discovery that bore directly on the viability of the Ptolemaic system. In the Ptolemaic arrangement, the epicycle of Venus always lay between the earth and then sun, so if the planet shone by reflected sunlight, it could never show a full phase. By late December Galileo had confirmed that "the mother of loves" (as he encoded her) displayed the entire gamut of phases from full to crescent, and therefore it had to go around the sun as in the Copernican arrangement.

As I said, it took Kepler and Galileo both to finally put Ptolemy down for good, and this did not happen until after Kepler had already published  2 of his 3 laws of planetary motion.  That left the neo-Copernican model of Kepler and the Tychonic:

In other words, the Copernican system very nicely explained the appearances, the phases of Venus, but this did not guarantee that the sun was fixed in the center. Why not? Because Tycho’s geo-heliocentric arrangement also had Venus going around the sun, albeit a mobile sun, and therefore the Tychonic system explained the Cytherian phases equally well.

Just as I stated, a stalemate due to lack of observational evidence:

And the absence of an observed stellar parallax worked seriously against the acceptance of the Copernican system throughout the seventeenth century.

Other sources, easily found on teh Interwebz corroborate this.  You don't even need to soil yourself with Wikipedia.  In any case, it was Tycho's system that came to be preferred on partly religious and partly physical grounds, despite the fact it was more complicated due to its combining of Ptolemy and Copernicus, in defiance of Ockham's Razor.  Also, in defiance of your characterization:

Kepler’s elliptical orbits and non-uniform speeds (the line joining the planet to the sun sweeps an equal area in equal time as the planet travels around the ellipse) pretty much killed Tycho’s and Copernicus’s ideas of epicycles(T,C), geocentricism, and circular orbits(T,C) with epicycles(T,C).

Kepler himself still considered his model essentially Copernican, as evidenced by the title of the work containing all three of his laws: Epitome astronomia Copernicanae.  We may not today, but it derives directly from Copernicus' work and was viewed as Copernican at the time. In any case, it hardly killed geocentrism.  That was alive and well, mostly in its Tychonic form, for decades to come.  In 1674, Robert Hooke wrote:

Wether the Earth move or stand still hath been a Problem, that since Copernicus revived it, hath much exercised the Wits our best modern Astronomers and Philosophers, amongst which notwithstanding there hath not been any one who hath found out a certain manifestation either of the one or the other Doctrine. The more knowing and judicious have for many plausible reasons adhered to the Copernican Hypothesis: But the generality of others, either out of ignorance or prejudice, have rejected it as a most extravagant opinion...'Tis not here my business to instruct [those ignorant of it] in the first principles of Astronomy, there being already Introductions enough for that purpose: But rather to furnish the Learned with an experimentum crucis to determine between the Tychonick and Copernican Hypotheses.

He continues:

Now though it may be said, 'Tis not only those [ignorant of Astronomy] but great Geometricians, Astronomers and Philosophers have also adhered to that [geocentric] side, yet generally the reason is the very same.

For most of those, when young, have been imbued with principles as gross and rude as those of the Vulgar, especially as to the frame and fabrick of the World, which leave so deep an impression upon the fancy, that they are not without great pain and trouble obliterated: Others, as a further confirmation in their childish opinion, have been instructed in the Ptolomaickor Tichonick System, and by the Authority of their Tutors, over-awed into a belief, if not a veneration thereof:  Whence for the most part such persons will not indure to hear Arguments against it, and if they do, 'tis only to find Answers to confute them.

On the other side, some out of a contradicting nature to their Tutors; others, by as great a prejudice of institution; and some few others upon better reasoned grounds, from the proportion and harmony of the World, cannot but imbrace the Copernican Arguments, as demonstrations that the Earth moves, and that the Sun and Stars stand still. I confess there is somewhat of reason on both sides, but there is also something of prejudice even on that side that seems the most rational.

All of this goes directly against the simple scenario of your post:

In my view, observations are generally made before forming a hypothesis. (There are some exceptions–where initial hypotheses seem to be more the fruit of insightful imagination than careful observations, e.g., atomic theories.)

The development and acceptance of theories is rarely so simple as that.  In fact, to borrow one of your favorite terms, that picture is sort of a "just-so story" version of the scientific enterprise, as is this:

Some interpret the long term failure of a theory to be falsified as truth, but these people are generally muddying the waters. They ignore the vital role of experimentation as quality control, do not design sufficiently challenging experiments, and confuse simple observations that do not contradict “just so” stories with rigorous experimentation. These are probably the fruit of confirmation bias.

To use what could be evolutionary terminology, ruthlessly applied experimentation are selective filters that cull bad theories and hypotheses to the heap of bad ideas.

Superficially true, but the fact is, sometimes, as with Kepler and his near-miss with gravitation, the conceptual and mathematical toolkits allowing the design of "sufficiently challenging" experiments have yet to be invented.  At other times, the necessary experiment is beyond the technology of the day.  You're also unnecessarily dismissive of "simple observation".  Galileo simply observed the moons of Jupiter and noticed they behaved in a Copernican fashion.  He simply observed the phases of Venus and helped consign Ptolemaic astronomy to the dustbin.  We've also seen how "just-so stories", in the form of Kepler's metaphysics combined with hard data and talent ended up guiding him very close to the truth indeed, and not simply in observational astronomy.  Such cases are not the rare exceptions of your picture, but commonplace.

In any case, geocentrism wasn't finally expelled from science until the publication of Newton's Principia unified celestial and earthly motion, put gravitation on a mathematical footing, and derived Kepler's laws from first principles, all of which finally made overwhelmingly persuasive the idea that the Sun lay at the center, exerting its pull over Earth and all the other bodies whirling about out there.  At that point, stellar parallax was of little importance, or rather, different importance.  Newtonian theory was well confirmed on so many other grounds and had generated so many new ideas and fields of inquiry that by the time a really good observation of stellar parallax appeared in 1838, no one expected anything else, and the importance of the feat was its use as a means of calculating interstellar distances.

Now, as promised, I'll get back to the part of religion in the Copernican tale.  I held off because you waited until the end of your comment to present this:      

Mano Singham’s Web Journal:
   The reason that Copernicus’ ideas ran into opposition, at least in its immediate aftermath was not because of the supposed demotion of humans, but because having a heliocentric system resulted in the creation of a lot of problems for the physical theories that were coexisting with the astronomical models. So much of the initial resistance was from within the physics and astronomy communities, not the religious ones.

I never did write a word about the demotion of humans or the introduction of Copernicus' ideas.  I wrote:    

So, what was the deciding factor in pre-Newtonian science?  This is where your notion of the utility of the "geocentric" model comes in (though, of course, it wasn't really a pure geocentrism).  What made the Tychonic system more useful was the fact that you could support it without pissing off the Catholic Church or other religious authorities in the Protestant world because they liked it better for entirely unscientific reasons. In addition, alot of the people who even knew about any of this were religious anyway, so it wasn't even a fear of Authority so much as a case of here was something which comfortably meshed with their pre-existing beliefs.

Pre-Newtonian science being, as made perfectly clear by the context, the physics and astronomy of Kepler, Galileo, and Brahe.  I also clearly stated (more than once) that Brahe himself preferred his own system for both physical and religious reasons.  As did Kepler, in his own fashion.  While I agree more or less with Singham on the history in that quote, I do think he makes a somewhat false distinction between the religious and scientific communities.  There really wasn't one.  Religion was involved in everything back then, and those doing scientific work, clergy or not, constantly invoked scripture and theology to buttress their scientific ideas (Hell, Kepler only ended up doing astronomy because he was a failed theologian). And, as I've mentioned, also on multiple occasions, the physics of the time was Aristotelian and enjoyed exclusive support from the Church and was tantamount to doctrine in many respects.  The problem, really, was not what Copernicus wrote, but that eventually people started to think the Earth really did move; that it was "truth".  As long as Copernicanism remained simply a "hypothesis", a geometrical tool of Astronomy, everything was cool.  I'm not sure what the point of quoting Singham was, though it's interesting you went with a very vocally atheist source.  Enh, whatever.  

I shall now wrap up by addressing your blog post entire in Futuramic form:

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/15 17:38:44, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 15 2008,15:23)
I predict at least one thread on the California Supreme Court decision today will grace the cover of UD by tomorrow.  I mean it has to.

Well know the ghays lead to Nazis and intelligent design theorists will show us the science soon!

Date: 2008/05/15 20:00:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 15 2008,16:24)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 15 2008,17:23)
I predict at least one thread on the California Supreme Court decision today will grace the cover of UD by tomorrow.  I mean it has to.

Well know the ghays lead to Nazis and intelligent design theorists will show us the science soon!

I now live in fear that I will be compelled to gay marry Arden.

And why is that?  Could it be that, with the striking down of this outmoded legal barrier, you now feel your own barriers of rationalization crumbling?  Crumbling away to reveal a hidden fire: hot flames of pink and lavender, once damped but now growing ever higher?  Do you hear hints of strange whispers in the crackling of that homophilic fire, and fear what they command?  As it builds to a raging, fabulous inferno in the island of your heart, will you begin to hear the chant: Arden, Arden, Arden, Arden......?

Or did you have something else in mind?  Just askin'.

Date: 2008/05/15 23:23:48, Link
Author: didymos
William Wallace is such a little shit.  I have no idea how old the guy actually is.  Doesn't matter.  He's still a little shit:

William Wallace


9:15 pm

I wonder if a certain evolander’s daughter is working to decriminalize bestiality.

Oh, don't be so coy, Willy.  Or is that cowardly?


Darwinism: If you believe in Darwinism and environmentalism, doesn’t that lead to thinking we should limit the amount of precious natural resources homosexuals consume? Or something like that?

I'm pretty sure that little fantasy is all yours, William.



I wonder if California will attempt to institute an exit tax for its citizens who decide to flee persecution…

No, William.  We fully intend to round them up into camps and gas them. It'll be paid for many times over when we confiscate all their property. I think it's item 23 on the Joint Gay/Evolander Agenda.  Fucking jackass.

Date: 2008/05/16 00:33:17, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2008,21:58)
Upon reading the Dawkins quote further, it looks like he might not have been making a metaphor, but something more like 'show us how the ID occured.' There's a link to the Dawkins essay which presumably provides the context, but frankly it was a long day, and then there was an hour or so here

Yeah, it's a scenario he's gone into before, notably in The Ancestor's Tale.It's worth noting that Gil mangles the quote.  It's a mash-up that leaves out a lot of intervening text.  The first part is:

In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.

The rest comes from this:
We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.

It's pretty obvious in context that Dawkins is saying we know of two mechanisms for generating complexity:  evolution and deliberate design by us.   Both leave their own trails of evidence, and the human design trails themselves lead back to natural selection. Gil is simultaneously getting and missing the whole point, which is a pretty neat trick, I have to say.

Date: 2008/05/16 00:47:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (didymos @ May 15 2008,21:23)
William Wallace is such a little shit.  I have no idea how old the guy actually is.  Doesn't matter.  He's still a little shit:

William Wallace


9:15 pm

I wonder if a certain evolander’s daughter is working to decriminalize bestiality.

Oh, don't be so coy, Willy.  Or is that cowardly?


Darwinism: If you believe in Darwinism and environmentalism, doesn’t that lead to thinking we should limit the amount of precious natural resources homosexuals consume? Or something like that?

I'm pretty sure that little fantasy is all yours, William.



I wonder if California will attempt to institute an exit tax for its citizens who decide to flee persecution…

No, William.  We fully intend to round them up into camps and gas them. It'll be paid for many times over when we confiscate all their property. I think it's item 23 on the Joint Gay/Evolander Agenda.  Fucking jackass.

Looks like Dave nuked Wallace's nasty little TARD.  Glad I preserved it for posterity. Now he's flogging Allen McNeil with the macro/micro whip:

William Wallace


12:02 am


Would you say most biologists who use evolution use macro evolution or micro evolution as a tool?

William, would you say most civil engineers, for example,  use the Lambda-CDM model when designing a bridge?  Probably not.  Must be bullshit then.

Date: 2008/05/16 01:52:36, Link
Author: didymos
ID in a nutshell:



11:47 pm

I have never read anything about [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg’s life, but I wonder if it was a hardscrabble existence? My guess is not.

(edited to add: my bolding)

Date: 2008/05/17 02:44:24, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quack @ May 16 2008,02:08)
Interesting exchange even if the subject isn't quite my cup of tea.

I don't know if it would be good form for me to say Gotcha! <snip>

Gotcha?  Did I screw up on something?  I like knowing when I've gotten stuff wrong, so if I did, just tell me what it was.  Being publicly corrected is not a problem.  In fact, it's happened once on this thread already.  Well, more than once, but most of them came from William and were bullshit.  He did get me on the "pinhole" camera thing, though.  Of course, that was just used as an opportunity for him to wax superior to the evolanders, so I give credit to Quidam instead, who actually bothered to explain why I was wrong.


Hope you wil enjoy it as much as I did. (If you've got the time to read it!)

I may not get that one, but I plan on picking up a couple of Gingerich's other books.  It was a lecture of his I used as my main source of quotes.

Date: 2008/05/17 12:41:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Quack @ May 17 2008,02:16)
Well, Feynman got on the phone to his wife: I am taking this crazy gang from Swedish Radio home with me. Could you have some sandwiches and beer ready for us?

They got a demonstration of the great scientist playing bongo drums.

The one I always liked was that his bongo drum playing and habit of working on equations in bed were cited as grounds for divorce by his 2nd wife.

Date: 2008/05/18 01:21:20, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ May 17 2008,22:09)
Widdew Willy Wallace went 'way whining with weeping.  Waaaaaahhhhh!!!    :)

I think you have to say his full name a certain number of times within a limited window of time in order to summon him.  Haven't narrowed down the parameters yet.

Date: 2008/05/18 05:48:20, Link
Author: didymos
Frost has some issues:


2:41 am

I wish we didn’t have your “balance” here at this site UD. I prefer 100% clear thinking to a perceived fair and balanced 50% clear thinking 50% liberal propaganda.

Don't worry.  The OverTARDS will fix that.  I especially like how all opinion divides into:

1.  clear thinking aka stuff I like

2.  liberal propoganda aka everything else


I don’t care what you think of call that closed minded non democratic etc.- Man made global warming is not happening- it never has and it never will no matter how much you and you kind want to believe in it.

Who "wants" to believe in global warming?  You can practically see the foam escaping the corners of his mouth while he hits every last key with maximum spite:

"That damn liberal propogandist son of a bitch.  I hate you. I hate you. I hate......"


The world grows dim before his eyes. Frost goes into convulsions, valiantly struggling to retain awareness. As his frail flesh turns against him, through sheer force of will, he reaches up; his pale flesh glowing white in the monitor's light is like the white, samite-clad arm that once gifted a sword to a King named Arthur.  As the last light in his eyes fades, he valiantly drives his fingers down, striking the "Enter" key at the last. possible. moment.

Now Frost lays crumpled on the floor beneath the desk, a peaceful smile playing across his lips:  he's done it.  Yet once more has he secured victory for clear thinking.  The warrior has earned his rest.


The docs here in Baltimore city haven’t raised an inch in 100 years of CO2 emissions. Nor have they in New York or anywhere else. No will ever raise because of man.

Right.  Not like anybody ever takes measurements.

*goes to Google: sea level rise baltimore <enter>*

Yep.  Turns out they measure this stuff.  Who knew?  And why is it so well hidden?


Global wamring is just a left wing idological political tool.- anyone non biased or with a an IQ over 115 can see this.

115?  So, if your IQ drops a point, are you suddenly incapable of perceiving this anymore?  Or does that only happen to the biased ones?  Does that mean someone with profound mental retardation with an open mind can see it?  Is this like in Stephen King novels where the people with mental disabilities always seem to have paranormal perception because they're all pure and innocent like a child or something?  Maybe we should just form a panel of those with the most severe cases of mental disability in the world and refer all questions of science to them before we allow these crazy people with supposedly "relevant" training to run around making "evidence" based claims.  It'll be awesome, trust me.

Date: 2008/05/18 07:42:49, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 18 2008,05:17)

Hey, that's not entirely fair on John, Lou. He is a vehement critic of UD's climate change denialism. Scroll to see why I say "not entirely"!

Oooh, that was totally worth it.  Now I know what DLH stands for.  Thanks JAD.  I love it so!

(edited: broken quote)

Date: 2008/05/18 08:27:04, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 18 2008,06:17)
A Sunday morning outing in the UD ponds revealed this gem of projection, from commenter johnnyb.    
Just to point out - one of the reasons I didn’t go into biology was because Darwinism looked, well, BORING. Darwinism - the way they teach it in the school - is waiting for something to happen, and then ascribe the cause to nothing particular.

I, for one, am very thankful that johnnyb "didn't go into biology". Wankers like johnnyb should stick to apologetics, or engineering, or hanging around public libraries to use the computers, or whatever line of employment he might be in these days.  But I really doubt that he is telling us all the reasons for that momentous decision...

Nice.  "Darwinism" apparently works like this:

Some Biologist:  How'd that get there?  What is that?

Other Biologist:  Stuff.

Some Biologist:  I can see that. Let's write it up then go do something more exciting like watching grass grow.

Other Biologist:  Sorry, what?  I dozed off there for a second.

Date: 2008/05/19 01:03:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (guthrie @ May 18 2008,16:01)
I checked, but couldn't tell if Poachy was joking or not.  The thing is, I expect Creationists to say such stupid things anyway, so, shall we put it to the vote?

But give me some time to make my mind up.

This might help with that:



1:13 pm


Nobody ever claimed that we have all the answers. We have a great framework for making discoveries.

Well, I have to reiterate what that great intellectual, Ben Stein, said. Evolution doesn’t explain gravity. So you better get to work on that. It would be the first relevance to your dying theory.

Then there's this one from the gay marriage post:



11:38 am


Why wasn’t the DPA [Domestic Partnership Act] good enough? Why disturbed what appeared to be a workable compromise? Why make the perfect the enemy of the pretty damn good?

I agree. What is the matter with different, but equal?


this one and this other one from the Expelled vs. Harvard thing:



4:19 pm

Were you this offended when Judge Jones was caught plagiarizing some 90% of his science “opinion” straight from an ACLU brief?

Well, if this goes to court, maybe this time we’ll get a solidly conservative judge appointed by President Bush, rather than some ACLU loving liberal.




5:45 pm

Knockoff books demosntrate that one has discovered a winning formula.

I guess it depends on your definition of winning. Clearly, Denyse, you aren’t motivated by money, since you seem cool if people don’t buy your book.

There's plenty more of that kind of thing.  Just search on "poachy" at UD. I guess DT finds him amusing, since he's been getting away with this stuff for awhile now.

Date: 2008/05/19 07:46:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (guthrie @ May 19 2008,04:52)
You know, I'd be sure Poachy was a fake, except that I've seen WW argue similar things, only in a slightly more erudite fashion.  Ahh well.

Well, even people on UD think that poachy ain't quite right.

Date: 2008/05/19 07:49:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (keiths @ May 19 2008,01:11)
Could someone please explain to me what the frack Denyse is trying to say here?
Twins who literally share a body have different selves, personalities

Do we have individual selves, or is individuality just an illusion? Consider the case of two girls who share one body, Abigail and Brittany Hensel - conjoined twins who, at 18 years of age, are clearly different people even though from the neck down they have only one body.

Granted, this is a clever refutation of the millions of materialists who insist that the pelvis is the seat of the personality -- except that there are no such materialists, outside of Granny's failing mind.

What is her point, exactly?

What a twit.  If she wants to attempt that argument, she'd be much better off using twins who actually share parts of their brain, like the Schappells

Date: 2008/05/19 10:33:56, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2008,08:07)
If anything, a theory is a higher order of classification than a law, as a theory unifies and explains a variety of often disparate phenomena.

A perfect example being Newtonian Mechanics:  

3 Laws of Motion + Law of Universal Gravitation allows one to derive Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion and explains why they work, but you still need all the conceptual stuff like inertia, force, action-at-a-distance, frames of reference, et cetera to understand what the laws are talking about in the first place.  Oh, and all the calculus and other mathematics required to compute anything.

Date: 2008/05/19 19:29:13, Link
Author: didymos
Well ba77 is doing his part to spread the latest creationist  meme:



6:32 pm

Off Topic:

Cool Video:

Laminin Protein molecule:

Behold!  The Laminin of God

Behold!  Not so much, actually

Date: 2008/05/20 13:18:07, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (sparc @ May 19 2008,19:46)
His sermon could have been even better if he were aware that snakes produce disintegrins.

Edit: Vipera lebetina venom contains two disintegrins inhibiting laminin-binding beta1 integrins.

What really gets me about the "Looks!  Teh Lamininz is teh True Cross!" thing is that most historians and archaeologists think Jesus would almost certainly have been hung up on on a crux commisa or Tau Cross:

Plus, a lot of explicitly religious sources take this as, um, gospel?

Date: 2008/05/20 13:50:28, Link
Author: didymos
Oh, yeah.  I forgot about this earlier:  PZ blogged about another clip of the laminin guy, and helpfully updated it to note that potassium channels show we've all got Nazis on the brain:

Which certainly helps to explain this:

I think we need a new discipline:   Biomolecular Semiotics.  Could be very fruitful.

(edited: needless apostrophizing)

Date: 2008/05/20 19:21:00, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 20 2008,11:44)

Since evolution only exists to displace Christianity and to deny the obviousness of design in nature (the preachers say so (do rabbis?  thinking of Stein), hence it is true)

Shmuley Boteach certainly does.

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 20 2008,11:44)

I'm sure that Stein doesn't listen to his opponents, notably because, as he said in the interview aimed at theists, he is on a mission for god.  

So Stein must view himself and reality something like this:

Darwinist Nazis.  I hate Darwinist Nazis.

(edited: broken quote)
(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/21 02:06:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2008,20:35)
Paley's watch argument contradicts the generic design of the IDers. If you can distinguish the watch from the grass because it has design, the grass must not have the generic design quality.

Dude, they've got that covered:



11:22 pm

“However, this immediately raises the question, if ID is valid, aren’t both the “chair tree” and a “natural tree” designed?”

Yes, but on different levels. Normally we look at the CSI required to code for the tree, in this case we are looking at how the tree was arranged to grow in the pattern that it did after the fact.

Well sort of.  As near as I can tell "Normally we look at the CSI required to code for the tree" just means "Design is axiomatic".  F2XL then lectures Allen about misunderstanding the almighty EF without ever explaining anything in any detail and finishes up with:

Would you like me to show you how it’s done with the flagellum?

Well, F2XL, I think we'd all like that.  Pretty sure how it's done is basically like this, though:

1. God exists.
2. God is responsible for the universe.
3. Wow, that flagellum is like a little motor!  It sure is complex, I tell you what.
4.  Evolution sucks.  I can't understand how it could "create" anything that nifty.
5.  Therefore, the flagellum cries out:  DESIGN!  Hosannah!

Date: 2008/05/21 02:33:07, Link
Author: didymos
Paul Giem defines science:

A non-question-begging definition of science might be the study of reproducible events, or perhaps the study of events for which there is a known physical mechanism (although the latter would rule out quantum mechanics). A question-begging definition of science would be the explanation of events in nature by means of natural processes.

William Wallace is a reproducible event:

William Wallace


12:37 am

D for all trees, not just the tree shown.

I also like how willing he is to go with a definition that excludes QM.  Hey, IDiot, three words: Double. Slit. Experiment.  Pretty reproducible, despite the fact that, initially, no one had any idea what the hell was going on.  Two more: Elliptical. Orbits.  No known mechanism for those at first either.  Your definitions suck.

Back to Paul:

A question-begging definition of science would be the explanation of events in nature by means of natural processes.

I agree, that does beg some questions.  For instance, did you even read that before you hit "submit"?  Are you as big of a jackass as the above suggests?  Lastly, you do realize that "events in nature" means natural events, which by definition are the result of natural processes?

Date: 2008/05/21 02:52:25, Link
Author: didymos
This is amusing. WW is pointing at a couple Minnesota TV weathermen as evidence against global warming because they signed that petition.  Oh, and they both work at "liberal" TV stations, so that makes the argument gooder. I mean, they've both got meteorology degrees from a few decades back, which makes them experts in modern climatology, right?

Date: 2008/05/21 15:57:49, Link
Author: didymos
Continuing my habit of posting about DI junk with nanometer-thin "it's on topic" justifications, I wonder how long before this Simmons  guy gets invited to write for UD:

A design must be considered improbable if it is highly functional and durable yet too complex to have come about spontaneously or by intermediate steps. Think of the subway system in any large metropolitan area. Could the combination of tracks, stations, tunnels, signs, vending machines, stairwells, lighting, trains, billboards, ticket booths, turnstiles, benches, platforms, security measures, and restrooms have happened all at once or did it come about by stages? If these commuter systems were to follow the tenets of the theory of evolution, the tracks going off in every direction might be called links to the stations called species. How does one get from station to station without the tunnel, train, and tracks? In the theory of evolution, these kinds of intermediaries are abundantly missing.

Umm, sorry man, subway-ex-nihilo didn't happen either. Or is that your point?  You're not really making sense, so I'll assume you subscribe to the subway-all-at-once model. Well, any given one was built in stages, and has been continuously maintained, altered, extended and upgraded ever since, with no end in sight. You can find traces of the old system in the new by way of old engineering compromises carried over, tunnels sealed over,  et cetera. But, you're an ID hack and thus congenitally incapable of producing good analogies, so I'll cut you a little slack.  One thing that definitely doesn't evolve, in any sense of the word:  your crap "no transistional forms" argument.


The wombat has an upside-down pouch. Scientists presume, and it makes sense, that position prevents dirt from entering the pouch when the wombat is digging in the ground. Could there have been transitional species with pouches situated sideways, or did the first wombats have to scoop dirt out of their pouches every day?

Did you just make that up?  So, what design criterion dictated giving Koalas a rear facing pouch?  It's really not that hard:  regulatory genes control development.  Genes can change.  Small changes in regulatory genes can have large effects on morphology.  In the wombat's case, a rearward pouch is advantageous in its burrowing lifestyle and thus visible to natural selection.  Plus you neglect the possibility that forward-facing pouches are the innovation in diprotodonts, and not the reverse. Are the details known?  No.  Does this matter?  Not really. Are you an IDiot? Yes.

He's one of the jackasses they sent over to Spain to shill for ID, and they've discussed him and his book on UD before, so I might actually be in the millimeter-thin range:

Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate
Medical Doctor writes new pro-ID book for grade-school kids
PSSI Takes the Debate to Spain, Darwinists React With Lies

(edited: formatting)
(again: apostrophes)

Date: 2008/05/21 17:57:11, Link
Author: didymos
LOLCat comin':

It may not be accurate, but it is mean-spirited, which ought to count for something.  Happy Birthday.

(edited 11/4/2008: New Image Host)

Date: 2008/05/21 18:03:13, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 21 2008,15:58)
Sfunny that they never use the tornado analogy when they describe jeebus, who is far more complex than a single cell and he created himself out of nothing whatsoever.  A 747 assembling itself in a tornado or high winds in a junk yard is far more plausible than an all powerful deity creating himself from thin air.

Dude, how wrong can you get?  Jesus didn't create himself out of thin air.  He created the thin air in the first place.  Stupid Darwinist.

Date: 2008/05/23 23:02:19, Link
Author: didymos
There was already a sort of ID: The Video Game out a while ago on the Super Nintendo:  E.V.O.: The Search for Eden

Actually, pretty cool game for its time.  Funny thing is though, there are multiple "designers",including the player, and one intelligence in the game is an evil product of weird crystals which are screwing up evolution.  Turns out the crystals were sent by misguided Martians hoping to accelerate evolution on Earth, apparently so they'd have someone to hang out with.  Plus there's this weird shit where you're competing for the hand of Gaia, daughter of Sol, and you reincarnate as various creatures along the way, and Sol decreed evolution as sort of a really overcomplicated test for potential suitors.  But, you know, it was originally Japanese so weirdness is to be expected.

(edited: forgot the screencap)

Date: 2008/05/25 13:40:13, Link
Author: didymos
Where do you even begin:



6:21 am

If I am wrong in this matter and have somehow misinterpreted something, please show me where I have misinterpreted what I read and cited.

Like a magnet, BA77 will just cling to the nonsense endlessly.  Don't even try, Dave.

Date: 2008/05/25 13:45:31, Link
Author: didymos
Credential mongering:



9:23 am

What were Darwin’s “scientific” credentials?

He did science.


How do they compare to Dembski’s or Behe’s?

They just pretend to do science.

Date: 2008/05/26 13:35:12, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dheddle @ May 26 2008,10:32)
Quote (PTET @ May 26 2008,11:31)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 26 2008,10:31)
Quote (dheddle @ May 26 2008,10:59)
Smolin's idea is interesting, but is rests on the the notion that the child universe has similar physics to the parent universe. I see only handwaving type arguments to support that idea.

That's right. He more or less just asserts that it is so. His argument for why this should be the case (changes in the laws of physics represent phase transitions that occur only under special circumstances) doesn't speak at all to why the changes are likely to be small.

As I recall, unlike our ID friends, Smolin doesn't pretend that his conjecture is science...

I'm not so sure about that. I'm not an expert on Smolin's theory, but I think he has an rather unsatisfying  falsification claim that is something along the lines of "demonstrate that our universe is not optimal (or nearly optimal) for producing black holes and you'll have falsified cosmic evolution."

If I am remembering correctly, then I don't think that's any different from Gonzalez and Richards' falsification claim: find a planet with complex life that is not a good observation platform.

I think his idea is that the conditions necessary to optimally or near optimally produce black holes are the same as those necessary for life to exist, and if you can show they're not, then his idea fails.

Date: 2008/05/26 13:51:49, Link
Author: didymos
Here's a copy of his paper on the proposal:
Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principal

Date: 2008/05/26 13:58:13, Link
Author: didymos
From the same, found while skimming through:

There is at least one example of a falsifable theory satisfying these conditions, which is cosmological natural selection. Among the properties W that make the theory falsifable is that the upper mass limit of neutron stars is less than 1.6 solar masses.  This and other predictions of CNS have yet to be falsifed, but they could easily be by observations in progress.

I haven't yet read the whole thing word for word.

Date: 2008/05/26 18:42:01, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dheddle @ May 26 2008,12:20)
Quote (didymos @ May 26 2008,13:51)
Here's a copy of his paper on the proposal:
Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principal

Yes that is the paper I remember reading some time back.

I never understood the falsification by a massive neutron star--since neutron stars already have a comparable upper mass limit (~3 solar masses) just based on conventional physics.

Not sure I get this bit either.  He seems to be saying that this pushes the lower bound for black hole formation too high, and thus the universe is not optimal or near-optimal for black holes.  I guess where the notion of variable constants in nature comes in is the strange quark mass, which then determines the upper limit of neutron star mass.  Since strange mass can vary a good bit without affecting the likelihood of life, this makes it a good test for CNS.  

There seems to be a whole hell of a lot of approximation and guessing in all of that, though.  I mean, as far as I know, we basically have no idea why any of the quarks have the masses they do in the first place.  If we don't know that, how can we know how much freedom to vary those masses had way back when?

ETA: which other people have already pointed out.  Next time, I reload the tab before posting.

Date: 2008/05/26 23:34:54, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (sparc @ May 26 2008,21:26)
Bad Math Alert!
What else would one expect from someone who describes himself the following way:  
So anyway as one can carefully see half this blog is centered around a new approach to politics but the other half has to do with things that allow you to be someone that can't in anyway be labeled as average. It's primarily centered around being a superhuman, or super soldier so to speak. If you care about playing a huge role in this nation, and you want to die knowing you made a positive change, these articles should give enlightenment.

Well, the dude is 17, according to his blog.  Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses (unspoken assumption/hope being: and then I will seriously score with teh ladeez).

Date: 2008/05/27 00:21:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (sparc @ May 26 2008,21:41)
Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses
17? OK if he'd be 10 or 12. But 17? Completely retarded.

I wasn't voicing approval.  Just statin' the facts.

Date: 2008/05/27 00:52:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 26 2008,22:36)
Quote (sparc @ May 26 2008,21:41)
Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses
17? OK if he'd be 10 or 12. But 17? Completely retarded.

Here's the lovable teenager's brilliant explanation of why the 'myth of global warming' is so tenacious:

Scapegoat: Al Gore and other democrats need something to serve as their 9/11.

(his italics)

This confirms my working hypothesis that *the* main reason people go into global warming denial is because they hate Al Gore.

(Dave Scot is another example.)

Al Gore's a frickin' psychic genius then:  he knew he'd need his own 9/11, like, before 9/11 even happened.  Spooky.  Maybe he really did invent the internet.

Date: 2008/05/28 22:35:54, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 28 2008,20:30)
Please, take a moment to read Russ' lifelong, tear-jerking battle with "TEH GAY":

This thread, this TARD, MINE, all MINE!

I imagine Ted Haggard told himself much the same thing:

I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?

Next thing you know, it's crystal meth and male prostitutes and public displays of shame.  Much better to just go with the being gay thing.

Date: 2008/05/29 01:32:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (keiths @ May 28 2008,22:40)
Russ's confession of "homosexual impulses" is going to freak out some of the homophobes over there.  Watch as they slowly edge away from him.

So far, they're all studiously ignoring him.

Date: 2008/05/29 17:47:48, Link
Author: didymos
Joyeux Anniversaire.  Indulge a little, maybe have some freedom fries.

Date: 2008/05/30 20:05:51, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 30 2008,15:13)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 30 2008,18:11)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 30 2008,16:14)
Do'L just can't walk write and or chew gum. Period.

Fixed that for you

And I, in turn, fixed that for you.

And now I've fixed it for all of you.

Date: 2008/05/30 21:22:23, Link
Author: didymos
No.  My Theory of O'Leary is unfalsifiable!

Date: 2008/06/01 00:06:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ May 31 2008,21:21)
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 31 2008,23:16)
So, what's disgusting about it, WW?

Do you know anything about horse or cattle breeding?

I didn't think so.

Dumb as always, WW.

Yeah, I once knew a Canadian who later obtained a position and ultimately worked his way "up" at a pig farm.  

Quit disgusting.

WTF?  William hath returned?  Quit disgusting, indeed: quit disgusting us with cheap shots, ignorance, and random insults and make a real point about real science that isn't real bullshit for once.  Otherwise, fly away home, pigeon.

Date: 2008/06/01 19:43:01, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 01 2008,17:32)
Quote (argystokes @ June 01 2008,18:51)
There are only two things that people are ever described as doing "profusely:" Apologize and sweat. I wonder why that is?

And thank.

I'm sure if you read enough of Penthouse Forum or other cheaply produced text porn, you might come across some other examples of actions profusely enacted.

Date: 2008/06/01 23:36:40, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2008,20:40)
I wasn’t banned for poking fun of Skatje or implying that she engages in that type of behavior.  I was banned  for relaying further support for my position in regard to morality and how that related to what Skatje had written on the topic of zoophilia.

That's not how PZ sees it:

Miscreant: ForTheKids, FtK
Crime: overwhelming creepiness
Sentence: Automatically Junked
Comments: I put up with this slimeball for a long time, since she rarely commented on Pharyngula; her wretched insinuations against my daughter, though, were too much. I think her pseudonym of "For the Kids" means she likes to prey on younger people with her lies and innuendo.

I think this may have been the kicker:

PZ, I fail to see how what Sal said can be considered "quote mining".

Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out. So what. You blog continually about the horrors of religion and it's affect on society, so don't go nuclear when someone considers you're daughter's views and how they might affect society.

Sal was being a jerk in his attempt at humor, but he was not quote mining.

I'll skip your repost of Skatje's post with the cherry-picked definition of condone tacked on, but then you added this: :      

Hon, it's more than obvious that Sal wasn't implying that Skatje advocated human-animal marriage. It was quite apparent that he was being flip, not quote mining. The post was listed under humor.

He also HT'd my post which was posted right before his, and I linked to Skatje's post in it's entirety. It's all in black and white and accurate as can be.

You'll have to try another angle to hang him on quote mining. Good luck.

and this:


You people are an interesting bunch, that's for sure.

I post her exact words which indicate that she condones bestiality, and you still call me a liar. Check out the comments in her post. She finds incest acceptable as well. Though she realizes that birth control would certainly have to be considered for obvious reasons.

Mercy, what a mess of a place this is...

then this:

"Do you see being unable to find a compelling argument for legal sanctions against something as "forgiving" or "overlooking" it?"

Dude, she doesn't have a problem with it. It's not her cup of tea, but she would have no problem with someone else enjoying the act. That is refered to as "forgiving or overlooking".

and this:

"However, I have...difficulty in accepting that you didn't know that your sentence seems to be saying that Skatje is all for it."

Good grief. Who exactly said Skatje is "all for it"? She obviously does not have a problem with it, and she does "condone" it. She said she's not into it, but it's totally acceptable for others. What is the big deal here? So what if she finds it acceptable to have sex with animals and relatives?

and this:

"Why not ask she if she condones bestiality?

Let her speak for herself."

Um....she already has?

Skatje replied:

I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it.

Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.

Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.

and then you persisted with:

"Ftk, give it up. Have you lost your mind? What do you hope to accomplish here? This is the stupidest stunt I've seen."

Hmmm...I'm sorry, but I'm missing the "stunt" part. I'm quoting facts here, Kristine. I don't hope to accomplish anything. I'm merely responding to PZ's accusation of quote mining. His daughter condones bestiality and incest. So what? Get over it.

and this:

Skatje, nobody is trying to make it look like anything. I provided your own words....nothing more. I have no idea what is wrong with my use of the word condone. The meaning is entirely accurate in this situation.

even though Skatje told you exactly what she did mean, after which PZ booted your ass back to Kansas, explaining it thusly:

FtK, what you and Slimy Sal are doing is called innuendo and slander. You want to insinuate that the children of Darwinists are immoral who will allow bestiality and incest to run rampant; you want to claim that atheism leads to heinous offenses against civilized culture.

You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance. That's all Skatje is advocating: that we can't lock people up for non-harmful, private acts. She only opposes bestiality as a crime against animals, and there are already statues in place to handle that.

But yes, you are incredibly creepy. So creepy that if ever I were unfortunate enough to meet either you or Slimy Sal in person I would not shake hands with you, unless there was a washroom handy and a bucket of disinfectant available.

It's the dungeon for you. Good riddance.

Does that clear it up for you a bit?

(edited: missing preposition)

Date: 2008/06/02 01:40:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2008,22:33)
Nope, it doesn't clear up a thing.

Yeah, can't say I'm surprised by that.  One does try though.

Date: 2008/06/02 03:53:02, Link
Author: didymos
Edited:  Moved to UnReasonable Kansans thread.

Date: 2008/06/02 18:04:09, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ June 02 2008,07:05)
Hey Ftk,

I believe the Bible condones incest.  Are you all for it?  Why or why not?

Lot and his daughters, anyone?  Anyone?

Isn't the standard explanation for Cain's wife "he had some sisters, they just never mentioned them"?  Speaking of Lot and his daughters, how 'bout offering to let his daughters be gang-raped?  Still, must've been a righteous man, because he was spared, right?

Date: 2008/06/02 18:06:02, Link
Author: didymos
Moved from BW:

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 02 2008,00:59)
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2008,00:33)
I do not tolerate acts of immorality

Could we have a list of what you consider immoral?
Yes, I believe that atheism leaves the question of what is or is not "moral" wide open.  It would fluxuate largely from one person to the next

So I guess you are saying that under you scheme what is "moral" is fixed in place and unchanging?

Them please educate this poor person right here and tell me what your "fixed" morals say is immoral?

Here, I have got you started:

Immoral =
1. Late term abortion
2. Beastality
3. Incest

anything else?

I'd like to add: does deceit count, and do you not understand that quote-mining, "joke" or not, is a form of deceit?  It's only acceptable when  it is absolutely clear from the context that you are altering the words and are doing so for comic effect.  Then people can laugh at the implication/meaning of the distorted quote and know it does not represent reality or the views of the one quoted.  Linking and hat-tipping does not count if you have not met those conditions, and is a cheap cop-out. It's also poor scholarship if you're attempting to make a serious point.  And, to be perfectly clear, I am not speaking of Sal in particular, though he certainly qualifies as deceitful under those conditions.  This also includes simply truncating quotes.  Unless the truncated version still accurately represents the writer's views or you clarify by paraphrasing any additional points that may alter the straightforward, obvious meaning, you are still engaging in deceit.

Date: 2008/06/03 06:41:29, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (William Wallace @ June 02 2008,22:52)
Den of vipers.  Deceit run amok.  Even the moderator is a lying bastard, sticky bathroom cruiser.

Rumors. Investigation into religious beliefs. Divorce.

Date: 2008/06/04 15:02:31, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (jeffox @ June 03 2008,21:06)
Say, Willy, stop on by here any time - we enjoy a good geek show now and again.

He just doesn't have the time, what with blogging furiously about the dangers and frustrations of dimmable compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Date: 2008/06/04 15:17:56, Link
Author: didymos
She's cherry-picking her definitions:


habitually stating one's opinions in a forceful or arrogant manner
dogmatically adv
dogmatism n

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Of course, you can tell from the context she actually meant the other, more common definition, which is, equally of course, what everyone except FtK picked up on and then picked on, quite justifiably.

Date: 2008/06/04 15:28:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2008,21:32)
Presently when you search Google images for 'tard sweater' Dumbski's photo doesn't come up. We need to do something about that.

Doesn't Google allow you to tag images with keywords now?  We could start a 'Tag the TARD' campaign.

Date: 2008/06/05 03:23:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2008,00:12)
Ah, the Griswolds.

Hol-i-day ro-o-o-oad....

That poor dog.....

(edited: forgot to quote)

Date: 2008/06/05 21:50:33, Link
Author: didymos
Has anyone ever tried to count how many times D'OL has declared the death of Darwinism/Materialism?


Tiptoeing won’t work, actually. The ID guys don’t really care what he says because Darwinism and materialism are toast so burnt that even a miracle couldn’t revive them, not that any miracle worker would bother, of course.

OK, what about....miraculous burnt toast?


But the Darwinists/materialists are accustomed to demanding total surrender from everyone for no particular reason, and I guess it becomes a habit or something.

OK, does this mean the Allies were Darwinists/Materialists because they demanded unconditional surrender from the Nazis?  Does D'OL ever say anything that makes sense?

Date: 2008/06/06 03:57:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Shirakawasuna @ June 05 2008,22:36)
Aww, too cowardly to stick to a topic and answer questions on his own thread, it seems all the troll can do is lob lame insults.

Hey, you used Willy's favorite insult!  Nice.

Date: 2008/06/07 23:29:18, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (blipey @ June 06 2008,07:02)
A point of clarification is needed Willy Wonka.

Are you defining liberals as godless or are you just being stupid?

He can do both.  He's certainly got the talent.

Date: 2008/09/14 08:02:45, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 14 2008,02:23)

Each site in the O'Leary blog farm now solicits a "suggested donation":
You like this blog? Feed the kitty! $10 suggested.

How much money do you think it would take to get her to stop blogging?

Just about the last thing I'd ever want to do is feed Denyse's kitty. *shudder*

Date: 2008/09/19 14:54:30, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2008,11:57)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,13:43)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,19:29)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 19 2008,11:14)
Lilliputian penis

That's a Shakespeare reference, right?

Don't be such a Yahoo. You'll be advocating eating children next.



Or this is:

Date: 2008/09/19 19:34:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 19 2008,16:53)
I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying.

I'm sure:  you're not.

Date: 2008/09/21 21:03:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 21 2008,10:42)
It's hard to believe, but BarryA has stepped into the same bucket of shit yet AGAIN:
3:17 pm

Jerry...As to your second question, the answer is also “yes.” Both Harris and Klebold were self consciously acting out their Darwinian ideas. They believed (or at least said they believed) they had evolved to a higher plane of existence and owed no more duty to respect the lives of their fellow students than they might owe to livestock (which is to say “none”).

I'll reprise an earlier response to a similar statement:

Barry: You are an attorney. Let's follow the implications of your argument.  

Because Eric Harris was obsessed with and cited concepts drawn from evolutionary theory as justification for his actions at Columbine, it follows that belief in evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") contributed to his horrible, violent acts.

Back during the Great Expelling, someone on Pharyngula thought they were being clever by bringing up Harris and Klebold (with a made-up quote demonstrating their "Darwinist" mindset, natch). So, I had this thought that maybe, just maybe,  a little research might shed some light on the issue.  After literally moments of painstaking examination of Google search results, I discovered some actual relevant sources:

Police report - Everything from school assignments to notebook doodling to fast food receipts to journals, et cetera - All sorts of stuff like actual scans of Harris' and Klebold's journals, transcribed version of same, archived web sites, pages about the victims, et cetera

In all of that (and I mean all: the police report alone is 946 pages) Harris was the only one who even used vaguely Darwinian language, and all it amounted to was 'I think some people deserve to die because I think they suck'.  He probably understood evolution even less than the average creationist, or so I gather from this snippet of a book report on Crichton's The Lost World:

In this book, I learned many different ideas for the theory of evolution, such as the theory that all life was created by an alien life form.  I Also learned about a theory that all life is meant to become extinct sometime.  Another theory I learned is that you can not study a habitat without having an effect on it.

He did like the Nazis though (despite also claiming in one document to hate racists) so you can see why TARDs like to try and connect him to Darwin.  Unfortunately, these journal excerpts are all he had to say about "Darwinism" (all grammar, spelling and punctuational offenses in the originals):

---Natural SELECTION!!!!!!!!!! God damn its the best thing that ever happened to the Earth.  Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms......but its all natural!! YES! I wish the government would just take off every warning label.  So then all the dumbasses would either severely hurt themselves or DIE! And boom, no more dumbasses. heh.

It would be great if god removed all vaccines and warning labels from everything in the world and let natural selection take its course. All the fat ugly retarded crippled dumbass stupid fuckheads in the world would die, and oh fucking well if a few of the good guys die to.

Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid fucking dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his fucking van out in plain sight and in the middle of fucking nowhere on a Frifuckingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. Fucker should be shot.

people that only know stupid facts that arent important should be shot, what fucking use are they. NATURAL SELECTION. KILL all retards, people w/ brain fuck ups, drug adics, people cant figure out to use a fucking lighter. GEEEAWD! people spend millions of dollars on saving the lives of retards, and why. I don't buy that shit like "oh hes my son though!" so the fuck what, he aint normal, kill him, put him out his misery. he is only a waste of time and money, then people say "But he is worth the time, he is human too" no he isnt, if he was then he would swalow a bullet cause he would realize what a fucking waste and burden he was.

Retards!!! They are a waste of time and money and effort and energy and space and lots of other stuff too! They need to DIE!!

but before I leave this worthless place, I will kill who ever I deam unfit for anything at all. especially life.

if humans were let to live how we would naturaly it would be chaos and anarchy and the human race wouldnt probably last that long, but hey guess what, thats how its supposed to be!!!!!

All I really get from that is homicidal rage, misanthropy, and a fixation on Nazi eugenics/racial policies, which he wrote an essay about -- the police report contains about a dozen copies of the thing.  Of course, in the essay he left out the bit about approving of Nazi Germany, but wasn't so shy in his journal:
and by the way, this nazi report is boosting my love of killing even more. like the early Nazi government, my brain is like a sponge, sucking up everything that sounds cool and leaving out all that is worthless, thats how Nazism was formed and thats how I will be too!


If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a "final solution" to the Jewish problem... kill them all. well incase you havent figured it out yet, I say, "K I L L M A N K I N D" no one should survive.


I love the nazis too... by the way, I fucking cant get enough of the swastika, the SS, and the iron cross. Hitler and his head boys fucked up a few times and it cost them the war, but I love their beliefs and who they were, what they did, and what they wanted. I know that form of gov couldn't have lasted long once the human equation was brought in, but damnit it sure looked good.

You can also see he didn't even really understand the concept of natural selection, which apparently was the extent of his evolutionary vocabulary.  

Honesty compels me to divulge that I didn't bother watching the home videos he and Klebold made, so maybe I missed out on some eloquent, well-supported oral arguments about how evolutionary theory really did underpin the whole wretched plan, but I doubt it.  I prefer to take Harris at his word when it comes to assigning blame anyway:
I know I could get shot by a cop after only killing a single person, but hey guess the fuck WHAT! I chose to kill that one person so get over it! Its MY fault! not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media. IT is MINE! go shut the fuck up!

Edited for formatting and to add:  Oh, yeah, and Klebold, the Nazi-loving Harris' partner-in-murder, was part Jewish and regularly attended a Lutheran church.  Figure that one out.

Date: 2008/09/23 00:07:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,20:16)
Sigh....serious disconnect here folks.  

Well, that's certainly accurate.  Maybe not in the way FTK thinks it is....

Date: 2008/09/26 04:42:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 26 2008,00:09)
Ask yourself: how did the full comment add anything at all to the four words of the first?

Well, it added some Shannon information, anyway.

Date: 2008/09/26 08:30:18, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2008,04:56)
Quote (didymos @ Sep. 26 2008,04:42)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 26 2008,00:09)
Ask yourself: how did the full comment add anything at all to the four words of the first?

Well, it added some Shannon information, anyway.

Your uncertainty was reduced?

Yes.  I'm now much better informed as to the exact depths of his TARDiosity.

Date: 2008/09/27 01:34:03, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 26 2008,20:26)
I googled trying to find some examples of duplications that weren’t caused by common ancestry and I found an article about fungi.  

So, looks like FTK didn't bother to actually read the abstract:


Phylogenetic analysis of conserved gene families in fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and brewer's yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae showed that gene duplications have occurred independently in the same families in each of these two lineages to a far greater extent than expected by chance. These species represent distinct lineages of the phylum Ascomycota that independently evolved a "yeast" life cycle with a unicellular thallus that reproduces by budding, and many of the genes that have duplicated independently in the two lineages are known to be involved in crucial aspects of this life cycle. Parallel gene duplication thus appears to have played a role in the independent origin of similar adaptations in the two species. The results indicate that using phylogenetic analysis to test for parallel gene duplication in different species may help in identifying genes responsible for similar but independently evolved adaptations.

Can someone remind me again what phylogenetic analysis is based on?

Date: 2008/09/29 04:21:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 28 2008,23:00)
DT has sensed the frustration settling in with the lack of action over at UD and has decided to liven things up with a bannination:


I would have thought, that the term “Drama Queen”, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed.

Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I’m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn’t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That’s why we call it the big tent. It’s not “Anything But Darwinism”. It’s design detection and it’s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don’t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye.

By the way, can someone tell me the correct protocol. Do posts like this belong on this thread, or over at the BlogCzar Years thread?

DaveTard is such a DramaTard.....

Date: 2008/09/30 23:53:21, Link
Author: didymos



4:18 pm

“He was elected to be the first *black* president of the Harvard Law Review”

I’d feel better if he were merely elected *president* of the Harvard Law Review. We are in an era of rampant affirmative action. This renders Obama’s presidency of the Law Review to be not much of an impressive resume point, at least in absence of any evidence about just what he achieved there.

It appears that since Obama just so happens to be black and in the absence of any evidence about just what he achieved there, Matteo is inclined to think Obama is probably just a dumb n....., erm, "unqualified" minority hire.  I, uh, almost wrote something else, but I'd rather not jump to any conclusions about Matty there, what with the paucity of evidence and all that.

Date: 2008/10/01 00:01:57, Link
Author: didymos




10:49 pm

TomRiddle is no longer with us.

Fafarman reveals the foul crime:


Larry Fafarman
11:40 pm


I don’t remember exactly what TomRiddle said but I don’t remember it as being all that terrible. I think he was right — you are politicizing this blog. The only thing about Obama that is relevant to this blog is his opposition to teaching the controversy.

Dave: proceed cautiously.  Banning the potentially axe-crazy guy could be trouble.

Date: 2008/10/01 04:07:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 30 2008,22:46)
Dave didn't heed your warning  



10:49 pm

Tard Alert!

TomRiddle is no longer with us.
Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again. I felt bad that I was taking time away from his holocaust denial work on his own blog. He gets irritable when he doesn’t get enough Jew-bashing time. I think he probably likes Osama because of Osama’s muslim background and connections.

I guess he edited his post.

The best part is, poor befuddled Larry got the ban-hammer for making a completely rational and accurate observation,  but the fact that he even attempted to publicly criticize DT serves only as further evidence of his estrangement from reality.  It's so...elegant.  A true work of TARD.

Date: 2008/10/01 04:11:11, Link
Author: didymos

McCain’s a military guy so this is like battle planning for him. He’s just keeping the Obama campaign enough off balance so its vulnerable.

TARD, like Hope, doth spring eternal.

Date: 2008/10/02 19:54:26, Link
Author: didymos
DaveTard fails and flails to justify:



2:49 pm

When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I don’t think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We don’t dispute facts. We dispute theory.

Yeah, but Dave, everyone else just says 'evolution'.  But let's tediously qualify:


microevolution does not have enough search volume for ranking


Um, OK.  Let's try again.  

micro-evolution does not have enough search volume for ranking

Crap.  OK, how about these?



Interesting, but not much support there for you.


Your terms - micro-evolution,macro-evolution - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.


   * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
   * Try different keywords.
   * Try more general keywords.
   * Try fewer keywords.
   * Try viewing data for all years and all regions.

Well, that didn't work.

Yes Dave,apparently you do need to tediously qualify.  Even the people in your lair can't agree on what the fuck you're actually talking about.  Besides, by tediously qualifying, you'll come off as slightly less idiotically wrong than you usually do.  Maybe not by enough to affect the outcome of a Google trend plot, but every little bit helps.  Especially in macroevolution evolution.

Date: 2008/10/02 23:04:00, Link
Author: didymos
Ah, I like this one. I'd overlooked it 'til now:




1:45 pm

Since atheists are promoting evolutionism more than ever, it is no surprise terms related to evolution will appear more than those relating to ID, specially considering the fact that they own the mainstream.

Using the little known ID-to-Reality function of Google Translate, I got this:

Since scientists are continuing to advance evolutionary theory by doing more research, just as they always have, it is no surprise that terms related to evolution will appear more than those relating to cdesign proponentsism*, especially considering the fact that no adequately informed individual, religiously inclined or not, takes that ID bullshit seriously.

*Not sure what happened there. Guess they haven't worked out all the bugs yet.  I wonder if they've considered using a GA?

Date: 2008/10/09 03:39:11, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,19:18)
Fuck.  You've changed your IP address 3 times today already you lunatic.

To expand on what OM said a bit:

Static and dynamic IP addresses:

Dynamic IP addresses are most frequently assigned on LANs and broadband networks by Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) servers. They are used because it avoids the administrative burden of assigning specific static addresses to each device on a network. It also allows many devices to share limited address space on a network if only some of them will be online at a particular time. In most current desktop operating systems, dynamic IP configuration is enabled by default so that a user does not need to manually enter any settings to connect to a network with a DHCP server. DHCP is not the only technology used to assigning dynamic IP addresses. Dialup and some broadband networks use dynamic address features of the Point-to-Point Protocol.

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,19:18)

Your only goal is to drive me nuts, and you've succeeded you demented little clown.

So, it's actually Blipey's fault she believes all this nonsense.  Until he started posting on her blog, she was apparently completely sane and rational.

Date: 2008/10/09 14:03:43, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 08 2008,21:16)
Craig Hazen of Biola University has a review panning "Religulous", saying that it showed in a small theater and didn't attract a crowd...

I did a brief search to see if Hazen had boasted about numbers for "Expelled", but didn't see a smoking gun. Hazen should be made aware that "Religulous" will be making the numbers for "Expelled" look weak by comparison.

In case anyone was, like me, wondering who Craig Hazen is and how he's connected to "Expelled":

"Expelled" Event Recap

Actor, economist, and social commenter Ben Stein visited Biola on March 27 to promote his new film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and to receive the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth.

The gym was packed with 1,500 people, scientists, and journalists. Clips from the film were shown with commentary from the film producers. Stein encouraged the audience that truth will overcome, and that the battle for Intelligent Design “begins tonight.”

Caroline Crocker, former Professor of Biology at George Mason University spoke on her “expulsion” from teaching simply because she asked her students to consider all the options. Guillermo Gonzalez spoke on being denied tenure at Iowa State University because of his work in the field of intelligent design and his book, The Privileged Planet.

President Corey presented the award to Stein. The award has previously been given to Phillip E. Johnson in 2004 and Antony Flew in 2006 and is presented through the university’s Masters of Arts in Science and Religion (MASR) program.

For more information on the MASR program, please visit [ ] The event was co-sponsored by the Christian Apologetics Program.

For more information on events like these, please visit

Ben Stein is a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator. He has acted and made guest appearances in numerous movies, TV series, and TV commercials. His part as the boring teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was recently ranked as one of the five most famous scenes in American film.

So, who's the director of Biola's M.A. Program in Christian Apologetics?

Craig Hazen:

Not only the director, but also the founder.

Here's the description of the MA Christian Apologetics program:

In addition to biblical and theological studies, you are able to draw from disciplines as diverse as history, philosophy, science, the humanities, social science, and law, all with an eye toward demonstrating the truth of the Gospel and the Christian world view beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's also considered part of the faculty of the very pro-ID MA Science and Religion program, the other department that sponsored the Expelled event, and the stated goal of which is:

The new Master of Arts degree in Science and Religion is designed to provide scientifically literate individuals with the essential background in theology, history, and philosophy that is necessary to integrate evangelical Christianity with modern science.

He was a speaker at their "Intelligent Design and the Future of Science" conference.

He's also the editor of the journal Philosophia Christi, and if you check the back issue contents, almost every issue includes articles about or directly related to ID, often by guys like Dembski, Johnson, and Behe.  Oh, and it's also where the Anthony Flew "conversion" interview got published.

Date: 2008/10/13 08:01:25, Link
Author: didymos
DaveTard shoots self in foot....again (bolding mine):


Bill Maher’s “Religulous” documentary a flop?

Bill Maher’s “Religulous” documentary mocking religion in the United States opening weekend box office revenues were 10% higher than “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. Our atheist Darwinian friends proclaimed that Expelled was a flop. By that standard so is Religulous.

Correction: That should read our atheist and theistic Darwinian friends… the common denominator is being in the tank for Darwin. Mibad.

OK, let's see what that handy little link you provided has to say:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Opening Weekend Theater Count: 1,052
Opening Weekend Revenues: $2,970,848

Opening Weekend Theater Count: 502
Opening Weekend Revenues: $3,409,643

Now, Dave we're going to review our percentages:

((3,409,643/2,970,848) -1) * 100 = 14.77003

Do you see what you did wrong there? Yes, that's right. Very good, Dave:  you indeed did fuck up simple arithmetic.

OK, now stay with me here Dave:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Total Time In Release:  56 days
Total Revenues: $7,690,545

Total Time In Release (so far): 12 days
Total Revenues (so far): $6,702,000

(6,702,000/7,690,545) * 100 = 87.14597
(12/56) * 100 = 21

Still with me?  No? OK, let me explain:  in just a bit more than one-fifth the time, Religulous has earned over four-fifths the money Expelled did during its entire run in theaters.  So far.  Oh, and most, if not all, of those ticket sales were actually paid for by the actual film-goers.


Correction: That should read our atheist and theistic Darwinian friends… the common denominator is being in the tank for Darwin. Mibad.

Correction:  Dave, you know you don't have any friends.  Stop making stuff up.

(Edited for some typographical stuff)

Date: 2008/10/14 21:12:21, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2008,01:08)
Oh, I'm just mocking Davetard here, not defending Religulous.

That was my intent as well. I just thought it was funny that DaveTard thought he was somehow retaliating for the drubbing Expelled got, and succeeded only in making Expelled look worse and himself a moron.  Again.

Date: 2008/10/15 17:06:10, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 15 2008,14:26)

Now, let me say this, although you all have turned this into an abiogenesis argument, it doesn't have to be.

WTF?  Chucky, did you not kick this whole thing off by linking to your "Argument From Impossibility"?  Do you recall what the first sentence of that was?  Apparently not:

I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain.

Now, that bolded part?  You know that there's another way to say that right?  It's fucking (that one's for Louis) abiogenesis.  So, there's no "you all" turning this into anything. It's exactly the discussion you wanted, and it's what you've gotten.  Your memory is either severely impaired or you're just dishonest.


PS.  JohnW, I'm not conceding a possible chemical pathway: I'm saying there is none.  The mere fact that the best chemists among us cannot find any possible chemical pathways for OOL, nor any possible biochemical pathways for OOA, speaks volumes about the "impossibility" of natural origins.

Ah yes: very trenchant indeed.  Just like generations of the best mathematicians among us failing to devise any proof of Fermat's Last Theorem spoke volumes about the impossibility of said proof.  Oh, wait, that's right: 357 years later a couple guys ended up proving it using completely novel techniques unknown to pre-20th century mathematics.

(edited for formatting, then again for grammar)

Date: 2008/10/16 14:25:51, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)
 It's clear, if you read the entire argument, that I'm not just talking about abiogenesis.

Implication:  but I am talking about it.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)

 Instead of saying merely that abiogenesis research was a dead end,  I'm saying that all research into random undirected origins - for any of life's systems - is a dead end.

Translation:  I'm nitpicking and complaining that the hyper-pathetic level of detail I demand has not been met when it comes to various sub-problems involved in OOL research, so therefore, abiogenesis cannot and did not happen.  

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)
I'm saying that all research into random undirected origins - for any of life's systems - is a dead end.  

Implication: not just life's systems, but life itself: you know, that abiogenesis stuff again.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)
 Now, instead of having to explain OOA to prove me wrong, all you have to do is explain the origin of one biosystem in any organism via a natural, undirected pathway.

No one has to prove you wrong, guy. That's just done for entertainment value.  You have to prove, or at least provide some evidence that:

a. You have any sort of clue as to what the fuck you're talking about, and
b. Your claims can be scientifically substantiated

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)

Either way, you're all still avoiding the issue.  None of you has any answers as to how life or any of its subsequent systems originated.

Translation: but I'm not talking about abiogenesis or anything.  What gave you that idea? Why are you people trying to make this all about that?

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2008,15:06)

Ah yes: very trenchant indeed.  Just like generations of the best mathematicians among us failing to devise any proof of Fermat's Last Theorem spoke volumes about the impossibility of said proof.  Oh, wait, that's right: 357 years later a couple guys ended up proving it using completely novel techniques unknown to pre-20th century mathematics

Well then, good luck!  Let me know when you have an answer.

You mean me personally?  Did you not get my point there?  Wait: never mind. Don't answer that.

(edited: verb tense)

Date: 2008/10/17 00:30:21, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 16 2008,18:49)
Wow, 7 out of 10 responses to Scooter's post on Joe the Plumber are from... Scooter!

By Nov 4, Scooter will be the only one left on UD, and he won't even notice.

Here's a good non-DaveTard one:



10:19 pm


People in my neighborhood avoid McCain signs and bumper stickers because they don’t want their home or car vandalized. That says something about liberal voters doesn’t it?

No, but it does suggest that people in your neighborhood are paranoiac morons.

Date: 2008/10/17 09:06:28, Link
Author: didymos
From Chuck's "argument", which is in no way about abiogenesis:


In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment that showed that amino acids could be formed by shooting electricity through a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. This experiment was hailed by many to be evidence that living things can arise from non-living elements. Unfortunately that's not how amino acids are formed in real living cells.

Guess what Chuck?  There's even more to ignore than ever before about Miller-Urey's amino score:

Now the cool part, though: the scientists who unearthed the old samples ran them through modern analysis techniques, which are a bit more sensitive than the tools they had in the 1950s. In 1953, Miller reported the recovery of five amino acids from his experiment. The reanalysis found twenty two amino acids and five amines in the vials. He was more successful than he knew!

I'm quite sure of course that you'll just bitch and moan some more that "Oh noes! Miller-Urey CAN'T happen in teh cell!!!!111111!!!!! You can't haz teh amino acids. Is teh impossible, foolish Evotards! "

Ah, but we can haz, because as Louis and now PZ have pointed out (and really, the reminder shouldn't be necessary to one such as your bad creationist self, what with your seemingly telepathy-assisted research deeds):

Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas.

I'm curious:  in your obviously deep and profound studies of abiogenesis (which we're not talking about) and other biological systems, did you mayhap chance upon this particular exercise in best-and-brightest head-scratching?

Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code
Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk and Mona Singh

To understand more fully how amino acid composition of proteins has changed over the course of evolution, a method has been developed for estimating the composition of proteins in an ancestral genome. Estimates are based upon the composition of conserved residues in descendant sequences and empirical knowledge of the relative probability of conservation of various amino acids. Simulations are used to model and correct for errors in the estimates. The method was used to infer the amino acid composition of a large protein set in the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. Relative to the modern protein set, LUA proteins were found to be generally richer in those amino acids that are believed to have been most abundant in the prebiotic environment and poorer in those amino acids that are believed to have been unavailable or scarce. It is proposed that the inferred amino acid composition of proteins in the LUA probably reflects historical events in the establishment of the genetic code.

If so, isn't it ever so interesting that it provides some possible steps in the establishment of the standard amino acids in the ancient genome?  Oh, but wait.  You simply must have overlooked that paper, based on this statement:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:46)
 It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible.

True enough, that was actually in reference to abiogenesis specifically, but since you're not talking about that, I figure it may just as well apply to this other stuff you mentioned:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 12 2008,11:43)

If you had, you'd know that the "answers" I'm talking about are answers to questions about how life's systems originated.  And yes, when it comes to origins, science has none (and never will).  That's my point.

I mean, the standard amino acids certainly qualify as one of "life's systems", wouldn't you agree?  

And then there's this from your original "argument":

I predict though that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail. This, and countless other origins, will forever remain an "Impossibility".

Any detail, you said.  Well, I say, looks like you've been answered in at least some detail on abiogenesis (with which, of course, you're actually totally not in the least concerned and you'd really rather we all stopped trying to make it all about that) and now the establishment of amino acids in the ancestral genome.  So, basically, you're just goddamn wrong.  Oh, and this?

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,12:03)

What I want is an undisputed (by the experts), verifiable (all chemical steps worked out), possible pathway from non-life to life, or (if you read my blog) from some plausible precursor to the present E. coli amino acid synthesis system for lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine.  There must be sufficient detail and the scientific community must reach a consensus that, 'yes, we've figured it out'.

Yeah, sorry: that goalpost-shifting crap doesn't fly.  You set the standard in your soi-disant argument.  It's been met.  But in the spirit of things, I'll make a prediction:  you'll never fucking admit it.

(edited: to strengthen some mockery)

Date: 2008/10/18 11:22:54, Link
Author: didymos



7:48 am

Common sense from a common citizen
Is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States? Less Goss

Well, let's see the sort of sense demonstrated by said citizen:

I do not know the truth about the Obama citizenship question. Neither do you. Perhaps Mr. Obama does not know the truth either, since he was very young at the time of his birth. But, someone knows where the truth lies. Do you believe that we, the voters, are entitled to know the truth regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship before the elections in November?

I can't figure out what's worse: that some guy actually wrote that with no apparent comic intent, or that DLH praises the man's "sense".

Date: 2008/10/18 12:22:37, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 17 2008,15:46)
Career advice:  Don't become a translator.  Your translations are way off the mark!

Hmm, OK, let's see.  Earlier you wrote:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,12:03)

What I want is an undisputed (by the experts), verifiable (all chemical steps worked out), possible pathway from non-life to life, or (if you read my blog) from some plausible precursor to the present E. coli amino acid synthesis system for lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine.  There must be sufficient detail and the scientific community must reach a consensus that, 'yes, we've figured it out'.

Now, let's see one of those poor translations again:

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 16 2008,12:25)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 16 2008,11:38)

Instead of saying merely that abiogenesis research was a dead end,  I'm saying that all research into random undirected origins - for any of life's systems - is a dead end.

Translation:  I'm nitpicking and complaining that the hyper-pathetic level of detail I demand has not been met when it comes to various sub-problems involved in OOL research, so therefore, abiogenesis cannot and did not happen.  

Yep.  Looks pretty accurate to me.  But apparently, you have trouble comprehending your own writing:


Hint: It's not that I'm not talking about abiogenesis, it's that I'm not just talking about abiogenesis.  If you want to only discuss abiogenesis, be my guest.  Let me know when the scientific community reaches a consensus on that.

OK, back yet again to your orginal "Argument From Impossibility", which you keep insisting we must not have read carefully enough, even though to all appearances that seems to be your problem:


I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain. I propose that this impossibility is a consequence of the infinite intelligence of the creator of life: if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

That's clearly about abiogensis/origin-of-life.  That's the stated topic.  Now, in what context does the E. Coli stuff come in?


I'll give an example:

All life utilizes amino acids for the production of proteins. Amino acids are a basic building block for all cellular life. But how do we explain the origins of this amino acid based system?

Ah, as an example.  Well, example of what?  Something, in this case "the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli ", that won't ever be explained, thereby making it impossible to explain the larger question of the OOL.  You want people to deal the E. Coli "challenge" only because you think it proves your larger point: "the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain."  The reason people keep going on about abiogenesis is because it's dead obvious that that's your actual target. Your "Argument from Impossibility" boils down to simply "If you can't even explain the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli to my satisfaction, in the amount of detail I have arbitrarily demanded, you'll never, ever have any hope of explaining the origin of life itself."  Also, we all know that if it wasn't  "the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli" serving as your example of  the "impossibility" you've assumed, it'd just be something else:  like the origin of the current code used in DNA or the origin of the citric acid cycle.  Or the bacterial flagellum.

No one here buys the idea that if we somehow met your E. Coli "challenge", you would suddenly decide all those "countless other origins" had ceased being impossible to explain.

Date: 2008/10/19 02:29:06, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 18 2008,17:09)
Forgive me for not supporting your delusion that somehow you know more about what I meant than I did when I wrote it.

Yes, well, you never actually demonstrated that I don't know what you meant better than you do (or rather, I should say, that you pretend not to mean what it's obvious you really do).  Not that I'm surprised in the least by said failure.

There's really no point talking to a person like you.

Come now, Daniel: be specific.  What kind of person am I like, specifically, and how do you know your judgment is correct? Why am I wrong about you? What the hell were you really talking about?  Are you just so poor a writer that everyone here misunderstood your actual point, whatever the hell that was supposed to be?  

Breathlessly not awaiting your reply....

Edited: unnecessary quotation marks.

Date: 2008/10/19 03:09:29, Link
Author: didymos
All the politicking is starting to attract detractors:



12:24 am

If the anti ID crowd needed any further evidence for when they assert that ID is a political movement, they will soon get it from all the US right wing politics so brazenly displayed here.

To be pro ID does not equate with being right or left wing. Let’s make that clear in the intro to posts like this one. I know BO has no time for ID and I think that alone is where we should address our points.

Just a view from Australia.






1:02 am

Does this blog actually discuss ID any more? Given all the purely political, anti-Obama/pro-McCain posts recently I’m beginning to wonder.

Enjoy them while they last.

Date: 2008/10/19 09:49:27, Link
Author: didymos
More paranoid drippings from deric davidson:


9:31 am

Obama, Pelosi and Reid in charge of the US of A. Think about that. This would surely be the most left wing government and executive ever. What would be the future of ID in such a socio-political environment? The push to drive ID into obscurity will be given a considerable boost no doubt.

It's sort of cute how he thinks ID isn't already doomed to obscurity, or actually, already in obscurity.

Date: 2008/10/20 18:11:55, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 20 2008,15:11)
oh give me a home, where jack krebs can roam
and the tards can comment all day

Where often is heard that "Darwinist" word
And the logic is lousy all day....

       Home, Home on the Tubes!
       Where the Tards can comment all day
       Where often is heard that "Darwinist" word
       And the logic is lousy all day

Where the Tard is so pure, the mistakes so free,
The arguments so not-even-right,
That I would not exchange my Home on the Tubes
For that cafeteria so bright.


Oh, give me the texts and the skill of the shills
And untapped quotes all 'round;
Yes, give me a chair where a quote-miner can slice
And my notion of proof can be found.


How often have I seen a structure so right,
(Images cribbed from a materialist or two)
Then stood here amazed and asked as I gazed
If chance and necessity really would do.


Oh, I love to bloviate on this dear blog of ours
The "Darwinists" I love to hear scream,
And I love these devoted and pre-TARDed flocks
That praise the eternally unseen.


Oh, give me a hand pounding non-materialist sand
Here at our Home on the Tubes
Where the morphodyke Gran, she writes like a man
And we're always tricking the rubes.


Date: 2008/10/21 01:53:17, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2008,17:34)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2008,19:11)
Oh, give me a hand pounding non-materialist sand
Here at our Home on the Tubes
Where the morphodyke Gran, she writes like a man
And we're always tricking the rubes.

Well, the meter is a little off, if that's the word I want, but otherwise outstanding.

Yeah, unlike the universe, it definitely lacks fine-tuning.  But then I only spent about six minutes on it, not six days..... :p

Date: 2008/10/21 14:02:51, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 21 2008,11:23)

I'm still trying to find something on the net that describes the evolution of the Krebs cycle, but have had no luck so far.  I might have to go to the library and try to find the paper you cited.

Oh, come on Danny. That's pathetic.  I know you're all ignoring me and stuff, but try this link to Google Scholar, the results of a search on "Krebs cycle evolution".

Date: 2008/10/21 14:44:57, Link
Author: didymos
Someone over at ERV's noticed this in the poll code:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<answer votes="4" barColor="#66CC33">Yes</answer>
<answer votes="1" barColor="#66CC33">No</answer>
<answer votes="2" barColor="#66CC33">Maybe</answer>

57/14 = 4.0714286
29/14 = 2.0714286

So, so sad.  In other Expelled news, I left this comment over at ERV's:

Did anyone notice the animated ad for Expelled merch in the upper right corner? According to that, Berlinski is going to be doing Expelled: The Book. Great: all the vacuity of Expelled combined with all the smug pomposity and tortured prose of David Berlinski. Guaranteed to be the bestselling book of whatever genre in some year.

Funnily enough, if you go to the store, Expelled: The Book has either been expelled or currently fails to exist.

Date: 2008/10/21 18:52:34, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 21 2008,10:58)

BTW, I'll translate your example into English when you translate this into English:

Well, you can drop the leading zero: literally adds nothing.  Converting straight to decimal yields 316643114034118206794, but using (as seems appropriate) scientific notation, it's 3.16643114034118206794 * 10^20.

In English, as requested:

Three point one six six four three one one four zero three four one one eight two zero six seven nine four times ten raised to the twentieth power.

But if you prefer things, as you seem to, non-scientific:

Short scale ("American"):

Three-hundred sixteen quintillion, six-hundred forty-three quadrillion, one-hundred fourteen trillion, thirty-four billion, one-hundred eighteen million, two-hundred and six thousand, seven hundred and ninety-four

Long scale ("British"):

Three-hundred sixteen trillion, six-hundred forty-three thousand-billion (billiard), one-hundred fourteen billion, thirty-four thousand-million (milliard), one-hundred eighteen million, two-hundred and six thousand, seven hundred and ninety-four

Date: 2008/10/22 03:31:40, Link
Author: didymos
They re-rigged it.  New "results" show up as:

Yes 61%
No 28%
Maybe 11%

The poll code now looks like:

Code Sample

<answer votes="72" barColor="#66CC33">Yes</answer>
<answer votes="30" barColor="#66CC33">No</answer>
<answer votes="13" barColor="#66CC33">Maybe</answer>

If you notice, the displayed results add up to 100, whereas the rigged weightings add up to 115, so there's some other code to "massage the data".

Date: 2008/10/22 04:18:36, Link
Author: didymos
Hmm, interesting.  If you view the Expelled site's source, you'll find this URL in there:

So, I went there and its code read:

Code Sample

<answer votes="83" barColor="#66CC33">Yes</answer>
<answer votes="38" barColor="#66CC33">No</answer>
<answer votes="15" barColor="#66CC33">Maybe</answer>

I then cleared my cache and deleted the relevant cookies, and went back to get this:

Code Sample
<answer votes="84" barColor="#66CC33">Yes</answer>
<answer votes="40" barColor="#66CC33">No</answer>
<answer votes="15" barColor="#66CC33">Maybe</answer>

then did a reload and found it'd changed again to 85/41/15 and then yet again almost immediately to 86/41/15, where it's now stayed for awhile. Back over at the domain the results changed slightly to 61/29/11 (so it now adds up to 101%), yet their copy of the poll.xml file is still at 72/30/13.  

However, over at ERV's, a couple hours ago, a commenter noted getting these results:
Looks like they've fiddled with it now.

Yes 62%
No 26%
Maybe 12%

refreshing to

Yes 63%
No 26%
Maybe 11%

Posted by: noncarborundum | October 22, 2008 2:11 AM

I now have no idea what's actually going on there, other than the fact that it's still rigged like a seven-masted schooner.

ETA: the ratio math (rounded off):
current poll "results"
61/11 = 5.55
29/11 = 2.64

poll.xml at
72/13 = 5.54
30/13 =  2.31

poll.xml at
86/15 = 5.73
41/15 =  2.73

Date: 2008/10/22 05:49:18, Link
Author: didymos
OK, so checked in again.  It is actually counting votes now, or so it appears anyway:

poll.xml at
Code Sample

<answer votes="88" barColor="#66CC33">Yes</answer>
<answer votes="47" barColor="#66CC33">No</answer>
<answer votes="16" barColor="#66CC33">Maybe</answer>

Total votes = 151

Yes: 88/151 = .583
No: 47/151 = .311
Maybe: 16/151 = .106

Displayed results at

Yes: 58%
No:  31%
Maybe: 11%

ETA: So, looks like this may be a case where a variant form of Hanlon's Razor can be applied:  "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

ETAA: Someone over at ERV's figured it out too by different means. Somewhat earlier as well:

I probed about in their .swf file with a decompiler and found they're using a piece of Flash/XML/PHP called DesignersPoll to operate that poll (this). DesignersPoll stores the results in an XML file on the server; this would be the poll.xml file that Thomas and Tophe have pointed out is extremely suspect. The 4/1/2 "voting" split in the earlier file gives us the 57%/14%/29% results of earler, and the 72/30/13 must give us the results it's currently displaying.

I'd be charitable enough to go by that old "malice/incompetence" adage and say the initial problem was merely an oversight; they put a few votes in as test data but failed to give the polling software permission to write to the XML file on their server (explaining the unchanging results), but the fact that they have clearly stepped in and manually changed the number of votes stored in poll.xml while still not fixing the problem that prevents the poll actually tallying real votes raises a big red flag in the "malice" column for me. Duplicitous through-and-through.

Posted by: MPG | October 22, 2008 6:35 AM

Date: 2008/10/22 19:22:06, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 22 2008,11:52)
BTW, why do you think I'm ignoring you?

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 18 2008,17:09)
There's really no point talking to a person like you.

ETA: link

Date: 2008/10/22 23:29:27, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 22 2008,20:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 22 2008,21:50)
I find it almost impossible to respond to that kind of thing without violating every rule of civil discourse we want to maintain here. So I'll just keep silent. I'm sure after 7300 comments people here could not only imagine what I would say about those people, but they're rather tired of hearing it.  :D

i don't have a clue.  enlighten me?

Yes, yes:  I too am in need of enlightenment.....

Date: 2008/10/23 14:28:22, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2008,11:17)
that was a dumb joke. gf told me a similar dumb joke yesterday.

What's blue and tastes like red paint?

answer written in reverse so it isn't immediately spoiled: !tniap eulb

Does she watch Mythbusters?  That joke was in yesterday's episode.

Date: 2008/10/23 14:30:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 23 2008,10:50)
Frost122585, proving Poe's law on a daily basis.1 and 2

E.T.A: That's a hard does of reality.

Frost is under suspicion:



1:51 pm

Frost, do you support this website or not?

Date: 2008/10/24 21:51:44, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2008,18:40)
Hopefully this one will cause fewer problems for people, plus I've added a couple of convenience features.

Just one minor gripe:  once it fills up the text box with strings, it doesn't autoscroll, and if you try to scroll to the latest string it keeps jumping back to the top.  I tested it in both Konqueror 3.5.10 and Firefox 3.0.3, and both behave identically.

Date: 2008/10/25 00:13:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 24 2008,20:51)
ETA: I think it is fixed.

Yep, fixed.


Gen. 34, 24 letters, PATHETIC LEVEL OF DETAIL
24 24 Matched! in 34 generations.

Date: 2008/10/25 19:21:05, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 25 2008,12:11)
How about I provide a list of papers that generally support a more saltational form of evolution (some more so than others) or which paint a picture of genetic design (as opposed to accidental evolution).

Ooh, shocker:  generally supporting and painting a picture is A-OK when something seems to favor the ideas Daniel likes, but is completely out of the question when it doesn't.


 Like your examples, none of these papers by themselves fully encapsulate the position I favor, (and some are not written from an ID perspective), but taken together they each constitute one move in an extraordinarily complex, empirically driven discussion of multiyear duration which occurred within a community of scientists with each representing a "click" in the giant ratchet towards a more saltational, designed and directed evolutionary theory.

So, if you're now co-opting (how Darwinian of you) RB's standards, you must think they're fundamentally good standards.  And since modern evolutionary theory meets those standards nigh-infinitely better than your mostly unspecified and vague ideas about evolution, I'd say it's kind of hypocritical to continue rejecting work that has been done within and which confirms MET's explanatory framework.  In detail.

Date: 2008/10/28 14:34:00, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2008,11:12)
I'll give an example: lets say you are exploring an alien planet and find no evidence for life anywhere, no bones, no fossils, nothing.  You do find however complex structures that would require extensive knowledge of engineering and physics to build.  

Complex structures, eh?  OK, what are they?  Bacterial flagella?  A Ford Model T?  A watch in a heath?  "WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE" etched on a local cliffside?  

Since you specified "no evidence for life anywhere"  we can skip the flagella. But the fact is, the complex structure itself, whatever the hell you mean by that other than "obvious product of intelligence", is in itself evidence of life.

(Edited for clarity)

Date: 2008/10/29 19:30:18, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 29 2008,10:59)
Life ain't like that.  Life gets more complex the closer we look and less easily explained by means of natural processes.

So, to sort of drive home what others have tried to say but which apparently went right past you, you mean to say that even when we got down to the quantum level, the individual electrons would appear to have no explanation by means of natural processes?

Fuck.  So much for the vaunted precision of QED.

Date: 2008/11/01 01:10:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,21:25)
What? It sounded like you said there's a thread on "Liberal fascism", on a forum on which political discussions aren't allowed?

When did "liberal" and "fascism" cease to be political terms?


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty O'Leary said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Date: 2008/11/02 20:45:59, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 02 2008,09:50)

Your "answers" to mMy questions are mostly vacuous.

It's been suggested you read for comprehension.  I'd also like to add a suggestion that you write for accuracy.  The changes above are a good start.

Date: 2008/11/06 02:08:21, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 05 2008,15:49)

Translation:  "I can't won't bother to answer any of Daniel's questions because I he have has no idea how evolution made anything or science in general works - so I'll make fun of him instead."

Danny Boy, again: write for accuracy.  The changes above are a good start.

Date: 2009/01/20 11:37:49, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2009,05:13)
Oh, fer Chrissakes. Uncommonly Denyse on Dirac. Well, not Denyse on Dirac, Denyse on a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a book about Dirac, Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac. Well, not Denyse on a review of a book about Dirac, Denyse on an acquaintance on a review of a book about Dirac:
In his review for The Sunday Times (January 11, 2009) of a new book on the life of quantum physicist Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius by Graham Farmelo of the Science Museum of London, John Carey begins by noting that Paul Dirac was the greatest British physicist since Newton:

They've changed something in the Matrix.

Her stuttering post concerns Dirac's economy of words, his use of "a deliberately mystifying private language." Inspired, Denyse tries her hand:
The Darwinists should, for example, be writing fiction, along the lines of “goo = zoo = you = poo, purely by accident!”, for example.

For example.

My favorite bit of Dirac-lore was Pauli's line:

Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'

Date: 2009/01/30 01:32:09, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 29 2009,18:19)
I always thought Steve Fuller looked a lot like Rick Moranis (of "Spaceballs," "Honey I Shrunk the Kids," etc.)
Compare and contrast:

That's not possible.  Rick Moranis is awesome.  Fuller is not.  Therefore, he cannot resemble Rick Moranis,  even if he does kinda look like him.  That's just a rule.

ETA:  How 'bout Bogdanovich?

Date: 2009/01/30 01:40:36, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 29 2009,17:49)
(* No offense to people who have actual PTSD, which is a very serious illness. The lack of attention we pay to PTSD and lack of care and resources we give to its sufferers is a national crime. That said, I do think there are some similarities. Reading the tard can make you angry, depressed, and abusive, though obviously not remotely as bad as the experience of being in combat.)

My dad has PTSD by way of Vietnam.  I am both amused and unoffended on his behalf.

Date: 2009/01/30 03:20:35, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2009,00:53)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2009,02:40)
My dad has PTSD by way of Vietnam.  I am both amused and unoffended on his behalf.

Please don't be offended. I believe PTSD is a very serious problem and I think we have to treat it much more aggressively than we have.

No seriously.  I'm neither offended nor unamused.  My dad wouldn't mind either, considering he thought John Goodman's lunatic vet was the funniest thing in The Big Lebowski.

Date: 2009/01/30 03:41:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2009,01:17)
While I never saw combat, I had some friends in the Navy and the 82nd who did see combat, and ...I'm not even going to talk about the system. I'd just start yelling and wouldn't know when to stop.

My dad's training was all armor, and he was commissioned as such. Then they decided he'd work out great as an infantry officer, mainly because they needed a bunch of new ones for the tail end of Tet.  He pretty much had to buy an infantry officer's field manual to read on the way over.  I actually have the thing.

As it turned out, he was pretty good at it.  They offered to promote him if he stayed in country, but they wanted to stick him right back into a combat posting, but his enlistment was up and he'd had enough of that. They'd actually kept him in combat for almost a full year, instead of the standard 6 months.   I'm sure they could have made him stay, but for whatever reason they let him out.  

If the policy back then had been to keep units together, and he could have kept command of his platoon, he's told me he probably would have stayed, but they wanted to reassign him to a completely different division, and a lot of his men and the other officers he knew had rotated out by then anyway, so as far as he was concerned, he was done.

ETA:  Which worked out for me, as I otherwise wouldn't exist.

Date: 2009/01/30 07:19:57, Link
Author: didymos
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - stevestory]

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2009,20:00)
Actually, I fantasize about being a 14-year old girl and doing myself.

Of course, Louis is running the video camera.


Date: 2009/02/02 00:08:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 01 2009,06:40)
Davey really, really means it!  
If the universe began with an amount of mass energy different that what it was by a single grain of sand then it would have either collapsed under its own weight without forming stars & galaxies or it would have inflated too fast for stars & galaxies to form. There’s enough mass in the universe for approximately 10^60 grains of sand. If one more or less we wouldn’t be here to number them.

And blithely continues wading in the intellectual kiddie pool of the anthropic principle:  
Unless and until a law is discovered that limits a universe to some range of particle numbers we have a very, very low probability of having just the right number for us to be here talking about it.

Davey, let me make this simple enough that even you can understand.  If the universe didn't allow us to exist, we wouldn't be here to discuss it, so you can't draw any conclusions . . . nah, that one is far too sophisticated for you.  How about, you're like a puddle amazed at how well its hole fits it . . . darn, even that one requires some basic logic to grasp.

I apologize, it appears that dragging your enormous backside out of the pseudo-philosophical pigsty in which you're wallowing is beyond my teaching abilities.

What is it with DaveTard and gravity? I mean , he obviously fails to understand a great many things , but gravity really seems to do a number on the poor benighted bastard.

Date: 2009/02/03 17:40:16, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 03 2009,01:35)
Wow - bitter?

Dr. Dr. Dembshit sez:


That’s right, for questioning Darwin and pointing out the racist implications of his theory (implications that Darwin himself drew in his DESCENT OF MAN), Ben Stein is now an affront to science.




8:28 am

It may have something to do with these comments on an interview with Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network.


Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.


It’s just possible that these feelings could be interpreted as anti-science.

Date: 2009/02/03 18:47:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Rrr @ Feb. 03 2009,06:07)
Enquiring minds want to know FTK. Which way are you flouncing today?


WHOA now Louis. Watch where you step. You are not insinuating that F the Kids is one of those bi-flouncies, are you? If nothing else, think of the poor beebee geese!

I heard she likes to flounce with the baby geese. Or condones it.

Date: 2009/02/03 19:07:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 02 2009,22:35)
What a lie....just wow.  I never accused Skatje of engaging in bestiality.  Because of your wording, that is what you have led readers to believe.

My apologies - my memory is obviously hazy on the details of the incident.  What exactly did you accuse Skatje of (with links :-)) - I'm happy to go back and correct what I wrote.

See FTK?  That's how you respond to issues of accuracy.  Got that?  Write it down!

Date: 2009/02/04 17:33:09, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 04 2009,07:19)
Quote (didymos @ Feb. 03 2009,19:07)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 02 2009,22:35)
What a lie....just wow.  I never accused Skatje of engaging in bestiality.  Because of your wording, that is what you have led readers to believe.

My apologies - my memory is obviously hazy on the details of the incident.  What exactly did you accuse Skatje of (with links :-)) - I'm happy to go back and correct what I wrote.

See FTK?  That's how you respond to issues of accuracy.  Got that?  Write it down!

Maybe Bob just made an unlying assumption. :p

WTF? When did PZ let her out of the dungeon over there? Man, I need to pay more attention.....

Edit: OK, I really need to pay more attention. Old comment.

Date: 2009/02/13 01:09:52, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (khan @ Feb. 12 2009,18:18)
Total Tard

As Darwin himself realized, the fossil stratum corresponding to the beginning of the Cambrian geological period was potentially inimical to his hypothesis. In a blink of geological time,now dated by various means to 542 million years ago, all of the advanced body types of "modern" multicellular organisms suddenly and simultaneously appear.

How can someone be this ignorant and remember to breathe?

Thank evolution for the brain stem.  Or, umm, in this case, not?

Date: 2009/04/20 07:03:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 20 2009,00:16)
Apparently free speech is only supposed to be valued in the abstract, or when people pony up accolades to design. Otherwise, O'Leary isn't best pleased:


But things got worse. Meyer's article attracted the attention of the Panda's Thumb blog. If you want to see the possible demise of science, go to the Panda's Thumb blog, a site dedicated to protecting Darwinism that has abused ID-friendly scholars in such unscholarly terms that viewing the Thumb can feel like watching thousands of years of civilization rushing down the drain.

Hey, lookie there!  Dense is actually good at conveying something via prose: hysterical histrionics that'd shame Chicken Little.

Date: 2009/04/20 07:06:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 20 2009,01:21)
How's this sound?  A death match between kairosfocus and bornagain77?  Chain each of them to a keyboard, any posting less than 10,000 words is an automatic forfiture and whoever's still writing when the other contestant has slid to the floor wins.  




Do it for the children!

Only if they're of the feral variety:

Date: 2009/04/20 17:52:13, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 20 2009,13:30)
I don't think BarryA know what he's writing:
Don’t tell me Harris was crazy, that he was not motivated by anything rational. Just the opposite is true. He thought long and hard about the logical consequences of the ideas he had been taught. He reached conclusions – evil conclusions to be sure, but not irrational – and he acted on those conclusions.

Does he really think it is rational to murder schoolchildren?  Sorry, Barry.  You'll have to explain that one in more detail.

Hmm.  Should we follow precedent and tell the Department of Homeland Security that Barry Arrington thinks multiple murder is rational?

All one needs to do is head here:

and read the actual writings of both Klebold and Harris. Neither was particularly rational, nor did they, as I've written about here before, apparently have any real understanding of evolution as a whole, and not even of natural selection, giving them something in common with BarryA (who was the occasion for my earlier post too, hard as that may be to believe of such a conscientiously rigorous intellectual like good ol' Barry).

For teh lulz, here's the entirety of what Harris had to say about NS and evolution in the sources there:

From a book report on Crichton's The Lost World:

In this book, I learned many different ideas for the theory of evolution, such as the theory that all life was created by an alien life form.  I Also learned about a theory that all life is meant to become extinct sometime.  Another theory I learned is that you can not study a habitat without having an effect on it.

and selections from his journals:

---Natural SELECTION!!!!!!!!!! God damn its the best thing that ever happened to the Earth.  Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms......but its all natural!! YES! I wish the government would just take off every warning label.  So then all the dumbasses would either severely hurt themselves or DIE! And boom, no more dumbasses. heh.

It would be great if god removed all vaccines and warning labels from everything in the world and let natural selection take its course. All the fat ugly retarded crippled dumbass stupid fuckheads in the world would die, and oh fucking well if a few of the good guys die to.

Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I'm free, I can't deprive a stupid fucking dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his fucking van out in plain sight and in the middle of fucking nowhere on a Frifuckingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. Fucker should be shot.

people that only know stupid facts that arent important should be shot, what fucking use are they. NATURAL SELECTION. KILL all retards, people w/ brain fuck ups, drug adics, people cant figure out to use a fucking lighter. GEEEAWD! people spend millions of dollars on saving the lives of retards, and why. I don't buy that shit like "oh hes my son though!" so the fuck what, he aint normal, kill him, put him out his misery. he is only a waste of time and money, then people say "But he is worth the time, he is human too" no he isnt, if he was then he would swalow a bullet cause he would realize what a fucking waste and burden he was.

Retards!!! They are a waste of time and money and effort and energy and space and lots of other stuff too! They need to DIE!!

but before I leave this worthless place, I will kill who ever I deam unfit for anything at all. especially life.

if humans were let to live how we would naturaly it would be chaos and anarchy and the human race wouldnt probably last that long, but hey guess what, thats how its supposed to be!!!!!

Harris did proclaim a fondness for Nazis, but mostly just because they killed a bunch of people.  I.e., he thought they were badass and he wanted to be badass too, because he was an angry, highly irrational and screwed-up kid with power fantasies running amok through his head.  He never once connected Nazis to his poor understanding of NS in those journals, as it happens, nor did he ever explicate what if any religious opinions he held.  Klebold (who interestingly enough was Jewish by descent and Lutheran by upbringing) never even brought NS or evolution or atheism up at all in any of the material available on that site, though he seemed to believe in some sort of afterlife and deity:


society is tightening it's grip on me, & soon I & [edited] will snap, he will have on revenge on society, & then be free, to exist in a timeless sourceless place of pure hapiness


(Heheh) I will be free one day, in the land of purity & my happiness, I will have a love, someone who is me in a way. Someday... Possibly thru this life, maybe another, but it will happen...



everyone else - "this
book cannot be opened,
some supernatural force
blocks it to common force



Not a christian, jesus, mt. sanai, Abraham, David, bible gay shit god, but a true controller of existence. [chaos/fate symbol] has to make us this way.

and used a lot of quasi-pantheistic religious language in his journals in general (most of which were really about some girl he was infatuated with).

Maybe someone with an account that works/isn't trapped in moderation purgatory over there would like to educate Barry a little bit (i.e., I'm too lazy to open yet another one).

(edited for stuff, re-edited to address Barry's atheism angle)

Date: 2009/04/21 16:10:03, Link
Author: didymos
Dear Abbie,

I hope you can help me, as my situation is dire.  There're just all these people who won't shut up about 'Intelligent Design' and 'AIDS doesn't exist' and 'Vaccines are eeeevil'.  If you could please smite them verbally, and use lots of lolspeak while doing so, that'd be teh awesum....

Oh, and Happy Belated Birfday.

Date: 2009/06/08 01:11:47, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 07 2009,21:53)
More than just a reprinting of a near-forgotten work, Michael A. Flannery places Wallace in historical context. Flannery exposes Charles Darwin's now-famous theory of evolution as little more than a naturalistic cover for an extreme philosophical materialism borrowed as a youth from Edinburgh radicals.

obviously "more than just a reprinting" was the part that didn't even need to be said.  what is interesting is "how much more" and fer that it all depends on how you define shit like that.  

as usual "naturalist materialist" is levied as a slur rather than as what with respect to science is called 'empiricist'.

This is juxtaposed by his sympathetic account of what he calls Wallace's intelligent evolution, a thoroughly telcological alternative to Darwin's stochastic processes.

they misspelled it on amazon not me.  it would be funnier if it wasn't part of a really stupid sentence.  when they say "more than just a reprint" i imagine a reprint with this bullshit scrawled on top of it with a magic marker or crayon or sumtin

Though based upon very different formulations of natural selection, the Wallace/Darwin dispute as presented by Flannery shows a metaphysical clash of worldviews coextensive with modern evolutionary theory itself - design and purpose versus randomness and chance. This book will be of value to scholars and students alike seeking to understand the historical and philosophical roots of a controversy that still rages today.

More than a reprint?  I'll fucking say. Just look at those little warning phrases I bolded.  This deserves an award for "Special Achievement in Quote-Mining" or something.  You just know most people will skim the actual Wallace stuff, if they even look at it at all, and rely on Flannery's "context" (or secondhand summaries/cut-and-paste jobs from anti-evolution "sources").   We can probably all look forward to a flowering of the "Wallacean" sub-genre of creationist urban myth.  Oh well, maybe some good TARD will be one of the byproducts.  Much more likely is that Talk.Origins will be needing a new FAQ in the near future.  You know what'd be kinda fun though?  Going through the Wallace text and then attempting to predict what bits Flannery's latched onto (implicitly or otherwise) and just how egregiously he's distorted them.

Date: 2009/06/08 02:02:53, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 07 2009,23:12)
By the way, I am pretty certain that it was Newton who wrote Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Godel is best known for his incompleteness theorem and for having advanced the laughable notion that the General Theory of Relativity allows time travel via a closed spacetime curvature.

Closed Timelike Curves are laughable?  Since when? Sure, it seems reasonably likely they don't actually happen, but GR definitely includes them.  Gödel did have some rather loopy ideas, but that wasn't one of them and plenty of physicists, including Einstein himself (who was rather freaked out by it), were anything but dismissive of it.  Hell, multiple people have written non-fiction books on the implications raised by CTCs.

(edited for more umlaut and stuff)

Date: 2009/06/08 02:21:45, Link
Author: didymos
You know, someone with a sock should disabuse Mapou of his Gödel misconceptions.  Yes, the man had problems and especially so at the end of his life, but this crack kinda pisses me off:

One can always identify a crackpot as soon as they claim that time travel is possible. It never fails.

Sorry, dude, but until you single-handedly freak out the vast majority of mathematicians on the planet with a few short pages and a remarkably simple mathematical technique, you just don't get to be dismissive towards Gödel. Especially when what you're being dismissive about happens to be something the man got dead fucking right.

[edited back because I wasn't paying attention to what the hell I was doing]

Date: 2009/06/08 03:22:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (keiths @ June 08 2009,00:44)

Mapou [aka Louis Savain] is a few ears shy of a bushel. Here's a list of "spacetime crackpots" from his website:
Stephen Hawking
Kip Thorne
John A. Wheeler
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
John Gribbin
Carl Sagan
John Kramer
J. Richard Gott III
Hans Moravec
David Deutsch
Igor Novikov
John Baez
Ronald Mallett
Jack Sarfatti
Kurt Gödel
Paul Davies
Albert Einstein

Yeah, I went over there.  Here's what I found hilarious:  John Baez. Yeah, that John Baez. He actually put the creator of the Crackpot Index on his list of crackpots.
I'm currently scoring Mapou on the index.  Results forthcoming.  Preliminary assessment:  Louis Savain doesn't savoir jack shit about shit.

Date: 2009/06/08 08:06:19, Link
Author: didymos
[quote=Zarquon,June 08 2009,02:17]Louis Savain spent years trolling sci.physics. He's one of the reasons for the crackpot index in the first place.[/quote]

Ah, yes.  That would explain my results:

Anyway, as I noted above, I took a little trip to his site.  Found out Mapou is just as full of paranoia and apparently willful incomprehension about physics as he is about biology.  From his page "exposing" those dastardly cult-like physicists practicing their dogmatic, old, spacetime religion (wow, that's an oddly familiar notion.  Now where have I encountered this sort of thing before...) who have duped the world regarding time (and space, but mostly time...I think). He even does the whole quote-mining routine, and manages to abuse poor Karl Popper in there too (more than once), plus he really seems to think that there's some sort of time-travel "religion" that's parasitized modern physics.  Awesome.

Now, the best part, as I also noted above: he calls out John "Crackpot Index" Baez for being a crackpot.  Yeah, really.  The appropriate response was to therefore assess Mapou using that index (didn't realize how appropriate while I was doing this though):

  1. A -5 point starting credit.  

  -5 points

  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
  3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
  4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

Oh, Jesus.  Umm, OK, no way am I gonna list all of them for these three.  Bad enough having to read the thing and try to find them all in the first place. Srsly.  It's, like, a lot. As an example (4 teh onlookerz):
Nothing can move in spacetime or in a time dimension-axis by definition.[/quote]

I do wonder if I'm somewhat overscoring by counting what are essentially repetitions; though when it comes to, say, the vacuous statements I guess they're all equivalent anyway. Plus, there's some significant overlap here. Enh, fuck it.  I probably missed some anyway, since I'm not a physicist:

+100 points (I think.  Close enough.)

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

OK, unscored because I personally haven't tried to correct Mapou  and while I'm certain many people have (in fact, he alludes to email he's received on the subject and I've even seen it happen on UD) I'm just not comfortable with a guess, even if it'd probably be egregiously low.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

Well, his whole argument seems to basically be based on one (despite him lauding empiricism at one point and chiding those naughty physicists for trying to weave reality out of their interpretations of the math, which is more or less exactly what he's doing and doing poorly):

+5 points

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

+60 points

I figure hyperbolic stuff in bold with both gratuitous capitalization that falls short of ALLCAPS but does include exclamation points qualifies too, so I counted this in addition to the actual ALLCAPS stuff (only one word, shockingly, though repeated thrice):
[quote]Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition![/quote]

and this:

This Is War!

but am open to debate on this issue.  For example, should Mapou score yet higher for having subsections with names like this?

Stop Acting Like Drones

One could easily argue that a certain ALLCAPS attitude is expressed there, but on the other hand, it lacks an exclamation point. I decided to be relatively charitable.

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

Surprisingly, 0 points.  

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

There's this (bolding mine):


In fact, [Deutsch] has built a career out of what he calls "quantum computers", fictitious magical machines conjured up out of an equally magical hat filled with zillions of changeless parallel universes. Dr. Deutsch is a veritable magician when it comes to making voodoo appear like legitimate science.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be surprised to find out their experiments in this area are or were fictitious.  By implication, he's disavowing QM with that remark.  Plus, he's all about how introducing a time dimension is utter doom for a theory because all motion becomes impossible, and QM absolutely does have one:

+10 points

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

I'm sure he's done it, and it's definitely implied by various things on this page, but he doesn't actually say it:

0 points

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

Well, lack of theory and the fact that it's near the end aside, he's got this:


I have given this entire physics thing a lot of thought, time and motion being the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, I can't really, in good conscience, be lenient on this one:

+20 points

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

Given that he's had this page up since at least 2006 and encourages people to freely copy it, I don't think he's worried about stolen work.  He seems to think he's on some sort of crusade to save physics education (and by "logical" extension, civilization itself), in fact.  So:

0 points

However, I really think the fact that he posted this lunacy on the net (as part of a website with the domain name "" no less) ought to count, so:

+10 fucking points anyway, damn it.

The index could probably use a bit of revising, as I see it.  I mean, they do that with various psych assessment tools regularly, so I don't see why a quasi-serious one should be any exception.  

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

Speaking of revisions, this shit counts, despite the lack of monetary enticements:


Readers should feel free to suggest more names to include in my list of notorious time travel crackpots. Please use the email address at the bottom of the page. This is important because the correctness of humanity's fundamental understanding of nature is crucial to further progress.

The spirit behind his particular appeal is basically the same:

+10 points

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

I'm counting idiosyncratic and nonsensical redefinitions of standard terms with associated typographical flourishes:


I italicize past and future here because they do not have the normal meaning of past and future. The immediate past and future  of a particle are discrete, coexisting states of the dyadic properties of the particle. At any given moment, based on a universal conservation principle, nature must decide whether or not to change those properties.

I'm also curious what this "universal conservation principle" is, since it doesn't really seem to come up again:

+10 points

15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

I mean, he's not good at math, but he really seems to think he is (and he lacks a theory) so....

0 points

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

Page is just dripping with that attitude (i.e. passim):

+10 points

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

Nailed it:


What about gravity, you say? Well, spacetime physicists understand doodley-squat about the true physical mechanism of gravity.

+10 points

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

Einstein?  Yeah, this totally counts:


I placed Albert Einstein at the bottom of the list because he, of all people, should have known better.

+10 points

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

He clearly thinks that physics has been held back by a fundamental misconception, so obviously there will be some sort of "great leap forward" if his crusade succeeds, and he has this quote at the top of the page:


"How often is science improved, and turned into new directions by non-scientific influences! it is up to us, it is up to the citizens of a free society to either accept the chauvinism of science without contradiction or to overcome it by the counterforce of public action." Paul Feyerabend


+10 points

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

Technically, impossible to score, because I am not John Baez.  However, putting that same John Baez on a list of "notorious" (yes, he actually does use that word to describe them) crackpots is pretty special, so:

+20 points (I was tempted to go with 25, or even 30, but...)

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

I suspect he'd like to, but he didn't:

0 points

 22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

Well, Dembski certainly wins on this one, but Mapou apparently doesn't.  However, dude gets 10 points for this:


Gödel is certainly the most often quoted yet inconsequential mathematician of the world.

Plus, the whole page is riddled with this smug sense of fundamental intellectual superiority over and/or outright denigration of the rationality/cognitive abilities of  all sorts of physicists:


Isn't it strange that Dr. Thorne, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Deutsch, Sir Stephen and company were not aware that nothing can move in spacetime? Being the celebrated mathematicians that they are, one would suppose it would be their business to know and understand something so trivial that it can be explained to high school kids. After all, it is not as if there is not a single physicist in the world who knows about this. I know of many who do. Could not just one of them write a line to Dr. Thorne or Sir Stephen and alert them of their error? How did they get their time travel papers past peer review? How did they get so darn famous? Did I hear someone say fraud? Or is it just plain incompetence and crackpottery?

so I'm afraid I'm gonna have to add another 10 points for sheer sneering volume (at least.  Again, I'm totally open to raising the score here folks):  

+20 points

23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

No, but he did compare people who accept the possibility of real time travel to rabid Trekkies.  Actually, "equated...with" is a more accurate construction:

The nasty and shocking little truth is that time does not change, a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.


0 points

24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

That's a roger, dude:


One of my many enraged detractors tried to ridicule me by mentioning that "the great physicist George Carlin once said, "There's no present. There's only the immediate future and the recent past."" Of course, it was his way of mocking my ideas since George Carlin is the well-known American standup comedian. Little did my "critic" realize, however, that Mr. Carlin is light years closer to the truth on time than some of the most "brilliant" minds of the physics community.



I get angry emails from people accusing me of badmouthing relativity, one of the most corroborated theories of physics.

One thing I'm unclear on is whether each instance counts.  I'm guessing no, so:

+20 points

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

Unfortunately no, although I'm trying to come up with something good to go with the "Mapou Effect".  However, he actually quotes himself at the top of the page, and it's his "devastating" Trekkie comment from later in the same fucking webpage, so I'm gonna have to give the full amount for that:

+20 points

I'd like to think that given his obsession with/vengeance quest against the idea of self-reference in our concept of time, this is actually a clever and even elegant bit of self-denigration, but unfortunately I'm a realist and I know in my heart that Mapou is just another irony-deficient jackass who hangs out at UD.  Maybe slightly more "special" than some of the others, though.

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

Technically, he doesn't even really have one, just some warmed-over Zeno and a little calculus jargon, but he's really enthusiastic about it, so I'm not sure what to do here. Ummmm:

+10 points

27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

This is pretty damn close:


It is the end result of an incestuous intellectual orgy that has been going on for over a century. It is also the culmination of a scientific coup d'état that took place in the early part of the twentieth century. A group of revolutionaries, fresh from the resounding empirical victories of Einstein's theory of relativity, established themselves as the sole interpreters and oracles of the new science. They fended off all public scrutiny by encircling themselves within an unassailable wall of scientific jargon and mathematical formalism. Any criticism of their world view is met with the usual sneering retort that relativity is one of the most corroborated theories in the history of physics. Dissenting views are given little exposure.

28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

One subsection is entitled "Entrenched Orthodoxy" and says:

Can we expect the spacetime physics orthodoxy to just accept that its understanding of time is flawed? Does anybody really believe that Dr. Kip Thorne, Sir Stephen Hawking, Dr. John A. Wheeler and the others are suddenly going to announce to the world that they were wrong about time? Do not hold your breath. You can catch a science fiction writer in an error and that is no big deal. But a scientist is betting his or her career. Still, should humanity suffer through hundreds of years of ignorance just because a few careers are at stake? The current scientific belief in the existence of a time dimension has been around for over a hundred years. Even though many people realized from its inception that spacetime was motionless, it has not stopped generations of physicists from believing in a time dimension on a par with the other three spatial dimensions. It is now a religious institution and its practitioners are entrenched more than ever. They will not accept defeat easily. It is a matter of prestige, authority, credibility and the fear of being displaced. They will fight teeth and nails all the way to the end.

There's plenty more like that, so I think this is more than fair:

+60 points for the last two together

29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

See above.  Definitely implied:

+30 points

30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

No, but I submit that quasi-coyly accusing (but not having the actual balls to actually accuse) Einstein of plagiarising GR from his ex-wife is grounds for a new 30-pointer:

As mentioned earlier, in 1949, Einstein's friend, Kurt Gödel, announced to the world that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel via closed time-like loops. Einstein agreed with Gödel's finding but he was not very happy about it. He could not fathom how his grand theory would allow something as ridiculous as time travel. This gives some credence to accusations by Einstein's critics that he was not the true author of general relativity and that he was a mediocre plagiarizer at best. Some say that Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric Einstein, was the real author of relativity and that Einstein was forced to give her his entire Nobel prize money to keep her quiet. Just hearsay but one never knows.

So, yeah:

+30 points

31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

Well, no. However, he does compare society to the Borg Collective and manages to hybridize it with that "Ah, the mind of a child" bullshit and the United Negro College Fund slogan:


I often marvel that young people can have so much more insight into the nature of things than some of society's most celebrated and admired scientists and thinkers. Is it because the young have not yet been completely indoctrinated into the Borg-like hive mentality that is so prevalent in society. A mind is terrible thing to assimilate.

And for a guy who's so seemingly down on Trek fans, he sure manages to reference it a lot, with the correct spelling for each alien race mentioned, and he even knows enough to make weak-ass Borg jokes.  Yeah, I'm gonna have to award the full amount, because it's excessively douchebaggish, irony-deprived, and it does technically involve aliens:

+30 points

32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

0 points, though I've so far confined my investigations to this one webpage, so who knows.

33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Yes, though he doesn't use those specific terms, he clearly conceptualizes the scientific "establishment" as quasi-fascistic at times. Plus he really like to whip out the "Trekkie" slur, which he seems to view as just as bad as those.  Another example:


In my opinion, Scientific American is mostly a propaganda rag for the charlatans and crackpots of the scientific community. Their dependence on advertising revenues makes them suspect at best. Their idea of science publishing is to develop a readership among wild-eyed Star-Trek fanatics.

Man, it's a good thing DaveTard no longer wields the ban-hammer over there. But anyway:

+40 points

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Enh, same fucking difference:


Theoretical physicists pride themselves in that their science is firmly based on empirical evidence but pay only lip service to empiricism when it suits their agenda.

There's plenty more like it in stuff I've already quoted, too.  Yet, despite all the rhetoric like that above, and this:


There is a cult led by a small but influential cadre of physicists and mathematicians whose credo is "physics is math" and who think they are free to create physics simply by manipulating spacetime equations using abstract what-if scenarios

he actually claims to believe:


[t]here is no conspiracy, mind you, just a vested interest in continuing the status quo.


+40 points

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

No, but as noted his domain is and he's definitely all mavericky and stuff, which is what Galileo-comparers are often going for.  He mentions Galilieo though:


The embarrassing truth is that, centuries after Newton and Galileo, we still have no idea what causes gravity, a million relativists insisting otherwise notwithstanding.

Fuck it:

+40 points

 36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
 37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

I'm lumping these together. As best I can tell, he's not really claiming to have a theory, just "common sense" but seems to think that he'll revolutionize things anyway if enough people would just listen (and he does explicitly refer to a "coming physics revolution". There's definitely some "show trial"-esque stuff brewing in his fevered imagination, as clearly seen here:

If your name is on my list of spacetime crackpots and you wish to write a rebuttal, or an admission that you were wrong, I will be glad to publish it on this site. Along with my comments, of course.


The World Deserves an Apology

The gentlemen on my crackpot list, especially Dr. Thorne, Dr. Wheeler and Sir Stephen Hawking owe the world an apology. All physics teachers in the world who have taught our young students that there is a time dimension or that bodies move in spacetime or that relativity permits time travel should apologize to their students. Thanks to this ongoing brainwashing (intentional or not, it makes no difference in the long run), countless numbers of young aspiring physicists are left chasing after a red herring called spacetime. This sort of crackpottery coming from admired leaders is costing and has cost humanity decades if not centuries of wasted minds and wasted effort. There is no excuse for it.

and, Holy Fucking Robespierre Batman, here:

To succeed, the rebels must form a hostile political stronghold outside the walls and hope that they can gain enough converts from the the lay public (the despised peasantry) and enough defections from the enemy camp to eventually breach through. Once they are in, they must pillage and destroy the old order through terror. The leaders of the fortified castle must be put in chains, tarred and feathered and paraded through the streets for all to see (allegorically of course). This is war!

Allegorical? Suuuuuurrre. Oh, and he has nothing testable, just vague notions about:

a new physics based exclusively on particles, their properties and their interactions


+90 points

Oh, and if we don't do something about modern theoretical physics (and not, say, greenhouse gas emissions or just pollution in general), it's literally the end of the goddamn world:

Unless we (humanity) revolutionize our physical sciences, we are doomed because our teeming masses are fast exhausting the natural resources of our world. This in turn leads to all sorts of unpleasantness such as ecological disasters, diseases, societal friction and devastating wars. We need room to expand. We are certainly not going to colonize the solar system with our primitive chemical propulsion systems (or cockamamie contraptions like solar sails) let alone the star systems beyond. Even if we could move at the speed of light, mass migration to other stars is out of the question. And we do not have much time to find a solution. The ecological and societal clocks are ticking. We cannot wait another one or two hundred years for the spacetime physics establishment to realize its errors. We need a plan of action and we need it now!

+50 more points for that

Total Crackpot Index Score: 760 points

Mind you, that's just the one page.  Anyway, I really like that after all of that batshit insanity and calling the proles to arms and stuff he plainly admits:


Well, there is no plan yet. This is anticlimactic I know, but I am working on it.

and that at the bottom of the page we find:


Revised 1/3/2006

So, umm, guess it's not that urgent after all, eh Mapou?.  LO-fucking-L.

To conclude:

1. Mapou is one hell of a tard.  I'm now a fan.
2. I think one good revision to the Crackpot Index would be to really boost up the point awards, so you could say:  "IT'S OVER 9000!"

ETA:  Can someone tell me why closed quote tags are being ignored?

Date: 2009/06/09 04:44:23, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 08 2009,23:46)
who told it this?

A theory that explains something and its opposite equally well explains nothing.

at first i thought it was respectable tranmother but turns out she was quoting Johnathan Wells.  

The best part is how that post  starts (bolding mine):

I happened to be rereading Jonathan Wells’s The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and thought I’d share this summary re genetics and behaviour:

Date: 2009/06/09 10:12:48, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 09 2009,05:27)
Denyse O'Leary:


But if I asked an evolutionary psychologist about marriage in prehistoric times, he would tell me some popular culture lore dressed up in “let’s play cave people” animal skins.

What a time-saver it is to simply know how people would answer questions if given the opportunity. Interviewing people is apparently a journalistic practice that only the non-omniscient need resort to.

I'd like to know why you'd ask an evolutionary psychologist about prehistoric marriage in the first place. I'd think a cultural anthropologist would be the first choice.

Date: 2009/06/09 10:14:11, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 09 2009,07:02)
stephen king also boiled the pot with IT.  now everyone knows about malevolent clowns that live in the sewer.

Hm.  Maybe therein lies the root of DaveTard's coulrophobia.  Speaking of which, what happened to Blipey?

Date: 2009/06/12 14:42:57, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 12 2009,09:51)
k.e, have you watched "Romper Stomper meets Boys In the Hood" again?

Anyway, shall I start socking? Because if so, I need some time to put my strocks on!


You know there's a line from that rap which describes Densey's scribblings to a fuckin' T:

Don't quote me boy cuz I ain't said shit

Another part describes how I often feel when reading her tripe:


Dumb ho' said somethin' that made me mad
She said somethin' that I couldn't believe
So I grabbed the stupid bitch by her nappy-ass weave
She started talkin' shit, wouldn't you know
Reached back like a pimp, slapped the ho'

I don't think Denyse has a nappy-ass weave, though I'm sure one of the local photoshop ninjas could do something about that (hint, hint).

Date: 2009/06/19 00:32:43, Link
Author: didymos
So apparently, it's not just Gil's contributions to UD that fall into Carlsonjok's scheme.  From the ID Arts Blog (which looks to have mostly become another of D'OL's solo projects), circa 2007, we find this:

We are pleased to introduce ID Artist Gil Dodgen. A professional musician earlier in his career, Gil offers up some thoughts on music and ID, along with downloadable copies of his classical piano solo albums:

“As a child and young man, music spoke to my soul in a way that nothing else did. I can’t explain it and won’t attempt to. It seems to me that the arts, and music in particular, present a real problem for Darwinism. How would such an ability come about in a step-by-tiny-step fashion and what would be the survival value of the transitional intermediates, or even the end product? (Never mind what mutations would be required to rewire the central nervous system for musical ability, and the probability of those mutations occurring.) Of course, for Darwinists, Darwinism must explain everything, so they will invent stories about how ancient jungle drummers got the girls, just like rock stars get the groupies. But everyone enjoys music with absolutely no evidence that it offers any survival or reproductive advantage. It just seems to be programmed into us at a very fundamental level."

Mostly an example of Argument A1, but with a soupçon of 3 along the way and a dash of B at the end.  You know: for variety.

Date: 2009/06/19 00:33:28, Link
Author: didymos
Edit: deleted duplicate caused by stupid page bug

Re-edited: Co-opted in order to post more Dodgen album covers:

Date: 2009/06/19 02:38:59, Link
Author: didymos
C Hunter has two questions:

Here are two multiple choice questions, but you must not look at the second question before answering the first.

1. What makes a theory a religious theory?

A. The theory incorporates religious premises.
B. Proponents of the theory are religious people.
C. The theory mandates certain types of solutions.
D. The theory allows for all types of solution.

Continue reading here.

It's actually just one question, because you have to follow his suggestion to "Read My Blog!" to see the other one:

2. Which of these describe evolutionary theory?

A. The theory incorporates religious premises.
B. Proponents of the theory are religious people.
C. The theory mandates certain types of solutions.
D. The theory allows for all types of solution.

While there are numerous problems with this nonsense, the most obvious thing that comes to mind is that Jones never called ID a "religious theory".  He in fact declined to call it a theory of any sort because it's fundamentally unscientific.  It is religious though because it's derived from religion.  Bait-and-switch fail, Cornelius.

Date: 2009/06/19 06:28:33, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (KenGee @ June 19 2009,02:40)
From  Cornelius Hunter website
"Heliocentrism eventually replaced geocentrism not because it was more accurate, but because eventually it could be made to be so much simpler."
Gee Hunter it could also have been becuase the fucking earth does in fact orbit the sun.

At least he got the "eventually" part right.  The Copernican model was actually just as epicycle-riddled, and possibly more so, than the Ptolemaic one.  Of course, heliocentrism had the obvious advantage you pointed out.

Date: 2009/06/19 21:06:31, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (JLT @ June 19 2009,17:09)
IMO, concentrating solely on science as the only method of attaining all knowledge is as wrongheaded as concentrating only on philosophy and metaphysics as the only method attaining all knowledge. They need each other. Science is based on philosophy, and philosophy needs something to think about. The problem comes when people make their one methodology absolute. The problem is seen easily enough concerning methodological naturalism, which is based not on methodological naturalism, but on philosophical naturalism, but philosophical naturalism cannot be reached as a conclusion by methodological naturalism.

Ah yes. I'm sure that all makes perfect sense. To Clive.

Well, I've just found my new sig.

Date: 2009/06/20 01:20:27, Link
Author: didymos
You gotta love this bit from DaveTard's earlier contribution to that discussion:


Myers and Dawkins are impotents with delusions of grandeur.

He's still got it folks.

ETA:  Oh, and I don't know if anyone noticed, but Denial Smith was in the house as well.

Date: 2009/06/21 21:55:28, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Maya @ June 21 2009,19:37)
Poking the UDiots with a sharp stick and pointing out their ridiculous logical contortions is, admittedly, too much fun for everyone in the reality based community to stop, but I'm curious to know what would happen if we did.  

Well, I propose an experiment:  sock and non-sock commenters at UD refrain from commenting on new posts for, say, two weeks.  Any posts in which you/your sock have already participated are still fair game: keep commenting if you so choose.  However, if you haven't already participated, you can't comment on the old posts either.  

I think that if this somehow comes to pass, it'll be so boring that everyone will agree to abort the experiment way before the two weeks is up.

Date: 2009/06/22 00:19:58, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 21 2009,21:52)
Quote (Freelurker @ June 21 2009,23:24)
Well, I propose an experiment:  sock and non-sock commenters at UD refrain from commenting on new posts for, say, two weeks.  Any posts in which you/your sock have already participated are still fair game: keep commenting if you so choose.  However, if you haven't already participated, you can't comment on the old posts either.  

I'm in. No comments from me 'till after the fireworks on the 4th of July.

But what about us tardaholics?  Have you ever gone cold turkey from a three thread a day tard habit?  It's brutal man, brutal.

That's why I suggested that posts you've already commented on, either naked or besocked, are still open:  they're maintenance doses, man.  Oh, and um, a control group, 'cause that's all scientific and stuff.

Date: 2009/06/22 02:38:26, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 21 2009,23:05)
Does anyone have jerry's email address?  I want to ask him to not post for a couple of weeks.  Just to piss 'ras off.

Oh, and there's a problem with this experiment: anyone not commenting for 2 weeks could be marked as a sock, and consequently banned.  I don't want to see that happening, especially with my favourite sock of all time operating at the moment.

Um, oops.  Obvious problem was obvious.  *kicks self*

Date: 2009/06/24 02:32:14, Link
Author: didymos



6:44 am

kairosfocus @ 526

At 511, sparc has violated my privacy, in a comment with no substantial relevance, other than being an ad hominem-laced comment.


Well, don’t look at your blog.

“About Me
Name: Gordon”

If you’re trying to keep your first name private, it’s too late.

Seriously, though: how, I ask you, how are they this fucking stupid?  Before discovering UD, I thought people like this were confined to the imaginations of sitcom writers.  I've known actual, genuinely retarded people who were far more coherent and sensible than just about everybody at UD (excepting of course the socked and unsocked tard-miners).

Date: 2009/06/26 02:24:16, Link
Author: didymos
OK, so looking over the Pandas stuff from Stephen B that's been quoted, I found a real gem. Man, StephenB is just...uh....words nearly fail. It's almost a flawless, glittering jewel shining with the light of the purest of pure tard:





4:51 pm

Echidna Levy:

—-”The term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists”

What is it about these Darwinists that render them impervious to reason. The scenario you have copied from Barbara Forrest didn’t happen. It is so funny when folks like you try to send someone like my [sic] to an intellectually banrupt [sic] site like Pandas [sic] Thumb to “learn something.” I have a bit of homework for you.

I keep wanting to think he can't be actually denying what he's denying, because this is really pushing it even for an inveterate tard such as himself, but no: he really thinks the "cdesign propenentsist" thing is, somehow, a total fabrication. He can't even seem to recognize that Learned Hand was quoting neither Barbara Forrest nor Panda's Thumb but Wikipedia, which itself was using the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision directly as a source. He's also just about the most irony-deficient motherfucker ever to walk the earth.  From his comment immediately before the one above:

[Learned Hand]
—-”If the facts of the matter are not relevant to your arguments, then your arguments are not relevant to me.”

It is you that are running away from the facts, and it you who are ignorant of history.

What is wrong with him?  I can only postulate that he actually suffers from some sort of undiagnosed delusional disorder.  Even pathological liars don't usually come up with crap this obviously wrong.  Plus, they'll often admit they're full of shit when confronted.

Date: 2009/06/26 02:35:19, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (sparc @ June 25 2009,23:34)
BTW, for us non-native speakers following the Judge Jones thread: Does "learned hand" have some co-notation UD commons miss?

Well, in general a "learned hand" would just mean "competent", which I suspect has something do with the choice of name,  but specifically it's actually the name of a particular American jurist:

Billings Learned Hand

I'd never heard of him either.  He seems to be famous within the legal profession, but otherwise obscure for the most part (nowadays anyway, as he apparently was relatively famous for a time in the US).

Date: 2009/06/26 02:53:32, Link
Author: didymos
Erect BiCurious aka Uprectum BasTard is pitching a bit of a fit:



Upright BiPed


2:12 am

This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation.

This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation.

This IS NOT Jefferson’s intention regarding church and state separation.

Date: 2009/06/26 07:09:27, Link
Author: didymos
KF gets something unintentionally right:

That is, there is NO case in the peer review literature circa either 1996 or today [2009], in which an evidently IC system in the biological world has been shown to have been arrived at by Darwinian mechanisms, in due technical details as opposed to mere speculations and Lewontinian just-so stories.

Yep, Gordo, you got that one.  You know why? It's because no "IC system" of the sort Behe proposed has been demonstrated to exist.  Every "evidently IC system" has, evidently, turned out not to be IC at all.  I mean, plenty of stuff is "evident", Mr. Mullings.  For example, that light must be either a particle or a wave.  Totally evident.  Also, totally wrong, as the evidence has shown.  Other "evident" things:

* Flatness of the earth
* Geocentrism
* Special creation of life
* Intelligent Design


I also like how he tosses in that bracketed know:  so all those eager Onlookers Of The Future will know at which time the great Gordon Mullings spake his wisdom.

Oh, and then there's this:

Now, in 354 [and reference to comment number is more useful than to time] — ignoring irrelevant red herrings led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud and confuse issues and polarise the atmosphere — you say:

Damn, Gordie, you're so right: comment numbers are more useful.  It had never occurred to me...given that nobody ever fucking uses the time of posting....ever. Of course, this assumes one of the moderators you often like to tattle to doesn't just oblivate the comment: number, timestamp and all. Still, you know what's even more useful?  Hyperlinks.  HTML motherfucker: Do you speak it?  Any excuse to blow harder though, right Gordon?

Date: 2009/06/26 08:17:34, Link
Author: didymos
Further KF bloviation in comment number Three-Hundred, Four-score and Nine posted at 11:16 Ante Meridian, Coordinated Universal Time on the Twenty-Sixth Of June in the Year Of Our Lord Two-Thousand And Nine informs us onlookers that:


PS: EL, re Pandas:

1 –> Pandas was not the foundational ID book — Thaxton et al’s TMLO, 1984 was (and — surprise, this did not appear in the [show?] trial, guess why . . . )

*raises hand*  Me, me!  Pick me!  I have a guess, at least as far as the defendants are concerned:

The perception of a threat to scientific inquiry and the possible end of science are legitimate concerns. But we question whether the God-hypothesis in origin science would necessarily have this disastrous effect. Just a little reflection on the history of science brings out the irony in the current state of affairs. For there is a rather impressive reason to doubt that science (i.e., operation science) would suffer much by positing Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos.

Mr. Mullings:  You sir are a Tard of the highest order.  Also relevant and definitely in the category of "Psst, seriously: you're NOT helping, dumbass" (applying equally to yourself, Mr. Mullings, and Thaxton. Oh and: emphasis mine):

It is doubtful that any would deny that an intelligent Creator could conceivably prepare earth with oxidizing conditions and create life. And, of course, the data discussed above are consistent (and compatible) with this view of Special Creation. What we would like to know, of course, is whether an intelligent Creator did create life. The question, unfortunately, is beyond the power of science to answer. Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible.

I know you brought that up yourself, Gordie, but you don't seem to realize that you just blew your own foot off by doing so.

But, you're kinda right: why didn't the plaintiffs strengthen their case by bringing up this book?  Oh, guess what...they did: in Barbara Forrest's expert witness report.  But you can probably thank Dr. Dr. Dipshit for bringing it to her attention:

According to ID leader William Dembski, "The Intelligent Design movement begins with the work of Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Michael Denton, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson.  Dembski cites as a seminal ID publication Thaxton's 1984 book, The Mystery of Life's Origin where, arguing for "Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos," Thaxton...

Maybe he shoulda testified?  Whaddya think?  I'm sure he would have brought the book up in his testimony, thereby winning the day for ID.  Ah, lost opportunities...

Date: 2009/06/26 08:30:07, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 26 2009,06:26)
I'm really proud of the responses evoked in the Judge Jones thread.  It could not have happened without Learned Hand's lawyerly patience.

Yep.  He/She should be hired for the next creationist trojan horse case.

Date: 2009/06/27 06:56:02, Link
Author: didymos
Bannination Alert!

So, Clive has been getting pissy at JayM for being unsupportive and not validating enough:


Clive Hayden


2:09 pm


——”I don’t argue against ID, Clive, I argue against poor arguments from ID supporters. That’s far more supportive of the eventual goal of making ID credible than is participating in an echo chamber where criticism of people on “our side” is strongly discouraged.”

You never have any arguments in favor of ID. Never. All I ever see from you are arguments against ID. It doesn’t matter that you posit them in terms of “constructive criticism” and “just wanting to help”. If you really want to help, then make some of your own arguments in favor of ID, instead of always criticizing others who make actual ID arguments. Otherwise, your pretense is exposed.

Regardless of whether JayM is legit, Clive is avoiding a serious problem: exactly what arguments can be marshaled in favor of ID?  Other than all the ones that have been utterly discredited as pseudoscientific, woo-infused bullshit, that is.

But Clive does have a point, even if he lacks the vocabulary best suited to expressing it:  JayM could very well be an ID concern troll.  Of course, the irony is that ID and UD would be infinitely better served by a single concern troll than it is by every "supportive" poster on UD put together and JayM seems to get this:

You, too, are part of the problem. Real scientists debate the issues with each other. Here at UD, you show more concern over loyalty to the cause than to the content of the discussions.

If you spent more time policing the quality and accuracy of the posts by some of the regulars here, rather than in questioning the motives of those who are actually interested in making real progress, UD might fulfill its potential as a forum for serious discussion of intelligent design.

Surprisingly, Clive ignored that open provocation (DaveTard he is not, to the detriment of us all :( ) and contented himself with a rather anemic "Are too!" response which JayM found amusing:




6:32 pm

Clive Hayden @488

       You’re assuming too much, Clive. I started posting here because I got tired of hearing the old “ID says nothing about the nature of the designer” dodge. That and similar arguments from ID supporters who significantly overstate the case for ID, as it stands now, pose a major problem for those of us who want to treat ID as science.

   I’m not assuming too much. You’re not fooling anyone.

Clive, baby, if I wanted to fool someone I’d go to a venue where that poses an actual challenge.

Now how about addressing the substance of my posts above?

Oh snap!  

Sadly that "snap" was actually the sound of fracturing camel spine.  JayM is now an ex-poster:


Clive Hayden


6:43 pm


I won’t tolerate baby talk. You’re presence here has been one of deceit the entire time, and I’m done with letting you have the opportunity to continue.

Clive Hayden [insert gratuitous reverb here]:  Don't call him "baby" if you're a dude. That's gay, and insufficiently supportive of the ID cause.

Clive Hayden:  He'll make weak puns at you and won't let you post at UD anymore.  

Clive Hayden: Not so much the Wielder of The Ban-Hammer as he is the Largely Ineffectual Brandisher of the Hollow Plastic Whack-a-Mole Mallet.  

Clive Hayden: Ghost Hunter.  ID Supporter.

(edited for minor corrections)

Date: 2009/06/27 09:32:41, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 27 2009,05:32)
kairosfocus's head explodes:
DK, Re 464:

I will say this much, you have a technically correct cite [one that is from a different part of the article and again your previous is incorrectly cited], but one that is highly misleading (as circa 1986, there was no terminology for a design thinker i.e. you have committed a fallacy of equivocation. [And note, at that time, Meyer was not a PhD philosopher and historian of science specialising in OOL and related issues, i.e you cannot simply cite his words as reasonably definitive.] To the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go.)

So soon as we turn to those merits, we easily see that your dismissal by labelling attempt also reflects the same pattern of distraction, distortion and demonisation, then dismissal we have noted above on Behe: THE ARGUMENT TBO MAKE IN TMLO IS NOT ABOUT GENESIS OR WHETHER DATA CAN BE FOUND TO SUPPORT IT, BUT IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE STATE OF OOL RESEARCH CIRCA 1984: MILLER-UREY TYPE EXPERIMENTS (AND THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATOR INTERFERENCE), CONVENTIONAL GEO-TIMELINE — NOT YEC! — EARLY EARTH ATMOSPHERIC CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPLICATIONS FOR PRE-BIOTIC SOUP FORMATION AND BREAKDOWN, DETAILED CLASSICAL AND STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS OF MOLECULE FORMATION IN (GENEROUS) PRE-BIOTIC SOUP CIRCUMSTANCES, RELATED INFORMATION THEORY PER BRILLOUIN, PROPOSED MECHANISMS FOR FORMATION OF EARLY LIFE, PROTOCELLS, etc. (Remember, TMLO is the book that marks a new departure. I happen to have in hand a copy of Morris’ Scientific Creationism, of that general era, and I assure you it speaks to nothing like that.)

So, once we see that not once do you pause to address the technical merits of the discussion, but jump to labelling and dismissing, we may properly draw a conclusion on prudence in face of evident threat: what your remarks boil down to is agenda-linked prejudice: so soon as you can ind a way to attach the label “Creationist” you dismiss without actual consideration on the merits.

For shame!

Worse, your remarks also reflect a clear agenda — and here, I must read from you to the Anti Evo group you represent, and beyond to the Lewontinian a priori materialists and their public policy allies in NCSE, NAS, NSTA, ACLU etc, and now in courtrooms and even halls of government otherwise — that is utterly destructive: to redefine science (cutting clean across its history and related philosophy) as applied materialism/atheism, and to exclude — that is: EXPEL — anyone who has theistic leanings.

Sorry, DK, you just declared culture war. And we will not simply surrender to you and your ilk.

Etc. A couple more zany posts follow.

Yeah, that was pretty awesome.  Gordon, having already lost the plot, appears to have lost his few remaining marbles (I expect bowel control to follow shortly):


Onlookers, let us note carefully, for now we must be VERY clear in the face of mortal danger:

1 –> The Lewontinian materialists typified by Anti -Evo and DK et al as their representatives here at UD, have now tipped their hand: they intend to subvert science into applied evolutionary materialist atheism, and to establish it as the de facto quasi-religion of science education, the courts, law and public policy.

Mortal Danger! Mortal Danger, Will Robinson! Watch out for that David Kellogg,  Enemy of The People's Republic of Intelligent Design.  He's in ur blag, tippin' his materialist hand!

Still, I think El Gordo should have gone with Lewontinian Darwinistical Materialistified Atheists-on-a-daily-basis for maximum poison-smokiness, issue-cloudiness, chokiness, and confusiness upon ignition of his oil-of-ad hominem soaked strawman of lunatic demagoguery.  But that's just a quibble with an otherwise excellent attempt to incite religious hysteria and moral panic.  Case in point:

So, onlookers, we now know what is afoot at the hands of the evolutionary materialists. And, given how central science is to our civilisation, we have no choice but to stoutly resist them, exposing their agenda and its consequences: corruption of science in service to atheistic evolutionary materialism, enforced by slander and injustice — including in the courtroom. And,t hat is the key lesson of Judge Jones’ unjust decision: justice itself is now in the balance.

So, it is time for us to stand, on pain of consequences that are intolerable, at least for free men.

PS: FYI, DK, Meyer’s Cambridge PhD in History and Phil of Sci (focus on issues tied to OOL etc) dates to 1991. The dissertation topic was: “Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies” and was plainly inspired by the themes and issues raised in TMLO. Precisely the sort of impact that we would expect of a new departure, which raises issues on the philosophically tinged core of the predominant research programme on OOL studies. (And the allusion to Lakatos is deliberate.)

Umm, Gordon? A small note on style:  thundering declarations of imperiled justice and calls to arms in defense of liberty should not be followed by verbose postscripts about the dates of publication and subjects of the dissertations of  DI-employed creationist, er, "design theorist" twats. In fact, credential-mongering-by-proxy is generally something to avoid. Just sayin'.  

Also, your timing is a bit off.  Jones ruled over 3 years ago, so I guess justice has a pretty good sense of balance, no?  Love your enthusiasm, guy, but you're just not selling the whole urgency-in-the-face-of-civilization's-imminent-collapse angle very well.

Date: 2009/06/27 09:59:39, Link
Author: didymos
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 27 2009,07:37)
Quote (olegt @ June 27 2009,09:10)
jerry asks:      
By the way has David Kellogg or others admitted to kairosfocus that it was shown that Dawkins used a latching mechanism in the book, the Blind Watchmaker, for the Weasel program. If one is going to complain about grudgingly admitting something then maybe people should apologize for that episode. Another occasion of several hundred comments over meaningless dribble brought on by our anti ID friends here.

I am sure Gordon appreciates this.

jerry, PM Ras, please!  He can't take the suspense anymore.

Jerry may have just derailed the thread.  KF has latched on:

PS: Onlookers, on Weasel and the like, I simply invite you to look here in the always linked, to see exactly what is going on, as this is yet another instance of the rhetorical game that is afoot. Notice how Mr Kellogg is attempting yet further distractions, strawman distortions and ad hominems. It is not only a habit, it is a strategy. We must not fall for it.

Only time will tell if it's quasi-latching or not.

Also, KF, in the comment proper, has indulged in an ad hominem abusive of the sort so deplored by...KF: