AE BB DB Explorer
form_srcid: dochocson
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.98
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: dochocson
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'dochocson%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
|
Date: 2006/06/15 16:29:12, Link 68.186.92.222 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Did someone say "transporter malfunction"?
Better get Scotty on that right away.
Oh, and congratulations! |
|
Date: 2006/09/08 17:41:24, Link 68.186.92.222 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I must say, no matter how bad my day at work was, I know I can get some laughs over at UD.
It's like an All You Can Eat Buffet of Stupid. |
|
Date: 2007/09/10 21:53:28, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
Okay, Uncommon Descent is returning an error. Is this a common WordPress problem, or has our nefarious cabal brought Dembski to his knees? |
|
Date: 2007/09/13 19:08:06, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (factician @ Sep. 13 2007,15:55) | http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007....ce.html
Denyse writes beautiful prose without irony:
| Quote | | When you don't know much about a topic, you can easily believe things that you would never believe if you did. |
|
Wow. I had a serious Stuart Smiley moment reading that... |
|
Date: 2007/09/19 14:54:35, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask:
supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth? |
|
Date: 2007/09/21 01:22:34, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I grow tired of waiting for UD to post some wildly spun version of Dembski's fracas with ERV and company.
I've even tried posting in threads, asking about how things went in OK, and not surprisingly, none have seen the light of day. |
|
Date: 2007/09/23 00:54:22, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I had never visited O'Leary's blog before. Entertaining, in a dysfunctional ID sort of way.
Does any one know why she identifies herself as a "Roman Catholic Christian"? Is there another kind of Roman Catholic? |
|
Date: 2007/09/25 21:39:43, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Excellent! Denyse is waxing poetic with her perspective on the Baylor affair.
She starts:
"Here’s what I think of the whole mess (and I am not an American and do not live anywhere near Waco or Baylor and have nothing but trouble to expect from either side in this matter.):"
What emoticon is that at the end, anyway? Scowling unibrow?
I also like this gem:
"So a vast army rushes to aid Baylor’s quest to be the Protestant Notorious Dame, or whatever it wants to be (forgive me if I forget)."
So I assume she is no fan of Notre Dame.
Such prose! Such breathless style! I half expect to see references to heaving bosoms and smoldering glances. |
|
Date: 2007/09/28 23:07:30, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
Dammit, JohnW, I just blew diet Coke out my nose! |
|
Date: 2007/09/30 23:36:10, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Okay, I know that arguing with Ftk really won't change a thing, but here goes.
The basic, and really only issue here is the scientific method. Those who claim ID is science either do not understand the scientific method or willfully ignore it. If it is the latter, then they are lying.
ID advocates do very little if any actual science. Why? Because ID cannot generate a testable hypothesis. When confronted with this uncomfortable truth, ID supporters move the goalposts. They quote mine real scientists, bitch and moan about being suppressed or resort to publishing books in the popular press to avoid the rigors of peer review.
They are biology's equivalent of the cranks that claim they've proven Einstein wrong. IF ID could, in fact supplant ToE, it would be huge. NOBEL PRIZE HUGE.
For an example, look at Robin Warren and Barry Marshall. They're the ones that proposed H. pylori as a cause of gastric ulcers. The idea was roundly dismissed at first glance. So did they whine about being suppressed and censored? No. They did more research, research that could be duplicated and confirmed. No hand waving, no quote mining, no deception. When their hypothesis was confirmed, the "establishment" had not choice but to accept the idea.
Is this really so hard to understand? |
|
Date: 2007/10/01 00:34:20, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
And Bornagain is either ignoring the responses, or he is composing a 3 page reply. |
|
Date: 2007/10/01 10:33:19, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I would like to predict that if FtK chooses to reply on the topic of Behe she will:
1) Make claims about what Behe meant to say. Specifically she will seize upon his waffling about astrology 500+ years ago.
2) Ignore the fact that in his testimony, Behe essentially said that he can define what constitutes a scientific theory. |
|
Date: 2007/10/02 10:24:11, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Check it out, guys, Dembski posted an apology! (Unless one of you guys hacked the site)
Part of the text:
"I’ve removed all three posts and herewith extend a public apology to the Baylor administration and Board of Regents for these actions on this blog. In offering this apology, however, I mean in no way to mitigate the gravity of Baylor’s wrong in censoring the research of Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
I'm unclear on the defining elements of a notpology. Does this qualify?
(edit) On further review, I'm leaning toward notpology, since he claims that with his bad behavior, he "succumbed to the 'low polemic' " embraced by us sciency types. |
|
Date: 2007/10/03 22:56:14, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
I wonder if larrycranston reads AtBC? ;) |
|
Date: 2007/10/04 21:50:33, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Creation science? Creation science? Are you serious? AKA Scientific creationism? That Creation Science?
FtK, you do realize that Creation Science is the thing that Intelligent Design was supposed to replace, do you not? |
|
Date: 2007/10/06 00:23:40, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Ftk:
Your beliefs are not based on evidence. They are based on what you were taught. Then what you were taught has led you to interpret things that you see as "evidence".
Here's a hypothetical:
Take a population of say, 1,000,000 people. This group has had no teaching regarding religion or science (a blank slate, if you will).
Over time, I would wager that they would develop some sort of religious belief, probably a deity or two. Probably develop a creation myth of some kind. The odds on this religion even remotely resembling yours are extremely small.
On the other hand, I would expect them eventually to develop a body of scientific knowledge that closely reflects our own.
Why would this be? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with what we can test as opposed to what we simply believe. |
|
Date: 2007/10/06 21:36:36, Link 66.189.196.24 |
|
Author: dochocson |
R.Bill:
They did make note of the "It makes evolutionary sense." comment regarding the appendix.
The context was "Ha-ha, the Darwinists are clumsily trying to deny this crushing blow to their house of cards!" |
|
Date: 2008/02/23 11:14:18, Link 97.90.61.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Reciprocating Bill:
I have it on good authority that larrycranston over at UD apologizes for cribbing the calculations from your Sewell post. |
|
Date: 2008/02/23 21:23:36, Link 97.90.61.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Dr. Dr. Rev. Dembski suggests that April 19 be dubbed "anti-Darwin Day".
Great idea, but only if we get to change Good Friday to "anti-Christ Day".
Who's with me?
salamanca's post is in questionable taste. I originally read the line as "celebrate Darwin's passing", which would have been really tacky. As it stands, it just reeks of 7th grade "cleverness". |
|
Date: 2008/02/23 23:04:42, Link 97.90.61.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Okay, I'll fess up. larrycranston is me. I apologize again for posting your fiskings of UD posts under that pseudonym. Unless you guys consider plagiarism as a form of flattery.
I'm just an MD about 20 years removed from doing real science, so I don't have the chops to pick apart a lot of the ID nonsense. I mean, I know it's wrong, but I may not be able to clearly state why.
I started off with larry several months ago trying to play the vapid newcomer, asking "innocent" questions to tweak the faithful. Harder than, I thought, actually.
So after a hiatus, I came back, trying to be more pointed and critical. I'm a little surprised I've lasted this long. My last post in the Sewell thread may earn me the ban hammer, though. |
|
Date: 2008/02/24 14:20:22, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Unfortunately, I'm stuck at work, and Websense blocks UD (but not this board).
I will have a look later today and see if I've been banned.
If so, it would be my second banning at UD. |
|
Date: 2008/03/22 13:11:54, Link 97.90.61.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
I've been trying to post as well, but none of them get through. Does UD use IP filtering/blocking? |
|
Date: 2008/03/24 20:44:51, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Bachelor of Science, Biology (minor in Political Science)
Doctor of Medicine.
Not sure which poll choice is the best fit. |
|
Date: 2008/03/25 00:03:59, Link 97.90.61.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Consider the contrast between the ham handed scene of Stein at Dachau and Jacob Bronowski's wrenching visit (at Auschwitz?) in The Ascent of Man.
I can only imagine what Bronowski would have to say about all this. |
|
Date: 2008/03/30 16:07:39, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 30 2008,12:22) | Richardthughes: Sal sure loves to reuse debunked old crap
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/233
| Quote |
For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific kinds of sub-atomic events.
|
As for the "neurotic obsession for truth" claim, perhaps we are seeing relativistic effects due to the proximity of a major "the argument regarding design"-well? |
Wow, so Sal thinks that Jesus had Klinefelter's? Assuming the Jesus was phenotypically male, and as Sal's source claims "an XX male", then he'd have to be XXY.
Or maybe Jesus was just a woman with Polycystic ovaries.
Teach the controversy! |
|
Date: 2008/04/01 23:08:17, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Fascinating. She posts the whole quote, claims the meaning is unchanged.
For the record, I did try to post and ask her to post the whole thing, and no, I was not rude.
She also managed to double post her reply. |
|
Date: 2008/04/03 23:20:00, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
I don't read a lot of ID literature, but do all of them get tagged as "Creationism" in the Library of Congress system? I think the LoC didn't get the memo... |
|
Date: 2008/04/10 21:53:17, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I think we're underestimating ID brain trust. After several arduous hours of perusing posts on the issue, it struck me.
Ben Stein wasn't chosen just for his scintillating screen presence, he's a comedian.
This will all perk along for a while, then Casey Luskin will hold a press conference annoucing thatExpelled is just a parody, and therefore not subject to copyright law!
Then he'll pull off his mask, revealing that he is actually Wes Elsberry. Furthermore, it will be revealed that Dembski is actually PZ Myers, DaveScot is Richard Dawkins, and FtK is ERV. |
|
Date: 2008/04/10 22:32:14, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
I'm surprised that Poachy is has avoided the ban-hammer thus far.
I'm also getting a kick out of the debate as to whether Poachy is a troll. Charlie finally applies the "sock puppet" moniker appropriately, I think.
Oh, and Dr. Dr. (?)Dr. Dembski thinks that Stein is a bang-up lawyer, so all must be well. |
|
Date: 2008/04/20 22:32:50, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
So when they release the DVD in a couple of weeks, do you suppose the "Special Features" will include a behind-the-scenes look at their cutting edge animation studio? |
|
Date: 2008/04/21 16:40:48, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (Bob O'H @ April 21 2008,11:19) | | Coincidentally, potatoes don't have caterpillars over their eyes either. |
Oh sure, but some Darwinian evilutionist will glue a dead caterpillar to a potato and put the picture in a textbook.
You know how they are...
:p |
|
Date: 2008/04/21 22:42:40, Link 71.83.230.28 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Many Happy Returns!
Color me clueless, but it never connected in my head that ERV hails from OKC. I was just there a month ago. I could have paid homage. |
|
Date: 2008/06/20 21:09:39, Link 67.183.232.184 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (Maya @ June 20 2008,12:53) |
From the original article:
| Quote | To test this idea, the researchers exposed a population of E. coli to different temperatures and oxygen changes, and measured the gene responses in each case. The results were striking: An increase in temperature had nearly the same effect on the bacterium's genes as a decrease in oxygen level. Indeed, upon transition to a higher temperature, many of the genes essential for aerobic respiration were practically turned off.
To prove that this is not just genetic coincidence, the researchers then grew the bacteria in a biologically flipped environment where oxygen levels rose following an increase in temperature. Remarkably, within a few hundred generations the bugs partially adapted to this new regime, and no longer turned off the genes for aerobic respiration when the temperature rose.
"This reprogramming clearly indicates that shutting down aerobic respiration following a temperature increase is not essential to E. coli's survival," said Tavazoie. "On the contrary, it appears that the bacterium has "learned" this response by associating specific temperatures with specific oxygen levels over the course of its evolution."
Lacking a brain or even a primitive nervous system, how is a single-celled bacterium able to pull off this feat? While higher animals can learn new behavior within a single lifetime, bacterial learning takes place over many generations and on an evolutionary time scale, Tavazoie explained. |
(Emphasis mine.) So basically Dembski's sycophants are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the loose language of an associate professor attempting to present his findings to a lay audience. It just goes to show that you can't dumb down the concepts enough for the UD crowd.
If anyone can still post there, it might be worth pointing out that what the research really shows is that bacteria have evolved optimizations that make them more more fit in their existing environment and that those optimizations are selected against in different environments. I'd do it, but they don't want my help.
*sniff* It's hard to be a giving person. |
This is the sublime beauty of the ID delusional framework. What the author said is completely irrelevant. What really matters is what they think the author was really trying to say.
Got booted from UD (third time?) for suggesting that they should stop blathering and ask the author already. They seemed to think I was being insolent or something. |
|
Date: 2008/11/21 18:25:34, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
Her god opened a door for her, but she went out the window... |
|
Date: 2008/12/15 11:05:21, Link 71.83.235.48 |
|
Author: dochocson |
|
I guess Denyse and I have different definitions of recent, if she is referring to the doctored photo of smoke over Beirut. That was about 2 years ago. |
|
Date: 2008/12/24 10:40:53, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (keiths @ Dec. 24 2008,08:10) | Davey weighs in on the Lengthgate scandal:
| Quote | 163
DaveScot
12/24/2008
10:56 am
kairosfocus
Your comments far, far exceed the average length here. You claim that “serious and responsible” responses require that length.
By implication you are saying that people who make responses in tens or hundreds of words instead of thousands are not serious and not responsible.
In point of fact you are the irresponsible party unwilling to muzzle yourself for the sake of almost everyone else who has the common courtesy to not spam the comments here with such long winded bloviation. Get over yourself. |
|
HAHA! I would high five the Davester, but I don't want to get Cheezy Poof debris all over my hands. |
|
Date: 2008/12/24 13:43:14, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (olegt @ Dec. 24 2008,06:48) |
It's only Episode 1 in the series, but Casey has already jumped the shark: | Quote | | I like to explain the "irreducible core" using the analogy of a bicycle: A bicycle has an irreducible core that requires a frame, two wheels, a motor mechanism (like legs on pedals), and a steering mechanism (like handle-bars attached to the front wheel). A bicycle also has a seat, but obviously you can ride a bike without a seat (though it wouldn't be very fun). So, while the seat sure helps a lot, it is not part of the irreducible core of a bike. Same could be said for light deflectors, etc. So the fact that a bike has a couple dispensable parts doesn't mean that there isn't an irreducible core to a bike. |
Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Torker_Unicycle.JPG |
HAH! SILLY DARWINIST!
You clearly have fallen victim to Casey's diabolical trap! Your obviously staged photograph is of a unicycle! The Hero of the IDEA revolution was talking about a bicycle! Has anyone ever seen a unicycle evolve into a bicycle?
But seriously. Does Casey even read what he writes? And what are "light deflectors"? Does his bike have shielding technology? |
|
Date: 2009/01/15 00:53:11, Link 12.180.208.130 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (Damian @ Jan. 14 2009,22:40) | Sorry if this has already been discussed. The scoundrels at UD are convinced that a paper has (sort of) vindicated the "front-loading hypothesis".
PZ has shown them the error of their ways, of course (both on his own blog, as well as PT).
Now, one of the authors of the paper has appeared at Pharyngula, and, well:
| Quote | | I am one of the authors on the study (I also blog at Deep Sea News). I have to say I'm amazed, and never thought in my wildest dreams, that the paper would ever be used as evidence for ID. Let me say that it clearly DOES NOT do any such thing. PZ has done an excellent write up of what the paper actually shows and there is no need for me to reiterate any of it. Thanks PZ! |
One for the memory hole, perhaps?
When will they ever learn, when will they e-ver learn? |
Ah, but in the UD/IDiot world, authors of scientific papers don't understand what those papers really say.
Only the true believers can read between the lines and discern that the research supports ID. |
|
Date: 2009/01/30 16:31:49, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2009,13:47) | Wouldn't zero-frequency waves require an infinitely wide antenna to produce or detect them?
Henry |
Not a problem. I'm pretty sure that Davetard's ego is infinitely wide, so they could just use that. |
|
Date: 2009/02/26 15:34:58, Link 198.45.3.253 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 26 2009,13:20) | | Quote | | When Michael Behe was asked what type of research would help prove his thesis as outlined in the Edge of Evolution, he pointed to the research of Lenski at Michigan State on bacteria evolution. As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis. |
So there you have it. Groundbreaking ID research. Stealthed. |
I'll go with "falsifies". |
|
Date: 2009/04/28 15:59:48, Link 161.223.250.157 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (khan @ April 28 2009,13:19) | | Quote (Lowell @ April 28 2009,16:12) | Uoflcard inches his way toward manifest destiny:
| Quote | | When Native Americans came to this land, they exterminated many magestic species, like the Wooly Mammoth. They did not exert loving stewardship. |
You know what comes next, right? Because Native Americans "did not exert loving stewardship," they deserved to have their land taken from them by force, deceit, whatever means necessary. That train ain't never late. |
Don't these folks have spell-checkers? |
Of course they have spell-checkers, it's just that they click "Add to Dictionary" because they know that their spelling is correct. |
|
Date: 2009/09/26 17:00:18, Link 68.186.88.62 |
|
Author: dochocson |
| Quote (Quack @ Sep. 26 2009,03:48) | | Quote | | Besides, given that evolution is incompatible with Christianity |
That's been established now, by whom?
Wasn't the purpose of this 'debate' just to establish that? Seems to me the issue is still open? Wouldn't we need some consensus about what evolution is, and which version of Christianity it is incompatible with?
Let's vote on it! |
Why, FL established it, silly. Cuz he's like right and stuff, you know? |
=====