AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: improvius

form_srcid: improvius

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.80.46

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: improvius

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/18 04:06:46, Link
Author: improvius
Evolution Ale left for legislators

"Park City-based Wasatch Brewery first introduced the amber ale in November, after Buttars said he would introduce the bill. The bottle's yellow and orange label shows the progression of man from a hunched over ape to an upright human drinking a beer and carrying a six-pack."

Date: 2006/01/18 05:29:24, Link
Author: improvius
"While we cannot study the “supernatural” through science, we can study intelligence. We have a huge sample dataset to tell us how intelligent agents operate: technology produced by the human race."

Then why isn't it called "Human Design"?

Date: 2006/01/18 06:00:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming,  then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ?  Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class.


The litigation is not about protecting evolution.  The litigation is about preventing the state from advocating a particular religion.  You can't teach a class that advocates religious doctrine in a public school.  It doesn't matter what label you slap on it.

Date: 2006/01/18 10:18:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 18 2006,14:28)
Well it would sure make God look like a goof ball if it turned out the intelligent designer was in fact a space alien or time traveler (as Behe suggest) and not God.

Someone should ask Luskin if it is not God, and in fact a space man, where does that leave God's role?

For that matter, how could we even tell the difference between God and a technologically advanced alien or time traveler? ???

Date: 2006/01/18 10:53:00, Link
Author: improvius
"I, for one, welcome our new time-traveling iguana overlords..."

Date: 2006/01/25 04:18:27, Link
Author: improvius
Here are some NC high school students' perspectives on the "debate".

And, from that very same high school, a research assignment on creationism vs. evolution is stirring things up.

Date: 2006/01/25 04:24:23, Link
Author: improvius
Here's another article on the research assignment discussed above.

Date: 2006/01/25 04:47:55, Link
Author: improvius
Well, take a good look at the link in my 2nd post.  It will give you a couple of hints as to the quality of the science education they are receiving.

Date: 2006/01/30 07:26:08, Link
Author: improvius
The problem is that the DI is telling people what they want to hear.  I gues you could say that there is a demand for BS, and they are just the suppliers.  People want there to be a supreme guiding force.  They want to believe that the world was "designed" by some sort of "intelligence".  So long as that demand exists, there will always be con artists catering to it.  I don't think scientific PR has any hope of competing with it.

It would be like getting people to stop eating Snickers and start eating carrots instead.

Date: 2006/01/31 07:02:51, Link
Author: improvius
I suggest another tactic: patronize them.  This involves agreeing with them to a point - something along the lines of, "what an interesting little hypothesis you have there!"  Of course, you have to point out the obvious, but you do it in a very condescending (yet cheery) manner, like "I can't wait to see the experiments and tests you've come up with!"

There is one HUGE benefit to this technique over simply ridiculing them: it nearly eliminates direct conflict.  This is important because they THRIVE on conflict.  A patronizing approach is much more passive and will greatly frustrate someone who is looking for a fight/argument.  Remember to keep encouraging them to meet those oh-so-difficult scientific requirements.  After all, you're their friend!

Date: 2006/02/02 04:13:22, Link
Author: improvius
Flock of Dodos is opening tonight in Kansas.  Anyone planning on going?  I'm looking forward to the reviews on this one.

Date: 2006/02/02 05:07:07, Link
Author: improvius
Our favorite snake oil salesman will be offering a 2-day seminar in Dover next month.  One can only wonder at how the good doctor was able to shoehorn this engagement into his busy schedule of speaking "over 700 times each year in public and private schools, universities and churches."

Date: 2006/02/02 07:49:04, Link
Author: improvius
I'm warming up to Stroker and Hoop.  It's not up to par with Venture Bros, but it can be pretty funny.  Boondocks is simply fascinating as social commentary.  The episode when grandad dates a hooker is brilliant ("What if they have kids?  They'll be half-ho!").  The episode when MLK comes out of his coma was amazing, too.  Some of the racial issues they deal with make Chappelle's Show look tame by comparison.
Robot Chicken is a good 10 minutes of brainless fun.  And Birdman continues to rock.
Squidbillies?  Meh.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:36:57, Link
Author: improvius
What else could he possibly say after that?  "Yeah, I got busted!  Oh well, back to the lab..."  Or maybe, "At the trial, some things were brought to my attention that indicate I should re-evaluate my research."  Of course not.  Those would be the reactions of a scientist.

Instead, he tells us he is a man of the people, and not like those mean, stuffy, godless scientists.  Behe makes his intentions perfectly clear:  he wants to keep selling books.

Date: 2006/02/06 11:52:09, Link
Author: improvius
Wow it just gets worse and worse as I read it...

-Strawman YEC vs. big tent creationism...
-Splitting hairs with "controverted" vs. "refuted"...
-"If I performed an experiment nobody would believe me..."

Date: 2006/02/06 12:33:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
It must be a very subtle and brilliant idea indeed.


But any average person can buy my book and understand it perfectly!  That's Darwin's Black Box, available at amazon.com and fine book sellers everywhere.  And it makes a great gift!

Date: 2006/02/08 06:15:44, Link
Author: improvius
Cancer - New Mechanism Potentially Explaining Evolution Of Signalling Pathways Found, University Of Helsinki

Honestly, I wasn't a bio major, so much of this technical article is over my head.  Would any of you biologists care to explain it in layman's terms?

Date: 2006/02/10 07:18:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?


I'll bite:  It's irrelevant to me.  It doesn't mean anything.

Date: 2006/02/10 10:16:04, Link
Author: improvius
If ID isn't religious in nature, why do these discussions invariably delve into ontology?  And, I might add, it seems that the ID proponents are always the first ones to bring it up.

Date: 2006/02/11 04:43:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,15:31)
What resource would we use to ascertain that "human reason is inherently flawed," other than...

human reason?

Well, there's the study of primate psychology...

Date: 2006/02/13 07:45:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Artist in trainig @ Feb. 13 2006,13:19)
I don't know where they are doing it but somewhere there has to be money being bilked out of believers.

One of the more blatant sites is Dr. Dino (Hovind).  I mean, just look at it.  It's an online store with the sole purpose of "bilking believers".  Hovind's last press release boasted that he was speaking publicly over 700 times in a single year!  Do you really think he's doing it for free?  And ask Behe how many books he sold and speaking engagements he landed before he wrote his anti-evolution book.  The opportunities are plnetiful.

Date: 2006/02/13 08:05:33, Link
Author: improvius
####, now you made actually go and look at the site.  Unfortunately I started reading an article on snake spurs.  Keeping snakes happens to be one of my hobbies, and I have a keen interest in the subject.  So unfortunately, I read some of the article.  I think doing so actually killed some of my brain cells.

Date: 2006/02/13 08:22:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Guest @ Feb. 11 2006,22:12)
If the campaign to establish the compatibility of science and religion is to be predicated on the idea that Genesis is meant to be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically, it will achieve pitifully little and certainly not help the cause of science. Such an approach is rightly viewed by millions as based on the evisceration of the words of the Bible of any real meaning and will be rejected. So there is no reason for science to support such an approach.

I thought the campaign was about establishing the compatibility of religion and reality - for the benefit of religion.

Date: 2006/02/13 09:23:53, Link
Author: improvius
Here's something else for Artist in trainig to read: an article on Ken Ham.  According to the article, Ham pulls down a cool $120,000 a year.  Oh yeah, there's money to be made here.  You'll never go broke telling people what they want to hear.

Date: 2006/02/13 10:24:09, Link
Author: improvius
:02-->
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 11 2006,14:02)
There's a southern way of using the word 'ignorant' which befits Ken Ham. It means ignorant, but also hopeless.

That boy's just ignrnt

Bull.  He's pulling $120K a year.  He's a shrewd con artist.

Date: 2006/02/13 12:40:07, Link
Author: improvius
This is why science can't get through to creationists. They are brainwashed at an early age - and for at least the duration of their childhood.

Now ask yourself how a child who has been exposed to that kind of crap throughout their whole life can be expected to accept the science of evolution. That would mean accepting that your parents, friends, religious leaders, all of those people you've loved and looked up to ever since you can remember have been lying to you. Try to imagine the psychological trauma you would have to put yourself through just to accept one simple scientific fact. Could you do it? Or, instead, when faced with "evidence", would you come up with rationalizations and conspiracy theories to protect yourself from the pain.

Face it. These kids are just screwed.  No amount of reasoning is likely to change that.

Date: 2006/02/14 08:16:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 14 2006,11:07)
[quote=guthrie,Feb. 14 2006,10:45]Can someone explain to me what it means to be 'sternberged'?

I think it means you misplace your keys for about a day or so.

Date: 2006/02/16 04:01:48, Link
Author: improvius
Ever since reading it in high school (some 20-odd years ago), I've been a fan of "Inherit the Wind".

At one point in 1992 I was going to grad school to prepare for a career in teaching.  I ended up taking a different path, but I learned a lot about teaching and schools in the process.  Anyway, I was in a masters program at Vanderbilt - which, at the time, was the top-rated university for teaching and education.  In one class we were discussing various issues about ethics and curiculum choices.  For demonstration purposes, the professor took a poll on what should be taught - evolution, creationism, or both.  I raised my hand for evolution, but I was in the minority.  And maybe 1/3 of the class was for creationism only.  That totally floored me - I suddenly felt like I was surrounded by cult members.  I mean, I wasn't even a science person.  I was an English major, planning to teach English in high school.  But even I knew that you shouldn't be teaching creationism instead of evolution.

Anyway, I didn't really do much research until recently, when the whole "ID" movement started to gain popularity in the news.  When I first heard it, "teaching the controversey" seemed so, well, reasonable.  So I decided to dig a little deeper on my own and figure out why so many people objected to it.  It became obvious to me quickly what was going on: on one side you had mountains of research papers and hard evidence, and on the other side you had quote mining.  The dishonesty was palpable.

I became somewhat obsessed with the issue after that.  See, I am very much a typical "Libra" in that I tend to see both sides of an issue.  Especially with politics, I see most things as shades of gray.  But this "kookiness" was different - one side was clearly right, and the the other side was clearly wrong.  I think that's what ultimately got me hooked.  It blows my mind that so many people can be so clearly, objectively, and demonstrably wrong.

Date: 2006/02/17 04:46:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
He has neither proved that non-intelligence is incapable of generating CSI, nor had he proved that his methods can distinguish design from non-design.


This is a clever little trap they've made for themselves.  Even if they had an actual comparitive method, they'd still have to assume the existence of "non-design".  We must be able to observe things that are not the result of intelligent design.  In other words, there must be some things that God did not create.  This necessary assumption seems antithetical to fundamentalist doctrine.

Date: 2006/02/17 06:17:11, Link
Author: improvius
Apparently the designer is really PO'ed at Australia.  Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson if he knows why.

Date: 2006/02/21 05:28:41, Link
Author: improvius
"This contest is good enough for Jehovah!"

Date: 2006/02/22 06:10:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 22 2006,11:33)
I wonder how much $$ the TMLC is chipping in?

They should be footing the whole bill.  This never would have gone to trial if Dick Thompson hadn't convinced the school board that it was a good idea.  Dick was looking for a golden ticket to the SCOTUS and thought he found one in Dover.  The TMLC's ability to offer sound legal advice was in conflict with their own agenda.

Date: 2006/02/24 02:27:13, Link
Author: improvius
It's easier to just start with the big points at the bottom.  They have the last 5 covered easily.

Date: 2006/02/28 07:05:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Life forms are absolutely connected in some fundamental way, yet I am unconvinced as to how.


It's common descent...


Does anyone else remember the Citizen Kane skit from Kids in the Hall?

Quote
Dave: Oh, I saw a great movie last night. It was on the late show. It was-- um, uh, what was it called? It's a classic. It's uh . . . oh, I hate this. I hate it when this happens.

Kevin: Well, what was it about?

Dave: It's about this newspaper tycoon and he's dead, and everybody is telling stories about him, and--

Kevin: It's Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, that's not it. No, no - but something like that. It's uh . . .

Kevin: Okay, who was in it?

Dave: Orson Welles is in it. It's called . . .

Kevin: Then this is Citizen Kane. It's Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, that isn't it, but you're not far from it. It's uh . . .

Kevin: Well who else was in it?

Dave: Oh, um, I dunno.

Kevin: Was Joseph Cotten in it?

Dave: What else has he been in?

Kevin: The Third Man, The Magnificent Ambersons . . .

Dave: Oh, The Magnificent Ambersons. Yes, yes, yes, he was in it, yes. That's one of my favourite Orson Welles movies.

Kevin: Well this is definitely Citizen Kane then. You're talking about Citizen Kane.

Dave: Nnnno, no, no. But it's something like that. It's ci . . . ci, ci . . . Si. Si . . . sy . . .

Date: 2006/03/01 08:06:19, Link
Author: improvius
That #### is crazy.  I mean seriously, Time-Cube crazy.

Date: 2006/03/01 09:47:59, Link
Author: improvius
Seems Ruse is upset because Dawkins is critcizing religion.  What does that have to do with ID?  ;)

Date: 2006/03/08 05:20:13, Link
Author: improvius
...over the past 3 years.  The DI commissioned another round of their Ohio poll, with pretty much identical results as the last time.

2006 Poll Details

2003 CSICOP Article

Date: 2006/03/10 02:30:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Anyway, isn’t this question — whether ID is just rewarmed creation science — a question for philosophical or logical analysis? Can one settle a question of that sort by a judicial ruling?


It was resolved by logical analysis in a judicial ruling.  And, might I add, "duh".

Date: 2006/03/14 11:03:46, Link
Author: improvius
[quote=Russell,Mar. 14 2006,16:55]
Quote
Anyone else following this: do any of you see a point that makes any sense? Or am I just not simple enough?

As far as I can tell, it just seems to be a rehash of the "limits of biological change" argument.  Nothing new to see here...

Date: 2006/03/14 12:14:26, Link
Author: improvius
I think you just gave up.

Date: 2006/03/14 12:48:51, Link
Author: improvius
So I guess you could say that you're something of a modern-day Galileo, and that the scientific community is conspiring against you (and others like you) to prevent the world from finding out what a sham the present "science" really is.  Does that sound about right?

Date: 2006/03/21 04:34:26, Link
Author: improvius
So you mean science without God is like a fish without a bicycle?

Date: 2006/03/21 08:30:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (shi @ Mar. 21 2006,13:53)
So, by your logic, if the supernatural is part of the truth, then science and scientists will have no chance at all of discovering the whole truth.  If science only seeks limited truth, by what rights do scientists have in claiming that the scientific way is the way to truth.

It seems to me that science only aims at discovering practical truth.  It doesn't have to be anything other than pragmatic, which it does very well.

Date: 2006/03/22 02:38:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 21 2006,21:58)
So back to the point.  How can a scientist speculate about ID's course of action when he has no knowledge of the subject and triumphantly claims as much.

Since no one else seems to have taken you to task on this, I'll take a shot at it.  Your assupmtion is wildly off base.  The truth is that nearly all of us here know and understand the subject very well.  Most of us have examined ID in depth and know exactly what it's made of.  This is not a case of something being dismissed out-of-hand.  Rather, we are constantly scrutinizing ID.  When we say "there is no there there", we do so after an extensive search for whatever "there" ID has to offer.

One of the main misconceptions among ID proponents is that ID hasn't been given a "fair shake" by the scientific community.  The reality is that it's been thoroughly shaken, stirred, poked, prodded, churned, filtered, weighed, sniffed, and sifted through before being deemed "thereless".

Date: 2006/03/22 08:57:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 22 2006,13:28)
Re "As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them."

Hmm. My guess is that any particular evolutionary event probably is improbable to some degree. But the important question isn't the improbability of a particular solution - rather it's the probability of some solution being reached.

I always think of trees as a good example of this.  Take any grown tree, and imagine its 3-dimensional outline, including branches, bark, leaves, roots, and all.  Now try to figure out the odds of a given seed growing into that exact outline at that exact spot.  I'd imagine they would look astronomically low.  And yet, there's the tree!  Against all odds, it has managed to fill that exact outline at that exact spot.  Surely something as improbable as this must be evidence of a designer, right?

Date: 2006/03/22 10:04:10, Link
Author: improvius
Apparently DS types with his tongue.  That would probably explain a lot.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:01:14, Link
Author: improvius
[quote=thordaddy,Mar. 27 2006,19:59][/quote]
The biggest problem is that nothing you write makes any sense.  There is no logic whatsoever connecting your statements.  Examples:

Quote
Science already admits that it cannot deny the existence of an IDer, but science can't admit to it either because there is NO empirical evidence.

So science simultaneously admits something and yet can't admit it.  This makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote
This actually means that empirical evidence may exist, but it can't be "observed."

This makes no sense AND demonstrates that you don't know what the word "empirical" means.

Quote
This in turn means it may be observed (faith/belief), but it cannot be measured.

You're building on your previous nonsense, which obviously isn't getting you anywhere.

Quote
Yet, as we see, science readily makes predictions about unique phenomenon (psychology).

This doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with your previous statements.  The term "unique phenonmenon" is also confusing.  It is unclear what you are trying to say about psychology.

Date: 2006/03/28 18:00:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
But since the scientist can't disprove the existence of an IDer then he must concede that some empirical evidence may exist that he can't observe (measure).

Maybe he should look next to his square circle.  That's where I usually leave my unobservable empircal evidence.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:40:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,11:07)
Someday I hope TD will tell us how many followers a religion must have in order to make it true.

One assumes that this formula would also apply to things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabras, alien cow mutilations, etc.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:27:33, Link
Author: improvius
As a Fundamentalinest, all I have to say is that you are all going to heck for forsaking the holy line and embracing the evil of tumble-dry.  Today it's sucking your socks.  Tomorrow it will be sucking your souls.

Date: 2006/03/29 09:51:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2006,15:37)
All I can say is, you guys are clearly LIKELY to set a fundamentalist church on fire. Therefore, you've basically done so.

Well, I HAVE started fires in the past.  And I guess there's no denying that I've walked or driven past several chruches.  I've even set foot in a few of them.  And I can't hide the fact that I've used the words "church" and "fire" in daily speech.  And wouldn't you know, I just used them both in the same sentence!  I suppose that's all the empirical evidence anyone needs to lock me away forever.  I should just head down to the police station and turn myself in right now...

Date: 2006/03/29 11:05:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 29 2006,16:51)
...Well except that sect of the Mother of Socks that Cannot Be Portrayed. I hate those guys.

Now now, you know hateful language like that can only serve to inspire violence.  And believe me, the last thing you ever want to see is socktarian violence.

Date: 2006/03/29 17:47:12, Link
Author: improvius
Is anyone else wondering why td is obsessed with Susan Smith?

Date: 2006/03/30 03:59:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
So now knowledge can be gained even though the observation doesn't need verification or experimentation?  Interesting?


No, you dolt.  It is entirely possible (and easy) to observe, verify, and perform experiments to prove that people have made these claims.

Date: 2006/03/31 02:40:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,05:23)
Can you explain to me why teaching children about the normalcy of a high-risk and deadly activity is justifiable is not reprehensible?

Making #### up doesn't help your cause.

Date: 2006/03/31 03:55:29, Link
Author: improvius
Clearly this is a question about semantics.  As TD himself demonstrates, there are multiple "correct" answers to the question.  It all boils down to how you want to define your terms.

Date: 2006/03/31 10:50:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 31 2006,11:37)
soon afterward, Davetard shows up to issue his devastating retort...

Sorry, I couldn't resist: Devastatin' Dave

Date: 2006/04/04 02:46:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,23:27)
Both the scope of empirical evidence interpreted and the technology devised to give it meaning (measurability/observability) will have to liberalize and evolve, respectively.

You should get right on that.  Please let us know as soon as you come up with new empirical evidence and analysis tools.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:25:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,08:11)
It's not, but we haven't covered much ground
on symmety, have we?

Feel free to flounder around on this topic to your heart's content.

Date: 2006/04/04 03:28:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 03 2006,09:38)
Every living thing is symmetrical.  That has to carry some weight

I think that I shall never see
A naturally-growing symmetrical tree.

Date: 2006/04/04 04:06:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,08:55)
Check out the leaves.  They are for healing.

A nightmare on elm leaf.

Date: 2006/04/04 04:26:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (guthrie @ April 04 2006,09:12)
Correct.  Now that you have shown the ability to write comprehensible sentences in English, would you like to try and make a point related to the evidence that Evolutionary biology has piled up over the past 150 years?

I think this crab is just going to fiddle around with symmetry for a while.

Date: 2006/04/04 04:40:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,09:33)
I really haven't spent much time involved in science.

It's never too late to start.

Date: 2006/04/04 06:14:21, Link
Author: improvius
Clearly, zero's posts have as much point as a sponge.

Date: 2006/04/04 06:42:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 04 2006,11:30)
LOL!

I can't believe people are trying to argue with this loon.

I'm just doing it for the halibut.

Date: 2006/04/04 09:16:01, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 04 2006,13:34)
The following is one of 342 stories about "chance" events in my life on my
web site:

Please, please PLEASE post a link to that site.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it.  Here 0 Is Real

Date: 2006/04/04 18:02:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,20:12)
How can this be taught to elementary age students as "normal?"

You cannot produce a single example of an elementary age student in a public school being taught that anal sex is not dangerous.

Good day sir.

Date: 2006/04/05 07:04:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?


Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here.

EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Date: 2006/04/05 17:49:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Spike @ April 05 2006,21:52)
Sounds pretty democratic to me.

An educated public is crucial to a functioning democracy. One of the reasons we need objective educational standards is to produce adults who can make reasoned, informed choices when voting.  So, in a sense your "democratic" educational system could work contrary to democracy if there are students receiving poor educations (creationism being an obvious example of such).

I'm not saying that our current system is doing a fantastic job at this, but it's certainly something to consider before eliminating public schools completely.  Our goal is to educate each student as best as we can using objective standards.  Our goal is NOT to let parents teach their children whatever they want.  Sometimes the parents' desires must take a backseat to civic responsibility.

Of course, this is not to say that parents shouldn't have any choice in what their children learn.  But there has to be a balance.

Date: 2006/04/05 17:56:30, Link
Author: improvius
You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but I don't see how what you describe is necessarily in conflict with any accepted ToE.

Date: 2006/04/06 02:30:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,23:10)
The problem is that no one believes the public school system is being objective other than those benefiting from that system.

That seems a rather odd thing to say.  Who exactly are you referring to by "those benefiting from that system"?  I could more easily understand complaints of incompetence in executing the state standards.  But, for the most part, it seems that the people in charge of determining those standards do a good job.  We've seen instances lately in which those standards can get messed up when politicians with political agendas get involved, but I think the actual educators do a pretty good job.

Date: 2006/04/06 02:40:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Renier @ April 06 2006,07:23)
What is the distinction between the first positive statement and the second one?

Measurement.

Date: 2006/04/06 03:50:17, Link
Author: improvius
Tim put it very well, I think.  You can measure the quantity of milk in a fridge, and it might come up zero.  You can measure for the quantity of "bacteria with 5 legs and 2 ears" on a given slide under a microscope, and that might be zero as well.  It's a matter of whether or not the quantity in question can be practically measured.

Date: 2006/04/06 17:33:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Spike @ April 06 2006,17:48)
It would be much more just to only charge school taxes from people who want to send their kids to government schools.

Well, part of me thinks that would be pretty sweet.  Because then I wouldn't have to pay school taxes anymore since I don't have children.  On the other hand, I appreciate the advantages of living in a well-educated society.  (Although I admit sometimes it doesn't feel like it.)

All of these children, supposedly, are our future.  I, for one, would like to make every effort to give them a good education.  I think "just cutting them loose" is a poor choice in the long run.  There are some cases in which we should be trying to break the cycle of ignorance.

Date: 2006/04/07 07:26:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 06 2006,23:54)
It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

Unless, of course, you define "new" as having more than 50% new parts.  Or 66%.  Or 75%.
In which case you can determine exactly when it becomes a "new" boat.
But that would only be because you've defined it as such.  which is why, as has been pointed out to td over and over, this is a question of semantics.

Once you define meaningful terms, science gives you the tools to evaluate.

Date: 2006/04/07 08:39:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,12:38)
To work, however, this process must be unconscious. There must be no acknowledgement of the incompatability of past positions, because that might compromise today's glosses.

What, praytell, is the past incompatibility that has gone unacknowledged in this case?

Date: 2006/04/07 09:35:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,14:15)
Originally, evos credited the stinginess of fossil-bearing strata to simple geochemical processes. Yet now that several "intermediates" have been discovered, not only are these processes ignored, there is not even an attempt to reconcile past explanations with current data. It's as if prior rationalizations have disappeared into the memory hole. Did later stratigraphic research overturn those facts? Were the facts merely wishful thinking? What is the explanation?

They looked for and ultimately found this fossil right where they thought it would be - in an area with lots of exposed Devonian rock.  I still have no idea what you think is not reconciled.

Date: 2006/04/07 09:57:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,14:49)
See?

No.  I still have no idea what you think is unreconciled.  Please explain.

Date: 2006/04/07 10:21:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,15:05)
PuckSR stated,

Quote
...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced...,


Quote
It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


If this isn't stating 2 different (I didn't say contradictory)criteria for when a new boat becomes a new boat then please call me crazy because it would be meaningless.

You aren't crazy, you're just having trouble understanding English.

Here's a hint: in the English language, "is" and "becomes" are two different words with different meanings.

Date: 2006/04/07 10:30:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 07 2006,15:15)
Now, however, no one remarks on how surprising all these discoveries are, given the unlikelihood of the intermediates being preserved.

But I thought the find was being hailed as a rare and exciting event.

Date: 2006/04/12 17:08:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (shi @ April 12 2006,13:10)
To respond to the question why Darwinism should be considered as a universal evolution law or why there should exist a universal evolution law.  
There are basically two worldviews, materialism or matter creates consciousness and idealism or consciousness creates matter.  Idealism invokes supernatural intelligence or God as the ultimate cause of all.  Materialism invokes non-intelligent evolution and infinite amount of time and accidents.

Your argument (or complaint, rather) seems to be against science itself - or at least against methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism wins out not because it is a more appealing worldview, but because it works.

Date: 2006/04/14 03:42:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Tiax @ April 13 2006,23:10)
Going to johnnyb's link reveals this absolute gem:

Quote
Designers design systems holistically. Therefore, if we see something that is holistically design, we can infer that there was a designer somewhere behind it.


Pigs are pink, therefore pink things are pigs.

Brilliant!

I think a more accurate analogy would be:

Pink pigs are pink.  Therefore pink pigs are pigs.

Date: 2006/04/17 11:57:55, Link
Author: improvius
Serenity

In a nutshell, she neither appreciated nor agreed with her portayal by the media.  She also got a TON of nasty comments, which apparently lead to her taking the blog down temporarily.

Quote
To all the people who have felt the need to mock, insult, curse and/or pointlessly argue on this blog, this is my first and last post to you. Following this post, I am reclaiming my blog. I never started this blog with the intention of spreading a message to hundreds of people. It was and will continue to be merely my thoughts and experiences written out for my own reflection.


Quote
I read through the comments that were posted on my now infamous Pianka post. Yes, every single one of them. A huge problem people seemed to have was “who gets to choose who lives and who dies?” For some reason, y’all got it into your heads that I thought I got to choose. Where that came from, I have no idea, but that was more or less the point of why a virus is a more fair way of lowering population is that nobody chooses. Actually, let me just say right now that all the people posting on my blog with assumptions about me, just stop.

Many people have referred to me as a potential bioterrorist, that I am encouraging idiots to go out and murder billions of people in the name of ecology. Don’t be ridiculous. As others have also posted, there is a huge difference between identifying a problem and telling people to start killing the masses. I understand the fear that so many of y’all posted (repeatedly) of how some person may read my blog or listen to Dr. Pianka and then get the idea to go poison our waters, but let me just say that the person who does this is already insane before they ever read my blog and hardly needs a catalyst to start committing murder.


Quote
I do not want it at all implied that I advocate mass killing or genocide. I'm not particularly eager to see a virus wipe out myself and the hypothetical 90% of the world population, but I do see it as being fairly inevitable. Realistically, what are the chances of the world actually recognizing our population problem and stop having children? No politician will ever be elected on the platform that the world is already too populated and things like foreign aid is only worsening the problem. And honestly, I don't think any politician ever should because I cannot imagine a person so cruel-hearted as to refuse bread to someone who is hungry. That is not the person I want surviving into the next era of humans. So I am not sure what the answer should be. Should we take care of the earth, and try to restore it even though it seems fairly futile now that it can ever be truly saved? YES……... [Dr. Pianka] knows that actually calling for the end to better health care, taking care of the elderly, and giving foreign aid would never work, and I hope to God that he knows that it is also MORALLY WRONG to do so.

Date: 2006/04/18 06:59:07, Link
Author: improvius
I don't understand what the hold-up is.  Why don't we just burn Dinoland down like we do all the other churches we don't like?

Date: 2006/04/20 09:03:37, Link
Author: improvius
Cool.  Can I use the mind control radio to get Dave to make me a sammich?

Poof!  You're a "sammich".  More specifically, you're a banned-on-rye.  -ds

Date: 2006/04/20 10:41:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
As seen in the Dover decision, Judge Brown concluded that ID is the brainchild of the clearly ‘Christian’ “scientific creationism” (YEC) movement, and used that assumption as his reasoning for declaring it unacceptable under separation of church and state.


Judge who?

Date: 2006/04/20 10:58:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Traditional Marriage was defined as one man and one woman because reasonable people recognized the value of promoting such a civilized ideal.


Which would be what, exactly?

Date: 2006/04/20 11:08:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (secondclass @ April 20 2006,15:50)
Quote (improvius @ April 20 2006,15:41)
Quote
As seen in the Dover decision, Judge Brown concluded that ID is the brainchild of the clearly ‘Christian’ “scientific creationism” (YEC) movement, and used that assumption as his reasoning for declaring it unacceptable under separation of church and state.


Judge who?

Judge Joe Brown, of course.  Defender of womanhood, promoter of manhood, and burner of churches.

"I find 'intelligent design' guilty of extreme fooishness.  I hearby order you to stop being pitiful and start teaching real science."

Date: 2006/04/21 02:39:11, Link
Author: improvius
Just to point out the obvious, TD still hasn't explained why he thinks traditional male/female marriages are so special.  They simply are, and anyone who doesn't know why is apparently an idiot.

Date: 2006/04/21 09:50:30, Link
Author: improvius
Billy D posted commentary on and a link to Luskin's latest:
Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum

Quote
Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for
any sub-system of an irreducibly complex system, outside of the entire irreducible complex system,
suggesting the sub-system might have been co-opted into the final system through the evolutionary process
of exaptation. However, Miller’s characterization ignores the fact that irreducible complexity is defined by
testing the ability of the final system to evolve in a step-by-step fashion in which function may not exist at
each step. Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one
determine if a system has “reducible complexity” or “irreducible complexity.”


Well, this certainly sheds some interesting light on the definition of IC.  Apparently, you can only test for IC by "reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage."  This assumes, obviously, that one already knows the exact transitional pathways by which the system evolved.  That's pretty funny, since I thought the IDers were the ones who kept asking biologists to provide those detailed, step-by-step pathways.

Maybe Behe should tell Luskin that he isn't helping.

Date: 2006/04/21 10:26:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
You both are rendering ANY and ALL UNIONS meaningless by destroying the standard-bearer, namely, one man/one woman.


If you can't come up with any specific, unique value for this "standard-bearer", why are you defending it?

Date: 2006/04/21 11:29:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
I can see an inherant value for a state to encourage a couple to stay in a stable relationship and share responsibility for raising children.


But obviously this is not exclusive of 1 man + 1 woman couples.

Date: 2006/04/21 19:27:21, Link
Author: improvius
It's funny to see them all clucking over there about how the flagellum supposedly predates the TTSS.  I guess it doesn't occur to them that that could be evidence of systems becoming complex by losing parts.

Date: 2006/04/24 10:12:34, Link
Author: improvius
I agree with Ghost.  Gay extemeists have already tried to blow up the white house once.  Letting them marry will only encourage more attacks in the future.

Date: 2006/04/24 11:32:54, Link
Author: improvius
Seriously, don't you libtards get it?  If we let gays get married, it will just encourage them to rape and murder more and more 13-year-olds.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:32:10, Link
Author: improvius
So his point is that ID proponents are like actors pretending that what they do is real?

Yeah, I think we already knew that.

Date: 2006/04/25 04:48:34, Link
Author: improvius
So is Brangelina an irreducibly complex system?

Date: 2006/04/25 06:15:44, Link
Author: improvius
To put it as simply as possible:
homophobic men are scared of teh buttsex.

Date: 2006/04/25 12:52:20, Link
Author: improvius
The bias is obvious.  I am sick and tired of hearing all of these news stories about missing black children, when you never hear anything if something happens to a white child.

Date: 2006/04/26 02:42:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 26 2006,02:59)
Why don't you get bold and QUOTE 5 hateful things that I've said in this thread towards gays.
...
Can you do this?  I doubt it.

This is true.  Clearly thordaddy has great admiration and respect for homosexuals.  He has been asked several times to explain how heterosexual couples are somehow better than homosexual ones, yet he has refused to even acknowledge such a hateful question.  It is obvious that thordaddy loves gay people just as much as he loves straights.

Date: 2006/04/26 03:32:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ April 26 2006,08:28)
Sort of like all those people in WW2 that didn't think Hitler was a threat?

Yes, it's EXACTLY like all of those people in WW2 who thought Hitler was a mythical creature from a fairy tale.

Date: 2006/04/26 04:53:23, Link
Author: improvius
In Larry's latest thread, I managed to convince at leat one person that Luskin is arguing against ID.  Unless, of course, kizzmet is joking.  (In which case I must say he's very convincing, and he got me!;)  This new blog is great fun!

Date: 2006/04/26 07:41:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Faid @ April 26 2006,12:34)
Ghost can you please explain why gay marriage will destroy Western civilization thank you

It was a few pages back, you must have missed it.  Something about damaging everyone's nude connections, I think.

Date: 2006/04/26 10:24:53, Link
Author: improvius
I'm still not totally convinced that kissmet is serious.  That stuff is pretty far out there.

Date: 2006/04/26 12:01:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ April 26 2006,16:48)
Is this an example of the "liberal" tolerance you proffer?

Black Expulsion

LOL!!

I think this deserves a spot in the top 10 list of "Stupidest AtBC Posts Ever".

Date: 2006/04/27 03:06:50, Link
Author: improvius
If you're looking for a good definition for marriage, I'd suggest "domestic partnership".

"A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between individuals who live together and share a common domestic life."

(Obviously I've ommitted the marriage exclusion from the original statement.)

By the way, I think thordaddy's sheep marriage has to be thrown out, since animals can neither consent nor enter into a contract.  Plus, there's the whole animal abuse thing, but let's not get into that.

As for the racial issues brought up, I'll just say that any discussion of inequality is pointless if you don't include ecnonomic fators.

Date: 2006/04/27 04:59:03, Link
Author: improvius
This seems WAY too easy, but I'll bite:

1. True
2. True
3. Economic issues were often trumped by religious intolerance at a time when the church had a tremendous amount of power.

Date: 2006/04/27 08:26:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Russell @ April 27 2006,13:12)
If this is really meant seriously, I have just one question. Have you ever read an actual book* on the topic of evolution?

*(pop-up books don't count)

I'm sure he has.  They have an excellent selection of them for sale at www.drdino.com.

Date: 2006/04/27 09:02:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 27 2006,13:56)
I plan on answering your questions in this thread. Would you mind answering my questions in the new thread? I'm interested in your response.

There's a new thread on anti-semitism?  I can't find it.  But if you post a link, I'll be more than happy to re-post my response there.

Date: 2006/04/27 10:59:05, Link
Author: improvius
So he's saying Coulter is the Howard Stern of Christian conservatives?

By golly, I like it!

Date: 2006/04/29 06:55:09, Link
Author: improvius
I don't want to waste too much time on this nonsense, but I'll dismantle one of your predictions on the incredibly off chance it will help you.

Quote
(d) We would expect that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being like  my "God" persona, we would expect there to be many claims that people have received Written Messages from Him.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  There are many ... the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few.


Let's look at just ONE major assumptions this involves:

It is impossible for such a Supernatural Being to exist unless that Being sends written messages.

Now, does this actually make sense to you?

Date: 2006/05/01 03:43:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (MidnightVoice @ May 01 2006,08:21)
AFD does not want help.  He is absolutely convinced, and the facts of life will never change his mind.  It is amusing to point out his mistakes and total lack of intellectual honesty, but his mind, unlike that of scientists, is fixed and unchanging.

Agreed.  He is not here to learn.  He is here to prove to himself how right he is by rationalizing away any logical objections to his faith.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:04:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Really?  Where did I assume that?  I think all I did was make a prediction that IF my God persona exists, we would expect there to be claims of written messages from Him.  Given the discussion above, we can modify this to say the we "see this SURPRISING FACT that there are many written messages claiming to be from 'God'"


So your argument could be accurately restated as:

-If there is a God, he MIGHT send written messages.
-People who claim they receive written messages from God MIGHT actually be receiving written messages from God.
-Since there are people who claim they receive written messages from God, there MIGHT actually be a God.

So you can either make this a logical argument built on ridiculous assumptions, or render it meaningless by accepting the above ambiguity.  Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.  I guess we shouldn't be surprised, since IDers have already tried changing the meaning of "science".

Date: 2006/05/01 12:07:35, Link
Author: improvius
Ok, since anecdotal evidence counts in Dave's book, I will provide some:

I heard a couple of people saying Dave caused the tsunami.

At this point, I think that puts it on equal footing with your God hypothesis.

Date: 2006/05/02 03:22:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Dante @ May 01 2006,20:00)
Guys, bevets just posted a comment at UD.

Anyone who's ever heard of bevets knows what this means...

This should be fun to watch.

That's not the real Bevets.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:40:59, Link
Author: improvius
And, obviously, she would have no concept of a "creator".  But if she happened to notice that, by coincidence, thunder struck once when she was near a particular rock or something, she might attribute supernatural powers to the rock.

Date: 2006/05/02 06:54:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
DATA: The Surprising Fact A (or Phenomenon A) is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)


Just stop.  None of those things constitue data.  They all represent bias before the fact.  I mean, really, you are just insulting us here.  "Surprising fact" describes an emotional reaction, not emprical data.  There is no way to measure the tuning of a cosmos.  And what scale are you using to determine how holy a given book is?

Date: 2006/05/03 11:20:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ May 03 2006,14:15)
He's boring.  ???

Yep.  Once they make it clear that they reject methodological naturalism, there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Date: 2006/05/04 08:23:45, Link
Author: improvius
Not to belabor the point, but it seems Davey is very confused about the term "testable predictions".  He's expecting Nostradamus-type predictions, like how many fingers humans will have one million years from now.  He doesn't seem to appreciate actual scientific predictions, like human/chimp DNA similarity, chromosome fusion, finding specific fossils, etc.

Of course, this is certainly a minor complaint compared to his dismissal of methodological naturalism.

Date: 2006/05/04 16:06:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,16:33)
Relax.  Relax.  We'll get there ... besides, aren't you having fun beating up on a YECer?  Just think ... you might even make a convert!

It's actually depressing to see another human being so gleefully embracing ignorance and lies.  The worst part is that many of us feel helpless to do anything about it.  We can argue until we're blue in the face, but nothing ever seems to snap you true believers out of that trance.  Any anger you sense is just coming out of our frustration.

Date: 2006/05/04 18:33:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
I love all the research that our enormous scientific community is doing and most of what they do is not affected by my debate here.


Well, actually, none of the research is affected by your debate.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:29:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 04 2006,22:30)
history has shown what this type of belief can do in a society if it is believed by the leadership.

This is utter bs, Dave.  But I'd love to see you Godwin this thread, so I'll ask you what evidence you think you have to back this up.

Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this.

Date: 2006/05/05 04:21:37, Link
Author: improvius
FYI, quote mining is probably the single best way to demonstrate your own dishonesty.
Quote
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.

Someday you'll regret having lied to your children about all of this.

Date: 2006/05/05 04:39:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Faid @ May 05 2006,09:31)
<edit: Whoops- sorry, improvius.>

Not at all.  The more the merrier.  I'd be happy to see EVERYONE here give Dave a smack for that one.  I mean seriously, quote mining Dawkins?  Dave is getting worse and worse with each new post.  I'm just waiting for him to trot out the alleged connection between evolution and you-know-who.

Date: 2006/05/05 08:15:46, Link
Author: improvius
[quote=afdave,May 05 2006,11:24][/quote]
Dave, try to stop lying.  You are trying to come across as being impartial when it is clear that you are not.  You cannot reconcile statements like this:
Quote
I would be happy to adopt "Evo Did It" if I had ever seen an instance of this happening, but so far I have not.

With statements like this:
Quote
There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.

Your objections stem from an emotional reaction, not from rational thought.  There is NO WAY we can reasonably convince you because your objections are not based in reason to begin with.

Date: 2006/05/05 12:54:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,17:09)
Chris,

Does this mean that in this context that science is irrelevant?

I wonder who determines when science is relevant or irrelevant in matters of law?

It's semantics, you idiot.  The law defines at as years since birth.  It is "years since birth" simply because it is defined as such.

Date: 2006/05/05 13:36:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,18:28)
improvius,

I thought it was X years old and starting one's age at birth was due to scientific ignorance?

(Sigh.)  Yes, thordaddy, of course you are right.  The law stems from ancient storkist beliefs.

Date: 2006/05/06 19:12:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 06 2006,09:55)
improvius quote mined me ...
Quote
There is really one really big thing I resent.  And that is the idea that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals.
and left out the last part that said I also believe this to be a factual error.

BS.  You said that you resented the idea itself.  Is this true or not?  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

Date: 2006/05/08 06:00:28, Link
Author: improvius
Yay!  Godwinned!

Which allows me to throw in this tidbit:

The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity.  The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd.  Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.  Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.

Linking any theory of evolution to the Holocaust is a tremendous stretch, and ultimately a useless exercise.  If you are looking for an ideology to blame, you need look no further than Christianity.

Date: 2006/05/08 07:15:34, Link
Author: improvius
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?

Date: 2006/05/08 19:49:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,12:35)
Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:

Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?


If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.

I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning.  I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.

You are still avoiding the question.  I mentioned nothing whatsoever about teaching it.

Now let's try this again.  Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?

Date: 2006/05/11 06:13:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 09 2006,10:21)
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust?  You tell me.  I'm not discounting other factors.  It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well.  So my point is ...

Well, since the single greatest contributing factor to the Holocaust is over a thousand years of Christians hating Jews, Christianity is the obvious answer.

It seems you are disregarding the facts in favor of a pet theory.  Here's a hint: if your pet theory is in conflict with known facts, then it's probably your theory that's wrong - not the facts.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:16:08, Link
Author: improvius
This is either the funniest thing you've ever seen, or the stupidest thing you've ever seen.

Date: 2006/05/18 04:39:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
ID has to spend millions on PR to even get any research off the ground to see if there is support for this promising theory.


How is PR a requirement for starting research?

Date: 2006/05/18 04:58:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
PR raises money for doing research.


But as you said, they already have MILLIONS.  And you cannot name one specific research project for which they are trying to raise money.  In the case of ID, the PR is the end, not the means.

Date: 2006/05/19 10:54:45, Link
Author: improvius
But, clearly, it appears (if only to Dave) to be a mixture of French and Spanish.  And as we've seen in every one of his posts, that's really all the evidence Dave needs.

Date: 2006/05/22 12:37:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 22 2006,16:50)
Quote
I think we can both agree about the abominable consequences that the self-deifying leaders of the evolutionist movement have wrought upon humanity
And they are the leaders of the evolutionist movement how?

Are you kidding?  Kim Jong-il gets published in Science practically every other month.

Date: 2006/05/23 08:35:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 23 2006,12:08)
Maybe some new great discovery that will finally make the lightbulb come on for me?

I...

You know, this one's just too easy.  Even I have standards.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:23:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
We are basically doing a political "end run" around obstinate, head-in-the-sand scientists.


...in lieu of doing any research whatsoever.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:34:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
You guys slip and slide and conform your theory to findings in such a ridiculous manner it is hilarious.


Yeah, I guess modifying a theory to conform to actual data is a bizarre concept - to creationists.

Date: 2006/05/24 07:55:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
I want to do a research project to show you that a Design Hypothesis makes for MORE PRODUCTIVE scientists than ToE does.


Sweet.  I think EVERYONE here would love to see your abstract.

Date: 2006/05/25 10:44:16, Link
Author: improvius
Edit - Ladlergo beat me to it.

Date: 2006/05/26 06:30:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Prove to me, using your own autonomous reason, the you are not a Brain in a Vat!.


That's completely unnecessary for the purposes of science.  Science doesn't have to be anything but pragmatic, so it easily avoids the trap of solipism.  We use methodological naturalism because it works.

Date: 2006/05/26 06:50:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
(3) hang in there ... it's hard work defending a dying theory ... but I know you can do it if you persevere.


I will give Dave credit - his experience and knowledge on this particular subject is unsurpassed.

Date: 2006/05/26 06:57:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ May 26 2006,11:55)
Quote
I will give Dave credit - his experience and knowledge on this particular subject is unsurpassed.
Good comeback, improv ... I like guys with creative responses ...

Thanks.  I could tell you didn't like the rational ones, so I figured I try something different.

Date: 2006/05/26 07:48:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Again, you can have knowledge without the Bible, but you can not have knowledge that you have knowledge without it.


And again, this is irrelevant for scientific purposes.  We rely on methodological naturalism because it works.

Date: 2006/05/30 11:52:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist [b]y the multitude


It seems that either skeptic is just making this up, or he is using a significantly different definition of "multitude" than that of most biologists.  Maybe that's what Rilke is really getting at.

Date: 2006/06/06 07:04:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
What would someone with "very few allegiances" base his "rational" debate on?


Compassion.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:56:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,22:47)
Will anyone define what exactly we are voting for or against or will we continue with these silly distractions?

You know all of those gay couples out there who keep trying to get married?  We're voting to let them do so.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:04:14, Link
Author: improvius
Here's a fun one:

What, if anything, does the inerrant bible tell you about snakes?

Date: 2006/06/06 18:07:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,23:04)
improvius,

Since we are talking about probably less than 1% of the American population, the visibility of gay people looking to get state-coerced validation is rather invisible even here in Southern California.

Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"

I'm confused.  Do you want a list of names, or what?  I can probably dig up quite a few from varioous articles if you like.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:17:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 06 2006,23:16)
Quote

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!


with strong, supple arms...

Don't forget hairy.

Date: 2006/06/07 02:55:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"


Here are a few:

44 gay and lesbian couples in NY
Debra Gold, 43 (and her wife), and Carly Nielsen, 22 and Allie Delaney, 20
Curtis Woolbright and his partner Daniel Reyes, and Michael Elsasser and Doug Robinson

Do you get it now TD?  Or should I find some more examples?

Date: 2006/06/07 04:02:12, Link
Author: improvius
Could we all just agree that Portuguese shares is roots with and is very similar to Spanish, but does reflect a certain amount of French influence.  Calling it a mixture of the two is a gross oversimplification (probably based on superficial observations), yet it would also be wrong to deny French influence on the language.

Date: 2006/06/07 06:48:07, Link
Author: improvius
...or thit down, athuming he'th a catcher.

Date: 2006/06/07 12:45:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:06)
I don't mind you having that definition, but it clearly discriminates against Chrissy, Missy and Sissy and Bo and Luke Duke even though ALL are gay.  Are you not a bigot against some gays?

Ok, now it's YOUR turn.  Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married?  As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue.  So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:07:32, Link
Author: improvius
Yes, eventually even the most important criteria will become irrelevant: the desire to marry someone.  In this post-gay-marriage-apocalyptic world, not even that will matter.  People will just randomly become married to each other, whether they want to or not.

Date: 2006/06/08 02:38:44, Link
Author: improvius
I answered your questions, TD. Now it's YOUR turn.  Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married?  As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue.  So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:15:22, Link
Author: improvius
Please, TD (or anyone who cares to try), finish this sentence:

The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage, as opposed to homosexual marriage, is ____.

The only condition is that you use some sort of noun phrase.  Predicate adjectives will not count for credit.  (This means you can't just use the word "obvious", TD.)

Date: 2006/06/08 12:41:25, Link
Author: improvius
thordaddy-

Take a deep breath, relax, and try to focus on what I actually wrote.  If you can't come up with an answer, that's fine, just say so and we can move on.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:46:59, Link
Author: improvius
You know what, I'll even rephrase it to make it more obvious for you:

The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____.

Date: 2006/06/08 16:15:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.


So are we to take it that your criteria for determining the value of a marriage is based on the ability to raise children?  Or is it simply producing children that makes the marriage valuable?

Date: 2006/06/10 12:13:17, Link
Author: improvius
More detailed info on "Giants".

This looks pretty #### funny.  I like this part, emphasis mine:
Quote
The movie includes waves of answered prayers, a medical miracle, a mysterious silver-haired mystic who delivers a message from God and a bench-warmer who kicks a 51-yard field goal to win the big game when his handicapped father pulls himself out of a wheelchair and stands under the goal post to inspire his son's faith. There's a prayer-driven gust of wind in there, too.

Date: 2006/06/12 04:57:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
You are using the difference HC-CG as the denominator in your formula and HC-HG as your numerator, giving something like .2/.5=40%, which is completely irrelevant and highly misleading.  For an organism to be '40% closer' to humans than some other organism, an honest comparison would be something like this: HX=80% and HY=40%.  Now you can say 'X' is 40% closer to 'H' than 'Y' because the proper denominator is used, that is ... 100%.  You are essentially 'magnifying the differences with an electron microscope' by using the small denominator.  Common sense should have told you that a chimp is not 40% closer to a human that a gorilla.  What is fair to say is that chimps are slightly (1/2% or so) closer to humans than gorillas.

You have this exactly backwards.  Since we're comparing the differences, 40% is the more accurate figure.  You are just being mentally blocked by what you call your own "common sense" - which is really just another way of saying "willful ignorance".  I suspect you are just trying to brush off the "1/2%" amounts as margins of error, when that is simply not the case.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:27:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:05)
Only a lunatic or a blind man would say that chimps are 40% (or whatever your number is) closer to humans than gorillas are.

This is simply fascinating.  I'd love to know how Dave comes up with this assessment.

Date: 2006/06/12 05:41:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,10:36)
...not give an honest picture of how much more similar to humans chimps are vs. gorillas

I thought we were all discussing genetic similarity.  What, praytell, are you referring to, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/12 08:54:09, Link
Author: improvius
The funniest part of this is that Dave's argument boils down to something like, "humans, chimps, and gorillas are all essentially the same thing."  Which actually is true, if we were comparing them to all other organisms.  But since we are focusing ONLY on humans, chimps, and gorillas, the 40% figure is obviously much more significant.

Date: 2006/06/13 07:51:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
It is quite likely to me that gorillas and chimps did have a common ancestor.


So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement?

Date: 2006/06/13 09:01:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 13 2006,13:55)
Quote (afdave @ June 13 2006,13:48)
Ved...      
Quote
"It is quite likely to me that gorillas and chimps did have a common ancestor." So what, exactly, is your basis for that statement?
Just look at them, Ved.  They are hairy all over, have hand-like feet, are good at climbing, have funky lips and beetle-brows, make animal sounds, both live in zoos, etc. etc.  Think about how silly it sounds to ask a question like you just asked.

Is this a joke? Only asking because it is possible you are serious.

I'm afraid he is.  Where's that jaw-dropping emoticon?  Followed by the one that's rolling around laughing.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:42:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Well ... I say if we are so close, why don't the freshmen go to the zoo to get dates instead of the sorority house?

Good point.  Because chimps and gorillas crossbreed all the time.  Right, Dave?

Sorry, but until you can come up with something other than "it's so obvious," we're just going to keep laughing at you.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:56:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (incorygible @ June 14 2006,10:51)
Not only does that dog not hunt in any rational discourse, Dave, it's really a little frightening to think this is the type of "truth" you would have your kids trust in (not to mention ironic when you consider your ilk likes to blame racism and other evils on evolutionary theory).

Just like Stephen Colbert, Dave doesn't tell the truth to us.  He feels the truth at us.

Date: 2006/06/14 06:13:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:59)
That's ridiculous.  There are many fields of science which depend upon indirect evidence of phenomena which we cannot measure or count.  Meyer and others have pointed out many of these fields.

When I talk about non-biological differences, I am not even getting to spirits, souls, revealed destinies, etc.  I am talking about advanced linguistic skills, abstract thinking ability, scientific inquiry ability, the capacity for religious thinking, the ability to create civilization, etc. etc.

Super.  And how, exactly, do those things pertain to the subject of determining common ancestry?

Date: 2006/06/14 07:50:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14)
To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.'  They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings.

Quite false interpretation, thus they are 'religious crusaders' with an agenda to promote.  Are you with them?

And what do you think motivates these conspirators?

(Sorry, folks, I just want to see how much candy is left in this piñata.)

Date: 2006/06/14 08:01:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
It was Creationists who forced geologists to discard 'uniformitarianism' in favor of 'neo-catastrophism' and 'episodicity'...


I think you meant it was creationist dogma that forced creation scientists to discard 'uniformitarianism'...

Date: 2006/06/14 09:16:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,13:07)
Quote
I think you meant it was creationist dogma that forced creation scientists to discard 'uniformitarianism'...
Are you saying that the old Lyellian uniformitarianism is still alive?

I'm saying you shouldn't get your geological information from CreationWiki.

Date: 2006/06/14 10:06:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (jeannot @ June 14 2006,14:50)
Don't you guys think that discussing portuguese and zircon with AFD is getting excessively boring? Dave isn't going to change is mind. If you still want to argue with him, I suggest you move to another topic, (forget isotopic dating, Dave will dismiss it).

I think most of us are just trying to see how bizarre of a response we can get out of him.  It's still kind of interesting to see how he rationalizes some things.

Date: 2006/06/14 11:50:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,16:28)
"Our diffusion dating method in Section 9 differs entirely from the "He dating" of (U-Th/He) Chronometry [Reiners, 2002].  Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th/He) Chronometry divides the number of He atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate.  Diffusion dating divides the number of He atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate.  Some practitioners of (U-Th/He) Chronometry, in their unpublished comments about our work, have not yet understood this distinction.(RATE Book II, p. 94)

So what, in your mind, Dave, would possibly make you think that the nuclear decay rate would be less reliable than the diffusion rate?  Because it seems to me that if you're rejecting the presumption of uniformity, diffusion rates would be meaningless.  For bonus points, try to answer this without quoting something.

Date: 2006/06/14 12:04:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (normdoering @ June 14 2006,17:01)
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,13:07)
Get the book.  I did and he explains it perfectly.

Never. I will not support creationist lies.

I prefer the term "con artists".

Date: 2006/06/15 05:56:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
You're right.  I still got the 3, but not all before the book recommendation! Point conceded.


Curious - what exactly did you perceive as a "cheap shot" by either Wesley, Chris, Alan, Flint, or JMX?

Date: 2006/06/15 07:30:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,11:27)
Improvius...  
Quote
So what, in your mind, Dave, would possibly make you think that the nuclear decay rate would be less reliable than the diffusion rate?  Because it seems to me that if you're rejecting the presumption of uniformity, diffusion rates would be meaningless.  For bonus points, try to answer this without quoting something.
Good question.  Simple answer.  No quoting required. Creationists DO subscribe to uniformitarian processes for most periods BETWEEN Creation and the Flood, and BETWEEN the Flood and the present time.  See how easy that is?  And I will say this.  I think Humphreys could be off either way by several thousand years due to some of the issues raised by Henke and you all.  And we understand that additional experiments are necessary.

Perfect, that's exactly what I was expecting.  So in order to test your hypothesis, you simply throw out any and all data that conflicts with it, then keep whatever anomolous and/or erroneous scraps remain.  I very much like the analogy of throwing out the signal and listening to the noise.
I'm sure you will disagree, but for the rest of us, it is perfectly clear that this is your methodology.

(EDIT: oops, used wrong quote the first time)

Date: 2006/06/15 07:49:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
BTW, without actually moving on, can you give us a clue as to what you mean by "the pre-deluge atmosphere contained a hundred times more C12 than currently? Are you saying the atmosphere was 6% CO2, or are you saying that only 1 part in 10E-16 of the carbon in the atmosphere was C14? Or did you mean something entirely different? This is the third time I've asked this question, without getting an answer.


He actually has answered this.  His argument is that we can't know or measure pre-flood anything, because the laws of nature changed completely in that event.  It wasn't just a flood, it was a complete rending and rebuilding of the very fabric of the universe.

Date: 2006/06/15 08:39:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Blinded by what they want to believe.


And this is it folks, the BIG question: why don't all of these scientists want to believe in the literal, scientific truth of the bible?

Date: 2006/06/15 11:20:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 15 2006,15:45)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2006,15:29)
Doesn't look like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me, Rilke.

Sure it does.  "If you are a True Christian, then you know that the world is 6,000 years old."  It is not possible to be a True Christian and know that the world is 4.5 billion years old.

Dave is just playing the card in reverse; he's still claiming that there is a single, true, unarguable set of Christian beliefs (his), and that anyone who believes differently isn't a Christian.  He's just being "polite" and offering them the option of claiming to be mistaken.

I thought he said they were "Blinded by what they want to believe."  Still no answer on why he thinks these people are so eager to disprove a literal, inerrant bible.

Date: 2006/06/16 02:47:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2006,21:46)
now if there was only some way to make money with that...

Are you kiding?  Ken Ham makes over $100K a year.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:04:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 16 2006,10:44)
Weird. According to the main board afdave is the last poster here. But I read george as the last post when I enter the thread.

EDIT: Sorry about that. Working fine now.

The counter is a bit off.  You can get around this and see the latest posts by adding 10 to the start page in the url.  It's the last part of the URL - so instead of "st=2020" type in "st=2030".

EDIT: Argy beat me to it.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:37:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Says scientist who WANT the earth to be very, very old.


Fascinating how Dave still isn't telling us why so many scientists would wand the earth to be very, very old...  But I'll give him another chance before I just answer for him.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:13:08, Link
Author: improvius
Since Dave still doesn't want to address this, I will.  The heart of his whole argument is that the vast majority of scientists simply don't want a Christian God to exist.  They don't want Him to exist because if He did, then they would have to answer to Him.  They think that if they can disprove His existence, then they can rationalize living a life of reckless abandon, rejecting morality and embracing their basest desires.

This is the reason why people invented things like evolution, old-earth dating systems, and methodological naturalism.  It all boils down to finding a way to weasel out of getting judged by God.

Is that about right, Dave?  Go ahead and correct me if I'm off base here.

Date: 2006/06/16 16:32:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 16 2006,17:51)
"No, that's just a Ducati-rider's misconception, based on flawed assumptions. I won, because my bike puts out more torque, and besides that, it weighs more than your bike."

No, you have it all wrong.  You're ignoring what's really important: the immeasurable, non-mechanical differences between the two bikes.  For example, lots of people think Harley's are "cool", therefore Dave wins.

Date: 2006/06/17 17:35:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 17 2006,21:34)
No Dave, I asked you for your explanation of the six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

I can answer for him.  The scientists are all just seeing what they want to see, because they really, really want to prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.  Because they don't want to have to answer for their sins.  So they can party down without having to worry about the consequences.

Here's a great question that Dave probably won't answer:

How would you test to determine whether or not an object is over 1 million years old?

My first prediction is that he'll ignore the question.  (I think he's kinda POed at me for pegging him on the "athesit scientist conspiracy" issue.)
My alternate prediction is that he'll say such a test would be absurd because nothing could possibly be that old.

Date: 2006/06/19 06:49:41, Link
Author: improvius
Dave, can you move on to something else?  We've covered your C14 arguments thoroughly and refuted all of them.  What else you got?

Date: 2006/06/19 17:04:59, Link
Author: improvius
Not bad, but I have to be honest.  The posts where you try to be "sciencey" are WAYYY funnier.

I especially love the one about the worldwide conspiracy of atheist scientists.

Date: 2006/06/20 03:48:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
No conspiracy.  Just an incorrect consensus.  Remember Dembski's piece I gave you on the "History of Erroneous Consensus's" (Or is it Consensi?)  Here it is again ...


Come on now, Dave.  Don't hold back on us.  You keep telling us how important it is for the great atheist scientist conspiracy to prove that the world is so very old.  You are the one insisting that they "see what they want to see."  You are the one telling us about the hundreds of thousands of disagreeable data samples that are disposed of in secret.

So just go ahad and say it.  Tell us more about these atheist scientists who are conspiring to make the world seem older than it is.  Why are you so afraid to put your conspiracy theory into words?  Are you afraid that we'll somehow think less of you?  That we'll think you're suffering from some sort of paranoid delusion?

Date: 2006/06/20 04:24:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 20 2006,08:59)
Quote
Are you afraid that we'll somehow think less of you?
Oh yeah.  I'm worried about that ... can't you tell?

Yes, I can.  It's the only reason I can think of to explain why you are so reluctant to discuss the motives behind this conspiracy.

Date: 2006/06/21 09:22:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
No conspiracy.  Just a rather arrogant consensus that the Bible is a fairy tale and anything that sound 'Biblical" or 'religious' is pretty much ignored with no investigation.


I take this as an admission that you were mistaken when you accused scientists of being "Blinded by what they want to believe".  And when you referred to evolution as a con.  And when you accused scientists of falsifying data so that they could prove the Earth is billions of years old.

Date: 2006/06/21 10:14:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,15:03)
Right after our last RATE topic which we will do tomorrow.

We've sufficiently shredded RATE, so I don't think anyone needs to go back to that.  Let's just jump right into Genesis stuff.

Here's my first open question: what, if anything, does the bible tell us about snakes?  Give me your answers, and then we'll see how the bible compares to reality.

Date: 2006/06/21 10:40:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ June 21 2006,12:24)
Does anyone care to speculate why Dembski/Berlinski chose this particular mouthpiece?

That's pretty obvious.  They wanted to help their own book sales.  And since that's really the heart of the ID movement, I think it's a fantastic idea.

Date: 2006/06/21 11:15:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 21 2006,16:04)
Also, I want an explanation for how the mountains didn't exist, the continents were much larger, and the oceans were much shallower, 4,500 years ago.

Flood + magic.  Any other questions?

Date: 2006/06/21 11:24:14, Link
Author: improvius
Can you tell the difference between Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler?

Date: 2006/06/21 11:44:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 21 2006,16:39)
Yeah. I want to know how this "magic" happened. Like, you know, mechanisms.

Well, then it wouldn't be magic, now would it?

Date: 2006/06/22 05:00:49, Link
Author: improvius
I agree with his position that a good way to make creationists look smart is to compare them to Beavis and Butthead.

Date: 2006/06/22 06:58:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2006,11:40)
What will they do all day?

For the most part, it seems they will mis-categorize their concepts as "praxis".

Date: 2006/06/22 07:08:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 22 2006,11:45)
JUSTIFYING YOUR SKEPTICISM, OR, MISERY LOVES COMPANY

It was interesting to read the latest psychoanalysis of me and to hear your responses to the new guy.  I have often thought it strange that some of you guys are worried about the lurkers "converting" to YECism here.  Personally, I don't expect it now and I never have.  It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception.  Everyone is familiar with the 'Love is blind' concept.  Well this is the same way.  Skeptics can't stand those "goddam christians/muslims/jews/hindus/" and the feeling is so strong that, like the love-struck teenager, they cannot see the glaring errors in their theories.  

Woo-hoo!  Now that's the stuff I've been waiting to hear.  Man, I thought Dave was never going to come right out and say it.

EDIT: I see now that I was wrong about Dave believing in a conspiracy per se.  Rather, he believes that the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong because they are so very full of hate.  They need to prove that the Earth is billions of years old because they hate God.  So while they share a common motivation, methodology, and goals, they all do so as autonomous individuals rather than as an organized group.

Nope, no conspiracy here.

Date: 2006/06/22 09:25:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ June 22 2006,14:17)
I especially like the threat aftard poses about the death bed conversion, hurry and find jeebuz before its too late!

Dave could have saved everyone a lot of time if he'd just posted a Chick tract right at the beginning of the thread.

Date: 2006/06/22 10:43:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 22 2006,15:39)
So tell us exactly what evidence would convince you, and we'll see if such data exists.

As a follow-up, what kind of test would you perform to determine whether or not an object is older than 10,000 years?  How about a test to see if an object were older than 1,000,000 years?   1,000,000,000 years?

Date: 2006/06/23 03:41:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
We know the game.


THAT much I believe.

Date: 2006/06/23 06:16:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
But where it speaks about the natural world, it is accurate.


Ok.  So what, if anything, does the bible tell us about snakes?

Date: 2006/06/23 06:39:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 23 2006,11:34)
 
Quote
I know.  Carbon 14.  But we have already talked about how it is based upon assumptions which do not take the Flood into account.  This is a big problem for the method and must be remedied.  As for your 6 lines, my guess is that they have similar problems.  We shall see!


AFDave, please clarify your arguments against C14 dating for me

You claim C14 is not reliable for dates before the Flood, but is OK for dates after the Flood.  Is that correct?

You claim the ratio of C14/C12 was from 100X to 500X lower before the Flood than after, but you don’t know precisely much lower.  Is that correct?

You claim the decay rate from C14->C12 was substantially faster before the Flood than after, but you don’t know how much faster.  Is that correct?

Let me make it easy for you.

If any data somehow conflicts with biblical timelines, it's because:

1) Your data is in error because you didn't figure in Flood changes.

or

2) Either consciously or unconsciously, you have fudged the data so as to disprove the existence of God.

Dave allows for no other option to explain conflicting data.  The 3rd possibility, which would be that the conflicting data is correct and the bible is in error, is not a possible outcome of Dave's mental filter.  It is, therefor, impossible to convince Dave that the bible is not literally accurate in all scientific matters.

Date: 2006/06/23 08:26:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Of course the Bible COULD be in error, but no one has yet shown me one. Maybe you could be the first?


This isn't possible because your brain simply won't accept any such data.  As you've clearly demonstrated, you will attribute any conflicting data to human error: either somebody forgot the flood, or they're trying to disprove God.

The mental shield you have constructed is impenetrable.  There is no conceiveable way to convince you of anything that goes against a strict, literal interpretation of the bible.

Think of it this way:

Assume, for a second, the Earth really IS billions of years old, and some brilliant scientist had come up with a conclusive test to demonstrate that age.

Now, how would you be able to tell whether or not this scientist had really discovered the truth?  How would you be able to discern if he was correct. or if he was deluding himself, or if he were simply some sort of con artist?  The fact is, Dave, that there would simply be no way whatsoever for the scientist to convince YOU that his old earth theory was true.


So you see, whether you realize it or not, your "challenge" is utterly disingenuous.  It is impossible to convince you of biblical inerrancy because your mental constructs simply won't allow for that possibility.

You can answer the question about snakes if you want, or simply ignore it like you do so many other questions here.  I am merely proposing another test of biblical inerrancy for my own amusement.  I have no doubt that you will remain unaffected by it, whether you respond or not.

Date: 2006/06/23 12:52:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
It would have to be some pretty good evidence to overpower that.


See?  You can't even answer the question.  Your mind is incapable of it.

Date: 2006/06/23 16:42:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Now, have you got anything to refute my evidence that Genesis is literal, eyewitness history?  (Since that is your specialty?)


Dave, you are simply unable to process anything that would refute your beliefs, and that's all there is to it. You are incapable of recognizing evidence.  As I've pointed out, you can't even begin to explain how you might recognize it.  See?  I'll ask you again:  How would you discern true from false evidence refuting your beliefs?

Date: 2006/06/24 03:43:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
What I said is the "No archaeological find has ever controverted a Biblical statement."


Try to be more accurate, Dave.  What you really should say is, "I've never accepted the existence of an archaeological find that controverted a Biblical statement."

You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?

I'll bet that questions like that one just show up as "fnord" for Dave.

Date: 2006/06/24 06:59:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,11:08)
Can YOU come up with an archaeological find that has controverted a Biblical statement?  I bet you cannot.

Of course, you still don't get it.  It is impossible for anyone to present evidence that you would accept, because your mental fitlers will not allow for any such evidence.

You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?

I'll bet that questions like that one just show up as "fnord" for Dave.

Date: 2006/06/24 18:15:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
Quote
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

See, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Date: 2006/06/25 04:09:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ June 24 2006,23:20)
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,21:15)
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
 
Quote
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

Se, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Perhaps I'll try.

Dave:  Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data.

Guess what?  Dave STILL can't answer it.

Date: 2006/06/25 04:13:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
1) The constant PI


Only in the REAL world, PI isn't exactly 3.

Oh wait, maybe PI is one of those things that changed during the flood.

Date: 2006/06/26 14:14:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,08:43)
Quote
What I said is the "No archaeological find has ever controverted a Biblical statement."


Try to be more accurate, Dave.  What you really should say is, "I've never accepted the existence of an archaeological find that controverted a Biblical statement."

You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?

I'll bet that questions like that one just show up as "fnord" for Dave.

(Ahem)

Date: 2006/06/28 03:52:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ June 24 2006,23:20)
Quote (improvius @ June 24 2006,21:15)
Quote (afdave @ June 24 2006,12:31)
 
Quote
You are mentally incapable of accepting such evidence.  See?  I'll ask you yet again:  How would you discern true from false evidence that would refute your beliefs?
It's real easy.  Just go find some piece of archaeological evidence that contradicts some statement of the Bible and I will accept it.  Go try.  You are so sure the Bible is wrong, it should be easy for you.

Se, Dave?  You STILL can't answer the question.  Your brain just can't handle it.

Perhaps I'll try.

Dave:  Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data.

...

Date: 2006/06/28 08:44:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (normdoering @ June 28 2006,11:16)
Your sources are lying to you.

Dave has demonstrated that he is incapable of discerning accurate from inaccurate sources.  At no point has he been able to describe a process by which he can evaluate source information.

Based on his behavior, his only criteria seems to be whether or not the source in question agrees with his bible.

Date: 2006/06/29 04:16:02, Link
Author: improvius
There are a few snakes that can mimic color changes simply by stretching or inflating their bodies and displaying more underlying skin than scales.  The Australian green tree snake is one such example.  But this sounds like something completely diferent.  I think I'll join Lenny in remaining skeptical for now.

Date: 2006/06/29 05:49:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ June 28 2006,21:47)
Click back a couple of pages and you'll see a couple more threads totally about 50 more pages. Ay Eff Dee-licious!

oh, and,

Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible

I think that's about the tenth time you've been asked, by at least 3 different people.

Dave's brain is still short-circuited by this simple question...

Date: 2006/06/29 07:56:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 29 2006,11:10)
Argy...  
Quote
Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis?  Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data.  Please be as specific as possible
Here's some ...

5) A true transitional nature of the fossil record -- it is woefully lacking in transitional forms
...
7) Observation that mankind behaves just like an animal, nothing more.
8) Archaeological finds contradicting the Bible

Well, we HAVE data like this, but you keep dismissing it is misguided or fake or whatever.

The question that you keep DODGING is what criteria are you using to evaluate the data?  The answer would seem to be that you simply dismiss any data that disagrees with your bible.

Date: 2006/06/29 08:12:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 29 2006,13:05)
Quote
The question that you keep DODGING is what criteria are you using to evaluate the data?  The answer would seem to be that you simply dismiss any data that disagrees with your bible.
 What criteria do YOU think I should be using?

Sorry, Dave, you keep dodging this one.  You don't get to turn it around on us.  You can answer it, or just admit that you automatically dismiss anything contrary to the bible.  We will, of course, take your continued dodging as the above admission.

Date: 2006/07/01 07:19:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ June 30 2006,11:06)
Wow ... you're a tough one to make happy.  What criteria?  Let's see ... how about whether the data are consistent with what I read in my history book - the Bible?  How do you argue with that?

Ahhhh... sweet, sweet creo candy comes pouring out of the Dave-piñata.  It just doesn't get any better than that.  Well, since we finally got Dave to admit that he uses the bible to filter out any data that might contradict the bible, I don't think there's much else left to do.  Either he'll get it or he won't.  But at least it's been an interesting exercise in exploring and exposing the mental constructs that keep creos immune to logic.

Date: 2006/07/01 11:18:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 01 2006,16:03)
Improv... Why do you think the Bible is not a good history book?  I have found it to be far more reliable than any other history book.  

Of course you do.  Because you assume it is.

Date: 2006/07/02 05:35:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 02 2006,07:10)
Improv...      
Quote
Of course you do.  Because you assume it is.
No. The Bible has proven itself to be the best history book available because of the enormous quantities of archaeological confirmation that has been made.

Yes, Dave.  And, as you've clearly admitted, you evaluate archeological data based solely on whether or not it agrees with the bible.  So, of course, your methodology precludes you from finding contradictory data.  Because you start by assuming the bible is correct.

Date: 2006/07/05 04:01:47, Link
Author: improvius
Hey, Dave, this is what Derek Ager thinks about you:

Quote
"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell.  Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.  This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.  

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis.  That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific' )." [Ager's emphasis]

Date: 2006/07/05 05:24:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,10:17)
It's not possible to show they occur everywhere.  No one has that much research money.  But they do occur in many, many places.  So much so that paleontologists are talking about Catastrophism (1800 Google Scholar results) and Mass Extinction (150,000 Google Scholar results) a lot now.  How do you explain all this talk?

That's an easy one.  Those terms don't mean what you think they mean.  They do not support your position.

Date: 2006/07/05 05:38:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,10:23)
Improv...  
Quote
Hey, Dave, this is what Derek Ager thinks about you:

Quote  
"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell.  Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.  This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.  

On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis.  That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific' )." [Ager's emphasis]


Yes.  Isn't it funny that he goes to great pains all through his writings to make sure the "Creo Fundies" don't take his words and use them against him!!

Now why is he so worried about this?  Easy ... he knows that what he is saying supports YECs.

I don't even know how to address this sort of insanity.  I thought others were going a bit over the top with the comparisons to schizophrenia, but Dave's comment here has convinced me otherwise.  Is there a doctor in the house?

Date: 2006/07/05 11:56:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Some do, like the Klan and many members of the Christian Identity sect. Most rely on Darwin. But don't take my word for it; log on a neonazi/racist website and run a poll; I predict that Darwin will come out on top. After all, Jesus was Jewish, and most racists dislike Jews.


That seems pretty unlikely, given that the roots of anti-semitism are buried deep in Christianity.  Even going back as recently as the Holocaust, the greatest contributing factor was the longstanding tradition of Christian hatred for Jews.  If you want to make the case that the theory of evolution has somehow supplanted Christianity in its capacity for inspiring hatred, be my guest.  But the case is yours to make, not ours.

Date: 2006/07/05 13:57:09, Link
Author: improvius
Yep.  This is why I kept pushing Dave to acknowledge his methodology for determining fact from fiction in regards to any data which could potentially refute biblical inerrancy.  When pressed, he finally said that the bible itself was his best resource for making such evaluations.  Short of pointing out this "strange loop", I don't think anything has a chance of getting through to him.

Date: 2006/07/06 03:01:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 06 2006,07:52)
Eric...
Quote
But what's really hilarious is Dave's notion that his YEC "science" is somehow, "new," "cutting-edge," or "advanced." YEC was old, dead, and buried 150 years ago. I guess Dave didn't get the memo.
Dead and buried, huh?  Is that why Ager and all the rest I quoted finally succumbed to the truth that YECs have been talking about for those same 150 years?

CATASTROPHISM

I noticed you've been pretty quiet about that, Eric.

That's because it has already been made crystal clear that you completely misunderstand the the term as it is used by Ager (who, by the way, thinks you're a "bible-obsessed fanatic").

Date: 2006/07/06 06:40:01, Link
Author: improvius
Dave, those aren't answers.  That's just you putting your hands over your ears and crying, "na na na I can't heeeaaarrr you!"

Date: 2006/07/06 07:27:18, Link
Author: improvius
It's been a fascinating exercise in examining strange loops.  We all have seen how Dave has built a mental filter that prevents him from acknowledging any information that could possibly contradict his interpretation of the bible.  He is simply incapable of accepting such data - for him it is not a matter of evaluating whether or not it is accurate, but of determining which "out bin" he should toss it into.  I find it especially interesting that, if he can't figure out what else to do with it, he simply files it under "lies".

Date: 2006/07/06 07:49:23, Link
Author: improvius
I think this topic sets off too many alarm bells for Dave.  I don't think he'll address it.

Date: 2006/07/10 10:42:59, Link
Author: improvius
I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined.  The following quote, attributed to Darwin, came up a few times.  I have no idea if it's accurate or not, but for the sake of research, here it is:

Quote
CHARLES R. DARWIN ONRACE-MIXING

Charles Darwin, 1849

When two distinct races are crossed, it is notorious that the tendency in the offspring to revert to one or both parent forms is strong, and endures for many generations.

The Earl of Powis formerly imported some thoroughly domesticated humped cattle from India, and crossed them with English breeds, which belong to a distinct species; and his agent remarked to me, without any question having been asked, how oddly wild the cross-bred animals were.

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.

(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, "It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case."

An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, "God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes."

(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.

(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared.

1.. Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.

2.. Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.

3.. Dr. P. Broca, on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo,' Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

No man in his senses would expect to improve or modify a breed in any particular manner, or keep an old breed true and distinct, unless he separated his animals.

It is a very surprising fact that characters should reappear after having been lost for many, perhaps for hundreds of generations. But when a breed has been crossed only once by some other breed, the offspring occasionally show a tendency to revert in character to the foreign breed for many generations - some say, for a dozen or even a score of generations. After twelve generations, the proportion of blood, to use a common expression, of any one ancestor, is only 1 in 2048; and yet, as we see, it is generally believed that a tendency to reversion is retained by this very small proportion of foreign blood.

How strongly these domestic instincts, habits, and dispositions are inherited, and how curiously they become mingled, is well shown when different breeds of dogs are crossed. Thus it is known that a cross with a bull-dog has affected for many generations the courage and obstinacy of greyhounds; and a cross with a greyhound has given to a whole family of shepherd-dogs a tendency to hunt hares.

Some species have a remarkable power of crossing with other species; other species of the same genus have a remarkable power of impressing their likeness on their hybrid offspring.

I think these authors are right, who maintain that the ass has a prepotent power over the horse, so that both the mule and the hinny more resemble the ass than the horse; but that the prepotency runs more strongly in the male-ass than in the female, so that the mule, which is the offspring of the male-ass and mare, is more like an ass, than is the hinny, which is the offspring of the female-ass and stallion.

Charles Darwin, The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 1875, vol. II, pp. 8; 19; 21; 62-63; The Origin of Species, 1st ed., Penguin, London, 1968; pp. 196; 239 (see also 1875: 1/43); 275; 287 (see also 1875: 2/43).

Date: 2006/07/11 07:21:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 11 2006,12:13)
Before you do, would you please attempt to rebut my post on white supremacists? All I got in reply was shrugs and weak handwaving.

I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined."

So far, I think even that beats your "I found this post on a message board."

Date: 2006/07/13 19:10:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 12 2006,11:12)
Eric, please read the link - it discusses the nationalisation of businesses and price controls under Hitler's watch.

Flank, how can I be a repressed homosexual and a frustrated heterosexual? Or am I bi? Get your story straight.  ;)


Improvious:
 
Quote
I guess you missed my earlier post: "I did a little bit of poking around on some AN sites, and I found far more references to Christianity than to both Darwin and the theory of evolution combined."

No I didn't: I just recognise blatant cherry-picking when I see it. Aryan Nations is affiliated with the Christian Identity sect, so of course it's going to attract the "Christians". Using AN as to represent the movement is as misleading as using, say, the National Alliance. That's why I used the umbrella Stormfront website as a proxy for the neonazi movement -- it's far more comprehensive. And I used more than a "post"; I used two separate polls on two different web sites. I also linked to the leading "scientific" thinkers in the movement. Read the links.

Sorry, I had no idea the Aryan Nation was such a marginal component of the white supremacist movement.  And I didn't know anything about their Christian affiliation until you mentioned it.  Even so, that affiliation would certainly seem to harm your hypothesis.

But ok, whatever.  We'll play it your way and do some quick metrics on the Stormfront forums.  Searching the past 3 months yields over 1000 hits for "Christian", 406 hits for "evolution", and 134 hits for "Darwin".  The search engine only returns a maximum of 1000 hits, so I don't know how many it actually found for "Christian" for the 3 month period.  But doing a search for only the past 1 month returns 662 hits for "Christian".

Date: 2006/07/16 16:29:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 16 2006,10:21)
k.e ...  
Quote
Circular reasoning ---?-?bwahahahahahahahahaha ... I just love it when Fundies open their mouths and put their foot in it.

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


You WOULD HAVE had me, K.E, if this was my line of reasoning ...

BUT ...

It's NOT ... bwahahahaha ...

Go read the 100+ pages on this thread and you will see that it is not ... Now ... are you going to dodge my question about YOUR circular reasoning with Fossils?

Actually, Dave, he's pretty accurate about your line of reasoning.  You methodology for testing biblical accuracy consists of discarding data which disagrees with the bible.  A more detailed model would go something like this:

dave: The Bible is scientifically accurate.
k.e.: How do you know?
dave: All reliable data supports it.
k.e.: How do you determine if the data is reliable?
dave: I compare it to what the Bible says.

Date: 2006/07/16 16:35:22, Link
Author: improvius
bump to tempt dave

Date: 2006/07/17 11:43:06, Link
Author: improvius
G, did you ever offer an explanation for why Christianity seems to come up more than 3 times as often as evolution in white supremacists' discussions?  I must have missed it when you addressed that.

Date: 2006/07/17 12:23:53, Link
Author: improvius
Stormfront current stats:

Traditional Christianity (7 Viewing)  
16,000 posts
Christian Identity (7 Viewing)  
12,154 posts
Pre-Christian Indo-European Religions (4 Viewing)  
5,626 posts
Agnosticism/Atheism (2 Viewing)  
4,715 posts

Theology (29 Viewing)
74,782 posts

Science, Technology and Race (33 Viewing)
51,737 posts



How would you phrase the poll questions?

Date: 2006/07/18 04:36:49, Link
Author: improvius
Hovind is 100% con artist.  I think a lot of you are giving him way too much credit.  It seems pretty clear to me that he's grandstanding for the sake of his "followers".  If he keeps up the act, no matter what else happens, he'll ALWAYS have supporters (or customers or marks or whatever you want to call them).  But if he even begins to acknowledge that he might possibly have knowingly done something wrong, the con is up.  His problem was that he bought into his own crap a little too much and got greedy.  He was too smug.  He thought he could con the government.

Date: 2006/07/18 04:43:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 18 2006,09:33)
Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  

Ahem:

For starters, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have done exactly that.  Though the latter is currently going through some rough times, he's certainly made a lot of money from the YEC "paradigm".

Date: 2006/07/18 05:19:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,10:06)
Give me an example, please.

Shell Oil

Date: 2006/07/18 05:32:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,10:27)
Thankyou for the gigantic list of successful Oil and Gas Exploration companies ...

That wasn't exactly what I meant by an example ...

I forget that I have to be very specific with you all because you get confused easily ...

Let's try again ...

Please take ONE company and show me how the "Long Age Interpretation" of geology helped them turn a profit.

Is that simple enough for you?

Here's a link for BP, in addition to the one for Shell that you apparently missed.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:38:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,10:20)
MAYBE JonF CAN TELL US WHERE THE GIGANTIC RIVER DELTA IS ...

Um, Baja, California?

What do I win?

Date: 2006/07/18 06:20:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,11:01)
CONCLUSION:  The full scale Piper Cub in the top image was probably formed in much the same way as the model in the bottom image.

How does that even begin to make sense to you?

Date: 2006/07/18 07:19:01, Link
Author: improvius
...and by "much more satisfactory manner", Dave really means, "in a way that agrees with my interpretation of the Bible."

Date: 2006/07/18 09:26:32, Link
Author: improvius
If you copy and paste the source URLs of his pics into a new browser window, they should show up.

Date: 2006/07/18 09:37:06, Link
Author: improvius
Probably a bandwidth limitation where the pics are hosted.  The pics come up intermittently for me.

Date: 2006/07/18 09:42:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 18 2006,14:09)
No, Dave, I sure can't see that photo and it better be one that is actually IN the Mt. St. Helens material, and not in the older surrounding valley materials, because that would sure screw up your claim, wouldn't it?

I'm certainly not an expert, but that would be my first guess, based simply on the obvious change in shape and coloration of the layer at the top of the wall.  To a layman like me, it looks like a soft layer dumped on top of a harder layer.

Date: 2006/07/18 10:21:21, Link
Author: improvius
I just want to say that I think the posts ridiculing Denyse O'Leary's physical appearance are in very poor taste.  I mean really, isn't that sort of thing beneath us here?

Date: 2006/07/18 10:48:14, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2006,15:31)
Yeah, it's off-sides. Not as bad as Arden and K.E.'s little exchange, though.

Yeah, but that doesn't really bother me.  I think Dave opened the door for that kind of crap himself, what with the "girly man", "rumors", and similar posts.

But there's just something about going after a woman based on her looks that seems over the line to me.

Date: 2006/07/19 05:42:05, Link
Author: improvius
I remember building a model of the battleship Missouri when I was a kid.  So I guess in Dave's world, a child with some glue, a pair of tweezers, and some appropriately-shaped plastic pieces can produce a full-scale, functioning WWII battleship in just a couple of days.

Date: 2006/07/20 03:49:26, Link
Author: improvius
So Dave, explain why you believe today's geologists when they say the Palouse scablands were formed rapidly, but you don't believe them when they say the most recent flood was 13,000 years ago.  Or that the source of the flooding was Lake Missoula, and not a global flood.  Or that the flooding occurred multiple times.

Hmm... could it be because you ignore any data that might conflict with your interpretation of the Bible?

Date: 2006/07/20 04:32:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 20 2006,09:21)
It is true that I have a very high regard for the Biblical Record.  But I do not feel that this is a blind committment.

You are wrong.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:02:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 20 2006,11:52)
Eric...  
Quote
Color me unimpressed by your "skepticism."
I color you WINDY ... meaning you (and OA and Faid with you) fill up a lot of space saying how stupid I am and very little space giving any scientific info ... maybe you should take some lessons from Deadman and Glen D and JonF ... I disagree with their interpretations of data, but at least they have something substantive to say ...

No, Dave, we're getting to the heart of the matter by calling out your game.  Your game consists of grasping at anything that might possibly help support your interpretation of the Bible, and rejecting anything that might contradict it.  In your case, data is indistinguishable from interpretation.  You have no capacity to tell the two apart.  Your sole basis for evaluating ANYTHING consists of comparing it to the Bible.

Date: 2006/07/22 05:54:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
1.  I have not any part of the Bible which anyone has proven to be untrue.  Sometimes a statement appears untrue at first, but upon closer inspection, it proves true after all.


Are snakes today descendants of the serpent as described in the bible?

Date: 2006/07/23 05:10:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 23 2006,06:26)
My reason for believing that Genesis contains the oldest known historical text is not because the Holy Spirit said so ... it is because of this ...  
Quote
From Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, P.J. and Donald J. Wiseman ...

So you believe the bible because some people who you don't know tell you it's accurate?

And yet, when there are far more p[eople telling you of its gross inaccuracies, you refuse to believe them.

Now, what is it that makes this tiny little former group so much more credible than the latter one?  Could it be because they're telling you exactly what you want to hear?

Date: 2006/07/25 02:36:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,06:01)
Hey Crabby ... did you not notice from my response to your pretty pictures that ...

National Geographic recanted ... ??

They got fooled by Chinese con artists ... just as YOU have been fooled by the just so story of Evolution!

They also described methodologies for distinguishing between genuine and fruadulent data.  Now, what was that methodology that you use, Dave?  Oh yeah, that's right.  You just compare everything to what the Bible says, and throw away anything that seems contradictory.

Date: 2006/07/25 07:51:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,12:41)
But surprise me ... maybe you'll  be the first ever to come up with something convincing for me.

Dave, you've already told us that the only thing you find convincing is the Bible.  In your mind, it is impossible to be convinced of anything contrary.  Such challenges are disingenuous when you present them because you will simply disregard contradictory evidence.

Doesn't that seem a bit... stupid?

Date: 2006/07/25 08:24:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,13:20)
I find many things convincing besides the Bible ...

Bull.  You were repeatedly asked how you would evaluate information that might contradict the Bible.  You finally replied that you would evaluate it by comparing it to the Bible.  Your methodology is completely circular - it begins and ends with the Bible.  It is impossible for you to be convinced of anything contradictory to your little strange loop.

Date: 2006/07/25 18:07:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,22:31)
4) You conclude from your examination of the evidence that this book is supernatural ... superintended by a Supernatural God, who apparently created all things

Here's your problem.  You're using the book itself to evaluate the evidence to determine if the book is right.  THAT'S your circle.

Date: 2006/07/26 03:10:00, Link
Author: improvius
Nope, you're totally off base.  What you do, Dave, is believe anything someone tells you as long as it supports your interpretation of the Bible.  You dismiss anything that contradicts it.  When presented with contradictory data, all you have to do is find the best trash can to throw it into.  Either they're interpreting the data wrong or they're just flat-out making it up.  Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter, because you already just know that they're wrong.  You do not use the methodology you described.  You simply compare everything to the Bible.

Date: 2006/07/26 12:41:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,17:25)

Quote
I did read your Tulane article and I read JonF's article and I found ONE KEY WORD ...

HYPOTHETICAL

Yes, and it was describing 1 single figure used as an example - NOT the entire article.  God, you're dumb.

Quote
On the other hand, if you are a YEC, life is easy and explanations are easy ...

Wow.  Just... wow.  I can't argue with that.

Date: 2006/07/27 05:26:11, Link
Author: improvius
I was trying to track down that Stalin reference.  Most places are citing it from Yaroslavsky's "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin", 1940, pp. 8-9.  It's a real book, and seems to be in several university libraries.  Can anyone locate a copy and see if the quote is accurate, and also if there is more to the context?  It seems fishy to me.

Date: 2006/07/27 09:55:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
[In what sense is it true that God provokes the lightning? In the pantheistic Pagan sense, perhaps? Note: Thor was Odin's son, so this example is very important to Hitler.]  


That seems incredibly far-fetched.  The simplest reading is that he's just saying "God is everywhere to a truly pious person".

Date: 2006/07/27 10:20:28, Link
Author: improvius
And where's your connection to Darwin in that mess?

Date: 2006/07/27 10:30:03, Link
Author: improvius
Just out of curiosity, if they were soft at the time, wouldn't those sediments have slumped and concentrated towards the valleys of those folds?

Date: 2006/07/27 12:18:25, Link
Author: improvius
I dunno, I think GoP might have a point afterall.  I mean, everyone knows Christians and Jews - especially in Europe - got along famously well prior to Origin of Species being published.

Date: 2006/07/31 06:34:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 30 2006,15:16)
Heck, most Nazi-era Germans were decent folk who didn't wish to kill their neighbors, but in embracing Hitler, they set a snowball in motion that led to the holocaust. Their inherent decency couldn't halt the consequences of their ideas.

I still don't see how you can ignore hundreds of years of antisemitism in Europe.  It's not like trying to solve your country's problems by getting rid of the Jews was an original thought for Hitler.

Date: 2006/08/01 05:12:30, Link
Author: improvius
I guess Davie had us fooled.  Turns out he's just another con artist.

Date: 2006/08/01 07:36:24, Link
Author: improvius
If we donate a penny using a credit card via Paypal, does it actually end up costing the recipient more than that for the transaction?

Date: 2006/08/01 07:51:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 01 2006,12:14)
Admittedly, Caribbean immigrants are not well educated, so we can exclude them from our results. Nevertheless, there is no reason to expect the children of African immigrants to underachieve unless Paley's hypothesis holds true. Now let's examine the results:

There doesn't seem to be any connection between the two data sets you are discussing.  You can't use data on children in the UK to predict the outcome of African immigrants in the US.  Your comparison makes no sense.

Date: 2006/08/01 09:20:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 01 2006,14:06)
OK, let me resume. Here's the data.

Again, you're looking at students in the UK.  How does that have anything to do with US immigrants?

Date: 2006/08/01 10:29:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 01 2006,15:13)
improvius
 
Quote
Again, you're looking at students in the UK.  How does that have anything to do with US immigrants?

I couldn't find any data on the African immigrants in Britain, so I used the US data. From what I've read, first-generation African immigrants in Britain are just as wealthy and well educated as their cohorts in America.

And what makes you think the BA group comes even close to representing children of first-generation immigrants in the UK?

Date: 2006/08/03 06:47:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2006,11:41)
Quote
But regardless of whether Dr. Brown thinks there's an actual reversal, he still hasn't explained why the magnetic profile is what it is. He doesn't deny that the profile varies (in fact he's got a little diagram of it). So what's his explanation for the profile?

I didn't see one. Maybe there's one in the book, Dave?
Maybe as the continents were zooming around the oceans at 100 mph, they were also spinning, and the spinning created a magnetic field.

In my mind I can picture Dave reading that and then nodding thoughtfully.

Date: 2006/08/08 10:26:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
8. Improvius wrote: “If you read a little farther down on that PBS page, it seems to answer those questions by explaining sexual selection.”

I know it may seem that way, and that is unfortunate. I hear sexual selection is in trouble as a scientific theory…..

Salvador
PS

As I searched on the issue to respond to you, I found this, although somewhat off-topic, too good to pass up:

Evolution is henceforth the magic word by which we shall solve all the riddles that surround us.
– Ernst Haeckel1

HT Allen Orr on Daniel Dennett here

Comment by scordova — August 8, 2006 @ 3:17 pm


9. “I know it may seem that way, and that is unfortunate. I hear sexual selection is in trouble as a scientific theory…”

Interesting, do you have links to any of those papers?

Comment by improvius — August 8, 2006 @ 3:23 pm


Hmmm... how thin of a line am I walking here?

Date: 2006/08/08 13:46:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Apoptosis @ Aug. 08 2006,19:08)
I am a total lurker both here and at uncommonly dense (among other places) but just wanted to hit home the fact that they are now quoting Roughgarden with great approval. Roughgarden's screeds are reactionary tombs mostly aimed at ev. psych (for purposes of full disclosure I am involved in ev psych and my advisor was one of the people she aimed attacks at). The most interesting point in all this is that Roughgarden decries all gender roles and sexual orientations. I can't imagine any of her/his wittings (I forgot which direction the sex change went, I think it was man to woman, Denyse O'leary probably knows) would appeal to the IDiot zealots. But I guess they have to scramble for any source they can get.

Yeah, but pointing that out would have a 99% chance of getting you banned.

I'm still pushing my luck and trying to remain non-confrontational:

Quote
24. “I’m sure some evolutionary psychologist will be quick to offer an explanation — sexual selection perhaps: “Honey, come here and look at this beautiful rainbow — wonderful, isn’t it? Sit a little closer, please.” “Oh darling, I feel the same way. Please allow me to insure the continuation of your genetic material.””

Ok. So hypothetically, if we WERE the result of evolution as opposed to design, how do you think we would react to rainbows? Or in such a case, do you think we’d have any emotional reactions at all?

Comment by improvius — August 8, 2006 @ 6:31 pm

Date: 2006/08/09 07:26:08, Link
Author: improvius
Christian school's lawsuit against UC system to go to trial

Date: 2006/08/09 08:11:43, Link
Author: improvius
I haven't been able to find anything else.  I'm assuming the fundies will base their case on the notion that evolution is a religious belief.  It should be a laugh riot.

Date: 2006/08/09 09:18:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 09 2006,14:58)
Now what?

Read the references.

Date: 2006/08/09 09:59:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 09 2006,15:20)
No.  I enjoy hanging out here and arguing people who disagree with me ...

Arguing good!  Learning bad!  Dave smash!

Date: 2006/08/10 07:26:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,11:56)
OK, fine. Aftershave's article says that the fossils found in the Kaibab Limestone are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.  

Show me a layer somewhere that has similar fossils that can be dated RM.  Then show me how this relates to the Kaibab Limestone, thus proving that the Kaibab is 250-270my old.

You say you can do it.  Show me.

Dave, have you ever considered that maybe it isn't a good idea to get your geology degree from an internet flamewar?

Date: 2006/08/10 07:30:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,12:08)
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,10:56)
MY ASSERTION OF EVO-BOT CIRCULAR REASONING IS AS SOUND AS EVER

         But I'm not going to bet you.  

                     *Snort*

I find his lack of faith... amusing.

Date: 2006/08/10 08:16:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,14:11)
Answer what I asked about that Arizona meteor crater, the Barringer. If it hit 49,000 years ago....AND the Coconino was UNDER it, meaning the METEOR HIT IT...therefore the Coconino IS at least that old, yes or no, Stupid?

Obviously, your question is nonsensical because nothing can be older than 8,000 years.

Date: 2006/08/10 10:26:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,16:11)
Here's another example of how stupidly you think, Dave...

I think it was supposed to be some sort of joke based on GC erosion.  In any case, it's just Dave trying to avoid learning anything.

Remember, he's not here to learn.  He's here to argue.

Date: 2006/08/10 16:32:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JonF @ Aug. 10 2006,20:30)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,18:47)
seriously AssHatDave, what the F%@ck is wrong with you? I had posted that before...i can post 100 different things that all tie in with the  kaibab...but you're MENTAL , meaning you have some form of mental disease that keeps you from seeing what is put in front of your face....what IS wrong with you?

I have NO reason but to conclude at this point , that given what you have done...that you are mentally ill.

He's got he worst case of Morton's Demon I've ever seen.  The combination of that, extreme ignorance, no intellectual capability, and compulsive lying gives us ... our Davie!

Seriously, though, what do you people expect him to say?  We know his job is selling creo tracts to kids.  Is it in any way feasible for him to just say, "Gosh, you science people really do have a point.  My life and livelihood are based on ignorance and lies.  I guess I'll just find something else to do instead."  Dave is invested in creo propaganda - both psychologically and financially - up to his beady little eyeballs.  There is no way whatsoever he can back out of it now.

Date: 2006/08/11 03:09:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,22:50)
Amazing!  Both dating methods correlate!  Well that settles it.  I will just take their word for it and not even investigate.

Oh, come on, Dave.  We know the only way you investigate anything is by comparing it to what the Bible says.  The idea of you actually doing field research is absurd.

Date: 2006/08/11 08:16:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,14:09)
As for you, JonF ... I was very specific about the layer dating being non-linear ...

Not once do you explain why you expect it to be linear.

Date: 2006/08/11 08:22:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,14:18)
However, I am not at all convinced that all dates are concordant and have not had time to investigate this myself with the labs.

Get back to us as soon as you're done with that.

Date: 2006/08/11 09:06:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,15:01)
Quote
Not once do you explain why you expect it to be linear.
It should be approximately linear if "the present is the key to the past,"...

Nope, you're still not explaining why you expect it to be linear.  What processes are you assuming that would cause it to be linear?

Feel free to just shrug and say, "I dunno."  At least that would be an honest answer.

Date: 2006/08/12 20:57:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,18:29)
I'd rather argue with someone who at least has some data ... like Deadman.  Or JonF once in a while.

If the arguing is limited to people with data, then I'm afraid you'll have to STFU, too.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:03:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,13:51)
No conspiracies.  Just misinformation and peer pressure.

Bull.  You previously stated that you suspect scientists around the world (a majority of them, it would seem) are falsifying data in an attempt to disprove the existence of God.  What, exactly, is the difference between that and a conspiracy?

Date: 2006/08/15 09:35:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,15:29)
Hey guys, I realize that all the scientists and even all the science students in the UK are not going Creo ... that will take more time.

But I love it when people like Steve Jones are lamenting about Creo progress in the last 20 years !!!!

Hey, Faid ... you're getting predictable ... I guess you could go back to Greece and I could make your answers for you ... give it some thought

And in a huge surprise to nobody, Dave demonstrates his inability to distinguish between "PR" and "scientific research".

BTW, how's that lab work coming, Dave?  Shouldn't you be conducting field research right now?

Date: 2006/08/17 04:50:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,09:55)
* Richard Leakey found a very modern looking human fossil (KNM-ER 1470) - the oldest yet he hoped.
* Initial dating attempts of the KBS Tuff (a layer containing ash just above skull 1470 gave an incredible 212 - 230 my! Yeah, Richard that would be pretty old!  Of course, this would never do ... everyone knows humans didn't exist 230 mya!!
* So ... the ones who came up with this date, Fitch and Miller, requested new samples and came up with 2.61 my.  This was later confirmed with around 4 additional "independent" studies
* This caused a great ruckus because the Paleos wanted Skull 1470 to be younger.  Why? Because 2.61 my didn't fit their Human Evolution Fairy Tale--the date was too old.  Also because they considered Richard Leakey to be a 2nd rate Paleo since he didn't go to college and learned his trade from his parents.  They didn't want him getting all the recognition that comes with being the discoverer of the world's oldest human fossil.
* So there was a 10 year controversy and finally a whole new round of samples were dated.  What date they come up with?  1.87 my.  800,000 years younger!!  That's like 30 - 40 % different results depending on how you calculate your % !!!
* During all this, Ian McDougall in Nature reported "a distressingly large range of ages" when considering previous dating.  He reported Fitch and Miller got everything from 0.52 to 2.64my on one set of concentrates and 8.43 to 17.5my on another clast before settling on the 2.62 my figure.  He also accused Curtis et. al. of disregarding results of 2.01-6.9my before settling on 1.6my - 1.8my.
* After "calling the other kettles black" then, the "pot" -- Ian McDougall--then stated how remarkably concordant his own dates were at 1.9 Myr after removing from consideration samples that gave ages of 4.11 and 7.46 Myr. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
* With this clear victory of philosophy over observation, they then used the concordance of their results and agreement with the results of the study by Gleadow to give validity to their date for the KBS Tuff.

Now you can go read ALL of Marvin Lubenow's excellent article explaining this hilarious "Evobot Story" here ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Nope, no conspiracy theory here, folks...

Date: 2006/08/17 05:06:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,10:56)
Quote
Nope, no conspiracy theory here, folks...
You can label it however you like, Improv.  The result is the same whatever the intent, however honorable or dishonorable that may be.  I would have to say that these guys probably have honorable intent and do not give much thought to how this looks to the outside world.

But the fact remains that the Dating Game is a game of falsehood -- discarding "bad" results and keeping "good" results.

And again, bull.  Your entire hypothesis hinges on the existence of an unsubstantiated global conspiracy to disprove the existence of God.  But you are forced to assume it, becaue otherwise you would have no reason whatsoever to doubt the dating methods.

Date: 2006/08/17 05:54:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,11:34)
(d) Waaa!  Waaah!  Radiometric dating is difficult!

Cheer up, Dave.  There are lots of other people out there who don't understand radiometric dating.  Just because you find it difficult is no reason to cry.

Date: 2006/08/17 07:29:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,12:01)
Quote
Something has to give, and it's normally the anomaly that proves to be exceptional or erroneous. Sure, science is most fun when the reverse is true. But that's rare, and doesn't tend to emerge from an encyclopedia article.
Yeah.  Something gave, alright.  They gave all those wildly discordant results to the TRASH CAN ... that's what gave!!

And Dave comes to this conclusion not by looking at any evidence, of course, but by assuming the existence of a global atheist conspiracy.  Well done, Mr. Holmes.  They would have gotten away with it for sure had it not been for your keen powers of imagination.

Date: 2006/08/17 08:21:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,12:51)
Eric...
Quote
What the "dating game" really consists of is tossing out "wrong" results and keeping "right" results. You think there's something wrong with this?
Yeah.  There's EVERYTHING wrong with it.  How can you say RM dating is objective if you only select the dates that correspond to your theory?  In this case Evolutionary theory?  

Ok, genius.  So which of the dates would you have used, and why?

Date: 2006/08/18 03:26:12, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 18 2006,03:49)
uh, yup.  What you say sounds completely accurate.  Only Davey knows for sure though.

No, actually I doubt very much that he knows on any conscious level.

Date: 2006/08/18 08:00:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 18 2006,12:15)
In a word, it's GARBAGE.  Actually worse.  It's deception.  And you guys say I'M the dishonest one!!

Again, Dave, you are criticizing an imaginary conspiracy rather than a methodology.  What is your criticism of the methodologies used to determine the dates?  Which of those dates would you have chosen, and why?

Date: 2006/08/18 09:36:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 18 2006,15:13)
I think they are very sincere.  Just very sincerely wrong!

You have presented zero evidence of such.  You have written pages and pages claiming that there is some sort of ambiguous conspiracy to establish false dates, but you have not written a single word of criticism for the dating methods themselves.  You're just chasing shadows.

Date: 2006/08/18 10:53:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Michael Tuite @ Aug. 18 2006,16:49)
Dave,
I'd like to extend to you an invitation to attend this year's Paleontological Society Short Course at the annual Geological Society of America conference in Philadelphia. The title of the free, all day course is "Geochronology: Emerging Opportunities." The course will be conducted on Saturday, 21 October at the Philidelphia Convention Center. You will find a list of the sessions here.

Think about it.

Michael

I doubt he'd be interested.  Dave has been quite clear in telling us that he is here to argue, not learn.

Date: 2006/08/19 13:56:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,13:55)
I'll be happy to put my microscope on your Atlantic basalt dating at some point, just as I am right now putting my microscope on the KBS Tuff and how it relates to the dating of the Grand Staircase.

Will you still be around?  Will you hate life as much as these guys are when I put my microscope on your question?  You've seen them curse and spit and call me names because they have no facts to refute my objections.  We'll see what you do ... maybe you'll be more polite being from France ... we shall see ...

That's not a microscope, Dave.  It's a ViewMaster with a "Bible Stories" disc inside it.

Anyway, you've been asked the question multiple times by multiple people, but you keep avoiding it.  What is your criticism of the methodology used to find the Tuff dates?  And which of the dates would you have chosen, and why?

Date: 2006/08/19 16:02:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,18:33)
IF you believe there is a Creator (and I do since the evidence--that Eric is too blind to see and keeps droning that it isn't evidence--points toward one), then you would expect Him to interact with His creation.  But you would not expect Him to necessarily interact on a second by second basis any more than a human creator would do that with one of his creations.  I like the gardening analogy ... a garden is a human creation.  But the gardener does not interact constantly with the garden to make it grow.  He interacts briefly to till, then plant, then weed, then water, etc.  But the rest of the time, he let's natural laws do their thing.  See?  Why should it be different with God?

Why shouldn't it?

Date: 2006/08/19 16:05:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 19 2006,20:04)
Quote
That's not a microscope, Dave.  It's a ViewMaster with a "Bible Stories" disc inside it.


Snaaaap.

Yo, I'm not even making this up.

Date: 2006/08/19 20:20:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 19 2006,23:06)
Someone asked what objections I have to the specific dating methods used at the KBS Tuff.  This is a naive question and again reveals that this person is missing the point.

The point is ... (Lord, why am repeating this? ... maybe they'll get it on their death bed!;) ... The Tuff yielded many wildly discordant dates (231my to 0.52my contradicting JonF's assurance that "we don't get discordance") ... Leakey "helped" the geochronologists throw out all samples except ones with the 2.61 date because he wanted to make history.  But for this to happen, the paleos would have had to adjust the whole picture of human evolution, and this was grandly announced by Leakey.  The paleos dug their heels in and finally won with some help from pig evolution.

In other words, you have no objections to the dating methods.  All you have is a conspiracy theory.

Date: 2006/08/21 05:26:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,11:05)
4) A volcano erupted 150 mya and deposited air fall tephra (a new word I learned) on Layer 3 or lava intruded into Layer 3, or some such thing

Your posts are riddled with these types of hand-waving phrases.  Whenever you use them, it just tells us that you ran across something that your mental filter couldn't handle and had to somehow reject.

Date: 2006/08/21 08:02:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,13:49)
"Sham" is probably too strong a word.  How about "honest mistake"?  Just as many good scientists were honestly mistaken about geocentricity, phlogiston, ether, etc.

As usual, you have provided zero evidence to back this up.  What is your criticism of radiometric dating methodology?  All you can do is wave your hands and avoid answering this question.

Date: 2006/08/21 09:23:47, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 21 2006,15:11)
Nine:

 
Quote
I do hate what Dave stands for, though -- the crushing of the human spirit and intellectual freedom under the banner of a faux "loving" religious view that is a thin disguise for totalitarian Theocracy.


Oh, the irony.

While I don't deny that religion can and has suppressed civil liberties, the truth remains that Western Christian societies have developed much of the civil right apparatuses that you take for granted. And thanks to thin-skinned litigious types like you, our freedoms are rapidly dwindling.

Right, because we all know that the ACLU is really out to put limits on our personal freedoms.

Date: 2006/08/22 07:12:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,12:51)
I read this kind of stuff when I'm having insomnia, but not when I want to find out the truth about how the layers got there.

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.  So what do you read when you want to find out how the layers got there?  And why do you choose it over the "mumbo-jumbo" sciency stuff?

Date: 2006/08/22 10:56:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (don_quixote @ Aug. 22 2006,16:51)
If AFDave was standing next to an elephant, and he wanted to deny it's existence, there is nothing you could do or say that would make him change his mind; even if you stuck his head up the elephant's arse.

Your hypothesis is intriguing, but I'm not convinced.  I think a series of lab tests is in order.  Who can bring the elephant?

Date: 2006/08/22 19:21:47, Link
Author: improvius
Repeating until an answer is given:

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,12:51)
I read this kind of stuff when I'm having insomnia, but not when I want to find out the truth about how the layers got there.

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.  So what do you read when you want to find out how the layers got there?  And why do you choose it over the "mumbo-jumbo" sciency stuff?

Date: 2006/08/23 03:00:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2006,03:24)
Earlier I let the misinterpretations of threats, real or imagined, go because I thought it'd quickly die down. I use adult language around here too, I know, but this thread is getting too full of words like sh*t, pussy, assault, etc. Everyone cut it out and get back to discussing AFDave's pseudoscience.

Yes.  Keeping things civil is the last thing Dave wants us to do.  He really believes we are like the blustering science teacher in that Chick tract.  I guarantee that his favorite thing in the world (besides lying to children, of course) is showing his church buddies how emotional "Darwinists" can get.

Date: 2006/08/23 04:20:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (improvius @ Aug. 23 2006,01:21)
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,12:51)
I read this kind of stuff when I'm having insomnia, but not when I want to find out the truth about how the layers got there.

Now maybe we're getting somewhere.  So what do you read when you want to find out how the layers got there?  And why do you choose it over the "mumbo-jumbo" sciency stuff?

Ok, Dave has indirectly answered the first part.  AIG is what he reads when he wants to find "the truth about how the layers got there".  So the question remains, Dave, out of all of the different possible resources you could use to find this information, why are you going to AIG?

Date: 2006/08/23 04:25:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,10:04)
My belief is that they CANNOT be dated radiometrically.  I showed you why.

No you didn't.  You were asked specifically and repeatedly to show us why, but you refused to do so.  All you did was show us your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Date: 2006/08/23 04:53:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,10:48)
So yes, AIG and ICR are biased toward the ID/Theisic (whatever you want to call it) Wolrdview.  But this worldview is far more plausible that the Materialistic Worldview, so for the most part, I read stuff written by people with the correct worldview.

So there we have it.  Dave evaluates his information sources based on whether or not they agree with his literal interpretation of the bible.

As we've been trying to explain, Dave, this is your entire problem.  You automatically reject something if it doesn't mesh with your religion.

Date: 2006/08/23 05:21:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,11:03)
The Theistic Worldview is far more consistent with the evidence ... I have presented much of this evidence previously.  After the most plausible worldview is selected, then and only then can one set about evaluating data.

Your "worldview" is only consistent with your evidence because you filter and shape the evidence based on your "worldview".  YOU are the one making the unsupportable assumptions in this case.

Date: 2006/08/23 06:42:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,12:22)
Quote
Science is not biased.  
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho  ...

He he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he  ...

Oooooh!  My sides hurt!  This is classic!

Would you like me to cut and paste some stuff just to illustrate how biased conventional historical geology is?

Your notion that there exists an irrational bias towards "long ages" is a nothing more than a paranoid figment of your diseased mind.  You will never be able to support this delusion with factual evidence.

Date: 2006/08/23 06:53:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,12:44)
Quote
Real scientists are quite capable of identifying boundaries between layers all over the earth.
Of course I can SEE those layers.  But it's quite another matter to make the FLYING LEAP that Long Agers do to give them meaningful names and assign dates to them.

There is no leap.  It's a robust chain of evidence and logic.  What point in the methodology do you think constitutes a "leap"?

Date: 2006/08/23 06:58:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,12:44)
To do so would be like trying to describe the detailed workings of a train wreck.  We know the train wreck happened, we can see the devastation.  But we cannot say why this particular piece of metal bent in the way it did except in a general way.

So you're saying that this entire industry is, what, imaginary?

Date: 2006/08/23 10:12:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Faid @ Aug. 23 2006,14:59)
Doubt my interpretation of his "response"? Check it out in his addendum... AFTER you read Meert's response. The comparison is DEVASTATING.

You're forgetting one very important thing: Meert's worldview is blasphemous, so he loses automatically.

Date: 2006/08/23 10:23:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 23 2006,15:21)
Also, didn't Dave bring up Gentry's Polonium Haloes? Odom, Rink, and Collins have proposed alternative hypotheses and pointed to a few gaps in his model, but my understanding is that no one has discredited Gentry's observations in the scientific literature. Doesn't that count as "positive" evidence for a young earth?

Were Gentry's observations ever submitted for review?  I thought he just put them in a book.  But please correct me if I'm wrong about that.  Your statement would seem very misleading if his model were never "in the scientific literature" to begin with.

Date: 2006/08/24 03:06:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JonF @ Aug. 24 2006,08:28)
Which of those publications argue that the Earth is young because of radiohalos?  Gentry has several mainstream publications, that's well known, but I am not aware of any that argue for a young Earth.

Yeah, I looked through some of them and noticed the same thing.  They all just seem to be along the lines of "there doesn't seem to be an explanation yet for these things".

Date: 2006/08/24 03:57:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,09:48)
Dates ranging from 0.52 my to 230 my were thrown out with the ultimate consensus being about 1.87 my.  This should make any reasonable person question the validity of the whole radiometric dating system.  How can you just throw out dates you don't like?  Eric Murphy says this is OK.  Diogenes admits that Evos do this but contends that Creos do too.  Others say they had good reason for throwing them out.  Oh really?  Like what?

This has been answered.  You dismissed the answer given as being "too sciencey" or something.  Your only objection to the dating method is that you think there was a conspiracy.  This is not evidence, Dave.  It is your imagination.

Date: 2006/08/24 04:03:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,09:48)
Improv...  
Quote
Your "worldview" is only consistent with your evidence because you filter and shape the evidence based on your "worldview".  YOU are the one making the unsupportable assumptions in this case.
Everyone filters evidence and data through their worldview.  You do too.  You just don't admit it.  I do because I am being honest.  The real question is "Which worldview is more plausible?"  A Materialistic Worldview?  Or an ID/Theistic Worldview?

There's nothing to admit.  None of our evidence has anything to do with a "Materialistic Worldview".

Date: 2006/08/24 04:13:10, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,10:03)
Quote
You dismissed the answer given as being "too sciencey" or something.
I think you are confusing this with the paleosol thing.

Ok, sorry, you're right.  You dismissed the dating methods by saying "come on".

Date: 2006/08/24 04:36:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,10:29)
Quote
You dismissed the dating methods by saying "come on".
Well how about it?  Come on!  Convince me in your own words how it is reasonable to toss out all these wildly discordant dates and keep the ones that just happen to fit with your pre-conceptions about human evolution.  

You've already told us that we can't convince you of anything.  You'll dismiss whatever we tell you because we aren't YECs.

Date: 2006/08/24 04:50:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,10:40)
Quote
You've already told us that we can't convince you of anything.  You'll dismiss whatever we tell you because we aren't YECs.
Not so.  I will dismiss it if it doesn't make any sense.  But if it is reasonable, I will accept it.  In fact, I will become an evolutionist if I can become convinced that the evidence warrants it.  Try me.

No.  You said quite clearly that you evaluate evidence based on the worldview that you think is attached to it:

Quote
The proper approach to any truth search is to select the most plausible Fundamental Assumptions first.  I call this a Worldview.  The Theistic Worldview is far more consistent with the evidence ... I have presented much of this evidence previously.  After the most plausible worldview is selected, then and only then can one set about evaluating data.

If one selects a false worldview, as you have done, the whole house falls down, so to speak, because it is built on a faulty foundation.


Therefor, whatever we tell you is always going to be wrong in your mind because we do not share your YEC worldview.  You will simply NOT accept evidence that conflicts with your worldview.

Date: 2006/08/24 05:54:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,11:38)
Quote
Therefor, whatever we tell you is always going to be wrong in your mind because we do not share your YEC worldview.  You will simply NOT accept evidence that conflicts with your worldview.
Sooooo ... convince me that my worldview is wrong and yours is correct.

That's the whole point.  As you said, whatever evidence is presented to you gets weighed against your worldview.  Therefor it is impossible for you to be convinced of anything that contradicts your worldview.  Anything suggesting that your worldview is wrong gets rejected without further consideration.

Basically, you're stuck in a loop.

Date: 2006/08/24 07:53:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,13:37)
Quote
Falsifiability is one of the defining characteristics of science. Falsifiability makes possible the refutation of an idea or theory thus giving way to growth and development. If your hypothesis/theory is unfalsifiable, it ain't science.
I covered this long ago.  Like on page 3 or something.  *Yawn*

Yes, Dave rejected methodological naturalism at almost day 1.  I think it conflicted with his worldview.

Date: 2006/08/24 11:25:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,16:27)
Quote
Further, even if it were true that you can't date sediments radiometrically,
... which it is ... you cannot, thus burying Deadman's and your claim that you can.  Cha-ching!!

Folks, while discussing actual research is no doubt the best part of this thread, we should all be clear in understanding that it will have no effect on Dave.  The only possible way to reach him is to make him aware of the Strange Loop in which he is trapped.  No amount of facts and logic can possibly reach him while he is operating in his loop.

You see, Dave?  THIS is your paradox.  Your belief is that we cannot date sediments radiometrically.  If we could, it would conflict with your worldview.  Therefor, accurate radiometric dating must be impossible.  Now, if someone comes along and shows you exactly how RM dating works, you know that he is wrong, since RM dating is clearly impossible to you.

No amount of evidence can convince you otherwise.

I'm sure this all just comes up as fnord to you, but contemplating the paradox is, as far as I can tell, your only hope of connecting with reality.

Date: 2006/08/24 16:21:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 24 2006,18:35)
Quote
Which of those publications argue that the Earth is young because of radiohalos?  Gentry has several mainstream publications, that's well known, but I am not aware of any that argue for a young Earth.


I got held up today so I'll be here for another hour or so. Lucky you! Anyhoo, I wasn't claiming that his scientific publications were specifically advocating for a young Earth, but I do remember that his heterodox data and observations did get published, and that the geologists at the time considered his work a more serious challenge because of it. If memory serves, those publications were pinpointed to the mid-to-late 70's, so my best guess is:

Yeah, he makes an argument in the 2nd piece, which appears to be just the record of his speech.  The published pieces don't say much other than "I don't know how these things got here."

Date: 2006/08/24 17:08:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 24 2006,18:35)
This testimony is very old, of course, and since then evos claim to have made substantial progress in explaining this “tiny mystery”, but even in 1981 a leading geologist could not refute Gentry's work.

I'm not sure what you mean.  It looks like he refuted it pretty well to me.

Date: 2006/08/24 18:14:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,23:13)
Deadman has run away from his challenge to me because he knows this is true and that he will lose.

I think you twisted the challenge around so that he would have to convince you.  I don't think those were his original terms.  And in any case, as I and others have clearly demonstrated, you are incapable of being convinced of anything that conflicts with your own worldview.

Date: 2006/08/26 15:58:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,10:34)
Quote
all in the same direction? unlikely.
No.  Didn't say that.  I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

Wow, I think this is the closest Dave has ever come to a testable hypothesis!

Date: 2006/08/28 03:55:41, Link
Author: improvius
I thought "b" was already being taught in most schools. Don't most of the basic philosophy classes cover ontological arguments?

Date: 2006/08/28 04:02:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Aug. 28 2006,04:06)
Outstanding post Faid, paleosols, upright trees (in situ) abraded stump deposition and tuff (Why are abraded stumps significant DDTTD?) in a single link.

BAM! DDTTD HAS BEEN KARATE KICKED UNCONCIOUS

Wow, that's a tough one for him to get out of.  I'm guessing Dave is going to go with the "doctored and/or cherry-picked photos" defense.

Date: 2006/08/28 05:07:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 28 2006,11:00)
Quote
The YEC hypothesis that the sedimentary record originated as a result of a single, year-long global flood is directly contradicted by the presence of a variety of biogenic structures preserved within the sedimentary record which could not form in the time allotted for the flood, or under the depositional conditions associated with the flood. One type of structure that could not form via the flood is "fossil forests," containing upright trees preserved in growth position.
Why can't we have fossil forests buried by the Flood?  Actually this is a prediction of the Flood Hypothesis.  If a Global Flood happened, we should have all kinds of things happening to plants:  plants getting uprooted, transported, redeposited; plants getting buried in situ; plants getting buried sideways and upright ... maybe even upside down!  This is a naive statement.

Ok, so the fossil forests buried upright "in situ" should provide excellent eveidence of the pre-flood/flood barrier, right?  Everything below formations of predominantly upright-buried plants should be pre-flood.  Right, Dave?

Date: 2006/08/28 06:37:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 28 2006,12:07)
As I said, Eric ...  
Quote
What have we (or at least I) learned so far?
I have learned these things whether YOU have or not.  Remember why I came here?  To learn.  Mission is being accomplished.

No, you said you came here to argue.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:44:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 28 2006,22:48)
In how many topics has he proven to be a complete moron so far? My list, no doubt highly incomplete (& please feel free to flesh it out):

evolutionary biology
geology
hydrology
linguistics
paleontology
cultural anthropology
cosmology
nuclear physics
genetics
phylogeny

You should add logic.

Date: 2006/08/29 04:58:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2006,10:43)
Quote
Actually, my guesses have been proven to be right so far in many cases.


Since you have all this "archived" I'm *SURE* you can produce a few examples of this, showing (1) your guess, including date of the "guess"  and (2) that you were "proven" right. Try showing three examples.

No, he's actually correct about this.  Every time anyone here presents evidence that contradicts his view of reality, he says, "I'm guessing that I can find a way to reject that evidence."  And, of course, he always does.  The problem is that he always rejects things based on his own irrational, unsubstantiated assumptions.  Maybe the evidence is tainted by atheistic bias.  Or maybe it sounds too "sciencey".  Or maybe he just doesn't understand it.  But, in every instance, his "guess" is correct - he can always conjure up some way to reject the evidence.

Date: 2006/08/30 05:05:07, Link
Author: improvius
Dave, you need to try and see things from where we are.  I don't think it's even remotely possible for you to do this, but I'll suggest it anyway.  Here's what it looks like to us:

You come in here expressing a sincere desire to learn about evolution, and welcome criticism of your own theories.
Instead, you irrationally reject the information and criticism we give you.
You initially told us that you were not religious.
You tell us that you won't trust anything we tell you (at least with regards to evolution and the age of the planet) because we don't share your worldview.
You've been spreading disinformation to your children.
You were, at best, less than forthcoming about your creationist store website, which bears a striking resemlance to those of well-known con artists like Ham and Hovind.
You are a deacon at a church that has, as far as we can tell, lost millions of (presumably) donated dollars through questionable investments.

These are only a few things off the top of my head.  To us, these things all add up as evidence that you are not to be trusted.  What else are we to think?

Date: 2006/08/30 10:53:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Diogenes @ Aug. 30 2006,15:21)
Furthermore, while alledged frauds may be useful in questioning the honesty of a person, Dave really isn't saying much that isn't repeated by countless other creationists, so it's more useful to refute claims based on science than on the character of the person making the claim.

I think the current character analysis is mainly a result of Dave not having posted any new claims lately.  Despite what Dave may think he sees, any ad-hominem attacks here are presented in addition to rational, substantiated arguments - not instead of them.  I haven't seen a single claim of his so far that hasn't been refuted based on science.

Date: 2006/08/30 11:35:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 30 2006,17:17)
I think most people here would recognize the name of Martin Gardner, former columnist for "Scientific American." Gardner is generally well-respected in math and science in general. Martin Gardner is a theist who has simply taken, as he puts it, a "Kierkegaardian" leap of faith. He believes in a kind of "prime mover" deity that simply set things into motion...including evolution, which --despite your protestations--is not antithetical to theistic belief. The only thing that holds you back from that stance is your literalism/fundamentalism, and it is that which I strongly suggest you re-evaluate.

That's really what I consider to be "true" faith - and not at all what Dave seems to have.  Faith is something that you decide to trust when you have to go beyond the point where logic and reason can help you.  It's always a "leap" in that sense, and you have to be aware of it as such.  Instead of faith, Dave has some sort of mental construct that he thinks is a result of evidence (whereas conditioning is the more likely source).  In Dave's mind, his "God" is an inevitable conclusion, rather than an incredibly difficult choice.  Faith shouldn't be easy.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:06:41, Link
Author: improvius
"Jerry" has some good ones today:
Quote
If I were a materialist and wanted to make ID look like a kook theory I would go on the site and start quoting scripture or other religious concepts in support of ID.


Followed a little later by:
Quote
The materialistic philosophy is essential for atheism because just one example of design obviates it.

Date: 2006/08/31 12:20:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Diogenes @ Aug. 31 2006,17:29)
Will you get upset if I tell you that as a child I was also told that camel humps are full of water and that columbus proved the world was round?

Don't feel too bad.  My parents told me that chiggers would burrow under my skin.  whenever I got chigger bites, my mom would cover them with nail polish to "smother" them.

They also fed me, among other things, Spam sandwiches.

Date: 2006/08/31 16:39:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 31 2006,21:57)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,16:33)
 
Quote
Tardfight!


i tried to read that thread, and was quickly beginning to feel stupider by the second.

Is there some pill you guys take to keep you from losing brain cells when you read such tripe?

I simply get physically ill and have to look away; like trying to read in a moving car.

"It's like staring directly at the sun, if the sun were made of stupid."

Holy crap, I dove in just for one day and already the stupid is simply unbearable over there.  I think "Jerry" wins today's award for the most mind-bogglingly absurd post.

His first post in the thread:
Quote
If the public schools are teaching a doctrine that is essential for one religion (atheism) but antithetical to another (those with creationist beliefs) should that doctrine be taught. Especially if the doctrine has no basis in science.

Comment by jerry — August 30, 2006 @ 5:30 pm


His LAST post in the thread (as of the right now, emphasis mine):
Quote
I never mention religion, you mention it at every turn. I find it amazing. You seemed obsessed with having the other side invoke religion. Are you reading a script” “That shalt say religion” You are welcome to your time traveller or alien if you insist. So in our corner of the multiverse we had a time traveller or alien create life. OK.

As one famous time traveller said “Hasta la vista, baby.”

Comment by jerry — August 31, 2006 @ 8:30 pm


I... I just don't know what to say anymore.

Date: 2006/09/01 04:39:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,10:17)
ERIC MURPHY HITS ON THE HEART OF THE MATTER ... WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT AS SUPPORTIVE OF ANYTHING?

Eric ...
Quote
Dave, and you've failed abjectly to provide any.
I think I've asked this before ... what, exactly, would you accept as evidence for ... hmmm ... let's just say a Creator God?  What would be one, tiny shred of evidence that you would accept that in your mind supports the Hypothesis that there is a Creator God similar to that described in the Bible?  I really, really am curious.

Not so fast, Dave.  You have to start with a testable hypothesis.

Besides which, you never even addressed the issue of faith.  Is your relationship with God based on faith or evidence, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/01 05:15:13, Link
Author: improvius
I hardly think WAD is the kind of person who should criticize others for falling for pranks.

Date: 2006/09/01 05:51:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 01 2006,11:39)
That aside, "proof" for me might include a public, recorded visitation. That would be nice and convincing.
I mean, there's plenty of stories about God appearing in the past, the sun stopping in the sky, rains of frogs and that sort of thing...nowadays it seems God is somehow reduced to appearances in puddles, dirty windows and sweetrolls. I'd accept a whole bunch of things, but "look at that tree, there's your evidence" is not one of them.

In such hypothetical displays of power, I would probably go with one of Clarke's laws: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic [or, in this case, a 'god']."

Date: 2006/09/01 06:07:12, Link
Author: improvius
I was thinking of that thing about the ACLU suing the military to stop prayers.

Date: 2006/09/01 07:10:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,13:01)
But I did not, and I am fully convinced that the reason I wound up accepting the tenets of Christianity is because of the massive amount of evidence supporting its claims.

This is not faith.

Date: 2006/09/01 07:20:47, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,13:16)
Quote
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,13:01)
But I did not, and I am fully convinced that the reason I wound up accepting the tenets of Christianity is because of the massive amount of evidence supporting its claims.

This is not faith.
Accepting the evidence is not, you are correct.  But we do not have evidence for everything and cannot have evidence for everything, just as I cannot have ALL the evidence to prove that a particular company offering stock to me is trustworthy.  There comes a point where I exercise faith and make the leap of purchasing their stock.  

There is also a point where I do the same thing with God.

That's not a leap.  That's just shuffling your feet a few inches.  Pathetic.

Date: 2006/09/01 08:07:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 01 2006,13:43)
All that's required is some eyeballs and some functioning synapses.

You forgot about something even MORE convincing: the very existence of water!  If water didn't exist, then a flood would clearly be impossible.  But we DO have water, therefor the flood MUST have happened.  I mean, sure, the details still require closer examination, but the fact that we water exists is a dead giveaway!  Don't you people get it?

Date: 2006/09/01 08:35:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,18:41)
I'm kinda curious to see just how overblown we can make this equation.

Why bother?  It always evaluates to zero.

Date: 2006/09/03 03:45:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Sep. 02 2006,02:58)
What's wrong with Spam sandwiches?

Nothing, really, when you compare it to the "peanut-butter and brown sugar sandwiches" that my mom made me for lunch every OTHER day.

Date: 2006/09/05 03:47:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
[The president] complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years. But, he added: "Such a change has begun."


But hey, relax!  It's just happening in Iran.  Nobody in America thinks like this, right?

Anyway, here's the article.

Date: 2006/09/05 05:52:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 05 2006,11:35)
I see that Faid has adopted the technique of trying to refute the conclusions of a DIFFERENT Snelling paper (1999) than the one I am currently discussing while trying to make people think he is refuting the 2003 paper.

They are the same samples in both "papers".

Date: 2006/09/08 08:29:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:03)
In the same way, it is ludicrous to complain about Snelling not separating out xenoliths and analyzing them separately simply because that would make very little difference in the actual numbers and would have exactly ZERO effect on the conclusion of the study.

And how exactly do you arrive at that number?  Because it sure looks like you're just making it up.

Date: 2006/09/08 10:04:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,15:56)
Hey, guys ... just a reminder to start that investigation on Ted Koppel for fraudulent reporting of the Katrina disaster.  Don't forget now ...

Your analogy would only begin to make sense if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jim Walton, and maybe a dozen or more other billionaires had homes in New Orleans, and if Koppel had mentioned that the average Katrina survivor would have no financial difficulites whatsoever.

Date: 2006/09/08 17:52:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,23:22)
No problem producing the necessary number of varieties in 4000 years, Eric ...

Wow.  If you wave your hands any harder, you're gonna lift right off.

Date: 2006/09/11 03:45:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 10 2006,13:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

I'm sticking with Jerry:

Quote
I think most of us are aware of the biological possibility that some strain of something like e-coli could kill every other life form on the planet and this would theoretically be within the theory of evolution.

Date: 2006/09/12 17:37:57, Link
Author: improvius
I love the way he proceeds to tell us where the stones of Tyre can be found, right after quoting something that says they will never be found.

Date: 2006/09/13 03:17:45, Link
Author: improvius
Here is a much less-biased account of the current Pope's position:
Quote
Participant: Pope's closed seminar didn't focus on intelligent design

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI spent a day guiding a closed-door symposium on evolution, but the U.S. controversy over intelligent design did not figure much in the discussions, a participant said.

The occasion was the annual gathering of former doctoral students of the pope Sept. 1-3; it was hosted in part by the pontiff at his summer villa in Castel Gandolfo, outside Rome.

This year's topic was "Creation and Evolution," and one of the presenters was Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, who has argued against what he called "ideological Darwinism." That prompted media speculation that the pope was considering a shift in the church's general acceptance of the theory of evolution.

But U.S. Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, who attended the symposium, said nothing was presented at the meeting that "would break new ground or that lays the foundation for a new position."

And while participants discussed the relationship among faith, reason and science, Father Fessio said that "the whole American debate on intelligent design did not occur at all here."

Father Fessio said the overall thrust of the presentations and discussion, in which the pope took an active part, confirmed the idea that the church can live with evolution as an explanation of the "how" of creation, as long as evolutionary theory does not try to exclude a divine cause.

He said the philosophical component was an important part of the symposium, which went beyond the perspectives of religion and natural science.

Some, like Cardinal Schonborn, have argued that there is a way of knowing from the scientific data that there must be a creator who is organizing life development or causing life forms to be ordered in a certain way, Father Fessio said.

Supporters of intelligent design say there are gaps in evolutionary theory, and they say those gaps can be better explained scientifically by their own theory that a design and purpose are inherent in life-forms that spring from an unnamed intelligence.

Father Fessio said the group met Sept. 1 without the pope, who had scheduled a trip to an Italian sanctuary that day, and heard presentations by Austrian molecular biologist Peter Schuster; German Jesuit Father Paul Elbrich, a professor of natural philosophy; and Robert Spaemann, a German philosopher.

On Sept. 2, with the pope in attendance, those presentations were summarized and Cardinal Schonborn spoke. A wider discussion followed in the afternoon.

Father Fessio said that "at the end, as he always does, the pope beautifully summarized some of the major points of all the presentations and our discussions."

In an unprecedented decision, the pope also encouraged the students to publish the papers and discussions in several languages, because of their high quality, Father Fessio said.

That means that eventually the world will get a firsthand look at the content of the symposium. When the papers are published, Father Fessio said, people will see that the gathering did not mark any significant shift in direction on the church and evolution, but rather a deeper understanding of the challenges it poses.

Father Fessio, who studied under the future Pope Benedict at the University of Regensburg in Germany in the 1970s, is provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and founder and editor of Ignatius Press.

Date: 2006/09/13 03:52:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 13 2006,09:27)
Quote
"...according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable"


No theory derived from Darwin's work claims that the universe is the random result of evolution. Is the Pope ill-informed or lying?

Neither.  The article Dave quotes is BS.  Here's what the Pope actually said:

Quote
We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say:B I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!

Date: 2006/09/14 04:29:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 14 2006,07:42)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,07:33)
Cedric...  
Quote
But how do numbers of people believing in something make that something true?

Ding ding ding ding!  Thank you! Thank you!  Thank you!

Go do a search of this thread and count the number of times that someone on this thread besides me has said something to the effect of ...

"Dave, 95% of the scientists believe in evolution ... how can it not be true ...?"

"Dave, 95% of all the world's scientists representing all the countries of the world believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... how can this not be true ...?"

I never have.  I don't recall anyone posting such a thing.  Except, of course, you.  Several times.

So, Davie, how many times has someone on this thread besides you written something along those lines?  Evidence, Davie-doodles, not vague impressions or unsupported assertions.

Now hold on a minute.  I think Dave is actually approaching an important point.  Let's examine this thought.

It seems to me that Dave is really trying to figure out who he should be placing his trust in.  Because, honestly, for laymen like Dave and me, that's what this boils down to.  Neither I nor Dave is going to take the time to get an advanced degree and build our own radiometric dating lab just to determine who is right or wrong.  Instead, we are forced to determine which side of the "debate" is more credible.  Here are a few of the factors I've used for this purpose, in no particular order:

1) Quote mining.
The creationist camp is littered with demonstrably misleading citations.  This is perhaps one of the most damning features of creationism in that it is so <i>easy</i> for anyone to objectively evaluate.  Creationists seem to use this tactic with remarkable frequency.  And Dave's Pope article is, of course, a perfect example.

2) Motive
The creationists have a clear and distinct motive for attacking evolution (and the 4.5 billion year age of the earth).  In fact, they frequently state it outright.  Dave stated it earlier in this thread.  Quite simply, they see these things as attacks on their religious beliefs, and on the moral fabric of society as a whole.  The motivation is subjective and emotional rather than objective and scientific.
The evolution side has no such motive.  The notion that there is an anti-theistic conspiracy in the scientific community is ludicrous.  There may be a handful of people who are outspokenly hostile towards religion, but they are certainly not in the majority.  The creationist movement, on the other hand, seems to be comprised almost exclusively of religiously-motivated individuals.

3) The scientific method.
The science side fully embraces the logic and practicality of the scientific method.  Most creationists (Dave included) do not.

There are other factor's of course, but these were the first 3 that came to mind.  I think these 3 items should be obvious to anyone, regardless of their science background.  It just takes the time to do a bit of research, but no additional knowledge is required other than rational thought.

Date: 2006/09/14 12:24:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2006,18:10)
Quote
The only way I see 666 is if I turn the logo upside down - rightside up I get 999 or qqq.  Why should anyone turn the logo upside down?


It actually really does say '999' -- it is in fact, a tribute to these guys.



Wow, we're solving lots of mysteries today!

Wow, that takes me back.  I had no idea these guys were still around.  I used to DJ when I was in college - one of my shows was called "Homicide", and I used theirs as the theme song.  Most of their songs were crap, but they had a few good ones.  I always liked their version of "Little Red Riding Hood".

Date: 2006/09/14 12:36:23, Link
Author: improvius
Homicide.  You better believe it.

Date: 2006/09/15 03:13:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,08:16)
And did you forget (or ignore?) that the reason for my post was to show JonF that creationists have no quarrel with post-Flood C14 dating?  

How do you tell the difference between a "pre-Flood" and "post-Flood" event?

Date: 2006/09/15 03:31:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,08:16)
So this treaty could really be worded ...  
Quote
...the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian "religion" [of Europe] as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ...

Well, it's a darn shame you weren't there to edit it for them before they signed it.  I'm sure if you were, it would have clarified a lot of things for this generation.

Date: 2006/09/15 04:04:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,09:56)
Quote
How do you tell the difference between a "pre-Flood" and "post-Flood" event?
Historical, eyewitness records -- Genesis.  How does one beat a reliable, historical account for determining things about the past?

So you're saying that if I give you a rock, you can somehow look it up in the bible and tell me if it formed pre-Flood or post-Flood?

Date: 2006/09/15 04:11:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,09:56)
ANOTHER FALSE CHARGE OF QUOTE MINING

Someone here said I quote mined, but I'm not seeing it ...

Here is what ANSA said about the Pope's recent homily ...    
Quote
Vatican: pope slams evolution
'Accounts about Man don't add up without God' says pontiff
(ANSA) - Regensburg, September 12 - Pope Benedict XVI on Monday issued his strongest criticism yet of evolutionary theory, calling it "unreasonable" .

Speaking to a 300,000-strong crowd in this German city, the former theological watchdog said that, according to such theories derived from Charles Darwin's work, the universe is "the random result of evolution and therefore, at bottom, something unreasonable" .
http://ansa.it/main....96.html


and here's what the Pope actually said ...  
Quote
We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part [Darwin et. al.], has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. [IOW ToE is meaningless and unreasonable] As Christians, we say:B I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94805


Looks like ANSA was accurate to me ...

You are ridiculously dishonest.  The Pope never said anything about Darwin.  He did not "slam" the theory of evolution.  Anyone with half a brain can see this.

Oh wait...

Date: 2006/09/15 04:58:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,10:53)
Quote
So you're saying that if I give you a rock, you can somehow look it up in the bible and tell me if it formed pre-Flood or post-Flood?
You asked me about EVENTS, not rocks.

Dave, YOU are the one who keeps referring to the foramtion of rocks as "pre-Flood events" or "post-Flood events".  If you don't like the terminology, feel free to stop using it.

Date: 2006/09/15 05:08:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2006,10:53)
Quote
You are ridiculously dishonest.  The Pope never said anything about Darwin.  He did not "slam" the theory of evolution.
Oh so who do YOU think he was referring to here?  Walt Disney? ...  
Quote
From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part [Darwin et. al.], has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary.


"Something is missing ... doesn't add up ... meaningless"

The Pope is a polite guy, but if you fail to see this as "slamming Evolution" then you are blind.

No, you idiot.  He's just saying that he believes in God rather than a random cause for the universe.  The fact that you interpret this as a "slam on the theory of evolution" only further illustrates how grossly ignoarant you still are as to what the theory of evolution actually is.  He's talking about theology, not science.

Date: 2006/09/18 11:40:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2006,17:09)
Gee, who would have ever thought that Ancient Hebrew nomads knew so much about American Indians.


I thought is was obvious:

Date: 2006/09/18 18:12:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,15:29)
Arden ... your Indians had writing and lost it because ALL people groups are descended from Adam who had writing.

Um, don't you mean Noah?  Major slip-up there, Davey.

Date: 2006/09/20 05:59:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:43)
JonF...  
Quote
We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
Er ... I tried your link and got some site called "Lord I Believe" or something ... didn't see anything about meteorites and the link to the article on "radiometric dating" was broken ...

You didn't read carefully enough, and you were trying the wrong link.  Use this one.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:02:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:43)
Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.

You mean with a single, distinct line?  Wow, you're doing a great job of making the case against yourself.

Date: 2006/09/20 07:44:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,12:36)
JonF...  
Quote
The KBS Tuff dates and Dalrymple's GC dates that were rejected were rejected not because they didn't fit preconceived ideas .. many of them did ... but for objective and repeatable and valid reasons.
And you have posted how much evidence for this claim?  ZERO.  Yet you preach to me.  Shameful.

He posted plenty of evidence on that.  You just dismissed it because it was too "sciencey".

Date: 2006/09/20 09:30:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 20 2006,15:27)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,08:21)

I'm a bit puzzled.  The black dots represent individual meteorites, and are placed based on their ages calculated using Rb-Sr and Sr-Sr dating, right?  What are the red dots, and why do neither the red dots nor the black dots add up to 23?

The red dots represent Dave's imagination.

Date: 2006/09/20 10:28:04, Link
Author: improvius
I hope somebody is saving copies of Dave's graphs. I think Dave's Imaginary, Random Red Points (or DIRR Points) will go down in ATBC history as one of the stupidest creationist arguments ever made.  It would be a shame if Dave took the pics offline.

Date: 2006/09/20 10:39:47, Link
Author: improvius
"That's gold, Jerry. Gold!"

Date: 2006/09/20 11:11:50, Link
Author: improvius
Steve, that's brilliant.  I'm in tears right now.

Date: 2006/09/21 03:06:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,09:00)
What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear?

Dave thinks it's cherry picking.

Date: 2006/09/21 04:19:20, Link
Author: improvius
Sorry if I ruined the surprise, Mike.  I've been over this with Dave, and frankly I haven't found a way to get past his paranoid delusions.  In his mind, anyone who shows him ironclad evidence of the actual age of the earth must be lying.  It is impossible for the graph in question to be accurate, therefore the data must be invalid.  Dave simply has to use his imagination to come up with a reason for it to be invalid.  His imagination, no matter how bizzare, must be correct because the alternative goes against everything he believes.

Honestly, I don't think Dave is ever going to find his way out of the mental prison he has constructed for himself.  I'm out of ideas.

Date: 2006/09/21 07:11:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2006,12:53)
(Who was that bozo that said Creationists don't consider ALL the evidence?  Heh heh!;)

Dave, when we said "all" we didn't mean "including the stuff in your feverish imagination".

Date: 2006/09/21 08:52:44, Link
Author: improvius
Steve is a selfish bastard and he just wants you to quit before anyone tops his TARD chart.

Date: 2006/09/22 10:14:53, Link
Author: improvius
Looks like the methodology described on TO wins again:

Quote
A horizontal line represents "zero age."

Date: 2006/09/23 03:29:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

Date: 2006/09/23 03:53:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.

Date: 2006/09/23 09:01:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

 
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.


 
Quote
Yeah and if your meter is off by 5 orders of magnitude because you close your eyes to the possibility of a Creation event and a Flood event that might have caused accelerated decay, then you can take a BILLION measurements and you'll be wrong a BILLION times.


And again:

 
Quote
The RATE Group claims that there is direct observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period in the past--we will be looking at this


And radiohaloes?  Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:

 
Quote
Next, we will be moving on to Uranium and Polonium radiohalos, which, according to ICR, provide direct, observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period of time in the past ... we shall see!


All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat.

Date: 2006/09/24 05:41:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave.  And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible.  That's excellent progress, Dave my boy!

Now I want you to try expanding on that concept.  Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible?

Date: 2006/09/24 09:12:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.

Super.  Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form?

Date: 2006/09/25 09:32:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,15:20)
Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

This first of which is, of course, "there is no God."

Date: 2006/09/26 05:00:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

...except for when it's figurative.  How do you tell the difference, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/26 05:44:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.

Just like Dave.

Date: 2006/09/26 08:18:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,13:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.

Then it makes no sense whatsoever that you were not following up and reading all of the links and source material that people were citing here.

The truth is that you don't really want to know that stuff.  All you want to do is dig up little tidbits so you can use them out of context to support your own rationalizations.  You don't really want to know the truth.  You just want to know that you're right.

So, Dave, how do you tell the difference between the figurative and literal parts fo the Bible?

And how long does a quartz crystal take to form?

Date: 2006/09/26 09:45:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:21)
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.

So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?

Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form?

Date: 2006/09/26 11:47:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Improvius...  
Quote
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."

Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage."  So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing.

Date: 2006/09/26 14:18:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

For your viewing pleasure:

Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...

Date: 2006/09/27 03:04:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory.

Date: 2006/09/29 03:57:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis.  But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it.  In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying.  I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists.  As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians.

I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point.  Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic.  But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias.

YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists.

Date: 2006/09/29 09:05:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:51)
From Underwhelming Evidence (which btw is showing very little activity):
Quote
I'm a software engineer with specialties in artificial intelligence and GNC (guidance, navigation, and control) software. I work for an aerospace research and development firm. I used to be a Dawkins-style militant atheist and devout Darwinist, but then I began to think and critically analyze what I believed, and figured out that I was dead wrong about almost everything that ultimately matters.

Dear Uncommon DescentHouse,

I never did believe anything I ever read on your website until just the other night...

Date: 2006/09/29 09:53:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,15:48)
I keep looking at Gil's post. It's just sooooooo stupid. It's like saying a black hole simulation is only valid if you subjected the supercomputer to crushing gravitational tides. A volcano simulation is only valid if you threw the computer into the lava.

Steve, I think you may have inadvertently stumbled upon the latest ID research methodologies.

Date: 2006/09/29 10:52:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 29 2006,16:35)
You notice that "this guy" is, in fact, Gil Dodgen, of "to make a computer  simulation of an earthquake you need to shake the monitor a lot" fame.  God on a stick, I had no idea that he was actually a "software engineer."

I think I found instructions for a meteorological simulation that he made:

Quote
Place your new meteorological simulation system outside; if you don't put the meteorological simulation system outside, your weather forecast will be unreliable and possibly totally inaccurate. Watch it through a convenient window.

Usually no more than a few seconds, and certainly no more than a minute, are needed to use your new system to check weather conditions:

If it casts a distinct shadow, it's sunny; if it's indistinct, it's partly cloudy or foggy.

Is it wet? Then it's raining.

Did it start rolling and tumbling very fast, quickly moving away from you, and disappearing from view? Then chances are, it's very windy.

Is only the top of it visible above water? Then it's raining very hard. Seek higher ground.

Was your system swept away by swiftly-moving, muddy brown water? Then I'd say it was a flash flood.

If your system is covered with snow, it's snowing.

If it catches on fire, it's very hot and perhaps not a weather phenomenon. Check for nearby mushroom clouds or fast-approaching celestial bodies.


(Credit where credit is due: I snipped it from this site.)

And Aftershave, the Penthouse parody was my work.  Well, actually I cribbed it from some John Prine lyrics.

Date: 2006/09/30 04:26:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,08:25)
Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.

Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.  Or do you have an objection to Diogenes' scenario as an accurate representation of your reality?

The only one who needs x number of years is you, Dave.

Date: 2006/09/30 06:24:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,11:46)
Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this?

I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.

Now, given all that, how exactly can 4.5 billion years be a required period of time?  If that number is neither based on evidence nor arrived at arbitrarily, then how do you think it is calculated?  How would you begin to accurately calculate the "minimum time required for all of this?"  If "all of this" is completely fictional and nonsensical to begin with, how could you possibly come up with a real time frame?

Date: 2006/09/30 09:57:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,14:50)
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?

It seems that somehow, Dave, you've come around to agreeing with nearly everyone here.  You've done a complete about-face and are now acknowledging that evolution and deep time make perfect sense and fit observed data perfectly well.  And the only thing getting in the way of all of that is a belief in magic and/or miracles.

All right then.  So I guess we're done?

Date: 2006/09/30 11:44:14, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.

I like it.  It shows just how far you've come from some of your earlier posts:

Quote
Quote
Gee, then how come there are so few molecular biologists  who know about that? They're all still talking about molecular evolution.
Blinded by what they want to believe.


Quote
It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception.

Date: 2006/09/30 12:29:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:18)
Improv ... you are making the mistake of assuming that "most scientists" = "most Thumbsters" (you do know what a Thumbster is, right?)

Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.

You know, if you'd agreed to that early on, it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort.

Date: 2006/09/30 13:30:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,18:47)
Improv...  
Quote
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...

I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...

... you do not.

Excellent.  So now that you've finally acknowledged the logic and science behind evolution, deep time, and whatever, we can dispense with further discussion along those lines.  At long last, we can return to the stated topic of the thread.

Please, by all menas, get on with presenting your overwhelming supernatural evidence.

Date: 2006/09/30 15:16:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,19:40)
Improv ... don't misunderstand me ... it is not logical to believe that RM Dating has proven Deep Time, and it is not logical to believe that Humans evolved from pond scum ... what is logical is to "pick a fairy tale, any fairy tale" that one wants IF you do not believe in the supernatural (in your case, the Evo Fairy Tale is as good as say, the Joseph Smith fairy tale, etc, etc).  Eat, drink, be merry, for tomorrow you die!  Who cares where we came from.


You are quite clearly stating here that evolution and "billionsofyearsism" is the logical conclusion based on material evidence:
Quote
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?

Date: 2006/10/02 05:09:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:47)
Then I will show you why Evolutionists Need Deep Time.

You need to take a step back at this point and show why evolutionists need evolution.  Right now you have failed to provide evidence of any bias towards evolution.  If there is no "need" for evolution as opposed to any other explanatory theory regarding origins of species, then you still don't have a point.

Date: 2006/10/02 06:43:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,11:56)
I don't know if evolutionists NEED evolution or not.

So then you agree that there is no bias towards favoring evolution over any other theory in the scientific community?

Date: 2006/10/02 06:48:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:33)
Now maybe you don't say worms and fish are ancestral to humans.  Maybe I have that wrong.  This is why I would like for you to fill in my little numbered list for me, so I could keep it straight.

Your chart represents present-day worms and fish.  No present-day organisms are ancestral to humans.  Everyone keeps telling you this, but you just don't seem to get it.

Date: 2006/10/02 06:54:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:51)
OK.  I understand that no modern organism is ancestral to humans.  However, ToE says that a single celled organism living 500 myo which conceivably is indistinguishable from a modern bacterium IS ancestral to humans.  Ditto for some ancient worm.  Ditto for some ancient fish.  Etc. etc.  Right?

None of which are represented on your chart.

Date: 2006/10/02 12:09:15, Link
Author: improvius
Points of agreement.

I'd still like to acknowledge and explore what I think was a huge leap for Dave just a couple of days ago:
Quote
Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

As I stated previously, I see this as tremendous progress from his previous position that biologists, geologsts, anthropologists, etc. were "blinded by what they want to believe."

Dave then follows up by affirming the evidence and logic behind evolution and radiometric dating:
Quote
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.

Now, aside from the bizzarely inexplicable Holocaust reference, I think we can all agree with Dave on this point.  Indeed, without the influence of religious belief, what else would Joe and Bob do other than follow the physical evidence at hand?  Without something like the Bible to contradict the evidence, they have no reason whatsoever to doubt or disregard whatever conclusions they may arrive at by way of methodological naturalism.  Again, unless I am very much mistaken, we can all safely go along with this assesment.

At this point, it seems that we only disagree when it comes to methodology:
Quote
Improv...  
Quote
Well, at least we're all on the same page now, right?  That is, evolution and deep time are the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.
It is, indeed, were it not for that horrifying reality of ...

THE SUPERNATURAL

That is precisely where you and I differ ...
I see overwhelming evidence for the Supernatural element ...
... you do not.

Again, I think we can all agree that this is a major point (if not the point) of disagreement between Dave and, well, the world of science.

What I am proposing now is that we begin from this common ground.  We should accept Dave's implicit concession to the "materialistic" science behind evolution and "deep time", and allow him to get on with presenting his Supernatural evidence.  Now, Dave has previously defined "supernatural" as "simply natural things which we don't presently understand," so I'm not entirely sure on where and how he is trying to break from methodoligcal naturalism.  But that's Dave's problem, not mine.

I am proposing a shortcut.  We could continue arguing the finer "sciencey" points to Dave, but I think we all know where that's going to end up.  As Mike PSS is demonstrating, ultimately Dave will have to formally concede on all of the technical, materialistic elements of your theories.  So why don't we just take that as a given and get right to the heart of Dave's "hypothesis": positive evidence of natural things which we don't presently understand.  Once again, I think everyone here will agree that, eventually, that's what Dave's "hypothesis" boils down to.  It's only a matter of time before he ends up there, so why don't we just jump right to it?

Date: 2006/10/02 12:38:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Your God is like Hitler?  WTF.

Date: 2006/10/02 12:42:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Improv ... you can pretend I agree with you that RM Dating and Deep Time is valid, but it doesn't make it true ... any more than pretending Humans evolved from Pond Scum makes that true.

Well, obviously I know you don't think it's "true", but you agreed that evolution and "deep time" were the best logical conclusions that we can make based on observed, testable evidence.  That was really my point.

Date: 2006/10/02 15:59:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.

I think Dave is implicitly conceding that, based on scientific evidence, they are not results of mixing.  Most likely he is referring to the possibility of unkown "supernatural" forces that could have somehow caused mixing.  In other words, Mike, you can't rule out that your crystals were not formed by miracles.

Date: 2006/10/03 04:54:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,10:31)
Oldman...
Quote
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

I know you didn't really mean that, Dave.  I mean, you wouldn't want to conflate "darwinists" with "thumbers" now, would you?

Date: 2006/10/03 05:38:45, Link
Author: improvius
I have a "feeling" that Dave is full of crap.  Does that count as positive supernatural evidence?

Date: 2006/10/03 07:33:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,13:09)
So if Incorygible really believes his "Ancient Bacterial Cytochrome is Far Different that Modern Bacterial Cytochrome" statement, then maybe he also believes that the modern lungfish--pictured above--also have much different cytochrome than the fossil lungfish that supposedly lived 400 Million years ago.

Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?

Date: 2006/10/03 08:29:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,14:11)
Improv...  
Quote
Hypothetically, Dave, would you shut up and admit Denton is wrong if someone here were to show you that modern bacterial cytochrome is far different than other modern bacterial cytochrome?
He's NOT wrong, even if modern bacteria have quite a bit of difference.  That would only call into question the bacteria.  But it says nothing of all the other organisms supposedly in the "human ancestry".

Dave... the bacteria is the basis for that entire table.  If it's useless for comparison, then the rest of the table is useless as well.

Date: 2006/10/03 08:34:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

Your image is not displaying.  Although I do find the "red x" as a representation of Dave's theory quite amusing.

Date: 2006/10/03 08:59:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 03 2006,14:30)
Dave, you are misunderestimating.
 
Quote
This was before the full impact of the new comparative studies was realized.  So you see.  Incorygible is wrong.  Darwinists DID expect genetic studies to confirm their views, but, sadly for them, they did not.


Dave, I made this chart. Does it roughly correspond to your theory? If not, What part is in error? (or errant as the case may be)

I set it up on imageshack for you.

Date: 2006/10/03 17:44:02, Link
Author: improvius
I'm still trying to figure out what the supernatural part of Denton's claim is.

Date: 2006/10/04 03:40:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (incorygible @ Oct. 04 2006,00:37)
In all of these comparisons, the one I'm most interested in is bacteria vs. yeast. What cause do you have -- and what criteria do you use -- to present these as similar organisms?

Predicted Dave response:

They're both so tiny!  I mean, just look at them.  Ah-ha!  You can't, can you?  Not without your sciencey equipment that filters out the important unknown supernatural stuff that you don't want to see.  But to a person with the true worldview, they appear almost identical.

Date: 2006/10/04 09:06:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 04 2006,15:01)
What is up with that? Are you actually mentally retarded? Or do you just play one on TV?

Well, one thing I've noticed is that Dave doesn't seem to acknowledge the difference between coding and non-coding sequences.  I'll bet he doesn't believe that such a distinction is valid.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:21:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
None of the higher jawed vertebrate groups is an [sic] any sense intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and other jawed vertebrate groups.

This is EXACTLY what everyone here has been trying to tell you, Dave, but you just don't get it.  And I'm sure by now everyone here thinks you never will.  So why don't you just move on to your supernatural evidence?  At least that would be a different flavor of tard from you.

Date: 2006/10/05 05:39:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:04)
IOW those bacteria have reproduced over time, but they have not changed fundamentally.

I suggested earlier that someone could demonstrate the genetic differences between 2 or more modern bacteria.  Or maybe even between a modern bacteria and a modern archaea.

If Dave is correct, all bacteria (and probably even archaea) should be fundamentally identical in terms of genetics.

Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge and expertise to compile this information.  But I was hoping someone else here could give it a shot.

Date: 2006/10/05 05:46:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,11:35)
Russell ... do you know the meaning of the word "Sure"?  It means the same as "Yes" in the context of your question.  Now go read my answer at the end of my post.

Russell, Dave is saying that Denton accepts the "sciencey" evidence in favor of evolution, but does not consider the additional "supernatural" evidence that supports creationism.  As long as one disregards this "supernatural" evidence, there is no choice but to accept evolution.  Dave has been quite clear on this point recently.

Date: 2006/10/05 07:23:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,12:50)
Drew--  I cannot (and you cannot either) say what percentage of the evolutionary community in 1965 held my view, simply based on this one quote by Zuckerkandl.  All we can say for sure is that Zuckerkandl was a prominent and prolific scientist in 1965 and he no doubt represented a large percentage of evolutionists.  How large?  Only further literature searches would tell.  Evidently Denton observed that it was quite large.  My opinion is that it was a majority.

My post today simply shows that Denton was quite justified in using this quote to demonstrate a very prominent view in the evolutionary community in 1965.  I don't know if it was mainstream or not, but my guess is that it was.  My post also shows that your attempt to show that I quote mined and came to an erroneous conclusion ... well ... crashed and burned.

I think you missed this part, Dave:

"...it is held that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."

Date: 2006/10/05 07:37:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:24)
What alternative does ANYONE have if one rejects supernaturalism?

Please, Dave, enlighten us as to the scientific merits of supernaturalism.

Date: 2006/10/05 07:47:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 05 2006,13:44)
See that, Improv...?   He says, "This postulate [Zuckerkandl's, which agrees with what I said] is contraversial because it is often said [by others, not Zuckerkandl ... how many others? unclear, but probably a small number] that evolution has been just as long for organisms that appear to have changed little as for those that have changed much; consequently it is held [by these others, not Zuckerkandl] that the biochemistry of living fossils is probably very different from that of their remote ancestors."

You're fucking insane.

Date: 2006/10/05 10:58:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Our current knowledge of the thyroid axis in the lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri, is consistent with neoteny in amphibians, but the only Devonian fossil considered to be a larval lungfish bears no resemblance to living lungfish or to panderichthiads. The enigmatic phylogenetic relationship of lungfish with the first tetrapods remains, but the hunt for other forms of larval Devonian lungfish is on!

Date: 2006/10/06 04:49:20, Link
Author: improvius
Do you all think Dave assumes that modern and Devonian lungfish are identical just because they're both referred to as "lungfish"?  I've been trying to guess where he picked up that notion.

Date: 2006/10/06 05:33:46, Link
Author: improvius
I've been wondering why creationists trace humanity back to a "genetically rich" Adam and Eve, when what really matters (to them) is a "genetically rich" Noah & family.

Date: 2006/10/07 07:59:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,22:49)
FISHES:  Tuna vs. Bonito = 2% difference
LAND MAMMALS:  Horse vs. Dog = 6% difference
BIRDS: Pekin Duck vs. Pigeon = 3% difference
PRIMATES: Human vs. Chimp = 1.5% difference?

...proves my point quite clearly.

More of your made-up data only proves one thing:

Date: 2006/10/08 04:18:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 08 2006,08:36)
5) Whenever we compare modern organisms, we find that Similar Organisms reveal very similar sequences.

By this logic, Dave, all modern bacteria should have "very similar sequences".

But they don't.  How do you explain that?

Date: 2006/10/08 19:02:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 08 2006,23:41)
For example, how much advancement can be attributed directly to the opposable thumb, did language cause an increase in average brain sizes or was it the other way around, does religion fall into the catagory of social behavior or is it actually an evolved instinctual trait.  Assessing the major differences between chimps and humans becomes more of a philosophical argument much like the mind vs brain discussion.

Well, language is a pretty easy one.  We've already mapped several areas in the brain that control language.  Not sure about religion, though...

Date: 2006/10/09 10:19:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.

What exactly is the point of this particluar statement?

Date: 2006/10/10 10:36:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 10 2006,15:03)
I'M REALLY NOT GETTING A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS REALLY THINK

Maybe some of you can help me ... a few days ago I quoted Lynn Margulis who talked about Neo-Darwinism being ultimately judged as a "minor twentieth-century religious sect" but then it was pointed out to me that she's still a Darwinist. Now I find this quote from 24 years ago! ...    
Quote
Perlas, Nicky, “Neo-Darwinism Challenged at AAAS Annual Meeting,” Towards, vol. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 29-31.
p. 29
“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is not only suffering from an identity crisis but may also be radically transformed to account for the growing number of scientific anomalies that continue to plague it. These were the underlying themes that could be inferred from presentations made by prominent scientists in the recently concluded symposium entitle, ‘What Happened to Darwinism Between the Two Darwin Centennials, 1959-1982?’ The symposium was convened under the auspices of the 148th Annual Meeting of the prestigious [AAAS] held from January 3, 1982 to January 8, 1982 at Washington, D.C.”
p. 30
“The symposium was a disappointment to the true believers of neo-Darwinism. Implicit in their counter-offensive to stamp out creationism was the recognition that they had to contain and mend the fissures that were increasingly undermining the scientific foundation of their own neo-Darwinist position. To their dismay, the Provine symposium aggravated and deepened the fissures.”


Help me!  Help me! ... As BWE says, "My head hurts!"  Can someone explain this to me?  

I can.  The problem is that you're looking for scientific information in a spiritualist magazine.

Date: 2006/10/10 10:58:18, Link
Author: improvius
I almost missed this.  Dave seems to be addicted to imaginary data.  He's posted another chart of comlpetely made-up data points:

Date: 2006/10/11 05:18:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,10:43)

Just like with ToE, no one can really say what the LCA at each node might have looked like.  All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known.  But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.

But you can, Dave, using the fossil record.

Let's go back to your chart for a moment.  This represents 1 of 2 things:
1) Actual data.
2) Hypothetical data.

Now, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't represent actual data.  Otherwise, you probably would have labeled it.  So let's go with #2.

Your hypothetical chart, then, represents a prediction.  It precits that, over a given period of time, many new "sub-kinds" have, um, micro-evolved from a much smaller set of "base-kinds".  Now, examing the fossil record, we should see a pattern developing in which, over the last 5,000 years, the amouont of sub-kinds increases at a dramatic rate.  Actually, we should see the number of "sub-kinds" double roughly every 500 years.

Now here is your chance to test your hypothesis.  Using any scientific dating methodology you prefer, examine the last 5000 years of fossils and tell me if you see this pattern.  I'll open it up even further, Dave.  Can you find any evidence from any source that shows the doubling of "sub-kinds" every 500 years?

Date: 2006/10/11 05:25:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,10:43)
BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece.  That was the meat of it, although there was more.  And yes, I won.  The best that Arden Chatfield--the resident linguist--and Faid were able to do was tell me that both Portuguese and Spanish were descended from Latin.  But I already agreed with that.  How does this refute anything I said?  Answer:  It doesn't.  This is just as vacuous as all these bogus quote mining charges.  It seems that you guys sure do whine a lot.  I hear a lot of "Quoteminer!" (when it isn't) and "Liar!" (when in reality it's just a different opinion) and "Evil loki child abuser!" (when in reality it is ToE advocates who are telling half-truths to our public school kids).

It looks like the Portuguese Wikipedia page has been updated quite a bit recently.  It's worth a look if anyone is still interested in this, um, "debate".

Quote
Ela fecha sempre a janela antes de jantar. (Portuguese)
Ela fecha sempre a fiestra antes de cear. (Galician)
Ella cierra siempre la ventana antes de cenar. (Spanish)
Ella tanca sempre la finestra abans de sopar. (Catalan)
Lei chiude sempre la finestra prima di cenare. (Italian)
Ea închide întodeauna fereastra înainte de a cina. (Romanian)
Elle ferme toujours la fenêtre avant de dîner. (French)

Date: 2006/10/11 06:38:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 11 2006,12:17)
Go ahead and laugh, thurdl ... then stop laughing and start explaining in detail WHY you believe Gish and Morris are quote miners, as Diogenes has done.

For starters, you're conflating gradualism with evolution.  And you know you're doing it.  So do Gish and Morris.

Date: 2006/10/12 17:11:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...  
Quote
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

You should read the whole article here ...
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834

WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?

Date: 2006/10/12 17:46:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 12 2006,23:39)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2006,20:11)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 12 2006,22:20)
Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...    
Quote
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

You should read the whole article here ...
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3834

WTF, did Dave accidentally hit the "Quote Mine Lock" key on his keyboard?

Actually, that one might not be mined.  It's from 1962!

"Aforementioned land animals" != "any land animals".

Date: 2006/10/16 05:29:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Oct. 16 2006,11:24)
If they really are such avid Christians, they would do well to read Søren Kierkegaard instead of William Dembski.

Yeah, but who needs real faith?  Being able to "prove" to yourself that God exists is so much easier and more comforting.

Date: 2006/10/16 09:58:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,15:05)
AFDAVE says the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual evolution (IOW ... there are no truly transitional forms in the fossil record)

Support provided ...

 
Quote

Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
p. 132
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, [from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei,] have now been ‘debunked.’” [the part in brackets was not included in my original quote, but has no effect on my point ... no quotemine, Deadman]
p. 132
“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
p. 133
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

Are you arguing specifically against gradualism, or the grerater (general) theory of evolution?  You are mistakenly using these terms interchangably even after you have been told several times that they are not.  None of the quotes you have provided support an argument against the greater theory of evolution.  But you knew that already, didn't you?

Date: 2006/10/16 10:02:39, Link
Author: improvius
Ah, crap.  The thread is bugged again.

Date: 2006/10/16 10:24:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,16:06)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 16 2006,14:05)
Need more?  Here's Dawkins ... Aftershave and Eric assumed they knew why Diogenes accused me of a quote mine on this one and blindly ragged on me for my horrible crime!  Turns out that Diogenes had misunderstood what I was saying ... Ooops!  No quote mine ...the italicized portion is the part I originally quoted ...      
Quote
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).p. 229
"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "


I suppose Aftershave and Eric stopped reading after the "however" after the part I quoted, and gleefully assumed I quoted mined.  Better read closer, guys, if you really want the truth!

Dave, given that I typed up the rest of the quote by hand out of the book, how likely does it seem that I didn't read past the "however"?

The real problem is that Dave didn't read past "very large gap in the fossil record".

Date: 2006/10/16 11:20:09, Link
Author: improvius
Dave, one and only one of the following two statements is true, and can be backed up by your citations:

a) There are gaps in the fossil record.
b) There are no transitional fossils.

Now, can you figure out which of those is true, and which is false?  Take your time.  You can have 3 guesses.

Date: 2006/10/16 15:39:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 16 2006,20:55)
Quote
* Cory thinks Noah took fish on the ark ...

And you think Noah didn't take fish on the ark, Dave? Either your "flood"waters were seawater, in which case all freshwater fish were annihilated, or your "flood"waters were freshwater, in which case all saltwater fish were annihilated. Either way, Noah had to have had fish on the ark. Which ones, how many, and how do you get from a handful of fish to tens of thousands of fish species in five millennia? How many fish species fewer were there forty years ago?

Um, weren't the seas boiling from all of the energy expended when the continents zipped apart?  Any fish not on the ark would have been cooked, at the very least.

Date: 2006/10/17 08:11:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE WORD COMPARISONS
Also, someone asked about word comparisons.  Here you go.  I hope the table comes out OK.

Spanish haber hombre cuerpo noche hijo hecho bueno y
Portug haver homem corpo noite filho feito bom e
French avoir homme corps nuit fils fait bon et

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t2275-0.htm

Your childhood misconceptions remain unimpressive.

(From wikipedia)
Ela fecha sempre a janela antes de jantar. (Portuguese)
Ela fecha sempre a fiestra antes de cear. (Galician)
Ella cierra siempre la ventana antes de cenar. (Spanish)
Ella tanca sempre la finestra abans de sopar. (Catalan)
Lei chiude sempre la finestra prima di cenare. (Italian)
Ea închide întodeauna fereastra înainte de a cina. (Romanian)
Elle ferme toujours la fenêtre avant de dîner. (French)
She always shuts the window before dining.

Date: 2006/10/17 08:42:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 17 2006,13:54)
Now if you have all three of these languages in your own family (my mother speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish and my cousin speaks fluent French), you tend to have a little better overview of these languages than the average person.  I can tell you that if you have heard all three languages like I have, the mix is quite obvious.

This is probably obvious to everyone, but I'll point it out anyway.  THIS is the source of your misconception.  Your limited childhood data consisted of Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English.  Given only those 4 sets of data, it might be reasonable to place Portuguese in between the other two Romance languages.  Of course, if you'd grown up with Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, you'd probably have done the same thing.  Then this thread would be full of your arguments about how Portuguese = Italian + Spanish, and you'd be scouring the web trying to find examples of Italian influence in medieval Portugal.

Date: 2006/10/18 03:49:42, Link
Author: improvius
In Dave's defense, I don't believe he is mentally capable of understanding the referenced material that he quotes.  He reads "much more controversial" as "consensus".  He thinks "Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei" is a reference to every species that has ever existed.  And despite having been explicitly and repeatedly told that "gradualism" is not synonomous with "evolution", he continues to conflate the two terms.

He's not dishonest.  He's insane.  We have spent these past months arguing with a madman.

Date: 2006/10/18 05:11:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2006,10:40)
They're not accusations to anyone who is sane and knows the definition of quotemining.

Does anyone else notice a pattern of deterioration in the rationality of Dave's posts?  I think he took a sharp dive somewhere in the isochron discussions.  I started seeing some outright bizarre posts ("God is like Hitler") in the past few weeks.  And now he just seems to be posting random mined quotes and illogical, defensive rants.  I can't tell if he's losing it or if he's simply run out of material.  Either way, I don't see much point in addressing him further unless he brings in something new (like discussing baraminology or responding to any of the other obstacles he's crashed into).

Right now, it's like trying to debate someone who insists that the sky is made of barbecue sauce ("if you can't taste it, you are blind!").

Date: 2006/10/18 11:22:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,16:28)
More from Ayala on the incredible variation potential available with no mutations at all ...  
Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.

p. 63
“It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
p. 64
“In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.

Now if we take Dave at his word here and disregard the obviously contradictory passage he quotes, he's going all the way back to Adam and Eve with a maximum 4 alleles and disallowing mutations.  So a prediction of this hypothesis is that there will be no more than 4 alleles for any given gene in the human population.

Date: 2006/10/18 11:32:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 18 2006,17:27)
Virtually all of the diversity you had pre-flood is now gone.

If he's right, there couldn't have been any diversity to begin with.

Date: 2006/10/19 03:46:03, Link
Author: improvius
Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.

Date: 2006/10/19 03:53:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 19 2006,09:50)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 19 2006,08:46)
Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.

Or 4, at most.

Nope.  He's going with 2:

Quote
My guess (observing the present human race) is that Adam was created with a large degree of heterozygosity -- what I have been calling "genetic richness."  Thus if Eve got the same genetic makeup as Adam (probably true) then together they would give rise to the present situation as we see it today with lots of variability.

Date: 2006/10/19 04:20:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,10:10)
Quote
Wow.  He really does think that there are only 2 alleles in existence for any given gene in the human population.
Boy, you guys sure do a lot of assuming.  Where did I say that?  Did you asusme I think this because I used only two alleles in my Punnet square?

If you disagree with the prediction, then where are all of the additional alleles coming from?

Date: 2006/10/19 05:40:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2006,11:25)
Quote
So now a logical question would be ... "What percentage of genes have only two alleles and what % have more than two?"  "What causes a gene to have more than two alleles?"  ... and other such questions.


BWAHAHAHA. WHAT WOULD BE LOGICAL WOULD BE FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS BEFORE TALKING NONSENSE.

I love the way you did a complete 180-degree turn on your claim about multiple alleles at a given locus. Besides being a plagiarist and quoteminin' kinda guy.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When we rely on A-I-G.

Date: 2006/10/19 06:12:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,12:05)
Personally, I don't equate "Richness" with "Mulitplicity of Mistakes."  I view it as corruption of the original.

So the vast majority of physical differences among humans can best be attributed to genetic corruption?  And somewhere amidst the global population is a genetically pure lineage?  A "master race", if you will?

Date: 2006/10/19 07:45:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 19 2006,13:24)
See Ayala's quote I gave previously.  The vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two  :-)   (Hey, I know this now! ) alleles at each locus in Adam's genes.

There is nothing whatsoever that Ayala has ever written that supports the notion that "the vast majority of variability comes from the heterozygosity of the two".

Date: 2006/10/19 08:37:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 19 2006,14:34)
Quote
Still waiting on Argy to confirm or deny the other minor issue here about "did Adam accumulate any mutations in his life?"


It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids.  And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase.  So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had.

Still doesn't get you past the Noah & co. bottleneck.

Date: 2006/10/20 04:26:23, Link
Author: improvius
This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation, so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?

Date: 2006/10/20 05:04:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,10:52)
Improv...  
Quote
This is good because it gets us much closer to defining "kinds".  It seems that the first "kind" pair would have, at most, 4 alleles per loci.  Now, it seems that the initial "genetic richness" is the primary cause of diversity as opposed to mutation,
I agree with this part.

 
Quote
so more often than not, we should find instances of the 4 original alleles within any given kind today.  Mutant alleles (and possibly other mutations) will also be found, but they should be the exception and not the rule.

We should then be able to determine kinds based on finding these common alleles at given loci.  Does that sound about right, Dave?
I don't know about this part.  It's a good question though and I want to investigate further.

We could also look at fossils and written records to find out which animals were around soon after the flood.  When we find specific evidence of a particular animal having lived around 4000 years ago, we can safely assume that it is very close to one of the original surviving kinds from the ark.  Then we could look at the alleles of modern individuals from these "species" and use that as a starting point.  For example, if we find that wolves did indeed exist 4000 years ago, then we can be reasonably certain that a modern wolf is very similar to the original kind.  We can then use wolf genes and alleles as a basis of comparison to determine which other modern animals are members of the same kind.

Does this sound reasonable or not?

Date: 2006/10/20 08:27:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 20 2006,13:41)
This is CORRUPTION of existing good information, not increase in information.

In the context of genetics - how can you discern a difference between these two things?

Date: 2006/10/20 09:56:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 19 2006,22:22)
The Infinite Designer of Life (IDOL) is a trinity:
God and 2 ( the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof ).
God and 2 candlesticks.
God and 2 olive branches
God and 2 witnesses
God and 2 thieves:
God and one pair (AZ and fold)
God and 2 cherubims Exd 25:22 .
God is a family. One family
Mother of all living, father of all living,
and child of all living. Rev.12:5
Paradise (pair rode AZ) ( king, ass, and foal ) Zec 9:9
A cd on a hil (child) can knot. Be hid

Date: 2006/10/20 09:59:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (thurdl01 @ Oct. 20 2006,15:16)
I took a swig of cough syrup a few minutes ago, so I'm not sure...does this thread look like this for everyone?

Date: 2006/10/20 10:11:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,12:56)
Now if there are multiple universes, then you are correct—it is obvious that ours would appear fine tuned for life.

Just to clarify - it should be "if there are or have ever been multiple universes".  There is no need for them to exist simultaneously in this case.

Date: 2006/10/20 10:15:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 20 2006,16:10)
Oh, come on, hereoisreal is just one of you guys f#cking with us.  Really.  I'm onto my third glass of rare Sicilian blueberry amaro and this still doesn't make any f#cking sense.

No.  He's been doing this bit for at least over a year.  Maybe this is the first he's been on AtBC, but he's been around for a while.  If it's a spoof, it's an extremely long-running one.

Date: 2006/10/20 10:32:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 20 2006,16:18)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 20 2006,22:15)
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 20 2006,16:10)
Oh, come on, hereoisreal is just one of you guys f#cking with us.  Really.  I'm onto my third glass of rare Sicilian blueberry amaro and this still doesn't make any f#cking sense.

No.  He's been doing this bit for at least over a year.  Maybe this is the first he's been on AtBC, but he's been around for a while.  If it's a spoof, it's an extremely long-running one.

Has Lou FCD ever been seen in the same room as him?

I just did a quick search and turned up references to him going back to October 1996.  Hereoisrealisreal.

Date: 2006/10/21 19:02:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 21 2006,19:28)
The item I see lacking in most of these posts is logic.  It seems that Dave can grab claims and throw them at this board to try and make them stick but the claims don't logically fit.

The biggest weakness I see is still in his lack of a testable hypothesis.  Each time he starts to settle on a hypothesis that could actually be tested, he backs off immediately.  Each attempt to pin him down to specific predictions or methodologies has resulted in some response such as "I'll have to research that" or "I'll address that later".  The latest examples of such have been dealing with original alleles and kinds.  It seems to me that given our current level of understanding of genetics, demonstrating the distinctions between and micro-evolutionary pathways within kinds would be a fairly simple task.  But Dave knows that as soon as he defines his hypothesis narrowly enough to test it, it will fail.  So he must constantly float between various vague (and often contradictory) generalizations in order to give the pretense of argument.

So then, what is the next step for all of you?  Is it to simply dismiss and ignore him with the admonishment to come back only when he has something testable?  Or is it to keep refuting and piling up mountains of actual evidence and research to counter his ridiculous assertions?  Did the scientists who boycotted the Kansas Kangaroo hearings have the right idea?  How long do you keep playing whack-a-mole?

This may be a training session for Dave, but I think the experience is benefitting the science side as well.

Date: 2006/10/21 19:12:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 21 2006,20:30)
In support of my hypothesis, I offer the observation that I can't find anything that "afdave" - or Dave Hawkins, the actual person whose identity "afdave" may be hijacking - has actually written outside of this site that contains the sort of cartoonishly anti-science, YEC biblical literalist stuff on display here. If this guy really believed this silliness, wouldn't there be something on his "kids4truth" site that actually challenged the "atheistic propaganda passing for science" that forms the basis of high-school science classes?

I am starting to lean towards this as well.  Looking back, I think the "Hitler is like God" quote may be the best evidence of shennanigins.  Even if some actual Christian had, at the height of feverish, impassioned flamewarring, posted such nonsense, I'm sure they would have retracted or backed down from it soon afterwards.  But (unless I missed it) we didn't get even so much as a "that's not what I really meant" from AFD.

Date: 2006/10/23 04:14:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 23 2006,09:51)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Oct. 19 2006,17:26)
 
Quote
If, on your birthday, two of your grandchildren gave you gifts, one a bouquet
of flowers and the other a lit stick of dynamite with a short fuse,
which one would you respect most?
The one with the flowers.

Wrong Chris, flowers can't harm you.

Yeah, tell that to John Otway.

Date: 2006/10/23 06:44:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:21)
Yes, 500 > 16.  And 500 mutated alleles is genetically more corrupted than 16.  Conversely, a population with 16 uncorrupted alleles is "genetically richer" than one with 16 uncorrupted ones and 500 mutated (corrupted) ones.

How can you tell the difference between a corrupted and uncorrupted allele? This is an important question for your hypothesis, Dave.  If you can't tell the difference, then your whole concept of "corrupted alleles" is garbage.

Of course, the ramifications of answering this question are just going to be more and more problematic for you.  So you'd probably be better off dodging it like you do most of the others.

Date: 2006/10/23 07:25:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,12:55)
Improv...  
Quote
How can you tell the difference between a corrupted and uncorrupted allele? This is an important question for your hypothesis, Dave.  If you can't tell the difference, then your whole concept of "corrupted alleles" is garbage.

Of course, the ramifications of answering this question are just going to be more and more problematic for you.  So you'd probably be better off dodging it like you do most of the others.


I think the way you tell the difference is "does it show a loss or a gain in specificity"?  Or is it neutral?  There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of documented harmful ones (loss of specificity), but I know of only two which evolutionists even still try to promote:  the nylon-eating bacteria and this APO AI milano one.

That still doesn't mean anything.  Loss or gain as compared to what?  Or are you simply saying that less information = corrupted and more information = pure?  In which case, that would make XXYs less corrupted than almost anyone else, right?

Date: 2006/10/23 10:13:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 23 2006,15:53)
Yes, I'm seeing the pattern of how you guys think ... lump mutations (like sickle cell) in with predesigned variability (like skin color), call it evolution and pretend that it is the great miracle working god that can do all things ...

Thus far you have demonstrated no way of distinguishing between "predesigned variability" and mutations.  Obviously, the distinction is meaningless if you can't define it.

Date: 2006/10/23 16:22:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 23 2006,21:11)
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 23 2006,17:37)
It appears I missed the Information Theory debate, much to my chagrin.  So are we out of creationist canards now?  I think Dave has pretty much hit every page of the creationist play book, including pulling some that aren't even well respected inside creationist circles.  So, have we missed any?  If so, can we just list them now and begin the refution?

Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument.  Maybe that one's too stupid even for him.

I think we could see that pretty soon.  After his recent posts, he's just a hop, skip and jump from slogging in Sanford.

Date: 2006/10/24 06:17:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,11:34)
But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).

This doesn't make any sense at all.  A given allele codes for a set of proteins.  How is one set of proteins more "specific" than another?  Your "specificity" term is meaningless.

Date: 2006/10/24 09:54:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 24 2006,15:31)
Second, this article (among others) shows Britain's willingness to bend over backwards (forwards?) for the immigrants, which puts the lie to your claim of massive discrimination by Whitey. I don't care about the paper's past -- I'm only interested in the evidence right now.

Is that what you think?  Because it sure sounds like the ministry is concerned with tourists rather than immigrants.

Quote
The Department for Transport denied foreign licences were a safety risk, adding: "We don't want people here for a short period of time to have to go through the process of getting a licence."

Date: 2006/10/25 06:18:20, Link
Author: improvius
Wow, a con man asking for more money?  Inconceivable!

Date: 2006/10/25 08:27:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:52)
Improvius...  
Quote
But only a twisted mind would say this is an INCREASE in specificity (upward evolution).

This doesn't make any sense at all.  A given allele codes for a set of proteins.  How is one set of proteins more "specific" than another?  Your "specificity" term is meaningless.
I would not say that this protein is more specific than that protein.  This would be a misnomer.  The proteins are the products analogous to the car components referred to above.  The alleles are the instructons analogous to the two examples of instructions given above, one being more specific than the other.  I think if once you understand this, now it will be quite clear how one allele (instruction) can be more specific than another one.

No, this is EXACTLY what you are saying.  You are insisting that one set of proteins (or components - whatever) is somehow more "specific" than another.

How is one set more ambiguous than the other?  Where is the ambiguity that you think the mutant allele is coding?

Date: 2006/10/25 09:08:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 25 2006,14:55)
Quote
But what if we find out later that the Milano mutation causes some other problem which outweighs the benefits of reduced risk for heart attacks?  Then is it beneficial?  No, not any more.  We just thought it was at first, but now it's not.
Right. And what if we don't find out later (as we haven't) that it causes some other problem? Well, then we have no way of knowing that we won't find out still later that it causes some other problem. In other words, it's pointless to argue with you, and it's disingenuous for you to pretend you're open to evidence on a "beneficial mutation", because we can never know whether some deleterious effect will be discovered next year, can we?

The funny thing is, using that same rationalizing, Dave can never know if the Milano mutation is truly a "corruption" or merely a reversion back to the original "designed" allele.

Date: 2006/10/25 11:48:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 25 2006,17:05)
I know this won't make any sense to Dave, because he can't allow it to make sense to him. But what about everyone else?

I can follow that.

And, frighteningly enough, I can follow Dave's "specificity" train of thought as well.  He's referring to what he believes is a genetic signal-to-noise ratio.  The signal in this case is the genetic pattern of Adam & Eve.  The noise (and thereby loss of the original signal) comes from mutations that have been piling up over the last 6000 years.

But personally, I don't know why he's even bothering with this approach.  As soon as he accepts that you can follow modern genetic patterns to determine that original "signal", he's putting himself right back in with the other great apes.

Date: 2006/10/25 12:22:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 25 2006,18:02)
1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
2) we can

Let me rephrase that ...

I can.

No, you can't.  And you won't.  You, Dave, are utterly incapable of distinguishing between your concepts of "signal and noise" in biological systems.

But please, feel free to prove me wrong here.

(And yes, Dave, this is a trap.)

Date: 2006/10/26 07:41:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,12:35)
Claude Shannon would say that the information, R = 0 for the noise because R = H(x) - Hy(x) and H(x) and Hy(x) are both at maximal uncertainty at the transmitter AND the receiver.  And he would say that R > 0 for the speech because H(x) > Hy(x) in that case.

I think that's where you've messed up in this particular case, Dave.  There is no uncertainty at the transmitter.

Now, I can see the point that you think you're making, but you should probably change your terminology.  You aren't getting anywhere with information theory.  I think your particular hypothesis would be best put in terms of singal-to-noise ratio and generational degradation.  I've spent a bit of time as a sound technician, and it seems to me that you are thinking along analogous lines.  You seem to be looking at organic reproduction as a process similar to digital recording.  Does that sound about right?

Date: 2006/10/26 07:49:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,13:38)
And Deadman Clinton responds with ...
Quote
size and growth of hdl's, Dave ... meaning in diameter,


Ah swar, ya honor ... less affectiv don't mean the same thang as rastricted sahz and growth!  Those AIG boys iz lyin' scumbags!  Honest!

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no advantage to being smaller and requiring fewer resources, yet being just as effective as something larger?

Date: 2006/10/26 08:07:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,13:59)
I'm simply saying for the umpteenth time that AIG's statement was  
Quote
The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do,

And that's your whole problem.  You have no way of knowing what it's "supposed to do".  You are assuming that there is some initial, perfect genotype that these mutations are deviating from.  That is what you need to start finding evidence for.

Date: 2006/10/26 11:25:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 26 2006,17:06)
But what point are you trying to make?  And how does this relate to Points C&D of my CGH?  Or in proving that ToE is true?  Tell me why I should go to the trouble of refuting you ... AGAIN.

Dave, you were the one who started down this information theory rabbit hole.  Why the #### are you asking Drew how it relates to your hypothesis?

Quote
What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.


Still no idea how you think you're calculating specificity.  And I don't know why you aren't switching over to signal/noise terminology - I honestly think it's more appropriate for what you think "specificity" means.

Date: 2006/10/26 12:34:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 26 2006,18:05)
Am I crazy, does anybody else agree with me on this?

Oh, I absolutely agree.  This is exactly why I keep saying Dave should be presenting his current hypothesis in terms of signal-to-noise.

Date: 2006/10/26 15:10:36, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Drew Headley @ Oct. 26 2006,20:42)
He is talking about noise introduced during transmission, not a message that is generated by noise. I cannot make this point any more clear.

I don't ****ing get it.  I've been telling Dave over and over that he's talking about signal-to-noise.  I'm actually trying to help him here.  I mean, all he has to do is say, "why, yes, that is what I meant - not information per se, but rather the effect of noise on the signal."

Dave, I will try one more time:  You would help yourself a great deal at this point if you simply acknowledge that your definition of specificity is a comparison to a source signal, rather than pure information itself.  More specific = closer to the source (less noise), and less specific = farther from the source (more noise).  Just agree to that and we can drop the whole "information debate".

Date: 2006/10/27 02:52:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,05:58)
Improvius...
Quote
Dave, I will try one more time:  You would help yourself a great deal at this point if you simply acknowledge that your definition of specificity is a comparison to a source signal, rather than pure information itself.  More specific = closer to the source (less noise), and less specific = farther from the source (more noise).  Just agree to that and we can drop the whole "information debate".
Thanks for the attempted help, but this has nothing to do with the statement "White noise contains more information than a Churchill speech."  

That's entirely my point, YOU IDIOT.

Date: 2006/10/27 03:39:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 26 2006,22:03)
DaveScot (to Jerry): As to your request that I ban you too. No problem. It’s done.

Incredible.

He banned Jerry?  Holy crap.

Date: 2006/10/27 08:32:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,14:22)
AFDave, if you had a sudden flash of insight and realized that evolution was true, would that have any impact on your position in the church, or your relationship with friends or other community members? Just curious.

...or his position as treasurer of kids4truth?

Date: 2006/10/28 06:04:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 28 2006,09:29)
Steviepinhead ...  
Quote
Dave, you are really not doing very well here.  But I'm sure that's not really, um, new information to you.
I take it you came to this conclusion due to the fact that it's basically 100 or so pro-ToE people vs. 1 pro-Creationism person (me) ??  I guess this means that you are heavily influenced by "what does the majority think"?

Well, I don't have any personal leanings one way or another on this issue.  And what I've seen in this thread (end everywhere else evolution/creation is discussed) is a mountain of evidence and solid logic on the side of evolution supporters, and nothing more than fantasy and denial on the side of the creationists.  In the eyes of this neutral party, Dave, you are ilk just keep losing over and over again.  Since you can't provide any evidence (and the other side can - in spades), all you have left is PR.  The DI seems to spend millions on getting their message out and next to nothing on actual research.  If there were any credibility to your side, this would certainly not be the case.

It's the evidence, stupid.  Come back when you have some.

Date: 2006/10/30 19:43:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 30 2006,14:55)
But what we can do is discuss known mutations, known alleles (like HLA), causes of variability, speciation and other questions which surround the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood.

Great!  You can start by testing your theory of speciation (kindiation?) using the fossil record.  Now, if your theory is correct, we should be able to look at the fossil record over the last 4500 years and notice (for starters) that the quantity of different species increases dramatically, starting at next-to-nothing for a while, and doubling maybe every 300 years or so.  We should find only a very small number of each kind at around (roughly) 4500-3000 years ago.  We can safely assume that anything we find that dates to right around 4500 years would be some sort of ur-kind, and will give us a very good idea of what was actually on the ark.

So, get to it, Davie!  Pick your dating methodology and tell us whether or not the fossil record supports your hypothesis.  This should be an easy one for you, and it would go a long way towards convincing everyone else here that you're right.

Date: 2006/10/31 03:43:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,10:37)
k.e ...  
Quote
DATING: In the meaning improvius uses it, is a method based on observable evidence that correlates with ALL other VALID dating methods WITH ABSOLUTLY NO EXEPTIONS.[sic]
Yes.  And no spelling errors, either!!  Got it!

I think you should lay off making statments about spelling errors, Dave.

(Use Ctrl-F if you don't get it.)

Date: 2006/10/31 06:23:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,13:17)
There is none that contradicts it that I am aware of ... no one has brought any to me here that stands up under scrutiny ... and there are mountains of confirmation of historical details in the Bible from archaeology ... are you telling me you are unaware of these?

How exactly can you have archaeological confirmation of anything without a viable dating method?

Date: 2006/10/31 09:00:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2006,15:47)
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 31 2006,11:32)
1) There IS NO absolute physical dating system available.  People who say there is (RM Dating) are either ignorant or lying, as I have shown quite thoroughly.  Download both threads and you will see ...
2) The best dating system we have for historical events is historical records with genealogical tables.  The Bible contains many of these.
3) Scientists and historians routinely rely on historical records to date events NOT mentioned in the Bible, but they have a strange, unwarranted predjudice against doing so with the Bible.  
4) So my approach to the Origins question is to take the historical record of Genesis and see if the evidence from scientific observation, archaeology and outside historical accounts is consistent with it.

Lo and behold, I find that it is!

1) Radiometric dating, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores... leave my "hypothesis" deader than Dead Deady McDead, the deadest man in Death Valley, on the Day of the Dead.  So let's just handwave them away.
2) If it's written down in "historical records", then it's true.
3) There's no qualitative difference between, say, a declaration of war in the US Congressional records, and a creation myth.  See point 2.
4) So my approach to the Origins question is to discard any scientific observation, archaeology or outside historical account which disagrees with Genesis, then find out if what's left agrees with it.  In the event of disagreement, discard the evidence.  Repeat as necessary.

That's pretty much it.  Dave admitted in the first thread that he evaluates scientific evidence based on whether or not the "researchers" agree with his worldview.

Date: 2006/11/01 03:43:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,07:54)
Did you catch all that?  Woodmorappe concludes (and I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with him) ...  
Quote
This lopsided pattern of allelic frequencies is readily explicable in terms of founder effect (Altukhov 1990, p. 206), in theis case, Flood-related ones.  The 1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci are probably the ones which were carried by the two founders on the Ark, and the rarely-occurring alleles have arisen, by mutation or other means, only since the Flood.
So much for ideas like Grey Wolf's about eye color needing multiple alleles per locus.

Now, just in case everyone missed it, Dave is talking about allelic differences within kinds here, not species.  That means he's assuming that there are "1 to 3 frequently occurring alleles at polymorphic loci" within a given kind population.  Honestly, I'd missed that point up to now, but it seems pretty significant.  I think everyone else has been operating by limiting the allelic evidence to specific species.  And it certainly seems that both Woodmorappe and Dave have been conflating species and kinds in that regard.

So my question to the geneticists here is, what sort of "allelic diversity" do we see when we switch from species to kinds?

Date: 2006/11/02 02:48:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 02 2006,08:10)
Eric--  I see you're bored and having nothing original to say so you are into recycling :-)

Dave - I see you're scared and have no response to Eric's challenges so you're trying to change the subject.

Date: 2006/11/02 03:31:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2006,10:05)
Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 01 2006,14:15)
Stands of 4,500 year old trees didn't survive the flood as seeds, and they didn't get from Mt. Ararat to the west coast of the U.S. via FedEx.

Dear eric,

You are quite demonstrably wrong.  During this year's Superbowl, it was quite clearly shown via fossilized videotape that FedEx did in fact exist alongside cavemen and dinosaurs, which makes this hypothesis viable.

Video Evidence of Cavemen, Dinosaurs, and FedEx

Ah, but the caveman states quite clearly (assuming the translation is correct) that FedEx doesn't exist yet.  Now, it is certainly possible that there was an error in translation - or that perhaps a later scene proving the existence of FedEx at roughly the same time period had been edited out.  But the current copy of the commercial does not support your YECFedEx hypothesis.

Date: 2006/11/03 09:22:06, Link
Author: improvius
So, I wonder how many minutes Dave had been at AIG before someone asked him for a check.

Date: 2006/11/06 05:29:14, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:13)
And I most certainly DID have evidence.  I gave you a clear example:  the "dating" of the layers at Koobi Fora.  This example showed unequivocally from a major, non-YEC source--Science magazine--the absolute randomness of RM "dating" results and the necessity to "calibrate" results with fossils of "known" age.  You are a very intelligent guy as can be seen by your academic achievements.  Why would you buy into this foolishness?

No, Dave, that wasn't evidence.  That was you suspecting a conspiracy.  You were asked multiple times to explain specifically what step of the dating methodology you obejcted to in that case, and you failed to come up with anything concrete.

Date: 2006/11/06 06:12:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,12:45)
It most certainly was evidence and I have never claimed a conspiracy of any kind.  You are the one who has incessantly asserted that I think there is a conspiracy.

I made quite clear which part of the dating methodology I objected to ...

"Calibrating" RM dating results with fossils.  

Translation:  Rejecting results which do not agree with the accepted, fossil determined dates of the strata and accepting only those dates that DO agree.  

This is no conspiracy as the scientists are quite honest and sincere in thinking they are doing good science.  They are simply mistaken and blinded by the reality that there are a large number of other scientists who have also blindly accepted this nonsense.

Again, that's just your imagination.  You have NO EVIDENCE of any of that being true.  You have been asked to specifically refute the dating methodology, and you have failed to do so.

Please try again when you have evidence.

Date: 2006/11/06 09:23:50, Link
Author: improvius
I still think the focus of this "allele discussion" should be on "kinds" rather than humans.

Date: 2006/11/10 13:14:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 10 2006,07:07)
Just to make sure no corpses try again to climb out of their coffins ...

What Dr. Schneider said in conclusion was this ...
Quote
So, if I've understood your interesting problem, the issue is about labeling. If one confusingly labels the signal to be 'noise', [WHICH DREW AND ERIC DID]and confuses that with the noise added during transmission, then it is a mess.[IT WAS]  But if we recognize the signal as just another signal to be sent, then the issues are clear. [ERIC AND DREW SAID NOTHING ABOUT THIS.  THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT WAS "DAVEY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS." (WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE) DR. S, HOWEVER, MAKES HIMSELF QUITE CLEAR, AND OF COURSE I AGREE WITH HIS STATEMENTS.  I STILL THINK THAT DREW AND ERIC WERE ORIGINALLY VICTIMS OF THE CONFUSION SPOKEN OF BY DR. S WHERE PEOPLE EQUATE "RANDOMNESS" WITH "INFORMATION."] You still want "our white noise signal" to be transmitted with as little change as possible, even if it represents the actual noise in a nerve and even if "our white noise" is sent over a noisy channel.

You're not off the hook here.  I (and others) pointed out several times that you should have been referring to signal-to-noise ratios rather than Shannon information, yet you completely disregarded all of those posts.

Date: 2006/11/13 15:53:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,16:07)
Please tell me this is going to be more interesting than the "calibration" at Koobi Fora ... :-)

Please, Dave.  All you know about the calibration methodology from Koobi Fora was that it was too sciencey for you to follow.

Date: 2006/11/14 08:27:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:43)
I know that saying this is like speaking to a brick wall, but the fact remains that there is much peer review going on in creationist journals (of which there are now at least 4 to my knowledge).  Of course establishment (ToE sycophant) journals are not even going to take a look at creationist writings.  How does peer review happen if one's peers will not even consider looking at the paper for one millisecond?

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

No, friend, the modern science journals are so committed to methodological naturalism that the only solution is to do an "end run."

And that is exactly what is taking place as we speak.

Now this is interesting.  Dave, how exactly do you conduct "peer review" without relying on methodological naturalism?

Date: 2006/11/14 08:37:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:24)
SPEAKING OF TOP-NOTCH SCIENTISTS JUMPING SHIP FROM "HMS DARWIN", LET'S GET BACK TO GENETICS, I.E. POINTS C & D OF MY HYPOTHESIS

Ok.  So how did some of our mutant HLA-A alleles end up in chimps?

Date: 2006/11/14 11:07:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 14 2006,11:45)
"Have nightmares about the mighty Florblix, it'll GET YOU!!"

Heh, this was one of the more entertaining mornings I've had...slapping toothless toy poodle Dave until he cried and ran off, saying " I don't want to debate radiocarbon dating anymore!!"

I'd like to extend my gratitude and fond regards to all except Asshat Dave, the Palm Pilot.

I'm still really, really curious about how Dave's concept of peer review is supposed to work without methodological naturalism.  Do they just go over each other's work and say, "Nope, I can't figure out how to test this, either.  Looks good!"

Date: 2006/11/14 12:35:01, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,13:18)
Improv...  
Quote
I'm still really, really curious about how Dave's concept of peer review is supposed to work without methodological naturalism.  Do they just go over each other's work and say, "Nope, I can't figure out how to test this, either.  Looks good!"
Peer review with creationists works the same way as any other peer review with the notable exception that they are not so naive as to exclude the possibility of an Intelligent Creator, and they consider evidence from archaeologically proven historical documents such as the Bible to be evidence.

So then, if I were to write a creationist research paper, and the only evidence I included was "because an angel told me so," then it should be viewed favorably in the peer review process, right?

Hmm, maybe I should switch careers...

Date: 2006/11/14 16:35:21, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,16:45)
Eric...  
Quote
But he still hasn't answered this simple question: "Where was all this extra carbon, Dave,
In the bioshpere.  Again, see the table in this paper http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.pdf

Quote
Since ionizing radiation is harmful to organisms it is to be expected that when life was originally placed on this planet a mechanism for protection from radiation damage was provided. This protection could have been afforded by a capability for healing radiation damage to tissue, a capability that has largely diminished by the present time. It seems more reasonable to presume that such protection was provided, at least in a large measure, by a radiation shield that isolated the biosphere from cosmic radiation.


He just goes on and on like this.  Wild speculation is not evidence, Dave.

Date: 2006/11/16 14:34:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,11:46)
We have only unwarranted assumptions, then a whole plethora of "calibrated" measurements to support the myth.

And, of course, Dave isn't interested in matching that pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2006/11/16 19:00:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 16 2006,18:07)
The meeting at AIG went very well.  The strategy is working very well.  Very soon I predict it will be quite unfashionable to be a Darwinist.  5 years maybe?

So is everyone still scratching their heads about Carbon 14?  It seems that everyone got very wrapped around the axles about this issue, so let me simplify it yet again.

Are you reading carefully?

1)  There was far more organic material in the pre-Flood world.  I cited the Brookhaven National Symposium on Biology

 
Quote
Influence of Biosphere Carbon Inventory on C-14 Ages
   The most significant line of reasoning concerning possible mechanisms for a compression of the C-14 age scale is based on estimates of the amounts of non-radioactive carbon in which C-14 has been distributed. C-14 can be compared with red coloring used to make white cake into pink cake. The larger the amount of cake batter into which a given amount of coloring is placed, the less pink the cake will be. It has already been pointed out that the ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the contemporary reference atmosphere is 1/(848 billion). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution this ratio has progressively reduced as a result of burning fossil fuels (Wilson 1978; Nozaki et al. 1978). The combustion of fossil fuel introduces into the atmosphere CO2 that does not contain C-14 and restores to the biosphere carbon from a more luxuriant period in the past.
   Estimates that have been made of the world carbon inventory are in general agreement (Borchert 1951; Rubey 1951; Revelle and Suess 1957; Bolin 1970; Fairhall and Young 1970; Reiners 1973; Woodwell et al. 1978; and Hall 1979). The estimate that developed out of the 24th Brookhaven Symposium in Biology in 1972 (Reiners 1973) is utilized in Table 1. The estimate for the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory given in Table 1 is taken from William Rubey (1951). The term fossil is here used within quotation marks to indicate that some of the buried organic carbon may be primordial rather than associated with organisms. According to the data given by Reiners, the total carbon inventory in the present biosphere is less than one five-hundredth of the total "fossil" carbon inventory. On the basis of the estimate given by Rubey, the ratio of total carbon inventory in the present biosphere to the total "fossil" organic carbon inventory is 1/176.

[see the link for the table]

   Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood, one can postulate that the preflood biosphere contained in the order of 500 times more carbon than does the contemporary biosphere. If the same world inventory of C-14 as is now maintained were distributed in this preflood biosphere the level of C-14 activity would have been about 1/500 the contemporary reference level. Since 500 = 2^(8.97) approximately nine C-14 half-lives or 51,000 years of the radiocarbon time scale can be accounted for in this way.
   Even if one assumes that no sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood and that all present "fossil" organic carbon was buried by the flood, the reduction in the active biosphere carbon inventory resulting from flood burials is 176-fold, according to Table 1. On this basis the apparent C-14 age of plant and animal material at the time of the flood would be 42,730 (7.46 X 5730), (176=2^7.46) assuming that the world C-14 inventory at that time was the same as has been characteristic of contemporary times. Since the chronological data in the Bible places the flood approximately 5000 years ago, at the present time this material would have a C-14 age in the order of 48,000. The remaining difference between 48,000 and "infinite" (50,000 - 55,000 in practice) C-14 age can be accounted for by assuming that some sedimentary carbonates were formed during and following the flood. One only has to postulate that about 1/6 of the sedimentary carbonates were formed during and after the flood to account for a 45,000 reduction totally on the basis of carbonate precipitation and organism burial (2).
http://www.grisda.org/origins/06030.htm

Dave, I didn't take a single hard science class in college, and even I can tell this is crap.  "Presuming that the fossil carbon was removed from the biosphere by the flood"?  This is speculative garbage.  It is quite clear to me that the creationists are the ones making the unfounded assumptions - not the scientists.

Date: 2006/11/17 10:13:06, Link
Author: improvius
Dave, the creationists like you are the ones making the massive, unsupported assumptions.  Let me make this as simple as possible:

Creationists assume everything in the Bible is literally accurate.
Scientists do not.

Now, can you tell which of these groups is making the greater assumption?  Actually, I'll bet you can't.  But it's blazingly obvious to everyone else.

Date: 2006/11/17 11:50:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:24)
Improvius ...    
Quote
Creationists assume everything in the Bible is literally accurate.  Scientists do not.
Wrong.  They OBSERVE that the Bible is literally accurate.  First they read it.  Then they observe the EVIDENCE from science, extra-biblical history and archaeology.  Then they CONCLUDE that it is accurate.  You've got it turned around backwards.

Dave, I've been observing this "debate" from an objective, outside perspective.  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I'm not a scientist, and I'm not a creationist.

So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.  You are the one who has this exactly backwards.  You are the one making the ridiculous assumptions.  When pressed for evidence, you throw out even more assumptions.

I'm not seeing any bias against religion here.  I'm seeing bias against ignorance and deceit.  Congratulations, Dave, you have done a great job in convincing me that your position is utterly ridiculous.

Date: 2006/11/17 12:45:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,13:42)
Improvius ...  
Quote
So take it from a member of your target audience: you're full of crap.
I've heard you and several of your cohorts here say this kind of thing often, yet you cannot seem to come up with anything coherent that shows specifically HOW and WHY I'm full of crap.

The devil is in the details, Improv.

I've got 292 pages and counting full of coherent evidence of your crap.  Whether or not you can recognize it is irrelevant.

Date: 2006/11/17 13:15:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,14:06)
Invented the MRI but the Nobel prize for the MRI went to two other guys.  Why would that be I wonder?

Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.

Date: 2006/11/17 14:43:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,14:29)
Improv...  
Quote
Or maybe it was because their work was better and more useful than his.
Oh sure.  How then do you explain the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Damadian's favor regarding his patent rights?  Or how do you explain the fact that in 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner." ??  How do you explain that Ruse (and atheist and no friend of creationists) says that in the eyes of the Nobel committee, "It is bad enough that such people [creationists] exist, let alone give them added status and a pedestal from which to preach."??  How do you explain that Lauterbur's own notes indicate that he was inspired by Damadian's work in his landmark 1971 paper in Science?

This just illustrates starkly how close minded you are to the truth, Improvius.

No, it just means I'm not as quick to judge as you are.  I don't have my mind made up yet.  As far as I can tell, the work done by the 2 men who won the award was, in fact, superior to Damadian's.

Certainly, it was possible that he was excluded for his beliefs.  But, from what I can tell from reading the wikipedia information, it also seems possible that he was excluded for other reasons.

But please, feel free to bring more evidence.

Also, describing Michael Ruse as "no friend of creationists" may be somewhat inaccurate...

Date: 2006/12/08 11:59:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real random mutation we have are fruit flies.


The Hitler quote has a new challenger.

Date: 2006/12/08 12:45:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Whoops!  What I meant to say was "Let me remind you that the only experimental evidence for real [upward evolution by] random mutation we have are fruit flies."


It's still just as ridiculous.

Date: 2006/12/08 15:56:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 08 2006,13:36)
Eric...  
Quote
How can it be that the human genome is "degenerating," when humans have not radiated into any additional species over the past 4,500 years, while according to your hypothesis, the other "kinds" on the ark have radiated into an average of a thousand species each?
I'm not even going to address this until you limit the question to the kinds we know for certain had to be on the ark.

####, I almost missed that one.  I wonder how Dave is going to limit anything to those "kinds" when he can't even define what a "kind" is - much less determine which of them were on the ark.

Date: 2006/12/08 16:36:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 08 2006,17:09)
I personaly don't find the chess analogy to be a good one.

I think it works if you consider that each new set of moves that "Team Random" makes is actually a random modification of a previously successful set of moves.

Date: 2006/12/11 12:06:12, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 11 2006,12:37)
Face it.  Diversication and speciation (within very limited boundaries) happened very quickly following the abatement of the Global Flood and subsequent repopulation of the earth.

It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.

Date: 2006/12/11 16:46:14, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Faid @ Dec. 11 2006,17:24)
There is a tiny phrase, dave. A phrase you completely avoid to address in your whole rant... Undoubtedly on purpose. There's no arguing it this time.

NATURAL SELECTION.

It's no use.  I think that phrase just scans as "fnord" whenever Dave sees it.

Date: 2006/12/12 14:06:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,12:00)
Improv ...  
Quote
It seems to me that this should really be the easiest to test of all of the creationist "hypotheses".  Really, I would expect the evidence of rapid "diversication [sic] and speciation" to be quite clear if it had actually happened.  Yet I've never seen any sort of research project along these lines.  I find that quite odd, since this should really be a "slam dunk" for creationists.
I got to thinking about this, and it occurred to me that "Isn't the evidence already abundantly clear?"  I mean, the fossil record confirms it, right?  This is why the whole Punc Eq thing came about.  Also, we don't see much speciation happening today do we?  No, I don't think so.  Also, I have already quoted numerous authors who show that rapid diversification and speciation occurs with founder populations which become isolated.  You remember all of this, right?  I think the only piece that you are missing is that you don't accept the evidence for the Global Flood with it's bottleneck of land animals, the breakup of the Super continent, the receding of the water to form numerous land bridges, then the melting of the ice caps and associated sea level rise which isolated various land masses and caused specialization of species.  Now I have not given evidence here for all these items but I hope to as time allows and if Steve doesn't shut down the thread.  But to answer your statement, I think creationists have already given this "slam dunk" as you call it.

Thank you for confirming my expectations.  You are absolutely incorrect, and you have presented no supporting evidence of rapid speciation from a small set of kinds over the last 4000 years.  But feel free to try again when you have actual evidence.

Date: 2006/12/12 14:14:01, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,14:22)
Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible.  I am trying to accurately portray your view.  Here we go.  About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right?  After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens.  About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors."  Are we good so far?  Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya.  Is that better?  I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter.  So now the time is 100 kya.  Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right?  (we already agreed on that).  And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this?  Mutations!!?? These mistakes that Crow says "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious."  ??  

It's the selection process.  Everyone reading this thread understands it except you, and you never will.  So we should probably just move on.

Date: 2006/12/12 17:40:47, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,18:28)
Let's try a new tack on this mutation thing ...

Russell (or anyone)--  Since you called me down on my watchmaker analogy ...

What do you think is the fundamental difference between a watch, and a butterfly (to pick any old critter)?

(This may sound unrelated, but go with me on it ... just answer the question.  Hint:  I'm looking for 10 words or less.)

Watches are tools created by humans.  Butterflies are not.

Date: 2006/12/12 17:46:39, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 12 2006,18:34)
It must be frustrating to you to be wrong like this, over and over and over again. But you never seem to tyre of it...

Couldn't resist...

Date: 2006/12/13 11:53:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
2) Both have a legitimate purpose for their existence outside themselves: watches tell time, make the wearer feel classy, etc., butterflies pollinate flowers, look pretty, inspire artists, etc.

No.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:02:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,12:21)
BOTTOM LINE?  SANFORD BELIEVES THAT CROW'S MODEL BREAKS DOWN

I believe him and I'm not sure how much time I want to waste trying to convince a bunch of skeptics at ATBC of this.

I'm curious as to how you define "wasting time".  In all the months you've been posting here, the only thing you've ever convinced anyone of is your own utter inability to accept information that conflicts with your faith.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:13:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,13:02)
Waxing eloquent, I see ... "No"? ... just "No" ??

I'll be happy to discuss it further with you once you figure out why your statement is wrong.

Date: 2006/12/13 14:38:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,15:20)
2) MORE complex systems like butterflies also don't build themselves.  They require Intelligence.

Non sequitur.

Date: 2006/12/13 15:14:26, Link
Author: improvius
Here's a fun exercise for you, Dave.  Using your, um, methodology (snicker), can you come up with any examples of "systems" - or even just "things" - that do NOT require "intelligence" in order to exist?  Or does your design detector return positive for literally everything?

Date: 2006/12/14 08:28:10, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,09:17)
So once again, I think it's quite clear. Those of you shaking your head in disbelief about how stupid I am need to point your finger right back at yourself.  

How could you have been so blind all these years to this simple truth ... that the truly fundamental difference between watches and butterflies, from which springs all the other differences ... is DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY !!??

So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

"Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."

Date: 2006/12/14 09:22:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 14 2006,10:04)
Improv...    
Quote
So, Dave, did you come up with anything that fails your complexity test?  Or does it return true for literally everything?  This is important, Dave.  You need a baseline or else your conjecture is absolutely meaningless.  So just fill in the blank:

"Everything more complex than ____ must be the result of design."
Very good point.  I personally am not setting about to find out where that line should be drawn, but Dembski and Behe and others are.  I restrict myself to the clear cut comparisons.  IOW, from our study of butterflies (and watches), we know that they reside far, far away from the demarcation line of Design / Non-Design.

I am sure you could provide me some examples of objects which may not be so clear cut and for these we would need a ore rigorous test.  I have little interest in these non-clear cut examples in light of the present debate.

My point is simple ...

Everyone agrees that watches are designed.  But the fundamental difference between watches and butterflies is the DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY.  Therefore, everyone SHOULD believe that butterflies are designed.  Etc. Etc. with all the implications that this brings.

Dave, I'm challenging you to give just one example of something that isn't complex.  Because as far as I can tell, everything is complex in some way.  So you're essentially arguing that because watches are designed, everything is designed.

Date: 2006/12/14 13:43:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 14 2006,14:17)
But no. Dave doesn't think so. He thinks it's a difference between watches and butterflies that makes his argument work.

To be fair, I think Dave is saying that the fundemental "difference" is the level of complexity - not complexity itself.  So he is still arguing that complexity itself is what is similar, so it's still true to Paley's argument.

Of course, it's still not logical...

Date: 2006/12/14 13:51:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 14 2006,14:46)
Read the whole thing here.

This is another just part of the atheist conspiracy to discredit and humiliate anyone who dares disagree with the grand fairytale of evolutionism.

Date: 2006/12/15 08:58:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
YOU ACCEPT DESIGN IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS BECAUSE YOU RECOGNIZE SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY

YOU SHOULD ACCEPT DESIGN IN BUTTERFLIES FOR THE SAME REASON


This is utter nonsense, Dave.  Clarify a couple of terms and this is what you get:

We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.

Also, since you can't seem to come up with an example of something that isn't "complex", we can extrapolate your argument to:

We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and everything consist of similar technology, everything is also built by humans.

Date: 2006/12/15 14:29:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:14)
They are REAL factories.  (in cells)

There are REAL machines in those factories.  There are REAL shipping and receiving systems.  There are REAL communication systems.  There are REAL energy conversion systems.  There are REAL chemical factories.  There are REAL waste disposal systems.  There is REAL software.  There are REAL automated assembly lines.  And on and on.

They are not analogues of the real thing.

They ARE the real thing.

All of those "real things" are specfiically made by humans.  So you are still arguing that butterflies are made by humans.  Is that really what you want to do?

Date: 2006/12/15 14:53:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 15 2006,15:44)
Improv ...
Quote
We know that watches are designed and built by humans.  Therefore, because watches and butterflies consist of similar technology, butterflies are also built by humans.


Almost right.  

Change that last word "humans" to "higher intelligence" and you've got it!

(As in higher intelligence than human intelligence)

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

And I am looking forward to seeing how many people go on record with a "Yes" answer to my most recent question of Dr. Durbin.

So watches are designed and built by a "higher intelligence than human intelligence"?  Dave, you make less sense with every letter of every post.

Date: 2006/12/15 22:57:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 15 2006,19:30)
At any rate, Dave has conceded that below a certain point, objects are not so complex as to imply a designer.

Actually, I don't think he has.  If he did, I missed it.  I think he's afraid to commit to that one way or another.

Date: 2006/12/16 09:14:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 16 2006,09:05)
Improvius ... is misreading ... he says "So you are still arguing that butterflies are made by humans."  No, Imrov.  Read it again.  

Well, you keep saying that butterflies contain real examples of human technology.  What else should I think?

Date: 2006/12/18 10:12:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,09:54)
1) There is no fundamental difference between a butterfly (or a bacterium) and a watch
2) The differences boil down to degree of technological sophistication, nothing absolute or fundamental.  They use elements from the same periodic table. The same laws of physics apply to both.
3) In archaeology, if you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology (writing, pottery, etc.), you conclude that it had an Intelligent Cause, do you not?
4) In biology, we also find thousands of artifacts in every living cell that resemble known creations of human technology.  Why would we rule out the possibility of an Intelligent Cause in this case?

No.  If you find an artifact that resembles known creations of human technology, you conclude that it was created by humans.  You have no way to justify your leap from "humans" to "Intelligent Cause".  This is one of the many fatal flaws in your argument.  We have an abundance of empirical evidence of human technology, and ZERO evidence of any other "intelligence".  Your argument incorrectly assumes that this is not the case.

Your argument, at best, is that humans created all complex things.

Also, you have yet to make any attempt at a meaningful definition of "complex".  Can you think of even one thing that is not "complex" enough to have been "intelligently designed"?  Currently, that term is useless in your argument.

And you also assume incorrectly that an "inteligent cause" is somehow ruled out a priori by methodological naturalism.  This is not the case.

Date: 2006/12/18 12:12:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,12:48)
Mike PSS ...  
Quote
So you see that your comparing (anthropomorphising) all life mechanisms (machines to you) to human technology.
The problem here is that your {intelligent cause} result can only be {humanity} because of the direct comparison and similar conclusion.
Not true.  It suggests an {intelligent cause} which is MORE INTELLIGENT than {humanity}.  Why?  Because the technology is more sophisticated, more elegant, more efficient, more miniaturized, etc. etc.  In short, more high tech.  And this is attested by no less an authority than Bill Gates ...  
Quote
 “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”  (The Road Ahead, p. 188)


So a logical explanation might be ...

1) An advanced alien civilization, or ...
2) Some sort of God ...

(Don't worry about how it helps my CGH at the moment.  Right now I'm interested in why you would disagree with this conclusion.)

Dave, you just finished arguing that biological machines are exactly like (not "analogous to") human technology.  Now you're arguing the opposite.  So which is it?

And I'm still waiting for your example of something that is NOT complex enough to require a designer.

Date: 2006/12/18 12:26:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,13:23)
Improv ... you get confused easily ... I am not arguing the opposite.  Nothing has changed in my argument.  DNA is like a computer program.  And it is also real, honest-to-goodness software.  All at the same time.  The only people whose heads explode trying to understand this are those infected with Darwinism.  (And those who read our lawyer friend's posts)

Do living organisms contain human technology, or something analogous to human technology?

Date: 2006/12/18 12:45:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 18 2006,13:34)
WATCHES CAN'T REPRODUCE.

I'd think this was a simple concept, but it really does appear to be beyond you.

Dave is talking about the hyper-technological watches of the future.  Presumably, "reproduction" will just be another standard, built-in feature.  Like having a stopwatch or MP3 player.

So, Dave, can you think of anything that isn't complex yet?

Date: 2006/12/18 13:30:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 18 2006,14:24)
Sweet!  That's progress.  I've got you admitting that an Intelligent Designer COULD HAVE created life.

I'll take that for now.  This is much more honest than all that nonsense about how Darwinism is a proven fact and such.

An "intelligent designer" could have created life.  And evolution is a proven fact.

These are not contradictory statements, Dave.

Date: 2006/12/18 14:45:57, Link
Author: improvius
Accuracy (obvious):



Something Dave might like:


Date: 2006/12/19 10:37:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,11:18)
Now ... what is so dumb about that?

Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.

Also, I notice you still can't come up with anything that isn't "complex", can you?

Date: 2006/12/19 11:20:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,12:12)
The problem with the science establishment today is that you think your "possibility" is a proven fact and that my "possibility" is actually NOT a possibility at all, yet now you say that it IS a possibility.

Now ... how can you disagree with this and be consistent with yourself?

You seem to think that evolution is by definition in conflict with the general concept of "intelligent design".  

It isn't.

Date: 2006/12/19 11:35:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,12:05)
Improv ...  
Quote
Everything.  You can't quantify a qualitative difference.
So you reject the proposition that the "Ram Caught in the Thicket" sculpture, for example, found by Woolley at Ur was a product of intelligent design  simply because you cannot quantify the qualitative differences between it and sculptures of modern times?  No, you do not.

Hmmm ... interesting quandary you put yourself in.

Not at all.  We can determine that an artifact is man made by looking for qualitative similarities.  YOU are the one trying to turn this into a quantitative analysis.

Date: 2006/12/19 12:16:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:00)
[Dave]Equal Tech in Archaeology => Equal intelligence to humans, therefore Higher Tech in Biology => Higher intelligence than humans.  Both are QUALITATIVE comparisons.  No quantitative test required.
[Improv]You can't quantify that comparison, so you're dumb.
[Dave]You can't either in archaeology.
[Improv] I know, but that's OK.
[Dave]Thought you said it wasn't OK.  Which is it?

You just used the mathematical comparison operator "=>" and tried to claim that it wasn't a quantitative analysis.  You're an idiot.

Date: 2006/12/19 12:41:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 19 2006,13:28)
Improv ... I defined my "=>" sign as "produced by" in this context ... you are crashing and burning so often today, I can't keep track of it all!

That's ok, you're still using plenty of quantitative terms like "higher tech", "higher intelligence", "more sophisticated", etc.

Maybe you just don't understand what "qualitative" and "quantitative" mean.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:06:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,14:50)
Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure?

I suspect you were being facetious, but I'll offer an answer that might help Dave out.  It's qualitative.  Either something is empty or it isn't.  If you compare 2 of Dave's posts and try to say that one is more vacuous than the other, you are saying that the "less vacuous" one actually has more content.  And if it has any content at all, it isn't vacuous.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:34:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,15:26)
Quote (improvius @ Dec. 19 2006,14:06)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 19 2006,14:50)
Is a measure of vacuity a quantitative measure, or a qualitative measure?

I suspect you were being facetious, but I'll offer an answer that might help Dave out.  It's qualitative.  Either something is empty or it isn't.  If you compare 2 of Dave's posts and try to say that one is more vacuous than the other, you are saying that the "less vacuous" one actually has more content.  And if it has any content at all, it isn't vacuous.

Well, perhaps not. After all, one can say that one gas tank is "more empty" than another, can't one? If one tank is half empty, and the other is only a quarter empty, isn't the first one "emptier" than the second?

But yes, I was being facetious.

And I agree that it's not clear that any of Dave's posts are anything other than completely empty.

As an English major, I'd say that "empty" is an absolute quality, and that "half empty" and "emptier" are technically incorrect uses of the language, and could perhaps be best classified as colloquialisms.  You're actually measuring content or space - not the quality of "emptiness" itself.

"Unique" is another such quality.  It means that there is only one of something.  So terms such as "very unique" are incorrect.  This particular example is one of my pet peeves.  I cringe whenever I hear it.

Date: 2006/12/19 15:02:47, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 19 2006,15:57)
Your victory claims are ringing more hollow on every post.  I hope your having fun playing in the sandbox of your own imagination (Wheeeeeee).

...even though everyone else keeps trying to tell him it's really the cat box.

Date: 2006/12/19 15:39:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stephenWells @ Dec. 19 2006,16:09)
I can't help but feel that forbidding "half empty" is going too far, if only because of the optimism/pessimism thing. I think the meaning of "empty" shifts as we go from the adjective to its comparative form; if "empty" means "has nothing in it", I regard "emptier" as meaning "has less in it". That may be something of an elision, philosophically speaking, but it feels like a natural use. Otherwise we'd always have to ask "which glass has less in it" instead of "which glass is emptier."

"Very unique" is a definite hackle-raiser- even typing it feels wrong. Yet I can't bring myself to condemn "almost unique" entirely; if there's only, say, two or three of something, "almost unique" seems quite natural. Thoughts?

You will not find a non-absolute definition for the word "empty", but you do have a point.  That's why I would classify "emptier" and "half empty" as useful colloquialisms.  They are indeed technically incorrect, but the intent is easily understood.  They're fine when used conversationally, but I'd try to avoid them in written language.

"Almost unique" would be acceptable, meaning something is "almost [but not] the only one of its kind".

Date: 2006/12/21 08:51:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,09:25)
Improvius tried to force me into a quantitative test, but then admitted that in archaeology we use a qualitative test. (Search "similarities" - Dec 19, 11:35)

Dave, you ARE using quantitative tests.  You simply refuse to define the criteria of those tests.

Quote
2) You infer design by human intelligence in archaeology because the technology (pottery, written tablets, etc.) is comparable to, or less than, our own technology.


That is a quantitative statement.  "Comparable or to, or less than" is an expression of quantity.  You are saying that the "level of technology" exists on scale, but you don't have any way to measure it.  Now, we can certainly measure human technology quantitatively by a number of ways.  For example, we could determine when certain technological advancements first appeared in the historical record.  So we would be quantifying recentness.

Quote
3) Living cells contain real machines (not figurative, not analogous, see Alberts) all of which are highly specialized, highly sophisticated, and highly miniaturized.
4) These machines represent much higher technology than any human technology if for no other reason that the incredible nano-miniaturization involved.


If something is "miniaturized", that means it has been greatly reduced in size from previous versions.  So where exactly are the examples of the preceding "real machines" that you think were miniaturized?  Or are you just pulling this out of your bunghole?

Quote
5) All our experience and logic dictates that this type of high technology does not happen by chance.


You're quantifying again.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:26:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 21 2006,10:19)
Right in the last two points you actually state a qualitative measure ("MORE comlex systems...) yet you still don't get it.

I'm pretty sure you meant "quantitative" there.  And I'm sure everyone other than Dave is just assuming it was a typo.  But we have to be extra careful because he's already totally confused about this stuff.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:49:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,10:45)
Improv ...  Whether you choose to use the word "qualitative" or "quantitative" about your own "technology tests" does not matter.  The point is ...  I am applying the same test to biological technology as you are applying to evaluate ancient technology discovered by archaeologists.

You seem to be the most lucid at the moment so I will ask you ...

Do you disagree with this?  If so why?

Yes.  Archeological tests would determine whether or not an object is man-made, and at what time period it was most likely created.  And I don't think you're trying to figure out if and when a person built a specific butterfly.

Date: 2006/12/21 12:51:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,12:19)
Faid ...    
Quote
"Technology" is not a stand-alone absolute. They relate the signs to specific qualities and capabilities of a specific designer: HUMANS. That's how they determine if they're dealing with an artifact: Otherwise, there's no telling what the museums of the world would be filled with.
Nonsense.  If you find a piece of pottery--nothing else, I guarantee you that you would say it was designed.  Go ahead.  Make my day.  Disagree.  Make a fool of yourself.

Designed by humans, yes.

Date: 2006/12/21 14:40:01, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,15:23)
Looks like a motor ... rotates like a motor ... has a rotor like a motor ... has a stator like a motor ...

.... but the Darwinists say it's NOT a motor!!!!

So because it looks like a MAN-MADE motor ... rotates like a MAN-MADE motor ... has a rotor like a MAN-MADE motor ... has a stator like a MAN-MADE motor ...

YOU, Dave, think it's not a MAN-MADE motor.  Why is that?

Date: 2006/12/22 08:18:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Dec. 21 2006,17:49)
But now I am in Iowa for a while, via Cornell (and in case there any Iowans here, I mean the other Cornell, the one in upstate NY   :)

I'm in upstate NY now (and probably will be for a while).  More specifically, I'm in the city that finally sold its #!@&*!# ferry last night.

And oddly enough I, went to college in Iowa at the other other Cornell - Grinnell College.

Date: 2006/12/22 08:36:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:18)
LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN ... FAID HAS JUST USED ... THE HORRIBLE ... THE UNSPEAKABLE ...

"I-WORD" ... INTUITION!

NO SCIENCY TEST.  NO MATHEMATICS.  FAID WAS ABLE TO DETECT INSTANTLY THAT MRS. BLOOM'S "SON" WAS NOT HER SON, BUT A MONKEY.

Oh look, yet another word that Dave doesn't know the meaning of...

Date: 2006/12/22 08:52:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,09:41)
intuition n. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
www.answers.com/topic/intuition

Faid was able to use "immediate cognition" to determine that the monkey was not Mrs. Bloom's son.

C'mon, Improv ... try another approach.  Or better yet ... be humble and surrender!

:D

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

K.e ...
Quote
Have you checked the latest info on how the flagellum EVOLVED ...no I thought not.
Yes I have.  It was like reading "Alice in Wonderland."  You Darwinists have quite the active imaginations!

You're right.  I give up.  Trying to reason with you really is impossible.

Date: 2006/12/22 09:37:59, Link
Author: improvius
Same-old same-old.

Dave: There is no way the flagellum could have evolved.  Therefore, it was designed.
Scientist: Well, here's one possible way it could have evolved...
Dave: You can't prove that's what really happened, therefore my previous argument still holds.

Date: 2006/12/22 14:54:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,15:28)
MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS

At the simplest level, the bacterial flagellum disproves this statement.  It is a motor, and we have no empirical evidence that it was designed.  Therefore, not all motors require designers.

Date: 2006/12/24 20:59:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 24 2006,15:21)
Faid ... I'll set you straight on MacNeill another day.

Why don't you just ask him to come here and clarify his statements himself?  That would certainly settle things.  Allen is no stranger to Panda's Thumb, so it shouldn't be too difficult getting him to comment here.

Date: 2006/12/26 09:46:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,10:26)
"UNBELIEVABLE!"  is all I can say.

And here we have Dave's argument in its entirety.

Date: 2006/12/26 14:36:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 26 2006,15:01)
Dave has spent essentially no time in the past eight months defending his own "hypothesis."

Dave just made it pretty clear that he has given up on defending it:

Quote
This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."

It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics."

Date: 2006/12/27 13:28:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR THE ANTI-ID CROWD
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.


This is just stupid.  You've already made the assumption that one of these things is a constructed "ship".  How do you know that?  How do you know it isn't simply a naturally occurring (non-designed) organism?

Date: 2006/12/28 08:00:32, Link
Author: improvius
quantitative: qualitative

qualitative: quantitative

Date: 2006/12/28 09:50:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,10:37)
The overall and arching complaint that I have with evolution is this idea that the utterly complex and highly organized and highly ordered physical universe was created by chance.

So what's stopping you from believing that evolution happened according to God's plan?  That theory that organisms evolved from a common ancestor does not seem to contradict your belief in an ordered universe.  Your problem is with the very concept of "chance" rather than with any scientific theory of evolution.

Date: 2006/12/28 11:24:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (k.e @ Dec. 28 2006,11:47)
Yes I know it's a bit 'old testament' but turning the other cheek and tending to the poor and the sick doesn't have  celebrity cache anymore, I'm sure someone will restore it to its rightful place as soon as they figure out what to do after they all have a nice mansion and a jet and declare themselves prophets and seers.

Oh wait, I get it now.  We're supposed to turn the other cheek and then fart.

Date: 2006/12/28 12:38:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,13:35)
We all have faith, I haven't met anyone who doesn't have faith.

Dave doesn't.  If he had faith, he wouldn't need to spend so much time trying to rationalize his beliefs.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:27:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Dec. 28 2006,15:39)
I use to eat lunch at a research institute with a bunch of evolutionary archeologists.  I don't remember them agreeing on a whole lot.

I'm willing to bet they all agreed on common descent.

Date: 2006/12/29 09:14:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Malum Regnat @ Dec. 29 2006,10:02)
Quote
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.


Dave,
How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?

Besides that, he still hasn't even explained how he knows that the first object is a "spaceship".

Date: 2006/12/29 10:26:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,10:55)
Malum ...  
Quote
How are you defining 'Hi-tech' in these two statements?
No other definition that the one you yourself would use.  Just the usual plain vanilla every day definition.

So you are saying that both the "spaceship" and flagellum are the result of recent human engineering?  Because that's what "hi-tech" means to everyone else.

Date: 2006/12/29 13:17:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 29 2006,13:17)
Malum...
Quote
That, Dave, is a cowardly cop-out.  My definition of 'Hi-tech' is immaterial to the discussion.  You are the one who made the statement, now quit being a coward and define your term.
Please tell me you are not going to adopt the ridiculous position of saying that an alien spaceship would not be considered "hi-tech" if one landed on earth?  I really hoped that I was debating intelligent people here.

It's impossible to determine that, since you haven't even begun to describe this hypothetical "spaceship".  How do you know it isn't just a rock?

Date: 2006/12/30 10:49:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 30 2006,10:40)
Let's see how many others here at ATBC believe the latest AiG revelation.

Anybody else agree with Oldman and Carlson (and Lippard)?

Uh-oh.  Suddenly, making a career out of lying to children might not seem so attractive to Dave.  Now that's a real faith-tester, isn't it, Davey?

Date: 2007/01/02 10:05:14, Link
Author: improvius
I found this thread fascinating for a couple of reasons.  First, since I avoided hard science classes like the plague back in college, I ended up learning quite a bit about biology, chemistry, geology, etc. over the past months.  So here's another big "thank you" to all of the knowledgable people who took the time to craft so many excellent, informative posts.

Second, of course, was exploring the mental processes of a die-hard creationist.  It was simply amazing to see the lengths to which Dave would go to dismiss anything that contradicted his worldview.  He forced himself to conjure up arguments and objections to the mountains of evidence against YEC.  With no other options, he even imagined vast sets of data that surely must exist to support his views.  And at one point even he was forced to admit that he evaluated "evidence" based primarily on the worldview of the person presenting it, so that anything contradicting his was flawed by default.  Indeed, Dave's mental block is nigh impenetrable.

In a sense, this thread is a microcosm of the creationist problem in our society.  I believe Dave accurately represents a great number of people who are immune to rational discourse on this topic.  And ultiamtely, I think this thread itself may prove to be a very useful tool in dealing with creationism.  As we've seen, any undecided readers have realized just how wrong Dave is.  And while it seems to be too late to educate Dave and the many other YEC's like him, the struggle to do so will undoubtedly help many more.  This is truly an historic document.

Date: 2007/01/02 12:00:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 02 2007,12:55)
That version leaves DaveScot the only original unquoted speaker on the planet... (Reciprocating Bill stares into the abyss, and can't continue...)

But it also leaves him "agreeing to disagree" with, literally, everything.

Date: 2007/01/02 14:13:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
No I do not consider any of them to be a credible source as a biologist, but that wasn't the question.  You need to look at the quote I responded to.  The quote was that no creationist was credible.  If you want me to answer more specifically than everyone needs to question more specifically.  Not give blatant overgeneralizations made to belittle posters.

I don't think anyone here has argued that creationists have never made significant contributions to science.  I think it was understood by everyone else that the original statement was limited to the topics at hand.

Quote
And no sorry I didn't get to read the last 5,000 posts on this thread.

You should, if you are genuinely interested in learning about things like evolution and geology.

Date: 2007/01/02 16:07:09, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,16:55)
My point was to show that evolution isn't any more conclusive, such as how selective adaptation can make a species jump.  We can't even make a cat become a cow with genetic manipulation when we are trying let alone have one occur through mutations based on environmental influences.

I don't see how the lack of conclusive evidence for how neanderthals became extinct is supposed to discount the theory of evolution.  And your comment about making a "cat become a cow" suggests that you are grossly ignorant as to what any theory of evolution actually predicts.

Date: 2007/01/03 08:43:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:29)
The point I was ultimately trying to convey is that every every evolutionist timeline that I have seen shows overlaps between populations of hominids and that the theory is often conveyed that one species either destroyed the other or interbred with the other.  Yet we are suppose to believe in the Year 2007 that not a single overlap exists for any of the @1.6million species that exists today (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources )

How are you defining "overlap"?

Date: 2007/01/03 09:38:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 03 2007,09:59)
I do not believe that creationism or ID should be taught in the public school system.  I think it should be mentioned on the basis of an alternative theory, but that is it.

So would you be in favor of something like:

"All of the scientific evidence indicates that humans, chimps, gorillas, etc. evolved from ape-like ancestors.  But some people disagree for religious reasons."

Date: 2007/01/03 10:12:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,10:43)
I am arguing that phenotypic diversity can arise rapidly, not genetic diversity as measured by sequence differences.  IOW, I am arguing that a single pair of the "dog/wolf" kind possessing a fair amount of heterozygosity (most common alleles included--yes, only 4 per pair, Eric) could rapidly diversify and generate the "dramatic differences" we see today in a very short time.

Wrong.  You most certainly ARE arguing that genetic diversity can arise rapidly - even though you don't realize it.  Going back to dogs, for example, you are arguing that the rather large genetic differences we see in canidae arose over the past 4000 years.  Forgetting about the relatively miniscule changes at the allele level, you have to account for a red fox having 36 chromosomes and a dog having 78.

Date: 2007/01/03 12:27:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,13:11)
Are you forgetting that we (creationists) can never definitively demarcate a "kind"?  We can only make educated guesses.

You could if they were real.  In fact, it should be the easiest part of creationism to find evidence for.

Can't wait to see your response to dogs and foxes, Dave!

Date: 2007/01/03 16:07:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 03 2007,16:52)
Why are so many people worried about the "few precious posts" left on this thread?  Is there some secret plan to cut my fingers off also at Post #5000 or something?  Or do you guys' computers block the Dawkins forum IP address?  Or my blog's IP address?

This is the end of your magnum opus, Dave.  It's what you will be remebered for - a grand monument to the ridiculousness and intractability of creationists everywhere.  Some of us just think it's a shame that we can't pack it with even more of your absurd musings.  It even pains me to add this post, knowing that I'm taking away another opportunity for you to say something incredibly stupid.  Oh sure, you'll keep saying stupid things in other places.  But it just won't be the same.

I'm still hoping you respond to the dogs and foxes/baraminology thing.  Because I just know that's going to be fantastically stupid.

Date: 2007/01/04 13:15:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 04 2007,14:06)
Now why, the peanut gallery might be asking itself, is Russell bothering with this guy, given his much trumpeted New Year's Resolution of not wasting time on creationists, of which his new sig should continually remind him?

Excellent question, peanut gallery. Let me just point out that I have succeeded for 4 days in resisting the temptation to argue any science with them, and that pretty much fulfills the spirit (or "pneuma", as we pretentious pedants like to say) if not the letter of the resolution.

Addict.

Date: 2007/01/05 14:09:28, Link
Author: improvius
I think renaming would be akin to editing, and should be avoided.  The thread will serve best if left entirely intact and unmodified, though indexing it for easier searching would certainly be good.

Date: 2007/01/06 17:03:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 06 2007,15:55)
Does anyone think he ever surpassed that pinnacle?

No, but he came #### close:

Date: 2007/01/06 20:18:27, Link
Author: improvius
I'm a Lotus Notes developer.  I might be able to do something with the thread in Notes, but I wouldn't be able to host it.  Does anyone have access to a Domino server where we could find a permanent home?

Date: 2007/01/09 08:25:23, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 09 2007,01:28)
Hawkins has outdone himself... the guy with a total of seven Wikipedia edits in his contributions (all of them since Jan. 4th and concerning the "Genetic recombination" article) is lecturing me on Wikipedia policy.

Brilliant!  I only hope he continues his one-tard show over there and gets himself blocked.  I'm sure he'll never "get it", though - it would only add to his paranoid delusions.

Date: 2007/01/09 10:29:18, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 09 2007,10:25)
P.S. How does one do the strikethrough? is it [STRIKE]Like this[/STRIKE]?

P.P.S. Added in yet more unmarked edits: clearly not.

Just 'S'.

Date: 2007/01/10 10:05:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 10 2007,08:21)
But what I can't understand is why he should be prepared to condone the stifling of pertinent questions on his blog.  If he's got a rebuttal to your point or mine, you'd think he'd want to make it.

If you're selling snake oil to a crowd, and someone comes along and starts telling people about all the scientific evidence against the usefulness of snake oil, wouldn't you want to get rid of that person ASAP?

Date: 2007/01/10 10:38:04, Link
Author: improvius
It seems pretty simple to me.  Humans evolved to survive in a particular environment.  So it's in the best interest of our species to try to maintain the environment in which we evolved.  Changes to the ecosystem can and will change the environment.  So understanding and conserving the ecosystem is a good way to maintain our own environment.

Date: 2007/01/10 15:54:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 10 2007,16:39)
Eric ...    
Quote
[Further edit:] I should clarify. The sun will remain a main-sequence star for at least five billion more years. However, it will continue to increase gradually in luminosity while remaining on the main sequence. Less than a billion years from now, the sun's luminosity will increase to the point that, absent some sort of technological fix (which, according to Dave, won't happen because humans will be extinct within the next few hundred generations, or sometime in the next few thousand years), the earth will be absorbing too much radiation to sustain life.

How does that fit into your world view, Dave?
Russell says appearance and diversification of life was inevitable.  Eric says extinction is going to happen soon (humans within the next few thousand years).  So I guess Russell would not extend his comment to the future and say the RE-appearance of life on this planet is inevitable.

OK.  I'm convinced.  Save the whales!

Actually, Eric's scenario fits perfectly with my world view ...  the Apostle Peter predicts ...    
Quote
9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
11 ¶ Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
Precisely what Eric is also predicting!

Incredible, isn't it?

Eric is describing your position.

Date: 2007/01/11 08:26:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 11 2007,08:02)
Steve...    
Quote
So AFDave's using the same MO on wikipedia, that he used on biology here.

1 show up knowing nothing about the subject
2 glance at one or two things and imagine he's now an expert
3 tell all the experts what's really going down
4 be amazed when they all disagree
Well, no one has disagreed for 2 days now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_recombination

That's because nobody over there cares what you think.  They're ignoring you, and Wesley's edit still stands.

So, of course, that means you won, right?

Date: 2007/01/12 08:04:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 12 2007,07:04)
I said ...        
Quote
"Mutations cause a net decrease in information [Crick's definition] when taken as a whole, therefore macro-Evo is impossible."
... IOW, for example, with bacteria, there is an approximate 1 in 4 chance that a single point mutation will add information to the bacterial genome as we agreed upon.  But think about it ... if only 1 in 4 of the mutations add information, then 3 in 4 mutations decrease information.  I think you can see that the net direction of any group of bacteria--whether you are talking about 1 species or all bacterial species--will be a decrease.  +1-3=-2  Agreed?  If not, why not?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3131

Date: 2007/01/12 08:33:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 12 2007,09:21)
There are two options.

Keep responding to afdave, pointing out the countless holes in his "arguments", and wait for him to recycle the same old thoroughly dealt with, discredited canards, and start all over again. In which case, he claims the issue is a subject of continuing controversy.

OR, you can just ignore him. In which case you get
     
Quote
Well, no one has disagreed for 2 days now.

I like Ichthyic's idea of only posting the link in response to Dave.  It just works on so many levels.  Could we all give it a try?

Date: 2007/01/12 09:10:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 11 2007,18:35)
I have found a siggy!

He was just blinded by the tard,
Cut free from UD 'cause his questions were too hard.
Blinded by the tard...
Mama always told me not to look into the minds of YEC's
Oh but mama, that's where the fun is!

Date: 2007/01/12 12:54:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 12 2007,13:37)
How about something I haven't addressed yet?

How about you go finish your job at Wikipedia?  Are you really just going to accept defeat and let Wesley get away with his disinformation campaign?  You should be over there fighting to make a difference - not over here preaching to a bunch of jaded anti-creationists.

So what's it gonna be, Dave?  Are you going to just give up, or are you going to go over to Wikipedia and show them the truth?

Oh, and here's another suggestion.  Why don't you actually start posting on richarddawkins.net?  I'll bet that video clip would make for an excellent first post.

Date: 2007/01/17 09:20:40, Link
Author: improvius
It begins.

Date: 2007/01/17 11:47:54, Link
Author: improvius
I'm trying really hard to resist the urge to join the RD forums...

Date: 2007/01/17 13:20:12, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2007,12:53)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,10:51)
Dawkins and chums aren't best served by it.

They get a nice big piñata out of the deal.

I wonder how long it will be before Eric grabs his favorite stick baseball bat section of steel rebar and runs over to join the party.

Date: 2007/01/17 13:42:29, Link
Author: improvius
Oops, looks like I posted too late.  As of now, Eric's already made 3 posts in the thread.

Date: 2007/01/19 16:08:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 19 2007,17:00)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 19 2007,15:49)
Prior to his sentencing, a tearful Kent Hovind, also known as "Dr. Dino" asked for the court’s leniency.

“If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach,” Hovind said.

"If it's just money the IRS wants, I should have no problem separating it from a few thousand rubes."

Despicable.

x2

Date: 2007/01/22 12:31:56, Link
Author: improvius
Well, this is certainly an odd topic.  But I'm afraid I can't resist an opportunity to show off some of the "kids".  So, just for the heck of it...



Above is Saki.  She's a nearly-full-grown anthill python (Antaresia perthensis) from GoP's favorite continent.  This species has the distinction of being the world's smallest python.



Above is Lefty, another anthill.  Lefty is only a couple of months old in this pic, and has just eaten - um - something.



And above we have Sophie, one of our Savu pythons (Liasis sauvensis or Liasis mackloti savuensis, depending on whom you ask).  The Savus are an extreme example of geogrpahic isolation.  While closely related to some of the other Aussie pythons, this particular species has the distinction of being found (outside of captivity, of course) only on the tiny Savu Islands in Indonesia.

There are more pics here at tinypythons.com if anyone cares.

Date: 2007/01/22 16:16:28, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01)
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group.

I checked out some of the "Darwinsim FAQs" on Milton's (author of Shattering) website.  They're somewhat amusing if you haven't checked them out yet.

Quote
For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding.

Quote
In precisely the same way, because of its infinitely elastic definition, natural selection can be made to explain opposed and even mutually contradictory individual adaptations. For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for.


Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.

Date: 2007/01/23 08:17:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
Improvius,

 
Quote
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.

The DI was founded in 1990.  And besides that, many of its present fellows were publishing books before then.  So, care to list the bibliography names for us?

And if this is such a "strange argument", then why did you bring it up in the first place?  You were the one who originally claimed Milton to be a "secular" source.  That's the point I'm challenging you on.  In any case, it isn't that creationists are "bad people" (though I'm sure some of them are), but rather that their opinions on science are, by their own admission, heavily biased.

Date: 2007/01/23 12:47:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,08:11)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.

ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?

Lenny, DI = Disco(very) Institute.  Even so, Avo is still incorrect.

Date: 2007/01/23 12:54:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
 
Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona


It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

Then I guess you must get all huffy and bent out of shape whenever someone disagrees with you in person, too.  Wow, you must be loads of fun to hang out with.

Date: 2007/01/23 15:36:55, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.

The problem is that Milton isn't a source.  He's a journalist.  And he's relying primarily on creationist sources for his book.  So citing his book as a secular source is misleading.  It is in fact a compilation of creationist sources.

Date: 2007/01/23 22:23:14, Link
Author: improvius
Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um...

Date: 2007/01/24 11:00:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:
Quote
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?


His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?

Date: 2007/01/24 13:11:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Quote

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Ah, I see.  You are confused about what we mean by "predictions".  It is not meant in the sense that you take it - that we will somehow find evidence in the future.  Think of it as more of an if-then statement.  IF humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, THEN we should have relatively similar DNA to modern-day apes.  ELSE humans and apes do not share a recent common ancestor.

Predictions are tied to the concept of falsifiability.  Your predictions are scientifically useless because (as far as I can tell), a negative result will not falsify your theory.

So far you still seem to be stuck with "Someday there will be evidence for ID, though I am not sure what that specific evidence will be."

Date: 2007/01/24 15:12:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?

Date: 2007/01/25 09:49:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,01:47)
Improvius,

I seem to remember reading that bit you quoted from, but the bit wasn't long enough for me to evaluate his point. Yes, I've seen the claim that NDE isn't falsifiable. Tell me why it is. You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that. But it is odd that the folks here spend so much time perusing UD and seem to get so little out of it. Because from time to time I have certainly seen ideas on how to falsify, and some possible experiments, and some predictions. I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID.

I see.  So you aren't aware of any specific hypothetical tests for ID.  Which means you don't really know if ID is scientific at all.  Fair enough, I'll let it go at that.  But if you ever actually want to discuss ID as science, just let us know.

Date: 2007/01/25 13:31:10, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,13:43)
I happen to think that both proposals are scientific and falsifiable, in the main. But this is just not to the heart of the matter. I object to someone saying, "Oh, so you mean you can't even define why ID is falsifiable? So in other words you admit you are an ignoramous and a fool?" I do not claim to be able to have good recall, to the point of articulating well, all these topics.

Well, you are basically saying that you think ID is falisifiable, but you don't specifically know why.  So it sure looks like you're just talking out of your arse.

Date: 2007/01/26 08:33:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 26 2007,01:34)
Darn it Mike,

If systems or items tend toward equilibrium, then that ought to be a part of what we see, regardless of how deeply we understand its workings and the mathematics thereof. I think entropy is not only so defined as you state. This is in wide common usage, no doubt for that reason. How am I arguing against scientific principles when I am just wondering how they work?

Think about my earlier question.  We see equilibrium only in very isolated systems.  It's easy enough to demonstrate in the lab.  But when you look at the real world, you'll see all kinds of forces constantly at work.  Even if you were to remove every living organism from the planet, you'd still have energy being transfered from lightning, wind, rain, sunlight, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.  As you can see, we have no shortage of natural forces to prevent planetary equilibrium.

Date: 2007/01/30 13:34:46, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 30 2007,11:42)
In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.

I'm just a layman when it comes to science, and even I can tell this is BS.  It seems far easier for organisms to change proportion than to change structure.  Just look at dog breeds.  When I look at a thylacine, I see a stretched-out Tasmanian devil - not a wolf.

Date: 2007/01/30 16:28:01, Link
Author: improvius
Your PT links don't work.

EDIT: oops, didn't realize how old the original post was.

Date: 2007/02/05 08:44:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,02:31)
Quote
Theobald wrote:
The difference is simple.  In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves).  In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs).  This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly.  Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.

Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.

No, Theobald indicates that the similarity is superficially puzzling, but makes perfect sense if you consider common ancestry.  You seem to have this exactly backwards.

And you never responded to my previous comment about structure vs. proportions.  Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again.  Look at dog breeds.  They all share a basic dog structure, but the proportions of the structure can vary tremendously.  So it seems far easier for differences in prportions to evolve than it is for differences in structure.

Seriously, dude, this should stuff should be pretty easy to understand.  Maybe you should look into taking an intro bio course at a local community college or something.

Date: 2007/02/05 08:49:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 05 2007,02:31)
This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.

That would have been WAY more impressive if you had actually come up with examples of evidence against evolution.

Date: 2007/02/05 09:40:27, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 04 2007,21:12)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 05 2007,04:01)
Set phasers for stunned!    
Quote
I put Richard Dawkins in the same category as the holocaust deniers. As Terry Tommyrot’s excellent “spoof” implies he deserves only ridicule.

What a jerk. :angry:

At least the mother ship finally links to comments.

So god=the holocaust?

Wow, so I guess AFDave isn't the only one:

Date: 2007/02/05 12:06:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 05 2007,12:28)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 05 2007,11:05)
 
Quote
I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.

Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe.

Coming from Avo, wouldn't her recipe for blueberry pie consist soley of long- refuted criticisms of apple pie?

That might have to be my new sig.

Date: 2007/02/05 14:28:10, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2007,06:29)
And when Commodore WAD tried to fire on the fleet from the United Federation of Darwinists it just made a *fizzle-pop* *fart* sound.

Sorry Lou...

Date: 2007/02/05 16:13:52, Link
Author: improvius
Is string theory being taught in any public schools?

Date: 2007/02/08 16:38:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (millipj @ Feb. 08 2007,17:20)
Hey, there might even be a definition of what the Theory of Intelligent Design actually is.

Yep, it's described in the article:
Quote
What they have in common is what Woodward calls a “scientific paradigm” that allows for design in any natural mechanism that can’t be explained simply by chance or purely natural causes. His meticulously researched book clearly explains the scientific reasoning behind this paradigm.

So if we can't explain it, then it might have been designed.  I'll bet you can't argue with that!

Date: 2007/02/12 09:37:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 12 2007,03:18)
And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer. Pick any similarity between thylacines and wolves if you feel that will help.

Again, you're looking at features that are relatively easy to modify (skull size/proportions) vs. ones that are not (pentadactyl pattern).  This seems quite simple, so I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from.  You're comparing structure to proportion.

Date: 2007/02/14 14:26:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 14 2007,13:54)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 14 2007,12:28)
Eric...    
Quote
Interesting. Back when AF Dave was posting his 20k posts of drivel here at AtBC, the site would slow to a crawl and be unreachable for long stretches of time. Now that he's posting his 20k posts of drivel to RichardDawkins.net, that site has slowed to a crawl and is unreachable for long stretches of time.

It seems that Dave amounts to a one-man DoS attack on evolution websites.
The Evo-Servers see me coming and they cower in fear of the daily Truth Assault!   :-)

Was that a joke Dave? I hope so, as that was one funy statement.

Probably.  I'll bet Dave's been all laughs and smiles ever since he got them to change the Wikipedia entry for genetic recombination yesterday.

Date: 2007/02/15 08:56:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ericmurphy @ Feb. 14 2007,19:10)
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 14 2007,10:28)
Eric...    
Quote
Interesting. Back when AF Dave was posting his 20k posts of drivel here at AtBC, the site would slow to a crawl and be unreachable for long stretches of time. Now that he's posting his 20k posts of drivel to RichardDawkins.net, that site has slowed to a crawl and is unreachable for long stretches of time.

It seems that Dave amounts to a one-man DoS attack on evolution websites.
The Evo-Servers see me coming and they cower in fear of the daily Truth Assault!   :-)

No, they cower in fear of your 5-k content-free rants, Dave.

The site's been essentially unreachable for three days now. I find it hard to believe there's no connection.

As a db admin, that seems highly unlikely to me.  Flat text, even several pages of it, really shouldn't take up much space at all, even on the crappiest of servers.

Date: 2007/02/15 13:17:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Ah yes, "these people." Some of them publish papers on intelligent design. Others fly planes into the World Trade Center. The earlier "von" remark suggests a comparison to Nazis as well.

Oh for fuck's sake, that's his NAME, you twit.

I think I lost 10 IQ points just by skimming the article.

Date: 2007/02/15 13:36:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 15 2007,13:53)
I never promised to keep comments open forever.  It was an experiment until I got going at Dawkins Blog.  It's too time consuming to fool with comments at two places.  Anybody that is interested in dissenting posts has merely to hop over to Dawkins blog or to AtBC ... I'm sure Eric Murphy has a list of links catalogued.

Quote
I am honest enough to move the comments.

Hmmm... so if moving them earlier was honest, deleting them now would be... what, exactly?

Date: 2007/02/15 16:03:26, Link
Author: improvius
And that's just for a single species.  Dave never did respond to how we can have dogs with 78 chromsomes and foxes with 36 in just 4000 years.

Date: 2007/02/16 11:26:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 16 2007,11:39)
Ed Brayton at Sci Blogs does an indepth de-pantsing of the author.  If he is not just a creo troll, and actually has some brains, he should write another article detailing how he himself was scammed.  I am not holding my breath.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

I'm not holding my my breath, either.

Date: 2007/02/16 13:57:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 16 2007,14:49)
I'll tell you what's REALLY funny is that the only way the Myth of Darwinism™ can persist is if the Smithsonian harasses ... er ... controls ... "renegade  scientists" and  "Open Minded Science Forums" *cough* ... like AtBC move my posts--like my "Thought Police" one above--from the thread where they were posted to the Bathroom Wall.

Do you guys think no one notices this stuff?  How long do you  think you can keep up the charade?

We'll keep it up for as long as the Illuminati wants us to.

Date: 2007/02/18 17:43:53, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 18 2007,17:47)
Lenny...  
Quote
Who can blame him, Davey?  Every time you post, you demonstrate clearly to all the world just how silly and pig-ignorant creationists really are.  Heck, I'd be encouraging you to post on every single thread, if I were Dawkins.  (shrug)
Why don't you try to convince Wesley of that mindset then if you think that's true?  What could be better for his anticreationist cause than a "pig-ignorant YEC" like me posting regularly on his forum?  Hmmm ... doesn't quite add up now, does it?  The truth seems to be that Wesley doesn't see it like you do, does he now?  If he did, he would be doing just as you are suggesting.

Ouch.

Dave, you had several months and well over a thousand posts here.  Throughout all of that, not a single person was swayed to your point of view.  In fact, several people stated that you helped sway them away from your point of view.  You were asked to stop posting because the moderators got tired of the redundancy.  There is no evidence whatosever to indicate that there was any other reason.

Besides, it's not like your posts were deleted.  Now that would have been truly dishonest.

Date: 2007/02/19 08:21:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Feb. 19 2007,07:44)
Keep me chained up at the Bathroom Wall and I will keep writing the truth about Wesley, Steve and AtBC wherever I go.  (I won't call names, mind you ... I'll just state the facts)

Did it happen to cross your mind that the inane kvetching of a deranged YEC might actually be good publicity for AtBC?

Date: 2007/02/20 18:50:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 20 2007,18:30)
Surprise surprise. AFDave started an unnecessary new thread at RichardDawkins.net, and the moderators intervened.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum....start=0

Actually, I believe the mods there decided to split his original (large) thread when he announced he was starting a "new topic" in it. Much like what happened here.

Date: 2007/02/26 16:48:24, Link
Author: improvius
I saw a program in which they were measuring the bite strength of snapping turtles.  One of the things they found was that the bite of turtles in the wild was MUCH greater than that of ones in zoos.  So I would expect that getting any particular animal - especially a domsticated one - to bite as hard as it can would be problematic.

Date: 2007/03/12 16:51:09, Link
Author: improvius
Anyway, if I may be forgiven for addressing the original post in this thread, I would have to disagree with BWE.  I think language influences thought more than thought influences language in this case.  Of course, my linguistic credentials (a couple of college classes) are easily eclipsed by several of the posters here, so I could be totally wrong.  But it seems that concepts of existence as well as their linguistic expressions vary tremendously between different cultures.

Here is an interesting collection of snippets on the subject that you might find interesting.

(Edited to improve upon the unintended alliteration.)

Date: 2007/04/24 13:49:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,11:25)
Quote
Define some rules and we'll stick to them.
We'll answer your questions, if you answer ours. Start with Steve's question. I promise to behave.


No, I don't trust any of you.  I've been this route before, and from what I can tell from reading posts here for a while, you people are even less respectful of others than the KCFS crowd.

This is an excellent example of the creationist "mental blockade" that prevents contradictory data from entering the conscious thought process.  Sources of contradictory data are classified as "untrustworthy", therefore the data itself can be safely ignored.

Date: 2007/04/24 22:19:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,18:50)
Quote
Me, I think you're just an attention whore.  (shrug)


Hmmm...I get that accusation alot.  

Here's a thought...quit responding to me, or better yet, don't set up whole threads highlighting everything I blog about.

Funny, I thought this thread was meant to highlight everything you weren't blogging about.

Date: 2007/04/25 08:58:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deejay @ April 25 2007,09:31)
And as for Cheryl Crow, her toilet paper idea is about as vacuously self-satisfied as her songs.  Ugh.

The TP comments she made were obviously a joke.

Date: 2007/04/25 10:42:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 25 2007,11:25)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 25 2007,09:52)
*Which does annoy me do you not have diesel cars in America?

Well, yes and no. Early attempts at diesel automobiles were plagued by poor reliability, which poisoned the well with regards to diesels.  For what it is worth, I drive a diesel. It is a pickup truck, which may not exactly count as being green amongst the Hollywood set. But, as I regularly pull substantial loads, I don't think a Prius would quite do.

As I understand it, the main problem is the quality of the diesel fuel that we have over here.  It's been terrible - very high in sulfur.  But we should now be getting low-sulfur diesel availability, so diesel engines could become more popular.

Date: 2007/04/25 12:40:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 25 2007,11:59)
Quote (improvius @ April 25 2007,10:42)
As I understand it, the main problem is the quality of the diesel fuel that we have over here.  It's been terrible - very high in sulfur.  But we should now be getting low-sulfur diesel availability, so diesel engines could become more popular.

I am probably being pedantic, but low sulfur diesel (with an allowable sulfur emission level of 500 ppm) has been the standard for road use for some time now.  We are in the midst of a transition to ultra-low sulfur deisel (15 ppm) right now with all road diesel slated to by ULSD by 2010, with all use by 2014.

Well yes, I probably should have written "ultra-low" instead of "low" sulfur.  But it's all relative.  Really we're just catching up to the standards that they set in Europe well over a decade ago.

Date: 2007/04/25 12:46:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Louis @ April 25 2007,13:25)
I still think she meant "pariah" and fucked up.

Yep, I was just going to say that, but you beat me to it.  Still, it's pretty #### funny.

Date: 2007/04/25 14:24:43, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 25 2007,14:57)
Isn't deisel more poluting than lead-free petrol? Certainly seems like it when running past them. Deisel emissions sure seem to hurt my lungs more.

Much of that goes back to the quality of the fuel itself.

Date: 2007/05/04 13:39:58, Link
Author: improvius
To be fair (and cynical), the responses might not be completely honest.  The question might as well have been phrased "Who would you rather piss off?  Raise your hand if you want to alienate intellectuals, or keep it lowered if you want to alienate fundamentalist Christians."  Either way, though, I'll take the answers at face value.  Pandering to ignorance is just as bad as (if not worse than) merely being ignorant.

Date: 2007/05/10 16:47:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ May 10 2007,16:23)
I must be missing something...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Date: 2007/05/11 08:45:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,08:14)
Oldman,

I'm not "lying for Jesus".  I told you from the beginning that I'm open minded to both an old and young earth.  Catastrophy seems to better explain the sedimentary layers than millions of years.  But, I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.  I'm merely an open minded layperson.

This is not true.  You are certainly not open minded on this subject.  You lack any objective criteria for evaluating evidence.  So instead you will simply accept anything that seems to support your assumptions, and reject anything that contradicts them.  Your evaluation process begins and ends with whether or not incoming data agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

Do you doubt my words?  Then describe your evaluation process.  You can't, can you?  How about describing some hypothetical evidence that would change your mind?  Can't do that either, can you?  This is because such evidence simply cannot exist in your mind.

Your mind is the opposite of open.

Date: 2007/05/11 14:15:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,14:49)
Whatever...gotta go with what feels right and seems to jive with what one reads in scripture.

Jibe.

Date: 2007/05/17 10:59:28, Link
Author: improvius
It looks like they've tried pretty hard to remove anything that overtly looks like endorsement from the NCBCPS website.  But they missed a couple of things:

"And I look to the day when, after you have returned the Bible to the schools, we will also see prayer restored to its proper place within the educational system."

And it looks like they may have taken down the link to this page ("...first step to get God back into your public school"), but it's still part of their site.

Hopefully the ACLU is keping cached versions of this website.

Date: 2007/05/17 11:07:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 17 2007,12:02)
Quote (CNN via Jason Spaceman @ May 17 2007,04:09)
...the Greensboro, North Carolina-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools...

Um... by it's very name, this organization exists for the purpose of violating the Constitution.  

I find that interesting.  I wonder how they'd feel and what they'd say about an organization called The National Council on Repression of Christianity...

On second thought, no I don't.

No, for the most part they are pretty careful about that.  "Bible Curiculum" is not, in and of itself, unconstitutional.  It only becomes so when it turns into endorsement.  The NCBCPS is trying to walk a very thin line.  And in my unofficial (IANAL) opinion, the two pages I linked above cross that line.

Date: 2007/06/25 08:28:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (creeky belly @ June 24 2007,23:07)
The whole premise of the movie seems rather bizarre: a light-hearted romp through God's wrath.  I'd love to see a comedy about Judges, Deuteronomy, or the book of Job. (Although the Brick Testament did that somewhat already).

There's a couple of good discussions on Slate already about this, but I think the book sums it up the best:

 
Quote
Genesis 6:7:
Yahweh said, 'I shall destroy humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- humankind, as well as animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.'


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well... you can highlight the SPOILER text below to see what actually happens at the end.  Mind you I haven't actually seen the film, but I did find out about the ending:

At the end of the film, a poorly-constructed dam breaks and floods the neighborhood.  But at this point all of the people are on the ark, so nobody dies.  They ride out the "local flood" and everyone survives.

Date: 2007/06/26 19:04:17, Link
Author: improvius
Your marathon is hopelessly incomplete unless you include Death Race 2000 (1975).

For those unfamiliar, the plot of the movie involves a cross-country road race in which bonus points are awarded for killing pedestrians along the way.

Features:
-cheesey horror effects
-even cheesier 70's soundtrack
-David Carradine is the lead

Bonus:
-Sylvester Stallone plays one of the racers.

Bonus bonus:
At one point he refers to his buxom partner as a "very large baked potato."

This really is the ultimate bad sci-fi film, so chances are you've already seen it.  But if you haven't, you are missing out on one hell of a trip.


Another suggestion:

Hell Comes to Frogtown (1987)

-Post-apocalyptic world
-"Rowdy" Roddy Piper plays the lead
-he actually fights people in rubber frog costumes.

Date: 2007/06/26 21:40:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Henry J @ June 26 2007,22:24)
I vaguely recall something with "lagomorph" in the title. (Wascally Wabbits indeed!)

Hey, that reminds me of another one: Night of the Lepus (1972).  Giant mutant rabbits attack a small town.  Not a spoof.

-Scenes feature live rabbits "stampeding" through a miniature set.
-DeForest Kelley is in it.

Date: 2007/06/26 21:54:05, Link
Author: improvius
Ok, I was checking out Rory Calhoun's filmography (he's in Lepus) and I found this little gem: Roller Blade Warriors: Taken by Force (1989).  I am - to say the least - intrigued by the synopsis:
   
Quote
In the future, a warrior nun on roller skates must rescue a seer, who is to be sacrificed by a band of mutants.

Date: 2007/06/28 13:56:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mike PSS @ June 27 2007,23:34)
I had a phone conference with AFDave, R.H.Brown (not Walt Brown by the way, this guy contributes to GRISDA) and myself about C14 dating.  It turns out that R.H.Brown disagreed with Dave (and the RATE group) about nuclear decay in the past.  R.H.Brown insists that nuclear decay has been invariant since creation.  He also agrees that a lifeless earth may have existed for ?millions/billions? of years before creation week (where creation formed the ability of this universe to support life.  Dave was taken aback with this stance and to this day still cannot come to some decision whether he agrees with R.H.Brown or RATE (who invoke Accellerated Nuclear Decay to explain radionucleide dating discrepencies in the past).

Mike, where did that get documented?  IIDB?  Could you post a link please?  I can't keep track of where all of these discussions are anymore.

Date: 2007/09/18 10:55:15, Link
Author: improvius
Apparently ID supporters are now acknowledging that "ID is not based on facts".  Is this something new?

Posted by ErnstMayer:
Quote
In what the document is right (unintendetly I suppose) is that ID is not based on facts. But ID makes predictions and these predictions can be verified and verified predictions are what you call evidence. So ID is not based on facts, but it is supported by lots and lots of evidence.

Date: 2007/09/18 12:05:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (factician @ Sep. 18 2007,12:31)
Surely this is a mole.  Are all the posters at UD moles?

I've read some of his other posts, and as far as I can tell Ernie is the real thing.

Date: 2007/09/20 09:16:03, Link
Author: improvius
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

Date: 2007/09/20 10:50:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,10:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence pointing to such, and then on top of that foundation, they only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.

Ok, well, you listed a lot of behavior but only a couple of motives.  So you think that people who support evolution are motivated by "hatred for the idea that they were created" and "rebellion".  Presumably you mean "rebellion against God"?  That still doesn't make much sense to me.  Why would someone hate the idea that they were created?

Date: 2007/09/20 15:47:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.

Date: 2007/09/21 07:36:14, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,18:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.

You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??

The predator released them.  Because that's what these particular predators do.

Date: 2007/09/21 08:14:57, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,09:04)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 21 2007,07:36)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,18:01)
 
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.

You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??

The predator released them.  Because that's what these particular predators do.

accidentally?

Of course not.  It's all by design.

Date: 2007/09/21 15:08:06, Link
Author: improvius
I'm confused, too.  This is what I'm seeing:

-Irons and WAD are buddies.

-Irons emails Lilley to warn him not to agree to the upcoming interview.

-Lilley agrees with Irons that this is a good thing to avoid and then thanks him.

-Irons forwards Lilley's response to WAD.

-WAD gets up in arms that Lilley took Irons' adivce.

Am I missing something?

Date: 2007/09/24 09:12:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,05:52)
(As you and I have discussed before), artificial selection is not "analogous to natural selection", as Dawkins argues. Artificial selection only works by shielding organisms from natural selection.

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Date: 2007/09/24 14:00:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,14:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

It seems obvious that artificial selection pressures have resulted in a wide variation of dog phenotypes in a very short amount of time.  Whether or not these are "species" by any rigorous definition is irrelevant.  The point is that selection pressures can produce physical variation.

Date: 2007/09/24 15:21:16, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,16:14)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,15:06)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,13:10)
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.

Martin,
You apparently have access to a broad array of scientific journals. You haven't missed the hundreds of speciation cases that have been studied, then published during the last years, have you?

I have somehow missed any speciation from dogs. Or which ones do you have on mind?

I'm pretty sure creationists are the only people claiming that there has been massive speciation from dogs over the past few thousand years.

Date: 2007/09/25 13:37:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:16)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12)

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you?
I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like).

I'm not being dense.  You've completely disregarded the element of selection.  You seem to think that Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Great Danes, etc. would all eventually spring forth from wolves with no selection whatsoever.  This is ridiculous.

Date: 2007/09/26 08:27:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,05:39)
Quote
And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I love this part.  "Of course the evidence is against me now.  But imaginary, contradictory evidence that has yet to be discovered will certainly support my argument."  This, more than anything else, drives home the hopelessness of trying to reason with creationists.

Date: 2007/09/26 10:36:12, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 26 2007,00:20)
Marking a correct answer as wrong is a sure-fire way to cause a learner to lose interest in the subject.

I tend to agree.  I always excelled at math, but I would frequently get points taken off for "not showing my work" (which I did mostly in my head).  Eventually I lost interest, though I can't say for certain if or to what extent I was put off by that kind of grading.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:16:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Constant Mews @ Sep. 27 2007,09:27)
it's fairly clear where the problem is: cognitive ability. Dave is - to be quite blunt- stupid. Basic concepts such as 'evidence', 'falsification', quote-mining' are apparently impossible to grasp. Don't be fooled by his apparent faculty with words or his personal creationist demon.

Dave is simply stupid.

He also happens to be a habitual liar and quite probably autistic, but the fact that he is a dumb hick is important.

I would disagree with you on this.  I would argue that "faculty with words" is a reliable indicator of intelligence.  For the most part, Dave seems to write fairly well.  I'm talking about sentence structure and word choice here.  If Dave were truly as stupid as you say he is, we'd see something more like the mish-mash that Rob Bryce posts.  I'm not saying Dave's writing skills are stellar, but they are certainly what I would consider to be above average.  No, I think "stupid" is too simplistic in this case.  Rather, I believe there are some powerful mental constructs that are actively inhibiting Dave's reasoning ability.

Date: 2007/09/27 09:36:58, Link
Author: improvius
I added myself to the "Expelled" mailing list a while ago.  This hit my inbox last night (I'm too lazy to rebuild the links):

Quote
Hey there,

Dairek here. I'm the director of Student Outreach for Motive Entertainment (the promotions company working with Expelled).

Wanted to let you know of a HUGE event coming up. It's called "The God Delusion" debate. Richard Dawkins will be debating John Lennox. It's probably the biggest debate on this subject in years. It's at the University of Alabama Birmingham NEXT WED, Oct 3. We're going to hold an Expelled rally before the event happens.

SO, if you happen to live around Birmingham, then please go be a part of the Expelled rally. If you're not in the Birmingham area, then perhaps you'd consider writing an op-ed in your local paper about the debate and/or issue. Dawkins is featured quite heavily in Expelled and has become one of the leading "faces" of Atheism.

Make sure you stay tuned in for the latest updates, and add this email address to your “safe” inbox so we don’t get tossed into the junk e-mail pile.

AND don't forget to help us spread the word . . . Here’s a couple different ways to tell your friends: CLICK HERE and enter your friends’ e-mail addresses. They will be sent an introductory email to the film. CLICK HERE to send your friends an e-card about the film

Date: 2007/09/27 15:36:15, Link
Author: improvius
On a whim, I found a decent-looking Christian forum.  (Oddly enough, it appears to use the exact same engine and layout as the Richard Dawkins forums.)  Apparently, they already have their own version of Dave: Heidi.

The really cool thing is that most of the other posters there really seem to know their science, and have done an excellent job refuting her - over and over again.

Date: 2007/09/28 14:34:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 28 2007,15:17)
They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

The only relevant point is that they look like ants to other ants.

Date: 2007/09/28 14:46:03, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

He's welcome to submit His findings for peer review whenever He feels like it.

Date: 2007/09/28 16:18:34, Link
Author: improvius
Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past.  But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now.  It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

Date: 2007/10/01 08:06:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,08:32)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,16:18)
Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past.  But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now.  It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

And once again we see the goalposts being moved.  Come on, can't you come up with anything better than that?  It's the oldest trick in the book.

Creationist: Creationism is true because evolution has no way of explaining x.
Biologist: Well, actually, here's one possible explanation of x...
Creationist: Ha!  You have no way of proving that's what really happened!  My theory still wins!
Biologist: ...

Date: 2007/10/01 08:33:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 01 2007,09:22)
MUSSEL MIMICRY: CAN MY DARWINIST FRIENDS AT ATBC EXPLAIN THIS ONE?

Meh, that's nothing.  How about explaining all of these critters?

Date: 2007/10/01 10:38:33, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,11:17)
Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things.

I find it very telling that AiG chose such a particularly poor letter to respond to.  But then we see things like this frequently from creationists.  They tend to respond primarily to more abusive criticism, and tend to ignore the more well-thought-out and informed challenges.

Date: 2007/10/01 12:21:40, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,13:19)
(1) It is reasonable, if not appropriate, to take the genealogies of Genesis 5–11 as accurate and complete;

You lost me at "1".

Date: 2007/10/01 12:26:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,13:22)
So tell me how did cell division start?  I read a book (pro-evolution) which claimed that as cells were smashed against rocks that was how it all began.

Citation please?

Date: 2007/10/01 16:48:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,15:33)
2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

Then why don't you include them and let us decide that for ourselves?

Date: 2007/10/02 08:36:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,09:19)
Provide for us the exact evolutionary pathways in which the immune system evolved, and tell us why these conclusions are unquestionable and above reproach.

Are you really unable to recognize the glaring problem with your argument here?

Creationist: Creationism ID is true because evolution has no way of explaining x.
Biologist: Well, actually, here's one possible explanation of x...
Creationist: Ha!  You have no way of proving that's what really happened!  My theory still wins!
Biologist: ...

Date: 2007/10/02 10:36:24, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,11:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

I notice that your original quote included the word "problems".  I will "assume" that was an honest mistake, though I suspect others will be less charitable.  And in any case, it is still difficult to discern Erwin's intent without having the rest of the context.

But as for your notion that this particular assumption is impossible to test?  Ridiculous.  Do you need someone to provide a list of various dating methods?

Date: 2007/10/02 13:21:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote
Only by reverse-engineering a system to test for function at each transitional stage can one determine if a system has 'reducible complexity' or 'irreducible complexity.'


How could Behe test for function at each stage if he never bothered to research all of the possible stages?  That was the point of throwing those papers in his face.

(Bonus points for anyone who guesses who I'm quoting.  And no fair using Google!)

Date: 2007/10/02 13:35:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 02 2007,14:30)
Goalpost 1 - Behe saying that there are NO NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for the evolution of the immune system is a case of lying about science.

Not to be pedantic, but he goes a step further and says that there are no POSSIBLE natural explanations.

Date: 2007/10/02 14:17:17, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:48)
It is difficult to believe that Behe would say "...natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin".   I'm thinking there is more to this paraphrasing from Miller that is vital to the conversation.

So, as far as you know, Behe thinks that it's possible for irreducibly complex systems to have natural explanations?  Yes?

Date: 2007/10/02 15:08:33, Link
Author: improvius
The "assumption" quibble would easily be resolved if we could see the full context of your Geotimes article.

Of course, this is a long way to go when we already know that the premise of your argument is demonstrably false.

Date: 2007/10/03 07:48:15, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 02 2007,15:06)
Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

You're saying that an insect which feeds on ant larvae receives no advantage from blending in with those ants?  Come on, this is beyond stupid.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:38:48, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,12:29)
But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.

Congratulations, you've been lying to your students.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:21:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,15:10)
Extrapolation is a dangerous path to take when there was no human was present in the past.

But I thought that was only about 5 days for you guys.

Date: 2007/10/03 14:38:01, Link
Author: improvius
I'm just curious: has anyone asked Behe what his "next step" is?  Now that he's supposedly identified IC systems, where does he go next?  What is his proposed research project based on his findings?  Or does he just want to find more IC systems?

Date: 2007/10/03 15:51:25, Link
Author: improvius
You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

Date: 2007/10/03 16:18:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,12:21)
It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Who here has claimed that there is no designer?

Date: 2007/10/04 09:08:59, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

Well, if AiG says their man Carl won the debate, then I will certainly believe them!  Consider me convinced, Chris.

Date: 2007/10/04 09:25:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:57)
Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data.  For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot.  Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

1) Your side has had over a thousand years.  The fact that you're not getting grant money is because you don't produce any results.  And when people do give you money (and they do), you spend it all on PR instead of actual research.

Your "lumpers/splitters" argument is a false analogy.  Arguments about species classification are complex because speciation itself is not a simple, cut-and-dried concept.  Baraminology, however, is drop-dead simple.  There were original kinds, completely separate and unable to mix.  Therefore, the lines of separation should be clear and obvious.  If there were real evidence of baraminology, it should jump out at us - especially when looking at the genetic evidence.  The fact that you haven't found anything in all these years is a damn good indication that it doesn't exist.

BTW, it would be FANTASTIC if you wanted to continue the discussion on baraminology with us.  It's a fun topic, but for some reason all of the creationists seem to clam up whenever it gets discussed.


2. I don't understand your paragraph here.  Evolution most certainly does NOT claim a designer.  But it doesn't deny one, either, which you erroneously seemed to think earlier.

Date: 2007/10/04 09:49:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 04 2007,10:46)
Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old.  3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

And there are 29,000 years of varve layers in Lake Suigetsu.  We could go on and on with these independent dating examples.

Date: 2007/10/04 10:22:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,11:19)
Suppose we do get a spider to evolve from some insect perhaps? archearachnid? whatever.  Then how does it know how to use the spinnerets?  You must mutate the brain to instinctively know what to do with the new thing.  Otherwise we get spinnerets and the poor guy is trapped in his own web at worst or just drags it behind at best.  Go back to the design site and reread TV engineer's response.

I pity your students.

Date: 2007/10/04 11:16:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,12:03)
improvis,

I really like your response showing the science that explains how it naturally happened.

I'm just stunned by how much ignorance you, a biology teacher, can pack into such a short amount of space - starting with the notion that spiders evolved (or could evolve) from insects.

Date: 2007/10/05 10:18:22, Link
Author: improvius
One of the posters from the RD forums set up a site that lets people select (end thereby evolve) randomly generated faces.

Anyway, I think it's a pretty cool application of selection theory.  Here's the link.

The original post is in this thread.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:25:12, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 05 2007,12:16)
I doubt that real ants using their antennae could be mislead. I doubt that their touch would give them impression of the own species.

Hypothetically, what would convince you otherwise?

Date: 2007/10/05 11:29:11, Link
Author: improvius
I've been using FF almost exclusively for a while now.  I got tired of IE7 crashing and just gave up on it.

Date: 2007/10/05 14:15:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 05 2007,14:49)
That is pretty darn cool, although the face that evolved looks like a cross between Genghis Khan and Natalie Portman. I would have preferred just Natalie Portman.

Remember, all of the faces we're seeing now are transitional  ;) .  Just keep going back and selecting the ones that look more like Natalie.  I'll bet we'll see quite a bit of difference in just a day or two.  Even since yesterday, the changes have been dramatic.

Date: 2007/10/05 14:23:49, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 05 2007,14:48)
Jeannot.

On my knowledge birds eat wasps readily. But even if we accept preliminary the unplatability of wasps (I doubt about it very) there was done a research (Dlussky 1984 - is it "outdated"? ) that shows that:

 
Quote

On the other hand, all the syrphids were considered to be palatable, and even the superb wasp mimic Temnostoma vespiforme was eaten by Spotted Flycatchers despite the fact that its model was rejected. Dlusski concluded that these experienced birds usually distinguished between models and mimics, even the good ones, and thus mimicry was ineffective here.

So, can we all just agree that you can't fool all of the predators all of the time?

Date: 2007/10/05 16:37:33, Link
Author: improvius
I think he's going with:

(d) There are no mimics.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:02:26, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2007,23:12)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,16:51)
You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

improvius, that AFDave sig is really devastating. It's somewhere in the Top 10 of Bad Creationist Reasoning ever given at AtBC.

Yeah, it was definitely my favorite.  The best part is that, as far as I can tell, he meant it exactly the way it sounds.  He's never once complained that it's out of context or tried to back down from it.

Date: 2007/10/06 10:58:11, Link
Author: improvius
oops, wrong thread

Date: 2007/10/06 10:59:18, Link
Author: improvius
As somewhat of an aside, I was looking through some research on the topic and found this fascinating (to me, anyway) paper:

Conditional use of honest signaling by a Batesian mimic

Apparently, there are times when being an ant mimic isn't such a hot idea - like when there's an ant predator nearby.  So the mimic spiders avoid "accidental" predation by temporarily signaling.  "Dude, I'm totally not really an ant!"

 
Quote
Jumping spiders (Salticidae) usually avoid ants, but some species within this family single out ants as preferred prey, while others (especially the species in the genus Myrmarachne) are Batesian mimics of ants. Field records show that ant-eating salticids sometimes prey on Myrmarachne, suggesting that the unwanted attention of predators that specialize on the model may be an important, but poorly understood, cost of Batesian mimicry. By staging encounters in the laboratory between living ant-eating salticids and Myrmarachne, we determined that ant-eating salticids attack Myrmarachne. However, when Myrmarachne detects a stalking ant-eating salticid early enough, it adopts a distinctive display posture (legs almost fully extended, elevated 45°, and held out to the side 45°), and this usually deters the predator. When Myrmarachne detects an ant-eating salticid before stalking begins, Myrmarachne makes preemptive displays that appear to inhibit the initiation of stalking. Using immobile lures made from dead Myrmarachne that were either in a display posture or a nondisplay posture, we ascertained that specifically the display posture of Myrmarachne deters the initiation of stalking (ant-eating salticids stalked nondisplaying more often than displaying lures). In another experiment, we ascertained that it is specifically the interjection of display posture that deters stalking. When ant-eating salticids that had already begun stalking experienced lures that switched from a nondisplay to a display posture, they stopped stalking.

Date: 2007/10/09 14:52:02, Link
Author: improvius
Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence of mimicry?

Date: 2007/10/10 13:15:01, Link
Author: improvius
I think Marty has made it clear that he does not believe "mimicry" exists in nature.  But what isn't clear is what criteria he is using to come to that belief.  I'd still like to know what, specifically, would constitute hypothetical evidence of mimicry for him.

Date: 2007/10/10 13:39:59, Link
Author: improvius
Well, I give up.  I can't argue against something that I can't parse.

In any case, here's another article about a toxic frog mimic: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-frogs.html

Date: 2007/10/10 13:58:26, Link
Author: improvius
Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote
There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species  that create majority of their guests.

Date: 2007/10/10 14:06:19, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 10 2007,15:02)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)
Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

   
Quote
There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species  that create majority of their guests.

Well, Improvius, if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense now.  I'll be sure to ask you again if anything else arouses.

Date: 2007/10/11 13:44:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,14:41)
If you're proposing that a different car, taxi, or bus help poor Louis reach his final destination, that's a whole different scenario.

No, it isn't.  They are all possible pathways.

EDIT: Your hypothetical objections highlight the absurdity of your position.  Your position is now dependent on the less-and-less likely chain of events and circumstances.  For your assertion to be true, we have to assume that:

-his legs are broken
-his car is not running
-his arms are broken, too, so that he can't crawl
-there are no other working cars in the area
-he is unable to call a cab
-he is unable to get anyone to help carry him...

and so on and so forth as you keep imagining ways to block well-understood pathways.  Now clearly, YOU are the one relying on absurd, imaginary conditions to support your argument.

Date: 2007/10/11 15:48:52, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:43)
Let's keep the name-calling down. Difficult though it may be.

I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts.

Date: 2007/10/11 16:25:33, Link
Author: improvius
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,16:59)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 11 2007,15:48)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:43)
Let's keep the name-calling down. Difficult though it may be.

I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts.

Quote
I dunno, it seems to be the best way to get her to respond to your posts.


LOL...do you suppose I've driven teh blipster right over the edge yet?  As a Christian, I'm really not suppose to do that type of thing...but it is just soooooo easy with blipes.

THE DEVIL MAKES ME DO IT!!!!!!!!

See what I mean?  Perhaps any substantive questions for FTK should be followed immediately by something from the random insult generator.  I'll repost my previous comment and test my hypothesis:

Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,14:41)
If you're proposing that a different car, taxi, or bus help poor Louis reach his final destination, that's a whole different scenario.

No, it isn't.  They are all possible pathways.

EDIT: Your hypothetical objections highlight the absurdity of your position.  Your position is now dependent on the less-and-less likely chain of events and circumstances.  For your assertion to be true, we have to assume that:

-his legs are broken
-his car is not running
-his arms are broken, too, so that he can't crawl
-there are no other working cars in the area
-he is unable to call a cab
-he is unable to get anyone to help carry him...

and so on and so forth as you keep imagining ways to block well-understood pathways.  Now clearly, YOU are the one relying on absurd, imaginary conditions to support your argument.

What do you think of that, you repugnant shovel-full of congealing pigeon droppings?

Date: 2007/10/12 11:15:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)
The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things).  Meditate on that for a while.

Date: 2007/10/12 12:43:06, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,13:09)
Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

Instead of arguing against and misrepresenting a paper from a century ago, why don't you take a look at the recent frog example I posted?

Date: 2007/10/12 16:05:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)
So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

     
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article.  The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present.  When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

Date: 2007/10/13 08:33:38, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 13 2007,01:55)
2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here.

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

Any predator that shows interest is likely to be one that prefers ants.

When a predator does show interest, the spider tries to look more like spider.  Since the predator prefers ants, it loses interest in the spider.

Date: 2007/10/15 16:54:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)
Quote
The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?


You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid?  Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

Quote
As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.

Date: 2007/10/16 14:44:00, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 16 2007,15:28)
I also admit that my faith comes first and my evidence is interpreted through that lens, just like many of you do.

This is your flaw, not ours.

Date: 2007/10/17 08:31:05, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,14:24)
Quote
This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.


Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.

Any thoughts on those frogs yet?

Date: 2007/10/17 14:27:41, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:16)
Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.


It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe,  North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.

Date: 2007/10/17 15:59:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:48)
Quote

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.


So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

Uh-huh.  And how many of those were weaver ants?

Date: 2007/10/19 13:48:19, Link
Author: improvius
Mister DNA, have you seen My Wife is a Gangster?  If you like Korean films, this is an excellent comedy.  Also, A Tale of Two Sisters is a good psychological horror/suspense flick that is very light on blood and gore.

I will definitely have to check out The Host.  The wife and I watch lots of Asian films - especially sci-fi and horror, so I'm surprised I haven't seen that one yet.

Date: 2007/10/19 16:36:01, Link
Author: improvius
We have 3 Extremes on the shelf here, but for whatever reason it keeps getting pushed back whenever we want to watch something.  We have a huge backlog of films yet to be watched.  Maybe we'll finally get to it this Halloween.  We watch a lot of anime, but we like to mix it up with other stuff once in a while.  Right now we're going through the Heroes series on DVD.  We recently watched Curse of the Golden Flower, which I would give about a 3/5.  Visually, it was stunning.  But the story dragged a bit.  The trailers make it look like an action flick, when it's really more of a drama.  I thought Hero was a much better film.

I'll have to look for 2LDK, that sounds good.

Just so you know, MWIaG 2 is not nearly as good as the first one.  It's really an excellent film and worth hunting down if you like Korean films at all.

Date: 2007/10/22 15:34:35, Link
Author: improvius
For anyone still interested, Stein will be on O'Reilly Factor tonight (10/22) plugging Expelled.

Date: 2007/10/22 15:51:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,14:44)
Because they do not have  the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them.

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.

Date: 2007/10/24 14:56:50, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:59)
Improvious.

 
Quote

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.


I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles.

The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy.

He still doesn't get it, does he?

Date: 2007/10/25 14:09:30, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 25 2007,13:57)
As to why I am not convinced by the science facts of your side, go here and read both sets of responses concerning the  chimp-human DNA myth.  We are not the only ones who are stubborn and refusing to face facts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

You can get different "percentages of difference" between humans and chimps depending on what you are specifically measuring.  Including indels and CNVs will increase that difference, obviously.  So let's try to look at the bigger picture, without getting you all confused with too many numbers.

Genetically, the closest living organisms to humans are chimps.  No matter how you measure genetic difference, this is going to be true.  Now, before you respond, consider this next fact.  Genetically, the closest living organisms to chimps are humans.  Think about that for a minute.  If ape-kind is separate from human-kind, we would expect chimps to be closer to gorillas and orangutans than they are to humans.  Here's what your side predicts, at best, with your "parts bin" hypothesis:

((G, O, C) H)

And here's reality:

(G, O (C, H))

Now, unless you want to look at chimps as some sort of prototype human that God wasn't quite satisfied with, you're going to have a hard time explaining these facts.

Date: 2007/10/25 14:17:10, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 25 2007,14:36)
Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water.


Date: 2007/10/25 16:21:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 25 2007,16:21)
What I disagree with Dawkins is the role of duplication in gaining information.  How is this possible?  How is this possible?

I show this possible.

Date: 2007/10/31 09:43:33, Link
Author: improvius
The Mission
Amazing in just about every way, this film takes place in 18th century Brazil.  Spanish Jesuits are trying to save a native tribe from encroaching slave hunters.  Jeremy Irons plays a Jesuit Priest, and Robert De Niro plays a Portuguese slave hunter.  The story, acting, and scenery are all top-notch.  If you can watch this film and not be emotionally moved by the end, then you simply aren't human.

The Last Temptation of Christ
I'm going to go out on a limb and recommend this one to you all.  I consider myself an agnostic and not particularly religious in any way, and I greatly enjoyed this film.  Willem Dafoe does a remarkable job portraying JC as a truly human character, which is why many fundamentalist Christians  probably didn't like it at all.
Quote
Jerobeam: God brought you here, didn't he?
Jesus: All he brought here is my shame.
Jerobeam: Shame is also a temptation.
Jesus: God hunts me. He drives his nails into my heart. He wants to push me over. He wants me to speak. But he didn't touch my lips with burning coals. How can I speak? I sinned.
Jerobeam: We all sin.
Jesus: Not my sins. What does He want from me? Can't he see what's inside me? All my sins. I'm Lucifer.
Jerobeam: Be quiet!
Jesus: No! I'm a liar. A hypocrite. I'm afraid of everything. I never tell the truth. I don't have the courage. When I see a woman, I blush and look away. But inside I have lust. For God, I smother the lust, and that satisfies my pride. But my pride destroys Magdalene. I never steal or fight, or kill... not because I don't want to but because I'm afraid. I want to rebel against everything, everybody... against God!... but I'm afraid. If you look inside me you see fear, that's all. Fear is my mother, my father, my God.

Dafoe is perfectly matched up with Harvey Keitel as Judas.  The relationship between Judas an JC is one of the central themes in the film.  Both are revealed as complex characters, as this movie goes well beyond any Sunday-school version of Christ's life.

Oh yeah, and the soundtrack by Peter Gabriel is incredible.  Even if you aren't interested in the film, you should give it a listen.

Date: 2007/10/31 09:46:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2007,20:16)
This may sound a bit off the wall, but I recently watched my daughter's copy of Howl's Moving Castle, Miyazaki anime expertly dubbed into English. Charming, eye-popping mix of realism and dream-like fantasy, great story, lotsa fun.

Spirited Away is also a great way to spend a couple hours.

I strongly recommend everything Miyazaki has ever done, period.  Spirited Away was probably my favorite, but all of them are wonderful and unique in their own ways.

Date: 2007/11/06 16:04:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:24)
 
Quote
Not an answer. Why should the DI be allowed to distribute propaganda related to this film when they didn't show up at Dover and when the DI heavyweights actually refused to be interviewed for the documentary?


ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Well documented, indeed:

[My bolding]

 
Quote
MODERATOR (Jon Entine): I am curious about the Discovery Institute's involvement in the Dover case, where originally they were slated three people, affiliated with the institute were slated to give depositions, and then obviously pulled out. There was some kind of dispute about legal strategy, perhaps. And I want you to address that, because I think there is some belief, at least expressed in various newspaper articles, that there was a concern by the Discovery Institute that if this issue is decided on science, that intelligent design would be ruled as religion and therefore would fall under the Establishment Cause and therefore would be banned from being taught in science classes.

So, for fear of that almost inevitability happening, the Discovery Institute repositioned itself for tactical reasons, to be against, for teaching the controversy perhaps in nonscientific settings. I just wanted you to respond.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Sure, I'd be happy to respond. Let me back up first and say: The Discovery Institute never set out to have a school board, schools, get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to do it, we've never promoted it. We have, unfortunately, gotten sucked into it, because we have a lot of expertise in the issue, that people are interested in.

When asked for our opinion, we always tell people: don't teach intelligent design. There's no curriculum developed for it, you're teachers are likely to be hostile towards it, I mean there's just all these good reasons why you should not to go down that path. If you want to do anything, you should teach the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. Teach it dialectically.

And despite all the hoopla you've heard today, there is a great deal of -- many, many problems with Darwin's theory, in particular the power of NS and RV to do the astounding things that are attributed to them. The new demonology, as one philosopher calls it, the selfish gene can do anything.

So that's the background. And what's happened in the foreground was, when it came to the Dover school district, we advised them not to institute the policy they advised. In fact, I personally went and met with them, and actually Richard was there the same day, and they didn't listen to me, that's fine, they can do what they want, I have no power and control over them. But from the start we just disagreed that this was a good place, a good time and place to have this battle -- which is risky, in the sense that there's a potential for rulings that this is somehow unconstitutional.

That's basically from an institutional perspective what I can say and what I know. Now, individuals associated with the Discovery Institute were then, had got involved in, the possibility of becoming expert witnesses in the case. And I don't, as far as I know there was no institutional decision made one way or the other, but I think it was the case that those individuals felt they had somewhat different legal interests being -- it was often because they were both expert witnesses, but usually fact witnesses as well, about things like the history of the intelligent design movement. So they wanted to have their own lawyers involved with depositions, and I believe there was an argument, a disagreement about that. I think that was the reason why they decided not to participate.

MODERATOR: Ken, I wanted --

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): I, I think I should respond...

Mod: You can respond, and then I wanted -- that's fine.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): ...just because [something] the Thomas More Law Center. First of all, Stephen Meyer, who is he, he is you're, is he the president?

MARK RYLAND (DI): He is the Director of the Center for Science and Culture.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): Okay, and David DeWolf is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute.

MARK RYLAND (DI): Right.

RICHARD THOMPSON (TMLC): They wrote a book, titled "Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula." The conclusion of that book was that, um:

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution -- and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design." ...and I could go further. But, you had Discovery Institute people actually encouraging the teaching of intelligent design in public school systems. Now, whether they wanted the school boards to teach intelligent design or mention it, certainly when you start putting it in writing, that writing does have consequences.

In fact, several of the members, including Steve Meyer, agreed to be expert witnesses, also prepared expert witness reports, then all at once decided that they weren't going to become expert witnesses, at a time after the closure of the time we could add new expert witnesses. So it did have a strategic impact on the way we could present the case, cause they backed out, when the court no longer allowed us to add new expert witnesses, which we could have done.

Now, Stephen Meyer, you know, wanted his attorney there, we said because he was an officer of the Discovery Institute, he certainly could have his attorney there. But the other experts wanted to have attorneys, that they were going to consult with, as objections were made, and not with us. And no other expert that was in the Dover case, and I'm talking about the plaintiffs, had any attorney representing them.

So that caused us some concern about exactly where was the heart of the Discovery Institute. Was it really something of a tactical decision, was it this strategy that they've been using, in I guess Ohio and other places, where they've pushed school boards to go in with intelligent design, and as soon as there's a controversy, they back off with a compromise. And I think what was victimized by this strategy was the Dover school board, because we could not present the expert testimony we thought we could present

MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.

KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.

Date: 2007/11/22 10:48:45, Link
Author: improvius
Movies I've seen the most times (and will continue to watch again and again):

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

Big Trouble in Little China

Better Off Dead

Tremors

Dark City

Blade Runner

Funny Bones

Date: 2007/11/27 12:19:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,21:01)
Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A:  'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B:  'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

I thought he was going a step further and claiming that there are simply no examples of mimicry.

Date: 2007/11/30 11:13:28, Link
Author: improvius
Your "suggestion" would fail every prong of the Lemon test.

Date: 2007/12/05 09:04:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 04 2007,23:14)
Stevestory's mention of "Bjork's a dork" got me thinking... my brother has a theory (and it's only a theory) that everyone likes at least one band/artist that they're ashamed to admit to liking. His example was Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons. When I told him I like Sweet (you know, of "Ballroom Blitz" fame), he said, "Yeah, I'd be ashamed, too."

Everyone laughs when I say I like ABBA, too. No Americans laugh when I say I like Boney M, though. They just say, "Boney who?".

I'm curious what other shameful musical secrets lurk in the hearts and eardrums of AtBC readers?

My 2 guiltiest pleasures: Madonna: Ray of Light and Nelly Furtado: Whoa, Nelly!

And no, I'm not gay.

Typically I'm listening to 80's alternative or more modern drum/bass type electronic stuff.  Mainly I like smooth stuff, with a preference leaning to female vocalists:

Kosheen
Imogen Heap
Olive
Bittersweet
Massive Attack
A Guy Called Gerald
Hooverphonic

Currently playing in my car is a mix of songs from Katamri Damacy.

Date: 2008/01/16 17:24:57, Link
Author: improvius
"Faith and Arts Community Endeavor project"?

WTF.

Googling this turns up exactly one hit - the Expelled page.

Date: 2008/01/17 09:25:33, Link
Author: improvius
I won't see it.  As far as I can tell, I'm already familiar with the main cases and arguments that it presents.  I don't want to add a penny to their box office.  And watching 90 minutes of lies would ultimately just leave me pissed off.

I cannot think of a sane reason to see this film.

Date: 2008/01/21 11:03:18, Link
Author: improvius
This reminds me of the classic "but you f*** one sheep..." joke.

Date: 2008/01/22 16:05:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2008,10:28)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 20 2008,06:08)
He does Purple Haze, too. And that upside-down guitar technique is something to see.

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


Devils music, I tells ya.

Hardly.  If you want Devil's music, you're gonna have to do better than that.

For starters, I would recommend Born With a Tail by the Supersuckers.

Date: 2008/01/28 14:55:51, Link
Author: improvius
I had been trying to get more into wine over the past 5 years, but I seem to be developing some sort of allergy.  I had an allergic reaction a few years ago in the form of an itchy tongue followed by a swollen throat after I tried a particular Riesling.  After about a year, these reactions were coming more and more frequently, so I pretty much gave up on grape wine.

Fortunately, my wife and I have always been very much into Japanese culture, so we started trying different sakes.  The selection here in Rochester is abysmal, so on a recent trip to Vegas we made a point to sample as many different sakes as we could.  And we recently discovered a liquor store in Buffalo that has a decent selection on the shelves.

If anyone is interested in trying out some good sake, here are some of our current favorites:

Rihaku "Wandering Poet"
It's a highly-polished (junmai ginjo) sake with a full and smooth flavor.  It's often described as a more "traditional" sake.  I consider this a very well-rounded sake.  It's a great place to start if you're interested in sake, and an absolute  must-try if you are already a sake fan.

Kamoizumi "Summer Snow" Nigori Ginjo
This has a very rich flavor with being especially sweet.  "Nigori" sake contains unfiltered rice particles which need to be shaken up immediately before you drink it.  The result is a milky texture.  Many nigoris end up being (in my opinion) overly sweet - almost to the point of dessert wines.  But the "Summer Snow" doesn't go that route.  I could drink this stuff all day long.

Masumi Okuden Kantsukuri "Mirror of Truth" Junmai
Smooth, smooth, smooth.  This is one of the cleanest sakes I've tried so far.  The texture is very clear, and there's just a hint of rice flavor in this.  The finish is fairly mild, too.  It's almost like drinking water.  Very enjoyable.

Date: 2008/01/31 16:18:26, Link
Author: improvius
AFDave on lake sediments:
 
Quote
Er ... Lake sediments are soft, yes. But incompressible? Not the same thing.

 
Quote
To further make my point ... Water can be thought of as soft. That is, you sink in it if you jump into it. But water is very incompressible. Hope that helps.


[I'm not sure, but I think he meant to say "compressible" instead of "incompressible" in the first quote.  I know it still makes no sense whatsoever, but at least it would have internal consistency that way.]

Date: 2008/02/01 11:12:33, Link
Author: improvius
I am a little bit tempted to go see it just so I could walk out of the theater when he gets to the "you should probably leave right now" speech.

Date: 2008/02/07 09:08:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 06 2008,13:32)
How about Luskin for "short pier" review?

Pew-reviewed?

Pew-revered.

Date: 2008/02/08 15:42:42, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2008,16:05)
Discrimination
Added by: Brittany, on 2008-01-25 11:17:50

In the late year of 2007, I wrote an essay about my feelings toward God and creation. The class was American Literature, and we were learning about Puritanism, so I took my beliefs and wrote them down onto paper. I expressed how I felt. God had helped me through my life, and I mentioned that it was because he loves us; we are God's "creation." I had been warned by many, saying that I shouldn't mention God in my paper, because it's a public school system, and it is not allowed. I thought long and hard before turning in my paper, and I thought about the first amendment. I, and everyone else in the United States of America, has the freedom of speech. Yes, there are limits to that freedom; I can speak my mind freely as long as I do not break a law, I do not harm anyone, and I do not infringe on anyone else's rights. Well, in this essay, I did not break any laws, harm anyone, or infringe on a person's rights. However, after I turned in my paper, my teacher returned it to me and I had 17% grade. I looked through the paper to see what my teacher marked incorrect, and all throughout the paper there were notes from my teacher, crossing out anything, and everything about God. She wrote to me that "mentioning God was unnecessary." What I didn't understand was that God was the entire point on the paper. People of the U.S.A. also have the freedom of religion, but if that is the case, then why do so many people get ridiculed for mentioning God is public places? Our country was built on the subject of God.. "... one nation, under GOD..." Why are people so discriminating? It simply does not make sense, and I don't know if it ever will. Thank you.

I don't believe this for a second.  It may as well start off "Dear Jack Chick, you won't believe this, but..."

Date: 2008/02/12 08:04:52, Link
Author: improvius
Now the DI is officially in bed with Expelled.  Here's the latest email newsletter for the film:



Quote
EXPELLED teams up with the Discovery Institute to launch the Aca demic Freedom Petition, EXPELLED receives endorsements from James Dobson and more!
HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (Feb. 11, 2008) - With nothing less than truth and freedom at stake, the producers of EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed and Motive Entertainment have teamed up with the Discovery Institute to launch the Academic Freedom Petition. The petition urges America's academic institutions to adopt policies to ensure teachers and students have the freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

On another front, EXPELLED star Ben Stein and the producers have been traveling the nation to meet with key leaders and screen the movie. EXPELLED has received strong support already!

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
"Ben Stein's film, EXPELLED, makes a powerful case for Intelligent Design in explaining the origins of life and the creation of the universe. It also exposes an entrenched and aggressive Darwinist establishment in academia that suffocates all competing points of view. Highly qualified professors and scientists who dare to question evolutionary orthodoxy are systematically excluded or summarily dismissed. It is political correctness run amuck on university campuses. Stein sets out on a mission to find out why I.D. is most often expelled from the public square, and what he discovers in this riveting documentary is incredibly enlightening. I recommend the film enthusiastically."
- James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Focus on the Family

"This is an enormously important project and I am so proud of the fact that Ben Stein, who is a national treasure, is part of it. People know that there is a dictatorial impulse at work in the land to shut down ev en the most elementary questioning of this unquestionable belief in random evolution and the American people don't like being told by their 'betters' what they are supposed to believe."
- Michael Medved, nationally syndicated radio host

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is earthshaking. I was absolutely blown away. Ben Stein boldly shines a light of honest inquiry revealing that evolution's emperor has no clothes. It will have Darwin's disciples scurrying for the shadows. Everyone in America, even skeptics of Intelligent Design, must see this film. They can't possibly walk away without at least admitting that the debate over who we are and how we got here is far from over. The controversy will be intense, so get ready for a rollercoaster ride."
- J. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed offers a compelling examination of an important topic for everyone who values the freedom to explore ideas that challenge conventional wisdom. Ben Stein has given us a powerful documentary about the widespread repression of faith-friendly scientific scholarship. Along the way, he also makes a strong case for a return to civil discourse in a time when political correctness often overshadows the search for truth. EXPELLED is an engaging film that features a winning combination of humor and reason with just the right tone needed to bring its significant story to the worldwide audience."
- Ronald D. Ellis, Ph.D., President, California Baptist University

Read more at: www.GetExpelled.com/quotes.php

HOW YOU CAN HELP:
We need your support! Here's what you can do to help spread the word about the movie EXPELLED and stand up for academic freedom:

  1. Send an email to all of your contacts informing them to learn more a bout the film by visiting www.GetExpelled.com and encourage others to spread the word!

  2. Go to your local theater and speak with a manager to request that EXPELLED is shown in your city. The movie is coming out this April and you can print off a movie poster for the theater's reference by visiting www.GetExpelled.com.

  3. Buy advance tickets for your family and friends to see the movie. Invite everyone to see the film during opening weekend in April 2008.

  4. Add a banner or post a video clip to your website, MySpace page, Shoutlife page or blog. You can access our Tools for Webmasters by visiting www.GetExpelled.com. We have various free resources available for your use.

  5. Help spread the word in your local area churches, schools, clubs and community centers. For more info, please email: [EMAIL=paul.lauer@getexpelled.com.]paul.lauer@getexpelled.com.[/EMAIL]

  6. Stand up for academic freedom and freedom of scientific inquiry by signing the petition at: www.academicfreedompetition.com.

The EXPELLED resource website - www.GetEXPELLED.com - has added some exciting new features. The site is packed full of useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this history-changing film, which opens in theaters this April:

   * Learn about new scientific evidence that invalidates Darwin's claims.
   * Hear from scientists who are being SILENCED for those discoveries.
   * Learn how to DEFEND BELIEF in God based on SCIENTIFIC evidence.
   * Learn what can and cannot be taught in schools and how that is CHANGING nationwide.

See a SNEAK PEEK < /strong>of exclusive video clips from the upcoming movie.

ABOUT THE FILM:
In this film, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein exposes the frightening "atheist agenda." The film also reveals how teachers, students and scientists are being "expelled" and persecuted for questioning Darwinism despite the mounting evidence that debunks Darwinism and shows proof of a Designer ("God") in the universe! This highly controversial documentary is receiving major media buzz (including the front page of the New York Times). In the movie, Stein travels the world, asking top scientific minds whether Darwinism is still a "theory" or if it's become a "law" which no one is allowed to question.

NATIONWIDE TOUR:
The second leg of the EXPELLED Nationwide Tour wrapped up in late January. The EXPELLED team traveled from Texas to Miami before heading north to the nation's capitol. The guys in the big, red EXPELLED bus met some amazing people along the way, including EXPELLED star Ben Stein himself. Ben attended a screening in Orlando for about 3,000 Young Life leaders. He was incredibly gracious and stayed to sign autographs for everyone in line. Following a screening at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, the EXPELLED crew passed out information on the film at the March for Life, which drew over 30,000 people. The tour continues with stops in Georgia before heading back to Florida and Texas. Tour details at: www.GetEXPELLED.com/tourblog

Date: 2008/02/22 14:27:12, Link
Author: improvius
We have a wide range of customers at our backyard feeders.  Currently we have:

Dark-eyed Juncos (slate form)
Black-capped Chickadees
Tufted Titmice
House Finches
Northern Cardinals
Red-bellied Woodpeckers
Downy Woodpeckers
Goldfinches
White-breasted Nuthatches
House Sparrows

At other (warmer) times we have had:

Bluejays
Indigo Buntings
Wild Turkeys
Rose-breasted Grosbeaks
Red-breasted Nuthatches


Though they are dull little birds, I have a certain affinity for the juncos.  Maybe I just feel sorry for them because they don't seem to be built correctly for perching on feeders.  I'm hoping we get the buntings again this summer - I had no idea what the hell they were when we first saw them.

The coolest thing we've seen was definitely the turkeys.  We had a "rafter" of maybe a dozen of them walking/hopping around the yard. I wasn't expecting them to perch, and was frankly surprised to see several of them them hop up onto our chain link fence.  One of them saw us and took off into a tree.  A very TALL tree.  The bird made a nearly vertical ascent that seemed to take forever.  Most birds make flying look easy.  But to the turkey, getting up to that branch was clearly a herculean effort.  Anyway, I just hope they didn't all get shot by hunters.  I'd love to see them again.

Oh yeah, and of course we have tons of deer all over the place.

Date: 2008/02/26 14:52:53, Link
Author: improvius
Do you ever mention the phrase "cdesign proponentsists" in your film?

Date: 2008/02/26 15:13:29, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,16:08)
I forgot to address the Holocaust. No, I won't teach my kids that Darwin initiated the Holocaust, because that is patently untrue. However, I won't shy away from explaining how social Darwinism and the science of eugenics--which was founded by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton as an attempt to apply Darwin's theory on a social level--were contributing factors to Hitler's views on race.

And why do you think that the concept of eugenics was a greater contributing factor than centuries of Christian persecution of Jews?

Date: 2008/02/26 15:28:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,16:16)
Ever  heard of the Templeton Foundation?  They are searching for the truth, yet no one bothers them because they, unlike the IDC crowd, are not trying to sneak religion into out public science classes.

And it gets worse.  Guess who had this to say about the "ID" movement:

Quote
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review,"

Date: 2008/02/27 10:57:52, Link
Author: improvius
Panspermia does not exclude abiogenesis.

Date: 2008/02/27 11:31:22, Link
Author: improvius
Kevin, is there any chance you're going to respond to the earlier comments on the Templeton Foundation?

Or the Holocaust?

Or "cdesign proponentsists"?

Or answer the question, "what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?"

Date: 2008/02/28 08:27:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,09:04)
Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common?

They all have an external purpose.

But for some reason the IDists don't seem to like that answer.

Date: 2008/02/28 09:17:31, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:56)
From Ben Stein's op-ed Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

 
Quote
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.


Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.

Too bad Ben has zero humility when it comes to his ignorance of evolution.

Date: 2008/02/29 12:14:18, Link
Author: improvius
Ben is going to be on Larry King Live tonight.  There's a link on that page where you can submit questions for the guests.  I'm thinking that maybe if enough people ask one particular question, it will get used on the show.

Bonus: Penn Jillette will also be on the show.  Maybe he'll be able to hold Ben's feet to the fire.

Date: 2008/02/29 12:47:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 29 2008,13:42)
Thank the Designer that Penn will be there.  Still, that's typical, no scientist or any other person who thoroughly knows the scientific method and exactly why ID fails, the best we have opposite ignorant Stein is a smart magician, whose intelligence won't make up for lack of considerable knowledge of the subject.

On the contrary, Penn is quite knowledgeable on this particular topic.  I think Ben is in for a rough ride.

Date: 2008/02/29 21:12:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 29 2008,21:30)
If I heard that right, Penn Gillette is off in the next half hour. The first half was all about the presidential campaign.

As was the second half.  Bah.

Date: 2008/03/05 15:05:22, Link
Author: improvius
Can someone give me a "Dummies" version of how ERVs work?  I think I understand it, but I'm not clear on a couple of things.  Here in Wikipedia I'm seeing that we have almost 100,000 known ERV "elements or fragments", and that "HERV-K(HML2), makes up less than 1% of HERV elements".  So am I correct to interpret this as meaning over 99% of HERVs should be identical to the ERVs in chimps?

Date: 2008/03/20 12:55:20, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 20 2008,12:31)
Quote (Steverino @ Mar. 20 2008,11:15)
I don't recall the circumstances of Sternberg not being kept by the Smithsonian, but didn't it turn out to be for something other than him being an IDiot?

Can anyone provide me with the Reader's Digest version?

Try Wiki, better than Readers Digest and you get to read the arguments on the talk page :-)

I checked out the discussion page just for kicks.

Wow.
Quote
Reputable? I do not normally deem reputable any published article that relies on either USENET, TalkOrigins, Art Bell or Panda's thumb. The AAAS link you posted does one of them. The link they provide ends up at the main page (stale link in AAAS article). Calling Panda's thumb polemic blog entries and their associated comments "scientific", as does the AAAS article you refer to, stretches credibility beyond belief. I am starting to suspect that the AAAS is funded by George Soros or Michael Moore:) Also, based on a quick search of google, it looks like the AAAS and Pandas thumb have engage in a form of mutual accredidation, quoting each other as convienent when discussing threats to evolutionary theory. Also, the AAAS article seems to be the basis of the peer review allegation on the reference (which is incorrect/broken). I'll reread yet again to see where you're coming from. Sometimes I miss things. ImprobabilityDrive 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Date: 2008/04/09 16:32:02, Link
Author: improvius
"Hitler... Hitler... Hitler..."

Date: 2008/04/11 13:15:56, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2008,13:40)
WingNutDaily product promotion tie in:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61205

Sweet.  I'll take one copy of How to Hump Your Floor and 2 free tickets to Expelled, please!

Date: 2008/04/14 17:27:37, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (charlie d @ April 14 2008,18:13)
I think it should be Expelled, if we want it to show up when the people google for information on the Expelled movie, aka Expelled: no intelligence allowed, with Ben Stein.  Clear enough?

Maybe we should also add that the Expelled movie, aka Expelled: no intelligence allowed, with Ben Stein, deals with evolution, intelligent design (or "ID"), and creationism.

Date: 2008/04/15 12:34:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ERV @ April 15 2008,12:42)
Any references to 'cell biologist(s)' were a lie.  OOOH LOOK!  A LYING FUNDIE CHRISTIAN!  Ooooh put that man in a museum-- hes rare, that Kevin.

Piece of shit.

I still can't tell if Kevin is a lying sack of shit himself, or if he's just swallowing hook, line, and sinker everything that Mathis has been telling him.  Certainly, Mathis can't seem to open his mouth without lying.  And I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that one of his lies was "don't worry, guys, I checked with the lawyers and it's perfectly legal for us to copy this animation."

Date: 2008/04/17 08:57:22, Link
Author: improvius
Reviews are starting to roll in now.  Current Tomatometer rating: 11% and falling.

Date: 2008/04/17 12:13:34, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ReligionProf @ April 17 2008,12:59)
A student of mine has created a better image than I did: Yoko Ono as Kali standing on Ben Stein's chest:[/img]

It's actually not very appropriate in the greater context.  That's Shiva lying down there.  He's lying down in order to stop her murderous rampage, not because she's defeated him.

It does make a good visual at first glance, though.

Date: 2008/04/18 08:19:04, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 17 2008,16:25)
Quote (improvius @ April 17 2008,06:57)
Reviews are starting to roll in now.  Current Tomatometer rating: 11% and falling.

Down to 9%.

8%

Date: 2008/04/18 16:57:32, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 18 2008,15:51)
Quote (caerbannog @ April 18 2008,15:33)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 18 2008,12:52)
 
Quote (improvius @ April 18 2008,06:19)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 17 2008,16:25)
   
Quote (improvius @ April 17 2008,06:57)
Reviews are starting to roll in now.  Current Tomatometer rating: 11% and falling.

Down to 9%.

8%

7%

Missed it by >< that much

6%

(Still "running the table" with the "top critics", at 0%)

5%

...and back to 9% again, thanks to a lukewarm review from Christianity Today.

Date: 2008/04/21 12:15:09, Link
Author: improvius
Another positive review that gets some of the facts totally wrong:
Quote
One scientist in particular, biologist Richard Sternberg, has become a cause célèbre following his dismissal from the Smithsonian Institution, where he was a fellow until he allowed a peer-reviewed article on ID to be published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.


I already sent Rex a request for a correction to this particular statement.  His email address  is in the "contact us" section, if anyone else cares to enlighten him.

Date: 2008/04/21 13:21:08, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (improvius @ April 21 2008,13:15)
Another positive review that gets some of the facts totally wrong:
 
Quote
One scientist in particular, biologist Richard Sternberg, has become a cause célèbre following his dismissal from the Smithsonian Institution, where he was a fellow until he allowed a peer-reviewed article on ID to be published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.


I already sent Rex a request for a correction to this particular statement.  His email address  is in the "contact us" section, if anyone else cares to enlighten him.

Update - Roberts already replied to me with a short but very courteous response.  He thanked me, and said he would change the review to say something to the effect that Sternberg "resigned under duress".  So I sent him a response explaining that Sternberg was never an employee, and using the term "resigned" would likely give a false impression that he was.

Hopefully Roberts will update his review accordingly.

Date: 2008/04/21 14:47:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (improvius @ April 21 2008,14:21)
Quote (improvius @ April 21 2008,13:15)
Another positive review that gets some of the facts totally wrong:
 
Quote
One scientist in particular, biologist Richard Sternberg, has become a cause célèbre following his dismissal from the Smithsonian Institution, where he was a fellow until he allowed a peer-reviewed article on ID to be published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.


I already sent Rex a request for a correction to this particular statement.  His email address  is in the "contact us" section, if anyone else cares to enlighten him.

Update - Roberts already replied to me with a short but very courteous response.  He thanked me, and said he would change the review to say something to the effect that Sternberg "resigned under duress".  So I sent him a response explaining that Sternberg was never an employee, and using the term "resigned" would likely give a false impression that he was.

Hopefully Roberts will update his review accordingly.

Still muddled, but I suppose it's an improvement:

Quote
One scientist in particular, biologist Richard Sternberg, has become a cause célèbre following his his resignation, he claims under duress, from the Smithsonian Institution, where as a research fellow and managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a peer-reviewed article on ID.

Date: 2008/04/22 08:05:58, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (UnMark @ April 21 2008,23:46)
Isn't the Conservapedia the site that "refutes" the TalkOrigins Common Creationist Claims?  I remember perusing that list a few months ago, clicking on random topics until I came to an article that blithely brushed aside the ancient age of the earth as a mere "farce."  When I stopped laughing, I closed the browser and successfully attempted to forget all specifics about the site.

No, Conservapedia is the site that "refutes" Wikipedia's claims.  Because Wikipedia has a blatant liberal bias.

Date: 2008/04/24 10:52:25, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 24 2008,11:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2008,03:15)
Quote
Ono is seeking Premise's profit from the documentary, as well as at least $75,000 in damages and a ban on the 1971 song's use in the film.


All the profit - potentially gone!
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695273188,00.html

EDIT: And if it makes a loss? Does Yoko owe them money? :)

Yoko Ono is a crazy bitch.

And you'd think that would be a good reason not to steal her stuff.

Date: 2008/04/24 16:15:47, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (ERV @ April 24 2008,17:04)
After the Premise-XVIVO press release came out last week, I emailed them back and asked when theft was a protected form of free speech.

They never wrote me back.

:(

Didn't they say they were screening the pre-showings because they were afraid someone would try to record it and put it on youtube?

More hypocrisy from Mathis and company - imagine our surprise.





Date: 2008/05/06 14:00:45, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:29)
[quote=Albatrossity2,May 06 2008,06:44][/quote]
Quote
Astronomy "equipment" (aka telescopes) does not exist on very many campuses. Observatories are usually situated in remote high places


Yes, which is why Iowa State, which is situated in the plains of BFE, is not an ideal location.

I don't know much about astronomy, but I went to college in Iowa (Grinnell).  One of the more striking features of the area was how clear the night sky was, even going just a few blocks away from the campus.  It was frequently possible to see the Milky Way with the naked eye.  We even had an observatory a little ways off campus.  I never checked it out, but it always seemed like it would be a good place for viewing.

Date: 2008/06/23 13:47:54, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 23 2008,12:21)
Rich: I'm confused. Which discovery institute fellow gave me which book? Produce some evidence or stop it with the bald assertions. I assume you are bald, btw, that's why you wear the tard hat.

I'm going to guess it was Berlinski.  Am I right?

Date: 2008/07/21 19:19:51, Link
Author: improvius
If anyone is interested in sake, the wife and I are starting a dedicated sake-only forum site:

Sake Forums

Date: 2009/10/20 11:14:01, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,11:58)
Quote
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.

What you just said is that God is the required source of the human SOUL, not the human phenotype or genotype.  Evolution is the explanation of how the human genotype and phenotype developed, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "soul".  The term "human" is very clearly being used with multiple meanings here.  Your perceived conflict is coming directly from your own equivocation.

Date: 2009/10/20 13:51:51, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,14:46)
Guess you guys wanna keep going on this topic all the way to Nov. 1.  

Why not?  You guys have kept it going for the past 150+ years

Date: 2009/10/21 10:14:35, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:04)
the fact is that human sin has created a fallen world in which animals, sharing in the Curse, are liable to be killed when God is forced to execute His judgment on humanity (think of all the dogs, cats, and bunny rabbits living in Sodom and Gomorrah when the titanic Blast struck those cities).

It seems pretty clear that God doesn't give two shits about the animals if He's punishing them for the sins of man.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:29:11, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,11:15)
Quote
That says that God caused life to exist. It doesn't say what methods were used in doing so. It doesn't say what methods weren't used in doing so; specifically it doesn't rule out methods that some humans find offensive.

It does rule out evolution though.   Common descent too, btw.

Unless you're trying to say that evolution, which works strictly on material things, can produce an immaterial thing (the human soul.)  
Is that what you're claiming Henry?

Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:41:13, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:23)
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!

Classic tard behavior.  He ignores substantive posts and instead focuses on the ones that simply mock him.  Then he accuses everyone of "not having an answer".  Are you all sure Floyd here isn't running a troll operation?  I'm seeing a lot of textbook creationist debating and deluding tactics, and not much else.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:50:22, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:42)
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly

Seriously, this has to be an act.  If Floyd were really as stupid/unstable as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be able to operate a keyboard.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:59:02, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2009,17:52)
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 21 2009,14:50)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,17:42)
I figured that you would try to change the subject quickly

Seriously, this has to be an act.  If Floyd were really as stupid/unstable as his posts indicate, he wouldn't be able to operate a keyboard.

Are you new to the internet, improvius? :)

I'm just saying his ability to string coherent sentences together doesn't jibe with the utter inanity of his posts.  It's like he's trying too hard, or something.  I'm not buying it.

Date: 2009/10/21 17:15:07, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,18:08)
Shocking as it may seem, I think he's as real as Dave Hawkins, although (also shockingly) even dumber.

I guess that's the most puzzling aspect for me.  I never would have believed that AFDave's absurdity could be topped without intentionally doing so.

Date: 2009/10/22 09:34:51, Link
Author: improvius
I noticed and appreciated the intent, just didn't comment on it.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:49:44, Link
Author: improvius
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2009,15:45)
Is it inherit in humanity to want to be special and therefore use mysteries to control others?  If this is the case, then is intelligence required to be a leader or is it more intuition akin to animal cunning?

It seems that the only real requirement to being a leader is the will to do so.  Most people don't really want to be in charge.  It's always easier to let someone else make the big decisions.  So if you really want to be a leader, no matter how stupid or ignorant you are, it won't be too hard to find someone to follow you.

 

 

 

=====