AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: noncarborundum

form_srcid: noncarborundum

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.44.140

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: noncarborundum

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2009/01/14 14:30:52, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 12 2009,07:33)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 11 2009,21:33)
Gil Dodg'em:
       
Quote
I’ve been called every name in the book, the most common being IDiot.

Click here for just one such example of the vitriol to which I’ve been subjected. I could give you hundreds of more examples.

Gil - we can create more instances if that would be helpful. Post something on simulation to get us started.

We could even help establish Gil's reputation globally!

Gil Dodgem es muy estupido y idiota.

Ja, Gil Dodgem est ein dumkopf!

Now, we need Advocatus to put it into Moon Language, and Jeannot or The New French Guy into French, and perhaps, over time, the world could be united with it's opinion of Gil and ID.

Darn.  Here I am, a long time lurker looking for a good occasion for my first post, and I let this one pass by while I was temporarily distracted.  Well, better late than never.

Latin:
 Gilbertus Dodgenus morio

Middle Egyptian:
 wxA pw gr dDn

Swahili:
 Bwana Gil ni mjinga.

Klingon:
 cha' ghop lo'chugh tlhuQDaj SamlaHbe' ghIl Do'jen

Actually that last is "Gil Dodgen can't find his tail with both hands", Klingon having (disappointingly) no attested word for "ass".

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Date: 2009/01/14 15:10:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 14 2009,15:00)
BTW - I think the Klingon word for "ass" is "Iks'bmed".

Uh oh.  It's not a good sign when the first response to my first post goes entirely over my head.

"Iks'bmed"?

Go ahead, make me feel stupid.

(In my original post I was going to suggest that the Klingon for "ass" was DoqDoq.  Don't know why I didn't.)

Date: 2009/01/14 15:26:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 14 2009,15:21)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 14 2009,15:10)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 14 2009,15:00)
BTW - I think the Klingon word for "ass" is "Iks'bmed".

Uh oh.  It's not a good sign when the first response to my first post goes entirely over my head.

"Iks'bmed"?

Go ahead, make me feel stupid.

(In my original post I was going to suggest that the Klingon for "ass" was DoqDoq.  Don't know why I didn't.)

You have to run it through the Nixplanatory Filter...

Hint:  Dembski is BIG on Bible Codes...

!ho'D

Note, at least, that I was on the same page, even if I was executing a different algorithm.  (And mixing a metaphor.)

Date: 2009/01/15 10:04:28, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Weasbl @ Jan. 15 2009,09:59)
Actually, learning Klingon is an amusing intellectual exercise  . . .

Sorry, that was me, posting by accident under an account I created some time ago but never got around to using.  I wish I could get the hang of this internet thing.

Date: 2009/01/16 11:42:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 16 2009,11:24)
Also, does something which is designed have to be almost identical to every other thing that is designed? Cars are designed by intelligent designers; Therefore, ID predicts that life on Mars should resemble cars.

Date: 2009/01/19 08:06:17, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Rrr @ Jan. 18 2009,16:21)
Oh I knew it was Caesar's wife, only I didn't know her first name. Bet you weren't in Rome nor Gomorrah, anyway, either! Or Alvik for that matter.

As I understand it (which is more or less "through a glass, darkly"), Roman women usually didn't have first names per se.  They were just called by the feminine form of their family name.  A female born of the Julius clan (the one Gaius Julius Caesar belonged to) would be named Julia, to the Tullius clan (Cicero's) Tullia, and so on.  If there were several girls born to the same family they might be numbered (Julia Tertia, Tullia Quinta, etc.).

Caesar's wife was, as you will no doubt have surmised, of the Calpurnius clan.  Her father was Lucius Calpurnius Piso.

Date: 2009/01/19 09:47:27, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 19 2009,08:26)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,08:06)
 Her father was Lucius Calpurnius Piso.

And I think I recall that he specialized in building towers...


Your confusion is understandable, but you've fallen prey to what what we in the linguistics trade call "false friends".  In fact there's no relation whatsoever between "Piso" and "Pisa"; among other points, classical Latin intervocalic "s" was not voiced.

No, in fact old Lucius was in an entirely different line of business.




I believe his friends used to refer to him as "Lou the Plumber".

Date: 2009/01/19 11:43:44, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deejay @ Jan. 19 2009,10:39)
Crocker's "ideas", and of course they're not even vaguely her own, have been engaged and have been quickly found sorely wanting.  It's boring.  It's been done.  What's left is a discussion of "who in the hell would not only say this, but also put it in front of a college class?"  As the 1100+ pages of the UD thread, 300+ pages of the FTK thread and nearly 100 pages of this thread will attest, that discussion is a little bit more interesting.  It's interesting because there aren't clear answers.  Are these people dishonest?  Incompetent?  Both?  If so, how?  How can they be competent in other areas of life?

Or maybe they're not so competent in other areas of life.  After all, Crocker also has this to say of the Design of Life blog
   
Quote
A website specifically designed to keep students informed about the latest developments in ID and evolution. Maintained by Denyse O’Leary, a professional writer who understands ID and can communicate clearly.


Exhibit B:  She claims to be writing a book called Expelled:  No Science Allowed, "to be published in 2008", and she describes it thus:

[QUOTE]Expelled: No Science Allowed is much like To Sir With Love becoming To Madam With Hate followed by a fairy tale ending of vindication by Hollywood.[I]

I was ready to rush right out (to amazon.com) and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Date: 2009/01/19 11:49:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
[quote=noncarborundum,Jan. 19 2009,11:43]
Quote
Expelled: No Science Allowed is much like To Sir With Love becoming To Madam With Hate followed by a fairy tale ending of vindication by Hollywood.[I]

O for an "edit" button.

Date: 2009/01/19 21:05:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2009,20:47)
   
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to amazon.com) and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Are you referring to Crocker's book about integrity in science?

I'm talking about the book described here.  Usually if I read about a book "to be published" sometime in the near future (or, in this case, the near past), I expect amazon.com to have some inkling of it (even, at least sometimes, self-publications).  Not in this case.

Is this the book "about integrity in science", or has she written another book amazon.com doesn't know about?

(BTW, just in case it needs stating, I'm really not in a rush to delve into Dr. Crocker's literary output.)

Date: 2009/01/19 22:45:36, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2009,22:28)
Poe?

Order of the Tinfoil Headgear.

Date: 2009/01/20 00:10:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 19 2009,23:05)
 
Quote
It all just seems incredibly planned to me.


And that is why scientists base their conclusions on evidence, and why check each other's work, rather than going with their feelings - feelings aren't reliable criteria for subjects outside one's direct experience.

Henry

Darn.  Now what am I supposed to do with my feeling that it all just seems incredibly unplanned?

Date: 2009/01/20 11:12:43, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 17 2009,16:45)
We ALWAYS get to point and laugh at them. I especially liked the guy who said this was "the most perverted inaugural in history".

In my own humble way I must take a modicum of credit for this.

Back when the selection of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation was a hot topic, one commenter on scienceblogs (I think it was at Ed Brayton's place) challenged another to name a Christian leader who was not anti-gay.  I piped up and mentioned Gene Robinson*.

Apparently someone from the Obama team was listening.  (That, or the choice of Robinson was just insanely obvious.  I can't decide.)  And when God smites Washington, D.C., boy will I be chagrined.

-----
*Yes, I knew that by "Christian", the commenter I was responding to meant "fundywacko True Christian™", and that by his lights G.R. doesn't qualify.

Date: 2009/01/20 12:59:57, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 20 2009,12:04)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2009,20:47)
       
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to amazon.com) and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

Are you referring to Crocker's book about integrity in science?

I'm talking about the book described here.  Usually if I read about a book "to be published" sometime in the near future (or, in this case, the near past), I expect amazon.com to have some inkling of it (even, at least sometimes, self-publications).  Not in this case.

Is this the book "about integrity in science", or has she written another book amazon.com doesn't know about?

(BTW, just in case it needs stating, I'm really not in a rush to delve into Dr. Crocker's literary output.)

There is another Crocker who is obsessed with Intelligent Designers who use a "poof" mechanism:

http://www.tv.com/the-fai....ry.html

Yes, but I don't think he's earned his doctorate yet.

Date: 2009/01/21 10:31:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2009,09:52)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,07:17)
...
   
Quote
... Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. ...

... Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  ...

Don't those two sentences say almost the same thing? Well, aside from him saying "allele" when he presumably meant "gene".

Not really, because Dave doesn't appear to distinguish between phenotype and genotype.  Outward characteristics appear to blend; the genes remain stubbornly Mendelian.

Date: 2009/01/21 23:32:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 21 2009,22:22)
Danny-Boy wrote about god:

 
Quote
The real one - obviously.




:)   :)   :)   :)   :)

Alternatively, and in a spirit of inclusiveness,

Date: 2009/01/22 07:43:41, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 22 2009,06:32)
 
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 22 2009,02:33)
Dembski is unable or unwilling to say the relevance of the papers to evolutionary biology.

     
Quote
As for the relevance of this work to biology, let me remind commenters that Thomas Schneider used his ev program to argue against Behe and for the power of natural selection in biological evolution and that Rob Pennock cited his work on AVIDA likewise to argue against Behe and for evolution (Pennock cited this not in his NATURE article but in his Dover expert witness report).

So if you’ve got a problem with the applicability of the research at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab to real-life biological evolution, take it up with Schneider and Pennock.



Link.

Wow!  That is incredibly weaselly (pardon the pun), even under the high standards set previously by Dr. Dr. D.

Methinks it is like a Dembski.

Date: 2009/01/22 15:19:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2009,12:52)
   
Quote
“Why is a scientist like Michael Behe, prominent biochemist, Atheist, and former Darwinism advocate ignored? He stated, “If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of molecular machines -the basis of life - you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it…”. (Behe M, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996, The Free Press). Dr. Behe believes in Intelligent Design, but not in God.

Did people know that Behe's an atheist? *Grabs microwave popcorn - we have vending machines at work, and it's lunchtime anyway*

So he thinks IC demonstrates that there was a designer, but he doesn't believe said designer is/was a deity?  What is he, a Raëlian?

Date: 2009/01/23 09:06:44, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fusilier @ Jan. 23 2009,06:55)
Noncarborundum,

Behe is not a Raelian, he's a Catholic.  To most of the ID faithful, Catholics might as well be atheists.

Interestingly, there was a recent (early November 2008) conference called by Benedict XVI to discuss evolution and faith.  Behe was not on the invitation list, for some odd reason.

*Note to self:  Invest in new set of sarcasm tags and deploy as needed.*

Date: 2009/01/23 10:22:31, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 23 2009,09:47)
Cute:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/netherland-ark

The Ark

No rudder, no sail
No front, no tail
No left, no right
No lights in sight
No charts, no maps
Some prayers perhaps
No dinghy in tow
No motor to go
One window, one door
3 floors, no more
But it served its purpose.

                          by Zero

That last line's kind of clunky.  How about:

Quote

The Ark

No rudder, no sail
No front, no tail
No left, no right
No lights in sight
No charts, no maps
Some prayers perhaps
No dinghy in tow
No motor to go
One window, one door
3 floors, no more
And it's just a stor-
y.

:D

Date: 2009/01/23 15:32:59, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Lowell @ Jan. 23 2009,14:48)
It's not Conservapedia, per se, but anyone can anonymously sign up for access to the course materials at Eagle Forum University.

Andy Schlafly is teaching American History, Principles of Microeconomics, Evolution & Politics, and Evolution Fallacies, among others.

The Evolution Fallacies materials might be the most highly-concentrated stupidity I've ever seen. Even dumber than Conservapedia itself. I recommend for your own sanity you stay far, far away.

But, I will supply you with the following excerpt simply because you may not be aware that the very existence of mathematics disproves evolution:              
Quote
Ask an evolutionist if 2+2=4 exists.  Or if mathematical pi, the parameter for calculating the distance around a circle, exists.  Are they merely figments of human imagination?

Put another way, did humans discover arithmetic and geometry, or did humans invent them?

For most of us and most mathematicians, including the highly celebrated late Paul Erdos, the answer is obvious:  humans discovered these principles, which have always existed.  "Dr. Erdos, like many mathematicians, believed that mathematical truths are discovered, not invented."  http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~ddd/erdos.html Ditto for Albert Einstein:  "An equation is for eternity."  (Encycl. Brit.)

But for evolutionists, non-material principles do not exist.  If they existed, then there would be the question of where they came from.  There would also be the question of how nature might relate to these and other principles.

And there would be the question of what other principles exist based on math or logic.  Like law and religion, for example.

Materialistic evolution simply does not allow for the existence of principles.  But principles plainly do exist.

What I want to know is whether anyone takes these "classes" seriously. Do homeschool parents actually assign this drivel to their children? God, I hope not.

From their "diagnostic quiz":

Quote
14. The phrase the “separation of church and state” can be found where?
(a) in the original Constitution.
(b) in the Bill of Rights.
( c ) in the amendments enacted after the Bill of Rights.
(d) in the Declaration of Independence.
(e) in none of the above, but in arguments by people seeking to censor Christianity.

Oooh!  I know!  Pick me!  Pick me!!!!!111!

Date: 2009/01/23 16:17:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 23 2009,16:10)
I thought the "separation" phrase was a summary (or paraphrase? perhaps a sound bite?) of one of the ten, rather than a quote of the actual wording of it.

The phrase was Jefferson's description of purpose and effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

 
Quote
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Date: 2009/01/23 22:09:03, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 23 2009,21:59)
Now I'm confused.

I thought House Bunny was a comedy, now I find out it's a Freaking Documentary!

I want a House Bunny!

However, I fear the House Bunny was Expelled.

Tell me it ain't so!

No, it was the Easter Bunny that was Expelled - a major coup in the War on Easter begun last year by militant atheists, emboldened by their early successes in the War on Christmas, as a second front in their Global War On Jesus.

Date: 2009/01/24 09:54:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 24 2009,09:35)
Gil Dodgen
     
Quote
The thing that intrigues me is that in all Darwinian speculating, whether bio or psycho, no one ever asks the hard questions, like: How did the particular trait that offers a survival advantage originate? What mutations or random genetic accidents would be required to engineer the trait? What is the probability of these accidents occurring? How many individuals and reproductive events would be required for the trait to be selected and preserved in the population? In other words, could the probabilistic resources have been up to the task of overcoming the improbabilities?

The thing that intrigues me is that in all Dodgen's whining there is not an iota of curiosity.  How about googling around a bit, Gil?  

N. B. Sutter and E. A. Ostrander, Dog star rising: the canine genetic system, Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 900 (2004).  doi:10.1038/nrg1492.
     
Quote
Purebred dogs are providing invaluable information about morphology, behaviour and complex diseases, both of themselves and humans, by supplying tractable populations in which to map genes that control those processes. The diversification of dog breeds has led to the development of breeds enriched for particular genetic disorders, the mapping and cloning of which have been facilitated by the availability of the canine genome map and sequence. These tools have aided our understanding of canine population genetics, linkage disequilibrium and haplotype sharing in the dog, and have informed ongoing efforts of the need to identify quantitative trait loci that are important in complex traits.

Not to mention:  nobody asks  "How many individuals and reproductive events would be required for the trait to be selected and preserved in the population?"?  Really?  Then what is it that population geneticists do all day?

Date: 2009/01/24 20:31:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 24 2009,19:27)
       
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 24 2009,17:08)
       
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 24 2009,13:39)
         
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 24 2009,06:27)
Ted Haggard: "oops, I did it again".

I like this line:

         
Quote
Boyd said the church reached a legal settlement to pay the man for counseling and college tuition,


Wow. So all you have to do to get a full college scholarship is sleep with Ted Haggard?

Nah. Still not worth it.

Plus, the "college" is probably Liberty U, so you lose again....

Or worse, Bob Jones.  ;)

:(

Date: 2009/01/25 20:17:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 25 2009,19:53)
Earlier this season there was a brilliant episode of My Name is Earl where the ex-wife tries to win a science fair by disproving evolution. Her plan:  Making a fish try to evolve legs to get the food she has placed out of reach.  Unfortunately for her she uses a tadpole.  Her conclusion on seeing the results: "I guess we don't have to go to church any more."

I very much imagine our friends at UD at that level in their efforts.

But she actually performed the experiment.  Doesn' that put her one up on the UDenizens?

Date: 2009/01/26 11:18:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 26 2009,10:53)
 
Quote (bfish @ Jan. 25 2009,23:10)
This probably belongs on the Bathroom Wall, but that's too polluted with the Daniel Smith goings on, so will use this thread to spread the Good News:

(Scroll to the bottom)
This is William Kristol’s last column.

Damn! This just keeps getting better and better!

YEAAAAAAAAAA

Why did he quit? Was he fired? Is he dying?

Kristol's contract is up.  They signed him up for one year in January 2008.  Maybe cooler heads at the NYT have have prevailed this time around.

Date: 2009/01/26 11:37:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,05:54)
The world is neither flat nor round.  It is crooked!

Zero


Plus ça change . . . .

Date: 2009/01/28 08:45:05, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 28 2009,08:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 28 2009,06:50)
<a href=""http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/01/28/fuz-rana-liar-liar-pants-on-fire/" target="_blank">Fuz Rana passes on antievolutionist persistent myths</a>

The link seems to be broken.

It worked for me with a bit of tweaking.

Try this.

Date: 2009/01/29 21:52:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 29 2009,20:19)
I always thought Steve Fuller looked a lot like Rick Moranis (of "Spaceballs," "Honey I Shrunk the Kids," etc.)
Compare and contrast:



Or put a pair of glasses on Jack Jeebs (Tony Shalhoub in Men in Black):

Date: 2009/01/31 10:07:18, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 31 2009,02:12)
 
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 30 2009,16:21)
You science fascists say there are no simple answers. No!! As President Reagan said, there ARE simple answers, just no EASY answers. I post this here because in addition to hating special needs children (euthanazis!), I realize you can only accept the truth about evolution in a context of derision.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=92630


1) How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? It Doesn't.

2) How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly?  An example is the Cambrian Explosion. It Can't.

3) How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started? It couldn't.

4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes.  These are not enough  to account for the complexity of the organism.  What is the other 98% of the genome's function?  We don't know.

See, that took, what, 8 words? And yet, Darwinisim is in ruins.

You are kidding, right? Or are you really that stupid?

You can not be that stupid and type. Or feed yourself, or wipe your own asshole.

If you insist that you really are that stupid, I can cover all of your supposed killer objections to reality. But it has all been done before, so I hope your are just jerking us around, please?

Pick the exact "eight words" for me, K?

Methinks he is trying to count the words in his snappy answers.  This would work if they were each two words long.  Except they aren't:

 
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Jan. 30 2009,16:21)


1) How does random change (mutation) in the genome add information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? It Doesn't.

2) How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quickly?  An example is the Cambrian Explosion. It Can't.

3) How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started? It couldn't.

4) The Human Genome Project showed that only 1-2% of Human DNA codes for proteins, or about 25,000 genes.  These are not enough  to account for the complexity of the organism.  What is the other 98% of the genome's function?  We don't know.


Maybe if he changed that last one to "We're ignorant."

BTW I didn't realize we hate special-needs children.  Bummer, since I have one.

Date: 2009/01/31 10:30:50, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 31 2009,09:49)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2009,09:22)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 31 2009,09:20)
On the bit I bolded above: Faid wrote a something similar to Dave Hawkins on another site...

I Googled Afdave to take a gander at his site. Google finds it, but also flags it with "Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer!"

I understood that brain damage was in the offing. But my computer?

Bill: I was just getting the same warnings on virtually all Googled sites...I removed the .NET framework update that I installed yesterday and that fixed it. It's a buggy update apparently, or at least it was for me, using this version of Vista Home Pro.

(Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1 and .NET Framework 3.5 Family Update (KB951847) x86 )

Installation date: 1/30/2009 1:49 PM, for me.

I don't think .NET had anything to do with it.  I saw the problem earlier this morning and then it just went away without my doing anything.  I think this means that somebody at Google fixed it.

Date: 2009/01/31 20:02:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Jan. 31 2009,19:24)
I'd like an impartial opinion about something my sister sent me via e-mail.  She claims it's "just a joke."  I found it incredibly offensive and racist.  So I submit this to the judgment of a few strangers:

Can you answer this question????
 

I'M CONFUSED..................................


How can 2 million blacks crowd into Washington DC in sub freezing

temperatures and most streets closed all in 1 day .....

.... when 200,000 couldn't get out of New Orleans at 85 degrees with
hundreds of school buses and four days notice?

Racist:  check.
Offensive:  check.

Also just plain stupid.  And not funny.

Date: 2009/02/01 15:33:44, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 01 2009,10:30)
 
Quote (Rrr @ Feb. 01 2009,08:00)
Thanks, Bob, but I find this place quite edificational. Learns me a lot of knew stuff.

Rrr, I cant stan mispeled words!

Zerooo

Then you may be interested in the correct spelling of "Pittsburgh" (necessary should you be interested in performing any numerology with it).

Date: 2009/02/02 00:28:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 01 2009,19:51)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 01 2009,18:41)

It is my contention that only God can build such systems...

I said from the very beginning that I could not explain how God built life.

Stripped to its essence, this is your entire argument, and its entire theoretical and evidentiary base.

Also in evidence is the amnesia to which I earlier referred: We have repeatedly established that the success or lack thereof of other theoretical and empirical efforts (evolutionary biology, scientific efforts vis OOL, etc.) is not, in any respect, positive evidence for your position, much less "confirmation" of same.

Ultimately, however, you continue to engage in argumentum ad mulberry bush, as you seem incapable of grasping the above. I've lost interest in that.

If you wanted to make that sound all official 'n' stuff, you could go with the actual Latin name for mulberry,  morus, which would give you argumentum ad morum, or perhaps argumentum circum morum, ("around").  Problem is, it would lose most of its effect because you'd have to explain it.  Still, with the right audience (of botanists and/or Latinists) . . .

Date: 2009/02/02 16:13:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 02 2009,15:35)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 02 2009,14:49)
[URL=http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2009/02/02/this-overhyped-and-stunningly-incompetent-collection-of-just-so-stories-about-evolution-ha




s-more-holes-in-it-than-your-average-baloney-and-swiss-cheese-sandwich-just-go-up-to-beezl




ebun-demon-bunny-of-doom-and-say-that]FtK has been noticed[/URL] by a senior editor at Nature, no less.  Here's his take on her:

   
Quote
Dragging their knuckles along behind, here are the Reasonable Kansans – cripes, I’d hate to meet any Unreasonable Kansans. It’s the shoes, Dorothy, the shoes.


No, please don't ask me to explain that.

It appears to be written in the style of O'Leary.

Now I have to revise my mental picture of a knuckle-dragger.  I never imagined one leaning backwards as it walked.  This is a posture I normally associate with beings of a more advanced type.

Date: 2009/02/04 09:00:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27)
Surprise: Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont.
     
Quote
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”

Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.

Ben Stein == scholar?

When did that happen?

Date: 2009/02/07 21:37:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

Date: 2009/02/08 11:45:52, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 08 2009,06:24)
Fuller is even more deluded than I previously thought:

   
Quote

Assuming that YEC accepts the broad ordering of the species represented in the fossil record, I am happy to let it stand as an empirical matter whether the ordering happened over 6000 or 6 billion years.

But, but, but, but . . . Isn't the "broad ordering" of the fossils supposed by YEC to have happenened not "over 6000 years" but over just a year or so?  Or are there versions of YEC in which brontotheres were still being fossilized in the 17th century AD?

Date: 2009/02/09 12:48:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)
 
Quote
These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood
on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized.

My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.  

And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.  

Um ...

Water and humidity do not destroy wood.

Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood.

Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g.

Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent
Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea

Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample:

Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization

Ya know what?

I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood.

Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them?

But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition.

Date: 2009/02/09 14:08:12, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 09 2009,13:16)
 
Has, or has not, the exact evolutionary route between a common ancestor and chimps, humans and bonobos been established?

While you might see this as "slippery" Bill, I'm of the opinion that nothing is established until it's established.  While the general data seems to point to such a connection, it hasn't been worked out to any level of detail.  Until it has, I'll always leave a door open.

Methinks it is like a weasel.

Date: 2009/02/09 16:10:53, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47)
A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis.

Optimist.

Date: 2009/02/10 10:30:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 10 2009,08:35)
     
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01)
You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.

I recall you've said you've been a missionary. In my opinion, nobody is as arrogant as a missionary. Imagine, that of the thousands of religions around, you have found the one true one and are sufficiently convinced that you have the urge to convert all others. What could possibly be more arrogant?

Ah, but you misconstrue his point.  His area of expertise is not the practice of humility, it's the regurgitation of aphorisms about humility.
   
Quote
Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.

See?

Date: 2009/02/13 12:33:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 13 2009,12:08)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 13 2009,08:40)
Don't get too excited there...the way that poll was worded I would be compelled to answer yes to the question "Do you believe in the theory of evolution".

What a moronic way to word the stupid poll...of course I believe in the theory of evolution...duh.  Obviously the mechanisms of evolution are detectible in regard to adaptation or microevolutionary change.  

I always wonder how long this thread can go without it's fearless leader...

And when does micro leave off and macro start? Creating a word doesn't conjure the category into reality (thank FSM). It's turtles all the way down...

     
Quote

*FtK sticks her tongue out at *all* of you*

Now that's a Valentines Day present we can all be thankful for! Hold that pose, Louis is down to the short strokes...

It's quite simple, really:

micro-    adj., which has been observed
macro-    adj., which has not been observed

This conveniently prevents any observation from ever having to be considered evidence of the macro-evolution.  Because, as we all know, the underlying dynamic is really more or less this:

micro-    adj., Biblical
macro-    adj., atheistic

Date: 2009/02/13 12:38:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

Date: 2009/02/13 15:35:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,14:30)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 13 2009,12:38)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 13 2009,09:01)
 If a technologically advanced group called your Christianity a  blood-cult evil for the outright imagery of human sacrifice and cannibalism, for instance...I'm sure that would meet your approval. Anecdotes about crucifixes flying because they required the worship of a sacrificed dead man tortured on sticks... that would obviously please you, right? You'd buy that in a second, wouldn't you?

Who was it who suggested that if Jesus had lived in the 20th century, Christians would all be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs hanging from them?

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." ~ Lenny Bruce

The question was partly rhetorical.  I think Bruce may have missed something, though; Catholics wear not just crosses, but crucifixes.  That would mean that if Jesus had been executed recently, the little electric chairs sported by Catholic schoolkids would have little fried guys in them.

Date: 2009/02/16 10:44:55, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
     
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain (arborvitaepress.com) Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

And then there's this bit of hilarity (my emphasis)          
Quote
Description:  Arbor Vitae Press is a small, independent publisher dedicated to the production and distribution of high quality books addressing major topics and issues of our times. We are committed to showcasing the works of both new and published authors who provide fresh, insightful and thought provoking commentary on analyses of important contemporary and controversial issues that are consistent with a Judeo-Christian worldview.

And yet we are told that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Gene especially was always so adamant about his non-religiosity.  Whatever...

What's even more amusing is that Gene's book seems to be the only thing ever published by Arbor Vitae Press. A search on their ISBN (978-0-9786314) yields only this book.  Is it a vanity press with a single vain author? Maybe our resident librarian/witch can enlighten us on this...

Well, there is this.    
Quote
The Hawk's Mewl a 'significant selection of poems' will be to published in London in May by Arbor Vitae Press. Number one in the Parhelion Poetry Series.


It appears that the book can't actually be purchased, though, at least not through the normal outlets.  Also this may be a different Arbor Vitae:

 
Quote
Wood, Jonathan
e-mail: thratheewoodz@hotmail.com
snail: BM Spellbound, London WC1N 3XX
Interests: produces irregular catalogues of interesting and obscure second-hand stock. Proprietor of the Arbor Vitae Press and publishes 'Through the Woods', an idiosyncratic journal of weird fiction, poetry and discourse specialising in lovelorn reveries, obscurantism and cultural timeslips.


Or maybe not.

Date: 2009/02/16 14:37:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 16 2009,14:20)
OK, which one of you is crater?
   
Quote
7

crater

02/16/2009

12:21 pm

   
Quote
Evolutionary biologists don’t “worship” Darwin at all.


Which, of course, explains the Darwin Day celebrations at colleges all across the nation.

You don’t see Christians fetishizing a birthday anywhere near to this extent.

The secularization of Christmas is complete.

Somebody call John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly.

Date: 2009/02/20 21:00:43, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 20 2009,13:41)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 20 2009,12:55)
   
Quote
Measure this, Dave:


Are you going to tell us the name of that formation, or is some service required first?

I'm not sure if the formation itself has a name, but it's in Kodachrome Basin State Park, in Utah. Here's a look from another angle:




KC

I believe that's the renowned Devil's Phallus National Landmark.

Date: 2009/03/09 21:30:04, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 09 2009,17:57)
 
Quote (khan @ Mar. 09 2009,15:37)
Special indeed.

Darwin first published in 1859, and ~250 years of slavery in the colonies/USA is his fault?

Presumably bad slavery didn't start until 1859.

See, if only Wallace had held off for a few more years, Darwin wouldn't have been forced to publish so soon and the U.S. could have gotten rid of slavery before it became bad.  OTOH, if Darwin had never published and therefore slavery never became bad, would we have had to get rid of it at all?  Was Darwin in fact the cause of the U.S. Civil War?  (... in addition, of course, to WWII, which we already know about.)

The inquiring alternative historian wants to know.

Date: 2009/03/14 01:45:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 13 2009,15:25)
A question:
     
Quote
7

R0b

03/13/2009

2:20 pm
We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win…

Nobody wins in blog debates. Both sides inevitably think they won, but there is no official judge to say who really won.

How’s ID doing in forums where there are official judges, like peer review and the courtroom?

An answer:
   
Quote
10

Upright BiPed

03/13/2009

2:37 pm
R0b,

“How’s ID doing in forums where there are official establishment materialist judges ideologues like peer review and the courtroon with celeb activists?

How is Darwin doing in the common sense department…ya know…out there with Joe Public?

How is the front on FSCI working out? Still hoping no one will notice?

Awww... they're so cute when they try to write in English.  Let's try again without the strikethroughs:
     
Quote
How’s ID doing in forums where there are establishment materialist ideologues like peer review and with celeb activists?

Dunno.  I'll try to find some established materialist ideologues like peer review and with celeb activists, and then I'll get back to you.
     
Quote
How is Darwin doing in the common sense department…ya know…out there with Joe Public?

Score one for our vertical two-legged friend.  Common sense and public opinion are always the best way to settle questions of science.  That's how we know that quantum mechanics is bogus, the speed of light is infinite, and the Earth is stationary.

 
Quote
How is the front on FSCI working out? Still hoping no one will notice?

No-one has noticed.  There's nothing to notice.

asdfasdf

Date: 2009/03/14 01:50:58, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 13 2009,15:25)

Score one for our vertical two-legged friend.  Common sense and public opinion are always the best way to settle questions of science.  That's how we know that quantum mechanics is bogus, the speed of light is infinite, and the Earth is stationary.

Actually that's a misconception.  The original claim was that the Earth was stationery.  As proof I offer the fact that Jesus is recorded to have knelt down and written in the dust during the dispute over the woman taken in adultery.  Oh, yes, and that for millions of years dinosaurs ruled the Earth.  This made the Earth so much easier to write neatly on in nice, straight lines.

Date: 2009/03/14 01:54:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 14 2009,01:45)

asdfasdf

Slip of the mouse.  I can haz edit buttin?

Date: 2009/03/16 01:29:43, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (khan @ Mar. 15 2009,22:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2009,22:56)
Gil false dichotomises:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design

 
Quote
15 March 2009
Evidence Against Chance and Necessity (Also Known As Darwinism) is Evidence for Design
GilDodgen


Logicians, are false dichotomy, artificial bifurcation and law of the excluded middle the same thing?

Has anyone every discerned what they mean by 'chance and necessity' ?

Yes.  Chance and necessity are what's left over once you've eliminated design.

Date: 2009/03/18 22:43:19, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 18 2009,22:11)
wow that's funny.

Maybe Kellogg should have said "tap the foot in the next stall."

... or "assume a wide stance."

Date: 2009/03/28 18:49:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 26 2009,20:17)
Call me cynical, but... I doubt I'm the only one that views the current spate of posts and appearances (by Cordova, JAD and Willy Boy Dembski hisself)  as designed to draw attention away from the recent tragic fails of Udunces like Kairosfocus regarding evo. algorithmic progs.

Because it's just a minor part of the current smokescreen, I was only just a little amused by this from Densey:      
Quote
"I will make a post of this, I swear. And I am as good as my word. Ipsa dixit."

Being a "real journalist," I'm sure teh li'l morpholexicalist meant "IpsE Dixit"

"Ipsa dixit" isn't wrong if what she meant to say was "she herself [has] said" (or "it itself [has] said" with a feminine referent).  If you can tell what subject she intended, though, you're one up on me.

(If she meant to say "I myself have said", she's wrong in a different way.  That would be "Ipsa dixi".  Assuming for the sake of argument that she's feminine.)

Date: 2009/03/29 00:59:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Daniel, I realize Reciprocating Bill can speak for himself (far better than I can speak for him), but don't you see what you've done here?
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation).

   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,08:58)
So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.

Does it need pointing out that this is a complete non sequitur?  "Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face)" is not at all the same thing as "an object of sufficient organizational complexity".  That is, it's not the "organizational complexity" that's at issue, regardless of how much you want it to be.

Date: 2009/03/29 09:18:17, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2009,01:30)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,12:49)
[URL=http://www.examiner.com/x-2398-Boston-Top-News-Examiner~y2009m3d24-Alaskas-Mt-Redoubt-erupts-fourt-times-Bobby-Jin

dal-said-volcano-monitoring-is-wasteful#comments]Ha ha ha, I crack myself up sometimes[/URL].
       
Quote
Well, I'm sure that Jindal is convinced now that volcano "watching" is "wasteful." The volcano still erupted, didn't it? Scientists didn't stop the eruption, did they? Because scientists don't know anything, and we should funnel more funds toward faith-based initiatives that can actually do something, like exorcisms. ;)

But do you want to be that it's true? :)


Sacrificing virgins used to work.

Typically, liberals just want to throw more money at the problem when the obvious solution is to throw more virgins at the problem.

Imagine what that would do to the budget deficit, though, at today's prices.

Date: 2009/03/29 17:47:30, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 29 2009,12:55)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2009,02:30)
   
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,12:49)
[URL=http://www.examiner.com/x-2398-Boston-Top-News-Examiner~y2009m3d24-Alaskas-Mt-Redoubt-erupts-fourt-times-Bobby-Jin

dal-said-volcano-monitoring-is-wasteful#comments]Ha ha ha, I crack myself up sometimes[/URL].
         
Quote
Well, I'm sure that Jindal is convinced now that volcano "watching" is "wasteful." The volcano still erupted, didn't it? Scientists didn't stop the eruption, did they? Because scientists don't know anything, and we should funnel more funds toward faith-based initiatives that can actually do something, like exorcisms. ;)

But do you want to be that it's true? :)


Sacrificing virgins used to work.

I find sacrificing virginity is a little less messy, a lot more fun, and equally effective, when it comes to preventing volcanic eruptions.

Strange.  I was under the impression that sacrificing virginity has been known to be the cause of volcanic eruptions.

Date: 2009/03/31 23:06:46, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Mar. 31 2009,11:48)
Do these scientists/historians realise they are being used in a trailer for a YEC film about Charles Darwin ?:

Professor Sandra Herbert

Professor Peter Bowler

Professor Phil Currie

Have a look at Creation Ministries International's webpage on their forthcoming film about Charles Darwin:

http://creation.com/

They all appear alongside the Discovery Institute's Professor Cornelius Hunter and YEC Professor Stuart Burgess (AiG UK associate speaker) in the trailer for the film. I can't find anything at all about Brian Milstead.

Should Professors Herbert, Bowler, and Currie not be made aware that they are being promoted in this way ?????

I just love the fact that their first "Affiliated Sites" link is to this.

   
Quote
Welcome to the official website for Alien Intrusion:  UFOs and the Evolution Connection by Gary Bates

Date: 2011/02/09 16:55:59, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 09 2011,16:30)
Seriously, this thread is rotting your brains!

I worked my ass off to contrive this statement

 
Quote
Thus, using Marks and Spencer, I departmentally stored


into 300 words of pure fiction and the only comment I get is that a pond is not 2-dimensional.

I think I'll pour myself another glass of Gordon's Anti-Tard Elixir.  Cheers.

FWIW this lurker noticed too (and was rather proud of it, being a Yank and all).  But, you know, lurkers tend to lurk.

Date: 2011/02/09 23:06:04, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Stanton @ Feb. 09 2011,22:07)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 09 2011,21:17)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,18:05)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 09 2011,17:07)
     
Quote
DNA is not a coded language.

Yeah, that's just an analogy. It might or might not help somebody just learning the subject, but doesn't hold up too well when going into technical details.

I'd love see this moron conjugate an ERV.

Maybe he could describe where the punctuation is.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  ERV is not a young woman to trifle with.

I remember how she verbally eviscerated Michael Behe.

That kind of damage can only be approximated with a weedwhacker.

Or by a Richard Lenski.

Date: 2011/02/10 00:30:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 09 2011,23:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,20:01)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 09 2011,21:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 09 2011,18:05)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 09 2011,17:07)
   
Quote
DNA is not a coded language.

Yeah, that's just an analogy. It might or might not help somebody just learning the subject, but doesn't hold up too well when going into technical details.

I'd love see this moron conjugate an ERV.

Maybe he could describe where the punctuation is.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  ERV is not a young woman to trifle with.

I know, isn't she the epic bomb?

Insert raunchy conjugation pun here.

I can't give you any conjugation puns, so how about a couple of declension puns:

1) "I'd rather decline two drinks than one German adjective" (Sam Clemens)

2) "Latin students never decline sex" (perhaps because they're rarely given the opportunity?)

Date: 2011/02/10 19:57:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 10 2011,17:51)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 08 2011,11:45)
...
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position.

And that is beyond pathetic...

What is your position?

Date: 2011/02/15 00:44:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 14 2011,18:48)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 15 2011,00:08)
Strangely (or perhaps not), all the sympathetic stories are making me feel a lot better about it.

Y'all rock.

He who never made a mistake never made anything.

By this standard I am the world's most productive individual.

Louis

Oh, yeah, then there was the 3rd Year Music Theory exam:

"Fill in the chords between the given ones, to create an omnibus."

Uh... what? Oh feck.

To create a what?

It worries me that I don't know this, especially since I majored in music theory.  Granted, that was a long time ago, and maybe things have changed.  The only musical omnibus I remember is the one in the Flanders & Swann song.

Date: 2011/02/15 09:32:28, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 15 2011,08:50)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2011,08:04)
 
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 15 2011,08:00)
Do Christians experiencing NDE's ever see Vishnu, or Mohammed? Do Muslims ever see Jesus?

Excellent idea for some experimentation and observation... I nominate Ken Ham as Research Subject!

I just spent an exhausting three and a half minutes googling, but I can't find a reference to a study I half remember where an ER doctor put wooden letters on the top of the equipment in the emergency room.  None of the people who reported out of body experiences and "floating near the ceiling" remembered seeing the letters.

It's almost as if they had a completely internal, subjective experience.

Sounds like Sam Parnia, but I don't think the results of his study have been published yet.

Date: 2011/02/15 17:34:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2011,17:05)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
The Design Inference- How It Works

Got, guffaw, any worked examples of the Explanatory Filter in action?

How it works is all well and good. Now you've prove you know how it works. Now prove that *it* works by using it *to detect design*

Double dare ya.

Somebody needs to produce the equivalent to this page about "how homeopathy works".

Date: 2011/02/16 12:23:02, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,06:36)
I invited another prolific poster at YouTube "Mekelsior", you can catch his antics here here here to give their incredible evidence

"Incredible evidence" in the sense that it's not credible evidence?

Date: 2011/02/16 13:46:16, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,12:42)
WTF is this guy trying to say?  
Quote
""How then do they? get written?" are we going from evolution, change in allele frequency, to abiogenesis now?"

No abiogenesis? is how the single cell naturally came into being. Distantly related species have identical DNA sequences that have not changed since the species made its appearance. Thos means the completed species has a DNA sequence that IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

If a DNA sequence CAN NOT change when the only mechanisms for DNA change are introduced, how does it get arranged?

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say this is some sort of garbled reference to a vague memory of having once heard and misunderstood something about conserved sequences.  "Some DNA sequences are conserved" ---> "ZOMG DNA doesn't change so evolution can't happen!"

Date: 2011/02/16 14:16:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,13:59)
finally my favorite, assigning an analogy of a 3d structure to a linear language  
Quote
Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in? this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy

S A T O R

A R E P O

T E N E T

O P E R A

R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

If we change (mutate) any letter we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation."

Just as with a crossword puzzle in which two words utilize one letter to make both words coherent
They don't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with bullshit

Plus it isn't really a grammatical Latin sentence in the first place, so the "message" is at best questionable.  It would in fact be better if you mutated the "S" of ROTAS into an "E" - a point mutation with gain of function.

Date: 2011/02/16 14:19:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2011,13:26)
 
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,13:42)
WTF is this guy trying to say?    
Quote
""How then do they? get written?" are we going from evolution, change in allele frequency, to abiogenesis now?"

No abiogenesis? is how the single cell naturally came into being. Distantly related species have identical DNA sequences that have not changed since the species made its appearance. Thos means the completed species has a DNA sequence that IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

If a DNA sequence CAN NOT change when the only mechanisms for DNA change are introduced, how does it get arranged?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Signs point to no.

Next question?

Date: 2011/02/16 14:39:49, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,14:23)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2011,14:16)
 
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,13:59)
finally my favorite, assigning an analogy of a 3d structure to a linear language      
Quote
Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in? this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy

S A T O R

A R E P O

T E N E T

O P E R A

R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

If we change (mutate) any letter we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation."

Just as with a crossword puzzle in which two words utilize one letter to make both words coherent
They don't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with bullshit
Plus it isn't really a grammatical Latin sentence in the first place, so the "message" is at best questionable.  It would in fact be better if you mutated the "S" of ROTAS into an "E" - a point mutation with gain of function.

This non biology type person, me, pointed out that DNA is not a linear language, but a 3d structure that folds, twists, whatever and that the removal of one or more nucleotides (I hope that I got it correct) does not mean that there is any loss of function.

Then I asked if ID has found a way to measure the information in DNA and if so I'd like to see it.

Guess what?  I'm not a biology person either.  But I think what's important is not the changes to the DNA per se, but what they mean to the amino acid sequence (and hence the folding etc.) of the proteins the DNA codes for.  Some mutations simply change one codon into a different codon that specifies the very same amino acid, making no difference at all to the generated protein.  Others will cause a different amino acid to be substituted, which may or may not change the protein in a significant way.  Deletions are more interesting because they can shift the reading frame and effect a whole slew of changes to the protein all in one fell swoop.

Date: 2011/02/16 15:34:00, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2011,14:58)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2011,15:16)
       
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,13:59)
finally my favorite, assigning an analogy of a 3d structure to a linear language        
Quote
Dr. Sanford gives an example of poly-functional and poly-constraint in? this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy

S A T O R

A R E P O

T E N E T

O P E R A

R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

If we change (mutate) any letter we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation."

Just as with a crossword puzzle in which two words utilize one letter to make both words coherent
They don't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with bullshit

Plus it isn't really a grammatical Latin sentence in the first place, so the "message" is at best questionable.  It would in fact be better if you mutated the "S" of ROTAS into an "E" - a point mutation with gain of function.

I like

K L A A T U

B A R A D A

N I K T O

Which translates to "Gort, would you terribly mind retrieving klaatu's corpse and placing it on the resurrection table?" Change just one letter and Gort either uses his ray to prepare a delicious creme brulee or builds the fastest soap box derby racer ever seen in Akron.

O W A H
T A F U
L Y A M

Date: 2011/02/16 16:30:54, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 16 2011,16:12)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 15 2011,10:32)
 
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 15 2011,08:50)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2011,08:04)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 15 2011,08:00)
Do Christians experiencing NDE's ever see Vishnu, or Mohammed? Do Muslims ever see Jesus?

Excellent idea for some experimentation and observation... I nominate Ken Ham as Research Subject!

I just spent an exhausting three and a half minutes googling, but I can't find a reference to a study I half remember where an ER doctor put wooden letters on the top of the equipment in the emergency room.  None of the people who reported out of body experiences and "floating near the ceiling" remembered seeing the letters.

It's almost as if they had a completely internal, subjective experience.

Sounds like Sam Parnia, but I don't think the results of his study have been published yet.

Mary Roach reports on this research in the last chapter of her book "Spook", which I heartily recommend. (Along with her other books "Bonk", "Stiff", and "Packing for Mars")

One of the funniest science journalists, ever.

I'll have to look that up.  I saw her with John Stewart talking about Packing for Mars and she was pretty funny.

Date: 2011/02/16 21:39:34, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Sol3a1 @ Feb. 16 2011,20:11)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2011,20:00)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 16 2011,17:15)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2011,12:58)
I like

K L A A T U

B A R A D A

N I K T O

Which translates to "Gort, would you terribly mind retrieving klaatu's corpse and placing it on the resurrection table?" Change just one letter and Gort either uses his ray to prepare a delicious creme brulee or builds the fastest soap box derby racer ever seen in Akron.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

potd. :-)
I don't get it.  Could someone spell it out for me?

ETA actually I'd prefer a subtle hint so I won't feel so stoopid.

Keanu Reeves movie

Begone, spawn of Satan!

Date: 2011/02/17 15:30:49, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 17 2011,14:32)
 
   
Quote
KC:      
Quote
Olegt: So even though we cannot directly observe the formation of our planet, few people outside of YEC circles doubt that the Earth and the Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago. This is settled science.

Don't be ridiculous. As ID Guy astutely points out, until a video camera with a time travel option is invented, all speculation on the formation of the Solar System is equally valid.

Gotta love that new iPhone app.

In fact, the Solar System was created 153 years from now by a guy with a video camera with a time travel option.  On Saturday afternoon.  At about tea-time.

There.  An "equally valid" speculation about the formation of the Solar System, and I didn't even break a sweat.

Date: 2011/02/18 08:25:13, Link
Author: noncarborundum
[quote=OgreMkV,Feb. 18 2011,08:13][quote=Sol3a1,Feb. 18 2011,05:26]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 17 2011,18:16)
From now on, I will refer to these people as WIMPs.

Willfully Ignorant Misinformation Purveyors?

Date: 2011/02/18 20:00:41, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (REC @ Feb. 18 2011,16:51)
UD

 
Quote
Our mission at CrossExamined.org is to equip high school and college students to know why Christianity is true, how to defend it, and how to tactfully refute those who try to corrupt them.


Link

"Corrupt"?  I can see they're serious about tactfulness.  I always like to accuse those who disagree with me of trying to "corrupt" me.  Tactfully, of course.

Date: 2011/02/22 18:14:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 22 2011,13:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 22 2011,08:38)
ROFL@Joe:
   
Quote
Can you put an actual figure on it (SI) or not? If you can't then what you are doing is hardly science is it?

So you admit your position is science because it can't put actual figures on anything.

That said- There isn't any need for a solid number just that CSI is present or not. But I have put an actual figure to it. It is greater than 1 million bits of SI.


http://www.blogger.com/comment....9199521

Erm... this has probably been dealt with before, but... "specified" by whom?  What R Teh Metrix?

It always struck me that using the word "specified" sort of begged the whole question.  Doesn't "specified" imply a "specifier"?

Date: 2011/03/02 08:13:24, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 02 2011,05:40)
LOL

ID Guy:

   
Quote
Mmmmmmmm, Ann Coulter


JAD:

 
Quote
I don't agree with her on alot of things but I just love her wit and humor.
She's also good looking. Is she married?

Ewww.

Date: 2011/03/05 15:13:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2011,22:38)
Chunky to RB:
     
Quote
I think I'll also ban you from this thread since twice you were too chicken to answer my simple question.

That is all it takes to get oneself banned from a Chunkdz thread?

Wotta dipshit.

ETA: It's not even his thread.

First this:
 
Quote

Reciprocating Bill wrote:
 
Quote

   This finding sits neatly within an orthodox evolutionary framework.


Orthodox? That’s a term usually used in a religious context.

So what does that make people who question the orthodoxy? Heretics?

Notice how Bill doesn’t make an argument here, just a vague appeal to authority.


Then this:

 
Quote
The theory of evolution doesn't make such a prediction. Convergent evolution- either way (destruction nor construction) is a prediction of the theory of evolution.


I love how "this fits right into standard evolutionary theory" is an "appeal to authority", but "no, it doesn't" is perfectly okay.

Date: 2011/03/06 23:49:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 06 2011,21:32)
For people who argue, "You should believe as I do," it seems to me that others will not only evaluate the merits (or failings) of their arguments, but also whether the example they set is the sort of person one wants to become. Perennially rude, angry, and evasive doesn't seem like a winning outcome for a set of beliefs.

C.S. Lewis suggested that the effect of religion on personality and behavior should be judged not by how awful people are, but by how much more awful you can imagine they might have been without their religion.  Or something like that.

Date: 2011/03/09 17:37:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2011,16:08)
But are the particles real, or virtual?

And more important, are they smooth or chunky?

Date: 2011/03/15 15:29:38, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 15 2011,12:32)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 15 2011,13:50)

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Therefore Shroud of Turin. Therefore Jesus.

Got that, pal?

Louis

Date: 2011/03/17 09:52:25, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 17 2011,09:34)
In slogging through some of the comments on UD,  I realized I don't understand a certain term:

KF:

 
Quote
j: Has it ever been observed that a process of chance plus mechanical necessity staring from an arbitrary initial configuration has constructed an algorithmically or linguistically functional system beyond 1,000 bits storage capacity? (Systems that start within an island of function and per an algorithm hill climb to better performance, are NOT cases in point.)


What is mechanical necessity? I realize the question is nonsense anyway, but it occurred to me that them folks use that MN term a lot and I really don't know what the is supposed to mean.

If I understand them correctly (which, in a sense, heaven forfend), "necessity" is "obedience to the laws of physics".  I don't think I've encountered the collocation "mechanical necessity" before, but it seems to be just more of the same, but with emphasis on the mindless nature of the process (in much the same way that "chance" alternates with "blind chance").

Date: 2011/03/17 17:48:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 17 2011,16:09)
Hydrogen to humans
Mud to man
Goo to you, via the zoo

Humus to Homo.

Date: 2011/03/18 15:56:12, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (khan @ Mar. 18 2011,15:48)
 
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 17 2011,19:56)
UD's resident philosopher Vincent Torley insists that ID is good theology:
     
Quote
The charge that Intelligent Design theory is tied to an anthropomorphic conception of God has been made before, and repeatedly refuted. Recently, Professor Michael Tkacz made this claim in a paper entitled Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers: What is God’s Finger Doing in My Pre-Biotic Soup? and again in a revised version of his talk, entitled Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design. I wrote a devastating five-part rebuttal, to which he has not yet responded. In Part Four of my reply to Professor Tkacz, I demonstrate that Tkacz completely mis-represents the theological claims of the Intelligent Design movement, that his charge of anthropomorphism is completely false, and that he personifies Nature in a most un-Thomistic fashion, treating it as One Big Autonomous Agent. Here’s another question for Professor Feser: has he read Part Four of my reply to Tkacz?

What kind of cretinous yahoo self labels his ignorant yammering as 'devastating' (to reality)?

ETA: bolding is mine

He has to label it, or how would anyone but him ever figure out how devastating it is?  By reading it?  Pshaw.

Date: 2011/03/23 00:39:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 22 2011,20:40)
A possible foretaste is from my review of a creatocrap book: "Darwin's Demise."

Very nice, but that's a whole lotta words you got there.  The people who need to read it, won't.

I absolutely can't wrap my mind around this comment, from a 5-star review:
 
Quote
How did these two Male and Female a world apart ever find each other...How long did the Thumb live before a Toe evolved...much less the eye or ear.

Please help.

Date: 2011/03/24 00:41:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote
vjtorley: In the very long recent UD thread on CSI, I proposed an alternative definition of CSI:

Chi=-log2[(10^120).(SC/KC).PC],

...

PC is the probabilistic complexity, defined as the probability of the pattern arising by natural non-intelligent processes.


. . . which is what is at issue in the first place.  The very definition of begging the question.

Date: 2011/03/25 12:31:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2011,11:45)
 
Quote

My preliminary conclusions from this discussion differ greatly from my initial expectations.

I don't believe that for a minute.  Or maybe MathGrrl is just way more charitable than I ever could be.

Date: 2011/03/27 01:23:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 27 2011,00:33)

Quote
Let me tell you what, Murmasa, you go buy a copy of No Free Lunch, read it, understand it, and then come back here and demonstrate that you understand CSI, and then we’ll take your criticisms seriously.

Perhaps it would be useful for someone (anyone) at UD to prove that this is even possible, say by answering any one of MathGrrl's questions.

Date: 2011/03/31 13:46:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46)
Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them?

-DU-

Doesn't UD have one person capable of writing a limerick that scans?  Aaugh, the assault on my refined poetic sensibilities!

Date: 2011/03/31 13:52:16, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:08)

   
Quote
This is interesting.
   
Quote
MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm
eric,

[snip]

By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said.

Perhaps we were wrong about her identity.


I just want to know if she's the same Mathgrrl as the one with the profile on Beergeeks. If she is, I want to marry her!

...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh)

Sure you can.  Depending on what you mean by "marry another woman", you can move either to Massachusetts or to Saudi Arabia.

Now whether you may is another question altogether.

Date: 2011/03/31 13:55:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,13:52)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37)
 
...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh)

Sure you can.  Depending on what you mean by "marry another woman", you can move either to Massachusetts or to Saudi Arabia.

Now whether you may is another question altogether.

Oops.  Failed to note rossum's similar response above before posting mine.  I would argue for Mass. over Vt., however, on the basis of priority.  We've been at it longer so we must be better at it.

Date: 2011/03/31 14:08:49, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,08:31)
   However, I did come across a post that surely is the (still) high water mark for Uncommon Descent.

Behold!  Dembski at his finest!

I hadn't seen this before:

 
Quote (dembski @ Dec. 18 2006,18:21)
Calm yourselves everybody. An enhanced flatulent version is being worked on at this very moment. I will make it available. I do want to say this for the record, however. Many people regard the flatulent version as unsophisticated and even infantile. I want to suggest that in this postmodern age the flatulence in this animation actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of flatulence that runs throughout Judge Jones’s decision.


Anyone know if such an "enhanced flatulent version" ever saw the light of day?

Also, flatulence as "sophisticated rhetorical device"?  Really?

Date: 2011/03/31 16:15:46, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 31 2011,15:58)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,14:46)
 
Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46)
Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them?

-DU-

Doesn't UD have one person capable of writing a limerick that scans?  Aaugh, the assault on my refined poetic sensibilities!

You didn't like Nakashima's? :(
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources



/#comment-342358]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-342358[/URL]

I take it all back.

Date: 2011/04/02 00:14:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (didymos @ April 01 2011,23:47)
GilDo's got a "new" post. A1.

I love Mozart too, but jeez, that's vacuous.

GD:  "I can't personally believe it, so it must be obviously false to everyone."

Date: 2011/04/06 01:25:37, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

     
Quote
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.


Waterloo!!!!!

I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.

Date: 2011/04/06 16:48:04, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2011,15:55)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 05 2011,23:45)
Gil displays a little irritation at the way the “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs” comments are heading:
     
Quote
BACK ON TOPIC:

...because he wants to say something he hasn't said before...
     
Quote
I just got back from a rehearsal at our church playing piano with the many talented musicians in our worship team, in preparation for next Sunday’s service. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience (which the atheist will never comprehend or experience), not just for the praise music but for the fellowship among us. At every rehearsal we have a time of prayer and share our personal lives and struggles with each other.

As a former Dawkins-style atheist I can offer the following observations: Atheism is hopelessly irrational and illogical. It is soul destroying.

...for at least a week.

Yeah, right. Because as a former pianist myself who, like Dawkins, sang in choir, and as a dancer who started at age practically zero singing in my crib (according to witnesses), I hate music about as much as the St.-Matthews-Passion-enjoying Dawkins does.

What a childish comment, even for Gilligan.

I just got back from a solo recital, singing with the many talented musicians in my voice teacher's studio. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience, not just for the music but for the fellowship among us. After every recital we have a time of wine and cheese and sharing our personal lives and struggles with each other.

As a former C.S. Lewis-style Christian I can offer the following observation: Gil Dodgen is a git.

Date: 2011/04/06 16:55:18, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2011,13:56)
http://www.hannity.com/article....24

Fabulous.  They deserve each other.

Date: 2011/04/06 21:24:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 06 2011,18:43)
That reminds me of a joke I once saw at camp as a kid:

       
Quote
Why don't Unitarians sing?

Because we're too busy reading ahead to see if we agree with the lyrics.


"God Rest Ye, Unitarians"
Lyrics by the Rev. Christopher Gist Raible of the First Unitarian Church of Worcester
Quote
God rest ye, Unitarians, let nothing you dismay;
Remember there's no evidence there was a Christmas Day;
When Christ was born is just not known, no matter what they say,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

There was no star of Bethlehem, there was no angels' song;
There could have been no wise men for the trip would take too long.
The stories in the Bible are historically wrong,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact!

Our current Christmas customs come from Persia and from Greece,
From solstice celebrations of the ancient Middle East.
We know our so-called holiday is just a pagan feast,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

Date: 2011/04/06 21:36:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2011,18:29)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 06 2011,16:48)
   
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2011,15:55)
       
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 05 2011,23:45)
Gil displays a little irritation at the way the “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs” comments are heading:
           
Quote
BACK ON TOPIC:

...because he wants to say something he hasn't said before...
           
Quote
I just got back from a rehearsal at our church playing piano with the many talented musicians in our worship team, in preparation for next Sunday’s service. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience (which the atheist will never comprehend or experience), not just for the praise music but for the fellowship among us. At every rehearsal we have a time of prayer and share our personal lives and struggles with each other.

As a former Dawkins-style atheist I can offer the following observations: Atheism is hopelessly irrational and illogical. It is soul destroying.

...for at least a week.

Yeah, right. Because as a former pianist myself who, like Dawkins, sang in choir, and as a dancer who started at age practically zero singing in my crib (according to witnesses), I hate music about as much as the St.-Matthews-Passion-enjoying Dawkins does.

What a childish comment, even for Gilligan.

I just got back from a solo recital, singing with the many talented musicians in my voice teacher's studio. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience, not just for the music but for the fellowship among us. After every recital we have a time of wine and cheese and sharing our personal lives and struggles with each other.

As a former C.S. Lewis-style Christian I can offer the following observation: Gil Dodgen is a git.

Yes, but Noncarb - you did not enjoy it in the right way!

I keep threatening to write a musical based on Kitzmiller. Well, I could write the libretto, at least. Sempre Li!

I've been known to write music, but I've never tried musical theater.  Would a musical based on Dover involve farting noises in any way?

Date: 2011/04/06 21:41:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 06 2011,17:48)
Quote (didymos @ April 06 2011,10:37)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 06 2011,01:39)
Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.

I think it's clear they're all skeptics (though they're not all atheists as well), it's just that Adam Savage, as per his personality, actually attends skeptic events and likes to talk about it.  It's funny, because he did say this at one of those events back in 2007:

   
Quote
My goal this year is to prove natural selection on the show. It's gonna take a while, it's gonna be very hard to make it fascinating on film in the context of our narrative structure, but I figure screw it. The sky's the limit. Let's do natural selection. I'm sick of fifty percent of this country thinking creationism is reasonable. It's appalling. And I have the unique ability, maybe, to sell this idea to Discovery, and they'll, they might allow me to do it, and I'm gonna try as hard as I can.


A year later he said it wasn't looking likely to ever happen. Which I find kind of strange, since Discovery has no problem talking about evolution in who-knows-how-many hours of their other programming.  I guess the show's style made them nervous about such topics though.

Kari Byron is on record as an atheist as well

Just another reason why I want someday to become young and attractive enough to marry her.

Date: 2011/04/08 01:27:40, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2011,00:51)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 07 2011,15:52)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 07 2011,04:46)
Wow!  I think I just found God.  NO!  GOD FOUND ME!!  In fact, He hit me like a wet sock right in the face, man!  God found me and I found God.  And I found him in the darndest place!  See, I was watching BS77's oft recommended video, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Shroud of Turin.  It is super cool, man!  It starts out with really spacey music and pictures of stars and galaxies and stuff and talking about our COSMIC Horizon in Space and Time and stuff.  REALLY DEEP, man!  Like drugs, only better and you don't wake up sleeping under a porch with dog shit in your mouth - way better!!

Then it cuts to some Beethoven music and these words appear: "Contrary to the heliocentric discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo, the discovery of 4D space-time by Einstein, ..."  and then the video makes you wait for a moment while the slow-readers catch up, then it continues with, "as well as the fact the Cosmic Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang forms a perfect sphere around the earth,..." then there's another pause for the slow readers to catch up while the video switches to this really bitchin picture of a satellite actually mapping the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation!! and more words appear: "gives us clear evidence that ANY particular spot in the universe may now be considered just as central..." (my emphasis man, ANY spot!) and it continues while that cool satellite continues to map out THE FREAKIN MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION, MAN!!!!! ,,,,, and then more words appear: "as any other particular material spot in the universe can be considered central..." while this satellite maps the FMBR right in front of your eyes in 3D man! and then it opens the sphere it's made into a flat map RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES!!!!1!1!! and then, like Jesus Christ sitting right on your face, IT HITS YOU:::

THE VERY CENTER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS A SPOT ABOUT FOUR INCHES UP BORNAGAIN77'S ASS! ! !!!!1!1!!ELEVEN, MAN!!!

And he's got the video that PROVES it!  Explain that, atheists!

Damn you, you made me watch!  Are you really basement cat in disguise?

Actually that part of the video was the best part, since BA77 seems to rely on some sort of inference-drawing on the viewers' part, and doesn't have anything stupid.

The quantum mechanics part - quotes from cranks.

The Shroud of Turin: "The image has no distortion, as if the sheet was perfectly flat, so the body must have been floating between two parallel sheets"  It never seems to occur to the genius that another reason the image is as if it was on a flat surface, is that most paintings are done when the canvass is flat.

P.S. Onlookers, the image is actually distorted, so particle physicist is wrong there also.

P.P.S. Particle physicists doing forensics - WTF?

Just the "General Relativity Quantum Mechanics and the Shroud of Turin" title had me laughing and then I watched the video and the Pee Wee Herman narrator came on and I lost it completely.

Another reason why the buttocks are completely undistorted may be that the shroud was made by putting pigment on a statue or bas-relief, laying a cloth over it and patting the cloth until the pigment transferred to it.  At least that's how Joe Nickels made his copy.

Personally, my theory is that if two IDers both stick their thumbs up their rectums, each thumb will be in the center of the universe (which is everywhere according to BA Mechanics) which means they will touch and they can tap out messages in morse code to each other, no matter where in the universe they happen to be.  

How can we ever defeat people with such powers?

Well, if we all stuck our thumbs up our rectums, wouldn't the center of the universe get so crowded that no message could propagate in a reasonable time?  Sort of like how it takes a photon tens or hundreds of thousands of years to emerge from the center of the sun?  That would really gum things up.

Date: 2011/04/08 11:40:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Zachriel @ April 08 2011,10:10)
In the middle of vjtorley's magnum opus, there is tiny flaw.

 
Quote
vjtorley: CSI-lite=-log2(1-(1-p)^(10^150)), where p is the probability of a sequence having a particular property, under the most favorable naturalistic assumptions (i.e. assuming the occurrence of the most likely known unintelligent process that might be generating the sequence). Where p is very small, we can approximate this by: CSI-lite=-log2[(10^150).p].

In other words, if we don't know what caused it, Design!

Well, not tiny -- Albert, in The Birdcage

Date: 2011/04/08 13:52:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Zachriel @ April 08 2011,13:45)
Quote
StephenB:This, by the way, is why I almost never discuss advanced science with Darwinists.

From the same comment:
Quote
God cannot not be God.

Exactly what I've been saying for years.

Date: 2011/04/08 21:22:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 08 2011,18:55)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2011,19:11)
Off topic

Gordon gives a link to a web page for an organization called "Global Village Construction Set.  

Does anybody know what song is the background for the video with the three young men standing on a home made tractor?  It's played on some kind of wooden xylophone type instrument.  I've heard snatches of this piece before and I love it.

If anybody can provide the title to that piece then GEM of TIKI (with your help) will have made a positive contribution to the universe, at least my part of it, and that's always nice.

Sounds more like steel drums to me.

No, I think CeilingCat is right.  Steel drums have more of a twang (and, to my ear, slightly out-of-tune quality).

Date: 2011/04/09 12:43:28, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Seversky @ April 09 2011,12:25)
I think JemimaRacktouey touched a nerve:
     
Quote
Onlookers:

I am now finished with Ms Jemima Racktouey, who has now definitively crossed over into the realm of the uncivil closed minded propagandist, not a serious participant in serous dialogue. (For just one point, has she in her fulminations above shown a single sign of having read much less bothered to reflect on say this discussion of the minimal facts relevant to the credibility of the NT documents, which was previously linked?

An interesting response from someone who lays claim to supreme moral authority by virtue of his religious beliefs.  Dismissing the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists as being, at best, misguided or, at worst, conspiring to promote an atheist agenda is polite behavior.  Raising questions about the historicity of New Testament documentation is "uncivil".  Do we see a double standard here?

And while the value of Scripture to believers in theological terms is for them to decide, its weight as evidence for historical events must be questionable when we observe discrepancies such as the following in accounts of just one event, the Resurrection:
   
Quote
What are the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts? They are these:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?

2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?

3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?

4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?

5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?

6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?

7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?

8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

That list, by the way, comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington and includes a lengthy attempt to reconcile the differing accounts.

There are several unanswered questions, though.  The Resurrection of the Son of God, if it actually happened would be an event of huge significance on so many levels.  This was a person who, during his lifetime, demonstrated miraculous or supernatural powers and then rose from the dead.  Yet the only accounts come from his supporters and, presumably, promoters with the earliest fragment of text dating from the second century AD.  No one else noticed, apparently.  These texts are presumed to be at least divinely inspired accounts.  You would think an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be able ensure they got his story straight at least.  On the site KF links to there is a quote from a British barrister.  It made me wonder how many lawyers would want to go to trial when their only evidence is testimony recorded decades after the event in question and which differs in so many details.  I suspect opposing counsel would have a field day eviscerating that weak a case.

Not to mention the invasion of Jerusalem by the walking dead, according to Matthew 27.  You'd think this would garner at least a little extra-Biblical notice.

Date: 2011/04/09 16:34:31, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Fucking hell.


Second prize, two Expelled and two Privileged Planet DVD's.

Date: 2011/04/10 02:26:37, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (didymos @ April 10 2011,01:55)
StephenB:
   
Quote
There is no impasse. When atheism confronts reasonI get to make unsupported assersions, atheism loses.

Date: 2011/04/12 20:26:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,20:17)
Bruce David is having a discussion with StephenB on logic and philosophy on the Does Good come from God II thread. Bruce points out that that Stephen's views differ considerably from those of many well respected philosophers. Stephen's reply, shortened:        
Quote
Hume, Kant, and Locke? Morons!

Stephen is channeling Vizzini from Princess Bride.

Of course, we know how that turned out.

Date: 2011/04/14 07:37:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Louis @ April 14 2011,04:58)
Quote (Henry J @ April 14 2011,03:18)
 
Quote
How does a 52 year old guy fight in Iraq???Unless he's a friggin general

Between Iraq and a hard place?

Is that the worst pun ever or am I stoned? I asked my wife to read it and she said its terribleness boulder over.

Louis

That's a gneiss way of putting it.

Date: 2011/04/15 21:32:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Amadan @ April 15 2011,18:37)
 
Quote (JohnW @ April 15 2011,23:24)
Has anyone ever known nothing about so much?




You have to ask?

Date: 2011/04/16 16:16:26, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 16 2011,10:56)
 
Quote (sparc @ April 16 2011,10:29)
Oh no! Just the other day I've told my students that the founder of our institute had proven that mutations are random and appear independent of selection (Luria, S. E., Delbrück, M.: Mutations of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics 28, 491 (1943)) and that he received the Nobel Prize for this work in 1969. I am afraid that I will not be able to continue teaching them on Monday after Jonathan Bartlett demonstrated the opposite and destroyed all what I thaught knew about genetics with a single post at UD. Since the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near I shall repent, and believe in the good news. BTW - if mutations aren't random why should we continue treating cancer?

Did you read the paper where they sequenced some cancers (prostrate I think) and found something like 200 major chromosomal mutations and several thousand point mutations.

You'd be prostrate too if you had that many mutations.

Date: 2011/04/18 21:44:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (k.e.. @ April 18 2011,02:40)
Quote (Henry J @ April 18 2011,02:21)
 
Quote
First of all, our butt is an important muscle, helping us to stand erect.

That's getting to the bottom of things.

He's fighting a rear action.

Having gotten a little behind in his work.

Date: 2011/04/19 00:21:28, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (paragwinn @ April 18 2011,22:57)
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 18 2011,21:44)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ April 18 2011,02:40)
   
Quote (Henry J @ April 18 2011,02:21)
     
Quote
First of all, our butt is an important muscle, helping us to stand erect.

That's getting to the bottom of things.

He's fighting a rear action.

Having gotten a little behind in his work.

Too busy playing "Truth or Derriere"

I'm a little surprised how long it tuchus to get this going.

Date: 2011/04/19 08:16:58, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (k.e.. @ April 19 2011,06:41)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 19 2011,14:05)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ April 19 2011,11:34)
       
Quote (Louis @ April 19 2011,13:19)
         
Quote (k.e.. @ April 19 2011,08:06)
         
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 19 2011,08:21)
           
Quote (paragwinn @ April 18 2011,22:57)
             
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 18 2011,21:44)
               
Quote (k.e.. @ April 18 2011,02:40)
                 
Quote (Henry J @ April 18 2011,02:21)
                 
Quote
First of all, our butt is an important muscle, helping us to stand erect.

That's getting to the bottom of things.

He's fighting a rear action.

Having gotten a little behind in his work.

Too busy playing "Truth or Derriere"

I'm a little surprised how long it tuchus to get this going.

Nothing assinine from Louis yet

Arse-k me nicely and I assure you I shall buttle along with something fundamental for you.

Louis

Now you're bending over backwards soon you'll be the posterior of the joke.

This was a series of polite puns until you rectum. What an


Louis

Um yeah crapulous. The trout rises for the fly. Punishing.
No browneye points and only two more puns for your turd. Butter wait for the last tango in Tennessee.

The cheek of some people . . . .

Date: 2011/04/20 11:46:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Robin @ April 20 2011,09:08)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ April 20 2011,03:44)

   
Quote
   
Quote
More to the point, your questions are irrelevant. You ignore ID science, question the legitimacy of ID’s methods, and challenge its conclusions on the grounds that its members are too palsy walsy.


"Palsy walsy"?? That's a new one for me. Had to go and look that up.

Of course, I originally mispronounced when I read it. I thought it would sound like paulsy-wallsy. Then I realized it was pronounced powlsy-wowsly. Makes much more sense now.

...speaking of slow news days...

In the good old days (before the Norman Conquest), English actually had an unambiguous way to spell the vowel sound in the word "pal":

æ

I blame the French for screwing this up.

Date: 2011/04/21 13:43:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 05 2009,02:12)
 
     
Quote

     
Quote
But hey! At least we aren’t in their bedrooms. Right? Why are they in ours?


I almost hesitate to ask, but do homosexuals really force themselves into your bedroom?

And if so, why?

Date: 2011/04/21 21:40:03, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (lkeithlu @ April 21 2011,19:39)
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.

Good luck with that.  Joe is practicing cargo cult science.  You give him    
Quote
Biometrics. Dating techniques. Stratigraphy. Anatomy . . .

but all he can understand is    
Quote
The fossils are of organisms that once lived.

Thre, they are explained.


You might as well try discussing modulation indices and signal-to-noise ratios with a Pacific islander who builds radios out of coconuts.

Date: 2011/04/25 15:40:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2011,09:58)
 
Quote (clamboy @ April 24 2011,19:06)
You are all brave, brave people to sit through that. Less than ten minutes into Mr. Brimley's horrible delivery and I had to walk away.

I had to skip through. Not only was the talk without substance, but the delivery was stultifying.

This is what I imagine it would be like to attend a college class taught by kairosfocus.  Except that you couldn't just click the "pause" button before you dozed off entirely.

Date: 2011/04/25 20:10:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 25 2011,18:49)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 25 2011,15:40)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2011,09:58)
     
Quote (clamboy @ April 24 2011,19:06)
You are all brave, brave people to sit through that. Less than ten minutes into Mr. Brimley's horrible delivery and I had to walk away.

I had to skip through. Not only was the talk without substance, but the delivery was stultifying.

This is what I imagine it would be like to attend a college class taught by kairosfocus.  Except that you couldn't just click the "pause" button before you dozed off entirely.

Pause button? I'd want it to be closer to over by the time I awoke, I think.

I was sort of assuming one didn't actually want to doze off in class if one could avoid it.  Your mileage may vary.

Date: 2011/04/26 14:39:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (utidjian @ April 26 2011,11:43)
 
Quote (Kristine @ April 24 2011,18:55)
Posted! On an English-language site.

   
Quote
Did you actually say that Barbara Forrest "needs Haldol or something"? Is that civility? Is that a rational response to what you have termed "incivility"?
I call for more civility in this debate. You should apologize!

I "Like"d it.

About 1:12:00 in (the "discussion") the part where the camera turns to the audience reminds me of the "the Committee" in A Boy and His Dog (arguably Don Johnson's best part evar.)

But yeah... trying to listen to that Giem is like trying to read the GEM. Perhaps they are related?

-DU-

They look almost identical, except that GEM is missing an i.

Date: 2011/04/28 21:49:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 28 2011,18:06)
Quote
The main question is: should NCSE or BCSE endorse religious views and diss out prominent atheists just so they can reach their goal? Where's the neutrality?


Disrespect goes in both directions. I think Dawkins is a respectful writer, but PZ is quite abrasive.

And yet as far as I can tell Dawkins gets called "militant" and "abrasive" nearly as often as Myers does.  This has to tell us something.

Date: 2011/04/30 14:08:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 30 2011,12:04)
 
Quote (olegt @ April 30 2011,11:59)
Joe cracks me up. In his little world, he lectures evolutionary biologists about nested hierarchies and tells physicists how to measure information. The guy has encyclopedic knowledge.

But wait! There's MOAR. In a new post he writes about Hermagoras:
       
Quote
The equivocation is all dave's as IDC only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Methinks dave doesn't understand the qord equivocation.

Hahahaha! HAHAHAHA!

It's true.  If you want to understand the word equivocation, the last person to ask is a rhetoric scholar.

Yeah, but how much do you have to say about the qord equivocation, smart boy?

Date: 2011/05/02 18:33:30, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ May 02 2011,08:03)
   
Quote (Kristine @ May 01 2011,23:48)

Nailed It!

Of course a True Birther™ will now want to see Bin-Laden's birthdeath certificate...


Fixed.

Date: 2011/05/05 18:50:04, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 03 2011,21:31)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 03 2011,19:49)
Have you caught this one yet?

 
Quote
Now there's nothing wrong with marketing ideas--in fact, the intelligent design community, of which I'm a part, has done quite a bit of this and quite successfully. William A. Dembski, April 27, 2011


And what else have you assholes done besides marketing?

Technical advances in the field of farty-noises?

Not an unexpected outcome when you're dealing with assholes.

Date: 2011/05/06 06:22:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 06 2011,01:12)

I wasted a few bucks on reb Maverick's tome.  Here's a sample of his "reasoning":            
Quote
True devotees of naturalism

    Talmudic sources describe the practices of an ancient pagan cult called Ba'al Pe'or.  The adherents of this sect showed their devotion to their god by first defecating in front of his statue and then proceeding to engage in some of the more standard types of debauchery.  Defecation as a form of worship might seem odd to us in the 21st century, but the obvious meaning behind this act was to proclaim the glorification of, and an exclusive devotion to the physical and material aspects of existence.  If it were suggested that the above described scatology would be an appropriate expression of their own absolute commitment to naturalism and materialism, I imagine the reactions of Lewontin, Hitchens, Dawkiins, Ruse, Dennet, Pinker, et al., would be comically squeamish (although I don't rule out the possibility that they could surprise me).  Despite that, my guess is they would still feel right at home in a post-worship philosophical discussion with the naturalist/materialist "theologians" of the Ba'al Pe'or seminary.
That's from location 3820-3833 of the Kindle iPhone app and pages 225-226 of the book.

It's probably not relevant, but I found it amusing nonetheless, that Strong's Hebrew Lexicon defines Pe'or as "gap" (a geographical feature?).  Ba'al  being "lord" or "master" (as in Ba'al-Zebub, the Lord of the Flies), this would make Ba'al-Pe'or "Lord of the Gaps".

Who knew the God of the Gaps had worshipers back in Biblical times?  And that they were full of shit, even then?





Date: 2011/05/06 10:28:25, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ May 06 2011,10:23)
Mapou is a few synapses short of a quorum:
 
Quote
It is easy to prove that infinity cannot exist. Any finite member of an infinite set is infinitely small compared to an infinitely large member. The contradiction is that a value can be both finite and infinite at the same time. Conclusion: infinity is as bogus as the flat earth hypothesis.

Yes, it’s really that simple to prove that infinity is nonsense, a million mathematicians notwithstanding.

That may be the first time I've seen the "Proof by Intimidation" employed in earnest.

Date: 2011/05/09 00:12:24, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (MichaelJ @ May 08 2011,23:50)
 
Quote (Seversky @ May 09 2011,03:54)
 
Quote (Seversky @ May 08 2011,07:59)
DeNews O'Leary, upholding the high scientific standards at UD, discusses the acrheological evidence for the existence of the Biblical King David here.

The thread keeps getting better.   Barb comments:

     
Quote
It is one thing to state that you don’t believe something because there is no evidence that would lead you to believe it.

It is quite another to have that evidence placed firmly in front of your face and then deny it exists.

The former is an argument from ignorance, and the latter is just plain stupidity.


I couldn't have put it better myself.

I've read the Bible unearthed but am no means an expert but reading the comments in the original article reminds me of reading an article on the DI site.

I don't often read BAR, but I picked up a copy in a doctor's office once and was very much amused by a letter from a reader who was angrily canceling his subscription because he objected to the use of B.C.E. and C.E. for the more traditional B.C. and A.D. -- which he was careful to define as "Before Christ" and "After Death".

Some of the advertising in BAR makes it quite clear that at least a portion of the readership is in it for the "Biblical" rather than for the "Archaeology".

Date: 2011/05/14 19:29:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]

Quote (xjudges89 @ May 14 2011,18:54)
AE Mods....

YOU LITTLE SHITS DIE TODAY....

Charming.

Date: 2011/05/15 00:33:00, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Dale_Husband @ May 14 2011,14:48)
 
Quote (Kristine @ May 14 2011,14:32)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 12 2011,03:26)
Barry Arrington wannabe nullasalus (c'est un vrai nul, ce mec) adopts an interesting technique. Posing a question and stating his intention beforehand to eradicate all the comments he doesn't like. Let's see how that goes!

link

Well it's going about how it usually goes, but someone here has to 'fess up, 'fess up, to this beaut:
       
Quote
So, if any ID advocates here get tired and think that their arguments are falling on deaf ears, let my story here motivate you to keep you in the debate. The tools provided by Behe, Dembski, Meyer and so many here – GilDodgen, kairosfocus, vjtorley, nullasalas, Denyse, Barry, bornagain,etc. – the links, the books, the arguments – have not only made a profound difference in my life, but in the lives of many people I know who were once atheistic or agnostic, and are now disabused of that unsupportable position and are also intellectually fulfilled theists.

Thank you. ID and the love a good, theistic woman has transformed my life.

:D *ahem* :) :p :D

Honestly, people - that's just cruel. It's like arguing with your opponent while he's having a coughing fit (like me when I finished this) and then having the "good cop" step in.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-380057
   
Quote

When I first came across ID I was an atheist. However, being married to a firm believer in god, my love for my wife had tempered any condescension or vitriol I had previously felt for the religious.

I became interested in ID simply because, for whatever reason, I immediately recognized the arguments against ID to be contrived, and the arguments that ID proponents were making were not only intuitively on target, they were sound rationally.

I really began realizing that what I thought was sound logic and reasoning for atheism, was really just emotion-appealing rhetoric and artful dodging of fundamental contradictions of necessary first principles and right reasoning.

ID introduced me to a world of theistic reasoning that I had frankly never been exposed to before. My atheism – like that of many, I imagine – was more of an emotional reaction to the blatantly cartoonish, ultra-hypocritical, unbelievable, and unsupportable-even-if-true God I was presented with by those who raised me (or, at least, that’s how my young mind perceived the god that had been presented). There was no way, I thought at the time, that any reasonable, intelligent person could believe in such an entity.

ID theorists and calm, reasoned arguments by theistic philosophers involved in ID, and their logical dismantling of the atheistic/materialist perspective into incoherency due to lack of any necessary first principles eventually made me realize that no argument can be sustained by basis unless logic and truth exist as their own commodities, and not as the relativistic, solipsistic computations of material machinery.

Either God exists, or we must admit we each live in a solipsistic bubble of material programming utterly incapable of discerning true statements from false, without even a meaningful way to do so, and without any reason to do so. ID proponents elegantly demonstrated that you can no more argue truth or attain teleology from the “is” of mechanical materialism than you can honestly argue by the merits that a long series of happy accidents can generate the deep, interconnected, inter-dependent complex coded nano-technology found in a single cell.

ID proponents laid the groundwork for me to set aside my emotional barricade against the idea of god and re-examine the issue from a more adult and logical perspective.

To borrow from Dawkins, ID has made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. With that more sound and reasoned theism, I have found a peace, happiness and fulfillment that before had always eluded me.

So, if any ID advocates here get tired and think that their arguments are falling on deaf ears, let my story here motivate you to keep you in the debate. The tools provided by Behe, Dembski, Meyer and so many here – GilDodgen, kairosfocus, vjtorley, nullasalas, Denyse, Barry, bornagain,etc. – the links, the books, the arguments – have not only made a profound difference in my life, but in the lives of many people I know who were once atheistic or agnostic, and are now disabused of that unsupportable position and are also intellectually fulfilled theists.

Thank you. ID and the love a good, theistic woman has transformed my life.


Sorry, but if the only reason you believe in God (and swallow ID bullcrap) is because you fell in love with a woman who is a theist, your atheism was not based on reality to begin with. Atheism doesn't have to be about hating religions or religious people. It shouldn't be. This guy's atheism was as shallow as a child's swimming pool.

You sell his reasoning short.  There's also the fact that if God didn't exist, 2 + 2 wouldn't equal 4, or maybe 2 + 2 would equal 4, but it wouldn't matter.

Date: 2011/05/17 22:29:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Seversky @ May 17 2011,22:02)
I know it's too much to expect the IDiots to have read On the Origin of Species but they might like to look at this passage from page 551 of the fifth edition which can be found online here:

     
Quote
Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local—both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration has probably been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are in most cases separated from each other by blank intervals of time of great length; for fossiliferous formations thick enough to resist future degradation can as a general rule be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the subsiding bed of the sea. During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will generally be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction.(My emphasis)


Most likely they won't, though.

So Darwin anticipated Punctuated Equilibria.  Cool.

Date: 2011/05/20 15:55:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 20 2011,10:28)
DeNews doesn't read critically:
       
Quote
Using the reverse SAR method, biologists have assumed that a species is lost with the destruction of an area of habitat equivalent to the area needed to first encounter it. But in reality, the species is lost only with destruction of the habitat area that includes every individual of the species, which is always larger. Consequently, the SAR method loses species too fast.

You may notice the high writing quality of the quoted material.  That is because the NEWS!!! article is a cut and paste interspersed with unnecessary comments.  I would not call this a math error, but a conceptual error.  That is why a simple correction for the ratio of the two areas can be used to adjust extinction rates, by a factor of 2 or 2.5.

So,  evolutionists can't do math!!!11!EleventyOne!!! is obviously the important take home message.  Not so important (not mentioned by DeNews):
       
Quote
Jean-Christophe Vié, deputy head of species survival at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, agrees better baseline data on species is badly needed. He says IUCN doesn't use the SAR method. But, he points out, "a twofold miscalculation doesn't make much difference to an extinction rate now 100 to 1000 times the natural background".


vs DeNews conclusion:      
Quote
Actual extinction risks is a critical subject now because the economic downturn affects conservation budgets. The last thing conservation biologists need is bad data that results in blowing the budget on a phantom problem. In the worst case scenario, legislation or court decisions demand that the budget be spent solving a problem that doesn’t exist.


DeNews math: extinction rate of 100 to 1000 times background, divided by 2 might be 1.  Who needs more math again?

100/2 = 1 for sufficiently large values of 2 (or sufficiently small values of 100).

Date: 2011/05/20 23:47:41, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ May 20 2011,23:16)
   
Quote
I am assuming DeNews is actually asking how many secular predictions of the earth ending in the past 50 years, although that is equal to the number of times that all life on Earth has actually ended: zero.

There were several close calls a few years ago, but were stopped by Buffy Summers, in what was then Sunnydale, CA (which isn't there any more).

This was documented on TV.

Henry

I understand that not all of these historical documents are absolutely to be relied upon.  For more information you may want to consult the 1999 documentary film Galaxy Quest, which goes into the issue in some detail.

Quote
Gwen DeMarco: They're not ALL "historical documents." Surely, you don't think Gilligan's Island is a...
Mathesar: Those poor people.

Date: 2011/05/21 07:55:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 21 2011,02:38)
Quote (noncarborundum @ May 21 2011,05:47)
 
Quote (Henry J @ May 20 2011,23:16)
     
Quote
I am assuming DeNews is actually asking how many secular predictions of the earth ending in the past 50 years, although that is equal to the number of times that all life on Earth has actually ended: zero.

There were several close calls a few years ago, but were stopped by Buffy Summers, in what was then Sunnydale, CA (which isn't there any more).

This was documented on TV.

Henry

I understand that not all of these historical documents are absolutely to be relied upon.  For more information you may want to consult the 1999 documentary film Galaxy Quest, which goes into the issue in some detail.

 
Quote
Gwen DeMarco: They're not ALL "historical documents." Surely, you don't think Gilligan's Island is a...
Mathesar: Those poor people.

IIRC it was not Gilligan but Days of our Lives Gwen was reffering to (terrific movie, BTW).

I got that from IMDB, and it jibes with my own recollection.

Date: 2011/05/21 19:04:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 20 2011,19:28)
Over at Evo Whine and Snooze, DI attack gerbil and World Unibrow Queen, Casey Luskin, actually wrote this:

 
Quote
People often invent conspiracy theories when they feel dejected and disenfranchised, but are unwilling (or politically unable) to admit the possibility they are wrong. Such theories are often an attempt to save face by inventing opponents who can then be blamed.


Words fail me.  This guy who espouses the "Darwinian lobby" and the "Darwinian Pressure Group*" and "Darwinists this and that" has described in his own words his own self.

A.  Mazing.



*Actually, the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, exists and we accept donations.  Cash only.

Unfamiliar with psychological projection, are ye?

Date: 2011/05/23 05:32:54, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ May 22 2011,23:29)
Quote (JohnW @ May 22 2011,17:13)
 
Quote (Ftk @ May 22 2011,16:47)

Bullshit.  It's Sunday, 5:17 pm.

Really? I've been asking people all day what time it is, and everyone gives me a different answer.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Does anybody really care?

Date: 2011/05/23 20:59:31, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (rhmc @ May 23 2011,19:24)
i used to be able to read 360 assembler core dumps in hex.  
key phrase is "used to be able to..."

Ha.  I once diagnosed a bug in an assembler module by directing a debugging session in TSO TEST over the phone.

Date: 2011/05/24 21:25:18, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 24 2011,14:33)
'bout that Gilligan stuf, I think I know where I got the confusion. First time I saw galaxy Quest was in french, a while back, and in the french version they referenced to another show (actualy, I think it was Santa Barbara, very famous in France). But now that I think about it, Gilligan sounds right for the US version.

We never had Gilligan in France (yep, we really missed something there. used to watch that show all the time in Florida).

The US version????
Is this another way of saying "the actual movie"?

Date: 2011/05/27 16:08:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 27 2011,14:47)
Currently reading Carl Zimmer's E.coli book. Wonderful as would be expected.

He mentions that bacteria maintain a high internal pressure, which he credits with helping chemical reactions proceed more quickly. However, it also forces bacteria to wear a corset, and if this is pierced, they explode.

On the web, I saw the actual internal pressure quoted as 3-5 atmospheres.

Here's a hypothesis - the internal pressure of bacteria is approximately the atmospheric pressure under which they evolved. If so, the corset evolved later as a way to maintain high pressure and chemical activity, even as atmospheric pressure dropped (due to CO2 being used by life and then sequestered, etc.). Sort of like how people argue that blood is the salinity of the ocean.

What think you?

I plan to keep an eye on this.

Date: 2011/05/30 01:53:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Industrial Melanism in British Peppered Moths Has a Singular and Recent Mutational Origin

I think there's a typo in the title.  They wrote "Peppered Moths" where they meant "Icon of Evolution".

Date: 2011/06/04 17:33:41, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 04 2011,07:29)
Quote (sparc @ June 04 2011,05:18)
I gave up. Reading DO'L is nothing compared to listening a DO'L talk. It may explain her writing style though.

Gaak.

At 4:10:
Quote
The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about.

I lasted that long and no longer.

Date: 2011/06/06 00:29:50, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (paragwinn @ June 06 2011,00:15)
GilDo, wordsmith extraordinaire:
   
Quote
At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists, and they continue to mount what I perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection.

bolding mine

indefensible from Merriam-Webster:
   
Quote
a : incapable of being maintained as right or valid : untenable b : incapable of being justified or excused : inexcusable <indefensible comments>
Synonyms: inexcusable, inexpiable, insupportable, unforgivable, unjustifiable, unpardonable, unwarrantable

Big hat tip to Joe Felsenstein at PT

It's probably giving him too much credit to wonder if intended "indefeasible" and his fingers betrayed him.  It's much more likely that he simply meant "that cannot be defended against", and his brain betrayed him.

Date: 2011/06/06 11:39:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ June 06 2011,10:45)
Quote
The text subheaded ‘Value in context’ could have been shortened and integrated with the rest of the chapter; setting out this section achieves a Zeno’s paradox of abstract tortuousness.

I know it's boring, but it's exciting to me, because I'm new at scholarly writing.

And here I always thought Zeno's paradoxes involved concrete tortoiseness.

Date: 2011/06/06 16:24:54, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote
The fact that he wrote "At UD we have many brilliant ID apologists" is strong support for this hypothesis.

Date: 2011/06/06 23:45:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (socle @ June 06 2011,23:06)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 06 2011,21:14)
Finding his Second Law paper tossed out of a peer-reviewed journal, oddball mathematician Granville Sewell announces the next best thing: he's made a video!

Comments are "off," -- but really, what comment could be funnier than the announcement itself?


Granville:
   
Quote
Suppose you and your wife go for a vacation, leaving a dog, a cat, and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly, otherwise you might have to take a much longer vacation to see the same effect).  When you come back, you will not be surprised to see chaos in the house.  But tell her some scientists say, "but if you leave the door open while on vacation, your house becomes an open system, and the second law does not apply to open systems ... you may find everything in better condition than when you left."

That's pretty funny

Could happen.  The animals notice the door is open and make a break for it, and then your old pal Felix Unger happens by for a visit.

Date: 2011/06/09 19:03:46, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Seversky @ June 09 2011,18:18)
Quote (socle @ June 09 2011,17:47)
Denyse's latest

The problem for the other side is that it's hard to spoof someone who really believes that The Selfish Gene was actually about a gene for selfishness.

I understand she was genetically selected for flamboyant obliviousness.

Date: 2011/06/13 00:55:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 13 2011,00:13)
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 12 2011,22:17)
Ed Brayton's Self-promotion on the ocassion of Seve Gey's Death Reposted from PT


It’s with great sadness and not a few tears that I say goodbye to Steve Gey, someone I never met in person but who nonetheless had a huge influence on my life. Steve was a professor at the Florida State University law school and one of the preeminent First Amendment scholars in the country. He was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Edwards v Aguillard, the case that ruled creation science out of public school science classrooms.

A little over 4 years ago, Steve was diagnosed with ALS, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease, and he had to give up teaching about a year later. He was, according to everyone I’ve ever talked to who took his course, one of the most inspiring teachers in the country. He was revered and adored by colleagues and students alike for his brilliance and his humanity.

Shortly after he was diagnosed with ALS I was able to arrange for him to receive the Friend of Darwin award from the National Center for Science Education. I called Glenn Branch to ask about it and he said that the board had, in fact, just voted unanimously to give him that award but they hadn’t yet found a venue in which to give it to him (they typically like to ambush people who win the award and give it to them when they don’t expect it).

I told Glenn I knew of the perfect time to do it. A group of his students were running a triathlon a few days later to raise money for ALS research in his name and they were going to be having a banquet afterwards. The NCSE rushed the award down to a friend of mine, who was one of Steve’s students and dearest friends. She was so happy to be able to present that award to him.

The country has lost one of its finest teachers and one of its most powerful advocates for civil liberties. And a great many people have lost a man who inspired them.

The self promotion I can pretty much deal with (he's less noxious that Kwokpot) but I do find that the crap posts about friggin' felines all the frackin' time make his blog nigh unreadable.  

Damn, I need some Chinese food...

Does he post about felines all the time?  I must say I haven't noticed that.

Date: 2011/06/13 14:53:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 13 2011,10:00)
NEWS!!

 
Quote
Can bacteria be smart?
News


Compared to DeNews, yes they are.

 
Quote
b) get a pass because it is all a metaphor, in the same way that the human mind is assumed to be a metaphor for the buzz of neurons?


Only IDiots think any neuroscientist would say, much less assume, that the mind is a metaphor.

Forgive me, but isn't it the other way around?  "Buzz of neurons" is the metaphor here - I don't think neurons literally "buzz".

Date: 2011/06/13 15:08:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 13 2011,14:05)
Quote (noncarborundum @ June 13 2011,01:55)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 13 2011,00:13)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 12 2011,22:17)
Ed Brayton's Self-promotion on the ocassion of Seve Gey's Death Reposted from PT


It’s with great sadness and not a few tears that I say goodbye to Steve Gey, someone I never met in person but who nonetheless had a huge influence on my life. Steve was a professor at the Florida State University law school and one of the preeminent First Amendment scholars in the country. He was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Edwards v Aguillard, the case that ruled creation science out of public school science classrooms.

A little over 4 years ago, Steve was diagnosed with ALS, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease, and he had to give up teaching about a year later. He was, according to everyone I’ve ever talked to who took his course, one of the most inspiring teachers in the country. He was revered and adored by colleagues and students alike for his brilliance and his humanity.

Shortly after he was diagnosed with ALS I was able to arrange for him to receive the Friend of Darwin award from the National Center for Science Education. I called Glenn Branch to ask about it and he said that the board had, in fact, just voted unanimously to give him that award but they hadn’t yet found a venue in which to give it to him (they typically like to ambush people who win the award and give it to them when they don’t expect it).

I told Glenn I knew of the perfect time to do it. A group of his students were running a triathlon a few days later to raise money for ALS research in his name and they were going to be having a banquet afterwards. The NCSE rushed the award down to a friend of mine, who was one of Steve’s students and dearest friends. She was so happy to be able to present that award to him.

The country has lost one of its finest teachers and one of its most powerful advocates for civil liberties. And a great many people have lost a man who inspired them.

The self promotion I can pretty much deal with (he's less noxious that Kwokpot) but I do find that the crap posts about friggin' felines all the frackin' time make his blog nigh unreadable.  

Damn, I need some Chinese food...

Does he post about felines all the time?  I must say I haven't noticed that.

Literally all the time?  No.  Multiple times a week?  Yes.  The new anti-canine post was over the top and I am outraged!  OUTRAGED I TELLZ U!!11!!!!

Y'know, I have to wonder if we're talking about the same Ed Brayton.  I just looked over all his posts in the last 2 weeks and as far as I can tell there's not one about cats or dogs.  In fact I can't recall a single post of Ed's, at least in the last few months anyway (when I started reading him again after a lapse of a year or more), that mentions domestic animals in any way.

Or are you using "feline" and "canine" in some metaphorical sense that I'm just not catching?

(John Cole.  Now there's someone who blogs about cats to the point of tedium.  Though to give him credit, he blogs about dogs all the time too.)

Date: 2011/06/13 15:21:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 13 2011,15:11)
Holy FSM but they've got some stupid gits over at UD.

Here's tsmith arguing over a quote from the Science Daily on the epistasis of beneficial mutations research:

"These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population’s fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations"

Lizzie points out that a word was accidentally left out somewhere

   
Quote
But either interview missed out a word (easily done), or the transcriber missed it.

“rate..of fitness” doesn’t make sense. Fitness is a scalar, it doesn’t have a rate.

It must be a rate of change of fitness, and in the context, only rate of increase makes sense.


tsmith with his intelligent comeback

   
Quote
again its not transcribed…its a direct quote from cooper himself.


Maybe the IDiot should go look up the definition of "transcribed."

Not to mention that ScienceDaily also says this:
Quote
Cooper and his team focused on a bacterial population that had been evolved for thousands of generations such that its fitness had increased by approximately 35 percent over its ancestor.

If the fitness increased 35%, what could have caused that increase other than beneficial mutations?  Deleterious mutations interfering with each other so as to cause a net positive?  The guiding hand of God the Designer?  What?

Date: 2011/06/13 18:23:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:16)
Yea, DI, more Hitler!

My son:  Who's Hitler?

You say that like it's a good thing.  It's not, you know, unless he's very young.

Date: 2011/06/13 22:12:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:48)
The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.

Well, you couldn't prove it by my daughter.  She's 15, and she's fascinated by the question of why people do evil things, to the point where she's taking an elective next year in school called "Facing History and Ourselves", one of the main topics of which is the Holocaust.  I remember discussing Hitler and the Holocaust with her when she was maybe 8 or 9, and she read "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" in (I think) 6th grade.  Hitler really does remain relevant.

(And not just because Nazis make great action movie heavies.)

Date: 2011/06/14 08:42:51, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Driver @ June 13 2011,19:31)
Because it's a scientific debate:

   
Quote
oh and lets not forget the entire title of Darwin’s book…


On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

struggle…where have I heard that word used in the title of a book….let me think…..oh yeah….my struggle…mein kempf….

mein kampf…sorry…

-tsmith


Here

You know who else wrote about a struggle?

I mean, seriously.  Has he ever searched "struggle" at Amazon.com?

Date: 2011/06/15 12:32:58, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 15 2011,10:45)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 15 2011,09:05)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 13 2011,16:04)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 13 2011,14:05)
   
Quote (noncarborundum @ June 13 2011,01:55)
     
Quote (Wolfhound @ June 13 2011,00:13)
       
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 12 2011,22:17)
Ed Brayton's Self-promotion on the ocassion of Seve Gey's Death Reposted from PT


It’s with great sadness and not a few tears that I say goodbye to Steve Gey, someone I never met in person but who nonetheless had a huge influence on my life. Steve was a professor at the Florida State University law school and one of the preeminent First Amendment scholars in the country. He was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Edwards v Aguillard, the case that ruled creation science out of public school science classrooms.

A little over 4 years ago, Steve was diagnosed with ALS, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease, and he had to give up teaching about a year later. He was, according to everyone I’ve ever talked to who took his course, one of the most inspiring teachers in the country. He was revered and adored by colleagues and students alike for his brilliance and his humanity.

Shortly after he was diagnosed with ALS I was able to arrange for him to receive the Friend of Darwin award from the National Center for Science Education. I called Glenn Branch to ask about it and he said that the board had, in fact, just voted unanimously to give him that award but they hadn’t yet found a venue in which to give it to him (they typically like to ambush people who win the award and give it to them when they don’t expect it).

I told Glenn I knew of the perfect time to do it. A group of his students were running a triathlon a few days later to raise money for ALS research in his name and they were going to be having a banquet afterwards. The NCSE rushed the award down to a friend of mine, who was one of Steve’s students and dearest friends. She was so happy to be able to present that award to him.

The country has lost one of its finest teachers and one of its most powerful advocates for civil liberties. And a great many people have lost a man who inspired them.

The self promotion I can pretty much deal with (he's less noxious that Kwokpot) but I do find that the crap posts about friggin' felines all the frackin' time make his blog nigh unreadable.  

Damn, I need some Chinese food...

Does he post about felines all the time?  I must say I haven't noticed that.

Literally all the time?  No.  Multiple times a week?  Yes.  The new anti-canine post was over the top and I am outraged!  OUTRAGED I TELLZ U!!11!!!!

psst, Wolfhound.  That's Jerry Coyne, not Ed Brayton.

You are, of course, correct.  I tend to look at Ed, Jerry, and PZ's blogs in succession and stupidly confused Ed and Jerry's even though they look similar in no way whatsoever.  Derp-a-derp-derp-derp.

Sorry about that.  I clearly need to drink less.  Or more, depending.

But my annoyance with the feline nonsense on Jerry's blog still stands.  *shakes fist*

I'm not feeling terribly charitable towards felines at the moment.  My cat, Schrodinger, has delivered us a batch of fleas.  We are now engaged in extensive chemical warfare with them.  Those who point out that the humans and not the cat are responsible for keeping up to date on his flea treatment should stop assembling strawmen soaked in the oil of ad hominem and help me kill the little bastards.  <Wonders if flaming oil of ad hominem kills fleas>

We were plagued with fleas in our old house.  All the cats were crawling with fleas all the time, even directly after their flea baths (which happened roughly once a week).  It had gotten so bad that hordes of fleas would leap from the mattress onto your bare legs when you walked past the bed.

Then we moved, cats, furniture and all, in the middle of the winter (Martin Luther King day, 1995), and left the fleas behind.  The cats still go outside and still come back with ticks, but we haven't seen a single flea* in sixteen years.  I'm still trying to figure out how we managed it.

-------------------------
* or a married one

Date: 2011/06/15 14:34:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Is this the page break bug I've heard so much about?

Date: 2011/06/15 15:21:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (rossum @ June 15 2011,11:58)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 15 2011,10:45)
<Wonders if flaming oil of ad hominem kills fleas>

Flaming oil of ad pulexium?

rossum

Ad pulicem, but who's counting?

Date: 2011/06/20 11:48:14, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (MichaelJ @ June 20 2011,03:33)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 20 2011,14:20)
It's right there in post 12 Joe:

   
Quote
Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis.


Nothing about 'we' posting there Joe, just you.

Hindu Creationists share genesis? What has he been smoking?

To be fair, Joe doesn't say that Hindus share Genesis.  He says that Muslims, Christians and Jews share Genesis, and there are Hindu creationists too.  Which is, you know, not false.

Why do I feel like I have to go take a shower now?

Date: 2011/06/21 14:42:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 21 2011,14:29)
i thought he was going to come out of the closet.  and i was not going to be snarky at all and congratulate him and wish him well.  now instead, i just hope he dies in a dildo fire.

You thought what?

Silly, silly Erasmus.

Date: 2011/06/23 09:51:09, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ June 23 2011,08:43)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 21 2011,21:28)
and twinkletard

fuck this thread is g.o.o.o.o.d son i had sworn off of this junk too

 
Quote
58
GilDodgen
06/21/2011
9:28 pm
OH MY! I seem to have done it again. My posts seem to ignite a firestorm of controversy at UD.

Actually, that is my goal. My purpose is to shine the transparent light of reason on the transparent idiocy of Darwinian orthodoxy. Some people get it, and some don’t.


you a sad little man twinkles

wtf is "transparent light"? Is that the colour beyond white?

And if you shine a light on something transparent, doesn't it just pass right through?

Date: 2011/06/23 09:57:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 23 2011,09:39)
I could easily scrap out 4 euros (that's about 6000 US$, I think)...

I used to make a similar joke about Canadian dollars, until one day I discovered that Canadian dollars had actually passed U.S. dollars in value.

Date: 2011/06/24 20:11:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (xinit @ June 24 2011,13:32)
Has there been any discussion with what might be done / could be done with the rights and materials should they be acquired? Might be interesting if all the extra non-movie pieces could be made available freely for CC derivative works...

Bill Dembski may have some spare farty noises he'd be willing to sell.

Date: 2011/06/24 20:33:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (MichaelJ @ June 24 2011,20:13)
Wouldn't you love to be a lawyer and have to come up with the following:


That certain feature-length motion picture ("Picture") entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and all collateral, allied, ancillary, subsidiary and merchandising rights therein and thereto, and all properties and things of value pertaining thereto (as used in this paragraph, the term "Picture" shall mean and include the Picture, all of the aforesaid rights and the rights set forth in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) below), including, without limitation: (i) All rights of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, copyrights) in and to any literary, musical, dramatic or other literary material of any kind or nature upon which, in whole or in part, the Picture is or may be based, or from which it is or may be adapted or inspired or which may be or has been used or included in the Picture, including, without limitation, the Screenplay, the characters and all other scripts, scenarios, screenplays, bibles, stories, treatments, novels, outlines, books, titles, concepts, manuscripts or other properties or materials of any kind or nature, in whatever state of completion and all drafts, versions and variations thereof (all of the foregoing herein collectively referred to as the "Literary Property"); (ii) All physical properties of every kind or nature of or relating to the Picture and all versions thereof, to the extent now or hereafter in existence, including, without limitation, exposed film, developed film, positives, negatives, prints, answer prints, special effects, pre-print materials (including interpositives, negatives, duplicate negatives, internegatives, color reversals, intermediates, lavenders, fine grain master prints and matrices, and all other forms of pre-print elements which may be necessary or useful to produce prints or other copies or additional pre-print elements, whether now known or hereafter devised), soundtracks, recordings, audio and video tapes and discs of all types and gauges, cutouts, trims and any and all other physical properties of every kind and nature relating to the Picture in whatever state of completion, and all duplicates, drafts, versions, variations and copies of each thereof (all of the foregoing herein collectively referred to as the "Physical Property"); (iii) All rights in and to all copyrights and renewals and extensions of copyrights, domestic and foreign, heretofore or hereafter obtained in the Picture or the Literary Property or any part thereof. The sale will be “AS IS, WHERE IS without warranty except for the transfer of title through Trustee.” The Picture may be subject to certain distribution and manufacturing rights held by Vivendi Entertainment. Vivendi Entertainment maintains an inventory of manufactured compact discs and has continued to distribute the Picture for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate of Premise Media Distribution, L.P.


Bibles?

Producers of TV shows use the term "show bible" to refer to a guidebook written by a show's creator that lays out all the information the writers will need to know in order to maintain consistency from episode to episode.  I don't know how exactly this would apply to a "documentary" film, but I strongly suspect the term is used here in connection with this kind of "bible", not the other kind.  

Date: 2011/07/03 12:16:21, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ July 03 2011,11:54)

Man, I'm just atremble at all the re-search (esp. via Google) on ID (which, remember, is not creationism) there is out there! ;)

From your link:
 
Quote
This is my latest and biggest book.  I have finished the final draft and it is currently being reviewed by several professional friends. It should be published later this year or early in 2009.  It is the culmination of my life’s work and ministry.

See, it's all about the science.  Up until the last two words.

Date: 2011/07/03 22:19:00, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (olegt @ July 03 2011,20:23)
 
Quote (Kristine @ July 03 2011,11:54)
*Puts hand to face*

Gator Man Says Evo Failed

Nice self-published (and apparently, self-illustrated) book! What do the gators say about evolution? :)

Man, I'm just atremble at all the re-search (esp. via Google) on ID (which, remember, is not creationism) there is out there! ;)

Norbert Smith is a YEC. Here is his own description of his latest book.

Ummm, you do know that your link goes to the same place as Kristine's?

Date: 2011/07/12 14:11:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Patrick @ July 10 2011,16:01)
Joseph explains "cdesign proponentsists" as a simple typo:

   
Quote
Yes Nick, I looked up “cdesign proponentsists”- it appears in a ROUGH draft of the book “Of Pandas and People”- a ROUGH draft.

Now if one looks at a standard keyboard one would obseve that the “d” key and the “c” key are close enough together that one could hit them both when just trying to hit one of them.

Sure, Joseph, that completely accounts for the global search and replace immediately after Edwards v. Aguillard.  Typos.  Lots and lots of typos.

He's right!  I often find myself hitting the "s" and "sists" keys at the same time.

Date: 2011/07/14 18:18:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
   
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
     
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
     
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
       
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
         
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Date: 2011/07/15 15:34:05, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ July 15 2011,14:13)
GilDo on Dawkins:
   
Quote
One should feel pity for this poor fellow, who wasted his life on a lie, did much damage to legitimate science, and undoubtedly convinced many others to follow in his footsteps.

I'm sure Dawkins is seething with envy over your frilly mastery of LS-DYNA, Gil.  How generous of you to pity him.

It's another instance of projection.  Notice that much the same thing might be said of Gil himself, minus perhaps the last two clauses.

Date: 2011/07/15 16:07:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 15 2011,15:38)
shit no, aint nobody pitying that fool

what you think someone MADE him put that shitty little Tarderace outfit on?

Well, OK, minus the pity part too.

Date: 2011/07/16 21:31:09, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 16 2011,17:24)
I think we broke it.  I'm on a 19" widescreen and I still can't see the fist 4 or 5 posts in the stream.

Ah.  Then our work here is dung.

Date: 2011/07/18 21:43:36, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (socle @ July 18 2011,21:19)
WTF tgpeeler

 
Quote
Well, I object to an eternally existing multiverse for a very simple reason. The multiverses are physical, therefore they cannot be eternal. Why not? Because they are physical, they can be counted. If they can be counted they are not eternal (infinite). Law of identity. Things are what they are.

Can God be counted?  Last I heard there was either one of Him or maybe Three.  Perhaps it's this unity/trinity duality that keeps Him (Them?) from being countable and hence finite.  

Inquiring minds want not to know.

Date: 2011/07/20 18:47:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ July 20 2011,17:40)

Poor tgpeeler has been wrestling with the concept of infinity, and losing, for a long time:
   
Quote
I’m curious about the concept of an “infinite” number of universes. This phrase gets thrown around all the time but the very idea of it is incoherent to me. How can there be an actual infinite number of anything physical? If these universes are physical, and at least one of them is, the one I live in, then I can always add one more to the count of how ever many there are. Ergo, no infinite number of universes.

Tee hee hee.

Date: 2011/07/21 10:17:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (rossum @ July 21 2011,07:28)
I was trying to search the Talk Origins Archive site today, but Google is rejecting all searches:

"We're sorry...

... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now."

I can search Google normally from my computer.

Has someone hacked into talkorigins.org?

rossum

I don't see the symptom you describe, so I don't think it's a problem at talkorigins.  Perhaps your ISP is doing something weird?

Date: 2011/07/28 18:14:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ July 28 2011,17:10)
Quote
Under evolutionary theory it is just as likely that a tiger could turn into an elephant (over time) as it is that an amoeba could turn into an elephant.

Say what? As I understand it, the odds of getting a particular set of traits is quite low, and depends heavily on the conditions that exist throughout the evolution.

Of course, if amoebas of some kind were predecessors to animals, then that transition actually happened. But tiger to elephants is taking one specialty, backing it out, and shifting it to another specialty. Somehow that strikes me as doubly unlikely, but at least the two of them are already both placental mammals.

He did say "over time".  I suggest we give the tiger just as much time as the amoeba had (say, a billion years or two) and see what happens.

I'll take first watch.

Date: 2011/07/31 18:21:09, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 31 2011,15:36)
Quote (Kristine @ July 31 2011,11:11)
For Pete's sake, people, can't we get this kid laid? ;)

Now we're back to "when pigs fly."

Date: 2011/08/16 13:16:46, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Aug. 15 2011,20:13)
 
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 11 2011,05:10)
But what we see not only in the UK but all over the world is, I believe, simply what we get in return for the gross mismanagement of the world. Anyone know the amount spent on war machinery and warfare since 1945?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."

Dwight Eisenhower

Damn Commie!

Date: 2011/08/20 18:13:50, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Leftover ground bison with Old El Paso taco seasoning.
Leftover fish topping made of shallots, dill, oregano, garlic and lots & lots of butter.
Mixed together, reheated and used as an omelet filling.

Sounds ridiculous.  Isn't.

Date: 2011/08/22 17:31:59, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 22 2011,17:16)
Maybe they were from Boston?

Nah.  We have fah moah respect fa beans around heah than to throw 'em at cahs.

Date: 2011/08/24 12:27:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 24 2011,11:38)
ScottAndrews
   
Quote
Elizabeth:

       
Quote
What would throw Darwinian theory into doubt would be a serious breakdown of nested phylogenies, in particular, the appearance of “solutions” from one lineage apparently transplanted into another.


Like wings on birds, bats, and insects? Like reptiles and octopi that change colors? Like echolocation in bats and dolphins? Like mammals shaped like fish? Like mammalian lungs and countless other features that apparently must have arisen more than once?

My bold.
I don't know how to even start.

How about

Date: 2011/08/24 12:31:30, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (noncarborundum @ Aug. 24 2011,12:27)
 
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 24 2011,11:38)
ScottAndrews
       
Quote
Elizabeth:

           
Quote
What would throw Darwinian theory into doubt would be a serious breakdown of nested phylogenies, in particular, the appearance of “solutions” from one lineage apparently transplanted into another.


Like wings on birds, bats, and insects? Like reptiles and octopi that change colors? Like echolocation in bats and dolphins? Like mammals shaped like fish? Like mammalian lungs and countless other features that apparently must have arisen more than once?

My bold.
I don't know how to even start.

How about

BTW, mammalian lungs arose more than once?  I guess I haven't been keeping up with the latest research findings.

P.S.  I've been a good boy.  What does a guy have to do to get an edit button around here?

Date: 2011/08/24 16:15:30, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 24 2011,16:08)
I am reminded - sadly - that UD does not exist simply for entertainment purposes. ScottAndrews:  
Quote
By that argument absolutely anything is possible. A monkey can type Shakespeare because the exact configuration of blades of grass on the earth is highly improbable, and yet there it is.

I can throw a lump of dirt at a wall, and the exact configuration of sand and rocks will be highly improbable. So is it reasonable to expect that it might turn into a life form? After all, both are improbable.

Tonight I’m going to teach my five year old how to see through that reasoning.
(My bold)
IDC - passing ignorance down generations.

Date: 2011/08/24 19:40:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 24 2011,17:38)
Quote
markf August 24, 2011 at 10:40 am
This particular “Brit Toff” is Australian and went to Sydney Boys High School – hardly Eton.

Reply
1.1
News August 24, 2011 at 10:56 am
For an Aussie, it’s unusually dumb.


For News it isn't.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-count-method-puts-species-totals-much-higher-but-brit-toff-says-something-stupid-about


-it/comment-page-1/#comment-397442]Link[/URL]

From the same article:

Quote
Close your eyes, channel Darwin, and you will suddenly know that this is a Tree of Life, not a circle.

Date: 2011/08/24 20:35:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 24 2011,20:21)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Aug. 24 2011,19:40)


From the same article:

     
Quote
Close your eyes, channel Darwin, and you will suddenly know that this is a Tree of Life, not a circle.


OMG!  Noncarborundum has found the Hope diamond of IDiocy.

It's DeNews, though.  She spits out Hope Diamonds of IDiocy oftener than my longhaired cat spits out hairballs.

Date: 2011/08/25 12:53:55, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2011,12:33)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 25 2011,09:25)
i just laughed my absolute guts out

That sounds painful!

I recommend laughing your relative guts out.  That way, when you're done, it's your relative who is missing his guts.

Date: 2011/08/25 18:23:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 25 2011,16:30)
I think they stole the concept of "clear thinking" from the LDS

Or the Scientologists?

Date: 2011/08/26 14:21:12, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 26 2011,09:50)
Quote (REC @ Aug. 26 2011,10:36)
The audible retch I made reading these comments at the Ann Coulter post is getting looks from co-workers:

NickMatzke
Yeah, the creationists are welcome to have her.

GruntyAugust
I’d have her. But I wouldn’t want her on my side.

material.infantacy
Bathe her, and bring her to me.

Joseph
Bring her to me, I’ll bathe her…

Blech

that sorta thing should be screencapped for ever but i can't stand to go do it myself

baahaahahahahaha Man Coulter would probably have it's way with Joe

I'm with Sam Rockwell's character from Galaxy Quest:
Quote
Oooh.  That's not right!

Date: 2011/08/27 15:30:18, Link
Author: noncarborundum
DeNews waxes eloquent (or something) about a fossil insect:
 
Quote
If so, all this raises another evolution conundrum: Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation) obviously didn’t even put today’s life forms where they are. But also, what about these many life forms that have flourished for tens or hundreds of millions of years, with different anatomies and modes of life that were apparently satisfactory to them. And we really don’t know the first thing about how that happens.

Now if I could only figure out what the hell she means.  I believe her last sentence, though, for suitable definitions of "we".

Edited:   because I can!  Thx.

Date: 2011/09/01 00:46:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (BopDiddy @ Sep. 01 2011,00:39)
Exhuming an old Behe thread to post this:

The Humanist Interview with Leo Behe "The son of intelligent design heavyweight Michael Behe discusses his journey to atheism"

A snippet:

   
Quote

The Humanist: How long was this transformation, and why didn’t your father’s ideas (or others) about intelligent design demonstrate proof of a “designer” or creator?

Behe: The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. As for the arguments from design, such as irreducible complexity or the so-called fine-tuning of the six cosmological constants, I have many reasons for dismissing them each in particular, but one overarching reason would be the common refutation of William Paley’s classic watchmaker argument—the only reason that complex objects appear to be designed is because we as humans create complex objects, and we then assume that complexity is indisputably indicative of a designer. This is an association we make only as a result of what our “common sense” tells us.

Turnabout is fair play.  O'Hair's son became a Christian, didn't he?

Date: 2011/09/02 09:57:57, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JLT @ Sep. 02 2011,09:30)

I also observe that the universe is pretty dark, cold, and mostly empty, and I still have lights, a heating system, and furniture.

At least for now you do.  But just wait for the new austerity measures that are just around the corner.

Date: 2011/09/06 14:34:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 06 2011,14:04)
 
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 06 2011,19:58)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2011,18:24)
And here I though an expert was somebody what used to be a pert...

ex-pert. (Noun):  female breasts that have succumbed to the forces of gravity and age.

There's an excellent section of "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue"* in which new definitions are given to old words. For example:

Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan.

Coquette: Small penis.

And so on and so forth.

Louis

* The Radio 4 show that gave us Mornington Crescent.

rec·ti·tude  (r?kt?-t??d, -ty??d) n. the honorable, upright demeanor assumed by your proctologist as he prepares to examine you.

ETA:  those length-marked vowels looked just fine in preview.

Date: 2011/09/08 14:30:02, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Rethinking human evolution once again!!!!11!

Won't those slimy Darwinists ever decide what they believe, once and for all?  All this revision in the light of new evidence makes my poor head spin.

Date: 2011/09/09 14:08:03, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Lowell @ Sep. 09 2011,10:38)
 
Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Genesis.  God's eyewitness testimony, dictated to Moses.

Cross-examination's going to be a bit of a problem, I'll admit.

Date: 2011/09/12 17:19:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 12 2011,10:37)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 12 2011,10:10)
In an effort to appear relevant, Frisbee is now hosting "guest posts" from uh...well, hmmm...diploma mills?!!?!?

Allison Gamble, indeed. :)

 
Quote
Guest Post: Impact of Death on Beliefs about Intelligent Design and Evolution
-


My belief is that death has a rather negative impact on your ability to have beliefs.

We'll have to check back with you after you die and see if you still believe that.   :)

Date: 2011/09/12 23:16:37, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 12 2011,22:50)
Whoa!

Tea Party Debate Crowd Cheers for Hypothetical Uninsured Man's Death.

This from the nutjobs who equate teaching evolution with Nazism and genocide! Eugenics envy?  :O

This is also the crowd who think it takes balls to execute an innocent man.

But it's all good, because a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  And I, being an atheist, have no moral foundation.

Date: 2011/09/13 21:43:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 13 2011,19:52)
I happen to work with a bunch of journalists. On the whole they are quite picky about getting things right. Such as avoiding typos in headlines.

Apparently it is not a universal trait.

But if DeNews were really picky about getting things right, she'd never post anything, and then where would we be?

Date: 2011/09/15 20:49:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2011,12:43)
   
Quote
It does seem somewhat unlikely that retroviral elements would be able to insert themselves literally hundreds of thousands of times into the germ cells without causing fatalistic damage to the host organism.


Fatalistic damage?  Is that when your sperm cells decide there's absolutely nothing they can do to increase their chances of finding a nice egg to hook up with?

Date: 2011/09/21 01:31:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2011,07:40)
I know people on both sides of the ID/evolution divide that don't think and are uninterested in learning new things.

I vote for sad.

My entire motive for being in this is to improve my understanding and to test it by writing about it.

I keep hoping for an opposing response that indicates I have understood a point and conveyed it clearly.

Which is why I seldom engage ba77, Joe, KF, and others of that stripe. The ones that resemble an online ELIZA.

Tell me more about the ones that resemble an online ELIZA.

Date: 2011/09/23 11:16:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Acipenser @ Sep. 23 2011,09:17)
Yesterday everytime I tried to read that thread it would load for a few seconds then kick over to the 'The Internets can't show you that page' screen....don't know if it's my machine or their software.

It's not your machine, since I've seen it too.  I wonder if it's IP-address related.  It happens to me in both Firefox and IE, but not if I use an IP anonymizer.

Date: 2011/09/23 20:44:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 23 2011,13:10)
Depends on what you mean by works in chrome.

The link, as massaged by this forum's software doesn't work, because there's a <br> inserted into the URL.

Depending on the length of the URL.

It's been a problem as long as I've posted here. It's why a couple of posters routinely use tinyurl.

I think the "works in Chrome" is in regards to the problem Acipenser and I were discussing, viz. "Yesterday everytime I tried to read that thread it would load for a few seconds then kick over to the 'The Internets can't show you that page' screen".

The links, they don't work for nobody unless you edit them.

Date: 2011/09/24 10:58:51, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 23 2011,23:47)
     
Quote
The links, they don't work for nobody unless you edit them.


I use Chrome. It allows me to see the problem link on the page that doesn't load, and fix it on the fly.

I wonder how many times it has to be repeated that the problem is here.

There are two separate issues here that you are confusing.

I fully understand that this forum mangles links.  When I follow one of these mangled links, I see UD's 404 page, which looks like this:



I also know how to fix this problem, by editing the URL at the top of the 404 page, or by pasting it into notepad and editing it there, or by following a shortened link helpfully posted by a fellow AtBC participant, such as the goo.gl link that Patrick posted yesterday.  When I try any of these things, the result depends on whether I'm in Firefox or IE on the one hand, or Chrome on the other.  In Firefox, I see the target UD thread perfectly well for a period of time of up to 60 seconds:



Then, for no apparent reason, the page is suddenly replaced by this:



(The same thing happens in IE, except that IE's "loss of connection" page looks a little different.)

It's this sudden loss of connection, not the URL mangling that we all know about, that Acipenser and I are encountering.  Zachriel is entirely correct that it doesn't happen in Chrome.  This problem is not here, it's at UD.  I suspect there's something in the HTML for that particular page that confuses IE and Firefox but that Chrome has no problem with.

Date: 2011/09/24 14:39:57, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 24 2011,14:08)
My guess as a minor league web programmer is that IE and FireFox "fix" the URL sufficiently to get to the main page, but fail when moving down to the specific post.

It could be the UD software doing this, but why would it be different on different browsers, unless it is the browser doing it?

Unless I misread you, it only happens when the URL is defective, so regardless of the symptom, the cause is a defective URL.

I've only seen it happen on that specific page, and it still happens even if I edit the URL to remove the comment tag from the end.  In fact, it even happens when I go to UD's front page and follow the link from there.  Really.  It's not AtBC's URL mangling that's at fault here.

I've followed dozens of badly formatted links from AtBC to UD.  I know how to repair these links so that they work.  I've never seen this particular symptom before.

I notice that when I try to load that page, regardless of browser, it spends quite a long line displaying the spinning in-progress indicator on the title tab and claims to be waiting to read something from googlesyndication.com.  The difference between browsers seems to come down to what happens when the wait times out.  Firefox and IE treat it as a "reset connection" error, while Chrome just to gives up trying, leaving the page displayed but not completely loaded (even Chrome doesn't display the entire page, as judged by what shows up when you "view page source").

Date: 2011/09/24 21:19:30, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2011,16:02)

Interesting bug. We mentioned that it worked in Chrome because Elizabeth Liddle's responses are well worth the read.

tinyurl.com/3pftzmb

Absolutely.  I wouldn't have cared half so much about the bug if it hadn't been preventing me from reading her responses.

I honestly don't know how she does it.  I would long since have hurled my laptop, or possibly myself, through the nearest window.

Date: 2011/09/25 23:51:54, Link
Author: noncarborundum
   
Quote
(GilDo:) The fact that I am a legitimate scientist who followed the evidence where it led, and a former militant, obnoxious atheist like you, is what really pisses you off.

Well, he's certainly right that obnoxiousness is involved.

Date: 2011/09/26 19:19:20, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 26 2011,11:50)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 26 2011,11:27)
As much as I have to admit Shakespeare and DaveTard shouldn't match, this is most likely a POTW...

Given the current state of Physics, shouldn't it be POLW (Post of last week)?

rossum

If it got here via neutrino, maybe it's the PONW.

Date: 2011/09/27 16:14:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 22 2011,10:53)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 22 2011,10:13)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 22 2011,10:01)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 22 2011,09:47)
Question: Is Joe any relation to Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr, the 'New Darwin' of our times?

Brothers from another sister.

It's a serious question. Is he Atheioclast and Joseph from PT and UD?

Or are there more than one of these?

There is a Joseph on UD and I believe that is our JoeG.

I'm not sure about atheioclast, but I'm inclined to think that is another person.

Just from writing style and the like.  Over the years Joe has gotten much more vitrolic and seems to have difficulty reigning that in.

From what I've been told, atheistoclast is indeed the Joseph Esfandiar Hannon  Bozorgmehr who wrote this.

Date: 2011/10/07 08:40:38, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 06 2011,21:28)
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2011,12:21)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 06 2011,18:04)
Let me get this straight.*

I could create an unaccredited "university,"  Doc Bill U, and award myself an PhD Hon, or several and be a PhD Hon Mult.

Srsly?  I could do that?  Cool!  And I don't even need to recruit a football team.  I had no idea.



*that's what she said.

lets create one right here, ATBCU and rename POTW as P(hd)OTW. Now we can all compete to see who can rack up the most 'Honorary doctorates in humorous or ironic posts' per year.

Wasn't there something like the University of Ediacara? Seems as if it never honoured anybody, though.

Hey, I used to know a girl who went to Ediacara.  I think her name was Flora . . . no, wait, that wasn't it.  Something like that, though.

Date: 2011/10/08 10:13:40, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2011,09:53)
Quote
Eugene S October 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
Elizabeth,

This is simply not nice, to me. Adam and Eve were real people, like your or my parents, not scientific or religious concepts. Would that be okay for you to be addressed as mitochondrial Liz? I don’t think so.

Yes, Adam and Eve were Two Absolutely Real Denizens of the garden.

Date: 2011/10/08 16:49:19, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2011,15:11)
 you win . . . a copy of the Trollolol song.

Enjoy!

Louis

I hereby resign in favor of the first runner-up.

If you can call that a favor.

Date: 2011/10/26 23:56:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 26 2011,12:29)
Damn - just when you've made one armchair diagnosis, another one with a better fit comes along.  Try Fanatic Narcissist to see if it fits.
       
Quote
Fanatic narcissist - including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

Bolding mine.  Top that, someone!

The only part of that I have a problem with is the bit about "delusions of insignificance".  On the contrary, the insignificance is quite real.

Date: 2011/11/02 00:31:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Fross @ Nov. 02 2011,00:09)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 01 2011,09:59)
   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 01 2011,09:55)
   
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 01 2011,13:51)
     
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2011,06:45)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 01 2011,07:17)
       
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 31 2011,09:30)
Sorry, that was GinoB, not Chas D.

This is amazing!  From the same archy thread, BA77 has a link to a video that's actually worth watching!!

http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8......8....o8

An owl, flying directly towards the camera at 1000 frames per second.  I pity any small rodents that ever see a sight like this.

Owls are proof that God hates mice.

Yeah he doesn't give a hoot.

Wisecracks like that will put you in contempt of parliament ...

Flocking hell! That was a stretch. Made me screech it did.

Louis

I don't know, I think he's got a talon for puns.

Who?

 ;>

If you ask my pinion, it's no beak deal.

Date: 2011/11/05 22:33:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 05 2011,18:42)
Someone who still has posting privileges at the UD loony bin should ask them:

If after Noah's Flood there were only 8 people, where did all the CSI found in the genomes of the 7 billion people we have today come from?

You know the answer to that one:  front-loading.

Date: 2011/11/12 17:32:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
Or possibly "moot".

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

       
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html
The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Date: 2011/11/12 21:53:03, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:04)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
       
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
Or possibly "moot".

           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

                 
Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.


Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html
The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Do me a favor.  Look up "radioisotope" and then we'll talk.  Even easier, just follow any one of these links.  A further helpful hint: you may want to consider that Potassium-Argon dating involves the daughter isotope Argon-40, which is not radioactive.

ETA:  Jeez.  Even after I suggested looking in a dictionary.  Are you actually testing Poe's law?

Date: 2011/11/14 14:23:02, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see Radiometric Dating to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.

The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.

Date: 2011/11/15 12:04:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?

Date: 2011/11/15 14:25:35, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:22)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?

Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm

Ah, I see.  No particular grounds.  Just another argument from incredulity (or, in this case, perhaps an argument from incoherence).

Date: 2011/11/15 21:34:09, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,19:02)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2011,16:45)
BTW, WTC 1 was 1368 tall minus the antenna spire.

In fosterstereo's world, it is rational to cling to the belief that WTC 1 was actually 0.006 feet tall.

... and that it was destroyed about twenty minutes ago.

... by 44 millionths of a hijacker in 88 ten-millionths of a jetliner.

Date: 2011/11/19 16:14:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2011,07:59)
Outstanding questions for forastero:

RE: Big Bang
  What exploded?  You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later).  What exploded?

RE: The Flood
 What is a layer of flood deposits?  You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood.  Do you still stand by this?  (yes or no)

 Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?

 Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?

 Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood?  If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)?
 

Run Bun-Bun run.

Also, RE: Math
  Exactly how much larger is the growth rate in the formula P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N when compared with P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N?  Show your work.

Date: 2011/11/20 12:18:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 20 2011,10:21)
 
Quote (Ioseb @ ,)
Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheese
Sequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.



Of course we have only Ioseb's word for it that "eef hg thki loffr" doesn't mean something in some obscure language.  

Sequence3: zhw n wjs rh rny
Sequence4: jmz nj nhy n snw

One of these is "bring me some wine" in ancient Egyptian (there's apparently no attested word for "cheese").  The other doesn't mean anything I know of; it's just a string of letters and spaces.  Which one has more information?

Date: 2011/12/02 14:15:19, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,19:36)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2011,11:21)
http://www.amazon.com/What-Re....0511594

Morris and Ham's Excellent Adventure! They have found their core audience - the preliterate and impressionable.

Gotta love those reviews. Not that the fools who want this book for their kids are ever going to read them. :-/

From the reviews:
Quote
Bravo! In the world of children's books, this is the biggest thing since Dr. Seuss.
An utter game-changer.
This book is so ground-breaking that it inspired me to put together a detailed children's "pop-up" book based on Leviticus and Deuteronomy--and one that chronicles the events of Passover. After all, dinosaurs existed during these events--and yet sadly, have been excluded from these stories by the recklessness and thoughtless of godless historians, scientists and archaeologists. These stories need to be told WITHOUT SUCH INTELLECTUAL BIAS.
Here's where I'm going with this:
I'm thinking that it would be entertaining and informative for the kids to see dinosaurs eating the Egyptian first-born (Exodus never SAYS that dinosaurs didn't eat them), and perhaps to have a T-Rex giggling in the background as homosexuals and disobedient children are being stoned. We'll throw in a few koalas, kangaroos and other marsupials in, too. (Because of course, they didn't wind up in Australia out of NOWHERE, did they?)
After all, if you don't provide accurate historical evidence in the context of God's love, you may as well be the Devil himself.
If this goes as well as I think it will, I plan on releasing a similar rendition of the Book of Revelation.
Remember: we DO need to teach our children the truth--and we need to do this immediately and without any rational thought, lest their minds be poisoned by reason, science, and facts.
God bless.

A masterpiece of snark.

Date: 2011/12/13 07:38:34, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55)
You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.

It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.

Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence:
   
Quote
Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N   but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.

The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.

Nonsense.  The point had to do with your idiotic assertion that P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N represented a "much larger growth rate" than P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N.  (If I wanted to demonstrate that a whole article was deceptive, I like to think I'd choose an illustration that was, you know, actually deceptive.)

You seem to think that a simple admission that you were wrong would damage your credibility.  Trust me, in this case it would be the only way to salvage even a shred of it.

Date: 2011/12/23 09:20:21, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 23 2011,05:35)
Why Dembski doesn't show up anymore:

Ultimately Real posts a gem:
   
Quote
One big mystery I always ponder is the supposed evolutionary move of a land mammal to an ocean dwelling animal. I have heard arguments that these creatures at one point developed fully functional land breathing capability at the same time they had fully functional water breathing capability, so the transition was easy and the air breathing apparatus began to evolve away. Here is what I can’t wrap my head around from an evolutionary standpoint. How many generations of my kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth would have to spend everyday in the ocean before they would develop the ability to remain in the ocean full time.

I'm sure cetaceans worldwide are thrilled to learn they no longer have to surface to breathe.

P.S.  You've heard arguments to this effect?  Where?  Other threads at UD?

Date: 2011/12/23 16:19:58, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 23 2011,14:38)
One must not forget that the Catholoic church considered beavers as a kind of fish whose meat could be eaten during the Lenton season.

must . . . not . . . make . . . obvious . . . joke . . .

Date: 2012/01/09 01:02:02, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 08 2012,16:30)
 
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 08 2012,13:28)
In the same vein, he describes Werner von Braun as:

     
Quote
... the man who led the Apollo project, the world famed von Braun, was not only a design thinker and Christian, but a creationist.


but neglects to mention that he was also, according to Wikipedia, a

     
Quote
...member of the Nazi party, commissioned Sturmbannführer of the paramilitary SS and decorated Nazi war hero


which, as far as I'm aware, neither Charles Darwin nor members of his family ever were.

I do hope someone will tell him his hero's ugly past - and that the comment will see the light of day.

Ah, memories.

Date: 2012/01/10 22:41:38, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 10 2012,17:45)
(Whenever O'Leary says something like "either A is wrong or B is wrong", put your money on the claim being a false dichotomy, where the solution is that O'Leary is wrong.)

Sorry, I just had to.

Date: 2012/01/14 14:56:39, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,12:34)

Shucks, folks, I'm speechless.

And to be honest I didn't expect anyone to say anything since my contributions here are so sporadic (I spend most of my time in lurk mode).  So thanks for remembering.

Date: 2012/01/14 23:29:20, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 14 2012,22:45)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 14 2012,22:33)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 14 2012,21:39)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 14 2012,17:11)
Last night I saw the new film version of Le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. If I hadn't read the book the book and seen the BBC mini-series, it would have been incomprehensible, and still worth seeing.

But the reason for bringing it up here is that one of the minor characters, Peter Guillam (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), looks exactly like the DI Fellow Dr Stephen Meyer.

(I was going to make a joke about Dembski playing Karla when I realized that Karla _is_ Dembski.)

I want to see it!

That made me think of something: if a movie (or more appropriately, a miniseries) were to be made about the whole evo-ID fight, which actors would you choose to play which personalities on our side and the IDists'? Just for fun, let's say that it can be any actor from any era. (I'm sorry, but so many "actors" today just suck.)

For William Dembski, I would choose a 1980s Dwight Schultz. :)

How about Sam Neill as Dawkins?

Yeah, that's a good choice! :)

Paul Giamatti as Michael Behe?

I like Wayne Knight as Jonathan Wells.

Date: 2012/01/15 16:31:58, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2012,13:22)
New Dembski interview.

Link.

Mentions of the global flood he had to accept as real in order to keep his job: Zero.

 
Quote
Ultimately, I think ID will win. A few years ago, I thought I’d be around to see its victory. Now, I’m not so sure. The Bible actually gives me great comfort in this regard, because one sees in it that God’s purposes are not generally carried out by the flamboyant, well-placed, and powerful. But in the end, the false prophets are always clearly identified, and those who were true are vindicated. ID, in my view, plays a prophetic role for our culture.


But what's ID got to do with the Bible Dembski?

Interesting that Dembski apparently sees himself as "flamboyant, well-placed, and powerful".  I might grant him "flamboyant" just on account of that sweater, but the other two?

Date: 2012/01/15 16:35:24, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 15 2012,10:47)
I can't believe all those other posters forgot your birthday!

I for example, just stopped by to be the first to wish you an early Happy Birthday for next year!

and don't forget: "Illegitimi non carborundum." *


* a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down".


The actual Latin would be something Noli nothis sinere te terere, but somehow that just doesn't have the same ring.

Date: 2012/01/15 18:19:50, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (DaveH @ Jan. 15 2012,16:37)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 14 2012,21:39)
That made me think of something: if a movie (or more appropriately, a miniseries) were to be made about the whole evo-ID fight, which actors would you choose to play which personalities on our side and the IDists'?

Joe (bench-pressin', paradigm bustin', intellectual) would surely be played by Lou Ferrigno in full "You wouldn't like me." mode.




Or Charles Hawtrey.

Somehow I always imagine Steve Buscemi.

Date: 2012/01/16 20:04:23, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 16 2012,16:07)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 16 2012,16:36)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 16 2012,10:05)
Found this under my Christmas tree.


Unwrapped it.

You unwrapped a .jpg? Or the html reference to the jpg? I'm confused...

The jpg is a photo of what I found under my tree and later unwrapped.  I hate it when my attempts at innuendo cause confusion.  I shall have to be more crude in the future.

The problem is that there still appears to be some wrapping that hasn't been removed.  We were all looking for something that was entirely unwrapped.

Date: 2012/01/18 14:33:40, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 18 2012,12:57)
Experimental Evolution of Multicellularity

 
Quote
Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects ofmulticellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes.

I saw Carl Zimmer's article on this in yesterday's NYTimes.  He referred to what the researchers did as "natural selection", which seems unfortunate, but other than that it was quite good.

Date: 2012/01/20 12:19:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 20 2012,11:01)
tjguy comes up with a completely new and utterly convincing argument:
 
Quote
The male and female reproductive systems are irreducibly complex and complementary systems. How could a male and female of the same species evolve concurrently, at the same geographical location in such a way for them to connect, and evolve in a way that is complementary?

I don’t know what organism might be thought to have evolved the first sexual reproduction capability, but let’s say it was an amoeba for example. What are the chances of two amoeba simultaneously and separate from each other evolving a complete and complementary reproductive system? Even if this did happen and the two amoeba were a mile apart, it would do no good as they would never meet.

Imagine the amount of changes necessary for two asexual organisms to randomly evolve into complete functional complementary male/female organisms?! Talk about believing in miracles!

God must have created the first pairs of everything.

If they can't wrap their heads around evolution, imagine how difficult a concept coevolution must be.

Date: 2012/01/20 12:20:20, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 20 2012,08:47)

I've not heard my mystery critter in over a month now so I'm doubting that I'll be able to ID it.

Intelligently Design?

Date: 2012/01/20 12:26:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 20 2012,12:21)
And don't forget to add CRAP to the list of ID acronyms

Circular Reasoning Always Pfits

Date: 2012/01/23 11:19:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum


!!!!!!11!!!!!!

Date: 2012/02/01 14:36:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,13:39)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 01 2012,12:18)
     
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 01 2012,01:49)
This is all the stranger given that come the theocratic revolution JoeG will likely be first up against KF's outhouse wall as an undesirable element.

Ack... bad mental imagine.  Where's the brain bleach?

For future safety purposes, please avoid associating the words KF, JoeG, and up against.  Thank you.

Ah sorry - UK cultural reference which I guess didn't make the Atlantic crossing so well.  Power to the People!

Citizen Smith

And more!

But you've ruined it for me forever - have to go and scrub brain now.

I'm trying to figure out what part of this is a UK cultural reference.  Not "up against the wall", surely?

Date: 2012/02/03 20:50:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 03 2012,14:31)
Ben is out hunting for Mike.

Ben's sister Aileen might be available.

Date: 2012/02/04 18:53:28, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2012,18:19)

Your accusation is false. That makes you a liar, a hypocrite and an embarrassment to Uncommon Descent.

Oh, I don't think UD has it in itself to be embarrassed by this sort of thing.

Date: 2012/02/05 22:17:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 05 2012,20:19)
 
Here's the real question:  Who ever alleged that Gildo had a mind?

Glen Davidson

   
Quote (Dan Quayle @ May 09 1989)
What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.

Date: 2012/02/07 20:42:31, Link
Author: noncarborundum
     
Quote (Bruce David @ ,)

[T]he only known phenomenon that is capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is intelligence. And we don’t need to be Shakespeare, Beethoven, or Leonardo da Vinci to do this. I am doing this right now as I write this. We do it any time we figure out how to repair something, or speak a meaningful sentence longer than 20 characters or so. What does that say about us human beings?

It says that some of us are incapable of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

(Edited to remove (even more) evidence of stupidity.)

Date: 2012/02/07 22:32:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 07 2012,21:57)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2012,19:42)
It says that some of us are incapable of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

For me that would require actually studying stuff (to learn the math, rather than just the verbal description).

Henry

I think it depends on how you understand "understand".  I don't know all the math myself, but [I flatter myself that] I understand enough to know that David is talking utter bollocks.

Date: 2012/02/08 10:27:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (eigenstate @ ,)

Biology is sun-powered.

Well, except where it's thermal-vent powered.  Not that that changes the situation re:SLoT.

Date: 2012/02/08 16:43:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 08 2012,16:22)
   
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 08 2012,13:40)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 08 2012,10:27)
       
Quote (eigenstate @ ,)

Biology is sun-powered.

Well, except where it's thermal-vent powered.  Not that that changes the situation re:SLoT.

Yes, good point.

On the other hand, a large fraction of geothermal presumably comes from the sun, even if it's indirectly. ( I guess some of it comes from radioactive decay as well.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to.  The references I've been able to find attribute the majority of Earth's internal heat to a combination of radioactive decay and the residual heat of accretion, with minor contributions from other sources.  The USGS, for example, says
   
Quote
Heat within the Earth comes from two main sources: radioactive decay and residual heat. . . . The radioactive decay of naturally occurring chemical elements -- most notably uranium, thorium, and potassium -- releases energy in the form of heat, which slowly migrates toward the Earth's surface. Residual heat is gravitational energy left over from the formation of the Earth -- 4.6 billion years ago -- by the "falling together" and compression of cosmic debris.

Date: 2012/02/08 16:53:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 08 2012,10:38)
GAAAHHH!!!  I hate performance appraisals.  The only bit that's really important is the bit that has nothing to do with the actual performance.

Sample comments from my boss:

   
Quote
{Ogre} is so knowledgeable about science that he can construct fusion powerplants and convert raw carbon into diamonds.


   
Quote
{Ogre's} collaboration and communication skills are such that the Israel/Palestine conflict might never had happened if he had been involved.


   
Quote
{Ogre's} technical skills and knowledge are so great that he successfully created an alternative world-wide internet using only paper cups and string.


   
Quote
{Ogre's} industry and organizational knowledge is so important that our company would be little more than a lemonade stand on a street corner without him.



Performance Ratings:
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Needs Improvement

[Ogre's] rating: Satisfactory


sigh...

and I didn't even blow anything up... this year.

Around here the ratings are "unsatisfactory", "needs improvement", "meets expectations", "exceeds expectations", and "far exceeds expectations".  Which means that if they expect you to walk on water, you can do no better than "meets expectations".

Date: 2012/02/08 17:19:41, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tom A @ Feb. 08 2012,17:03)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 08 2012,16:53)
Around here the ratings are "unsatisfactory", "needs improvement", "meets expectations", "exceeds expectations", and "far exceeds expectations".  Which means that if they expect you to walk on water, you can do no better than "meets expectations".

That's why it's important to have a major fuck up every three of four years--not enough to get fired, but enough to lower expectations for a while.

I'll keep that in mind.

Date: 2012/02/13 16:11:13, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2012,16:02)
Bonus:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-common

 
Quote
...BTW, as much as I pick on her, I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her guns (in the face of what I perceive as overwhelming and irrefutable arguments to the contrary) as intellectual dishonesty, and if I did I apologize. Dr. Liddle, I hope you continue to post here. As frustrating as you can be, this would be a boring site if we did not have someone from the other side to joust with. And it is fun to joust with you.



Yes, it will be a boring site, Blowhard Barry.

I know they have overwhelming and irrefutable arguments because they mention them all the time, and why would they lie?  And I'm sure that if they would just post a link to the thread where those arguments can be found, we'd all fall into line forthwith.

Date: 2012/02/13 20:04:13, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 13 2012,19:23)
So humans descended from dogs, eh?

D'nyse ?

(a million points if you spot the ludicrously obscure reference)

Ballad of Lost C'Mell?

Date: 2012/02/13 20:09:00, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 13 2012,20:06)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 13 2012,17:08)
Getting back to a regular DeNews story, Dense reports that one of her science news sources, a site named Creation-Evolution Headlines no less, cites a study that would imply that humans have descended from dogs, not monkeys as the darwinists try to tell us.
In the study dogs outperformed chimpanzees in a certain type of intelligence test. Specifically, dogs understood the concept of (human) pointing (to indicate the location of food) better than the chimps.
This of course doesn't completely destroy darwinism, but creates a huge problem for it. Why? Because dogs don't have fingers!
Dense:  
Quote
So dogs learned to detect a message using fingers, which they don’t have, but chimps, which have fingers, didn’t learn to detect the message? Jane Goodall, check YOUR messages.

I tell you, man, evilution's days are numbered.

Yes, while we've been absorbed with Barry's flameout, Denyse has been steadily cranking out the tard, never failing to meet her quota.

A couple of days ago, in a post entitled Male snakes show mystical Darwinian knowledge?, Denyse quotes a Science Daily article:
 
Quote
Large and older females, preferred by male snakes because they can produce more babies, also have a slightly different chemical signature in their pheromone. Young, small, females can still attract suitors, but not as readily.

Denyse actually thinks the author is talking about a conscious calculation on the part of the male snakes:
 
Quote
Male snakes clearly can’t tell a she from a he-on-estrogen, so what mystical Darwinian knowledge causes them to prefer a bigger female because she “can produce more babies”? They know? They care?

You think they've found that selfish gene yet, Denyse?

Nah. She was genetically selected for tard.

Date: 2012/02/13 20:14:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 13 2012,20:11)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 14 2012,02:04)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 13 2012,19:23)
So humans descended from dogs, eh?

D'nyse ?

(a million points if you spot the ludicrously obscure reference)

Ballad of Lost C'Mell?

BASTARD!

:angry:

Your million points are being held in a vault on Montserrat.

Surrounded by a flaming wall of strawmen soaked in oil of ad hominem, no doubt.

Date: 2012/02/13 20:16:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 13 2012,20:12)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 13 2012,20:09)
 
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 13 2012,20:06)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 13 2012,17:08)
Getting back to a regular DeNews story, Dense reports that one of her science news sources, a site named Creation-Evolution Headlines no less, cites a study that would imply that humans have descended from dogs, not monkeys as the darwinists try to tell us.
In the study dogs outperformed chimpanzees in a certain type of intelligence test. Specifically, dogs understood the concept of (human) pointing (to indicate the location of food) better than the chimps.
This of course doesn't completely destroy darwinism, but creates a huge problem for it. Why? Because dogs don't have fingers!
Dense:    
Quote
So dogs learned to detect a message using fingers, which they don’t have, but chimps, which have fingers, didn’t learn to detect the message? Jane Goodall, check YOUR messages.

I tell you, man, evilution's days are numbered.

Yes, while we've been absorbed with Barry's flameout, Denyse has been steadily cranking out the tard, never failing to meet her quota.

A couple of days ago, in a post entitled Male snakes show mystical Darwinian knowledge?, Denyse quotes a Science Daily article:
   
Quote
Large and older females, preferred by male snakes because they can produce more babies, also have a slightly different chemical signature in their pheromone. Young, small, females can still attract suitors, but not as readily.

Denyse actually thinks the author is talking about a conscious calculation on the part of the male snakes:
   
Quote
Male snakes clearly can’t tell a she from a he-on-estrogen, so what mystical Darwinian knowledge causes them to prefer a bigger female because she “can produce more babies”? They know? They care?

You think they've found that selfish gene yet, Denyse?

Nah. She was genetically selected for tard.

Does she get paid by the word (or something resembling a word)?

She thinks so, but so far she hasn't figured out which word.

Date: 2012/02/14 15:49:16, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2012,11:47)
   
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 14 2012,09:30)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 14 2012,09:50)
Just think, this unscrupulous, deluded shyster could someday be a judge:

arrington's idea of overwhelming evidence and FACT

You mean stuff like this:
     
Quote
“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”

Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

followed by this:
     
Quote
I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.

A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry?  This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?

So... if I say a thousand people saw Arrington raping a duck, that's exactly the same as a thousand people saying they saw him raping a duck.  Good to know.

 
Quote
That record, which was written during the living memory of those who saw the events in question, is the only record we have, and there is no good reason to disregard it.

Apparently it helps if you make your claim during the lifetime of the alleged witnesses of the alleged duck-raping episode.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:07:04, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,16:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,16:02)
AtBC needs a qualifying question too. Candidates? I'll start:

Can a one-legged frog kick the seeds off a dill pickle?

Errr ... aren't you supposed to also give us a list of the approved answers?

"Fish."


[Edited to restore the post I thought wasn't showing up due the the paging bug but which apparently just went off into the ether somewhere to be alone.]



Date: 2012/02/14 16:17:56, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,16:13)
Barry:

 
Quote
17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.



Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

So when is Scott bananananninated?

Date: 2012/02/14 16:23:22, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 14 2012,16:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,16:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,16:13)
Barry:

   
Quote
17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.



Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

and now edited without edit marks:

 
Quote
Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.


And with a miraculously well placed typo in the final phrase.

Can you be able to argue in good faith if you deny the LNC, and at the same time not be able to argue in good faith if you deny the LNC?

Date: 2012/02/14 18:46:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Arringgoon:
Quote
Noam, no one will be banned from this site for criticizing ID, and I have no idea where you got such a notion. Go back and read the OP. Only those who demonstrate beyond the slightest doubt that they do not intend to act in good faith (by denying the LNC) will be banned under the new policy. It has everything to do with whether a person is a fool or a charlatan, not whether they criticize ID.


Seriously.  Why hasn't ScottAndrews2 been banned, then?

Date: 2012/02/14 19:10:19, Link
Author: noncarborundum
This juxtaposition probably isn't remotely as funny as I think it is:

Date: 2012/02/14 20:12:24, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 14 2012,19:51)
StephenB weighs in

Reason and good faith last seen piling their belongings into a U-Haul bound for the coast. :O

Quote
Do I know for sure that reason’s rules constitute higher ground because it liberates? Yes, I do. Do I know for sure that postmodern subjectivism is lower ground because it enslaves? Yes, I do. Am I aware of the difficulty these poor souls will encounter as they try to find their way back to intellectual sanity? Yes, I am. But it’s definitely worth the journey.

No, it's not.

Date: 2012/02/14 21:10:36, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2012,20:58)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 14 2012,21:49)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 14 2012,19:32)
I'm still predicting the Second Coming of DrDr Bill.

Of all the many purges, this is the most artificial.

Something's coming, and it isn't just Barry Arrington.

We shall be able to proclaim "I told you so." when it comes to pass.

Something wicked this way comes.

By the [arrogant] prick[ing] of my thumbs . . .

Date: 2012/02/14 22:20:27, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 14 2012,21:49)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2012,22:34)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 14 2012,22:09)
There's a few options on the table, now.

1) Just yer classic meltdown.

2) The imminent return of Dr.Dr Dembski (pbuh).

3) UD is going to re-model itself along ENV lines - i.e. we'd rather you just sit and listen.

4) ......

5)  stephen and barry fellate each other to death while gordon mullings strokes a priapism that looking at tranmaw can't kill.  gil plays gpuccio a love song but he can't get out of the mirror long enough to entertain the affection.  gloppy ruptures dembski but offers him a graduate student health insurance plan that comes with a cafeteria meal plan, and then davescot drives the floating mushroom barge up onto the beach and sets the whole place on fire then calls eric pianka and tells him to fuck off and nevermind. no one remembers to get sal out of the stocks in the basement so he is collateral damage

"Pass me another creationist, this one's split!"

With apologies to Mary Gentle and people having anything resembling good taste.

Not to worry.

Date: 2012/02/14 23:52:25, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (REC @ Feb. 14 2012,23:34)

6) Barry had a bad date-(posted on Valentine's Day):

 
Quote
"I recently wasted an entire evening trying to reason with someone that (analogously) two flips of a coin could yield a heads and a tails in two distinct ways (HT or TH) giving the combination a 50% chance of success over either HH or TT.

She was playing a game, and one that she plays every day in life.

For every advance I made ... she doubled down and protested all the more.

Her arguments became more long-winded and rambling in an attempt to filibuster...

seeking to derail the heart of the discussion by finding some small weakness in my peripheral knowledge, to try and gain the upper hand.

....her protests would yield no fruit, she lost all interest.....

What I found was a person impervious to learning much of anything, but who was apparently pretty skilled at dishonest debating tactics. This is a person who’s psyche is comprised almost entirely of its own ego, who desires no real learning or illumination, but merely an advantage. The word “shameless” comes to mind, and it’s entirely apropos.

GEM of Icky in drag?

Date: 2012/02/15 11:12:20, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 15 2012,11:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2012,09:03)
Until then all evos are just pieces of shit fucking assholes.

Well, that's convinced me.  Have you considered submitting this for peer-review, Joe?

Joe has no peers.  Only superiors.

Date: 2012/02/16 19:33:11, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:11)
More sleazebaggery from Barry:
 
Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)
 
Quote
I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements.

I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there.

Here is what I actually wrote:
 
Quote
Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions.

I went on to give an example. I notice that
1) My point was completely misrepresented
2) My example is carefully omitted
3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me.

And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim.

Unfortunately you were using language at the time you didn't make the claim, so Barry found it impossible to understand what you weren't saying.  This may be less a reflection on the inherent ability of language to convey meaning than on the inherent ability of Barry to discern it.

Date: 2012/02/16 20:21:16, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:57)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2012,17:33)
 
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:11)
More sleazebaggery from Barry:
 
Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)
   
Quote
I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements.

I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there.

Here is what I actually wrote:
 
Quote
Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions.

I went on to give an example. I notice that
1) My point was completely misrepresented
2) My example is carefully omitted
3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me.

And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim.

Unfortunately you were using language at the time you didn't make the claim, so Barry found it impossible to understand what you weren't saying.  This may be less a reflection on the inherent ability of language to convey meaning than on the inherent ability of Barry to discern it.

For the record, David is not my sock.  I don't think he's one of us (yet), since he actually seems surprised by Barry's shitty, dishonest behavior.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  Too much language.

Date: 2012/02/17 23:31:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum

Date: 2012/02/18 12:22:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 18 2012,08:58)
Indeed, when stated this way, it strikes me as a startling hubris to insist a priori that a system of logic devised by Aristotle must be capable of expressing every possible true state of affairs, and that phenomena that are inexpressible within that system therefore cannot exist.  

Didn't Kurt Gödel have something to say about this?

Date: 2012/02/18 21:11:01, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2012,18:55)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 18 2012,13:49)
This looks like a job for the Dodgenator 3000!

It looks like a combination A1/E3.

Frill:
 
Quote
If I punch 87 x 53 into my calculator and get 46,481 I immediately know something is wrong (in this case I hit the 7 key twice by accident) even if I don’t know exactly what is wrong, because the result should be somewhere in the hundreds, not thousands. I don’t need to know exactly what the problem is in order to recognize that the result makes no sense.

You couldn't make this shit up.

But an omnipotent and omniscient being could.  Therefore god.

Date: 2012/02/20 13:28:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 20 2012,12:51)
Denyse embarrasses herself yet again:
Fiftieth anniversary of John Glenn’s space walk February 20 1962

The first American spacewalk didn't happen until 1965, and it wasn't John Glenn doing the walking.

Could someone introduce Denyse to this newfangled 'Google' thingie?

If Denyse were capable of feeling embarrassment she'd have abandoned UD (and in fact all writing activities) years ago.

Date: 2012/02/22 12:41:42, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 22 2012,11:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2012,21:58)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 21 2012,20:27)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 21 2012,18:53)
   
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 21 2012,16:27)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 21 2012,17:01)
I wonder how much longer BA77 and Joe will be the dominant posters at UD?

Are you familiar with the idea of a 'hydraulic empire'?

I think Heinlein had a novel that along the way asserted that a regime that controlled access to water could last indefinitely. "Friday", IIRC.

I was thinking of a Larry Niven book, World Out of Time.

Is that the extension of the "Rammer" short story? If so, I remember the book, but not specifically the water control discussion from it.

Yes, it is. The hero, Corbell, explains that the State lasted as long as it did because it controlled all the key resources (water monopoly was his term). Since (in this analysis) a water monopoly can only be overthrown from outside, and there was no outside, the State lived forever.

One of several hard SF books of the Reagan Era that took the Soviet empire really seriously.

IIRC The Integral Trees is set in the same universe.  The autopilot of the ramship always announces itself as "Kendy for the State".

Date: 2012/02/24 18:06:10, Link
Author: noncarborundum
belated

Date: 2012/02/24 20:11:46, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 24 2012,19:13)


I remember that scene! It was in Mile-High MilfSorry, I must have been thinking of something else

Did I just wish you a happy milfday?

Date: 2012/03/04 11:20:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,09:06)
Boo, looks like it's down again.
In the meantime, here's a short film illustration the plight of Joe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....related

He's too stupid to let go! The smarter creatures quickly out smart him, and he is angry! they feed him some choice, hand selected stuff and he leads them to the source of his tard.

ETA: Yes, I'm well aware this is PotDecade.

For some of us, I'm afraid the Pot Decade was over long ago.

Date: 2012/03/05 15:36:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 05 2012,15:17)
 
Quote (Starbuck @ Mar. 05 2012,12:41)
The silence might indicate the intention to litigate. Could this be Dover part deux?

Suing a publisher because they chose to reject something would be... interesting.  I'm sure the outcome would be eagerly awaited by the Timecube guy, and green-ink-on-the-back-of-napkin MS writers everywhere.  I don't think the rest of us need to be concerned.

My father-in-law was a law professor.  He maintained that judges should have a third verdict option in lawsuits: "finding for the plaintiff", "finding for the defendant", and "get out of my court."  This would be a good example of option 3.

I recently saw this referred to as dismissal on the grounds of "what the fuck is wrong with you?"

Date: 2012/03/06 10:04:54, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 05 2012,22:59)
Isn't MODERATION supposed to be a virtue? ;)

Not when taken to extremes.

Now you're just being mean.

Date: 2012/03/08 11:17:18, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 08 2012,10:30)
Joe, it's been 3 days.   Do you know what a mole is yet?  Come on, man; 3 days.  Three days!!!  My nephew (a 5th grader) looked it up and gave a pretty good definition in his own words.  Come on, clown, what's a mole?

Date: 2012/03/10 16:19:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2012,12:28)
Let's see how UD is doing, eh?

           
Quote
Earlier than thought: Oldest organism with a skeleton predates the Cambrian era

1 Comment

Okay, this sounded cool so I Googled "oldest organism with skeleton" to see what it was about.  Good news:  UD doesn't appear within the first 10 pages of results (for comparison purposes only, richarddawkins.net is result #4).  But then morbid curiosity got the better of me and I went over to UD to see how News could possibly spin this against evolution - because you know that the only reason UD ever cites interesting science is in order to sneer at it.  Here it is:
 
Quote
Darwinists often point to such discoveries gleefully, hoping to knock the significance out of the Cambrian explosion half a billion years ago, when almost all current phyla of animals appeared rather promptly. The problem they never discuss (and no one would now be legally allowed to discuss in many school systems) is this: If the explosive innovations occur much earlier, they decrease the amount of time for natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) to produce them, a process that must usually be slow anyway.

Please, everyone raise his hand who thinks that it wouldn't be legal to discuss how Darwinian mechanisms, operating over the span of at least 600 million years (from the first known multicellular organisms), could produce a mineralized spicule.  Keep in mind that schools already allow discussions about how quadrupedal ancestors could have developed into whales over the course of about 50 million years.

Date: 2012/03/11 14:14:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Mar. 11 2012,13:45)
Joe,

I've been reading your tripe* for a number of years.

I can't believe you are really as dense and pathologically stupid as your writing in various locations makes you out to be.

So...my guess would be you put on a moronic and pathetic act because you get some demented pleasure out of making people much, much smarter than you engage your blatant idiocy.

But then I question why anyone would waste years of time in their mother's basement watching ticks on watermelons and arguing ice is not water.

Whether it's an act or you really are THE stupidest congenital dullard the Internet has ever seen, I thank you for laughs.

And either way, what an utter senseless waste of human life you've turned out to be.

* (not to be insulting to ruminant stomachs, as it were)

Actual tripe makes a tasty soup.  Joe's effluvia, not so much.

Date: 2012/03/13 11:11:05, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Freddie @ Mar. 13 2012,10:38)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 13 2012,07:18)
         
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 13 2012,06:29)
Mullins is a fucking lunatic.
               
Quote
Now, I had long thought that the Creationism in a cheap tuxedo sneer was a toxic smear, but it was only when I made the connexions through the Barna survey and the Aiden vampire clergy video, in light of the cyber harassing comment by subject Y of the initial circle of attackers since June/July last year, that I saw that we are actually dealing with blood libel.

:D

Umm, let me get this straight.  Mullings is likening the description of ID as a low-rent creationism to the accusation that Jews kill Christian babies to use their blood in religious rituals?  Is that what he is doing?  


Okay - I know I swore off that place but this is too good to pass up.  

KF:
         
Quote
In hot retort, one of the associates of one site (who seems to moderate another of the hate sites and who runs a site of his own with “NSFW,” highly questionable photos [Ed: wonder who that could be? hehe] ) stated, in relevant part:

If more people spent their Sundays at home watching porn, there’d be less money in the coffers of those houses of hate and ignorance called churches. That could only be good for the world . . . . You are the most sanctimonious, lying, misogynistic, homophobic, willfully ignorant, unintentionally hilarious scum of the earth windbag on the interwebs.

That highly unusual word, “coffers,” points straight back to the lyrics of Hysteria,  AIDEN’s so-called “atheists anthem.”

Remember, in the video, the below — which I annotate — is being sung by a vampire clergyman, standing in a graveyard (I understand of US service-members):

Love how they burn your synagogues
Love how they torch your holy books
Filling coffers [--> offerings are blood-money] with your grief
Filling coffins with your misery [--> you are war mongers]
...

Emphasis from original.

(1) 'coffers' is not a highly unusual word - I used it in a non-churchy context just the other day!

(2) I have no idea what he is claiming here other than that perhaps the word is some sort of secret signal used by the atheist cabal to stir things up ... or something.  Because it appeared not once but twice somewhere ... and only a few months apart!  Weird.

Best part is then in the comments from Byers:

       
Quote
It is a fair suspicion that those who accuse the most and the most severely are themselves involved in what they accuse.

Modern life surely has ended the old prohibition against conspiracy theories.
They can be true and many have simply different lists.


Priceless.

I remember my 7th-grade World History teacher quoting an old line from the time of the Protestant Reformation:  "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."  Who knew Johann Tetzel was quoting Aiden?

In 1518.

Date: 2012/03/14 14:18:15, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2012,11:45)
Of course, I can also recognize those traits in myself and pretty accurately judge when they are unfounded.

Or do you just think you can? ? ? ?
   
Quote
Exaggerating your achievements or talents.

;)


[Edited to remove unintentional smilie]



Date: 2012/03/14 15:50:33, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 14 2012,13:30)
check out this piece

http://www.blythinstitute.org/images.....502.pdf

     
Quote
The first aim of this paper is to describe a set of phenomena I will call “nonphysical phenomena,” because they defy physical understanding categorically.


spoiler alert, doesn't actually describe such phenomena.  whodathunkit?


Actually it does, or at least tries to.  Here's a sample, using Turing machines:

     
Quote
To summarize the argument:

1. General purpose programming requires programming languages that are Universal.
2. The “halting problem” states that there is no computable way that can tell for sure if a program written in a Universal language halts.
3. Humans are able to solve the halting problem as a matter of practice for programming computers (if the programs didn?t halt, the program would not work).
4. Using the definition for physics established earlier, a physical system is unable to solve the halting problem
5. If humans are only physical systems, 3 & 4 are in apparent contradiction.

To resolve the contradiction, one simply needs to move beyond the notion that physics is the only metaphysical reality at play, and there are other elements or aspects
that need to be accounted for.


Any theory that uses computer programmers as a demonstration of the existence of an ineffable, non-physical component to human existence has got my support.

Date: 2012/03/14 22:53:44, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (khan @ Mar. 14 2012,17:51)
The IDiots have no idea what they are talking about.

I know, right?  I mean, who saw that coming?

Date: 2012/03/15 05:46:21, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 14 2012,22:40)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 14 2012,21:26)
Probability of 4.0. That might be sig-worthy in a world without Dorothy Parker in it.

I wonder if the one who did that "math" was giving it his 110 percent?

400%, more like.

Date: 2012/03/15 10:31:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,09:44)
Stonehenge is irrelevant.  Stonehenge doesn't reproduce.

Fucking megaliths, how do they work?

Date: 2012/03/15 13:38:29, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2012,13:35)
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 15 2012,13:24)


One of the Myst games?

Stargate

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this gate is not wheelchair accessible?  (I have a wheelchair-bound child.  I look at flights of stairs like that and shudder.)

Date: 2012/03/15 15:20:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 15 2012,15:10)
Thanks Gunthernacus....it's close.

Assuming my memory is reliable it was during one of Dembski's pep-talks (much like the one you posted); the one's where he presents a raft of introspective questions to the faithful.

Anyway, if anyone's tempted to follow your link they'll find some high grade TARD.

This is how O'Leary thought to reply to Dembski's post....



Now THAT is the hard stuff.

The mind reels.  What the hell is wrong with these people?

Date: 2012/03/15 18:19:34, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 15 2012,16:08)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 15 2012,13:38)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2012,13:35)
     
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 15 2012,13:24)


One of the Myst games?

Stargate

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this gate is not wheelchair accessible?  (I have a wheelchair-bound child.  I look at flights of stairs like that and shudder.)

Oddly enough, my first thought when I see this is a extremely cold night in December 1994, when my wife and I were going to see Stargate at a dollar theater in Columbus, OH.   We never saw the movie, but came home with a stray kitten we named Flicker, after the theater.


She is still with us.


Approach with caution.  She appears to harbor a Goa'uld.

Date: 2012/03/17 09:07:34, Link
Author: noncarborundum

Date: 2012/03/19 22:14:06, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 19 2012,21:42)
His lawyer Becker wrote the brief and, yes, it's a screen play.  Most bizarre thing I've ever read and at first I couldn't believe it was a submitted legal document.

They're nuts.

However, Becker, a workman's comp lawyer, is now playing the Headache Card and poor old Coppy has to lie down every few minutes to rest his poor old melon.  How he ever held a job with such a pulsating brain we'll never know.

Get some popcorn and watch the movie:

Coppedge day at JPL.

Starts on Page 4.

I read some of that "screenplay".  IANAL, but doesn't this whole case beg for dismissal on the grounds of "what the fuck is wrong with you?"?

Date: 2012/03/20 14:58:48, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:27)
I doubt if the percentage of believers will ever drop significantly below the current numbers. there will always be people who follow religion for its social benefits and for fear of shunning. And there will always be people who genuinely can't endure doubt and uncertainty.

The current numbers where, though?  The situation in France, for example (64% atheist or agnostic, according to Harris Interactive in 2006), would be a distinct improvement over what we're seeing in the U.S. these days.

Date: 2012/03/20 15:27:05, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,15:05)
I suspect the number of believers will never drop much below those numbers. The situation in France may simply reflect a reversal of social pressure, or a rebound from centuries of theocracy. Perhaps religion is associated with the monarchy.

In the United States we have the opposite political history. Religion is associated with rebellion against monarchy.

Are you suggesting that the current numbers are destined never to change?  They've changed in the past (compare 17th-cent. Massachusetts to today).  What makes the present day special?

Date: 2012/03/23 07:12:47, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 22 2012,15:49)
 
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 22 2012,22:44)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 22 2012,15:25)
Last seen on this (rather ugly) thread:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....olution

Rich: sent him a SMS, didn't mention you. Maybe it was a mistake not to...

Louis: "...sick to the back teeth..."

Damn I like that expression! Never heard it before. Can't say me dad ever uttered it growing up, so I don't know if it's an English thing, a regional thing, or just a thing one picks up, but darn it...I likes it!

...and it's so Louis!  ;)


ETA: Ha ha...Louis is off is meds!

There...I said it. That will bring him back just to beat me or lambast my thoughtlessness if nothing else.

Here in France, it's quite common: "j'ai les dents du fond qui trempent", or "my back teeth are soaked"...

You can't fool me.  I've studied my Mark Twain and I know that that really means "I have the teeth of the back who soak."

Date: 2012/03/23 18:43:24, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Ftk @ Mar. 23 2012,17:26)
Here's kinda what I"m talking about.  People like Trayvon  sometimes get *used* to great hatred by people like Sharpton or whomever to try to prove a point or cause further hatred.  

You won't see this story get the coverage Trayvon's did..nor will the President be speaking about it as he did with Trayvon being compared to what his son might look like.

A hate crime is a hate crime.  Period.  They are all wrong.  But, some are used by groups to up the anty on hatred toward one group or another.

But you miss the essential point.  That article says that the KC police didn't know who the attackers were, but that they were investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.  Even though the victim survived with what sound like relatively minor injuries, a detective from the KCPD is quoted as calling the attack "heinous." The article is short, but gives no indication that all the bases were not being appropriately covered.

The Sanford FL police knew who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, and further had evidence that the shooting was unprovoked, and did nothing about it.  Nothing.

That's the source of the outrage.

Date: 2012/04/03 16:08:17, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (The whole truth @ April 01 2012,02:31)
Take a look at this page.

Quote
Job 40 describes an animal with a tale like a cedar tree

Sounds like a tall story to me.

Date: 2012/04/04 14:36:45, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Birthy Hapday, you two!

Date: 2012/04/05 11:16:20, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 04 2012,23:13)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ April 04 2012,20:56)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 04 2012,03:06)
He's even spamming Evolution News.

I wonder how long they'll allow comments now that BatShit 77 has discovered them.

That's some beautiful boilerplate craptastic & bombastic BA^77!  I'll bet he's been kicked ot of at least 3 congregations for being Too Holier Than Thou!  And he longs for the days when he had friends, before he started preaching at them and condeming them all to hell!

I think Frill may be in the same circumstances.  I have a feeling that back in the days when he was a super atheist, nobody knew, but once he OD'd on Jesus, nobody could avoid hearing about it.  Again and again and again and ...

He apparently got kicked out of the editorship of Hang Gliding magazine about that time.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Just plain sick of his ragging for Jesus?  Quite likely.

Coppedge syndrome.

Date: 2012/04/17 08:09:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Patrick @ April 17 2012,07:33)


Never has an idea been coddled more by its supporters than ID.

Those of the wall.

Grrr grumble mumble mumph off my lawn grumble grumph.

Date: 2012/04/22 09:14:43, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (sparc @ April 22 2012,02:22)
I couldn't resist and had to go to UD again. The Tard is still strong there:    
Quote
1
Robert Byers April 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm

This marsupial wolf was in fact just the same creature as wolves elsewhere I say.
Likewise other “marsupials” were exact copys of placental countertypes.
Its been a great error of classification to see minor details of reproduction and a few other things as separating marsupials from placentals.
In fact it was just a general adaptation due to the area they moved into after the flood.
In fact marsupialism is simply a attempt to increase production of offspring.

The marsupial wolf was a just a wolf and would grab sheep. The farmers are right and simply it was not common because the wolves
were not that common.

Genetic studies should not have much faith placed in them to tell us of the past.
Convergent evolution is a myth alongside other evolutionary ideas.
Same shaped creatures are the same cxreatures after all.
minor adaptation abilities can account for difference.

by the way the marsupial wolf (Tasmanian tiger) did howl in the night.
Wolves do that.

The clear similarity between marsupial kangaroos and placental kangaroos should have been the first clue.  Shame on the scientists for not picking up on that.

Date: 2012/05/04 19:29:37, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2012,14:44)
You want a photoshopped Unabomber billboard? Okey-dokey…



This didn't require Photoshop skills, so much as type-matching skills. If your machine happens to have both Photoshop and the Arial Black font installed on it, feel free to grab the 'Shop file for a template—and have fun!

Date: 2012/05/07 20:46:08, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Robin @ May 07 2012,10:31)
Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2012,10:20)
For the year that's in it:


Hey...when is the end of the world supposed to happen this year anyway? I've not been paying attention.

The Mayan calendar is scheduled to roll over on December 21.  But it may not get the chance if José Luis de Jésus Miranda is right and the world actually ends on June 30.

Date: 2012/05/09 22:58:32, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 08 2012,13:12)
 
Quote (Patrick @ May 08 2012,12:20)
Off topic, but I'm really wondering why people on the Skeptical Zone keep leaving Joe links to pictures of bunnies.  Is there an Internet meme I missed during its five minutes of glory or are rabbits to Joe what clowns are to DaveScot?

An internet meme proudly created by our very own Amadan:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y205448


And I better not be ninja'ed by him!

Edited for spellography

Not to step on Amadan's priority or anything, but when I first read his bunny post I wondered if he'd been influenced by this, which I had seen several days earlier and thought was absolutely wonderful.

Date: 2012/05/11 09:33:12, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote (Joe G @ May 11 2012,08:24)
Thanks for the bunnies- now time for your tunie:

Dude.

Date: 2012/05/11 11:09:59, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote
(Porn image removed by a mod because JoeG is a child who can't act like a grown up.)

That was porn?

Date: 2012/06/04 13:37:50, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Trololo guy dies.

Date: 2012/06/12 00:54:07, Link
Author: noncarborundum
Quote
This is at least the third time someone has messed up the numbers in a big way. I suspect that it’s the same person doing it. My suggestion is that before they post anything involving numbers >ever again< that they have one of the other moderators double-check it for them >talk them out of it<. It could avoid some embarrassment.


------
Edited.  Because.



 

 

 

=====