AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: dochocson

form_srcid: dochocson

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.95.9

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Author: dochocson
Dammit, JohnW, I just blew diet Coke out my nose!

Date: 2007/09/30 23:36:10, Link
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
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
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
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
Author: dochocson
I wonder if larrycranston reads AtBC?  ;)

Date: 2007/10/04 21:50:33, Link
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Author: dochocson
Quote (Maya @ June 20 2008,12:53)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 20 2008,09:49)
Behe displays foresight.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....ntified

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
Author: dochocson
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 21 2008,14:43)
If there is a god, (s)he really must not want Sarah Palin to be president.


Her god opened a door for her, but she went out the window...

Date: 2008/12/15 11:05:21, Link
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
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
Author: dochocson
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 24 2008,06:48)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 24 2008,08:27)
Blood in the water as Casey takes on Ken Miller

Someone should tell Casey that self-flagellation should come after swimming.

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
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
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
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
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
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?

Date: 2010/11/26 20:22:11, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2010,10:14)
hmmm... everyone is ignoring my post, it has a link to a peer-reviewed article... I wonder why everyone is ignoring it...

Well, if they do choose to respond, their reply will include one or more of the following:

1) Claims that the study actually supports ID!
2) Peer review is biased and controlled by the Darwinists rendering the cited work irrelevant
3) Citations of other "peer reviewed" works that support their position.
4) Lewontin quotes.
5) Frantic moving of the goalposts
6) Demands that you address an issue that you did not raise.

If you're really lucky, BA77 will express concern that you are not spending all your free time trying to figure out if you were designed/created.

Date: 2010/12/07 20:17:57, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 07 2010,16:20)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2010,16:54)
 
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 07 2010,19:43)
   
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2010,09:48)
If two or more people of the same whatever sexes find each the others sexually attractive and want to act on that, go to it sayeth I.

Fixed that for you.
 
[SNIP]

I'm not sure the fix was necessary given other comments in that post, but thanks for fixing it and I agree entirely. With bells on.

;-)

Louis

It was for the lurkers, dear.

Plus, I wanted to see if Clivebaby takes it back to UD to claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would lead inevitably to line marriages including underage animals.

ETA: How exactly does one "subvert" marriage by allowing people who love each other to practice it?  Seems to me that makes the whole institution stronger.

Well, according to the experts at UD, being gay apparently causes outbreaks of Nazis, pedophiles and maybe Nazi pedophiles.

It does boggle the mind that at the drop of a hat, mynym can vomit forth volumes of copypasta on how evil homosexuality is and how it will lead to the end of civilization. One might think that he's obsessed with the topic.

Oh, and also note that according to tribune7, buttsex cannot be an expression of love, so therefore gay men are evil. Or something.

I had a sock in the fight for a while, but I feel like I need a shower.

Date: 2010/12/12 23:27:57, Link
Author: dochocson
I do think that the NARTH guy's review is biased, but the study does have its flaws.

The one that I think is most significant is the differences between the study and control groups. The study group had far less ethnic variation and were split nearly evenly between the West and the Northeast. The control group did have a higher socioeconomic status.

I look at studies like these as an interesting starting point for more rigorous investigations. If it were a study on a medical treatment, I wouldn't change my clinical practice.

Date: 2011/01/13 11:51:54, Link
Author: dochocson
Did KF invent the whole oily ad hominem straw man thingy? I imagine him smiling smugly at his own cleverness every time he types it.

Date: 2011/02/25 19:44:43, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 25 2011,17:10)
A moment of silence for "Muramasa", who has brought that thread to a crashing halt.  R.I.P. Muramasa.

There hasn't been any activity in that thread for a couple of days, so his (my?) post may fly under the radar.

May need to threadjack a current post to bring it to their attention.

Date: 2011/02/25 22:43:48, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2011,19:32)
How long will this last?


Odds are it won't appear at all.

If it does, it will be used to demonstrate how uncivil Darwinists are.

Also, if it is posted, I predict that KF will show up clutching his pearls and wailing about "slander" (I think he means libel, but legal definitions may be different in Montserrat).

Date: 2011/03/27 11:41:00, Link
Author: dochocson
What I find hilarious is the fact that the ID crew is convinced that they have won the MatGrrl thread.

Date: 2011/03/27 13:37:59, Link
Author: dochocson
Meanwhile, over in the Hitchens thread, DoL is claiming that Hitch wrote his book about Mother Teresa (which she spells Theresa; and her a good Catholic and all) because he wanted to be converted.

Seriously.

Date: 2011/03/28 00:32:44, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 27 2011,21:05)
anyone read Jonathan M's recent tardus on the failure of biogeography to support universal common descent?  i still don't know what it is exactly that he thinks he has done with that, but i can tell you what I think:  Jonathan M is one deeply stupid fuck.  that shit don't say nuthin

Well, he does quote Casey Luskin, so you know he has to be right.

I don't have my UD roster handy. What is Jon M's background. Computer programmer or Engineer?

Date: 2011/03/28 21:15:11, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 28 2011,18:59)
There is a gem in that [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-


to-complex-specified-information/#comment-375485]long-winded post[/URL]:
   
Quote
The answer is that while the CSI of a complex system is calculable, it is not computable, even given a complete physical knowledge of the system. The reason for this fact lies in the formula for CSI.

This hardly needs further comment.

I'm not a super-duper computer scientist guy, but what is the alleged difference between "calculable" and "computable"?

Is this one of those things that has real meaning elsewhere and is being applied inappropriately?

Date: 2011/04/13 18:39:57, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (didymos @ April 13 2011,16:34)
Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:  
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

Kinda figured that one would bet me tossed out on my ear. I wonder if it was my impugning Barry's ethics or the "reeking of flop sweat and desperation" part? Both, probably.

Date: 2011/04/14 00:08:14, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 13 2011,21:23)
Quote (dochocson @ April 13 2011,19:39)
 
Quote (didymos @ April 13 2011,16:34)
Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:    
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

Kinda figured that one would bet me tossed out on my ear. I wonder if it was my impugning Barry's ethics or the "reeking of flop sweat and desperation" part? Both, probably.

i've enjoyed Muramasa.  nice job.  why the name?

Couple of reasons for the name. One is that I have Japanese ancestry on my dad's side. Another is that Nakashima was the inspiration for creating this sock.

Muramasa was a Japanese swordsmith, and legend has it he created cursed blades.

Date: 2011/04/14 11:15:56, Link
Author: dochocson
Aaaaand, with a wave of his hand (in yet another separate thread), BarryA declares victory over MathGrrl. I guess it's easy to "win" when you make up shit about someone and whine about them not taking the bait.

Date: 2011/04/16 11:41:50, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (keiths @ April 15 2011,22:01)


Could someone explain to me why Denyse titled her book "Faith @ Science" instead of "Faith & Science"?  I've wondered for years.

Even granting the dismal depths of Denyse's dumbth, I can't quite believe that she doesn't know the difference between an ampersand and an at sign. Did she think the latter would give her book some kind of Internet cred, or what?

Rank speculation welcome.

Based on decades of completely fictional research, I have concluded that "@" was an early Christian symbolic code for "Coffee!".

Date: 2011/04/21 17:56:43, Link
Author: dochocson
And in the same thread that Freddie quoted, vjtorley states the obvious:

Quote
I’m a philosopher, not a biologist. I know very little about evolutionary algorithms, and I detest jargon – I can’t keep all the technical terms in my head at once. I have absolutely no inclination to wade through hundreds of pages of well-nigh-incomprehensible scientific papers in order to understand what you’re getting at.

Date: 2011/04/26 10:52:02, Link
Author: dochocson
Worse yet, that's a Sith squirrel!

Date: 2011/04/26 22:17:31, Link
Author: dochocson
I get the feeling that Joe has a lifetime subscription to Internet Tough Guy magazine.

Date: 2011/04/28 21:22:52, Link
Author: dochocson
May I humbly request that the word "boning" not be used in a paragraph that references O'Leary?

Date: 2011/09/08 21:02:19, Link
Author: dochocson
Great topic, and finally something I actually know about.

I've been gaming since high school, D&D initially and then got my hands on an Apple II with a copy of Wizardry and the rest is history.

Now the whole family plays WoW and quest together. We've met some great people and have met several IRL.

The Fallout series is great, and my kids and I love the Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect series. All of those have superb storylines. Mass Effect in particular has a vividly rendered universe.

Back to Louis' initial post, there is a pejorative stereotype of gamers spanning the basement dwelling couch potato to the sociopathic criminal. One of my favorite websites is www.penny-arcade.com (great webcomic, and the creators have an abiding love for dick jokes, something the AtBC crowd will appreciate).

Back when anti-game crusader Jack Thompson was in the headlines, the Penny Arcade crew set up the Child's Play charity to show that gamers can do good things. That charity last year pulled in $2.2 million for children's hospitals worldwide.

They also created the annual Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) in Seattle and its sister convention PAX East in Boston. I went to PAX this year with my oldest kids and had a blast. Game displays/demos, tabletop gaming, cosplay and 70,000 people all with a love of gaming. They also had numerous talks covering every aspect of games and gaming culture, including sexism in online gaming and psychology of gaming. Wil Wheaton is a fixture at PAX and he gave a stellar keynote in 2007 which is worth a look.

Date: 2011/09/19 23:21:08, Link
Author: dochocson
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 19 2011,20:14)
turell weighs in:  
Quote
Bacteria undoubedly developed these processes through the epigenetic codes, not Darwin’s random chance mutations and then natural selection. Epigenetics does not look at all passive as Darwinism presents, and suggests strongly that those codes were there from the beginning of life, that is, by intelligent design. See James Shapiro’s new book, a revelation.


I am not sure what an epigenetic code in bacteria would be - does he think patterns of acylation and methylation of histones apply?  Is there something to this, or is epigentics being used by an IDiot as a magic word to banish "Darwinism?"

I always figured that epigenetics came from the "Darwin didn't know about it, so it must refute Darwinism" chapter of the UD playbook. I doubt any of them really have any idea what epigenetics is.

 

 

 

=====