AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: lkeithlu

form_srcid: lkeithlu

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: lkeithlu

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


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/08/12 05:06:49, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Bob posted:

After Joseph's comment, I decided to act:


<blockquote>ID doesn’t say anything about “God”. Only people who don’t understand ID make that connection.</blockquote>

I see. So this is a statement by someone who don’t understand ID:
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"


That's not going to see the light of day at UD, is it?

I can't find it-did it ever appear?

Date: 2006/08/29 17:34:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
On UD:

Davescot has this answer to Jack Krebs:

"Regardless of your desire to assign sole discretion of what gets taught in public school science classes to a majority of scientists that just isn’t how the system works. What you want in this is an aristocracy of sorts. That’s repulsive to me and many others who believe that every adult, regardless of who they are, gets an equal say in the matter. One person, one vote. It’s a good system. Embrace it."

I got so angry I had to respond. I'll probably not be invited back. I wonder: what is it about teaching that everyone and their kid brother thinks they can do it better? I don't know doctors or lawyers that have to put up with this as much as teachers do.

I remember being "told" by a parent, who was neither a chemist nor a secondary school teacher, how to do my job. It was everything I could do to keep my mouth shut rather than giving them instructions on how to be a parent.

Date: 2006/09/01 00:24:28, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I can't judge the content of UD when it covers mathematics, engineering, or philosophy, but what they know about secondary science education couldn't fill a thimble. I got so disgusted I gave up. Maybe a bottle of single-malt scotch by my side would have given me the strength to proceed....

Date: 2006/09/03 06:49:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Odd; when I check those links, Mikefnq's comments are not there. Have they been deleted?

Date: 2006/09/22 13:50:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Does Joel have a REAL job? He seems to have too much time on his hands...

Date: 2006/09/25 04:58:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
It's clear that it has contributed but it stands on the shoulders of others, including egyptian, arabian, and chinese, responsible for writing, gunpowder, medicine, agriculture, etc. How can you compare when it is longitudinal?

Date: 2006/09/30 16:50:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I found this to be a pretty poor site (nauseating was more like it-I should not try to eat at the computer.) I could not get the links on this particular post to work. In addition, there was almost no science. Okay, there was no science at all.

Date: 2006/10/03 04:14:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
What does this message at UD mean? I tried just to open it and couldn't. I know it wasn't a banning, because I was on my work computer, and my log in is from a computer at home with a different IP (in fact, I had to reset my log in for ABTC here at work)

Date: 2006/10/28 08:48:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
This is unspeakably tragic:

I flunked most of my highschool math and science classes, and lost interest in science altogether until ID became a popular topic. Thanx to you and other ID proponents, my interest in science is reinvigorated. Science is exciting now! There is new life in what was once a dead and meaningless science.

And I lost interest in fine dining until I discovered Twinkies.

I hope my students don't figure out that you can do science the easy way by reading about ID. They would be thrilled to have a shortcut.

Date: 2006/12/05 21:41:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I couldn't get a coherent response when I asked about the Templeton Foundation. Did a VP state that the Templeton Foundation solicited research proposals? Or was this just a "lie" printed by the NYT?  The link to the NYT article did not constitute evidence, according to Mr. Scot. It seems that if a Templeton Foundation VP said so, then it probably happened. My posts stopped showing up after that....

Date: 2006/12/06 05:48:24, Link
Author: lkeithlu
To late

I'm banned from UD

(yeah, I have a different user name here because I couldn't use my usual two letter KL, like on PT)

Thanks for the Templeton links anyway, but I suspect DaveScot doesn't anto to see them anyhow.

Date: 2006/12/06 06:11:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
oops that was "want to"
It's early
I have enough trouble typing when I'm fully awake

Date: 2006/12/06 07:01:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Yeah, I'll hold my breath on that one.

Incidently, I did tell him that John Templeton is from my county (no kidding!;) and that maybe I could ask. He doesn't actually live here, though, and I suspect that he would not appreciate my intrusion if he did. Worth a shot.

Well, I guess I'll go to work, feeling sorry for myself that I am no longer welcome at UD. Ooooh, the shame of it all...

Date: 2006/12/06 17:30:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
There is a new thread (that I cannot participate in) continuing the discussion about the Templeton Foundation:

I still don't see how the Templeton Foundation was "responsible" for open solicitation for funds, or that they were "unfriendly" to ID; in fact, Dembski blogged about it in April and his response seemed to be "see? no Darwinian dogma here!"

My point was the actual quote by the VP: Nothing was submitted. For this I got banned? I didn't even have a chance to research it further (although, a direct quote from the Senior VP seems enough to me; doesn't he speak for the Foundation?)

Oh, well; I discovered a couple of months ago that Dembski and I were born on the same day. I went on a bit of a bender after that little news...

Date: 2006/12/06 18:32:57, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Thanks, everyone-I can now (sniff) move on with my life.



Date: 2006/12/07 17:27:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
"The dating lounge - you weren't technically allowed to hold a girl's hand ANYWHERE on campus, but with the right monitors on duty there, you might get lucky and get away with it.  We weren't allowed to mingle with girls after dinner, except in specified places (the dating lounge may have been one of them - forgive me, it's been a while).

Dinner was a formal affair, and you weren't allowed to miss that.  Afterwards, you were allowed to walk a girl back to her dorm (just to the intersection in the sidewalk out front), but you couldn't hold her hand, kiss her, or stop moving.  Everyone learned to walk very, very, very slowly, to extend the amount of time you could spend with your sweetie.  That was nicknamed "The Snail Trail", and was supervised all along the way.

Freshmen weren't allowed to leave campus, except for church or for outreach extensions supervised by upper-classmen.  An off-campus date was unthinkable.

The story with the fence was that it was to keep out the criminal element, but I don't think that fooled very many of us.  We knew what it was for."

This was a college????
I cannot imagine treating minors in this manner, much less

Date: 2006/12/07 18:15:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu

Date: 2006/12/09 08:06:57, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Forgive my boldness in commenting here:

When a scientist makes a statement and another scientist evaluates that statement, I find it unbelievable that non-scientists insist on taking sides based only on the issue, and get huffy when said scientists cannot dumb it down enough to make it understandable to them so that they can join in the debate. If these were questions accessible to laypeople, then laypeople would be doing the science. I have a (25 year old) BS in Chemistry and some Geology and have been teaching sciences for 25 years, and although I can get the general gist of the thermodynamic obstacles and understand some of the terms, there is NO WAY I could ever pass judgement on any of the details. I have to be able to trust consensus science to pass judgement on these issues.

This is only one example of many; it is the same for all aspects of science including paleontology, historical geology, physical anthropology, climate science, the list is endless. I think this is one of the biggest problems we face-a democratic America cannot conceive of situations where THEIR opinion does not carry equal weight. Add to that the dismal state of scientific literacy (in part because people like me, science educators, clearly aren't doing what we need to do) and you have a nation that thinks science is a "belief" system. Shoot, they think justice is also a "belief" system, after all, on you can vote whether or not OJ "did it" and somehow that determines what is true.

Sorry to rant- please continue with your regularly scheduled thread....

Date: 2006/12/09 10:39:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu

And how does banning fit "attack ideas" vs "the people who hold them"?

Just as ironic as a recent post along the lines of "where are all the Darwinian voices now?"

or do I expect too much of ths guy?


Date: 2006/12/14 05:56:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Maybe they should have had Weber drink the Kool aid before letting him out to talk to the public.

Psssst  hey! hey! Ix-nay on the od-gay, stupid! :p

Date: 2006/12/22 10:23:14, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Ms O'Leary posted:

"Why I think Collins is an intellectual lightweight: Well, how about this: He composed a folk song about his worthy goal of making cystic fibrosis history, but what his research has most significantly led to is prenatal detection, which is a way of making CF children history.

I know, I know, other good may come of it and some people will be mad at me for even bringing this up.

But we live in a world where, when mommy whispers in your ear “I specially loved and wanted you!”, what she means is, you passed a battery of quality control tests, and if you hadn’t, you had a first class ticket to the Medical Waste bucket. Today’s glitzy mommies don’t love loser kids. To the extent that Collins’ research has contributed, I would have more respect for him if he openly acknowledged and dealt with that in his book."

A lightweight? As if Ms. O'Leary has contributed anything to  medical knowledge.

Clearly she doesn't know anyone with this dreadful disease. If prenatal detection will prevent children from being born with this stuff, then we should be all for it. Perhaps prenatal testing was not the original goal, but along with treatment, prevention altogether should not be viewed as a bad thing. The kids I've seen with it suffered horribly and with one exception died young, and they all lived in families that could afford the expensive treatment and frequent hospitalization.

No one is saying that parents don't love their CF children. However, one should not condemn parents who use prenatal testing when they carry genes that result in painful, short, cruel conditions. Let them walk a mile in their shoes first. If I hadn't been banned from UD that woman would have gotten an earful.

KL :angry:

Date: 2006/12/22 11:19:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Born in L.A. (not "Lower Alabama", but the real L.A.) and raised in the Panama Canal Zone. Lived since then in Sewanee Tennessee, located on the Cumberland Plateau (don't blink-you'll miss us!;) and still wonder how in the world I ended up here. Place grows on you, though.

I had no idea I was in the (virtual) presence of such an international bunch!

Date: 2006/12/27 20:51:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu

Same EXACT birthday as Dembski

Oooohhh, the shame....

Date: 2006/12/28 08:35:00, Link
Author: lkeithlu
As others are revealing their mode of employment:

I am a high school Chemistry teacher; I've also taught Physics and can teach Geology. I work in an Episcopal boarding school, in a tiny blue dot imbedded in a very red state. I've been school disciplinarian for almost four years (in addition to a full class load), a position I have a lot of passion for but can't stand to do and would dump in a heartbeat to return to only teaching.

Got several hobbies, one I'm pretty good at (cooking) and many that I enjoy anyway (scuba, flute, hiking)

My music preferences are a source of embarassment, so I'll leave those out.


Date: 2006/12/30 11:17:33, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I know this is off topic, but you gotta see it:


Date: 2006/12/31 20:00:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I had to pinch myself after reading that. Surely I am dreaming. I never knew that depth of ignorance was possible in this century. Pathetic.

Date: 2007/01/03 19:43:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Hey! I'm a girl!
Well, honestly, it's been three decades since anyone called me a girl...
I like to pretend I'm still there; works as long as I stay away from mirrors and take aspirin.

Never mind...   :p

Date: 2007/01/06 08:34:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I want to thank all of you for your time spent on this thread. One of the wonders of the internet is experiencing a conversation of this nature among people whose daily existence is different. Yes, sometimes my friends/coworkers (that group represents almost a complete overlap) have discussions that are deeper than the everyday, usually with the help of aqueous ethanol solutions. But our experiences are too similar (we are boarding school teachers), and our opportunities too few (we are boarding school teachers). Your comments are interesting and thoughtful.

Date: 2007/01/07 06:51:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Just think: before the internet we could go about our rational lives never really knowing that such stupidity existed right in our very neighborhoods. After all, every village has its idiot; thanks to the internet, they can organize!  :p

Date: 2007/01/07 16:45:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
16. DaveScot // Jan 7th 2007 at 1:59 pm


Some people are better equipped to grasp the complexity and know what it takes to make such complexity materialize. I say to you that people who understand modern factory automation and supply chain management are the best equipped to grapple with the complexity of the simplest free living cell. How much do biologists know of factory automation and supply chain management?

Comment by DaveScot — January 7, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

Okay, clearly biologists have had it all wrong studying biology. Who knew? Perhaps we ought to leave all science in the able hands of these guys-no need for me to teach anymore-guess I'll take a loooong break.


Date: 2007/01/08 17:53:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
"Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,07:22)
"If you can't do, teach"???????   LOL, I work in an academic clinical setting.  I have to "do" in order to "teach" everyday."

I am a teacher, but I also do science. It would be hard to teach science without experience doing science. On the other hand, will someone teach me how to put quotes in the cute little boxes?  

Date: 2007/01/08 18:48:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Not much makes us unique from other primates, except for some stuff I'd rather do without. In all honesty I wish I could locomotor-play in three dimensions like the lemurs my husband works with. Big brain is nice, but think of all the cool things we could do if we were physically more like them! I feel cheated...

Date: 2007/01/08 21:14:07, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 08 2007,19:35)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 08 2007,17:53)
On the other hand, will someone teach me how to put quotes in the cute little boxes?  

The easiest way if you are quoting someone is to go to their comment and look in the upper right.  There should be a "quote" button.  Click and enjoy.

Like this? I can't see it in the preview, but I hope it comes out right. Thanks for the help!

Date: 2007/01/09 05:58:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
At the top of his game? Why, may I ask, is he no longer at the top?

Date: 2007/01/09 06:04:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Fine, then. So, go do the science. Put on your little lab coats and grab your centrifuges.

I don't see how a bunch of engineers, programmers, mathematicians and theologians calling it science makes it so.

They have had ample time to talk. Maybe Michael Crichton could write a novel....

Date: 2007/01/10 06:29:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
If I were "capable" of making $1000/hr (or even half that) writing code, why would I spend my time moderating (lording over) a website?

Banning people and bragging about your intelligence, that's WORK! Maybe he gets free passes to Dembski lectures. (undeclared, of course) I'm sure the IRS would want to know...

Date: 2007/01/12 18:01:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 12 2007,17:49)
Hey--UD has new duds. I think I'll check it out...

Yaaaaa! What is with the big long flagellumy thingie in the graphic? What is this, Dune? Looks like a tapeworm.

GilDodg is hawt!  :D


I think I saw one of those in a B-grade sci fi flick once.

I'm gonna miss the portraits; they made me feel good about myself...

Date: 2007/01/14 09:32:40, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 13 2007,12:11)
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 13 2007,10:29)

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

Is D'Tard absolutely sure they weren't actually yelling, "I wish you'd shave your back?"  Because that wouldn't support his "making the world's children smarter" meme quite as much.

If ever there was a reason why humans should go extinct, this would be it.

Date: 2007/01/15 06:41:39, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Not to be too obvious, but this is yet another thread on "design" that insists that (unlike evolution) is not a science-stopper. Yet, not one reference to ongoing research. Did I miss something? If the science has not stopped, where is it?

Date: 2007/01/15 07:05:27, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,06:50)

Look! ID has plenty of sciencey stuff. It even makes a prediction..."Some junk DNA will be usefull"!
How much more sciencey does it need to be to replace evolution? Sheesh! *slaps forehead*

ID is also nothing to do with religion you atheist evilutionary scum. You will realise this just after you die when Jesus tells ya so. FFS ya just don't get it do ya?[/quote]

(Stands in awe in the presence of superior wisdom)  :D

Date: 2007/01/18 17:56:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 18 2007,16:47)
This, on the Gorski thread posted by David A. Cook, MD----Orthopedic Surgeon who was AOA in med school and scored in the 99th percentile on his board exam:

Perhaps you can explain, in molecular biological terms, listing the stepwise sequence of DNA changes (simplified, of course, so my poor moronic brain can grasp it), which occured to bring about the development of a hand, finger, or knee from, say, the paw of a lemur-like precursor (or whatever form you wish to posit as mammalian (making it easy on you; no need to go back to jellyfish) ancestor to humans.

The guy doesn't understand evolution one bit if he posits idiotic ideas like this.  Being an anesthesiologist and dealing with these guys on a daily basis, orthopods usually are recruited from the best and the brightest in med school but they are FAR from the brightest docs in the OR.  We frequently joke in the OR about their neanderthalic qualities and exchange stories on a regular basis regarding their complete idiocy in dealing with matters outside of bones.  I had a friggin orthopod consult me on a patient with a serum potassium of 3.4 (normally 3.5 to 5.0) once at 6pm.  I told him to go read a textbook and deal with it himself.  I also told him not to consult me at 6pm unless it was an emergency.  I could go on and on about orthopods but I think I'll desist.  It is one of the reasons I am looking for a different hospital---too many orthopods here.  Dr. Cook needs to keep quiet about issues he knows nothing about before he further reinforces the medical stereotype of orthopods.

Wait a minute here:


A lemur-like ancestor is called lemur-like because it resembles a modern lemur.

Lemurs have hands, fingers, and fingernails (and "knees" too) Doesn't this bozo ever go to the ZOO??

Date: 2007/01/20 09:58:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I've got evidence that the funding for ID super-secret research is used for T-shirt silk-screening equipment (interfaced, digital state-of-the-art, I'm sure of it)

That's only part of the  story. Some also went to really fast desktop publishing software to generate cartoons.

Who do I call to get in on the action?

Date: 2007/01/21 07:52:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Evo-psych is not as solid a science as other areas of psych, but only if claims are made that certain behaviors have evolved. Many behaviors exist that seem similar to behaviors in apes. (and other mammals too)However, the human mind is extremely plastic and humans have a very long infancy/childhood. Most behaviors are learned, with a small amount that would be called instinctive. Evo-psych is not invalidated by the example of a child raised in another culture. Cultural learning and genetically-based behavior are not the same. Humans are not genetically different enough from one another to have differences in evolved behavior.

What would help evo-psych would be to compare the behavior of apes, humans and a common ancestor of these two. However, that is, of course, impossible.

Does this in anyway disprove a common ancestor? Of course not. ID does not offer an alternative (except maybe a miraculous one). I don't know anyone who would use evo-psych to legitimately justify bad behavior in humans using "bad" behavior in chimpanzees. The human mind is extremely complicated, and it is difficult to study how it works independent of the layers of learning and experience that the years pile on. An occasional anecdote gives glimpses, but sound science cannot be built entirely on anecdotes.

For the record, I am not educated in this area, but my husband is an psych professor whose areas of expertise are physiological psych and animal behavior. This is his take on this issue.

Date: 2007/01/21 09:28:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Okay, my first attempt at UD snce I was banned. My post has not appeared, but I know moderation takes time. Just in case, here it is:

"Homosexuality is not genetic. Sexual orientation, along with external sexual features, are the result of the influence of hormones before (ie from the mother) and after birth. Human sexuality, both physical and behavioral, is multi-faceted and complicated. Statistically there seems to be a correlation between the mother’s age and sexual orientation in male children (the older the mother, the higher the chance of homosexual orientation in male children) The picture for females is muddier, indicating bisexuality may be more common in females, and that environment may play a more prominent role. (the saying is that “gays are born, lesbians are made” comes from this) Homosexual behavior is quite common in mammals, including apes, marine mammals, hooved mammals, etc and may relate to community cohesion and social interaction instead of reproduction. Sexual experimentation that is same-sex does not lead to homosexual orientation; the classic “boys’ boarding school environment” was not sex-free, and yet most boys coming out of such environments go on to live exclusively heterosexual lives with wives and children." (end of post)

I often see misunderstanding of homosexuality. Sexual behavior is a "choice", but that is true for everyone. (we can all choose not to have sex!;)  However, orientation is not a choice. Differences don't have to be genetic to be valid.

Date: 2007/01/21 10:19:22, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 21 2007,10:12)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2007,09:31)
Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied

In another forum, Denyse wrote:

Bear with a simple lay hack here a moment: Why must we know a designer’s intentions in order to detect design?

If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?

Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.

ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes.

The observation Denyse makes is so obvious that one would need a Ph.D. in obfuscation not to see it. Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.

Mother of God, this dead horse again. I thought I smelled something. Is it really necessary to remind Gil that arson investigation is dis-analogous with ID in that we ALREADY KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE AGENTS WHO COMMIT ARSON, and that knowledge informs the inferences of arson investigation?  Holy shit.

Not too long ago, Gil called evolution the "real" science-stopper.  Yet here, he seems perfectly intent to call it a day after detecting design.

They aren't bringing up the "who", either. It's all well and good to determine a joint has been torched, but identifying and catching the buggers that did it is the goal, no?

A local strip mall burned years ago. Funny, the fire started at the downwind end and traveled primarily along the aisle floors. The grand finale was the fireworks shop at the upwind end. Very pretty.

Date: 2007/01/21 10:23:52, Link
Author: lkeithlu
BTW, still no appearance of my post at UD:


and it wasn't even that disagreeable

Date: 2007/01/25 17:51:56, Link
Author: lkeithlu
This is an interesting thought:

Just a brief note: When I first started writing By
"Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy, I came across a young cognitive scientist who told me that he found Darwinism a significant constraint in his work, as follows:

In order to justify an explanation of how a system in the human brain works, he was required to demonstrate how such a mechanism might have evolved. Otherwise, he could not advance it.

Now, an engineer will likely see the obvious problem here: It is much easier to determine how a system works than to determine how it evolved. Perhaps a given system went through 13 iterations before the current model - but perhaps it didn’t.

If any previous iterations ever existed, the evidence for them may be lost.

So one ends, of course, by making up stories - just-so stories about what the dim Pleistocene cave man and his lady of limited patience “would have done” - a strange and clumsy grammatical tense indeed, signifying a strange and clumsy view of our history.

At this point, Darwinism is a net suppressor of creative ideas."

Posted by O'Leary

I don't get it, Teacher.

My students would really like it if I allowed them to include "creative" explanations other than material ones for their error analyses. You know, "the pink elephants in the room shifted the equilibrium to favor the reactants, reducing my yield" explanation.

In all seriousness, what is she talking about here?

Date: 2007/02/17 19:14:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 17 2007,13:55)

Wow. Isn't Josh Bozeman, Dembski's "research" assistard? The one that has the hooha fixation?

No, different tard. You're thinking of Joel Borofsky, former elite Member of the Board of UD, but now fallen strangely silent, for some reason.

Josh Bozeman is just a legendary rightwing fundie and hapless dingbat from his mother's basement in Evansville, Indiana.

Here's HIS headache-inducing website, if you're feeling masochistic today.

Wow-that was NOT what I was expecting.
My impression of Bozeman was that he was a barely employed high school grad living in his mom's house. This is not what I expected.

I know, I know...judging a book by its cover...

BTW, I wanna spot on the UD banned list .Where do I apply?

Date: 2007/02/17 20:18:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 17 2007,20:10)
BTW, I wanna spot on the UD banned list .Where do I apply?

Well, that depends -- have you actually BEEN banned from UD yet?  :p

Yep. Got banned a few months ago, and still can't get back on. Sometimes when I read UD it is like having an itchy trigger finger and no gun. I hate letting stupidity go unanswered. However, challenges are submitted by others, but they too are soon banned.

Date: 2007/02/17 21:08:58, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 17 2007,20:32)
lkeithlu homo-itchy trigger finger and no gun. Banned months ago, don't come back -dt

Thanks, k.e.

Not sure I could have done as good a job.

My attempt:

That's Sir Templeton to you, homo. Now drop and give me twenty!

Date: 2007/02/18 16:42:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OOOOoooooooh, that realclimate exchange just made my afternoon. :p

Date: 2007/02/19 18:35:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Did I read somewhere that Davescot claims to ba banned from realclimate? I didn't see that in their reply to his post.

Date: 2007/02/24 13:04:01, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 24 2007,00:46)
I'm sorry J-dog. Good Avatar, creative posts, but you are simply forgetting just how frickin absurd DS is.

I thought all along that the photos of DS that appeared on AtBC were fabricated. (just photos of what y'all think he might or should look like) I just delved a little deeper at UD and found that the photo is REAL! Yikes...

Date: 2007/02/26 06:28:55, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, well...

It didn't take long for ds to respond to the Oscar news:

Date: 2007/02/26 15:54:24, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2007,15:32)
Thats's errrortardment:

By Ken Whitehouse

John T. Scopes02-26-2007 2:39 PM —
Somewhere in heaven, John T. Scopes is watching the Tennessee Senate. Either that or he was reincarnated as a monkey and is too busy peeling bananas.

A Tennessee State Senate member has filed a resolution asking the Tennessee Department of Education to address a few basic questions about life, the universe and all that:

"Is the universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"
"Since the universe, including human beings, is created by a supreme being (a creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?
"Since it cannot be determined whether the universe, including human beings, is created by a supreme being (a creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

“Somewhere in heaven, John T. Scopes is watching the Tennessee Senate. Either that or he was reincarnated as a monkey and is too busy peeling bananas.”

This is poor for a number of reasons; it’s clearly fallacious as shown above, it implies a false dichotomy between faith and science (NDE) which there isn’t as proven by many people of faith who believe in evolution and reincarnation seems to be a position supported by neither side. Other than that it’s a great opening.

Oh, NOOOOOOOO!! Not in my state (again) !!!  :angry:

Date: 2007/03/04 12:35:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 02 2007,23:05)
A scientist during the Age of Exploration who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a confirmed bachelor throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.

This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. bachelor? beard? hat? relevancy to the topic? what the he11?

Date: 2007/03/06 06:06:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2007,02:06)
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 05 2007,20:12)
Is she putting on an act about her ridiculous beliefs, in your opinion?

Due to this thread I watched quite a few youtube vids of Coulter over the weekend and I can't tell for certain if she is serious or not. I do suspect that some of her rants are for theatrical effect though.

Why is she classed as a political authority over there (USA) BTW?

I think a website announcing her plan to run in '08 as a Republican would be fun. Throw it out there and see what happens....

Date: 2007/03/10 11:31:07, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Gotta question:

Do you get the impression that Republicans and/or the religious right are distancing themselves from Coulter? I would guess that they would be torn between agreeing with some of her ideas but embarrassed that she articulates them so publicly and in such an inflammatory manner.

My feeling is that any group might hold a loose cannon at arm's length if they got too controversial. Of course, Dembski doesn't have the same survival instincts; he took public credit for helping her with her book.

Date: 2007/04/13 17:55:14, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I know this is WAAAAAY past when it appeared, but I have a little bone to pick:

" Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic)."

The AIDS epidemic is not a "gay" epidemic. The vector that brought it to the US was a gay male, and therefore the epicenter of the epidemic in the US was the gay community, primarily on the west coast, in the late 70's.  However, HIV is spread by any sexual contact, and also be blood exchange (drug use or transfusion). To imply that AIDS is a consequence of same-sex unions is false. It is very much a disease of heterosexuals in many other countries, and can be contracted even if a person has done nothing "morally" wrong.

Sorry-I've been out of town and it just burns me to see this sort of stuff.

Date: 2007/04/13 18:07:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Let it be known that I in no way apply moral judgement to homosexual behavior or orientation. It has been shown that it is a natural variation in sexual behavior, and if is between consenting adults, is no one's business. I know gay adults in loving, long term monogamous relationships just as I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous and/or uncommitted to any one person. Either way, their lives are their business and it is not for me to judge.
As far as morality, my standards are simple: if what you do promotes the dignity and value of another human being, whatever their religion, sexual orientation, politics or race, then it is a good thing. If it denies them full citizenship or implies that they are not worthy of acceptance and love, then it is wrong.

Date: 2007/04/14 07:45:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Okay, I'm coming here a little late.
What, then, do you, FTK, plan to discuss?
I thought that ID was being touted as science. Why not discuss the "science"?
Afterall, that's what the DI wants, for ID to be discussed in the scientific arena (only, they want to change the ground rules for how that is done)
Just curious (to save having to slog through pages) is your background in one of the fields of science? in secondary school education?

Date: 2007/04/17 18:23:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I found talkorigins, then PT while reading up on the then looming Dover trial. I teach in a private Episcopal boarding school, in a tiny blue dot in a very red state (TN). I wanted to be ready in case the school received pressure from parents to teach ID/Creationism, so I set out to learn as much as I could. However, we haven't heard a peep out of our parents (maybe I was not giving them enough credit!;) but I stayed on because it was fun and helps me avoid real work. My husband is a primatologist, so I love running stuff past him.
I am especially interested in the involvement of the Templeton Foundation, as Templeton is a county native and I taught various members of his family. Of course, that's how I got banned at UD. Haven't managed to get back on yet. :p

Date: 2007/04/18 17:28:42, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 18 2007,16:47)
I'm just surprised he hasn't accused the shooter of being an atheist, since an agnostic like him just knows we're all evil mass murderers who worship the twin gods of Darwin and Dawkins.

He'd be surprised to know that the shooter's family belonged to a conservative Christian Korean church.  NPR did a story about the Korean community in the young man's hometown.

Date: 2007/04/19 06:26:27, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I suppose they will recommend faith healing for the kind of psychosis suffered by that young man.

Incidently, other cultures such as Korea have not yet accepted the whole mental health thing, especially for boys. Medical help for a psychiatric condition is rare. I don't know if they consider it a sign of weakness, or what.

Date: 2007/04/29 09:18:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I picked up a book last week called Mapping Human History; Genes, Race and Our Common Origins by Steve Olson that I am finding facinating. It has helped me understand the issue of "race" (which is actually an artificial divide) and makes the BJU issue even more ironic. I'm 3/4 of the way through, and I highly recommend it.

Date: 2007/05/11 06:53:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
To FTK and in Lenny's defence (coming from a science educator) You have a right to your version of Christianity and your interpretation of scripture; however. one of the DI's goals is to change how science is taught in public schools, which should be free of anyone's religious interpretation. Lenny's goal, and the goal of many here (if you see the purpose of Panda's Thumb) is to promote sound SCIENCE education, among other things. Putting a religious twist on science is called indoctrination, plain and simple, and it has no place in schools.

Date: 2007/05/13 07:28:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Check this out about Baylor's Beckwith leaving the Evangelicals and becoming a catholic (again)

Date: 2007/05/13 19:09:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
So, what was the reason he was denied? I thought that universities in general did not make this public, as it can get in the way of a person applying for a tenure track position elsewhere. Do we know for certain it was for his ID work? Tenure is based on many criteria, including scholarship, teaching effectiveness, and service to one's institution and the greater community.

Date: 2007/05/14 06:40:19, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Just a suggestion, FTK:

Take a couple of courses in Geology. Learn about sedimentary processes. The rock cycle. The properties of minerals. Plate techtonics. Radioisotopes and decay rates. Once you have a solid backing in the basics of the science, then read the ideas  presented by various groups. Then read the critiques of the ideas. Either you accept the consensus view of scientists or you learn enough to make the decision yourself.

Noone has the time or interest to become experts in all the science out there. However, even with just a few undergraduate geology courses I can understand enough to see AIG's claims as faulty. As one of my colleagues likes to quote, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and AIG ain't got it. No YEC group has it, and it doesn't take a PhD in geology to see it either.

Date: 2007/05/19 07:09:24, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 19 2007,06:36)
DS says  
I suggest we start rallying our legal talent now and prepare to teach Iowa State a very expensive lesson that will make other universities think twice about sternberging anyone else. Two can play the Dover game.

Who said dreams never come true? I await developments with baited breath.
I await the rallying of the Pro-ID legal talent. After all, there are so many precedents they can use! They lost all of them, but still.....

Shame nothing will come of it! We can dream...

The "sternberg" of Iowa State

They said it, not us

Date: 2007/05/19 08:19:28, Link
Author: lkeithlu
To be a "think" tank, you have to think.
Perhaps that's why the DI doesn't want to be called one.
Mebbe they are all "tanked"?

Date: 2007/07/09 11:42:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (franky172 @ July 09 2007,11:19)
Pat, we hardly knew yee.

Ouch-he's not long for UD. I'll give him 30 min.

Date: 2007/07/09 13:40:37, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Hang on-let me go make some popcorn....

Date: 2007/07/10 10:14:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (hooligans @ July 10 2007,10:05)
Would you pass Dembski's Final Exam on Rhetoric?

I especially like this question:
13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York (Seattle). A consortium of Christian
businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches
you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again
to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign
work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to
institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible
world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a
zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York (or, say Seattle?)...

Date: 2007/07/10 13:18:22, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Finally, a response to ICR:

Date: 2007/07/10 13:32:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2007,13:29)
how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible world view?

If Dembski's vision of Christianity was as awesome as he claims, wouldn't it sell itself as a 'credible world view', without giving millions to a PR firm?

According to the Pope, there is only one "true world view"

Does the Pope make that much moolah?

Date: 2007/07/10 17:38:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Thanks to all of you, especially when I have to explain to my husband why I am laughing so hard I spilled my scotch. You are a great way to end the workday. (along with the scotch) :)

Date: 2007/07/11 07:56:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
FTK is claiming that she is "shut out" of private messages at ATBC. What happened? Is she no longer willing to post public messages? Dave Scot replies using the term "banned" but that's not what she's actually claiming:

Date: 2007/07/11 09:17:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Thanks-just curious!

Date: 2007/07/11 12:54:39, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I have a pirate fish and my younger son has an FSM fish. No one has a clue what they mean (rural TN) and they are too polite or shy to ask. I suspect they'd get a Darwin fish, though, but my older son is named Darwin, and he would not appreciate my putting one on. (he caught he11 for his name when he lived in-state, but now he is in Boston)
Of course, I drive a 'furin' car (Hyundai) and my son drives an ancient minivan, so clearly we are not from around here. No trucks at the present time. Once upon a time we did have an extended cab, long bed, Ford F-150 4X4. Had two fuel tanks, one to get to the Walmart, and one to get back. :)

Date: 2007/07/12 14:07:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (JAM @ July 12 2007,13:58)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 11 2007,18:03)

JAM is no longer with us.

Well now.  That took longer than I thought.

I thought my longevity might have been due to my refusal to engage DaveTard.

I commented on UD about the unprecedented double banning. Never made it through-guess I'm still banned. (Jeees-it's been several months. What happened to the Christian idea of forgiveness?  :angry: ) Welcome to ATBC, JAM!

Date: 2007/07/13 07:38:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I was under the impression that Dr. Dr. D was not too popular at Baylor. (as well as not AT Baylor) How did he get access to post on their server?

Date: 2007/07/13 07:44:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
BTW, Wild Bill has a birthday this Wednesday
Born the same day as me
I'm so ashamed....

Date: 2007/07/13 17:24:32, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Kristine @ July 13 2007,16:15)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 13 2007,06:44)
BTW, Wild Bill has a birthday this Wednesday
Born the same day as me
I'm so ashamed....

Don't worry, we'll turn it into a party. :)

Thanks Kristine!
I'm sure aqueous ethanol will ease my pain.
I wonder what Bill D. does to celebrate?

Date: 2007/07/14 13:48:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Does this make sense?

"PT: Just wondering. Have you ever been skeptical of skepticism? Doing so is required to be consistent in your philosophy in the Gödel sense. Otherwise your “method” is self refuting.

I’m up to being a skeptic of skeptical viewpoints about skepticism of skeptics and am working hard on the next meta level. It isn’t easy my friend, but it can be done. Baby steps, PT. The secret is baby steps. I know it’s rough - but we can do it! We can be skeptical of all things!"

I just came in from working outside in the sun. Can't tell if I am addled or that really is as stupid as it sounds...

Date: 2007/07/15 06:31:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 14 2007,22:07)
Quote (PennyBright @ July 14 2007,18:46)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 13 2007,16:19)
She is clearly a world expert in anything and everything, at least in her own mind.

FtK perfectly embodies the democratic fallacy.  She believes that her opinions are just as good as anybody else's.  And she believes that everything is opinions.

Well stated

Indeed. Interesting that she feels qualified to challenge Hector Avalos on the Gonzales tenure issue. She is neither a tenured professor nor a faculty member at Iowa. (even if she was, only the faculty involved in the tenure committee would know the details) I guess if she feels qualified to challenge him on his area of scholarship, why not go for the whole thing? Next she'll tell him what it is like to be Hispanic-American.  :angry:

Date: 2007/07/16 08:13:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Behe has responded to Miller on Amazon:

(links there to

I posted this on UD (attemped, anyway):

Why are the comments on the two amazon pages disabled?

We'll never see it so I'm putting it here.

Date: 2007/07/25 10:15:08, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  

A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

Ozone is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it doing up there in the ozone layer?

Date: 2007/07/27 13:17:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Zachriel @ July 27 2007,11:55)
Uncommon Descent denizen Jehu commenting at Telic Thoughts
Patrick Caldon: It's more the case that if they do raise a substantive argument against it, they get banned from whatever forum they're on.

Jehu: Not that I have observed.

Come on, Jehu. You know better than that. Threads that Jehu participated in at Uncommon Descent that include bannings:
Pixie is no longer with us.

bdelloid is no longer with us.

JT75 is no longer with us.

Hermagoras is no longer with us.

JAM is no longer with us. Patrick Caldon is no longer with us.

puckSR is no longer with us. He was banned in December and snuck back in.

Poisson is no longer with us.

steveh is no longer with us.

“Hooligans” is no longer with us.

keiths is no longer with us.

Jehu: For example, I don't think I have seen anybody banned on this blog.

What happened to JAM, Jehu? What happened to JAM.

Genesis 4:9
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?

I did a similar search after seeing this post. I was removed from all forums after being banned (I posted as "KL" there; AtBC required more letters) So, there are probably many many more. :angry:

Date: 2007/08/09 09:02:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OMG He noticed!

Date: 2007/08/18 06:34:46, Link
Author: lkeithlu
The thing I found most disturbing is that he sits in his bedroom doing this stuff. Paranoid, perhaps? I believe there was another like that a year or two back posting on PT, one that turned out to be an uneducated, unemployed 20+ year old geek living at home using his parents' bandwidth. He tried to pass himself off as an expert, but quickly exposed. Josh someone?

Date: 2007/08/26 07:18:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2007,00:57)
Dembski's employer, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has enhanced its already stellar academic reputation by offering a new cutting-edge major in homemaking:
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."

As a woman I find this extremely offensive. As offensive as the article in my local newspaper helping "ladies" do men's tasks such as repairs around the house. Shame on my gender for allowing this s*** in the 21st century...

Date: 2007/09/14 04:10:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 14 2007,03:03)
Dembski has published the email addresses of the Baylor board of regents.

I bet that'll make them sympathetic to ID? More likely they'll be wondering what's with the sudden upshoot of badly written unintelligible spam messages!

Anybody got the good Dr Dr Dr Dembski's e-mail address?


He's going to find that this was a REAL mistake.
Why is it that when he gets in a pissing contest, he pisses on his own shoes?

Date: 2007/09/23 13:23:07, Link
Author: lkeithlu
New "face" posting at UD and it is getting interesting:

I have read Meyer’s paper a couple of times. He attempts to debunk MET. I have tried to make clear that I am not interested in papers that attempt debunk MET. His paper does nothing to establish ID as a positive model. In fact he provides no model. There are no novel predictions. There are no auxiliary propositions that have been independently tested.

There has to be one research paper out there that establishes ID positively instead of negatively. What is it?

The responses are showing that UD regulars are getting testy in the face of repeated requests by this person.

This might get interesting...

Date: 2007/09/23 20:18:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Daniel wrote:

"I have a question for you:
What % of transitional versus non-transitional forms are fossilized?

Is there some difference that makes the transitional forms more resistant to fossilization than their non-transitional counterparts?"

Does this make sense? The only thing that distinguishes transitional vs non-transitional is order of find, isn't it? A fossil is a fossil; if you find two and then later find a third that seems to be a transition between them, that doesn't make them different as far as fossilization, just how the third fits into the already existing collection. Or am I missing something?

Date: 2007/10/02 17:00:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I read the last few pages from work, where I cannot log in. I am not surprised by FTK's lack of understanding how science operates. I AM amazed at how she insists that she is correct, in spite of all of you telling her why. Part of this is because she is not a scientist, and Behe, who is and ought to know better, has mislead the general public.

Making claims in science without being up to date on the relevant literature, and making those claims in a forum where peer review before publication is not done is a huge no-no. Bad enough to cause you to lose your credibility. (Which Behe has) Only a scientist or someone familiar with the process can truly appreciate it.

Peer review can be brutal. Reviewers, experts in your field, go over your work in all its detail, looking for incorrect assumptions, faulty mathematics, or places where you show lack of knowledge in the work by others in the field. It is not for the faint-hearted, or the thin skinned. By publishing popular books (and having comments on those books disabled by Amazon) Behe has bypassed that process completely. Without it, his work has no merit in the scientific world. Don't like it? Too bad. That is how the game is played. In my part of the country, the saying goes: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch".

BTW-I teach science and have been only a co-author. My husband is a published researcher in primate behavior, so I have seen the process first-hand.

Date: 2007/10/04 07:05:01, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Pah! That looks like a pile of phone books to me. Let your fingers do the walking! (do you need an opposable thumb?)

Date: 2007/10/04 18:02:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:52)
Including the part about eating babies?

Honestly, I didn't realize that atheists eat babies until I arrived at this site..... :O

Not terribly found of them myself.
Indigestion is terrible, and to say nothing of the paperwork.

Date: 2007/10/04 18:04:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Oops- probably shouldn't have had that second drink (rough day)
I meant "fond" of course.

Date: 2007/10/04 19:06:39, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am curious about your answer regarding the ID journal, FTK. Why, indeed, is no one publishing in it? That kinda blows the whole "ID can't get a fair shake" theory, dontja think? Could it be that there isn't anything to publish? It's not like "darwinistas" are refereeing that journal.

Date: 2007/10/04 19:37:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Extraordinary claims (read: paradigm-shifting) require extraordinary evidence. Scientists who are reasonably sure they have a case submit to peer reviewed journals. If rejected, they return to the lab, gather more evidence and try again. Can you describe an ID "scientist" that has done this? The scientist that was convinced that bacteria caused ulcers did. He eventually gathered enough evidence to convince the scientific "establishment", and actually shifted that small paradigm. ID "scientists" seem to spend all their time publishing popular books. I fail to see anything you may have raised in support of any conspiracy here, FTK.

Date: 2007/10/04 20:36:14, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'd still like an answer to my question regarding the ID journal, FTK. If my interpretation is not correct, I'd like to know what yours is.

Date: 2007/10/04 20:47:27, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:40)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 04 2007,19:06)
I am curious about your answer regarding the ID journal, FTK. Why, indeed, is no one publishing in it? That kinda blows the whole "ID can't get a fair shake" theory, dontja think? Could it be that there isn't anything to publish? It's not like "darwinistas" are refereeing that journal.

Why would they bother publishing in a private journal?  What good would it do?  Aren't you the same people who keep demanding that the only way creationists will be taken seriously is to get published in mainstream journals?

Creationists have no choice but to publish in private journals....they've been thrown off the island so to speak because they have the audacity to consider ancient historical documents that give us clues as to how the universe may have been created.  Can't do that...!  In this day and age that's considered religious apologetics regardless of the science involved.

ID is a whole different ball of wax, and I have no idea why you all feel it is such a threat to science.  It's not, so relax.

Okay, so they don't "bother" publishing in a private journal. So, where are they publishing? Not ideas, not thoughts, but data. Measurements. That they have collected. That's what scientists do.

Although, to be frank, I would think that they would LOVE to get their ideas out there in a refereed journal. So, then, what is the purpose of the ID journal? Why did they bother even establishing an ID journal if no one would "bother"?

BTW, what constitutes a "private" journal? If a journal is not private, what is it? The journal of Chemical Education (part of ACS) is not fully available to non-subscribers. Is that what is meant by "private"? The Journal of the American Society of Primatology is not available in bookstores (you can see it in University libraries) Is that private?

Date: 2007/10/04 21:04:52, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 04 2007,20:42)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:40)
Why would they bother publishing in a private journal?  What good would it do?  

What harm would it do? At least the research would be out there..

Richard,  creation science is out there in the private sector...what good is keeping it private doing them?  You've admited to never reading any of it... most people haven't.  Until fairly recently, most people had never even heard of the advancements in creation science, and it's been around for years.

Heck, I had never in my life heard of creation science until about 3 years ago.  

The same thing would happen to ID if they did not make an effort to go mainstream...and you all know I'm correct.  I didn't even know they had a private journal until I read it here.  Who the hell would ever know about ID or take is seriously if they just quietly worked away for no reason other than to discuss the theory amongst themselves?  

They have to go mainstream....there is really no other choice, and Dembski/Roberts were almost there!  But, look what happened?  DARWIN POLICE...again.  If Eugenie and her minions would just put a sock in it and relax, they realize that ID just isn't a threat to their precious field of science of which they base their entire worldview upon.

I still want to know the difference/similarities between journals such as those published by ACS and the ASP, available through subscription or University libraries, and the so-called "private" journals that ID "scientists" don't bother to publish in.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:07:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:03)
ID is not based on's based on science.  They have to go *mainstream* or they might as well hang it up.  Each time they are almost there, they are shut down by Darwin's little helpers.

What is "mainstream"? Peer-reviewed? Because I am still not understanding the difference between that and "private" here.

I kinda like the "Darwin's Little Helpers", though. Brings to mind trolls from my mother's native Norway...

Date: 2007/10/04 21:10:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:08)
You know, when you say stuff like that, it's like you *want* people to laugh at you.

Yeah?  Well, you won't be laughing when February 2008 comes around.  

The Darwin thought police have made one two many unfair arrests lately, and it's going to come back to haunt them very, very soon.

So what's happening Feb 2008? (Besides my county taxes being due)

Date: 2007/10/04 21:13:39, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still waiting on an answer here. You know, about the journals. And about Feb 2008.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:28:07, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I think I deserve an answer first here. Well, deserve isn't the appropriate word, but I have been patient. I want to know about the journals. Are "private" journals peer reviewed? Cuz, my interpretation of "private" includes most academic journals, which are. Unless I am misunderstanding the term "private" as applied to the ID journal?

Oh, and Feb 2008.
I am very curious. Do I need to sell all my stuff? What day in February? I hope it is before I have to submit 4th term grades.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:30:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'd like to keep my kayak.
And my dog.
I could let go of my Kitchen Aid mixer; it's 22 years old.

Date: 2007/10/04 21:37:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, it's been fun, but not very enlightening, as I never got any answers to my questions. I gotta go to work early in the AM, so I have to sign off. FTK, if you are still here, please give me some answers soon.

Nighty night

Date: 2007/10/05 06:04:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Oh Noes!
I missed all the fun, and ended up in only fourth place.
(and I still don't really understand the "private" journal stuff.)
It felt like arguing with a 12-year old.
Then it apparently turned to global flud, which violates every physical law and most of what is known about Geology.
Maybe sleep was a better idea after all.

I am just a science teacher, but married to a scientist, and I find it offensive that the work he does (and so many others' work) can be so quickly dismissed by folks like FTK who have not themselves kept up in the primary literature. I cannot blame them, of course, because doing so takes a huge amount of time and education. (that is why it is a profession, for pity's sake) But to think that one can pass judgment on an area of science without doing so is arrogant in the extreme. I am not talking about just FTK, but any ID proponent who claims to judge evolutionary theory when it is NOT THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE. Behe included; he is not an evolutionary biologist.  

I have a friend who is a pediatrician. She spends a couple of hours before her clinic opens reading the primary literature in her field; I have to admire that, too, because she knows how important it is.

In a small way, this happens in teaching. Since we all went to school, we all feel that we can pass judgment on teaching and how schools operate, as if these were simple things that anyone can do with no training, no experience. The longer I teach, and read the literature, and talk with others in my profession (going on 26 years now) the more I realize how much I still can learn.

Before the internet, strange ideas really did not gain much of a foothold beyond mythology and old wive's tales. IMO, this makes journals and peer review that much more important. Especially in the US, where we can feel that because we read it, it must be true, and opinions all have the same merit.

Dembski and his ilk have the same chance as anyone else to make their case. But they must do so following the same rules as everyone else: Consider the pertinent literature. Test the hypothesis with new data. Submit to peer review. In the face of rejection, gather more data. Don't want to do this? Then find another profession. Armchair quarterbacks are not welcome.  :angry:

Date: 2007/10/05 11:17:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Hope your friend recovers quickly. Take care of yourself too.

Date: 2007/10/05 11:20:37, Link
Author: lkeithlu
So, what happened to FTK? She at work or something? I figured out how to log on here, so I can read this thread while my kiddos take a quizzie. She seemed to have plenty of time last night.

Date: 2007/10/05 17:22:08, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'm not sure I could do this, as it compromises my own principles. It is not science. Can a school ask that a teacher cover material that their professional organizations say is not appropriate? What if a student brings it up, then the teacher proceeds to tear it to shreds? What would the parents think then?

How irritating.

Date: 2007/10/05 17:33:19, Link
Author: lkeithlu
FTK: I still want to know more about those journals. It's Friday night, and I can stay up as late as I want!

So, what makes the ID journals private? What do you mean by "mainstream"? Is that the opposite of "fringe"? The journal of the American Society of Primatology is not widely read. (Only those interested in primate models for research, as well as those interested in both wild and captive behavior of anthropoids and prosimians) Is this "mainstream"? The journal of Parasitology is probably not on a lot of American coffee tables. "Mainstream"?  How about the Journal of Organic Chemistry? Journal of Geophysics? I'm trying to understand your claim. Help me out here.

Date: 2007/10/05 18:48:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 05 2007,17:48)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 05 2007,15:33)
It's Friday night, and I can stay up as late as I want!

It's this kind of Godless decadence which made me leave the country...

Yeah? You're just jealous.  :p

Date: 2007/10/05 20:10:00, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 05 2007,18:00)
Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 05 2007,15:56)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Oct. 05 2007,15:22)
I'm not sure I could do this, as it compromises my own principles. It is not science. Can a school ask that a teacher cover material that their professional organizations say is not appropriate? What if a student brings it up, then the teacher proceeds to tear it to shreds? What would the parents think then?

How irritating.

If you're in the US, it's illegal to teach creationism in science class. And that's the only explanation necessary to give to students, parents, or administrators (though I would personally give a more extensive explanation to the students).

I think lkeithlu is in the UK, where the situation is considerably muddier.  What's being proposed might be inappropriate, but it's probably not illegal.

Actually, I'm in the US, but I teach at a private school, owned by the Episcopal Church. Technically, we can teach it, but the Church issued a statement saying that creation "science" and intelligent design were bunk. That got us off the hook (not that we would even consider it, as we do our best to teach science and only science). However, even our religion classes don't cover it, because the Church says it is bunk theology too.

If parents knew that, if asked, we could explain to students why creationism fails miserably as science, as does intelligent design, they would not want it mentioned at all. I would have no problem putting it with every other failed idea or misconception.

Date: 2007/10/06 06:41:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I have missed a lot here. Just a brief comment on the Church/schools issue:

Once upon a time, there were areas of the US where the population was homogeneous. It was not uncommon to have entire schools made up of local kids who all worshiped the same way. Perhaps not in large cities, but certainly in the bulk of rural America. It was easy for churches to make the claim that they were the "one true church" and stereotype everyone else because no one actually knew anyone different from them. If a family that was different moved in, their children were shunned or ostracized. Remember the prejudice against Catholics (especially Irish)?

In this day and age, our societies are more and more blended. Immigrants no longer congregate in large cities, and people don't always live and work in a short radius from their own communities. The stereotypes and prejudice can't be maintained under these conditions. Public schools need to serve all children, making them feel accepted. If the majority holds on to their prejudice in their churches, that's fine-no one has to go to their church. But to leave the door open for discrimination in the schools is wrong.

Not all Christian denominations condemn others. Church of Christ and Southern Baptists (the vast majority here in TN) are particularly guilty of this; in fact, Baptists are required to witness to others as part of their own salvation. Other religions besides Christianity have these requirements also-I am glad that my kids were free from their influence in school as well as protected from those Christians concerned for their souls because we were members of the "wrong" church. (or no church, if that had been our choice)

Yes, maybe an occasional school has overreacted. But in general, schools have been neutral, even here in the bible belt, unless the school serves a homogeneous population. Some public schools in my area teach Creation in science, but since no one challenges them, they can get away with it. I don't know of any area school that prevents students from displaying their own faith, either by praying, dress, jewelry, etc. However, in the schools mentioned above, I suspect that non-Christian students or faculty might be harassed, especially if they were Muslim, given today's climate.

I consider a lot of what is said about hell, demons, guilt etc. as a form of child abuse, especially when inflicted on the very young. Since scare tactics are employed by some fundamentalists, I want my young children protected from teachers and administrators that might want to use these as a way of influencing my child's behavior.

Anyhoo, my $0.02.

Date: 2007/10/10 18:37:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I've been putting in 16 hour days at work all week-get on this site and find a carnival of the absurd. Until FTK actually goes to school, gets a graduate science degree, reads the current literature, does research, submits to peer review, and publishes, she will NEVER understand the scientific process.

Date: 2007/10/10 22:07:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 10 2007,21:57)
"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change".

Of course, that has to be a typo, because everyone keeps telling me that evolution is anything but unguided, random, or the result of chance.  Evidently their editors suck to make such a glaring mistake.

They better correct that Manifesto pronto!

There is so much misunderstanding in this statement I don't even know where to begin. I guess one of the obvious is the tendency to try to reduce evolutionary theory to a sentence or a sound bite, when in fact it is so multi-dimensional and complex. It's like trying to describe quantum mechanics using one formula.

Date: 2007/10/16 21:36:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 16 2007,21:21)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 16 2007,20:13)
Maybe he means the kind of rock that flows out of volcanoes.  You know, ignorant rock.  :)

Or maybe he meant "metaphoric" rock, the kind with its head in the earth, feeling the pressure.  :p

You know, the three rock types: sedentary, ignorant (which yields oblivious rock and Pele's tears and stuff, as one finds in Hawaii), and metaphoric.

Make that the three rockhead types. :D

OMG, this is hie-larius!
I am posting it in my classroom.

Date: 2007/10/25 05:53:22, Link
Author: lkeithlu
How interesting that, in the light of lack of progress in this thread, there is an interesting piece in Skeptical Inquirer entitled "'Why Won't They Admit They're Wrong' and Other Skeptics' Mysteries" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. The bolded quote on the second page is as follows:

Cognitive dissonance is hardwired, but how we choose to reduce it is not. Just as good drivers learn to correct for that blind spot in their rear vision, good thinkers can learn to correct for the blind spots in their reasoning.

(SI, vol 31, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2007)

When finally FTK admitted that, all evidence aside, gut feeling is how she will resolve this (totally anti-scientific approach) it was clear that this was all for naught. I am beginning to see how important it is for science education to be improved in the US.

Date: 2007/11/02 22:12:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I don't know where you can "read" this, but in my limited experience via my husband's research, that fathers mate with daughters frequently in lower primate groups (lemurs take two years to reach sexual maturity, and the alpha male may have a tenure that lasts a decade). In the wild, younger males or females may change groups before reproducing, something that at least in prosimians is still being studied. In some hoofed mammals, young males, or in some unusual cases, young females are chased out of the group when they reach maturity. However, there is no real barrier to incest. Animal breeders cross close relatives frequently to improve traits, but captive animal studbook keepers try to keep the genes distributed by encouraging zoo exchanges. Does anyone know about breeding strategies in higher primates?

Date: 2007/11/04 08:27:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 04 2007,08:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 04 2007,07:08)
William Dembski: Getting Hollywood to “Sell the Product” to Children
rrf: Amen, brother! This is exactly why we need to get ID into schools first and the laboratory later. Once students are inculcated with the design paradigm, they will be the ones to tear down the materialist science academy and remake it in His image.

russ: I’ve never seen anyone on this forum advocate teaching ID to school children.

rrf: Google returns 68 hits on the phrase "teach the  controversy" within this site, including posts about How to teach the controversy legally and Teaching the controversy in Grantsburg. Am I missing some subtler point here?

DaveScot: rrf, “Teaching the controversy” is about the scientific dissent from Darwinism which is separate from ID. And by the way, you’re outta here.

It looks like DaveScot didn't press the bannination button hard enough, as rrf managed to get in a parting shot.
Wow. With all the talk about the ID / Evolution controversty and “teach the controversy”, I didn’t figure you were talking about two separate things. My bad.
I didn’t realize what a weak-kneed sewing circle this place had become.

Oh, boy. Davey is going to ban rrf so hard now that his/her children, grandchildren, and grandchildren's children will feel it.

Ouch-that brought up vivid memories of trying to get in the last few snide and sarcastic comments just as my parents were preparing to spank me.

Date: 2007/11/04 18:09:37, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 04 2007,17:24)
The problem is that until these “free floating rationales” for rejecting your siblings advances were realized, early (and I mean early) man may have been doing his sister without thinking twice about it.  As you stated above, “most sexual organisms are highly motivated to engage in intercourse with no awareness of the connection between that act and reproduction“, and as groups were starting to form, it would seem that there would be a high demand for available mates.  I’m also guessing that some of these early “successful organisms” were getting it on with their siblings merely because they were “highly motivated“ to do so, and there would have really been no reason not to.  Early man obviously didn’t seem to be very chatty, as we have no historical knowledge or written information of their activities until they evolved to about 7,000 bc so, although one group may have been communicating in some fashion with those within their groups that incest was unacceptable, other groups may not have had any concerns about possible consequences until later in history or when communication between groups became more common.  And, as I stated earlier, it should be noted that it is quite a leap from our basic knowledge of humans being only those fossil finds we run across to a relatively highly advanced society on the evolutionary timeline at around 7,000 bc.

Perhaps the place to turn for a discussion on this is cultural anthropology. Some idea of cultural continuity is found by looking for parallels/commonalities in social rules and customs in various civilizations and tribes. This would be especially helpful in terms of sex/reproduction and traditions surrounding family units. Although not an exact process, anthropologists can formulate some ideas about how human culture evolved, extrapolating into the past divergent lines of traditions, taboos, etc.  Some of the same assumptions are used when studying languages.

Date: 2007/11/04 19:04:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Sorry FTK-I assumed that you wanted to explore the emergence of the incest taboo. Silly me, isn't that what it is called, a taboo? There could be lots of reasons why this exists across cultures, even those that have NO CLUE that there may be religious implications. I guess this is what comes from trying to find a naturalistic explanation for human behavior...  :angry:

Oh, and I don't believe in the nutty story in Genesis-guess that's obvious. I believe that the bible tries to explain social rules and traditions from a religious viewpoint.

Date: 2007/11/06 16:09:33, Link
Author: lkeithlu
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.  And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science unless you enjoy just-so stories which contemplate how dinos sprouted wings and took to flight or other such rubbish.  

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

I have yet to see an explanation from you, FTK, of why the ID journal has not published in 2 years. Surely there are no Darwinist reviewers keeping papers out of that one. Seems to me we've been over this before...

Date: 2007/11/07 18:13:50, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Aerosmith-Tard Hurts

Date: 2007/11/07 18:20:52, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OOps I think that was Nazareth
My sister's favorite when  we were in Junior high

Date: 2007/11/07 19:25:01, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I was banned under my user name KL and never could get back on. I think it was for my lack of creativity. I am not as funny or as clever as many of you.

Date: 2007/11/17 16:45:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 17 2007,16:34)
Poe's Law in action:

Bob I am not impressed with all those big tough words.

The stupid, it burns!

OMG, that was the dumbest post I have read in a long time on UD. Do these people ever get out and observe real animals? I have yet to see any animal or bird mistakenly breed with one from another species because its breeding season overlapped.

Date: 2007/11/19 09:29:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Tyke points out:

Don’t kid yourself. The theory of evolution isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Not in ten years, and probably not in twenty. The odds are is that this is a generational struggle, one which will take decades, if it succeed at all.

Unless there is some breakthrough in ID research (that is, after some significant ID research programs have actually been fully staffed and funded by some friendly billionaires… hint, hint), then perhaps there will be room for optimism but I see few signs of that happening any time soon.

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but if you keep predicting the imminent demise of evolution on such flimsy evidence, then people will stop listening altogether.

and no one disagrees or even answers.

Date: 2007/11/19 17:48:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
This may be a bit off-topic, but:
Didn't UD have a link in the right margin for the DI's websites?
I can't find any at the moment. Why wouldn't there be a link from UD to the Discovery Institute?

Date: 2007/11/19 18:07:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 19 2007,15:50)
Ftk craves moderation in all things. Plus she has a cold.
3:55 pm
I bet this will be just as successful as Pan^das! Born^again 77, what do you think?

4:30 pm
Cough…um, are there any moderators around here anymore? Just curious.

Hey-all but one comment on this thread has been taken out??!?

Date: 2007/11/20 08:14:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I think FTK is jealous of us REAL blondes.

Date: 2007/12/02 20:47:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I posted on your blog this morning, FTK, and it never went through.
And, I was not nasty, though I might have been a little sarcastic.
I post under the name "kl" except here, which would not accept a two letter name.

On this thread:

Any thoughts? I just wanted for you to describe the scientific work by ID labs you mentioned in this thread. Do you think I was being unreasonable? (no pun intended)

Date: 2007/12/02 21:28:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,21:21)
I remember a deleting a kl, but I don't remember what was said.  It was short whatever it was....very blipeyesque.

Fair enough. Let's deal with it here:

You said on your thread regarding chimpanzee DNA and the fused chromosome in humans:

"Evolutionists are not the only ones making comparisons and offering predictions. IDists are digging even deeper into the workings the universe and looking for answers as well. One might consider that scientists who support design have also been waiting for technology and science to advance in order to confirm their predictions as well."

I asked what ID scientists were doing research in this area. It's a fair question. I wanted to know where they were working, who was finding it, and what was written.

Date: 2007/12/02 21:29:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu
oops who was "funding" it. Sorry

Date: 2007/12/02 21:40:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Okay, why no answer? Was my question unfair? Or was it blipey-esque?

Date: 2007/12/02 22:21:06, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,22:01)


""That is a comment that doesn't deserve a response.  Behe just wrote an entire book sharing his work (which could never have been considered 20 years ago)."

Why not? What about his work could not be considered?

"Technology advances and so does ID and creation science, though it has yet to see the light of day in mainstream journals or labs.  It’s censored, so books are written instead."

Evidence, please? About the censoring.  

"Dembski wrote a book providing his research.  You may not call it lab research, but just the same, it raised the level of understanding about the immense complexity of the universe."

If it is not "lab" research, what kind of research is it?

"Gonzales wrote the Privileged Planet and lost his job because of it.  All these books provide information due to what we've learned from advancements in science."

Gonzales lost his job because he did not publish enough nor bring in enough grant money. He should have waited until he was tenured before writing popular books.

"Evolutionists have aided in advancing creation science and ID as well, and that’s helpful because their research will get published whereas those who have made public that they support ID won’t get published.   That’s also a little scary, because I sometimes wonder if scientists might stop publishing certain things simply because it could be considered as support for ID."

Scientists will publish their work if it passes peer review. Whether or not it supports ID has nothing to do with publishing.

"Just recently Panegea has finally been questioned by mainstream scientists.  If anything further comes from that, some creationists will certainly benefit."

Pangea, or some detail about the formation and subsequent division?

"Nothing coming from a creationist or IDists would ever be believed, so it certainly wouldn't be considered "doing research".  Brown has all done all kinds of research, and has made numerous predictions,"

Such as? Where are his data and results? Are they peer reviewed?

"but they don't count unless a mainstream scientist bearing a Darwin emblem on his chest makes the same claim.   Then we can finally claim it as research."

Research is research; it does not need someone's seal of approval. However, to be published, it must pass peer review.

Oh, btw, I am not Icky (although I am due for a shower) I am the kl you deleted.

Date: 2007/12/02 22:48:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, FTK went to bed without answering my questions. Bummer. And she called me Icky.

Date: 2007/12/09 11:54:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 09 2007,10:56)
now poachy and Sally_T debate whether there is more CSI in a crunchy or smooth peanut butter sandwich:

Sally tells Joe to calculate the CSI in a peanut butter sandwich.
You can’t even demonstrate that it is a metric, with respect to a simple peanut butter sandwich (Look, I’ll make it easy on you. It can be smooth peanutbutter and not Krunchy). Please, someone here show me how this is done.

Poachy retorts
Sally, wouldn’t smooth peanut butter have more information since more processing is required to make it smooth?

Sally_T admits the possibility that she is wrong
But that could be wrong. Poachy is correct, smooth peanut butter must have more information since it has had the smoothing process applied to it. Or perhaps that removes information. i would love to hear Dembski’s input here, and settle the debate about CSI and smooth or crunchy peanut butter. Perhaps he can calculate the statistic we desire as well.

Dembski refuses to weigh in.

James Stanhope reminds us it is all about God and the bible.

As Joseph points out, Dr. Dembski has given the math for anyone who is willing to remove there materilist blinders long enough to look at it. But as Joseph also points out, you don’t need a lot of big words and mumbo-jumbo to look at the “Glory” of Creation and see the hand of Design at work.
I think Sally is led by the blind and has fell into the ditch (Luke 6:39).

The thread that keeps on giving.  Sadly.  evo-mat.  selective hyperskepticism.  Onlookers, merits, always linked.

I just spent three hours compiling problems for my students to do tomorrow, and looked at the link for the UD thread. Information in peanut butter sandwiches?? It's like one of those wacky dreams that make sense when you are dreaming, and then when you wake up, seem completely bizarre. Tripping on the edge of sanity, are they?

BTW, Happy Birthday, Steverino, wherever you are (hopefully celebrating and not cruising online)

Date: 2007/12/30 08:10:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 29 2007,12:36)
Another not long for UD, but comedy gold nonetheless

Dave, thanks for the link to ARN. I am appalled that the Darwinists have managed to suppress the Origins and Design journal for so many years. It is an outrage.

I am sorry to be a bother, but that is a huge, busy website and I was unable to find the list of articles that were rejected by the “mainstream” journals. There is plenty at ARN to keep me busy, so no rush. But if you could post the specific link to that list I would be grateful. Thanks.

leo stotch

OMG this is soooo funny
the last journal issue is fall/winter 1994
will be banned for sure

Date: 2008/01/13 16:08:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (1of63 @ Jan. 13 2008,14:28)
First off, where's the problem?  To quote Steven J Gould, "...'fact' does not mean "absolute certainty." Whether an observation or a theory counts as a fact is decided only by whether they have been confirmed, to quote Gould again, "to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."   By that definition Ptolemaic astronomy was a fact.  It was a fact that it described and predicted the motions of the planets with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Doesn't mean it was The Truth, it just meant that it worked.  And that's what science really wants.
Here’s the bottom line:  Much of the Darwinistas’ rhetoric depends upon an equivocation between “hammer dropping facts” and “maybe not a fact facts.”

No, Bazza, this is you conflating 'fact' and 'truth'.

Ptolemaic astronomy was superceded by the work of Copernicus and Galileo because it explained the same thing to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some.  It won out because it did more and did it better.  The same for Newtonian mechanics and relativity; Einstein's explanation went to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some.

So here's the bottom line:  you want to replace the theory of evolution with Intelligent Design, you're going to have to put an actual theory behind the label.  It has to explain what evolution explains to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some.  A rag-tag bunch of number-crunchers, engineers, computer geeks, shysters and self-proclaimed, self-important, self-made millionaires all standing around, wide-eyed, and gasping that 'it looks so complicated that it just has to be designed' don't cut it.  Do the research, do the fieldwork, do the math, write it up and put it out there for others to trash - if they can.  Stop whining about "Darwinistas". Either piss or get off the pot.

That was beautifully written. If only we could get an actual response!

Wow! I haz an edit button too!

Date: 2008/01/14 16:14:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 14 2008,14:17)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 14 2008,13:46)
According to quantcast the average OE reader seems to be >55 years old which somehow doesn't fit to OE's mission statement:        
Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school and college students (though non-students will be permitted, this is a site geared towards and created for students) can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution.

We believe that today's students are smarter than for which they are given credit and that rather than being told what to believe, they have the ability to explore the range of possibilities and figure out what to believe on their own.

This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts.

“hammer dropping facts” or “maybe not a fact facts.”

One fact you won't see reported there is that they probably had under 100 comments the entire year!  You could count them if you wanted to totally waste your time.  And if you trusted their numbers.

Pretty damn overwhelming - in the exciting world of IDC.

Hey, maybe PT should register at quantcast so there can be a direct comparison.

Date: 2008/01/20 18:06:06, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 20 2008,16:51)
Steve quotes McLeroy as saying "should not be associated with the viscous, un-Christian acts of the crusaders".

I like the idea of viscous crusaders.

They flow only very slowly? Or is that their arguments flow poorly? :p


Methinks he means "slimey"

Date: 2008/01/23 11:42:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
You are so young to have achieved so much! Many happy returns.

Date: 2008/01/29 06:46:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,23:08)
Don't primates eat a lot of insects, insect grubs, larvae, and other small critters, as well as bird eggs?

Lemurs will catch and eat birds. We've seen it in catta and fulvus. Cool, actually. Can't say for sure I've seen many lemurs eat insects, but tarsiers certainly do, as do Galago, Loris and other prosimians.

Date: 2008/01/29 06:48:55, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Oh, and Aye-aye, which fill the woodpecker niche in Madagascar. Definitely a must-see, if you ever get the opportunity. Eats grubs.

Date: 2008/01/29 06:49:50, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 27 2008,00:47)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2008,17:41)
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.

Oh, the ID version of peer review

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's FUNNY!

Date: 2008/01/31 06:46:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2008,05:00)
Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 31 2008,10:51)
"People who boast about their IQ are losers."
-Steven Hawking

On a related note, vos Savant's claimed uber-high IQ is from a bizarre test that was normed badly and used a ratio IQ instead of a far saner standard deviation. Even among IQ tests, it's a bullshit score. "Smart" people get awfully dumb when you start telling them good things about themselves.

Hawking has the right of it! IQ tests are hilarious, they test (effectively) your ability to do IQ tests! Woohoo! I hope people realise that my above two posts, whilst true, are mocking my younger self for being such a vain and gullible pratt, not bragging about said younger self's IQ.

"Stupid is as stupid does"
-Forrest Gump

I've met "geniuses" that couldn't break their way out a wet paper bag and "simple" folks that were self reliant, able to think on their feet and solve problems as they presented themselves. A high IQ alone doesn't do much if you weren't also give the common sense the FSM gives a turnip. Book "larnin" and test taking are just one form of intelligence.

Date: 2008/02/04 09:10:19, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I commented on this, pointing out that the criticism was that the comments had been deleted, but I don't expect it to see the light of day, as my comments never get past moderation, no matter what I write.

DS is the ultimate comment nazi

Date: 2008/03/10 09:15:08, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Just to add one more problem to the mix:

I am the disciplinarian at a small church-affiliated private boarding and day school. (I also teach science) The school is quite liberal; many aging hippies like me on the faculty. Although religion is taught, it is in the context of a survey or world religions. Religious activities are offered to all students, but not required. Chapel is compulsory, but participation is not (I'm an un-believer, and don't feel at all uncomfortable).

My observation regarding private school is as follows: In the times where I can hang out with public school teachers both here and in other areas, one complaint seems to surface often. The school is hamstrung in dealing with severe behavior problems. The complaints bring up the following aspects:

Mainstreaming special needs students (under the guise of equality of instruction, but these teachers feel it is a way of cutting costs)

Parents who do not support the school when their teen misbehaves. They demand "proof", and gradually schools have shifted to using police officers, removing the authority from school teachers and administrators. Finally, only severe criminal behavior results in removal, but the damage is already done.

Large classes that cannot be supervised effectively. In workshops where I introduce hands-on methods for science, the comments from public school teachers is always "there is NO way I could let my kids do this-they would be out of control in minutes." Teachers constantly having to stop teaching to deal with behavior issues cannot be as effective in reaching the goals set for the activity at hand. If they cannot remove the nuisance and get back to teaching quickly, they lose the whole class.

In my school parents sign a contract saying that they agree to hold their student accountable to our rules. We reserve the right to cancel the contract if they don't. Most parents want their kids there, and it shows up in the kids behavior. In 23 years I have only removed a kid from class 6 times, for behavior that would seem mild to a public school teacher (mild horseplay, mild disrespect) In each case I required a meeting with the parents. My classes, like all the classes in the school, are filled with kids that are relaxed, motivated, respectful and considerate (of course, taking into account that they are teenagers, they are NOT perfect.)

In my role as disciplinarian, I must deal with the most serious of violations: drugs, alcohol, hazing, boundary violations. I have not been treated with disrespect or threatened by any student. Parents, well, I just pass them up the chain to the head of school, where they quickly settle down under his firm, steady approach. Students are allowed to express anger, frustration, pain or fear, just not inappropriately.

Now, with all this said, do I have any ideas about public school? No. Parents contribute to the problem by excusing their kids behavior. Schools are understaffed and underfunded. They cannot remove students until the situation is so bad the courts are involved. Authority by administrators and teachers is not respected. Not all schools are like this but enough are. I student taught in two; one was wonderful; well run, quiet, clean, well-behaved kids. The other was pretty bad-no texts, kids who could not read (7th grade), etc. Both were rural southern schools serving similar demographics.

As much as vouchers would help my school, I am against them. There are too many kids who could not, even with vouchers, come up with the remaining amount to pay the $13 K day tuition, much less afford to transport themselves to school (bus route costs extra$) The local schools need this money. Perhaps charter schools, where students compete to enter and the school can remove kids for behavior issues. Small charter schools instead of large county schools may do a better job. I am not sure.

Sorry for the length of the post.

Date: 2008/03/10 18:09:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (kelton @ Mar. 10 2008,17:49)
Do any of you folks slandering the homeschoolers have any studies, research or any evidence at all to back up your claims that homeschoolers neglect their children. Or are you clairvoyant and can see things that no one else can. Or do you espouse that if you tell a lie enough time it can be made true. Or are you a tinge bigoted toward folks who have a belief other than your own.
Home schooled children score higher on standardized tests, their families are more involved in their communities and their social skills are no more or less than their public school counterparts. Below are 2 studies that back my point.

I don't recall folks slandering homeschoolers in general here.
In fact, there seems to be a lot of support for homeschooling. I have seen outcomes both positive and negative, usually stemming from the original reasons for homeschooling. Not all homeschooled kids are behind their peers, but some are. Not all public schools fail, but some do. Not all private schools are exceptional but some are.

Date: 2008/03/10 18:27:32, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I've seen children homeschooled in TX by a mother with only a high school diploma. The goal was to shield the children from the bad influences in the schools (ie sex, drugs, etc) The children were enrolled in a public school in a small town after several years and were at least two years behind in academic areas and worlds behind in social skills. All the behavior problems that the family thought they were avoiding happened anyway.

I've seen children homeschooled by aging hippies that allowed the kids to explore the world on their own with no guidance and no interference to "squelch their creativity". They were woefully behind in math because it was a subject "they didn't like".

However, I've seen kids homeschooled by a group of educated, caring adults that worked together to help each other cover areas that require some expertise such as math, science, arts, theater and physical education. They brought the kids together for group events and used facilities at local colleges. They were supremely successful and their children well served.

Should there be laws governing this? I don't know. I feel sorry for kids who have a poor education. Sometimes, if the purpose is to shelter them from the world, it can backfire. Someone I knew was homeschooled by a strict fundamentalist church family; he went to a prestigious college, took geology, and was furious that he had been lied to all those years. He rejected the church completely. I'm not sure that was the outcome the parents wanted.

Date: 2008/03/17 19:23:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 17 2008,11:54)
Quote (Guest @ Mar. 17 2008,11:41)
Biology...the major for engineering, physics, and chemistry dropout students.

Pitiful...just pitiful.


One of my former advisees switched majors from biology to mechanical engineering after flunking introductory biology...

Of course, Eaton seems to be a big fan of Gish's, so if he knew much of anything, he'd know that adoring Gish is a badge of stupidity.

Yeah, I switched to Chemistry when as a sophomore I could not comprehend the freshman Biology course. Only the smartest of my classmates could handle majoring in Bio.

Date: 2008/03/19 19:24:06, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 19 2008,13:17)
I suspect the animation is also the one used in this Pat Robertson report.  I would strongly advise turning your sound off before watching.

Even with the sound off.

Date: 2008/03/22 07:15:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday!
Hope your day is SPLENDID!  :p

Date: 2008/03/22 12:51:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I pointed out on the thread at UD that FTK was wrong about the circumstances of PZM and Dawkins' RSVP for Expelled. It hasn't gotten past the moderators. I suspect I'm still banned. I hate to see such misinformation go by, but hey...

Date: 2008/03/23 19:43:50, Link
Author: lkeithlu
An unbelievable amount of harsh criticism of Behe, Dembski and Seelke is going on right now with no real challenge at UD:

If I knew how to archive it I would; it can't last too much longer. Check out the last dozen or so posts.

Date: 2008/04/02 05:16:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am disappointed that my weapon of choice was not on the list: A DeWalt cordless drill.Armed and ready, baby!

Date: 2008/04/10 17:14:08, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy birthday k.e.!
I feel smart when I can understand your posts-you operate on a much higher plain than me! (I think...)

Date: 2008/05/01 18:42:32, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Louis @ May 01 2008,12:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 01 2008,18:03)
Quote (Louis @ May 01 2008,12:34)

Ftk says Lou is either 41 years old, or was born 30 minutes ago. So far there is no decisive evidence that permits us to decide. I'm teaching both sides so are kid's can decide.

I approve of your remarks and want to purchase your merchandise.

However there are at least 3 sides to every story. FTK thinks Lou is younger, you think Lou is exactly the age he is, I on the other hand think Lou is really some crusty old dude of at least 50 (because that's like the oldest you know age or whatever. Except for 60 obviously).

I think that only christian kids should decide. Because muslim kids are winning the fanaticism war* and therefore should be excluded to make it a fair playing field.


* I has seen Jesus Camp. Scary.

41?? Awe, you is just a kid!

Happy Birthday! :p

Date: 2008/05/01 18:44:49, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 01 2008,18:33)
Quote (ERV @ May 01 2008,19:19)
WAD has reclaimed the sandbox.

And here I thought it was a litter box.

That 'splains why the lolcats kept trying to bury him!!

Date: 2008/05/01 18:53:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Quack @ April 30 2008,03:56)
I have often wondered, may keith be suffering from third stage syphilis (Neurosyphilis), posting from a mental institution?

Ugh. I just went to the Mutter Museum in Philly. Syph is NOT what you want to contract-It's nasty hat it does to the ol' bones and brain. :O

Date: 2008/05/06 22:15:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 06 2008,14:58)
I'm thinking that to look through the wrong end of a telescope you've got to be there. That could be the cause of Robert O's confusion.

If you look into a telescope's wrong end, do you look into the future?

Date: 2008/05/17 07:58:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Just wondering:

Why is there no link to the movie's website on UD? Wasn't there one before? Or am I misremembering?

The film seems to be gone now from Tennessee theaters. I can't find any listing.

Date: 2008/05/17 08:55:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Go Here:

Scroll down til you see a figure labeled:

Model proteins based on analogy between the structure—function relationship in written Chinese and in proteins (D. Axe, B. Dixon, P. Lu, manuscript in press).

I almost overdosed on woo. What is that all about? Is it similar to the nun-bun?  :O

Date: 2008/05/20 09:13:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Rural Middle Tennessee
I feel so alone... :(

Date: 2008/05/21 19:06:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
did I miss it?

Happy Birthday! Just got my head above water for the first time today.
Hope it was great! :p

Date: 2008/07/14 18:31:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Once again (and I think I've said it before) why does an attorney think he has the expertise to critique a paleontology paper? Like me reading JAMA and passing judgment on medical papers written by doctors. Mileage, mileage, mileage. If you have not studied, measured, compared fossils over and over, a paper such as this is OUTSIDE your level of expertise. Period.

The flip side of this. I love it when real experts discuss on PT and other sites the fossils that are made public. It opens a window for folks like me to see just how experts look at such a fossil and how they compare various features. Without blogs, I could never read these interchanges! WAAAAY cool. Like being a fly on the wall when those on the inside talk "shop".

Date: 2008/07/15 07:03:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Assassinator @ July 15 2008,05:00)
What do you actually know about biological anthropology? What do you know about what those fossils mean?

Indeed. Do you actually know any paleontologists? Do you not realize that when they examine fossils they are comparing them to what they already know from many others? To think that you can judge a fossil's features for yourself is the height of arrogance. That you would allow Luskin to do so unchallenged is the height of gullibility.

* edited because I can

Date: 2008/07/15 07:34:46, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (lcd @ July 15 2008,07:28)
47, wow that's old.

Happy birthday my friend.

still a young'un

Have a great day!

Date: 2008/07/15 17:41:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (bystander @ July 15 2008,16:16)
Thanks Guys, but being on the other side of the world. I get my happy birthday when I already have my hangover. I'm no good at lolcats but here is a picture of where I live. I'm on the ridge on the right hand side of the mountain in the distance.

I am sooooo jealous....

Date: 2008/07/15 17:48:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I work a second job (food service manager) in south Georgia. Here in the South, summer starts at the end of May (not in mid to late June, like in other parts of the country). School was out May 25, and I was at work by June 1. We return to school in mid August, rather than after Labor Day. Maybe we'll follow the rest of the country's example-it's DAMN hot in August-we had two weeks of 100+ F last year. Poor kids playing pre-season sports suffered.

Date: 2008/07/16 08:28:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Wolfhound @ July 16 2008,07:45)
Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,07:38)
Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p

Aquatic coconuts?  Or terrestrial coconuts that the benevolent, happy, friendly, cooperative pre-Fludde T-rexes obligingly tossed into the water for them?

Now, YOU KNOW that sharks waited along the coconut migration route to pick off the old or sick ones.

Date: 2008/07/17 14:43:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Henry J @ July 17 2008,14:12)
Speak softly, and carry a big fish.

And watch out for pirahna...

and migrating coconuts...

Date: 2008/07/17 17:55:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ July 17 2008,17:52)
Guess we might as well have Dembski's new book displayed on the 1000th page.  It'll be released in October.

I was taught not to waste paper.

Date: 2008/07/18 09:20:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Hey, I think it's Dr. Dr. D's birthday today!

Date: 2008/07/18 13:47:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,11:56)
Thanks, boys!!  Goodness knows you people are up on your birthdays!!!  And, Icky of all people points it out...who'd of thunk it.

;)  ;)

Tweren't Icky-was me, as I has the dubious honor of sharing it with him-same year, in fact.

Date: 2008/07/18 14:19:57, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (simmi @ July 18 2008,13:58)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2008,13:47)
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,11:56)
Thanks, boys!!  Goodness knows you people are up on your birthdays!!!  And, Icky of all people points it out...who'd of thunk it.

;)  ;)

Tweren't Icky-was me, as I has the dubious honor of sharing it with him-same year, in fact.

Twins? Separated at birth?

hmmmm.. that's possible, if he was born in L.A. I don't look much like him, tho. Very short, and female too, although fraternal would still be possible.

Date: 2008/07/18 14:21:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,14:08)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 18 2008,13:47)
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,11:56)
Thanks, boys!!  Goodness knows you people are up on your birthdays!!!  And, Icky of all people points it out...who'd of thunk it.

;)  ;)

Tweren't Icky-was me, as I has the dubious honor of sharing it with him-same year, in fact.


Happy birthday to you too!!!

Thanks! I'm the ripe old age of 29-have been for 19 years now! Maybe I'll start counting backwards...

Date: 2008/07/29 16:25:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (swbarnes2 @ July 29 2008,16:17)
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,14:08)

it can be the college professor who knows that something isn't right but have a vested interest in keeping their mouths shut.

Okay, so what did you have in mind, exactly?

It's really easy.  You just need to:

1) Tell us exactly what claim you think those dishonest, frightened professors are making

2) Show us evidence that they are in fact teaching it.  A quote from a mainstream textbook would do.

3) Explain why the claim is factually wrong

4) Prove that it is wrong with reference to actual scientific facts, preferably ones found in peer-reviewed literature.

For instance, you could be thinking that professors are wrongly teaching that Haekel's conclusions are scientifically accurate, and you would be right that they aren't, but you would fail on step 2, because no one teaches that they are.

Now certainly, there are a lot of biological facts and concepts that just aren't appropriate for high school science, or even intro undergrad classes.  I'd be flabbergasted if you were to name one such accurate fact that you thought that professors were for whatever reason "keeping their mouth shut" about.

My spouse is a college professor who teaches animal behavior from an evolutionary perspective. I've never known him to keep his mouth shut out of fear. Oh, and yeah, we are raking in the dough...can't spend it fast enough.

Date: 2008/08/09 17:30:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday! (Yeah, I'm a little late...)
Hope you've had a great day.  :)

Date: 2008/08/15 15:15:46, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I know I am going to sound out of touch, but I didn't know Conservapedia existed. I spent some time browsing, and when I recover from my deep depression I'm gonna move to another country... :(

Date: 2008/08/24 19:11:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Many happy returns, blipey!

Date: 2008/08/31 09:29:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
There seems to be some dominionist connections possible.

These groups make Huckabee look mainstream.

Date: 2008/09/02 18:51:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Wishing both of you the best!

Date: 2008/09/02 18:53:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Love your white squirrel! Hope it was a happy day!

Date: 2008/11/05 06:45:58, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Did I miss something? Why doesn't UD say it is the "weblog of Dr. Dr. , Denis and friends" anymore?

Date: 2008/11/22 11:41:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Many Happy Returns, CJ!
Hope you have a good 'un.

Date: 2008/11/30 12:31:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I agree-the first 8 minutes was pretty bad. I am so glad I do not have to pay money to see it. To be honest, I can't handle any more than 8 minutes at a time, but I feel obligated to see it.

Date: 2008/12/02 06:45:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Kristine! You are my role model!

(NOT part of the sausage brigade) :D

Date: 2008/12/02 09:35:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I tried to point out that dog breeds are NOT species and humans drove a third of mammals extinct in Madagascar. Appears I am still banned. :angry:

Date: 2008/12/02 11:13:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 02 2008,10:28)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 02 2008,09:35)
I tried to point out that dog breeds are NOT species and humans drove a third of mammals extinct in Madagascar. Appears I am still banned. :angry:

Just out of curiosity, are you able to log into UD, but your posts go in the bit bucket?

Seems so, unless moderation takes REALLY long. I logged in without a hitch.

Date: 2008/12/02 19:55:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2008,17:33)
The funniest thing is this: Casey thinks that the book is "aimed at students — perhaps junior high or high school-aged."  The publisher recommends it for ages 9-12.

Life on Other Planets on

Well, there's the problem. Casey is too young to be in the Adult section. A good librarian would have provided better guidance. No wonder he was having difficulty-that book was WAY too advanced* for him.

*credit to MiB

Date: 2008/12/02 20:07:30, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OMG-O'Leary has posted again, and I can't decide if I'm awake or dreaming. When her biology/biodiversity mistakes are so obvious that a layperson like me can see them, that's pretty bad.

"a) the City of Toronto forbids private citizens from keeping a vast variety of exotic species. Presumably, that is because Toronto residents would otherwise keep them. After all, we have no similar by-laws against hiding space aliens … why not?"

Has she never heard of invasive species? Has she never traveled overseas, only to be questioned about plant/animal products? And, I don't know about you, but I have never been offered a chance to smuggle space aliens through customs. Just unlucky, I guess.

"b) the Province of Ontario has banned the continued breeding of a variety of dog (the pit bull) unknown to wild nature, and currently (controversially!) on a sort of “death row” here."

WTF does this mean?

"c) many local gardening problems are caused by plants known to me as “European dooryard weeds” = Eurasian plants that favour disturbed soil. Because immigrants to North America from Europe have often cleared land to put up buildings or grow crops, this continent has been a splendid biodiversity opportunity for those plants. There are by-laws about them too, incidentally …"

See a)

"d) humans have brought about the extinction of some species, but have saved others. Consider ginkgo biloba. It is a very ancient tree, apparently saved by Chinese gardeners. A couple of years ago, while wandering through the huge arboretum (= tree garden) of the Canadian government’s experimental farm in Ottawa, I happened across a gingko, growing outdoors. (I have seen them in Toronto, too, but we are about 250 km further south.)"

pfffftttt... we have 'em in TN

"e) humans are probably saving a number of species from extinction just because we like them. Not many km from my home here in Toronto is a Lion Safari where, I am told, the lionesses have long been subjected to birth control pills, because their eagerness to supply North America with lions exceeds the suitable habitat. Of course, that wouldn’t be a problem for them if they ever got over the perimeter fence … (imagine … lions in suburban neighbourhoods!)"

I know of species being maintained in zoos, but not allowed to breed unchecked, as the zoos are trying to manage a stable population with genetic diversity (using limited resources and space) with the hopes that habitat may be restored and protected. Hmmm, maybe we should be practicing this with the human species?

My tard resistance must not be as high as some of yours. This one post brought vertigo and nausea...

Date: 2008/12/03 09:14:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 03 2008,08:05)
[quote=lkeithlu,Dec. 02 2008,20:07][/quote]
b) the Province of Ontario has banned the continued breeding of a variety of dog (the pit bull) unknown to wild nature, and currently (controversially!) on a sort of “death row” here."

WTF does this mean?

Probably that Ontario, like other places, has banned pit bulls. This is because of their unfortunate tendency to attack people. How this supports O'Leary's claims about biodiversity is unclear.

Probably an extension of her assumption that breeds are separate species, though, as you say, I fail to see how this relates at all to her point about biodiversity.

Date: 2008/12/22 17:46:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 22 2008,15:43)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 22 2008,15:13)
I remember being 28.


LOL. For a few years I lived in Chapel Hill and was surrounded by 20-year old college girls.

I was 29 for like 3 consecutive years. :-)

Man, my KIDS are older than you (well, two of them are)
Many happy returns!

Date: 2009/01/02 19:36:00, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 02 2009,14:25)

The    fundimental    challenge that the ID community offers is that we are requiring a paradyme change. The closest that physics has come to needing a paradyme change has been with the big bang. The bang faced fierce resistance until a couple of naturalistic theories (big crunch, and multiverse) allowed the big bang to be viewed within a naturalistic context — who cares how poorly.

I guess physicists had to make do with paradigm shifts.  Poor dears, if only they'd known they had been doing it wrong all these years.


fundi  mental?

Freudian slip?

Date: 2009/01/12 19:12:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (bort @ Oct. 07 2008,21:08)
Generally, I am against vandalism of wikis, but this one was just too funny.

They took it down almost right away, but not before the redditors found it.

I'm a little behind checking these pages. I'm still laughing at this after 10 minutes.

Date: 2009/01/23 22:54:10, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Under the wire!
Happy birthday to both of you!
And happy Friday to everyone else!

Date: 2009/02/27 10:03:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday!
(Man, some of these photos have put me off my feed)

Date: 2009/03/22 16:56:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
U haz a fan! Happy Birthday!

Date: 2009/04/10 10:13:50, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday! and happy Friday too!

Date: 2009/07/11 16:47:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Been awhile since I've posted.
I received my weekly edition of Chemical and Engineering News, standard with my ACS membership. This one was full of letters to the editor saying, in essence, discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, and include Intelligent Design. I'm confused; is it inappropriate for chemists to pass judgment on evolutionary theory? Haven't evolutionary biologists answered all these supposed claims and found them lacking? I want to write a letter too, but the last time I tried it was rejected. Are other science publications seeing this nonsense?

Date: 2009/07/12 07:32:40, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2009,21:14)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 11 2009,14:47)
Been awhile since I've posted.
I received my weekly edition of Chemical and Engineering News, standard with my ACS membership. This one was full of letters to the editor saying, in essence, discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, and include Intelligent Design. I'm confused; is it inappropriate for chemists to pass judgment on evolutionary theory? Haven't evolutionary biologists answered all these supposed claims and found them lacking? I want to write a letter too, but the last time I tried it was rejected. Are other science publications seeing this nonsense?

That is very weird. I was a ACS member as an undergraduate, and I found the publications great. What do you think might have happened? Has the society been highjacked?

There is no evidence that ACS has taken any official position in favor of challenging evolution, but I am surprised at the number of letters that they print that are both religious in tone and critical of "suppression of the dialogue". I expect this kind of thing from laypeople, but not chemists. Maybe I was too optimistic, as this seems to happen with engineers, computer scientists, etc.

I am married to a primate scientist, and he finds it strange that people who do not work in a field feel justified in passing judgment.

Date: 2009/07/15 16:30:49, Link
Author: lkeithlu
You're not old! I myself turn thirty-nineteen this week.

Happy Birthday from someone just in front of you.

Date: 2009/08/10 19:01:40, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 10 2009,18:57)
6:22 pm
Dr. Dembski, you are the example to us all of patience, slowness to anger, professionalism, and working unashamedly for one’s convictions.

Yeah, I am inspired to produce farty animations in the same patient, mature, professional way. My hero!

Date: 2009/08/10 19:22:56, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 10 2009,19:16)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 11 2009,12:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 10 2009,18:57)
6:22 pm
Dr. Dembski, you are the example to us all of patience, slowness to anger, professionalism, and working unashamedly for one’s convictions.

Yeah, I am inspired to produce farty animations in the same patient, mature, professional way. My hero!

...and publish personal details of those whose help I am seeking, compare scientists to Herman Munster, call Homeland Security on...

Meanwhile Herb doesn't disappoint:
   It seems that sending my students to post on “hostile” websites, however, sticks especially in their craw. Slashdot has since picked up on it (go here — the keyword tags are precious).

PZ also has a thread up on this, and it looks like he’s almost developed a bunker mentality after hearing about Dr Dembski’s assignment. I think he’s afraid of getting shown up on his own blog by an undergraduate, just like the storyline of that classic Chick tract, Big Daddy. Expect PZ to wield the banhammer much more liberally from now on.

I'm sure PZ is cowering in his bunker; scanning the radar for the squadron of flying monkeys from this course.

The lack of academic rigor in these descriptions is shameful. I worked WAY too hard for my degrees.  :angry:

Date: 2009/08/10 20:05:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 10 2009,19:47)
There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.

I'd love some links. I don't remember him having the cojones to do more that a drive by.

(edited because I can)

Date: 2009/11/07 08:53:56, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I have been reading this forum for four years, I think, and seen smarter, better equipped creationists than this one go down in flames. This won't be pretty, I think.  :O

Date: 2009/11/07 16:30:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,09:37)
WTF is "high science"?

Silly thing. "High Science" employs incense and all incantations are in Latin.

Date: 2009/11/10 06:28:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2009,09:51)
Robert,  Let's establish something here.  There is no 'contention' on the fact of evolution (or geology) for that matter.  There may be some intense discussion on how much a role selection vs. mutation plays in various populations, but that's not what you mean.

Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.

It also seems that you really don't understand a lot about what you're talking about so I'd like you to define a few things for us.  So we can all be on the same page.


Natural Selection

A hypothesis of Intelligent Design

While you're at it, what's your definition of 'hypothesis'?

So answer those and I would be very appreciative.

Oh yes there is a contention on evolution.
Great numbers of North americans say it isn't true while others say it is.
Smaller numbers of serious thinking people say evolution is false while other serious thinking people say its true.
In the specific areas of study tiny numbers of people who deal with it accept it while even smaller numbers called creationists study it and show its not well evidenced.
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.
Evolution is under attack on the merits. Saying these people or that think its true will not work. Evolution must, and increasingly, make its case on the merits and not mere authority.

Great numbers of people in North America believe all kinds of crazy things. Like ghosts. Alien Abduction. Fairies. Demons. That Obama is a foreign-born muslim (30% of the people in my state believe this) That Jon and Kate Gosselin matter. That prayer ended the drought in Georgia.

People choose not to understand evolution because they don't want to bother. The state of science education in this nation is deplorable, so the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors. Because they don't know what science is, they don't know how to judge sources of information for validity. Add to that the religious notion that the Bible must be interpreted literally (most Christians accept an old earth-only fundamentalists reject all the evidence that points to it) and you have a population that are afraid to learn anything that might undermine their narrow faith.

Date: 2009/11/11 06:30:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am getting the impression, from Robert's use of language and syntax, that he speaks English as a second language and may be from a Pacific Rim country such as China, Japan,or Korea. The use of language and the type of errors made look familiar, as I teach students from these countries. Of course, the name doesn't fit, but hey, you guys don't know my real name either!

There is a strong creationist connection with Christianity that has been introduced to these countries, especially the followers of Moon.

Date: 2009/11/11 18:05:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
(Under the wire)

Happy Birthday, all!
(So young! Except jswilkins-older than me is old, younger than me is young) :)

Date: 2009/11/22 07:57:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
You have these every year???

Happy Birthday!

Your ponies are beautiful.

Date: 2009/11/26 08:18:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 26 2009,01:56)
Quote (Leftfield @ Nov. 25 2009,22:30)
Hilarious argument about whether or which Catholics are Christians in the comments here.

Exhibit A for the All Science So Far file. Can somebody who still has a sock jump in there among the scripture arguers and ask StephenB if this book they are struggling to parse is where his objective morality comes from?

Throwing a sock in between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front would be a needless sacrifice, if you ask me.

EDIT:  But funny, nonetheless.

I thought that site was about science. Silly me....

Date: 2009/11/27 09:58:58, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 27 2009,02:30)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2009,07:00)
Quack, let's get down to business here and adress what really interest Boobah:

Let him brainfuck himself until explosion. the world doesn't need this brand of tard...

Well, for every person praising the Lord for miraculously saving their lives from all sorts of disease, disasters and accidents there are thousands the same Lord didn't give and don't give a damn about. Whatever he is, he isn't fair and loving but cruel and indifferent to our suffering. Praying doesn't help either.

Should I make a list of times and places when His Bloodthirstyness Himself calmly with a smirk looked down at our suffering?

He is well known from way back for his predilection for blood and the stench of burnt flesh.

Good to be back on track.

Yep-lets New Orleans pay the price for decades of sin (Katrina) and is very concerned about my thoughts (lust, coveting my neighbor's possessions) but can't seem to save a few folks in Sudan, or stop genocide, or talk sense to those suicide bombers. I can't decide is such a deity doesn't exist, or does and surely does NOT deserve to be worshipped... :angry:

Date: 2009/11/27 17:57:16, Link
Author: lkeithlu

They are answering to the emails that were leaked as best they can. There is a lot of volume, but they try to answer questions and document what they say.

Date: 2009/12/05 12:22:58, Link
Author: lkeithlu you've gone and made me all nostalgic-like...

Date: 2009/12/25 08:38:19, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Merry Christmas! Hope Santa brings you an edit button-I LOVE mine!

Date: 2010/02/27 17:37:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Been teaching text-less for a couple of years now. I love it!

Hey-off topic, but I've been away. I can't seem to wish anyone a happy birfday because there isn't always a "reply" button.  (though obviously I still have my edit button, of which I am proud) Could it be my geriatric computer?

Date: 2010/03/06 08:42:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I do keep many texts in the classroom to use as reference. I also send them to websites that I have vetted and are appropriate to their level. My complaint about texts is that they present the material in the wrong order (yes, I am that arrogant) and I prefer to cover fewer topics in depth, so I can't justify $100+ for a book that I use only a small part of. In addition, my labs are designed to suit me, my school and my students, so they are not from a lab manual. Since I have to write all of that as well, I dumped the text and merged the lab and class together. Now we do hands on/inquiry/activities daily and they all fit together.

Date: 2010/03/06 08:47:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Of course, I should have prefaced all of this by saying I work in an independent school, so the decisions are all made by me, and I don't have to teach to an exit or gateway exam. (Our school does not offer AP classes on principle, but students can and do take AP exams) I have my curriculum evaluated by local university professors and area scientists, and I am very transparent so that if there is a problem, someone can see it and point it out. I really do have the best job in the world! (And folks are lined up to take positions at my school as they become available, which as you can imagine, isn't often)

Date: 2010/03/08 07:04:32, Link
Author: lkeithlu
As a teacher in an independent school but a public school graduate, I can say that I admire what public school teachers accomplish in the face of all the obstacles they encounter. Although I'd like to say that state standards and exit exams keep schools on track and provide measures for progress, but what they really do is restrict good teachers from doing what they know would be better. State standards (and they are clear and specific) don't prevent my local schools from teaching creation unopposed, that's clear.

My assessments are laboratory, writing intensive, process centered exams. I won't take credit for the idea, as groups like AAAS and NSTA say that this is a better way. However, designing and scoring such an assessment is way too expensive, so states do objective content-based assessments, forcing teachers to teach to the test. In addition, I teach in an adequate space, with a generous budget, and four classes of 16 or less. What public school allows for that??? I am not so foolish to think that my methods, derived from NSTA and AAAS, could be done in 24-30 student classrooms with little to no materials.

Date: 2010/03/10 17:07:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I don't know how you do it.

I can't even figure out what Mr. Byers is trying to say.
His command of the written word is more like an 8 year old.

Date: 2010/03/26 16:25:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Ooooohhh you bad guys are in trubble now. They are meeting in their secret lair, planning to inflict the ultimate smackdown on all of you with their super-secret-ID-mechanistic-dot-connecting-dr-dr-dr-theory. You should be shaking in your boots. Just you wait.

Date: 2010/03/27 08:32:51, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quothe O'Leary:

"Look, once upon a time, women were forbidden military activities for the precise reason that one must, at various points … as the Scandinavians put it … lie down in the straw [to give birth].

The thought was, as a German once explained to me – you’ve already done your duty. Your country cannot ask more of you than what it has already."

I dunno, but my first thought "lie down in the straw" meant something else....

Date: 2010/03/28 13:35:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 28 2010,13:09)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 28 2010,11:55)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2010,09:35)
Dr. Dr. Dembski - The Philo 4483 Students await their next dangerous mission!

Well, these are just kids. And they are fundy Christian kids.

In their bent minds, calling scientists, or non-creationists satanists, the Damned, liars etc... are not insults.

However, pointing out that they are profoundly ignorant with the intellects of boiled peanuts is an attack on God, America, and Motherhood.

One reason I'm no longer a Christian... everyone I've ever met is a hypocrite... including my family.

The ones I have met are terrific: (of course, most of the ones I meet are Episcopalians) loving, generous and genuine. I am not one because I simply don't believe. Can't change that, though I have tried.

Date: 2010/03/31 19:30:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 31 2010,19:03)

THAT should be POTW!

Date: 2010/04/11 17:30:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Feliz Cumpleanos, Amigo!

yeah, I don't know how to add proper symbols

epic fail (hangs head in shame)

Date: 2010/04/23 07:03:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
bjray, may I make a suggestion, as a science educator? I came to this site several years ago, when ID was making the news. I had to educate myself (as I am not a biologist) so when parents asked about ID, I'd be able to answer. I started with, which was referred to often. Since I am not a biologist, I simply did not know how much evidence was out there. I read the site (yes it is huge-it took weeks) and read as many books as I could. What I found was this:

Laypeople, including scientists from other fields, really have no idea of the extent of evidence in a science discipline. My area, Chemistry (with a smattering of Geology) is enormous. However, no one outside the area seems too interested in challenging chemists with injecting supernatural; there is little in the subject to challenge anyone's belief in God. Of course, there is much debate on the cutting edge of the discipline: new evidence must be explained and evidence is gathered at a fearsome rate. However, no one suggests non-material explanations in Chemistry.

Of course, I've been to museums and read National Geographic. My spouse teaches elementary human evolution, so I have resources at my disposal, but they are only glimpses, drawn together in popular media for the likes of myself. It wasn't until I started digging that I found that there was so much out there.

So, my suggestion: I found two books that give a sort of snapshot of what is known in a narrow part of evolutionary theory. I now know that books like these could be written about most known organisms. The evidence included in these two books is a better glimpse of what scientists have gathered. One is by Neil Shubin, called Your Inner Fish, the other is my Carl Zimmer and is called By The Water's Edge.

My point in doing this: Creationists and ID proponents seem to be unaware of how much the natural world is observed, cataloged, measured, compared and collected by countless scientists. They seem to assume that all of human evolution comes out of a couple of dusty bones, or a skull here and there. Their claims are insulting to the thousands or even millions of scientists who put in the hard work decade after decade. I think in part this is why people get kind of short (and yes, profane) on a site like this.

Date: 2010/04/23 19:26:45, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 23 2010,09:09)
Shall we play a game?
Let's start with:
1) Evidence
2) Evolution
3) Fact
4) Intelligent Design
5) Irreducible Complexity
6) Theory

Ooooo! Pick me!

1) Evidence: an object, event or location whose characteristics can be counted, quantified or described
2) Evolution: Descent with modification or the theory that describes and explains it
3) Fact: Something that is falsifiable
4) Intelligent Design: a hypothesis that states that evidence for an intelligent intervention can be found in the natural world
5) Irreducible Complexity: a state of complexity that cannot be simplified without loss of function
6) Theory: an explanation of evidence (origin, mechanism and/or interrelationship)

Can I have my gold star now?

Date: 2010/04/24 16:58:55, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,16:23)
The debate between evolution and creationism/intelligent design is not over, even in a long shot.

Actually, there never was a debate. Not a scientific one.

Date: 2010/04/24 20:32:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Re. innate behavior: I would imagine that any female reading this would remember the strong maternal behavior they exhibited immediately after giving birth. It certainly surprised me. My response to my infant was visceral and uncontrollable, so much so that I still carry vivid memories 20 years later. Now when I see a female mammal with young and observe their behavior, my thoughts are "yeah, girlfriend, I know EXACTLY what you are going through!"

Date: 2010/04/25 07:42:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am starting to question not only the quality of this course, but the quality of all the courses at this institution (philosophy included) and the quality of the secondary school education you received, bjray. You seem to have your areas of science completely confused and you have a poor background in the basics of chemistry, biology and geology as well. As an educator, that concerns me. Your responses to questions and your inquiries seems somewhat like a algebra student trying to carry on a conversation in quantum mechanics. I am not sure there is enough time or this is the best forum to take you all the way back to where you and your understanding of science parted company. I'm afraid that would be the case even if you showed any inclination to learn, which you don't.

150 years ago, when Darwin published his book, the evidence from the natural world was so overwhelming. As a religious believer, Darwin sat on this evidence for a long time, it so contradicted what he "knew" from scripture. In the 150 years since that time, the many areas of science and the millions of scientists have gathered countless pieces of evidence, all of which are consistent with his basic theory: that the earth is billions of years old, that life has evolved and changed for hundreds of millions of years, and the driving forces of inherited characteristics, mutation, and natural selection can explain the fantastic diversity of life on the planet. Supported by genetics, embryology, plate tectonics, genome studies, biochemistry, radioisotopes, paleontology, stratigraphy; the list goes on and on. Evolution, in spite of what you have been told, is not a theory in crisis, has no competition from "other theories" and has no weaknesses. It is not complete and may never be, but nothing else comes close. If you had any education in these science areas, you'd already know this.

Is it important that you accept this? Perhaps not. The educator in me believes that a strong education in the sciences is essential for our country to thrive. You can't make good decisions as a citizen if you don't understand the world. Someone want to build a nuclear power plant in your back yard? You should know the basics to decide if the benefits are worth the risks. Being told that the earth is warming due to fossil fuel use? You should understand how climate scientists do their work. Is there a push to replace gasoline with ethanol? You should be able to judge ethanol for its energy content and the energy requirements for producing it compared with conventional fuel. Someone want to sell you a diet plan that is truly innovative? You should know the basics of metabolism, calories and nutrition. Contract a serious disease and looking for treatment options? Homeopathy and prayer by others have both been shown scientifically to have no impact on outcome. An educated citizen knows how to cut through hype and find what is real. Ignorance makes you vulnerable to scams and exploitation.

My guess is that you will go back to your philosophy course, show your professor and classmates printouts of how you managed to push the folks here at Panda's Thumb to anger, making them so frustrated by your squirrelly dodging of questions and inability to understand answers provided to you that they resorted to strong language. You and your like-minded friends will have a good laugh, you'll get your A, and you will depart the course knowing nothing more about science, evolution or the world. I hope that this experience would make you look beyond your sheltered fundy world, but nothing in your posts leads me to believe that is possible.

I am sorry that scientists are angry. But their anger is justified. People like your professor discount the work of millions of scientists-it's insulting. That would be okay, except they spread that ignorance to others (like you and your classmates) and try to impose it in schools. Scientists must stop their real work and go to defend sound science education from the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and the Discovery Institute in the face of a population that has to be educated over and over why these groups are wrong and should not be allowed to influence science education. The sad thing is the common thread here: these folks claim to be Christian, and yet lie freely and often. Not exactly admirable behavior.

Date: 2010/05/01 08:17:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am going to guess that the semester is about over, and we will not hear from these students again. I'd love to know what other blogs these guys posted on, and what the outcome was.

Date: 2010/06/07 08:52:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
"Now, you show me the burden of proof why a Neutron is unstable. Why the Neutron and Proton originally have the same mass, why the bostons know what to do and how to interact. Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, why in atoms, there are levels of energy and only so many electrons can travel in those levels, why atoms know how to and when to make covalent bonds instead of no covalent bonding, why a carbon-based molecule as the DNA could have suddenly appeared?"

I'll address these first, as I am a chemist, not a biologist.

Most particles have a half-life, including neutrons, which can split to form a proton and a beta particle (high energy electron)

Carbon is not the most plentiful element. Hydrogen and helium are by far the most common, as would be predicted by the unified theories of physics.

Bond nature depends on the electronegativity difference between elements. Atoms don't "know" what type of bond to form ( a rather odd notion, childish even) Carbon has 4 valence electrons, so it must form covalent bonds primarily given its size (can't have a large ionic charge) Because it can ond four times, it can make a variety of molecules.

Carbon-based molecules can be generated easily. Most simple carbon compounds exist in the earth's crust (think carbonate) and organic chemists have synthesized a wide variety of compounds from carbonate, methane, and other simple molecules.

Self-replicating RNA has been synthesized too:

we've come a long way from the "primordial soup" experiment

Date: 2010/06/23 08:36:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday! Hope it is lively (more so than your avatar, anyhoo)

Date: 2010/07/14 19:00:41, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (madbat.089 @ July 14 2010,18:10)
Quote (didymos @ May 13 2010,05:53)
Clive Hayden


2:26 am



ETA: Ah, I see the BlogCzar Czar has already entered it into the records.

sorry about the probably stupid question - I am just starting to figure out this whole blogging thing - does that mean there is a place around here where you guys preserve banned posts from UD? like the one (from me) you reference here? or since you didn't actually copy it into this thread, is it lost?
....just wondering....
since it took me just under a week to be banned at my first attempt to having a dialogue with that cuddle pile of psychotics, I feel strangely proud to have discovered the company of fellow scientists and science-readers that have functioning brains and a colorful banning record from IDiot blogs...


Hey madbat, may I be the first to welcome you? Even though I am not part of the main group, I can tell you that they do indeed save the record of your banning.

Date: 2010/07/18 09:45:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2010,08:05)
Skeptic, on most of your points, I agree totally.

However, there is one major point that I think you may not have considered.  Those 90% of the students that don't have critical thinking skills and no/little interest in learning will dominate the political landscape when they get to voting age.

At that point, we get people like McLeroy on the Texas School Board that both don't have any thinking skills AND are in a position to harm further education efforts.

You're right, there is no 'battle for science' in the sense that science will go away.  But there is a battle for the education of science and the US is in trouble.

Indeed: If critical thinking and the ability to understand science as a process is not emphasized, we generate a citizenry that is easily fooled into investing in garbage cures, garbage diets, UFO protection. We have a citizenry that considers prayer as effective approach to the problems of the day (like oil spills, drought, etc) We have a citizenry that cannot make appropriate decisions about fossil fuels, nuclear power, climate, safety, medicine, nutrition, public health. If evolution can be ignored because it might be deemed offensive or unnecessary, any science area can be ignored for the same reason. If you are taught that evolution is a conspiracy to separate you from your faith, then you can be lead to believe that other scientific facts are fabricated for political reasons and can be dismissed.

I run into adults that don't believe the scientific process is self-correcting (over time) or that the scientific community is very conservative (resistant to changing a paradigm) because they have no idea how science is done. Since few schools have their students DO science, they are not getting that part of their education. Since the hard sciences are pretty difficult and involve mathematics, few people take hard sciences in college, and many universities don't teach a liberal-arts approach to science, just applications in narrow fields.

As a science educator, I am very concerned. We now teach Chinese. Perhaps that's so we can work for them when they pass us in innovation and creativity in the sciences. I'm not sure, because I see some weaknesses in how the Chinese educate their kids, too.

Date: 2010/07/18 17:04:42, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 18 2010,15:27)
I keep hearing the phrase "critical thinking" from YECs (often from those with no science qualifications whatsoever) but what is it ?

I'm not sure this answers your question, but let me describe how science can taught, even at high school level but certainly in undergrad:

Once the students have gained a little experience and content, their hands on exercises can be open-ended inquiry. For example (obviously some disciplines are better adapted for this than others) a biology class can learn basic field techniques to do a local stream study or diversity survey. If the classes do this yearly, they can accumulate data that can be analyzed for statistical value, produce studies that the next year's students can expand on, or show changes or variation in a population. The methodology (collecting, sampling, journal writing, classifying, researching in books and on the web about habitat, etc) is what field scientists do.

Now, of course, this takes time. Time that right now is devoted to preparing for exams, like gateway, AP, etc. These are mostly content exams, and the content is dictated. Teachers must have the time to take students outside and teach them how to do science. Schools saddled with NCLB test score requirements won't. Schools with limited facilities, insufficient equipment and supplies, oversized or unruly classes and teachers teaching outside their area of expertise to fill gaps won't.

Other examples can be described in physics, chemistry, etc. where students design experiments (with guidance, of course) choose methods, select equipment that can perform the task to the precision desired, define and control variables, predict outcome, assemble class information and run statistics on it, etc. They can suggest sources of error that are common to all groups, or suggest how one group might have gotten a result that was different than the others.  That is science.

I know it's possible because my school does it, even at middle school level. But we have all the advantages and none of the problems that most schools have. Kids enjoy science because they do it, not just learn about it.

The amazing thing is there are teachers that pull it off in a few public schools, in spite of all the disadvantages I listed. Some do amazing things with environmental science, even in big cities. These innovative teachers scrounge for funds, involve local science groups and businesses, and generate lots of excitement.

Date: 2010/07/19 07:31:21, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Since science is really a collaborative exercise now, people don't realize that the days of the true science "rock star" like Darwin, Einstein, etc are over. Einstein was so brilliant that his ideas took decades to verify, as the technology had to catch up. There is so much out there now, no one can know it all. However, in their own area of expertise, there are lots of "experts" out there. We must trust that they can pass judgment on new ideas or new evidence for us. The importance of journals and peer review is greater than ever, but the public has no idea what peer review is.

I guess I really came to understand this on PT a couple of years ago. A radiograph of a fossil was posted, and various people were commenting on its traits. What became obvious is that these folks had worked with many, many fossils and could pick out details that were either reptilian or mammalian. Laypeople like me could not. I get angry when a hominid fossil is announced and creationists say "looks like an ape to me!" when they have no experience whatever in fossils. But the average citizen has no idea that people study things like this throughout their careers, and that mileage and experience really do count.

Recently a local paper published a story about the decline of amphibians in the area. The comments the website received indicated that no one even had an idea how scientists collected the information that showed the decline. Because they had "seen" a frog yesterday meant that they must be doing fine (no AGW therefore) so they clearly had no idea about the difference between anecdote and empirical data.

Date: 2010/07/19 08:58:29, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 19 2010,08:52)
Where do you teach Ike?  We may be moving in a year or so and I want my kid in classes like that.

How nice! I teach at a private school. I'd be happy to email you a linky to our website.

Date: 2010/07/26 08:31:31, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday!
(I'm older than you, but not by much)

May you enjoy many more!

Date: 2010/08/13 11:50:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 12 2010,16:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,13:54)

In the unlikely event that your irony meters have survived prolonged exposure to UD, the section
The claim that atheists tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men

is by Vox Day.


(rips off her helmet and drives her sword straight through)

(though I may be socially challenged. a bit. maybe)


Date: 2010/08/13 14:35:42, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Mindrover @ Aug. 13 2010,13:54)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 13 2010,11:50)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 12 2010,16:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2010,13:54)

In the unlikely event that your irony meters have survived prolonged exposure to UD, the section
The claim that atheists tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men

is by Vox Day.


(rips off her helmet and drives her sword straight through)

(though I may be socially challenged. a bit. maybe)


You're Odysseus?

No, I am woman (hear me roar)

That was a scene from LOTR, Return of the King. I'm afraid I'm not cultured enough for Odysseus.

Date: 2010/09/13 06:36:57, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 13 2010,03:38)
Presenting the Robert Byers Clear Writing Award:

As a biblical creationist(YEC) another problem is with the geological presumptions behind all this. I.D also presume the geology is more competent then the biology. It ain’t.
Its only been a few thousand years since they were fossilized.
This YEC sees water mammals as indeed land creatures that instantly adapted to the seas after the flood. it ws empty. likewise i see bats as instantly adapting to the air. No bats before the flood. The air was more empty.
mechanisms for this are difficult to comprehend as would be expected in physical things that today are not comprehended to a point of fixing/healing broken parts. Thats the clue to the whole complexity issue.
No intermediates will ever be found amongst creature lineages. in fact any slight change can be dismissed as mere local adaptation.
the water mammals today, like seals, make this case.
They live at the same time but if found in the fossils would be said to be ancestral to each other.


Date: 2010/09/21 18:07:49, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 21 2010,17:59)
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 21 2010,14:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2010,16:06)
Oh the slapdown commeth:

Petrushka is my new Hero!

Let the ID sputtering begin!

Damit, you made me look!

Me too.
Methinks there is a scent of bannination in the air....

Date: 2010/10/22 19:11:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 22 2010,17:00)
Coincidentally, I am headed to the Grand Canyon later this afternoon, so I can see the erosional effects of da fludde, watch the full moon rise over the canyon, and celebrate the world's birthday in style!

My most favorite place on earth. I'm jealous!

Date: 2010/12/16 06:47:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
"Over 2,000 PDFs downloaded

If you're considering submitting a manuscript to BIO-Complexity, you'll be pleased to know that in the two months since its launch, the journal has attracted a substantial readership.  At about two thousand abstract reads and a thousand PDF downloads per paper, BIO-Complexity compares very well with established online science journals.

Publish your work where it will be seen!"

Click on "Current":

Vol 2010

Research Articles
A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information PDF
George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William Dembski, Robert Marks
Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness PDF
Ann K Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F Fahey, Ralph Seelke
Critical Reviews
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds PDF
Douglas Axe

OK....Click on "Archives":


Vol 2010

1 - 1 of 1 Items    

I am......underwhelmed

Date: 2010/12/30 18:46:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 30 2010,18:11)
Indeed. This has turned into the same tired old science/religion, atheist/accomdationist circle-jerk that so many threads here and elsewhere turn into. Sometime I wonder whether you all that think about anything else!

For the simple reason that you’ve gotten off the topic of the post, I’m closing comments.  ---John Lynch

As 2010 comes to a close, let me offer one observation on the year.  You guys (and gals) think you're into defending science and such, don't you?  Of course you do.  You think that's why you're here.  True-blue, thru-and-thru, the guardians of science and rationality.

But in fact, that's NOT what you're really interested in, as the evolutionist quotation makes clear.   You actually are heavily and highly interested in discussing and defending RELIGION.  

In fact, your interest in religion frequently eclipses your interest in science.  Yes it does, so don't bother lying about it.  I've been here for years and I see it all the time.

Consider:  It's possible for a PandasThumb thread to git all frisky and get itself shut down WITHOUT ANY creationists or IDer's or trolls offering ANY posts on that thread at all.  

Which is precisely what happened today, of course.  Not one creo in the batch, and you evo's STILL messed up your own PT thread, killing it before even 3 full pages could be logged.

So why do I show up at Pandas or ATBC?  Because you obviously WANT me to show up.  Or at least you want to discuss God with somebody (viz., somebody who still believes the Bible, somebody who believes God is Creator and Evolution is Dogpoop, somebody who's not all dragged up through the atheistic evolutionary mud!!).

C'mon now boys.  You already know the God of the Bible exists out there, you know he calls the shots (which is why you're still alive btw), you know he created the entire universe including your rebellious fanny.  

And you know he did NOT use evolution to create humans.  Evolution will never be able to account for YOUR existence.  You're better, much better, than that.  You are an engineering marvel, full of teleology.  Evolution has no answers for you.  It never did.  

Plus God knows your name, your fame, your game, and your momma's too.  But that's another debate for another time.  God knows you--because he created you.

Point is, as you look back on 2010, take a long look at yourself and see how deeply interested YOU are in spiritual matters.  You WILL see some interest there, that's for sure (especially if such matters happen to clash with your favorite devil-religion commonly known as "Evolution.")  

Check it out and notice how your cherished beliefs in materialism, (especially materialism masquerading as science) get all tense and twangy when challenged by issues such as creationism, intelligent design, or even an occasional inconvenient Michael Ruse question.  Ask yourself why that's happening.

Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you!  May your 2011 truly be all blessed.  

(And may evolutionary theory truly be all cursed!!)


What the hell? Don't you have better things to do, like Bible study?
I don't see anyone here getting tense and twangy. (Twangy?? What exactly does that look like?)

Edited. Because I can. Nyah Nyah Nyah. Are you jealous yet?

Date: 2011/01/22 07:41:33, Link
Author: lkeithlu
You've had the floor now for several days. Are you going to make a scientific point sometime soon? Or are you just going to whine about PT? Being here isn't mandatory, you know. You don't like it, find another site to troll.

Date: 2011/01/22 11:46:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,09:13)
I regularly see peer reviewed, published scientific papers that should never have passed peer review or been published. There's plenty of bullshit in religion but there's also a lot of bullshit in science. I'd like to see scientists keep an open mind about ID and/or creation as long as religion is left out of ID and/or creation. Now, I realize that some of you will think that I'm crazy for even suggesting that and that ID and creation ARE religious and only religious. I think they can be separated from religion in the sense that we humans don't know what's behind everything on Earth or in the universe and unless we do know we should not say that ID or creation by some sort of intelligent entity are impossible. And by "intelligent entity" I don't mean some guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. If there is some intelligent entity behind everything I have no idea of who or what it may be.

Okay, I'll bite:

Although I acknowledge that peer review is imperfect, and yes some stuff gets in that shouldn't, I am having difficulty believing that you have vetted any scientific papers, given the content of the post in which this paragraph was found. You show a lot of misconception about what science is as well as what constitutes evidence. So, first, please list some papers you have found that should not have been published so we can deal with specifics. Ideally they would be in this topic, but others are okay too.

Second, if a "creator" is implied in creation, and in ID ("designer") they are by definition religious, unless you are talking about some inanimate object, work of art, stone tool, etc. The premise of religion is the supernatural source of life and consciousness, morality and emotion.

Date: 2011/01/23 08:36:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, I come back after a day or two and nothing is different. Big surprise. It's clear that Kris has nothing to discuss. Pity-it would have been fun watching him get his ass handed to him by the PT crowd. But an insult-throwing fest is hardly interesting....

Date: 2011/01/23 11:40:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday to both of ye! Many, many more.

Date: 2011/02/18 17:21:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'm a little late. Hope the remaining part is great too!

Date: 2011/03/26 09:49:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I don't exactly feel qualified to wade into this morass, but I will do so anyway: A question for Kevin:

Why does this film single out Hell?
From my perspective, you can't separate hell from all the other things that religion expects you to believe. Why only hell? As a non-believer, I lump it in with everything else supernatural: angels, heaven, gods, miracles, demons, devils, possession, prayer.
From a evolutionary perspective (ironically) religion makes perfect sense. As intelligence and self awareness grew, so did questions about how the world came to be and what happens after death. Humans have a natural tendency to perceive the world this way, and what they are taught by their society reinforces it. People who subscribe to the cultural beliefs are more successful in passing on their genes than those who don't.

At some level, I have to agree with the other posters here regarding your motives. Expelled was an awful and dishonest film, and gullible people accepted it as fact. As an educator, I see the country slipping more and more into a trend of rejecting sound science; my state is one of many who have pending legislation to allow the most recent manifestation of creationist interference ("academic freedom to teach weaknesses in evolution") Your film, I'm sad to say, is used as support for these efforts, making my job all the harder.

Date: 2011/04/02 17:17:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OMG! I am no longer with the banned!
I just posted this on that thread, and it went right through:

"People in our culture could not have been more thoroughly indoctrinated with Darwinian orthodoxy through the public school system and all the popular media, on a constant basis."

If that were true, the American public would know more about evolution. Sadly, it is avoided in the public schools; comments from posters whenever there is an article about evolution in the media show extreme ignorance of evolution, geology and biology. Few people educate themselves enough to be able to discern what's real and what's fantasy, in spite of lots of websites and popular books on the subject.

Date: 2011/04/03 14:28:32, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, all comments posted since 8PM last night are in moderation, in spite of the fact that a new thread challenging me to answer two questions has been put up since then, so it makes no sense that the comments haven't cleared yet. Only I can see them.

Date: 2011/04/03 18:39:57, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'm not sure what's going on. They have acknowledged that my posts are stuck, but nothing is happening. I'm not being obnoxious or profane, although I did post a couple times in a row to apologize for typos (I have a bad cold and am kind of loopy) and they said that doing that sometimes activates the spam filter. But they have had plenty of time to read my posts. I wonder what's wrong?

Anyhoo, I've saved both threads as of this morning in case they never show up. (I can see my own stuck posts when I'm logged in) I have a different user name-I went to UD before I found PT.

Date: 2011/04/03 19:44:24, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Back in moderation again! I tried my best to post only once and to be polite, but I want the interchange to stay on track. I am familiar with the work of several prominent anthropologists, and a good number of younger, mid-career anthropologists, geologists and primate researchers. (some are family or close friends) and this thread claimed that they are all deluded, they're making it all up and their work is wrong. Is it unreasonable to ask them to explain the hominid/ early primate fossil record from the perspective of their alternate paradigm? Those are pretty profound claims, IMHO. They keep going off into areas I can't follow, or asking me questions (in areas I don't know) and my comments are stuck in moderation for hours.

Date: 2011/04/03 19:54:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I'm afraid those are the comments from last night and this morning. The ones from the last couple of hours are still in moderation; in the meantime other posters have commented, which is going to make mine look out of context when it finally appears.

Date: 2011/04/03 20:38:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still no answer from Mr. Focus, just something about information. Is my question unreasonable, given the claim in the original thread?

Date: 2011/04/03 21:17:40, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Yeah, again I get a lecture on metaphysics when what I asked for was explanation of the fossil record from their paradigm. It takes way too long to make progress when a) they won't address the original claim of the post, which by the way was THEIR claim, not mine and b) my posts spend hours (12 or more) in moderation while others post on; when mine finally appears it's way too old.

I thought my question was appropriate. The fossils exist, so explain them. Think evolution is the wrong paradigm? Fine-explain them using another. They kept switching to cell biology or computer stuff, neither of which seems to apply.

Oh well; could have spent my day doing something else. Now I really see that there is nothing out there except evolutionary theory. If I thought it would help, I would have dropped some names but it was clear they didn't care if I was friends with Einstein himself. I found there statements about physical anthropologists really shocking and presumptuous, especially in light of the fact that they appeared to know almost nothing about the fossil record, and still felt they had the authority to dismiss it and the work of many scientists as nonsense. That takes a lot of moxey. I don't think you could get away with that in the real world, only in the virtual world. (or at least I hope not)

Date: 2011/04/04 06:02:17, Link
Author: lkeithlu
After more than 10 hours stuck in moderation, my departing post is still not up. This is what I said:

8:10 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Well, folks, between spending hours in moderation and finding that no one is able to answer the original question, I guess it’s time to move on. Metaphysical arguments against evolution is not the same as explaining the evidence from a different paradigm. In science, if your explanation is better than the last, you should be able to show it, and no one is willing to do so here. I have to conclude that you all are a long way from providing anything that can remotely challenge evolution as the reigning paradigm. I had hoped you would have something. Perhaps you need to find an anthropologist to join you? A anyway, good luck. I think I’ll stick with my spouse and associates on this one, as they can address the specifics about the distribution, age and features of the fossils. You can’t ignore that they exist, so explaining them can’t be avoided.

One final point-unless you fix your moderation system, you’ll not have many here offering a different perspective. 8,10,12 hours or more before a post appears is just too long; it disrupts the conversation and makes posts appear out of context.

Date: 2011/04/04 09:16:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Mark Frank @ April 03 2011,15:45)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 03 2011,14:28)
Well, all comments posted since 8PM last night are in moderation, in spite of the fact that a new thread challenging me to answer two questions has been put up since then, so it makes no sense that the comments haven't cleared yet. Only I can see them.

I am not in moderation - I will point this out.

My last posts have been in moderation for well over 12 hours, yet they come on thinking that they are actually conversing with me. Surely at least O'Leary, whose threads these are knows that my posts are not going through. This seems dishonest to me.

Date: 2011/04/04 10:14:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (J-Dog @ April 04 2011,09:30)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 04 2011,09:16)
Quote (Mark Frank @ April 03 2011,15:45)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 03 2011,14:28)
Well, all comments posted since 8PM last night are in moderation, in spite of the fact that a new thread challenging me to answer two questions has been put up since then, so it makes no sense that the comments haven't cleared yet. Only I can see them.

I am not in moderation - I will point this out.

My last posts have been in moderation for well over 12 hours, yet they come on thinking that they are actually conversing with me. Surely at least O'Leary, whose threads these are knows that my posts are not going through. This seems is dishonest. to me.

Fixed That For You!

I am starting to think so. This post showed up this morning:

6:42 am
All this is most interesting, but I still haven’t given up on KL, as to whether there is any theory fronted in Darwin’s name that he does not think credible.

which may indicate that O'Leary is NOT the moderator and has no access to posts that are in moderation (which seems odd but is possible)


it's a smokescreen, saying "where's KL; why isn't he answering?" when all along they know that I can't, and want to portray my silence as an admission of defeat.

Date: 2011/04/04 10:19:05, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Incidentally, my spouse the primatologist, looked over the UD thread and exclaimed how many quotes from anthropologists were taken out of context and did not mean what the posters insinuated. Of course, as a working scientist completely oblivious to the political fighting over this topic, did not know what the term "quote-mine" was.

Date: 2011/04/04 13:26:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
This just showed up:

"bornagain77 @ 13

I’m impressed by your breadth of reading about these issues. The Origin-of-Life Prize looks very interesting. They certainly have some amazing people on their panel of judges.

It’s a major credit to Uncommon Descent that it’s given KL the opportunity of explaining his position in this thread!"

And my comment is still in moderation.

Date: 2011/04/05 15:10:20, Link
Author: lkeithlu
6:07 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Well, I am happy to answer questions to the best of my ability, but the reason I came to this site was because of the statements made on the other thread, and I would really like an answer to my original question before we proceed, as that will direct my thoughts in the correct way. No offense meant, but the topic of physical anthropology and the fossil record came first.

33 hours in moderation

8:10 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Well, folks, between spending hours in moderation and finding that no one is able to answer the original question, I guess it’s time to move on. Metaphysical arguments against evolution is not the same as explaining the evidence from a different paradigm. In science, if your explanation is better than the last, you should be able to show it, and no one is willing to do so here. I have to conclude that you all are a long way from providing anything that can remotely challenge evolution as the reigning paradigm. I had hoped you would have something. Perhaps you need to find an anthropologist to join you? A anyway, good luck. I think I’ll stick with my spouse and associates on this one, as they can address the specifics about the distribution, age and features of the fossils. You can’t ignore that they exist, so explaining them can’t be avoided.

One final point-unless you fix your moderation system, you’ll not have many here offering a different perspective. 8,10,12 hours or more before a post appears is just too long; it disrupts the conversation and makes posts appear out of context.

31 hours in moderation

1:31 pm
Joseph @ 23

From what I’ve read, Dr Behe accepts the fossil record as one part of the evidence for common descent. I was wondering why GilDodgen thinks it is “impossible” to “establish ancestor-descendant relationships from the fossil record”.. But of course ID is a big tent and we can agree to disagree on that.

I’m more interested in what KL has to say.

Don't hold your breath, hon.

This is pretty blatant.

Date: 2011/04/06 06:18:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Sometime during the night, my comment (#14) made it out of moderation, much more than 33 hours past the time and of course it is no longer relevant and is buried in the thread. What a bunch of cowards.

A few minutes ago I posted this as an experiment.
Will it take another 30 hours? Will it show up at all?

My last post (#14) did not show up until 15 other posts had come up, meaning that it spend well over 30 hours in moderation. This is really dishonest. In addition, my original question was never addressed. My spouse looked over this and the original thread and exclaimed that the anthropologists quoted here were taken out of context and did not mean what you implied.

I stick by my original assertion that you do not yet have a theory that can supplant evolution in explaining the physical evidence, including the fossil record.

Date: 2011/04/06 09:59:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Last was moderated for a couple of hours; meantime it is posted that I ran away after receiving an answer. (Which I had not), so I posted this:

8:56 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It looks like my last (#31) spent FAR less time in moderation.

I remind you that the original thread was a claim regarding the fossil record. A specific claim that I asked to be supported with evidence. Anthropologists make hypotheses based on really good familiarity with the fossils and understanding of comparative anatomy. The original thread did not mention cellular biology, molecular biology, metaphysics, or computer programming. Just fossils. So, if you are going to make that claim, and the subsequent claim that anthropologists have wasted their entire careers chasing a fantasy, from a scientific standpoint you should offer a better explanation of the specifics (age, features, distribution) of the fossil record. To divert to another topic is evasion.

Date: 2011/04/06 16:57:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Post 55 in moderation for more than 3 hours now:

1:40 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

If you want your ideas to be considered science, you must do what scientists do: the hard work of developing explanations for evidence. Detailed work involving mechanisms, patterns, empirical and relative ages, geographic distribution, biometrics, variations within and between related species. To answer scientific questions by claiming another paradigm but then not using that paradigm to offer a better explanation is not science. That’s fine, if you don’t care to be called scientists or what you do science. But, if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. Don’t try to play scientist by offering up analogies that are meaningless in practice, philosophy instead of mechanisms, and claims you cannot support with evidence.
Not to mention outrageous statements about scientists wasting their careers; scientists who have done and continued to do the hard work of science.

QuiteID, the paradigm of evolution has stood the test of time, and continues to explain all the evidence, even down to the tiniest detail, very well. A shift in paradigm is an extraordinary claim, which must be demonstrated by extraordinary evidence. Philosophical explanations and computer science analogies are not sufficient to convince any scientist to abandon the reigning paradigm.

New post:

Reams of typing, quotemines of Gould offered by Philip Johnson, who I think has perfected the art, an piece from Proverbs, more metaphysics, but nothing regarding the age, features or distribution of the hundreds of hominid fossils. Plus, another post in moderation for going on 3.5 hours.

Date: 2011/04/06 17:25:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
She can always come join us here; I am sure I am about to be banned for the 2nd time since 2006.

Date: 2011/04/06 17:31:19, Link
Author: lkeithlu
New post:
Interesting that you bring up the placental/marsupial divergence. If there was ever an actively researched and well documented evolutionary sequence, that is it. Backed by work in several areas of science, too. It's fascinating and it's all evolution. I have not seen anything using another paradigm that can explain it. Yes, the picture is not complete, but more information is coming in about the mechanisms, chronology, and changes in the genetic sequences that make these two lines different. And it's ALL evolution. No other paradigm.

Date: 2011/04/06 19:00:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (olegt @ April 06 2011,18:53)
Watch ID heads assplode.

Assplode? I don't wanna assplode!

Jayne Cobb, FireFly

Date: 2011/04/06 20:20:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Woodbine @ April 06 2011,19:59)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 07 2011,01:00)
Quote (olegt @ April 06 2011,18:53)
Watch ID heads assplode.

Assplode? I don't wanna assplode!

Jayne Cobb, FireFly


(strictly speaking)

Oops-you're right

Date: 2011/04/06 21:10:10, Link
Author: lkeithlu
1:40 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

6+ hours now

4:00 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

3+ hours

Date: 2011/04/07 07:20:23, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I posted this after a very long rant from UD:

In other words (and that's a lot of words) you have no real working knowledge of the fossil record so you dismiss evolution based on metaphysics. Sorry-that's not doing science. And that is not an answer to my very direct and very concrete question regarding the ORIGINAL claim of the original thread about hominid fossils in general and Lucy and Ida specifically. Of course, this comment will be in moderation for hours, so no one will see it.

Date: 2011/04/07 12:58:27, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I have too much to do to keep up this little charade, so:

11:59 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Sorry, but until you have explained the fossils and their ages, distribution and features using another paradigm, the old one stands.

Interesting that now you criticize my integrity and citizenship-how arrogant:

“KL, you need to take some serious reflection time, and look at what you have been doing, and how you have dealt with other people.

Not just on the topics and issues that happen to be under discussion, but as a duty of basic membership of the human civil community.”

after you declared the work of my friends, associates and spouse to be a waste of career and a delusion, yet cannot answer to the specific claims that you and others here have made. And you wonder why the science community fails to take your claims seriously. Anyone can criticize the hypotheses made by scientists, but those critiques are meaningless until alternatives are offered.

Finally, I never made any comments that would lead you to believe that I am a “sir”, yet you have assumed so. I am female, and my (male) spouse finds what has been posted here on this site completely off the mark regarding anthropology. You have demonstrated not only evasion, but dishonesty, which discerning onlookers should recognize easily.

Date: 2011/04/07 20:49:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I had to be out for the last 6 hours, so I return to declare that Jemima is my new HEEEEE-ROOOOH!! Talk about a slap down. Better than I could do. I think my efforts would have gone the way of mathgrrl's; ask the same question over and over in the face of blithering evasion.

Date: 2011/04/10 14:47:10, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I am out of touch for 48 hours, and I can see that although the thread has grown enormously thanks to JR, nothing has changed. Still no evidence that KF knows the least bit about hominids. Too funny! I stand in awe of JR!

Date: 2011/04/10 15:38:55, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I posted this for Clive:

"If their paradigm and premise is evolution, then yes. If you think this tragic, I agree with you."

Since Mr. Focus, after some 250 posts on this thread, still can't answer, perhaps you can?
If evolution is not the correct paradigm, then offer an explanation of the features, ages and distribution of the hominid fossils using another paradigm, one that explains the details better than evolutionary theory.

Of course, assuming this EVER makes it out of moderation.

Date: 2011/04/11 07:55:25, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday!

Another year for me to get smarter so's I can understand your posts.

Date: 2011/04/11 09:27:04, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still in moderation-almost 20 hours. :angry:

Date: 2011/04/11 11:08:00, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2011,10:06)
Clive steps in to save the day!

So I answer with this:




10:06 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

That isn’t an explanation, but the title of a paradigm. Use “intelligent design" to explain the specifics of the ages, distribution and features of the fossil record (let’s keep it to hominids, shall we? the original reason for this post) In science, if your paradigm does a better job, you must demonstrate this. Use it to explain the evidence. The details of the evidence have been explained by evolution (granted, it must be modified to fit new evidence but it does very well).

Just telling me the paradigm is not enough. Use it. Oh, BTW-this will be in moderation for the next 20 hours or so. That seems to be the MO and no one here is interested in addressing the fact that those who want these answers (not all obviously: Indium and JR seem too go through) are moderated for long periods of time. For example, the post you responded to was in moderation for 20+ hours.

See you in 20 hours.

Edited because I can, but I can't on UD so the mistakes have to stay.

Date: 2011/04/11 15:53:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OMG! Out of moderation already!!!!

Okay, Clive-baby-I'm ready for your answer.

Date: 2011/04/12 05:46:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Just to save y'all the agony of loading 275+ posts:




3:50 am

So radiometric dating, which has demonstrated its usefulness thousands of times, which has been tested for objects with known ages probably hundreds of times, which gives results that are consistent with many completely independend methods, which has an amazingly large body of knowledge and supporting theory behind it, with papers being published almost on a daily basis, which has been the topic of complete text books (Dalrymple and many more) with lots of examples and fully worked out test cases is not a good tool and the incredibly weak “where you there” argument applies.

FSCI however, a term somebody on the internet invented, a term that can´t really be defined let alone be demonstrated for various theoretical or practical test cases and which in any case just calculates the chance hypotheses for the tornado in the junkyard scenario, that is a reliable tool and “where you there” does not apply?

The mind boggles.

Oh, and sorry if I really pushed

   “ridiculous things into your mouth that don´t belong there.”

There really is no need to. My apologies.

If you don´t mind, I am still interested in the link to the paper mentioning the 9ky age for the Lascaux cave. Also, please back up your claim that 200y old lava has been dated to be millions of years old. This is a well known creationist misrepresentation as far as I know.




4:29 am


a debater with a strong case doesn’t need to resort to insults.




4:44 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Collin, a debater with extraordinary claims that has the detailed evidence to back it up and a better explanation than the existing paradigm need not resort to evasion, philosophical arguments or changing the topic. I suspect that not only does this paradigm not explain the evidence, the folks here don’t know anything about the evidence. I have yet to see any details about the hominid fossils explained here using any other paradigm, which was the extraordinary claim on the original thread that spawned THIS thread.

The posters here dismiss the work of countless scientists as fantasy and delusion, yet show no knowledge of the fossil record. I’ve had Plato, the Bible, and quotemines from Gould tossed my way but after almost 280 posts, no explanation regarding the specifics of the fossil record. Anthropologists use dating, biometrics, geology, and comparisons to existing species and other fossils in their explanation; I expect nothing less from someone who claims to have a better paradigm.

Oh, and my posts are held in moderation for hours, but that seems to be getting a bit better.

Date: 2011/04/12 06:17:12, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Indium responds here:




4:56 am


I agree. I am sorry, what are you referring to? English is not my first language and sometimes I make mistakes

Explosion? or crickets? Put your money on the table.

Date: 2011/04/15 15:00:38, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still trying to get an answer, and to get my posts through moderation:

8:11 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Given the experience I, JR, Indium, mathgrrl and others are having on this thread trying to get regulars here to answer to claims made, it is becoming clear to me that this site is all hat and no cattle. I have been asked questions without being given a straight answer for my original question, answering the original claims of the thread, which is:

If you say that the work of anthropologists in coming up with explanations for the features, ages and distributions of the hominid fossils are misguided, incorrect, even delusional, what is YOUR explanation of these details using YOUR paradigm in place of evolution? The only fossil mentioned has been Lucy, but she is one of hundreds, and Lucy is described in the context of the other fossils, their locations, features and relative ages. Metaphysical explanations, Bible and Plato quotes, and computer analogies don’t count. And, simply saying “intelligent design” is not an explanation.

For onlookers that (finally) see this post, you should know that it is being submitted at 9:10 AM CDT, as it will appear in the order it was received but will not show up for hours, the selective moderation policy being another piece of evidence to the dishonesty of this site.

Moderation now almost 6 hours.

Date: 2011/04/15 16:52:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 15 2011,16:23)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 15 2011,15:00)
Still trying to get an answer, and to get my posts through moderation:

8:11 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Given the experience I, JR, Indium, mathgrrl and others are having on this thread trying to get regulars here to answer to claims made, it is becoming clear to me that this site is all hat and no cattle. I have been asked questions without being given a straight answer for my original question, answering the original claims of the thread, which is:

If you say that the work of anthropologists in coming up with explanations for the features, ages and distributions of the hominid fossils are misguided, incorrect, even delusional, what is YOUR explanation of these details using YOUR paradigm in place of evolution? The only fossil mentioned has been Lucy, but she is one of hundreds, and Lucy is described in the context of the other fossils, their locations, features and relative ages. Metaphysical explanations, Bible and Plato quotes, and computer analogies don’t count. And, simply saying “intelligent design” is not an explanation.

For onlookers that (finally) see this post, you should know that it is being submitted at 9:10 AM CDT, as it will appear in the order it was received but will not show up for hours, the selective moderation policy being another piece of evidence to the dishonesty of this site.

Moderation now almost 6 hours.

As I understand it, QuiteID also seems to have been silently banninated.  He'd appreciate it if you could mention that too.

I will, unless of course I have been put in permanent moderation!

Date: 2011/04/15 21:26:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 15 2011,16:23)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 15 2011,15:00)
Still trying to get an answer, and to get my posts through moderation:

8:11 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Given the experience I, JR, Indium, mathgrrl and others are having on this thread trying to get regulars here to answer to claims made, it is becoming clear to me that this site is all hat and no cattle. I have been asked questions without being given a straight answer for my original question, answering the original claims of the thread, which is:

If you say that the work of anthropologists in coming up with explanations for the features, ages and distributions of the hominid fossils are misguided, incorrect, even delusional, what is YOUR explanation of these details using YOUR paradigm in place of evolution? The only fossil mentioned has been Lucy, but she is one of hundreds, and Lucy is described in the context of the other fossils, their locations, features and relative ages. Metaphysical explanations, Bible and Plato quotes, and computer analogies don’t count. And, simply saying “intelligent design” is not an explanation.

For onlookers that (finally) see this post, you should know that it is being submitted at 9:10 AM CDT, as it will appear in the order it was received but will not show up for hours, the selective moderation policy being another piece of evidence to the dishonesty of this site.

Moderation now almost 6 hours.

As I understand it, QuiteID also seems to have been silently banninated.  He'd appreciate it if you could mention that too.

Well, 12 hours in moderation now-could it be that I too have been silently "banned"?

Date: 2011/04/17 06:29:39, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,04:46)
idcurious has been silently banned, with some posts vanished. The UD regulars are clucking away how he's run off leaving their points unanswered. Just another day in that vacuum of intellect and integrity which is Uncommon Descent.

His life is archived here, mainly because it will annoy Clive.

Apologies to anyone who sat through it. Sorry too, Sparc, that IDC didn't get to reference the 1969 Nobel Prize. It was next on his list.

Hello again Onlookers. It's been a while since I de-lurked.

It appears that I have been too. My last post has been in moderation now for 48 hours. Without the courtesy of an official bannination.

Date: 2011/04/18 16:17:47, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (PTET @ April 17 2011,07:09)
idcurious and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9

Yup-the few posts I've written in the last 3 1/2 days are still hidden. Cowards. They didn't have the decency to ban me publicly. I should demand my public banning NOW!

What good is negative attention if no one else sees it?

Date: 2011/04/18 17:46:48, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 18 2011,17:17)
What good is negative attention if no one else sees it?

Can I again suggest a sock-withdrawal experiment. Being ignored is much less fun than being told you are wrong. It worked for a while at TT and, from personal experience, I know it works with children and dogs. Why not use Side-Wiki instead?

A good idea, and I like to read the posts on SideWiki, but my google email is through my school, which has blocked my access to making a profile so I can't post. I'll just have to live vicariously through the posts of others!

Date: 2011/04/18 18:18:01, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Since I can't post to sidewiki (work-related email doesn't allow me to access) I'll post this here from a new thread at UD:

5:06 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

This is a test to see if I have been silently banned. My comment for this thread is as follows: How does this article support your premise that science should include the supernatural?

When you have the time, my original question regarding the hominid fossil record has not been answered.


Date: 2011/04/20 05:58:34, Link
Author: lkeithlu
My post on the Geosciences thread appeared after two days. So I posted this, and cross posted to the most recent thread:

4:57 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

OK, that’s a start-2 days in moderation, although my last post on the thread WITH MY NAME ON IT has been in moderation for 5 days and counting. With this moderation policy my question is held until the conversation moves on before appearing, so I don’t get an answer.

I will ask again: Explain the fossil record for hominids (ages, features, distribution) using, as another poster said, the paradigm of ID. If ID is to be treated as science, it must explain the existing evidence (and new evidence) better than evolution.

Date: 2011/04/20 08:24:55, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Posted this. See how long it takes to show up.

7:25 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

That’s not addressing the original claim, Joseph. The claim is that the explanations by physical and paleo-anthropologists is WRONG. So, if ID is the new paradigm, use it. Use it to explain the features, ages and distribution of the fossils. That’s what scientific theories are for. The authors here made these claims, essentially dismissing the work of my spouse and colleague. They made the claim, so they need to support it.

Maybe you want to give it a go? No one else here seems to want to.


Date: 2011/04/20 20:13:18, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Because I languish in moderation:

4:57 am
OK, that’s a start-2 days in moderation, although my last post on the thread WITH MY NAME ON IT has been in moderation for 5 days and counting. With this moderation policy my question is held until the conversation moves on before appearing, so I don’t get an answer.

I will ask again: Explain the fossil record for hominids (ages, features, distribution) using, as another poster said, the paradigm of ID. If ID is to be treated as science, it must explain the existing evidence (and new evidence) better than evolution.

7:17 am

ID is not anti-evolution, meaning you need a blind watchmaker explanation (for the fossils), not just an evolutionary explanation. Good luck with that.

Also ID does not require the supernatural. With ID it is ARTIFICIAL vs natural.

7:25 am
That’s not addressing the original claim, Joseph. The claim is that the explanations by physical and paleo-anthropologists is WRONG. So, if ID is the new paradigm, use it. Use it to explain the features, ages and distribution of the fossils. That’s what scientific theories are for. The authors here made these claims, essentially dismissing the work of my spouse and colleague. They made the claim, so they need to support it.

Maybe you want to give it a go? No one else here seems to want to.

7:47 am
But anyway KL- could you ask your spouse (and her colleague) if there is any genetic evidence that can be linked to the transformations.

IOW how can we test the claim that the fossils they have represent a lineage or tree or bush- that is represent common ancestry?

The point being is with 35 million years and new genes fruit flies are still fruit flies. Yet you expect us to accept that a slower reproducing population can make great gains in a shorter time period.

10:40 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joseph, you are not answering the question. Explain the hominid fossil record from the ID paradigm. To do so you must actually discuss the fossils: their features, ages and distribution. Until you do (or someone does) the paradigm of evolution still reigns. That’s how science works. So, Wanna try again?

6:36 pm
OK KL, I will explain the pattern you (your wife and her colleague) see with the fossils- patternicity

7:12 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joseph, that is simply not addressing the specifics. If you at UD know so much about these fossils that you know a better explanation than the folks that have done the work throughout their careers, then let’s have it. But you must use the specific features, ages and geographic distributions when doing so. The details matter.

BTW, I am female-my spouse is my husband. AND that’s colleagueS. Many colleagues that are anthropologists and biologists and geologists.

Of course, this post like my last one will; be in moderation for awhile. My last post was at 10:40 AM. I’s now after 7PM.

Date: 2011/04/21 06:55:59, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Continuing conversation with Joseph:

5:26 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Regarding this article:
Having a background in both education and geoscience, I am curious as to why the ID community finds it relevant. The difficulty of measuring the effectiveness of education in any discipline area is common, and because you are working with complicated subjects (students) the work takes on a different nature than when working in the science field. So what? The fields of educational psychology and research methods handle this conflict just fine. How does that figure into the debate between “materialist” restrictions of science and ID?

Of course, as usual, this will be hours in moderation. I am writing and submitting at 5:20 AM MDT, which appears to be the time that the blog server records.

Oh, and Joseph, I eagerly await your answer regarding the hominid fossil record.

Passed in cyber space with this:
5:25 am
KL/ lkeithlu:

Explain the hominid fossil record from the ID paradigm.

ID is not anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry.

The fossils are of organisms that once lived.

Thre, they are explained.

Patternicity explains the pattern evos “see”.

Can you follow along?

Until you do (or someone does) the paradigm of evolution still reigns.

What “evolution” reigns? Blind watchmaker evolution or Intellignet Dsign evolution?

Or are you just clueless, lkeithlu?

5:53 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Hmmm… posts crossing in cyberspace.

“The fossils are of organisms that once lived.

Thre, they are explained.”

Hardly. No mention of a single fossil, bone interface, location, age or relative age, digit length or joint angle. Anthropologists use specifics. Biometrics. Dating techniques. Stratigraphy. Anatomy of present species. Comparisons with other fossils. You will have to do better, or admit you don’t know the science.

“What “evolution” reigns? Blind watchmaker evolution or Intellignet Dsign evolution?”

Explain the evidence using “Intelligent Design Evolution”

“Or are you just clueless, lkeithlu?”

My username here is KL, as I came here long before I went to PT. I decided not to try and change it to lkeithlu here because I thought it would be interpreted as an attempt to bypass my earlier banning. I was banned by DaveScot for questioning the posts regarding the Templeton Foundation. I hit a nerve. SideWiki on my original thread directed viewers to PT when it was clear that my posts are held in moderation WAY longer than others. In fact, one post has been in moderation since last Friday morning. I’d love an explanation, but none seems forthcoming. I have not used bad language.

He's on to me! Curses!
Actually, I never tried to conceal my cross posting to PT.

Date: 2011/04/21 08:20:02, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Because this is progressing (in kind of a goofy way because of the moderation time) I will continue to cross post here. At the least Joseph can see it before the moderation lifts:
7:04 am

Explain the hominid fossil record from the ID paradigm.

Seeing that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry and seeing tat fossils cannot tell us anything about mechanisms, ID is OK with the way the fossils are currently explained.

7:08 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Sorry, Joseph, but you appear to be in disagreement with both kairosfocus and O’Leary. They specifically said that my spouse and his numerous colleagues had wasted their careers chasing a fantasy. So, do you break with the ID crowd here?

Date: 2011/04/21 08:53:43, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Long post from kairosfocus:

7:32 am

I am afraid you are playing at turnabout challenge, burden of proof shifting, and defaulting on a prioris to evo mat; again.

So, KL, it is time for you to now show by writing out a true and fair summary that you understand what we are saying, and that you have moved beyond setting up, sliming and knocking over rhetorically convenient strawman opponents.

Then, you can explain to us how the Dawkinsian Blind Watchmaker evo mat view accounts successfully, step by step, on evidence, for the human linguistic capacity.

For, unlike ID — a specifically minimalist theme on detecting design as causative factor on empirically reliable signs thereof, it claims to be a successful and complete account of origins of life forms.


7:47 am
Alfred Russel Wallace

7:50 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“For, unlike ID — a specifically minimalist theme on detecting design as causative factor on empirically reliable signs thereof..”

That’s exactly what I am asking you to do here, applied to the hominid fossil record. So, let’s have it.

I now have 4 posts in moderation, all parts of a conversation. To an onlooker this thread must look pretty goofy.

Date: 2011/04/21 11:02:44, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still in moderation.  :angry:
Not sure how much I want to add to KF's non-answer to joseph, who then exposes himself as a bootlicker.

Date: 2011/04/21 12:57:53, Link
Author: lkeithlu
A message for Joseph, who obviously comes here:

You are a bootlicker because you thanked KF for that completely useless answer.  I did not want this post to wait in moderation. My posts are not moderated because I called you a bootlicker; I am beginning to think I am moderated because I ask KF and others to support what they say.

Date: 2011/04/21 13:38:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Thanks. It will be the second time.

Date: 2011/04/21 14:13:52, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I guess what gets my goat (no offense, Louis) is their making a specific claim to me (yes, addressed to me) and then fail to address the claim and act as if I am not answering when in fact my posts stay in moderation for days at a time. The dishonesty is so obvious.

The length of KF's posts (mostly theology and philosophy instead of science), the moderation policy and the number of new threads each day pushes the conversation off the radar before it can be completed. I guess that's deliberate too.

And, my use of the term bootlicker pales in comparison to the statement that my spouse and colleagues' work is nonsense and a waste of a career. If I get banned for calling a spade a spade, I don't mind, as long as they say outright that I am banned. Dave Scot was a blowhard, but at least he was forthright in banning.

Date: 2011/04/21 15:28:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (Kristine @ April 21 2011,15:24)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2011,14:16)
In all honesty, if it wasn't for you guys belling the cat in it's litterbox, UD would be the biggest, most useless circle jerk since the fall of the USSR's Politburo.

I suspect we'd see a blackhole of tard, at least until the denzions passed their own Schwarzschild radius.  At that point, they will create their own private server that no one else can see or visit and hopefully, they would never venture off of it.

Joe could sit in his mom's basement and blabber on about the mating habits of asexual organisms, the obviousness that trees made of steel could be taller than trees made of wood, and the ultimate expression of IDiocy, a multi-Megayear study of the fungus growing on the edge of his toilet that slowly becomes intelligent and tells him what a douche he actually is.

Gordon, could write epically long posts where he repeats "Onlookers note" millions of times.  The rate at which modern storage hardware is becoming larger and cheaper means that it could someday reach the point where the amount of storage could contain the nearly infinite ramblings of his monkey brain.  If infinitely many monkeys on infinitely many typewriters in an infinite amount of time can develop the works of Shakespeare, what works would be the result of one monkey on one keyboard in whatever remains of his pathetic life?

O'Leary would find that a pure coffee diet is the ultimate weightloss program.  At some point after her 300 billionth post, she realizes that he has become a thin layer of skin flopped onto an ergonomic office chair with an intrevenous drip of COFFEE!!! and a spray bottle of moisterizer set on a 10 minute timer.  She will, unfortunately, remain the closest thing to an actual human in the UD-hole.*  

Other, specially** invited guests will occasionally join, but much like a roach motel, the self-congratulatory behavior and positive forced-feedback system within the UD-hole will forever trap those within.  They will be unable to communicate with anyone outside of their limted circle of intellectual equals***.

Our only hope to study the UD-hole will be to watch the pieces of intellect that escape from the hole as others are specially invited in.  These pieces of intellect will tell us a great deal about the activities within the hole (thereby proving that Hawkins was correct and some information can escape).  

Snippets of wisdom will begin with complex equations and deep philosophical utterings.  While these would be easily proven incorrect by a particularly bright Australian sheepdog, there is at least a semblence of mental accument.  As time passes, the UD-hole will grow, yet thanks to our knowledge of thermodynamics, the intellilectual ability within the hole will be spread out among a larger and larger volume until finally we get phrases like, "dog food can be a nutritional supplement, I saw it in a movie" and "my toes smell like rancid horse ejacula".

Soon, no actual directly translatable communication will exist and we will be forced to assign meaning to occasional outburst of grunting and making inferences about the author from the mere tonal qualities of seemingly random bits of data.  (For example: "Urkula" might mean, "Joe, quit saying ID is not anti-evolution you idiot.  No one can hear us in here.  We can talk freely now."****)

Those you who wish to prevent this from occurring, my hat is off to you.  For you are tangling with a force more powerful than any yet discovered in the natural world.  Even gravity fades to insignificance over the light-years, but stupidity is remorseless.

*With respect to Dr. Who.

**"Small Bus", not "unique"

***and a subset of small African dung beetles (termites in Joe's case).

**** Although, some actual scientists studying the phenomenon will submit that the same phrase is also uttered when a UD-hole denzion is dealing with a particularly difficult bowel evacuation.

I second. All in favor say AYE?

Date: 2011/04/21 18:19:00, Link
Author: lkeithlu
While all four of my posts remain in moderation, and the last one on the original thread is still in moderation now for a full week, it is impossible to have a normal exchange. Since Joseph obviously knows how to find me here, I have a message:

5:19 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

A message to Joseph: Since you know where to find me at PT, and my posts languish here in moderation (5 on this thread now, and one on the original thread is still in moderation after a full week) why don’t you come there and let’s continue this discussion. You will not be moderated there, and that way each can answer the other promptly. If you are sure of your ideas and have the courage, you’ll come. If you need to have this advantage of my being moderated, you won’t.

Will he come? Is he man enough to discuss this issue without my being muzzled?

Date: 2011/04/21 19:39:52, Link
Author: lkeithlu
A message for Joseph: I received yours, went to your blog and was unable to comment (no way of posting) so the situation is no different. As far as your claim:

"However seeing that I have already destroyed your main premise I don’t see what there is to discuss."

Uh, no. You did nothing of the sort.
If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.

So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.

Date: 2011/04/22 06:20:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 22 2011,05:29)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 22 2011,01:47)
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 21 2011,18:19)
While all four of my posts remain in moderation, and the last one on the original thread is still in moderation now for a full week, it is impossible to have a normal exchange. Since Joseph obviously knows how to find me here, I have a message:

5:19 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

A message to Joseph: Since you know where to find me at PT, and my posts languish here in moderation (5 on this thread now, and one on the original thread is still in moderation after a full week) why don’t you come there and let’s continue this discussion. You will not be moderated there, and that way each can answer the other promptly. If you are sure of your ideas and have the courage, you’ll come. If you need to have this advantage of my being moderated, you won’t.

Will he come? Is he man enough to discuss this issue without my being muzzled?

That would probably be a "No".  

The answer is definitely "No"

6:22 pm


Seeing that you are reading this if you want to continue this with me you can bring it to my blog.

However seeing that I have already destroyed your main premise I don’t see what there is to discuss.

Joey Boy, you are a tiny man, a coward, a complete pussy.

I posted this on UD just now; it joins 5 others still in moderation:

5:21 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Your blog moderates for hours, too. My posts here are still in moderation, with posts from KF on the original thread pretending that he doesn’t know why or claiming that I am lying about the moderation. Ever wonder why PT doesn’t moderate? You can’t hold any kind of interchange when there is a delay on one side.

Date: 2011/04/22 08:46:54, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Well, that didn't take long: Joseph's last post:

This contradicts what they say on UD.

kairofocus agrees with me and has said that. And it is true some IDists disagree. They are not ID.

What paleos say about the fossil record assumes the mechanism of rm and ns.

You cannot assume what needs to be demonstrated. WTF?

If ID shifts the paradigm, then use the evidence to explain.

The current "paradigm" is unscientific, ie it cannot be tested it has to be assumed.

"However some IDists have weighed in on the Cambrian "explosion" saying the "sudden" appearance is evidence for design."

This is well explained by evolution and needs no design explanation.

Yeah, blah, blah, blah.

You have absolutely no evidence that accumulating random mutations can construct useful, functional multi-part systems.

"Phenotypic plasticity and normal variation within a population can account for what evolutionary paleos observe."

This is not true

Just look at the phenotypic plasticity we observe in dogs.

The fact that there is no articulated ID theory, and that ID is not being put to the test in field and laboratory,

OK, fuck you.

ID is based on observations and experiences- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!

Your position has to be assumed because it cannot be tested:

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

9:31 AM

Joe G said...
I will look at the TO link later

My last post:

"The fact that there is no articulated ID theory, and that ID is not being put to the test in field and laboratory,

OK, fuck you."

OK, this conversation is over. My statement above is correct, and you know it, since there is no articulated theory and no use of it in field and lab. Even creation science attempts to DO science. AND you counter with profanity? That speaks volumes.


It's clear Joseph has no more to offer than KF except perhaps profanity, which to my knowledge KF never stooped to.

Date: 2011/04/22 09:27:26, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Joseph counters with:

My statement above is correct,

Your statement is pure bullshit.

ID is based on observations and experiences- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!

Nice of you to ignore that part of my post.

Of course there is a use for ID in the lab and field- just as there is a use for forensic science and archaeology-> it matters to any investigation how that which is being investigated arose.

Perhaps your husband is a scientist but you appear ignorant of science.

10:14 AM

"ID is based on observations and experiences- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!"

That's an example of an articulated theory??
And no attempt to explain the details of even part of the hominid record.

"Perhaps your husband is a scientist but you appear ignorant of science."


Been in the business for 30 years. And my husband (in the business for >40) declared what was on UD as utter BS.

I'm sure you can all say "I told you so" when I say I just wasted a lot of my time.

Date: 2011/04/24 21:22:36, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Still laughing, actually. That's hilarious! Where do you find this stuff, "judgment"?

edited looooooong after the fact

Date: 2011/06/19 16:39:09, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Been awhile since I've been here. A couple of days after I left UD, this was posted at the end of my thread...

7:38 am
From bornagain77 in comment 10:

The following sources show unequivocally that ‘Lucy’, the supposed superstar of human evolution, was an ape:

“these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes”
Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296

No, this quote has been taken out of context in a way which completely changes its meaning. If you read the original paper, which is about the juvenile australopith skeleton from Dikika nicknamed Selam, it is clear that they are not saying that the apiths are anatomically within the range of any modern ape species. What they are saying is that the amount of anatomical variation found in the apiths under discussion is comparable to that found within modern apes species.

Here’s what the original quote says:

“…, as all the variation subsumed by these australopith specimens can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes”

...and it was left unchallenged. Now, I see, I can't even log into ID. Have they changed their format?

Date: 2011/07/26 07:32:11, Link
Author: lkeithlu
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Funny-I went to her blog and this ad was visible in the right upper corner:

Same-Sex Weddings
Celebrate your love in Buffalo! Affordable, 20 min to Niagara Falls


Date: 2011/08/27 16:34:35, Link
Author: lkeithlu
OMG I missed it! I gotta come here more often. Happy  belated!!

Date: 2011/09/01 16:52:33, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Happy Birthday!

The old posts from 2010 had me bamboozled. How funny!

Date: 2012/04/21 10:40:15, Link
Author: lkeithlu
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2012,10:06)
Scientific Apologetics 1301
Dr. Dr. William Dembski, Ph.D, Th.D.

Course Syllabus
John's Gospel - application to information theory
Bible based science - why everything else is fundamentally deficient
The Earth - Bible based geology
The Flood - Why the Bible is right and science wrong
The Benevolent God - Why atheism is evil
Principles of Design - natural law from Aristotle to Aquinas
Design II - Paley was right and we don't need anything else
Design III - using maths to convince the rubes
Publications - why books are better than journals
Cafeterias - How the Darwinian Conspiracy took away the best macaroni and cheese ever

Book readings - buy my books, read them... no discussion allowed

External assignment - visit a pro-evolution website and use the principles we've learned, show them that they are wrong

Extra credit - wear a sweater to class every day


Date: 2012/08/28 14:46:13, Link
Author: lkeithlu
I missed it! Happy Belated!