AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: keiths

form_srcid: keiths

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.80.12.147

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: keiths

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/17 18:13:51, Link
Author: keiths
It gets even better... DaveScot just "accidentally" deleted all of my comments (I was posting as 'woctor').  Notice that he turns comments off so nobody can complain about the censorship:

Quote
January 17, 2006
(Off Topic) Server Glitch
Our server seems to have hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments. The management apologizes for this unfortunate event.  

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:46 pm
Comments Off

Date: 2006/01/17 18:45:05, Link
Author: keiths
He's even invited John Davison back on the blog.  See this thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/667#comments

Check out John's first post:
Quote
Dave

Thanks for letting me return to Dr. Dembski’s blog. I apologise for making this comment on my own blog:

It seems things are really falling apart over at “Uncommon Descent” since Dembski turned over the reins to DaveScot. Dembski has had to return in a frantic attempt to restore order. I find it all very amusing. The very title of that blog raises my hackles. Like Groucho Marx -

“I wouldn’t belong to an organization that would have me for a member.”

Of course since I have been banned for life from that forum I am eternally grateful, just as I am for the actions by ARN, EvC, Fringe Sciences, Panda’s Thumb and the several other “groupthink” closed union shops with which the internet abounds.

All alone is the only place to be these days.

I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

I'm with Mr. Christopher -- that site is the best!

Date: 2006/01/17 22:40:42, Link
Author: keiths
Davison posted on UD today.  I put a copy of his post on the AtBC "Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion Thread."

It's pretty funny (as usual for JAD).

Date: 2006/01/19 11:18:51, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."

Date: 2006/01/22 13:21:59, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
stevestory wrote:
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

Red Reader regularly makes a fool of himself on UD.  My favorite example is his response to John Davison's "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis".  Apparently the word "Evolutionary" set Red off like Pavlov's bell:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
Just a desperate “big idea” for funding and publicity which necessarily includes enough bogus obfuscation to brand those who oppose or even question it as “unscientific”.

After a few other comments were posted, Red realized he was on the "wrong" side of the issue.  He sheepishly retracted his criticism:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:If I may, I would like to apologize to Dr. Davison for my ill considered and intemperate remark. It is obvious that Prof. Davison has put a lot of thought into his hypothesis. I hate to say it but it’s true: I engaged my opinion before I put my brain in gear.

I love it when ID supporters have to be told what the "correct" position is.  Of course it's even worse when your opponents know your position better than you do.  I once had to tell Josh Bozeman to "stay on your own side of the argument!" when he picked the "wrong" side.

Date: 2006/01/22 13:41:47, Link
Author: keiths
Another good Red Reader story.  He criticized me once for not agreeing often enough with ID supporters:
Quote
Red Reader wrote:
I see Dave, Josh, Pav (in the this post) continously making good points–logical, fair, reasoned.
But the contrarian never acceeds a single point.
Why is this? The law of averages suggests that between them–Dave, Josh & Pav (not to mention numerous others in different threads)–they would by complete accident make at least one statement in three (more or less) that the contrarian could agree with.

Apart from the bizarre probabilistic reasoning and the oxymoronic idea of Josh Bozeman making a "logical, fair, reasoned" point, the fact was that I did agree with ID supporters (including DaveScot -- forgive me) when they said something sensible.  I even defended Bill Dembski on a couple of occasions when he was unfairly attacked.
Quote
I wrote to Red:
Perhaps you can show me the many comments in which you agree with Darwinians, so I’ll have an example to follow.

Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.

Date: 2006/01/22 21:25:32, Link
Author: keiths
My sister dated a guy named Darwin in high school in Indiana (not a particularly evolution-friendly place).  To my knowledge he was never taunted for it, but he was also the starting varsity quarterback which granted him a certain degree of immunity.

Date: 2006/01/23 10:50:14, Link
Author: keiths
DaveScot has heaped scorn on many (if not most) ID supporters in the past week.  No wonder they're rebelling against him.
Quote
From a letter to the Kansas Board of Education from Elie Wiesel and 37 other Nobel laureates:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Quote
DaveScot wrote regarding the above definition:
As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process. (From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689 )

Quote
DaveScot again, scolding Red Reader:
I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself.  
(From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697 )

True to form, Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable, disparaging them for trying to "cling to a strawman version of ID."  Whether he realizes it or not, he also slams ID leaders who reject common descent, including Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyer.

Best of all, he manages to contradict himself.  Here is Dave responding to a comment of mine on December 24, 2005:
Quote
DaveScot wrote:
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?
(From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 )

Quote
Wonderpants asks:
Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before that place consists of DaveScot talking to himself, with even the IDers having been banned?

I'm expecting him to stage a late night coup and ban the other moderators (including Dembski).  Let's hope the server is under Dembski's physical control so he can hit the reset button.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to think sir_toejam is right that Dembski wants DaveScot to run the blog into the ground so that he can dismiss it as a few months of "street theater."

Keep going, Dave.  You're doing great!

Date: 2006/01/23 11:53:31, Link
Author: keiths
Earlier, stevestory quoted a commenter on UD who suggested that DaveScot give up his role as moderator:
Quote
 
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.

The commenter's name was 'Shane', and he complained that his post had been deleted the first time around.

Guess what? It's been deleted for a second time.

Complain about DaveScot, no matter how honestly or constructively, and you're out of there.

Like I said, Dave, you're doing great!  Keep at it!

Date: 2006/01/23 12:44:55, Link
Author: keiths
haceaton,
Giving your son an unusual first name can lead to later political success.  Check out these names of southern politicians who hold (or held) prominent elected offices:

Lauch Faircloth
Erskine Bowles
Saxby Chambliss
Hale Boggs
Wyche Fowler
Kaneaster Hodges
Lawton Chiles
Strom Thurmond

Date: 2006/01/23 13:36:28, Link
Author: keiths
This may be nothing new to you veteran PTers, but I'm seeing John Davison in action for the first time and I'm finding it quite amusing.  After a detailed description of how to induce "semi-meiotic" reproduction, John declares:
Quote
Now pay attention FUNDAMENTALISTS EVERYWHERE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE to what I am about to say.
This expermental procedure could offer a rational, scientifically based explanation for both the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well as a potential demonstration of the Virgin Birth of Christ. It has already been done with frogs. Don’t forget who told you so. That does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to either dogma although I may have a death bed conversion. I haven’t decided yet. Now lets get cracking with some real experiments and stop all this empty rhetoric.

I'll bet the Christians on UD are loving that.  Who invited him back?  Oh, yeah... it was DaveScot.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:43:54, Link
Author: keiths
Russell wrote:
Quote
One of the great "what ifs" of history: what if Julian had reigned as long as Constantine?

Then we'd be having all the same arguments with Jupiterian fundamentalists.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:03:38, Link
Author: keiths
stevestory wrote:
Quote
LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

I offered Dave some assistance, but my comment was deleted:
Quote
Hey Dave,

You want some help convincing Red Reader and Saxe of the truth of common descent?

You seem a bit beleaguered lately.

Regards,
Keith S.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:13:11, Link
Author: keiths
Russell,
You're probably right.  I have a somewhat pessimistic view of humanity's propensity to produce large numbers of dogmatists, regardless of historical circumstance.  Modern Europe seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

If Julian ever has a sibling, any thoughts on what you'd name him or her?

Date: 2006/01/23 17:31:28, Link
Author: keiths
Julie Stahlhut wrote:
Quote
Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity.  What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?

I'm fascinated by the question, especially since I was raised as a literalist Christian and then had to reason my way out of it in adolescence.  Ocellated (a Christian who accepts evolution) has a post on this topic on his blog.  I added my two cents' worth in a comment.
http://www.ocellated.com/2006....olution

Date: 2006/01/23 17:51:31, Link
Author: keiths
Pro-ID Shane, who suggested that Dave step aside as moderator, tried posting his comment for a third time after seeing it deleted twice.  This time Dave left it standing but disemvoweled it.

Shane's plea:
Quote
nd pls dn’t dlt ths pst, fr th 3rd tm.

Date: 2006/01/24 06:42:14, Link
Author: keiths
Zardoz wrote:
Quote
As far as Dave espousing common descent; that has been his view ever since I first came in contact with his views some time ago, it's no secret at UD.

A month ago DaveScot was still claiming to be agnostic on the issue:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606

Of course, you can distinguish the two (unless the Designer is perverse and "plants" the evidence to make common descent appear to be true).

Date: 2006/01/24 07:47:42, Link
Author: keiths
Charliecrs wrote:
Quote
the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

No, Charlie.  Many questions asked and successfully answered.  And the evidence comes not only from the fossil record, but also from molecular biology, the geographic distribution of species and fossils, vestigial structures, embryology, and more.
Quote
came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible believers thought it was ?

I don't have the contempt for "bible believers" that you are apparently expecting.  I was raised as a biblical literalist and so I can empathize with those who still accept the Bible as God's word, although I no longer do so.
Quote
because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ? therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

Yes, the Earth is very old.  This by itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution to have occurred.
Quote
because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ? and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

Yes, but not just the fossil evidence.  Also genetic similarities, morphological and molecular homologies, and the chromosomal fusion data that has recently come to light.
Quote
Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.

It's not Darwin I accept, but evolution.  As for understanding it, you might find it beneficial to learn more about evolution so that you'll know why its proponents find it to be such a compelling explanation for life's diversity.

Date: 2006/01/24 14:15:03, Link
Author: keiths
Mr Christopher wrote:
Quote
Now get this, I personally believe once I am dead I am done.  Finished.  Worm food.  In spite of this my life has much meaning, lots of things matter, and I have never advocated killing Jews, or anyone for that matter.  I have never injured another person or advocated it.  What gives?  Am I abnormal?

On behalf of Josh Bozeman, allow me to inform you that you are abnormal, but not for a Darwinist.  You are like all of the other cowardly Darwinists who are afraid to face up to the implications of their godless ideology.  Under your philosophy, love and morality are illusory.  It is hypocritical of you to be nice to children and pets.  Please commence raping, pillaging, and stealing candy from babies immediately, so that we can blame Darwinism for your crimes.  This is crucial, as the scientific arguments against Darwinism seem to be going nowhere.

Date: 2006/01/24 18:21:07, Link
Author: keiths
Borges said "I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."

I could go for that, along with a private room for occasional, uh, conversations with the young, attractive assistant librarians.

Date: 2006/01/25 06:21:12, Link
Author: keiths
stevestory wrote:
Quote
He [DaveScot] can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem.

Imagine what it must have been like to work with Dave.  He also mentioned once on UD that he has children (poor souls).

Russell wrote:
Quote
"marching orders", "free reign", "purges", "fearless leader"...anyone detect a pattern here?

Dave confirms the pattern in this quote from UD:
Quote
I believe in a chain of command and unquestioning loyalty to it. One follows the orders of those higher in the chain and gives orders to those lower in it. Mission objectives are given, rules of engagement are defined, then mission leaders take the initiative to get the job done. Bill offered me the job of blog czar and I accepted. I then received my marching orders and got on with it. Czar is hardly suggestive of democracy or gentle persuasion. If he wanted a czar that’s what he got. If not then I’m the wrong person for this position.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:59:53, Link
Author: keiths
That thread is hilarious.  It looks like ID's "Big Tent" may be too cozy for Bombadill and DaveScot.

For the record, I agree with DaveScot that many people (especially fundamentalist Christians) don't like to hear about the complexity of animals' social interactions, since acknowledging them makes humans seem less special -- less "created in God's image."

Date: 2006/01/25 18:18:58, Link
Author: keiths
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned these factors:

1. Kooks are like snowflakes.  No two are exactly alike, and each is fascinating in his or her own way (though it does get old listening to the same kooks over and over -- it helps to have a steady stream of new kooks).

2.  The whole question of why people (both kooks and non-kooks) believe what they believe is extremely interesting.

3. It's entertaining to watch kooks in extremis.  Some of my best belly laughs of the past year have come from watching the goings-on at Uncommon Dementia (no offense to the honest and polite ID proponents there who are unfortunately overshadowed by the goofy or rude ones).

4. Defending a position properly requires knowing the subject matter thoroughly.  Even answering a kook will sometimes cause you to learn something new or to think through your position more carefully.

5. It's good to know your opponents' arguments as well as or better than they do, because then you can be confident that you're testing your own beliefs against the best available counterarguments.  Continued testing is the best prophylactic against complacent acceptance of comfortable (but wrong) ideas.

Having said all that, I think it's important to take a break if you start finding yourself to be more irritated than entertained.  There are plenty of intelligent and articulate Darwinians available to "cover" for you until you're ready to rejoin the fray.

Date: 2006/01/28 13:52:25, Link
Author: keiths
PuckSR says of DaveScot:
Quote
Maybe someday he will become more of a skeptic and seek more rational solutions for his problems, but right now the ID/creationist movement has a guy on their side who they can hold up as a posterboy....despite the fact that he represents only a very, very, very slim minority of ID believers.

Dave doesn't usually own up to his mistakes, but he does surreptitiously change his opinions in response to countervailing evidence.  Witness his conversion over the last month from agnostic to believer on the common descent issue.  It wouldn't surprise me to see him become a neo-Darwinian as more evidence comes to light.

As for Dave being a "posterboy" for the ID movement, forget about it.  He's not smart enough, and any intelligence he does display is overshadowed by his infantile demeanor.

David Berlinski is ID's real agnostic posterboy.  He's a lot smarter than Dave, has credentials, and is much less obnoxious. He also writes better (if a bit floridly).

What they have in common is a desire to see themselves as principled intellectual loners who have followed the evidence into the wilderness while the scientific establishment remains sheep-like in well-worn pastures.

Date: 2006/01/28 16:29:29, Link
Author: keiths
Looks like Orville Johnson is giving his 56K modem (or his anonymous proxy) a workout.  But he is incorrect about DaveScot's views on common descent.  On December 23, I asked Dave (based on a prior comment of his):
Quote
I’m confused. I thought, based on your front-loaded panspermia idea, that you accepted common descent. Or are you agnostic on the issue?

DaveScot replied:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

(From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/606 )

For the record, it's quite easy to distinguish between common descent and common design, unless the designer mimics common descent.

And PuckSR: Nice scam for getting unbanned at Uncommon Dementia.  I hope it works!

Date: 2006/01/29 06:36:18, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Working theory: all of the 'O. Johnson' posts in fact come from John Davison, who clearly has WAY too much time on his hands.

There are also some unmistakable DaveScotisms in the O. Johnson posts.  I think it's both JAD and Dave, and maybe some others from UD.

Date: 2006/01/29 13:27:19, Link
Author: keiths
Sorry for feeding the trolls, but common descent vs. "common design" is a frequent source of confusion over at Uncommon Dementia and might be worth addressing here.

"Otto the Orthopedist" wrote:
Quote
If common descent cannot be logically distinguished from common design the only position one may take on it is to be agnostic.  One may have a preference for one or the other based on various factors but one cannot completely rule out either.

Otto,
If an omnipotent deity of unknown temperament is running amok, you have no way of being logically certain of ANY empirical observation of the outside world (cf. Descartes and the "evil demon").  Does the Sun truly exist, or is a deity fooling us?  Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old, or did the deity just make it look that way?  GW Bush "hisself" might be illusory, but DaveScot voted for him.  Why doesn't Dave claim to be agnostic regarding the President's existence, if logic "requires" it?

Quote
Feel free to describe a test which can distinguish between common descent in the past and one or more deities in the past creating various organisms ex nihilo working from a common template.

Construct phylogenetic trees based on multiple morphological and molecular characters.  Common design does not require similarity between the trees.  Common descent demands a high degree of similarity.

The only way to get similar trees with common design is if the designer is mimicking common descent. As Dave and John like to say, write that down.  And pass it on to all of the other Ottos.

Quote
I'm all ears, honey.

Otto, dear, talk to your colleagues in plastic surgery.  They can fix that, you know.

Keith S.

Date: 2006/01/29 15:30:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
I bet the  Dover defendants' legal team is just kicking itself for not having sought the legal advice of DaveScot.

Indeed.  And shame on Judge Jones for upholding the Constitution when Dave could have explained his proper role as a puppet of the executive branch.

Dave's response when the Dover ruling was announced:
Quote
Judge Jone’s [sic] career just ended. He was appointed by President Bush and just now ruled against the president’s wishes. It’s a good thing he’s got a lifetime appointment because that’s the last appointment he’ll ever get.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/587#comments

More of Dave's fascistic, chain-of-command thinking.

Date: 2006/01/30 02:09:37, Link
Author: keiths
They've been publishing David Berlinski's anti-evolutionary screeds since at least 1996.

Date: 2006/01/30 20:22:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
You do know that God is English?

I thought Sepp Blatter (FIFA president) was God.  But as a Yank, I have only a passing acquaintance with European religious customs.

(I listen to the rituals on the BBC.  Pretty words that mean nothing to me:  FIFer, UEFer, Sepp Blatta, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Frankfurter Allgemeine (oh wait, that's a newspaper), and my favorite: Galatasaray.)

As for Falwell, wacky as he is, he looks oddly sane next to Pat Robertson.

For an amusing take on the Creation Museum that Falwell mentions, see "Greetings From Idiot America" by Charles Pierce:

http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html

Date: 2006/01/30 20:45:24, Link
Author: keiths
ID's "Big Tent" is shrinking rapidly over at UD, and it looks like the "common designists" are being left out in the rain.

Date: 2006/02/01 00:11:05, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Who predicted the end of January?

It looks like stevestory is the winner, assuming we don't find the stone rolled away from the tomb in three days.  His prediction was made 21 days ago:
Quote
Posted by steve s on January 10, 2006 11:36 PM (e)

If anybody wants to start a dead pool on DaveScot’s administration, I’m in for the last week of January.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments

Congratulations, Steve!

Date: 2006/02/01 00:28:02, Link
Author: keiths
DaveScot is still gunning for the "common designists":
Quote
At the end of the day we still the law of nature that life comes from life, an overwhelming number of points of similarity in the genetic code, and the best scientific objections to a single common ancestor (Woese and Doolittle) still saying that all plants, animals, fungi, and protists share a single common ancestor.

What am I missing here? Where is the scientific evidence to refute common descent?

Comment by DaveScot — February 1, 2006 @ 4:09 am

Date: 2006/02/01 00:51:17, Link
Author: keiths
Looks like we've gotten under Dave's skin:
Quote
To the Peanut Gallery at “After The Bar Closes”

I know you clowns are reading this and just wanted to let you know that I deleted my own article at no one’s urging, I’m still moderating the joint like before, and we’re all still friends here united against bozos clinging to the discredited Darwinian dogma of natural selection.

So there.

Comment by DaveScot — February 1, 2006 @ 5:33 am

Yes, Dave... and it was Harriet Miers' idea to withdraw her nomination, despite the strong protests of President Bush.

Date: 2006/02/03 05:04:22, Link
Author: keiths
Another psychedelic gem from Red Reader (to be read in your best William Shatner "Beat Poet" voice):
Quote

tinabrewer wrote:
“Can such a question hope to be settled in the realm of science which has unfortunately devolved into the playground of mere materialism?”

There’s an old saying, “Don’t give up just before the miracle happens.”

ID is a sea change; its a big idea.
Big ideas are unstoppable for a reason.
For example, the Copernicun universe was a big idea. It took decades.
Time marches on.

Art is a mirror; the movie is a mirror.
Behind the ridicule blindingly, hysterical horrible fear: fear flapping and flopping and flailing away.

Down deep they know they’ve climbed way, way out on a dead limb of Darwin’s tree.
The hear it cracking.
They’ve invested their lives in a worldview in which they are the greatest of the great, elite of elite, the kings of all, the glorious spear of man’s purposless ascent from the primordal ooze: gods of all knowledge; smarter, wiser, more manly…..(even the women!). —craaaack— huh? what was that? It’s the sound of the natural prunning of the branch.

They could have chosen to follow the truth where it leads, the evidence where it leads, but instead the chose the best seats at the universities and the worship of men just like themselves. —-craaaack—-

“I am the Captain of a mighty armada! Bear Left I command you!”
“I am the watchman in a lighthouse on solid rock. I suggest you bear right.”
—-craaaaack—–

Comment by Red Reader — February 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/752#comments

Date: 2006/02/04 10:32:15, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

Date: 2006/02/04 10:34:53, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice.

It's fun to watch John and Dave squabble, split up, and then reunite when they realize they have no other friends.  That's happened at least three times since I started watching.

Here's an interesting take on John's penchant for monologues:
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2006....ce.html

Date: 2006/02/04 19:37:56, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
keiths saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it.

Phishy, it was Inoculated Mind who guessed the password, not me.  And somehow I suspect his self-esteem will survive your disbelief.

As for guessing the password, come on.  We're talking about DaveScot here.  The password was guaranteed to be something hostile, childish, and anti-Darwinian.  Inoculated Mind just followed the evidence where it led...

Date: 2006/02/04 20:21:55, Link
Author: keiths
For those who haven't seen it, Kent Hovind's appearance on "Da Ali G Show":

http://www.thewilsonshouse.com/guest/Ali_G_vs_Kent_Hovind.wmv

Best moment:  A lingering shot of Hovind's stunned face as Ali G accuses him of failing to flush the backstage toilet.

Date: 2006/02/06 06:50:02, Link
Author: keiths
"Cosmo Theorist" Dr. Raj Baldev just made his third appearance on Uncommon Descent, this time posted by a new moderator named Scott:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/784

Don't these guys ever learn from each other's mistakes?

Date: 2006/02/06 07:06:47, Link
Author: keiths
The post has been deleted, but I saved the link to the article on "Dr." Raj Baldev:

http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=854

Some choice excerpts:

Quote
"The Earth is one, the Sun is one, the Moon of the Earth is one, our Solar System is one, the ID behind the entire set up is also one. Only those people can conceive and decipher this truth, who have a particular positive gene in them."

"Please don’t run away from the truth of the Intelligent Design (ID) which is the original and all pervading creating force. It cannot be denied so easily by any needless logic."

"The impression of not supporting the ID openly by you is a dishonest act, this may simply suggest your inferiority complex, which in fact you don’t have. If you have clear faith based on your personal tested experiences that there is some power behind everything, then there should be no shirking from hiding the truth."

"If you stand determined by the right position of the ID, it shall not make you practically inferior than the scientists of any discipline in any sense since faith is an undoubted power of man and not his frailty."

"Don’t lose your moral strength under any scientific argument against ID.  Never think that may fail to prove the existence of Intelligent Design (ID). It is very much there."

Date: 2006/02/08 20:01:55, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Wisconsin may well be evolution’s Waterloo.

Denial and harsh reality are fighting it out in Bill Dembki's head.  Looks like denial is winning at the moment.

Date: 2006/02/13 07:28:57, Link
Author: keiths
I think DaveScot has adopted John Davison as a surrogate father.  It all fits:  the perennial squabbles and reconciliations between the two of them, the instant invitation for JAD to rejoin UD once Dave was put in charge, Dave's habit of leaping to John's defense whenever he thinks John has been slighted, and this very DaveScottish attempt to rile up the folks over here so that they'll give JAD some attention:
Quote
John Davison is not that polite. He has been insulting the #### out of you folks over here and you are letting him get away with it. It's a  mistake if you ask me.

On the other hand, pressmydigitator could be JAD himself begging for some attention, which would be sadder still.

Date: 2006/02/13 10:55:47, Link
Author: keiths
stevestory wrote:
Quote
I can't remember if I was Hovind or Ken Ham who had that hilarious cartoon where a dinosaur, who has an eye on one side of his head, thinks something like "That works real good. I think I'll try real hard to evolve another one!" and he starts straining like unnngggghhhhhh...

Steve,
You're thinking of Jim Pinkoski's masterpiece.  PZ Myers posted the cartoon on Pharyngula last June.  Follow this link and scroll down:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/pinkoski_again/P50/

Date: 2006/02/17 08:00:59, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
The first life on earth could have been what someone (somone who unfortunately seems to be a moderation victim and so I cannot ask directly) called a phylogenetic stem cell.  This just another way of saying life on earth began as a seed, if you will, designed to unfold in a more less planned manner much as a human egg is designed to unfold into a human.

Hi, DaveScot.  So backtracking on trackbacks wasn't humiliating enough for you, and now you want to flog your (and JAD's) front-loading ideas here?

By the way, "phylogenetic stem cell" is an improvement over the Nietzschean "uber-cell", but it still leaves something to be desired. Might I suggest "front-loaded orthogenetic precursor", or FLOP?

Date: 2006/02/20 09:23:41, Link
Author: keiths
Here's JAD's latest blog entry.  He's attempting to burn his last bridge:
Quote
I have a few comments relative the many places where I have been banned, the most recent of which is William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" Where David Springer reigns supreme as the self-described BlogCzar. My comments involve dogs past and present. It goes this way:

Thomas Henry Huxley WAS Darwin's Bulldog but only for about six months.

Richard Dawkins unbelievably STILL IS Darwin's Rottweiler nearly 150 years after the publication of Darwin's great opus minimus.

David Springer IS RIGHT NOW William Dembski's very well trained mongrel cur.

There now I feel somewaht better.

Date: 2006/02/25 13:24:13, Link
Author: keiths
Russell wrote:
Quote
PicoIQ153Farad wrote:

The only way PicoScot has an IQ of 153 is if he got tested before the accident.

Date: 2006/02/26 10:12:43, Link
Author: keiths
jeannot asks PicoScot:
Quote
Why don't you expose your ideas about front-loading?

I can save Davey the trouble.  Here's an exchange we had on UD:
Quote
(Quoting someone else on the thread):
"In 2005, scientists decoded the genome of the chimpanzee to confirm that the chimp is our closest living relative..."

Excuse me, but to reach that conclusion don’t we have to decode the genome of everything else to make sure nothing else is closer?

“descended from a common ancestor.”

Or a common designer, of course.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2005 @ 2:59 am

Quote
DaveScot writes:
“Or a common designer, of course.”

I’m confused. I thought, based on your front-loaded panspermia idea, that you accepted common descent. Or are you agnostic on the issue?

By the way, I never saw a response to my post about some problems with the idea of front-loaded panspermia. Did you see it?

Comment by keiths — December 23, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

Here is the comment I was referring to:
Quote
DaveScot,

If I understand your front-loaded version of the panspermia hypothesis, you’re suggesting that a “seed” for all of life might have been planted on (or drifted to) Earth, and that all of the genetic information needed for the subsequent development of increasingly complex organisms was already present in the seed, just waiting to be “switched on”.

Is that a fair synopsis?

If so, I see some potential problems with the idea:

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Comments?

Comment by keiths — December 18, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

Dave's response:
Quote
I’m agnostic regarding common descent vs. common design. How can one distinguish between the two?

(from other thread)

1. In the case of the seed drifting randomly to Earth, the designers wouldn’t have known in advance what kind of planet the seed would land on. The adaptations appropriate for one habitable planet wouldn’t necessarily be the same as for another with different atmospheric pressure or composition, different ocean salinity, a different length of day, etc. Front-loading in this case would have to cover all possible target planets.

Either not random, or multiple seeds, or adaptive seed. There is no limit on the complexity of the first “seed”. It could be quite large, have onboard computer, etc. Call it a seed-ship.

2. Following up on #1, how would the organisms “know” how to select the appropriate genetic information for the planet they were developing on?

Computers constructed at the nanometer scale are tiny & incredibly powerful. Giving computational ability to something as large as a cell is trivial if you have the ability to engineer things one atom at a time. See Drexler’s “Engines of Creation” here: http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

Also, read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraform

Earth appears to have been terraformed by living organisms. The job of the first cells was to add free oxygen to the atmosphere so that organisms with rapid metabolisms could thrive.

3. How would organisms know when to “switch on” various chunks of genetic information? For example, how would the genes for the human brain remain “off” for billions of years, then suddenly turn on when needed?

See computational capabilities above.

4. Unexpressed genetic material is subject to mutation. Selection can’t weed out the mutants, because it can only operate on genes that ARE expressed. Over millions or even billions of years, the unexpressed material would mutate so badly that it would be useless when it was finally switched on.

Error checking algorithms of sufficient reliability are not only possible they’ve been devised by human engineers in computer science. In a designed cell there’s no reason why that can’t be part of the design. Of all the species on the planet we’ve only discovered about 10% of them. An uber cell, a “library organism”, could be lurking in that other 90%. Moreover, of the 10% we have cataloged we have sequenced the genome of a VERY tiny fraction of those. Saying we’ve scratched the surface on cataloging and understanding all the genomes on all the earth is a vast overstatement. Perhaps an uber-cell is lurking out there. Or perhaps the library has fragmented and is now a distributed database scattered over millions of species.

Comment by DaveScot — December 24, 2005 @ 7:54 am

Dave banned me shortly thereafter, so I never got a chance to respond.

Note that Dave, who likes to criticize the concept of macroevolution because it hasn't been observed in the lab, is proposing the following:

1. An extraterrestrial designer.
2. A "seed-ship" created by the designer.
3. A "nanoscale" computer in the cell.
4. The deliberate terraforming of Earth.
5. An error-correcting mechanism in cells which is different from the one currently known to be operating, and sufficient to protect unexpressed genetic material for billions of years.
6. An uber-cell (aka "library organism").
7. A "distributed database" of genetic information scattered over millions of species.

Not one of these seven chimeras is confirmed by science.  I echo Sir Toejam's question about cognitive dissonance.  Perhaps PicoScot's brain is lacking a consistency detector.

It's also interesting to contrast his professed agnosticism in this thread regarding common descent vs. common design with his recent statement:

Quote
PicoFarad, Feb. 25 2006,16:13    

Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life.

Date: 2006/03/07 08:34:46, Link
Author: keiths
I thought I'd jump in here and back Steve up.  

An individual photon has an energy, but not a temperature.  You can talk about the temperature of a *group* of photons, if they have a certain distribution of wavelengths, but all that means is that a black body at the specified temperature will give off photons having the same distribution.

Specifying the temperature of solar radiation tells you nothing about the amount of energy being delivered to Earth.  The temperature of the radiation stays the same no matter how far you are from the sun, but the energy delivered per unit area drops off dramatically.

DaveScot wrote:
Quote
I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it.

The only thing DaveTard gets right in that quote is that degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature.

What's really funny is that Dave provided a link to the thesaurus as "proof" that temperature and heat are synonymous.  If he's getting his physics education from the thesaurus, it might explain a lot of the inane things he's saying.

It takes a certain amount of heat to boil a cup of water.  Put the same amount of energy into a swimming pool and you won't notice the temperature increase.  Temperature and heat are not the same.

Date: 2006/03/08 05:04:18, Link
Author: keiths
steve story wrote:
Quote
If someday the mask comes off and Davetard, DougMoron, etc all announce that this has been an elaborate performance piece, I will lead a standing ovation.

I'll join the applause, not only out of admiration for their acting skills, but also out of sheer relief that the arrogant yet clueless DaveTard doesn't really exist.  It's mindboggling to see him proved wrong day after day, yet continue to hold forth confidently on things he knows nothing about.  Usually it's insecure people who feel the need to boast as much as Dave does, but an insecure person would surely find it unbearable to be as consistently (and publicly) wrong as Dave.  My current theory is that he is insecure, but with a fortress-like denial mechanism to shield him from awareness of his own stupidity.

Quote
never put jam on a magnet.

That's right.  It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you can get 20 to life for that at Folsom.

Date: 2006/03/09 11:34:41, Link
Author: keiths
SirRamicCap/DaveTard,
You are clearly an electrolytic capacitor, not a ceramic cap.  Ceramics tend to age well. Electrolytics deteriorate badly over time, and they explode if you hook them up backwards.

Let's hear how you would calculate the black body temperature of a single photon.  The fact is, it can't be done, because a black body produces a spectrum of radiation.  A photon of a given energy could be from the low end of one black body spectrum, the middle of another, and the high end of a third.  When physicists talk about the 3K cosmic microwave background, it is a spectrum they are talking about, not a single wavelength.

You like to lecture folks on UD about doing their homework before commenting.  How about taking your own advice?  Better yet, don't.  It's far more entertaining to watch you flounder around, trying to cover your mistakes.

Heat must be synonymous with temperature, because the thesaurus says so, eh Dave?

Date: 2006/03/09 14:31:27, Link
Author: keiths
SirRamicCap/Incapacitard bluffs:
Quote
I asked you a question first.  As soon as you answer it I will answer yours.

Translation:  "Don't know answer... Must buy more time... Need excuse... Um, I asked you first?"

Okay, Dave. Like secondclass said, you need enough photons to establish the distribution.  If the distribution fits the black body profile, you can then establish a black body temperature.  As I wrote in my previous comment:

Quote
You can talk about the temperature of a *group* of photons, if they have a certain distribution of wavelengths, but all that means is that a black body at the specified temperature will give off photons having the same distribution.

Your turn.  How you would calculate the black body temperature of a single photon?

P.S. Thanks for the "Wiendemo" link.  It makes my point beautifully.

Date: 2006/03/10 00:32:47, Link
Author: keiths
Here's something to keep us entertained while DaveTard searches desperately for a face-saving answer to the single-photon question:

Quote
Evolution can’t tell us if “Lucy” had the same number of chromosomes as us, as chimps, or a different number altogether. If they can’t tell us if she’s in the chimp line of descent or our own then what can they reliably tell us?

Comment by DaveScot — December 24, 2005 @ 8:06 am

Quote
Intelligent design can’t tell us if “Lucy” had the same number of chromosomes as us, as chimps, or a different number altogether. If they can’t tell us if she’s in the chimp line of descent or our own, or whether there even IS a line of descent, then what can they reliably tell us?

LOL.

Comment by keiths — December 24, 2005 @ 3:39 pm

Date: 2006/03/10 14:32:10, Link
Author: keiths
You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow.

Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed.

Date: 2006/03/10 15:59:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
To everyone writing to say I’m asserting that Panda’s Thumb is responsible, that is a straw man. Observe the question mark on the subject line and the original line of text at the top. To all of you who don’t know, a question marks denotes a question, not a statement or assertion.

Dave, do you beat your wife out of anger, or for pleasure?

Observe the question mark.  A question mark denotes a question, not a statement or assertion.

Date: 2006/03/10 17:31:41, Link
Author: keiths
Check out this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

After you've read it, get back to us if you still have questions.

Date: 2006/03/11 08:51:39, Link
Author: keiths
Arden,

Regarding your confession, isn't it also true that you are a card-carrying member of the American Communist Lawyer's Union (ACLU)?  And your photo bears a striking resemblance to someone known to be involved in the assassination of President Kennedy...

Warmly,
Kent Hovind

Date: 2006/03/11 10:00:18, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Dr. Dino:
You've found me out.

While we're at it, where were you on the date of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction?   And aren't you personally acquainted with Jolene, the shameless hussy who seduced Bobby Sue's husband on episode #633 of the Jerry Springer show?

In Christian humility,
Kent Hovind

Date: 2006/03/11 11:47:58, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
'Your momma'? What, is Dave having some kind of flashback to his past career as a Marine sergeant? Next thing you know he'll be barging in here, calling us all 'maggots', and telling us to drop and give him twenty.

No, he's regressing much further, to his elementary school days.  Check out this schoolyard bully taunt from same thread:
Quote
If you don’t like my opinion that’s just too darn bad as I really couldn’t care much less what you think. So there. -ds

Date: 2006/03/11 18:12:07, Link
Author: keiths
Aardvark,

You're missing the self-evident point that criticizing religion is "hate speech", while saying bad things about atheism is simply acknowledging the truth.

If you haven't absorbed this, you haven't been spending enough time at Uncommon Descent.

In deep Christian humility,
Kent Hovind

Date: 2006/03/11 20:26:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 11 2006)
That's right. after making an obvious, middle-school-essay mistake, he then refuses to admit it on a thread about intellectual honesty. Do you know how few unintentional ironists can play at that level, day after day? We may never see a backcourt like DaveTard and DougMoron again. Enjoy it while you can, fans.

Steve,
Spoken like a true connoisseur.  As a fellow aficionado, I commend to you the following recording, featuring musical genius and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard performing his composition, "Thank You For Listening":

http://www.ronthemusicmaker.org/eng10.ram

Dave and Doug can only dream of playing at L. Ron's level.

In awe,
Keith S.

Date: 2006/03/11 20:46:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 11 2006,00:18)
I don't think Dave Tard is humiliated at all.  On the rare occassion when he realizes he is wrong, I think he could care less mainly because his followers/listeners don't know any better, or they too could care less.  

Mr. Christopher,

Believe you me, it bugs the crap out of Dave to be proven wrong.  Check out this comment he felt compelled to add, apropos of nothing, to the Berlinski thread on PT:
Quote
This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others.

The fact that he bothered to look that up shows how desperate he is to salvage a shred of dignity after the "black body photon temperature" fiasco.

Date: 2006/03/13 13:20:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ March 13 2006, 18:43)
Davetard banned someone for saying Paul Nelson is a Young Earth Creationist, a fact admitted to by Paul Nelson.

Unless you have some evidence I find acceptable that I am profoundly retarded I think you should take your comments elsewhere. -dt

Date: 2006/03/13 17:22:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Stranger than fiction @ Mar. 13 2006,19:55)
Anyone who thinks that Dave can be dissuaded by criticism doesn't understand him.  He's desperate for attention of any kind, and has no qualms about alienating his readers since the internet will always provide him with more.  Unable to achieve recognition any other way, Dave settles for infamy as an immature, dull-witted jerk.

Dave may not care whether anyone likes him, but believe me, he cares about whether he is respected.  A big part of that is wanting to be right.  I've been watching him for a few months now, and I've seen the elaborate gyrations he goes through to avoid admitting a mistake to anyone, friend or foe.  Accurate criticism cuts him to the bone, which is why he invents reasons to ban intelligent skeptics from UD.

It's also why he invents new aliases to come here (and to PT) to defend his well-trampled name.

Quote
...instead I'm going to spend some time reading.  Then I'm going to read to my daughter, who loves to learn.

I've had it with your crap, STF.  I've been reading Scientific American cover-to-cover each month for more than 30 years, and I've forgotten more than your daughter has learned in her whole life from books.  (I came up with the idea for the printing press long ago and only recently discovered that Gutenberg had the same idea).  Right now I'm sitting on my boat, next to my waterfront property (purchased with my stock options -- did I tell you I used to work at Dell?), wondering with my high IQ why people like you make me do their research for them.  Start reading, or you're history. -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 04:15:08, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (thurdl01 @ Mar. 14 2006,07:34)
Now, I'm new at this whole parsing the UDites thing...

"UDites"-- I like it.

The assonance with "Luddites" gives the right connotation of a group of antediluvian diehards fighting tooth and nail against modernity.

Dismissive speech leads to dismissive actions, but the one being dismissed is you.  Sayonara. -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 13:23:56, Link
Author: keiths
Here's a good one from the days when Red Reader and I still got along.  Watch how he interprets the following passage from an abstract Dembski posted:
Quote
ABSTRACT: “Noise” had a glorious birth. While there were rumblings before 1905, it was Einstein’s explanation of Brownian motion that started the field. His motivation was not the mere explanation of the erratic movement of pollen, but much bigger: that noise could establish the existence of atoms.

Quote
"Einstein’s motivation was…that noise could establish the existence of atoms. ”
Hmmm. As in “_And God said_, ‘Let there be a firmament…’” (Gn 1:6) ?

Comment by Red Reader — December 9, 2005 @ 8:47 pm

Quote
Red Reader was being sardonic, I’m sure, but social constructivists actually do believe that Einstein, or Dalton, or Democritus really created atoms. Beaumie Kim says:

“Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity. Members of a society together invent the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention.”

Good thing nobody’s thought of intelligent design… Oops, too late.

Comment by keiths — December 10, 2005 @ 3:17 am

Quote
Sorry, no, I was not being sardonic.

I actually think it is rather amazing that a credible physicist advanced a theory suggesting that matter (atoms) may have been created by “noise” AND that an ancient record suggests the same thing: that “the firmament” (matter) was created by a “saying”, a “spoken word”, a modulated frequency of some kind, a subset of “noise”.

My first comment was too clever by half.

Comment by Red Reader — December 10, 2005 @ 9:01 am

Quote
Actually it appears the universe was ordered by noise. One might even, without too much of a stretch, call it the voice of God.

In the comment below the second link is general reading on it and the third has .wav files where you can listen to it:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/497#comment-15342

Comment by DaveScot — December 10, 2005 @ 11:18 am

Quote
I thought it was a play on words, but Red Reader assures me he was quite serious:

“Sorry, no, I was not being sardonic.
I actually think it is rather amazing that a credible physicist advanced a theory suggesting that matter (atoms) may have been created by “noise” AND that an ancient record suggests the same thing: that “the firmament” (matter) was created by a “saying”, a “spoken word”, a modulated frequency of some kind, a subset of “noise”.”

Red is referring to this sentence from the article:

“His [Einstein’s] motivation was not the mere explanation of the erratic movement of pollen, but much bigger: that noise could establish the existence of atoms.”

Red, “establish” is being used here in the sense of “provide overwhelming evidence for”. It does not mean “create”.

Example: “Red Reader’s comments establish that he is not a Darwinian.”

Check out an article on Brownian motion to see why it provides evidence for the existence of atoms (or more properly, molecules). It’s a simple concept, but interesting.

Comment by keiths — December 12, 2005 @ 9:35 am


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/569

What’s the difference between "establish" and "create" and what is the significance of these words? A wrong answer means you’re out of here. A right answer concedes my point. Enjoy. -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 13:48:23, Link
Author: keiths
Althea,

You can find the entire text of the foreword here.

Date: 2006/03/14 19:48:37, Link
Author: keiths
For problems with your santorum, my doctor recommends Preparation H.

Date: 2006/03/16 06:11:25, Link
Author: keiths
There were two thermo threads.  DaveTard's humiliation occurs on this one:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886#comments

Date: 2006/03/16 06:27:51, Link
Author: keiths
DaveTard reaches the pinnacle of blissful self-unawareness:
Quote
If you can’t concede a point you are hereby invited to leave this blog. -ds

Date: 2006/03/16 12:00:55, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
March 16, 2006

Double Helix Nebula
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/15doublehelix

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4:04 pm

Are we supposed to infer that the Designer put the double helix there?  Dembski is wisely silent on this, though I note that he filed this under "Intelligent Design", not "science".

Date: 2006/03/16 12:06:31, Link
Author: keiths
Oops, forgot to threaten/ban myself...

You'd be wise to be silent, too, or you may need to find another blog in the galactic center. -ds

Date: 2006/03/20 06:04:07, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
I’ve removed comments about Valerie. Stay on topic.
Comment by DaveScot — March 19, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

Now even that comment has been removed.  Shades of Dembskian "street theater."

You're next, pal.  And this ain't no rehearsal. -dt

Date: 2006/03/21 15:08:10, Link
Author: keiths
tnewell wrote:
Quote
Your post seeems to give the impression that you think the manner in which Tresa Waggoner is currently being treated is acceptable.

No, it’s not acceptable. She should have been terminated outright and not been given a paid vacation first. -ds

I was just about to complain about how boring UD had become, but DaveTard came through with a brilliantly idiotic and jingoistic diatribe.

My favorite part of the thread so far is this comment by crandaddy, who indirectly labels DaveTard a "knee-jerk reactionary wacko":

Quote
I think people are just WAY too sensitive! The world will not come to an end as a result of showing a bunch of public elementary school kids a performance of Faust. Nor will it come to an end as a result of acknowledging to them the fact that Christmas is the holiday on which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. What worries me are all the knee-jerk reactionary wackos out there who file lawsuits and get people fired from their jobs at the slightest whim!

Comment by crandaddy — March 21, 2006 @ 7:40 pm

There's a lot of passive aggression among the subcommandants at UD these days.

Date: 2006/03/21 15:44:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
gss y jst dn’t lk bng shwn p fr th fl tht y r, d y? Cn’t tk t whn smn ls, mch smrtr thn yrslf, pnts t hw y r wrng s y spw t pc f bl t gys lk Mtt Yng jst whn th dfnd tchr wh hs clrly bn trtd nfrly? Hw bt, nstd, rgng th fcts - h, frgt, y dn’t hv ny fcts tht spprt yr pstn s y s th nly thng y d hv - scrchng, lk bnsh.

ly dds n tht y wll cnsr r nt pst ths rply t ll.

Hv nc dy y ‘trd.

Comment by JKVisFX — March 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm

Re-emvoweled:
Quote
I guess you just don’t like being shown up for the fool that you are, do you? Can’t take it when someone else, much smarter than yourself, points out how you are wrong so you spew out a piece of bull (?) at guys like Matt Young just when they defend a teacher who has clearly been treated unfairly? How about, instead, arguing the facts - oh, I forgot, you don’t have any facts that support your position so you use the only thing you do have - screeching, like a banshee (?)

I lay odds on (?) that you will censor or not post this reply at all.

Have a nice day you ‘tard.

Date: 2006/03/22 06:19:19, Link
Author: keiths
Doug Moron retakes the lead in the asininity stakes, comparing Faust to a porn video:
Quote
Your point seems to be that somehow a caring mother’s questioning of the teacher’s faith vindicates her (the teacher) from the crime of conspicuous emotional and spiritual abuse of innocent children. Since when are 6 year old children able to judge the moral value of entertainment media? Any parent of a first grader would know that it is not a slippery slope; it is quite simply barbarian indoctrination to expose children to such crud. Put a six year old in front of a porno and they will react quite predictably. Note the esteemed Ms. Waggoner’s words:

“They were on the edge of the seat,”, and “Nobody came to me crying, no one wanted to leave.”

Any parent who has happened upon their six year old child staring at a porn internet video knows this is exactly the response to expect. On the edge of their seat. Don’t want to leave. Not crying. Thank you ACLU, for bringing porn into public schools and libraries so it truly doesn’t matter what children are taught at home.

Ms Waggoner: your next step is to recruit the help of the ACLU. They’d happily protect your right to screw up our children with your filth. Locked behind closed doors in public schools, parents have no defense. You might as well bring in live sex shows and indoctrinate our children in Kindergarten so they’re ready for all the pain and agony of the adulthood they’re being groomed for by the primary “defenders” of our democracy: the ACLU.

Date: 2006/03/23 08:13:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Stranger than fiction @ Mar. 23 2006,11:55)
Anyone know what dougmoran does for a living?  How does he know 30 to 40 MD's well enough to have had conversations about evolution with them?

He seems to be a manager, judging from this quote:
Quote

I use this Monty Python scene as a metaphor for Intellectual Dishonesty to help focus scientists and engineers on the importance of following the evidence where it leads (being intellectually honest). As a reminder, I show the video clip to my staff and their organizations once per year. I remind them that the success or failure of our business depends on their complete objectivity and intellectual honesty.

Can you imagine working for a pious blowhard like Doug Moron?  I'd love to hear what his subordinates say behind his back after being forced, for the umpteenth time, to watch the Black Knight scene and hear a hypocritical sermon on intellectual honesty.

Date: 2006/03/23 08:28:40, Link
Author: keiths
More on Doug's background:
Quote
Just a quick note to introduce myself - name is Doug Moran. I’ve been invited to occaisionally post items of interest about ID on this blog. In my day job I am Director, R&D at a technology company (that I prefer not to name for now) where I oversee research and development activities focused on communications and image processing systems. I’m a UCLA alumni (’84 - go Bruins!) with a degree in Electrical Engineering, minor in Economics, and strong interest in all things Physics (started out as a Physics major but my wife “helped” me see the economic benefits of switching to engineering  . My interest in ID is twofold: first, I find the science/mathematics behind ID theory facinating in their own right. Second, I marvel at the convulsions of the general scientific community as we all observe the emergence of a foundational new scientific theory. How often in one’s lifetime can that happen?

For my part, I promise to make every effort to be completely objective, not attack anyone’s beliefs, and focus just on the topics of Intelligent Design.

Juxtapose that "promise" with the following:
Quote
First prizes in the worldwide competition for most hypocritical religious zealots and most vile intellectual terrorists go to the ACLU.

Date: 2006/03/28 09:58:42, Link
Author: keiths
stevestory wrote:
Quote
I mean, GOD####, that is magnificently retarded. I mean, that post is standing at the pinnacle of a mountain, it's cape flapping in a breeze, sunset casting a golden glow across it's chiseled features, gloriously retarded. It is the ne plus ultra of tard. It is to other retarded posts as Michael Jordan was to Craig Ehlo, on a distinct plane above even the world's best.

DaveTard to Alan Fox on John Davison's blog, after a series of anti-French tirades:
Quote
You're like the ne plus ultra of stooge. I couldn't ask for better setups than you give me.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Steve.  If only it meant something to be flattered by Dave.

Date: 2006/03/29 04:55:23, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 29 2006,02:45)
That makes me a liar again, as I said there were no lurkers.

Hi Alan,
Sorry for blowing your cover.  I visit Davison's blog from time to time.  It's not as much fun as the Dembskitarium, but it does have its absurdist charms, like:

- Dave's lame attempt at a comeback when you tweaked him about the 2nd law.
- JAD's strange masturbatory obsession.
- Only one thread, but 823 comments.
- An extended discussion of the geography of the Maginot Line.
- The pitiful spectacle of Davison trying to steer the conversation back to his PEH as the bullets whiz by over his head.

Date: 2006/03/29 05:00:48, Link
Author: keiths
Speaking of the 2nd law, we're still waiting for an answer from DaveScot/PicoGonad on the black body temperature of a single photon.

How about it, Dave?

Date: 2006/03/29 22:34:37, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 29 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
Davetard is so February. DougMoron is the new hotness!

Don't forget Barry Arrogant.  He's new, but quite retarded.  Still, it will take a few readings of No Free Lunch to elevate him to DougMoron's level.

Date: 2006/03/29 23:07:30, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (DaveTard @ Mar. 29 2006)
The knowledge of how to crow like a rooster and pick up corn with his pecker is contained in every egg destined to hatch into a rooster.

I don't know if he can pick up corn with his pecker, but Dave2LoT certainly knows how to crow like a rooster.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/967#comments

Date: 2006/04/09 20:54:05, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Faid @ April 09 2006)
Is it possible that Dave actually believes the "space aliens" version of ID? And that's why he claims he's agnostic?

Dave does seem to believe in front-loaded panspermia, though he gets testy when asked to justify it, especially if someone asks where the designer or designers came from.

Dave's support of FLP comes up in the following thread, intertwined with some entertaining attempts by Josh Bozeman to justify the Bible's treatment of slavery. For those who suspect that Dave is a closet Christian, note that he slams the God of the Bible as "one bipolar messed-up God" in one of his comments.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/587

Based on this and many other Davisms, I think he truly is religiously agnostic.  At other times he clearly hides behind the word "agnostic", as when he claims to be agnostic on the issue of common descent, but then proceeds to slam his fellow IDers as "unscientific" when they argue for separate creation.

Date: 2006/04/10 00:03:35, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Faid @ April 10 2006,03:37)
Dembski messes with universal laws: CSI should be CSI, either here or on Cygnus X. If Dave has given this any kind of serious thought, he must see there's no way of avoiding Occam and his swingin' blade...

Serious thought is not something Dave indulges in.  He's much too busy with the important work of huntin' down atheist liberal commie church-burnin' Ebola boys and calling his fellow IDers "wusses"...

Below is a link to a  thread where I point out that Dembski's ideas, if true, would require an ultimate supernatural source of CSI.  Dave naturally disagrees, but ends up appealing to the authority of a video game, since he can't come up with a better argument.

An amusing moment in the thread:
Quote
“why did Darwin say that Christianity contained “damnable doctrine” and that he could not understand why anyone would want it to be true?”

Because Darwin was a freak that’s why.

A real freakin’ freaky freak. Freakazoid. Freakaumundo.

Comment by DaveScot — December 22, 2005 @ 6:44 pm
Quote

DaveScot that is the first thoughtless post I’ve ever seen from you.

Comment by avocationist — December 22, 2005 @ 7:50 pm

We can be sure it wasn't the last.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/603

Date: 2006/04/10 01:41:15, Link
Author: keiths
Reading some of those old threads reminded me of how much more interesting Uncommonly Dense was when the half-life of a dissenter was more than two comments.

To quantify the damage DaveTard has done to the blog, I computed some statistics for December 2005 (the last month Dembski was in charge) and March 2006 (under Sgt. Dave):

(Note that Dembski mothballed the blog on December 26th, so it was only in operation 26 days during the month).

Contributors (Dec): 1    (Dembski)
Contributors (Mar): 10   (Dembski + 9 others)

Posts (Dec): 75 in 26 days   (2.9/day)
Posts (Mar): 103 in 31 days  (3.3/day)

Comments per post (Dec): 24.7
Comments per post (Mar): 12.9

Despite Dave's lame attempts at inflaming the wingnut contingent, he's only getting half the comments per post that Dembski was.

On the other hand, the MTBRR (mean time between retarded remarks) is much lower under DaveTard, so we don't have to work nearly as hard for the same entertainment value.  And without intelligent dissenters to shoot them down, folks like Red Reader (aka glennj) are venturing further out on the crackpot limb.

Date: 2006/04/11 00:43:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2006,12:35)
I think if this thread was disbanded and we all quit talking about Dave he'd be really hurt and really miss the attention. So much of what he talks about these days seems to echo comments we make here. An egomaniac like Dave must love having all sorts of people talking about him.

DaveTard likes attention, it's true, but what he really craves (and never gets) is respect.  Anyone who feels compelled to talk so often about his money, his IQ, his patents, his putative computer expertise, and his Googling speed (!) is clearly insecure and looking for approval.

Notice that he responded within two hours when I posted the stats showing that he gets only half the comments per post that Dembski did.

I think he saw the Head Toady role at UD as his chance to undo his reputation as a blogospheric laughingstock.  He must be disappointed at the results.  Try Googling "DaveScot" (took me 6 seconds) and see how hard it is to find someone other than DaveScot saying something positive about DaveScot.  You know that's got to bug him.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:09:40, Link
Author: keiths
How deliciously hypocritical:

1. Dembski quotes an article describing the fudging of data by scientists, and... fudges the data. He titled the post "The Fetid Little Fingers of Science."  Perhaps the stench is coming from his own hands.

2. Dembski the seminary professor removes the one sentence in that entire excerpt which could be construed as referencing his faith.  Talk about hiding your lamp under a bushel.

Good sleuthing, PointyQ.

Date: 2006/04/15 00:20:24, Link
Author: keiths
ID's Goodwill Ambassador, DaveScot, spreads the cheer:
Quote
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Date: 2006/04/17 22:11:34, Link
Author: keiths
"Design theorist" DaveScot comes to the aid of "Doctor" Kent Hovind in a new post at Uncommonly Dense that is worth reproducing in its full glory:
Quote
Help Save Dinosaur Adventure Land

The authorities in Pensacola, Florida are trying to bulldoze Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land over a building permit dispute. The buildings are all up to code, inspected and found sound, and have stood since 2002 through some of the worst hurricanes Florida has seen in decades.

What is WRONG with everyone? I don’t believe people and dinosaurs lived together like the Flintstones but I sure as heck don’t think a theme park that purports that they did should be shut down because of how fashionalbe it is to bust chops on Christian young earth creationists. This really sucks. I can hardly believe this is the same country I defended in the Marine Corps 30 years ago. I’ve been to Disneyland many times and there’s sure a lot of as-authentic-as-can-be fantasy themes there. This is no different except the theme is young earth creation science and a famous young earth creationist owns the park.

Tell them how you feel. Click here to learn how to help.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 12:16 am

Date: 2006/04/17 22:28:35, Link
Author: keiths
Following the link in DaveTard's post leads to this gem:
Quote
You can get all the details of the history of the four year conflict between Dr. Hovind and the Escambia County building inspections department on my web site www.richardsayshome.com but basically the property and ministry of CSE was given totally to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in 1999 and in obedience to Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” Pastor Mooneyhan instructed the staff to not render to Caesar that which is God’s by asking for a building permit or paying what amounts to a tax on the Church by paying a fee.  He told the county inspectors they were welcome to come anytime and see the work and offer suggestions.  They have come on the property three times and found nothing unsafe or unhealthy but they just can’t get used to the idea that they are not Lord over the Church.

What is WRONG with everyone?  Would you make Jesus pay for a building permit?
Quote
For I hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in;  I was short on cash, and ye waived the building permit.

Date: 2006/04/18 23:25:59, Link
Author: keiths
Is it just my impression, or is DaveScot exhibiting signs of hypertardation lately (even by DaveScot standards)? I'm beginning to think that he's really on our side, and that his goal is to undermine Dembski's blog by making it look idiotic.  

That Hovind thread is a piece of work.

Date: 2006/04/24 19:08:58, Link
Author: keiths
In his latest UD post, Salvador Cordova writes:
Quote
At an IDEA meeting at UVa last fall, before 100 students, I was explaining what ID was. I was trying to communicate how cool it is to be an IDer.

That sounds like a cry for help.  Anyone want to offer Sal some examples of how cool it is to be an IDer?

Date: 2006/05/06 05:46:30, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
This is what Darwinists fear, evidence and logic, so these two foundational precepts of science must be repressed at all cost when it comes to origins. Religiously committed blind-watchmaker Darwinists are in a transparent state of panic, because logic and evidence contradict their creation story, which is foundational to their nihilistic faith.

Comment by GilDodgen — May 5, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

I hereby nominate Gil for a spot in the Tard Hall of Fame, alongside DaveTard and DougMoron.  Speaking of which, I've been jonesing for a hit of DougMoron, but he hasn't posted for a few weeks.  Did he go the way of BarryA?

Date: 2006/05/11 12:55:28, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador bypassed DaveScot to get Dembski's approval for the GMO thread.  Dave fires back:
Quote
Unfortunately I’ve been overruled about closing this comment thread so let the ridicule from the peanut gallery begin. Just keep it civil and it won’t be deleted.

Comment by DaveScot — May 11, 2006 @ 2:04 pm

Quote
This is a sample of what the Cornell IDEA club will be using to argue against Professor MacNeill? If so then I’m afraid I underestimated the thrashing MacNeill is going to deliver unto them.

Comment by DaveScot — May 11, 2006 @ 2:19 p

Date: 2006/05/14 19:56:36, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski eats crow over his smear job on Kevin Padian:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1122

Date: 2006/05/14 23:34:24, Link
Author: keiths
From a commenter on Dembski's apology thread:  
Quote
This is the diference between Evolution critics and Darwinists. While Darwinian skeptics at least try to keep it honest, such mentality is almost (or entirely) absent from the Darwinian camp (The example you gave about Jon Wells is telling).

For keeping the discussion honest and civil, thank you Bill for your public retraction.
God bless you, and keep up with the good work, and with the good science.

Comment by Mats — May 15, 2006 @ 3:41 am

The sad thing is that he seems to be sincere.  Mats must not be aware of Dembski's "street theater" and "Amazon review" escapades; otherwise he would not be able to say those things with a straight face.  

Date: 2006/05/18 16:59:10, Link
Author: keiths
How to argue like DaveScot:
Here's an amusing example of DaveTard's "skill" at argumentation, taken from Salvador's Genetic ID thread at Uncommonly Dense.  A commenter named Hypermoderate has just explained, using Dembski's own words, why Dembski's "specified complexity" argument is circular.

Dave responds:              
Quote
Is this anything like natural selection’s survival of the survivors? You meant to show a tautology, not circular reasoning. You accomplished neither. -ds

Hypermoderate responds:            
Quote
ds,

1. A tautology is a form of circular reasoning (try Googling “tautology circular reasoning”).
2. Why do you think the Dembski quotes are non-circular?

Regards,
Hypermoderate

    Dave's skillful retort:        
Quote
You call what you wrote “reasoning”?  -ds

Let's watch the replay, with translation:

HM:
Dembski's SC argument is circular.

DS:
Is not! Natural selection is circular! (Please ignore the fact that I know NS is not circular, since I accept that it produces things like antibiotic and pesticide resistance). And you think a tautology is circular!

HM:
A tautology is circular.  Can you refute my specified complexity argument?

DS:
Umm....You're stooopid!  So there!

Date: 2006/05/18 20:48:48, Link
Author: keiths
Wes,

Your UD mirror site is a terrific resource for retrieving posts and comments as they appeared before they were deleted or altered by the Thought Police.

The only problem is that we don't get to see the comments that DaveTard censors before they even see the light of day.  Since many of the most interesting commenters are on Dave's moderation list, he gets a chance to see (and delete) the comments before we see them, and before your mirror site gets to archive them.

I have an idea for how we can begin to bypass Dave's censorship:  

1. Mirror all of the UD posts and comments as you do now.
2. Accept new comments at the mirror site (on a per-UD-thread basis).

As word gets around that the mirror site is uncensored, people will start posting comments there rather than on UD.  People who have been banned from UD will be able to comment.  Even most ID supporters will start to prefer the mirror site, because they don't like the Tardlerized version of UD any more than we do.

The beauty of it is that since all posts and comments are mirrored, you won't miss anything by going to the mirror site.  On the other hand, if you stick with DaveTard, you miss all of the posts he censors (and you have to wait half a day for him to approve the ones he doesn't censor).  You also miss all the posts from dozens of thoughtful, interesting people who have been banned at UD for no good reason.

The key would be to organize things on a per-thread basis on the mirror site.   Right now comments on UD end up as separate posts on the mirror site, which makes it hard to get a thread-oriented view of the comments.

What do you think?

Date: 2006/05/19 18:25:55, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski has posted a link to a list of 20 proposed candidates for the title "Fourth Law of Thermodynamics."

I think he's miffed that his "Law of Conservation of Information" didn't make the cut.

It's tough being the "Isaac Newton of information theory" when everyone regards you as more of a Wayne Newton.

Date: 2006/05/19 21:22:02, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ May 19 2006,13:04)
keiths (a hive mind composed of several persons named keith) has an interesting idea...

My name is Legion: for we are many.  Haven't you heard of the NCSE's Project Keith?  It's the evolutionary successor of Project Steve.  All of the Keiths who accept evolution have banded together into a single, powerful Darwinian consciousness which can vaporize Cobb County textbook stickers and copies of Of Pandas and People by the power of sheer thought...              
Quote
...to mirror Dembski's site and allow unfettered comments. I do not think it would work though, because wouldn't it violate copyright laws? Maybe it wouldn't, I don't know.

If Wes's existing blog mirror doesn't violate copyright laws, I can't see why the new one would.  The same information is being replicated in both cases.  However, the UD folks might be able to make a case that we were denying them revenue by decreasing the click-through traffic on their blogads.

To avoid the issue altogether you could do the following:

1. For each new UD post, automatically create a post on our blog which links to the UD post.
2. Folks could start at our blog and follow the link to UD to read the post, the blogads, and any comments left by UD loyalists.
3. By simply hitting the back button, they'd be at a page where they could comment on the post free of DaveTard's censorship.

This thread (the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread) is great for laughing at the goings-on at Dembski's madhouse, and would continue to play that role.  But wouldn't it also be nice to be able to go to a single place where you could see a UD post, read the comments pro and con, and contribute to the discussion without censorship, the way Dembski's blog should have worked in the first place (and the way practically every other blog does)?

Date: 2006/05/22 08:06:55, Link
Author: keiths
Sergeant Doof Tard, USMC.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:10:12, Link
Author: keiths
If Sergeant Doof Tard didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, just to make ID look ridiculous.
Please, Wayne -- whatever you do, leave Davey in charge.

Date: 2006/05/24 01:56:12, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (John_H @ May 24 2006,05:41)
Perhaps it's just because I'm new here, but I am utterly baffled as to why this post would get nixed.

Shalini's post was relevant, polite, and truthful...or in other words, utterly out of place on Doofski's blog.  Hence the banning.
   
Quote
...here we have The Man himself telling someone to shut up and go away just because they disagree with him.

Don't forget, this is the same Doofski who:

1. Praised his own book anonymously on Amazon.com.
2. Panned his opponent's book anonymously on Amazon.com.
3. Raised a stink on UD about Jeffrey Shallit's deposition, and then, when he was shown to be wrong, attempted to erase the evidence.
4. Reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. Smeared Kevin Padian unfairly and then had to publicly apologize.

He is not known for his discretion, especially when he's in a bad mood.  After making an idiot of himself over DaveTard's ACLU post yesterday (Right on, Wayne!), he must be feeling a bit cranky, to shalini's detriment.

Date: 2006/05/24 02:02:43, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (John_H @ May 24 2006,04:58)
Well, this:



has to count as pretty compelling evidence of the divine origin of mathematics, if you ask me. :)

That equation is a thing of beauty, isn't it?

Date: 2006/05/25 11:40:42, Link
Author: keiths
Having humiliated himself by attacking the ACLU over a bogus urban legend, Davey now feels compelled to justify himself by digging up and posting as many ACLU-related issues as possible.

Knowing that people like DaveTard exist is strong motivation to join the ACLU.  I joined the ACLU (and Americans United) after Dover, but if I hadn't done it then, I'd be doing it now.

Keep up the recruiting efforts, Davey!

Date: 2006/05/25 12:25:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (clamboy @ May 25 2006,16:49)
As a new member here, I would like to thank you all for this thread. I have no interest in reading Uncommon Pissant, there are only so many hours in the day. However, coming here every morning to see the latest foolishness puts a smile on my face as I wait for my tea to fully steep.

Entertainment is the one good thing to come out of the ID movement, and UD is a prodigious source of it.  Many of us are addicted.  If this comedic wellspring ever dries up, I think we'll have to put stevestory on methadone.

Date: 2006/05/25 13:08:13, Link
Author: keiths
I'm pretty sure great_ape was being sarcastic with the sodium comment.

Date: 2006/05/26 02:37:03, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (guthrie @ May 26 2006,06:08)
Cant some of you engineers come up with fuses for ironymeters?

If you pray over your irony meter it will repair itself.

Date: 2006/05/29 11:17:03, Link
Author: keiths
Sgt. DimBulb has apparently forgotten his "blackbody photon temperature" humiliation and is now presuming to lecture his intellectual superiors on spectral absorption:
     
Quote ( DoofTard @ May 29 2006)
The color of an object is the light that it doesn’t absorb. Green plants absorb all visible light frequencies EXCEPT green. Black objects absorb it all. White objects reflect it all. This is very basic physics that you should have learned in the sixth grade. -ds

Later, after a commenter named Zachriel has helpfully supplied an absorption spectrum for chlorophyll, Dave writes:              
 
Quote
[sigh] This isn’t introductory physics. Telling me “plants are green” does not support the statement that most of the light is not absorbed. Only a small portion (green light) is actually reflected.

Dave apparently doesn't understand that because of the way the retina is built, many different spectra can result in the same perceived color.  In this case, reflectance is high from blue-green all the way to orange, but Dave insists that only green light is being reflected.

He closes his comment in typical condescending Tard fashion:            
Quote
If there are still parts of this you don’t understand go somewhere else for the answers and come back when you know more. -ds

Dave's been subscribing to Scientific American for 30 years, as he will proudly tell you.  The question is, does he ever actually read it?

As a bonus, he proceeds in his next comment to contradict himself in the space of two sentences (besides spelling compressible and compressibility wrong):
       
Quote
Compressability and information content are synonymous. An uncompressable stream is carrying as much information as physically possible.

Link to thread

Date: 2006/05/29 17:42:44, Link
Author: keiths
Over on the gullibility/incredulity thread, crandaddy pees his pants with excitement:
     
Quote (crandaddy @ May 29 2006)
Wow! Did I read that right?! Nothing?! Nature is simply littered with the appearance of purpose, and NOTHING makes sense in the light of ID?!!! Unbelievable! And to think this comes from a professor of biology from the University of Chicago! We should really be encouraging these people to continue to speak out against ID; they’re digging the grave for their own “theory”!!! I love it!!!

They may be digging a grave, crandaddy, but don't get too excited until you see which theory gets buried.

Date: 2006/05/29 17:46:44, Link
Author: keiths
It occurs to me that "gullibility/incredulity thread" is a pretty accurate description of every thread on Uncommonly Dense.

Gullibility on the part of the sycophants who lap it up, and incredulity on the part of those who are about to be banned.

Date: 2006/05/31 15:58:46, Link
Author: keiths
Some select comments from an old but good thread on UD entitled Why I ruthlessly edit comments on this blog:

From the one and only member (ever) of the Josh Bozeman Fan Club:
Quote
Josh,

What is your website…I like your posts and would like to check it out.

Dan

Comment by Dan — November 30, 2005 @ 7:31 pm

Dan searches for more common ground:
Quote
Cool site Josh,

Do you wrestle? I am a wrestler and I think everyone from your neck of the woods wrestles.

Dan

Comment by Dan — December 1, 2005 @ 12:39 pm

...but Josh dashes his hopes:
   
Quote

Dan-

Thanks, and no I don’t wrestle. There must be something I missed in my neck of the woods.  

Comment by Josh Bozeman — December 1, 2005 @ 7:00 pm


Here's DougMoron (in his pre-contributor days) demonstrating his objectivity:
     
Quote
Red Reader says: “It’s a privilege to participate”.

Ditto from me. I appreciate the privilege to be exposed to the [mostly] fine thoughts expressed here as much as I am permitted to interract with their authors. And I’ve never once felt I was being deprived of hearing opposing viewpoints. The lively debates should be enough to convince anyone that there is no unfairness here.

Comment by dougmoran — November 30, 2005 @ 10:27 pm

I can't decide if this one is sardonic or not:
 
Quote

What Dembski’s atheistic materialist opponents obviously can’t understand is that in this case censorsip is free speech.

Comment by CharlesW — December 1, 2005 @ 8:47 am

Or this one:    
 
Quote
Mr Dembski has every right to run his blog as he wishes and I imagine that teaching ID to our youth will work in much the same fashion.

Comment by Jeffahn — December 1, 2005 @ 10:55 am

hlwarren gets fed up and bails:
     
Quote

Dear DaveScot
You do bore me.
Goodbye.

Dear Dr. Dembski,
Please expell me from this blog. It is too boring for more words than this.
Thank you and goodbye.

Comment by hlwarren — December 1, 2005 @ 3:44 pm

DaveScot manages to alienate everyone by digging up dirt on his opponents and making a tasteless reference to AIDS-related dementia.  Even Dembski slaps his wrist:
     
Quote

DaveScot:
1) What does what puckSR choose to do in his personal life have to do with this blog?
2) Unless i am sorely mistaken,he said on one of his earlier posts that he is a Christian, so why do you label him as an atheist?
3) Your comments have been way off subject and quite unproductive, so why have you not been expelled from this blog? Mr. Dembski clearly states, “If you post a comment that I don’t think is productive, I’ll probably not just eliminate your comment but you from this blog.”

[I take infamous’s point to heart. Let’s stay on topic and keep things interesting. –WmAD]

Comment by infamous — December 1, 2005 @ 3:57 pm

Date: 2006/05/31 17:16:16, Link
Author: keiths
In case any of you were wondering, Paley's mathematical "argument" is bogus and purely obfuscatory.  Don't waste any time on it.  

Eric is right to pin him down on parallax.

You should also ask him to explain the phases of Venus and Mercury.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:16:32, Link
Author: keiths
The full paper is available here.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:55:57, Link
Author: keiths
Chandra Wickramasinghe's group at Cardiff University says:
Quote
Further work in progress has yielded positive for DNA using DAPI staining in the cells and daughters. However, this identification is not yet fully confirmed, and might be considered equivocal. We hope to pursue our efforts in extracting DNA (if it exists), amplifying it and carrying out genetic sequencing, but this work takes time.

Date: 2006/06/07 10:37:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (DaveScot June 7 @ 2006)
So, when it comes to anything Pim Van Meurs has to say, I say “consider the source” and take it with many grains of salt.

Dave Springer must be the least self-aware man on the planet.

Date: 2006/06/07 13:48:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (William Dembski June 7 @ 2006)
And now here is the full text with the two passages marked in bold. Note that the PT post simply kludges those passages together (you’ll have to scroll down quite a ways to see the connection). By the way, I’ve saved the page at PT just so that they don’t insert ellipses and say there never was a problem...

Hilarious.  Dembski accuses Pim of 'kludging' the two passages together, but it turns out that Dembski did it himself.

I guess ID is capable of detecting kludges, but says nothing about the identity of the kludger.

Date: 2006/06/07 18:52:18, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Every time I get into it with PT, I get this sick, dirty feeling, like I’ve been to an outhouse that’s in constant use but hasn’t been cleaned in years. I’m closing this thread down as well and will be more careful in the future about taking their bait.

Dembski doesn't seem to realize that the 'sick, dirty feeling' has nothing to do with PT and everything to do with himself.  He is the one posting anonymous reviews of his own books on Amazon.  He is the one reporting Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.  He is the one trashing Jeff Shallit's deposition, then making the evidence disappear when his accusations turn out to be unfounded.  He is the one smearing Kevin Padian, and now he is the one offering half-apologies for falsely accusing Pim van Meurs of quote-mining.

Ah, but you see, it's PT's fault for baiting him. 

What self-respecting person could do all of that and NOT experience a 'sick, dirty feeling' when looking in the mirror?

Logs and motes, Bill.  Logs and motes.

Date: 2006/06/08 00:45:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Anybody know Freeman Dyson's email address?

It's dyson@ias.edu.  He's at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:23:02, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
"methodology" is the study of method, like "ichthyology" is the study of fish.  The correct term to use here is simply "methods".

Sir Fishy,

I don't usually find myself disagreeing with you, but in this case I must.  "Methodology" is legitimately used to refer to a set of practices or procedures, both in my field of engineering and in the language at large (see  here and here).  Think of it as analogous to the word "ideology".

Having said that, I agree that "methods" would have sounded better than "methodologies" in Spike's sentence.

Date: 2006/06/11 11:51:56, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2006,13:55)
I need the good stuff. I need claims like typing sentences violates the SLoT. I'm still laughing about that one.

Banning you also violates the SLoT, but you're still out of here. -dt

Date: 2006/06/11 19:54:12, Link
Author: keiths
Sgt. Doofus informs us that there is no such thing as a fitness function in nature:

 
Quote (DaveTard June 11 @ 2006)
This is all so incredibly naive. All these programs have fitness functions which is explicitely a direction given by an intelligent agent. Nature has no fitness function. Nature, or rather Darwin’s version of nature, doesn’t give a flying flop if anything is alive or not. In fact any student of nature knows that the rule is utter sterility. Everywhere we look other than the thin skin of the planet earth is a completely sterile environment and nature is as happy as a clam with nothing alive. So get rid of all fitness evaluations in these so-called simulations of evolution and see what happens.

This is the same DaveTard who has said many times elsewhere that natural selection maintains the status quo by weeding out mutants.  

It's a good thing Dave is stupid, or the cognitive dissonance would have exploded his head long ago.

Date: 2006/06/12 17:15:45, Link
Author: keiths
Bill Dembski on Ann Coulter's new book:
 
Quote
Critics will dismiss it for its hyperbole, lack of nuance, and in-your-face attitude.

But to IDers like me, these are good things.
 
Quote
But she has the gist just right, which is that materialism (she calls it liberalism) dominates our culture despite being held by only a minority of the populace...

Liberalism, materialism, whatever.  They all look the same to me.  It's an ism, and isms are bad.
 
Quote
...and has become an agenda among our elites (academy, scientists, media) for total worldview reprogramming.

We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture!  Keep your hands off my total worldview!

Date: 2006/06/12 19:48:08, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski's newest post, entitled "Frank Beckwith Rips PvM (and Brian Leiter) a New One" (wording very close, but not exact -- the post hasn't appeared yet in Wes's Memory Hole) has now been retitled "Frank Beckwith Impales PvM (and Brian Leiter)".  

I guess Dembski had second thoughts about one violent metaphor and decided to replace it with another.

He's been creepier than usual lately.  Perhaps it's due to DaveTard's influence.  Recall Davey's fantasy about  
Quote
...the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his [PZ Myers'] face to a pulp...

which appeared beneath a post entitled "PZ Myers Vies with Eric Pianka for Top Psycho Scientist Award."  But for the "Scientist" qualifier, Davey could have won hands down.

What do you suppose the conversation is like when Dembski discusses his unChristian revenge fantasies with his Maker?

Date: 2006/06/14 20:02:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2006,21:20)
Salvador Cordova--you know him, the person a small minority of people thought might actually be dumber than AFDave--has a new post up at UD. Apparently he, too, is some kind of pilot, on top of having an engineering degree.

Lest anyone think that a combination engineering/flying background dooms one to creobotulism,  let me assure you that there are plenty of non-creobot pilot/engineers in the world (including me and 3 out of 12 fellow employees at the company where I work).

On the other hand, there might be a connection between creationism and flying too high too long without oxygen...

Date: 2006/06/14 20:32:48, Link
Author: keiths
Early in the thread:
Quote
My left magneto gave out and I continued flying using only the right magneto. There are no instruments on board to indicate if one of the magnetos fail. The failure is usually discovered after landing. The airplane flies just fine without on one magneto as long as the other magneto is working. That is by design.

Later in the thread, Salvador admits that the magneto didn't fail at all, but rather the plugs got fouled:          
Quote
What apparently happened was the spark plugs tied to left magneto system got badly fouled, and I mean badly, the engine was cutting off during the check. It absolutely turned my stomach. The physical magneto did not fail as much as the magneto system (a phrase which I mean to includ the plugs tied to them).

It remains a mystery why the plugs tied to the right magneto were not comparably fouled. I can only thank Providence for that fact. To remedy the situation, I leaned out the engine and ran up the RPMs to generate maximum heat in attempt to burn off the junk on the plugs tied to the left magneto. I was skeptical super heating the engine would solve the problem because the way the engine was dying, I thought for sure it was something other than spark plug fouling. Anyway, after a few minutes of this procedure, the left magneto system was operational, but I flew with the uncomforatble thought that only a few hours of flight could hose one’s sparkplugs that badly!

Translation:  The left magneto failed.  Well, not the physical magneto. (The spiritual magneto?)  Okay, I screwed up by running the mixture too rich during cruise and fouled the plugs.  The Designer bailed me out.

The moral of the story: Don't fly with Salvador.

Date: 2006/06/14 23:12:41, Link
Author: keiths
Let's parse Davey's little adventure:

He was an inexperienced student pilot about to embark on a cross-country solo flight.  He noticed what he thought was an airspeed indicator error on takeoff.  Instead of landing immediately and getting the AI checked out, like any sensible pilot would do, he proceeded to fly the entire cross-country in what he believed was a defective aircraft.

Not only that, he split the difference between what the airspeed indicator said and what he thought it should say, even after testing for the actual stall speed.  The result was that he took off, climbed, approached, and landed, all at airspeeds too close to the stall speed.

As for his instructor being impressed that Davey noticed the discrepancy, consider this:  rotation speed is 55 knots in a Cessna 172 (which is what Davey previously mentioned flying).  If he tried to rotate at 55 MPH, he was rotating at 48 knots, which is the clean stall speed for a C-172.  At that speed, the airplane would have at most staggered out of ground effect with the stall horn blaring.  Anyone failing to notice that is deaf as well as stupid.

I think we can be grateful that Davey gave up flying and now spends his time in his boat ogling nude sunbathers on the shores of Lake Travis.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:19:50, Link
Author: keiths
Looks like dedicated AtBC reader DaveScot's pride has been wounded:
Quote
There’s a reason KeithS is blacklisted here. He’s loud and stupid. Loud I can tolerate. At ATBC he blithers on about how any real pilot would have immediately turned around and landed suspecting a faulty airspeed indicator...

And this gem:
Quote
As for the airspeed indicator being clearly labeled MPH - it was but it was in very small print and one tends not to notice things that one never looks for.

Stay tuned, Davey.  I'll reply when I get some time later today.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:27:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (jujuquisp @ June 15 2006,14:14)
At least Sal and DaveTard can spell "beginning" correctly.  Geez.

Faid is Greek.  I'm willing to bet that his English spelling is better than your Greek spelling.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:38:14, Link
Author: keiths
On the "infinite monkeys" thread, Dave "Otto" Scott gets his physics wrong even when (presumably) trying to make a joke:  
Quote
You’re all wrong. An infinite number of monkeys would weigh enough to collapse into a black hole and they’d all be dead.

Comment by DaveScot — June 17, 2006 @ 7:49 am

Date: 2006/06/18 17:15:11, Link
Author: keiths
Dave "Otto" Scott reveals that he is as (un)qualified to talk about aviation as he is about biology:

Quote
There’s a reason KeithS is blacklisted here. He’s loud and stupid. Loud I can tolerate.

It's pretty clear that Otto can tolerate both, or he would have banned himself a long time ago.

Quote
At ATBC he blithers on about how any real pilot would have immediately turned around and landed suspecting a faulty airspeed indicator.

"blithers on" = "dares to criticize me, the great Otto Pilot!"

Quote
Here’s a clue for you Keith. Pilots flying VFR don’t rely on flight instruments. No instruments at all.

So when the FAA says it is illegal to fly VFR without a functioning airspeed indicator, altimeter, etc., that's just a Darwinist conspiracy to sell more flight instruments, eh, Otto?

How do you fly at the exact traffic pattern altitude without "relying on" an altimeter?  When your engine fails, how do you set up the best glide speed without "relying on" an airspeed indicator?  Do you wet your finger and stick it out the window?

Quote
If you can’t fly safely without instruments on a clear day in uncontrolled airspace you don’t belong behind the yoke.

Every pilot should be able to land after detecting an instrument failure.  It's the ones who keep going after noticing a problem on takeoff that don't belong behind the yoke.

Quote
Takeoff is not accomplished by staring at the airspeed indicator waiting for rotation speed you dolt.

Are you aware that you can use an instrument without staring at it, Otto?  It's called "scanning".

Quote
You trim the elevator for takeoff, accelerate at full throttle, and let the plane lift itself off the ground without yoke pressure from the pilot.

Wrong.  Read the Cessna 172 manual:

NORMAL TAKEOFF

1. Wing Flaps -- UP.
2. Carburetor Heat -- COLD.
3. Throttle -- FULL OPEN.
4. Elevator Control -- LIFT NOSE WHEEL (at 55 KIAS).
5. Climb Speed -- 70-80 KIAS.

Quote
You never hear the stall horn on takeoff.

True, if you're an inexperienced pilot who has never done a short field takeoff on a gusty day.

Quote
With enough experience in the aircraft and runway, and knowing the headwind component, you know about where on the runway the plane will lift off if everything is normal.

Spoken like a true novice.  Real pilots have to deal with a range of conditions.  Bay Area pilots know the difference between taking off solo from Palo Alto on a cold winter day, versus Lake Tahoe with three passengers in July:

C-172, 1900 lbs.,   sea level, 32 deg F, no wind: ground roll  470 ft.
C-172, 2300 lbs., 6000 feet, 77 deg F, no wind: ground roll 1500 ft.

Quote
On climbout you have several instruments as well as your senses to tell you what’s going on. You have a rate of climb indicator and an artificial horizon. If everything is running normal your rate of climb at full throttle and pitch will be at a certain reading.

Wrong again.  You simply cannot use the same pitch attitude at Lake Tahoe as at Palo Alto.  Tahoe's elevation is over 6000 feet. You have to drop the nose to compensate for the decrease in power available at full throttle at that altitude.

Quote
On the flight in question everything was normal except the airspeed indicator was reading high. No biggie.

Not true.  You previously admitted to splitting the difference between the airspeed indicator reading and what you thought it should be:

Quote
When I was flying it I noticed that the airspeeds weren’t what I expected for rotation, stall, etcetera so I cut the difference in half between what my experience told me the airspeed was and what the airspeed indicator reading was and used the compromise to set up the plane for various flight modes.

That means you were flying too close to the stall in all of the critical flight phases.

Quote
As for the airspeed indicator being clearly labeled MPH - it was but it was in very small print and one tends not to notice things that one never looks for.

A pox on those Darwinist instrument manufacturers!  They know that ID supporters don't read the fine print!

Quote
I could just as easily blame my instructor for never telling me to check for it since he’d been working out of that small airport with its single rental/training outfit for a few years.  Surely he knew that a single C-172 among the half dozen or so of them had an MPH airspeed indicator.

Sorry, Otto.  You can't blame your instructor:

Federal Aviation Regulation 91.3:
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

And besides, your instructor wasn't the one who decided to keep going after noticing something funny with the airspeed indicator.

Summary:
1. Student pilot Otto prepares for a cross-country solo.
2. He selects a plane he has never flown before.
3. He fails to familiarize himself with the panel.
4. He ignores the takeoff procedure specified in the manual.
5. He notices something funny with the airspeed indicator on takeoff.
6. Rather than landing to get it checked out by an instructor or mechanic, he continues flying to his destination, even though it is illegal to fly with a broken airspeed indicator.
7. During the flight, he "splits the difference" and therefore ends up flying too slowly during critical phases of the flight.
8. At his destination, he still doesn't seek advice from an experienced pilot or instructor.  He doesn't call someone at the home airport.  He simply turns around and flies back.
9. Having screwed up, he tries to explain how VFR pilots don't "rely on" their instruments.
10. In case that doesn't work, he puts the blame on his instructor.

The funny thing is, having observed Otto in action for the last six months on UD, none of this surprises me.

Date: 2006/06/19 20:40:08, Link
Author: keiths
Lots of nice ironies in this OttoTard quote from a year ago:
Quote (DaveScot @ May 2 2005 3:51 PM)
My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda’s Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison,University of Vermont, has suffered the same treatment at Panda’s Thumb except they still allow him to post comments on “The Bathroom Wall” like he’s not qualified to comment elsewhere. Professor Davison has been a practicing doctor in biology for nearly 50 years. Their treatment of him is outrageous. They call him every derogatory name you can think of and accuse him of senility. I correspond with him a lot. He’s got more wits about him now at 76 years of age than any of those cretins ever had at any time in their miserable lives.

I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years. I found that the editor, John Rennie, has a blog at http://sciam-editor.typepad.com Rennie is a flaming blind believer in the Darwinian narrative. I began posting my thoughts on evolution on his blog some weeks ago and he also summarily deleted all my comments and banned me. Some way to treat a subscriber of many decades. I’m a retired computer scientist and accomplished inventor in the field. I know a design when I see one and can easily point out some of the myriad things about the machinery of life, in common personal computer parlance, that make it as obviously intelligently designed as the computer y’all are using to read this. I guess they can’t take that.

I’m not any kind of a conspiracy theorist, nor am I religious (I follow the evidence, wherever it leads) but it sure looks to me like there’s a concerted effort by the mainstream science establishment to censor criticism of the Darwinian narrative. The only thing holding up the monumental atheist fraud is the judicial system and the tortured latter 20th century interpretation of the establishment clause. It’s really turns my stomach to see what these Darwin worshippers are doing to science. This is doing great damage to science in the eyes of the public. The Darwinian narrative is going to fall. It’s just a matter of time. The longer and more doggedly the atheist scientific establishment dishonestly clings to their fantasy the worse they look when the cookie finally crumbles.

Man, I’m sure glad I call myself an engineer instead of a scientist. Science is spelled “reverse-engineering” in our world. We resort to it when necessary instead of making a career out of it.

Sorry to rant.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

Date: 2006/06/20 17:57:04, Link
Author: keiths
This "strong gravity" fiasco has really shaken DaveScot's confidence.  You can tell he's feeling insecure when he starts boasting compulsively:
   
Quote
I’m an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I’ve continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire. I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago) so I can concentrate on fun subjects like science that has little or nothing to do with computers (if I can help it), politics, and religion. So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered. For the last 13 years though I’ve had a broadband connection to the internet and my sources expanded exponentially. For the last 6 years I haven’t been burdened with being a computer whiz kid and my time to learn new things has expanded not exponentially but at least doubled or trebled. Any more questions? -ds

Yes, Otto, I have some questions:

1. If you had a college-level vocabulary at age 9, what happened to it?
2. Having read about all of the most important discoveries of the last 40 years, why have you forgotten almost all of them?
3. Did you skip the articles on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, black body temperatures, hemoglobin, and blood types?
4. Did you make yourself a millionaire or did Dell?
5. For the last six years you "haven’t been burdened with being a computer whiz kid."  Was there a time when you did carry such a burden?
6. Did you know that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces?

Try Googling "gravity strongest force" and "gravity weakest force" and compare the results.  Took me 35 seconds.  Why do I have to do your homework for you?  I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'll stop making faces and spitting it out.

Date: 2006/06/20 23:14:08, Link
Author: keiths
Berlinski via GilDodgen:
Quote
The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background - computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs.

Here's  Gil's post.  I am still reeling from the sheer intellectual force of it:
Quote
The fact of the matter remains: Random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for all of life’s complexity, functionally integrated machinery, and information content is wishful speculation, unsupported by convincing hard evidence. This should simply be admitted.

Note the penetrating argument, the careful marshalling of evidence, the incisive critique of our position.  We should simply admit that Gil is right.

Low-market computer-selling sound-mixing semi-literate church-burning Ebola boy SteveS stubbornly responds:
Quote
Oh, don’t worry, Gil. In a week or so, Paul Nelson’s going to be presenting Ontogenetic Depth v 2.0 at the Society of Developmental Biology meeting, and I’m sure that will obliterate Darwinism, you know, like the Explanatory Filter did, and the NFL theorems, and your analogies to computers, and Irreducible Complexity, and Sal’s plane anecdotes, and the last 400-500 dumb things you guys have said, and Intelligent Evolution will in the future, &c, &c, &c….

Gil's rejoinder:
Quote
Dear Steve,

I appreciate your intellectually satisfying refutation of my thesis.

Ouch.  I'm sure Steve is still smarting from that one.

Date: 2006/06/21 18:23:30, Link
Author: keiths
Otto Didact wrote:
Quote
I had all the formal training in electromagnetic theory the military has to offer which is substantial plus a number of college classes after the military but I didn’t learn anything in the college classes that I hadn’t already learned on my own. I think it’s your turn to tell us about yourself now. You can start out with your real name and where you work. If your next comment doesn’t include that information you can take a hike since that’s the way you want to play.

I'm beginning to think that Dave isn't a college graduate.  It would explain a lot:

1. He never talks about earning his engineering degree, his GPA, etc.
2. His insecurity and braggadocio may may be the result of trying to prove himself to his degreed colleagues.
3. I can't remember how many times I've wondered to myself, "How could this guy have survived engineering school without knowing that?"
4. He immediately gets defensive (see the above quote) whenever the subject of qualifications comes up.

I used to think it was because he didn't have a science degree.  Now I think it may be because he has no degree at all.

Date: 2006/06/22 09:06:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (argystokes @ June 22 2006,11:45)
Ah, Randy has finally "come out" against eating polyester and wearing shellfish.

I'm also against eating polyester, but on non-Biblical grounds.  The fibers get stuck in my teeth and it gives me the runs.

Date: 2006/06/25 00:11:45, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Marcus Evenstar @ June 25 2006,04:01)

I can't add to the science here but I'd still like to alleviate the social burden he represents. Is there some foundation that works to cure Severe Neophobia and Ossified Mentation?

Like many mental illnesses, SN and OM cause their victims to reject treatment, if they're aware of the sickness at all.

If we can't cure them, at least we can work to limit their impact on society.

Date: 2006/06/25 19:29:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 25 2006,17:57)
Oddly, Josh never did come back (as far as I know), even though other fundies who were at least as dumb as Josh soon came to re-infest UD. I guess JB's "feelings were hurt" or something. Whatever.

Josh did try to come back at least once under a different name.  Problem was, even DaveTard could recognize the distinctively contentless logorrhea of a Bozeman post and promptly rebanned him.

Date: 2006/06/25 23:57:31, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 26 2006,00:53)
Was it just me or when avocationist was over here didn't she claim to believe in some abstract version of God and not the literal biblical version. If so she seems to have changed her tune a bit.

I think she's still the same old avocationist.  Here's something she posted on the Weinberg thread yesterday:
 
Quote
Do you really suppose that whole chunks of humanity have no access to the highest truths? Do you think the real teacher, the Holy Spirit, does not permeate all things? Does the Holy Spirit simply not bother to teach people unless they are in possession of a particular document made of ink and paper? Can we really suppose that the genome must deteriorate (Sanford) but not a book written over many centuries at different times and places? Can anyone suppose that spiritual truths are contained within matter and matter alone? Has anyone studied the corruption and terrible infighting that went on with the bishops who by vote decided upon the creed and the canon of the Bible? Did the scriptures prevent the pharisees from being spiritually blind? Wasn’t it the people most immersed in the scriptures that Jesus had the hardest time reachings with his living truth?

Date: 2006/06/27 11:14:21, Link
Author: keiths
Slightly off topic, but this does remind me of some of our friends at Uncommon Descent.  Enjoy.

(Full video here.)

Date: 2006/06/27 17:43:20, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2006,22:30)
Did you happen to save some of the messages from last winter where DS talks about what a persecuted genius Davison is? I remember him getting positively gushy a few times.

Here's one I dug up a week ago:

Quote (keiths @ June 20 2006,01:40)
Lots of nice ironies in this OttoTard quote from a year ago:
     
Quote (DaveScot @ May 2 2005 3:51 PM)
My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda’s Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison,University of Vermont, has suffered the same treatment at Panda’s Thumb except they still allow him to post comments on “The Bathroom Wall” like he’s not qualified to comment elsewhere. Professor Davison has been a practicing doctor in biology for nearly 50 years. Their treatment of him is outrageous. They call him every derogatory name you can think of and accuse him of senility. I correspond with him a lot. He’s got more wits about him now at 76 years of age than any of those cretins ever had at any time in their miserable lives.

I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years. I found that the editor, John Rennie, has a blog at http://sciam-editor.typepad.com Rennie is a flaming blind believer in the Darwinian narrative. I began posting my thoughts on evolution on his blog some weeks ago and he also summarily deleted all my comments and banned me. Some way to treat a subscriber of many decades. I’m a retired computer scientist and accomplished inventor in the field. I know a design when I see one and can easily point out some of the myriad things about the machinery of life, in common personal computer parlance, that make it as obviously intelligently designed as the computer y’all are using to read this. I guess they can’t take that.

I’m not any kind of a conspiracy theorist, nor am I religious (I follow the evidence, wherever it leads) but it sure looks to me like there’s a concerted effort by the mainstream science establishment to censor criticism of the Darwinian narrative. The only thing holding up the monumental atheist fraud is the judicial system and the tortured latter 20th century interpretation of the establishment clause. It’s really turns my stomach to see what these Darwin worshippers are doing to science. This is doing great damage to science in the eyes of the public. The Darwinian narrative is going to fall. It’s just a matter of time. The longer and more doggedly the atheist scientific establishment dishonestly clings to their fantasy the worse they look when the cookie finally crumbles.

Man, I’m sure glad I call myself an engineer instead of a scientist. Science is spelled “reverse-engineering” in our world. We resort to it when necessary instead of making a career out of it.

Sorry to rant.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

Date: 2006/06/27 20:48:55, Link
Author: keiths
Selected comments from this thread:
Quote
As for my IQ, I am sure it is not what it once was due to the ravages of age, alcohol and dealing with Darwinian mysticism. When it was tested back in the late 1940’s it was 146, thankfully below the 150 mark indicating genius. I have no idea what it is now but I am confident it is not yet in the room temperature range as apparently is the case with some of my adversaries.

Comment by John Davison — January 28, 2006 @ 10:03 am

Quote
Not only is Dr. Davison an intellectual giant, he is also a giant of intellectual honesty. Truly a rare combination.

Comment by dougmoran — January 28, 2006 @ 10:46 am

Quote
Being Belgian (my mother was English) I have to ask dougmoran, was that comment meant to be taken seriously?

Comment by Xavier — January 28, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

Quote
I too would like to know if dougmoran is for real or not. If he is I may send him a Valentine. I am not accustomed to compliments and do not deal with them when they rarely occur. I am shy don’t you know!

Comment by John Davison — January 28, 2006 @ 4:43 pm

Quote
Professor Davison

Hey genius, genius IQ level is 145+.

I hate to break it to you, but you’re not as dumb as you like to think you are.  

I think DougMoran was serious too.

Comment by DaveScot — January 28, 2006 @ 7:01 pm

Quote
My IQ is well into the 99th percentile and I think Darwinism is bankrupt.

(99th %ile on the LSAT, which is administered to only college graduates and which is the least subject-matter oriented of the standardized test — it’s all logic and reasoning stuff. In fact, I am an LSAT instructor  

Comment by theonomo — January 28, 2006 @ 8:04 pm

Quote
Xaver said: “Being Belgian (my mother was English) I have to ask dougmoran, was that comment meant to be taken seriously?”

Yes, I was sincere. Intellectual honesty is a rare thing and seems to be harder to find the further up the intellectual food chain one looks. So I felt inclined to point it out in this case. Hope I didn’t offend anyone!

Comment by dougmoran — January 30, 2006 @ 12:17 am

Date: 2006/07/01 13:01:30, Link
Author: keiths
GilDodgen advocates attacking God the Designer:
Quote
Here’s a thought: What if the mutations that confer antibiotic resistance to bacteria are not random, but designed and engineered in some way? If they are random there is nothing we can do about it, but if they are designed perhaps we could find a way to attack the mechanism that engineers these “mutations,” and defeat the bugs once and for all. If this should turn out to be the case, this would be another example of how erroneous Darwinian assumptions led us down a blind alley, as they did with “junk” DNA and many “vestigial” organs.

Comment by GilDodgen — July 1, 2006 @ 9:24 am

Date: 2006/07/04 22:35:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Taking the high road and maintaining the high ground at UD

This just in from a trusted colleague:

Quote
Your “uncommondescent.com” blog is such an important source of useful and thought-provoking information and is so widely read, that it hurts me to see it deteriorate into ad homonem attacks and name-calling, as it has lately. I am quite aware that the other side uses such tactics almost to the exclusion of logic, but I’m convinced that responding in kind is not effective (I certainly understand the temptation, and do it myself frequently), staying on the high road and sticking to the issues, even showing respect for opponents who don’t disserve it, really gets people’s attention, because it is such a rare tactic in today’s world. I have more than once told friends that one reason Michael Behe is so effective is he treats all questions with respect, no matter how ill-intentioned.

I know it feels good to administer a spanking to the other side (certainly they deserve it and sometimes it needs to be done publicly), but as much as possible let’s focus on the issues of intellectual merit — this is where ID wins hands down.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 7:47 am

Dembski also appears to enjoy administering an occasional spanking to DaveScot.  Too bad it took a "trusted colleague" to make him aware that his blog was turning into The Jerry Springer Show.

Date: 2006/07/04 22:48:26, Link
Author: keiths
I missed this on my first read-through:
Quote
ad homonem attacks

I think we have a new name for a favorite DaveTard tactic.

Date: 2006/07/04 23:04:44, Link
Author: keiths
An interesting glimpse at how Salvador sees himself:
Quote
Well, given that we’re getting so much unexpected attention, I suppose we’ll have to try to be more diplomatic rather than being the pranksters, trouble makers, and irreverent comedians that many of us (myself foremost) are at heart.

Salvador

Comment by scordova — July 4, 2006 @ 10:04 am

Date: 2006/07/05 07:19:31, Link
Author: keiths
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but DaveTard is as bad at lying as he is at biology and logic.  Look at how his Scientific American "credential" morphs over time:
Quote
I’ve read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time...

Posted by DaveScot on January 6, 2005 03:25 PM

Quote
I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

Quote
I found it a bit disturbing that a double PhD from UC and Yale with a perfect SAT score would be called a blithering idiot by the editor of an otherwise respectable magazine that I’ve subscribed to for 30 years.

Comment by DaveScot — June 3, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

Quote
I am an extreme polymath. Auto-didact. Going on 50 years of voracious consumption of any and all scientific literature processed and correlated by an IQ well into the genius range. I had all the hard science in the World Book encyclopedia memorized by the third grade and that was just the beginning. I’ve read, I reckon, 400 issues of Scientific American cover-to-cover and understand most of it...

Comment by DaveScot — June 15, 2005 @ 3:15 pm

Quote
Astronomy rules, dude. For the past 400 months when I get my Scientific American in the mail if there’s an article on astronomy or cosmology in it I turn straight to it before anything else. After reading that I usually go from front to back reading everything else...

June 15, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

Quote
Perhaps Santa should give Steve a subscription to Scientific American for Christmas - a magazine I’ve been reading cover to cover every month for 30 years - so he wouldn’t have missed The Alternative Genome and then he’d know that introns aren’t junk DNA...

March 6, 2006

Quote
So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered...

June 20, 2006

Date: 2006/07/06 04:38:46, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 05 2006,12:31)
Funny that DT is always name dropping Scientific American to give himself legitimacy, since I'll bet the SciAm editorial board thinks Intelligent Design is a load of shit.  :p

They do indeed:

http://www.sciam.com/article....B7FFE9F

Date: 2006/07/09 00:52:21, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2006,21:10)
 
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 07 2006,06:05)
If Dave thought she wasn't for real he would have banned her in a second.

       
Quote
P.S. My wife’s name is Janie. She is a French teacher. We met in French classes in college 30 years ago. “Belle” is the French word for beautiful, so JanieBelle has a special place in my heart.


er...


As my daughter might say,

Janie and DaveTard in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!!!



That little valentine was actually from GilDodgen, not DaveTard.

Date: 2006/07/09 19:19:12, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Tiax. I certainly do know. And if Mung reads this he will too. I haven’t had this much fun with an encyclopedia since before I finished memorizing the World Book Encyclopedia in the 5th grade. I continued to get the Science Supplement every year until I was 18 but at a measly 300 pages it only provided a day of distraction. -ds

It sounds like Dave was a smart kid before the accident.  It's a shame that a simple blow to the head not only devastated his intelligence, but rendered him incapable of boasting effectively.

Davey, here's some advice on how to brag better:

1. Don't be so eager to boast.  Your eagerness betrays your insecurity and makes people doubt you.

2. If you must brag, brag about something you're good at.  It's jarring to hear you bragging about your intelligence, your logical thinking ability, and your scientific knowledge when you make glaring errors every day in each of those areas.  Did you really think we wouldn't notice the discrepancy?

3. Let your performance speak for you. People recognize competence even without the bluster.  The trick is being competent first.   Learn some biology, take some classes, go back and read those science supplements.
 
4. Let others do your bragging for you.  Have you noticed that brilliant people don't need to do their own boasting?  If you're good enough, people will notice it and remark on it.  Google "DaveScot", and you'll see that you're not making the impression you're hoping to make on other people.

5. Keep your boasts consistent.  Have you been reading SciAm cover to cover for 20, 30, or 40 years?  Pick a story and stick to it.  When you contradict yourself, we know you're lying.

Regards,
KeithS

Date: 2006/07/10 00:31:52, Link
Author: keiths
Dedicated AtBC reader DaveScot digs his hole a little deeper:
 
Quote
Speaking of Scientific American the peanut gallery at ATBC is raising some questions about why I’ve variously mentioned reading it for 20, 30, and 40 years.

Here is clarification.

The earliest I recall regularly reading SciAm was in the 7th grade. The school library subscribed to it and I spent a lot of my time at school in the library. That would make it at least 36 years ago that I started reading it every month. I’ve no doubt rounded that up to 40 years or down to 30 years just because I like round numbers and it doesn’t really matter that much. From age 18 to 23 I might not have read it every month as I wasn’t in a library much except when required for college assignments and bought it off the newstands. Shortly after I married (at age 24) I began subscribing to it. That was over 20 years ago and I’ve no doubt mentioned that I’ve been a subscriber for 20 or 25 years...
So there.

Comment by DaveScot — July 10, 2006 @ 4:56 am


Translation:
I've been reading SciAm every month for 36 years, except for the years when I didn't read it every month.  And I've been a subscriber for almost 40 years (see below), except for the years I didn't subscribe to it.  As for reading it from cover to cover, let's just forget I ever mentioned that...

Dave is learning firsthand that you need to take good notes in order to be a successful liar.

Quote (keiths @ July 05 2006,12:19)
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but DaveTard is as bad at lying as he is at biology and logic.  Look at how his Scientific American "credential" morphs over time:
 
Quote
I’ve read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time...

Posted by DaveScot on January 6, 2005 03:25 PM

 
Quote
I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

 
Quote
I found it a bit disturbing that a double PhD from UC and Yale with a perfect SAT score would be called a blithering idiot by the editor of an otherwise respectable magazine that I’ve subscribed to for 30 years.

Comment by DaveScot — June 3, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

 
Quote
I am an extreme polymath. Auto-didact. Going on 50 years of voracious consumption of any and all scientific literature processed and correlated by an IQ well into the genius range. I had all the hard science in the World Book encyclopedia memorized by the third grade and that was just the beginning. I’ve read, I reckon, 400 issues of Scientific American cover-to-cover and understand most of it...

Comment by DaveScot — June 15, 2005 @ 3:15 pm

 
Quote
Astronomy rules, dude. For the past 400 months when I get my Scientific American in the mail if there’s an article on astronomy or cosmology in it I turn straight to it before anything else. After reading that I usually go from front to back reading everything else...

June 15, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

 
Quote
Perhaps Santa should give Steve a subscription to Scientific American for Christmas - a magazine I’ve been reading cover to cover every month for 30 years - so he wouldn’t have missed The Alternative Genome and then he’d know that introns aren’t junk DNA...

March 6, 2006

 
Quote
So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered...

June 20, 2006

Date: 2006/07/10 00:42:28, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ July 10 2006,00:26)
I know why this thread has slowed down a bit. The same reason I've slowed down a bit on it. Pointing out errors and contradictions in the statements of Davetard and pals is not merely like shooting fish in a barrel, it's like shooting fish in a barrel at point-blank range with a Barrett .50 cal.

I'm not going to stop, but I am going to take occasional breaks.

A definite case of Tard Fatigue Syndrome.  I prescribe two Yuenglings and a chapter from Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

Date: 2006/07/10 07:26:03, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 09 2006,10:51)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2006,05:52)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2006,21:10)
     
Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 07 2006,06:05)
If Dave thought she wasn't for real he would have banned her in a second.

             
Quote
P.S. My wife’s name is Janie. She is a French teacher. We met in French classes in college 30 years ago. “Belle” is the French word for beautiful, so JanieBelle has a special place in my heart.


er...


As my daughter might say,

Janie and DaveTard in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!!!



That little valentine was actually from GilDodgen, not DaveTard.

Great. Ruin my day, why don't you? :angry:


Arden,

If it's any consolation, I heard a rumor that JanieBelle is rumored to be DaveTard's alleged illegitimate daughter.  Of course these are only rumors, so I can't be held accountable for repeating them.

Stop the ACLU!

Date: 2006/07/13 00:51:06, Link
Author: keiths
Severe Irony Alert

In a comment wherein he links to his infamous intellectual dishonesty thread, dougmoran says:  
Quote
One last comment. There is an ancient historical/philosophical/spiritual document that has something profound to say about this very topic. Paraphrasing, it says that nothing is more deceptive to itself than the human heart. I’ll leave it at that.

Doug -- look in the mirror and repeat that to yourself five times.

Date: 2006/07/13 01:01:28, Link
Author: keiths
Sometimes it's the finer points that make a piece of tardity special.  Witness the mixed metaphors in this bit of wisdom from (il)lucID:
 
Quote
One’s worldview (where we came from, why we are here, and the ultimate meaning of life), as Dave so aptly put it in the above, I feel is really the crux for most arch-darwinists (and even the newer ones) clinging on to this archaic theory for dear life. Hissing like an angry alley cat at anyone who would put a hand near to threaten their holy grail.

Ergo to rule out these implications and *free* themselves of the shackles of an imposed morality/consequence (sounds rather Nietzscheian) they look to snuff out any trace of that differing to pure methodological naturalism...

The final irony here is that evolution was born out of victrian era philosophy and wormed it’s way into science only to become the cuckoo who stole the nest, mimicked science and attempts to kill real scientific advancement.

Comment by lucID — July 13, 2006 @ 2:56 am

Alley cats with holy grails and worms morphing into cuckoos.  Welcome to ID Land.

Date: 2006/07/13 11:36:47, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (wiwaxiathumb @ July 13 2006,16:04)

Is there in evolutionary biology a term or concept fit to distinguish the phylogenetic developmental paths followed by  lineages?

Hi Florian,

Welcome to AtBC.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but doesn't the word "lineage" itself denote the concept you're asking about?  Isn't the path followed by a lineage the same as the lineage itself?  After all, if it had followed a different path, it would no longer be the same lineage.

Date: 2006/07/17 20:19:20, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski just wiped out the entire Libidinous Genius thread, restarting it with this comment:
Quote
Here’s your second chance to make this thread productive. Stay on topic. Janiebelle has been booted. NEW RULE AT UD: No more bold insertions into existing comments. I’ve done it as has DaveScot. That’s now a thing of the past. One-comment-one-poster is now the rule.

I think the thing that really pissed him off was seeing DaveTard dump on Denyse O'Leary, whom Dembski has described as a  compadre.

That's it, Dembski.  I've tolerated you on my blog long enough.  Go in peace, but go. -dt

Date: 2006/07/17 21:23:18, Link
Author: keiths
Dave "I'm an agnostic" Tard further undermines his credibility (if such a thing is possible).

Date: 2006/07/17 22:48:41, Link
Author: keiths
Davey was wounded by Dembski's slap:
Quote
I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.

Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I’m going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I’ll just be a regular user once more.

Comment by DaveScot — July 18, 2006 @ 2:10 am

Someone should explain to self-styled "computer whiz kid" DaveTard that he could open up a second window for posting comments without disturbing the administrative windows.  Switching between them would only take a couple of keystrokes.

I hope he does quit.  UD will be a lot more interesting when intelligent dissenters aren't banned on a whim.  Besides, he'll still be commenting, and Davey's entertainment value comes 90% from his inane comments, and only about 10% from his doofy moderating.

I know that most of the other contributors will be happy to show him the door.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:46:42, Link
Author: keiths
Hi Wiwaxia,

My two cents' worth below.
Quote
It ain't replicating...

I think that's a decisive difference.  The minimal "ingredients" of a Darwinian process are replication, variation, and selection.  The apparent "selfishness" of the gene arises out of an interaction of these ingredients.
Quote
...but it is persisting through the organism's death, which the gene does not directly.

The physical gene doesn't survive the organism's death, but it's not the physical gene that Dawkins was concerned with, but rather the information encoded therein.

Also, a carbon atom doesn't "care" whether or not it becomes part of a living organism.  Any accommodation by the organism to the physical properties of carbon benefits only the organism, not the carbon atom.

Date: 2006/07/24 06:01:40, Link
Author: keiths
Some unintended humor from Barry Arrogant:
 
Quote
Professional objectivity is as important as it is difficult to maintain, because sometimes the best advice a lawyer can give his client is "give up you are going to lose."

Particularly when the lawyer is Barry.

Date: 2006/07/24 17:17:30, Link
Author: keiths
DaveTard announces his goals for UD in a post dated January 8, 2006:
Quote
The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.

What do you think, folks?  Did he succeed?  Just asking (as Barry Arrogant would say).

Six short months later, the goalposts have shifted just a tad:
Quote
My goal has always been to entertain. I'd rather put a smile on your face than a thought in your head... I even told all the other blog authors at UD my strategy was going to be a page from Howard Stern's success story - whether from love or hate people will keep coming back to hear the next outrageous thing you're going to say.

DaveScot, July 19, 2006 4:43 AM

Still, I miss the ol' re-Tard.

Date: 2006/07/26 09:35:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Steverino @ July 26 2006,12:46)
From Dense O'Leary:

"Darwin’s corrosive principles laid the foundation for the murder of more than 125 million people in the 20th century. About three times more than the 38 million killed in all the wars of the 20th century!"

Actually, that comment is not from Denyse, but from someone called "DLH".  Denyse's comment is the next one in the thread.

Date: 2006/07/31 00:56:14, Link
Author: keiths
I thought y'all would enjoy this amusing exchange between Salvador Cordova and MikeGene at Telic Thoughts:

Salvador wrote:
Quote
As long as they feel there is hope for ID being true, they are comforted knowing life probably isn't pointless afterall.

MikeGene gently rebukes him:
Quote
Sal,

I’m not trying to be a wet blanket here, but then we have a set-up for confirmation bias. IMHO, those who want to research ID ultimately have to get to the point where they largely give up the “hope” and rid ID of some burden of validating one’s religious perspective.

Salvador responds:
Quote
I appreciate your concern Mike. However, as usual, I am a very transparent person, and what motivates me and those like me, whether for good or naught, is there for all to see.

Perhaps that is why I will not be a good ID researcher. That is why Michael Denton, Frank Tipler, Rober Jastrow, even yourself and Michael Behe I would trust to be more objective than I.

That's not to say I wouldn't be competent from the standpoint of mental ability, but my biases would probably force me to recuse myself in findings dealing with more controversial areas.

I'm probably far more suited for things where the experimental and empirical findings are the final judge of theories, such as physical experiments or engineering applications. Where we must resort to inferences rather than direct observations, we are far more vulnerable to make mistakes.

Where I am now is that as an engineer, at this stage in my life, it would take a far greater act of faith for me personally to think life is all an accident. Those who help settle the issue are perhaps a generation away.

One thing I will say however, I do not think most of the prevailing theories in evolutionary biology are up to the level of other scientific theories, like say, electro-dynamics. I feel comfortable in those conclusions. And I do think Behe is closer to the truth than Ken Miller.


Interesting.  So Salvador admits that he is incapable of being objective about ID, but apparently his subjectivity doesn't disqualify him from commenting ad nauseam on every ID-related blog on the planet.

Date: 2006/08/02 04:50:45, Link
Author: keiths
An interesting exchange between Barrett1 and Dembski on the "troll of the month" thread:
 
Quote
I think this whole notion of the university as a cult of Darwinist worshippers is completely overblown and damaging to the ID movement. It’s often a convenient excuse for poor scholarship and casts us as victims of “the man.” Like Godel, our theory needs to be laid out as nearly indisputable to topple the reigning paradigm. And yes, that means being held to a higher standard than the Darwinists. It’s like boxing and all of life for that matter. Frankly, I like Davison’s approach. He doesn’t complain about the man keeping him down or worse, spend time complaining about holes in the Darwin theory. At least he’s laid out an alternative and he’s no victim.

Comment by Barrett1 — August 2, 2006 @ 8:34 am

 
Quote
Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.

Comment by William Dembski — August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am


EDIT: Sorry, incorygible -- you were ahead of me by only two minutes so I didn't see your post.

Date: 2006/08/03 01:00:55, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 03 2006,05:29)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 02 2006,17:59)
It looks like DaveScot may finally have a new home.

Addict!!!

Yeah, I used to think that stevestory would take it the hardest when DaveScot went to the Great Blog in the Sky, but now Arden is the one jonesing for a D-Tard fix.  And look at how much his avatar has aged recently...

Date: 2006/08/03 21:56:16, Link
Author: keiths
Here's crandaddy in response to a Dembski post praising Michael Shermer as a "mensch":
Quote
I’m inclined to agree. Decent ID opponents are out there (Michael Ruse seems to be another). It’s refreshing to know that there are reasonable people out there who have the brainpower to understand that it’s possible to disagree without being an obnoxious, feces-flinging gremlin.

Comment by crandaddy — August 4, 2006 @ 2:09 am

And here's crandaddy, 13 hours earlier:

Quote
Don’t lose too much sleep over it, Joel. You’ll find that many of our opponents are blood-sucking parasites who will cling for dear life to the smallest details and suck everything they can out of them. The positions they take are so hopelssly indefensible that this is the only way to maintain an image of superiority. It’s a classic case of bullying: Abuse and ridicule the opposition to mask your own deficiencies. Quite pathetic, actually.

Comment by crandaddy — August 3, 2006 @ 1:10 pm

Date: 2006/08/04 20:19:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 04 2006,14:38)
btw, to whoever's playing "JanieBelle" and "Kate". My email address is SteveStory@gmail.com.  All I ask is that you let me in on the joke. I won't spill the beans, I won't give any signal that I know who you are, in fact I'll continue to complain that I don't know. But I'm really curious.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Steve's a little too earnest in his search for the truth about UDOJ?  I think he is JanieBelle, and that he's trying to throw us off the scent by playing the diligent detective.

Banning himself from UDOJ was a nice touch.

Date: 2006/08/06 02:13:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 06 2006,01:45)
Steve S said:
Yeah AND she is a 17 going on 35 lesbian who finds DT, evo/devo and AtBC interesting.

The vote, if true, for (girlyman) Dave 'Bunny' T himself since his ego wouldn't allow him to be suckered in like that may be the most obvious answer.

Whoever it is, must be chortling 'I kill me sometimes'.

I'll admit that the idea of DaveTard conversing with his own sockpuppets is amusing.  The only problem is that JB and Kate are consistently smarter than Dave.  He simply doesn't have the brainpower to pull it off.

By the way, Richard, is that a Semper Fi hat in the photo you posted?  I'm starting to put two and two together... 

Date: 2006/08/07 10:45:05, Link
Author: keiths
Sal just posted this over on Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
Salvador Cordova will be on International TV next week along with Caroline Crocker, Edward Sisson, and IDEA GMU president Christine Chenette. See Coral Ridge Hour. (Disclaimer: I was intereviewed by their reporters, anything else said during that show is Coral Ridge's business).

International TV!  That's like, way better than national TV, isn't it?

Tune in.  Could be good for some laughs.

Date: 2006/08/08 22:50:50, Link
Author: keiths
I'm finding Salvador Cordova's delusions of grandeur incredibly entertaining.  Besides incessantly flogging his upcoming "international TV" appearance on D. James Kennedy's ultra-fundy Coral Ridge Hour, he is also:

1. Linking to his own comments on other threads, using bombastic titles.  For example, in this thread, he links to a comment he made on the Cornell ID class website, using the title "Salvador cuts Nick Matzke off at the pass".

Ride 'em, Sal!

2. Describing his legendary (in his own mind) exchanges on the Internet:
Quote
In a classic, grueling internet debate from June 30, 2004 to August 28, 2004, Dr. Richard B. Hoppe (RBH of PT) and I argued at ARN over Adami’s work. I had never touched Avida in my life prior to this debate. The only reason I knew I would win the debate was the assurance that Avida’s fantastic claims could not possibly be right based on information science alone.

In contrast, Hoppe was an Avida expert of several years, and a master rhetorician. He nearly delivered a knockout in the early weeks of the debate before I was able to recover and eventually gain the upper hand. (Hoppe has truly been one of my most worthy counterparts in the ongoing jousts between the UDers and Pandas. He and PvM will be happy to know they had a lot to do with getting me involved in ID.  )

How generous of you to acknowledge that Hoppe is a "worthy counterpart", Sal.  Future historians analyzing Huxley v. Wilberforce and Cordova v. Hoppe will note that not only were you brilliant, but magnanimous in victory as well!

3. Getting out the message that it's cool to be an IDer:
Quote
I also wanted the crowd to have imprinted in their subconscious minds that IDers are charming guys like James Bond and Brad Pitt.

But Sal, we already knew IDers were cool guys like Dembski and Granville Sewell.

Date: 2006/08/08 22:55:53, Link
Author: keiths
And humble, too:
Quote
I’m having 1/3 of chapter written about in in Lauren Sandler’s book this fall, and I and Christine will be on international TV this coming sunday. I’m just an ordinary Joe expressing my skepticism and sharing personal thoughts! I claim no special insights or research breakthroughs! But Barb unwittingly has helped promote our clubs even more than I!

Date: 2006/08/13 05:46:11, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador's "international TV" appearance is now available for viewing.

He must be crushed -- after hyping his appearance all over the blogosphere, he ended up with less than a minute of screen time.

The interesting part of the segment is when they show Caroline Crocker lying for Jesus.  She states, "I did one lecture where I gave them the evidence for and against evolution, just the scientific evidence.  I was so careful when I wrote that lecture not to be partial in any way."

Then they start flashing slides from her lecture on the screen.  I paused the video to get a look.  The first slide shows a picture of a monkey with a banana, a picture of a slovenly man in his underwear, and an arrow with a question mark over it connecting the monkey to the man.  In her second slide she manages to mention that Darwin "failed at medical school (could not dissect)" and "was a rich kid who enjoyed partying, drinking, and gambling".  Her third slide mentions Archaeopteryx and Eohippus as "Presumed Transitional Forms", stating that "Archaeopteryx has been questioned as a fraud" and that "Eohippus is same as modern-day hyrax", apparently confusing the genus Hyracotherium, to which Eohippus belongs, with the family Hyracoidea, which contains the hyrax.  Judge for yourselves -- same or different?

Hyrax
Eohippus

Her fourth slide, titled "Scientists are Confused", says that "scientists have differing opinions on this issue; intelligent design is gaining ground".  She then quote-mines Gould and Eldredge before finishing with a quote of Wernher von Braun (whom she specifically cites as a "rocket scientist") saying "It is unscientific to teach evolution only."

Utterly shameful that the Darwinian fascists would have a problem with such a fair-minded, impartial defender of the truth as Caroline.

Date: 2006/08/13 05:58:11, Link
Author: keiths
Look who's gone groveling back to UD to lick his master's feet:
Quote

DaveScot!

Welcome back. I missed you.

Comment by BarryA — August 13, 2006 @ 9:20 am

Let the synergistic tarditude begin!

Date: 2006/08/13 08:24:17, Link
Author: keiths
Where's stevestory?

I arranged DaveScot's return to UD just to commemmorate Steve's achievement in surpassing the 2000-post milestone at AtBC.

Well done, sir, and please enjoy your prize.

Date: 2006/08/13 09:26:17, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 13 2006,13:47)
This guy's supposed to be a lawyer, and he has no idea how to work a possessive apostrophe?

At least he avoids the abominable "Jone's", which I've seen several times at UD.

Date: 2006/08/13 18:37:54, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador shares his pain:
Quote
The 90 minutes of my interview which was edited out of the news story have been things I’ve written about over the last few months regarding IDEA and the plight of pro-ID college students.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 10:32 pm

Ouch.

Date: 2006/08/18 18:00:11, Link
Author: keiths
Major Tard and Sgt. Tard kiss and make up:
Quote
DaveScot: Glad to see you again. You’ve done inestimable service for this blog, and your insights have been missed. I’ve upgraded the account under which you posted this comment to “Author” — same as Sal. I want to see you posting here again.

The functionality of this blog is going to be upgraded in coming weeks, including a bulletin board (this should enable Sal to do efficiently what he’s trying to do here with, as he put it, “inelegant cut and paste”).

Comment by William Dembski — August 18, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

Awwww, aren't they cute?

The good news is that this should elicit more Tardtainment from the Sergeant.  The bad news is that his finger will be back on the banninator button (at least on his own threads).

And you're the first one outta here! -dt

Date: 2006/08/21 02:14:07, Link
Author: keiths
Earth to Salvador... Come in, Salvador...
Quote
I may not live to see the day when ID’s greatest contribution to society will be the medical and technological advances it brings and the defeat of Darwinism will be only one of IDs anecdotal accomplishments. Recall what happened to epicycles and phlogiston theory? These mistaken theories barely enter the awareness of modern man in light of the theories which supplanted them (namely celestial mechanics and atomic chemistry.) It is for this reason that the theology-free science of ID must ascend within creationist circles, and for that matter all circles, not so much to defeat Darwinism (as Darwinism is already doing a good job of self-destructing), but rather to ultimately advance science and technology.

Date: 2006/08/21 09:09:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 21 2006,11:11)
Maybe someone can tell me how this relates to ToE?  Or why South Africans don't cotton to that particular theory?

Dembski is comfortable with common descent up to a point:
 
Quote
I am often called an anti-evolutionist, but I could be comfortable with common descent that can be squared with the Christian tradition.

"Squared with the Christian tradition" means that humans were either separately created, or are at least very, very special in their intellectual and moral qualities (i.e. created in the image of God).

So to Dembski, any news that animals are stupid is good news for humanity's specialness.

Kind of pathetic that he goes around looking for ways of feeling superior to dolphins.

Regarding South Africans and the ToE, maybe it has something to do with the Coriolis force.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:32:41, Link
Author: keiths
Allen MacNeill vents his disgust at UD, and Salvador "explains" why UD is an intellectual wasteland:
Quote
And the previous seven entries all illustrate why it is absolutely useless to expect to have any kind of rational discussion at this website.

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — August 22, 2006 @ 12:42 pm

Quote
Thank you, Allen, for showing us the error of our ways. Perhaps you would deign to lead us from this, our dark pit of ignorance and despair, into the bright peaks of knowledge and relevance, through further prognostications on your part. After all, to kvetch is plebeian and to lead is noble. I’m sure your venerable fencing master must have taught something similar to that.

Comment by DaveScot — August 22, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

Quote
Allen,

What DaveScot posted was not directed at you nor your very fine student, Elena. I had Pim’s name on it, and like Yankee Roger Clemens pitching in Fenway Park, one can expect a certain reaction when Pim’s name is mentioned here.

This is a weblog that is basically a variety show. There will be serious and then not so serious modes of discussion. So I encourage you to look for threads of interest to you, and simply change channels when a discussion is no longer appealing. I would hope you don’t leave the website entirely…..

I have tried to give you my take on the issue of Elena’s paper: here. I wrote a long response to you comment which I think may help your research.

I hope however, you realize there are times these threads between UD and PandasThumb are like the fan clubs of two opposing teams: like the Yankees versus the Red Sox, where the gang isn’t really in the mode of academic discussion, but following light-hearted comaraderie and tribal mentality….

I point that out to say, each thread will appeal to some more than others….

Salvador
PS
I personally am a Baltimore Orioles fan.

Comment by scordova — August 22, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1486

Date: 2006/08/22 18:45:48, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2006,20:29)
Davetard is getting reamed here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1485#comments

I suspect the thread will be closed and burried soon. He's banging on about 'brute force' [which is anything but GAs] and someone has pointed out that the statespace is to big for brute force [in this case nested loop itterations] to deal with. Poor Dave! Our polytard has been caught not knowing what he's banging on about again. Maybe this is an 'expertise bluff'?

Tom English is exactly the kind of opponent DaveTard fears the most.  He's:

1) Much smarter than Dave;
2) Has his impulses under control, unlike Dave;
3) Systematically dismantles Dave's arguments and backs up his assertions with evidence; and
4) Doesn't take Dave's bait.

In a confrontation with someone like Tom, Dave comes off very badly. The longer the exchange goes on, the more obvious it becomes that Dave doesn't know what he's talking about.  On the other hand, arbitrarily banning his opponent makes him look like an intellectual coward.  He generally hangs in until the humiliation of looking stupid outweighs the humiliation of running away like a little girl.  He then declares his opponent "boring" and bans him or her.

Dembski works in much the same way, although he tends to involve himself in fewer confrontations, preferring to let others do the dirty work for him.  He also plays it safe, posting things without committing to a position on them.

I take heart in the fact that any fence-sitters who stumble onto UD looking for a serious discussion of ID instead get to see these two wimps running away from their opponents in embarrassing disarray.

Date: 2006/08/24 00:25:53, Link
Author: keiths
What the fork???
Quote
Before Darwin, racial prejudice and eugenic practices existed but were just good ‘ol fashioned bigotry, hatred and murder and can be pretty much seen as just that (the above reference to Martin Luther included).

What Darwin and ilk did do was to develope theoretical system justifying it and promoting it implementation by paving the highway for mass slaughter in the philosphical(as opposed to the by-ways and side tracks in history to which is was always limited to). Furthermore Darwinism is a univeral trend which carried to it’s logical conclusion, ultimately provides the way to a irrational society (where Dawkins claims to get his sense of rational from beats me) where there is no absolute morality (only set by the ruler of the day) and so we either close down all the butcher shops and become vegans or it’s a $2.5-per pound of fresh little girl sirloin and $3.50 for beef.

Comment by lucID — August 24, 2006 @ 3:59 am

Uh, lucID -- Who's missing that  "sense of rational" again?

Date: 2006/08/24 18:24:35, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 24 2006,16:55)

perhaps there is some fear there, but it certainly isn't based on any lack of confidence in his own abilities, based on his posts.

What IS DT afraid of?


Dave wants to project confidence, but inside he is a timid and insecure.

If he were confident in his abilities, he wouldn't feel the need to ban every opponent who puts up a fight.  He'd seize the opportunity to show his superior intelligence by trouncing the interloper instead of banning him or her.    

Dave absolutely craves respect.  The constant bragging (about Dell, his "yacht", his IQ, his technical skills) is an attempt to gain admiration from his blog audience (hence his anger at having his posturing "spoiled" when someone outthinks him).

The best recent example of this was on the GilDodgen checkers thread.  Gil declared himself "one of the world's leading authorities" on computer checkers.  Dave couldn't stand to be ignored while Gil was basking in glory, so he submitted this pathetic "me too" post:

Quote
I wrote a cribbage AI 20 years ago that people swore cheated. It’s still on the internet available for download at cardandboardgames.com It doesn’t cheat. I simply wrote an expert system that made the same decisions that I would make in any given situation. That alone made it a good competitor. I then improved on mother nature by leveraging what a computer is good at - calculating odds precisely and quickly. As each card was exposed I calculated the odds of where remaining cards would be. This would not be possible for a human unless some kind of savant like Rainman but it’s certainly not cheating. Think of it like card counting at blackjack in vegas only more complicated. I didn’t take any card into consideration until it had been legally exposed during normal gameplay. This made the program virtually invicible after playing it enough times for luck to average out so skill level can become evident. I could still whip the snot out of it but that’s because I knew exactly what it was thinking and that’s enough of an advantage to nullify the card counting.


A more confident man would have been secure enough to let Gil have his moment without demanding a share of the spotlight.

Date: 2006/08/24 22:05:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 25 2006,00:19)
all the more reason DT should want to buy UD from WD, though, yes?

Yes, and WAD ought to be willing to part with it, given that it's only his "playground":
Quote
Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to www.designinference.com. As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I’ll be booting all three of you.

Comment by William Dembski — August 22, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

On the other hand, without Uncommonly Dense, where would Dembski:

1. Stage his "street theatre" performances?
2. Buttress his Napoleonic fantasies via arbitrary bannination?
3. Smear evil Darwinists like Padian and Pianka?
4. Acquire bootlickers like Salvador?
5. Showcase his statistical skills?

Plus, UD is probably the first playground in Dembski's life where he sometimes manages to avoid being beaten up by the other kids.

Date: 2006/08/24 22:10:20, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 25 2006,01:17)
Dave the polymath

This part may hit a little too close to home for Sgt. Tard:
Quote
Also, there is a term in military slang, "Walt", which is an abbreviation of Walter Mitty, which refers to someone who has aspirations to become a soldier, but none of the necessary personal qualities.

Date: 2006/08/25 01:40:18, Link
Author: keiths
Joseph vies with lucID for the Best Supporting Tard nomination:
Quote
Is the individual, rather than the population, the instrument of evolutionary change?

This is an interesting question because many, if not all, ‘Darwinists’ say that populations evolve, yet freely admit that the mutations occur in individuals and natural selection acts on each individual. NS being the result of differences in survival & reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits- page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr 5th edition.

So if each individual can be considered a population (within a population) then it is populations that drive evolution.

Comment by Joseph — August 24, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

Date: 2006/08/26 04:25:49, Link
Author: keiths
Not a peep from Denyse since August 20th.

Date: 2006/08/28 10:05:13, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
I would now welcome commentary on the emergence of new species. Are the speciation events above the species or genus level today?

Salvador

Comment by scordova — August 28, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

What the fork does Salvador think a "genus level" speciation event looks like?

Date: 2006/08/28 15:24:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (2ndclass @ Aug. 28 2006,18:55)
After all of these months on Dembski's blog, Dave still doesn't realize that design inferences are eliminative, not comparative.  Dave, it's obvious that you haven't actually read Dembski's work, although you do read this thread.  How about if you tell us which of Dembski's works you've read?

Sgt. Tard is actually proud of the fact that he hasn't read Dembski's books:  
 
Quote
SaRtre - I independently arrived at most of Dembski’s conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression “great minds think alike”? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true.

Comment by DaveScot — August 13, 2005 @ 9:41 am

You see, Dave and Dembski reached the same conclusions, even though Dave doesn't know what Dembski's conclusions are (beyond "some stuff was designed").  Therefore Dave is a genius.

Bonus tard quote from the same thread:
 
Quote
Sartre

Biologists have no training in engineering. How can they recognize design?

You aren’t going to win this argument. I’m an autodidact. My knowledge of biology is extensive as is my knowledge of computers and machinery of all kinds.

Comment by DaveScot — August 13, 2005 @ 7:56 pm

Date: 2006/08/29 19:16:04, Link
Author: keiths
What ever happened to the series of articles that Tardus Maximus promised us on the relevance of nanotechnology to ID?  We're being deprived of our rightful tardtainment!

Quote
January 6, 2006
Engines of Creation Series (#1)
I’ve decided to write a series of articles touching upon ID-relevant portions of the seminal book describing the nanotechnology revolution “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler. The book was originally published in hardcover in 1986 and purchased/read by me that year...Please give EOC chapter 14 a quick read during the next week before I get around to the next article in this series.

Filed under: Education, Intelligent Design, Comp. Sci. / Eng., Science — DaveScot @ 10:42 am

Date: 2006/08/31 19:03:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 31 2006,18:39)
so, it seems that the general agreement is that alcohol is required to deaden the nerves before one can successfully navigate a complete thread on UD?

would that be the consesus opinion?

I like my tard straight up.  Like argy says, the key is having no faith in the reasonableness of humanity.  If you think that people should be intelligent, observant, and reasonable, then facing UD sans alcohol is distressing and depressing.  If, on the other hand, you have a healthy, cynical attitude about humans, then you can simply savor the tard as one more fascinating freak of nature, like a two-headed kitten or a rain of frogs.

The other nice thing about UD is that it makes you appreciate the non-tards in your life.  For example, I work at a small company with thirteen smart, friendly, and reasonable people.  We've been careful to hire non-tards and the effort has really paid off.  We enjoy working together, everyone carries his weight, and a lot gets done.  I shudder to think of the damage an employee like DaveTard could do to a company like ours.

Date: 2006/08/31 22:09:48, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
David Heddle wrote: “Since there was a time when there was no life, and there is now life, abiogenesis happened.”

How do you know there was a time when there was no life in the universe? That sounds like a baseless assumption to me but feel to lay out your evidence. Without exception we have never observed life coming from non-life. Biogenesis has been observed billions of of times. Therefore it requires extraordinary evidence to claim that the rule of biogenesis can be broken.

Comment by DaveScot — September 1, 2006 @ 1:21 am

Does TardBoy really think that life existed before atoms formed, 300,000 years after the Big Bang?  And that this doesn't require extraordinary evidence? 

Or is he also a Big Bang skeptic?  Wouldn't surprise me.

I'm skeptical of your continued presence on this blog, homo. Nature doesn't have the guts to violate my law of biogenesis.  I'm 5'10', 220#, dumb as an ox, and carry concealed. --dt

Date: 2006/09/03 21:49:31, Link
Author: keiths
Time has a new article on the talented Ms. Harris:

Katherine Harris' Comedy of Errors

Date: 2006/09/06 08:50:45, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for all the music and art in the world.

Comment by DaveScot — September 6, 2006 @ 7:57 am

Date: 2006/09/07 14:37:54, Link
Author: keiths
Le Tard reveals more of his impoverished inner life:
Quote
Music doesn’t give me feeling you describe, nor art, but sometimes natural beauty and inner reflection will cause that response. It’s not at all the same pleasure response evoked by food, a bit like sex, and very similar to scalp tingling caused by amphetamines.

Comment by DaveScot — September 7, 2006 @ 4:48 am

Date: 2006/09/08 07:15:51, Link
Author: keiths
Davey grovels at the feet of WAD and DOL:
 
Quote
Bill, Denyse, and I all agree that we want a G-rated blog suitable for all audiences. No exceptions.

I realize that I am guilty of breaking these rules in the past, especially in regard to respecting the beliefs of others, and for that I offer my humble apology. It was wrong of me.

Comment by DaveScot — September 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Who knew how desperate Dave was to get back into the UD fold?

Date: 2006/09/08 11:23:21, Link
Author: keiths
I disagree with johnnyb on a lot of things, but I have to say the following in his defense:

1. He's polite and respectful of his opponents, and unlike Sal, he's genuine about it.

2. He doesn't quote-mine.

3. He actually reads the biological literature.

4. You can have a rational discussion with him.

Date: 2006/09/08 11:27:32, Link
Author: keiths
LouFCD spills the UDOJ beans:

http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/09/all-good-things.html#full

Date: 2006/09/08 11:33:37, Link
Author: keiths
Any bets on how Le Tard will attempt to spin his suckerdom?

Date: 2006/09/08 21:33:12, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 08 2006,22:41)
I must say, no matter how bad my day at work was, I know I can get some laughs over at UD.

It's like an All You Can Eat Buffet of Stupid.


Binge and purge...

Date: 2006/09/09 08:33:27, Link
Author: keiths
Astute reader Joseph manages to embarrass himself twice with his earnest responses to a couple of parody posts from www.thebrites.org.

From the first post:
 
Quote
The BRITES is working through legal channels to have statues of Darwin installed in United States court houses to replace the recently outlawed ten commandments.

 
Quote
I guess that shatters the myth that Darwin is irrelevant. And anti-IDists wonder why people refer to it as “Darwinism”.

However this is ironic. If “Darwinism” is right then nature is the only “court house” required.

Comment by Joseph — September 9, 2006 @ 11:18 am

 
Quote
Don’t take parody seriously, Joseph.

Comment by Strangelove — September 9, 2006 @ 11:49 am


And from the second post:
 
Quote
Intelligent design creationist Jonathan Wells, who poses as a biologist and scholar with Ph.D.s from Berkeley and Yale, has just published a dangerous book attacking modern science - and indeed, the whole of Western civilization.

With The BRITES’s enthusiastic support, The NCSE and Panda’s Thumb have dedicated themselves to destroying the dangerous Jonathan Wells. The only good practitioner of ID is a destroyed practitioner of ID.

 
Quote
Message to the BRITES:

It is a long fall from your imagined high horse.

On another note why don’t they just dedicate themselves to substantiating their claims? That is the way to destroy ID.

Comment by Joseph — September 9, 2006 @ 11:25 am

 
Quote
Why bother responding to a parody web site at all?

Comment by Carlos — September 9, 2006 @ 11:46 am

 
Quote
I wonder how many letters to the editor people have tried to send in to TheOnion.com too.

Comment by Strangelove — September 9, 2006 @ 11:51 am

How fitting, then, that Joseph's own blog is an unintentional self-parody entitled Intelligent Reasoning.

Date: 2006/09/11 04:04:50, Link
Author: keiths
A typical weekend in the whirlwind romance of JAD and Le Tard, taken from the thread entitled "John Davison, Are You Listening?":
Quote
I’m listening but I won’t participate until my several papers are restored to the side board. I hope Uncmmon Descent can understand my position.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 8, 2006 @ 9:17 am

Quote
In regard to Dr. Davison’s papers on the sideboard, if someone else wants to gather them together and reformat for html...I’ll put them back on the sideboard...

Before I do this I need a promise from Doctor Davison that he’ll remain civil with everyone here including me, he’ll respect the beliefs of even the most profoundly religious members here, he’ll strictly avoid writing anything obscene or suggestive of something obscene (sex, bodily fluids, etcetera), and will otherwise not use language inappropriate for young ears. Bill, Denyse, and I all agree that we want a G-rated blog suitable for all audiences. No exceptions.

I realize that I am guilty of breaking these rules in the past, especially in regard to respecting the beliefs of others, and for that I offer my humble apology. It was wrong of me.

Comment by DaveScot — September 8, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Quote
I will promise nothing to David Sprnger or anyone else [remainder deleted, presumably by Sgt. Tard].

Comment by John A. Davison — September 8, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

Quote
Have it your way, John. Your papers will not be restored and you\’re back to having all your comments requiring approval by an editor before seeing the light of day.

Comment by DaveScot — September 8, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

Quote
I am not only listening, I am trying to respond to those who question my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I guess Uncommon Descent doesn’t need any help from the author of the PEH and the subject of this thread.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 5:05 pm

Quote
Sorry about that, John. Your comments were stuck in moderation.

Comment by Patrick — September 9, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

Quote

That’s fine. Just don’t let it happen again. What of course is unknown is what would have been done had I not complained both here and elsewhere, notably at “brainstorms.” And where is my other comment or is it comments. I can’t remember? They were far more significant than these. I am old you know and my short term memory is not what it used to be. What I do remenber is something my mother once told me. John, she said, it is only the squeeky wheel that gets the grease. Apparently this is an example of my mothers wisdom. Thank you mom!

Oh I remember now. It was the one where I accused the Darwinians of being so weak minded as to believe that population genetics ever had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. See if you can’t cough that one up. As I recall it was one of my better efforts.

If I can’t be treated as a peer here at Uncommon Descent I would prefer that you deny me the opportunity to submit messages. I don’t care to be treated as a second class citizen anywhere, anytime or anyplace and I am likely to make that widely known whenever and wherever it occurs, as I just did.

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 9:51 pm

Quote
Okay, much as I hate to ever have to say this, I now give my solemn promise in advance that will never make any lewd or vulgar remarks here at Uncommon Descent and humbly beg the blogczar to be granted the same priveleges as other contributors have here. If this is not sufficient, please have the common decency to outright ban me from wasting my time posting messages that may never appear.

Maybe you could do what they did over at Panda’s Thumb. No matter where I said it, it immediately appeared on “The Bathroom Wall.” Or perhaps you could do what they did at EvC where it was “Boot Camp.” Heck, I will take whatever I can get. It is a cruel world out there don’t you know. But seriously, it is no fun for a published scientist to be treated as a second class citizen anywhere. I am sure you can understand.

“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 9, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

Quote
If I promise to continue to be good boy (79 next June), do you suppose my papers might be restored? If they were it would make it much easier to respond to many of the questions that I have provoked. The answers would be a touch of the mouse away don’t you know. I just realized that I have not kept my word when I promised that I would not participate until they were. I guess my word isn’t worth a nickel is it? Oh well, that is just old senile John again. He can’t remember anything any more.

I know I am senile because I get the senile citizen’s discount (10%) every Tuesday at Ben Franklins, one of the few virtues of getting old. They used to have it at KMart but it stopped when Martha Stewart went into stir.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 10, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

Quote
John, the self deprecation is unbecoming. Won’t you just please be the professional scientist with the great ideas about organic evolution that we all know you can be when you want to be? The scientist with your name writing on brainstorms, for instance, before I came along to set you off. That’s the guy we’re looking for here. If I beg, will you please be the same here? I’m begging!

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

Quote
John, check the sidebar and your email.

Comment by DaveScot — September 10, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

Quote
DaveScot

I am behaving and you known it. It is very true as you just admitted that you “set me off.” You sure have, big time and many times. That is a matter of record. I recommend that should be put in the past. What says DaveScot?

Comment by John A. Davison — September 11, 2006 @ 3:30 am

Quote
Doctor Davison

It’s all water under the bridge. Let’s focus on our common belief that chance never had anything significant to do with organic evolution.

Comment by DaveScot — September 11, 2006 @ 4:31 am

Quote
Let’s do just that. Set them up in the other alley. So far I am bowling a perfect game!

Who is next?

I love it so!

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison

Comment by John A. Davison — September 11, 2006 @ 7:03 am

Bravo.  A true pas de deux des tards.

Date: 2006/09/12 21:36:36, Link
Author: keiths
An amusing friendly fire incident on UD.  Salvador has a twitchy trigger finger:
 
Quote
BarryA,

Something happened to you comment when I was moderating this thread. WordPress whacked it when I tried to delete some one else\’s comments. I\’m really sorry.

Sal

Comment by scordova — September 13, 2006 @ 12:46 am

It's hard to tell one comment from another when you're deleting so many.  At least Barry deserved it, if the post by djmullen above is any indication.

Date: 2006/09/14 11:36:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 14 2006,10:32)
If you force my god out of this gap, there are plenty more for me to hide him in...


I like it, Richard.  Sort of a "Hermit God of the Gaps."

Date: 2006/09/14 20:52:13, Link
Author: keiths
Jujuquisp,

My suggestion is to join the ACLU and/or AU, or to make another donation if you're already a member.  

I joined both organizations largely because of what I witnessed at UD.

Someone once suggested making a donation to the ACLU in DaveScot's name, making sure that he was notified of the gift.  Sounds like a nice way to do some good and tweak Dave at the same time.

Date: 2006/09/16 14:05:01, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse O'Leary:
Quote
...I get the impression that it’s okay at Baylor to yay-hoo for Jesus as long as you make a fool of yourself and no one takes you seriously.

Sounds like a pretty accurate description of  Dembski's time at Baylor, but no, she was actually referring to Baylor's denial of tenure to Francis Beckwith.

Date: 2006/09/16 22:29:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Tom Ames @ Sep. 17 2006,01:20)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 15 2006,13:56)
 
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 15 2006,01:52)
I joined both organizations largely because of what I witnessed at UD.

Likewise. I'd been meaning to join ACLU for a while but somehow never got around to it. Finally some neo-fascist anti-ACLU tantrum on Dave's part early last Summer drove me to get off my ass and join. I'm now one of Dave's super-villains, a "card-carrying member".

Same here! The 'tard got me to finally send in my check.

That's at least three of us who joined on account of Le Tard.  I'm beginning to suspect that he was planted at UD by the ACLU.

That UDOJ business?  Two sock puppets baiting a third.

Date: 2006/09/18 16:30:30, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Sep. 18 2006,09:34)
Whatever happened to the www.overwhelmingevidence.com site that Dimbski claimed he was going to develp as a reply to Kitzmiller?   Does anyone else recall him speaking of it on UD?

Perhaps he's misplaced all of that "overwhelming evidence"?

ps: I wonder if he is/was planning to use the sticky bun in the likeness of mother teresa as a part of the evidece for ID?

He's been talking about that site since December.

December 26, 2005:
Quote
Also, watch for www.overwhelmingevidence.com, which I expect will provide a suitable antidote to the Dover trial (stay tuned).

August 10, 2006:
Quote
Dennett, Dawkins et al. are losing not in the court of law but in the court of public opinion, and that’s where I’m focusing my attentions. For instance, I’m starting a website (www.overwhelmingevidence.com — not yet up and running), modeled on myspace and xanga, to bring high school students together to resist neo-Darwinism and promote intelligent design.

September 18, 2006:
Quote
Site being developed.

When he gets the first piece of overwhelming evidence, I'm sure the site will go up.

Date: 2006/09/18 22:32:49, Link
Author: keiths
Screw IC, SC, and CSI.  Gil's got the answer:
Quote
Quote
What is your objective method of design detection, and can you show us how it works, by example, when applied to a living system?

Machinery. Machines are designed. Living systems are full of them.

Comment by GilDodgen — September 18, 2006 @ 11:49 pm

Date: 2006/09/18 22:39:13, Link
Author: keiths
Wes, don't you understand?  To oppose intelligent design is to oppose Jesus.  Of course we need ID-friendly folks on the editorial board!

Date: 2006/09/19 20:28:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 20 2006,00:55)
...no, not Arden.  Not to say he isn't a Great Man, but rather that his followers aren't as funny.

Arden is a Great Man.  But even He stands in awe of That Magnificent (Quotemining) Bastard and Inventor of the TardCap™, Richardthughes.

Date: 2006/09/20 12:21:17, Link
Author: keiths
Tom English manages both to bash Granville Sewell and to d@mn Salvador Dorkova with faint praise, all in only eight words:
Quote
Salvador gives far better arguments than Sewell does.

I give it a 9.5.

Date: 2006/09/20 12:30:10, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2006,14:01)
   
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 20 2006,11:50)
To a Kiwi the Aussie pronunciation of "fish" sounds like 'feeesh' and to an Aussie the Kiwi "fish" is 'fush'.

I always thought the Kiwi pronunciation of "fish" sounded like 'fesh'.

The first time I flew out of Auckland (I'm a Yank) they came on the public address system to announce that "Chicken was delayed for flight 371 to Sydney".  I figured Kiwis must really be obsessed with their in-flight meals, until I realized that "chicken" was really "check-in".  :p

Date: 2006/09/21 00:00:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Seems like Google is turning way to the Religious Left, starting by knocking down sites that attack the church of liberalism right in its core (evolution and homosexual “rights”).

Comment by Mats — September 21, 2006 @ 4:11 am

Date: 2006/09/21 18:00:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2006,11:35)
Sal, unlike Heddle, is nowhere near smart enough to be suffering from Heddle's amazing level of cognitive dissonance.

Quote
I've personally examined and debunked the nonsense being promoted by Dembski's critics like Elsberry, Perakh, Shallit, Thomas, Lenski, Adami, and others. I plead you reconsider who is closer to the truth in terms of valid deductive methods....
Salvador T. Cordova | 09.21.06 - 5:17 pm
 
Quote
Salvador writes

"The hatred toward Christianity will not be soothed."

Consider this, Sal: David's last three posts here have made this atheist feel LESS antagonistic and more hopeful that Christians and atheists can behave decently and get along in the world and even ork together towards a greater scientific understanding of our universe.

Your comments have the polar opposite effect.

And I can assure you that I am not alone.

Think about it.
Altamont Alan | 09.21.06 - 5:48 pm | #

 
Quote
Oh and doug, you're even a worse representative for Christ than Sal and I didn't think that was possible.
Altamont Alan | 09.21.06 - 5:49 pm

Date: 2006/09/22 10:05:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2006,13:43)
...so far two sites, WashingtonPost.com and now UD, totally lose their marbles and their text renders in inch-high characters.


Steve, you hellbound heathen, don't you know a message from the Almighty when you see one?  Does it have to be in foot-high characters?

I am the Designer.  Bill Dembski is my prophet.  And the flagellum really is irreducibly complex.

I can't explain about the Post (would have made more sense if it were the Moonie-owned Times).  But God transcends logic.  Who are we puny humans to attempt to understand him?

Date: 2006/09/23 21:41:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 23 2006,09:02)
   
Quote
Scott // Sep 22nd 2006 at 2:55 pm

Carlos: this is a warning: Either produce published, detailed papers to support your claims or do not bother to post here any more. Hand-waving just-so stories will not be tolerated.

to which Carlos replies:
Quote

Carlos // Sep 22nd 2006 at 3:10 pm

Scott,

Ooh! Bold font! Now I’m worried!

Which specific claims would you like to see substantiated?

Carlos mocks him, and little Scott scampers away.  Let's see if he returns to the thread to salvage his manhood.

Date: 2006/09/25 22:47:25, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador Cordova:
Quote
ID is quietly advancing in the mother state of one-fourth of the American Presidents.

Oh.  Well in that case, I guess it must be true.

Date: 2006/09/27 10:15:32, Link
Author: keiths
Heddle slams Jonathan Wells at UD:

Quote
I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people where the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you’ll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.

Comment by David Heddle — September 27, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

Date: 2006/10/02 23:15:26, Link
Author: keiths
Following Carl Sachs' example, Karl Pfluger mocks Scott's bold-font threat:

Quote (Karl Pfluger @ Oct. 03 2006,01:47)

I wrote:
Quote
Avida has shown that a Darwinian process is capable of producing irreducible complexity.


Scott wrote:
Quote
Nonsensical statements like this will quickly get you unselected from this blog. And the ID proponents who post here, know better than to buy such claptrap.

Consider this a warning.

Scott,

If you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, feel free to take your bluster and bold fonts elsewhere.

I am prepared to justify my assertion. Are you able to do the same?

Date: 2006/10/03 18:00:21, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (blipey @ Oct. 03 2006,21:26)
Except, of course, when I see him in Austin next spring.  You do remember, Dave, right?  Don't be gone...it'd be really embarrassing to have it get out that you're running away from clowns.

Blipey,

Be sure to bring a video camera with you.  There's likely to be a huge comedic payoff in a face-to-face meeting with Il Tardissimo.

Date: 2006/10/04 06:52:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 04 2006,10:44)
The funny thing is that even after his backpedaling, he's still wrong.  The difference between transistor-level and gate-level modelling is far more than a quibble.  Gate-level models deal with boolean logic, while transistor-level models deal with actual voltage levels.

Any junior-level engineer knows the difference, which is why it must be particularly painful to Dave to have his ignorance pointed out.  He's already sensitive about not having an engineering degree.  His misunderstanding of science has been pointed out many times.  Now his lack of basic engineering knowledge is being exposed.  No wonder he banned Tom and Karl.

Date: 2006/10/05 16:56:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ogee @ Oct. 05 2006,08:19)
Davetard never ceases to amaze me with his breathtaking cowardice.  To come right out and say "stop disagreeing with me or you're gone". takes a very special kind of 'tard.  

Then again, if I was an insecure, uneducated blowhard moron who had just been badly humiliated on my own blog regarding my supposed area of expertise, I might be touchy, too.

Speaking of touchiness, Davey is desperately trying to salvage his credibility as a hardware designer:
Quote (DaveScot @ Oct. 05 2006,1:41)
It’s nothing short of hilarious that KeithS and others at ATBC that have obviously not done a single bit of gate level hardware design in their lives are talking about how simulations of gate logic intended to verify a design prior to laying copper need only be modeled with boolean logic. The poor ignoramuses know nothing about analog considerations such as supply rail loading, bus loading, propagation delays, and race conditions just to name a few show stoppers that aren’t covered in simple boolean logic.  

In a demonstration of either total cluelessness or dishonesty, in all the commenters there, not a single one has stepped up to correct them. Surely Wesley or someone there knows enough about digital hardware design to tell them there’s a lot more to it than boolean algebra. That’s called a lie of omission. Shame on them.

Davey, those of us who do chip design know all about analog issues.  But we also know that you don't do functional simulation of a microprocessor at the transistor level.  You could have learned this in engineering school if you hadn't dropped out.

You might want to brush up on ID, also.  Isn't it a little embarrassing when a Darwinist has to point out your misunderstanding of "irreducible complexity"?
Quote (Karl Pfluger @ Oct. 03 2006,10:11)
DaveScot wrote:

Quote
Any complexity produced in a stepwise fashion by a computer is by definition not irreducible.


Dave,
I’ll let you fight it out with Behe and Dembski, who have different ideas:

Behe:
Quote
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Dembski:
Quote
A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function.


IC precludes a stepwise buildup while maintaining the same function. It does not preclude a stepwise buildup via different intermediate functions, as in Avida’s path to the EQU function.


Good grief, Dave.  You're a moderator on an intelligent design weblog.  Stop embarrassing yourself.  Do some homework.

Date: 2006/10/06 11:36:15, Link
Author: keiths
Davey digs himself in deeper:
 
Quote (DaveScot @ Oct. 06 2006,12:38)
Oh Goody! Now 2ndClass wants to be the next clown I knock down. These people have not done any hardware design. They have not drawn schematics for many complex digital designs then sat thousands of hours in the drivers’s seat of a logic analyzer and oscilloscope debugging their own designs. That and programming is all I did for almost 25 years and I was really, really good at it.

2ndclass sticks his foot in his mouth thusly:

   
Quote
- “Simulations of gate logic” are only done with boolean logic. What other kind of logic do you think is simulated?

- Contrary to your strawman, nobody here said that analog considerations aren’t important. They just aren’t part of gate-level modelling.


But this article in EDN says:

The most common form of logic simulation is event-driven, in which the simulator sees the world as a series of discrete events. When an input value on a primitive gate changes, the simulator evaluates the gate to determine whether this change causes a change at the output and, if so, schedules an event for some future time (Figure 3).

Most event-driven logic simulators allow you to attach minimum, typical, and maximum delays to each model (Figure 4). When you run the simulator, you can select one of these delay modes, and the simulator uses that mode for all of the gates in the circuit. Also, some simulators allow you to select one delay mode as the default and then force certain gates to adopt another mode. For example, you might set all the gates in your datapath to use minimum delays and all the gates in your control path to use maximum delays, thereby allowing you to perform a “cheap and cheerful” timing analysis.

What a dope. There’s much more at the EDN link.


Dave,

It's painfully obvious to everyone (including the folks at UD) that you're bluffing.  Why keep pretending to understand how chip simulation is done?  You're just making yourself look ridiculous.  Perhaps you've done some board design, but you clearly don't understand chip design methodology.

First of all, do you really think that a gate-level simulation becomes non-boolean just because gate delays are added?

Secondly, in 20 years of chip design (microprocessors, ASICs, and FPGAs) I have never used, nor seen anyone use, nor heard about anyone using a gate-level simulation for timing analysis.  Can you do it?  Of course.  But why would you?  It's the wrong tool for the job, and there are much better tools available.

What's wrong with using a gate-level simulation for timing analysis?  Here are two biggies:

1)  Your vectors (or testbenches) have to achieve 100% path coverage (not just node coverage) to guarantee that you haven't missed any critical paths.  Not only is this impossible to achieve (or even to approach) for most designs, it also means that your verification suite has to be nearly complete before you can do significant timing analysis.  A stand-alone timing analysis tool has no such limitations and requires no vectors or testbenches.

2) To isolate a timing path using gate-level simulation, you have to a) produce a failure, b) debug from the failure back to the critical path, c) fix the path, and d) resimulate to find the next failure.  Step (b) in particular takes a huge amount of engineering time, all for the sake of highlighting one or a handful of critical paths.

A timing analyzer, by contrast, identifies hundreds or even thousands of critical paths all at once.  The engineer simply has to fix the paths and rerun the analyzer.

This is why the EDA vendors sell timing analysis tools, and it's why everyone buys them instead of trying to piggyback "cheap and cheerful" timing analysis onto their functional simulations.

We've pretty much run that topic into the ground, unless you aren't embarrassed enough yet.  Now let's hear why your definition of irreducible complexity is the right one, as opposed to Behe's and Dembski's.

Date: 2006/10/09 14:32:02, Link
Author: keiths
DaveScot:
Quote
These people have not done any hardware design. They have not drawn schematics for many complex digital designs then sat thousands of hours in the drivers’s seat of a logic analyzer and oscilloscope debugging their own designs.


Oddly enough,Dave, I actually do believe that you've spent thousands of hours debugging your own crappy designs.  You appear to be just the kind of careless thinker who would slap something together and then "design" it in the lab.

Quote
I had assumed that I was talking with people who were sufficiently knowledgable to recognize that the difference between modeling a CMOS processor at the transistor level and the gate level is a quibble because the individual logic gates are composed of just a few simple on/off mosfet (transistor) switches.


How many times do we have to prove you wrong before you'll give up, Dave?  Your latest mistake is confusing switch-level simulation with transistor-level simulation.  Read the following.  It corrects your mistake and explains a bunch of other points that Tom English, Karl Pfluger, 2ndclass and I have been making all along.

Quote
13.1  Types of Simulation
Simulators are usually divided into the following categories or simulation modes :

Behavioral simulation
Functional simulation
Static timing analysis
Gate-level simulation
Switch-level simulation
Transistor-level or circuit-level simulation

This list is ordered from high-level to low-level simulation (high-level being more abstract, and low-level being more detailed). Proceeding from high-level to low-level simulation, the simulations become more accurate, but they also become progressively more complex and take longer to run. While it is just possible to perform a behavioral-level simulation of a complete system, it is impossible to perform a circuit-level simulation of more than a few hundred transistors.

There are several ways to create an imaginary simulation model of a system. One method models large pieces of a system as black boxes with inputs and outputs. This type of simulation (often using VHDL or Verilog) is called behavioral simulation . Functional simulation ignores timing and includes unit-delay simulation , which sets delays to a fixed value (for example, 1 ns). Once a behavioral or functional simulation predicts that a system works correctly, the next step is to check the timing performance. At this point a system is partitioned into ASICs and a timing simulation is performed for each ASIC separately (otherwise the simulation run times become too long). One class of timing simulators employs timing analysis that analyzes logic in a static manner, computing the delay times for each path. This is called static timing analysis because it does not require the creation of a set of test (or stimulus) vectors (an enormous job for a large ASIC). Timing analysis works best with synchronous systems whose maximum operating frequency is determined by the longest path delay between successive flip-flops. The path with the longest delay is the critical path .

Logic simulation or gate-level simulation can also be used to check the timing performance of an ASIC. In a gate-level simulator a logic gate or logic cell (NAND, NOR, and so on) is treated as a black box modeled by a function whose variables are the input signals. The function may also model the delay through the logic cell. Setting all the delays to unit value is the equivalent of functional simulation. If the timing simulation provided by a black-box model of a logic gate is not accurate enough, the next, more detailed, level of simulation is switch-level simulation which models transistors as switches—on or off. Switch-level simulation can provide more accurate timing predictions than gate-level simulation, but without the ability to use logic-cell delays as parameters of the models. The most accurate, but also the most complex and time-consuming, form of simulation is transistor-level simulation . A transistor-level simulator requires models of transistors, describing their nonlinear voltage and current characteristics.


http://www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu/~msmith....=119950

Date: 2006/10/15 08:32:38, Link
Author: keiths
Preserving the exchange for posterity:

Quote
Allen: You really need to mix more in the real world. Question: did your views on evolution ever lead to you losing an academic job? No? From your cossetted little academic fiefdom, it’s all very easy to blow smoke. For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum, but that would only confirm your delusions.

Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

Quote

Dr. Dembski:

Once again you attack me personally, without knowing anything about my beliefs or history.

Please, for the record, which of my comments was “fatuous” and in what way?

And, for the record, I came close to having my evolution/design seminar “delisted” this summer, but with Will Provine’s help, it went on as planned…with Hannah Maxson (founder and president of the Cornell IDEA Club as a full participant and moderator of the course website).

I can understand your bitterness as the result of the Baylor affair, but does that give you the right to attack me in what virtually anyone would recognize as pure ad hominem viciousness? What happened to arguing propositions on their intellectual merits? Are you that much less of a gentleman and a scholar as my friend and colleague Hannah Maxson?

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 14, 2006 @ 11:20 pm

Quote
And, for the record, exactly what would “booting me from this forum” confirm - my “fatuousness” or “delusions”, or your inability to countenance opposing opinions in an atmosphere of collegial debate?

My own blog is online at
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/
Please feel free to visit at your leisure, and post comments on whatever topic you wish. And, rest assured, so long as you adhere to the rules of “spirited academic debate” you will not be “booted” from that forum, and I will not characterize your self or your actions as either “fatuous” or “deluded.”

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 14, 2006 @ 11:26 pm

Date: 2006/10/17 20:24:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 17 2006,16:28)
What is the role of a research professor in a seminary?

Dembski is promising us some actual research within the next year:
Quote
Finally, Baylor and I have patched up our differences — I have good colleagues there in a number of departments and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit.

Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

Date: 2006/10/24 13:05:05, Link
Author: keiths
Dang.  I've been looking forward to seeing Ken's shiny new museum ever since I read this.

Would it be immoral of me to give money for the preservation of this monument to human stupidity?

Date: 2006/10/31 01:33:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2006,12:35)
"Physics Today" some time in the last year had an article on a fractal analysis of Jackson Pollock paintings and Pollock imitators. They found high fractal depth present in Pollock's work, but missing in his imitators. "Jack the Dripper" apparently did a bit more with his paintings than might be apparent on first glance.


http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/TaylorlCCS2002.pdf

Date: 2006/11/02 14:53:04, Link
Author: keiths
Just posted the following at Hovind's blog:

Quote
Brother Hovind,

Congratulations on this opportunity to begin your prison ministry.

The Lord works in mysterious ways!

Regards,
Keith

Date: 2006/11/02 18:28:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2006,17:25)
You know, maybe I've been too hard on Joel. Maybe he's not obsessed with hoo-hoos and twigs and berries.

I wonder what Joel makes of this:
Top Evangelist Rev. Ted Haggard Resigns Amid Allegations of Gay Affair

Date: 2006/11/03 09:36:54, Link
Author: keiths
Salvador:
Quote
For the record, I officially accused Myers of nothing. I merely reported on an analysis by a professor and invited readers to decide the accuracy of the analysis. I was curious to see what would transpire.

Curious, my ass.
Quote
If Myers accuses me of this or that, well, I was just reporting what someone else said. The comment section is to help us discuss and figure out and decide for ourselves the accuracy of the analysis.

Comment by scordova — November 3, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

Who, on the entire planet, would be persuaded by this evasion?  It is beyond pathological when you can't admit something that is obvious to both your allies and your detractors.

Salvador disgusts me.

Date: 2006/11/04 20:42:16, Link
Author: keiths
JGuy wrote:
Quote
A couple years ago, I made a similar argument about symmetry. It is a very tought matter for any materistic explanation. I argued that for symmetry to exist, then the mechanism whcih codes for one side of an organism would have to have either it's equal but oppostie code for the mirror image features of an organism, or it would have to code for a converter that would convert one side to the other.

Not to mention the mechanism which makes kids grow vertically when they're standing up, yet horizontally when they're lying down.

Don't you chance-worshipping heathens know it takes God to make tall, strapping kids out of Cocoa Puffs?

Date: 2006/11/07 20:33:27, Link
Author: keiths
Michaels7 raises an important question:
Quote
Afterall, who is contributing to society more? Pornographic sites or UD?

Date: 2006/11/09 02:54:13, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 08 2006,16:41)
Hmmm. I think Dave's just in a bad mood because the GOP got skunked last night.

Davey's hurting for sure:
Quote
“If Bush gets one or two more Supreme Court Justices, we’ll have Intelligent Design in the classroom.”

Yeah baby! Blame me. I voted for Bush.

Twice.

Three times if you count the father too.

Five times if you count his father as Reagan’s VP.

Oh man, make that seven times if you count voting for GW as Governor of Texas.

Go W!

Freud, Marx, and Darwin. The three pillars of western modernism. Two down, one to go.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

Quote
Correction.

Eight times. I voted for Bush senior for president twice. Smack me upside the head for forgetting he didn’t win one of those times. Picking the winner 7 of 8 times ain’t half bad! Check my math there, Bill. Not half bad, right?

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 5:28 pm


http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/35#comment-100

Date: 2006/11/09 23:09:24, Link
Author: keiths

Date: 2006/11/09 23:39:25, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski just posted this:
Quote
ID has gotten much media coverage in Denmark over the last year and interest in the topic there is growing.

...which of course reminded me of this great moment on UD, when the 'Isaac Newton of information theory' managed to misinterpret some Google search statistics so badly that he concluded that
Quote
Danes must be searching for ID >20 times more than Americans. International interest in ID is growing.   [Emphasis his]

Date: 2006/11/15 08:21:30, Link
Author: keiths
For you juxtaposed quote fans:

Salvador, after deleting a post by 'zapatero':
Quote
Zap,

I was a little annoyed since I asked you to wait till I got back to this thread. You kept right on posting before I came back. Remember, you’re here at our invitation.

In any case, I do apologize to you for the rough treatment.

Now, let’s do this in pieces, I don’t want long responses where you fill up your posts with so many falsehoods and where I’ll have to spend 10 pages cleaning them up. In otherwords I don’t want you to do a Gish Gallop. If you do that, automatic delection. Ok?

Your questions might be valuable to the readers, but if sense you going into a Chewbacca Defense of Avida or doing a Gish Gallop are argumentum ad nauseam, I’m sorry your questions and objections will just be deleted.

So for starters, state your objection again about the fact that the host computer running the simulation effectively models a replication process. And then I’ll respond. Keep your assertion about the length of this comment please.

Finally if I pose a question to you, and you don’t ignore it, I will delete any subesequent participation on this thread until you answer. Got it? Your here at my invitation, remember that.

In any case, I’m sorry my treat of you was a little brusk…

Salvador

Comment by scordova — July 17, 2006 @ 12:44 pm


Salvador:
Quote
I have a personal philosophy of encouraging people to state what’s on their mind.

Date: 2006/11/20 12:58:10, Link
Author: keiths
Welp, this rant from D'oh Leary deserves to be reproduced in its full tardaceous glory:
Quote

You wrote:

“‘flunk all the IDiots and make room for smart students’ … is clear-cut viewpoint discrimination.”

It’s more than that. The Darwinists know as well as anyone else how little good evidence exists for their current position* - which is much more far-reaching than Darwin’s original position, as their current position posits that the mind, the will, the cosmos, origin of life, you name it, is supposedly governed by Darwinian mechanisms.

They are way overstretched, and my gut tells me that they do not expect to be rescued any time soon.

How to make students swallow it all without protest? The simplest and surest way is to get rid of those who are not going to swallow it. It is from those students that most future ID researchers will be drawn.

By the way, you ID guys’ chief opposition is NOT the high materialist cult. It is the pop cult of the shopping mall.

(BTW, the mall is about consumerism, NOT capitalism; the disbursement of capital, not its accumulation and use.)

I cannot stress properly how important a foe I think the pop cult is. The university is funded by tax money. It couldn’t promote high materialism effectively, unhindered, EXCEPT insofar as pop materialism is the ruling culture.

Almost the only people you can depend on to back you in a pinch are the homeschooler types, NOT because they are fundamentalists but because they have made a big anti-materialist commitment already.**

Oh yeah, and a handful of teachers, truckers, and journalists whose careers have been wrecked because they wouldn’t shut up, maybe - plus a few artists and philosophers and others who think that life is more than pampering the body.

One quick story to explain my case - and then I must run (I do not make a living following the ID controversy): In 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down all laws against abortion, at any age of the baby. Brian Stiller (Mr. Evangelical Canada) organized an emergency speaking tour of evangelical churches - and it was a bust. Assemblies were poorly attended because people were shopping or watching hockey.

The pastors just shrugged. What can you do? People make choices. They are busy. Gay marriage came, and the few who protested were isolated indeed.

One journalist I know was reduced from dozens of papers running his political column to only two who still dared. But through it all, the people who claimed to oppose abortion and gay marriage were at the mall or watching TV.

If you asked their opinion, they would say they were “opposed” but their life patterns, giving patterns, and voting patterns would not support that.

Are Canadians unusually cowardly? Possibly, but based on events in Europe, I think it more likely that we are merely a decade ahead of the US on this curve.

So I agree with you. The uglies who bossed other students around on the campuses of the Sixties are indeed in power now, and age has not mellowed or sweetened them. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is no rising revolution against them, only isolated protest. So Larry Moran could well begin to carry out his threat - and what would be the response? A column by Mike Adams? By Charles Colson? By Jim Dobson?

Bunny, it will take far, far more than that before Moran’s type knows that he is not above the law, justice, or reason.

cheers, Denyse
(*Please, don’t write to tell me that speciation takes a long time. I am sure that is true, … but so? The fact that evidence is difficult to come by is a legitimate excuse, but it is not evidence, and we must ask how long we can reasonably be expected to wait, given that there are alternatives.
**I know a lesbian author/journalist who adopted an abandoned child who backs YOU ID guys, not the Darwinoids. Are you surprised? Remember, it’s not the fundamentalism***, it’s the anti-materialism that is the key. That will be very important to keep in mind as you increasingly move into international waters. - d.)

[P.S.: I did not put what follows in my letter to my friend because I just thought of it now: *** I bet that somewhere in the United States there is a fundamentalist shopping mall, where you can suffocate in Jesus kitsch. In my view, the fundamentalist would be safer and better off at home, reading library books on political theory and philosophy of government. - d. ]

Date: 2006/11/22 00:29:56, Link
Author: keiths
I love it.  Davey sets out to ridicule P.Z., but instead has his error pointed out to him by everyone, even getting lectured by Joseph, for tard's sake.  And he still can't admit that he's wrong!

Instead, he's off frantically Googling for some obscure reference that supports his position that gravity is the strongest force...

Oh, wait.  Same tard, different debacle...

DaveScot, 01/06/2005:
 
Quote
And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think.

P.S. Welcome back, Faid.  Where've you been, man?

Date: 2006/11/22 01:27:15, Link
Author: keiths
Gil Dodgen just posted a thread at UD entitled Priceless Entertainment -- For Free!

He might as well have been referring to Diploid Dave's thread.

Meanwhile, the frantic Googling continues:
 
Quote
Joseph

I’ll see your definition of diploid from “about.com” and raise you these:

<ten links appeared here>

This is just a small sampling of definitions of “diploid” which exclude the requirement that paired chromosomes are one copy from each parent.

I arranged two googlefights to resolve this situation.

http://googlefight.com/index.p....lossary

http://googlefight.com/index.p....lossary

Add up the two searches with parent and parents and subtract from the search without either. The result is about an even match with a marginal lead in your favor. However, since it’s likely that many glossaries will contain the word parent or parents not contained within the definition of diploid I think that swings it back in my favor but that’s just conjecture.

Comment by DaveScot — November 22, 2006 @ 1:19 am

Now Davey may be a few neurons shy of a quorum, but even he must realize that the absence of the word "parent" in a definition hardly excuses his error.

The hole gets deeper, and Davey keeps desperately digging...

Date: 2006/11/22 01:44:31, Link
Author: keiths
Holy crap!  It gets even better.  Davey went back and edited his comment to make it look less ridiculous.  Compare the DaveTard quote as it appears in Altabin's comment versus mine:

DaveTard, from Altabin's comment:
Quote
I arranged a googlefight to resolve this situation.

http://googlefight.com/index.p....lossary

I win handily. There are far more glossaries that contain the word diploid without the word parent (by 2:1 margin) than there are glossaries that contain both diploid and parent. Subtract the number on the left from the number on the right to get the number of glossaries without parent in it.


DaveTard, from my preceding comment:
Quote
I arranged two googlefights to resolve this situation.

http://googlefight.com/index.p....lossary

http://googlefight.com/index.p....lossary

Add up the two searches with parent and parents and subtract from the search without either. The result is about an even match with a marginal lead in your favor. However, since it’s likely that many glossaries will contain the word parent or parents not contained within the definition of diploid I think that swings it back in my favor but that’s just conjecture.

Comment by DaveScot — November 22, 2006 @ 1:19 am


Attaboy, Dave!  Now maybe you should sneak back and edit the original post.

Date: 2006/11/22 03:45:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
I’m still confused by the convention and probably got it wrong.

Yet the original post still ends with this:
Quote
Update 2: The preponderance of literature calls the intermediate cells 1N,2C. This appears to be just semantics. The cells contain 1n unique chromosomes but 2n total chromosomes. I can’t find a definition of “diploid” anywhere that says two identical paired chromosomes only counts as one chromosome. The situation is 23 paired chromosomes that are 100% homozygous. It’s still diploid except perhaps to a pedant.

C'mon, brave boy, how about an Update 3?  I'll even write it for you if you find it too painful:
"I was wrong about the meaning of 'diploid'.  Thank you to Allen, Joseph, and all of the others who pointed out my mistake.  Also, I sincerely apologize for calling Allen MacNeill a 'pedant'."

Date: 2006/11/22 06:41:06, Link
Author: keiths
Joseph rubs Diploid Dave's face in it (emphasis his):
 
Quote

Dave,

Did you read the definition in the first link you provided?

The normal number of chromosomes in a somatic cell; in humans, 46 chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomes and two sex chromosomes)

Somatic cells Dave.

Link 2:

The number of chromosomes in most cells except the gametes. In humans, the diploid number is 46.

link 3:

the full component of chromosomes normally found in somatic cells. In humans, the number is 46.

I rest my case with my comment #18

Comment by Joseph — November 22, 2006 @ 7:21 am

LOL.

Somatic cells, Dave.  Got it?  Write that down.

Date: 2006/11/22 09:49:58, Link
Author: keiths
PZ gets in on the fun:
Quote
This is all just God of the Gaps guesswork, in which gods are tucked away in the empty spaces in our knowledge. In this case, those empty spaces are magnified by the inclusion of DaveScot's personal ignorance…making his god a truly great god.

Date: 2006/11/22 12:51:59, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 22 2006,11:29)
Come on Davetard, do another sciencey post. Chemistry this time, maybe?

ENTERTAIN ME, TARDY.

*claps hands*

It's so hard to find a good housetard these days.

Date: 2006/11/24 19:23:56, Link
Author: keiths
One 2LoT "expert" praises another:
Quote
Sewell is awesome.

Comment by DaveScot — November 24, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

Date: 2006/11/24 19:58:14, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (cak @ Nov. 24 2006,17:44)
As a long-time lurker on these sites I have a different take on DaveScot.  He has on numerous occasions labelled his severest critics as "atheists".  What kind of agnostic uses "atheist" as a pejorative?

Keep in mind that Davey uses a cartoon definition of atheism:
Quote
As I’ve explained before, an atheist is sure there is no God. An agnostic is unsure. There’s a huge difference.

Comment by DaveScot — September 28, 2006 @ 1:46 pm

Le Tard would hate to admit it, but by his definition even Dawkins is not an atheist.  Dawkins' new book, after all, has a chapter entitled "Why There Almost Certainly is no God".  In the book he states
Quote
That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.  What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:20:23, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 27 2006,12:31)
Is it me, or has it become pretty quiet over there at UD?

Like watching paint dry.

UD gets this way periodically whenever they manage to chase off or ban all of the intelligent people.

Look no further than the Pinker thread.  27 comments full of error after inanity, piling higher and higher, and not a single intelligent challenge to offset the stench.

Gil Dodgen even manages to condescend to Pinker, which is hilarious given that Pinker under general anesthesia could still out-think Gil.

Things were hopping for a while at UD after LeTard got sacked, and for a short while after he got back, when the leash was still tight.  Those days appear to be over.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:37:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 27 2006,14:56)
They could bring back Josh Bozeman, for instance.

Wouldn't that be great?  Maybe we could get him to talk again about how great it was to be an Old Testament slave.

Date: 2006/11/27 15:49:01, Link
Author: keiths
I just popped over to Josh's website to see what he's been up to, and found this great "they all look the same to me" comment:
Quote
The first fime was REINCARNATION- a muddled Japanese horror film that wasn’t horrorific in any way. It was a mind-numbing mixture of nonsense and the same tired “scare” over and over again. Frankly, as an American of European descent, I couldn’t for the life of me tell the girls apart. The girl would start talking, and I’d ask myself- wait, is this the main character or someone else? Let’s be honest- it’s just hard to tell between the girls. They all have the stereotypical Japanese look- very thin, long straight black hair, seemingly unable to take care of themselves without the help of a male figure who holds their hand everywhere they go (figuratively, that is.)

Date: 2006/11/28 11:12:01, Link
Author: keiths
On the Pinker thread:
Quote
It is interesting that when the topic on this blog involves an issue related to the details of some biological process or structure, the materialists are typically right in the fray, arguing for their point of view. But when the topic turns to broader issues like the one in this thread, they fall conspicuously silent. Of the 29 comments so far, why hasn’t even one person taken a shot at defending or supporting Pinker?

Comment by SteveB — November 28, 2006 @ 8:56 am

You think anyone at UD will give him an honest answer?

Date: 2006/11/28 22:19:11, Link
Author: keiths
On the subject of nested hierarchies, check out this new thread at UD:

The Sound of a Nested Hierarchy Shattering

Don't miss the comments.  They're tardelicious!

EDIT:  Oops, mcc -- our posts crossed in the ether.

Date: 2006/11/28 22:30:49, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (mcc @ Nov. 28 2006,22:24)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2006,22:19)
EDIT:  Oops, mcc -- our posts crossed in the ether.

So like do we have to trade insurance information now or what

Actually, it looks like at least a four-way collision.  Phonon and Zachriel were actually talking about the "shattering" thread on the previous page.

It's a little confusing because of all the DaveTard flashback quotes on this page.

Date: 2006/12/02 12:05:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 02 2006,07:49)
DaveScot links to a Google search, but hides the nature of the search.

Applying Davey's tool of choice to the question at hand:

   http://tinyurl.com/y3wqwq

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Date: 2006/12/03 12:56:42, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski, regarding rumors of a new job:
 
Quote
I recently spoke in chapel there, and, for the good of your soul, you do well to look at the text of my message: http://www.designinference.com/documen....oss.pdf

For the good of my soul, I read Dembski's message.  It's a long discussion of whether Jesus suffered enough to redeem our sins.  What this has to do with Dembski's employment is beyond me.  Perhaps by suffering in obscurity at West Southwestern Bible and Taxidermy College, Dembski is doing his part to save us all.

I've selected some choice excerpts from Dembski's message for your edification.

Here he puts his math PhD to good use:
 
Quote
For instance, the Scriptures teach that with God a day is as a thousand years. But if a day is as a thousand years, then each day in a thousand years is itself a thousand years. Thus, if you run the numbers, a day with God is also as 365 million years.  Follow the math to its logical conclusion, and with God an instant is an eternity.

And there you have it.

Of course, this sorta blows the "day-age" idea that the six days of creation were days to God, but eons to us.

Dembski engages in a little self-analysis:
 
Quote
The failure here is the failure to follow Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. This commandment does not mean that as we look in the mirror, we should think about how much we esteem our own person and then determine in our hearts that we
need to esteem others likewise...

 
Quote
We need to love our neighbor as our self because our neighbor is our self. In saying this, I’m not advocating an all-is-one pantheism of the sort popularized by the Beatles in their song “I Am the Walrus."

Koo koo ka-choo.

More math from Isaac:
 
Quote
In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.

Dembski would feel right at home with Professor Sharon K. Robbert, who writes:
 
Quote
The eigenspace of an eigenvalue l is the collection of all vectors u  that are mapped to lu under the action of a fixed matrix. It is important to note that u choices exclude the zero vector because the zero vector always is mapped to itself under this type of transformation.  On our own, we are like the zero vector because no matter what we try, we cannot move away from out sinful status.  However, through the grace of Christ, we are transformed from being a zero vector to the eigenspace of the redeemed (the likeness of Christ).

Dembski:
 
Quote
Indeed, the only way to gauge the extent to which one person loves another is by what that person is willing to endure for the other. Without the cost incurred by suffering, love among fallen creatures becomes cheap and self-indulgent.

So when we delight in the happiness of others, we are being "cheap and self-indulgent."

God is not a Church-burning Ebola Boy:
 
Quote
God is not an arsonist who starts a fire, lets things heat up for us, and then, at the last moment, steps in so that he can be the big hero. Nor is God a casual bystander, who sees a fire start spontaneously and then lets it get out of control so that he can be the big hero to rescue us.

But Demsbki admits to being a church-burner himself:
 
Quote
We are the arsonists. We started the fire. God wants to rescue us not only from the fire we started but also, and more importantly, from our disposition to start fires, that is, from our life of arson.

Amen.

Date: 2006/12/03 19:37:51, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 03 2006,17:24)
Dembski's an overachiever with this crowd.

Mike,

You missed one:
Quote
Wednesday September 20, 2006
Mr. Kirk Cameron
Actor/Evangelist, Way of the Master, World Missions Testimonies

Yes, Kirk Cameron, who along with his banana-buddy Ray Comfort pioneered the argumentum ad fructum for God's existence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Check out these two responses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1zMfUay6Ss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdkRzkXbZ1M

Date: 2006/12/03 20:26:03, Link
Author: keiths
Robin Levett:
Quote
He makes two major claims; that evolutionary biology is a religion <rest of comment censored by DaveTard>

Sgt. Tard replies:
Quote
Robin

After you made me bother to start fisking your screed against Bullock the first thing I did was look for where he equates evolutionary biology to religion. What I found was that the word “biology” never even appears in Bullock’s article.  If you want to remain a critical participant here you had better not make any more false accusations like that again.

Of course, Bullock's article completely supports Levett's assertion:
Quote
Two scientific explanations of origins, each a tenet of sincere religious beliefs, and both important in the field of origins science... The wall of separation-cum-segregation between churches by the state permits the government to separate favored religious ideas (such as materialistic naturalism) for special treatment, the special treatment being state protection from any disfavored challenger. Darwinism, where evidence is interpreted based solely on religious naturalism (or scientific naturalism—there’s no difference), acceptable. Anything else, including Jefferson’s “creator of man”, unacceptable.

Question for the panel:  Could DaveScot really be stupid enough to misinterpret Bullock's article?  Or is he scared of Levett and looking for an excuse to hit the 'ban' button?

While granting that Davey is simultaneously stupid, dishonest, and cowardly, I think cowardice is the driving force in this instance.

Date: 2006/12/04 09:20:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (steve_h @ Dec. 03 2006,21:13)
 I would advise everyone to be on the lookout for anyone  with any or all of the following attributes: a grudge against Wesley; a history of threatening him or his sites with hacking; personal experience of the damage that delisting can cause; and an inability to  suppress his or her glee at the delisting.

H fckng sshls. plgz t DvSct NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn't wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

Date: 2006/12/05 22:39:29, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2006,20:33)
The Baylor search page stuff, I don't get it, what's going on?

Dembski:
Quote
Some internet gossip is going around suggesting that I am about to start a “new job.” My job, and one I intend to keep for a long time, is as Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Seminary. This is where I teach and this is where I derive my salary and benefits. I very much enjoy my students and colleagues... In addition to this “day job,” I have formal and informal affiliations with many groups and organizations. Because of some health issues in my family, we continue to live in the Waco area (Ft. Worth is about 90 miles north, requiring of me a long commute to Southwestern Seminary). Because Baylor is in Waco and because I was on the faculty of Baylor for over five years, I continue to stay in touch with Baylor colleagues, some of whom I collaborate with in research.

Wes was just pointing out that you don't get listed in the Baylor faculty/staff directory simply by "staying in touch with Baylor colleagues."  Dembski may not be ditching the West Southwest Bible and Taxidermy College, but it does look like he's starting something new at Baylor.

Date: 2006/12/07 03:49:00, Link
Author: keiths
Jonathan Wells is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, if this is any indication.  From the "Case for a Creator" DVD thread on UD:
Quote
I really enjoyed the DVD. I especially like the interview with Jonathan Wells, where he talked about taking a living cell in a sterile test tube, killing it, and then waiting for it to spontaneously re-assemble itself - simple but effective.

Comment by shaner74 — December 6, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

Yes.  It simply, but effectively, shows that Jonathan Wells is either an incredible doofus, or Rev. Moon's mendacious lackey, or both.

Date: 2006/12/07 13:18:20, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2006,12:13)
How dare anyone use Dave's own words against him!!!!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  A foolish inconsistency is the province of big Texas-sized minds like Davey's.

Date: 2006/12/07 15:41:04, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2006,04:50)
Lou,

You got booted from BJU after one semester for thinking?

Ah, the fundies stole his adolescence, so now he's reliving it through JanieBelle and Kate.

Luckily I escaped fundyland at 14, still early enough to sow my oats.

I visited BJU in the 80's.  Highlights of the trip:  
1) The "dating lounge", where prim couples held hands on sofas under the watchful eyes of chaperones, and
2) The chain-link fence surrounding the campus, topped with strands of barbed wire.  You'd have expected the barbed wire to be canted outward to repel intruders, but no, it was canted inward, as if BJU were a prison (which I suppose it was, for people like Lou).

Date: 2006/12/07 16:02:57, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 07 2006,13:55)
It’s been five years since I left the church (and my 18 year long job as a pastor) and I am still trying to reconcile many things in my mind.

Wow.  It must have been wrenching to leave after 18 years as pastor.   

 
Quote
(If anyone is interested I would be happy to post some of those experiences at my blog and we can discuss them.

I'd certainly be interested in reading and commenting on them.

Date: 2006/12/07 21:08:57, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Dec. 07 2006,17:36)
When I relate an experience, there are several possiblities:

1.  It is truly a supernatural experience.
2.  It is coincidence/natural process which I misinterpreted
3.  I’m lying
4.  I’m deceived (either by my own psychosis, my unintentional superimposing after the fact some details that weren’t really present or by other’s intentional plan)


Scary,

I know your reference to "psychosis" was for comedic effect, but it's still worth stressing that perfectly normal, mentally healthy people are nevertheless subject to self-deception.  We all know about sensory illusions, and cognitive illusions abound as well -- the Monty Hall paradox being a notorious example.

The beautiful thing about the scientific style of thinking is that it gives us a way of approaching the truth despite these inherent weaknesses.

Date: 2006/12/08 01:06:37, Link
Author: keiths
ScaryFacts,

I cross-posted our last couple of comments to your blog so that we can continue the conversation there.

I look forward to hearing about your experiences.

Date: 2006/12/08 01:15:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
In 40 years of debating with atheists, I’ve never met one who was honest and open, who did not smarten up and abandon atheism.

Comment by Borne — December 8, 2006 @ 12:28 am

Anyone care to guess what qualifies one as an "honest and open" atheist in Borne's eyes?

Date: 2006/12/08 03:59:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2006,01:35)
Of course, I'm also a native Floridian from Central Florida, so there is a sense in which "cracker" would describe me, too.

 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 08 2006,01:48)
I was born in, as Neal Stephenson put it, 'the illustrious trailer parks of North Florida'

Have you guys seen Errol Morris's classic documentary Vernon, Florida?

http://www.errolmorris.com/film/vernon_clip.html
http://www.errolmorris.com/film/vernon.html

Date: 2006/12/08 04:13:32, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 07 2006,22:07)
I'm not asking [Dembski] to quit his position, but at least condemn the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crap. Condemn Jonathan Wells for saying it. Post it at Uncommon Descent and turn the money-changers out of his temple. Draw a line somewhere.

What?  And violate the spirit of the Big Tent?  You should know better, Kristine -- ID does not take a position on the cause of AIDS.  That issue can be addressed when the culture war has been won and Of Pandas and People is back in the classroom where it belongs.

Date: 2006/12/09 11:37:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 09 2006,10:39)
And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"?

When Davey bans you, he's not attacking you -- he just happens to be attacking all of your ideas simultaneously.

Date: 2006/12/10 10:01:01, Link
Author: keiths
As the year 2006 draws to a close, let us pause to reflect on the great strides made recently by the science of intelligent design.  A mere four years ago, when ID still languished under a cloud of disrepute, Dr. William A. Dembski published this prescient map of ID's road to respectability:

Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID

In it, he helpfully outlined a set of objective standards by which the progress of ID could be judged:

Quote
Objective Measures of Progress (OMP)
How do we gauge how well we are doing in developing ID as a scientific research program? We need some objective measures of progress. Rather than lay out such measures in pedantic detail, let me indicate what they are under four rubrics, each followed by a series of questions:

Intellectual Vitality
Have we become boring? Have we run out of things to say? Is the fount of fresh ideas drying up? Are we constantly repeating ourselves? Are people who once were excited about what we're doing no longer excited? Or do we have the intellectual initiative? Are we setting the agenda for the problems being discussed? Are we ourselves energized by our research? Is there nothing we'd rather be doing than work on intelligent design? Are our ideas strong enough to engage the best and the brightest on the other side?

Intellectual Standards
Are we holding ourselves to high intellectual standards? Are we in the least self-critical about our work? Are we sober or immodest about our work? Do we demand precision and rigor from our each other? Do we examine each other's work with intense critical scrutiny and speak our minds freely in assessing it? Or do we try to keep all our interactions civil, gentlemanly, and diplomatic (perhaps so as not to give the appearance of dissension in our ranks)? Does the mood of our movement alternate between the smug and the indignant -- smug when we hold the upper hand, indignant when we are criticized? Do we react to adverse criticism like first-time novelists who are dismayed to discover that their masterpiece has been trashed by the critics? Or do we take adverse criticism as an occasion for tightening and improving our work?

Exiting the Ghetto
Do we refuse to be marginalized within an intellectual ghetto or second-class subculture? Are scholars and scientists on the other side actually getting to know us? Once they get to know us, do they still demonize us or do they think that we have an interesting, albeit perverse, point of view? Is intelligent design's appeal international? Does it cross religious boundaries? Or is it increasingly confined to American evangelicalism? Who owns ID? Are we trying to get our ideas into the scientific mainstream? Are we continuing to plug away at getting our work published in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature (despite the deck being stacked against us)? Or are we seeking safe havens where we can publish our work easily, yet mainly for the benefit of each other? At the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, for instance, we encourage contributors to the society's journal also to submit their articles to the mainstream literature. John Bracht, for instance, recently had his lengthy design-theoretic appraisal of Stuart Kauffman's latest book, Investigations, accepted in the Santa Fe Institute's journal Complexity. This is precisely what needs to happen.

Attracting Talent
Are we continually attracting new talent to intelligent design's scientific research program? Does that talent include intellects of the highest caliber? Is that talent distributed across the disciplines or confined only to certain disciplines? Are under-represented disciplines getting filled? What about talent that's been with the movement in the past? Is it staying with the movement or becoming disillusioned and aligning itself elsewhere? Do the same names associated with intelligent design keep coming up in print or are we constantly adding new names? Are we fun to be around? Do we have a colorful assortment of characters? Other things being equal, would you rather party with a design theorist or a Darwinist?

There you have it -- an objective set of standards for judging ID's progress.  What do you say now, scoffers?

Date: 2006/12/14 17:42:26, Link
Author: keiths
Ekstasis waxes ecstatic over circumcision:
Quote
Check this out regarding circumcision!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006....d=print

Now, what happened to the “religious practices damage humanity” line? And how in the world did a religious practice develop that makes so much sense from a medical standpoint, and not just for AIDS, long before any theory of bacteria or viruses?

Oh, just lucky happenstance, is it? Hmmm. And how about that old Moses, how did he “receive the Law” thousands of years ago that just happens to have completely solid sanitary rules that were not practised by the Egyptians at the time?

Pure luck, just like Darwinian evolution, of course!!!

Comment by Ekstasis — December 14, 2006 @ 7:25 am

No word from Ekstasis on the Designer's incredible foresight in providing the requisite skin for snipping, thus providing mohels with employment for centuries to come.

Date: 2006/12/15 02:05:34, Link
Author: keiths
Playing the Judge Jones animation at OE, I noticed that the cadences and Chicago vowels of the judge's chipmunk speech resembled those of a certain disreputable intelligent design proponent.  Suspicious, I sampled the audio, slowed it down, and lowered the pitch.  Sure enough, it's Dembski.

1. Here's the original.  Fart noises have been removed for your protection.
2. The slowed-down, pitch-adjusted version which confirms that Dembski is the voice of Judge Jones.
3. For comparison, a clip from Dembski's recent sermon at the West Southwest Bible and Taxidermy College.
4. I also discovered that if you slow down Dembski's voice and play it backward, you get a prophetic message regarding the future of the Intelligent Design Movement.

Date: 2006/12/15 02:48:47, Link
Author: keiths
If the links in my previous message don't work for you, you can get the audio files here.

Date: 2006/12/15 11:10:44, Link
Author: keiths
Slime-ador Cordova is at it again.  In his latest post at UD, he quotes from Lauren Sandler's book Righteous, but just happens to omit a few key phrases and sentences.  Here's the quote, with the missing parts reinserted and bolded.  I've corrected Slimy's spelling and transcription errors:
 
Quote
Moreover, intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach their views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intelligent design movement that thinks in small steps, always taking the long view; any opportunity to introduce theism in the classroom is a push forward.
To be sure, a legal victory would have been a boon to the movement, but
no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis–the name says it all–don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one. Lawsuits, even the Rock for Life kids would tell you, aren't the way to change hearts and minds.
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth: hire Evangelical teachers in mainly Christian communities, and make sure the local church elders have a presence on the PTA.  This is exactly what's happening all over the country, beyond the gaze of newspaper assignment editors and pro bono prosecutors, and it's working.

What is wrong with that boy?

Date: 2006/12/15 13:50:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 15 2006,13:20)
     
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 15 2006,02:48)
If the links in my previous message don't work for you, you can get the audio files here.

Hey, this link doesn't work, either! No fair! :angry:

Sorry about that, Arden.  Yahoo Briefcase is acting very Tardy right now.  You may have to reload multiple times to get the links to work.

If all else fails, go here and keep clicking on the 'Dembski' folder until it opens:      http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/woctor

Date: 2006/12/15 20:45:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 15 2006,20:20)
Please, Keiths Army, don't send anyone over to exact vengeance.

Ha, ha!  No worries.  I/We am/are not planning to put it on my/our resume/resumes anyway.

Besides, taking credit for catching Salvador in flagrante delicto would be like congratulating myself  for noticing that the sun rose this morning.

Date: 2006/12/16 09:40:01, Link
Author: keiths
Things are hopping over at Overweening Arrogance:
 
Quote

Recent comments

Doubt It
23 hours 25 sec ago

Of things to come
1 day 4 hours ago

Closed
1 day 13 hours ago

Back to the Future
1 day 15 hours ago

Reading the Books
1 day 16 hours ago

Cooking the Books
1 day 18 hours ago

Re: The Assumptions
1 day 19 hours ago

Protect Darwinism
1 day 21 hours ago

I'm waiting...
2 days 11 hours ago

The Assumptions
2 days 17 hours ago

That's almost four comments a day!

It makes me wish I were one of the cool guys, like Bill, Jonathan, and TRoutMac -- hangin' out with the kids, trashin' Dawkins, smokin' a little weed...

Date: 2006/12/17 09:57:04, Link
Author: keiths
A little bit of chipmunk spin from Dembski:
Quote
The other side is making much about my having attained yet another “new low” in being the creative force behind the Judge Jones School of Law (go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com). Just to be clear, my aim in this flash animation was not to shake up the convictions of convinced Darwinists. Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously. If the cost of accomplishing this is yet another lowering of my estimation in the eyes of PT or Richard Dawkins, that’s a price I’m only too glad to pay — heck, I regard that as a benefit of the deal.

Let's savor this bit of inanity:
Quote
Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously.

Who are these "many young people" who, having heard a few animated farts, no longer take Darwinian evolution seriously?

Date: 2006/12/17 10:10:44, Link
Author: keiths
Dave plants another kiss on Dembski's cheek:
Quote
Stuffed shirts with no sense of humor make the world a dull place. Your stock goes up in my book every time you take some time out for schoolboy fun. We can’t stay young in body but we can sure stay young at heart. Good for you.

Comment by DaveScot — December 17, 2006 @ 10:49 am

If Davey thinks we're stuffed shirts, it's only because 80 percent of the humor on this thread is at his expense, and he hasn't learned to laugh at himself yet.

Date: 2006/12/17 10:19:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 17 2006,09:06)
Well, Keiths, you guys are really famous, now. :D

Thanks for doing your part to extend our 15 minutes of fame, Alan.  :)
Quote
You have insight into the mind of David Springer. Is this a subtle attempt to suggest David Heddle tone down his denunctiation of Dembski's new bit of street theatre?

Subtle for Dave, yes.

Date: 2006/12/17 12:29:32, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Ya know, every picture that Dembski publishes of himself, like the one at the top of this blog, leaves one with the view that he doesn’t have a sense of humor. Seems like he isn’t allowed to have a sense of humor.

Science not only asks you to accept the fantacy of neo-Darwinian evolution as “fact”, but it seems that you ain’t allowed to fart either.

Comment by bFast — December 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm

Bill can fart all he wants to, bFast, but if he wants our respect, he needs to earn it first.  Claude Shannon's motorized pogo stick?  After he pioneered information theory.  That famous picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue?  After general relativity.  "Isaac Newton" claims notwithstanding, what has Dembski done that we should indulge his flatulent animations?

Date: 2006/12/17 17:07:45, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wonderpants @ Dec. 17 2006,13:46)
Looks like Dembski's new bit of Flash street theatre might be a step too far for even the party faithful at UD (apart from DaveScot, of course).

Dembski appears to be feeling the sting of their criticism:
Quote
Let me suggest you all read your Old Testament — Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal (and then, oh my, killling them); Micaiah the prophet telling Ahab the king to look forward to his coming death; and Jehu’s respectful treatment of Queen Jezebel (throwing her out a window and letting the dogs lap up her blood). And then in the New Testament we find Paul wishing that certain Judaizers didn’t just circumcise themselves but would go the whole way and castrate themselves. I see the JJSchLaw as an instrument of grace to bring Dawkins and others to their senses (if such a thing were possible). What have you done lately, dopderbeck, to jar Dawkins out of his dogmatic rampage?

Comment by William Dembski — December 17, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

So now he is the noble Prophet of Information Theory, resorting to crudity only because a milder "instrument of grace" would be insufficient to jolt the Dawkinses of the world out of their materialist complacency.

Funny, I thought the animation was targeted at young people.

Date: 2006/12/17 19:13:40, Link
Author: keiths
Dang, this is fun to watch.

Douglas quotes scripture back at Dembski:
 
Quote
I can see Jesus mocking the hypocrisy and blindness of, say, the scribes and Pharisees of His day, but I cannot see Him doing so by using farting noises. I think Ephesians 5:3-4 is relevant here:

“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you; NEITHER FILTHINESS NOR FOOLISH TALKING, NOR COARSE JESTING, WHICH ARE NOT FITTING, but rather giving of thanks.”


P.S. Louis, your new avatar made me realize I can read lips.

Date: 2006/12/17 20:38:08, Link
Author: keiths
Too funny...

The farts have been removed.

Date: 2006/12/19 14:18:02, Link
Author: keiths
Textbook Stickers on Evolution Out in Cobb County

Another defeat for ID.  It's been a great year.

I wonder what kind of a tirade this will elicit from Sgt. Tard.

Date: 2006/12/19 17:25:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2006,14:18)
Textbook Stickers on Evolution Out in Cobb County

Another defeat for ID.  It's been a great year.

I wonder what kind of a tirade this will elicit from Sgt. Tard.

There's a great summary of the year in ID at John Lynch's blog.

Date: 2006/12/19 18:12:20, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 19 2006,17:25)
Shit! Keiths beat me to it by seconds! You bastid!  :angry:

That's "bastids" to you, Mr. Chatfield.  My name is Legion: for we are many.

P.S. Mike PSS clicked on my link, not yours.

Date: 2006/12/19 20:50:42, Link
Author: keiths
Time to settle this the DaveTard way.

Date: 2006/12/19 21:36:01, Link
Author: keiths
Off-topic, but fascinating:

After beating the crap out of Arden in the Googlefight, I clicked on the "Last 20 fights" button and got this:
Quote

comcast                vs.     sbc

Homosexuals        vs.     God

marilyn manson     vs.     marylin monroe

wrestling               vs.     whrestling

Sarutobi                vs.     God

ak-47                    vs.     m-16

Nick Thomas Hunt  vs.     Phil Rozes

Lesbians                vs.     God

comcast                 vs.     att

arabs                     vs.     jews

cordless drill          vs.     power hand drill

"arden chatfield"    vs.     "keiths"

oj simpson             vs.     homer simpson

googlefight            vs.     googlewhack

my girlfriend           vs.     pamela anderson

Ketchup                 vs.     Catsup

murder jews          vs.     jews

Tsunade                vs.     God

oral sex                 vs.     blowjob

dog                       vs.     cat

america                 vs.     iraq

Date: 2006/12/21 15:00:50, Link
Author: keiths
At OE, firebird says:
Quote
...there seems to be a glitch in the forum and my account was blocked. I'm sure it was just a glich since I was respectful and I doubt the moderators would not try to squelch respectful dissent.

Patrick responds:
Quote
No, I've purposely blocked you twice. We maintain a zero tolerance policy on OE. Bill has specifically told us, the moderators, that OE is intended as a safe haven for students interested in ID. As in, not Darwinists. If you want to make your arguments try them on UD where the moderation policy is more lenient.

UD, where polite and respectful dissent is welcome.

(tries to maintain straight face)

Date: 2006/12/22 03:47:16, Link
Author: keiths
SF Bay area via Indiana, Oregon, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Venice Beach (which is a different world altogether).

Date: 2006/12/22 08:59:08, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 21 2006,16:34)
And of course our Strine friend K.E.


k.e.,

I can't believe you let Steve get away with calling you "Strine."

Date: 2006/12/22 09:14:15, Link
Author: keiths
After watching Neil Tyson's riff on "Stupid Design" (from the Beyond Belief conference), JasonTheGreek has this to say:

 
Quote
Too bad Tyson is out of his mind clueless. Some bad things happen- thus no design? So, as manyhave pointed out, that means the Ford Pinto was NOT, read that NOT designed and it’s not here to serve a purpose for humans.

How a man can be so respected but make such an absurd argument that can be blown away with a car analogy is beyond me.

That and you’d drown in your own snot if you had only one hole to breathe of out and the other to eat out of. Coughing up snot would literally drown you. The way we have it now, we can simply swallow the mucous we cough up, so it doesn’t go back down into our lungs and fill our lungs with liquid!!!

How on earth he compares humans who live on land and dolphins who live THEIR ENTIRE LIVES in water is confusing. Dolphins have two tubes- but do dolphins cough? Do they need to get rid of mucous from their sinuses? Do they sneeze? Imagine sneezing from your nose and mouth and not being able to swallow some of the liquid. Again- you’d drown in your own spit!

Date: 2006/12/23 02:20:04, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Dec. 23 2006,00:41)
Does anybody know what a Dembski lecture sounds like?

Dembski's Jan. 2006 lecture at the University of Kansas:
http://doubtingdarwin.blogspot.com/2006....of.html

Date: 2006/12/24 10:10:29, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 24 2006,01:53)
Going back to a Tard comment that Richardthughes pointed out:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1893#comment-82269

Quote
Can a non-religious person come to believe there is a designer without becoming religious?

Sure. I did. I was a positive atheist for decades until I read Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” 15 years ago.
...
I’m still an agnostic in rational thinking but I more or less formulated Pascal’s Wager on my own and bet that way before I was out of grammar school.


He took Pascal's Wager whilst he was an atheist?!

Bob

A nice nugget of concentrated tardity around Pascal's Wager:

1. Davey hadn't even heard of the term "Pascal's Wager" four days ago.

2. He throws in a gratuitous mention of having formulated Pascal's Wager "more or less" while in grammar school, thinking that will impress us.

3. In his eagerness to brag, he doesn't realize that he's contradicting himself (as Bob points out) when he says that he "bet that way" in grammar school, yet remained a "positive atheist" until 15 years ago.

4. He doesn't understand that remaining "an agnostic in rational thinking" isn't enough to earn him salvation under Christian soteriology.
 
5. He does all of this without realizing that Pascal's Wager is routinely refuted by freshman philosophy students the world over.

6. Tard.

Date: 2006/12/24 10:20:58, Link
Author: keiths
Did any of you know that Ann Coulter is writing a book on computational biology?
 
Quote
Next year a book is coming out where some of my engineering insights into computational biology should be appearing.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1901#comment-82267

Date: 2006/12/26 18:15:36, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 26 2006,14:19)
Reciprocating Bill quotes Le Tard:
Quote
We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion.


Post titles from the last week at UD:
Quote
The Blasphemy Challenge Rewards Participants for Demonstrating Non-Belief
by GilDodgen on December 19th, 2006

Quote
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
by DaveScot on December 20th, 2006

   
Quote
Quote of the Day — Karl Popper
by William Dembski on December 20th, 2006
(In response to "Father, forgive them...")

   
Quote
The Dawkins-Dembski Briefwechsel II — “Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime”
by William Dembski on December 20th, 2006

   
Quote
A Simple Request
by crandaddy
(about the Blasphemy Challenge)

   
Quote
Evolutionary Logic: In the beginning were Adam and Steve
by William Dembski on December 21st, 2006

   
Quote
Godless chic: Brought to you by spineless wonders
by O'Leary on December 21st, 2006

   
Quote
Beyond Belief: Ah, that’s the stuff…
by DaveScot on December 21st, 2006

   
Quote
Flash Animation Contest: “There is no God and Richard is his prophet”
by William Dembski on December 22nd, 2006

Date: 2006/12/30 20:22:15, Link
Author: keiths
Cross-posted from the Zachriel/JoeG thread at Alan's blog:

Cowardly Joe has already deleted a comment of mine (my second comment at his blog), so I can see, as all of you have already figured out, that there's no sense in continuing to comment there.

Hilariously, he managed to contradict himself a couple of times within the space of a day.

The condensed version:

KeithS: That website you quoted cites an army as an example of a nested hierarchy. But an army is just like a paternal family tree. (Explains why).

Jofus: But in an army a private can climb the ranks. In a family, once the son of X, always the son of X. (Then proceeds to the following disjointed and incoherent point): If we had a room full of Army personnel someone could put them order by rank. But if we had a room full of several generations of a family, you would be hard-pressed to sort them into the right categories.

[Jofus, since you're reading this, let me explain a few things to you:

1. Ordering a set of soldiers by rank does not give you a nested hierarchy. To get that, you need to know who reports to whom, not simply who outranks whom.

2. To recreate the family's nested hierarchy, you would likewise need to know who was the son or daughter of whom.

3. Neither one of the hierarchies could be recreated without the additional information.

4. In both cases, you'd simply have to get each person to answer one question, and then you'd be able to reconstruct the hierarchy.

So what's the difference, Jofus? ]

KeithS (incredulously, focusing on the first tardity about privates moving up the ranks): So you're saying that the mobility of elements is a defining characteristic of a nested hierarchy? Even the website you're quoting doesn't say that.

Jofus: (deletes KeithS's comment).

Jofus, in a new post:
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?" (Then quotes some definitions from the other website, focusing on the plurals).

Note the word "properties".
Note the words "set of definitions"
Note the words "several criteria".

[Okay, Jofus, now you're saying that a nested hierarchy is necessarily based on more than one property or criterion. So yesterday an army was a nested hierarchy. Today it's not, because the army hierarchy depends on only one criterion: who reports to whom.

Think, Jofus, think! It gets easier with practice. ]

Zachriel, I've decided that you committed a horrific evil in a previous life, and that your penance is to educate JoeG in this one.

Date: 2006/12/30 21:05:34, Link
Author: keiths
Never run with a stick in your mouth.

Date: 2006/12/30 23:02:26, Link
Author: keiths
Sleaze-ador Cordova on Dawkins' repudiation of the petition he signed:
Quote
So, my speculation is that Dawkins is making this withdrawal under duress. I accept his sincere "regret" (cough).

Being accused of insincerity by Salvador Cordova is like being accused of anti-Semitism by Mel Gibson.

Date: 2006/12/30 23:20:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 30 2006,18:17)
Alas, despite Heddle's delusions of sainthood, he is no holier than anyone else alive, he doesn't know any more about God than anyone else alive does, and his religious opinions aren't any more authoritative than mine, yours, or the kid who delivers my pizzas. (shrug)

No WONDER everyone thinks fundies like Heddle are self-righteous pride-filled arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

Lenny,

In fairness to Heddle, he is a Calvinist, which means he doesn't take credit for his own "regeneration".  He just happened to be one of the lucky ones that God picked to regenerate.  As a result of this undeserved regeneration, he now understands the Bible in a way that is inaccessible to us, the unchosen.

On the other hand, it remains a mystery why Heddle thinks a God who arbitrarily saves some and damns others is worthy of worship.

Also, it raises the question of why the same logic and reason that we unbelievers use successfully in all aspects of our lives suddenly fail (according to Heddle) when applied to the Bible, but the same thing does not happen to him and the other chosen ones.  Presumably God sits there and short-circuits our unchosen brains every time we ponder the Bible or any other religious topic.

Date: 2006/12/31 06:54:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 31 2006,01:50)
         
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 30 2006,23:20)
He just happened to be one of the lucky ones that God picked to regenerate.

Then, uh, what's the point to his preaching . . .?  If it's all already decided, then, um, what difference does his preaching make . . .?

That's one of the interesting aspects of Calvinism.  Even though it's all predetermined, someone still has to go through the motions of preaching the Gospel to the chosen ones (aka "the elect") in order to accomplish their (inevitable) conversion.

It turns out that Heddle even has a post on the topic.  Excerpts:
Quote
Regular readers know that I am strongly in the Calvinistic predestination camp. There may be suspicion that this view disinclines me as to the merits of missionary work and evangelism. If so, that reflects an inaccurate view of Calvinism. Proper Reformed teaching states that, at least in the normative sense, man must hear the gospel in order to be saved (Rom. 10:13-15).
Quote
Now it is true that as a Calvinist I view missionary work different from an Arminian. I think a missionary should have this point of view:
Quote
God, grant me the privilege of being used to preach your gospel.

Rather than  
Quote
God, I want to reach the unsaved and help them to accept Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior".

This is an important clue as to why Heddle isn't bothered by the chilly reception his religious views get here. His job is not to convince anyone; God will take care of swaying the elect.  Heddle merely needs to keep preaching, regardless of the feedback (or lack thereof) he's getting from his audience.

Date: 2007/01/01 22:02:49, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 01 2007,20:09)
ID finally gets around to doing real empirical science:



Bill,

That's my favorite L. Ron Hubbard photo.

For another great example of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientist, see http://www.lronhubbard.org.au/page12.htm :
Quote
In one of his [L. Ron Hubbard's] first pioneering experiments on the subject, he employed a sound wave measuring device called a Koenig photometer. Two students read poetry from extremely different languages – Japanese and English – into the device. He found that the device identified the speech as poetry regardless of language. When haiku was read in the original Japanese, the wavelengths produced by the Koenig photometer were the same as those produced when English verse was read.

Here, then, he concluded, was scientific evidence that people were not so different as he had been led to believe, that there was indeed a meeting ground, and all minds did in fact respond identically to the same stimuli.

Ponder the man's greatness while listening to his performance of his own composition,
Thank You for Listening.

Date: 2007/01/02 00:11:51, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 01 2007,22:49)
Any idea who it is that Dembski wanted to retain for the Dover trial, and if it's the same person he apparently wants to bring to the proposed debate with Forrest? Dembski seems so confident. My curiosity is aroused.  ;)

This is a calculated move by Dembski to salvage his ego and reputation.  He knows there's no danger of Forrest accepting his challenge.  After all, what does she have to gain by debating der Fartmeister of ID?  But by aggressively challenging her, Dembski can claim that he's not afraid -- she's the coward who won't debate him.

This in turn may buttress Bill's standing with Sgt. Tard, who can't be too happy about seeing his hero slapped down by a mere girl.

P.S. Now that Bill and Davey are buddies, do you think Bill ever shares the good news about Jesus with Dave?  Wouldn't you like to be a fly on that wall?

Date: 2007/01/02 09:48:03, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (heddle @ Jan. 02 2007,09:18)
Calvin always believed that the execution was justified under the Leviticus instruction to kill blasphemers. Whether this makes him a murderer or not is a matter of debate—but as I said, it doesn’t matter. His whole life was a testimony of his love for God.

I guess killing blasphemers isn't such a horrible thing, as long as you do it out of love for God.

Date: 2007/01/02 22:52:27, Link
Author: keiths
On Davey's "record month" thread, Gil has a question:
Quote
Dave,

I’m curious as to why December visits exceeded those in August, but pages, files and hits were apparently considerably lower.

Comment by GilDodgen — January 2, 2007 @ 5:06 pm

It's easy, Gil.  Lots of non-Tards passed through UD on their way to marvel at and mock Der Fartmeister's magnum opus, The Judge Jones School of Law.  That drove up the number of visits.  Most of those visitors left without viewing anything else.  That drove down the number of page and file hits.

Therefore visits are up, but page hits are down.  You need to mobilize Tarddom to get your numbers back where they should be.

Date: 2007/01/03 01:45:23, Link
Author: keiths
Even Denyse is not happy with the recent flatus focus at UD:
 
Quote
Recently, ID math guy Bill Dembski put up a fairly raucus spoof on Judge Jones in the Dover case depending so heavily for his opinion on the ACLU - and the ACLU in turn on a variety of anti-ID figures. I blog with Dembski, and I must say, I thought the "fart-fest" a bit over the top. But just as I was casting about for a tactful way to frame my objection (which I knew would be unpopular when the young guys were having such a good time), a vast cackle of drag queens and male old ladies bustled in, squealing outrage and swooning. Well, that put me off, because I am a real live uptight Irish Catholic old lady myself, which means that I certainly cannot be seen with them!

I guess she's hoping that this is an adolescent phase that 46-year-old Dembski and the other "young guys" will outgrow soon.

Meanwhile, check out this strange, rambling, but prescient essay from 2005 which links farts, Dembski, and gay marriage.

Date: 2007/01/06 09:38:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
The wasp didn’t have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned.

Comment by Joseph — January 5, 2007 @ 10:44 am

Quote
I don’t understand. Learned how? By each single wasp during its own life? How efficient these occult neurosurgery schools for wasps must be! By some wasp in the past (maybe living near Harvard) and then genetically transmitted? Are we resurrecting Lamarck? I think that, anyway, humans could learn much from wasps, in that case.

Comment by gpuccio — January 5, 2007 @ 11:15 am

Lighten up, gpuccio -- he's obviously joking.  Even Borne and Designing Jacob can see that:
Quote
Of course no one will ever pretend the wasp (and all it’s transitional ancestors) actually “learned” these things or planned them with a goal in mind!

Comment by Borne — January 5, 2007 @ 11:59 am

Quote
Joseph:        
Quote
The wasp didn’t have to designed with that ability. It could have been learned.

HYSTERICAL!

Comment by Designed Jacob — January 5, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

Quote
Whatever… (shrug)

Comment by Joseph — January 5, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

Wait a minute...

Quote
Joseph, are you actually saying that every generation of this wasp, like clockwork, just happens to discover this behavior for itself? Or were you being extremely witty and funny, as I suspected?

Comment by Designed Jacob — January 5, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

Quote
No I was actually saying that wasps can learn things just as we can. Bears and the big cats learn to hunt for food from their parents (or other elders).

Chapter VIII “I can only tell you what I already know”. Someone conducted an experiment with birds that are nocturnal migrators. These birds were raised in isolation from the time of their hatching. When they were shown the autumn night sky for the first time, they soon became agitated and then flew off SSW. If the stars became hidden the birds calmed down.

They conducted the same experiment but this time used a planetarium. Same results SSW with the autumn night sky and NNE with the Spring night sky.

IOW they learned what they already knew…

Comment by Joseph — January 6, 2007 @ 7:59 am


Holy crap, he's serious!

Okay, Joseph, let's see you explain how spiders learned to do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc&eurl=

Date: 2007/01/06 10:16:03, Link
Author: keiths
Joseph is on a tard roll.  Here's his recommendation for dealing with global warming:
Quote
Thursday, January 04, 2007

Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming: Reversing the trend
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6 + 6O2

That's right- photosynthesis. We make artificial plants- that is massive structures (as space allows) run by solar power that suck in the air via man-made stomata, mix it with water and mimic the reaction that is photosynthesis. Then have the O2 exit other man-made stomata.

Place these facilities near factories, cities, yada, yada, yada

Then sell the sugar...
posted by Joe G @ 10:44 PM   0 comments

Date: 2007/01/09 21:42:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ogee @ Jan. 09 2007,14:24)
He is probably converting his stock-option lottery winnings into a one-year hourly rate.


Bingo, Ogee.  You'll find him doing the same thing when he brags about the millions of dollars Dell "paid" him for his expertise.

What a doofus.

Date: 2007/01/10 03:43:47, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 09 2007,23:43)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,21:11)
have there really been no new comments at Tiger Beat oops I mean OE in 2.5 days?

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/

Yep, and by tomorrow morning, that one comment will be the only one in the past week. I guess Patrick, Troutmac, and Sam got tired of pretending to be teenagers.

Dang it, you guys just made me feel sorry for Dembski again.  Stop that!

Date: 2007/01/10 13:33:35, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2007,23:23)
ALLRIGHT EVERYONE SHUT UP AND LISTEN CAUSE I'M TALKING. bACK IN '78 I WROTE THE CODE FOR TEH LEFT WHEEL OF BIGTRAK.
BIGTRAK IS JUST LIKE A CELL, BECAUSE ITS ERM, DESIGNED. DID YOU KNOW IF YOU RANDOMLY MUTATED BIGTRACK YOU WOULDN'T GET A SINCLAIR C5. THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATES AT ALL AND HELLO! ITS ALSO LOST A WHEL. THIS IS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF RM +NS.

I ALSO DID THE GUI FOR SPEAK AND SPELL
BACK THEN THEY PAID TOP PROGRAMMERS LIKE ME IN GOLD PEICES AND OR SOMETIMES TREASURE TYPE J WHICH HAD SOME MAGIC ITEMS. RECENTLY I'VE PROGRAMMED BY "IMMOBILE FLOATING COMMAND CENTER©" TO DETECT DESIGN. MICHAEL DELL IS MY BEST FREIND, WE WERE GOING TO HANG OUT LAST WEEK BUT THEN I REMEMBERED THE RESTRAINING ORDER. ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW ONLY ENGINEERS ARE GREAT? BIOLOGY IS JUST LIKE A LOSER SCIENCE THAT ISN'T REALLY A SCIENCE ITS MORE LIKE A LOSER CLUB FOR LOSERS WHO LOSE AT NOT BEING A LOSER.


D*mn, that was funny!  More tardologues, please!

Date: 2007/01/13 00:28:59, Link
Author: keiths
Some random observations on the "new" UD:

1. Barry Arrogant is on the contributor list, despite having posted nothing since September.  This is a hopeful augury of tard to come.

2. PaV, Patrick, Doug Moron, johnnyb, and Joel are no longer on the contributor list.  I guess Joel is busy assisting Dembski with his research -- he hasn't even posted on his own blog since November.  Patrick has made no secret of his dislike of DaveTard (most recently over the banning of febble), which might be why he's gone.  Doug Moron is presumably out lecturing people about intellectual honesty.

3. Scott is described as getting "a real charge out of using of his skill-set to advance the Intelligent Design movement and thwart spirit-squashing, materialistic mythology."  No word yet on what that skill-set is, but we know that it does not include proofreading.

4. A mystery contributor named "Red" is on the list.  I was hoping that meant "Red Reader" aka "GlennJ" -- imagine what a tardfall that would be -- but alas, the description doesn't match.

5. Denyse's photo is artfully cropped to exclude her bowl-cut hairdo.

Date: 2007/01/13 10:29:41, Link
Author: keiths


You wouldn’t be wondering if you’d had a number of other men’s wives yelling at you in the height of passion “I want to have your baby!”. It’s a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. Some guys prefer to make the world’s children smarter by becoming teachers and some guys prefer to make them smarter through better genetics. It’s all good. -ds

Date: 2007/01/13 18:05:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 13 2007,15:43)
 
Quote
This always bugs me. If it could care less, then that must mean it cares to some degree. If it couldn't care less, then it doesn't care at all. People always say that though.

You're right, Phonon, but your point is mute.

Writing like that will get you a pullet surprise.

Date: 2007/01/17 14:43:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 17 2007,14:00)
 
Quote
What, Scunthorpe Alloy Services?

Quote
Salvation Army Singers.

Are you pair of bastards calling me northern or a god squadder?


Could one of you explain to us Yanks where northerners rank in the British pecking order?

Date: 2007/01/19 20:50:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 19 2007,17:47)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 17 2007,15:00)
then

Can one of the IDers out there explain to me what the flying saucer has to do with the genome . . . . . . . ?

(snicker)  (giggle)

Here's the caption under the same illustration inside the book:
 
Quote
Figure 1d.  The library shown above represents the human genome (all our genetic information).  The spaceship represents the human phenome (our entire body, including our brain).  We cannot really imagine how extensive a library would have to be if it were to specify the fictional S.S. Phenome -- complete with warp-speed engines and a holodeck.  Wouldn't if have to be much larger than the library of Congress?  Yet it can be reasonably argued that a human is still more complex than a hypothetical S.S. Phenome (what type of starship could reproduce itself?).

Date: 2007/01/22 01:12:34, Link
Author: keiths
I think it's time for an intervention.  Arden's getting into the hard tard.

Date: 2007/01/23 03:58:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,21:50)
Is it true that Wesley is a Christian?

Yes.  For example, see his response to Dembski's claim that the Dover decision would "galvanize" the Christian community in support of ID.

Date: 2007/01/25 18:30:36, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Michael Tuite @ Jan. 25 2007,13:47)


Classic.  I printed it out and hung it on my office wall.

The sad thing is, Salvador will probably like the way he looks in uniform.  He'll crop the jpeg and use it as his new avatar.

Date: 2007/01/26 01:10:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 25 2007,22:11)
Re "I know, you're thinking that the frontal noodlepacks and the mesobrainstalk danglingbasil also grow echoing motorplants through more massive bundles of sparky angelhair."

The who whatting how with huh? :)

Recip Bill is channeling k.e....

Date: 2007/01/29 23:08:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (2ndclass @ Jan. 29 2007,17:59)
Says Sal:          
Quote
Even more curious was a somewhat ID-friendly essay in the book by renowned origin-of-life researcher, Harold Morowitz.

More curious still is that Sal failed to notice or failed to mention that the authors intentionally selected essays that represent various and contradictory viewpoints.  For example, they included John Searle's classic essay on the Chinese Room, and then Hofstadter proceeded to debunk it quite thoroughly.

And even more curious than that is the fact that the essay in question doesn't support ID.  At most it can be viewed as supporting mind/body dualism, and it doesn't really support that either.


It's worse than that.  Sleazador even quote-mines Hofstadter:
 
Quote
Dennett’s co-author, Hofstadter, makes an interesting remark about the ultimate mind:
 
Quote
one way to think of the universal wave function [of quantum physics] is as the mind– or brain, if you prefer–of the great novelist in the sky, God.

I found it curious Dennett would put his name to a book where such statements were asserted by his co-author, Hofstadter.


Of course, the quote didn't say exactly what he wanted it to, so Salvador truncated it.  Here's Hofstadter unedited:
 
Quote
Perhaps one way to think of the universal wave function is as the mind -- or brain, if you prefer -- of the great novelist in the sky, God, in which all branches are being simultaneously entertained.  We would be mere subsystems of God's brain, and these versions of us are no more privileged or authentic than our galaxy is the only genuine galaxy.  God's brain, conceived in this way, evolves smoothly and deterministically, as Einstein always maintained.


How about that, Sal.  God's brain evolves.  Deterministically.  Gee, I wonder why you cut the quote short?

How does Salvador reconcile his lying with his supposed Christian morals?  My latest guess is that he's spent so much time lying to himself that he doesn't notice when he lies to others.

By the way, Sal -- Hoftstadter is an atheist, you dork.

Date: 2007/02/02 04:34:34, Link
Author: keiths
Here's another one, coming out in May:

The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA, by Gordy Slack.

Date: 2007/02/09 21:48:27, Link
Author: keiths
jpark320 comments on the construction of the cervix:
 
Quote

This is just very good programming.

Go God!

Date: 2007/02/14 11:02:50, Link
Author: keiths
Mike Dunford has DaveTard running scared, so Davey is preparing to give Mike the boot:

Quote
Most people know warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. “Too cold to snow” is just a stupid remark. It can be too dry to snow. It can also be too dry to rain. Duh. If you want to act like your audience is morons I suggest you do it on your own blog where they actually are. Here you’ll have to do better.

Date: 2007/02/16 01:51:50, Link
Author: keiths
We're melting!

Gil Dodgen:
Quote
It is clear to me that the anti-ID crowd is in defensive meltdown mode.

Date: 2007/02/16 18:45:28, Link
Author: keiths
See the comment thread of this old UD post for some grade A tard on the theme of "Let there be atoms", courtesy of Red Reader and DaveTard.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/the-history-of-noise/

Date: 2007/02/17 23:55:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 17 2007,20:10)
Well I notice that [Josh Bozeman's] site seems very evasive about what, if anything, he does for a living. It says "Occupation: Media/Television", which could mean he's a temp at a TV station, given that he does not have any college degree. We are talking Evansville, Indiana here.

It's even better than that, Arden -- he works at a public TV station, cuing up programs for transmission.  That means that when he's not playing Mr. Bean reruns, he's subjected to nonstop librul proppyganda on the PBS feed.  Perhaps there is a God after all.

Date: 2007/02/18 00:43:17, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 16 2007,05:29)
Additions to UD banned list:

Keiths Homo, asked one too many awkward questions.

Ah, memories.  (Wipes tear from eye)

I still think I'm the only commenter to get booted from UD for quoting Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, and Dembski himself.

Remember what it was like to actually get indignant about a banning at UD?  Witness Feederbottom's reaction:
   
Quote (johnnyb @ Jan. 09 2006,2:24 pm)
Why was keiths kicked?

   
Quote (Feederbottom @ Jan. 09 2006,2:55 pm)
Keiths was booted for disagreeing with DaveScot and supplying the evidence to back it up. Heil DaveScot!

   
Quote (Feederbottom @ Jan. 09 2006,2:59 pm)
This blog is a sham.

Date: 2007/02/19 09:13:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2007,06:41)
inflated self-esteem or grandiosity

If that's a symptom, isn't life just one long manic episode for Dave?

Date: 2007/02/21 00:08:18, Link
Author: keiths
Coming Soon:

A New Fountain of YEC-Tard, courtesy of Sal Cordova: http://www.youngcosmos.com/

Date: 2007/02/21 06:16:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 21 2007,01:59)
I don't like the skully icon though.  gotta be something more appropriate (again, like a smoking brain, brain being eaten by acid, something like that).

I was thinking a skull with a severe overbite.

Date: 2007/02/21 09:29:49, Link
Author: keiths
Global warming = eugenics.

Date: 2007/02/26 20:35:32, Link
Author: keiths
Some prime SalvaTard for your delectation, over at telicthoughts.com:
Quote
I explored a proof by contradiction of mindless OOL here:

Perfect Architectures which scream design

Trevors, Abel, Yockey, Voie have published on the issue. Mindless OOL may be like perpetual motion machines, the notion itself violates a universal principle of the general direction toward entropy away specified structures.

I make the bold prediction that Solexa technology will confirm the claims of ID proponents decisively.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 26, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

Date: 2007/02/27 02:02:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 26 2007,17:47)
Denyse O'Leary says evolutionary psychology is bunk because...

...a bunny rabbit chased a snake up a tree.

No I'm not kidding.

She should have used this rabbit to make her point.

Date: 2007/02/28 13:10:24, Link
Author: keiths
More from Denyse:
 
Quote
My own view is that a power struggle is going on at the Foundation. Templeton senior's demise will likely mean a changing of the guard. The ID guys would like Templeton money, of course, but materialists would love to grab the whole pot. Indeed them must. They have big expenses. But not all the money in the world will keep materialism from going down in flames.

Indeed them must.  How else them keep Darwinism not sink?

Date: 2007/03/01 04:34:53, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,01:31)
you are officially encouraged to use the uncommonly dense thread to post a copy of whatever you attempted to post on UD.

Icky,

There are some problems with posting "disappeared" comments on the Uncommonly Dense thread.  That thread is generally for tard-mockery or for eliciting mouth-agape astonishment at the goings-on at UD.  Run-of-the-mill serious responses to posts at UD don't really fit in.  Also, it would be nice to have smaller threads dealing with one subject, rather than the motley carnival of tardity that's collected on the Uncommonly Dense thread.

jxs,

Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

Date: 2007/03/01 04:40:26, Link
Author: keiths
Fellow Tardophiles,

Laughing at UD is fun, but sometimes you want to talk some sense into those folks.

Here is a comment I posted on the "Uncommon Descent Addendum Blog" thread.  

What do all of you think of this idea?

 
Quote
jxs,

Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

Date: 2007/03/01 14:08:12, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 01 2007,13:29)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 01 2007,10:53)
   
Quote
What do all of you think of this idea?
     
Quote

jxs,

Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

I think it's an excellent idea! :)

Alas, laws like the DMCA don't permit this. We can reprint selections of their embarrassing mistakes, but not substantial amounts.

Steve,

I think you're misunderstanding my suggestion.  I'm not recommending that we reprint anything from UD, just that we create a thread for each new blog entry at UD (or at least the interesting ones) with a link to the post at UD.  People could follow the link, read the UD entry, and then come back to the AtBC thread to post comments.  All of the content would be ours; the only UD content would be small snippets quoted within the comments (just as it is now on the Uncommonly Dense thread).

Date: 2007/03/01 20:50:09, Link
Author: keiths
Ichthyic wrote:
Quote
so, I'm not sure how you would go about "automirroring" UD without running into the same potnetial legal issue that Wes did.

IOW, yes, you might argue "fair use", but would you be willing to risk that argument in an actual court?  Is it worth it?

The difference is that BUUD actually mirrored entries and comments from UD.  I'm talking about something that would only link to entries at UD, and would not mirror comments that were made at UD.  It would only contain comments that were made at AtBC.

In practice, this is how it would work:

1. A new blog entry appears at UD.

2. Someone opens a corresponding thread at AtBC and links to the UD entry.  No copying takes place.

3. Folks open the thread, click through to the UD entry, read it and the comments, then return to the AtBC thread to make their comments.

As word gets around that the interesting discussions are happening on the AtBC threads, people will tend to post comments there, but they'll still be reading the posts on the UD site.

I can't see how that could possibly amount to a violation of fair use, as nothing is being mirrored.  We're simply linking to UD, just as we do now when we find a juicy tidbit.

Date: 2007/03/01 22:17:18, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ichthyic @ Mar. 01 2007,21:43)
Wes can create a new forum for it if you can convince him of the merit of it.

That's a good idea.  The new forum could be dedicated solely to UD comment threads, with nothing else mixed in.

Readers who chose to stick to AtBC would not be distracted by a steady stream of new UD-related threads.

Wes, Steve -- what do you guys think?

A new forum, with one thread per UD post.  No mirroring or copying of either posts or comments, so no legal issues.  Just a safe haven for people to comment on UD posts without fear of banning or of "lost" comments.

Date: 2007/03/03 02:20:02, Link
Author: keiths
Jason Spaceman found this nice bit of tard from Joseph Farah in the WingNutDaily.

Teaser:
 
Quote
Let's try to imagine how a chimp with a stick might somehow fashion itself into another species – because that is ultimately what the authors of this report are suggesting.

How could that happen?

Of what consequence is the spear?

How might a weapon or a tool cause one species to change into another?

What changes at the molecular biological level occur when that primate picks up the sharpened stick?

Help me out here.

These are scientists. Why don't they explain what they mean?

The reason they don't explain is because there is no explanation.

Date: 2007/03/03 16:33:39, Link
Author: keiths
Kristine,
I hate to say this, but I don't think you love Bill any more.

Date: 2007/03/04 01:18:46, Link
Author: keiths
Another bon mot from Bob Mort over at OE.

Bob's is the first comment.

Date: 2007/03/04 01:22:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 03 2007,22:37)
One minute I want to throw plates at him, and the next--I want to throw up on him.

Note to self:  Never break up with Kristine.

Date: 2007/03/04 14:36:03, Link
Author: keiths
If you get all of the answers correct, your score is 200% after the first question, 150% after the second, 133% after the third, and so on.

Clearly, the bug is that the programmer initialized the number of right answers to 1 instead of 0.  So after one question your score is 2 correct out of 1 total, or 200%.  After two questions it 3 out of 2, or 150%.  After three it is 4 out of 3, or 133%.  After 15 it is 16 out of 15, or 107%.

Not very intelligently designed.  I wonder if DaveTard coded it?

Date: 2007/03/04 22:01:40, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 04 2007,21:20)
Is it me, or is that quiz really...uh...easy?

Because if it's actually hard for most Americans, then holy crap! Even if we let intelligent design be taught in schools, they'll just be as butt-ignorant about that, too!

Apparently it is hard for most Americans.  Stephen Prothero, the professor of religion who wrote the quiz for Newsweek, had an article in the Christian Science Monitor on the subject:

A Nation of Religious Illiterates
 
Quote
Although Americans are far more religious than Europeans, they know far less about religion.

In Europe, religious education is the rule from the elementary grades on. So Austrians, Norwegians, and the Irish can tell you about the seven deadly sins or the five pillars of Islam. But, according to a 1997 poll, only 1 out of 3 US citizens is able to name the most basic of Christian texts - the four Gospels - and 12 percent think Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. That paints a picture of a nation that believes God speaks in Scripture but that can't be bothered to read what he has to say.

Date: 2007/03/04 22:40:42, Link
Author: keiths
Ichthyic,

You're famous!

Over at Telic Thoughts, cantankerous grandmother Joy gets caught quote-mining you, then proceeds to channel DaveTard, even invoking the "don't make me do your homework for you" meme.

I think she and DaveTard may be having an affair.

http://telicthoughts.com/yet-another-steel-toed-moment/

Date: 2007/03/07 15:11:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2007,14:35)
I just got "Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board

You are currently logged in as Richardthughes "

That's right, homo.  Go find another place to play.  -dt

Date: 2007/03/07 16:11:36, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 07 2007,14:52)
DANG, this Doug guy is GOOD.

I liked this one:
 
Quote
The truth of ID can be sensed in the fabric of our being.

Yeah, who needs science?

Date: 2007/03/07 17:18:13, Link
Author: keiths
At Telic Thoughts, Joy produces a fine specimen of what I call blowtard -- pompous, pseudoscientific twaddle designed to impress but full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

A sample:
 
Quote
It takes our processors awhile to forward-feed the product to consciousness. IOW, there's a real-time delay, and I attribute this to the processing functions. They're really fast, but not instantaneous (beyond global entanglement of the processors themselves). Cross-connections and analysis using biochemical triggers proceeds in nanoseconds, but that includes further subprocessing).

Date: 2007/03/10 06:01:29, Link
Author: keiths
Arden,

If you don't want to blow your cover, I'll understand, but what is your linguistic specialty?

Date: 2007/03/14 03:24:45, Link
Author: keiths
We interrupt this thread for a missing person bulletin.

Missing:      Joel Borofsky
Occupation: Research Assistant (heh) and Public Obsessor of Hoo-Hoos
Last seen:   November 11, 2006

Fifteen minutes of fame:  Am I Really That Important?

If you have seen Joel, please call his mother.

Date: 2007/03/14 03:42:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 13 2007,11:20)
this man knows precisely what he believes!        
Quote
Dr. Russell D. Moore, Senior VP for Academic Administration,Dean, School of Theology. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Jonah 1:17-3:6; Matthew 12:38-41
"The Incomparable Glory of Fish Vomit: Baptism, the Great Commission and the End of the Age"
Gimmie that old-time *hic* religion!  :D

WTF???  

The Southern Baptists don't mind a man lecturing them on the glory of fish vomit, but God forbid that a woman should try to teach them Hebrew.

Date: 2007/03/18 06:59:21, Link
Author: keiths
Hi Blipey,

I don't know how early his linguistic talent emerged, but British mathematical savant Daniel Tammet (born 1979) can learn new languages with astounding rapidity.

This video shows him achieving conversational fluency in Icelandic in one week of study, a feat his teacher described as "not human."

I recommend watching the entire video -- it's absolutely fascinating -- but if you want to skip ahead to the part about learning Icelandic, it's at 41:40.

Date: 2007/03/20 01:47:07, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 18 2007,19:36)
 
Quote
There’s something that Dembski said in an online sermon that caught my attention, because I’m beginning to understand what makes him (and his Paley watch) tick:      
Quote
You’re at a football stadium and there’s a 100,000 people there, and everyone gets a coin, a penny, to flip. And you flip. And you say, “Okay, everyone who has heads, stay standing, and everyone who has tails, sit down. Now those who are still standing, you flip your coin again…” And the laws of probability are such that you can get 17 heads in a row, wherein somebody is still going to be standing. Okay, now: 17 heads in a row, one person is still standing in this football stadium of 100,000 people. And you say, “You are just a wonderful coin flipper! It’s just amazing what you’ve done!” [audience laughter]

Well, I laughed too, because this is such a mischaracterization of evolution once again! For one thing, it omits natural selection altogether (natural selection is not like coin flipping). But if Dembski is serious in viewing evolution in this manner, small wonder that he tries so hard to refute it. But after everything he’s written and said there’s just no excuse for him to be so uninformed.


Kristine,

It's even better than you think.  Dembski stole that coin-flipping example from Richard Dawkins, who used it in his 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to explain why coincidences are not evidence for the supernatural.  The demonstration begins at 3:30 into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWz9syO1zAQ

Date: 2007/03/22 05:30:05, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski:
 
Quote
Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

You may scoff, but I've always admired Dembski in his tireless struggle against racism.  That is why I will support his upcoming efforts to remove Abraham Lincoln from the penny and the five-dollar bill.  After all, Lincoln was a racist, like Darwin, and we know that Dembski is nothing if not consistent.  

So much for the critics who claim that Dembski is just jealous of Darwin's success or suffering from a case of theory envy.  How do they account for the fact that Dembski was speaking out against racism, loudly and often, long before Martin Luther King had his Dream?

Date: 2007/03/26 01:54:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2007,19:22)
However, I have every so often seen fundies literally saying that if not for fear of cosmic punishment, they'd be completely amoral, and wouldn't worry about killing or robbing anyone. It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them... It speaks volumes that they'd apparently be much happier if all atheists were amoral monsters.

Fundamentalists tend to believe that humans were utterly corrupted by the Fall, and that salvation is only possible through divine grace.  They actually use the phrase "total depravity" to describe mankind's state after the Fall.  While this doesn't mean that the unsaved are absolutely as bad as possible, it does mean that everything they undertake is sin-riddled and fundamentally corrupt.  Even the moral good they attempt is misguided and falsely motivated.

 
Quote
It's telling that they seem not to think that this implies anything bad about them.

If everyone is rotten to the core, there's no particular shame in admitting that you would go on an immoral rampage without a Divine Enforcer to stop you.

Date: 2007/03/26 02:08:58, Link
Author: keiths
I just bought Thomas Woodward's Darwin Strikes Back, published last year.  In the foreword, Dembski writes this:
Quote
Woodward is optimistic, as am I, about the ultimate outcome of the controversy over ID, and he concludes his careful analysis with some pretty daring predictions.  If he is right, we may look forward to a third volume from his hand, one to complete a trilogy on the ID movement that started with Doubts About Darwin and now has issued in Darwin Strikes Back.  If he is right, this third volume could appropriately be called The Triumph of Design.  But since "Darwin" figures in the titles of previous volumes in the trilogy, he may want to go with something like Darwin's Doddering Idea or Darwinism -- The Senescent Years.

Date: 2007/03/26 04:24:03, Link
Author: keiths
Wes,

Earlier this year Dembski was boasting about
 
Quote
A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)

Have you heard anything about this lately?

Date: 2007/03/26 04:32:27, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski issues one of his trademark gracious apologies:  
Quote
Apologies are therefore in order. Miller, far from blatantly misrepresenting me, was merely setting up a strawman. Way to go.

What a twerp.

Date: 2007/04/01 00:24:43, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (DaveTard @ Mar. 31 2007,10:54)
My daughter who works at Dell sent me this. I thought it might be appreciated by all who’ve witnessed the deluge of Mac vs. PC television adverts.

Quote (chunkdz @ Mar. 31 2007,22:37)
Dell blows.

Date: 2007/04/14 10:19:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Zachriel @ April 14 2007,09:22)

I've read all of Pi. The middle tends to meander a bit, but it has a great ending.

I found it a bit repetitive, myself.

Date: 2007/04/17 09:21:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 17 2007,07:54)
The phrase for further study is taste aversion, IIRC, and there is some literature on the topic. It's an interesting case of single-trial learning that is very resistant to extinction or habituation.

There is an interesting variant in which the aversion attaches not to a taste, but rather to a new idea being learned at the time of the illness, e.g.:

A young DaveTard, learning Darwinian evolution for the first time, engulfs a bad batch of Cheesy Poofs and falls ill.  The result:  A permanent, irrational aversion to the idea of Darwinian evolution.  Cheesy Poofs, having been established by prior experience as the summum bonum, escape blame altogether.

Date: 2007/04/18 06:40:08, Link
Author: keiths
Chris,
Do you have a link for that?

Date: 2007/04/20 00:12:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Zachriel @ April 19 2007,21:19)
By the way, mitochondria usually have circular DNA and their own ribosomes.

And if any of you Darwinian rubes think DNA can be circular and helical at the same time, let DaveTard set you straight:
   
Quote (DaveScot @ Feb 07 2006,14:59)
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Date: 2007/04/24 05:27:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2007,20:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 23 2007,14:25)
     
Quote
Bill,

Who knows or cares about the “American Scientific Affiliation”? Why have you been wasting your time chasing down the opinions of picayune advocacy groups and reacting to every little news article on social controversies related to ID?

You are better than this. Please, please get back to writing books, papers and articles on the mathematical and scientific underpinnings of Intelligent Design.

Holy crap. That guy's going to get banned so hard, there's going to be a dent in the BAN button.

Nah, Stu Harris is Gil Dodgen's cousin.  If Dembski banned him, he might lose Gil's scintillating contributions to the blog. :O

Date: 2007/05/03 00:11:33, Link
Author: keiths
Over at Telic Thoughts, I confronted Slimeador Cordova with Glen's exposé of his latest pathetic quote-mining episode.  His response justifies the contempt with which he is so widely regarded:

keiths:
Quote
Sal,

You've been caught quote-mining yet again.

Why do you do it?

Slimy:
Quote
I quoted the accurate part of the editorial. I tossed out the baseless, untrue claims by MacCallum.

Slimy:
Quote
By the way, I don't consider that a quote mine. However I do consider this a quote mine:
Quote
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power

Charles Darwin
Autobiography


and
Quote
I was nicknamed "Gas".

Charles Darwin
Autobiography


Keiths asks:
"Why do you do it? "

Because I occasionally delight POff my opponents and maybe I'm a scoundrel.


keiths:
Quote
Salvador,

I'm curious — how do you think Jesus feels about your dishonesty?

Date: 2007/05/05 16:59:15, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Epulopiscium fishelsoni

I love that name.  According to Wikipedia, it means "guest at a fish's banquet."

Date: 2007/05/05 17:20:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (keiths @ May 05 2007,16:59)
 
Quote
Epulopiscium fishelsoni

I love that name.  According to Wikipedia, it means "guest at a fish's banquet."

Sure enough.  From the Notre Dame online Latin dictionary:
 
Quote
epulo -onis m. [feaster]; 'Tresviri (later Septemviri) epulones' , [a college of priests who had charge of sacrificial feasts].

Date: 2007/05/10 09:41:23, Link
Author: keiths
500 pages of the Officially Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread -- the Internet's premier monument to Tard.

w00T!

Date: 2007/05/12 22:37:45, Link
Author: keiths
Hey, did you guys know about this?  Dembski edited an abstinence textbook called Sex and Character in 1998.  It's from Pandas Publications, the publishing arm of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

Check out the description:
Quote

Book Description
Sex and Character is a supplemental textbook that uses character-development as an essential basis for teaching abstinence until marriage. Young people, growing up in today's high-risk world, need to clearly understand what those risks are, and it benefits them greatly to hear the stories of their peers sharing how their decisions have impacted their lives. This book is chock full of wise counsel, up-to-date information, helpful referrals, lists of organizations prepared to help teens in trouble, beautiful color photos, charts and graphs. This book will help teens, teachers and parents discuss this difficult subject with the aid of discussion questions at the end of each chapter.

From the Publisher
Bright and positive, but very realistic Practical in its guidance Experience-based Full of wise counsel 114 colorful photos, most of them of other teens Numerous charts and graphs Excellent chapter-by-chapter discussion questions Helpful referrals Up-to-date medical science No anatomical diagrams or instructions in "safe sex"

Date: 2007/05/15 19:30:30, Link
Author: keiths
Ouch -- DaveTard gets mocked at Scientific American's blog.  

For an autodictor who owes the entirety of his scientific knowledge to unread issues of SciAm, that's gotta hurt.

Date: 2007/06/19 02:14:23, Link
Author: keiths
I notice we didn't see a post crowing about how May was a record month for Uncommon Descent.

I'm sure DaveTard just forgot.

Couldn't be that their numbers are down, or anything.

Date: 2007/06/19 08:09:16, Link
Author: keiths
This post is the one thing I've seen at UD that actually was sort of funny, in a preachy way.  Dembski didn't come up with it, of course, but at least he did recognize that it was funny...

Date: 2007/06/25 12:00:59, Link
Author: keiths
A choice Dembski quote from the interview:
Quote
CA: Amidst all the animosity and criticisms written about your work, what is your motivation for continuing this ambitious research program?

WD: The work itself is immensely satisfying and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, I see those who seek to shut it down as intolerant dogmatists who encapsulate a tyranny that I despise. So I get to see myself as both a scientific researcher and as a freedom fighter—a rare combination.

Date: 2007/06/26 11:35:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2007,06:20)
What a weird construction. "I get to see myself as...?"

There's a poignant honesty to that.  Dembski realizes that the world will never see him the way he wants to be seen, so why not indulge the fantasy?

Date: 2007/07/02 14:39:35, Link
Author: keiths
At UD, a wag named Ou Krokodil is calling for a debate between Paul Nelson and Michael Behe on common descent.  Grab some popcorn.

Date: 2007/08/05 10:14:35, Link
Author: keiths
December:  Uncommon Descent Ended the Year With a Bang
January:     Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent
February:   February Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent
March:       March Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent
April:         April Another Record Month for Uncommon Descent
May:                                   ???
June:                                  ???
July:                                   ???

What happened, Davey?

Date: 2007/08/07 09:18:40, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,08:59)
ID's core competency is defuncting websites.

From the same site:
   
Quote
Donations  
ISCID is a 501©(3) non-profit organization, which is sustained by the gifts of its friends and patrons. In order to maintain the high-quality services, programs and events that ISCID currently provides, we encourage you to make a tax-exempt donation. If you'd like to send in your donation by check, please mail it to our this address.

Below, we have listed suggested donation amounts and corresponding levels of membership:

Regular Membership - $45-$99
Sustaining Membership - $100-$249
Friend - $250 - $499
Patron - $500 - $999
Founder - $1000 and above
Lifetime Benefactor - $5000 and above (includes a lifetime membership)

Um,  what services, programs and events will I enjoy with my lifetime membership?

Date: 2007/08/16 03:52:23, Link
Author: keiths
Tardboy:
Quote
Comments sometimes get eaten for reasons unknown.

Yeah, like when a "server glitch" "accidentally" deleted the comments of my second UD alter ego, woctor.

(Not that it made any difference. I came back under at least seven other names before getting too bored to bother with it any more. I might very well hold the record for "most banned" at UD.)

Date: 2007/08/20 04:53:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2007,21:29)
For a journalist, Denyse is a terrible writer. Really substandard.

Has anyone else noticed what Denyse considers to be cool journalistic lingo, like calling herself a "scijo" and referring to paragraphs as "graffs"?
 
Quote
Ann Coulter takes a shot at Darwinism in the last graff of this column:

Date: 2007/08/22 00:43:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 21 2007,14:55)
Charlie WAGNER??? Oh Jesus, he's a loon.

But apparently an honest one. The banner atop his home page reads "here begins Homo ignoramus."
(Which, to further cement Charlie's crackpot credentials, is a quote from Immanuel Velikovsky).

Date: 2007/08/22 19:07:12, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse has a real knack for writing headlines:
 
Quote
Mike Behe makes a useful distinction

Um, Denyse?  Try not to act so surprised...

Date: 2007/08/26 00:57:56, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski's employer, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has enhanced its already stellar academic reputation by offering a new cutting-edge major in homemaking:
Quote
The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers coursework in Greek and Hebrew, in archaeology, in the philosophy of religion and - starting this fall - in how to cook and sew...

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."

Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home - teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children's spiritual, physical and emotional development.

...A description of the homemaking program on the seminary's Web site says it "endeavors to prepare women to model the characteristics of the godly woman as outlined in Scripture. This is accomplished through instruction in homemaking skills, developing insights into home and family while continuing to equip women to understand and engage the culture of today."

Bad news for Richard, however: the program is open to women only. I wonder if they admit transsexuals?

Date: 2007/08/26 21:27:47, Link
Author: keiths
My opinion of Salvatard has never been lower. Even so, I can't bring myself to believe that he is this confused:
 
Quote
And speaking of Artistic impulse, Dawkins (Mr. Truth and Facts only), while watching a fictional tale on TV, fell in love with the actress of that fictional tale and married her, Lala Ward, the Dr. Who Babe.

Even Dawkins had to cave in to an artistic impulse that had no utility, like a moth flying into flames. The double standard he applies to himself is quite charming. Yet everything about his own life suggests he craves for beautiful things that can't be explained in the world of Darwin.

Date: 2007/08/27 15:14:50, Link
Author: keiths
A strong hit of tard from Jason Rennie over at Telic Thoughts:  
Quote
I'm not sure why everybody thinks the "enlightenment" was such a good idea. Most of its fruit is rotten.

Date: 2007/09/01 13:56:56, Link
Author: keiths
Ftk completely forgets she's talking about Baylor:
Quote
I do hope that when the public becomes aware of this censorship of ID, that they come away with the understanding that it is not science (or scientists in general) that is at the root of the problem, but that it is a core group of very loud and nasty philosophical naturalists who are responsible for putting a stop to anything that questions their Darwinian worldview.

Date: 2007/09/01 14:02:26, Link
Author: keiths
Why does Jesus hate Dembski?

Date: 2007/09/01 15:44:45, Link
Author: keiths
This is just pathetic...

overwhelmingevidence.com:

Date: 2007/09/04 21:50:31, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse scores a crucial endorsement:
Quote
I've just finished reading The Spiritual Brain (I was sent an advance copy). It's superb, and is a milestone in what I think is going to be a long twilight struggle against materialist neuroscience.
- neurosurgeon Mike Egnor

Date: 2007/09/04 22:37:03, Link
Author: keiths
Collin applauds Denyse but ends up inadvertently embarrassing her:
 
Quote
Congradulations, I can't wait to read it.
BTW, did you happen to address David Chalmer's theory of consciousness in your book?

Denyse replies, sounding uncannily like herself:
 
Quote
No, apparently.

WTF?

Translation: Apparently we didn't address Chalmers' theory, but I'd have to ask Mario to be sure.

 
Quote
There is a plethora of unsatisfactory theories out there - one enterprising author team (Edelman and Tonioni) listed over a dozen:

Spinoza's dual-aspect theory, Malebranche's occasionalism, Leibniz's parallelism and doctrine of preestablished harmony, identity theory, central state theory, neutral monism, logical behaviorism, token physicalism, type physicalism, token epiphenomenalism, type epiphenomenalism, anomalous monism, emergent materialism, eliminative materialism, and functionalism various types). [dangling right parenthesis hers]

Translation: Oh. Not knowing who Chalmers was didn't sound so good. Maybe it would sound better if I quoted someone else listing a bunch of theories I don't understand.

 
Quote
I fear I must catch up with Chalmers later, whose theory may well fit into one of the categories above.

Translation: Although I have no idea who Chalmers is or what his theory entails, it is my professional opinion that it may fit into one of the categories above. Or not.

 
Quote
The thing is, more unsatisfactory theories come down the pike all the time, but that is not the sort of situation that causes one to anticipate that the next one will change everything.

Translation: Bad theories are put forward all the time, so why should I bother to understand a theory before dismissing it?

Date: 2007/09/04 22:45:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 04 2007,22:10)
 
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 04 2007,22:26)
Plus, they've got super-computer dude Gil Dodg'em...

We haven't heard much from ol' Gil lately. Think he experienced hardware mutations while mentally running an evolutionary simulation?


He probably died in freefall 'simulating' one of his airdrops.

P.S. I was Karl Pfluger. Those were good times.

Date: 2007/09/05 00:42:52, Link
Author: keiths
bornagain77 deposits a nice math/physics tardicle:
 
Quote
I would also like to ask a hypothetical question on "imaginary numbers"
In Einsteins special theory of relativity, time as we understand it drops to zero at the speed of light.
Zero represents the non-existence of time yet the energy certainly must be real and must exist and as such MUST have a "real" time that it must exist in. That is to say that energy cannot possibly exist in a non-existent time. It is a logical absurdity to define this time of energy to zero, If you can see my point, So my question is how do mathematicians get around this apparent obstacle of logic in math so as to describe the reality of energy more appropriately? Do they "invent" an "imaginary number" to represent the "real" time that energy is logically required exist in?

Date: 2007/09/06 02:26:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 05 2007,06:42)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 04 2007,23:45)
P.S. I was Karl Pfluger. Those were good times.

Oh, Wow!

Which one of you is Tom English?

Tom was real. At the time, he was writing a book chapter entitled "Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Computation", so those threads at UD were right up his alley. I've been keeping an eye out for the book, which is titled "Evolutionary Design", but I don't think it's been published yet.

Meanwhile, poor Gil is still struggling with computers:  
Quote
Argghhh! HTML is a menace.

Date: 2007/09/07 03:02:48, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (djmullen @ Sep. 07 2007,01:27)
If Dembski has a mild case of AS, that would explain a lot about him.

I've wondered about that, too. Even if he doesn't qualify for a true clinical diagnosis of Asperger's, he's clearly way toward the AS end of normal.

After all, consider the profound social tone-deafness of someone who

1) allows a friend to call him "the Isaac Newton of information theory", even putting the blurb on his book jacket;

2) who thinks this, this, and this are all funny;

3) who thought that "disenfranchised" young people would flock to overwhelmingevidence.com, which he said was "modeled on Xanga and Myspace"; and

4) who wrote this:
Quote
Just to be clear, my aim in this flash animation was not to shake up the convictions of convinced Darwinists. Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously.

Date: 2007/09/09 09:24:34, Link
Author: keiths
Hermagoras tweaks Bradford over at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
But if the Lifeworks foundation was basically a front group for the DI, then Baylor's president may have felt deceived. DI sets up Biologic Institute; Biologic Institute researcher becomes president and sole employee of Lifeworks foundation; LWF gives grant to Marks. Have I got that chronology right? Where does the Lifeworks foundation get its money from, in the end. Who funded the funder?

Who funded the funder?

*Gives Hermagoras a high-five*

Date: 2007/09/17 01:50:37, Link
Author: keiths
Another stylistic gem from Denyse:
Quote
This is all particularly interesting because Neuhaus is not especially one of the ID think tank Discovery Institute fans.

A challenge to readers:  in standard English, is it possible to express Denyse's meaning any more awkwardly?

Date: 2007/09/18 01:55:16, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 17 2007,21:19)
Word is that Dembski said, in the OU question/answer session, that he doesn't believe in the descent of man from other primates.

He was definitely flirting with the idea in this paper.  It sounds like he finally made the leap.

Date: 2007/09/21 05:54:57, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse quotes some top-drawer tard from her hero, David Warren, on the survival instinct:
 
Quote
This is where it becomes interesting: at the very point where post-modern Darwinist "evolutionary biology" throws up its hands (or alternatively, declares victory, & then cuts & runs).

I am hardly saying the instincts, including the survival instincts (really they are complex & plural), don't exist; I am only pointing out that they are non-material. Which is not to say that their operation does not correspond to particular, detectable parts of the brain -- i.e. the "amygdala," in the higher vertebrates: the emotion centres. Only that you won't find them there. It is the part of the brain that is working when survival & other emotional issues are at stake, but the instinct to live & not to die is in itself an arbitrary, "irrational" thing (i.e. super-rational; or if you prefer, the premise that precedes the logical proposition). It has to be "posited" in some sense. Once it is posited, we can begin to make some sense of the machinery. Until it is posited, the machinery makes no sense.

WTF?

 
Quote
Already we are "lost in space," or rather, entering the territory of "Intelligent Design."

That's the only sensible sentence in the entire quote, so I've segregated it for emphasis.

 
Quote
I said the survival instincts are complex & plural. Think I mentioned before watching a rabbit, once, simply give up the struggle against a Doberman, when the rabbit was out of breath, & out of cover. That is a common trait among many animals at all levels of the food chain (& it is further interesting that, from that point, animals often seem to experience neither panic nor pain). If you think about it carefully, you will see that it is behaviour that cannot possibly be explained in any conceivable Darwinist way. It can in no possible way advance the cause of rabbit survival.

But so are so many other things, inexplicable on strictly Darwinist assumptions. The survival instinct works both on the individual, as individual, & on the individual on behalf of his tribe or species or even allied species. Survival itself would be impossible without the most complex instinctual arrangements -- which are also minutely inter-dependent. All the convincing progress that has been made (by Tinbergen, contemporaries & successors) in understanding instinctive behaviour in animals has been possible only because various abstract, arbitrary, "immaterial" requirements have been assumed from the point of departure.

What I am saying is that the instinctive behaviour of animals -- conscious, semi-conscious, & entirely unconscious -- provide a parallel universe to the purely material, organic one, for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility of development by trial & error. Not only does a machine not work when it is missing parts, or missing fuel, or has external obstacles in its way, &c; it also doesn't work when it is not driven.

Returning to the question of origins, the scandal is that the most primitive unicellular organisms discoverable on this planet are already monstrously complex, & already require genomic instructions that could fill telephone directories. Under some circumstances I'm willing to be a putz, & say, "yes, that's the product of trial & error, & it just happened to work out nicely," but this is too much for me. I am simply not capable of credulity on that scale.

But even supposing we started the day with just one happy-accident instruction, & built from there (this is where the 15 billion times 15 billion times 15 billion years for trial & error will come in really handy), I don't get why that first organism wanted to survive & reproduce? It has no way of knowing that the odds against it even existing are infinity to one. Why doesn't it just wink, & call it a day?

Even the ancient Greeks had trouble grasping why a man would want to live, given that life is full of pain. There is nothing self-evident about the survival instinct.

But some other day we may raise the stakes further by climbing from organism & instinct, to consciousness, & beyond.

Date: 2007/09/22 16:35:50, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski's penchant for the "notpology" reminded me that he had once written a book entitled, fittingly,  Unapologetic Apologetics.

Date: 2007/09/23 05:27:54, Link
Author: keiths
JAM wrote:
 
Quote
And Joy is insane.

Thought Provoker responded:
 
Quote
Joy is the reason I have stuck around for a year.

She is very knowledgable and provides substantial, thought-provoking challenges.

TP,

Someone who believes that life depends on superconduction, and that there is a conspiracy to suppress information about superconductivity, is neither knowledgeable nor sane.

Joy on superconductivity in biology:
 
Quote
Such an act of total measurement - the 'snapshot' - would collapse all sustained quantum states in the person being copied - including condensed matter/gel states, superconduction and molecular electron sharing, superpositions, etc. - thereby rendering that person DEAD. Mere decomposing raw matter in 4D.

Joy on the conspiracy:
 
Quote
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?

And that's just one example.

Date: 2007/09/23 17:45:56, Link
Author: keiths
Alan Fox wrote:    
Quote
I recall Joy posting some interesting stuff about sustainability, (couldn't find it just now, sorry) so she ain't all bad.

Nobody's all bad.  I've even found myself in agreement with DaveScot on occasion.

*shudders*

Thought Provoker wrote:    
Quote
Joy is quite capable to defending herself.  MikeGene's rabbit threads are available to open discussions.  If someone wants to ask her something, there is a recent rabbit thread available that anyone can use.

I did challenge Joy, directly.  We had a long exchange, during which she (like you) was unable to come up with any evidence for superconductivity in living organisms, much less humans.  Eventually she banished a comment of mine to the Memory Hole for merely quoting her.

TP:  
Quote
Meanwhile, I thank you for the opportunity for me to point out the use of quantum mechanics in life.

It appears photosynthesis involves quantum superposition to achieve super conductivity.

Where did you get that idea?  The Berkeley research you cite doesn't involve superconductivity at all.  Nor does the Orch OR hypothesis.  Are you confusing superposition with superconductivity?

Look, TP, I know that you really, really want Joy to be right, but your desire is clouding your judgment. There is simply no evidence that superconductivity occurs in the human body, nor that life depends on it.  Joy is simply wrong.

Date: 2007/09/24 06:55:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (djmullen @ Sep. 24 2007,06:08)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2007,13:06)
Paul Nelson boils it down:
             
Quote
I was wondering how Michaelangelo did it…
Paul Nelson

A block of Carrera marble and a large crane, apparently...

Paul links to a little movie that depicts complex objects emerging accidently from singular random events, e.g., paint tipped onto a canvas creates the Mona Lisa.

This little movie perfectly encapsulates both the ignorance and the dishonesty of the ID movement, as it portrays a mechanism quite other than that proposed by contemporary evolutionary science (each example omits both reproduction and selection). Thanks, Paul.

Ditto with the Mount Rushmore example.  Rocks don't reproduce, therefore no evolution, therefore no intresting human-like shapes.

Bornagain77 begs to differ:
Quote
I luv the video.
I have been getting discouraged when, time after time, well reasoned and flawless arguments fail to penetrate the deaf ears and blind minds of the evolutionists,,Then I see a something like this and it gives me a glimmer of hope that maybe if IDists can be clear (and simple) enough to the evolutionists they will finally understand the blatant fallacy and sheer preposterousness of their hypothesis.

Date: 2007/09/24 10:09:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
The Bulldog Compact
Parker, Donald James

Book 1 in the Masterson series. A look back at basketball when the kids wore their trunks short and their socks tall. The focus is on building charater, seting a goal and working to achieve that goal. [And learning to spell.] Due out by November of 2007.

Quote
More Than Dust in the Wind  
Parker, Donald James

Book 2 in the Masterson Series. The story of the Bulldog Compact picks up after Lance's graduation from high school and continues up to 2006. This should be available by April of 2008.

Quote
All the Voices of the Wind  
Parker, Donald James

Book 3 of the Masterson Family Saga. Maria moves to Sumner Washington where she begins a crusade against the teaching that man evolved from lower life forms.

Quote
All the Stillness of the Wind
Parker, Donald James

Book 4 in the Masterson series. Jeremy goes on the research trail to find truth in religion. Due out by November of 2007.

 
Quote
All the Fury of the Wind  
Parker, Donald James

Book 5 in the Masterson Series. Will be available by February 2008. Jeremy and Maria go off to college and their battle against Darwinism continues.

Quote
Disinherit the Wind
Parker, Donald James

Book 6 in the Masterson Series.  Maria returns to Sumner as a biology teacher, but runs into trouble when she refuses to teach Atheistic Darwinianism.  Jeremy abandons his lucrative corporate law practice to defend Maria against the baseless accusations of the local ACLU chapter, headed by a short, mean and unlovely atheist who should have been home with her children.  The  book culminates in a powerful courtroom scene in which Richard Dawkins, star witness for the prosecution, is reduced to tears by Jeremy's brilliant cross-examination and comes to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.


Okay, I made the last one up.  But the others are real.

Date: 2007/09/28 21:14:39, Link
Author: keiths
Over at TT, Gil Dodgen excretes a prose pellet that would make Denyse proud:
 
Quote
I'll be seeing you at the Biola debate. I'm the guy who writes computer programs with long fingers that move very quickly over a piano keyboard.

Date: 2007/10/01 03:29:54, Link
Author: keiths
Gil Dodgen:
   
Quote
Design screams from every corner of modern scientific discovery. The real question is, Why do so many (especially academic intellectuals) work so hard to deny the obvious?

Yup.

*spits tobacco juice*

Them ackerdemic intellectuals is the worst.  We done been attacked by the intelligent, edumacated segment of the culture.

Date: 2007/10/01 10:45:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 01 2007,10:30)
 
Quote (CCP @ Sep. 28 2007,17:26)
(Actually, the real miracle of Lancaster is that it produced both Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart, but I'd expect BA77 is more familiar with ALF.)

Don't forget this illustrious institution.


*cue ominous chanting*

All hail Rob, the Antichrist formerly known as 2ndclass.

Date: 2007/10/02 10:09:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2007,09:21)
That Jerry Collins and his 5756356 inch biceps doesn't scare me.

Anyone who will piss into a bucket on international TV is pretty scary to me.

Date: 2007/10/04 11:02:28, Link
Author: keiths
I replied to TP at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
 
Quote
As you know, in 1905 a patent clerk was trying to make a big deal about an inconsistency in Mercury's orbit and a slight red shift in sunlight. This resulted in a special-relativity-in-the-gaps rationalization.

No. Gravitational redshift and the precession of Mercury's orbit are explained by general relativity, not special relativity.
 
Quote
The god-in-the-gaps like argument was that there was no inertial reference frame.

No. Special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, recognizes inertial reference frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them.

TP, if you don't even understand well-established physics such as special relativity, why should we pay attention to your boosterism of quantum woo such as Patel's?

Date: 2007/10/04 12:46:06, Link
Author: keiths
My reply to TP at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
TP,

I think the problem is that you're confusing the concepts of absolute vs. inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. In fact, special relativity recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them.

The so-called "Twin Paradox" is actually not a paradox at all. A true paradox is self-contradictory. The Twin Paradox is counterintuitive, to be sure, but it does not contradict itself. And contrary to your assertion, it can be fully explained in terms of special relativity.

Again, TP, I urge you to take some time to learn basic physics. It will pay off in the long run, and it will make you less susceptible to woo-mongers like Patel.

Date: 2007/10/04 23:15:53, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,19:24)
Ensign Keiths?

Do you have something to say?

My reply (cross-posted from Telic Thoughts):
   
Quote
TP,

I don't have the time or the inclination to walk you through an explanation of how special relativity resolves the so-called "Twin Paradox", but I did hunt down a Scientific American article on the the Web that explains it, so that you can convince yourself on your own time.

You can find it here.

This paragraph from the article explains why general relativity is not needed to resolve the paradox, contrary to your claim:
Quote
The paradox lies in the question "Why is the traveling brother younger?" Special relativity tells us that an observed clock, traveling at a high speed past an observer, appears to run more slowly. (Many of us solved this problem in sophomore physics, to demonstrate one effect of the absolute nature of the speed of light.) Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental. An explanation follows.

Date: 2007/10/07 00:11:07, Link
Author: keiths
TP,

You haven't thought this through.  After discarding the responses that miss the Libet deadline, you're assuming that a preponderance of correct choices among the remaining responses is indicative of retrocausality.  Yet this totally neglects the possibility of preconscious but perfectly causal reactions to the stimulus.  

Now if you could get the subject to choose correctly with consistency before the light flashed, then you'd have something.

Date: 2007/10/07 01:55:54, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 07 2007,00:59)
I would expect to get some data where the toggle happened clearly before the light event.  That would be one set that I would analyze by itself.  However, I suspect that would be a violation of superluminal information transfer that could result in a potential causal paradox.

No, superluminal information transfer would not explain a case where the toggle happened before the event.  Even if the speed of light were infinite, the information transfer would be at best instantaneous. 
Quote
It takes time for the neural signal to travel from the eyes to the brain and then to the hand.

Human reaction times are well below 500 ms.  Your use of the Libet delay as a cutoff is therefore invalid and would result in false positives.  

Date: 2007/10/07 16:45:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 07 2007,15:58)
http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/reactiontime.html

I get reaction times of 210-230 ms in this test, so Libet's observation doesn't merely appear to be wrong.

Hi JAM,

Libet's results do hold up under scrutiny.  It's TP's explanation of them that is wanting.

Contra TP, Libet's delay is not a reaction time.

Follow this link for a nice description of Libet's findings.

Date: 2007/10/07 17:23:37, Link
Author: keiths
Raising the stakes on reaction time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipwkZYqXFSs

http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

Date: 2007/10/08 10:59:48, Link
Author: keiths
Judging from this, anything above 500 ms is an extreme outlier, at least among the people taking the test.

Date: 2007/10/08 12:33:25, Link
Author: keiths
TP,

You know how to program, right?

If you're serious about doing the experiment, take the Javascript code for this test and modify it so that the light starts out yellow and then changes randomly to red or green, with the subject's job being to click in a red or green square to match the color.

You can use the Javascript Math.random() function to get pseudo-random numbers, and this site to get truly random numbers generated from a quantum process.

And try not to be too disappointed when the results come back negative.

Date: 2007/10/08 12:47:02, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 08 2007,11:45)
What I'm saying is that the reaction time is both task-dependent and highly variable.

And dependent on the sensory modality, as well.  I've been reading that humans react faster to auditory vs. visual stimulus.

It certainly seems to be true for me.  My reaction times in the bullet game are substantially slower when I mute the sound on my computer, or when I play one of the other purely visual games.

Date: 2007/10/08 23:03:17, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 08 2007,17:15)
I got to 0.274 secs on the bullet game.  I am curious as to find how fast you got.  That was with sound off.

My times cluster around .240 without sound and .175 with sound.  Quite a difference.

Date: 2007/10/10 18:38:53, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,17:20)
Primatologist Suehisa Kuroda reports similar exchanges at Wamba: "A young female approached a male, who was eating sugarcane. They copulated in short order, whereupon she took one of the two canes held by him and left."

If that worked on humans, the price of sugarcane would quadruple overnight.

Date: 2007/10/13 04:14:58, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,15:41)
I would appreciated it if you guys didn't vote it down.  I suggest it wouldn't hurt to have a neutral comment mixed in among the negative ones.  It might help Amazon justify leaving all the comments up.

Thanks.

P.S. Ok Louis, here is your chance to encourage the woo fighting (or have you already voted it down?)

Wow.  TP is really desperate to get eyes on his woo.

Date: 2007/10/18 01:17:59, Link
Author: keiths
DaveTard quotes someone named Botkin on "global warming delusions".

Swap two letters and "Botkin" becomes "Botnik".  

Coincidence?  I think not.  My splanatory filter just clogged up.

Date: 2007/10/18 09:07:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (drew91 @ Oct. 18 2007,08:24)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 17 2007,14:13)
And why did it take 4 years of Marine Corp Education to get it through his head "that racial features are no measure of a man."?  Did Mommy and Daddy Springer leave their white sheets and pillowcases laying around the house for Davey to see growing up?

Spend some significant time in Texas and the answer would be readily apparent.  There's still quite a bit of racism/segregation bubbling just below the surface.  

I grew up here, and I've watched many of my friends grow more and more bigoted as they get older.  I think a lot of that stems from value reenforcement at home.  My best guess as to why I'm not nearly as bigoted as my friends is that my parents are both uber liberal NYC transplants (otherwise known as pinko-commies down here), so I wasn't getting that "Good ol' boy" indoctrination at home.

Sgt. Tard is actually from New York state.  It's safe to say, however, that Texas is his true home.

Date: 2007/10/19 04:37:51, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2007,23:41)
By the way, what I do not F&$#ing understand about that photo of Davetard is that on first impression it seems to have been taken or cropped by someone who understood the rule of thirds. That's puzzling, because generally the ID people don't know anything about anything.

Perhaps it was an accident.

The photographer realized he couldn't do anything about the ill-fitting tee shirt, scraggly beard, or gap-toothed smile, but at least he could keep the Cheesy Poof stains out of the picture.

Date: 2007/10/19 12:08:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 18 2007,01:17)
DaveTard quotes someone named Botkin on "global warming delusions".

Swap two letters and "Botkin" becomes "Botnik".  

Coincidence?  I think not.  My splanatory filter just clogged up.

 
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 18 2007,12:39)
Botkin must be carefully distinguished from Botnik, I guess...

Altabin,

It looks like nobody is buying our design inference.  :angry:

Date: 2007/10/20 20:23:03, Link
Author: keiths
Rob Crowther vs. Reality

Rob Crowther:    
Quote
No Matter How You Slice It Intelligent Design is a Hot Topic

So, along with their October issue, Wired has published a Geekipedia supplement, 149 People, Places, Ideas & Trends You Need To Know, and nestled between innovation and internet radio is intelligent design...

Clearly, intelligent design as an idea isn't going away. If anything, it is gaining momentum and popularity among the public as they learn more about it.

Reality:
Search volume for 'intelligent design' ('F' is the Dover decision):


Winner: Reality

Date: 2007/10/22 04:07:36, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse finally finds someone -- in France -- whose English skills she can denigrate:
Quote
The course is about real issues that modern science reveals. Definitely not recommended for entities whose thinking is done by a rock bottom alarmbot who spouts, apparently from somewhere in France, in desperately fractured English.

Date: 2007/10/22 04:10:18, Link
Author: keiths
In a blind test, given nothing but writing samples, how many people would identify Denyse as a native speaker of English?

Date: 2007/10/22 04:17:14, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 22 2007,00:06)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2007,18:28)
Logo inspiration for IntelligentDesignNews.org

http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....002.asp

I vote for the first one, but with a paper bag over the head of the guy on the right.

Bob

Brilliant idea.  Perhaps you could have it done by the same artist who did this one:

Date: 2007/10/24 03:22:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote

William Dembski
10/23/2007
11:52 pm

Good. I like what I’m hearing. Would it be safe to say that multiple realizability (the ability to implement the same design/purpose) in different ways is the reason that how the actor acts should not be a central concern of ID? If not a central concern, then how much of a concern? In TRoutMac’s example, there were two implementations that could be specified in detail. Would ID be better off if we could achieve this level of detail? And what if we can’t — what if GeoffRobinson is right and the level of design in living systems so far exceeds human capabilities that we will never unravel it? In this regard, I find Craig Venter’s recent work on the origin of life fundamentally deficient — he is cuting and pasting from existing life forms rather than building them from scratch.

Dembski must be having one really dark night of the soul if he's turning to that sorry bunch of retards for reassurance.

Date: 2007/10/24 19:48:42, Link
Author: keiths
DaveTard is the gift that keeps on giving:
Quote
And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think. For instance I got a 4.0 in marine biology in college by devoting ONE DAY to studying the material. I've read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time. But am I a biologist? Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest. Now that I'm financially independent and free to pursue any area of interest I want, and the 2004 election is over, I'm interested in this evolution brouhaha as it encompasses a number of my favorite subjects including politics. I spent a hundred hours or so in the past few weeks boning up on things missed in 250 issues of SciAm related to evolution. It's mostly a review though, not a learning experience. For instance I knew that DNA codons in both nuclear and mitochondrial forms didn't always code for the same amino acid out of 20 possibilities but I'd forgotten it until I visited the NIH repository where the standard coding table and exceptions are kept.

Date: 2007/10/24 20:01:56, Link
Author: keiths
From here:
Quote
Davescot

If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.

Me writing this sentence. -ds

Date: 2007/10/25 11:40:31, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
You wouldn’t be wondering if you’d had a number of other men’s wives yelling at you in the height of passion “I want to have your baby!”. It’s a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. Some guys prefer to make the world’s children smarter by becoming teachers and some guys prefer to make them smarter through better genetics. It’s all good.

Date: 2007/10/25 17:19:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (bfish @ Oct. 24 2007,21:02)
Here's my favorite. Unfortunately, I have to quote my quote of it, as you'll see in a bit.

Here's what I attributed to DT:
Quote
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Comment by DaveScot — February 7, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

And here is what the link says now:
Quote
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is open ended. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing open ended DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

I guess it's an open-ended discussion.

Here's what's really beautiful about that whole episode:

Dave made the original comment on February 7, 2006.  I linked to it on April 20, 2007, when the idiotic reference to the double helix was still there.  That means that Dave's bloated ego was so wounded by his mistake that he went back and rewrote history more than 14 months after the fact, hoping that nobody would notice. Luckily for us, bfish noticed.

DaveScot is a perfect tard storm:  Massive ego, anemic intellect, and an acute sensitivity to criticism.  What more could a tard-watcher ask for?  

We salute you, DaveTard!

Date: 2007/10/25 17:23:45, Link
Author: keiths
This is such a beautiful example of revisionist tard that I just had to cross-post it here from the 'DaveScot Lifetime Achievement Award' thread:
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 25 2007,17:19)
 
Quote (bfish @ Oct. 24 2007,21:02)
Here's my favorite. Unfortunately, I have to quote my quote of it, as you'll see in a bit.

Here's what I attributed to DT:    
Quote
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Comment by DaveScot — February 7, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

And here is what the link says now:
Quote
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is open ended. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing open ended DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

I guess it's an open-ended discussion.

Here's what's really beautiful about that whole episode:

Dave made the original comment on February 7, 2006.  I linked to it on April 20, 2007, when the idiotic reference to the double helix was still there.  That means that Dave's bloated ego was so wounded by his mistake that he went back and rewrote history more than 14 months after the fact, hoping that nobody would notice. Luckily for us, bfish noticed.

DaveScot is a perfect tard storm:  Massive ego, anemic intellect, and an acute sensitivity to criticism.  What more could a tard-watcher ask for?  

We salute you, DaveTard!

Date: 2007/10/25 21:30:45, Link
Author: keiths
A nice juxtaposition:
Quote
Serving four years in the United States Marine Corps opened up my eyes to the truth that racial features are no measure of a man. Heart, courage, honor, and brotherhood formed by common values and goals are what counts and I’m happy to report that people of all races, ethnic categories, and religious belief can display these virtues in great abundance working side by side. Focus on what unites us not what divides us.
Quote
Josh is right about me banning him. He was close to the first! Tribune7 can't be him unless he got a new IP address. I caught Josh "The Cunt" Bozeman in several guises by his IP address. Josh was guilty of way too much bible thumping. I can only give so much leeway to a book written 2000 years ago by lice ridden beduins, after all. Especially after 9/11. Everyone knows those Arab beduins are a bunch of liars that like buggering camels and young boys but won't admit it.

Date: 2007/10/26 04:07:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 26 2007,02:51)
The "I learned half of my engineering from SF" is added bonus Tard.

That's hard SF, you chance worshipper. -dt

Date: 2007/10/26 15:25:21, Link
Author: keiths
No DaveTard retrospective would be complete without this gem:
Quote
DaveScot said:
H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

Comment #21312 on April 2, 2005 9:30 PM

Date: 2007/10/26 15:27:29, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
(DaveScot @ May 2 2005 3:51 PM)
My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda’s Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names. Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison,University of Vermont, has suffered the same treatment at Panda’s Thumb except they still allow him to post comments on “The Bathroom Wall” like he’s not qualified to comment elsewhere. Professor Davison has been a practicing doctor in biology for nearly 50 years. Their treatment of him is outrageous. They call him every derogatory name you can think of and accuse him of senility. I correspond with him a lot. He’s got more wits about him now at 76 years of age than any of those cretins ever had at any time in their miserable lives.

Date: 2007/10/26 15:35:24, Link
Author: keiths
From here:
Quote (keiths @ July 05 2006,07:19)
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but DaveTard is as bad at lying as he is at biology and logic.  Look at how his Scientific American "credential" morphs over time:
Quote
I’ve read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time...

Posted by DaveScot on January 6, 2005 03:25 PM

Quote
I’ve also been a subscriber and dedicated reader of Scientific American for almost 40 years.

Comment by DaveScot — May 2, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

Quote
I found it a bit disturbing that a double PhD from UC and Yale with a perfect SAT score would be called a blithering idiot by the editor of an otherwise respectable magazine that I’ve subscribed to for 30 years.

Comment by DaveScot — June 3, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

Quote
I am an extreme polymath. Auto-didact. Going on 50 years of voracious consumption of any and all scientific literature processed and correlated by an IQ well into the genius range. I had all the hard science in the World Book encyclopedia memorized by the third grade and that was just the beginning. I’ve read, I reckon, 400 issues of Scientific American cover-to-cover and understand most of it...

Comment by DaveScot — June 15, 2005 @ 3:15 pm

Quote
Astronomy rules, dude. For the past 400 months when I get my Scientific American in the mail if there’s an article on astronomy or cosmology in it I turn straight to it before anything else. After reading that I usually go from front to back reading everything else...

June 15, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

Quote
Perhaps Santa should give Steve a subscription to Scientific American for Christmas - a magazine I’ve been reading cover to cover every month for 30 years - so he wouldn’t have missed The Alternative Genome and then he’d know that introns aren’t junk DNA...

March 6, 2006

Quote
So basically all the scientific discovery of the last 40 years important enough to make it into the pages of Scientific American I read about at the time it was discovered...

June 20, 2006

Date: 2007/10/26 21:33:43, Link
Author: keiths
I hadn't noticed this one before.  Dave, the self-proclaimed computer genius, reveals that he doesn't even know the meaning of the terms 'microcode' and 'operand':
Quote
To strike a nerve you’re going to have to do better than getting a self-modifying program to cobble together an EQU instruction out of microcode through trial and error, reward and punishment. That’s laughable from the perspective of programmers who were using so-called evolutionary algorithms decades before it got a shiny new name applied to it. Moreover we teased solutions out of it that far exceed in complexity and practicality that of a simple microprocessor operand.

Date: 2007/10/26 21:47:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 26 2007,19:41)
And yes, RTH's 1000th post was one of the funniest things on this site ever.  Wish I had a link.

Ask, and it shall be given you.

Date: 2007/11/04 19:09:16, Link
Author: keiths


Photoshop opportunity!

Date: 2007/11/04 19:27:48, Link
Author: keiths
From here:
Quote
I’m running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That’s too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Date: 2007/11/04 19:30:41, Link
Author: keiths
And here:
Quote
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Date: 2007/11/04 19:40:56, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 04 2007,16:16)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 04 2007,08:53)
Block that metaphor!      
Quote
In short, the evidence points to a fatal malaise for our Civilisation, and the vultures are already circling and waiting to pounce.

Good old kairosfocus the insane.

Remember this guy?
Quote
One’s worldview (where we came from, why we are here, and the ultimate meaning of life), as Dave so aptly put it in the above, I feel is really the crux for most arch-darwinists (and even the newer ones) clinging on to this archaic theory for dear life. Hissing like an angry alley cat at anyone who would put a hand near to threaten their holy grail.

Ergo to rule out these implications and *free* themselves of the shackles of an imposed morality/consequence (sounds rather Nietzscheian) they look to snuff out any trace of that differing to pure methodological naturalism...

The final irony here is that evolution was born out of victrian era philosophy and wormed it’s way into science only to become the cuckoo who stole the nest, mimicked science and attempts to kill real scientific advancement.

Comment by lucID — July 13, 2006 @ 2:56 am

Date: 2007/11/05 15:03:17, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,14:47)
And when is the disco going to find a leading scientologist to take up the anti-darwin cause?

Evolution, Scientology Style

Date: 2007/11/05 19:47:37, Link
Author: keiths
[Edit -- Never mind.  Question already answered.]

Date: 2007/11/06 05:26:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Nov. 05 2007,16:15)
In hardback, The God Delusion has sold 326,694 copies. It's still selling 2000+ a week.

Paperback is due in January, at which time it will pick up again. By the end of next year, it's fairly likely there will be close to a million copies in print.

Worldwide, the English-language version has sold 1.25 million copies, and there are 31 foreign-language editions.

(From Dawkins' speech at the AAI convention)

Date: 2007/11/11 04:13:45, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 10 2007,06:56)

I don't even bother with the irony meters any more.  The search for a UD-proof irony meter is about as fruitful as the search for integrity from UD or the DI.

O ye of little faith -- behold the construction and operation of a UD-proof irony meter:

1. Procure standard cereal box.
2. Cover with pink construction paper.
3. Using crayon, draw irony sensor on narrow side of box.
4. Also using crayon, draw analog dial with needle pegged at "11".

To perform a measurement:

1. Point irony sensor at UD.
2. Read irony level from dial.
3. Repeat as necessary.

P.S. Don't even think about it, church-burners.  I've filed for a patent.

Date: 2007/11/11 06:02:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2007,19:32)
Shaken to the core, I must now rethink my materialist foundations, which I heretofore clung to because they granted me license to rape, pillage and plunder at will. Beauregard and O'Leary appeared on Dennis Prager's podcast today to discuss The Spatula Brain, and in so doing present a devastating, insurmountable argument. Listen to the podcast if you dare. Here I summarize their presentation:

Prager:  What is your theory?

Beauregard (with suave accent): The mind is not just electrical and chemical processes.

Prager: I know about materialism because I studied Marxism. What is the evidence for your theory?

Beauregard: The placebo effect.

Prager: Hmmm. What other evidence do you have for your theory?

Beauregard: Near death experiences (describes one).  

Prager: OK, we have the placebo effect, and near death experiences. What other evidence do you present?

O'Leary (in squeaky little voice): The placebo effect. This guy had arthritis, was given a placebo, and not only feels better, he is better. His mind must have told his his brain to tell his body to do something.  

Prager: Ah, Ha ha ha. Very interesting. I'm going to have to think about that. But isn't that just his psyche telling him he feels better?

O'Leary: That proves you have a psyche that can make your brain do things.

Prager: Ah, ha ha. I see. But how does this prove a soul?

O'Leary: When it is detachable, we call it a soul.

Prager: Very interesting. Do you have other arguments?

Beauregard: Near death experiences during standstill procedures. OK, these are anecdotal, but we are going to do some research. Near death experiences. The placebo effect.

O'Leary: Also, the placebo effect.  

Beauregard: And I can say placebo effect, too.  

O'Leary: And Near death experiences. I can say that. Placebo effect. Materialism. The placebo effect. Materialism. Near death experiences.

Listener: I understand the human desire for dualism, but the evidence you cite is purely uncontrolled and subjective. How can you call that science?

Beauregard: We are going to do some research. So it is science. Near death experiences. Placebo effect. See?

O'Leary: Plus there is the placebo effect. The soul tells the mind to tell the brain to tell the body to do something. Materialism. The placebo effect.  

Prager: Thank you very much.


Lest anyone think that RB is exaggerating, here is a portion of that magnificent tardalogue, verbatim:
 
Quote
Prager:
Well, why couldn't the materialist argue -- and I believe in a soul, but I want to just be as fair as possible -- why couldn't the materialist -- and by the way, let me explain this to my listeners, as well -- this is something I'm very familiar with, and I know not everybody is: 'materialist' doesn't mean you like to spend money on material things --

Beauregard:
Heh-heh.

Prager:
That is the way people think of the term.  But 'materialist' in philosophy means "only matter is real."  That's what materialism means, and that is the basis of Marxism. That's how I know it, because that was my field of study.  Only matter is real, non-matter is not real.  So, this is what people are talking about here. But let me argue then, maybe if I take a placebo -- my brother believes that my vitamin C is a placebo -- he's a doctor, and they have a deep skepticism with regard to vitamins -- I claim to my brother "You know, it's amazing how little I get colds.  I take a lot of vitamins."  and he says "Dennis, God bless you, I want you to be healthy, but I think it's a placebo."  So maybe what is happening is, my psyche is in fact triggering material reactions --

O'Leary:
Precisely!  But then that means you must in fact have a psyche --

Beauregard:
Heh-heh.

O'Leary:
-- that can act on your brain.

Prager:
Ohhh.  Ohhh.

Beauregard:
Heh-heh.

O'Leary:
Which means your mind is not your brain.

Prager:
Ohhh.  Ohhh.

O'Leary:
Your mind is something that can cause an effect.

Prager:
Ohhhhh. Oh oh oh.  That's a fascinating argument.

Beauregard:
Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Prager:
And so, of course, again, let me explain this too:  Most of us believe we have a mind, not just a brain -- I mean, an ant has a brain, but an ant, we don't think, has a mind.  The mind is the part of us that battles the brain.  I'll give an example.  My brain wants cheesecake.  My mind says it's fattening.

Beauregard:
Heh-heh.

Prager:
All right?  Is that a fair distinction?

Beauregard:
Yes. Yeah. Uh-huh.

Prager:
Okay.  So, whereas a dog can never do that.  A dog will not look at food and think "You know, I've really overeaten today and I really want to live a long time."

O'Leary:
Hee-hee.

Beauregard:
Ha-ha.

Prager:
Dogs have brains, but not minds, as we understand 'mind', in any event, where you could have a mind/brain difference.  So you argue, from a scientific standpoint, that we have minds, not only brains. Is that correct?

Beauregard:
Absolutely.  Yes.

Date: 2007/11/12 06:22:27, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse:
Quote
So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the somniferous posturing I did).

Date: 2007/11/12 21:49:46, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 12 2007,20:00)
I've got a little bit of hearing damage and I probably couldn't tell my setup from an extravagant one anyway. And given how allergic audiophiles are to double-blind tests, some of them probably couldn't either.

Have you been following this amusing battle between James Randi and fans of the $7250 Pear Anjou stereo cables?

Date: 2007/11/19 04:11:17, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 18 2007,20:40)
Gather 'round, childrens.

Let me tell you about the imminent threat known as "Global Tarding". Tard is a renewal recourse, but nature will not allow you to take so much at a time. Don't harvest too much tard at once, because the tard may not be able to renew itself and we may face a world without Tard..

Won't someone think of the children?

Date: 2007/11/20 15:18:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 19 2007,14:50)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 19 2007,14:39)
Oh Where is ke, where is Lenny, where is Great White Wonder??

a) no one knows
b) Louis drove him away
c) I don't think he ever posted here and let's hope he finally has his meds right.

I'll bet k.e. is back in Port Moresby, stoned out of his mind.  Or else he got religion.

Date: 2007/11/28 01:36:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.

Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:  
Quote
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.

And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:  
Quote
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.

You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Date: 2007/11/28 10:10:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 28 2007,05:12)
Keith,

What are you going to do with all your spare time, now? I just spent over an hour skimming through this thread and I think you owe me that hour back. :angry:

Alan,

Long as it is, that thread was started only because the previous thread took too long to load over Joy's dialup modem.  (Go on, just take a peek -- you know you want to.  :p)

I'll give you 45 minutes back, but I'm keeping 15 for the Adelson illusion.  Deal?

Date: 2007/11/29 04:00:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 28 2007,22:22)
I've listened to rather a lot of Dembski's speech, several times in close conversation, and I don't think that the narration was done by Dembski. I'm with RB on this one.

When I figured out that Dembski was the voice of the gassy Judge Jones, what tipped me off were the distinct Upper Midwestern vowels of his speeded-up speech.  You don't hear those vowels at all in the video narration.  I think RB and Wes are right -- it's not Dembski.

Date: 2007/11/29 05:19:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 15 2007,07:21)
 I thought the Sokal hoax was a great event.  I actually went out and bought a copy of the Social Text issue as a collector's item.

So did I.  I'll bet it was, by far, their best-selling issue ever.

Amusingly, Ross later published an "expanded edition" of that issue -- and had the balls to leave out the Sokal paper!

Date: 2007/11/29 13:25:58, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 29 2007,11:33)
Joe G, who rarely disappoints, outdoes himself in terms of bringin' teh stoopid, when he tries to defend GG's publication record:
 
Quote
Writing a paper takes research. Research takes time. Research in astronomy takes quite a bit of time due to the vast distances involved. (it takes time to detect movement in far-away bodies)

I'm starting to think that Joe G is a troll.

I know, I know -- he's a real person who even got fired once for threatening somebody online.

What I mean is, I think he may be a life troll -- a precocious kid who decided at age 7 to play stupid in real life, for the rest of his life, just to see if people would buy it.

Nobody is really that stupid.

Date: 2007/12/02 11:47:49, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (bfish @ Dec. 02 2007,02:17)

So now I am wondering what it means to "know what I want to say," but have no words with which to say it. Did I REALLY know what I wanted to say, or was my thought like a dream, a projection on fog that dissipates the more intently you examine it? If I did know what I wanted to say (and I believe I did), in what language did I know it? Is it possible that I both understood the English that was spoken to me and could think in English, but could not transfer the words I was thinking to the part of the brain that speaks?


Hi bfish,

Your question assumes that we think in language, but there is abundant evidence that we do not.

Consider:

1. Research shows that animals are capable of abstract thought, despite not posessing language.

2. Ditto for very young children.

3. We think visually without using words.  As an engineer, I find that much of my thought is nonverbal, particularly when I am designing or debugging.

4. If thought were language-based, then ambiguous linguistic constructs would necessarily correspond to ambiguous thoughts.  But we can be sure that the newspaper editor who wrote "Miners Refuse to Work after Death" knew exactly what he or she meant, but just didn't manage to select the right words for it.

5. Your own example of having a clear sense of what you wanted to say, but being unable to express it in language.

It is tempting to regard the fact that we can "hear" ourselves think as evidence that the thinking itself is being carried out using words, but the evidence suggests that this is really a "translation" from thought to language that happens after the fact.

Date: 2007/12/03 10:19:49, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Is External Delivery the same as Santa Clausism?

No. The theory of external delivery is only concerned with empirically testing whether Christmas presents are delivered by an external agent, or an internal agent such as your parents. Santa Clausism typically starts with the premise that Santa Claus is delivering presents, and then seeks to fit the evidence to that theory. The theory of external delivery has developed strictly from objective interpretations of the empirical evidence.

From External Delivery the Future.

Date: 2007/12/19 20:51:25, Link
Author: keiths
O'Leary:
Quote
But if you think that the information service that Bill Dembski has provided you here for years - out of his own resources - is worthwhile, go to Amazon and vote up the reviews that sound like the person has actually READ the book. Vote the others down.

Date: 2007/12/23 17:10:05, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Touchstone @ Dec. 23 2007,15:59)
O'Leary, at the behest of Dembski, transcribes Beauregard talking to Dennis Prager:

RB, Altabin and I had some fun with that interview when it first came out.

Date: 2007/12/23 18:29:23, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 23 2007,18:00)
ERV is working up another post on Dembski and the Harvard/XVIVO video. It turns out that Dembski's "bullet-proof" text in "The Design of Life" includes a URL to the original video at Harvard, and gives a "last accessed" date that is months prior to the OU talk date.

IDers have an amazing tolerance for cognitive dissonance (think Dembski, Cordova, GilDodgen and DaveScot).  How do they do it?

How can Dembski reconcile his smug piety with his flagrant dishonesty?  Is it simply a matter of the ends justifying the means in his warped universe?  What am I missing here?

Date: 2007/12/29 03:05:22, Link
Author: keiths
From arn.org:
 
Quote
Wirth concluded, "As we monitor scientific discoveries and reports in the news, I think we're beginning to see a growing trend overall that the sufficiency of Darwinian explanations to describe how life evolved is turning out to be substantially inadequate in a growing number of fields, particularly in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. I think it's becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades. And, based on what we're seeing, I suspect the debate about origins will heat up again significantly in 2008."

Waterloo!

Date: 2007/12/29 23:09:35, Link
Author: keiths
Tom Halvorsen, a newspaper reader in Joplin, Missouri, explains mass extinctions:
Quote
Many scientists believe the dinosaurs disappeared quickly, as in a cataclysmic event. In Luke 10:18, Jesus said he watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. This may have been the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs.
And:
Quote
The belief that humans evolved is merely wishful thinking. The atheistic evolutionists may retort that I believe in God merely because I want to believe in heaven. The retort is true. But it’s also true I believe in Jesus simply because he wants me to. Jesus has the ability to cause people to believe in him. But he gives everyone a free will. He doesn’t force anyone to believe in him. On this issue he is pro-choice.

Date: 2007/12/29 23:11:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 29 2007,23:09)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,22:51)
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Weren't they skiting just a few days ago that it was at number 4,000 or something?

Is 'skiting' an Australianism?

Date: 2007/12/31 00:02:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 30 2007,20:51)
     
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 29 2007,23:11)
     
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 29 2007,23:09)
         
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,22:51)
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Weren't they skiting just a few days ago that it was at number 4,000 or something?

Is 'skiting' an Australianism?

Careful you, as a red blooded New Zealand man that's almost a declaration of war you just made there >: (

Speaking of Waterloo, it sounds like someone is still grumpy over this:
Quote
NZL  18-20  FRA

Black day

All Blacks veteran hooker Anton Oliver spoke of the team's disappointment at another world cup exit.

"The feeling in the sheds was like no man's land. Sort of desolate, decayed, the smell of – I don't want to dramatise it – but death, you know. But that is what it feels like, no man's land, and it is not a nice place to be."

Captain Richie McCaw was at a loss to explain his team's performance.

"We can't do anything about it now. It's going to hurt for a long, long time. I'm lost for words. We believed we could come out and play well. We didn't play as well as we could have."

Date: 2007/12/31 00:25:06, Link
Author: keiths
A revealing excerpt from a CBC interview with Granny's Spatula Brain co-author Mario Beauregard:
Quote
Interviewer:  
You decided that you wanted to study these [spiritual] experiences.  Why?

Beauregard:
Well, because I started myself to have these experiences when I was very young, at around 8 years.  

Interviewer:
What happened to you?

Beauregard:
Well, I was living in countryside.  My father was a farmer, so we had a lot of space, and we were isolated, so I didn't have many friends around and I had a lot of time to spend, you know, in the forests and the fields. It became like a certainty that what we call the brain and the mind and the soul were totally different things. For me, it became obvious, and I decided at 8 years old that I would become later on a scientist to investigate these questions.  And after that I've had series of spiritual experiences spontaneously, all related to a disease.  I've been very sick when I was a young adult and I've had a series of experiences during that time and one of these experiences was related to a state of cosmic consciousness.  In that state, I totally lost my sense of self and I became united for a certain period of time with the whole cosmos and with God (if I can use this word).

Interviewer:
And that's what's driving your work now.

Beauregard:
Now, yes.  I've been very much influenced, of course, by these experiences.

Sort of explains why he's constitutionally incapable of evaluating the merits of the materialist position.  After all, he's known since he was 8 that the mind and the brain are separate entities.  It's just a question of coming up with the pathetic level of detail needed to convince the scientific community of this obvious truth.

Date: 2007/12/31 14:04:29, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 31 2007,13:25)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 31 2007,13:03)
Of all the strange stuff that gets posted on UD, those "brites" photos are possibly the most jarring. They fail to make a point, and, unpardonably, they are not funny. The first time I saw one I dismissed it to someone posting while they were under the influence of 'ludes. But there have been too many repeat occurrences. Probably, like most of you, I try to see why someone posts or writes something, from their own perspective. By that method I am rarely surprised at something that most people write, once I know something about them. But the "brites" posts--I simply cannot temporarily reconfigure myself into a frame of mind where such posts make sense. You just can’t get there from here.

Is it safe to assume that 'Galapagos Finch' = 'William Dembski'?

I've always found Dembski's sense of humor to be really creepy, like that of a socially hopeless 14-YO boy. Judging from the comments there, the UD regulars aren't really into it, either.

I don't know if Finch = WAD, but whoever he is, he evidently finds this photo to be titillating.  

Stay tuned for giggling references to the word "masticate".

Date: 2008/01/02 07:17:20, Link
Author: keiths
One of the saddest parts of the film is around 36:15, where the blond-haired kid blames himself for not being able to swallow the dogma they're feeding him.

Date: 2008/01/02 09:57:14, Link
Author: keiths
A scary Huckabee story:
Quote
A look at the former Arkansas governor’s records shows that he didn’t shy away when he felt God needed to be defended in legislation.

In 1997, after a tornado ripped through the town of Arkadelphia, Ark., then Gov. Huckabee had spent over three weeks battling his state’s legislators over legal terminology in a disaster insurance bill that referred to natural disasters as “acts of God.”

Huckabee argued that God could not be blamed for the region’s destruction, countering the centuries-old legal terminology and the state’s legislature, the General Assembly. The dispute made local headlines and created tension with other state legislators, some of which called him “petty.”

“‘Petty’ is the best word to describe him,” said Dennis R. Young, a state representative at the time who sponsored the relief measure, according to the Los Angeles Times. “In these kinds of things, he’d make mountains out of molehills.”

Yet the small-town pastor turned Arkansas governor did not give in and in the end the two sides agreed on the substitute term “natural causes.”

Date: 2008/01/06 19:51:33, Link
Author: keiths
Guts comes back to stumble over his shoelaces:  
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,18:11)

5. Keiths joined in the harrassment by restoring a comment from the memory hole.

Guts,

As I told you at the time, I didn't restore the comment; Frostman did.  And he didn't restore it from the Memory Hole.  The Memory Hole was broken, remember?

I wrote:
Quote
No. Frostman restored a deleted comment that was not in the Memory Hole, and I confirmed that I had seen it.

So the one thing that you just presented as a reason for banning me turns out to be false.  Good one, Guts.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

And by the way, you're still misspelling "martyrdom" as "martydom".

Date: 2008/01/06 21:55:34, Link
Author: keiths
Marty Dom digs himself deeper:
Quote (Guts @ Jan. 06 2008,20:04)
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.

Then post it here.  I know for a fact that I did not fish any comments out of the Memory Hole.  You've already admitted that the Memory Hole was not working -- how could I have fished out a comment that wasn't there, even if I had wanted to?

The only way that I could have quoted a deleted comment is if you deleted it after I quoted it.  Did that even occur to you?

What's amusing about this is that you've convicted yourself again.  By saying that you're "looking right now" at my comment that you deleted, you've confirmed that you violated TT's policy against deleting comments without placing them in the Memory Hole.  As you put it earlier:
Quote
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.

Way to go, Marty.  Is there anything else you'd like to tell us?  Have you read Consilience? :p

(I'm still laughing about that one.  You were asked at least seven times if you had read Consilience, and you avoided the question each time, starting here through the end of the thread.)

To summarize:  You violated TT policy.  Frostman and I pointed it out.  You acknowledge it.  Yet we got banned for it.

Pathetic.

Date: 2008/01/06 22:50:44, Link
Author: keiths
Guts, you wrote:
Quote
Keiths, i'm looking right now at the copy of the comment of yours that I deleted.

And I asked you to post it here.  You're avoiding my request.

Why is that?

Date: 2008/01/06 23:14:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Keiths, you've never been good at making demands.

You were the one who said you were "looking right now" at my comment.  Why won't you post it?  Were you hoping I wouldn't call your bluff?

For those interested in seeing more of Guts' particular brand of tard, observe his reaction when he was shown that the DI had encouraged the teaching of ID in public schools prior to Dover:
Link

Date: 2008/01/06 23:18:50, Link
Author: keiths
So Guts, are you desperately trying to change the subject away from the comment that you're afraid to post?

Date: 2008/01/07 20:37:21, Link
Author: keiths
Funny that Barry considers himself an expert on epistemology, when his previous foray into the topic didn't go so well...

Date: 2008/01/08 03:45:28, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (themartu @ Jan. 08 2008,03:08)
Quote

BarryA
“It is impossible for a random number generate to call heads 10,000 times in a row"

I'd like to see the proof for this - why hasn't Dembski corrected him? For a mathematician this is one of those statements that makes you scream 'idiot'.

OK maybe only idiot when you're faced with such arrogance, sometimes it's just 'please learn some probabilty'

Indeed, it's the top-heavy arrogance-to-ability ratio that makes Barry so annoying.

It would probably explode his little pinhead to confront this fact:  Any random number generator that cannot call heads 10,000 times in a row isn't truly random.

Date: 2008/01/08 04:02:50, Link
Author: keiths
Later in the thread, Barry delivers the following lecture to Q:
 
Quote
Q, interesting question. I did not think this example up off the top of my head. It is based on a game one of my statistics profs played.

He had half the students in the class each write down a series of 50 heads and tails and try to make them “look” random. He had the other half each actually flip a coin. He assured the student he would be able to tell the difference and almost always he could. Here’s the key: The students who wrote down their own calls almost always tried to avoid any obvious “patterns,” for example five heads in a row. But a truly random series will usually have patterns like that. So the prof would call all the papers with “patterns” random and the ones without pattens non-random and he was almost always right. It is counter-intuitive to recognize a human “pattern” by the absence of any seeming pattern, but there you go.

Barry is too blind to see that in saying "It is impossible for a random number generate [sic] to call heads 10,000 times in a row", he is making exactly the same mistake as the students in the stat class.

So much for that lesson.

Date: 2008/01/08 14:11:02, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 08 2008,13:57)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2008,10:52)
Hubble and them Mars robots were value for money.

I hope they go for a manned trip to Mars in my lifetime, or perhaps the more ambitious

HEDDLE SPACE TELESCOPE

Come to think of it, I wouldn't want an instrument named after me. If I could have anything named after me, it'd be an "anomaly." People who have anomalies named after them are 30% cooler than people who have effects named after them, and 22% cooler than people who have instruments named after them.

How about "The Heddle Heresy"?

Date: 2008/01/08 14:55:47, Link
Author: keiths
From the folks who brought you Darwin's Deadly Legacy:

Date: 2008/01/08 19:08:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 03 2008,17:29)

Why is Stuart Hameroff ogling that couple?  And what's with the scepter?

Date: 2008/01/10 07:54:51, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 10 2008,06:31)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 09 2008,21:44)
Somebody's ex had to jump our car, which had a dead battery (probably because I was wearing an underwire on that really rainy stormy weekend). When we got home, said ex called one of us. Ex needed a jump right outside home of current sig oth, whom ex was now dating, but didn't want to let know what was going on because ex was spying on current sig oth. We ride to ex's rescue, since ex had so civily rescued us. Car wouldn't jump. Ex rode home with us.

I have never had anything but premarital sex. :) (With one person at one time, you scalawags. Settle down.)

Whoa. A lot of premarital ex, too.

Kristine,

Did sig oth notice ex's car in front of sig oth's home the next morning?

Date: 2008/01/11 04:19:37, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 10 2008,12:41)
Yeah but, you know those little electron trails around the nucleus of a Bohr atom?  They're really there, too! Sometimes they're half there, half not - forming hooks (like how Shroedinger's cat has hooks, i.e., claws) - so the ball electron trail gets entangled in the oxygen electron trail, and ta-da! The ball hovers in mid-air, and the Minnesota Twins win the Superbowl! I mean the World Series! :)

No, you mean the Super Bowl.  Remember, anything is possible in quantum mechanics.

Date: 2008/01/11 12:13:07, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 11 2008,11:16)
And people (particularly pregnant women) do still eat dirt.

Amazonian parrots congregate by the thousands at clay licks to get needed minerals.

Date: 2008/01/11 19:34:38, Link
Author: keiths
Ceiling Cat,

I think it's time to smite someone:

Date: 2008/01/11 21:44:33, Link
Author: keiths
Gil Dodgen:
Quote
This year should be an exciting one for ID.

Date: 2008/01/14 02:42:23, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2008,00:59)
Someone tell teh Biologic Institute!

Speaking of which, have they published a single paper yet?

Date: 2008/01/14 07:03:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 14 2008,01:20)
We have a parliament of Owls...

Flying over a city of canals?

Date: 2008/01/15 22:42:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2008,19:38)
Via Dr. PZ

 
Quote (Mike Chucklehead @ January 15, 2008, MSNBC's Morning Joe)
   "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Holee Crap.  Can you imagine that guy's finger on the nuclear button?

Date: 2008/01/17 12:01:15, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2008,06:18)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 17 2008,05:49)
Somebody may have mentioned this before.  If so, I apologize.

What's wrong with this line?
     
Quote

HOME | Publications | People | Presentations | Resources | Auxilery Papers | www.EvoInfo.org

Found at http://www.EvoInfo.org/

Shhhhh....

Maybe Sal is working there after all...

Date: 2008/01/17 13:22:22, Link
Author: keiths
Tard -- It's All Good.

Date: 2008/01/21 04:57:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 19 2008,20:59)
 When I was in high school some buddies and I had a device for cooking hot dogs by electrocution. The dogs were mounted on prongs which, once the lid was closed, were directly connected to the 120 volt line. The dogs were cooked from inside by the heat generated by the current flowing through them.

RB, how much current does a wiener draw?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Date: 2008/01/22 07:28:55, Link
Author: keiths
No wonder DaveTard is scared of Blipey.

Date: 2008/01/23 03:50:14, Link
Author: keiths
Chuck Norris may soon find himself standing side-by-side with Keith Richards at Huckabee's campaign events:
Quote
Back in 1975, Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards and fellow band member Ron Wood were driving from Memphis to Dallas when a patrolman in Fordyce, Ark., observed that their car was swerving and pulled them over. Richards claimed he was adjusting the radio, but he pleaded guilty to reckless driving and paid a $162.50 fine. Thirty-one years later, Richards, back in Arkansas for a Rolling Stones concert, told the audience that he "used to know the chief of police" in Fordyce. Then-Gov. Huckabee, himself a part-time bass player, was in attendance. After the show, Huckabee went backstage and seized the moment. "Keith," he said, "I can pardon you and get that off your record. You can have a clean start in Arkansas." Recalling the evening to GQ, Huck mused that perhaps this small gesture might someday lead to "my being able to give him a full pardon before God for all the things he's done."

Date: 2008/01/23 10:42:36, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2008,06:37)
Shorter version for TP:

1) Sometimes intelligent people mock you/your ideas or are not receptive to your ideas/presentation of those ideas because the ideas are false/wrong/bad and you present them badly/irrelevantly etc. Sometimes people try to point this out to you out of a kind of frustrated helpfulness. Think about it. Mockery is sometimes a clue!

2) Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science".

I'm afraid TP is constitutionally blind to the limits of his own understanding.  

For instance, in this thread at Telic Thoughts, he:

1. Misidentifies gravitational redshift and Mercury's orbital precession as motivators for Einstein's theory of special relativity.
2. Confuses inertial reference frames with absolute reference frames.
3. Mistakenly claims that general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox.
4. After all of the above are pointed out to him, proceeds to lecture Zachriel and me on the twin paradox, getting it totally wrong.

Eventually Zachriel, amused by TP's intransigence, portrays him as Starfleet's version of Captain Queeg.

Date: 2008/01/23 12:46:23, Link
Author: keiths
I wrote:
Quote
Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed.

TP replied:
Quote
BTW, I never claimed this were "no inertial frames" and defy you to point out where I did.

Here you go:
Quote
The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem.

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Date: 2008/01/23 14:33:32, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,13:32)
If that was your best shot I am quite comfortable with leaving that decision up to those in the listening audience, most of whom appear to have reasonable reading comprehension skills.

It was hardly my "best shot".  To demonstrate your confusion, I merely had to quote you.
Quote
You might arrive at an approximately correct answer if you use Special Relativity... General Relativity gives you the correct answer...

The issue isn't whether general relativity is a better theory than special relativity.  Of course it is -- why would Einstein "improve" on special relativity by developing and publishing an inferior theory?

The issue is (and always has been) whether general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox. At Telic Thoughts, you claimed that it is:
Quote
The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used.

Listen carefully.  The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is used.  Zachriel and I understand that.  Lasky (the author of the Scientific American article) understands that.  The author of the Math Page article understands that.  You are the only one who apparently does not understand that.

Read the Lasky article again, and try to comprehend it this time.  Find an intelligent friend who can explain it to you, if necessary.

If you succeed in understanding the Lasky article, the following claims should make sense to you:

1. Special relativity is able to resolve the twin paradox.
2. The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is chosen.  That's why it's called "relativity".
3. None of this implies that general relativity is inferior to special relativity.
4. General relativity also resolves the twin paradox.

Now stop, pause, and take a deep breath before your wounded ego propels you into an ill-considered response.

Read and understand the Lasky article first.

Date: 2008/01/23 17:14:55, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,15:13)
Hi Keiths,

I see you have finally posted what you should have long ago.

Occam tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses.

Now, would you agree that the Twin Paradox is a geometry problem and that the traveling twin takes a short-cut in the non-Euclidean space-time geometry?

Or would you like to complicate it to make it less understandable?

TP,

Your comment is one long non sequitur.

Did you read the Lasky article?  Do you finally understand why you are wrong to claim that special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox?

Date: 2008/01/24 00:09:18, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
I read it [Lasky's Scientific American article on the twin paradox] the first time you presented it to me and I told you then that I disagreed with it... It doesn't matter whether you or Lasky can twist Special Relativity into a form where it might resolve the Twin Paradox.
 
Then it should be easy for you to show us what's wrong with Lasky's graph, and to explain to us why he should have gotten different answers for each of the twins:

(Note that the time axis should be labeled in years, not light-years)


How about it, TP?

Date: 2008/01/24 00:31:43, Link
Author: keiths
What's really funny is that TP's idol, Roger Penrose, explicitly contradicts him on the twin paradox.

From The Road to Reality, p. 422:
Quote
It used to be frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong... The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity. [Emphasis mine]

Okay, TP, let's hear your explanation of how Penrose is wrong, how Lasky is wrong, how the author of the Math Page article is wrong, how Zachriel and I are wrong, but you -- who can't even keep the differences between special and general relativity straight -- are right.

Date: 2008/01/24 00:56:00, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 23 2008,23:55)
Yeah, but then Dr. Dr. Speckled and Spotted Sweater will claim that he had strategically placed the willow rods near the water hole all along. ;)

Mock all you want, Kristine.  The fact is, the Bible has always been years ahead of scientists.

Date: 2008/01/24 21:31:55, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 24 2008,19:08)
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

You're being generous, Nerull.  TP doesn't even understand Newtonian physics.  For example, he thinks a ship in orbit experiences no acceleration:
Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.

TP, didn't you take physics in engineering school?  I did, and we learned in our first semester that circular motion requires a constant acceleration of v²/r, where v is the speed and r is the radius.  Elliptical orbits also require a continuous inward acceleration, though the magnitude of the acceleration varies with distance from the center of mass.

Why keep embarrassing yourself?  Take some time off from the blogs, get a nice freshman-level physics text, and learn the basics.

People won't take you seriously as long as it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Date: 2008/01/24 23:13:20, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,22:47)
It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

Quote
...it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

You see, it's not TP's fault that he's spouting off about things he knows nothing about, telling all of us that we're wrong and he's right.  It's our fault for not educating him properly.

We keep asking him to pick up a textbook and learn some physics, which is so unfair.

Stop whining, TP.

Date: 2008/01/25 08:13:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,07:08)
As for picking up textbooks and trying to figure this out for myself.  That is what I have done.

As for trying to get help in my understanding, that is what I am doing.

If you were trying to get help, you wouldn't be pompously lecturing people on subjects you know nothing about.
Quote
As for humbly accepting other people's understanding as correct without understanding it myself, that is what I am NOT doing.

None of us have asked you to take our opinions on faith.  
Quote
I consider it a good thing that my understanding is consistent with Newtonian Physics, because if it wasn't my understanding would be obviously flawed.

Your understanding isn't consistent with Newtonian physics.  You claim that an orbiting ship will undergo no acceleration, remember?

Date: 2008/01/26 08:45:01, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 26 2008,07:58)
Sal Cordova has returned from a vacation to the redneck Riviera (Biloxi)...

Sanctimonious Sal explains why he chose Biloxi:
Quote
I spent part of my vacation at Biloxi. Here are some pictures of one of the place where I hung out. Biloxi is so much nicer than nearby New Orelans from what I hear. The people in Biloxi impress me as being God fearing…

God forbid that Sal should go to New Orleans, where the person serving him his Shirley Temples might be a fornicator, or worse!

Date: 2008/01/26 08:59:08, Link
Author: keiths
Here's a brilliantly-acted "refutation" of Flock of Dodos, starring Casey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTA5zm9jYDQ

Date: 2008/01/26 20:53:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2008,09:31)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 26 2008,08:58)
Not only is it a string of non sequiturs and illogic, it reads like he has been taking writing lessons from Denyse...

Sal's English has never been very good. I suspect English is at least a second language to him.

Judging from his accent (you can hear him speak in this video at 4:10), Salvador is either a native speaker or was at least exposed to English at an early age.

Like Denyse, Salvador comes by his linguistic deficits straightforwardly.  His brain is simply no better at language than it is at logical thinking, interpersonal relations, or ethical behavior.

Date: 2008/01/27 08:57:04, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 26 2008,23:31)
Take your acting as an example.  Surely, in acting you run into the type of people who can tell you the names of all the different techniques and maybe even have been schooled in them, but still don’t understand them.  Going through the motions and mouthing the words does not mean you understand them.

That's an excellent description, TP -- of you.

"Mouthing the words" without understanding.  Knowing the jargon, with no clue as to what it actually means.  That is you, to a 'T'.

Case in point:  for several days now, you've been making a fundamental mistake that completely undermines your position regarding special relativity and the twin paradox.  I've been waiting to see if you would catch your error.  By now it is clear that you never will.

You have been claiming, for days, that special relativity is "wrong" and that the Minkowskian geometry of general relativity is needed in order to make sense of the twin paradox:
Quote
A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time".  That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong.

Quote
In his book Penrose explains the Twins Paradox (i.e. Clock Paradox) is a geometry problem.

He demonstrates how using the Minkowskian geometry of General Relativity ALL BY ITSELF solves the paradox.  Note, a generalized Twins Paradox problem doesn't include gravity.

People feel more comfortable saying and thinking of General Relativity as just a minor upgrade to Special Relativity.  You can even find lots and lots of people with impressive credentials saying just that.

Quote
Since I am on a roll.  Let me offer you something sure to cause a loud howl from the Group Think mentality that holds court here.

The reason for the introductory lesson in Minkowskian geometry and General Relativity is to awaken you to the reality of shortcuts in space-time.

Quote
Special Relativity is superfluous.  General Relativity is a complete explanation.  Special Relativity no longer needs to be a consideration.  Occam's razor suggests we should discard it.  That is what I am doing.

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Quote
Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.


Guess what, TP? Minkowskian geometry is the geometry of special relativity, not general relativity.  

Without realizing it, you've been using special relativity to resolve the twin paradox, all the while claiming that special relativity is "wrong" and that general relativity is needed to resolve the paradox.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  Just pathetic.

Knowing you, I suspect that you will try to frame this as a mere "semantic" issue.  You'll try to claim that even if you used the wrong term to describe the geometry of general relativity, you understood the concepts all along.

Wrong.

Not only have you claimed that Minkowskian geometry is the basis of general relativity, when it actually applies to special relativity, you've also used the mathematics of Minkowskian geometry to analyze the twin paradox:
Quote
Hmmm, let's do the math…

ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
= (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2
= 1.0 - 0.81
= 0.19

ds = 0.436 years

Quote
All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Quote
It is my understanding that the arc length function that matches experimental data like GPS satellites is...

ds = SQRT( dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Quote
What is your understanding on the significance of Minkowskian goemetry?

Did I misapply this equation Penrose presented in The Road to Reality?  (chapter 18 is titled "Minkowskian geometry")

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2


This is classic.  You tell us that special relativity is wrong, and that it cannot resolve the twin paradox.  Then you proceed to show us (copying Penrose) how special relativity (via Minkowskian geometry) resolves the twin paradox.  And you do all this without realizing that you've shot yourself in the foot.  Wait to go, TP.

You've also shown us that you completely misunderstand Penrose's chapter on Minkowskian geometry.  

Now do you understand why we've been asking you to set the blogs aside for a while, pick up a book on elementary physics, and really learn it for a change?

Date: 2008/01/29 13:01:25, Link
Author: keiths
Thought Provoker keeps running up against a cruel fact: the people who contribute new ideas to physics are those who understand physics in the first place.  He would prefer to live in a world where a breezy misreading of Penrose's The Road to Reality puts one on the Nobel short list.

Lacking the discipline to learn physics, TP instead employs a quasi-Darwinian approach to theorizing:

1. Throw out a bunch of random ideas that seem intuitively correct.  Pretend that they are settled truth.

2. Accuse your opponents of "group-think" when they demur.

3. Pepper your discourse with platitudes and truisms like "I can only understand what I know" and "I don't know the Truth, do you?"

4. Quietly drop ideas when your opponents point out their flaws.  If you acknowledge your errors at all, pretend that they are merely "semantic" issues -- the kind of thing that a "straight-A PhD type" might obsess over, but not something that a genius of your stature would stoop to consider:
Quote
I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.  This ability is at the expense of bypassing irrelevant details, like proper semantics.

5. Keep pushing any ideas that don't immediately get shot down.  The idea is to use your opponents, who actually understand physics, to winnow your ideas for you.  In the end, you'll take credit for the ones that survive.

This quasi-Darwinian process hasn't worked so well for TP, who has made the following claims:

Claim:  Einstein developed special relativity to deal with the problems of Mercury's orbital precession and the gravitational redshift of light.

Status:  Wrong.  Those phenomena are explained by general relativity, not special relativity.

Claim: There is no inertial frame of reference in special relativity.

Status:  Wrong.  There are an infinite number of inertial frames.

Claim: Special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox, but general relativity can, via Minkowskian geometry.

Status: Wrong.  Special relativity is based on Minkowskian geometry; general relativity is not.  The fact that the twin paradox can be resolved via Minkowskian geometry means that special relativity is sufficient.

Claim:  An orbiting spacecraft experiences no acceleration.

Status:  Wrong even in Newtonian physics, fercrissakes.

Claim:  The traveling twin, going from rest to 0.8c, and then to -0.8c, experiences no acceleration.

Status: Again, wrong even in Newtonian physics.

Claim:  Relativity explains the EPR paradox.

Status: Wrong.

Claim: Relativity is essential to understanding quantum mechanics.

Status:  Wrong.

As far as I can tell, TP has presented only one idea that hasn't been shot down (and even then he got it wrong by attributing it to general relativity and not to special relativity):  the idea that the spacetime path is shorter for the Traveler than it is for the Homebody in the context of the twin paradox.

Unfortunately for TP, that fact has been known for decades, and nobody on either of these two threads has contested it.  Even Penrose states it explicitly in his chapter on Minkowskian geometry.

Here, collected from throughout these threads, is some good advice for TP: 

Quote
Again, TP, I urge you to take some time to learn some basic physics.

Quote
After decades of study, you should be able to understand what each Twin observes. Please grapple with the simple case first.

Quote
Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science".

Quote
Read the Lasky article again, and try to comprehend it this time.  Find an intelligent friend who can explain it to you, if necessary.

Quote
You need a better grasp of quantum physics and mechanics beyond the people who popularize it; maybe look for an evening Master's program in physics.

Quote
Why keep embarrassing yourself?  Take some time off from the blogs, get a nice freshman-level physics text, and learn the basics.  People won't take you seriously as long as it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
On the other hand, you didn't come here looking for answers, you came to spout off about your theory. You then proceeded to tell everyone how wrong they were about physics, and now it's some wonder when they throw it back in your face. I think you're genuinely interested in the science, but I don't think you do yourself justice when you can't be humble enough to ask for help.

Quote
Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.  You are surrounded by people far more knowledgable than you, an intelligent person would realize that and attempt to profit from their insight.

Quote
If I can't trust that you know what you're talking about (you clearly don't), then I, like others on this board, have no reason to listen. You need to take the initiative: put down the popular books, pick up a textbook, work out some examples, and convince us that you have a mastery of the basics before you even think about relativity.

Quote
Methinks a bit more attention to relevant details might come in handy.  Things like being able to work out when something is accelerating.

Quote
Now do you understand why we've been asking you to set the blogs aside for a while, pick up a book on elementary physics, and really learn it for a change?

Quote
A man groping blindly in the darkness of his self-imposed grave of ignorance, all the while proclaiming himself the light of the world to those holding the candlelight vigil for him.

Open the casket, it's locked from the inside.

Date: 2008/01/29 19:48:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 29 2008,17:59)
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 28 2008,21:05)
This thread has only 33 replies but 20 times as many views.  Significantly more interest than the thread about baseball (which has 35 replies).

some of us are just here to watch the train wreck.

As far as I can tell, everybody but TP is here for the train wreck.

Even if Orch OR were a promising theory, TP is the last person you'd go to for an explanation, after witnessing his performance on these threads.

Date: 2008/01/30 02:11:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2008,01:30)
I don't hang out in bathrooms, but I do hang out in Hell.


They even have a photo of you in their gallery:

Date: 2008/01/31 11:41:35, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2008,10:31)
It's me being a tard. I should really proof read. Or hire one?

Kristine?

Are you calling Kristine a tard or a proofreader?

Date: 2008/02/04 01:38:18, Link
Author: keiths
TP lectures Bradford over at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
Bradford, it's not my intent to be mean. It is my intent to help you be honest with yourself.

Why do the words 'pot', 'kettle', and 'black' come to mind?

Date: 2008/02/04 03:31:27, Link
Author: keiths
More of Denyse's trenchant analysis:
Quote
Seven years ago, when I Googled “intelligent design”, I would get some thousands of entries, which included ergonomic desks and such. Now there are over 5.5 million entries. That is partly the growth of the Internet, but surely not all.

So, obviously, the ID guys must have something going for them.

Date: 2008/02/04 11:15:47, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,07:00)
Maybe you could use a female name like "Valerie" to further hide your identity.  Then you could lecture me in both blogs about my lack of honesty.

TP,

You seem to think it would be dishonest if I chose to use an Internet pseudonym.

Being the upright and honest person you are, I'm sure if I looked in your local phone book I would see an entry under "Provoker, Thought", and that your parents are listed on your birth certificate as Mr. and Mrs. Provoker.

Likewise, I'm sure that this comment of yours...  
Quote
Now, Keiths and Zachiel and a whole lot of other people will provide lots of handwaving explanations that include references to acceleration and/or changing inertial frames. However, I consider this just a reluctance to give up on Newtonian Physics and its Euclidean geometry way of looking at things.

...is a mere misunderstanding, and that you would never intentionally misrepresent our position as being a rejection of relativity.

No, our honest, ethical TP would never do that.

Date: 2008/02/04 22:20:46, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 04 2008,21:38)
GilDodgen asketh:
 
Quote
Any news as to whether or not The Design of Life might become the companion book to Expelled?

I am not making this up.

Oleg,

He's referring to this statement by Dembski:
 
Quote
I’ve been talking with the producers of EXPELLED (www.expelledthemovie.com) about making this book a companion volume to Ben Stein’s film.* Thanks PZ Myers, Wesley Elsberry, Peter Irons, and others for strengthening my hand in these negotiations.

———————
*Recall that Carl Zimmer’s THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION was the companion to the 2001 PBS Evolution Series.

Date: 2008/02/04 22:29:13, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,17:45)
I had read the entire paper three times. [Emphasis mine]

Quote (creeky belly @ Feb. 04 2008,17:58)
Well, a cursory glance of the papers linked to in the article, which I highly recommend, shows this plot as the argument... Which means that for temperatures below 50K the power law is approximately T^0.5. Then it falls off, as one would expect. [Emphasis mine]

Snap!

Date: 2008/02/04 22:33:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 04 2008,18:34)
I can't believe that none of you noticed the cheesy-poofs on the banner!

A couple of them are even reproducing.  It's like a DaveTard wet dream.

Date: 2008/02/05 00:15:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2008,22:51)
About Ftk's two sons:
Quote
No one need worry about my boy‘s education

Your right, Ftk. Not there education.

I wonder if she'll get the joke.

Date: 2008/02/05 18:55:27, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 05 2008,09:26)
For the USAians and assorted colonials and foreigners amongst you: Scunthorpe is a charming market town in the North of the UK. Sadly it was recently hit by a large earhquake that did over six million pounds worth of improvements.

From the Wikipedia article on Scunthorpe:
Quote
In 2007 a senior manager at a local employer, Nisa-Today, made remarks about the town which brought criticism from residents. John Baines, senior trading controller for the company, made the comments at a trade conference where he said one of the town's major industries was 'handbag theft', that local women wear 'mattresses on their backs in case they meet someone they know' and that if you wanted to 'know what Scunthorpe looked like in the 1970's...go there today'.

Date: 2008/02/06 02:36:14, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (UnMark @ Feb. 06 2008,00:39)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2008,22:29)
 
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

Indeed!

If anyone can find it, the essay "On Bullshit" by H.G. Frankfurt is an interesting read.

He ended up publishing it as a book.

Date: 2008/02/06 16:49:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 05 2008,08:47)
That's it?  That's the sound of the train wreck everyone has been waiting for?

No.  The train wreck started long ago. We're just waiting for the last car to jump the rails and explode in a flaming ball of tard.

Date: 2008/02/08 16:40:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 06 2008,12:28)

Quote
According to the book, The Creationist Movement in Modern America, the psychology of creationists is very different from that of evolutionists (Eve and Harrold 1991). The authors say that creationists tend to perceive the world through the filter of their religious beliefs, and they differ from their opponents in "their most profound understandings of reality, religion, American society, and the nature of the scientific enterprise" (pp. 67).

Link

That article begins with a creepy Salvadoresque quote from Martin Luther:
Quote
What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

Date: 2008/02/11 01:25:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 09 2008,23:07)
Christian AI. Dualistic AI. In Mapou's opinion, Christians are better at making AI than non-Christians. Because ... they're Christians, and they understand dualism.

Can a Christian artificial intelligence be possessed by demons?  If so, maybe this is a positive trend:

Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Date: 2008/02/13 02:54:32, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 12 2008,22:24)
Grandma Tard has a post on teh harder mathematicalics.  

Brace yourselves.

I'm impressed that she was able to multiply $24.99 by 2 to get $49.98.

Now if only her writing was as good as her math...

Date: 2008/02/13 16:07:01, Link
Author: keiths
It will be interesting to see Caroline Crocker do the Martyrdom Mambo in Expelled.

I watched her lie her way through a Coral Ridge Ministries video called The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education (the same one that Slimy Sal was so proud to have appeared in).

The highlight is this self-righteous quote from Crocker:
Quote
I decided not to give the students only the standard story, which is what they have heard since they were very small, but I did one lecture where I gave them the evidence for and against evolution, just the scientific evidence.

I was so careful when I wrote that lecture not to be partial in any way.  I was very careful to make sure that I would talk about point by point the evidence that the book would put forward for evolution and then talk about point by point the experiments and say "Well, you know, there's a problem here."

And then I did at the end of the lecture talk about, "Well, this is evidence for a new theory that several, that some scientists are considering,  and it's called Intelligent Design..."

I think it was on the last slide where I left the students with a question.  I said "Is it evolution, intelligent design, or creation?  Think about it."  At the end of the lecture students would tell me that they didn't know what I believed and they would ask me, "What do you believe?", and I would say, "Well, that's for outside of class."


While she is declaring her innocence, images of her slides are being displayed on the screen.  Check out what Crocker means by "impartial scientific evidence":



















If this is impartial scientific evidence, I'd love to see what biased creationist propaganda looks like.

Date: 2008/02/13 21:16:44, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Patashu @ Feb. 13 2008,17:42)
Idle thought here. Has anyone heard from BA77 lately?

Not that there's (necessarily) any connection, but is Arden on the tard wagon?  New Year's resolution, maybe?  I haven't seen a comment from him in ages.

Date: 2008/02/14 10:08:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 14 2008,09:25)
He just posted a screeching rant against Dawkins because Dawkins got a $3.5 million advance on his next book, a follow-up to The God Delusion.

Can you say bitter jealous tard? :D  :D  :D

I wonder how much Dr. Dr. got for Design of Life?

Dembski asks:
Quote
The question I have is whether Dawkins still worships exclusively in the temple of Darwin or if he now also attends services at the temple of Mammon.

This is the same Dembski who threatened to sue to get the $200/hr fee for his "expert" witness report, which the defense couldn't use anyway because Dembski withdrew from the case.

Mammon, indeed.

Date: 2008/02/14 10:37:20, Link
Author: keiths
Dembski, DaveTard, Denyse, Salvador, GilDodgen -- this is the Golden Age of Tard, folks.  There will never be another like it.

Date: 2008/02/15 00:35:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 14 2008,16:57)
He preferred that recommendation to Plan B (rehab), which he's keeping in his back pocket for rainy day.  

(Jeez, that was a f*&#ed up sentence I just wrote.)

Now you know what Denyse's life feels like.

Date: 2008/02/15 01:20:21, Link
Author: keiths
Hey, Rich --

You're at 3,998 posts.  Will number 4,000 be a tardalogue?  A homologue?

Date: 2008/02/15 01:50:22, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,10:18)
One thing that differentiates Sal from davetard is that Sal is preoccupied with violent imagery...

DaveTard has his moments too.  Don't forget this one:
Quote
Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Date: 2008/02/15 02:51:03, Link
Author: keiths
Susan Jacoby, author of the excellent Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, has written a new book.

Entitled The Age of American Unreason, it was inspired by the following event:
Quote
The author of seven other books, she was a fellow at the [New York Public] library when she first got the idea for this book back in 2001, on 9/11.

Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:

“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.

The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”

“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.

At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”

Date: 2008/02/15 03:02:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 15 2008,02:32)
And I won't translate anything into Finnish or back to English until AtBC notpologises for calling my beautiful language "Moon-language".

And until J-Dog notpologizes for calling it "Icelandic".

Date: 2008/02/15 10:25:47, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2008,08:01)
WHILST IT IS PROBABLY POSSIBLY A LANGUAGE IT LOOKS MADE UP DUE TO ITS VERY POOR CSI CONENT. ALSO, THIS NATION MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MOOMINS, WHICH SCARE THE CRAP OUTTA ME.*

*MOOMINS, IF YOUR READING: I HAS DOG. I HAS CHAINSORES. I HAS GUNS.

Salvador, on the other hand, loves Moomins because they believe in the Fludd, just like him.

P.S. Rich -- Your tardalogues are masterful, but you let your accent show on this one.  No self-respecting redneck Texan would say "whilst", except when mocking a whingeing Pom.

Date: 2008/02/15 10:34:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2008,10:27)
CHAINSORES makes up for it though.

Can't argue with that.

Date: 2008/02/16 01:35:51, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 15 2008,20:11)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 14 2008,12:58)
My bet: he won't be returning to JHU in Fall '08, but will instead be taking a formal position under Caroline Crocker.

Sal's not that kind of boy. He would insist on being on top. :p

Wearing his scuba mask and flippers.

Date: 2008/02/16 01:42:29, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 15 2008,20:42)
I've schooled Sal on the plagiarism issue here.

Sal, of course, learns nothing from his mistake:
Quote
I accept your correction. I didn’t delve much into the paper.

However I expect endosymbiotic theory to continue to suffer.

Thanks again for the correction.

Date: 2008/02/16 04:48:10, Link
Author: keiths
Missing Person Bulletin

Subject:                  Arden Chatfield
Height:                   Unknown
Weight:                  Unknown
Hair:                       Unknown
Eyes:                      Unknown
Sexual Orientation:   Gay

Aliases:






...and several avian species.

When last seen, subject was in a confused state, recovering from a LOLcats binge and contemplating a move to Chicago:
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 04 2008,15:15)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2008,14:59)
Do you live a hippy surfing lifestyle, Tarden Chatterbox?

Yes. And I'm really getting sick of the mild weather, beaches, attractive people, culture, good food, and beautiful scenery. I'm thinking Chicago might be a good alternative.

His final exchange, suspiciously, was with one Kristine Harley:
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 05 2008,16:34)
           
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 05 2008,16:17)
Arden, I left you a book on your nighttable. Come ask if you have questions.

Um, I'm confused.

Authorities suspect the book in question may have been teh Bible.  They are seeking Ms. Harley for questioning.

Meanwhile, police are checking every snowdrift, flophouse, gay cruising spot and Jesus camp between San Francisco and Chicago for signs of Mr. Chatfield.

Those with information regarding Mr. Chatfield's whereabouts are urged to call Jenny at 867-5309.

Date: 2008/02/16 11:26:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 16 2008,11:09)
HEY! I never had Sal as my avatar! He's friggin ugly!

I know.  I just figured if anything would flush you out of hiding, that would.
Quote
BTW, I think I also had these a few years ago:

I'm surprised I remembered as many of them as I did.  I started paying attention after you used David Ferrie (complete with fake eyebrows).
Quote
For your information, you jealous losers, I have been shacked up with Richard and Carlsonjok's mothers. It might be a while.

You mean fathers.

Date: 2008/02/16 11:50:11, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 16 2008,11:32)
You know... paying such close attention to the avatars I've used... there's something... you know... a little gay about that.

Loosen up, sweetie.  We can't let Richard and DaveTard have all the fun.

Date: 2008/02/17 16:18:19, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
106
bFast
02/17/2008
4:50 pm

Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

You're right, bFast.  It took considerably longer than a million years.

Date: 2008/02/19 01:21:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 18 2008,22:31)
It's been so quiet over in the tard mine.
Did they finally close UD?

They're off celebrating evolution's Waterloo.

Date: 2008/02/19 06:11:22, Link
Author: keiths
In the following passage, Woese attacks what he calls "fundamentalist reductionism":
Quote
Fundamentalist reductionism (the reductionism of 19th century classical physics), on the other hand, is in essence metaphysical.  It is ipso facto a statement about the nature of the world: living systems (like all else) can be completely understood in terms of the properties of their constituent parts.  This is a view that flies in the face of what classically trained biologists tended to take for granted, the notion of emergent properties.  Whereas emergence seems to be required to explain numerous biological phenomena, fundamentalist reductionism flatly denies its existence: in all cases the whole is no more than the sum of its parts.

Depending on what he means by "the sum of its parts", Woese is either attacking a straw man, or else making a very questionable claim of his own.

A pile of airplane parts and a fully assembled airplane can both be considered "sums of their parts", but even if equal, part for part, we'd still be surprised to see both of them accelerate down the runway and take off.  In that trivial sense, an airplane is more than the sum of its parts.  Knowing all of the parts, and all of their properties, is insufficient to predict the behavior of the aggregate; you also need to know how the parts are put together, and the nature of the environment the aggregation operates in.  

But this is obvious even to the most ardent of reductionists, so surely Woese has something else in mind when he claims that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  Otherwise he is attacking a position that nobody in the scientific community takes seriously to begin with.

If not the straw man, what else could he possibly mean when he says that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?  The only possibility I see is that he thinks the whole has some kind of downward causal power that overrides the properties that the parts would otherwise exhibit.  In other words, a simulation of the whole could not be created by linking together, in an appropriate fashion, simulations of the individual parts.  Such a simulation would be missing the element of downward causation.

This makes no sense to me.  

Suppose we have a system composed of multiple parts, each of which we are able to simulate accurately in terms of basic physics (and perhaps even quantum mechanics).  If some sort of downward causation were operative, by which the system as a whole overrides the properties of its constituent parts, then our simulations would be inaccurate when hooked together to model the whole system.  But that would mean that the laws of physics had changed for the parts, because otherwise the original models, being based on the laws of physics, would remain accurate.

Surely Woese doesn't think that the system is "reaching down" and altering the laws of physics, does he?

Do any of you folks see another possibility?  What is Woese trying to say, if it's not one of the two possibilities I've outlined here?

I hate to say it, but on this particular point, Woese sounds a bit like Granville Sewell.  In a recent essay, Sewell describes
Quote
a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet. If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, I asked, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards?

Sewell, bafflingly, concludes that natural selection could not arise in such a simulation:
Quote
My friend looked at the new graphs and tried to mask his disappointment. Well, he said, of course the problem is you haven't taken into account the one natural force in the universe which can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder -- natural selection. You mean there is a fifth force -- why didn't you say so? Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model. He said, I can't give you the equations, because it isn't actually a physical force, it doesn't actually move particles.  ...when he finished, I still didn't know how to incorporate natural selection -- or intelligence -- into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing a force or two -- or a smarter random number generator.

Of course, Granville being Granville, we know Who at least one of his "missing forces" is.  Woese is not suggesting divine intervention, but like Granville, he seems to be suggesting that the laws of physics are inadequate, in principle, to account for certain higher-level phenomena, biological or otherwise.

Date: 2008/02/19 14:51:38, Link
Author: keiths
I agree that someone of Woese's stature is worthy of our attention.  It's just that his position seems to be either outlandish or trivial, depending on the interpretation, with no reasonable alternatives in sight.

It seems pretty clear that he believes that emergent phenomena permeate biology, but cannot be explained reductively:
Quote
Whereas emergence seems to be required to explain numerous biological phenomena, fundamentalist reductionism flatly denies its existence: in all cases the whole is no more than the sum of its parts.

Date: 2008/02/20 00:26:12, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2008,15:45)
I take it that Woese (and, earlier, general systems theory) is arguing is that there are elements of biological phenomena that, however reducible in principle they are to a chemical and molecular level (and "below"), are better described in "cybernetic" terms...

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2008,19:15)
I deleted a post I was working on about this that essentially made the argument that the issue that Woese is discussing is explanatory reduction...

Woese would be wise to wimit himself to the position you both have ascribed to him.  I think we can all agree that although economics supervenes on physics, for example, an "explanation" of cost-push inflation in terms of the four fundamental forces would be useless at best (to humans, anyway).  The appropriate and practical level of explanation is much higher.

However, I think you're cutting Woese more slack than he deserves, reading your more sensible position into what Woese is saying, when his actual position is less defensible.  After all, he is adamant that the "fundamentalist reductionism" he is criticizing is a metaphysical position and not merely methodological or epistemological:
Quote
Empirical reductionism is in essence methodological; it is simply a mode of analysis, the dissection of a biological entity or system into its constituent parts in order better to understand it. Empirical reductionism makes no assumptions about the fundamental nature, an ultimate understanding, of living things. Fundamentalist reductionism (the reductionism of 19th century classical physics), on the other hand, is in essence metaphysical. It is ipso facto a statement about the nature of the world: living systems (like all else) can be completely understood in terms of the properties of their constituent parts. This is a view that flies in the face of what classically trained biologists tended to take for granted, the notion of emergent properties. Whereas emergence seems to be required to explain numerous biological phenomena, fundamentalist reductionism flatly denies its existence:in all cases the whole is no more than the sum of its parts. [Emphasis mine]

By contrast, Fodor is not criticizing metaphysical reductionism in the review that RB cited:
Quote
Consilience is an epistemological thesis: roughly, it says that all knowledge reduces to basic science. This would appear to be very different from the metaphysical thesis that all the facts supervene on the facts of basic science. In particular, it is by no means obvious that the epistemological kind of physicalism follows from the metaphysical kind. And if it doesn’t, then an enthusiast for the second might consistently – even plausibly – reject the first.


The position that we have all taken in this thread aligns with Fodor's.  Woese is the odd man out.

Date: 2008/02/20 00:48:40, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
Ftk: I was brought up in the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod.

So was I.

The fruit may not fall far from the tree, but sometimes it rolls.

Date: 2008/02/20 22:54:02, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse explains that her impairments are due to poverty:
Quote
It costs something to have a mind.

Date: 2008/02/21 01:19:04, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (dheddle @ Feb. 20 2008,14:56)
Just remember that the creator of xkcd had a superior physics education.

Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) blogged on the centrifugal-vs-centripetal force "debate" in August of 2006.  Ten months later, the thread was still getting comments.

Date: 2008/02/21 22:16:23, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 21 2008,19:43)
Last night while watching Wheel of Fortune, I asked my wife if the toaster oven was still on.

How do you cope with all the excitement?

Date: 2008/02/23 13:36:13, Link
Author: keiths
Bradford at Telic Thoughts:
Quote
When Baylor decided on a course of action that kept an intellect like Salvador away the message was: No intelligence allowed.

Shouldn't my monitor explode or something when it displays the phrase "an intellect like Salvador"?

Date: 2008/02/23 22:54:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 23 2008,21:03)
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
[is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

My thoughts:

One day = 1,000 years
1,000 years = 365,000,000 years (one day)
7,ooo years = 2,555,000,000 years (one week)

Zero,

You and Dembski are peas in a pod.

From a chapel talk Dembski gave at Southwestern Bible and Taxidermy College:
Quote
For instance, the Scriptures teach that with God, a day is as a thousand years.  But if a day is as a thousand years, then each day in that thousand years is itself a thousand years.  Thus, if you run the numbers, a day with God is also as 365,000,000 years.  Follow the math to its logical conclusion, and with God, an instant is an eternity.

Date: 2008/02/25 22:37:45, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 25 2008,22:09)
Sorry if I don't turn out to be the fire-breathing fundamentalist you all expected.

Mouth-breathing will do.

Date: 2008/02/29 13:48:40, Link
Author: keiths
Allow me to spell out Richard's point in a little more detail.

The typical theist believes the following:

1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God wants every one of us to know him and accept his message.

If these four statements are true, what can we conclude?

2a. If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what conditions are required to convince each of us to believe in him.
3a. If God is omnipotent, then he is capable of bringing about those conditions.
4a. If he wants us to believe in him, then he will provide us with those conditions.

Yet not all of us believe in him, and so at least one of those four assumptions must be incorrect.

A Calvinist like Heddle would argue that #4 is incorrect, because God does not want all of us to know him.  Only some of us are predestined to be saved; the rest are predestined to suffer eternal damnation.  This position is at least logically consistent, though it paints God in a rather unflattering light.

Others argue that #4 is incorrect because God only wants us to believe in him if we freely choose to do so.  According to them, if God provided overwhelming evidence of his existence, then he would in effect be forcing us to believe in him.  We would all be deprived of our free will, contrary to God's intention.

This argument falls apart on closer examination.  Suppose God only presents evidence strong enough to convince half of us that he exists.  Well, according to the logic of the argument, half of us are then being deprived of our free will.

In fact, the only way for God to preserve everyone's free will, by that argument, is for him to make sure that nobody is convinced by the evidence.  Quite a different picture from the one that most theists paint.

Date: 2008/02/29 15:18:52, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,14:31)
I would just add:

5) Man must choose

Adding a premise doesn't solve anything.  We already know that at least one of the four original premises is wrong.  You need to reject one (or more) of them.

Quote
Who can say why God doesn't overwhelm us with proof to make it easy for us, maybe he thought trees would be enough.

If he thought trees would be enough, then he's not omniscient.  You've rejected premise #2.

Quote
Maybe this whole process is a learning experience and it would cheat you out of the growth that you're going to undergo.

But people still die as unbelievers.  Why does God withhold this "learning experience" from some, but not others?  

Quote
I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.

You don't care that you're embracing a logically inconsistent position?  It doesn't matter to you whether what you believe is true??    

Quote
Maybe you should ask him when the time comes, I'm sure he's got a pretty good answer for you.

If I get the chance to ask him, I will.  In the meantime, truth matters, and I'll continue to argue against the kind of irrationality you're surrendering to.

Date: 2008/02/29 19:23:09, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,18:26)
I can accept that I may be wrong...

Can you?  You've been shown that your position is internally inconsistent, and that adding the premise "man must choose" solves nothing--yet you don't seem any closer to actually acknowledging your error.

Date: 2008/03/03 16:23:58, Link
Author: keiths
Well done, RB.

What astonishes me about Maryse O'Learegard is that they see Schwartz's OCD studies, the placebo effect, etc., as irrefutable demonstrations of a non-physical mind.  They take it as settled fact.  Nowhere in their book, their articles, or their radio interviews have I heard them even acknowledge the existence of the obvious counterarguments, much less address them.

O'Leary is terminally blinkered, and probably avoids reading things that threaten her sacred cows.  But can Beauregard possibly be unaware of the simple and obvious challenges to his view?  Can he possibly believe that his bloviations will carry weight in the scientific community if he doesn't even attempt to refute informed criticism of them?

Date: 2008/03/04 03:28:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 03 2008,22:44)
I fail to see the difference between Professor Allen's army and a family (grouped by paternity).  Am I blind?

Hi Blipey,

Professor Allen is mistaken.  A paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy, both by the generally accepted meaning of the term and by Prof. Allen's own definition.

Joe G's email to Professor Allen:
Quote
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:33 AM
To: tfallen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Subject: Nested Hierarchy- a question

Sir,

I am hoping you could settle some confusion. On your webpage about hierarchies, http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm, you say that an Army command isn't a nested hierarchy because the General does not consist of nor contain the soldiers below him. I understand that.

My question is does a paternal family tree represent a nested hierarchy or a non-nested hierarchy? For example this tree



It seems obvious to me that the same rules that prevent an Army command from being nested also apply to a paternal family tree.

Could you please clarify this for me.

respectfully,

Joe Gallien


Prof. Allen's reply to Joe G:
Quote
This is not nested. There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting.

Timothy F. H. Allen
Botany Dept, 430 Lincoln Drive
University of Wisconsin
Madison WI 53706-1381

He seems to have plucked this "single rule" objection out of nowhere.  Yet the very example he gives of a nested hierarchy, an army, also applies a single rule from top to bottom:  "is under the command of":
Quote
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


So yes, the general at the top of the command is not a nested hierarchy, but the army is.  Likewise, Sharif Hussein bin Ali is not a nested hierarchy, but the paternal family tree is.

But to answer your primary question:  Yes, you are blind, for not recognizing the greatness that is Joe Gallien.  He understands everything that humans can do.

Date: 2008/03/05 04:24:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2008,22:58)
You probably didn't lick your computer enough for the simulation to work.

Fixed it for you, Richard.

Date: 2008/03/10 18:16:48, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Turner Coates @ Mar. 9 2008, 10:43 PM)
Evolutionary theory says that systems that “work differently” do emerge from systems that do the work of survival and reproduction, but does not say that any specified system had to emerge. And that is why arguments from improbability, in their sundry forms, are utterly inappropriate...
Plug some different elements into the argument from improbability, and you can show that it’s impossible that anyone ever won the lottery.


Ever slow on the uptake, DaveTard manages to miss the point completely:
Quote
This is a gross misunderstanding of physics. Statistical mechanics ( the probabilities of things happening or not happening) is the core of our understanding of nature above the quantum scale. Without it we’d be lost in a vast maze of never being able to predict anything. By discounting probabilities you discount physics. This is a basic problem with most biologists. Their understanding of nature seems to stop with chemistry. They have no appreciation for the physics which explain chemistry.

Date: 2008/03/16 20:03:39, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2008,21:50)
Anyone been here before?

Sweet Baby Jesus with a poop diaper, there is some good stuff in'ar.

Two words:  Loma Linda.

Oh yeah.

Here Mikey explains how God banished the demons that were making him afraid of flying:
 
Quote
But what could I do? I was in the plane, holding on, with people all around. If I started speaking out I was sure I would find myself in the funny farm for sure. What I eventually decided to do was to pray to God quietly in my mind.

So I bowed my head and closed my eyes and started talking to God. I apologized for not being able to say out loud: "demons, in the name of Jesus, you leave me!" I seemed to know that God knew both my situation and my fears and I felt a security I hadn't felt before.

I knew from my reading of the Bible, that sin separates us from God. So I began asking for forgiveness for what I have done in my life. If there was anything that would separate me from God, I asked that He would forgive me.

Now I began to talk to God about my fright of flying and my lack of Christian grace. Would he answer my prayer? I started asking Him that if evil angels were indeed tormenting me, giving me uncontrollable fear, that God would force them away from me!

When I finally closed my prayer and said amen! I noticed something happening! In the space of about 3 or 4 seconds, I felt my whole body relax. And after that I noticed that I was no longer afraid! Sure I was nervous but I was no longer having to try to hold up the plane with my feelings!

For the first time I could relax my muscles! What a feeling! I was actually able to read my Bible for the rest of the trip. I had never been actually able to read anything in a plane before, I was so nervous I could not concentrate on anything. But now, I was almost comfortable.

For your information, today I am a private pilot. I have flown in very bumpy weather with my plane bouncing around to the extent that I had trouble getting my hands on the right instruments when I needed to change the radio etc. yet I wasn't overly afraid! You will be able to see, when I start, the progression of my home-made sport aircraft which is also on my web pages. I praise God for what He has done for me!

Quote
UPDATE: It looks like will not be building that sport aircraft after all. Because I have chosen to pursue Creation Research, I have little money for flying anymore. In the future I will have an easy way for those who wish to donate money to the Molecular History Research Center. Not so I can fly, but that I can continue on with my research.

I guess God is willing to banish the evil angels that cause a fear of flying, but not the ones that keep money from flowing into creationist bank accounts.

Bummer.

Date: 2008/03/16 20:28:58, Link
Author: keiths
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Questions for Professor A. Chatfield, resident linguist:

1. Why in modern English does one "take a dump", when to "give a dump" seems to be more indicative of the directionality involved (coprophagy excepted)?

2. Why does "giving a shit" have attitudinal connotations, while "taking a shit" is a mere mechanical process?

Date: 2008/03/16 20:31:52, Link
Author: keiths
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

...especially when "taking shit" amounts to either thievery or passivity, depending on context.

Date: 2008/03/16 23:49:03, Link
Author: keiths
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 16 2008,23:38)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 16 2008,20:28)
Questions for Professor A. Chatfield, resident linguist:

1. Why in modern English does one "take a dump", when to "give a dump" seems to be more indicative of the directionality involved (coprophagy excepted)?

2. Why does "giving a shit" have attitudinal connotations, while "taking a shit" is a mere mechanical process?

...especially when "taking shit" amounts to either thievery or passivity, depending on context.

HA HA THIS IS YOU.

I see Chatfield is buying time until he can ask one of his sharper colleagues to answer my questions tomorrow.

By the way, in the phrase "buying time", who is the seller?

And how did sharpness come to be associated with wit and intelligence, and bluntness with stupidity?  Is this a linguistic universal, or is it culture-specific?

Date: 2008/03/18 18:37:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Mar. 18 2008,17:51)
I still think there's a better way of putting it than "the plate is the big F" but I see that the explanation is substantially correct, just using a somewhat confusing shorthand.


Yes.  It would be more accurate to say that the plate asserts a big F on the penny, and the penny asserts a big -F on the plate (where the minus sign indicates that the second force is acting opposite to the first).

Saying that "the plate is the big F" is their way of indicating that the presence of the plate is what creates the big F that results in the penny's deformation, in contrast with the pneumatic gun, which applies a smaller F over a longer period of time, and thus does not deform the penny.

Date: 2008/03/22 07:12:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote
According to intuition, there’s only one way to get an essay.

And of course intuition trumps science.

Date: 2008/04/19 16:54:14, Link
Author: keiths
Dawkins calls Collins "a very good scientist" and "a bright guy", and affirms that Collins is "a much brighter guy than Tony Blair".

When Maher tells him that Collins believes there was an actual talking snake in the Garden of Eden,  Dawkins revises his opinion:
Quote
He does?! In that case he goes right down in my estimation.  He's not a bright guy.

Date: 2008/04/24 03:24:56, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,13:44)
Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

Rich,

This is a longstanding problem in theology, right up there with the Problem of Evil.  Try googling 'divine hiddenness'.

Date: 2008/04/29 19:49:44, Link
Author: keiths
Opinion:  Science Swiftboated in 'Expelled'

Date: 2008/05/03 04:42:25, Link
Author: keiths
Jeffrey Shallit on Denyse O'Leary:
Quote
In her post's most comical moment, she gives Alan Turing's first name as "Alvin", apparently confusing computer science's most famous theoretician with a chipmunk.

Date: 2008/05/05 15:01:07, Link
Author: keiths
Joy is a veritable fountain of tard.

When I have time over the next few days, I'll post some of her greatest hits.

For now, a teaser.  This is from a long thread in which Joy claimed that life depends on superconductivity.  I scoffed, pointing to the lack of evidence for such a claim.  Joy responded that the evidence had been suppressed:
 
Quote
keith, way back at the turn of the last century when I was in the very middle of all this - seeking everything science knew about consciousness - superconductivity was discussed quite openly and in depth. Something happened that relegated that particular finding to the deep hole of "if I tell you that I'll have to kill you" and it's disappeared from accessible databases, including Tuszynski's. How the hell some al Queda wannabe could turn it into a weapon is beyond me (that might give the label "biological WMD" a whole new angle!), but a lot of things changed back around that time. I know how that works, so who am I to complain?

Ahhh...

*drops needle to floor as tard high washes over him*

That's the stuff!

Date: 2008/05/06 08:38:48, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 06 2008,07:31)
oh joy.

She showed up at 4 this morning on an old post at JanieBelle's place.

Quote (joy @ May 6, 2008 at 3:44 am)
I rebuke the lies spoken Amanda’s life in the divine name of Jesus.

Satan you have no power no authority, you have been beaten by the power of the blood.

I pray the covering of the precious blood of Jesus over the heart and spirit of Amanda, the that truth will once again flourish in her spirit.

Amen.

(ETA - copied and pasted, the lovely grammar's in the original)

That's a different Joy.  Telic Thoughts Joy is as batty as the Congress Avenue Bridge, but she's not a Bible thumper.

Date: 2008/05/09 03:47:41, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 09 2008,02:40)
As I said, it's just a guess - any other theories?

My theory is simpler:  It's sour grapes, with a bit of moralizing thrown in.

Dembski desperately wants Dawkins' wealth, but he can't have it.  Therefore Dawkins must be writing books strictly for the money, the greedy sonofabitch.

He envies Dawkins' fame, and desperately wants to be famous too.  Therefore Dawkins must be an undeserving ham thrusting himself in front of the camera at every opportunity.

He can't stomach the fact that Dawkins is an influential scientist, when he, the Isaac Newton of information theory, isn't even considered a scientist, much less an important one.  Imagine his glee when he discovered what he thought was Dawkins' paltry publication record.  

Let's hope he never finds out that Dawkins' penis is longer than his.

Date: 2008/05/11 01:16:28, Link
Author: keiths
Let us now praise famous tards.

One of them, anyway.
Quote

Posted on 09-12-2007

Squirmy, Life, Noelle or The Mist?

Filed Under (Beautiful Women, Entertainment, Life, Movies, My Life, Out And About, People, Pets, Religion) by Josh [Bozeman]

A lot has been going on the past month. Some good, but mostly bad. I lost a dear friend that I truly do cherish. I should note- she didn’t die, but I lost her in that we were in a relationship and that abruptly ended, and I don’t think being the bestest of friends is going to work out. Hopefully we’ll talk still- maybe become friends in time, because I’d hate to lose her totally.

She mentioned that her hamster died. The little guy we bought together. I loved the tiny little runt. We named him squirmy because…well, because he constantly tried to wriggle out of your grip and woudl squirm all over the place. It seems like the end of an era has come…the end of a 2 and a half yr job (for someone else, not me), the end of a life (the hamster), the end of a beautiful relationship (me and her). It’s been pretty rough, and I’m not all that great at taking these things very well. I’ll do fine though…in time.

His blog banner reads "The Blue Site -- Fighting Stupidity Daily".  I'm sorry to report that it's a civil war.

Date: 2008/05/11 03:56:35, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Annyday @ May 11 2008,01:45)
Making fun of post-breakup stupid is a low blow. He may yet recover from it.

Veterans here will tell you that with Josh, post-breakup stupid is pretty much indistinguishable from pre-breakup stupid.

Date: 2008/05/19 03:11:54, Link
Author: keiths
Could someone please explain to me what the frack Denyse is trying to say here?
Quote
Twins who literally share a body have different selves, personalities

Do we have individual selves, or is individuality just an illusion? Consider the case of two girls who share one body, Abigail and Brittany Hensel - conjoined twins who, at 18 years of age, are clearly different people even though from the neck down they have only one body.

Granted, this is a clever refutation of the millions of materialists who insist that the pelvis is the seat of the personality -- except that there are no such materialists, outside of Granny's failing mind.

What is her point, exactly?

Date: 2008/05/19 08:36:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Zachriel @ May 19 2008,07:35)
 
Quote
Bilbo:: The Apology Thread

don't know if it's appropriate for me to post a thread like this, but my conscience has been bothering me for a while now, and I need to apologize. And since what I did wrong was on this blog, I thought I better make my apology public.

I want to aplogize to Jack T.I lost my temper, and accused you of things that I had no right to accuse you of. There was no excuse for it. If you still read this blog, I offer my sincere apologies for doing so, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

What is Bilbo apologizing for?  He didn't provide a link. I read through the AtBC log on Frostman's banning, but didn't see Bilbo mentioned. Or Nelson Alonso.

As far as I can tell, Bilbo is apologizing for this comment:
Quote
Bilbo Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Jack T.,

Where do you see yourself in 10 years? Still asking irrelevant questions at Telicthoughts? Still refusing to read Mike Gene's books? Still demanding positive evidence for ID, but never asking yourself what would constitute positive evidence? In other words, still never really contributing to either side in the debate? Still being a useless, tiresome sot?

Disrespect fully intended.


Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

Date: 2008/05/19 21:34:56, Link
Author: keiths
This comment by Raevmo deserves wider circulation:
Quote
Raevmo Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Doug,

Don't be so hard on Oleg. "Tard" is a technical term reserved for collections of strongly correlated nonsensical beliefs, such as high-delusion supertarductors and frustrated goddidits.

Even Joy had to admit that was funny.

Date: 2008/05/20 12:12:16, Link
Author: keiths
I had to laugh when I saw this.  With impressive hypocrisy, Bradford explains that it is our character flaws that get us banned from blogs like TT:
 
Quote
That group would pretend it is the brilliance of their arguments or an inability of opponents to cope with them that causes their banning. Truthfully it is the corruption of their character and evidence of it is right there in the forum.

That's odd.  Frostman and I were banned for upholding TT's comment policy:
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 28 2007,01:36)
   
Quote (Guts @ Nov. 27 2007,17:16)
With that said, I feel that the situation with Frostman was the result of a huge misunderstanding that was completely my fault. I am also their technical support. The Memory Hole function simply did not work, and this was noted on the blog long before this situation snowballed, although it should've been made more explicitely. I specifically instructed TT bloggers to save a copy of the offending comment in their thread and delete it. After which they can send it to me , and I would manually insert it in the database (the memory hole).

This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy. I am more than willing to have Frostman back if he truly respects understands the purpose of the memory hole, and why it exists, and respects the decisions of TT bloggers.

However, this had nothing to do with any dishonesty.

Guts,

Let me get this straight.  You acknowledge that deleting comments is against TT policy:        
Quote
This, unfortunately, gave the impression that comments were just being deleted, which is against TT policy.

And then you admit to violating that policy -- and not just temporarily:        
Quote
The memory hole wasn't working for a while. It's working now, I asked that comments be deleted and saved for manual insertion. I am deleting, however, all the whining as well as my own comments.

You also acknowledge that the misunderstanding was completely your fault.

So Frostman and I were banned because

1) you created a misunderstanding that was completely your fault;
2) you went on to violate TT's comment policy by deleting comments that you never placed in the Memory Hole;
3) neither you nor Bradford stepped in to defuse the situation by telling us that comments were only being deleted temporarily (which, as it turns out, wouldn't have been true anyway);
4) Frostman and I correctly protested the violation of TT's comment policy; and
5) you and/or Bradford banned both of us, knowing the entire time that the whole situation was a "misunderstanding".

Synopsis:  You and Bradford screwed up, so Frostman and I got banned.

Makes perfect sense to me.


Do you really want to talk about character, Bradford?

Date: 2008/05/20 15:01:04, Link
Author: keiths
Europteryx is a hoax!

Date: 2008/05/20 17:16:45, Link
Author: keiths
Behold a marvel of hypocrisy and rationalization.  Bradford explains why name-calling is wrong, except when he does it:
 
Quote (Bradford @ May 20 2008,5:54)

 
Quote (Raevmo @ May 20 2008,5:48)
You are a hypocrite since you routinely engage in name-calling and various ad-homs. Fine by me, but don't deny it.

Let me do some more name calling then. The quote is worth repeating as it is so applicable.

 
Quote (Mike Gene @ May 20 2008, 5:12)
Look, I suppose I can somewhat understand the appeal of ridiculing another as a ‘tard,’ especially when it is part of herd behavior. It’s the type of insult many of us remember from 7th and 8th grade. It appeals to our immature and primitive tribalistic instincts, as the label helps to denigrate the outgroup while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie and superiority among the herd.

Note the difference in our name calling. You frequently label others and have used choice words like stupid, dishonest, hypocrite… As Harry Truman once said (paraphrasing) and this applies to you:
     
Quote
If you'd stop telling lies about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you.

Date: 2008/05/22 12:42:57, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (dheddle @ May 22 2008,08:55)
WAD:

   
Quote
Do many worlds present a business opportunity? Would it be possible, for a modest fee, for people to have worlds named after them? Are worlds, like genes, patentable?

Or am I just dreaming? Would it be fair to say that a science is not a science unless there is money to be made off of it? Darwinists and global warming people seem to have learned that lesson.



Sing along,

Doctor, Doctor, Mister Bill D,
you gotta bad case of mammon envy!

Billy's first degree was in psychology, but it seems he's never heard of projection.

Does $200/hour ring a bell, Dr. D?

Date: 2008/05/25 00:14:16, Link
Author: keiths
Check out this amazing video taken off the coast of Japan of a flying fish that remains aloft for 45(!) seconds.

Date: 2008/05/25 13:32:03, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2008,12:49)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2008,02:02)
Dave threatens Batshit77...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-289449

Quote


DaveScot

05/25/2008

12:51 am
BA77

I’m tempted to ban you for posting that something strange is going on with refrigerator magnets.

I'll never understand this mindset. Why would you want to ban somebody for making a comment you don't like?

DaveTard is hurting over his expulsion from the "inner sanctum".  There's only one thing that could make him feel better:  banning someone.  Think of it as self-medication.

Date: 2008/05/29 00:40:44, Link
Author: keiths
Russ's confession of "homosexual impulses" is going to freak out some of the homophobes over there.  Watch as they slowly edge away from him.

Date: 2008/05/30 15:59:00, Link
Author: keiths
Denyse tries to come to grips with the demise of the ISCID:
   
Quote
Thursday, May 29, 2008
ID organizations to watch - or not

Some people have wondered why there is so little activity at ID think tank ISCID these days.

One thing I have noticed about the intelligent design community is that - because it operates largely without funds - when the creativity and energy go out of a given project, it starts to obviously decline.

Contrast that, if you like, with an institutional structure where a government-funded paper mill that outlived its mandate fifty years ago can bumble along indefinitely at taxpayer expense, with 50 employees making work for themselves.

Darwinists, the two ID organizations to hate and obsess about at this point are said to be Biologic Institute and Evolutionary Informatics Lab, both of which are research programs.

Of course, someone may well come along and kickstart ISCID again, but my sense is that people are tired of just talking and are more into doing things now.    [emphasis mine]

Because, as everyone knows, you can't publish and do research at the same time.

Date: 2008/05/30 22:22:32, Link
Author: keiths
Holy crap.  How did we miss this?

Quote
Saturday, May 24, 2008

The Day Time Went Backwards

Kitty broke the teapot,
She knocked it off the sill;
Stacey found the pieces just
As time stood still.

Time rolled backwards;
The teapot gathered up
And fit itself together
And poured itself a cup.

Weeks run backwards
But the strangest thing we saw
Is, Kitty’s just a kitten now,
A-wailing for her ma.

© Denyse O'Leary 2000

Date: 2008/06/06 06:52:02, Link
Author: keiths
Meanwhile, aiguy absolutely pwns Salvador and nullasalus in this thread.

Date: 2008/06/06 09:32:42, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Zachriel @ June 06 2008,08:24)
   
Quote
Bradford: That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?

Heh. Good one.


How odd.  Bradford usually falls all over himself to defend Dembski.

Some time ago Bradford wrote:
 
Quote
Much criticism of Dembski is of the demonization variety. He is a symbol of a hated concept.

In response, I pointed out that Dembski had done a good job of demonizing himself, listing:

1. The "street theater" incident involving Jeff Shallit's deposition.
2. The Judge Jones fart animation fiasco.
3. Dembski's accusations of racism against Kevin Padian.
4. Dembski's reporting of Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security.
5. His claim that Richard Dawkins had only a handful of scientific publications and citations.
6. And perhaps my favorite, his posting of an anonymous review on Amazon's website which badmouthed Mark Perakh's book and plugged his own.

Bradford's reply?

 
Quote
Keiths, most of the Dembski sins are in the foible category in my view.

Date: 2008/06/06 16:13:29, Link
Author: keiths
Bradford is getting pounded in that thread.  Of course 90% of the damage is self-inflicted, Bradford being Bradford.

Date: 2008/06/06 20:46:37, Link
Author: keiths
WTF?

This is the first time I've seen Salvador claim to have worked at the EIL:
Quote
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.

Date: 2008/06/06 21:45:24, Link
Author: keiths
The evolution of a lie:
Quote (Salvador @ Sept 01 2007)
I have been accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. I attempted to apply both at Hopkins and at Baylor. I was attempting to work with Dr. Robert Marks at the evolutionary informatics lab. I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.

Quote (Salvador @ Oct 31 2007)
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer.

Quote (Salvador @ June 06 2008)
The work Robert Marks, I, and others were doing at the EIL was to show that genetic algorithms, expert systems, and other evolutionary computation must reasonably regress to something not describable to by simple stochastic processes or regularity.

link
link
link

Date: 2008/06/07 11:08:47, Link
Author: keiths
There's a new post at Evolution News & Views entitled None Dare Call It Journalism.

Surprisingly, it's not about Denyse.

Date: 2008/06/07 18:07:12, Link
Author: keiths
Joy wrote:
Quote
Thanks for cool subject matter, sorry I've been so busy. Carry on, I hope you all settle the matter. But I doubt that it'll be settled between critics in a manner satisfactory to me. That's okay, since if everybody agreed with me I'd think something was very, very wrong with the world.

If everybody agreed with Joy, I'd commit suicide.

Date: 2008/06/09 16:18:05, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Ftk @ June 09 2008,21:22)
The other part is because COMMON DESCENT IS A FREAKING UNSUBSTANIATED INFERENCE, and a mightly questionable one at that.

Ftk,

The evidence is strong enough that even Michael Behe accepts common descent over common design.

It really is obvious, if you actually look at the evidence.

Date: 2008/06/09 19:21:47, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 09 2008,12:39)
In fact, it is a prediction of non-materialistic brain science that a creature possessed of eyes that tell a brain that tells a mind that tells a soul what's happening...

...except when you're having an out-of-body or near-death experience, when it turns out you didn't need those eyes after all.

Date: 2008/06/10 21:32:54, Link
Author: keiths
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.

Date: 2008/06/10 22:18:50, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 10 2008,21:39)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 10 2008,22:32)
For the amusement of those who know Thought Provoker and Joy:

(Warning -- not suitable for those who have recently eaten)

   
Quote (Thought Provoker @ June 10 2008, 8:46 pm)

Hi Joy,

Thank you.

I am honored to know you too.

There aren't many people who can surprise and challenge me with their insight.

You have done that and more.

Didn't Thought Provoker troll here for a bit before tucking his tail?

Seems like there was a real spanking involved...

ETA: or am I thinking of someone else?

Yeah, TP is the one who came over here and tried to lecture several of us on physics, before deciding he was safer in a woo-friendly environment like Telic Thoughts.

Date: 2008/06/11 02:12:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2008,23:27)
I can't describe the joyous feeling of snorting some straight-up tard from Uncommon Descent. At it's best, it's like being inside a Polyphonic Spree song.

From the comments on that YouTube video:
Quote (creator101 @ ,)
Epic song but jesus how much weed do these people go through?

Date: 2008/06/12 18:02:59, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 12 2008,12:51)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 12 2008,04:53)
You've won it before, you just need to pay better attention.

...or write better stuff.

:p


Do you want a hug?

Date: 2008/06/12 22:18:46, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ June 12 2008,14:52)
Can you smell the science coming from allanius?

Actually, that was me.  I had burritos for lunch.  Sorry.

Date: 2008/06/14 01:48:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2008,21:42)
Never heard of this Sean McDowell guy.

I'll bet he's the son of Josh "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" McDowell.

Poor kid, and now he's getting mixed up with Dembski.

Date: 2008/06/14 01:51:38, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 13 2008,22:43)
Some social science experiments have concluded that you can predict someone's sexuality to about 80% confidence from a single photo.

Do you have a cite?  That would be interesting reading.

Date: 2008/06/15 06:35:11, Link
Author: keiths
Re: common descent vs. common design

I assume you guys tried to explain nested hierarchies to Ftk at some point.  Anybody have a pointer to that train wreck?

Date: 2008/06/15 12:50:09, Link
Author: keiths
Behe gets moved to the clearance rack at Amazon:
Quote
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe (Hardcover - Jun 5, 2007) - Bargain Price
Buy new: $28.00 $6.99

Date: 2008/06/15 13:11:53, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 13 2008,20:58)
     
Quote (dheddle @ June 13 2008,21:21)
Why does the cover look like green buttocks?

That would be Dembski's envious ass.

I'll show you, Ken Miller!  -- WmAD

Quote
The Patristic Understanding of Creation: An Anthology of Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design
by William A. Dembski, Wayne J. Downs, and Fr. Justin B.A. Frederick
(Paperback - Jun 11, 2008)

Being as Communion: a Metaphysics of Information (Ashgate Science and Religion Series)
by William A. Dembski
(Paperback - Jun 28, 2008)

Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (ConversantLife.com)
by William A. Dembski and Sean McDowell
(Paperback - Jul 1, 2008)

How to be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not)
by William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells
(Paperback - Oct 28, 2008)

The strategy seems to be: if that smarty-pants Ken Miller writes a book that sells 200,000 copies, well then, I'll just write 2,000 books that sell 101 copies each!  So there!

Date: 2008/06/16 03:25:15, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2008,23:37)
According to that thread FtK has been defending Brown's nonsense for over three years. That's sad. 3 years is long enough that starting from scratch, she could have learned algebra, then trig, then calc 1 and 2, then Physics 1 and 2 and a little geology and been equipped, by now, to do the simple calculations herself and understand that Brown is talking nonsense. Instead, she's spent the whole time trying to convince people who know better of things which aren't true.

A question for long-time Ftk-watchers: In all seriousness, do you think Steve is right?  Are obstinacy, lack of motivation and psychological defense mechanisms the only obstacles to Ftk's mastery of basic trig, calc, physics and geology? Or is there something else about Ftk's brain that makes learning all of those things, and then critically applying them to Walt Brown's "theories", as impossible as training your goldfish to recite the Gettysburg Address?

Date: 2008/06/16 21:28:52, Link
Author: keiths
Have you ever wondered what life would be like under a theocracy?

Watch what happens when a commenter named 'robin' confronts the Telic Tards with these two Bible verses:
Quote
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)

Quote
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)

Priceless.

Link

Date: 2008/06/16 23:15:24, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2008,22:24)
 
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2008,17:26)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ June 16 2008,12:54)

Tony M Nyphot
M Tony Nyphot
M T on y Nyphot
M onTy Nyphot
Monty N y p h o t
Monty N py t h o
Monty py t h o N
Monty python

And his Flying Riscu.

You mean Riscuc.

Date: 2008/06/21 01:17:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 20 2008,18:48)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 20 2008,12:49)
I was planning on attending TAM, but that went down in flames.  That was pretty much going to be the highlight of the summer for me.

What's TAM?

The Amazing Meeting.

Date: 2008/06/23 06:21:08, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 22 2008,21:33)
   
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2008,23:07)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 21 2008,22:44)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/media/legacy-media-on-the-way-out-quite-soon-says-tech-guru-how-will-that-affect-the-id-controve

rsy/]Uncommonly Denyse[/URL]:
Quote
Legacy media on the way out quite soon, says tech guru - how will that affect the ID controversy?
O'Leary

...In general, a system that cannot distinguish between informed and uninformed opinion will likely be replaced by one that can.

UD, and the multiplication of Denyse's blogs, suggests otherwise.

I reckon somebody's got a link farm MMMMMMMMM-hmmmmmmmmmm.

Some folks calls it a sling blog I call it a kaiser blog.

I sense a job for Quidam.

Date: 2008/06/24 19:24:56, Link
Author: keiths
I was robin (now banned).  Bannings at TT are silent affairs, because the mods are afraid of the reaction they'll get if they announce them.  In that respect they are even slimier than UD.

Anyway, this has to be one of my favorite moments from the thread:

I asked Salvador:
Quote
What do you think about the fact that only one person, out of the entire membership at TT — a pro-ID blog — was willing even to partially defend your tactics?

Has that sunk in?

Bradford, in an apparent effort to make Salvador feel better, wrote this in response:
Quote
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.

Gee, thanks, Bradford!

Date: 2008/06/24 20:52:25, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2008,15:43)
I must admit, UD has been poor entertainment of late.

Sadly true, which is why I started commenting at Telic Thoughts again (as 'robin').

In my brief tenure there (I've been banned), I mined a few good tard seams:

ID and Morality:
Watch as good, upstanding Christians defend the morality of Bible verses such as these:
Quote
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)

Quote
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)


Trained Microbes!:
Joy gloats over a paper in Science:
Quote
Yeah, I know I'm being smug here. I've had a bit of a rough spring out in the real world, so it feels pretty good to 'win' something for a change... So, Culture Warriors. What say you about this evidence of intelligent design in life and evolution? Is this science? Should the researchers be expelled from academia for heresy? Should the journal Science be taken to task and forced to issue a retraction?

...until Raevmo and I point out what the paper actually says, and Joy stops gloating and decides that the authors are dogmatic Darwinists after all.

Evidence and Truth:
Mike Gene explains why evidence is overrated.

Speak Your Mind:
I accept the invitation and speak my mind regarding Salvador Cordova's behavior in the blogosphere, asking TTers whether they approve of it.  None of the ID supporters can bring themselves to express approval -- or disapproval.  Except for DaveScot, who says he disapproves of the quotemining but approves of the way Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone"!

To make Sal feel better, Bradford offers this:
Quote
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.

Long-time tardaholics know that it is good to have a back-up supply in case your primary source runs dry.  Telic Thoughts will never match the pure, uncut tard at UD, but it's better than withdrawal.

Date: 2008/06/24 20:55:22, Link
Author: keiths
Cross-post from the UD thread:
Quote (keiths @ June 24 2008,20:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2008,15:43)
I must admit, UD has been poor entertainment of late.

Sadly true, which is why I started commenting at Telic Thoughts again (as 'robin').

In my brief tenure there (I've been banned), I mined a few good tard seams:

ID and Morality:
Watch as good, upstanding Christians defend the morality of Bible verses such as these:
Quote
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
(Deuteronomy 25:11-12, NIV)

Quote
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Exodus 21:20-21, NIV)


Trained Microbes!:
Joy gloats over a paper in Science:
Quote
Yeah, I know I'm being smug here. I've had a bit of a rough spring out in the real world, so it feels pretty good to 'win' something for a change... So, Culture Warriors. What say you about this evidence of intelligent design in life and evolution? Is this science? Should the researchers be expelled from academia for heresy? Should the journal Science be taken to task and forced to issue a retraction?

...until Raevmo and I point out what the paper actually says, and Joy stops gloating and decides that the authors are dogmatic Darwinists after all.

Evidence and Truth:
Mike Gene explains why evidence is overrated.

Speak Your Mind:
I accept the invitation and speak my mind regarding Salvador Cordova's behavior in the blogosphere, asking TTers whether they approve of it.  None of the ID supporters can bring themselves to express approval -- or disapproval.  Except for DaveScot, who says he disapproves of the quotemining but approves of the way Sal "bends over backwards trying not to offend anyone"!

To make Sal feel better, Bradford offers this:
Quote
Salvador, you're not Attila the Hun and I've witnessed much, much worse on the web and in person during my life.

Long-time tardaholics know that it is good to have a back-up supply in case your primary source runs dry.  Telic Thoughts will never match the pure, uncut tard at UD, but it's better than withdrawal.

Date: 2008/06/24 21:40:07, Link
Author: keiths
The meme is spreading!

Ed Brayton links to Mary Eberstadt's response to the "New Atheists".  Modeled after The Screwtape Letters, it purports to be a series of letters from a atheist "convert" to her new atheist, materialist, Darwinist overlords.
 
Quote
As I get it, Our atheist position on sex boils down to this: the believers with their tard regulations are all wrong about it, while we Brights have been — I’m reaching here for the words that You Guys might use — so groovy and hip by throwing out the Christian rule book on all that stuff.

Date: 2008/06/24 22:23:34, Link
Author: keiths
Quote

24 June 2008

The Schlafly-Lenski Briefwechsel

William Dembski

PZ Myers at the Panda’s Thumb draws our attention to an exchange between Andrew Schlafly and Richard Lenski (the impetus for the exchange is Lenski’s work running tens of thousands of generations of E. coli to produce some interesting, or not so interesting, evolution as the case may be). Myers thinks Lenski gets the better of the exchange. I would draw your attention to Lenski’s seething contempt and ask whether it betrays strength or weakness.
[emphasis mine]

What is it with ID supporters and double standards?  Dembski couldn't possibly make this statement if he had a scintilla of self-awareness.

Date: 2008/06/25 11:03:42, Link
Author: keiths
At TT, Raevmo asks:
Quote
robin has been a bit quiet lately. (s)he didn't get banned did (s)he? I seem to recall Mike saying that he wouldn't do that.

Mike Gene dislocates his spine trying to rationalize the banning:
Quote
No, this is what I wrote on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm:

Quote
BTW robin, I think it is rather obvious you are keiths. And pay attention to this – even though I think this, I don’t advocate that you be banned.

Note the present tense.

At the time, I did not know he was keiths; I just believed it to be the case. And I did not say I wouldn’t ban keiths; I said that I did not advocate banning him at the time that I wrote that. And I clearly said “Pay attention to this.” In other words, keiths was being given a second chance. He was being allowed to post when he knew that we thought he was who he was. How would he react to this act of courtesy?

Date: 2008/06/25 11:21:57, Link
Author: keiths
Mike Gene is a true master of the double standard.

He excoriates me repeatedly for having posted this:
Quote
If so, perhaps now is a good time to go on record with your feelings about Sal's methods. Do you approve of his quote-mining and absurd ad hominems? What about his debate tactics? Do you think his behavior is an asset or a liability to the ID movement?

I'm also especially interested in hearing from people who think highly of Salvador and his efforts.

And then he posts this:
Quote
If someone opposes the banning because you either approve of what he was trying to do in that thread or you think we are somehow obligated to tolerate such behavior, now is the time to go on record and say so in this open thread.

You sort of have to admire his self-blindness; it saves him from what would otherwise be intolerable amounts of cognitive dissonance.

Date: 2008/06/25 12:51:42, Link
Author: keiths
Amadan,

That absolutely deserves a wider audience.  I've called it to PZ Myers' attention -- hope that's okay with you.

Date: 2008/06/25 15:50:31, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (keiths @ June 25 2008,12:51)
Amadan,

That absolutely deserves a wider audience.  I've called it to PZ Myers' attention -- hope that's okay with you.

Amadan,

PZ linked to your masterpiece, but he doesn't mention your name.  Did you ask him to withhold it?

Date: 2008/06/25 20:39:00, Link
Author: keiths
Channeling Gil Dodgen, I would say that the  computations described in the paper are invalid unless the computers were boinking other computers of the same sex.

Date: 2008/06/27 23:00:59, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Amadan @ June 26 2008,10:11)
The rationale (if that is the word) seems to be that Cheetah shares [insert some impressive number here] percent of his (her?) genome with us. Or vice versa.

Not merely genetic similarity, but also their ability to experience a range of complex emotions.  From the article:
Quote
The project was started by the philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri, who argued that the ape is the closest genetic relative to humans – that it displays emotions such as love, fear, anxiety and jealousy – and should be protected by similar laws.

To me the latter seems far more important than genetic similarity.
Quote
To which I answer: So bloody what? Does that give apes rights? If the closeness of their relationship has moral implications (and I don't think it does), those implications affect how humans (who are moral actors) deal with apes (who ain't).

We confer rights on humans who are not moral actors (infants, the severely mentally ill, etc.).  If it's legitimate to grant rights to humans who haven't "earned" them through moral agenthood, why should apes be required to "earn" them this way?
Quote
Now you could say that you can't enforce morality, only punish its breach, and that rights give a means to prevent those breaches happening. But in this case, that only adds up to allowing some third party to call in the animal welfare people. It hardly needs to be dignified with the term rights.

Amplifying on the point I made above, does that mean that you think that infants should not have rights?  They are utterly dependent on third parties to defend their rights, just as apes would be.

Date: 2008/06/28 01:19:11, Link
Author: keiths
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (skeptic @ June 27 2008,22:35)
I think you still have to stick with the acting upon their own behalf, in the case on an infant the proxy is temporary until it comes of legal age and the disabled either had or still again may attain independent action whereas the ape, or any other animal for that matter, never could act in its own self interest and never will be able to attain that level of interaction with us.  You're actually only conferring rights to the proxy and not to the ape itself.

No, even someone who is born disabled and remains disabled throughout life with no hope of "independent action" nevertheless retains rights in our society.

You can't consistently use the "moral actor" argument to deny rights to apes unless you are also willing to deny those rights to humans who are incapable of operating as moral actors.

Most of us (fortunately) are reluctant to go there.

Date: 2008/06/28 16:42:16, Link
Author: keiths
Hey Lou (FCD),

I think you accidentally moved a couple of comments from this thread to the Bathroom Wall:

skeptic

keiths

Could you move them back?

Thanks,
keiths

Date: 2008/06/28 18:07:21, Link
Author: keiths
skeptic asks:
Quote
but does that permanently disabled person actually have rights,

Sure.  He or she has the right to live, for example.  
Quote
How do we know what the ape wants?  Who can truly speak for the ape?  ...Any decision we make on their behalf is arbitrary and points to our wants and not theirs.

Over-anthropomorphism is a danger that must be guarded against.  However, it's hardly "arbitrary" to think that an ape would want food, water, and humane living conditions, or that it would object to being vivisected!
Quote
Also, how do we construct a sliding scale of rights on different animals?  Genetically, or on popularity?

Neither, in my opinion. To me, the capacities for experiencing pleasure and suffering are what grant moral significance to an entity.

I don't worry about whether we've violated the rights of a car by dismantling it in a junkyard.  I do object if someone nails a dog's paws to a table and dissects it without anesthesia.  The crucial difference is the dog's ability to suffer, not its popularity or its genetic similarity to humans.      
Quote
I'd come to blows over cruelty to a pet dog and yet I participated in hundreds of beagle necropsies, are the two equal?

No.  A necropsy, by definition, involves a dead animal which is incapable of suffering.  How can you be cruel to a dead beagle?  What matters is what happens to the beagle before death.  
Quote
Who gets to make this determinations?

Society as a whole, via our governments and via our collective moral sensibilities.

I see this as an inevitable next step in the widening of our sphere of moral concerns.  When we lived in tribes, the guys in the next tribe were less than human.  Then we learned that okay,  the guys in the next tribe were human after all, but that the folks on the other side of the mountains were subhuman and unworthy of moral concern.  Then it was those of different religions, different nationalities, different races, or different sexual orientations.  Now we're coming to a consensus that all people are morally significant.  It only makes sense that we would ask ourselves whether the boundary should remain there or be extended further, and on what basis.

Date: 2008/06/28 18:59:06, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Amadan @ June 28 2008,15:05)
 Is it wrong to treat apes in a way that elicits negative emotions recognisably similar to human ones because "it hurts their feelings" (i.e. for much the same reason that it's wrong to cause them in humans), or simply because the similarity provokes an anthropomorphic response in us humans?

The former.  (And I would substitute "it causes suffering" for "it hurts their feelings".  We're not merely talking about miffed apes here.)
Quote
Right and wrong (in their moral senses) are not useful measures of apes' behaviour. They apply only to human actions.

We're talking about rights, not responsibilities.  If a human is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong (due to severe mental retardation, for example) we don't consider him morally responsible for what he does.  The same reasoning applies to apes.

See this old discussion at Uncommon Descent: Why No Pet Penitentiaries?
Quote
We condemn the man who beats his dog for a variety of reasons, some rational and some aesthetic, but mainly because cruelty to animals is so easily extended to people as well.

I disagree.  Most of us would regard dog-beating as wrong even if human-on-human violence or cruelty were nonexistent.
Quote
There's an important distinction, namely that infants and the incapacitated are recognised as human persons.

But then you're really just arguing that:

1. Only persons have rights.
2. All humans are persons.
3. Animals are not persons.
4. Therefore humans have rights and animals do not.

It's true if the premises are true, but where have you justified the premises?
Quote
It is helpful to think of rights as a type of property. We ascribe those properties to humans mainly (in my opinion) because we would want them for ourselves if or when we find ourselves in similar circumstances.

It's the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" idea:  a system isn't just unless we would regard it as just before knowing the role we were to play in it.  A slaveowner might claim that slavery is just, but would he do so if he had to make that judgment before knowing whether he was going to be born as a slaveowner or as a slave?
Quote
That's why I think there's a category error in talking about rights for animals. Unless Hovind is right about genetic degradation, I'm unlikely to wake up as a gorilla.

It's not a question of what is likely.  You're also unlikely to wake up as a refugee in Darfur tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the plight of those refugees isn't a moral issue.

Again, the Rawlsian approach is appropriate here:  What sort of a system would you consider to be fair, if you had to decide this before knowing whether you would be born as a human or as an ape?
Quote
The REAL question is whether pasta has rights.

Anything formed in the image of His Noodliness the FSM has rights.  Obviously.

Date: 2008/06/28 21:43:33, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 28 2008,18:37)
It was not an accident.  Skeptic is confined to the wall, though the Ftk AutoFlush 2000 seems to be on the fritz.

I see.  And the Ftk AF 2000, when it's working right, does the flush before anyone on the intended thread sees the comment?

Date: 2008/06/28 23:28:27, Link
Author: keiths
Moonwalking Birds

Not exactly the same as Snowball, as these birds aren't dancing to music, but cool nonetheless.

Date: 2008/06/29 05:45:04, Link
Author: keiths
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 28 2008,23:44)
Denyse's thread is great.  Aside from the tard, there is an interesting theological discussion.  Of course, it's not from the regulars, and Alan Rhoda pwns Dembski in the way only academics can (short translation: you don't have a clue what you're talking about).

The best thing about that thread is imagining how Dembski hears it:
Quote

O'Leary:
Quack, quack, quack...

Rhoda:
Denyse, with all due respect, WTF are you talking about?  Stick to the propaganda and leave the thinking to the big boys.

Dembski:
I'm not sure Denyse is as wrong as you think she is.

Beckwith:
Hi Bill, haven't seen you since I converted back to Catholicism, quit the Discovery Institute, and got tenure at Baylor.  How's your<