The board game is designed by evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron of the Left Behind fame.
And to top it off, Bill Dembski is basking in glory: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1912
You can't make this up!
form_srcid: olegt
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.96
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: olegt
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 'olegt%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/12/30 07:56:11, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
|
It's official: ID is a game played by creationists. http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchan....ode=536 |
| Date: 2006/12/30 08:06:44, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
|
The board game is designed by evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron of the Left Behind fame. And to top it off, Bill Dembski is basking in glory: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1912 You can't make this up! |
| Date: 2007/10/02 13:32:58, Link 66.180.186.220 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Meantime, Dembski is back on the EIL list: http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/People.html |
| Date: 2007/10/06 00:09:57, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Ftk, I think you've got it backwards. Science is not about complexity. Science tends to reduce seemingly complex phenomena to simpler causes. When we say something is complex it usually means we don't understand it. |
| Date: 2007/10/09 22:47:03, Link 12.107.71.209 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Altabin, You ought to quote the entire speech. My irony meter blew up again when I read that it's time the scientific community got off its duff and confirmed the theory. |
| Date: 2007/10/17 17:49:16, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
StevenB elucidates the real value of junk science (a.k.a. creationism).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-142842 |
| Date: 2007/10/18 07:10:00, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
| Someone should tell the delightfully ignorant BA77 to look inside a color jet printer. There he'll find three tanks containing inks of secondary colors cyan, magenta and yellow. And (surprise, surprise!) there will be at least one more tank containing black ink. |
| Date: 2007/10/26 11:02:36, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
DI's is its own best P-A-R-O-D-Y evah! Check out this announcement of a super-duper-secret-insider gathering of IDers in Seattle last August. Tasty tidbits follow: 3rd Annual Discovery Society Insiders Briefing on Intelligent Design August 10-11, 2007 Discovery Society Members are invited to attend the Third Annual Insiders Briefing on Intelligent Design - the nation's foremost gathering of intelligent design scientists, scholars and theorists. :O (What the hell is the difference? Are some of them both scholars AND theorists?) After enjoying a sumptuous meal with Seattle's picturesque Lake Union as a backdrop, Dr. John West and Attorney Casey Luskin will introduce you to a panel of courageous scientists who have persevered in their research and development of intelligent design theory. :O (No word whether the attendees will get to enjoy the sumptuous meal.) To cap off the evening, Society members will experience a short, exclusive film preview for insiders only. :O (No doubt the Designer was caught on tape.) |
| Date: 2007/10/26 12:13:45, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Wow. Dembski is lecturing scientists on how to retract papers? Gotta place an order for irony meters. |
| Date: 2007/10/27 18:24:48, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
mentok at UD:
I'll have whatever she is having. |
| Date: 2007/10/31 11:18:45, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Patrick on the Today's Class Project thread:
Wow. The guy sure lacks in curiosity department. |
| Date: 2007/11/05 14:24:02, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
That's how science works, ftk. You develop a nice theory that makes perfect sense to you and a bunch of other folks and them -- boom! -- it doesn't survive the experimental test. But that's okay, it happens to every scientist. And one nit to pick. The high level of literacy in the world is a very recent thing. Take a look here. |
| Date: 2007/11/06 16:09:16, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Borne shoots and scores:
Which one of you is glarson24? This guy is too good to be true. |
| Date: 2007/11/07 10:42:14, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Ftk, You can rant about NOVA being pro-Darwinist (or something) all you want, but getting a show about intelligent design on that very program was DI's intention from the get-go. Here is an excerpt from the 5-year plan (hehe) in the Wedge Document:
|
| Date: 2007/11/08 00:16:14, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This is getting interesting. Political correctness ID-style. Can bannination of BA77 be far behind? :D |
| Date: 2007/11/09 23:47:18, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Looks like it's contagious: now kairofocus has it:
|
| Date: 2007/11/10 18:25:19, Link 128.111.9.149 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Reasonable Kansans has made it to the highly selective ID resource list at IntelligentDesign.org. Other luminaries include Mindful Hack and Post-Darwinist. Sadly, Larry Fafarman has not made the list. |
| Date: 2007/11/12 10:44:02, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
A little improv comedy from BA77.
|
| Date: 2007/11/12 11:39:45, Link 128.111.9.149 |
| Author: olegt |
|
And the ranks of EvoInfoLab swelled with the arrival of [drum roll] Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El-Paso, a fearless solver of partial differential equations and a big fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Darwinists are shaking in their boots. |
| Date: 2007/11/12 11:44:24, Link 128.111.9.149 |
| Author: olegt |
|
BarryA has checked his reading skills and the answer isn't all that encouraging. Nominated for TotW award. P.S. I have saved the entire thread in case it disappears soon. |
| Date: 2007/11/13 13:28:57, Link 128.111.9.14 |
| Author: olegt |
|
A quick scan of UD reveals the following most popular recent posts (with number of replies): Darwin at Columbine (152) Veritatis Splendor or Veritatis Peccator? (94) Future Risk Assessment in the Genome (79) P.falciparum - No Black Swan Observed (72) Low Probability is Only Half of Specified Complexity (70) Pathological consequences of Darwinism vs ID (59) On Moral Progress In A Materialist World (57) Provine and Nelson at Cornell, November 12: If Neo-Darwinism Fails, Then What? (56) I Liked the Old Atheists Better (48) Getting Hollywood to “Sell the Product” to Children (47) PBS’s Judgment Day - Don’t believe Darwin’s kludge? You just don’t understand it! Or else … (45) “Is Belief in Divine Creation Rational?” (44) The science rule the Christian Darwinist doesn’t want (34) Dodgen Daily (31) Will Darwinists just grow up about social Darwinism or not? Maybe not … (26) Antony Flew interview (24) Reading Level Comparison (23) Turning Cars Into Submarines (16) New assessment dramatically scales back ape language skills (16) Mike Behe and bad design (16) Orwellian world an inevitable outcome of materialist philosophy (12) GA This! (10) Weather Channel Founder: “[Global Warming] is the greatest scam in history” (9) Not a Darwinbot? Got a story? Tell it to The EXPELLED! (8) Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (5) IntelligentDesign.org (5) “Punctuated Evolution” (3) O’Leary on radio today, tonight (2) Level Four Tornado Through Kentucky Junk Yard Self Assembles Lime Green Hummer. (1) ID lectures at the University of Buffalo (11/8) and Daemen College (11/9) (1) All science so far! |
| Date: 2007/11/13 16:20:24, Link 128.111.9.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Hah! A new scientific term has just been introduced by DLH:
So we CAN discuss the nature of those designers, after all. |
| Date: 2007/11/14 03:35:59, Link 66.133.193.0 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Casey Luskin has just posted a longish rebuttal to Judgment Day on his blog. With like a zillion links to his boring old articles. But there are some gems that just catch your attention.
Did I miss an epic fight? |
| Date: 2007/11/19 14:13:14, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Gil Dodgen likens evolution to phlogiston:
This is BS. Phlogiston was abandoned quickly and decisively right after Lavoisier's 1775 work. Here is what John Priestly, one of the precious few remaining proponents of phlogiston, wrote in 1796:
Gil, if ID had any scientific value it would have already made it. Alas, it's all hat, no cattle. |
| Date: 2007/11/24 09:12:22, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
|
BA77 looks for experimental evidence for ID --- and finds it --- in a crackpot journal Progress in Physics featuring papers with titles like "Completing Einstein's Proof of E=mc^2". In the words of BA77 himself, "Truly Truly, a potential breathtaking breakthrough!" |
| Date: 2007/11/25 19:30:21, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
BA77 comes forward with this:
This is complete nonsense. Physicists know well that long-range quantum entanglement does not allow one to send information faster than at the speed of light. There is a decent discussion of that on Wikipedia, with references: Quantum entanglement No communication theorem |
| Date: 2007/11/25 21:10:19, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Getawitness does a great job. BA77 strikes back:
But his response is rather underwhelming. The theoretical paper by Cramer writes about a nonlinear version of quantum mechanics, which might allow for superluminal transfer of information. There are no experimental indications of nonlinearity, so this is squarely in the realm of speculation. The next reference is an abstract of a Ph.D. thesis "The philosophical implications of quantum non-locality." That's not even a theory. Aspect's paper specifically denies the possibility of superluminal information transfer in that experiment:
It's true that quantum correlations can be nonlocal: the states of well-separated quantum objects can be entangled in a non-classical way. But so far there is no indication that it can be used for instantaneous communications. |
| Date: 2007/11/28 17:46:27, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Bwaaaahahahaaa! And this, towards the end of the message:
LOL! |
| Date: 2007/11/29 06:06:29, Link 66.160.55.17 |
| Author: olegt |
|
aardpig might want to strengthen his position as follows. The NASA and Templeton grants were secured prior to Guillermo's appointment at Iowa State. On the NASA grant he was neither a PI, nor a co-PI, just a postdoc sustained by the money. Templeton's grant was for writing a book, not for doing research, IIRC. That leaves us with $50K of research money secured by GG in his entire period as a tenure-track faculty at a major research university. That's peanuts (you need $100K a year to survive). And that $50K came from DI in 2007. EDIT: corrected tags |
| Date: 2007/11/29 14:06:34, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Discussion of GG's funding level is getting to a quantitative level.
That's $60-100k a year, darling. GG managed to get $50k of research funding over the course of 6 years at Iowa State. Do the math. |
| Date: 2007/12/02 10:07:22, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
russ sez
and goes on to quote David Klinghoffer's article in Weekly Standard. He conveniently forgets to mention that Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at DI, that very place where contempt for academia is the only thing they grow. |
| Date: 2007/12/04 18:53:41, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
aardpig's swan song:
I smell bacon. |
| Date: 2007/12/05 09:59:29, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
"Unacknowledged information costs" is back online in a revised form. In other news, Tom English is no longer listed at the EIL personnel page. |
| Date: 2007/12/05 21:42:12, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Rude explains how books are evaluated at UD:
|
| Date: 2007/12/08 18:15:09, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
The story is consistent with what Sal wrote in September at UD: My retreat from the public view…. Of Groups and Labs at Baylor |
| Date: 2007/12/14 18:51:52, Link 66.160.55.17 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This is old nooz. In 2005 Dembski wrote:
|
| Date: 2007/12/18 19:12:32, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
BarryA pontificates:
He apparently never heard of supercooled water. |
| Date: 2007/12/21 15:39:47, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Last line of defense from DaveScot:
Earth to Dave: ever heard of the difference between basic and applied research? General relativity was useless at the beginning of 20th century. Nowadays GPS employs Einstein's equations. Got it? Write that down. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 11:12:36, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Ftk said
Ftk, Wes is right and you are wrong. I have yet to find an ID line of argument that is not a creationist one. Here is a quote from Henry Morris, a YEC and founder of the Institute for Creation Research:
(emphasis mine --OT) You just can't deny that ID recycles the arguments from "creation science". Creationists figured out on their own that they ought to distance themselves from the Bible somewhat to gain a shred of credibility. Here is Henry Morris again explaining how "creation science" is different from Biblical creationism:
Read Dembski's response to Morris here and then feel free to tell me whether there is any substantive difference between "scientific creationism" and ID. You know I'm a good listener. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 12:07:32, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
It's funny, Ftk, that you totally failed to respond to the substance of my comment and went on a tangent instead. Let me repeat in condensed form what I wrote and backed up with quotes. Creationists themselves said that ID is repackaged scientific creationism. Are you going to call Henry Morris a liar? Just curious. And when you issue a private apology to Wes, kindly let us know. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 12:13:27, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
That's a straw man, Ftk. No one ever said that Behe and Dembski copied from Brown. Dembski got his stuff from Henry Morris. Go ahead and comment on that. We can discuss where Behe's IC came from, too, if you wish. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 12:33:30, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Intresting line of defense, Ftk, but I am afraid it doesn't work. The big picture is made from these little bits. If every single little bit turns out to be bogus then there is no big picture. And now I'd like to hear from you on the theme of Henry Morris. |
| Date: 2007/12/29 13:07:05, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||||||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||||||
Ftk, "He's simply wrong" doesn't strike me as a winning argument. Morris is much more specific in his charges. In particular, he says that bacterial flagella and specified complexity were lifted by IDers from YECs. Would you care to dispute that? And the second half of your comment is wrong, too. Morris, just like IDers and well before them, tried to distance himself from the Bible: that's what "scientific creationism" is for. Reread the Morris quote again:
|
| Date: 2007/12/29 14:07:15, Link 71.179.158.247 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Great. Now we both agree that there was a succession from Moses and Paley to Morris and from there to Dembski and Meyers. Behe belongs to the same evolutionary tree.  And incidentally, judges need not understand the issues argued in court in depth, at least not in advance: they have experts on both sides who explain the issues to them. Perhaps, the explanatory powers of ID are not what they are cracked up to be. |
| Date: 2007/12/30 10:41:16, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Sal explains, half-jokingly, that young-universe apologetics is the Chewbacca defense, a fictional legal strategy used in the South Park episode "Chef Aid". The aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury. I am not making it up.
|
| Date: 2007/12/30 23:40:28, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Ftk, Not quite so: there are well-known exceptions. The ancient Greeks were fairly relaxed about it and so were some Asians. Wikipedia has a short summary of the subject. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 13:15:29, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
That's what physics seminars used to be like in the old Soviet Union. The speaker would be subjected to a barrage of questions from the hostile audience. I survived. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 14:39:34, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Ftk, I am an atheist (or maybe an agnostic, but let's not split hairs), but I have no idea how a bunch of atoms can "affect morality". Don't you think that we atheists might operate with slightly more complex concepts such as mind, conscience and self-awareness? That we don't view ourselves as a mere assembly of atoms? You are probably aware that the properties of atoms in a liquid or solid (and even in a molecule) are radically different from those of individual atoms. A crystal is rigid even though individual atoms have no rigidity. It's a concept that does not even apply to individual atoms. This is what we physicists call "emergent phenomena". They are not present in individual atoms and only arise when many atoms come together. Same with people. Humans are not a bunch of atoms, they are much more complex entities. Your misguided attempts to sneak in this primitive reductionism look just silly. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 15:47:01, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
This is brutally funny. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 17:38:00, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Here's a creationist blog whose owner, Professor Smith, presents him/herself as follows:
The blog hasn't yet attracted too many admirers apart from our own J-Dog and yours truly. If you pay a visit now, you'll have a chance to observe a bannination in progress. Needless to say, I've already been banned. Enjoy! |
| Date: 2007/12/31 17:51:31, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
To give you an idea of the scientific level, I'll point out this recent gem:
|
| Date: 2007/12/31 19:53:57, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
No. He agreed with me that he is not a physicist. The following mind-boggling passage makes it clear that Prof. Smith is not a biologist, either:
He/she is also not a chemist as chemists don't capitalize the names of chemical compounds:
And, oh, that "letters instead of numbers" gem is a good indication he/she is not a computer scientist. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 20:00:10, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This is your own invention, Ftk. Scientists don't have a goal of disproving God. They just don't use the concept of God in their work. Ponder the difference. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 20:23:58, Link 71.179.117.48 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Great questions, Ftk! We answer them by doing experiments. Go back to the previous page and read someotherguy's comment. |
| Date: 2007/12/31 22:15:11, Link 71.179.117.48 |
| Author: olegt |
|
I join in wishing Ftk a Happy New Year. Cheers! P.S. Be a good gal next year and Santa will bring you an Edit button.  |
| Date: 2008/01/01 02:18:35, Link 71.166.100.139 |
| Author: olegt |
| Happy New Year to all, indeed. And have pity on UD: we can't wish them a happy new year overthere 'cause we've all been banned. Too bad! |
| Date: 2008/01/01 12:31:00, Link 71.166.100.139 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
ERV, it's likely that I, too, first learned about professorsmith from Ian's post. GCT, I have observed professorsmith for a while and I strongly doubt that he/she is a faculty member anywhere. His/her view of academia packed with scheming materialists is such a bad caricature that I can't help laughing. Take this description of his/her regular lunches with a colleague.
Really? Faculty rarely go for lunch to a restaurant for no particular reason (such as to treat a visitor). University cafeteria, maybe. And we don't sit around arguing until the restaurant had cleared: it's noon and there's work to do! But professorsmith seems to have a lot of time on his/her hands. Check out the regular Dog Sunday feature on that blog. Time stamps on photographs featured in those posts show that he/she can afford to ditch work and spend a couple of hours. In the woods. At midday on a Wednesday. In the middle of a semester! |
| Date: 2008/01/01 12:45:21, Link 71.166.100.139 |
| Author: olegt |
| Lou, this is a guy/gal who claims to be a researcher three years from tenure. An assistant prof is supposed to be working his/her ass off teaching, working in the lab, writing papers, getting grants and supervising grad students. Spending a couple of hours with dogs at midday usually doesn't fit in this schedule. |
| Date: 2008/01/01 16:29:58, Link 71.166.100.139 |
| Author: olegt |
|
GCT, That statement was qualified. As to the chick, she and our subject are not related. |
| Date: 2008/01/01 21:28:39, Link 71.166.101.41 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
GCT, Let's not get hung up on this minor point. I speak from personal experience acquired on several campuses, but maybe I'm generalizing a bit. It's not important. The story with Dr. R. is ridiculous on another level. On the one hand, professorsmith is hiding his/her creationist ideology from "materialist" colleagues until tenure. On the other, he/she is openly arguing a creationist stance before Dr. R., who is also a colleague. Why risk blowing cover if it supposedly is so dangerous? That doesn't make sense. |
| Date: 2008/01/02 21:36:26, Link 71.166.99.251 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Ftk, Go lie down and stay away from blogging for a couple of weeks. You'll be all right. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 08:53:25, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
jeannot, You may be right, but I just can't imagine a tenure-track professor of biology that ignorant of evolution. There are other signs as well. He/she misspells the word pheromone. In the same post we are told that "The nervous and endocrine systems are highly entertwined, much as the brain and mind are intertwined." Or examine the thread Hairy Design and you'll see that professorsmith can't access subscription-only science journals from home. Anyone affiliated with a university can do that using a proxy server! A tenure-track researcher surely would know about that. |
| Date: 2008/01/03 12:36:47, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
Yeah, it looks like the adoration is mutual.  |
| Date: 2008/01/03 14:35:21, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
ERV, I comment on that blog under my full name. The question is how does he/she know I'm olegt? We must have met!  Bob, it wasn't my fault, really. Nature asked me to comment. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 09:19:37, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Fear not, Ftk, your message has resonated with the masses: I appropriated one of your lines for my signature. And here is your entire comment, on the Bathroom Wall. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 13:26:57, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Ftk, This a men's bathroom. |
| Date: 2008/01/04 22:01:20, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Ftk, I'll have to refresh your memory on the Sal-Abbie spat. After ERV had been banned, Sal suggested at UD that she deliberately misled her readers about the evolution of HIV. This is the worst accusation that you can make against a scientist. When he or she is caught cheating, it's the end of a career. There have been several notable cases recently (Hendrik Schön in physics, Woo-Suk Hwang in biology) and you might want to read about what happened to these guys. It's no wonder that Abbie reacted strongly to Sal's completely false accusations. After some prodding from evil Darwinists, Sal apologized, the classy guy that he is. Now tell us Abbie overreacted. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 11:39:03, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Another gem from professorsmith, in response to Rich:
This person has no idea what teaching looks like from this side of the classroom. I barely have time to cover the material my students have come to learn. There's no time for remedial lessons in logic. It's higher education, for crying out loud! And students who can't be bothered to click on a link? It would be their problem, not mine. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 12:17:36, Link 71.179.112.159 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Ftk, You, an anonymous poster, were subjected to juvenile name calling by 17-year-olds. I don't condone it (ah, the pleasure of expanding one's dictionary!), but it would be a fool's errand to try and stamp out teenage rants. ERV, a real graduate student also known as S. Abbie Smith, was subjected to deliberate character assassination by a grown-up with three college degrees (and an aspiring scientist to boot). I think there's a bit of a difference here. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 13:11:16, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
For the sake of accuracy, let me mention that an hour later you disavowed your criticism:
|
| Date: 2008/01/05 14:13:04, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
That smacks of moral relativism, Ftk. Where was your moral compass? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 14:16:00, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
argystokes, No, he/she claims to be a scientist:
The quote is wickedly funny, by the way. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 14:59:22, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
argystokes, I don't think so, either. But here is professorsmith:
|
| Date: 2008/01/05 15:20:50, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Ftk, The Bible has lots of other guidelines that are, for some reason, ignored by modern Christians and Jews. A. J. Jacobs, an Esquire editor, recently wrote a book The year of living biblically. Doesn't his experience demonstrate that the rules of the game evolved over the millennia? Or do you still not wear clothes of mixed fibers? |
| Date: 2008/01/05 16:07:24, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
jeannot, It'd be fun to invite professorsmith to the party. However, I am afraid he/she does not approve of this site:
|
| Date: 2008/01/05 16:16:25, Link 71.179.112.159 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Thanks for the detailed answer, Ftk. I mean no disrespect and I don't think anyone else will engage in that. My point was that those laws weren't absolute since they were open to human interpretation. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 21:00:55, Link 71.179.112.159 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Erasmus, Sal's not a Ph. D. candidate. He is taking evening classes towards a master's degree in physics: My retreat from the public view…. No word yet on future plans. |
| Date: 2008/01/05 23:37:19, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
I dunno, factician. Casey Luskin went to grad school (he has an M. A. in Earth Sciences from UCSD), but he still writes crap like this:
The silliness is not caused by a lack of education. They are simply not interested in science; rather, they view it as an instrument for advancing their cause. It's a PR effort and so everything goes. It doesn't matter that we find their "ID science" laughable: we are not their target audience, Ftk is. |
| Date: 2008/01/06 14:10:45, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
It's strange to hear this from a guy/gal claiming to work at a state university, a place presumably crawling with Darwinists. How do you keep your sanity at work, Prof? |
| Date: 2008/01/06 18:42:24, Link 71.179.112.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Hi UnMark, Great job so far! I love professorsmith's reaction:
All science so far! |
| Date: 2008/01/07 18:34:23, Link 71.179.203.186 |
| Author: olegt |
| Instead of wasting 3,109 words, BarryA should have just said Scientific ideas are tentative. |
| Date: 2008/01/07 20:10:25, Link 71.179.203.186 |
| Author: olegt |
| Hmm... Tried to post to a wrong thread. |
| Date: 2008/01/07 20:12:24, Link 71.179.203.186 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Oh, this is delicious:
This is what I call Zugzwang. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 06:27:37, Link 71.166.99.42 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
xcdesignproponentsists gets his reward:
xcdp, please come out for a round of applause. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 10:43:32, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| I *heart* Darth Piglet. The tard is strong with this one. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 12:09:37, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
carlsonjok, That should be yarn theory. |
| Date: 2008/01/08 20:18:41, Link 71.179.116.234 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
The latest from the bunker:
Welcome to our humble home, professorsmith! Feel free to delurk. |
| Date: 2008/01/09 18:16:59, Link 71.179.120.162 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Sewell unleashed a tsunami of nonsense with his post. Frost122585 writes:
He has it exactly backwards. We do have a mathematical description of quantum physics. It works with great precision, as has been verified by numerous experiments. It's our minds that fail to rationalize the behavior of quantum objects. Not surprising, given that our brains have been shaped by classical experience. |
| Date: 2008/01/09 18:42:32, Link 71.179.120.162 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
More from the same author:
Strictly speaking, macro world can be rather unpredictable, too: with a few exceptions (harmonic oscillator), the dynamics of most classical systems is not only analytically intractable, it's also chaotic. That means that even the most powerful computer cannot predict the exact motion of the system: a small change in the initial conditions or a tiny round-off error will produce a trajectory that eventually diverges from the "correct" one. And that's not a bug, it's a feature. It's precisely this unpredictable behavior that gives rise to ergodicity and statistical mechanics. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 06:58:55, Link 71.166.105.134 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
jerry brings sci-fi under the big tent, thus putting ID on a firm foundation:
Edited to add a comma. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 12:29:34, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
DaveT starts a great thread defending Arguments from Incredulity. See, physicists use it all the time:
Earth to DaveT: no sane physicist uses quantum mechanics to compute the motion of a baseball through air. We write down Newton's equations of motion and take into account (at the very least) gravity and (if you really insist) air resistance and the rotation of the ball. Solutions to these time-tested equations show unequivocally that the ball does not stop midway in the air. So much for incredulity. In the comments, Sewell tells it like it is:
You just can't make it up. |
| Date: 2008/01/10 13:09:09, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
A great comment from Q:
ROFLMAO!!1!! Thank you, DaveT! |
| Date: 2008/01/11 08:40:28, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
professorsmith informs us how universities work and why IDers won't do research:
Two errors. 1. The school ponies up money for a lab when the professor is hired, as part of a start-up package. Lab space is allocated at the same time. From then on, building up and maintaining the lab is the responsibility of the faculty member. The university does not put any more money towards it, the funding comes from grants. 2. If those super-duper-secret ID studies are supposed to fly under the radar, how come professorsmith outed them? |
| Date: 2008/01/11 09:12:56, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Elsewhere we learn how much a lab costs:
This is off by a few orders of magnitude. The annual outlays of the NIH are $28B, most of which is dispensed in the form of 50,000 competetive grants. That works out to something like half a million per grant. A PI can have two or three such grants, but we're still talking a million with an M, not B. Universities don't give money to faculty members for research, they take it in the form of overhead. The exception is a start-up package given to a newly hired professor. But the order of magnitude there is again a million, not a billion bucks, and that's for an experimentalist at a top research university. So no, individual labs don't cost billions. |
| Date: 2008/01/12 09:02:09, Link 71.179.154.11 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
tribune7 on the future of science:
|
| Date: 2008/01/12 12:32:29, Link 71.179.127.212 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Quality tard from toc:
The poster knows nothing about either industry or academia. |
| Date: 2008/01/12 12:48:41, Link 71.179.127.95 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
DaveT finds a silver lining in Wikipedia:
C'mon, Dave, look on both bright sides: every single minute these misguided liberal youths are studying, working, or participating in the political system is a minute they aren't spending at Wikipedia. It's a win-win situation for ID. |
| Date: 2008/01/12 13:17:45, Link 71.179.127.95 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Mapou comes up with a fresh idea:
You mean like this? |
| Date: 2008/01/13 21:24:40, Link 71.166.103.50 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Hi UnMark, The latest post, citing Casey Luskin on the double standard, is complete BS. Here's my comment at Mens' News Daily:
|
| Date: 2008/01/13 22:09:04, Link 71.166.103.50 |
| Author: olegt |
| UnMark, well done. |
| Date: 2008/01/14 19:33:47, Link 71.179.194.11 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This Mapou character must be a top secret Darwinian sock puppet.
LEEEEROY JENKINS!!!1!! |
| Date: 2008/01/14 20:39:05, Link 71.166.103.77 |
| Author: olegt |
| Erasmus, I seen hiz blog, iz awsum. That's why I think he is our top secret. |
| Date: 2008/01/14 22:02:14, Link 71.179.146.220 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Yup, that's him. ID sure is a big tent. |
| Date: 2008/01/16 13:06:43, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
Only 12% of American adults believe that humans evolved without God's involvement and 53% think God created man in present form. Couple that with the following graph and what do you conclude?  American public needs some education. |
| Date: 2008/01/16 17:22:23, Link 71.179.112.156 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Atom at 137
He then figures out that the signature has the form of the number phi, a.k.a. the golden ratio 
Glad we've solved that. What about his social security number? |
| Date: 2008/01/16 17:29:04, Link 71.179.112.156 |
| Author: olegt |
Oh noes! Wrong guy: |
| Date: 2008/01/16 19:40:11, Link 71.179.125.44 |
| Author: olegt |
| With all the commenters banned, professorsmith is feeling so ronery. |
| Date: 2008/01/16 19:54:03, Link 71.179.125.44 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
'nother P-A-R-O-D-Y moment from Dembski. The IDers don't get it, so he has to chide his sock puppet:
You're so funny, Bill! ETA: The P-word appears twice! |
| Date: 2008/01/17 07:16:54, Link 71.179.125.44 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
|
For whatever reason, two of my messages were let through in the thread Even More Darwinist Hypocrisy. The good prof responded with the usual ur doing it rong. Here's my latest comment that is languishing somewhere in the moderation queue:
|
| Date: 2008/01/17 10:50:56, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
That's called atomic decay, David. Atom lost four marbles. |
| Date: 2008/01/17 18:16:30, Link 71.179.125.44 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
DaveT points out why Guillermo Gonzalez's work important.
Read the whole thing to see Dave reluctantly abandon Teh Copernican Principle of Mediocrity. |
| Date: 2008/01/18 09:47:17, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
MA. At least some of the pics were taken in the Blue Hills Reservation, just south of Boston. That bog with a boardwalk is pretty well known. |
| Date: 2008/01/18 21:49:27, Link 71.179.120.132 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
In case anyone still thinks that professorsmith might be a biologist, this post should help:
|
| Date: 2008/01/20 15:07:26, Link 71.179.201.206 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
OA, your experience is not unique. A number of people on this blog have gone through that, including me. The latest news from the bunker is Coyotes on the Prowl. No doggie pics this time, unfortunately.
The story is probably made up: it's hard to believe that the human would spot the coyotes before the dogs would. |
| Date: 2008/01/20 22:03:02, Link 71.166.101.178 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
More like 700 hundred crackpots. |
| Date: 2008/01/22 19:10:50, Link 128.220.254.4 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
In a piece titled Lacking a Middle-Ground, the Swiss Devolve into Evolutionary Dogmatism, Casey the Earth scientist laments the rejection of young-Earth creationism by a school district in Switzerland and pleads for the introduction of ID as a middle ground. I like this line in particular:
Casey, wake up! YEC isn't controversial, it's brain-dead. And this line from the article at swissinfo, quoted by Casey, really caught me by surprise:
Ya don't say?!! |
| Date: 2008/01/24 11:02:38, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Just a reminder about who DI is appealing to. John West, Associate Director of DI's Center for
All science so far! |
| Date: 2008/01/25 13:38:19, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
I am appropriating this little gem for my signature:
|
| Date: 2008/01/26 09:16:59, Link 71.166.100.53 |
| Author: olegt |
| http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1342 |
| Date: 2008/01/26 10:11:04, Link 71.166.100.53 |
| Author: olegt |
| Oh NOES! Don't start till I get popcorn! |
| Date: 2008/01/27 20:52:30, Link 96.234.220.161 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
PaV's comment in his own thread OOL is a Sticky Situation is a good illustration of what's wrong with the UD crowd.
These guys, for the most part, don't know diddly-squat about science, are well aware of that, and yet make grand pronouncements precisely on that subject. In this instance, quantum mechanics is essential neither for the generation of microwaves in a magnetron, nor for their absorption by water molecules: both processes are squarely within the realm of classical physics. Quantum mechanics is essential when you deal with narrow discrete lines in atomic or molecular spectra. Microwave absorption in water takes place in broad bands that reflect rotations and frequent collisions of electric dipoles. Classical Newtonian physics is fully capable of dealing with that. PaV continues:
The part on quantum mechanics is ok, we do rely on the exact solution for the hydrogen atom as a starting point for jumping to other elements. But the analogy with God (I'm sure he meant the Designer :p) does not work: there is no ID theory that could boast the success of the Schroedinger equation. What a sorry bunch. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 07:39:01, Link 96.234.220.161 |
| Author: olegt |
| I haven't read the previous thread, but if I understand it correctly, TP is arguing something physicists and mathematicians have known for a while: a zigzag path in a spacetime with a metric signature (+,-,-,-) has a shorter length than a straight line. Duh! |
| Date: 2008/01/28 13:14:06, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
blipey, I'll have to look for the reference. TP, yes, it's well known (to physicists and mathematicians, anyway) that light travels along null geodesics. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 15:02:39, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Obvious? I don't think so. Your statement is wrong, on a couple of levels. For starters, the relativistic aspect is not particularly relevant to the EPR paradox: the original and its variants apply to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics as well. The 1935 paper by Einstein et al. dealt with the physical observable known as momentum, a concept perfectly valid in nonrelativistic mechanics. Bell formulated his theorem for two nonrelativistic particles carrying spins 1/2. You don't need photons, you can do experiments with particles at rest. Relativity only serves to highlight the paradox: if a physical signal could travel faster than the speed of light, it would also violate causality (in a different reference frame). So, relativity does not explain anything; on the contrary, it makes quantum physics more mysterious. The EPR paradox is not only stated but also resolved without any help from relativity. While the measurement performed on one part of an entangled pair does change the wavefunction of the pair, there are no experimentally measurable consequences to the other part. Suppose Alice and Bob share two spin-1/2 particles in an entangled state with a total spin 0. If Alice measures the spin of her particle, she knows instantaneously that Bob's particle as a spin pointing in the opposite direction. She can predict what the result of Bob's measurement will be, but she can't send Bob any signal using this setup because no matter what Bob does with his particle, he won't be able to learn whether Alice did her measurement. So Alice can't send an instantaneous signal to Bob and thus there is no paradox. There is a vast amount of literature on this, so I won't go into details. To conclude, TP, your appeal to spacetime does not resolve the EPR paradox because relativity makes it even worse (no physical object can travel faster than light). The resolution lies in the nonclassical nature of quantum randomness: the rules of quantum physics are logically consistent, even though they do not agree with probabilistic interpretations inspired by classical physics (hence the paradox in the form of Bell's theorem). Experiments nonetheless show that quantum theory gives correct predictions, so it's vindicated. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 22:09:25, Link 71.179.146.42 |
| Author: olegt |
|
TP, all current interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent as far as experimental consequences are concerned. So there is no physical reason to prefer one interpretation over another. The Copenhagen interpretation has the advantage of being taught in college courses, which makes it the lingua franca of QM. That's a good enough reason to stick with it and there are no good reasons to do otherwise. The rest of your comment contains statements that are either trivially true or extremely vague. Yes, the quantum wavefunction of a particle can be changed at a distance if it is in an entangled state. However, I have no idea what you mean by "quantum information" that travels faster than light. Give a formal definition, then we can discuss it. And no, relativity is not necessary for the understanding of quantum physics. Every textbook I know (and that's not a small number) deals at length with the nonrelativistic theory first. Relativistic quantum mechanics is a marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity, two areas of physics that are already well developed on their own. Take a look inside this classic textbook and you'll see what I mean.  ETA: Penrose's views on quantum gravity are irrelevant to this question. There is no theory of quantum gravity yet, as far as I know. |
| Date: 2008/01/28 22:38:55, Link 71.179.146.42 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Uncommonly Denyse offers three more predictions. Here's the main theorem, the other two being the corollaries:
Denyse, wake up, it's already happening! Colleges with religious affiliations already require their students (and professors) to sign a statement of faith. And you know what? They are convinced that statements of faith do not in themselves limit true academic freedom. Here's how the good folks at Patrick Henry College handle it.
Their brilliant solution? Redefine academic freedom so that it's not violated!
What did they say about people in glass houses? |
| Date: 2008/01/29 12:05:17, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Then I'm a bad atheist since I don't worship Darwin and, by and large, only hear his name when creashunists utter it. I was seriously LOLled when I learned (from Casey Luskin, I think) that I was a Darwinist. Since I am a physicist, I must also be a Newtonian and an Einsteinist. And a Bohred Gibbsian Maxwellist to boot. |
| Date: 2008/01/29 20:07:11, Link 71.179.146.42 |
| Author: olegt |
|
TP, quantum decoherence was not the subject of our discussion and couldn't have been. Quantum entanglement is destroyed by decoherence, which means that if you wish to have the former, you make sure that the latter does not occur. There is no point in dragging it in if your goal is to discuss entanglement. I see no further point in having a discussion with you since you are unable to stay on topic and keep changing the subject. You haven't bothered to define what you mean by "quantum information," and from that I conclude that you are not interested in having a conversation, either. Best wishes, OT |
| Date: 2008/02/01 13:07:53, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
Feel free to use the quote in your signature. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 08:59:46, Link 71.179.117.98 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This is where you go off the rails, TP. All of the various interpretations of QM make sense: they're all logically consistent. That is a minimal requirement for a physical theory. Unfortunately, logical consistency does not guarantee the validity. A theory must be tested experimentally. Penrose's theory fingers gravity as the cause of wave function collapse. In principle, it can be tested. If and when it is tested, we'll see how it fares. Multiworld interpretation does not seem to be experimentally testable at the moment. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 10:22:12, Link 71.179.117.98 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
TP,
I'd like to see how. Please explain. Don't change the subject. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 11:51:48, Link 71.179.117.98 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
TP, no, you do NOT seem to understand what you are talking about. Here's a typical example.
GHZ experiments demonstrate the existence of quantum entanglement. Penrose, with his OR, tries to explain the collapse of the wavefunction, which (among other things) kills entanglement and returns physics to its classical form. It's plain wrong to suggest that Penrose's OR explains GHZ. And you are precisely right: everything is fine as long as you provide direct quotes from Penrose, but as soon as you try to formulate things in your own words it becomes clear that you don't have the foggiest idea about the subject. You find it cool to throw around the names of Penrose, Hawkings, or Zeilinger, but you don't have a clue about the physics. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 16:51:07, Link 71.166.99.252 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
They may sound similar to you, TP, but they aren't. Cramer's "transactional interpretation" is just a philosophical icing on the cake of standard quantum mechanics. The physics and mathematics remain exactly the same, the only new element is a warm and fuzzy feeling in our stomachs. Here's a quote from Cramer's definitive article in the Reviews of Modern Physics:
On the other hand, Penrose's theory is physically different from the standard QM. He argues that the collapse of a wavefunction occurs because of gravitational effects. Thus, an experimental check of Penrose's objective collapse is possible and it must show that gravity is indeed involved. In light of the above, Afshar's experiment cannot be viewed as a confirmation of either Cramer's or Penrose's theories. The former is untestable, as its author himself wrote. The latter did not receive a boost from Afshar because his experiments had nothing to do with gravity. There go your claims. |
| Date: 2008/02/02 23:39:52, Link 71.179.144.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
TP, I'll repeat one more time, but my patience is not infinite. Your comments make no sense. You throw around quotes from Penrose and Hawking but you can't formulate anything on your own. You claim that different theories are similar where they are not, find experimental support for them where there is none, and use categories that you can't even define. As a result, your posts are a curious mixture of things that are trivially true ("shortcuts" in Minkowski space), unsupported and usually false assertions (Penrose's OR is similar to Cramer's TI), and plain non sequiturs (GHZ confirms Penrose's OR). This stuff doesn't provoke deep thoughts, it reminds me of Alan Sokal's hoax paper Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. The funniest thing is that you nod in agreement, move on and then ask me to point out where we disagree. And you guessed it right: I do find Penrose's hypothesis a speculation because it lacks an experimental confirmation. You got a problem with that? |
| Date: 2008/02/02 23:44:11, Link 71.179.144.149 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
What's next? Shall we have to read Ann Coulter, listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Michelle Malkin? You can't be serious, Ftk. |
| Date: 2008/02/03 09:43:04, Link 71.166.97.195 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Magnan is channeling Alan Sokal:
|
| Date: 2008/02/03 10:58:25, Link 71.166.106.242 |
| Author: olegt |
| I have no idea why Day would bring up fractals. They're not infinitely complex (unless he thinks white noise is infinitely complex). Fractals arise quite naturally and don't require any intelligent designer. Domain walls in a critical state of a magnet are fractal surfaces. Britain's coastline is a fractal curve (Slartibartfast for Designer!). Day even acknowledges that in the text himself! What's the point then? |
| Date: 2008/02/03 18:03:36, Link 96.234.220.98 |
| Author: olegt |
| Ftk, you don't seem to understand what ad hominem means. Please look it up before formulating your argument. |
| Date: 2008/02/03 20:47:36, Link 96.234.220.98 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
TP, I'm not going to reply to the first part of your latest comment since I've already commented on those subjects. I'm going to answer the rest and it'll be a long answer.
It looks like magic only if you put it in black-and-white terms: an object either exhibits quantum coherence or it doesn't. But it doesn't work that way. Coherence, quantified through a suitable statistical quantity like the density matrix, decreases to zero gradually as the object is getting wacked by the environment. Experiments show that it usually does so in an exponential fashion, as exp(-t/T), where T is called a decoherence time. You can say that a quantum system possesses coherence over time intervals short to T and doesn't over ones longer than T. While that would only be a qualitative description, it shows that the situation is a bit more complex than you assume. In light of this fact, the question becomes quantitative: how long is the decoherence time? The answer depends on the particular physical system and its environment. While calculating it is not an easy task, in some cases it has been done in the framework of standard quantum mechanics. For instance, Das Sarma and his collaborators recently computed the decoherence time for a phosphorus spin planted in silicon (a few milliseconds at 8 degrees Kelvin). In this case, decoherence is caused by the hyperfine interaction of the phosphorus electron spin with the spins of silicon nuclei. The calculated value agrees with the experimentally measured one in various settings, thus indicating that perhaps gravity has nothing to do with decoherence in this case, it's all within the reach of standard quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone computed the decoherence time for a baseball in a typical environment. It's a much more complicated task. However, given the vastly greater number of degrees of freedom (10^23 vs 1) and their strong interaction with the environment, one can reasonably infer that the decoherence time will be much, much shorter than in the case of an electron spin in ultrapure silicon. That, and not exotic gravitational quantum effects, are the likely reason for the lack of quantum coherence for baseballs.
I'm afraid I don't find this argument convincing. For starters, not only mass, but also the number of particles involved increases in this sequence. More importantly, standard quantum mechanics provides an excellent account for decoherence in at least some of the physical systems (see the example above), while Penrose's theory remains at this point a speculation. |
| Date: 2008/02/04 12:10:43, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
If you visit the DI blog Evolution News & Views, you'll be stunned to find the ResearchBlogging.Org icon displayed prominently on the front page. You see, Casey now blogs on peer-reviewed research. Except that he doesn't. Casey's post is about a posthumous essay by Leslie Orgel that was printed in PLoS Biology. Orgel's article is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed research paper. Which means that Luskin is simply using the ResearchBlogging.Org icon to look legit. Nice try, Casey!  Folks at ResearchBlogging.Org are aware of this situation. Stay tuned for further developments. |
| Date: 2008/02/04 21:38:41, Link 71.166.97.159 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
GilDodgen asketh:
I am not making this up. |
| Date: 2008/02/05 21:28:00, Link 71.179.118.117 |
| Author: olegt |
| I thought this was a Casey Luskin thread. Wrong door, apparently... |
| Date: 2008/02/05 21:30:22, Link 71.179.118.117 |
| Author: olegt |
| Ftk, congratulations on your Salvador Cordova award! The acceptance speech could have been longer, though. |
| Date: 2008/02/05 21:42:08, Link 71.179.118.117 |
| Author: olegt |
| I've no plans to travel to Laurel, Ftk. |
| Date: 2008/02/06 12:41:12, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
jerry sez:
Here is my bannination thread, in case anyone wishes to provide an example. |
| Date: 2008/02/07 07:21:06, Link 71.179.154.77 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
DaveT on how science ought to work:
Welcome to the real world, Dave. There already is such a process. It's called anonymous peer review. |
| Date: 2008/02/08 06:19:35, Link 71.166.96.127 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
As always happens in discussions of academic freedom at UD, Rick Sternberg is paraded as an ID martyr. Daniel King asks:
Richard von Sternberg has served out his term (5-Jan-04 to 4-Jan-07) as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian and is now serving another term (15-Nov-06 to 14-Nov-09) as a Research Collaborator. Neither is a paid position, so he has never been a Smithsonian employee. STernberg's CV at his web site. Smithsonian Research Associates in 2004 Smithsonian Research Associates in 2005 Smithsonian Research Associates in 2007 |
| Date: 2008/02/10 09:52:42, Link 128.220.254.4 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
FtK quotes Vox Day at UD:
Vox Day uses dated (1999) statistics and cherry-picks his numbers. One can find the latest data in the NSF report Science and Engineering Indicators. The US share of the world scientific output shrank from 34.2% (1995) to 28.9% (2005). While France indeed underperforms the US in the number of scientific publications per capita, Britain and Sweden outperform the US by 9% and 58%. Needless to say, Sweden is even less religious than France and Britain isn't far behind France in that respect. Aside from that, a quick look at the top research universities in the US shows that they are concentrated in the Northeast and California, not in the Bible Belt. |
| Date: 2008/02/12 08:47:35, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
Not content with being a mere Isaac Newton of information theory, Bill Dembski photoshops himself onto the picture of the 1927 Solvay Congress alongside Einstein, Bohr, Planck and the like. No farting noises this time. |
| Date: 2008/02/12 09:37:52, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Speaking of dolls... |
| Date: 2008/02/12 11:16:35, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
It is in public domain. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solvay_conference_1927.jpg |
| Date: 2008/02/12 13:59:56, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
BopDiddy, There is some digital evidence that ties Galapagos Finch to Dembski and Marks. I'll comment on that later. |
| Date: 2008/02/13 06:30:26, Link 71.179.193.50 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Let me first point a couple of clues that seem to tie Galapagos Finch to Dembski or Marks. * Finch is no layman. As can be seen from this page on TheBRITES.org, he is familiar with scientific typesetting. The satirical article Socio-Chortelist Evolution of Humor: Emergent Jocularity from the Process of Natural Selection is produced in LaTeX: the file contains the digital string
* LaTeX documents come in a great variety of styles. Gloppy's paper is apparently based on an IEEE template. Here's a PDF sample. Those of you who saw the preprints by Dembski and Marks on evolutionary computing will recognize the document style. * The digital string shown above, while not unique, is not that common. There is a variety of ways to go from a device-independent output created by LaTeX (a .dvi file) to a PDF file, dvipdfm being one among maybe half a dozen (including Ghostscript, dvips, Quartz, pdfeTeX). The preprints of Dembski and Marks also use dvipdfm. It's all circumstantial evidence at this point. Teh smoking gun, I has it, but it will have to wait until maybe tonight: I have a bunch of grown-up things to do. Meanwhile, if someone has the old draft of the preprint by Dembski and Marks ev2.pdf please email me a copy. My contact info is in the profile. |
| Date: 2008/02/13 11:48:41, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Attenshun everyone! GROUND YOUR IRONY METERS NOW! DaveScot complains about D'OL being called Douchbag For Christ. But what about this comment of yours, Dave? |
| Date: 2008/02/14 09:05:39, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
It's broken on purpose. When I saved the thread last night the link was http://tinyurl.com/2utukc, which still works. The current thread links to http://tinyurl.com/2utuhc. It differs by one letter. Nice job, Dave. |
| Date: 2008/02/14 09:15:19, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| And the thread is now closed to comments. Wow, Dave, what courage! |
| Date: 2008/02/14 16:23:45, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
And don't miss this piece of fun wherein a righteous DaveScot wishes that Mapou burn in hell cos' Mapou lacks in the compashun department:
This couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. |
| Date: 2008/02/14 21:53:52, Link 71.179.122.205 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
User skram has posted the following message on the thread What happened to “Colson Praises PETA”?.
|
| Date: 2008/02/15 11:54:07, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
My sock puppet skram left the following comment on that thread:
It might appear later but I'm not holding my breath. ETA: And by the way, the thread with the mutation, which was already closed to new comments, has disappeared. Like, totally. |
| Date: 2008/02/15 19:35:05, Link 71.166.110.188 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Mister DNA, For what it's worth, there already is a Casey Luskin Graduate Award. Can you guess the first recipient? |
| Date: 2008/02/16 19:28:34, Link 71.187.79.193 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
For a person who has spent a considerable amount of time at Dell, DaveT demonstrates a rather poor understanding of parallel processing:
|
| Date: 2008/02/18 05:18:02, Link 71.166.99.117 |
| Author: olegt |
| Happy birthday, Bob! |
| Date: 2008/02/25 07:30:17, Link 71.179.196.185 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
DaveT defends Sewell's 2000 article in Mathematical Intelligencer:
Unbeknownst to DaveT, the article was published in the Opinion section. |
| Date: 2008/02/26 15:11:03, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| David Berlinski is an expert in biology? That's rich. |
| Date: 2008/02/28 08:56:33, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
From Ben Stein's op-ed Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?
Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it. |
| Date: 2008/02/28 10:31:39, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| And if Darwin is behind both Marxism and imperialism, it follows that he also gave us Denyse O'Leary. |
| Date: 2008/02/29 23:13:05, Link 72.33.7.111 |
| Author: olegt |
|
MINOR MELTDOWN WARNING! Watch closely developments on this thread and save it often: Melkikh’s Improbability of Darwinism and deterministic evolution model DLH digs out a whacky paper that bashes evolution and suggests that an electron is "a quantum computer with many degrees of freedom". This is crackpottery of the finest kind published in a very silly journal Entropy (go ahead and browse its papers). I predict another 404. The question is how long will it take teh clueless UD gang to figure it out? |
| Date: 2008/02/29 23:24:57, Link 72.33.7.111 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
6 comments so far, including
|
| Date: 2008/02/29 23:55:09, Link 72.33.7.111 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Editor-in-Chief Shu-Kun Lin explains what Entropy is about:
Teh community of entropy - I like the sound of it. |
| Date: 2008/03/01 18:55:42, Link 71.179.194.104 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Finally, someone smells a rat:
|
| Date: 2008/03/01 19:02:19, Link 71.179.194.104 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
MINOR MELTDOWN IN PROGRESS!
|
| Date: 2008/03/03 20:37:44, Link 71.179.192.213 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
|
The thread “No process can result in a net gain of information” underlies 2LoT is silly, and doubly so. First DLH picks up a paper from a third-rate physics teacher at a third-rate university (who publishes his stuff in the aforementioned silly journal Entropy), then the church choir sings variations of “Entropy is disorder." Entropy does not equate disorder. This common misunderstanding has been discussed many times by physicists, but it isn't going away anytime soon. Consider this excerpt from an article published in the Journal of Chemical Education:
There are well-known examples of physical systems where the onset of order is accompanied by an increase in entropy. The great chemist Lars Onsager pointed out as early as in 1949 that the ordered (nematic) phase of hard, rod-shaped molecules has a higher entropy than the corresponding fully disordered phase. Peter Pusey explains in a recent Science perspective that a liquid of hard spheres freezes with an increase in entropy:
|
| Date: 2008/03/04 06:08:26, Link 71.179.192.213 |
| Author: olegt |
| Sal informs us that Caroline Crocker is selling a new product, intellectual honesty. $5,000 if made from scratch, $1,000 for gently used. Details are available from her agent at intellectual IntellectualHonesty.info. |
| Date: 2008/03/04 06:14:39, Link 71.179.192.213 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
The funniest thing, Turncoat, is that you're exactly right. |
| Date: 2008/03/05 22:27:21, Link 71.166.100.148 |
| Author: olegt |
| Iz true. 66 Witherspoon St. is the address of UPS store #2026 in Princeton. CLick on theUPSstore.com to see what a "suite" looks like. |
| Date: 2008/03/06 07:06:45, Link 71.166.100.148 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Speaking of nonentities, here are a couple more: Journal of Evolutionary Informatics Institute for Evolutionary Informatics |
| Date: 2008/03/19 07:11:38, Link 71.179.144.212 |
| Author: olegt |
|
EIL continues to evolve. The critique of Schneider's ev has been taken off the EIL publication list. The paper was titled "Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites". It's now gone. The link provided above by Hermagoras goes to a 404. The current list of papers (all preprints), for future references: * William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" (in review). * William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "The Information Cost of No Free Lunch," (in review) * William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Horizontal and Vertical No Free Lunch for Active Information in Assisted Searches" (in review) * William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Judicious Use of Computational Resources in Evolutionary Search" (in review) |
| Date: 2008/04/04 15:05:44, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
garygagliardi points out, quite reasonably, that Dembski's explanatory filter may fail simply because we don't know all the laws of Nature. How do you rule out an unknown natural explanation? UDers scramble to come up with answers. Here's a sampling from gpuccio:
This is silly on several levels. First, no one knows what CSI is. Dembski hasn't provided any recipe for measuring CSI experimentally in any biological system. Second, this is an extrapolation (no law now, hence no law ever). Third, in the same breath he admits that one day a natural explanation may arise and they will have to reevaluate the evidence. That exposes the explanatory filter for what it is: god of the gaps. |
| Date: 2008/04/05 11:37:20, Link 71.166.102.183 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
He does. However, they only deploy under hard kicking. |
| Date: 2008/04/09 12:25:09, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Nevermind |
| Date: 2008/04/11 08:51:29, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
It's in my signature already. Classic tard. |
| Date: 2008/04/11 12:22:26, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
From Ben Stein's interview with Coral Ridge Ministries, courtesy of Bill Dembski:
All science so far! |
| Date: 2008/04/11 21:14:45, Link 128.220.254.4 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Dave is on a roll:
Right Dave, it clearly violates the 4th, 5th and 6th laws of thermodynamics. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 12:45:23, Link 71.179.201.61 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
FtK on Expelled:
I think fair and balanced should be capitalized. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 16:44:18, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| It doesn't sound like Dembski. The word notpology is a dead giveaway. RB, fess up. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 20:10:41, Link 71.179.123.107 |
| Author: olegt |
| Alright, you've already found it. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 22:31:35, Link 71.179.123.107 |
| Author: olegt |
|
VMartin, I think you have been asked several times about the alternative theory that presumably fares better than mainstream biology. You have avoided answering the question so far. |
| Date: 2008/04/12 23:52:33, Link 71.179.123.107 |
| Author: olegt |
| Thanks, VMartin, for providing an exhaustive answer. |
| Date: 2008/04/13 11:23:47, Link 71.179.127.51 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
AussieID opines:
I have just looked up Behe's books at two of the libraries I use. The university library has The edge of evolution and Darwin's black box (one copy each). The county public library has multiple copies of each. Them pesky materialist librarians! |
| Date: 2008/04/14 09:16:04, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
I'm not sure it's such a good idea. Look at the first student post at Pharyngula and think whether such an environment is conducive to learning. I don't think a personal blog should be an extension of the classroom. |
| Date: 2008/04/14 09:47:31, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
The strongest students survive in this environment. Weaker ones might find themselves strongly discouraged by that kind of experience. Apart from the purely pedagogical issues, there are ethical concerns. First and foremost, Christian students won't find the environment particularly welcome on a blog whose owner wears his letter A on the sleeve. Second, should a student's grade be based, even in part, on an extracurricular activity? I don't think all of PZ's students participate on the blog. That opens him to a charge of favoritism. Some may disagree with me, but I think one needs to maintain a firewall between teaching and personal advocacy. |
| Date: 2008/04/15 08:25:45, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
The devil is in detail, FtK. You need to dig a bit deeper into it to understand the allegations of plagiarism. ERV plans a series of posts on the subject, here is the first one. In a nutshell, if Inner Life of a Cell were a realistic depiction of intracellular processes, sort of a documentary film, then there would be no case here because any other animation made from scratch would look pretty much the same. It turns out that the animation is a cartoon and, starting from scratch, different cartoonists would come up with very dissimilar videos. However, if you actually peered inside a cell, you wouldn't see those pretty pictures. The processes are rather chaotic. The walker looks like a drunken sailor stepping back and forth and only slowly drifting in the right direction. Chemicals don't stick immediately to their intended locations, instead bouncing around multiple times and only occasionally getting into place. Lots of stuff floats around obstructing the view. An animator thus must focus on a few objects and processes of cellular life and discard lots of other things. It seems like the makers of the animation in Expelled have made exactly the same choices as the guys at xvivo. That's why the analogy is not two documentaries faithfully portraying the same subject but rather two Mickey Mouse cartoons in which Mickey wears different pairs of shorts. |
| Date: 2008/04/15 14:05:04, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| What battle? |
| Date: 2008/04/15 19:36:02, Link 71.179.115.192 |
| Author: olegt |
|
dogdidit, What the heck is a cosmus? |
| Date: 2008/04/15 22:48:24, Link 71.166.100.174 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
FtK:
Nice illustration to the First Law of Creationism:
|
| Date: 2008/04/17 09:22:56, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Allen's comments have unleashed a flood of fresh tard. For instance, bililiad writes (quoting a previous post by William J. Murray):
Is this guy is an AtBC sockpuppet or indeed a blithering IDiot? Impossible to tell. Further proof that ID is indistinguishable from its parody. |
| Date: 2008/04/20 17:23:28, Link 71.179.152.208 |
| Author: olegt |
| Whatever it is, I have been saving that thread on my laptop. |
| Date: 2008/04/25 09:02:17, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Check out The History of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Web Site (With Supporting Documents) compiled by Bob Marks. There's a truly spectacular Easter egg hidden on that web page. |
| Date: 2008/04/25 09:58:26, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Keep searching, guys. |
| Date: 2008/04/25 15:47:55, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||||
He's BA-A-A-ACK!!
There's more! |
| Date: 2008/04/25 20:42:18, Link 71.179.196.247 |
| Author: olegt |
It was fun while it lasted. Now it looks like Gloppy has 404ed teh links.  Well, at least we still have the Institute for Evolutionary Informatics! |
| Date: 2008/04/26 07:26:26, Link 71.179.154.150 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
No, the link was fine. The page has been removed. Gloppy, I hope you don't kill your fine journal! |
| Date: 2008/04/27 10:01:55, Link 71.179.192.126 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Yeah, it's great comic relief. Ftk links to 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design at The Evangelical Outpost. I looked at Part I, which lists the following: 1. Darwinists have no idea what ID is, 2. Darwinists claim wrongly that ID is stealth creationism, 3. Darwinists use "science of the gaps" argument, 4. Darwinists killed Sternberg's career 5. Darwinists claim natural selection explains it all. Claims #1 and 4 are patently false. Eugenie Scott has studied IDers under a microscope and even we here at AtBC know more about the ID movement than the author. Sternberg's career has never been in danger: he continues to work at the NIH and remains an associate at the Museum of Natural History. #2: Henry Morris, the late young-Earth creationist, pointed out that IDers have not generated anything new, they simply recycled existing creationist talking points. #3 is incoherent whining. What the hell is "science of the gaps"? #5 reveals the author's total ignorance of evolutionary biology: natural selection isn't the only source of biological diversity. Allen MacNeill lists 47 sources of biological variation on his blog. So all 5 claims are complete bunk. The charitable interpretation is sheer ignorance of Joe Carter. Good company you keep, ftk. |
| Date: 2008/04/28 09:25:44, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Excerpt from Intelligent design documentary creates stir in Dallas News:
|
| Date: 2008/05/04 12:00:27, Link 71.179.159.137 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Science doesn't equate math, Sal. The ability to do calculations is a necessary, but not sufficient skill for a scientist. This case is a great illustration that a poorly chosen mathematical model can totally ruin your scientific theory. Formally, Sal is completely right: a gambler playing against an infinitely large house will eventually lose no matter how strongly the odds are skewed in his favor. That's a rigorous result. However, if we watch the gambler over a finite period of time, he will be gaining for a while and it will take a very long time for the house to recoup the initial losses and win. (One can make back-of-the-envelope calculations to see that, I might get around to it eventually, but I don't have time right now.) However, in the context of natural selection an allele carrying a beneficial mutation plays against a finite house, which consists of all the other alleles. There is a finite (and not necessarily small) probability that it will survive long enough to become the dominant allele. Then the game changes completely because the player (the allele with a beneficial mutation) has become the house. Yes, math can be rigorous and wrong. Not the first time and not the last time, either. |
| Date: 2008/05/04 22:15:26, Link 96.234.221.134 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
You're right, Bob. Just for the sheer fun of it, I wrote and ran a random walk program where walkers start at 0 and are destroyed if they enter the negative side. That's pretty much gambler's ruin. The main difference from Sal's code is a large number of walkers, which is needed to get the statistics of survival. If anyone is interested I can post the program (it's in c++ but can be easily ported to any other language). When walkers had a slight preference to step in the positive direction (with a probability p=0.51), about 3.8% of them survived in the long run (upwards of 1000 steps) and kept moving (on average) in the positive direction. Twice as many survived for a twice as large bias (p=0.52). On the other hand, when walkers have a slight negative bias (p=0.49), I found essentially no survivors in the long run. The bottom line is what Bob said above: while most players are ruined at the initial stage, a finite fraction (roughly 1.9 times the bias) survive and keep playing indefinitely, eventually ruining the house. Likewise, in a population model most alleles with a slightly advantageous mutation will perish. However, a finite (and not vanishingly small) fraction will live and get fixed in the population. |
| Date: 2008/05/05 11:43:34, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Mike Gene it ain't. The thread was started by a TT poster named Joy. She demands an apology from the National Academy of Sciences and has declared Raevmo, Zachriel and myself Holocaust deniers. Check it out. |
| Date: 2008/05/05 14:19:45, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Joy is a big girl, so she makes her own definitions:
It would be logical to conclude that everyone has the right to ignore her authority, but logic isn't exactly Joy's cup of tea. |
| Date: 2008/05/05 15:04:06, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Oh, the Joy of Tard... |
| Date: 2008/05/05 17:34:36, Link 71.166.96.137 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Sal to Joe Felsenstein: Attaboy!
Linky |
| Date: 2008/05/06 07:56:44, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| The last piece of the imaginary empire, JoEI (the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics), is gone, too. |
| Date: 2008/05/06 08:03:03, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
It seems like kairosfocus is being muzzled by the same nanny filter as BA77:
Funny, in addition to pr0n, the filter seems to be after religious terms! |
| Date: 2008/05/06 08:36:36, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Dave wakes up and discovers that he is surrounded by a bunch of Christian fundies.
|
| Date: 2008/05/06 09:30:59, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Well, Sal could have saved himself from the coming embarrassment by using his own Excel code. Just enter a slight disadvantage (probability of winning p=0.49) and see how many players survive. |
| Date: 2008/05/06 14:30:14, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Penis envy? |
| Date: 2008/05/06 16:28:27, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
BarryA is a tard. His example supposedly proving the existence of an absolute moral standard is sex with little children. In Barry's view, there is no reason to consider it a bad idea other than god told us not to. Hey Barry, if you flexed your considerable brain muscle, maybe you could figure out that such an activity hurts little children, both physically and psychologically? That didn't occur to you, did it? And while we're on the subject of absolute, immutable, set-in-stone moral standards, what's with the age of consent? It used to be moral to get a 12-year-old bride in Christian medieval England, remember? Is it still moral or has morality evolved? |
| Date: 2008/05/06 21:32:59, Link 71.179.155.130 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
BarryA's thread is a tardmine. Here's the always reliable BA77
Just enjoy it! |
| Date: 2008/05/07 07:26:24, Link 71.166.96.137 |
| Author: olegt |
| Sal isn't in any danger. He's in a different program administered by a different division and located on a different campus. |
| Date: 2008/05/07 20:40:58, Link 71.179.159.107 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
No, leave it to Casey an earth scientist Luskin. |
| Date: 2008/05/09 21:48:21, Link 71.179.148.228 |
| Author: olegt |
|
steve_h, That "British physicist" David Tyler is not a physicist at all. Larry Moran has a post Who is David Tyler? I am sure that Denyse is aware of that (numerous people have pointed it out to her) but she probably thinks that it sounds better than Senior Lecturer in the Department of Clothing Design and Technology. |
| Date: 2008/05/10 07:53:17, Link 71.179.196.84 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Sarfati gets the boot. 75 Jonathan Sarfati 05/10/2008 12:32 am DaveScot: “All I want to say to the bible quotes you provide is I can easily give counter examples for all of them. You can quotemine the bible to support whatever you want.” More likely, your understanding of basic historical-grammatical hermeneutics is on a par with that LePage moron in his recent New Scientist diatribe against creation, ID and the Bible. 83 DaveScot 05/10/2008 2:24 am jonathan safarti I don’t care for your tone in that last comment. Goodbye. 86 DLH 05/10/2008 7:17 am DaveScott at 83 I found jonathan safarti to provide some of the more substantive links and comments on this blog. What’s the “beef”? |
| Date: 2008/05/10 16:31:28, Link 71.179.196.84 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Another P-A-R-O-D-Y, featuring a memo on a fake Iowa State University letterhead, is not generating too many laughs, either. Better take it down, Bob: your underwear is showing!
|
| Date: 2008/05/10 22:03:06, Link 71.179.196.84 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Both of Gloppy's recent posts on UD have disappeared. Gloppy has even nixed his entire site DaBRITES.org And check out this dialogue at UD:
LOL ETA: Trying to spice it up, Gloppy adds the line “To err is human. To moo bovine.” That's a good one, Bob! Good night and don't forget to log out. |
| Date: 2008/05/10 22:08:13, Link 71.179.196.84 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Gloppy confirms that he's been Expelled:
|
| Date: 2008/05/10 23:18:41, Link 71.179.196.84 |
| Author: olegt |
| The thread The Difference Between “Seeing” and “Understanding” containing the Dembski-Galapagos dialog has been obliterated. Someone at UD shows a dose of common sense. |
| Date: 2008/05/11 06:15:55, Link 71.179.159.64 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Gloppy is no more. All 4 of his May 10 posts at UD are gone and TheBrites.org site is empty. I have the PDF file but I'm not going to put it on the web. If anyone wants it for private viewing email me. |
| Date: 2008/05/11 09:06:42, Link 71.179.159.64 |
| Author: olegt |
| Say what you will, but the sight of a Fellow and Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE prancing around in Gloppy's suit had a high entertainment value. Now it's back to the usual programming at UD: O'Leary, kairosfocus and BA77 on all channels. |
| Date: 2008/05/13 06:54:00, Link 71.179.145.211 |
| Author: olegt |
| Search engine caches won't help with 404ed threads. As a rule, these threads are killed quickly before google or yahoo can catch them. I don't see any simple solution short of mirroring UD offline. |
| Date: 2008/05/15 21:59:05, Link 71.179.205.7 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
It was Woody Allen who pointed it out first:
|
| Date: 2008/05/15 22:12:11, Link 71.179.205.7 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Lou, Light only travels at the speed c in vacuum. In matter it slows down in the inverse proportion to its index of refraction n. In diamond, n is as large as 2.5, so light travels at about 100,000 km/s instead of 300,000. The index of refraction can be pretty large in the vicinity of an absorption line where the light-matter interaction is quite strong, so it will slow down quite a bit. Think of it as a constant absorption and reemission of photons by atoms. |
| Date: 2008/05/17 09:34:51, Link 71.166.109.207 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
It's not Stash, it's GilDodgen. |
| Date: 2008/05/18 07:20:01, Link 71.166.109.207 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
His/her flippant manner reminds me of professorsmith, whose blog has been on vacation since April 27. |
| Date: 2008/05/19 21:58:19, Link 71.179.146.125 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
keiths, I believe the concept originated elsewhere. Here's ERV:
|
| Date: 2008/05/20 15:02:33, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
http://telicthoughts.com/on-holocaust-memorial-day/#comment-184986 Everybody on that thread (including mynym. mynym!) politely told her that she was off her rocker. That didn't help much. |
| Date: 2008/05/20 20:02:40, Link 71.166.99.121 |
| Author: olegt |
| Born and raised in the USSR. Have lived on the US East Coast since 1992 drifting south. Current location: Bawlmore, MD. |
| Date: 2008/05/21 09:29:53, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Unlike concerned citizens of TT, FtK understands that tard is a tradable commodity, not a personal trait.
Hello, FtK, we're glad that you're alive and in high spirits! |
| Date: 2008/05/21 09:32:07, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Happy birthday, Hermagoras! |
| Date: 2008/05/21 09:43:31, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| carlsonjok, I don't know how much control FtK has over the content of google ads. It is ironic, though, that one of the adds links to Geese Police. [Ca-ching!] |
| Date: 2008/05/21 21:39:45, Link 71.166.99.121 |
| Author: olegt |
| Sounds like O'Leary is going full tilt at windmills. The multiverse hypothesis has not been accepted by astronomers and astrophysicists. It can't be tested at the moment (nor in the foreseeable future). There's no chance it will be taught in school any time soon. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 07:31:56, Link 71.166.99.121 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Hi JackT and welcome to the club. After much posturing, Mike Gene did answer your questions. His response boils down to this:
This is best left without comment. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 10:28:05, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
leo stands up to Dr Dr WmAD:
RBH, start the bannination countdown. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 10:37:12, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Here she is, in Bunny and a Book:
Zachriel provides a quick smackdown by reductio ad absurdum:
|
| Date: 2008/05/22 10:53:58, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument. In freshman physics we solve problems about planets moving in (gasp!) circular orbits. We teach Amontons' laws of friction even though duct tapes and post-it notes violate both the 1st and 2nd of those. There are no material points and ideal gases in Nature, etc. etc. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 10:56:15, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Darwin defenders, I suppose. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 11:09:44, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
I think it is worth knowing the source and context of the "no controversy" quote. Jay Labov, the National Academy's Senior Advisor for Education and Communications, gave an interview to Free Exchange on Campus. The relevant excerpt:
Someone should post it on that thread and see Dr Dr nix it. |
| Date: 2008/05/22 12:53:47, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
sparc, on the other hand, does have a sense of humor:
Will that be the cited reason for his bannination? |
| Date: 2008/05/22 12:58:19, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
CJYman smokes some good stuff:
I vaguely recall the names of Newton and Einstein, but who am I to object? |
| Date: 2008/05/22 15:36:35, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This is a riot.
I'm afraid no amount of spring cleaning will get rid of Newtonian mechanics. It lives on despite the two 20th-century revolutions that brought about relativity and quantum mechanics. No surprise there: classical mechanics has been thoroughly tested in its domain of validity (low velocities and large scales). Relativity and quantum theory have supplanted it outside of that realm. But we still rely on classical mechanics when we build bridges and launch satellites. Will these guys ever learn? |
| Date: 2008/05/23 13:53:10, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
That's a good one!
|
| Date: 2008/05/23 21:42:41, Link 71.166.99.121 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
|
Another EPIC FAIL Denyse advertises Casey's interview with a videogame artist Dennis DeMercer.
But there is no interview at ID the Future. Instead, one finds this notice:
|
| Date: 2008/05/25 05:30:39, Link 71.166.99.121 |
| Author: olegt |
| Holy tard! Has Dave been defrocked? |
| Date: 2008/05/26 06:30:46, Link 71.166.99.121 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
On the "No Controversy" thread, BA77 carefully explains his theory of magnetism to Dave:
Someone should put him out of misery by pointing out that he mixes up the concepts of force and work. The work equals applied force F multiplied by the displacement dr. No matter how long a magnet clings to a fridge, its position remains unchanged. That means dr=0 and no work is done by magnetic force. Energy is conserved. |
| Date: 2008/05/26 14:28:06, Link 128.220.254.4 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
gpuccio obfuscates fractals:
Glad to help, gpuccio. Here's the formal definition of the Mandelbrot set. It's a simple iterative procedure. Start with zero treated as a complex number. Square it, add a complex number c, repeat. If the sequence does not escape to infinity, the number c is in the set. Drawing the Mandelbrot set requires no more computational power than simulating the growth of a snowflake (both are local processes with simple rules). Thus, to use IDers' own terminology, the Mandelbrot set, like a snowflake, is specified but not complex. There is nothing complex (or unnatural) about complex numbers, either. The Mandelbrot set can be defined in terms of real numbers just as well (that's how it's done on a computer anyway). The iterative procedure will then involve two equations instead of one (for the real and imaginary parts). Lastly, fractals are found in natural processes. Here's a partial list on Wikipedia: Random and natural fractals. |
| Date: 2008/05/28 22:36:44, Link 71.179.198.143 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
I love gpuccio's heroic efforts to derive the following remarkable statements: 1) Fractals, in themselves, are not CSI. 3) The information in DNA is not fractal. 4) CSI is not fractal. Never mind that no one has even defined what CSI is. What the heck does it mean for information to be fractal, even in principle? The word fractal refers to a non-integer (fractional) dimensionality of an object. Information has no geometry and thus no dimensionality. |
| Date: 2008/05/30 20:55:55, Link 71.179.198.143 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Non sequitur, anyone?
|
| Date: 2008/06/01 13:07:03, Link 71.166.103.85 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
jerry throws a bucket of cold water on Denyse:
Right on, jerry! |
| Date: 2008/06/03 08:53:39, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
You realize how totally fubar Uncommon Descent is when BA77 acts like the voice of reason:
|
| Date: 2008/06/04 07:36:51, Link 71.166.103.85 | ||||||||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||||||||
Fear not, sparc. Here comes good news in buckets! Ladies and gentlemen, JOEI is back! TADA! The editorial board is headed by Gloppy as Editor in Chief with the rest of the EIL (Dembski, Sewell and two recent additions) in tow. Papers are being accepted now! It's gonna be real science:
But it would still help to cite the classics:
“Anonamous peer review” is such a bitch. Einstein's only peer-reviewed paper was rejected.* And Frank Tipler doesn't like it, either. We're gonna fix that!
And if you are unable to find even two stooges who like your work, send it along and we might put it up anyway:
Well, it looks like this journal will be as successful as PCID. Smooth sailing, Gloppy! *And oh, about that paper by Einstein and Rosen that was rejected by Physical Review? Here's the story in Physics Today. The paper was entitled Do Gravitational Waves Exist? and Einsten's answer was No. The referee (Robertson) pointed out an error invalidating the proof but Einstein got indignant, withdrew the paper and submitted it elsewhere, with the diamterically opposite conclusion. So the paper wasn't exactly rejected, the referee was right and Einstein was wrong. By now we have solid proof that gravitational waves do exist: they are responsible for slowing down binary pulsars (1993 Nobel prize in physics). |
| Date: 2008/06/05 07:10:43, Link 71.166.103.50 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
String theory isn't discussed in any high-school physics textbook, as far as I know. |
| Date: 2008/06/05 09:39:32, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
JackT, MikeGene responded. |
| Date: 2008/06/05 09:42:46, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Zachriel on the purported analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation:
Ouch! Zachriel, you mean bully. |
| Date: 2008/06/07 13:35:39, Link 71.166.103.50 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
You can enjoy the director's cut of this Cothran's post at his own blog vere loqui. |
| Date: 2008/06/08 06:35:41, Link 71.166.103.50 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Hi DiEb, Yeah, its' funny to see how Sal is arguing about fine mathematical points while at the same time he cannot spot a missing minus sign in your answer for the Fourier transform (#148). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. |
| Date: 2008/06/09 07:27:40, Link 71.166.103.50 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
I was reading a list of bullet points Mike Gene flashed a few days ago:
Zachriel shot down the first of these with a bang. The rest of them strike me as completely trivial. On the second point, any scientific theory relies on subjective feelings of its author in the early stages. It's also typically not all that well tested. The third one is a gem: what intellectual endeavor doesn't start with a question? Lastly, "the fifth way of viewing things" is explained here and boils down to this:
|
| Date: 2008/06/09 14:49:06, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Well, why don't they? |
| Date: 2008/06/11 07:32:20, Link 71.179.151.206 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Some of us also followed TP to Telic Thoughts. |
| Date: 2008/06/11 09:26:29, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Of course. He's smarter than Feynman, you know. |
| Date: 2008/06/11 11:17:19, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
You forgot to mention the error bars, ftk. That's a very serious mistake. There's no contradiction between earlier and later estimates. Previous estimates had large uncertainties because the data on which they were based were scarce and the methods were untested. The error bars shrank as our methods became more reliable. At the moment different dating methods agree within their individual uncertainty ranges and give the age of the Earth as 4.55 plus or minus 0.05 billion years. Take a look here. |
| Date: 2008/06/12 15:35:39, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is a tall tale that doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. Take his assertion that asteroids are rocks lifted into orbit by water bursting from underground cavities. It's easy to estimate what kind of pressure is required to send the fluid into outer space. Water density (1000 kg per cubic meter) multiplied by the escape velocity (11.2 km/s) squared and divided by two is 63 GPa (620,000 atm). Such pressure simply cannot build up in a cavity in the Earth's crust: no mineral can withstand that kind of stress. Basalt fiber has the ultimate strength of 5 GPa. If a cavity ruptures at 5 GPa, the water will rise to a height of 500 km and come back down to earth. No asteroids. Knowing the mass of the asteroid belt, one can estimate the energy involved. It equals 2x10^{29} joules. Just to put it in proper perspective, it equals the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun in 34 thousand years. Part of that energy must have been converted into heat by atmospheric drag as the water and rock traveled through the atmosphere. Even if that fraction were 1% (a lowball estimate), the atmosphere would become a hot plasma with a temperature of a few hundred thousand degrees. The hot atmosphere would escape the Earth in a matter of seconds. Land would be scorched and the oceans would boil. This is beyond ridiculous. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 06:13:27, Link 71.179.151.206 |
| Author: olegt |
| Dr. Dr. quotes an endorsement from Ann Coulter mentioning that "Bill Dembski [is] often called the Isaac Newton of intelligent design." U r doing it wrong, Ann: he is the Isaac Newton of information theory. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 08:16:29, Link 71.179.151.206 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Dr. Dr. sez:
 |
| Date: 2008/06/13 10:41:32, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Sorry, Ftk, but where's the science on the other side? |
| Date: 2008/06/13 11:35:40, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| I suppose any further conversation is pointless. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 16:06:28, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Access to information is a double-edged sword. Without teh interwebz, we'd never hear any farting noises from Dr. Dr. Dembski and would never have guessed that Gloppy is running the Evoinfo Lab. |
| Date: 2008/06/13 16:34:45, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Check out the other books published by Harvest House in the same series: Wrestling with Angels: Adventures in Faith and Doubt. Why Guys Need God: The Spiritual Side of Money, Sex, and Relationships. O2: Breathing New Life into Faith. All science so far! |
| Date: 2008/06/14 07:14:19, Link 71.179.151.206 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Here's an excerpt from the poor kid's bio.
Eminently qualified to write on ID. |
| Date: 2008/06/14 17:56:12, Link 71.179.118.37 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Hi Marion, We're well aware of the great effort Denyse is making. I personally think that her prose is almost on par with Vogon poetry. |
| Date: 2008/06/15 14:09:58, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Deep thoughts from gpuccio:
|
| Date: 2008/06/15 14:43:19, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
You might be surprised, OM, but to my foreign ear Sal comes across as a rather articulate speaker. Listen here. |
| Date: 2008/06/15 18:52:43, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
That thread is pretty long. Here is a direct link to Sal's comment on Brown. ETA: Walt's name was brought up by Thought Provoker who offered this delightful euphemism:
I must say that I actually enjoy TP's company there. He's a good sport. |
| Date: 2008/06/16 06:26:54, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
The thread Evidence and Truth is a gem. The opening post ends in the following way:
|
| Date: 2008/06/16 07:27:31, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
The beauty argument backfires as duncan points out to the flip side of the coin---ugliness. DaveT immediately zaps him but gpuccio feels compelled to respond at length saying "it’s not a problem for me, but the possible answers to those questions are obviously of philosophical and religious kind. I don’t think that’s at present a scientific problem." Shouldn't that apply equally well to beauty? |
| Date: 2008/06/16 07:33:53, Link 71.179.118.37 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
The Pixie, puzzled by Mike's opening post, asks:
Have at it, boys. My entry: Use the Force, Luke. |
| Date: 2008/06/18 12:29:44, Link 71.179.156.39 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Check this out:
Guess which fundy wrote that. BA77? Nope. Dr. Dr. Hisself? Wrong again. Answer. |
| Date: 2008/06/18 12:51:04, Link 71.179.156.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| Ted Davis's reply to this tantrum is well worth reading. |
| Date: 2008/06/18 22:35:02, Link 71.179.156.39 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
The fun continues. When Francis Beckwith observes that
Dave counters:
You should get out more often, Dave. Society hearts scientists. According to a 2003 Harris Interactive Poll,
|
| Date: 2008/06/19 07:39:42, Link 71.179.156.39 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Sal writes:
This is a slightly less eloquent way of saying
|
| Date: 2008/06/19 21:41:45, Link 71.179.156.39 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Salvador has plans to rewrite Maxwell's equations. Darwinism will be toast and the Earth will be young again. In other news, God used electricity to make stars and galaxies. No word on the size of his utility bill. Linky. |
| Date: 2008/06/24 19:39:56, Link 71.179.146.233 |
| Author: olegt |
| Oh well, it looks like Conservapedia is down. Closed for renovations, I suppose. |
| Date: 2008/06/25 21:59:24, Link 71.179.146.233 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Poor Billy. Turns out ID was booted from Hillsdale. Hillsdale!
|
| Date: 2008/06/26 18:47:40, Link 128.220.254.4 |
| Author: olegt |
| This is so cool: BA77 is once again a voice of reason at UD defending Bell's inequalities of quantum mechanics against YEC Paul Giem. |
| Date: 2008/06/30 07:56:09, Link 71.179.193.248 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
JOEI is back online:
Seems like it's starting for real, so we might as well open a thread to keep an eye on its progress. Editorial policies are summarized here:
|
| Date: 2008/07/04 21:40:57, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
A comment by Philip J. Rayment on the talk page caught my attention:
Could someone remind me again how ID differs from creationism? |
| Date: 2008/07/05 22:49:50, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Joy is unique among the TT denizens. She combines ignorance with arrogance that results in comments like this one:
Keep in mind that she is (or was at the time) herself a groupie of one Matti Pitkänen, a crackpot mathematical physicist. |
| Date: 2008/07/06 12:14:55, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Right, Bob. The nontrivial part was identifying the designer. Everybody knew from the start that Gloppy was a sock puppet of someone with enough weight in the ID circles to be on familiar terms with Dr Dr. In fact, many of us suspected that it was Dr Dr hisself (I certainly did). But when I saw Gloppy's essay produced from an IEEE template it had engineer written all over it. The rest is history. And I don't think Marks is afraid for his career. He just looks ridiculous in a clown suit. |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:08:10, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
There's a new revolution in the works, Steve. That'll show us! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:08:10, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
There's a new revolution in the works, Steve. That'll show us! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:51:24, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Oh leave him alone, guys. He can't give any answers. Not qualified. |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:51:24, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Oh leave him alone, guys. He can't give any answers. Not qualified. |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:56:23, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||||
Guts' admission of trolling has just disappeared from TT. Classy guy! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 15:56:23, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||||
Guts' admission of trolling has just disappeared from TT. Classy guy! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 16:40:09, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
That's even better than Dog ate my homework! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 16:40:09, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
That's even better than Dog ate my homework! |
| Date: 2008/07/06 19:20:51, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This from a guy who a few hours ago admitted he came here to troll. LOL |
| Date: 2008/07/06 19:20:51, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
This from a guy who a few hours ago admitted he came here to troll. LOL |
| Date: 2008/07/06 19:42:21, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Be sure to link to them, buddy. |
| Date: 2008/07/06 19:42:21, Link 71.179.154.103 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Be sure to link to them, buddy. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 07:42:41, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| Itching for a fight, FtK? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 08:03:26, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| If you're looking for a real fight, why don't you explain to us how ID is different from scientific creationism. You still have those Henry Morris quotes, don't you? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 08:30:28, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Yes, FtK, that's what I thought: you did lose those Henry Morris quotes. Let me remind you of them. You should, after all, know the history of the movement in which you participate. Here's Henry Morris in Creation and its Critics: Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement
I could substitute ID for scientific creationism in this text and no one would notice. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 10:45:40, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| What, no word on Henry Morris, FtK? Chicken? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 11:55:38, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Just to be clear, FtK, do you now agree that ID is scientific creationism re-branded? You didn't seem to a couple of pages ago, but maybe you saw the light. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 12:01:16, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
lcd, David Heddle's blog may contain the answer to your question. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 14:03:54, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| Flood geology as science? It's laughable apologetics, that's what it is. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 14:17:54, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
| Which god? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 14:19:27, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Elementary, my dear Watson. They were all retrofitted after teh fall. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 14:45:36, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
Really? You don't care which god? Swear on the Bible, FtK! The problem of life origin may be difficult, but not necessarily impossible to solve. Scientists invent new tools to peer deep into the past, so we may be able to find out how it happened one day. Look at the progress over the last 150 years: we even learned what stars are made of! Don't misunderestimate science. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 15:00:29, Link 71.166.99.39 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Hugs and kisses, FtK. If god is out of the equation, what's the difference between creation science and ID? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 15:22:49, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Excellent, FtK, now we're moving somewhere! You're right, Behe and Dembski's ID stuff is different from Walt Brown's. At the same time, it's virtually indistinguishable from the scientific creationism of Henry Morris. Here's Dembski responding to Morris:
You can read Morris's original critique of ID here. The bottom line: Dembski and Behe didn't invent a new brand of creationism, they just re-branded an existing one. Sure, their creation science is different from Brown's but it's identical to Morris's. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 15:40:26, Link 71.166.99.39 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Here's an excerpt from Evolution: the Triumf of an Idea by science journalist Carl Zimmer.
I highly recommend reading the book. I'm sure you can get it at the local library. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 18:02:18, Link 128.220.254.4 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
It's not just a good story, FtK. Zimmer is a good writer of course and his book was written for the lay audience (it's a companion to the PBS series Evolution). However, at the end of that passage Zimmer specifically notes that the good story "is documented with fossils." Lungfish, another "living fossil" with lungs, is considered to be a close relative of early tetrapods on the basis of morphology. A few years ago paleontologists discovered a fossil sarcopterygian fish that looks like the latest common ancestor of lungfishes and tetrapods. Just a story? Only if you want to dismiss it out of hand. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 19:28:04, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
| Oh brother, the world's coming to an end. What's next? Gloppy spilling guts on the Uncommonly Dense thread? Behe guest-posting at ERV? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 19:31:15, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
FtK said
Methinks the problem is more mundane: there's nothing at Creation Science about this new discovery yet. So let's wait for a week. Or maybe the famed scientist Luskin will post something. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 21:31:36, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Ahem...
|
| Date: 2008/07/09 21:41:53, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
Is this what such a classification would look like? |
| Date: 2008/07/09 22:07:18, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
She's almost as good with physics. Understands next to nothing but feels an urge to pontificate on the subject. Big fan of Matti Pitkänen, a certified crackpot. |
| Date: 2008/07/09 22:41:10, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Joy, while it may be hard to imagine objects in more than 3 dimensions, the math isn't necessarily harder. So whether it's 8, 10, or 26, the game is pretty much the same. And in infinite dimensions things tend to simplify, so people sometimes organize a calculation with the infinite number of dimensions as a starting point and hope to get back to d=4 via a perturbation theory with 1/d as a small parameter. Check it out: Quantum gravity at a large number of dimensions. I'm not scared of Matti's math, I just don't see any point in digging through it. High investment, low return. |
| Date: 2008/07/10 08:05:25, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
|
Musta been a miniban. Here are some pertinent thoughts by Dave expressed recently at TT:
|
| Date: 2008/07/10 15:25:20, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] FtK, If you had taken the trouble to actually read the ERV thread, you'd see how we "admire" Kwok. |
| Date: 2008/07/10 16:05:31, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
You're smearing Richard, FtK. It's despicable. |
| Date: 2008/07/10 16:17:41, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
|
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] Hon, by smearing I don't mean name calling. You're putting words in Rich's mouth. He does not admire Kwok. Find the courage to apologize. |
| Date: 2008/07/10 16:53:20, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
I admire your pigheaded determination, FtK. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 06:57:38, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||
| Author: olegt | ||
I am not aware of any such studies. Care to provide a reference? |
| Date: 2008/07/11 07:23:13, Link 71.179.196.133 | ||||||
| Author: olegt | ||||||
Setterfield speculated that the speed of light had been much faster in the past. There is no experimental or observational evidence for that, however. I know that physicists looked for a variable speed of light (on a much smaller scale than Setterfield would like, such as 1 in 100,000) but did not find evidence for that, either. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 07:48:02, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
|
Right on, dogdidit! The speed of light leaves its signature in lots of physical phenomena. The article that I linked mentions how physicists examined absorption lines by interstellar clouds of gas that existed billions of years ago. The absorption spectrum depends on the speed of light (via the fine-structure constant), so a different speed of light would shift the absorption lines and that wold be observable. No change was detected within the accuracy of the experiment, which puts the upper bound on the variation of the speed of light at a few parts in 100,000 over 12 billion years. Of course, it is possible that not only c but also the electron charge and Planck's constant changed, but that would affect other observables. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 08:58:47, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| I'm still waiting for lcd to provide some reference to data confirming Setterfield's hypothesis. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 09:16:25, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
It would be nice if you could put a brief summary of that evidence, as I did in my comments: I don't have time to wade through Setterfield's paper at the moment. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 09:17:46, Link 128.220.144.123 |
| Author: olegt |
| Moderators might want to consider opening a separate thread for lcd and moving much of the latest material in this thread there. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 10:17:27, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
What's it measured in? Nanometers? |
| Date: 2008/07/11 11:39:16, Link 128.220.144.123 | ||||
| Author: olegt | ||||
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]
It doesn't make sense, but here you are, defending Kwok and bashing Heddle. I'm squarely on Heddle's side in this brouhaha, as are lots of AtBC folks. You might want to slow down and think about it, ERV. |
| Date: 2008/07/11 23:12:29, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
| Mike Gene/Julie Thomas gets her panties in a twist. |
| Date: 2008/07/12 08:16:26, Link 71.179.196.133 |
| Author: olegt |
| Dave a |
