AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: phonon

form_srcid: phonon

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: phonon

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/11/28 17:02:24, Link
Author: phonon
Hi y'all!

Been lurking for a while. I decided to comment, based on DaveScot's "Shattered Nested Heirarchy" thread at UD. I wanted to point out that it was DaveScot who berated everyone else on UD for not accepting the concept of common descent. Now, he's posting a thread about how the concept of common descent is now "shattered."

What a moron. (Sorry, what a tard.)

One (only one?) of the comments is funny too.

4. Jehu  // Nov 28th 2006 at 5:18 pm

Talk.Origins is looking stupid:

Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.


Well, Jehu, they still wouldn't.

Date: 2006/11/28 19:15:00, Link
Author: phonon
That's ok, Kristine. Here are some freshly googled tidbits.
Obviously you believe a designer is responsible. So do I. The difference is I don’t place limitations on the designer. Why do you exclude a designer using a pre-determined path of descent with modification to bring about humans from primates? Could you explain why you limit the methods a designer can choose and the evidence of these limitations?-ds

It looks like he's asking ID researchers to do some ID research.

This is dead wrong. The empirical data shows that in 100% of the observed cases of life coming into existence it was via descent. If you deny this fact of life there’s really no point in me continuing this conversation.

You seem to be imposing limitations on how a designer can turn abstract designs into reality. Keep in mind ID is design detection, not designer characterization. -ds

“Apart from Dr. Davison, which other commenters have any formal training in biology or any other scientific discipline?”

I’m curious why you ask, Xavier, since intelligent people from all backgrounds can objectively look at the data and form a reasonable opinion.

Comment by Scott — February 7, 2006 @ 7:19 am


So when it comes to recognizing design an engineer seems to be the expert with the most “weight”, right? As an engineer and patent maven in the computer and factory automation fields it is my professional opinion that the molecular machinery resident in every living cell is the product of intelligent agency. It’s inconceivable the source could be anything else. -ds

Agreed. ID however doesn’t speak to the issue of common descent. The Darwinian apologist tactic is to use guilt by association to discredit ID. The claim is that most ID proponents reject common descent so by way of association ID must also reject common descent. Rejection of common descent will never, ever be accommodated by science. Anyone that thinks it will be is in denial. If the guilt by association tactic remains successful ID will continue to be excluded. ID basically has become a cause célèbre for common descent deniers and it’s dragging the scientific argument for ID down a hole from which it cannot climb out whilst carrying that special creation burden on its back. -ds

He had to bust out both the accent ague and accent grave for that one.
We have much evidence arguing for common ancestry. Each individual bit of evidence may be questionable at the margins but the bits are cumulative and taken together become virtually undeniable. What evidences argue against common ancestry that would make it plausibly deniable? -ds

Now, DaveWatt, since we are in agreement that descent with modification happened and common ancestry is true, I would ask that you study this carefully and critically, as I have done over the last year, and point out what you think might be wrong with it. I can’t find a thing wrong with it and it isn’t for lack of trying. I’ve been bickering with its author incessantly for many months and the bottom line appears to be - it is the best fitting evolutionary hypothesis out there.

What evidences argue against common ancestry that would make it plausibly deniable? -ds

What would make it shatter?

Sorry for all that. They are all from the same comment thread.

Last one.

But Dave, at some point, there had to have been a parentless organism. There is simply no way around it.

Comment by jacktone — February 2, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

Date: 2006/11/28 19:26:40, Link
Author: phonon
Ok, a few more for and I'm gone.
We are 100% compatible with the genetic code of bananas. The genetic code came along long before sexual reproduction too. I’d tell you to write it down but you won’t. You’re evidently prescribed to ignore the homogeneity of the genetic code. -ds

What a rabid evilutionist.
Well then, by your logic of one miracle being no more miraculous than many miracles, we can just say that 6 billion humans were all created in 6 billion separate miracles and throw out evolution altogether. Case closed. -ds

He really doesn't like creationism, does he?
Okay, then let me apologize. I’m sorry you felt compelled to call upon miracles in explaining evolution. I’m also sorry you don’t recognize that multiple miracles are not same as a single miracle. I’ll give your multiple miracles hypothesis all due consideration of course.

Comment by DaveScot — February 6, 2006 @ 10:31 am

Man, this guy is a hard core materialist. What a chance worshipper.
Differences in the genetic code are trivial in comparison to the similarities. The salient question isn’t how these small differences occurred with common ancestry but rather how the overwhelming similarity occurred without common ancestry. The only answer to the second question that I’ve seen is driven by faith in revelation for its authority. That said, I’m in full agreement that the evidence points to intelligent causation for the virtually universal genetic code. Only some specific interpretations of specific religious revelation argues against common ancestry. The writings of religious prophets have no place in science, although that’s not to say revelation can point to science for confirmation. The problem is in an unwillingness to accept scientific contraventions of revelation as well as confirmations. For instance, the best science indicates that the universe came about in a moment out of nothing. This agrees with many religious revelations and is happily embraced by the faithful because of it. The best science also indicates that all the extant life on earth came from a single original cell whose origin is in dispute. This doesn’t agree with some strict interpretations of revelation and is thus rejected because of it. -ds

Let's redo that into a nice quote mine.

Only some specific interpretations of specific religious revelation argues against common ancestry.


Yes, but they don't shatter it like you have Dave.

Date: 2006/11/29 18:28:01, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 28 2006,21:38)
Phonon, like a Photon but with two Ns,

Yeah, you know, a quantized lattice vibration.


Wally Shawn. So that's his name. Everytime someone says "inconceivable" I can't help but picture that guy saying it.

And I'll add that line to my sig, per sound advice.

Date: 2006/11/29 18:57:22, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2006,10:54)

D*mbski muses:

Quote of the day
by William Dembski on November 28th, 2006 · 8 Comments
“You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.” — Who said it and how does it apply to the ID-evolution controversy?

then... 6th [remainig] post in..

6. William Dembski // Nov 29th 2006 at 10:43 am

PWE is no longer with us. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — November 29, 2006 @ 10:43 am


That thread just has to be self parody. Any other explanation is inconceivable.

I think I like Ekstasis a lot.

Ekstasis  // Nov 29th 2006 at 7:52 am

Perhaps the Materialist scientists are not interested in ascribing to democratic principles.

Materials scientists?

How so? For starters, they limit entry to only those individuals they deem “worthy” according to their own standards.

I say, lower the standards. If you can tie your shoes, even if they are velcro, you too can be an ID scientist. Maybe even an ID materials scientist.

Yep, an island of non-democracy in a sea of democracy. Is it time to submerge?

Good idea. UD should submerge. When all the materials scientists have been vanquished, then UD can re-emerge victorious on the internets. I guess we'll all be using the same computers since there won't be any materials scientists around to design smaller transistors.

DaveScot  // Nov 29th 2006 at 12:23 pm

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t taught? My feeling is that local school boards ought to be able to choose the curricula.

They can and do, except when there is a little thing called the Establishment Clause to get in their way. You 'member that? Them thar foundin fathers and thar durn democratic revolution? 'member?

To disallow establishment of religion in a public school is democratic. But, of course, none of this applies to ID, except in Judge Jone's zany opinion.

Date: 2006/11/30 14:30:03, Link
Author: phonon
People when are you going to get it? ID is not about religion at all. That's why on the ID blogs, they have a special corner to talk about religion.
Theology corner: Why is the ID guy at the open theology conference a pork chop at a Jewish wedding?
by O'Leary on November 30th, 2006 · 10 Comments

That's so readers won't be confused about whether they are reading about ID or about theology, which are two mutually exclusive things.

Now, it’s unclear to me why the ID guys, who are mostly hard math and science types, should even want to hang out with these children of a lesser god.

See? ID guys are hard, hard with the math and science stuff. They don't need lesser gods than that.

As a traditional Christian, I am handicapped in even considering theistic evolution (TE), not because I have a problem with evolution as such, but by the many places in Scripture where the whole creation, including life - together with its imperfections - is said to provide evidence of God’s work. Forced to choose, I consider the TEs more likely to be wrong than the Scriptures.

Wait, now I'm confused. ID is about hard math and science, which tell us that the Earth is way more than 6000 years old, and that Noah's Ark couldn't possibly have held every species of animal. But the Scriptures can't be wrong. But ID has to be right. This science stuff is hard.

Let's see what the evidence says.

And if we decide that the evidence from nature favours an omnipotent God, we must treat the Scriptural accounts as evidence too. We do not have to accept the Scriptures in a fundamentalist way, but we must consider them evidence.

Oh, now it makes sense. What it says in the Good Book is evidence AND what we observe in nature is also evidence. So when they conflict...Well, the Good Book can't be wrong, so we'll have to just adjust our eyes a bit.

edit : Wait, I just realized that she said that the evidence from nature will tell us whether or not we can trust the evidence from Scripture. If the evidence of nature does not favour an omnipotent God (so far there is no emperical, objective evidence of such), then we can't look to the Scriptures as evidence. Now, I get what she's trying to say. I had it backward.

So it has morphed mainly into an opposition to ID - an opposition which becomes less and less coherent as the materialist agenda becomes more obvious.

O' Leary is an expert in morph.

Conclusion: If ID were not so closely associated with a traditional “Almighty” concept of God, ID guys would be more welcome at open theo conferences.

Afterall, ID isn't about God or gods, since the identity of the designer is absolutely unimportant. ID is absolutely NOT about theology or religion, but dammit we really want to go to those theology conferences. Shucks.

Now, for me, back to journalism.

Oh ok. BACK to journalism. Thank God, or gods if you prefer. At least you don't consider that post to be journalism.

Date: 2006/11/30 14:48:29, Link
Author: phonon
The International Courts of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is far too popular and reliable source of information, especially for school children, to let this travesty of justice continue.

We must stop this. For the children.

How? Blog about it. Since, afterall, most school children read ID blogs. Just look at the huge amount of traffic at That place is zany.

If you have a blog, please add an article about Wiki’s bias against ID and refer to the URL for this article so it gets spread around far and wide.

Does anyone else find it ironic that DaveScot is pissing and moaning about administrators of a website not allowing him to post certain things on their website? It's official. These people do not own mirrors.

Date: 2006/12/01 10:15:31, Link
Author: phonon
Intelligent design and popular culture: Uncool film wins in Toronto
by O'Leary on December 1st, 2006 · 2 Comments

Oh, so O'Leary is going to talk about a film based on ID.

Of a recent indie anti-abortion film, Robert Novak writes,

Oh, abortion. I guess there is a part in the film about ID, then.
Materialists, it seems, cannot count on the support of the public, not even in secular Toronto. Give the people a vote and everything’s lost.

Nothing in the film about ID. O well, I guess we'll try to tie it into ID somehow. Of course. Darwinism always makes women have abortions. And Darwinists hate democracy. That should do it. Now we have something to post about.

The question he raises is, will they be allowed by the Hollywood-based distribution system to see it?

Now, this is an actual problem. There are so many indie films out there that are not distributed to the major theaters. You might be able to see them if you live in a town that has an indie theater, but most people will never see these films, unless they can find them on video, which isn't guaranteed.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with money. (Sometimes it has something to do with politics, e.g. Fahrenheit 9/11, which was still distributed, btw) That doesn't stop O'Leary from insinuating that there is some sort of conspiracy against films with conservative messages, though.

And they want my help when I have no help to give them - unless they want to confront the issues. But what they all actually want to do is explain them away. And that will wash no more.

Yes, there will be no more explaining away of ID claims.

Let's see. They don't want to confront the issues, but when they do want to confront the issues, all they do is explain away our claims. They just refuse to blindly accept some pseudoscientific nonsense based on our religious beliefs. It's really frustrating.

It's so frustrating that I conclude my post with stuff like this:
Any media source that cannot deal with what is really happening here just isn’t where the action is, no matter how many tattoos the journo sports or how many different kind of drugs he does.

When people sport tatoos and do drugs, that usually means they are where the action is, since drugs and tatoos are the ultimate result of Darwinian thinking. Oh, and abortion. What were we talking about again?

Oh, yeah. Science.

Well, we ID scientists have done so much science lately that we need a break. We should make a movie.
I would love to help write the screenplay for a film about the ID community.

I don't know, Ms. O'Leary. Do you have enough tatoos and have you done enough drugs to know where the action is?

Date: 2006/12/01 18:27:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 01 2006,14:45)
Kristine: Yep, and on a couple of other sites, too. Curious. Maybe it's the RAP-TURE!

Didn't you know she had a hand in popularizing the Rap-ture?

BTW, carlonjok, I love the gizoogle link! I'll have fun with that for days!

Date: 2006/12/02 13:36:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 02 2006,02:35)

You just destroyed some of my happiest memories of adolescent masturbation.

Thanks, man.  That's just wrong.

Oh, sorry about that.  :D

I was too young at that point. When I was a kid I used to love that song, mainly because she said the man from Mars was eating cars. I think I was like 7-8.

i think this was intelligently designed by Fab 5 Freddy

Date: 2006/12/04 18:09:34, Link
Author: phonon
I know this is from a few pages back, but I can't keep up.

This is precisely the sort of thing that makes me wonder about the future of the human race.
In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.

The eigenspace of an eigenvalue l is the collection of all vectors u  that are mapped to lu under the action of a fixed matrix. It is important to note that u choices exclude the zero vector because the zero vector always is mapped to itself under this type of transformation.  On our own, we are like the zero vector because no matter what we try, we cannot move away from out sinful status.  However, through the grace of Christ, we are transformed from being a zero vector to the eigenspace of the redeemed (the likeness of Christ).

It makes me laugh until I realize that they are serious. Then I just sit and stare in amazement.

We are the arsonists. We started the fire.

I thought we didn't start the fire. Either Billy Joel is wrong or Dembski is wrong. Since only the good die young and it's still rock and roll to me, and since CSI is a pile of crap, it must be Dembski that's wrong. Well, you may be wrong, but you may be right.

Date: 2006/12/05 11:32:23, Link
Author: phonon
Yeah, I guess the theory of relativity never predicted the existence of black holes.

this thread is great too

I guess space aliens endowed us with inalienable rights?
It makes so much sense now.

Oh, and I'm an uptown boy, apparently.

Date: 2006/12/07 19:33:06, Link
Author: phonon
Behind the times as always. (What's with the server anyway? Sometimes I just can't connect to this site.)

Did anyone notice the way the Cambridge-Templeton Consortium page talks about their grants?

The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context of the emergence of increasing biological complexity,

Yup, "scare" quotes around "great debate."

and then again
Grant proposals from all sides of this 'debate' are welcomed.

Yes, this "debate" is really "hot" right now. All the top "scientists" are "clamoring" for these "research" grants.

I just hope all this "money" produces some interesting and useful "results" that I can "read" in a "journal."

Date: 2006/12/07 20:05:34, Link
Author: phonon
I'd like to point out some wrong statements in the article linked to by DaveScot here.

The article.

All DNA tends to acquire random mutations, but if these occur in a region that has an important function, individuals will not survive.

Is this right? It doesn't sound right to me. Every mutation of any gene will kill the organism? Come on.

The thinking has been that these conserved, non-coding sequences must, like genes, be there for a reason.

Just because they are conserved wouldn't necessarily mean that they perform some vital function. They could be conserved for no effing reason at all.

"There has been a circular argument that if it's conserved it has activity."

I don't know how circular that is, really, but it is an argument. I don't see why anyone would really hang onto this argument very dearly. It's a valid hypothesis, but why should it shock anyone if it's found to be wrong? So what?

Doesn't DNA have repair mechanism? Do these mechanisms discrimiate between coding and non-coding regions? I wouldn't think so. Maybe someone can educate me.

DaveScot is trying to argue that they must be some kind of "sleeper genes," ready to spring into action and start coding for proteins at some predetermined time in the future.

If it’s unused long enough it gets peppered with mutations into random oblivion.

Apparently, it doesn't.

If mice and men had a common ancestor many millions of years ago and they still have highly conserved DNA in common, the story follows that all the conserved DNA must have an important survival value.
Is this really the story? If so, why? Just because it's conserved it must have a vital function? Why? Just because it doesn't matter if it's there or not? That's a reasonable hypothesis (among others), but if it's wrong, so what?

A good experiment to figure out what unknown purpose the non-coding conserved pieces are doing would be to cut them out of the mouse genome and see what kind of damage it does to the mouse.

You're right Dave, that IS a good experiment. Glad you thought of it.

(Another one would be to breed these knockout mice for a few generations to see what happens to the offspring. Surely some ID scientist somewhere is doing this as we speak.)

So to Dave, if NDE is right then for non-coding DNA:
If it’s unused it won’t do any harm if it mutates into oblivion.

So let's do an experiment where we mutate the DNA away into oblivion. Lookie thar, it did no apparent harm. Evolution must be true.

I also love how he takes a relatively minor hypothesis and turns it into a central tenet of evolution.
A central tenet of NDE is that unexpressed (unused) genomic information is subject to relatively rapid corruption from chance mutations.

Here's where Dave gets really funny.
This is a good avenue for positive ID research. If the function of any of those regions were preserved because they could be of important use in the future… well that would pretty much blow a hole in the good ship NDE the size of the one that sunk the Titanic.

Well, Dave? Are you going to design the experiments that would determine what the future function of those sleeper genes are? Why don't you post your ideas on these experiments on UD. Or better yet, you could submit a proposal to the Templeton Foundation and get a leg up in this "debate."

Date: 2006/12/07 20:11:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2006,20:03)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2006,18:22)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2006,18:10)
The members of my church were sadly disappointed that I would go to such a liberal college as BJ.

I'm scared to even ask, but what colleges did they view as 'not liberal'?

One last comment, just to answer Arden's question...

Fairhaven was the highest, bestest, most goodest college.

That link is to the church, the college is on the same site.

Pretty campus, though, as I recall.

Interesting church.

I like the segregated pictures. One is of the real Sunday School with nothing but white children. Then there is the "bus ministry" with nothing but black children. Yup, the bestest.

Date: 2006/12/08 16:02:47, Link
Author: phonon
That really great Ogee.

This is something from here.


Before the specified complexity of living systems began to be appreciated, it was thought that, given enough time, "chance" would explain the origin of living systems. In fact, most textbooks state that chance is the basic explanation for the origin of life. For example, Lehninger in his classic textbook Biochemistry states,

   We now come to the critical moment in evolution in which the first semblance of "life" appeared, through the chance association of a number of abiotically formed macromolecular components, to yield a unique system of greatly enhanced survival value.1

More recently the viability of "chance" as a mechanism for the origin of life has been severely challenged.2

We are now ready to analyze the "chance" origin of life using the approach developed in the last chapter. This view usually assumes that energy flow through the system is capable of doing the chemical and the thermal entropy work, while the configurational entropy work of both selecting and coding is the fortuitous product of chance.

To illustrate, assume that we are trying to synthesize a protein containing 101 amino acids. In eq. 8-14 we estimated that the total free energy increase (G) or work required to make a random polypeptide from previously selected amino acids was 300 kcal/mole. An additional 159 kcal/mole is needed to code the polypeptide into a protein. Since the "chance" model assumes no coupling between energy flow and sequencing, the fraction of the polypeptide that has the correct sequence may be calculated (eq. 8-16) using equilibrium thermodynamics, i.e.,

[protein concentration] / [polypeptide concentration] = exp ( - G / RT), eq. (9-1)

= exp (-159,000) / 1.9872 x 298)

or approximately 1 x 10^-117

This ratio gives the fraction of polypeptides that have the right sequence to be a protein.

   [NOTE: This is essentially the inverse of the estimate for the number of ways one can arrange 101 amino acids in a sequence (i.e., I / c in eq. 8-7)].

Eigen3 has estimated the number of polypeptides of molecular weight 10^4 (the same weight used in our earlier calculations) that would be found in a layer 1 meter thick covering the surface of the entire earth. He found it to be 10^41. If these polypeptides reformed with new sequences at the maximum rate at which chemical reactions may occur, namely 10^14/s, for 5 x 10^9 years [1.6 x 10^17 s], the total number of polypeptides that would be formed during the assumed history of the earth would be

10^41 x 10^14/s x 1.6 x 10^17s = 10^72 (9-2)

Combining the results of eq. 9-1 and 9-2, we find the probability of producing one protein of 101 amino acids in five billion years is only 1/ 10^45. Using somewhat different illustrations, Steinman4 and Cairns-Smith5 also come to the conclusion that chance is insufficient.

It is apparent that "chance" should be abandoned as an acceptable model for coding of the macromolecules essential in living systems. In fact, it has been, except in introductory texts and popularizations.

This is really terrible stuff.

This ratio gives the fraction of polypeptides that have the right sequence to be a protein.

They left out the word 'particular' here. As in, this ratio gives the fraction of polypeptides that have the right sequence to be a particular protein. Of course, any polypeptide of sufficient length (arbitrarily anything over ~20 or so residues) is by definition a protein.

If you have a whole lot of random peptide sequences all over the place, some of them are going to do something. They will have some sort of chemical reactivity toward other substances in their enviroment.

Date: 2006/12/08 16:34:22, Link
Author: phonon
I've just been reading about the knockout procedure. Apparently, if I've got it right, the genes/sequences aren't actually removed, they are 'disrupted' or corrupted (mutated) by a recombinant plasmid. Then it takes a breeding cycle to get a mouse (diploid) that has two copies of the mutant gene/sequence.

Anyway, why should it matter if 85% (or 100%) of the NAS were atheist?
Does UD think that believing in Jesus Christ as your messiah makes you a better scientist or something? After all, UD and ID is all about that hard math and science.

The comments tell it all.

I think Ruse is right. They have left science in the dust and treat atheism as the world religion….

Scared yet????

Comment by rpf_ID — December 7, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
If only we could live in such an Eden.

Wouldn’t all these admissions be grounds to get materialism thrown out of science classes as a religion ? Surely if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander.

Comment by jwrennie — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
That's right. If you believe what you see with your eyes, you can't teach it in public schools.

This is all shaping up to be a far more interesting debate than just ID/evolution.

Comment by TomG — December 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
That's right. It's a "culture war."
As far as I know, the Bible is the only book prohibited  by the courts  from being used in schools.

OK, the Lives of the Saints would probably be prohibited.
Drew Brees, Joe Horn, and Reggie Bush? Those hard math and science types usually learned their hard math and science from the Bible in public schools.
It’s fine for Krauss if scientists are “doing science” and still have faith in god? Well not really. It depends on whether or not those scientists speak out against materialist dogma and it’s grand unifying theory; evolution.
Yup, if you believe evolution is true, then you must not have faith in god.
It’s funny how he equates faith in god as something people make up in order to rationalize their lives. I wonder how he thinks that occurs? Can you decide to believe in something if you don’t believe in it? It just shows how little these guys know when it comes to the humanities and philosophy.
That's teh best.
These guys want to be the spiritual and philosophical leaders of society when in fact they are woefully ignorant of most anything beyond their limited fields of research and usually are not well rounded even in that.
Mentok is the ID guidance counselor now.

This type of so-called “science” is going to put itself right out of a job. It’s like these guys all suffer from a disease that makes them incapable of learning from the mistakes of history. The arrogance and elitism displayed by types like Tyson is astounding and IMHO rather foolish. But what do I know? I usually vote Republican.

Comment by shaner74 — December 7, 2006 @ 11:12 pm

HA HA HA HA!  :D  Of course you do.

shaner said:
“I usually vote Republican.”

Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!

Comment by JasonTheGreek — December 7, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
The funny thing is that I'm sure this comment has nothing to do with Mark Foley.
I think Francis “I invented science” Bacon said it best when he argued that the need athiests have to convert others stems from the insecurity of not actually being convinced of it themselves.
And we have a little projection here. I think that's what Dembski and Behe's problem is. They don't really believe in God enough, so they go looking for proof or evidence, anything they can get their hands on, that says there just may well be a god. O ye of little faith in what you don't really believe in. Talk to mentok, he'll straighten you out. And be a little more well-rounded while your at it.

Atheists are trying to get a revival going.
Not really.
Only problem is there is nothing to revive.


JasonTheGreek wrote:
“Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!”

Can’t blame my behavior on me - it’s just evolution at work preserving my selfish genes!

Comment by shaner74 — December 8, 2006 @ 7:42 am

Mark Foley: What are you wearing right now?
kid: Selfish genes.
Mark Foley: Cool.

The problem is, when you set yourself up either explicitly or implicitly to say that God is evident via the scientific method, the only loser is God. And I believe that that is what ID theory indeed sets up. Because if tomorrow morning we wake up and find out that science has proven William Dembski wrong, the faithful are either going to have to reject science or God.
mjb2001, your days on UD are numbered.

religion tells us how and why we became human.
Eh, Maybe you'll be at UD longer than I thought.

I think Jason the Greek hit on the central misunderstanding that leads to ID thinking.
Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means ’something we don’t fully understand yet via science.’
That's called the God of the Gaps argument and it's what YOU DO. It's how YOU think, as in how ID bots think. SHEESH! If we don't know how something happened, the God must have done it! RIGHT?


DI or somebody should define what Supernatural means in ID theory.

Comment by Collin — December 8, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

Date: 2006/12/13 12:26:26, Link
Author: phonon
When I saw the flash animation, I really couldn't believe it.

These people have boldly sunk to depths no one has ever sunk to before.

Fart noises? Yeah, that'll pull in the kiddies.

Terrence: "Hey, Phillip, do you believe in Jesus?"
Phillip: "Not really."
Terrence: "Well, how about this?" {ppffffffftttt}
Phillip: "Oh! Now it makes sense! Jesus be praised!"
Terrence: "That's nothing! I can even convince you to believe ID too!"
Phillip: "Well, I believe in Jesus now, but ID still sounds stupid to me."
Terrence: "Oh yeah?!" {pfft pfft pfft pfffffft}
Phillip: "Wow, I never realized that ID was such a powerful theory! Thanks, Terrence, you've changed my life. I'll never be a materialist again."

Date: 2006/12/15 15:41:50, Link
Author: phonon
Great quote from Joseph.


In 2005 Judge Jones presided over the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, after which he held that it was
   unconstitutional to teach intelligent design
   within a public school science curriculum.

Why do people keep saying that when the facts show that ID was never set to be taught within a PS science curriculum?

As for “landmark” I predict that history will show it as nothing more than a footnote…

Comment by Joseph — December 15, 2006 @ 9:27 am

Then WHAT is all the fuss about?

And the defeat of teaching ID in public classrooms as science IS a footnote. ID is that unimportant.

Date: 2006/12/16 11:50:54, Link
Author: phonon
For an agnostic DaveScot seems to be overly offended by people who don't believe in god.

It’s a pity the mother doesn’t have to take a “character” class. If she did she might have enough character to write “under God” instead of “under dog” when quoting the United States Pledge of Allegiance.

Why would it matter to you Dave? Are you really that offended when someone doesn't respect something that you don't really believe in?

I guess there are two alternatives with respect to this. Either DaveScot really isn't agnostic, and is really a rabid christianist like all the rest of the UD camp. Or, he actually doesn't believe in god, and is just trying to rile up the militant emotions in his christianist followers.

As to the latter alternative, I would want to ask a few of the UD followers if they feel stupid for being led on by such a monumental retard, but that retard has persistently made fools of you. I mean, I'm sure it's pretty difficult for any of the UD followers to actually feel stupid, but maybe this type of thing would actually spark those feelings that normal people are actually capable of.

And in teh comments Mats decides that ID is as grounded a theory as heliocentrism.

It’s amazing she would say such a thing. Imagine a scientist working for NASA saying something like “Unfortunately, those kids get abudant anti-heliocentrism education every week in Sunday school, and I have no ideia how we can counteract that.“

Comment by Mats — December 16, 2006 @ 8:26 am

Yeah, imagine.

Imagine all the tards
Living for ID
Yoohoo oo oo oo
You may say I'm a tard
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you will have a lobotomy
And everyone will be as dumb
As me

Date: 2006/12/16 22:24:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 16 2006,12:19)
. It's not supposed to make sense.

I see.

So even though he doesn't believe in the whole Jesus dying on a cross for our sins, he would still be offended by this.

How odd.

(this is also pretty good  )

Date: 2006/12/18 16:10:15, Link
Author: phonon
telic agnostic

I wish bj would explain what it means to be a "telic agnostic."

But, just how much influence can telic agnostics like myself really have.

Beats me, since I have no idea what that means.

There once was a judge in ol’ Dover…

Who was certain he was related to Rover,

So he saw his chance

Dropped his pants

And when the ACLU arrived, bent over.

Hey now, give tribune7 some credit, that was actually clever.

William A. 'Divine Wind' Dembski


Bill D. will never live this down, and he doesn't deserve to.

Is Darwinism largely supported by atheists?

If you mean, "are a majority of people that support the theory of evolution atheists?" Then NO. Most people who support the theory in the US are christians. Just as DaveScot said:
Anything with broad support in America can be expected, not surprisingly, to have 80% of its support from Christians.

Is ID largely supported by Christians?

Yes, quite obviously.

Now do you get it IDers?
Do I have to spell it out for you?

You are a fringe religious/political movement.
Realize this.

I agree with you – no. I bet a lot of people who accept Darwinian evolution never even stop to think about what that means.

What does it mean? That God (or something like it) couldn't have created the universe? Bullshit.

“4 - Are most Christians IDers? I propose that the answer here is no.”

Again I agree with you. If given a choice between ID and Darwin, most that understand what’s at stake would choose ID.
And herein lies the mental disconnect.

shaner74 - just because you were taught since a yungin that evolution is for evil devil worshippers that deny the grace of the holy spirit, doesn't make it so. Just because you believe every word of the Bible literally, doesn't make it so. Try to fear he11 a little less, think of your God as a loving God that will let you expand your mind a tad, and go learn a thing or two. If it doesn't feel right after a couple of years, go back to what you were doing. Your God will understand. Then laugh at you.

Another question: is YEC a sub-set of ID?

Why not. IOW, ID is a type of creationism. You nailed it, jb.

I’ve never understood why atheists feel they can’t accept ID.
Because DaveScot, you are a certified moron. It all goes back to the "who designed the designer" problem. Didn't you think of that? Retard.

The only thing ID posits is that there was or is another intelligence at work in the universe with capabilities somewhat more advanced than ours.
That must have been UNdesigned. But, of course, we humans, and all life on Earth, must have been designed. Tool.

If our technology advances a the current rate for another thousand years surely we’ll be able to identify sterile, young earth-like planets around other stars and transport the beginnings of life to them.
O yeah, then those beings can ask the question, who designed the designer. I guess none of them will be atheists.

We don’t know where the universe came from and that doesn’t seem to bother them.
And where God came from doesn't bother theists. It's just that the universe is right here in front of our eyes.

The only people that ID leaves out are those who are faithfully committed to the proposition that no intelligence other than human intelligence exists now or ever in the history of the universe.
Obviously, that's a lie, you liar retard.

Date: 2006/12/18 18:25:51, Link
Author: phonon
Come on. It's obviously not Shakespeare (or Andrew Dice Clay for that matter), but it's all right.

On a different note:

In most if not all of the comments from the anti-ID crowd they focus on the farting sounds or what Judge Jones is actually saying. They entirely miss the point being made. The point is that what the judge is saying aren’t his own words. They’re the words he was given by the people pulling his string. In other words, he’s nothing but a talking doll mindlessly repeating verbiage supplied by others. Either the loyal opposition are all as dumb as a bag of hammers or they are purposely ignoring the point made by the satire. I’d guess more or less some of both on a case by case basis. The interesting thing is that none are acknowledging the point either because they don’t get the point or they are afraid of acknowledging the point because it’s irrefutable and damaging to their cause.

Didn't EVERYONE already address the "point" of the "satire"?

Numerous blogs and message boards already refuted the inane "plagairism" charge that you lobbed at Jones.

Everyone got it, and shot it down, like a, um, Kamakaze pilot.


Date: 2006/12/19 16:29:23, Link
Author: phonon
This post is killing me.

So we know what were the inputs of information in the WEASEL example and the RNA experiments… so therefore, we should be able to figure out what information was inputted by the designer?

Comment by EJ Klone — December 18, 2006 @ 7:08 pm

I wonder how long EJ Klone will last with questions like that. OTOH, his reply was done inputted with his intelligent putter. Maw, I dun inputted it.

More projection and lack of self awareness from the ID crowd:
Canyou imagine the horror of the founders of Oxford if they knew about Dawkins?

Think about it…a man who says childish nonsense like this:

“Your paper is quite well written, and is not stupid (like the writings of your colleagues)”Canyou imagine the horror of the founders of Oxford if they knew about Dawkins?

Think about it…a man who says childish nonsense like this:

“Your paper is quite well written, and is not stupid (like the writings of your colleagues)”

Well, just wait until the founders of the hotbed of scientific research (unlike Oxford) Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary get a load of:
The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed.

BTW, thank you for leaving in the covert flatulence.

I can’t imagine anyone sending a child interested in science to Oxford, I really can’t. I assume the leaders there have no problem with Dawkins childish and often times hate-filled nature?

Comment by JasonTheGreek — December 18, 2006 @ 7:11 pm

I know you can't imagine great science going on at Oxford. I guess everyone at Cambridge thinks so too. And William Debski is well known for his lack of hate and his unwavering maturity.

Then mentok decides to channel Al Gore into his creotard brain:
Those experiments (and common sense) have shown that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a barrier which the evolutionists refuse to recognize whenever they encounter it’s obvious implications and even when they see it for themselves in action. They labor under the self delusion that the 2nd law doesn’t apply to life because it is an inconvenient truth. They labor under the self delusion that the 2nd law doesn’t apply to life because it is an inconvenient truth. But as is shown the facts are that without intervention of some sort all naturally occuring (which can be proven to occur by natural laws e.g. snowflakes) complexity reaches a stage where it can develop furthur complexity no furthur and either doesn’t change or deteriorates. The whole evolutionary schema falls apart before it begins if it’s propounders were not so prone to self deception (in the hope and search for a materialistic ontology) concerning the relevance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Comment by mentok — December 18, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
I guess the pro-pounders of ID are much furthur along in their thermo studies. Or are they at a point where they can develop furthur thermo skills no furthur?

####, I'm trying to make something of Michaels7 's post but I can't make heads or tails of it. He slowly winds from Monty Python and Dawkins to Judge Jones and Jesus.

I think that somehow the fart filled flash animation has reset all the creobots' 'brains' and now they are back to square one. They have forgotten all the arguments they've lost over the years and now they are back to the originals. Witness PaV's reset creobrain:
We seem to be watching–in the absence of a correction system–the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics having at it with the RNA being duplicated. This means that for DNA to exist (i.e., retain its duplicating powers), it needs a correction system in place. But the problem is this: how can you have a correction system without having a system in place already. IOW, the correction system presupposes the existence of a “code”, and the “code” presupposes the existence of a correction system. As Bill rightly argues, Dawkins’ invocation of Spiegelman’s experiment weakens Dawkins’ argument if anything. But Dawkins doesn’t seem to get it.

Comment by PaV — December 19, 2006 @ 9:10 am

And another example of creobrain reset from Collin:
A physics teacher told me that the 2nd law is not a refutation of evolution, but I think that he was giving us a conclusion without much to back it up.

Comment by Collin — December 19, 2006 @ 1:47 pm

Date: 2006/12/19 16:52:08, Link
Author: phonon
DaveScot, I see you still have trouble with the "who designed the designer" problem. Only true simpletons would ever be swayed away from asking this question.

Further, if one adopts as givens that life was placed on this planet and its purpose was to eventually produce intelligent life that could start the cycle over again on a younger planet, we can ask ourselves what would be required for the emergence of a technological species able to transport life to a younger planet. The first thing would be atmospheric oxygen so that land-based life with fast metabolisms could be supported. Atmospheric oxygen would also be required to support combustion of fuels to power an industrial civilization. That would take a very long time. After the land based life is all over the place you’d next want to lay down huge deposits of easily accessable fuel like coal, oil, and natural gas. This would also take a very long time. Finally, when all the ducks are in a row, the technological species emerges with all the resources it needs to accomplish the mission goal - moving life to another planet where it can begin anew. Nothing in evolutionary biology makes sense except in the light of a front loaded genome placed here with a purpose. Once front loading and purpose are allowed into consideration then it all makes perfect sense.

Note there’s no call upon religion or the supernatural in any of the above. It’s all perfectly compatible with what science has revealed and relies on nothing but logical connecting of the dots between disparate empirical observations in a way that makes sense of all the observations.

Comment by DaveScot — December 18, 2006 @ 4:18 pm

To which bFast aptly replies:
DaveScot, interesting hypothesis. It does beg one interesting question, however. Current scientific understanding is that the universe had a beginning about 16 billion years ago. One could conceive of your model being brought back to the earliest planets. That might have been as far back as, say 10 billion years ago. The question of course is, how did that first life come into existance?

Comment by bFast — December 18, 2006 @ 5:29 pm

DaveScot, why do you think that "front loading and purpose" explain anything when the purpose is just something you made up (to procreate intelligent species) and the frontloading is purely imaginary? Even if you were to discover that, indeed, life on Earth has some purpose and it is to procreate another intelligent species by inseminating another planet with designed life, what would be the purpose of THAT?

Let me ask some christians that may be here, "What was God's purpose in creating man?"

Then after you've pulled an answer out of your butt, like say "He wanted souls to harvest," ask yourself, "And why would God want to do that? What's the purpose of it?"

"Life started on Earth because some ancient alien race decided to pan sperm all over it."


"So that intelligence would arise."


"To make more planets inhabited by intelligence."


"Good question."

Will you creotards begin to understand that "purpose" is a pretty limited thing? It can explain a little, but it can't explain a lot, and will never explain everything, especially when you don't know what the purpose is, or if there even is one.

On top of that, Dave, you would be satisfied with saying that the purpose of life on Earth is to design and spawn new life on other planets, but would be upset to think that your only "purpose" (the only "reason" you exist) is to spawn more humans. The "purpose" of a butterfly is to make more butterflies. But you can't leave it at that, you have to go on inventing some other layer of purpose, just so you can be an intellectually fulfilled telic agnostic.

DaveScot, your little philosophical exercise will always lead to one final question, "What is the purpose of existence?" and not even an ID creationist can poof out a magic answer for that one.

Date: 2006/12/20 19:06:03, Link
Author: phonon


There’s nothing to lose and everything to gain in saying a little prayer for someone else. If God isn’t listening nothing is lost. If God is listening there’s much to be gained. Try it and see.

Comment by DaveScot — December 20, 2006 @ 3:08 pm

Dave, I challenge you to say a voodoo prayer over some chicken bones and bats blood for Dawkins. you might need to look up some of the specifics on how to do it right. Afterall, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Why aren't you out there practising ALL religions all the time?

You never know which one is right, right?

I'd say that you'd better start wearing mormon "sacred" underwear, since you've got nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Also, when you pray as an agnostic, which god is it that you are praying to? Mithra perhaps? Dionesus? Vishnu?

You'd also better start carrying around a rabbit's foot, or maybe a horseshoe, and avoid the number 13, and knock on wood. Nothing to lose, everything to gain, right?


What's Dembski trying to prove here?
That Dawkins will tolerate his antics?
Dear Prof. Dawkins,

Your response below regarding The Blasphemy Challenge ( is predictable, though thank you for being so forthright in endorsing it. Question: Would you be willing to go further and endorse expanding The Blasphemy Challenge to include blaspheming the God of Islam, encouraging young people in the Muslim world to put themselves on YouTube and say something along the lines of renouncing the God of Mohammed and stating clearly that Mohammed is not God’s prophet since there is no God? I’m sure you could come up with a suitable gift to entice young former Muslims, like a coffeetable book of the recent Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Are you an equal opportunity atheist or do you simply go after the Christian God because we tolerate your antics?


Best wishes,
Bill Dembski

Is he trying to say that Christianity is superior to Islam because its followers never burned people at the stake or tortured them for denying or insulting the religion in some way?

Just what is your point Dembski?

Date: 2006/12/21 14:39:09, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2006,09:47)
Steve, you deserve a LOT more credit for this brilliant scenario of Bush meeting Dembski:

GWB: “Hey good to see ya Mr. Dempski. I read all aboutcha.”
WAD: “Pleasure to meet you Mister President. I’m here to discuss Intelligent Design.”
GWB: “That’s right. I’m in favor of that. Creationism is great.”
WAD: “Well it’s…um…it’s not creationism exactly.”
GWB: “But you talk about the Creator, right? Supernatural creator? Not Darwin?”
WAD: “Well, yeah, uh, we talk about a Transcendent Designer.”
GWB: “Oh, yeah, I like that stuff. I’m all about Jesus.”
WAD: “Uh…well, see it’s not about Jesus, really, it’s about science…”
GWB: “Wait a minute I thought you said it was the book of john in science talk.”
WAD: “Well…uh…it’s totally separate from christianity–“
GWB: “Jesus is separate from christianity? That doesn’t make no sense.”
WAD: “This isn’t about the bible. It’s about very scientific math and terms and it’s not just christianity.”
GWB: “Not christian? You mean its atheist? Like the commies? I thought this was creationism.”
WAD: “Well no, it’s…um…it’s…okay like I said it’s not really creationism…”
GWB: “But you got a Creator, right? And the Creator, that’s Jesus, right?”
WAD: “Uh…uugggghhhhhhh.”
GWB: “Don’t worry man I’m in your corner. I think the earth is 6,000 years old too.”
GWB: “Hey whatever happened in that Dover case? How’d that go?”
WAD: [runs out of room]
GWB: “That guy was high strung. And tall like a string bean. I’m gonna call him Stringy.”

I agree. I never saw it. Where was it posted? I had the scene going on in my head, but it was with Li'l Bush

Date: 2006/12/21 15:00:09, Link
Author: phonon
I see. Thanks for the link!

Moran, check it out. I'm going to say this once:
In a simplistic nutshell (for our narrow minded atheistic friends), they are quoting bible passages out of context. The whole point of this particular chapter in John is that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. As it relates to the topic at hand, a person who knows in his heart and mind that the Holy Spirit exists cannot keep that faith while at the same time verbally denigrating it. It’s like thinking you could survive in a corporation if you constantly criticise the boss.

From the “blasphemy” challenge web site, read: “Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won’t forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you’re taking here. ”

It's a JOKE!!!! It's a STUNT!!!!
It's meant to advertise for their group and the DVD.

I'm sure they are aware of the nuances of sin and damnation in this situation.

Whatever you may think, they are not dumb.

Why is it some people just cannot see irony or subtle humor in things?

I mean, Tom Delay has a blog (can you believe it?) and he linked to a parody blog, Jon Swift, thinking the guy was serious. He even has a recent post making fun of Tom Delay's blog. A lot of conservatives thought that Stephen Colbert was one of them and took him seriously.

And now you don't see the subtle humor in the blasphemy challenge. They are making fun of you, Moran. Get over it.

Date: 2006/12/21 15:03:56, Link
Author: phonon
No, I've purposely blocked you twice. We maintain a zero tolerance policy on OE. Bill has specifically told us, the moderators, that OE is intended as a safe haven for students interested in ID. As in, not Darwinists. If you want to make your arguments try them on UD where the moderation policy is more lenient.

Was that subtle irony? I guess I can't see it.

Date: 2006/12/22 10:25:23, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 21 2006,23:15)
Turn your irony meters to OFF:

Denyse O'Leary: "Right now, the ASA is making much of genome mapper Francis Collins, whom I regard as an intellectual lightweight."


Let's see what Fancis Collins's wikipedia page says.

Francis S. Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He is director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

Uh, yeah. But D'OL is like a Cogitor in the Dune series. (obscure)

Did anyone see Collins when he was on the Colbert Report? It was interesting.

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

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

Because to Denise, God wanted the baby to suffer with CF and die young. Don't go messing up God's plan to make kids suffer.
Most Darwinists are in fact pro-abortion, as far as I can see, and most of the ID guys go the other way. That is not an accident. All these people can at least follow through an argument to a logical conclusion about the value of human life and the meaning of suffering.
Uh, yeah. Are you making my point for me Denise? First off, I don't think there are many people at all that are "pro" abortion. I think the people that are in favor of legalized abortion see it as the lesser of two evils. The greater evil being illegal abortion, where women die in some quack's hackshop trying to abort their babies. But then, Denise, are you trying to say that children should be born with CF so that they can know the meaning of suffering? It seems that way.
Case in point: Christian countries does (sic) not have a penalty for blasphemy nor are any significant Christian groups seeking one.
You know what that means Denise? They aren't really "christian countries." They are secular countries that do not enforce the rules of any particular religion.
But some countries DO have a penalty for blasphemy - the death penalty - and it is carried out often enough to be a cause for concern. Guess which religion is the only one permitted in such countries?
That's called theocracy and it's evil. Yet, you would LOVE the US to become a christian theocracy (but the right kind, you wouldn't want a Mormon theocracy, for sure).

This passage is particularly amusing:
(in full in case of deletion)
So, suppose you are an atheist living in a Western country with entrenched freedom of religion. It’s Sunday morning. No one bothers you on your godless Sunday at home. Your neighbour doesn’t go to church either, but only because she is lazy, so you rightly don’t trust her. The family across the street, all six of them, is loading up the minivan’s carseats and heading off to Beulah Community Church.

You know that most of the world thinks that the human being has a spiritual nature and that bugs you. You want to tell them they are wrong, that their experience of life is wrong. But you daren’t address real issues in religion today because then you would find yourself smack up against the type of people that the Canadian Army is fighting in Afghanistan. Those people do not believe in your right to a godless Sunday at home. Heck, a wall could fall down on you, and it might not be an accident …

I think she's comparing her type with the Taliban. "You atheists in Western countries dare not question religion or one day you'll have a wall fall on you."

Yes, Denise, I agree.

You are slowly becoming the American Taliban.

God, this woman is stupid.

Date: 2006/12/22 18:30:58, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Art @ Dec. 21 2006,21:39)
"Where are you from?"  A question that stumps me every time.

Me too, but I'm not quite that widespread.

For me just Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tenessee. But multiple places within each state. With a brief stint as a kid in Augsburg, Germany when my dad was in the Army. But still, I have to generalize when people ask "Where are you from?" I usually think, "I'm and earthling, of course."

Date: 2006/12/22 18:44:44, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 22 2006,17:59)
Private use?  What??

Everybody got that image fixed in imagination?

God NOOOOO!!!!!!

Date: 2006/12/22 19:00:35, Link
Author: phonon
I regarded this case as a loser from the start...

Actually, right before the verdict, he did give it about 80% chance of losing.

Before the Dover trial concludes, I want to offer some remarks about what I take will be its long-term significance. I want to do this now so that critics won’t be in a position to accuse me of spinning or rationalizing the outcome of the trial once it is reached (of course, they’ll still find fault, but that’s par for the course).

As I see it, there are three possible outcomes:

  1. The Dover policy, in which students are informed that the ID textbook Of Pandas and People is in their library, is upheld.
  2. The Dover policy is overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged.
  3. The Dover policy is not only overturned but ID is ruled as nonscientific.

For what it’s worth, my subjective probabilities are that outcome 1. has about a 20% probability, outcome 2. has about an 70% probability, and outcome 3. has less than a 10% probability.

He only gave a 10% chance to what actually happened, though. Which goes to show that he didn't think it through. Why would they overturn it if ID were scientific? I guess that's why he is the Isaac Newton of "Dawkins for private use"

Date: 2006/12/24 16:03:38, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 24 2006,11:15)

I'm missing Dumbski's point with posting this.  Actually, I miss the point of most of his blog entries (along with the points of all of Morphodyke's posts).

Missing the point of Dembski's and O'Leary's posts is fairly common.  They often miss the point themselves and the posting you're referring to is an example.

Apparently Nick Matzke has done a comprehensive search of the literature on the evolution of the flagellum.  (This is the literature that doesn't exist according to Behe.)  He found at least one evolutionary pathway in that data that produces a modern flagellum.

And the pathway looks pretty plausible.  The video points out that,

1: Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems, so the proteins don't have to be made from scratch.  

2: Every step in this evolutionary pathway requires the modification of only one protein at a time.  

3: Each step produces a selective advantage to the bacteria.

So Matzke's theory is pretty good stuff and it's definitely something that the evolutionary community wants to advertise as much as possible.

Now, Enter the Dembski: Apparently, a videomaker named "cdk007", who has posted several pro-evolution videos to YouTube, made a video illustrateing Matzke's proposed evolutionary pathway using an animated slide show and darn, it all looks pretty plausible!

Dembski apparently finds out about this video, skims through it, definitely not viewing for comprehension, and decides it's an unconvincing digital EMULATION or SIMULATION of evolution and posts it to UD, leaving out the audio, which is a copyrighted song - click on the picture to go directly to YouTube and see it in full.

Not recognizing the difference between a digital ILLUSTRATION and digital EMULATION or SIMULATION, Dembski also posts a link to the Michigan State University Digital Evolution lab for information on Avida, which has absolutely nothing to do with this video.

Then, just in case anyone might think that he has even a fraction of a clue about what he's doing, he posts a link to his 2002 article, "Evolutionary Logic" in which he resorts to his usual "argumentum ad throwing up mocking scarecrows only an ID theorist would believe".

After the dust settles, the score looks like this:

1: A lot of people never would have heard of Nick Matzke's evolutionary pathway to a flagellum or this video if not for Dr. Dembski.  They have now had an opportunity to see a very good illustration of Nick's theory and have information on where to find out more.

2: Anyone who clicks on "cdk007" to the right of the YouTube picture, will go to the videomaker's home page where he has posted several other videos explaining reality to creationists.

3: A lot of ID sympathisers have been exposed to a good video covering a good theory of how the flagellum could have evolved.  The hard core won't be swayed, of course.  Like Dr. Dembski, they won't even watch it for comprehension.  But someone who's on the fence and who thinks that ID might be right because how else could you get something like a flagellum, now knows one pretty good way it could have happened.

All in all, I thank Dr. Dembski for this very welcome Christmas Present and wish him and his family the happiest of holidays.  And the same to Denise, Salvador, Dave and all the other UD regulars.

That's a pretty impressive breakdown of Dembski's "thought" process on that one. You are my better for not just shrugging in confusion about what Dembski was even talking about in that post.

But all the comments come from the die hards that also have no clue what the video was actually about.

I love this little tidbit from TRoutMac:

The video also claims this…

“Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems”

Isn’t an argument of homology between particular proteins a little silly in a context where every protein in a cell is made from combinations of the same 20 amino acids? What about THAT homology? The amino acids are homologous, are they not? Even in different proteins, the same pool of 20 amino acids might be used. (albeit differently)

I guess what I’m saying is that if I can explain the homology of amino acids which make up proteins which are completely DIFFERENT via Intelligent Design, then why should I be afraid of the homologous protein argument? Wouldn’t that be EVEN EASIER to explain via ID?

The Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Comment by TRoutMac — December 24, 2006 @ 9:37 am

Yeah, and what about the homolgy of all organic compounds, huh? I mean they all use carbon atoms (albeit differently). How about THAT homology? I mean, carbon atoms are homologous are they not? Even in different organic molecules, the same 3 isotopes of carbon are used.
I guess what I’m saying is that if I can explain the homology of amino acids which make up proteins which are completely DIFFERENT via Intelligent Design, then why should I be afraid of the homologous protein argument?
Can you explain why we see the same 20 amino acids (with exceedingly few exceptions) in biology according to ID?

Why don't you come to this thread, TroutMac, and explain it to us?

Thankfully, that was followed up by some blatant honesty by WinglesS:

I won’t say that it’s a bad video. Most people, myself included, have difficulty knowing the truth behind it’s assertions. While at first glance the evolutionary process seems overly simplified and again appeals to chance through natural selection to form everything, I can’t say that’s impossible because I don’t study biology. I guess this is the age of knowledge specialisation. I might be in universtity, but I still don’t even know exactly how and why my computer works.

Comment by WinglesS — December 24, 2006 @ 10:24 am

And more honest ignorance by JGuy:

Just curious.. anyo0ne have an answer for this…

In the video, it says the ATP synthase would be added to a selective pore, whereby it imparts active transport.

How would the ATP impart active transport exactly??? Even in a loose way. It’s not as though the ATP syhnthase has an intakeport and output exhaust…. or does it? If you can’t think of a way, then say it like a Darwinian.

Comment by JGuy — December 24, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Go to the library and check out an undergrad Biochemistry textbook. Preferably one with a warning sticker.

Date: 2006/12/24 16:17:27, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2006,16:09)
2. TRoutMac  // Dec 13th 2006 at 4:28 pm

Bring it on, Panda’s Thumb. Bring it on. Show us who the real fascists are.


Comment by TRoutMac — December 13, 2006 @ 4:28 pm


I do actually want TroutMac to come here. Anybody got an email address for him? No use debating him over at OE, where all dissent is censored. Anyway, if anyone wants to invite him to his own thread here, you have my blessings.

Ha Ha!

God, it reminds me of GWB!

"To those who would attack ID over here, I say 'Bring'em on!'"

TroutMac, why don't you fight em over here so you don't have to ban em over there?

I've tried googling TroutMac to find an email address, but after 3 whole minutes, I have given up.

Date: 2006/12/27 00:46:06, Link
Author: phonon
The religious stuff is getting pretty blatant, tis true.

JasonTheGreek  // Dec 26th 2006 at 11:24 pm

In regards to comment 6- I don’t see any way of wedding the idea that the soul just “emerged” after the primate brain reached a certain level of complexity to the idea that God created us all with souls. If a soul just emerged, then it wasn’t created, and that means it wasn’t the result of God.

You're right, Jason. It's because of your strict definition of the English word "create" that the soul couldn't possibly have "emerged" over time, because these things don't just happen, and that means that God must have created it, because some things just happen, and aren't created by God, but not the soul, which, of course, we all know exists.

And in conclusion:
Clearly, in the NT, there is the idea that the soul and spirit can exist outside the body. We’re told we will be resurrected when Christ returns, but that our bodies won’t be the ones we have now- but rather heavenly bodies that never die…which makes the part about our own bodies now being a vital part of the equation. I don’t have a heavenly body now- I assume my soul and spirit- what makes me the unique person I am, will be somehow put into my heavenly body.

Comment by JasonTheGreek — December 26, 2006 @ 11:24 pm

Did he get this stuff from?

Clearly, the Intelligent Designer wants to put Jason into his new heavenly body, a Japanese swimsuit model.

That's one of the weirder posts, but the rest of the comments in that thread are what I would consider some pretty hard core Intelligent Design Theory Research.
My sense is that Intelligent Design should not postulate that design emerges from mechanism alone. Rather material and design and soul are all fundamental, and it is the soul that imposes design on material. That way it’s not “turtles all the way down”.

This stunning conclusion was brought to you by this example of intrepid detective work into the (scriptural) evidence.
There is a biblical basis to the teaching that without the body the soul sleeps. And there is also a biblical basis for seeing ourselves as tripartite beings—“spirit and soul and body” as in 1Thessalonians 5:23. In the Torah “bone and flesh” stand in for the body (Genesis 2:23), the soul is the center of desire and will and moral responsibility (Lev 17:11; Deut 12:15; Ezekiel 18:4, 20), and–biblically speaking here–the spirit pretty much corresponds to information and design and understanding (Exodus 31:3; Isaiah 11:2; 1Corinthians 2:9-11). Now the question is this: are soul and spirit reducible to body? The materialists say yes, but others, including Angus Menuge in Agents Under Fire and Denyse, in her forthcoming book I’m sure, say otherwise.

We don't know the identity of the Intelligent Designer, but we know that we should capitalize His name. Oh, and we know it's a He, and the He and Him should be capitalized.
So why shouldn’t we see Darwinian emergent evolution as the way in which the Intelligent Designer worked?

After all, there is no obvious reason to believe that the Intelligent Designer was unable or unwilling to employ evolutionary causes to execute His design.

Date: 2006/12/28 00:38:54, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 27 2006,07:11)
There is a litany of possibilities for who the designer could be:

1)  Space aliens (don't ask who designed them, materialist pawn; you're just satan trying to trick us with demon logic)
2)  God
3)  Yahweh
4)  The father
5)  The son
6)  The holy ghost
7)  G-d
8)  Allah I mean, Jah oops, Ahura Mazda, er, Siddha, um, nevermind, move on, nothing to see here
9)  Jehovah
10) Jesus
11) Elohim
12) Abhir
13) Shaphat

Don't forget

14) El Shaddai

or is it

Shai Hulud?

edit: (fart)

Date: 2006/12/28 01:33:17, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (UnMark @ Dec. 28 2006,00:51)
Old Man of the Desert...  you read my mind, phonon.

Hey, what can I say. Recently I read 6 Dune books back to back (the ones written by Frank Herbert's son) and I've got it on the brain, I guess.

Oh hey and Michael Behe is a dolt:
Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

No Michael. Good god, you have tenure?

Don't you realize, Michael, that you are admitting that the task you set is practically impossible because of the very reasons you state? You can't systematically examine every single variable that could come into play. At least not in many human lifetimes. Oh! You do know that and you're just a dishonest flim flam man! Gotcha.

Anyway, you could always claim that by starting out with a knock-out bug, that the failed experiment was really falsifying the "limited front loading hypothesis" so that a small hypothesis within ID is falsified and falsifiable, but Big ID hadn't been falsified, but is still falsifiable (that's all it needs to be scientific, right?). Oh, and of course, since "limited front loading" had been falsified, so had natural selection.

And you call yourself a biochemist.


Date: 2006/12/28 15:23:31, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 28 2006,04:11)
Quote (UnMark @ Dec. 28 2006,00:51)
The Flying Speghetti Monster is missing from the list, too.

I only included beings we have verifiable scientific evidence for.  I read every page of the bible and didn't see your "FSM" mentioned once.

Can someone email Carol Clouser and ask her what the ancient Hebrew word for spaghetti is?

OMG. And after your post I was seriously looking up Flying, Spaghetti, and Monster in the English Hebrew Dictionary. the words didn't sound all goddy, so I ditched it.

improvious, I like your sig. Is he comparing God to Hilter? Man, is that the ultimate Godwin or what?

That being said, I’d say that the WAY the flagellum developed would provide clues to design detection as well. Was the experiment repeatable, or a frozen accident? Did the flagellum all develop identically? Did various versions of flagellum form? Did some organisms develop other modes of motility?

Well, not in one culture dish, but the evidence points to:

Did all flagella develop identically?  No
Did various versions of flagellum form? Yes
Did some organisms develop other modes of motility? Yes

Guess what that points to? Intelligent Design through mutation and natural selection, of course.
For me, one of the great joys of visiting TT is Joy

Where Joy writes
IOW [in other words], if it’s unconstitutional for students to be informed that science doesn’t know how life began

Since when is it unconstitutional TDT (to do that)?

Then StillDodgy gives us his thoughts about science education.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard this put better. The theme of the TT thread was defining “religion” and debating whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion.

And the comments also have a lot of scientific insight.
This is not to say that the atheist does not have a religion. One way I define religion is one’s personal worldview, or metaphysical system. If religion is defined in this manner, then anybody who holds a metaphysical worldview (including the most hardened, dogmatic metaphysical materialist) has a religion.

And tribune 7 has an amazing discovery about the atheist conspiracy.
Check out the definiton of religion at and you would see that it would cover atheism.

Now check it on The Free Dictionary and you would see it does not.

If the dictionaries can’t agree it’s better to strip off the shell and see what makes it work.

Comment by tribune7 — December 27, 2006 @ 8:33 am

Wow, I don't really see it, but maybe you have the ability to see the evil hand of the atheist conspiracy when others can't.
Never mind. I misread definition 4 on The Free Dictionary.

Comment by tribune7 — December 27, 2006 @ 8:36 am

####, and right when you had me ready to scream for Dembscream.

jb has his own special abilities
Another important concept to discuss would be the concept of “faith” (a concept which many outspoken atheists seem to get wrong or misrepresent frequently). If the concept of “religion” necessarily involves faith, then–depending on what the agreed upon definition is of faith–it seems one could classify atheism as religion. But that’s another conversation.

I don’t seem to be going anywhere with this, so I’ll stop now (probably should have stopped about three paragraphs ago).

(Maybe this is why I minored in English back in college…)

Comment by jb — December 27, 2006 @ 10:39 am

but then at the last minute the specter of self doubt has its way with him

Nevermind my ramblings.

My brain is hemmoraging from listening to several straight hours of Alvin Pantinga lectures over the last several days.

Comment by jb — December 27, 2006 @ 10:40 am
I don't know who Alvin Pantinga is, but I can tell that the evil one speaks through him. You should see through the devlish ruse and stop bringing yourself down. You're a soldier for Christ and a champion against materialism and darwinism. Now act like it.

Rude, do you have anything to add?
Biology is more descriptive than theoretical, and it is only when we ask about origins that we step on philosopical toes. There’s a war going on, folks, overseas and over here–and one begins to wonder whether we can win the one over there without winning the one over here.

Ya dam right!

Date: 2006/12/30 11:27:59, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 28 2006,21:06)
Nevermind my ramblings.

My brain is hemmoraging from listening to several straight hours of Alvin Pantinga lectures over the last several days.

Comment by jb — December 27, 2006 @ 10:40 am

I don't know who Alvin Pantinga is, but I can tell that the evil one speaks through him.

Here's Alvin Pantinga. He's giving a speechy with Santa's little helpers.

"Dude! Watch me cast this spell! It's gonna be cool!" Poor jb, no wonder he's hemmoraging.

New puzzle: Where's Dembski? (I found him.)

Wikipedia has his name as Plantinga and so do a few other sites. There seems to be an equal amount of sites spelling his name each way.  Hmm.

"Nature created a rotary motor... far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors."

2% efficiency is far beyond the capabilities of actually designed motors?

"12 Items or less"

To me that one isn't so bad. I swear though. Back in the day I thought I wanted to be a vet, so for a year I took pre-vet at this crap school that was cheap in podunk Louisiana. Here it is. On my parking sticker it said, "All Parking Rules are Strickly Inforced." I sh- you not. I saved it. I think I still have it somewhere. After continually acing every class and being surrounded by troglodytes, I ran ran ran.

Date: 2006/12/30 12:11:09, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (lkeithlu @ Dec. 30 2006,11:17)
I know this is off topic, but you gotta see it:


I was just about to post about that.

But yeah, take DaveTard (the agnostic) and his post about chance and GOD along with Dembski's post about Darwinism vs. GOD and there being NO ET life, I think that about sums it up.

It's like the news has been repeating all day, "Saddam convicted himself, just like the Nazi's." (like that apostrophe?)

Poop, is that a Godwin?

Date: 2006/12/30 13:59:19, Link
Author: phonon
Bob OH schools Cordova in the fact that the number of base pairs doesn't really matter, it's the number of identical genes.
Sal - where does your 180,000,000 base pair difference figure come from?


Comment by Bob OH — December 29, 2006 @ 1:24 am

6% of 3,000,000,000 base pairs. If you have a better figure, I would welcome it.


Comment by scordova — December 29, 2006 @ 1:46 am
I suspected something like that. But check the original article: they talk about similarity in genes, not bases. I don’t know what a better figure would be, and I’m not sure how you would calculate it with large duplications happening.

JGuy - these are duplications of genes, so the whole gene gets duplicated in one go. Hence, the fixation events are not independent.


Comment by Bob OH — December 29, 2006 @ 2:21 am
Then Cordova seems to have let that one in one ear and out the other. Must have had a banana in it. It reminds me of my worst nightmare. Cordova, didn't you read the comment?  
Homo Sapein Genome size = 3,4000,00,000
Pan Troglodytes= 3,577,500,000

That is technically a difference of 177,500,000.

Comment by scordova — December 29, 2006 @ 2:49 am
Then the tard keeps on with the number of base pairs thing.  
If Chimps have 180,000,000 more base pairs than humans, we have the problem of a comon ancestor from which humans effectively lost 90,000,000 base pairs and Chimps gained 90,000,000 base pairs. Of course, that’s the most optimistic scenario!
Good god, you're dense. And to top it off, you're dishonest about what you know and remember.  
Why do you think they were 90,000,000 separate events? Have you forgotten about gene duplication, and things like that?


Comment by Bob OH — December 29, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
I’ve not forgotten about that.

Regarding gene duplication or other lenght mutations, Nachman estimates single mutation events may out number length mutation events (like gene duplicaiton) 10 to 1. I could of course have misread his paper, but that does not sound unreasonable.


Comment by scordova — December 29, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Of course that's possible, but in a NDE framework, it's so improbable that it may as well be impossible.

Date: 2006/12/31 15:59:01, Link
Author: phonon
Creationist reading comprehension and constantly revealing what ID truly is

The article quoted states:
Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America.
Here's the way a creationist reads it:
Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted solely by the religious right in America.
Jason the Greek complains:    
ID is “creationism” and simply an idea promoted by the religious right in America. Ummm, but Flew (a deist for famous former atheist) is supporting it in the UK. So Flew is part of the religious right in America, huh? Crazy how these extra dimensions work…that Flew could be a deist over the pond yet also in the US as part of the religious right!
Yes, well, when using creationist reading comprehension, you'll see that this reporter is so biased.

But anyway, we keep getting subtle confessions from the ID crowd. The Intelligent Designer is the God of the Bible and is not a space alien. And here we see that ID is confessed to be a way to contradict evolution as it is taught in public schools.

Quick, call Judge John Jones and let him know. Obviously the Brits haven’t heard of his majesty’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and how ID died as a result.
As you know, Judge Jones did not 'outlaw' research into ID 'hypotheses.' He didn't royally decree that research into ID was unconstitutional, just trying to 'teach' it in public schools as science. Did Judge Jones "kill" ID? Only if ID means teaching contradictions to evolutionary theory by appealing to a 'higher power.'

Here, Dave reveals what ID really is. Intelligent Design IS the teaching of contradictions to evolutionary theory with appeals to a 'higher power' and nothing more. If Judge Jones has killed ID in the states, then that's all ID was. If you are free to 'teach' ID in state-run schools in the UK and that means that ID is still alive, then that merely reinforces the point.

Thanks DaveTard for helping out.

Date: 2006/12/31 19:26:07, Link
Author: phonon
All I can say to that comment is, Jesus Christ.

Date: 2007/01/01 16:59:51, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 31 2006,23:14)
hblavatsky | Sun, 2006-12-31 09:30
... All the way at the top will be the intelligent designer, or possibly some kind of supreme being...

Howabout a taco-supreme being? Since this is still an open question, and all.

Is it a taco that craps ice cream? maybe Dembscream?

I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID.

If Dembski means that ID will get a pounding like it's in the UFC, then yeah.

Date: 2007/01/01 17:40:15, Link
Author: phonon
This other headline from that site is a hoot.

Hussein's First Stop: Christ's Judgment Seat

By Grant Swank on Jan 01, 07

Like all planetary mortals, Saddam Hussein would have met Christ in judgment immediately upon his last breath. That is the declaration of Scripture - divine revelation. Those who do not believe that will find out they are wrong when they breathe their last.

Christ is the Creator of this planet. He will return to this planet as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He will close out the planet’s existence at the end of His millennial reign, delivering all to the Father.

In the meantime, Christ is the One to whom one gives an account of his earthly sojourn upon leaving this life. It does not matter what religion or no religion; it is Christ who is the One to whom one gives the account of the earthly stay.

So the mortals in interstellar space are judged by the IPU? I'm sure the author fully condones executions, yet would profess to abide by both the commandment against killing as well as the lesson from Jesus that when you commit a sin in your heart then you have committed the sin for real. This author probably revelled in Saddam's death, which to Jesus means that he committed the act himself.

edit: Aw GD, the whole darned site is a parody.

George W. Bush's Top 10 Resolutions for 2007

* Get U.S. Troops out of Iraq.

Action: Order them to invade Iran.

* Avoid impeachment by a hostile Congress.

Action: Order the Marines to take over the U.S. House and Senate mail rooms with orders to destroy and all subpoenas.

* Avoid ridicule during the State of the Union speech.

Action: Tape it and send a DVD copy to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

* Improve approval rating to 35%.

Action: Hire Jeb Bush as the new White House pollster.

* Minimize the effectiveness of Nancy Pelosi:

Action: When signing the Defense Appropriations bill, attach a Signing Statement to revoke California’s statehood, thereby making Pelosi ineligible to serve as Speaker.

Date: 2007/01/02 17:12:08, Link
Author: phonon
I know this is so last page, but a comment DT made just got me right in the gut.

But you do agree, though, that this whale example is a striking demonstration of how genotype actually PREDICTED a phenotypic discovery ?

Prior to the discovery of the double pulley joint whale ancestor, this would have been a prime example of “genotype-phenotype discordance”. But in the end, it wasn’t. So I agree with jud here, the primary argument being made by Zimmer in that article is that while we often feel like blind men describing the elephant, in the end, things tend to fall in place when the blind men sit down and hash things out with one another.

Comment by bdelloid — January 1, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

The reply is priceless.    

I suggest you look at the cartoon and think about it real hard. Read all the captions and look them up if necessary.

Comment by DaveScot — January 1, 2007 @ 10:37 pm

Oh man. Thus are the ways of ID science.

The sad thing is that it doesn't even compare to L. Ron Hubbard using a photometer to measure sound.

Date: 2007/01/05 17:34:53, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 05 2007,15:49)
I say to you we’ve eliminated the impossible (Gods of Thunder, Fire, Sun, Volcanoes, and whatnot) and what remains (Intelligent Creator of Life), however improbable, is the truth.

Comment by DaveScot — January 5, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

The funny thing is he has no clue as to the claim: " we have eliminated all possibilities"... since neither HE nor Dumbski or anyone else published..has even approached that. This makes DaveTard even more of an idiot than I thought he was. Pretty amusing.

So DaveScat, we've eliminated the God of thunder huh? So that must eliminate the God of Moses and the Old Testament, eh?
Exodus 9
When Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, the LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt; hail fell and lightning flashed back and forth. It was the worst storm in all the land of Egypt since it had become a nation.

1 Samuel 7
While Samuel was sacrificing the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to engage Israel in battle. But that day the LORD thundered with loud thunder against the Philistines and threw them into such a panic that they were routed before the Israelites. The men of Israel rushed out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, slaughtering them along the way to a point below Beth Car.

Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen. He named it Ebenezer, saying, "Thus far has the LORD helped us." So the Philistines were subdued and did not invade Israelite territory again.

There are other examples.

And we've eliminated the God of Fire?
Exodus 3
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

Exodus 13
By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

Again, there are numerous examples.

Volcano God?

Genesis 19
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.
Fire and brimstone falling from the sky, pretty much means a freaking volcano.
Exodus 19
On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.

So we're left with the God of Whatnot, I suppose.

Back then, when thunder and lightning happened, that was God talking (well, my grandma used to tell me  thunder was God bowling). When a volcano erupted, that was God talking. When it rained too long and wiped out your crop that was God punishing you. When there was a drought, that was God punishing you. Nowadays, Christians and Jews don't attribute lightning and rain and volcanic eruptions to a direct action of God for some immediate purpose. They know better. But nothing stops some of them from attributing other natural phenomena to a direct action from God for some immediate purpose.

If the Torah were written today, it would say something like, "And the LORD spoke through the bacterial flagellum to Moses. Moses was amazed because he could see the flagellum up close, and was amazed at how irreducibly complex it was."

Date: 2007/01/09 15:37:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 08 2007,15:04)
but somebody's been very busy "reviewing" all these books...wonder who?

I'm behind the times again, but I couldn't help laughing at this little bit from one of those reviews.

In the review for "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them" was this:
This book contains only quotes, plus very short forwards, to each section. It does not include any commentary on the quotes. None. How can one claim that they are taken out of context? There is no context, only quotes alone.

The rest is similar.

How can I be a fish out of water? There is no water!!

Date: 2007/01/09 15:54:31, Link
Author: phonon
Instead of your spirit, wouldn't it be your "heavenly body?"

And I'm going this saturday with DaveTard to the Space Shuttle nursery. Those widdle cuddly wuddly space shuttles are so cute when they hatch.



Come on people. Does anyone expect a "random mutation" generator made by ID creationists to EVER give up a "beneficial" mutation? The main page of that website is an ID website in Italian. Also, I'd like to know what these "genes" actually do. How does the simulation differentiate between "beneficial, neutral, dangerous, and lethal"? They don't.

From the "User's Guide":
Beneficial Mutations (flagged by Cyan color). They happen when a base change convert the codon to a codon of a different amino acid getting a "better" gene (protein functionality is increased). These mutations are very rare and their implications are insignificant.
Do they ever say, for this simulation, what constitutes a "good" gene or a "better" gene? No.

Oh, and LOOK there is a CSI meter on there!!! :)
I guess CSI is a dimensionless value. What are the units?
At every step the simulator calculates the CSI of the DNA strain.
And how does it do that? Not even the Isaac Newton of Divine Winds can do that since CSI doesn't even make sense.

How can anyone take ID seriously, EVER?

Date: 2007/01/11 11:59:57, Link
Author: phonon
63. DaveScot // Jan 8th 2007 at 7:50 pm
You’re still making mistakes in describing rm+ns. Saying it learns from mistakes is misleading. It needs constant reinforcement of what it learns or it forgets even faster than it learned. This known as conservation of genomic information. Anything that is not immediately useful (no selection value) is not conserved within the genome forever. The genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result. This is really basic stuff you don’t know.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what was all that stuff about the knockout mice where long trails of "junk" DNA which had been highly conserved were mutated beyond recognition and yet had no apparent effect on the life of the mouse?

I'm surprised DT didn't bring that up.

Date: 2007/01/11 16:00:05, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 11 2007,15:25)
IDCists like to imagine that, until they straightened us out, biologists foolishly and prematurely dubbed DNA of no known function "junk DNA". "Design Theorists", of course, armed with the "theoretical prediction" say that God The Designer is unlikely to have thrown in unnecessary "junk"; therefore it must have functions we just haven't yet discovered. So every time some report finds some functionality, the IDCists go into a "we told you so!" frenzy. Which is nonsense, of course, and I won't waste my time explaining, yet again, why.

But then you have reports like this that seem to support the notion that there are huge stretches of DNA which, if they have any function at all, have pretty darn subtle functions.

I anticipate that creationists, in traditional creationist "heads we win tails you lose" fashion, will claim that the mice seem perfectly normal under laboratory conditions, but if we tested some not yet discovered conditions (ability to survive space flight? resisting possession by evil spirits? mouse E.S.P? who knows?) all kinds of functions would become apparent.

I just want to requote this:  
63. DaveScot // Jan 8th 2007 at 7:50 pm
You’re still making mistakes in describing rm+ns. Saying it learns from mistakes is misleading. It needs constant reinforcement of what it learns or it forgets even faster than it learned. This known as conservation of genomic information. Anything that is not immediately useful (no selection value) is not conserved within the genome forever. The genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result. This is really basic stuff you don’t know.

So, it's 'pretty basic stuff' that 'genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result.' So, whatever the use of "junk" DNA, it must be immediate, according to this statement. Do we know that? Or do we just assume it because the genes were conserved? And you are right, if the use of these genes must be immediate, then their effects must be extremely subtle.

Date: 2007/01/11 16:53:30, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 11 2007,16:36)
So, whatever the use of "junk" DNA, it must be immediate, according to this statement*. Do we know that? Or do we just assume it because the genes were conserved?
*(i.e., a statement by DaveIQ153Scot Springer)

OMG. I am so dumb. I thought that the statement was being made TO DaveScot FROM feddle. Obviously, it's the other way around.

Good Lord. Now it's even stupider. Here I thought that feddle was making claims about used/unused DNA, but actually DaveTard (Tard Laureate) is contradicting his own blatherings on a post that he made a big deal about.

I'm sorry that I didn't catch the from/to thingie. I was blinded by the tard.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:37:41, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 11 2007,20:43)
Good Lord. Now it's even stupider. Here I thought that feddle was making claims about used/unused DNA, but actually DaveTard (Tard Laureate) is contradicting his own blatherings on a post that he made a big deal about.
Yeah, I was going to make a point about that, but then, pondering my siggy, I let it go.

But now that you've brought it up... last time I paid any attention to DaveIQ153Scot, he was promoting some half-a$$ed version of "front-loading"*, where all the genetic information for, say, vertebrates was programmed by The Designer, billions of years before the appearance of the first vertebrates, into the genomes of their earliest ancestors. How you square that with this:    
Anything that is not immediately useful (no selection value) is not conserved within the genome forever. The genomic information with no immediate use gets peppered with random mutations and quickly becomes useless as a result. This is really basic stuff you don’t know

I'm sure that any frontloading enthusiast would say that since the Intelligent Designer needed those frontloaded genes to go off at the right time, He would protect them is some way against mutation. Other DNA stuff, he would just throw in so that it would mutate and jumble, just to throw off those pesky biologists who deny His existence anyway. I think I read somewhere in the Grand Old Design Manual that what the manual says wouldn't make sense to those who didn't believe in the Grand Design.

I don't know if DT is ready to be a JADi. :)
But he does know how to use the Tard.

Date: 2007/01/12 16:49:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (djmullen @ Jan. 12 2007,00:55)
From the "Truly Programmable Matter" thread:    
4. antg // Jan 11th 2007 at 4:32 am


In your hypothetical university, would you be happy for for the faculty to freely follow any research avenue they wish, including (naturalistic) evolution?

Comment by antg — January 11, 2007 @ 4:32 am
5. William Dembski // Jan 11th 2007 at 9:00 am

antg: Yes, provided the university doesn’t have to pay the bill for their research.

Comment by William Dembski — January 11, 2007 @ 9:00 am

Yeah, why pay people to do research that's just going to disprove Bill's cherished illusions?

I think the main point of this whole thread is that Bill has finally figured out that he's never going to get tenure.

And we all know that very rarely does a university foot the bill for research (maybe in Europe they do, but not in the US). Unless a professor's chair is endowed (and then it's the endowment footing some bills), the funds come from government and private grants. ####, Bill Dembski, you'd be a fool not to scrape off those grants for the university. I know departments usually take their cut from the grants and that's what pays the utilities, etc.

Bill Dembski, do you even know how academic scientific research is really done?

Unless Dembski is saying that he would just keep 100% of the grant and not let the professor do any research with it. Of course, that professor (and likely the department) would not be seeing any proposals funded afterwards.

(ps- and I now realize that in the other post I am echoing the sentiments of steve_h above.)

Date: 2007/01/12 17:14:04, Link
Author: phonon
That's wierd. One minute UD had one look and then I went back to the homepage and bang they loaded the new look.

Nice big flagellum. It's The Good Ship Flagellum, I guess.

(edit: Oh, bfish, you beat me. And I didn't even think to look at the pics. THAT'S DaveScot?!?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh Lord, i have to go have a drink.)

Date: 2007/01/12 17:49:19, Link
Author: phonon
On the New Improved Uncommon Tard you can't link to individual comments.
This was all foretold in 1986 by K. Eric Drexler in “Engines of Creation”. He even predicted the World Wide Web. ...

DaveScot 01/11/2007 2:16 am

2:16 am. Wow.

Um, the WWW had been a pipedream (sorry tubedream, thx Sen. Stevens) since the 60s. Unless Drexler predicted it in the 50s, then I'm not impressed. (*I think Drexler is fine just fine, not knocking him...*)

...Moore’s Law of doubling the number of transisters on a single chip every 18 months is now working to double the number of molecular biology experiments that can be performed on a single chip.

Moore's Law is reaching a plateau. I mean, 30 nm gates are coming out soon. We're reaching limits imposed by the sizes of atoms (30 nm is only about 25 silicon atoms across). So we're looking towards quantum computing, so you each, um, 'transistor' can be one of 4 bits (qbits) instead of 2. And, yes, people have shown that DNA (and such) can be used to compute, but the processes are chemical and painfully slow compared to solid state computing. One day though we'll have quantum computers running light and fiber optics instead of copper and gold, and storing our data holographically. Then HAL will kill Dave and Omnius will enslave the galaxy using Cymeks.

(btw- Nice spelling on transistors there, you maverick engineer you.)

And yes, labs on a chip are becoming commonplace.

DaveScot 01/11/2007 2:48 pm

re Department of Nature Appreciation

If Rice University had one perhaps William Sidis could have continued being a professor there. I know how Sidis felt.

So DaveScot was a child prodigy in math and linguistics?
Good god, Autodidactard, give it up.

Date: 2007/01/13 14:09:55, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2007,08:44)
About Dembski      
His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles...

Not as relevant than if he had been cited, much less influenced, the scientific or mathematical communities.

About Dembski      
He has made frequent television appearances, including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Ok. Now, I am impressed.

Dembski is proud of that? Jon Stewart made a fool of him.

Each presents different problems and that ID could care less about micro evolution which is where your animal husbandry example is.

This always bugs me. If it could care less, then that must mean it cares to some degree. If it couldn't care less, then it doesn't care at all. People always say that though.

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 13 2007,11:34)
Am I the first to notice the UD video game?

They've had that video game up there for over a year IINM.
I think they wanted to give an impression to kids that there is this great battle between ID and evolution.

ID has from the beginning had this creepy mentality of targeting kids. I guess they think if they can lure them in early it will be harder for them to escape when they're older. What they don't realize is that it depends on the person. If a person is inclined to think a certain way, they will end up going to church, listening to whatever authority figure, worshipping the military, praying to god, and hating satan and all his church-burnin' pro-terrorist minions. No blog or video game is necessary. But maybe it gives all these people a sense of community and helps them through bouts of doubt and reason.

Date: 2007/01/13 17:42:53, Link
Author: phonon sure seems to think if something "signals" then it was designed. That would include:


Neutron Stars




El Nino

And on and on....

Date: 2007/01/13 17:50:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 13 2007,17:36)
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 13 2007,14:09)
Dembski is proud of that? Jon Stewart made a fool of him.

More accurately, Dembski made a fool of HIMSELF.  He came across as an arrogant uptight anal-retentive utterly humorless tight-ass preacher.

Which, of course, he *is*.  (shrug)'

You gotta admit that Stewart helped by lumping ID in with crazy new-age astrologer lady. Of course, Dembski could have tried to distance himself from her, but he couldn't pull it off. The only thing that came close to saving face for Dembski was when Stewart asked him about poorly designed biological structures, and Dembski replied, "Not everything is intelligently designed." Of course, the obvious answer to that is, "Then why should any of it be intelligently designed? Unless you have actual positive evidence of design, then all you have is a critique of evolution." Dembski really sucked in that interview. I think he learned a lesson from it though, and that's why he didn't show at Dover.

Date: 2007/01/14 13:14:44, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 14 2007,12:17)
I'm sure its been said before, but if the entire universe was designed, then how exactly do you tell?  If the universe was designed, then everything will set off your "design detector 2001*" including pulsars etc.

* Available only from the Discovery Institute.  Requires one 9volt battery. (not supplied) No user serviceable parts.  Virtually indestructible in normal use.  Comes complete with certificate certifying the owner as an offical discovery institute design finder! (trademark, registered)

Ironically, the software was designed through genetic algorithms. Of course, those are intelligently designed too, since everything is.

But you don't even need to use fancy instruments to detect design. Just look around you. Everything SCREAMS for Dembscream, aka design.

Date: 2007/01/15 12:18:38, Link
Author: phonon
Easy Answers to 10 Questions (for any lurking creationists):

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

The operative words here are "may have." Actually, no one knows what the conditions were like on the early Earth exactly, but for all we know they might have been close to those in the Miller-Urey experiments. What those experiments really showed was the fact that simple molecules used by biology can be synthesized readily from inorganic precursors by very common natural occurances like UV radiation and lightning.

Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Textbooks do discuss the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe not all of them, but most of them. The Cambrian Explosion represents a place in the fossil record where animals and plants possessed bodies that were easier to fossilize than before. There were many animal and plant groups before this mark in the fossil record, but they were not preserved in as many numbers as in the Cambrian time. There are fossils that predate the Cambrian, but they are few and far between.

Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

Show me the textbook that defines homology this strictly. There are many various lines of evidence for common ancestry and homology is one of them, but the definition of homology should simply be similariy in structure and function, which could also arise through convergence.

Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Show me the textbook that calls Archeopterix a "missing link." Also, Archaeopterix isn't missing. It is, though, evidence of a common ancestor for certain dinosaurs and certain birds.

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

Butterflies and other insects don't normally pin themselves to a piece of wood and frame themselves, yet these representations are used as illustrations of the insect's appearance. The same goes for these peppered moths. The illustration showed that the predominant color of the moths changed over time due to natural selection.

Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

No net evolution? The finches changed over time, didn't they? And what's that called?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Mutations provide the raw material upon which natural selection acts. The only way you can determine if a mutation provided a benefit or detriment is to see how it affected the breeding rate of the new line of mutants.

Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Do you move around, eat, poop, screw, and die? If so, you're an animal whether you like it or not.

Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Show me what you think is a misrepresentation and I'll show you why you're wrong.

If any creationist would like to debate these questions on another thread, I'd be happy to do that. Just IM me or say so in reply here. Thanks.

Date: 2007/01/15 16:58:11, Link
Author: phonon
The Empty Cage gedanken is very similar to Behe's flagella-poof gedanken.

I don't know why Dembski is making fun of it because in doing so, he is really making fun of Behe's ridiculous experiment looking for a flagellum.

I wonder if Demski could calculate the probability of an animal (or any organism) just poofing into the cage. He should be able to. That's what he claims his job is.

Actually, there is a difference between the Behe flagella-poof and the empty cage. If the flagellum appeared in the culture being watched for 1000s of years, then there are a number of explanations for that based on what we know. For the Empty Cage, there wouldn't be too many good explanations for why and animal popped into the cage. Someone had better get a hold of David Copperfield.

Date: 2007/01/15 17:20:25, Link
Author: phonon
Prime Tard:

Haven't we been over this repeatedly? At least I know I have in many message boards. They bring up Pasteur and say "See, life can't come from non-life." and I say "Yeah, not in a jar in a day."


My challenge is to pray your God that he will reconstitute the material into something living. Did it work? Well, that must tell you something.

Date: 2007/01/16 16:06:08, Link
Author: phonon
healthy beautiful youthful human bodies

Reminds me of a creepy computer science teacher we had in 11th grade. He was always telling the students to sit their warm bodies in their chairs. He'd come help you with your program by rubbing on your warm youthful back. He wrote two self help guides to teenagers about the sins and evils of heavy petting and he kept copies of them on his desk.

He was only there one year.

They mock ID while scoffing at the Lord, with the additional dufusness of forgetting the very real sacrifices of people giving their lives freeing slaves.


Date: 2007/01/17 15:25:55, Link
Author: phonon
Those science fair ideas have to be parody. Right?

God. I'm just now realizing that they are not.

can't. stop. shaking. head.

This will bother me all day.

40. Does sea currents affect climate?

I don't know, does they? Do the pope be catholic?
1. A virus can mutate (alter) the DNA code of the host cell and reproduce a new species. Does this prove evolution by mutation is true or does it show adaptation (variety) within a species?
Read that one again.
10. What was life like before the Flood?
Make sure you have a detailed experimental write-up.
15. How long can flies survive freezing in a frig?
I don't know, but sometimes I see flies friggin.
23. Why do we have an Adams apple?
100.What does an Adam's apple do on our throat?
Ask Ann Coulter.

35. Why does the Bible say there is one glory of the sun, one glory of the moon, and one glory of the stars?
Please include a detailed experimental write-up.  
46. Where are teeth stored?
On a necklace. Duh.  
55. Why do only mammals have hair?
Dunno, ask a tarantula.
78. What is rubber made out of?
75. What is plastic made out of?
79. What are bones made out of?
104.Why do cats hate dogs and dogs hate cats?
Dunno. Let me ask my 2 dogs and 2 cats that live peacefully in one house.  
110. Why does lead melt at a low temperature?
Why are creationists ignorant?

The Cake Taker:
72. What is God made of?

Spaghetti and Meatballs. Duh.

Date: 2007/01/17 15:39:30, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 17 2007,15:36)
"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." - Song of Solomon 4:5

"Thine Adam's Apple is like mine." - Song of Dembski to Coulter 3:16

Date: 2007/01/18 17:12:20, Link
Author: phonon
I just want to make sure some of these comments regarding the very scientific INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY,
that has nothing to do with religion, are saved and duplicated.



7:19 am

I hope not to be excessively dogmatic to raise the possibility that the bible is not talking about literal lions and lambs. Rather, the Lion of Judah is Christ in his powerful reentry to our world, and the lamb was him as the past perfect sacrifice for our imperfections. Joined together, the perfect complements, just like DNA and RNA.

You know, imperfections that our Darwinian friends always mention as some sort of proof that no intentional design exists. Of course, they never consider the glaring imperfections in their own pet theory.
Pet theory. Get it?
I like your Intelligent Design Theery that the Lion of Judah is Christ in his powerful rear entry into the world.


8:02 am


Boy do I look like a fool. I thought you were being critical of ID all this time. My apologies.
No no. He's a cutting edge Intelligent Design Theerist.


9:51 am


I’ve never thought of it that way…of course it could simply be that everything will return to what it was before the fall…(coming from a Christian perspective)


10:07 am

It’s possible that in the pre-flood days there were more types of vegetation that present day carnivores could feed on, instead of feeding on other animals. It’s reasonable to assume that if the Biblical account were true many species of plant would have gone extinct.

I think it’s quite beyond our ability to know what the pre-flood days were like. All we know is that the history of human civilization extends to around 5000+ years ago, and many early myths include an account of a worldwide flood. Most of the post-flood biological remains probably turned into crude oil.


10:52 am


Carnivorous animals before the flood wouldn’t contradict the biblical teaching. Most literal creationists, like myself, would argue that carnivores came after Adam sinned. So, from Adam’s sin to the flood we could reason for the emergence (rapid even) of killer carnivores.

And I'm absolutely lost on this post--> WTF is this knucklehead trying to say?  
Here’s a better test back at ya Darwinist. Why don’t you do a fertility test with German Shepherds and Wolves. See if the pups are healthy and then raise them to protect sheep. That should be your answer in a reproductive manner of speaking. ;-) Although its already been done for thousands of years.

If anyone wants to bet that wolves cannot be trained to protect sheep and in fact lie down with them, I’m sure Vegas will give odds on it. They take all suckers money.

Course, I am just a layperson and may not understand evolution’s finer technical points of illumination.

Don’t ya know… German Shepherd, God has a sense of humor?


12:33 pm

Don’t ya know… German Shepherd, God has a sense of humor?
Michael7 GREAT POINT!!!!

And a dog and a wolf are considered the same species (Canis Lupus) now —- which makes when pause when pondering the accurate Bible passage as Dave noted.
??? HUH wha? uh, GREAT POINT!

I'm totally lost here.
But geesh, Creationist shoot this down. Lay people shoot this down. Dog breeders shoot it down.

The silliness of their argument strikes them right back in the face. For example, half-breed, wolf-dog…,2933,234599,00.html
It took me a few seconds to find this article. And it even has a killer quote about God watching, chuckles… I love it!

It destroys any rebuke of ID they’re trying to make on multiple levels via religious trolling of verses they do not understand or more applicable in actual science of biology and breeding successes thru the ages.

Plus, we get the added pleasure of showing just how silly it is to propose such a test. Dogs bred over thousands of years are domesticated versions of wolves.

A half breed shows how silly all this nonsense about evolutionist dogma is. A half breed wolf shepherd that is domesticated and which we know can be trained to protect sheep.

LOL… Either way, they failed. 1) biblical quote and understanding, 2) biology and wild animal domestication.
Dog breeding disproves evolution?
WOW. :(

In the 20th century the Russians started separating the timid foxes from the litters. By continuing that trend, mating those selected, choosing the most timid, and so on, very unexpected results occurred. The ears drooped and coats changed colors- some spotted.

That has led to the inference that is is very possible to artificially select from existing populations of wolf-like organisms and eventually end up with Lassie.

And it is also not so hard to think that the ability to produce taurine was lost, as was most (all?) non-animal consuming ways to get that required protein.
Taurine is not a protein, but whatever. And yes, obviously that's exactly what farking happened. Wolves were bred to become almost all the domestic dog breeds we see today. Guess what. All the natural varieties of dog came about in a very similar way. Cats too. Primates too. Great case for ID/creationism you guys are making. Tards.

The non-violence was before the fall
What about the violence against broccoli, huh?

Date: 2007/01/19 16:54:52, Link
Author: phonon
I find no pleasure in seeing anyone harassed by the IRS. I think the IRS is despicable. There are many former IRS agents that no longer file 1040 forms. Once they found out that they "don't really have to", they stopped.

Here is another story:

You've probably heard of this movie, but here it is:

The title is hyperbolic, but just watch the movie, at least the first 15 minutes.

Date: 2007/01/19 17:25:51, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (nuytsia @ Jan. 19 2007,04:01)
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 18 2007,17:12)

Wolves were bred to become almost all the domestic dog breeds we see today.

Actually Darren Naish had an interesting post on this subject in October. Controversial origins of domestic dogs
Things might not be that black and white. Well worth a read.

Well, ok. I didn't want to get into a huge deal about it so I just put "almost." From what I've heard domestic dogs came from less domestic dogs that tended to scavenge around early human settlements or even follow nomadic humans. There was a sort of mishmash of "mongrel" breeds of dog depending on location. But, IIRC, those originally dogs came mostly from canis lupus, or a precursor species to both. I'm sure there are dingo, coyote, and other canines mixed in for good measure. There are all kinds of wild dogs around the world, and who knows exactly what the mix is in the domestic dog. The blog post you link to seems to be arguing with an outdated theory of dog domestication. Even though the blogger says that the idea that the domestic dog is quite distant from the wolf is unpopular, I think I saw some show on the Discovery Channel about what I said above. But, they did rename the species canis lupus familiaris, so I don't know. I think the comment from anonymous at 5:46 am is closest to my idea of the origins of dog breeds (as in multiple origins). See how long all that was? That's why I said what I said before. Excellent blog post, though.

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 18 2007,20:48)
Oh, and I guess a plant being eaten doesn't count as something dying?  I think the tard just overflowed, better go get the plunger.

I think I remember Ken Ham questioning whether plants were alive or not. He said that they are self-replicating food, but not really alive because of the wording of the Bible. They don't have nostrils. That's why.

I guess stomata don't count as nostrils.

Date: 2007/01/19 17:55:05, Link
Author: phonon


10:06 am

I like satire. Everyone that knows me knows that I like satire. I’ve written numerous satires in my life. I used to write for a satirical newspaper.

Naturally (or maybe by design), I like this idea. I do, however, have one drawback. You wrote:

“I even had a public school teacher of my acquaintance tell me recently about a child who fell off a cliff on a school outing. She was laughing about this incident and saying that the little boy should get a Darwin Award!”

If this is the degree to which they have taken the Darwin Awards, I would careful about satiring them. A child who fell off a cliff during a school outing is no laughing matter (Baylor lost a student last year due to this).

I would proceed with caution. Consider, before we go forth, what benefit this has to the entire debate and weigh that against the time and effort.

Otherwise…I love satire.

"Did I mention that I love satire?"


I love that picture of Haldane. I wonder if I should make it my avatar.

I guess that the ID culture warriors don't mind that this guy was an avid enthusiast of Marxism and the application of Marxist philosophy to science.

Here is a book review of his work, The Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences.

eh, it doesn't matter to me, but maybe it matters to those culture warriors.

Date: 2007/01/19 22:22:18, Link
Author: phonon
Hmm. I also haven't followed the Hovind case. Was it personal income taxes or corporate taxes or what? If it was corporate or property, then I guess the whole protest thing doesn't apply.

And maybe Hovind gulled people out of their money, which is no different than any church or casino. But those people gave their money freely, just like anyone going to the movies or to see a stand-up comic or a $5000-a-plate fundraiser for some presidential candidate. But the IRS comes with force. If you don't put money in a preacher's basket, he doesn't arrest you and put you in jail for ten years.

Kent Hovind may be dumb, he may be a liar, he may be whatever, but in my personal opinion, he doesn't deserve to go to jail for 10 years for not paying taxes.

(Now, all that stuff about assault, battery, and burglary, if true, should warrant punishment of some sort.)
The Hovinds referred to the United States Government as "the 'bankrupt' corporate government"
$9 trillion in debt? I agree with them.

I want to be clear though. The only kind of tax I'm personally against is the federal personal income tax. If Hovind wasn't paying property taxes or some other kind, then, well, that sucks of him.

Date: 2007/01/21 12:07:16, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2007,10:58)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 20 2007,21:45)
Kengee had to temerity to question O'Leary's understanding of evolutionary psychology and then to ask "Let’s seen how your ideas stack up to observable facts and please not a paper where you spend the whole thing on why Darwinist are wrong I want to here about your ideas not theirs."

William Dembski    
Kengee is no longer with us. Denyse, longsuffering is a virtue, but not with the insufferable.

Denyse: "Billllllllll, Kengee's being MEEEAAAAN to me! Make him STOP!"

I love that.

ID critic: "Let's see how your ideas stand up to observable facts."

Dembski: "Let's not."

Date: 2007/01/22 18:14:58, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2007,14:32)
More Tard from Atom:

The creator of a structure is what decides its inherent purpose. If a blind process created us, we have no real purpose, only the “illusion” of purpose.

*looks at stapler being used as a paperweight on my desk*
Its the authoritative tone that tickles me.

I think the term "inherent" is the problem here. Sure, the inherent purpose of a stapler is to be played by Rob Schneider in a movie called The Stapler, but it could be used for other functions.

There is this huge problem with ID and language. I think it comes from their previous battles in politics (and that's all ID boils down to, a political battle). By using the English language to swerve and argument subtly one way or the other, the debater can seemingly "win" an argument, or at least successfully preach to the choir, or even convince the gullible.

For instance, the term "Junk" DNA never meant "garbage" DNA, complete refuse. It mean junk. When I go to a auto junk yard, I can pick up spare parts and reuse them. Or there could be a junk drawer at someone's house. Well, you don't keep waste and refuse in a drawer, but you do keep junk. There was an excellent post about antifreeze proteins recently on Panda's Thumb where this sort of thing was addressed. But the IDers pounced on the term junk DNA and declared that the people who coined the term obviously meant refuse or waste DNA.

So, when a biologist publishes his/her work and includes terms like "design" or "purpose" the IDers will inevitably pick up on it and use it in their political game.

I'm not saying that biologists should choose their words simply to thwart IDers and other creationists, but I just wish that people weren't so stupid and easily convinced by dumb things based on simple language manipulation.Maybe I could wish and pray (and pray and pray) but it won't happen in my lifetime. I guess that sort of thing is just not an act of god.

Date: 2007/01/22 18:46:55, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything.
I hate to just make this an even larger dogpile, but...

Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.  

Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.'
Ay ay ay. Call Deepak Chopra. If you want to call Dark Matter and Dark Energy 'subtle energies' that's fine, but to think that they are somehow mystical or magical is silly and again, I've never seen a good scientific way in which to rule-in divine intervention or supernatural forces.

I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial.
Uh, really?  
What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently.
Hey, now that's starting to sound all sciency.  
This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP.
I think ESP has been debunked by more traditional methods.    
Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.
Um ok. But in science, traditionally, people don't assign these less perceivable realms to the supernatural. They assign them to the "I don't know" realm.

So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly.
Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY? :(  

Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives.

Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover. :O

Date: 2007/01/26 09:15:31, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 25 2007,23:44)
They'll swallow Noah, his ark, and the flood, and some of them will accept marsupials 'micro-evolving' to or from placentals in less than 4000 years (which is more rapid evolution than any biologist has ever considered possible), on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, as long as they can deny 'macro-evolution' and justify rejecting the idea of humans evolve from another ape.   The farther the taxonomic group is from humans, the less they object to insanely fast evolution (I've encountered suggestions of as few as seven basic kinds of dinosaurs and even fewer 'kinds' for fish and for 'bugs', encompassing orders, classes, and even phyla evolving in 4000 years), yet a 5-15 m.y. Cambrian explosion 'cannot be explained by scientists'.

Yes, but didn't you hear that there is a speed limit to evolution?

Haldane said so, or something.

So much for the ID big tent. As long as UD/ID keeps harping on a speed limit for evolution, YEC is "no longer with us." Hear that, Sal?

Date: 2007/01/26 18:46:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2007,12:09)
Too much time with DaveTard takes its toll:

Tax moneys support scientific research that gets published in extremely high-priced journals that are therefore inaccessible to the American public that pays for the research. Go figure.

Tax moneys support scientific research that gets made into extremely high-priced military equipment that are therefore inaccessible to the American public that pays for the research. Go figure.

I wanna drive the tank. The ID think-tank

Or is it a pray-tank?

People are trying to start more open access journals. But those things still cost money to edit and publish, etc.

But I'm not exactly sure who foots the bill for the open access journals. Do they charge to publish your paper? That would make sense only if you are working from public funds.

And I understand there are different subscription rates for University libraries (who are charged out the ass) and for private subscribers (like companies who actually need the data as opposed to anal holes arguing on the internets).

Quote (hooligans @ Jan. 26 2007,17:39)
At UD they are continuing to rail on how these expensive journals should be freely availible to all taxpayers . . . hmmm . . . . so this means because some of my tax dollars help fund our local libraries I am  entitled to my own copy of every book in it!!!!

[I]The Conspiracy Revealed
Shocking report by undercover DI operatives captures library staffers at universities all over America hiding freely availible science journals. [I]

Using secret cameras, a team of undercover, specially trained operatives, infiltrated the Portland State University Branford P. Millar Library. There the schocking truth was revealed . . . An evil Darwinian conspiracy is afoot. Hidden away behind a secret locked door, is an entirely self-contained library wherein stacks of scientific journals are freely avaible to those who have access to the secret password. Here our tax dollars go. Here we fund thier evil conspiracy, while being depreived of equal access. This travesty of justice shall not stand.

Did they sneak in some Max Smart spy cameras and take photocopies of the articles? Ha ha! foiled again library. You won't get away with charging $0.10 a page for paper and toner!!!

Date: 2007/01/26 19:08:32, Link
Author: phonon

Sal Cordova:  
Update: Solexa’s technology will also aid in the ID quest of steganography in biology. If the key to rapidly understanding the steganography in junkDNA is through comparative sequencing of various creatures, Solexa’s technology is a welcome friend.
I was all like, "What the heck is steganography?"
Steganography is the art and science of writing hidden messages...

Maybe Solexa can find the answer to one of Sal's most pressing questions hidden away in junk DNA.

GDAM I love that picture! Bravo!

Date: 2007/01/27 17:18:01, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2007,20:35)
ps:  Phonon - Great Avatar!

Thanks! But I have to thank whomever it was that made that picture. If it was you, Michael Tuite, then a million thanks! That thing is a masterpiece.
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 27 2007,06:43)
Yes, they do.
It's something like $2000 to have a paper published in PLoS Biology, I heard.

Yikes! Someone also told me, and I don't know if this is true, that it costs $1-2k to publish is some medical journals that still charge subscription fees. I couldn't believe it, but I'm sure it's true. (That last sentence was for everyone at UD and OE.)

Date: 2007/01/27 18:44:51, Link
Author: phonon
We know that, contrary to the preposterous claims of materialists, the universe did not create itself.
You KNOW that?

See. That fits my definition of Faith.

Faith: Believing you know something to be true when really you don't.

Now, as a traditional Christian, I think (no big surprise here) that Christianity offers the best account of the human condition. But in doing so, I leave the  quarks and neutrons and naked mole rats aside, and ask people to consider what we know of our own lives. What lies between what we are and what we know we should be - and what can possibly bridge the gap?
God you're writing style sucks, Denyse.

Ok, Christianity offers the best account of the human condition. Fine, if you want it that way. Now, however you want to define the human condition, what the heck does the human condition have to do with the process of evolution? Evolution would happen whether there were humans or not. And since you ask people to disregard "quarks, neutrons, and mole rats" and look at their own lives, then you are simply asking people to disregard the world around them, to stop trying to figure out how nature works and only think about what affects them directly. Also, how would you know what you are and what you should be without investigating the world around you?
In matters of this sort, intelligent design is not the answer. It only prevents us from evading the question.
What the heck does that even mean? Oh! I get it, Denyse. Intelligent Design allows us to believe in God, while evil Darwinian thinking does not. This isn't the slightest bit true. Of course, you know that, Denyse, which means that you are a liar, yet another liar for Jesus. Yes, Jesus would be proud.

Who Would Jesus Deceive, Denyse? Oh, I know Jesus deceived us all when he put the light beams from distant stars in place 6000 years ago. He deceived us all when he buried dinosaur fossils, all in a certain order. Maybe you CAN show us the way to heaven Denyse. My bad.

And then Barry A delivers one of my all time favorite UD quotes:


11:03 pm

Denyse, I don’t agree.

Here you touch on the distinction between “general” revelation and “specific” revelation, both of which are taught in Christian doctrine.

Psalm 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God. This is the general revelation. You are correct that the heavens do not name the specific name of the God whose glory they declare, but the fact that they declare the glory of any God means they declare that God exists.

The Bible declares the glory of the triune God of the Trinity. This is the specific revelation. The specific revelation is supported by the general revelation. Our faith in the God specifically revealed in the Bible is increased because we can see the works of a God manifest in the heavens.

In the same way, ID is general revelation. It does not reveal the specific God of the Bible, but it makes the God of the Bible more believable because it makes it more likely that a God exists at all.
Thank you for your honesty, Barry A Tard.

Wait, this whole thread is a treasure trove of IDiocy.
ID in its purist form has nothing to do with the Gospel (ie its good science)...But! It is a good primer and helps open ppls heart who have been stuck under materialism and evolution, for the Gospel. In my evangelism exp., this subject is a big hurdle and must be faced head on and that’s where ID comes in.
Ah, yes, it opens your heart. That's what good science does! So does a good cardiac surgeon, I've heard.
When Pasteur disproved abiogenesis and Lematrie proposed the Big Bang, I’ll grant they were serving the Lord, giving glory to God and providing a good Christian witness, but they weren’t evangelizing.
Wow. I just love love love this thread.  
Cosmological and biological ID are complete no-brainers
You said it, bub.
I agree with Barry. I would also point out that there is nothing in either ID or Christianity which would preclude the Designer from identifying Himself in one or more of His designs. Actually, He already has done so, revealing the Gospel in an instance of CSI found in Nature.
I had no idea that when William Dembski, Father of the New Science stumbled upon the concept of CSI, that it would ever reveal the Gospel of the One True Triune Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amazing what the New Science can uncover!! Praise Jesus.
It was asked,”How does something being designed dispute materialism?” If the something is a beehive, perhaps it doesn’t - at least not initially. There are only certain ways bees CAN design a hive, left to themselves.*

*It is a separate question how bees came to discover even this way to build a hive, without assistance. I suspect there is enough in the insect world alone to sink Darwinism, but that is a topic for another time.
Denyse. You are 100% pure grade-A unadulterated Tard. And in the same post Denyse opines:
If the something is a universe, however, we must know that there is an intelligence beyond or apart from or behind ours. Doubtless, greater than ours.

In this atmosphere, the materialist looks busily for a way it could all have just sort of happened.
While the IDiot reads the Bible to find revelation of the intelligence that was beyond and apart from or behind ours. (Great writer, that Denyse.) Let's leave the real science to real scientists, huh. Oh that's right. You already do.  
Your point “It is the EVIDENCE that is accumulating every day, that refutes Darwins feeling that God played a very small part in the design of living things, that ID addresses” is well taken.
Did I say God? Darn, I meant the Intelligent Designer. Darn Darn, quick email DaveScot. Delete Delete Delete!

Date: 2007/01/29 19:19:03, Link
Author: phonon
These little buggers are just cool.


And Sea Otters will eat your entrails on their tummies!

Falcons are pretty cool.

The Lizard that squirts blood.

The Giant Centipede that can catch and eat a bat is awesome.

But nothing on this Earth can compete with puppies.

And Chameleons are pretty cool too. (Puppy pics from: )

Date: 2007/01/29 19:26:23, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 27 2007,20:13)
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 27 2007,17:18)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 26 2007,20:35)
ps:  Phonon - Great Avatar!

Thanks! But I have to thank whomever it was that made that picture. If it was you, Michael Tuite, then a million thanks! That thing is a masterpiece.
Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 27 2007,06:43)
Yes, they do.
It's something like $2000 to have a paper published in PLoS Biology, I heard.

Yikes! Someone also told me, and I don't know if this is true, that it costs $1-2k to publish is some medical journals that still charge subscription fees. I couldn't believe it, but I'm sure it's true. (That last sentence was for everyone at UD and OE.)

For what it's worth, I've been published in linguistics journals several times, and I've never heard of a linguistics journal where you had to pay to be published. Until today, I'd never heard of any academic journal that worked that way.

For the record, I subscribe to two academic linguistic journals -- one costs $45 a year, the other $55. Doesn't seem too bad to me, especially since they're partly tax deductible. I used to subscribe to Language as well, but I quit subscribing after I filed my diss, since once I lost my student discount, my subscription tripled. But if I need an article in it, my local UC library has it -- I only have to wander in and copy it. A dime per page.

This doesn't feel to me like a cabal of academics are trying to hide scientific findings by artificially trying to keep journal prices high. Most academic journals I'm aware of barely make ends meet.

I suppose, though, that the money to publish has to come from somewhere. If people want open-access journals, the authors will have to pay. I've only published a few papers so far. One was in Applied Physics Letters. What's interesting about them is that they have the option of open-access. The authors can choose to pay $1800 for their paper to be open access. I wonder how many authors opt for that route. :)

Date: 2007/01/29 23:32:53, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 29 2007,20:54)
Cancer cures are not germaine to the ID/Evo debate?

Totally OT, but did anyone here hear about this?

Supposedly simple little dichloroacetate kills most cancers.


But according to Wikipedia it has some nasty side effects, so the claim of "safe" in the headline might be a bit of wishful thinking.

Date: 2007/01/30 19:21:57, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 30 2007,12:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2007,12:08)

Some heavy duty ID researh science type stuff:

Your bravado is futile.

Behold! Your end is nigh!

EDIT: Dang rules of grammar!

I love that post. It's hilarious.

From it:
As I sit here waiting (and waiting), it has occurred to me that The Design Matrix needs a sound-track.

Since I don't really have any ID experiments to do, I was waiting and waiting (and waiting) for Jesus to come and I realized that ID needs a good soundtrack. Of course the words go like this, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."

Man. Sometimes I feel guilty when I realize that these people really don't understand why they are so ridiculous.

Date: 2007/01/30 19:28:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 30 2007,16:09)
Re "So Mike Gene admits that the entire fossil record of change from fish to man is due to evolutionary change, but is "trivial", "irrelevant" and not "deep"."

Well, it was deep while it was fish, since they're underwater, but after they came out on land, it wasn't deep anymore.

Now that I've got that all cleared up... :p

I thought this was interesting.
"We know that the majority of the DNA in the genomes of some animal and plant species – including humans, mice, wheat and corn – came from HGT insertions," Deem said. "For example, we can trace the development of the adaptive immune system in humans and other jointed vertebrates to an HGT insertion about 400 million years ago."
Would evolution of an adaptive immune system qualify as "deep" or at least "non-trivial?" It's amazing to me that it could have happened by a single HGT. Did I read that right?

Date: 2007/02/02 09:04:06, Link
Author: phonon
I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.
Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.
So you agree, Cornelius, that ID is sufficiently characterized as a "research program... based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions?" Since you didn't want to mischaracterize it.
Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.
It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.

All you are doing Cornelius is to make the common descent vs. common design argument over and over and over. Sorry that I'm not providing a dissertation in this comment box, but when all available evidence is taken into account common descent is the better of the two explanations.
The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Please re-read your own statements. You obviously have a problem with common descent, then you say that common descent is no problem. You say that the evolutionary claim is that homology is evidence of common descent, then you say that this is not the case, that the evolutionary claim is that homology must be "compelling" evidence. I think you should seriously consider running for public office. I think you'd do well.

Date: 2007/02/02 09:07:17, Link
Author: phonon
Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers...
Jon Jackson


8:44 pm

Didn’t Wells or some other ID bigshot suggest this a while back? As I recall he suggested it as ID inspired research saying that it would see all parts of the cell as a designed whole rather than chance mutations strung together by evolution.

WTF? Yeah, of course ID predicted it. Why not?

Is Jon Jackson an OE contributor? As in, tongue-in-cheek?  


5:11 am

DCAa causes liver cancer in rats and nerve and heart damage. I wonder whether it will lead to substancial increases in the rate of aging also. If one is dying of cancer, it will be a price worth paying.
And that's why the headline at New Scientist is surprising. It doesn't sound so safe to me. And the effects haven't been observed in humans because there haven't been any clinical trials, but there have been clinical trials of DCA as a treatment for other ills. But from what I've heard, most alpha-halo-carboxylates (such as DCA) CAUSE cancer by attacking DNA.


10:52 am

From memory, the scientist who first suggested DCA, did so in the 30’s. They said he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Evolutionists say that the reason kids should be taught Darwinism is so that cures can be found in the lab. Well, how many cures HAVEN’T been found because of this nonsense theory? How many lives could have been spared if the scientific community had listened in the 1930’s?
Yeah, Pav. The reason that doctors said it was crazy was because they believed in evolution. OR because it caused kidney and liver failure.

I don't doubt that demon-possession happens...
When I was about 11, I was taken to an "exorcism" by my mother. Great childhood I had.

Science journalist John Horgan created a minor stir a decade ago with his book, The End of Science, arguing that the major science discoveries are all behind us. Now that was hardly a popular thesis.
Yeah, it wasn't true at the end of the nineteenth century when people thought that and it's far from true now. Anyone who thinks this has no imagination.

Date: 2007/02/02 17:51:45, Link
Author: phonon
I like the fight between Davetard and Orac.

I guess this is another example of Dave trying to prove that he can roll with the big dogs, but then he comes up short, the big dogs leave him in the dust, when he realizes he's been totally outdogged, he just barks really loudly at the big dogs' dust trail and pretends to his chihuahua friends that he ran them all off.

It's awesome. First Orac gets peeved at all the hype and says that it's hype. The drug is untested in humans. He complains about all the "big pharma is trying to screw you out of a miracle cure for cancer" bit and how does Dave counter that? By linking to all the webhype and claiming it as the authoritative source on the subject. Nice.

Quotes from Dave's links:  
Sadly, this drug -- that appears to work remarkably well -- may never benefit cancer patients. All because no one stands to make billions of dollars from it.
However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials.
Isn't that a great sob story? It's one PI going straight to the pop media people, who totally buy his schtick, trying to drum up public support for his research because he won't be able to have a corporate sponsor for clinical trials of an unpatentable drug. And Dave eats it up entirely too.

I'm all for the guy getting funding for his research.I think he's going about it in a kinda sleazy way, but I can't hate the playa. Unfortunately he's just playing the game, but in the process he's giving people this potentially false hope and starting quite a few arguments. But hey, I enjoy watching Dayvo get the smackdown.

Date: 2007/02/02 18:08:55, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 02 2007,18:03)
nano-eco systems. I wonder what speculations sal can come up with?
Should a bacterium find life in one chamber inhospitable, escape routes beckon: Two narrow corridors lead through opposite walls into the adjacent chambers. But the corridors are 50 micrometers long – a decent hike by bacterial standards – and any would-be colonists might have to traverse several relatively poor areas before finding one that seems livable. While the new residents try to make the best of their surroundings, their offspring adapt even more. They often thrive in a chamber that would have been marginally comfortable for their ancestors. Ecologists would say they have adapted to a different "niche" in the landscape.

"The basic idea is directed evolution," Austin said. "By observing the growth of different groups of bacteria in different chambers, we can also monitor each chamber for a desirable product, in this case hydrogen gas. We can reward those populations that produce lots of gas by giving them more food and space. Conversely, we would 'punish' underachieving bacterial colonies, but would not destroy them.

"In this way we can direct the evolution of bacteria in the way we want," Austin said. "We can let fitness selection guide the evolution of a species toward our externally determined goal."

Will the Intelligent Designer get involved?

We'll know He did when a flagellum appears out of nowhere.

We'd better get Behe on the project posthaste!!

Date: 2007/02/03 11:44:28, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 02 2007,22:33)
When I was about 11, I was taken to an "exorcism" by my mother. Great childhood I had.


holy crap (literally)!

for reals?

Yup, ferrealz. When I was about 9 or 10 she "got saved" and went all nutty with it. I think her boss at the time got her into it. He was a really nice guy with a great sense of humor, but he had all these nutty ideas and all these nutty friends and she'd take me to his house for a sort of Bible Study on weekends. Even at the time, I thought they were weird, but I went because I didn't have much choice. At one of these meetings one of the leaders was going to drive the demon out of this 17 year old kid who was "possessed." The kid even went through some Exorcist type hissing and growling. He even went so far to writhe on the floor for a bit, changing voices once and a while. At the end, I suppose the power of Jesus Christ won out and the kid was saved from evil. Or something.

Hey, I think it has been a record month for UD.
It's worth $124,198.80
Any takers?

Date: 2007/02/03 12:04:01, Link
Author: phonon

Dave, let's correct some of your idiotic post. Shall we?
DCA is an inexpensive, uncontrolled chemical hailed as a potential cure for cancer that anyone can buy.

It's not hailed as a cure, except by people that are doing a lot of wishful thinking. At best it would be another treatment in the arsenal against cancer.
DCA is not technically an orphan drug by definition since it treats one of the most common afflictions known to mankind
What disease is this? You should specify. If you mean it currently treats cancer in humans, that's obviously wrong. Also, cancer is not a single disease.
It meets the orphan definition in that there’s little or no profit incentive in it.
This is also false. A lot of the research that goes into a drug is formulation. Just synthesizing a new drug is not enough. Formulation is very important and new formulations of DCA could be patentable and profitable. Also, smaller drug companies could easily profit from DCA sales. If DCA really does turn out to be a "miracle cure" (we'll have to see about that one) then there would be an immense market and and immense demand for this compound. The price would likely rise, if not skyrocket, at least at first. If at the same time DCA was shown to only "cure" cancers when tumor cells are specifically targeted, then formulations and specialized treatments using the drug would be quite profitable.

This link provides a list of 18 suppliers in case anyone is interested in starting a clinical test of this drug that’s already been approved for clinical testing in humans for a number of different ailments other than cancer.
My eyes bugged out at this.

Why don't you start in your basement, Dave? Surely you have the clearance to start clinical trials. Don't you? Oh, well, I guess Troutmac or gildodgen must have the facilities and proper paperwork all in order. ####, maybe you maverick ID scientists could just line up and start shooting up the stuff in your living rooms. If you don't get cancer, that's a positive, right? Oy.



12:18 pm

Maybe this is why this drug isn’t on the front page of Time. ‘No use promoting a drug that just heals people, and doesn’t make any money.

However, orfan or not, some responsible organization needs to monitor and properly evaluate DCA for dosage, efficacy and side effects. Its still a drug.

All I’ll say is, if I were dying of cancer, I’d be trying the thing — with or without my doctor’s approval.

That's the spirit!! Your doctor is probably in on the big pharma conspiracy anyway. That Darwinist.

Date: 2007/02/04 01:06:28, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 03 2007,12:25)
Yup, ferrealz. When I was about 9 or 10 she "got saved" and went all nutty with it. I think her boss at the time got her into it. He was a really nice guy with a great sense of humor, but he had all these nutty ideas and all these nutty friends and she'd take me to his house for a sort of Bible Study on weekends. Even at the time, I thought they were weird, but I went because I didn't have much choice. At one of these meetings one of the leaders was going to drive the demon out of this 17 year old kid who was "possessed." The kid even went through some Exorcist type hissing and growling. He even went so far to writhe on the floor for a bit, changing voices once and a while. At the end, I suppose the power of Jesus Christ won out and the kid was saved from evil. Or something.

sounds like your poor mom got snookered into a cult.

it also sounds like you have fertile grounds for an excellent book, should you have the stomach for it.

you should talk to a publicist.

Eh, it was just that one time and I think it was that experience that led her to tone down the nuttiness. But she did make me burn my KISS tapes at one point when I was about 10. Not just throw them away. Burn them. That was a long time ago. She's much better now.  :)

Date: 2007/02/04 01:14:51, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2007,13:11)

Sodium dichloracetate is not a controlled substance and is available from many chemical suppliers...

I don’t know if I’d try it myself but I’d probably give it whirl if one of my dogs had cancer.

So, DaveScot's idea of a clinical trial is to toss the stuff into his dog's dish. Clearly, internalizing all that hard core ID research has honed a fine scientific mind.

Poor doggie!! Nooooo!

Date: 2007/02/04 01:43:24, Link
Author: phonon
Isn't it funny that the ID folks, who blather on about "materialism" are all ready to praise the results of purely materialistic research into a material substance that acts totally materialistically on disease, which also acts totally materialistically to kill you? Why not just pray to make the cancer go away? Why not "lay hands" or go see Benny Hinn? What? Does that not work or something? That's not what I heard from Pat Robertson.

Date: 2007/02/04 22:59:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 04 2007,18:27)
Sorry I didn't say this before Phonon, but..gee. I'm sorry you went through that. ???

Hey, no big woop. I really wasn't all that traumatized or anything. I knew it was all a load of poo, even then. At least my childhood wasn't totally boring.

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 04 2007,19:05)

He he! An optical one or an acoustic one, Chekov?

Quote (k.e @ Feb. 04 2007,20:12)
So god=the holocaust?

Well, God allowed the holocaust to happen. At least Mr. Deity did. (Those skits were much funnier than I thought they would be.)

So if you deny the holocaust, you deny the glory of God and the Holy Spirit. And you get a free DVD.

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 04 2007,20:54)
There are living witnesses to the holocaust..

Did they see all 6 million get killed?

Date: 2007/02/04 23:08:51, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 04 2007,01:46)
hmm. I hereby invent a new term to describe your observation:

Selective Antimaterialism

(of course, really it's just projection and denial, but I think it sounds cooler)

Hay! Maybe instead of "Cafeteria Catholics" they could be called "Cafeteria Creationists."

Most Christians nowadays (actually always) simply pick and chose which parts of the holy books to observe and which to ignore as a matter of cultural convenience, so it's no problem for them to hail science when it finds a way to circumvent God's will (you dying from cancer) all the while hailing God for making cancer irreducibly complex in the first place. How much CSI is in cancer anyway?

It's also funny to me that most Christians ignore the large majority of Levitical law, like the beard thing, tattoo thing, the shellfish thing. Oh but the gay thing, that's politically convenient to observe. And gay people make you feel icky inside. It's like Stephen Colbert says, "I don't hate gay people, just the ones that turn me on."

Date: 2007/02/04 23:34:38, Link
Author: phonon
Oh, Denyse.

Are intelligent design and string theory equally untestable? Hmmm.

Physicists Develop Test for 'String Theory'

“Our work shows that, in principle, string theory can be tested in a non-trivial way,” explained Ira Rothstein, co-author of the paper and professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon.

Rothstein and colleagues Jacques Distler, a professor of physics at The University of Texas at Austin; Benjamin Grinstein, a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego; and Carnegie Mellon graduate student Rafael Porto developed their test based on studies of how strongly force-carrying particles called W bosons scatter in high-energy particle collisions generated within a particle accelerator. W bosons are special because they carry a property called the weak force, which provides a fundamental way for particles to interact with one another.

When the LHC turns on later this year, scientists will begin to investigate the scattering of W bosons, which has not been possible with other particle accelerators. Because the new test follows from a measurement of W boson scattering, it could eventually be performed at the LHC, according to the authors.

“The beauty of our test is the simplicity of its assumptions,” explained Grinstein of UCSD. “The canonical forms of string theory include three mathematical assumptions—Lorentz invariance (the laws of physics are the same for all uniformly moving observers), analyticity (a smoothness criteria for the scattering of high-energy particles after a collision) and unitarity (all probabilities always add up to one). Our test sets bounds on these assumptions.”

He added, “If the test does not find what the theory predicts about W boson scattering, it would be evidence that one of string theory’s key mathematical assumptions is violated. In other words, string theory—as articulated in its current form—would be proven impossible.”

Now, Denyse. Please describe your tests for your detailed hypotheses of ID. Would they even be in the same universe of detail as string theory? String theory is about as detailed in its predictions as you can get. But, I sometimes forget the Prime Law of ID when it comes to detail.

And then Denyse delivers the coup de grace (to ID).
But how about this: ideas futilely grasping onto some kind of reality they never find? I sure wouldn’t advise anyone to bet the farm on strings.
So let me get this straight, Denyse. ID theory is like string theory in that neither is feasibly testable (except that some underlying assumptions to string theory are indeed testable, or will be soon with the building of the LHC) and you wouldn't bet the farm on string theory, so what does that say to you about ID "theory?" Hmmm?

Date: 2007/02/04 23:45:44, Link
Author: phonon
If the concept of a designer is conceded, the state of science would revert to what it was circa 1962 (at least in the U.S.) and the experimenters would have close to free reign as long as they avoided the footsteps of Mengele (which I fear they are not)
So before 1962, scientists could invoke "poof" in their theories? What happened in 1962? ???

And speaking of holocaust...if we let scientists invoke "poof" then they start doing experiments like Mengele? Interesting. A reverse-self-Godwin. ...I think. ???

Date: 2007/02/06 08:50:56, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (heddle @ Feb. 05 2007,13:30)

Before you declare a victory for String Theory you might want to do a bit more than just google the topic. The claim for testing String Theory is patently false —the tests described would only set limits on Lorentz invariance, unitarity, and analyticity. String theory is by no means the only theory that has such general properties.

For more information see Peter Woit’s article.

String theory, is so far, not testable in the conventional manner of making a positive prediction—the same thing I’ve been hammering ID about.  The LHC turning on does not change that. I hope some day String Theory is testable--but as this moment it does not actually qualify as science--it is mathematics only.

I never claimed anything that the article didn't claim. Even the article says that the test wouldn't be a test FOR string theory, just a possible falsification of it. But, if the test failed, then a lot of other theory would also be falsified. I think a good chunk of gauge theory would die along with string theory, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to really claim much.

The central tenets of ID can't really even be falsified in this manner.

Date: 2007/02/06 17:51:42, Link
Author: phonon

Isn’t this thing not even SC? From my envelope, it is a matrix of 10 by 10 squares, each with one of five possible values (four letters or a blank space). This gives us a complexity per solution of:


…which is not 10^150…

You're right. It isn't not even.
Can someone remind me what SC stands for?
Whatever it is, it must be about 10^150.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Let's say it isn't. Let's assume that not one bit of global warming (which you admit exists) is due to human output of CO2.

Now, would human emissions of CO2 help to curb global warming or exacerbate it?

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left’s best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small.
Don't you just love people who rail against "The Left"? So isn't terrorism "The Right's" best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large ans small? Guess we just have to go with the middle, wherever that is.

Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
The Left!! It wants to take over the world! Oh no, not The Left! We need a Japanese monster movie about a huge creature called The Left.

And DaveScot has a solution to every problem. He's like McGuyvertard.

Global cooling is a lot easier to do than global warming. See Nuclear Winter. Just blow the Gobi Desert (or as much as you need) up into the stratosphere. The dust & ash blocks the sun et viola! Global cooling.

Now some people will protest, “But Dave, won’t that cause horrible radioactive fallout?”

Well, yeah, but the horribleness is confined to the rate of cancer increasing. So we better get busy finding a cure for cancer because that’s the key to an easy, painless solution to global warming - if global warming even becomes a real problem. So instead of spending trillions fighting global warming we should spend trillions curing cancer. And if global warming doesn’t become a problem then we still get a cure for cancer to show for our money. That’s a win-win situation!

1. Nuke the Gobi desert
2. Pass out free DCA
3. ?
4. Profit

Date: 2007/02/06 18:11:51, Link
Author: phonon
This post frustrates me. The debate between global warming and evolution seem to be significantly parallel. What frustrates me is the argument from authority — I have such and such a degree from such and such an institiution, I have such and such qualifications, these other guys agree with me and they have their credentials. As with the question of evolution, I would prefer to see actual data, actual evidence.
Well, bFast, here's another example of the old "Go to the library and read the literature on it" canard that those evil experts always pull.
Thank you bFast.

I too loathe the “credential” card.

Sheesh, "experts." What do they know?

Uh, then bFast decides to go all reasonable for some reason two posts later.
I support any move we make that gives man a lighter footprint on this planet.

On the economic front, I don’t buy the doomsayers who suggest that “going green” will be economically desasterous. I am sure it will be economically desasterous for some, but it won’t be disasterous for the guy who is at the forefront in green technology. My plan is to be at the forefront in green technology, if only as an investor.
Um. Ok. (scratches head) I agree?

Wouldn’t Intelligent Design theory predict that the Earth, as a system, would have been designed with the capacity to absorb or otherwise deal with whatever mankind (or even nature itself) produces?
Now, Troutmac, you know that design doesn't necessarily mean GOOD design.

Eyes bug out:
Quoth the tard:



3:19 pm

As soon as the word “consensus” is mentioned in support of an argument the argument is political. There is no consensus in science. There is only truth in science. Democracy is all about consensus. Science is not a democracy.

Is there some part of that which anyone here does not understand?
Got that Dover, PA school board!! Write it down!!

Date: 2007/02/06 18:17:50, Link
Author: phonon
I'm sorry for 3 posts in a row, but Troutmac is killing me with tard.
dopderbeck wrote:
“We can be pretty darn sure what levels of CO2 plants need to flourish; and we can be pretty darn sure that such levels exist without human input…”

HOW? Did WE create this universe? Did WE design plant life? That you think we know so much is patently absurd to me. We don’t know jack. Seems obvious to me that if mankind is part of nature, then whatever the CO2 levels are currently, including that which was produced by mankind, constitutes a “natural” level of CO2.

And by the way… whos’ going to stop breathing first in an effort to reduces our CO2 production. That any part of this argument rests on human production of CO2 when we breathe the stuff out all day long oughtta be enough to send up the red flags.
Not much I can say. Just BWAHAHAHAhAhAHahah!
That's sad. :(

O man,  
Well, I dunno about the AIDS/HIV question, but try to be a bit more optimistic. If you predict from a design perspective that global warming won’t happen, and then global warming doesn’t happen, then I call that a victory for ID, wouldn’t you?!!
Of course. Why not? ID predicted that DCA would be an effective treatment for cancer, didn't it? So, um, yeah. VICTORY!

Date: 2007/02/09 03:31:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 08 2007,00:15)
wanna see a good story about what the social consequences would likely be of splitting humanity into "colonies"?

Red Mars/Blue Mars/Green Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

I have yet to read a better conceptualization of what might happen if we colonized mars.

The idea that Mars could be terraformed is pure fantasy. Mars is too small. It has no magnetic core and most likely couldn't support a thick atmosphere, especially of nitrogen and oxygen. It most likely had a thick atmosphere at one point, but the sun burned it off long ago. Mars would always tend toward what it is now. We'd have to constantly fight to keep it habitable if we could even get it to that point. I could be wrong, but to me it just seems damned near impossible.

I was going to post something about the Airbus thing, but the stupidity in that thread was strangely boring.

Date: 2007/02/09 16:44:08, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 09 2007,05:50)
I could be wrong, but to me it just seems damned near impossible.

Argument from personal incredulity?

I said I could be wrong, but if it doesn't have a thick atmosphere now, where would it come from? Would we liberate oxygen and nitrogen from the rocks? Plant life can only do so much in a short time. And since Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, how would the atmosphere keep from burning off as it most likely did in the past?

I mean, are you a theist? If not, then is it because of personal incredulity?

Date: 2007/02/09 16:50:17, Link
Author: phonon

I saw this on God is for suckers.

Schlussel's argument reminds me of Michael Savage Wiener's argument that feminists would not be satisfied until there is an Islamist regime in control of America. Huh?

Yeah, atheists want Islam to come in and take over.

Who buys this stuff? Oh yeah, Davetard the agnostic.

Date: 2007/02/10 12:27:18, Link
Author: phonon
Oh Lord.
The Sound of Mendelian Genetics Exploding

Didn't they already cover this?

Anyway, haven't they always lauded Mendel for being a "real scientist" because he was a monk that believed in God?
Reading  wikipedia one would think that Mendel’s research was based on Darwinism, yet according to Dr Jonathan Wells, Mendel’s work owes absolutly nothing to Darwinism. Again we see Darwinism capitalizing on the success of true science (Mendel’s genetics).
Newton, Kepler, Mendel, and other scientists who accepted supernatural explinations on historical sciences had no problems at all.

There are plenty of other examples.

So now we hear.
Recent experiments cause a central tenet of NDE to miss the prediction again. Genes not found in the parents but found in earlier ancestors are somehow preserved (stored in unexpressed form) and show up again in later generations.
Now Mendel is central to Darwinism.

But the article he cites doesn't talk about "Darwinism."  
Mendelian inheritance, the central tenet of genetics...

RNA back-ups
It is possible that the phenomenon is limited to this one plant. But in Nature (vol 434, p 505), Pruitt’s team speculates that it might be a more widespread mechanism that allows plants to “experiment” with new mutations while keeping RNA spares as a back-up.

And this is considered "front loading?"

The predictive power of ID is simply amazing!
It reminds me of the sound of Davetard's brain cell assploding.

Date: 2007/02/10 12:43:34, Link
Author: phonon
You cannot deny the power of the Lord the predictive power of ID.
Probably exploited during evolution? How about purposely exploited by an intelligent designer, Shalev. This finding comes as no surprise from a design theoretic point of view. We expected it and much more like it.

Where was this predicted? Where was it written down? Darwin's Black Box? No Free Lunch? Oh no it was in a comment Davetard made in the past on UD.
Wow. It took me a moment’s consideration of miRNA (which I’d never heard of before) to accurately describe how they might make synonymous substitutions not so neutral. See how actual designers of codes in real life can drill right through to these things based upon intuition and experience?
Ah miRNA's are evidence of an intelligent designer. So cancer is also the result of intelligent design I guess?
miRNA has been found to have links with some types of cancer. A study of mice altered to produce excess c-myc — a protein implicated in several cancers — shows that miRNA has an effect on the development of cancer. Mice that were engineered to produce a surplus of types of miRNA found in lymphoma cells developed the disease within 50 days and died two weeks later. In contrast, mice without the surplus miRNA lived over 100 days
The intelligent designer is a cruel basTARD.

Date: 2007/02/10 12:57:01, Link
Author: phonon
He links to another post by dougmoron to make his case too. It's long and boring, but it's got one little thing in it that always tickles me when I see it.

One commentor in this blog noted that we should be looking for hidden copyrights or messages from the designer. I feel this is a worthy area of discussion.

Gotta love those supernatural intellectual property laws.
I guess they get the Thomas More Law center to serve as counsel?

Date: 2007/02/10 13:04:32, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 10 2007,12:33)
The girl on the right is Debbie Schlussel. She got a boatload of hate mail from offended atheists due to the program.

Dang, y'all! I got the perfect way to give Christian girls the ickies--use the "diet" analogy. Atheism is a religion? And we don't have freedom from religion in this country (wouldn't that imply that no one has the right to freedom from atheism, BTW?)? Okay, lil' Debbi cakes:

Premise: We have the freedom to choose between diets but not not to diet.
Reply: Okay doke, since everything is a "diet," I'm on a "diet."

Awesome nickname. Lil Debbie cakes. Perfect.

And I guess I never give much thought to these things, but that is the perfect comeback to the idiotic argument about "freedom from religion."

Just take their two lame premises to their logical conclusion.
Atheism is a religion. No one has freedom from religion. So no one has freedom from atheism.


Some of the comments in that Shlussel thread are awesome, btw.

Date: 2007/02/10 14:08:37, Link
Author: phonon
More predictions from ID come to pass.
New data shakes accepted models of collisions of the Earth's crust
They all happened in a global fludd.
Loss of a universal tRNA feature reported

Until now, bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic tRNAs have always been found with an extra guanylate residue at the 5' end of the tRNA molecule. The scientists, led by Kelly Williams of VBI, have shown that tRNAs carrying the amino acid histidine in the alphaproteobacteria Sinorhizobium meliloti and Caulobacter crescentus apparently lack the universal guanylate residue.

Kelly Williams, research investigator at VBI, remarked: "The loss of a universal and apparently ancient tRNA feature in two members of the alphaproteobacteria was particularly surprising as it represents a radical departure from previously known identity rules for the histidine-carrying tRNAs."
Of course, this is what DaveScot has been saying all along. But these dumb scientists can see past their own preconceived bias against unblind directed purposeful design.    
The researchers used bioinformatic tools such as a computer script – specifically written by the group – to probe the tRNA genes in the alphaproteobacteria group.
See? The whole thing is like a giant computer script. Biology has been scripted by the great scriptwriter in the sky. Troutmac was right all along. To show my humility, I'll be the first one to stop exhaling CO2.
Universe contains more calcium than expected
Dumb scientists. They should have just read a book by Dembski and they'd know that the intelligent designer intended for us to have more calcium. He wants us to have strong bones and healthy teeth. The ID movement has been saying this for years.

Date: 2007/02/13 22:16:36, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2007,04:37)
Atom is the designated scientist      
My additional prediction: when we discover ALL of the different layers of signal, the code won’t be “near” optimal for what it does, it will be optimal. Furthermore, since this optimality will only be operative relative to the ENTIRE set of signals, it will show forethought and foreward selection, further providing confirming evidence for the Design hypothesis.

I thought that design didn't mean optimal design.

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2007,04:37)
niwraw is tripping and bringing back nuggets of psychedelic wisdom      
Moreover its “infiniteness” and “unlimitedness” grants that it has no “parent” upon it, because there cannot be two infinities (they would limit each other and outside infinity there is nothing).

Uh, hate to break it to niwraw, but there are multiple infinities. I guess he needs to read up on number theory and set theory.

Date: 2007/02/13 22:42:12, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (argystokes @ Feb. 13 2007,21:36)
Quote (Faid @ Feb. 13 2007,17:08)
And let's not forget his "haploid fiasco" with meiosis I...

He was feeling SO insecure after that, he even visited JAD's blog, and "casually" mentioned it, hoping to get some form of argument he could use from the old man.

Truly pathetic.

Oh, and then there was that time that he said that eukaryotic DNA is a double helix, but bacterial DNA is circular! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I remember back when I was just a lurker that DaveTard would post in this thread. There was something about measuring the temperature of a single photon or something and he was completely humiliated for his ignorance continuously for about a week. Maybe that's not a top ten, but it's something I remember getting a kick out of.

This isn't top 100 material or anything, but it's just abother example of Dave's idiocy.
The Sound of the Molecular Assumption Exploding

Pitt Professor Contends Biological Underpinnings Of Darwinian Evolution Not Valid
And then he quotes the Pitt Professor...
“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else,” says Schwartz.

And these are the words that DaveTard surely latched onto.
Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change.
Um, isn't that called punctuated equilibrium?
Ultimately, the Darwinian model of constant evolutionary change was imposed upon the static observation made by Zuckerkandl and Pauling.
Guess it depends on how you use the words "constant" and "static." Within geological time frames, evolution is pretty constant.
To date, the scientific community has accepted the MA as a scientific truth.
Something fishy about the term "scientific truth."
It is this assumption, which Schwartz is contemplating: “That always struck me as being a very odd thing—that this model of constant change was never challenged.”
Punctuated eqilibrium. 1970s, people.
Consequentially, Schwartz argues that molecular change is brought about only by significant environmental stressors, such as rapid temperature change, severe dietary change, or even physical crowding.

I like Apollo's question. DaveTard's answer was even better.


4:34 pm

Could someone be so kind as to point to a blog entry, article, or other resource that will provide an overview of the front loading hypothesis?




7:24 pm


The front loading hypothesis is pretty simple...

but then he gets dishonest.
Perhaps the most famous proponents were Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
Good lord. They weren't proponents of front loading. They merely suggested the idea of Directed Panspermia. They never said a word about front loading, only that they Crick suggested that maybe some space alien deposited blue green algae here eons ago. Where's the front loading?

And Leslie Orgel wasn't a proponent of ALL life being the result of panspermia at all. He wasn't even a proponent of it happening that way on Earth. He merely left the possibility open. It's still a possibility. We'll probably never know.

I love this one:


1:47 am

Thanks much, Dave.

I searched the CSC website and Wikipedia to no avial. Searches on Google for front loading yielded everything from forklifts to military strategies (I didn’t do literal string searches).

The concept of front loading must cause hives on those with a philosophical commitment to NDE.

And DaveScot continues to contradict himself from an earlier post where he said that conserved Junk DNA assplodes a "central tenet" of Darwinism.
The obvious objection to my take on front loading is the need for a mechanism to preserve unexpressed genomic information for geologic spans of time. Natural selection is the only known mechanism and it cannot preserve unexpressed information for long.
Nice of him to admit that Intelligent Design is not a known mechanism, but Natural Selection is.

Date: 2007/02/15 11:48:53, Link
Author: phonon
Hi, I know this may be OT, but I'm just waiting for UD to post something about this.
A molecular information ratchet

Motor proteins and other biological machines are highly efficient at converting energy into directed motion and driving chemical systems away from thermodynamic equilibrium. But even though these biological structures have inspired the design of many molecules that mimic aspects of their behaviour artificial nanomachine systems operate almost exclusively by moving towards thermodynamic equilibrium, not away from it. Here we show that information about the location of a macrocycle in a rotaxane—a molecular ring threaded onto a molecular axle—can be used, on the input of light energy, to alter the kinetics of the shuttling of the macrocycle between two compartments on the axle. For an ensemble of such molecular machines, the macrocycle distribution is directionally driven away from its equilibrium value without ever changing the relative binding affinities of the ring for the different parts of the axle. The selective transport of particles between two compartments by brownian motion in this way bears similarities to the hypothetical task performed without an energy input by a 'demon' in Maxwell's famous thought experiment. Our observations demonstrate that synthetic molecular machines can operate by an information ratchet mechanism in which knowledge of a particle's position is used to control its transport away from equilibrium.

Of course, ID predicted every bit of this. I have no doubt in that.

I just think it's cool, because I've always viewed life itself as a complicated mess of chemical reactions, (among molecular machines, if you will) that uses energy inputs from the environment to stay far away from equilibrium. When you reach equilibrium, you're dead. I think this Nature paper is pretty cool because it mimics that aspect of life.

hehe, and I guess ID predicted that this thing would "violate the second law of thermodynamics." I want to see what WAD and DT make of the opening sentences.    
Maxwell originally conceived his thought experiment, which leads to a non-equilibrium distribution of thermal energy (temperature demon) or brownian particles (pressure demon), to illustrate the statistical nature of the second law of thermodynamics. But modern synthetic chemistry allows us to consider his idea from a very different perspective: rather than test the second law by attempting to reduce entropy in an isolated system, how can information transfer between a particle and a 'gatekeeper' be accomplished non-adiabatically to form a mechanism for a working brownian motion nanomachine?
Come on, WAD or DT, explain how ID predicts how the Intelligent Designer (peace be upon him) pushes the little rotaxane molecule around.

Hmm, maybe the Intelligent Designer (peace be upon him) is responsible for Brownian motion? I mean, what is energy? What are forces? Do they have inalienable rights? It really makes you think.

Date: 2007/02/17 13:04:51, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 16 2007,05:29)
Additions to UD banned list:

Josh Bozeman homo, ID is not about religion, momma's boy.

Keiths Homo, asked one too many awkward questions.

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

Date: 2007/02/17 13:10:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 17 2007,10:07)
Once upon a time, it was thought the coelacanth had not existed for hundreds of millions of years. Would Shermer disbelieve Darwinian evolution if he found living trilobite?

A living trilobite would be very unlikely, but would not violate the nested hierarchy. However, human remains found in undisturbed strata associated with trilobites would indicate that humans predated their posited ancestor. That would violate the nested hierarchy, so either the phylogenetic tree is seriously wrong or the entire concept of descent leading to humans is wrong. All the evidence, including thousands of fossils, supports common descent of humans with other mammals.

Frog in amber could be 25 million years old

Like those, the frog found in Chiapas appears to be of the genus Craugastor, whose descendants still inhabit the region, said biologist Gerardo Carbot of the Chiapas Natural History and Ecology Institute, who announced the discovery this week.

Hey, if frogs were around 25 million years ago, why are there still frogs?

Date: 2007/02/17 13:41:20, Link
Author: phonon

“Bill Dembski is world famous” ...

And that's all that matters to him.

Bill Dembski mentioned the infamous Wistar Convention of 1966 where the world’s top neo-Darwinists were bludgeoned by mathematicians and computer scientists.
Oh NO! Not 1966!

It sounds like a creationists' convention dressed up in math and science. Hey! The first Intelligent Design Proponents!

O wait, it is really just a case of quote mining to the extreme.

Date: 2007/02/19 18:01:44, Link
Author: phonon
People seemed to have drooped the spelling pwn3d for pwned. Funny, Firefox 2's spellchecker underlines pwned but not pwn3d. Hehe.

Other webcrap that I see that I don't know what it means is:

usually <3<3<3<3

and sometimes REE REE

Can anyone illuminate me?

Date: 2007/02/21 17:47:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (W. Kevin Vicklund @ Feb. 21 2007,16:52)
DaveTard has his beer-Googles on again:


Tell your friend to google

"laser" "chemical synthesis" "acetic acid"

and start reading. Tell me how many of the 40,000 hits it takes to confirm that lasers are a common part of the modern chemical production toolbox.

I'm no chemist and I'm not going to bother checking but I presume the laser can function like an enzyme by speeding up and/or preferentially maximizing certain reaction products. While this is probably not something available in the high school science labs it appears to be common in industrial application. I'd really like to see more science from the alleged scientists here.

First of all, it's about 35,000 hits using your criteria. Secondly, of the first 50 page hits that I had access to the text, the lasers were used for mass-spectrometry in all but one paper, where lasers where used to create polymers (in a process superficially similar to that used for creating computer chips). Conclusion: lasers are predominately used in chemical synthesis to check the purity of the product, not synthesize the compound.

DaveScot shows his stupidity yet again.

Most certainly.

A laser would be a poor choice for batch syntheses. It's too focused an energy source. Yes, lasers are indeed used in certain polymerization techniques when patterning on surfaces is important. They come in handy during rapid prototyping and so-called "3D printing."

And to say that a laser would act like an enzyme is a bad analogy. An enzyme (or any other catalyst) works by lowering the activation energy of a reaction through chemical interaction with the substrate. This makes the reaction proceed faster. A laser physically promotes electrons in the substrate to higher energy levels, making the substrate more reactive by creating radicals or triplet states, allowing isomerization, or through any number of other mechanisms.

Date: 2007/02/21 18:21:12, Link
Author: phonon
It looks like Xerxes17something clued in to what the DCA salesmen and Dave were talking about. They don't use a laser. They most likely shine a UV light on it. There are reactors like this. You have a big Pyrex tank, or vat if you wish, with a hole down the middle to house a big UV bulb. I guess they bubble chlorine through acetic acid while hitting it with UV light. But you get a mixture of products, as they speak of in the Wiki article. You probably have a mixture of carbon tetrachloride CCl4, chloroform CHCl3, and methylene chloride CH2Cl2 that have to be separated by distillation. This is likely what happens with TCA and DCA (and MCA presumably) and the mixture would have to be distilled.

Dave's next shopping list:
1. Big UV Lamp
2. 50 gallons acetic acid
3. Tank chlorine gas
4. Distillation column
5. Red Devil Lye
6. Test subjects

Date: 2007/02/21 18:37:02, Link
Author: phonon

Further reasons not to believe in evolutionary psychology

And her reasons?

a rabbit somewhere in Texas chases a big snake up a tree
Recently, a house cat also chased a bear up a tree.

Yeah, you wouldn't want variation in behavior. I mean, how would the natural selection part work then?

One thing to realize about evolutionary psychology is that it requires a material mechanism rather than conscious awareness in order to explain behaviour
Oh, the misunderstanding.

From her blog where she admits she's a hack.
According to the materialist view, consciousness is simply the buzz created by the workings of the brain. It does not initiate action.
Huh?  ???
At least not for certain Canadian bloggers.

That "buzz" you careful.

Date: 2007/02/21 18:39:09, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (k.e @ Feb. 20 2007,19:12)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Feb. 21 2007,02:43)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 20 2007,07:50)
If ID is dead, how do you explain this:

The ID Beer Stein

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.  QED

Ptooey.  If God REALLY wanted us to be happy, then BEER would fall from the sky and flow in rivers instead of WATER.


Bullshit he'd get one of his representatives here on earth to set up a brewery and charge money for it.

What are you implying? that god is supernatural and therefore a figment of someones imagination?

Chimay is definitely my favorite beer of all time. I hesitate to even call it mere beer.

Also, God (through his representatives) gave us cappuccino, eh?

Date: 2007/02/21 18:47:02, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 21 2007,18:30)
Quote (phonon @ Feb. 21 2007,18:21)
Dave's next shopping list:
1. Big UV Lamp
2. 50 gallons acetic acid
3. Tank chlorine gas
4. Distillation column
5. Red Devil Lye
6. Test subjects

Phonon - re:  #6.

Bill? , Denyse?  Are you there?  Do you want to do some  "science"?  

This could be FUN!

I don't think they are that brave, but I hear Behe has some balls.

Anyway, I think Dave plans to make "Pet DCA" and he's already got his subjects all lined up.  
I rescued 7 motherless abandoned in the woods by a lake 4-week old mixed breed shepherd pups winter before last, raised them, kept my two favorites, and found good homes for the rest. I'll tell you what you miserable cretin, if I saw you and one of my dogs about to get run over by a car and I only had time to save one of you, it would be the dog.

Posted by: DaveScot | February 21, 2007 04:46 PM
You son of a motherless goat!

Date: 2007/02/22 18:50:40, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 22 2007,10:56)
He suggests the complete works of Shakespeare are both specified and complex.

Ah, but here Dembski says that if "METHINKS..." is the outcome of an evolutionary algorithm, then it has a complexity of zero:  
It follows that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, by vastly increasing the probability of getting the target sequence, vastly decreases the complexity inherent in that sequence. As the sole possibility that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm can attain, the target sequence in fact has minimal complexity (i.e., the probability is 1 and the complexity, as measured by the usual information measure, is 0).

So if I hand great_ape the complete works of Shakespeare, he can't tell me whether they has CSI or not unless I tell him how they were generated.  CSI is useless for determining design because you have to know the causal story in order to determine whether something has CSI.

And on top of that, ID is not a mechanistic theory, so there.

So, according to the ID theorists, to determine whether something is designed or not, we have to know its history, how it came to be. But, according to ID theorists, ID doesn't deal in mechanisms. So what is ID all about again?

Date: 2007/02/22 19:05:56, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 22 2007,16:43)
If we start out with a perfect design and it deteriorates through imperfect reproduction we would expect to see vestiges of functional components that no longer function because they became flawed. Think of it like making a copy of a photo in a xerox machine, making a copy of the copy, and so on. If we started out with a beautiful picture of a butterfly feeding from a flower eventually there will be nothing recognizable left because each copy operation is not quite perfect and random changes will not paint anything new and beautiful in place of the original.

This is actually the observable trajectory of evolution today. Nothing new and useful is being created. There is only rearrangement of that which already exists or loss of that which already exists. Where’s the evolution in that? Aptly labeled it is devolution.

Yes, that's why evolutionary algorithms always move away from instead of toward optimal solutions.  Not.

After all of his debates with evolutionists, Dave still hasn't grasped the basics.


How can you have front loading, DaveScot-style, and deterioration from perfect design simultaneously?

The perfect design bit is obvious YEC.

According to DaveScot the "trajectory of evolution" should be according to whatever was front loaded. Changes take place whenever they were programmed to happen. Now he says, a la YEC, that there was once a perfect design?

Date: 2007/02/22 19:16:12, Link
Author: phonon

That is a pretty bitchin' animation.

Date: 2007/02/22 19:26:33, Link
Author: phonon
Liberals are all for choice when it comes to things like gay marriage, abortion, recreational drugs, and things of that nature but when it comes to the choice of taking a chance to save one’s own life through a drug that has gone through phase I human trials for safety they don’t want that. I don’t understand this inconsistency but then again I seldom understand loopy loony liberal thinking so this is not anything new.

Those liberals are everywhere. I didn't see anyone anywhere, specially dem thar libruls, saying that we should outlaw DCA. By all means DaveScot, if you want to poison yourself, go right ahead. But don't try to con other people into believing that this stuff is a definite cure for cancer. Don't sucker people into poisoning themselves. Them libruls want people to make informed choices.

And so now you're for all kinds of freedom then DaveScot, Mr. Civil Libertarian? Either now you want abortion to stay legal and recreational drugs to become legal, or you have a bit of inconsistency here. I'm only using your "logic" Dave. And you're right, you seldom understand.
When it comes to DCA, that’s as anti-liberal as you can get because:
1. Not approved by any medical-materialist high priests.
2. Empowers individuals.
3. Embodies a positive, optimistic mentality (recovery), which is anathema to most liberals.
4. Doesn’t step on any “God given” morals.
5. Doesn’t increase government control.
Hmm, let me get this straight. Libruls are loony because you say they want the government to control DCA, but they also want the government to not control recreational drugs. And practically all of medicine is librul because it's approved by "medical-materialist high priests." Gotcha. Benny Hinn called, he said you have an appointment. No, Tom Cruise called, he said that you need an audit.

Date: 2007/02/22 19:54:43, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 22 2007,19:42)

That is a pretty bitchin' animation.

Forget animation.  Dancing hippies makes for a funnier demonstration:

Be patient, the good stuff starts a few minutes into the video.

HA HA! That's awesome. You've got the professor guy with the short sleeved white shirt and slim black tie. So 60s. Then you have the hip kids flailing around to Iron Butterfly sounding organ music. Sure these cats were tripping. That's back when it was quasi-legal. That's the MAGIC CODE Bay-BE!


Date: 2007/02/23 10:05:11, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 22 2007,21:09)
Quote (phonon @ Feb. 22 2007,20:54)
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 22 2007,19:42)

That is a pretty bitchin' animation.

Forget animation.  Dancing hippies makes for a funnier demonstration:

Be patient, the good stuff starts a few minutes into the video.

HA HA! That's awesome. You've got the professor guy with the short sleeved white shirt and slim black tie. So 60s. Then you have the hip kids flailing around to Iron Butterfly sounding organ music. "Sure these cats were tripping. That's back when it was quasi-legal. That's the MAGIC CODE Bay-BE!"


HA HA HA!  When they were drafted in this performance all volunteered to play the RNA since it had something to do with "acid".  Man.

I see this bolded quote and look at your avatar and just wish there was a quote bubble from the Newton with what you just said.  That would be trippin'.

I say "Girls!".

Yeah DaveScot's trippin on dichloroacetic ACID.

Soon he'll think he's a spear-wielding chimp.

Either that or he'll look into the eye of God The Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2007/02/24 09:45:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (dhogaza @ Feb. 24 2007,09:07)
Joseph says something a bit racist ...
And if Mozart is evidence for ID does that mean that Mike Tyson is evidence for NDE?

Eh, it may not be racist. He could have said Sylvester Stallone or The Dawg, bra. Maybe Joseph is like Stephen Colbert. He doesn't see color. I think he was trying to allude to someone that is a stupid brute, and I can't think of anyone who typifies the stupid brute persona more than Mike Tyson.

Date: 2007/02/24 10:19:06, Link
Author: phonon
Michaels7 has some hearing and logic problems.
Via second video, paraphrasing…

Ribosomes make any kind of protein depending upon “genetic message” you feed on the RNA.

“hemoglobin, the cells in our bone marrow churn out 100 trillion molecules per second. As a result, our muscles, brain and all the vital organs in our body receive the oxygen they need.”

One Hundred Trillion… now imagine a single point mutation that screws this up, what would happen to you, to me, to any life form? Now imagine a sudden leap of more than one single point mutation? Not able to explain evolution by gradual mechanisms, evolutionist now want you to believe in great leaps all at one time under stress.

Ohhhh yeah, we already know what happens. Disease and death.
Let's see one point mutation in one polypeptide per 100,000,000,000,000 per second. That's one potent mutation to cause disease and death, boy.

No, Michaels7, that mutant hemoglobin, if it even finished translation, would likely be inactive and would just eventually be chewed up and reprocessed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet, evolutionist want you to believe this all happened by accidental random mutations guided by natural selection. What’s that?
They admit its not random anymore?
They have a different answer now?
No, evolution isn't random, mutations are random, but not evolution. It's not directed by intelligence either, but by the environment. You know that, though, M7. You're just lying for Jesus.

What a complete farce materialist-only evolution is these days.

The more information that gets out about the bio-informatics manufacturing processes within us, the more evolutionist look like a small car with a bunch of clowns jumping out one by one. It is never-ending buffoonery of PZ Meyers, Dawkins, Moran and the entire Panda crew.
The basic mechanism of protein translation has been known at least since that hippie video (the late 60s). Pretty remarkable that we went from knowing the mere structure of DNA and how it might code for proteins to knowing the basic translation mechanism in about a decade. Oh, and I don't remember hearing about any creationist revolution happening in the 60s. (Wasn't even born until the early 70s so maybe it was covered up by the Darwinist Conspiracy.)
What manufacturing process by humans can turn out complex functional processors, that are self-replicating, that generate oxygen flow and that are programmably scripted to disintegrate with age? And it does this 100 Trillion times per second???
What human process can create a controlled, sustained nuclear fusion reaction. I guess all the stars in the sky are intelligently designed. How much CSI is in a star, I wonder?

Date: 2007/02/24 10:34:07, Link
Author: phonon
Denton then goes into great detail about these properties. It is interesting to note that water can dissolve a wide variety of substances, but without chemically reacting with them, which is essential for life’s chemical processes. Most chemicals (e.g., sulfuric acid) that can dissolve a wide variety of substances are also highly chemically interactive.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. First you creationist cite the fact that amino acids hydrolyze in water as evidence of intelligent design, now you cite the fact that water doesn't chemically interact with its solutes as evidence too? Nice.

Actually, for something to be dissolved in water it must be polar. Yes, there are a wide variety of substances that are polar, but there is also a very wide variety of substances that are nonpolar and nonpolar solvents dissolve them. But these solvents are much less chemically interactive with their solutes than water. It's the fact that water is chemically interactive with its solutes (ion exchange and hydrolysis) that makes it so useful to life.

Date: 2007/02/24 23:36:49, Link
Author: phonon
Uh, hello. Chile is a country in South America. You eat Chili.

Date: 2007/02/25 00:24:20, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 25 2007,00:10)
Quote (phonon @ Feb. 24 2007,23:36)
Uh, hello. Chile is a country in South America. You eat Chili.

you eat your chili, I'll eat mine.

I like it with beans. Of course the more you eat the better you feel.

Anyway, that thread with DaveScot talking like he was in a Weight Watchers' meeting is priceless.

I fell off the wagon too. No loss, no gain. Here's my sad story.

Poor DaveScot. All the stress of posting at UD and defending the Faith against all those evilutionists has set him on a binge. You know, Dave, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Date: 2007/02/25 21:46:17, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 25 2007,17:37)

yes, we all know IDers like to sprinkle honey on their children before eating them.

er, just to continue the "chile" conundrum.

Watch out for the Voodoo Chile.

Date: 2007/02/26 14:36:21, Link
Author: phonon
I'm sorry. Steaming rice in a pot on the stove has to be one of the simplest things you can do in a kitchen. If you can't even steam a pot of rice, Dave, what makes you think that you would ever make it in any kind of research lab?

Got Toast? No, DaveScot burned it.

Date: 2007/02/26 16:29:22, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Feb. 26 2007,15:00)

I love your Dembski-as-Newton avatar; it's a hoot!

I can't claim credit for it. I stole it from a great image by Michael Tuite. I can't seem to find it on this thread. It's buried somewhere in here, but it's great.

Date: 2007/02/28 09:36:05, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 27 2007,03:21)
holy crap.

to think these idiots get paid to be representatives.

The sad thing is that they are probably accurately representing their constituents.

I live in Tennessee, so hopefully he will care about my comments. I doubt he will, but it only took a few seconds of typing. Since most of the questions were about taxes and allocations, I phrased it as if I were a monetary conservative. (A "true" conservative.)

My comment: "Why are you wasting time and money to use the legislative process to debate the question of how or why the universe was created? This is a question that cannot be answered by a state legislature, if it can be answered at all be mere mortals. Please end this ridiculous waste of time and money."

Date: 2007/02/28 09:53:28, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 27 2007,09:22)
Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 27 2007,05:07)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 26 2007,06:11)
When my wife makes chili, she counts out exactly 239 beans and adds them to the pot because just one more
bean makes it 240.


Are you sure that's not 420?

No, but by chance, G x O x D (7 x 15 x 4 ) = 420

Wow. I'm convinced. I'm converting. I'll be Rastafarian from here on out.

Date: 2007/02/28 10:07:37, Link
Author: phonon
What does sodomy have to do with ID?
How is Dr Dembski playing the gay card ?
Dr Dembski has a gay card?

Yup, card carrying...

Date: 2007/03/01 10:36:15, Link
Author: phonon
It’s quite amazing that basically evolution is magic, yet evolutionists accuse ID of being magic.
To the ancients, lightning seemed like magic. To a child, a card trick seems like magic. This is a result of something called ignorance. To you, evolution seems like magic for the same reason.

But, I've got a feeling about Jared White. Maybe he's a faux tard? His whole post seems like it might be a fake.
Let science get honest, follow Newton’s lead, and just say, “we don’t know.”
Huh? Stop being reasonable!! You'll take all the fun out of this. Look, Dembski KNOWS dammit! He knows that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer that created all of us to worship and praise him. Now worship!
Because they are far more beholden to actual empirical evidence. If physicists and chemists make up stories about their results, people can die.
Oh yeah, remember the massacre after the Jan Henrik Schon incident?
Physicists don’t. They consider the Big Bang, a “supernatural” event, to be a respectable idea. There is also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer (a cognitive agent) is needed to collapse the wavefunction.
Take note, bfast. This is how real tard is done. Yes, the BB is supernatural, bfast. Don't start with that "we don't know" crapola. And the Copenhagen interpretation says that humans are supernatural. Didn't you learn that part in your QM class?
But physicists open-mindedly consider cognitive agency to be a potentially indispensible part of scientific explanation. Compare this to the closed-mindedness of “official biology.”
Yeah, bfast! Official biology posits that there are no observers. The data just assembles itself by...magic. Wow. Evolution IS magic, after all.

Date: 2007/03/02 22:52:58, Link
Author: phonon
I'm very upset. They took down the cactus page, which was an obvious case of vandalism, but it was so funny that it was just classic.

It's still pretty good though.


Cactus is the collective term for plants from the Cactaceae family. They typically grow in hot desert enviorments.

edit: Found it

The secularist view of the Cactaceae is that they are roughly two million years old, and that they have evolved exclusively in the new world. This view fails to explain, however, how it is that the Opuntia genus is native to the island of Opus, near Greece. Cacti are known for their high content of alkaloids, and have often been used in the sacramental rights of the Native Americans. Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of Satan, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman.

Several species of cactus are now endangered in the west due to "poaching" by collectors and invasive species. But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline.

They didn't have the full text that stated the theory of intelligent design would hold that the Native American belief that their ancestors inhabited cacti and caused them to grow was a better explanation than Darwinism. I wish I could find the full text.

Date: 2007/03/02 23:05:16, Link
Author: phonon

The reception to his work was initially positive within the Catholic Church (contrary to popular belief, Galileo was not persecuted for supporting the Copernican theory, but because he was disrespectful to the Pope). However, the reaction was negative among Protestants who felt it conflicted with some literal interpretations of the Bible, such as the account of how Joshua benefited from the sun standing still as it passed over the earth. "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:13. But there were few Protestants in Poland then (or now), and Copernicus died without much controversy. To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.

Renee Descartes was a French philosopher, probably the greatest philosopher of all time (although Kant, Aristotle and Ayn Rand also lay claim to this title).

Descartes locked himself in a stove and meditated, arriving at the unsurprising conclusion that nothing existed. He then used Anselm's proof of the existence of God to decide that perhaps he wasn't deluded, and perhaps things did exist after all. He thought the soul lived in the pineal gland, and when you lift your arm it's just an accident because your brain doesn't control your body, God does. This "god-robot" theory of consciousness got him into ferocious arguments with Hobbes, but then Hobbes loved a good argument and was usually wrong.

Kant's own suggestion for a moral daily life was the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Expressed another way, an act is moral only if it works as a rule for everyone. For example, littering would be wrong because if everyone did it, then there would be an ugly mess. On the other hand, if a murderer asks you where someone is hiding, you should always tell them because lying is wrong.

A scientist during the Age of Exploration who lived from 1561 to 1626 and promoted research based on experimentation. Bacon was, notoriously, a confirmed bachelor throughout his life. He was however, one of the strange bachelors. One who got married. As can be seen from the illustration, Bacon (like most men of his time) had a beard. Despite this, he was known to also wear a hat.

Date: 2007/03/04 20:54:42, Link
Author: phonon
It's like I want to change my handle to "God Robot."

Date: 2007/03/04 21:46:57, Link
Author: phonon
Joseph - the discussion isn’t operating on “liking” the idea of a married Jesus, it’s operating at the level of “where’s the evidence?”.

That's rich coming from the ID crowd.

Where's the evidence indeed.

Where's the evidence that there even was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth? Oh yeah, the Bible. And that's it. No other record whatsoever of his existence. Apparently, I've got evidence to prove the existence of Captain Ahab and Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Actually, I have much better evidence that Native Americans were really one of the tribes of Israel.    
In a very real way, the presence of Native Americans is evidence of the veracity of the Book Of Mormon.
It frustrates me that Christians are made to feel as if the onus is on them to prove that stories such Jesus having a family are false. Besides any theological objections, the fact that none of the books of the New Testament make any mention of it is good evidence against such a story.

No, the onus is upon you to prove that the stories of Jesus' existence is fact. Apparently, to you the New Testament is all the evidence you need, even though other stories were rejected from the New Testament by the Church in its early days. One of them was called The Gospel of Mary (Magdalen). But why should I believe she existed either? Because there was a story about her?

The agnostic DaveTard weighs in:
I don’t understand the “poor families couldn’t afford tombs in Jerusalem” argument. The example of doves brought as offerings at Jesus’ presentation is fine evidence if the tomb had to have been purchased when Jesus was a child but was that the case? The tomb could have been acquired in any number of ways. A gift, an inheritance, or just striking it rich in later years.
Yeah, Jesus struck it rich. He was loaded. Or maybe just his family was, even though Jesus is reported to have said, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." But even though it was hard, Jesus the rich man did it because he was Jesus and he had superpowers (and he could afford it).

One reason I think it implausible that Jesus had a family is that a family was NOT a disqualifier for honour in his culture. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Anyone who could claim to be his descendant would have a claim on the whole church.
And why the hel1 is that? What law, or even Bible verse, says that?
If such claims didn’t arise within the community, the most likely reason is that no one could believably make one.
Or the claimants were killed outright. Of course, we never heard about that, so it didn't happen.
There are plenty of good non-dogma based reasons to think Jesus did not have a family. There are no good reasons to think he did other than wishful thinking. It’s exactly opposite of what convention wisdom would have you believe about the motivations of those holding their points of view.
W T F? What are the non-dogma reasons? I'd love to hear them. Motivations for points of view indeed.
If the Jesus of the Bible married Mary Magdaline and was burried in Jerusalem, then the entire easter story is a mere story. If it is true, Christianity is a hoax, plain and simple. So the bottom line is not what this report suggests happened, but what could not have happened if this scenerio is true that is the issue to Christians. Does that help?
What does it matter, bFast? No matter what evidence you show these people, they won't believe it. Their beliefs are well solidified and nothing will shake their faith. They are afraid of eternity in Hel1 and they'll believe that the Devil planted "evidence."

Hey, maybe Jesus died and rose from the grave and was seated at the right hand of the father then later came back down, married Mary, had children, went off to preach to the Native Americans, and left magic plates for Joseph Smith to find later. He could pull it off. He's god (and rich).

Date: 2007/03/04 22:08:52, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2007,21:55)


Cornelius Hunter wanted me to show you evidence of common design.

Elephant Mouse

Baby Mammoth

Of course, you won't find COMPELLING evidence for common descent!

Date: 2007/03/05 21:40:42, Link
Author: phonon
Other parts of Doug's post were pretty great too.
A whole industry has popped up overnight fleecing the rubes of their money.
Television Shepherds with living room sheep.

He says as he joins the 700 Club.

Pass the plate! And don't forget to calculate your 10%.

Date: 2007/03/06 09:50:49, Link
Author: phonon
From Jesus' General:

Those immoral Bonobos.
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bonobos, or "pigmy chimpanzees", are an endangered[1] ape species in the genus Pan (the only other being the common chimp). Bonobos are more peaceful and social than the common chimpanzee. Bonobos share about 98% of their DNA with humans and slightly more than the common chimpanzee shares with humans.[2] Unlike many other apes, they walk upright a signficant fraction of the time.
Anatomy and Behavior

Females are smaller than males but unlike in many other ape species the female hierarchy of dominance matters more than that of the males. Bonobos pass the mirror test and have facial expressions close enough to those of humans such that humans can often recognize what emotion a bonobo is expressing. [2] Individual bonobos also have very different facial features such that humans can easily differentiate one bonobo from another.

Proponents of evolutionary psychology often point to bonobos as examples of an evolutionary adaptation in which a species acquired the strategy of bartering sex to enhance social status or to resolve disputes[3]. Homosexual activists haved cite bonobos as examples of animals who perform homosexual acts[4][5] . The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group which believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured argues the bonobo behavior is is not sexual but rather are aggressive acts to assert dominance much like when a dog mounts a person's leg[6].

Date: 2007/03/06 21:55:30, Link
Author: phonon
I always thought of Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse 5 to be an existentialist Christ figure. (Everything except or the saving souls part.)

Date: 2007/03/06 22:32:19, Link
Author: phonon
I want to share four facts that are widely accepted by New Testament scholars today.
Fact 1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea . . . .
Fact 2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers . . . .
Fact 3: On multiple occasions and under multiple circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead . . . .
Fact 4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason [i.e. it was counter to their interests and even safety] not to . . . .

Fact 1: Arthur Dent witnessed the destruction of the Earth, a giant computer designed to calculate the ultimate question of the Universe

Fact 2: Zaphod Beeblebrox has two heads

Fact 4: Mice are actually trans-dimensional hyper-intelligent beings

It's easy to find facts in a book, apparently.

Date: 2007/03/06 22:39:39, Link
Author: phonon
It’s obviously clear why Darwinian news agency want to attack Biblical Christianity. The Bible is the word of God, and the Absolute Truth. Materialists hate the Bible, and want to convert everyone to their faith. Accordingly, they seek to undermine the Book which is overwhelmingly responsible for the existence of people skeptic of unguided evolutionism. As long as the Bible stands, materialism will always be in trouble.

Mats has it all figured out. James Cameron is really an operative for the Grand Evil Darwinist Conspiracy. The National Geographic Channel is merely one of its many propaganda outlets. It's a Darwinist news outlet, nothing more. I think we have to close up shop now. Materialism is in trouble. I guess I'll see all of you in church.

Date: 2007/03/06 22:47:14, Link
Author: phonon
jerry links to the website of Dinesh D'Souza as an authoritative source. You know, the guy who says that 9/11 was blowback for the evil of all them libruls, that if we just showed them that we are really nice conservatives, they wouldn't want to kill us. Actually, I don't really think that tothesourse is really his website at all. But the webiste is still funny (in a sad way) nonetheless.

And UD hasn't had a post since Sunday. I'm starting to worry about them.

Date: 2007/03/06 23:10:14, Link
Author: phonon
Entropy is a measure of disorder in a system, first postulated by Lazare Carnot in 1803.

Creationist scientist Henry Morris argues that the law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, disproves evolution: "...the Second law, however, that wipes out the theory of evolution. There is a universal process of change, and it is a directional change, but it is not an upward change."[1]

Actually entropy isn't the measure of disorder in a system, but who cares. Of course the only thing they can say about it is that is disproves evolution.
Entropy developed as a way of accounting for the basic asymmetry in the conversion of work and heat. Work is easily converted into heat, but heat is not easily converted back into work. The conversion of work into heat occurs spontaneously, but the opposite conversion does not.
That's more accurate. Entropy can result in an increase of disorder, but I don't know if there is a rigorous definition of the word "disorder."
Many Creationists claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.[1] Evolutionists deny this claim stating that the earth is not an isolated system because energy is pumped in from the sun. However, the universe as a whole is an isolated system. An isolated system never exchanges matter or energy with its surroundings. It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.

:) Total horse dung, of course.
Post Your Thoughts

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
But isn't creationism/ID (thanks for grouping them together for us) also a Muslim idea? No? It's only the Christian version that's not taught in schools? My bad.

   Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific?

Compare and contrast:

Date: 2007/03/06 23:16:20, Link
Author: phonon

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data,[1] for which a sufficient amount of evidence (and a lack of disconfirming evidence) has been found that it would be perverse to withhold assent.

The discovery of new evidence often leads scientists to revise their thinking and discard or refine previously held theories, such as Newtonian Physics, Luminiferous Ether, and Phrenology.

What? Luminiferous Ether and Phrenology, but not Evolution? Well now.

Date: 2007/03/06 23:36:02, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 06 2007,22:56)
American fundies know a kindred spirit when they see one

Yeah, they hate teh gay just as much. Of course, the existence of gay people disproves evolution and that gays didn't evolve, but were created by God. And since gays go against God's word, we must cure them of their disease using prayer to God.

I guess we didn't do a good enough job at that or at purging secularism. Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was God's retribution for the evil in America. I guess he wants to get on the terrorists' good side. Be their buddies, just like Dinesh D'Souza. Using their logic, the 9/11 terrorists were basically God's messengers. Hey! That's what they thought too!

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.


September 13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club

Benny Hinn can save america!

Date: 2007/03/08 14:53:05, Link
Author: phonon
Well 'taint religion and 'taint science.

I think that should be DaveScot's new nickname.

The Taint of Intelligent Design.

Date: 2007/03/08 15:37:30, Link
Author: phonon
These people are ALL about conspiracy theories.
Commentators speculate that “Reverend” Fred Phelps and the Westboro “Baptist Church” are in fact cunning constructs designed by pro-LGBT entitites to try and smear Christians and anti-LGBT campaigners.

So, for you, it's hard to believe that some people could be soooo nutty as to travel around to different locations and chant "God hates fags!" on an almost daily basis. Yet, a lot of us evilutionists find it hard to believe that people could be so dumb as to fall for the bogus ID/creationism shtick. But, alas, you do.

Given the madness of some anti-ID/anti-Creationists, once their rabid stupidity becomes so bloody obvious to the layman, I wouldn’t be surprised if Darwinists characterise the foaming advocates as constructs of an ID conspiracy…
He he, well there is a lot of subtle trollery on UD and other ID websites. So maybe it's the reverse.

GilDodgem at his finest:
I have used the term “no-brainer” too many times, so I’ll substitute: “Duh!”

Date: 2007/03/08 16:02:51, Link
Author: phonon
How the IDiots hurt their cause #zillion and 4.

“The concern you expressed above, that an inference of design means that “we wouldn’t learn very much about the world”, beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism - whether they claim to be churchgoers or not - and that may be where you first encountered it. (I am not saying that you are a materialist; I am saying that you have beautifully captured their default position.)

First, you say you're a journalist but you don't know how to use nested quotes.


So, according to Densey, defenders of materialism may claim to be churchgoers but they can't be good christians since they defend materialism. Of course, they only claim to go to church and worship the Lord in the sky, but they must not be listening, because otherwise they would be wrapped up in all these material explanations for things. They wouldn't deny that the Lord thy God is responsible for making the sky blue and the rain fall.
The materialists commonly call themselves atheists, but atheism is really a side issue in this context. Obviously, a materialist should be an atheist.

Obviously, a IDiot must be a tard.

Date: 2007/03/08 16:07:49, Link
Author: phonon
Wait a minute.

William Dembski, the creator and operator of one of the most bannilicious blogs in the blogoverse, said this?
I am a Christian, and the example of our Lord is not to shun people or set up a caste system of more, or less, acceptable people.



Date: 2007/03/09 17:33:43, Link
Author: phonon
Our most trusted weapon is the most advanced missile, isn't it?

The foundation is cracked by missile attacks!

Your out-of-date weapons cannot match ours.

ACLU, the radical liberal group

James Clerk Maxwell, the creationist

It was through those divine Maxwell’s Equations of electro dynamics that Einstein formulated his famous theory of relativity, and it was through Maxwell’s Equations that the modern world is what it is today.

Divine equations? I guess god sent them in a vision?
No god wrote them, Sal believes, because of the praise of Boltzmann. And they must have been written by god, because they are quite literally good for the soul.

I guess that's the problem with childish minds. They take everything so literally. From Genesis to Goethe, it's all literal.

And google provides some nice little tidbits like the Darwin Model for Maxwell's Equations, which is apparently an algorithm for numerically calculating complicated electric fields.
In many cases, the numerical resolution of Maxwell's equations is very expensive in terms of computational cost. The Darwin model, an approximation of Maxwell's equations obtained by neglecting the divergence free part of the displacement current, can be used to compute the solution more economically. However, this model requires the electric field to be decomposed into two parts for which no straightforward boundary conditions can be derived. In this paper, we consider the case of a computational domain which is not simply connected. With the help of a functional framework, a decomposition of the fields is derived. It is then used to characterize mathematically the solutions of the Darwin model on such a domain.

And this page talking about creationists' dishonesty (no!) about certain scientists that were Darwin's contemporaries.
The page tries hard but it doesn't make its point very clearly.

No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. - Maxwell

Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.

Date: 2007/03/09 18:26:36, Link
Author: phonon
Just like every science paper is really an ID paper, every appeal to Providence is anti-Darwinism.
And speaking of anti-biotic resistance, the Nobel Laureates involved in research of penicilin and streptomyocin were anti-Darwinian and/or Design friendly.

Then Sal quotes Fleming:
It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.

Nobel Laureate, discoverer of penicillin
Man, I'm glad Sal could see that Fleming was really getting in a jab at Darwin.

Sal is a master quote miner, eh? See UD troll, he's always been at work.

My ancestry is to a large degree Scottish, and since Scots are mostly known for whiskey and stinginess, I’m pleased that Maxwell was both a great scientist and a good Presbyterian.
Yes, but was he a true Scotsman.


Thanks, Sal. Interesting post and good food for thought.

One of the things that struck me when I read Origin was that Darwin provided essentially no numerical, quantifiable calculations or analyses — virtually no math to speak of. In fairness, he readily acknowledged that his book was in the form of “one long [rhetorical] argument.” But one must not confuse general musings and hypotheses with rigorous numerical analysis. One cannot avoid the latter and expect the former to be taken seriously.

Yeah, it's not like he calculated the CSI in a bacterial flagellum or anything.

I think Sal's logic goes like this. True scientists are christians and non-christian scientists aren't good scientists. So much for Einstein.

Date: 2007/03/09 18:38:56, Link
Author: phonon
scordova (quoting de Beer):

The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, when small, to inventing gratuitous fibs and to daydreaming.

And so began a pattern…

Yeah, a pattern of shyting all over Darwin. They did it back then. It's called character assassination. A smear. Darwin was hated in his day by many people.

Look, IDiots. People back then (19th century) were very convinced that God must have made molecules and atoms, because they looked manufactured. Atoms and molecules of each kind were all the same (barring isotopes). They never envisioned the universe being smaller in the past than it was that day. They never thought of curved spacetime or even nuclear reactions. They calculated the age of the sun to a few million years because they thought the process was chemical, not nuclear. How could they know? They came to the same conclusions that Paley did regarding living things for the same reason you do. Ignorance. Yes, these men were geniuses and great scientists. But they were ignorant of things we know now. It's called scientific progress. ID is intellectual regress. You're trying to erase an entire field of science and an entire basis of knowledge, just so you can get back to those comfortable days when the sun burned chemically and hung in the luminiferous aether, and all life was created by the God of the Bible.

Date: 2007/03/10 21:33:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2007,16:32)
Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.

Destruction maybe, but what would "decay" or "generation" even mean with regard to molecules? Or was "generation" being used to mean the formation of a molecule from other molecules or atoms?

And I certainly don't know what "growth" might mean in regard to a molecule. Sure it might combine with other atoms to make a larger molecule, but it'd be a different molecule (i.e., different chemical substance), not a larger version of the same one.

(Otoh, why am I asking what something from over there might mean?)


when the sun burned chemically

Or collapsed gravitationally. Though I don't know which of those hypotheses came or went first. Though either of them puts a rather limited time frame (relative to billions of years, that is) on the sun's operational timespan.


Hmm. Maybe this is a matter of semantics. When I read "decay" of a molecule I take that to mean that there is an unstable molecule (e.g. ozone) that can decay into two or more different molecules. I don't know how else it could decay, unless the nuclei within the molecule radioactively decays. When I read "generation" of a molecule, I take that to mean its synthesis from different molecules.

I guess molecules don't "grow" per se.

And the sun is constantly collapsing gravitationally. It just happens to be constantly exploding radiatively to balance it out.

Date: 2007/03/10 21:42:53, Link
Author: phonon
“Designed to evolve”- That is a phrase that every IDist should use regularly.

Good idea. That way no matter how much evidence for evolution mounts up, you can always say, "Duh, it was designed to do that." That's like a kid who falls on his face and says, "Meant to do that." Sure, kid, sure.

That one simple phrase makes it clear that ID is NOT anti-evolution, along with demonstrating the debate is all about mechanisms- culled genetic accidents vs. design.
Sure, ID isn't anti-evolution. In fact, you could call ID intelligent evolution.

Why didn't that catch on?

And by design it is meant that there is, at a minimum, a goal/ target, ie purpose to the evolutionary process.
Which is.....?

Date: 2007/03/11 01:30:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 11 2007,00:15)
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 11 2007,06:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.

How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Here's something else that goes against intuition

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop

Obviously that was done on a sound stage under a bell jar with a huge vacuum pump.

Date: 2007/03/11 18:31:44, Link
Author: phonon
Flying Dog is one of my favorite beers. Their Pale Ale and IPA are awesome, but on tap. Beer in bottles is pasteurized and not as flavorful. If you think American beer is bad, you should come over here and attend a brewers festival. They always have great American beers on tap. Of course, the mass produced crap is crap.

Date: 2007/03/11 20:27:58, Link
Author: phonon
I'm sorry that this has nothing to do with Jesuspedia, but I didn't know where else to put it and I didn't want to start a thread about one video. But, you have to check it out.

Date: 2007/03/11 21:56:00, Link
Author: phonon
Wait a minute, maybe I should start a new thread. This guy is a comic book artist and he has a whole website of videos that are awesome. I think I'll try to show how pop media and goofy ideas can come together to make some ridiculous claims that are really believable to people who don't think it through.

Date: 2007/03/11 22:16:19, Link
Author: phonon
Scientists would have you believe that there was once a supercontinent called Pangaea that was all bunched up on one side of the Earth, but this is hogwash! The only way to explain all the evidence is to assume that the Earth was once 1/5 its current size. In fact all bodies in the solar system are expanding this way. The artist Neal Adams, known for his work with Batman and the X-men, not to mention in numerous commercials, such as the bee in an allergy commercial, has uncovered such startling evidence that the conspiracy of scientists can no longer deny it.

Have a look for yourself.

If after watching this, you still think that the theory of plate tectonics is sound science, then you really don't know what science really is. Science should examine all evidence, but Mr. Adams has uncovered evidence that is too scary for tectonicists and they will never abandon their faith in the religion of plate tectonics. They must be afraid, because they refuse to teach this theory as an alternative to plate tectonics. They refuse to even admit that this is a scientific theory, even though they see the evidence before their very eyes. Please call your local school board and ask them to at least consider teaching their students that there is a controversy in the field and that plate tectonics is not the only theory of origins of the continents and the oceans. The days of plate tectonics are numbered. This is tectonicists' Waterloo.

Date: 2007/03/11 22:36:58, Link
Author: phonon
You're missing out on something in life if you've never tried Chimay. I think I like the blue label the best. Down in the French Quarter there was this little convenience store that sold 12 oz. bottles of Chimay for about $2. Whenever I was down there, I'd make a point to pass by and pick up a couple and drink them while walking around. Otherwise I'd have to deal with this 750 mL bottle with a cork. Of course, I could have gone with the "Big ASS Beer" usually a 64 oz. Bud Light. :)

I'm kinda partial to Orval, as trappist ales go. It's much richer than Chimay, more chocolatey, but not as enjoyable as Chimay.

But really, I stick to the local microbrew. We've got 4-5 within a few miles of our house. Yazoo (the best one), Blackstone, Bosco's, Big River, and Bohannon Brewery. Yazoo's Hefeweizen is better than some German ones I've had, but maybe that's a freshness thing. We got a keg of their pale ale once, and I swear that thing was breaking some laws. I drank 6 cups (only) over the course of a night, was stumbling drunk and had a hangover for 2 days.

Date: 2007/03/11 22:39:36, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2007,21:29)


Total piss, but maybe you were being sarcastic.

Pabst, Pearl, and Lonestar form the Holy Trinity of piss beers, IMO. (didn't come up with that analogy though, wish I had)

Date: 2007/03/11 23:24:56, Link
Author: phonon
The entire world of particle physics is about to come crashing down.

Date: 2007/03/14 13:46:38, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Wonderpants @ Mar. 12 2007,01:23)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 11 2007,21:36)
Of course, I could have gone with the "Big ASS Beer" usually a 64 oz. Bud Light. :)

Why would anyone want to be seen in public with a normal bottle of love in a canoe beer, let alone a 64oz bottle??

I was being sarcastic. I can't stand BudLight.

Date: 2007/03/14 14:22:29, Link
Author: phonon
I watched that Global Warming Swindle last week. I thought I had seen some of those graphs before on the Discovery Channel or something like that. Pretty much the same graphs. There was also an issue with one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle claiming to be taken out of context. Actually, from what I remember in the film, all the people interviewed seemed to speak at length enough to where any context was pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about this one guy. I was surprised at some of the names and positions of the people that were global warming skeptics. I mean, the co-founder of Greenpeace?

I wish someone would also address the 800 year lag between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature from ice core data. I don't think I've heard an adequate explanation of the mechanism behind that. Maybe Al Gore addressed it in his movie, but I haven't seen that. (not going to pay $8 to see a powerpoint presentation, I'll wait till it's on google video)

Anyway, I'm sure that, like any political propaganda, that video has some distortions and inaccuracies in it. I really wish some objective body or person would sit down with all these movies and slide shows meant for public consumption and do a point by point debunking or substantiation of each claim made. That would be nice.

The one thing I know I agree with in the Swindle movie is the point made at the end. I don't agree with Western countries telling developing countries that they can't use their fossil fuel resources. It's pretty hypocritical. If the Western countries donated huge wind farms and huge amounts of solar panels, then they might have a say.

I also like the idea of electric generation by wave power. I think oil and coal should be abandoned in rich countries simply because their production is so dirty. I've lived in Louisiana where the oil refineries caused lots of health problems in people I know and the cancer rates are really high. Oil transportation is messy as hel too. Now I live in Tennessee, and people complain about mountaintop removal mining to get at coal and it's atrocious, killing forests and filling streams with waste, not just a little trickle either. So regardless of whether CO2 emissions are causing global warming or not, we have to abandon fossil fuels. The problem is they are just too damned profitable for those who control them.


Date: 2007/03/14 14:35:07, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2007,13:00)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 14 2007,12:46)
Quote (Wonderpants @ Mar. 12 2007,01:23)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 11 2007,21:36)
Of course, I could have gone with the "Big ASS Beer" usually a 64 oz. Bud Light. :)

Why would anyone want to be seen in public with a normal bottle of love in a canoe beer, let alone a 64oz bottle??

I was being sarcastic. I can't stand BudLight.


He he ! I could be.

Nah. I really can't stand any light beer, even the hoity toity ones like Amstel and Sam Adams.

Oh hey! An intelligently Disined flagellum!
Self-Assembly of Metal Nanoparticles and Nanotubes on Bioengineered Flagella Scaffolds
The previously described FliTrx E. coli flagellin protein was genetically engineered to display rationally designed histidine, arginine-lysine, and aspartic acid-glutamic acid peptide loops on the solvent-accessible outer domain region. The resulting flagellin monomers were self-assembled to obtain the corresponding oligomeric flagella bionanotubes in which the peptide loops were 5 nm apart. These flagella nanotubes were equilibrated with solutions of various metal ions (Co(II), Cu(II), Cd(II), Ag(I), Au(I), and Pd(II)). Controlled reduction of these metal ions yielded ordered arrays of nanoparticles or nanotubes, and in some cases, extensive aggregation resulted in formation of metal nanotube bundles...

From the introduction:
Bacterial flagella are another example of a natural, self-assembling protein nanotube. Flagella are elongated helical protein filaments, up to 10-15 um in length, that are rotated to provide propulsion of bacterial cells.
Don't they know that Go the intelligent designer pushes each protein unit into place to assemble each little butt propeller?

And RATIONALLY designed?!!?! Come ON! These guys are OBVIOUSLY doing a secret Darwin buttshake! (Not really, rational design was jargon long before intelligent design.)

Date: 2007/03/14 14:43:35, Link
Author: phonon
Ok, this is just a pet peeve of mine.
I remember Burke from his monthly column “Connections” in Scientific American. I’m saddened to hear he’s become a shill for the global warming hoax.

A shill is a person that acts as if they are an unbiased or disinterested person who is suddenly convinced by a certain argument in order to convince others in his presence, because nothing convinces people like convinced people. But everyone wants to use shill to mean any proponent of an idea.

And I love Connections. Great show.

edit: OH yeah! That's right. The lag of CO2 rise behind temperature rise is that gas solubility is inverse to temperature. Duh. The warmer it is, the more less CO2 will be dissolved in the oceans. Now I remember. Whatever...


Has it been mentioned yet that Al Gore created his own “Green Investement Company” back in 2004 in England? … He’s banking on the Global Warming Buck Baby.

This has got to be one of my all time pet pieve worst arguments. I would suggest that this shows that Gore believes in his message, and believes that investment can effect the outcome. So what. I also know some who see those who come to believe that there is a God, and respond by accepting a particular religion. Because of their religion, they are dismissed even though this is the logical extension of their initial discovery.

I'm have to agree with bFast. Dembski, you make loads off of ID. By Michaels7's logic, ID is a scam. Church's make huge wads of cash and invest in spreading the word in order to build more churches and rake in even huger amounts of cash. Religion must be a scam right? Hmm, maybe they're on to something. Of course! All of science is just a big scam! <shoots self>

Date: 2007/03/14 18:21:20, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 14 2007,13:53)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 14 2007,13:22)
I watched that Global Warming Swindle last week. I thought I had seen some of those graphs before on the Discovery Channel or something like that. Pretty much the same graphs. There was also an issue with one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle claiming to be taken out of context. Actually, from what I remember in the film, all the people interviewed seemed to speak at length enough to where any context was pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about this one guy. I was surprised at some of the names and positions of the people that were global warming skeptics. I mean, the co-founder of Greenpeace?

I wish someone would also address the 800 year lag between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature from ice core data...

I would also be interested in that. Trying to source actual data has been beyond my ability.

The video sounds pausible to me. However I have not got the capability to confirm one way or the other.

I have watched it twice this morning and can't fault it. But the evidence could be skewed and I would not know. The 800 year lag would be pretty much condemning (if it is true).

Something is causing warming. It could be man-made or just natural. Even if man-made it could be something different to CO2 emissions (1 example might be deforestation combined with paving many green places).

I guess I just want someone who really knows to explain it all.

Also. If CO2 is the real cause then we in the industrialised societies should be taking the lead and not penalising developing countries. The last few minutes of the film was pretty much damning.

Hey, I kinda put it in an edit to one of my posts. I hate to post 4-5 posts in a row.

I think the explanation has to do with CO2 solubility in water. Gases are generally less soluble in warmer liquids and more soluble in colder liquids. I think as temperatures rise, CO2 is gradually released back into the atmosphere from the ocean.

IMO, that sort of thing adds absolutely nothing to the debate about whether humans are contributing to global warming.

Yeah, most of the video sounds plausible to me too. But then again, I don't know anything about climatology, so there's a good reason for the plausibility. I'm always reassured that I know nothing about a topic when both sides of a debate sound plausible. This is usually the case for me and economics, too.

edit: Ok, the guy from Greenpeace is a man-made-global-warming skeptic and Paul Wolfowitz is convinced of it? I don't know what to think of that.

edit2: On second thought, maybe the CO2 thing from ice cores could have something to do with the debate. If CO2 concentration in the atmosphere had such an effect on global temperature (or at least the temperature around antarctica where the ice cores were drilled) then wouldn't you see a non-linear correlation with temperature? As CO2 is slowly released from the oceans, shouldn't temperature rise more rapidly as CO2 concentrations increase? Instead, it appears (in a plot of both temp and CO2 concentrations rescaled to make the lines coincide) that the correlation is pretty linear. But, wtf do I know?

Date: 2007/03/14 18:32:55, Link
Author: phonon
CO2 isn’t a pollutant. It’s plant fertilizer.

No, DaveScot, CO2 is plant food, not just fertilizer. All the carbon in a plant came from CO2. All the carbohydrates, all the lipids, pretty much all of it.

Now if you’re talking real pollutants such as ozone, soot, and aerosols that adversely effect health and cause acid rain I couldn’t agree more and no country has done more already to clean up its air pollutant emissions than the United States. If the greenies and assorted other anti-US whackjobs think we’re going to hobble our economy to reduce non-polluting CO2 in response to their pseudo-scientific warming hoax they’ve got another think coming.

Wasn't it the "greenies" and assorted other anti-US whackjobs that got people's attention so that we could clean up the US's pollution?

Just goes to show the dangers of politicizing science

Are we still talking about global warming? Or did we move back to creationism?

Date: 2007/03/15 19:09:23, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 14 2007,20:10)
Phonon, is Beer's law linear?  

Absorbance = epsilon * b (usually 1 cm) * concentration

However, percent transmission of radiation is not.

Beer's Law would not be an issue with the composite plot of CO2 concentration and temperature over time. Beer's law is, obviously, a correlation that is linear, but that's not the correlation we're talking about here.

The plot shows that the correlation of a rise in temperature and a subsequent rise in CO2 is roughly linear. If the rise in CO2 had an additive effect on global temperature, then you'd think you'd see a less linear correlation. The overall effect of CO2 on temperature would obviously involve absorbance/transmittance of infrared, but that's immaterial to this. When temperatures drop, CO2 also drops, but lags by hundreds of years. The CO2 might have an effect there, it's hard to tell from the curve, but again, you'd think the correlation should be less linear if CO2 had an additive effect on temperature.

I was googling to find a copy of that plot and came across an actual correlation plot of the data (it looks like a home Xcel job, but...):

There are two curves fitted to the points. One is a line, but the other is slightly exponential, and it's sloping in the right direction for a CO2 warming effect, but it's slight. I wish they had done it on better software than Xcel, maybe even Origin or something.

I'll just shrug my shoulders for now. Maybe someone that actually knows the climate stuff can set me straight.

Date: 2007/03/15 19:26:34, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007,20:21)
Humans have learned a new way to kick things out of equilibrium:

Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase? So we shoot that much CO2 into the atmosphere over a century, that would jostle the equilibrium a bit, you'd think.

Oh, finally found a pic of the temperature/CO2 correlation. I think this is the one.

It's amazing that the total range of CO2 change is about 80 ppm.

Also, at any given period of time, you'd think that there would be roughly the same total of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean. When the temps go up or down, the total amount of CO2 over the Earth doesn't really change. But when you dig carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere, you increase the total amount of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean would become more acidic (as has been observed) and wouldn't absorb CO2 as rapidly from the atmosphere as it did before.

Since, you use oxygen to make CO2 from hydrocarbons, you'd think that you'd see a decrease in the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to correspond to the increase in CO2, but I guess since the difference is only 80-100 ppm, and O2 is about 20% of the atmosphere, it would be difficult to measure the difference.

Wait a minute, I'm supposed to be making fun of UD, not doing this!!! :angry:

Date: 2007/03/15 19:32:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 15 2007,13:52)
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007,23:24)
Again I'm shaking my head wondering that some people here, well-schooled in the bullshit techniques of the ID crowd, would fall for such dreck...

I wouldn't go so far as to say "fell for it". Was just asking for information to counter it. Look, I don't know enough to understand the arguments they are using. I am ignorant. I would be happy to be educated.

Oh yeah. Sometimes that really pisses me off. I'll just be talking about this stuff with someone in a comments section or something, and by my action of merely asking questions about the subject, I am accused of all sorts of things. Usually I'm instantly accused of being a Bush supporter and anti-science. It never ceases to amaze me. But it has made for some very entertaining conversation.

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 14 2007)
When the same handful of "experts" show up over and over again saying "thousands of scientists are wrong, why they don't consider solar inputs, they don't tell you CO2 lags warming, blah blah blah" your bullshit alarm should be sounding off at a deafening level.

Well, see, my problem is that I've never seen any of these people before and I haven't personally heard 1000's of scientists say anything. I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it. When an issue becomes politicized before I know anything about it, I am very careful about what and whom to believe.

Date: 2007/03/15 19:43:37, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (ofro @ Mar. 15 2007,17:14)
Quote (GCT @ Mar. 14 2007,19:02)

But what percent alcohol are you?

If you are interested in a strong beer, you may want to try this one .  20% alcohol and 120 IBUs!

####, I've got to find that !!! I wouldn't call myself a hophead, but I do love it. Sounds expensive though!!

Date: 2007/03/16 14:56:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 15 2007,20:21)
I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.

In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right!  They're all lying!".

What a way to characterize the way I took the show. I understood perfectly that the show was a propaganda piece. All I was trying to do was educate myself a bit better on the topic. I never said that I believed all or any of the show. But like any propaganda piece, there are bits of truth intermingled with the distortions. I was trying to pick through those to see what's what. Like the hundreds of years lag thing. What does that mean? I was trying think it through, but doing it here where there might be someone that would fill me in (as opposed to ranting about what I do or don't believe).

At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.

So let me get this straight. You say that looking up information on the internet is a poor way to learn something, then you tell me that the remedy for that is to read one particular website. To tell you the truth about it, the reason I'm so ill informed about this topic is because I just don't care that much about it. But, I do feel that right now, I know more about it than most of the general public who have already made up their minds one way or another, usually based on what they saw in a TV special, a website, or a powerpoint presentation.

If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).
You act as if I have my mind made up or something. You are in full political debate mode here. It's not necessary.


If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.

You're trying to be a dick, aren't you?


Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?

It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.


Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.

As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?

Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?

a forcing? Anyway, when I said that you'd think there would be pretty much the same total CO2 content over the Earth, I forgot a few things, like volcanoes, which would add CO2, and carbonate mineral formation, which would subtract it, so I was wrong there. It's a vastly complicated subject, eh?

But please, try not to assume that I hold certain preconceived opinions on this. Thanks for telling me about the IPCC report. I guess I can google it, but that might take me into UD territory.

Date: 2007/03/16 15:17:06, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,13:50)
I for one, do tend to pay attention to the scientific evidence if I can understand it. I doubt phonon is any different.

I guess I pay attention, but not much. :)

Couldn't simple human building projects also be causing the warming? Isn't it at least possible that paving over green land with tarmac and other synthetically produced material be adding to global warming?

I do know that the heat island effect was taken into account in simulations. I think that the consensus is that the effect is negligible. IIRC.

I am not a global warming denier. I have changed some of my light sources to use less fuel intensive bulbs but read today that they are likely to require 150% more fuel to make and contain other polutants such as mercury. It is all damned confusing. My car is now off-the-road as I haven't used it in over a year because of environmental concerns. Basically I do care, I want our planet to be habitable and pleasant for my grandchildren to live on.

I wouldn't call myself a GW denier at all either. But, I'm not the type of person that will pretend to know something when I don't.

I also do my best to be "enviro-conscious." I live really close to work so that I don't have to drive. I made a point to do that. Even when I do drive, I have a little compact car. If I could afford it, I'd buy a hybrid and get it rigged to be a plug in hybrid. I recycle everything I consume that is made of paper, metal, or #1 or #2 plastic and I try to avoid buying things that aren't packaged in these materials. If I could afford it, my house would be as solar powered as possible. But, I'll also tell you that my decision to do all these things has little to do with global warming. Even if global warming weren't considered a problem, I'd still do these things and try to do more.

I hate urban sprawl. I hate superhighways. I hate oil refineries. I hate coal mines. I hate concentrated animal feeding operations (try to buy meat from family farms, not easy or cheap). I hate the fur industry. I hate puppy farms. I hate clear cut logging. I hate the population explosion. on and on...

So, if anyone wants to characterize me as some sort of redneck republican science hater, try again.

Date: 2007/03/16 15:34:58, Link
Author: phonon
John Baez:
It’s no good to work on string theory with a glum attitude like “it’s the only game in town.” There are lots of other wonderful things for theoretical physicists to do. Things where your work has a good chance of matching experiment… or things where you take a huge risk by going out on your own and trying something new. . . .

That's a strange attitude for a physicist. Why stop investigating string theory? It's fruitful as a math program and interesting hypothetical models spring out of it.

And he's saying that you could go out on a limb and try something new, you know, like the people who contributed to the synthesis of string theory.

To me, it's just weird for this guy to say this.

Didn't he have a song about "you don't know what you've got till it's gone?" Maybe that's what his plan is. Ditch string theory, then it'll all makes sense.

Might it be said that ID luminaries represent the valley-crossers, and the establishment biologists represent the hill-climbers?
Or maybe they're more like the windmill attackers?

Date: 2007/03/17 14:30:37, Link
Author: phonon
Just wanted pass along a tidbit.

RNA enzyme structure offers a glimpse into the origins of life

SANTA CRUZ, CA -- Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, have determined the three-dimensional structure of an RNA enzyme, or "ribozyme," that carries out a fundamental reaction required to make new RNA molecules. Their results provide insight into what may have been the first self-replicating molecule to arise billions of years ago on the evolutionary path toward the emergence of life.

In all forms of life known today, the synthesis of DNA and RNA molecules is carried out by enzymes made of proteins. The instructions for making those proteins are contained in genes made of DNA or RNA (nucleic acids). The circularity of this process poses a challenge for theories about the origins of life.

"Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins? This question once seemed an intractable paradox, but with the discovery of ribozymes, it is now possible to imagine a prebiotic 'RNA World' in which self-replicating ribozymes accomplished both tasks," said William Scott, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC Santa Cruz.

Scott and postdoctoral researcher Michael Robertson determined the structure of a ribozyme that joins two RNA subunits together in the same reaction that is carried out in biological systems by the protein known as RNA polymerase. Their findings are published in the March 16 issue of the journal Science.

Date: 2007/03/17 14:40:37, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,14:35)
To add to my problems, I don't trust the UN. Their scientist list has as much credibility to me as the DIsco's (discent from Darwin) scientist list.

Mixing politics and science is usually bad.

The funny thing is that science has its own politics.

It seems that the human survival instinct tends to cause the infusion of politics (social survival) into every aspect of life.

Even dancing isn't immune.

Date: 2007/03/17 14:54:12, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2007,14:57)
If the light reaching the Earth is reduced by particles, wouldn't that mean that evolution would favour the selection of red-light synthesising plants? Did this happen?

As for the  "heat island" idea. Surely at some point those islands would meet up over time and regularity would they not? If so, when would that be? (probably said that badly: to rephrase: At what point would the "heat islands" be so numerous as to have a global rather than a local effect?).

You're confusing intensity with the wavelength/frequency (energy) of light.

Yes, it's true that Beer's Law (a concept every freshman in college should be familiar with) with respect to transmittance is logarithmic (wrt absorbance - the negative log of transmittance- it is linear). But that's wrt intensity at any particular wavelength, not wrt wavelength itself. Every molecule has an absorption spectrum and some wavelengths are absorbed and others aren't so much. CO2 absorbs well in the infrared, which is associated with heat transfer. That's what makes it a "greenhouse" gas. So, at higher and higher concentrations of CO2, the amount of light absorbed starts falling off exponentially. The thing is though, the oceans couldn't possibly pump out enough CO2 to cause this runaway greenhouse effect, like we see on Venus. I may be wrong about that, though.

You know, I hope I'm not telling you anything you already know.

I think, if we have to be worried about anything, it's methane hydrates in the ocean. the leading theory of how the Permian mass extinction happened involves these. If the oceans warm about 5 C, then a lot of these methane hydrates would melt and release vast amounts of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This would cause even more warming, releasing even more methane, and so on. But, this process took tens of thousands of years during the Permian. And, of course, the oceans didn't boil.

Date: 2007/03/17 15:20:01, Link
Author: phonon
It sounds, from the article, as though concepts like “dark matter” and “dark energy” must become more specific to provide useful information.

Yeah, it looks as though concepts like "design," "CSI," amd "irreducible complexity" must become more specific to provide useful information.

Oh, we can actually, according to theory, calculate the amount of dark matter and dark energy relative to regular matter and energy? Hmm, but we can't calculate, according to any theory, the amount of irreducible complexity versus the amount of regular complexity? Or, the amount of CSI versus the amount of regular information, for any given biological structure?

This article is a must-read, though I don’t go along with the underlying pessimistic assumption that maybe our limited senses prevent us from understanding these things.

Translation: "I don't agree that we should rely solely on observation, but we can also rely on revelation and what an ancient book says."

That sounds like Darwinism talking, actually. You know the sort of thing: We are just evolved apes and can’t understand whatever is not in our genetic program to understand, including this problem.

Sure, that's Darwinian thinking all right.  :(
Or maybe I can say that creationism talking is: Since we can't understand something right this moment, godidit.

Date: 2007/03/18 15:37:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:19)
"Studies in Apologetics: A Primer on Intelligent Design"

Nice of Bill to make our point for us, isn't it?

Now, that's the kind of thing that could get a person banned over at UD/OE...

His book, maybe his first book on inteligint disine, is called "ID: The Bridge Between Science and Theology" and it's required reading in his class.

ID isn't science, Bil says, it's the bridge to theology.

Does he think that state-run schools should teach kids how to follow the bridge to theology?

Date: 2007/03/18 16:05:18, Link
Author: phonon
Wow, poor kids in Dembski's class.


Define “theistic realism”?

The view espoused by Phillip Johnson that because God is real, our understanding of the world must factor in this fact, and any worldview that fails to acknowledge this fact is woefully deficient.

What is the strongest argument, in Phillip Johnson’s view, against theistic realism?

The success of science. Science is supposed to have shown that God is superfluous.

I love that logic.

1. Assume god is real, go from there.
2. To assume god is not real is unrealistic

Define naturalism.

The view that nature is all there is.

Uh, now define nature.

How is Isaiah 44:9-20 relevant to feminist theology?What is the punchline of this passage?

The passages discusses the making of idols. Feminist theology “reimagines” God and in so doing constructs an idol. The punchline of the passage is that in making an idol, the idolaters deceive.

Ah, it has a punchline, so it must be a joke? What's the setup? And we can't have anyone "re-imagining" God. One imagining is enough.

Nice juxtaposition:
State the Vincentian Canon.

A criterion for Christian orthodoxy: what has been believed everywhere, at all times, and by all.

Who said “My policy is to have no policy”?Why is this a sound policy in war?

Abraham Lincoln. The point of this policy is to maintain flexibility. Situations can change quickly in war, and it is therefore not best to be rigidly tied to one set of plans.

So which is it? Did the DI abandon the Wedge Document as policy or is it believed everywhere, at all times, and by all? Extra credit question: Who are you going to believe, the Pope or Abraham Lincoln?

Date: 2007/03/18 16:16:58, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 17 2007,19:54)
Here is some info on oceans and methane hydrates and the Permian extinction event

Stephen - note that this "UN-listed" scientist, Gavin Schmidt, actually works for NASA, not the UN.   He's also a founder of, and frequent contributor to, Real Climate.

NASA also employs two well-known skeptics, Christy and Spencer, whose work with satellite data "proved" that the troposphere is actually cooling slightly, not warming.

So much for the claims by the likes of Lindzen that skeptics are discriminated against, can't get work, blah blah blah (sounds a bit llike the UD claims that "darwinism" would collapse if the Science Cabal didn't prevent honest researchers from getting jobs, doesn't it?)

Unfortunately for Christy and Spencer, they made a few basic algebraic and one sign error and the data actually shows warming when analyzed properly (which they both grudgingly agree with now, both having switched to variants of the "it will be good for us" argument).

So there are skeptics in the climatology community that aren't paid shills for oil companies? That's not what I heard.  

(just joshin' )  ;)

Date: 2007/03/22 15:52:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 22 2007,08:50)
I felt guilty in the 1990s taking the bus when they weren't full - of course buses pollute - but that has changed a lot (and for car-loving Minneapolis, that's saying something).

The buses still run whether you take them or not, so why feel guilty?

Date: 2007/03/24 19:27:45, Link
Author: phonon
Ah! too bad we aren't Intelligent Design Detectives. We'd have spotted design in Dembski's imbecility long ago.

You look like a fool!
"Erp, meant to do that."

Date: 2007/03/29 13:51:11, Link
Author: phonon
Don't want to start a thread.

The textbook will say that life was designed to evolve, just like these computers:

And that regular geometric shapes are evidence of design, like this:
The researchers found that once the plate was spinning so fast that the water span out to the sides, creating a hole of air in the middle, the dry patch wasn't circular as might be expected. Instead it evolved, as the bucket's spin sped up, from an ellipse to a three-sided star, to a square, a pentagon, and, at the highest speeds investigated, a hexagon.
A Darwinian secret handshake? Those things are obviously designed. By Humans!

Oh, and George W. Bush cares more about Global Warming than Al Gore!
Now if he could just make Air Force 1 solar powered.

Date: 2007/03/30 15:07:43, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 29 2007,20:03)
DaveScot delivers:
God forbid you tell a 10th grader that Darwin was a racist and his theory inspired the science of eugenics.

Oh, and it just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

That reminds me of a joke that I heard from a comedian at a comedy club a few weeks ago.

"My boss doesn't think he's racist but he says racist things all the time without realizing it, but he's my boss y'know, so I can't call him on it, I just have to play along. Just about every Tuesday he goes to Hooters and he loves to talk about Hooters all the time, even though no on is interested. But he's my boss, so I suck up to him. Wednesday morning I asked him. 'So! How was Hooters? Was your waitress hot?' He seemed really disappointed. He scoffed and said, 'No, she was black.' So what could I say? 'Jeez, that's terrible. Did you complain to the manager? You know, they really should screen for that sort of thing.'"

Date: 2007/03/30 15:17:20, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 30 2007,07:20)
No Jesus, No Holocaust....

I don't know about that, dude.

Totally unreligious people 'hate the jooos' for one inexplicable reason or another. It usually involves some sort of conspiracy theory or just a hatred of different cultures.  
Evolution solves a lot of problems that programmers cant solve, a programmer can’t think of every problem that might occur if say a robot was sent to Mars and fell into a hole, through evolution that robot could learn how to climb out of the hole without the interference of humans.
That reminds me of Erasmus in The Bulterian Jihad and the next two books in the Dune prequel series. He was a thinking machine that fell into a crevasse but didn't die. He just sat and thought and the more time went on the less he was synchronized to the central Omnius computer mind. When he was able to climb out of the hole he was an independent thinking machine. I guess that was speciation? Uh, yeah, anyway...

And anyone who says they'd "do" Ann Coulter must not have seen her in person. She's hideously grotesque. She looks like an alien or some sort of robot mannequin, as in not human.

Date: 2007/03/30 15:33:56, Link
Author: phonon
All changes to existing hardware have to be made through software.

Hogwash. A class of devices called the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) has been around for almost 25 years. I remember when my Intel Field Service Engineer was hyping Xilinx FPGA’s to me in the mid-1980’s. I presumed Intel had a financial stake in Xilinx. They were way too slow for anything I was doing but they can be reconfigured on the fly, in-circuit, running hot.

Uh, DaveScot, uh DellMillionaire Genius? You do know that by using the word "programmable" in the name of the device, that means that it is controlled by software don't you?

Date: 2007/03/30 16:01:06, Link
Author: phonon doesn't get it
Using a computer program to test various hardware configurations for fitness in a problem solving situation and determine which is the optimal is not evolution, it is simply the application of trial and error at a much faster pace than we can do it without the speeds computers use.
Uh, natural selection is pretty much iterative trial and error over biological and geological time scales, is it not? So what if computers/robots do it faster? Does that change the basic premise?
Designed Jacob needs to lay off the acid
Also, has anyone noticed that the notion of RMNS as opposed to creationism has the effect of making us greater than God, because it makes the Creator unintelligent chaos, whereas we are intelligent?
Whoa man. Like cool. I guess I need to worship the Great Unintelligent Chaos at the First Church of the Probability Vector.

Uh oh, Smidlee steps in it.
So far it seems to me the evidence show that complexes creatures/things/programs can’t make anything as complex or more complex than itself. So no doubt a very complex computer program (made by even more complex human) could build/design less products yet the program would be more complex than the product /results itself. Same with humans; will we really be able to create our own equal like in sci-fi? From my understanding even God doesn’t have an equal (Can God create his equal?); thus we are less complex than our Creator.
And whatever created our Creator must be REALLY friggin complex. And can God create his equal? Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Like whoa man. Heavy.

Over on the ARN discussion board there is a discussion about that computers can generate CSI that refutes ID. This “aiguy” is clueless to the fact that the CSI generated by the computer can be traced back to its designers.
1st Jospehus must adequately define CSI. Then, he must trace CSI in biology back to its designer. Good luck.

Date: 2007/03/30 16:10:57, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2007,14:54)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 30 2007,14:33)
All changes to existing hardware have to be made through software.

Hogwash. A class of devices called the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) has been around for almost 25 years. I remember when my Intel Field Service Engineer was hyping Xilinx FPGA’s to me in the mid-1980’s. I presumed Intel had a financial stake in Xilinx. They were way too slow for anything I was doing but they can be reconfigured on the fly, in-circuit, running hot.

Uh, DaveScot, uh DellMillionaire Genius? You do know that by using the word "programmable" in the name of the device, that means that it is controlled by software don't you?

Not 5 trillion dipstick switches?

Or 5 trillion POOFS from the intelligent designer. Cheesy poofs, that is.

I guess you could wire everything manually. There are many electronic devices where the programs are hardwired into a chip. But, what is really the definition of software? To me the definition of software IS a program. If you program something by manually wiring it using schematics, or the instructions are fed by punchcard or a magnetic disk, then the instructions themselves, no matter how they were entered ARE the software. If something is programmable, there is a program involved and (to me at least) a program = software, no matter the input device.

Date: 2007/03/30 16:16:30, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2007,15:12)
I don't like "trail and error" because the interpretation is ambiguous.

for example:

A random number between 1 and 10 is picked.

Q) is it 7?

A) Lower.

I could technically then ask "is it 9?" under a weak interpretation of "trail and error", under the very weakest I could ask "is it 7?" again. Evolutionary mechanisms select for best environmental fit and 'trail an error' does not speak to their ability to narrow large search spaces down to local or global optima very quickly.

I did say "iterative" trial and error.

And another thing. :)

The whole Eugenics thing is so stupid. Eugenics is based on ARTIFICIAL selection. Not "Darwinism."

Artificial selection was known WELL before Darwin. It's ancient.

Date: 2007/03/30 17:17:08, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 30 2007,15:58)
Re "I don't like "trail and error" because the interpretation is ambiguous."

Well, how do you feel about trial and error, then? ;)


Re "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

Probably not, given that there is an upper limit on how large a rock can be and still be a rock, rather than say, a black hole. :)

Bbbut it's , uh, God and stuff and God can do anything.

Date: 2007/03/30 17:50:30, Link
Author: phonon
OT, but this is great!!

And is that Phyllis Schafly or Rita Cosby?

Date: 2007/04/01 14:39:25, Link
Author: phonon
I don't have a problem with Whitesides' comment about what he believes (i.e. thinks) is the case for life arising by itself. I have a problem with the part where he says he has no idea. Maybe he really doesn't (I think he does, Whitesides is an expert in self-assembly) but the people who are working on OOL research do have ideas as to how it arose. They aren't fully fleshed out theories yet, mainly because they haven't amassed nearly enough data. But to say "we have no idea" is just incorrect.

Date: 2007/04/01 19:31:25, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ April 01 2007,14:11)
It's disturbing how many people at Panda's Thumb and related sites are falling for this.

I think we can blame the fact that you really can't discern between ID/creationist arguments and a parody of them.

I too was suckered at first, until I noticed "Discover Institute" and the little eyepatch on the da Vinci graphic. Then I thought the whole thing was damned clever.

Date: 2007/04/01 19:37:17, Link
Author: phonon
I just now am going to the uncommon descent website. Can't they get anything right? They say that the quote comes from the ACS news magazine Chemical & Engineering Times. The name of the magazine is Chemical & Engineering News, ferschissakes.

shaner74 misses the point entirely:
“Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth.”

Another ode to materialism (yawn). Golly why can’t we figured this stuff out? ID is supposed to be the science-stopper right??
Uh, yeah. Saying "we've figured this stuff out" is a science stopper.

and then apollo230  does a little projection:
At least Dr. Whiteside has a degree of intellectual honesty: if he does not know something, he admits it. More than I can say for these super-duper doctorates who hand-wave and dance their way past gaping questions like the origin of life.
Oh ok, then saying "life was designed" instead of "we don't know" is perfectly acceptable.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:07:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2007,10:06)

{Wakes up}

Eh? Whitesides? Chem Eng News? And me an ACS member!

You can get it online too. I think I got mine Friday here in the US. Howdy fellow ACS-er. Were you in Chicago last week?

How about MRS? In that too?

Date: 2007/04/02 14:23:34, Link
Author: phonon
But the fact is, the rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet does not violate any recognized law of science except the second law, so how can we discuss evolution without mentioning the one scientific law that applies?
Makes sense...
Nonsense commonly makes sense to people who don't know any better.

By the way, in an open system, isn’t machinery required to use the available energy to do useful and creative work? If so, machinery can’t come first, because machinery would be required to make that machinery.
Good god this boy is stupid.

Gil, what are atoms and molecules? Well, dern it, if they ain't like little machines!

from el translacion:    
[Ferrari]: From the point of view of the probabilities, yes, but we cannot guarantee that one will live long enough to see it. For example, for the drunkard to take one hundred successive steps forward [it is an uncertain walk], there are those who wait two to the hundred, for there are billions of billions of steps, and for the molecules of air there has to be tillions upon trillions of times (in reality many more than that, but it sounds bad) the age of and duration possible for the universe. So we can rest easy.
So because a drunk guy stumbles around for billions of years we can rest easy? Rest easy about what? Oh, of course, the Bible is true, and Jesus will take us all to heaven (the right ones, I mean).

Date: 2007/04/03 10:24:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2007,16:43)

Yes I am a fellow ACSer, quick let's do the secret handshake!

I am regularly in the Mrs, however I was sadly not in Chicago this time around. I went a couple of years ago and I am trying my damnedest to go next year. The ACS conference is the capo di tutti capi of extravagant conferences at which beers may be had. Although I did go to one in Brazil a few years back......


Oh yes, beers will be had.

I need to learn the secret ACS handshake :) So far, all I've got is the secret Darwinian handshake (that and a couple of Mormon ones).

####. Wish I could've gone to Brazil. O well, next one's in Boston in August.

Date: 2007/04/03 10:40:15, Link
Author: phonon
Again, the Eugenics thing is so stupid.
Darwinists, eugenicists, and new stories at The Mindful Hack

Recently, there was a bit of correspondence between moderators of our list about the question of whether aggressive Darwinists can be accused of being like Nazis.
Godwin's law. You lose.

Rather, the embarrassing problem is that the early Darwinists didn’t really believe what they wanted the public to believe - that natural selection created all things bright and beautiful. So they felt they had to interfere when they didn’t like what they were seeing - hence, eugenics.
Hmm, deliberate intervention into the "natural" order of things. I think that's called Intelligent Design.

Let me spell it out for you lurking UDites: Eugenics is intelligent design, not natural selection.

If you want to call experiments that coax bacteria to mutate and computer algorithms that solve problems using selection rules as intelligent design, then you have to call eugenics a form of intelligent design. Using your own logic, of course.
And today’s Darwinist doesn’t justify his NON-interference (i.e., distaste for eugenics) on the grounds that natural selection is at work and should not be interfered with. No, he grabs the notion of “human rights” whole from non-eugenic systems that don’t even try to address the question from a Darwinian perspective.
In other words, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with morals or laws? Well, thank you for clearing that up Densye.

Date: 2007/04/03 10:51:05, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,10:34)

Sorry, I should have made it clear that the Brazil conference was not an ACS one, it's implied but not clear in what I wrote. Blame beers!

I don't think I can make Boston but I'd like to make New Orleans. The ACS conference I made a few years ago was the 226th in NYC. A love that city...I even did some chemistry!

Do you go to the national meetings often?


Eh, I go to them when I can. Those and the regional ones. It tends to get expensive, though. Yeah, I'm curious about the New Orleans one. The city needs the revenue, but can it handle a thing like an ACS meeting? Sure, why not?

Date: 2007/04/04 09:51:25, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,11:02)

Yeah, good angle!

"Dear Boss,

Please pay for me to go to the ACS conference in New Orleans next year for two reasons:

1) I want to see some excellent chemistry (see refs X, Y and Z)

2) I wish to inject much needed cash into that wonderful city's economy after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Mainly around the Bourbon street area.


I can see that going down VERY well. Scientific AND moral! Who'd-a-thunk it?


He he. Yeah, I'm sure charity is the first thing on my boss's mind!  ;)

Date: 2007/04/04 09:57:31, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 03 2007,13:02)
Quote (Louis @ April 03 2007,11:02)

Yeah, good angle!

"Dear Boss,

Please pay for me to go to the ACS conference in New Orleans next year for two reasons:

1) I want to see some excellent chemistry (see refs X, Y and Z)

2) I wish to inject much needed cash into that wonderful city's economy after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Mainly around the Bourbon street area.


I can see that going down VERY well. Scientific AND moral! Who'd-a-thunk it?


I highly recommend Gordon Biersch down by Harrah's casino.  There was a fabulous chemistry seminar given there recently.  See pages 3 and 4 of for info on the speaker.

I usually miss the local chapter meetings, but hey, if the topic is making beer, well now...

Date: 2007/04/05 09:55:16, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ April 05 2007,09:46)
Anyway, I thought everyone agreed there is a good chance there was a historical Jesus, but that all the accouterments for the church were borrowed from Mithraism to increase Christianities popularity.

Everyone? What's the evidence that supports a historical Jesus? besides the Bible?

And I've heard that Anderson Cooper is a CIA agent and the Wolf Blitzer is a Mossad agent. It must be true!

Date: 2007/04/05 09:58:04, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (2ndclass @ April 04 2007,19:35)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 04 2007,19:06)
Also, Bill is attracted because the guy likes to say stuff that sounds heavy, but is really all gas: "... Throughout evolution, information capable of maintaining its integrity has prevailed over that which was not. Robust information is that which can resist perturbations to maintain its integrity. The ability to react to face perturbations to maintain information makes information adaptive, increasing its probability of maintenance."

If maintaining information integrity is what it's all about, then the best "adaptation" that an organism can do is to get itself frozen in ice.

Or trapped in salt!

Date: 2007/04/05 19:47:36, Link
Author: phonon
intelligence does not violate entropy

Even when typing on keyboards?

Date: 2007/04/05 19:50:27, Link
Author: phonon
Louis, can you point me to this thread you speak of? I don't know what you're talking about.

Date: 2007/04/06 10:36:35, Link
Author: phonon

As much as he'd like to believe so, this article is NOT pro-ID. It speaks of rational design or intelligent design, but that's not the same as Intelligent Design.

This is biomimetics. Duh. It's called directed enzyme evolution.

From the article:  
Ultimately, the objective is to make proteins perform for us as well as they perform in life.

And dig this, Dembski:  
Rational design has been mainly used in biotechnology to improve the properties (especially thermostability) of natural enzymes.
Oh noes, did we improve upon the work of the Intelligent Designer? How can that be? Well, you always said that Intelligent didn't mean perfect. I guess the Intelligent Designer makes mistakes. Can't be who you had in mind then, can it?

Another nice quote for Dembski:  
It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties “rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection” (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree. It is also said that “every protein has become adapted by step-by-step improvement and refinement of its function over millions of years” (McLachlan 1987). The present theories, however, only partly explain the protein diversity, although a recent study (Poelwijk et al. 2007) shows that even the key-lock dilemma can be resolved by the Darwinian approach when the operation field for random search is within the same protein family, and the new key-lock pair closely resembles the original (ancestral).

Gene duplication and subsequent divergence as mechanisms to create natural variety and novel structures are now decade’s old theories (Ohno 1970). Basically, directed evolution approach is an application of the gene duplication concept. Gene duplication is seen as a way to avoid random sequences in evolution, because random sequences most often are not functional. Mutations in the duplicated genes explore the local sequence space and expand the number of members in a gene family.
Ohno, those theories from Ohno are decades old.

Pro-ID article? I think not, Dembski.

Date: 2007/04/06 10:45:20, Link
Author: phonon
Love this:tyharris
I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, could you please stop by and add a comment?

All I have to say is that you either need to get really, really thick-skinned or implement a better moderation/filtering system if possible. It’s amazing how nasty these people can be…and how much free time they seem to have.


I agree with Patrick. Moderate your blog.

That's right. If you "get hammered" by those evil Darwinistas, just delete their posts and you win by default. No, Jesus wins.

Speaking of Jesus winning, check out this SP Easter Special. It's friggin genius, IMO.

Date: 2007/04/06 20:24:03, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:09)
Dave should see Who Killed the Electric Car? no matter what he thinks of global warming.

Dammit! I want an electric car!!

Date: 2007/04/08 12:52:15, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,23:27)
Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,20:24)
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:09)
Dave should see Who Killed the Electric Car? no matter what he thinks of global warming.

Dammit! I want an electric car!!


If it really flies, then he11 yeah. I'd call it the flying invisible pink unicorn! My bad chariot..

Date: 2007/04/08 12:58:22, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2007,10:51)
I don't remember what the quote was. And I'm not going to look through 472 pages of this thread to find it. It was something like, the Dembski post was "Nobody could sensibly believe that Intelligent Design is derived from anything in the bible yada yada..." and the quote I posted was "Intelligent Design is simply the book of John rewritten in the language of Information Theory yada yada..."

Dembski needs to learn that what you say can and will be used against you.

Date: 2007/04/08 16:53:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ April 08 2007,14:18)
Hey, UDudes, why don't you try to win my heart? And help this poor persecuted man?
Flying carpet theorist refused a patent.
Pretty soon the gumm't will be saying that there's no such thing as a perpetual shimmy. :angry:

Well, I think Dembski should be the one to help this man. The good Professor Zagyansky sounds like an obvious victim of the vast Darwinist conspiracy to silence any challenge to their fanatical dogma. I think what Demski should do first is successfully patent the explanatory filter, then he could draw attention to the plight of this tortured genius. It will usher in a new era of design detection and perpetual motion for all. Then we could indeed fly around in our new 2012 IPU station wagons. I'll take mine in pink, of course. And Dembski could pull it off, too. After all, William Dembski may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth.

On the other hand, he would have to prove a reduction to practice for the old EF. He would need to show that it's actually been used to detect design. Once he has used it on something, they'll just have to issue a patent. What could he use it on? There's always the bacterial flagellum.

Date: 2007/04/09 17:02:03, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2007,17:30)
Quote (phonon @ April 08 2007,17:53)
And Dembski could pull it off, too. After all, William Dembski may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth.

Like Davetard, that guy got his scientific training by reading SciAm and watching science fiction.

Does their craziness extend in other directions as well? Do they watch a few episodes of Emeril and then imagine themselves expert chefs?

I wouldn't doubt it. I just hope they don't start watching Mail Call and start picking off watermelons at the supermarket with AK-47s.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:31:34, Link
Author: phonon
“Framing,” as a colleague of mine pointed out, is the term that UC Berkeley Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff uses to urge Democrats that the public will agree with liberal policies if only the policies are described in different terms — “framed” in other words.
Wow, of course framing is bad. Democrats do it!

William Dembski, the title "Intelligent Design" is FRAMING.
It's like "personal accounts" instead of "privatizing social security" or "redeploy" vs. "cut and run."
or "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creation Science" instead of "Creationism."

But of course, I don't have to tell YOU that, do I?

Date: 2007/04/10 19:46:49, Link
Author: phonon
the real battle ground for ID’s success in the USA is not in the atheist demographic of the population (which is about 3% of the population)! The battle ground is within the community of theists. Given that 91% of the population are theists and that 48% are creationists, it means 43% of the population are some sort of theistic evolutionist (TE). The TE’s are the largest demographic group where ID stands to make serious gains over time.
I'll take three tangents here.

1. I thought that ID didn't have a problem with evolution.
2. Isn't ID supposed to be a form of theistic evolution?
3. Basically what Sal is saying is that 34% of college students being creationists (where did they do this survey?) is not enough. Did the survey question separate out creationism and ID? You'd think there would be a huge overlap. It's not like some baptist college kid is going to say yes to a question about his belief in creationism and no to a question about his belief in intelligent design, unless he thinks God is not intelligent. So what Sal is basically saying is that there are too many people out there that believe in God but they must not believe hard enough. If we could only get them to reject science, then we could get more souls into heaven.

And then cordova admits just that in the first testimonial:
I would argue though, that if Darwin’s theory were true, I think I would have less reason to believe, personally speaking. If my situation is similar to many, then TE’s have arguably done a lot to promote an unscientific idea which has eroded many people’s faith.
And we know you can't get into heaven with eroded faith.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:52:39, Link
Author: phonon
kairosfocus cracks me up
Too many SCIENTISTS are ill-informed of general science issues, phil of science, much less the wider logic, epistemology, ethics and metaphysics to make sound counsel. A SCIENTIST IN HIS LAB COAT SPEAKING BEYOND HIS SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IS NO BETTER THAN (AND OFTEN WORSE THAN) A COMMON-SENSICAL PERSON WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF PRUDENCE.

metaphysics? as in "what is the nature of reality"? That's the whole friggin point of science.

And a scientist in his lab coat speaking beyond his specific expertise is almost like a lawyer or a math/philosopher yamming on about biology.

Oh, and I add:
Which is basically GIVE ME MONEY! GIVE ME MONEY, I SAY, AND YOU WILL WALK!! AND SEE!! AND HEAR!! But you must prove your faith BY GIVING ME MONEY!!!!
Don't forget to pray (and take DCA). oh, and pass the collection plate...

BTW, this framing thing isn’t anything new. Lenin was taking about it way back in 1917.
Uh, yeah. It's about as old as religion and politics.

Date: 2007/04/11 20:00:11, Link
Author: phonon
If science is too narrow, does that mean Genesis is also too narrow? Maybe His Holiness can show where Genesis is lacking.

In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
That's very interesting Mr. Pope. So what part of Genesis is wrong? I guess he's saying that Genesis is some sort of allegory? When it says "created Adam from dirt and breathed the breath of life into him," that's just a metaphor for evolution? When it says he created trees and grass before he created the sun and the moon, that's just a metaphor for being way off?

"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture," he remarked during the discussion held at the papal summer palace in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.
And by faith, you mean faith in the Bible. So basically he's saying that the Bible is unreliable as an explanation of the evolution of life.
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.
Nature? What is this nature? It doesn't exist, I say!

Date: 2007/04/11 20:27:54, Link
Author: phonon

William Dembski, you are an overpaid IDIOT.


Ok, then ask the "pro-ID" authors of the "pro-ID" paper why they call directed evolution of proteins "Darwinian".
It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties “rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection” (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree.

Oh and this is the best line:
“Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.
Like, say EUGENICS?

Fross was first to point this out, but Dembski needs it spelled out for him in caps.

Date: 2007/04/11 20:33:43, Link
Author: phonon
Good god, these people are RETARDED!!1

Natural “Selection” on the other hand is a-causal; it doesn’t cause differential reproduction, because it IS differential reproduction.

The differential reproduction rates isn't caused by anything? Or it's caused by itself? What?

Anyway, Artificial Selection is VERY ID, since it is: a) causal and b) has as its cause intelligence.

I don’t see how it can not be considered ID.
Thank you, Atom. Thank you for pointing out that eugenics was an ID research program. See? The IDers did do research at one point. Oh, coming so close to breaking Godwin's Law.

Date: 2007/04/11 20:39:40, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2007,15:04)
DS get's down to the specifics of what is and what is not designed:      
Proteins don’t automatically warrant a design inference. It depends...

It depends you say DS? Really? I say, this should be fasinating
It depends on the function of the protein and interdependencies on other proteins

Oh rlly? That helps alot. It depends <blah blah blah>. This guy is unbelievable. He has the time to type in hundreds of words (it just goes on)
The whole machine must be assembled and working in order produce the parts that make the up machine that makes the parts!
How’d that happen without a designer envisioning the entire machine in abstract then building all the hundreds of interlocking pieces that make it up simultaneously?
To compound the problem you need a fully working automobile to gather the parts together to make an automobile.

I think what DS has failed to grasp, as evidenced by the next quote, is that behind every internet blog or site there are also 100's of scientists doing actual research.
This is the story the chance & necessity pundits ask you to accept and take as a matter of materialistic faith that, impossible as it sounds, eventually science will reveal how it was done without intelligent agency.

chance & necessity pundits??? That says it all about DS . Pundits? It's not pundits that need to be convinced DS...
And evolution works at different speeds for DS    
In 20,000 years of artificial selection and preservation of variants that never would have survived in the wild there hasn’t been a single variant with an anatomical feature not characteristic of canines...<snip>Not even something as simple as a retractable claw.

But hang on, I remember at the start we we going to learn something about "when to make a design inference".
Proteins don’t automatically warrant a design inference. It depends...

Remember DS? What do we get instead?
Intelligent agency solves all these problems.

it seems premature to rule out exotic forms of intelligent agency that could very well be composed of non-baryonic matter that we only suspect exists through indirect observation of its gravitational effects on normal matter. In fact what we consider normal matter and energy may be the minority component and thus really an atypical form in the big picture

Link to the unsufferable IDiots post
Maybe DS can see the writing on the wall nonetheless?
Hubris is rampant in the halls of science today. Of course that’s nothing new. The history of science is littered with disgarded theories that were once thought to be writ in granite.

Ask Behe about astrology and dover DS. See what he says about it.

How do you like the butlicking replies?

This is such a good essay (#16), why don’t you repost it as a new topic so it won’t be lost in the comments here?

Please do, DaveScot.
I’ve copied it and saved it to a word doc…. but it would be cool if you’d post it as its own topic - easier retrieval.

p u k e. . .

Date: 2007/04/11 20:51:31, Link
Author: phonon
What scientific paper has political language like this? In the abstract no less?  
Second, the argument is presented that the selfish DNA "hypothesis" is actually a narrative scheme, that it serves to protect neo-Darwinian assumptions from criticism, and that this story is untestable and therefore not a hypothesis.

Taken from this pack of lies from scrotalova:

More political language:
It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.

How weird. Unless this is just an article that comes before actual research papers, like they have in Science and Nature.

I don't have access to the highly prestigious "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences" so I can't read this essay. The abstract sure makes it sound like a review or even some kind of position paper. As in: no original research presented.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:29:07, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Kristine @ April 12 2007,00:31)
You see Phonon, it's gravity when an apple falls but it's not gravity when you drop an apple. That's intelligent falling, when you drop an apple. Got it? :)

Durn, I guess Newton was just wasting his time working from Galileo's discoveries. He should have just realized that falling was a result of the invisible hand of the designer. After all, current theory cannot explain the source of the force of gravity. It is, OTOH, best explained as a result of intelligent agency. If Newton had just paid a little closer attention to Galileo's experiments, he would have seen that they were all pro-IF.

Date: 2007/04/12 16:29:25, Link
Author: phonon
But it will not do to have Darwin discard teleology and then to claim teleological processes as Darwinian.
So now everything that came about with even the slightest degree of "teleology" is considered ID?

Even with this, directed enzyme evolution isn't that "telic." Rational de novo design would be "telic." Just picking the best candidates generation after generation isn't very "telic."

Let's say the function of a cytochrome P450 is to oxidize alkanes to alcohols, but you want to do it in an organic solvent and not water. Well, so you put it through a round of random mutation and then look in the "pile" to see if any have some incremental improvement. Do error prone PCR for another round of reproduction with random mutation, then check to see if there are any enzymes with an incremental improvement. Repeat.

Now, you may never get what you want in a reasonable time frame. That's the "limit of Darwinian processes" in this case.

But Dembski wants to claim that this is really ID, because there is some minuscule degree of "teleology" at work. But is there really that much design involved in just picking the best candidates and then randomly mutating them, hoping to get lucky in the next generation?

Date: 2007/04/12 16:49:08, Link
Author: phonon
Oh my god. DaveScot is blaming the "global warming whackos" for the price of corn.
Of course, most "global warming whackos" think ethanol from corn is a BAD idea because under normal circumstances it takes as much or more energy to produce the ethanol than you would get out of it.

Yeah, it's all the whackos' fault. Never mind that George W. Bush talked all about the need for ethanol this and ethanol that in a SOTU address and that corn prices shot through the roof right after that. Dubya knows that ethanol is a good thing for big business. The whackos don't like it so much. The real whackos realize that ethanol from corn ain't that "green."

Electric cars run from solar cells or plug in hybrids and electric grids run from wind, solar, and wave power. Those are the answers, not ethanol. I dunno, maybe I'm just too whacko to see the light.

Date: 2007/04/13 14:39:29, Link
Author: phonon
DaveScot and UD need to endorse these people:

Dear Friend of Natural Healing:

Freedom of speech is theoretically protected under the U.S. Constitution.

But even some of today's most courageous alternative doctors dare not speak publicly about the lifesaving new medicines they've discovered. These are not the familiar 'natural remedies' you read about elsewhere and...

Vested interests will do ANYTHING to prevent them from reaching YOU

Date: 2007/04/13 15:49:18, Link
Author: phonon
The popular picture of ID proponents is that we are trying to take a purely religious idea and smuggle it into science, where it does not fit. This picture could not possibly be more backward.

So, you're trying to take a scientific idea and turn it religious?
What are you getting at? Would this be the bridge between science and theology that Dembski went on about?
If it were not for these problems, I don’t believe anyone could possibly look at mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or especially at biology, without seeing design. The scientific evidence for design in Nature is absolutely overwhelming, it leaps out at you from every corner of science.
How the hel1 does physics and chemistry make you see design? Because there are natural laws? Because you can reliably say that if A -> B yesterday then A -> B tomorrow? And if the scientific evidence for design in Nature is so overwhelming, then why am I so underwhelmed? Where is the evidence?

When we look at human history, it is sometimes very hard to see any evidence of design–the unspeakable sufferings of the human race and its tendency toward evil cause any thinking person to wonder “is this the way a designer would have done things??”
This is just pathetic. Yeah, sure. It all looks designed to me, then...if the Designer were evil. If the Designer were say, oh, I dunno...


Date: 2007/04/14 11:53:29, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Zachriel @ April 13 2007,17:32)
Mona Lisa smoking a cigarette is in Pi.

Um, yeah, that's a "cigarette."


Hey, Kristine, I found something for you.
Start from the top right button.


Date: 2007/04/14 14:17:54, Link
Author: phonon
Conclusion? Obviously this is a brilliant piece of design

The conclusion is obvious. No science necessary.
End of story.

Date: 2007/04/15 15:03:36, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 14 2007,15:14)
Quote (phonon @ April 14 2007,14:17)
Conclusion? Obviously this is a brilliant piece of design

The conclusion is obvious. No science necessary.
End of story.

Oh, but it's not the end of the story. Some nimrod named rrf chimes in with this
Did the authors calculate CSI? If not that would be a great project for some of the scientists here.

It certainly would be a great project; are there any scientists over there? We'll be waiting...

The conclusion is obvious. That guy is a troll. :)

Date: 2007/04/15 15:55:29, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 15 2007,08:19)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,01:02)
Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking. A while ago, scientists didn't know how bumblebees flew. The proper response wasn't to interrogate bumblebees and demand they can prove they can fly. They can. The proper response was to realize your notions of aerodynamics are inadequate.

More: the entire discussion is premised upon an uncritical acceptance of the notion that religious ethics are themselves motivated and justified by the "grounds" cited by the religious themselves. From where I sit, those grounds are cultural inventions and, often, collectively held fictions that have been built atop the genuine causes for "religious" ethics: a capacity for empathy, deep social mind, social participation and helping behavior with origins in human evolutionary history.

It's funny that those who say that atheism leads to relativism, or outright nihilism, also practice their own form of ethical relativism. The old war vs. abortion in terms of "pro-life" is what comes to mind in this case. People who say they are pro-life for religious reasons will also say they are pro-war for certain other religious reasons.

There are other examples, but why get into them?

Date: 2007/04/15 16:03:04, Link
Author: phonon
Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesn’t taste bad?

That statement is a real winner right there.

Why is it that turds, something humans shouldn't eat, smell so terrible? Why is it that fire, which humans shouldn't touch, hurts when you touch it? Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?

A better question might be: Why is it that common sense, which helps a human get through life, is so lacking in certain IDiots?

Date: 2007/04/15 16:26:02, Link
Author: phonon
Man, sometimes I just don't pay enough attention to the comments.
When I’ve brought up the design attributes of a banana, the replies have been that it had tough seeds, was small and hard to digest, and that it’s only as good as it is through man’s genetic engineering. I suspect that if it was sub-optimal at one time, it was still eaten, and must have contained within its genome the features you see in today’s asexual version. So did man design it? Popycock.
I see. So we have one for "artificial selection is not ID." I hope Dembski doesn't get wind of that. Of course Dembski gets all kinds of wind he doesn't know how to deal with.

Just for the UD people that come over here, lets reword that a bit.

When I’ve brought up the design attributes of an artificially evolved enzyme, the replies have been that it once was inefficient and not very selective, and that it’s only as good as it is through man’s genetic engineering. I suspect that if it was sub-optimal at one time, it still performed a function, and must have contained within it some of the features you see in the engineered version. So did man design it? Popycock.

Date: 2007/04/15 16:56:45, Link
Author: phonon
I have logged on to UD and have been able to make comments. None of my comments so far have been deleted, but I wonder if that will change after I left this one at the bottom of the "Thinking Christian" post.
Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

I guess to really accept intelligent design, you must first use your Christian mind, and not your secular, atheist, materialist (Satanic) one.

Maybe that's the answer.

Date: 2007/04/16 10:22:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 15 2007,20:51)
Phonon banned by the Big Head himself, for his impertinence:
1 phonon
04/15/2007 4:51 pm
Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

[[phonon is no longer with this group. –WmAD]]

Quite an honor to have WAD at the controls of the Nixplanatory Filter at the moment of bannination.  Way to go, Phon.  You've reached out and touched the face of WAD.

Well golly. That didn't take long. I think that was my fourth post. Allz I did was ax a question about what having a Christian mind had to do with ID. I guess yer not spozta ax stuff like that.

WAD, yer a meanie.

Quote (k.e @ April 15 2007,21:04)
I thought D didn't read AtBC because it gave him the heeby jeebies. Does that mean one of his spies informed on phonon?

He makes the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (STASI) look benign.

Way to go Bill's Tard crush teh dissent

I made no attempt to hide my pseudonymous "identity." I could have signed in to UD with some other made up name. I'm sure I would have been banned for that comment regardless.
Apollos has something to add.  
Without pontificating on the ins and outs of the spiritual struggle over the predominating Christian world view, I can say that the battle ground has moved past agnosticism and well into the Church. Ironically, agnostics almost seem more open to the notion of Intelligent Design than many evolutionists of the “theistic” variety.
Um. No.
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 15 2007,21:09)
I assume DaveTard told Big Bill that Phonon posted here and was thus a Nonbeliever Who Had to Be Driven From the Temple.

So basically, just posting here is a banning offence at UD, just like it is at Helen Lovejoy's FTK's blog.

Anyway, we should all give Phonon a hero's welcome when he comes back. Publically banned by Sauron himself.  :p

Hero? I was just doin mah jawb.  :D

Cutie-PI has lost his mind.      

William Dembski


9:25 pm
I’ve removed Phonon and Dopderbeck from this forum.

For the record, I regard this piece as the best summary I’ve seen of the capitulation to materialism that has come to infest so much of what on the surface seems confessionally sound Christian thinking. Take Denyse’s message to heart. Indeed, it is prophetic.

It's incomprehensible! Take it to heart? I can't get through it (which is probably good news).

Is it "materialist" to ask that a verb follow a noun to create some understandable concepts?

And for a "non-materialist" WAD certainly seems to think that erasing something makes it never have existed. How very spiritual. 9 years and counting, mister. :angry:

Wow, I was banned in a moment of prophecy! I didn't realize I was blaspheming. Father WAD, forgive me. Of course, WAD doesn't even bother with the charade anymore. "Materialism" (science) is just not sound "Christian" (ID) thinking.

Date: 2007/04/17 15:12:22, Link
Author: phonon
Denyse won't stop the preaching. Of course, this preaching is of the, uh, 21st century, TV talk show style science babble type.
Now, before you decide which of these points of view sounds more plausible to you, please note one thing: In a pop science assessment, one possibility is absolutely off the table, and not to be considered under any circumstances: That people believe in a higher power (God, in theistic traditions) because they have in fact contacted a higher power.
Awesome! Contact. Finally.
The usual “neurotheology” dodge (that’s the fad term for this sort of study) is that science cannot consider such issues. But that leaves science in the position of trying to figure out religious experiences on the assumption that God does not exist and does not influence them in the present.
Denyse, get this through your thick skull. They aren't assuming god doesn't exist. They are assuming (rightly) that there is no way their experiments will prove that god exists. Just had to say it. That's all.

In other words, science is not about assessing the evidence, it is about accumulating evidence that supports an atheistic perspective.
Yes, so never ever ever trust science or scientists. They are evil and they want you to deny god so you can burn in ####. See, that's the secret. They've all been personally contacted by god and are already on the fast track to heaven. But they want it all to themselves. They want to fool you with their wicked sciency ways into thinking that your belief in Jehovah and Jesus are delusions. Ha! Then you're screwed. More heaven for us, suckers!
The results of a fascinating experiment, in which some people deliberately ignored rational information in favor of emotional information in assessing probability.
Cool! A real ID experiment!!

And let's see what it's all about:
Of course, in life as opposed to experiments, ignoring the odds is often rational: If we can't avoid driving, we must get used to its risks.
Uh, yeah. Ignoring the odds and going with your gut is actually rational. And of course whenever you drive, you're not living with the odds, you are ignoring them altogether.

And of course, don't miss O'Leary's take on the invisible handjob.
I guess she just got her John Stossel DVD collection in the mail or something.

Date: 2007/04/17 15:28:27, Link
Author: phonon
Yes, it's true. Scientists are evil.

Date: 2007/04/17 18:42:04, Link
Author: phonon
My evolution/creation interest built slowly. Every once and a while I'd be totally blown away by a friend or family member, who I thought I knew well, when they'd say something like, "I think that whole evolution thing is bunk, I mean how did all this life come from nothing on its own?" I would be all like "wow" and stuff. Then one day out of the blue, evolution came up in a convo between me and a certain family member. He took the creationism side. Again, I didn't think he really believed this stuff and just thought he wanted a lively debate, like we had in the past. As we continued the debate through email over the course of a few weeks, I began to realize he was serious. Well, in the middle of this email debate, I had to do a lot of googling and eventually I wound up on some message boards that were debating these things. I started debating people in the message boards thinking, "where the #### are all these nuts coming from?" I really didn't realize the pervasiveness of creationism in this country. My eyes were opened. Anyway, in the process I've learned quite a bit of biology, although it comes in the Cliff Claven trivia category of knowledge.

Date: 2007/04/18 16:56:05, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (k.e @ April 18 2007,10:23)
Quote (jeannot @ April 18 2007,17:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2007,09:20)
Quote (jeannot @ April 18 2007,05:03)
Quote (Henry J @ April 17 2007,17:20)
The sequel to the movie "Hot Shots" was called "Hot Shots Part Deaux".

Thanks. The French title was different.

Out of curiousity, where is the word play here?

I don't think there is any.

By the way, 'deaux' isn't a word, is it?

Deux means two, eaux means waters (plural), deaux means nothing, AFAIK.

The joke is it sounds sophisticated when it is just pretentious.

The double joke is the word doesn't even exist, so only the most sophisticated would appreciate that subtlety.

Here is a short radio program broadcast last week on Australian ABC’s Radio National 'Lingua Franca' Program that discusses the very subject of pretentious use of foreign words in English.

Robert Dessaix on Philip Gooden's no-nonsense guide to words and phrases from other languages.(MP3, Real audio and transcript.)

Where foreign words have no direct equivalent in English then it is not pretentious to use them.  It's OK to use 'je ne sais qua' or 'zeitgeist' but perhaps not 'au contraire' where we have 'on the contrary'. Moi is definitely pretentious.

####, since we're all correcting each others french and german.

je ne sais quoi  = "I don't know what."
just like au contraire = "on the contrary"

and zeitgeist = "spirit of the times"
or blitzkrieg, etc.

I don't think it's pretentious to use these phrases at all.

Date: 2007/04/18 17:20:21, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (snoeman @ April 17 2007,23:27)
It's totally relative based on what your first language is. For an English speaker, Finnish is a motherfucker. For an Estonian, it's a walk in the park. For an English speaker, Dutch is a challenge but not THAT hard. Dutch would be vastly harder for a speaker of, say, Chinese.

How about Romance languages vs. Germanic languages for English speakers? I took French in highschool and German in college.  Personally, I found German much easier for me to learn than French, but I've wondered if my experience was not typical based on some anecdotal comments I've heard over the years.

Out of curiosity, if it's not too silly a question, do languages exhibit any kind of patterns or preferences in how new words or concepts are added over time? (e.g., tending to adopt from other languages, creating them based upon older words (or whatever the proper way of expressing that would be))

I ask because I've always liked the German version of "vacuum cleaner," i.e., "Staubsauger" or "Dust Sucker."  Equally descriptive, and more pithy, in my opinion.

I thought French was easier than German. The grammar is easier. German, though, is easier to pronounce more words. Sometimes french teachers want you to get the pronunciation perfectly.

The hardest languages for me, that I tried to learn are Polish and Chinese. Polish is hard to pronounce and the grammar structure is quite different from any Western European language. Chinese is just damned near impossible. I can't even say the words right. To me it sounds like I'm saying them perfectly, but I keep getting, "Nope, try again."

Oh, I like German words for the elements!

hydrogen = "wasserstoff" (water stuff)
oxygen = "sauerstoff" (acid stuff, sour stuff)
carbon = "kohlenstoff" (coal stuff)
nitrogen = "stickstoff" ?

And speaking of romantic languages and germanic languages, english is derived from both. When I learned about "The Second Consonant Shift" and "The Great Vowel Shift" I learned why we spell knife and knight the way we do and also why we put an e at the end of a word to make a long vowel.

Date: 2007/04/18 17:34:59, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 18 2007,17:13)
That's right, just stretch out on the couch and get comfortable.

Now, can you tell me how you feel when you say that it's not, ahem, pretentious to use these "phrases"...

swoosh, right over my head


Uh, yeah. Everyone knows it doesn't work that way.

Now, self assembly would make something like this:

Date: 2007/04/18 19:53:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 18 2007,17:42)
Polish is hard to pronounce and the grammar structure is quite different from any Western European language.

Really? For several years I studied Russian, which is structurally basically the same as Polish (Slavic), and it didn't seem that alien to me, not after a couple years of German. In terms of general structure it's a lot like Latin. They're all Indo-European, after all.

I don't disagree with you about Polish pronunciation, tho. Russian pronunciation isn't that hard, but Polish is much more challenging.

C.J.O'Brien, I remember that Ebonics froofrah in Oakland very well. I lived in north Oakland for 10 years, what part of Oakland are you in?

Polish has many declinations in place of what I would call tenses. There is some weird ending for just about every situation to where there are 12 different versions of every word and they usually aren't consistent from word to word. And it's more than just conjugating verbs, it's like you conjugate nouns, and for almost every different situation it's being used. It's way too complicated.

Date: 2007/04/23 17:10:23, Link
Author: phonon
Yes, Joseph is the tard's tard, but Jerry here is doing his best to keep up.
There is no mechanism that explains the changes in species or the construction of complex systems or proteins that have formed as sub-systems of organisms and the cell. Any random process that would lead to this complexity seems to defy belief. So ID emphasizes this.
Thanks, Jerry, for telling us what we already know. ID is not a theory, it is merely a critique of evolutionary theory arising from incredulity. All ID can do is point to a gap in knowledge and insert "design."

And I'm still trying to figure out the waivers thing.

Jerry again:
Plato destroyed the post-modernist argument 2400 years ago which is why few read or learn about his ideas anymore.
Post-modernism was destroyed in ancient times. Plato knew that post-modernism was bunk from the moment he heard of it. Oh yeah, and Plato? Never heard of him.

Date: 2007/04/23 17:29:32, Link
Author: phonon
Awesome! A new book about the Physics of Christianity!

That sounds a lot like:

Date: 2007/04/23 17:36:38, Link
Author: phonon
Here's some ID research for you:

Now, I have observed speaking in tongues (glossolalia) at revival meetings, and have not noticed that the people who can do it are (necessarily) unusual or mentally troubled or under the control of a cult.

She quotes from a study:
In one study, Newberg and colleagues used imaging technology to look at the brains of Pentecostal Christians speaking in tongues _ known scientifically as glossolalia _ then looked at their brains when they were singing gospel music. They found that those practicing glossolalia showed decreased activity in the brain's language center, compared with the singing group.

The imaging results are suggestive of people's description that they do not have control of their own speech when speaking in tongues. Newberg said scientists believe that speech is taken over by another part of the brain during glossolalia, but did not find it during the study.
OR you don't need to use your speech centers so much because it doesn't take a lot of brain power to blurt out gibberish. They should have had a control where the same people just hummed different notes without a tune. Tell them to just randomly grunt. Still making noise. Not using brain (so much).

Date: 2007/04/24 12:40:54, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 23 2007,18:16)
Quote (phonon @ April 23 2007,17:29)
Awesome! A new book about the Physics of Christianity!

So E no longer equals M C-squared . . . . . ?

Not anymore, but God = one cubed.

(Doh, got beaten to the punch.)

Date: 2007/04/26 14:44:30, Link
Author: phonon
Who's clutching at straws?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that "macroevolution" was usually associated with speciation. If there were two types of grass, one type that used C3 photosynthesis and another that used C4, they would easily be placed into two distinct species.

And in the update, how in the #### does that webpage in any way contradict the first paper cited? Basically what the webpage says is that some species of plants within a genus do C3 while others do C4 along with a smattering of hybrids that do both. Other genera have species that can do both too. But again, in what way does this contradict the paper (that says basically the same thing)?

And I don't have access to Theory in Biosciences, but something tells me that the authors of the paper cited all the proper literature, including research done by the author of the webpage DS linked to. But you know, it's not like they are going to cite a webpage, DS.

Date: 2007/04/26 14:48:49, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 26 2007,14:32)
Is it just me

or can you see something in the sky behind him?

God Goatse!

And Jesus Christ!


1:23 am

I wish I had access to this paper. C3/C4 photosynthesis is what Todd Wood has investigated for his models of diversification (see A Baraminological Analysis of Subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae: Helenieae) and the Origin of Biological Complexity.

Uh yeah, baraminology?

Date: 2007/04/26 17:55:37, Link
Author: phonon
totally OT but check it out. i wouldn't miss this for the world.

ABC to Air LIVE Atheist Debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort

After ABC ran a story in January about hundreds of atheists videotaping themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit, best-selling author Ray Comfort contacted the network and offered to prove God's existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith.

OMG! Atheists will be having nightmares about bananas forever now!

Date: 2007/04/27 14:59:57, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 26 2007,18:53)
"But," Comfort continued, "there is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God. Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?

Last time I checked, neither Buddha, Mohammed or Ghandi (sic) are considered to be deities? Isn't blasphemy restricted to deities? These people definitely need to get out more (as if we didn't know that already).

I can kinda understand Mohammed and Buddha, but Ghandi?

And to answer Ray Comfort, the reason people aren't bitter toward Budhism in the US is because no one is trying to shove Budhism down anyone's throat. And he doesn't think people are bitter toward Islam? What world is he living in?

ADDED: And when DaveScot gains weight, does that violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Maybe he's a "mesomorph" because he violates it so easily?

Date: 2007/04/27 15:28:56, Link
Author: phonon
Ironically, this may mean that Lucy could have more chance of being man’s direct ancestor under an ID perspective than under NDE, since ID allows for “pre-programmed” macroevolution as the result of design in the activation of hidden information in the genetic code. Front-end loading allows for abrupt and unpredictable transformation.
gpuccio engages in some projection:
The point is, evidence must be evidence. The failure of accepted evidence which was supposed to be sound is a very bad indicator, although in some measure it can be considered physiological.
Physiological? or psychological? Whatever. He fails to see that it was "evilutionists" who, after seeing the evidence, were the ones to correct the theory.

Also this is great:
The thread starter is Christ in Cheryl. Ew. That reminds me of when EWric Cartman said he would get on his knees and start pleasing  Jesus.

Date: 2007/04/28 12:59:29, Link
Author: phonon
The disrupter could have said that he was standing up to the Darwinist cult.

Also, I hate that crap about "free speech zones." It's totally un-American. The whole country is a free speech zone.

EDIT: Now here's a video everyone can "get behind."

Date: 2007/04/28 13:25:08, Link
Author: phonon
Crikey! When are you dumbasses going to give this up?
Discovery Institute and FRC present:

Washington DC Event - Darwin’s Dangerous Idea The Disturbing Legacy of America’s Eugenics Crusade.

I thought that even the D-man himself said that directed evolution was intelligent design!

Demski even asks the question, is directed evolution Darwinian? His answer:    
“Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.
Eugenics, according to William Dembski, is ID not Darwinism.

Are you listening Cordova? Does it matter?

Date: 2007/04/28 15:57:49, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ April 26 2007,17:14)
The above is a blog post.  I am currently trying to re-create some medieval science and technology, for medieval re-enacting.  I have a furnace that reaches over 1100 degrees, with just charcoal and bellows.  I've recently made Nitric acid, and coloured clear glass with iron to make it green.

That's dammed impressive, sir!

I've always thought about what it would be like to have a home lab of some sort, but I always envisioned a huge amount of red tape and permits involved (and a lot of suspicion.) Too bad that's the world we live in now.

{ps - Hey, and don't forget the really nasty explosives that are easy to make using acetone, acid, and peroxide.

Oh and another really easy one to make is ammonium triiodide. If it's dry enough, when you tap it ever so slightly it'll explode.}

Date: 2007/04/28 16:31:59, Link
Author: phonon
Wow, the Bob Jones thing is pretty interesting.
Although it admitted Asians and other minorities from its inception, BJU refused to enroll black students until 1971, eight years after the University of South Carolina and Clemson University had been integrated by court order. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. Late in 1971, BJU filed suit to prevent the IRS from taking its tax exemption, but in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Simon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University did not have standing to sue until the IRS actually assessed taxes. Four months later, on May 29, 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit "students of any race," a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[38]

The university did not admit unmarried blacks until 1975. In a 2000 interview, the then-president, Bob Jones III, said that interracial dating had been prohibited since 1950s and that the policy had originated in a complaint by parents of a male Asian student who believed that their son had "nearly married" a white girl.[39] In May 1975, as it prepared to allow unmarried blacks to enroll, BJU adopted more detailed rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage—threatening expulsion for any student who dated or married interracially, who advocated interracial marriage, who was "affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage," or "who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations." [40]

On January 19, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service notified the University that its tax exemption had been revoked retroactively to December 1, 1970. The school appealed the IRS decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the University met all other criteria for tax-exempt status and that the school's racial discrimination was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, that "God intended segregation of the races and that the Scriptures forbid interracial marriage." [41] The University was not challenged about the origin of its interracial dating policy, and the District Court accepted "on the basis of a full evidentiary record" BJU's argument that the rule was a sincerely held religious conviction, a finding affirmed by all subsequent courts.[42] In December 1978, the federal district court ruled in the University's favor; two years later, that decision was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On January 8, 1982, just before the case was to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Ronald Reagan authorized his Treasury and Justice Departments to ask that the BJU case be dropped and that the previous court decisions be vacated. Political pressure quickly brought the Reagan administration to reverse itself and to ask the Court to reinstate the case. Then, in a virtually unprecedented move, the Court invited William T. Coleman, Jr. to argue the government's position in an amicus curiae brief, thus ensuring that the prosecution's position would be the one the Court wished to hear. [43] The case was heard on October 12, 1982, and on May 24, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Bob Jones University in Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574). The University refused to reverse its interracial dating policy and (with difficulty) paid a million dollars in back taxes. Also, in the year following the Court decision, contributions to the University declined by 13 percent.

In 2000, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush to the University, Bob Jones III abruptly dropped the interracial dating rule, announcing the change on CNN's "Larry King Live."[44] Five years later when asked by Newsweek for his view of the rule change, the current president, Stephen Jones, replied, "I've never been more proud of my dad...the night he lifted that policy."[45]

Despite its history on racial issues, BJU today has a student body that includes many international and minority students and a number of interracial couples, including members of the faculty and staff. The University has also established two 501©(3) charitable organizations to provide scholarship assistance solely for minority students.[46]

here are some interesting eugenics bits from the past

Date: 2007/04/29 17:19:40, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 29 2007,07:09)

I was straying away from mentioning propylene oxide and nitrogen triiodide, they are simply too easy to make. Unfortunately.

Things like nitroglycerin are relatively easy to make but require some skill, care and basic knowledge. NI3 (how do we do subscript?) and propylene oxide (and various fertiliser bombs) are vastly too simple for my tastes. A reasonably competent marmoset could make them*.

Another readily available and bloody dangerous compound is picric acid. When cleaning out an old prof's lab during my PhD we uncovered over a kilo of the stuff, crystalline, dry as a bone, mouldering in the back of someone's under hood cupboards. We had two choices: a) call the bomb squad (responsible and entirely appropriate) or b) wait until night time, pinch it, take it somewhere remote and heave stone at it until it went bang (irresponsible and bloody dangerous, esp as losing a hand/life was a real possibility given how little force it takes to detonate). Of course we all know which option me and the boys in the lab took.


*I conclusively demonstrated this during my first year undergrad by getting myself and several friends so drunk we had the IQs of marmosets and then making NI3. It really works, and if you have to make it people, for fuck's sake keep it wet until you need it.

Oh yes, they warn you about picric acid nowadays. I never have used the stuff, but every year at the OSHA/EPA thingie where they hand out the chemical hygiene program, they bring it up briefly. They also tell the story of a guy who cleaned out a belljar using nitric acid (instead of HCl like he was supposed to) and put the nitric acid soaked paper towels in a 4L waste bottle that had acetone fumes in it. Then he sealed it and went home for the night. The next morning the pressure had built up and blam.

Ah, explosion stories.

My first really nasty explosion wasn't so large, but it spewed concentrated acid all over. I was trying to wash by centrifuge something that I thought I had carboxylated, but in fact I suppose I had nitrated instead. Well, when the centrifuge got up to speed, the tubes exploded, destroying the rotor and spewing nitric and sulfuric acid in a nice circular pattern, on one of my lab mates and all over papers. Lovely.

Then another time, at band camp, not, someone (not me) left the lab while distilling ether and the still had run dry. I guess there were peroxides built up or something, but when it blew, it sounded like a cannon going off.

And most recently, there are these samples of a certain carbon based material that will remain nameless that I had to react with potassium metal. They die in the air very quickly, but when they slowly "die" because there is a very little bit of air they go to a sort of metastable state. Then when air really hits them, they go off like a pistol. It literally sounds like a .45 going off. It's kinda cool, but it actually sucks.

Date: 2007/04/29 17:29:31, Link
Author: phonon

I tried to post this as a comment on your livejournal. I don't think it went through.

I'd just like to point out that if your acid was pH 1, then that translates to about a 1 molar solution. 70% nitric acid (before it starts fuming) is about 12 molar IIRC. Above 90% it starts fuming NO2 (red gas). Believe it or not, you can have negative pH. 12 M nitric acid would have a pH of -1.
pH = -log 12

But if you are checking with pH paper, you're not going to get a color that represents pH -1, so you're probably way more concentrated than 1 M. I'll bet you made 60-70% nitric acid.

Anyway, sounds fun. Keep up the good work.

Date: 2007/04/30 14:31:59, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ April 30 2007,03:05)
Ahh, thank you phonon.  
I do have a chemistry degree, but I do not recall them mentioning negative pH.  pH is the log of the H+ last I remember, so if there's no hydrogen in it...

The acid did dissolve some lime over the period of a few hours, but I'm trying to work out a more real time demonstration.  I don't really want to dissolve silver and then have to precipitate it and then calcine it, but I suppose I could easily enough.

Hmm, instead of silver, I'd use copper. It's still cheap even though the price is going up, but a small spool of copper wire is nothing.

And if you want to reduce metals from their salts (or some other form) and if you want to stick to the medieval metallurgy methods, you can smelt them. I think smelt is the right term. You heat them in the presence of carbon, usually charcoal or graphite. You can probably make your own charcoal with that furnace of yours.

Date: 2007/04/30 15:06:13, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2007,19:45)
Davetard, that ID Peer reviewed journal - "WND" and FTK.


Words “Intelligent” and “Design” Can’t Be Used Together in K-12

Well, apparently, in some schools, you can't use the words "that's" and "gay" simultaneously.

I'd really be suspended if I were in school.

"Intelligent Design? That's gay."

The "mom" and "dad" thing can't be true, can it?
The whole WND article sounds like something I'd read at WND, but is there any truth to it? Sounds totally ridiculous.

[quote=Dr.GH,April 29 2007,22:11]    
Quote (Ichthyic @ April 29 2007,20:02)
It should be remembered by all here at least, that Panda's Thumb contributers Ed Brayton, and Timothy Sandefur are rabid opponents of environmental protection or any form of government regualtion of mining, logging etc...

They call it "Libretarianism" and they are strong supporters of the The Cato Institute which is the source of George II's environmental attacks.  The Cato Institute is also a major opponent of all forms of public education.  Sandefur is a fellow of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is best known for attempting to overturn protections granted under the EPA and particularly the Endangered Species Act to all species threatened by forest clear-cutting in the Pacific Northwest.  The Pacific Legal Foundation was also very proud of their recent successful efforts to segregate schools in southern California.  Sandefur's personal specialty, IIRC, is to eliminate worker protection laws.

This is a major reason I dropped out of PT- any operation supporting science education should never tolerate people opposed to science and education.

My approach to the conflict of environmentalism and libertarianism is to say that under libertarianism, the sole purpose of government is to protect your rights. If someone pollutes the air or wipes out an entire forest or blows up a mountain to get at coal then ruins a forest and all its streams, then they are violating your rights. The coal companies or the logging companies do not have rights. The individuals that own them do, but there is no inherent right (god given right) to blow up a mountain or pollute the air, even if you "own" the land upon which you are polluting. That's not a right.

This goes for the EPA and the FDA, etc. Those agencies are in place to protect your rights.

That's the argument I start with.

I'm all for small government libertarianism. But some people go way too far with it. What they are really in favor of is anarchism, or some form of it.

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2007,09:55)
Maybe he agrees GW is real, just that it's horribly wicked for the government to do anything about it.

Guess that's the subtle difference between a Republican and a Libertarian.

Actually, at least nowadays, there is a HUGE difference.

Both corporate parties are all about big government these days. There are some members in each of the parties that are against it but they are marginalized.  (the old joke: Democrats are big government in your wallet and Republicans are big government in your bedroom.)

Also, like a said above and as you also pointed out, all sorts of people call themselves libertarian and they are not. example:Bill Maher. ???

Date: 2007/04/30 16:00:24, Link
Author: phonon
The global warming on Mars thing is ridiculous.

DaveScot wants you to think that since there is global warming on Mars right now, that global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide. It all has to do with the sun. Well, duh. Of course the warming is due to the sun, but you know what I mean.

But then he pastes the article that says it has to do with wind and dark surfaces, a mechanism that has no analog on Earth, and is cyclical. Eventually winds pick up so much that there is a global dust storm. This happened in the early 70s (IIRC).

This has nothing to do with what's going on here. On Earth it's much much more complicated due to water and life.

It's also warming on Triton, but that's because Neptune is heading toward it's perihelion (closest point to the sun) so. It's also warming on Pluto for the same reason.

(I don't like the use of the term "summer" to explain global warming on Triton since "summer" isn't a global phenomenon.)

Date: 2007/04/30 16:35:43, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ April 30 2007,03:36)
I didn't know that was what the recent fluids ban on airlines was about.

I think there were certain explosives that can be gels.

9/11 was not done with explosives or guns but by motivated people with knives.

I recently took a trip. One of the rules was "no lighters." That's understandable, but then they told me if I wanted to light something (like a cigarette) that I could use matches.


Oh, but not strike-anywhere matches, sir. You must use safety matches.

Oh, ok.

{boggle boggle}

And, yes, the old get-covered-in-oxide-so-you-can-be-a-ball-of-dangerous- alkali-metal-waiting-to-start-a-fire trick! They'll do it if you let them. But if you keep it under nitrogen (which one should do while killing a still) there won't be as much of a fire hazard.

Or you could blow the $5000 and get one of those drying column set-ups. I wish we had one.

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 30 2007,04:53)
However the trick is getting the mercury ONTO the plane as the guards are quite hot on it.

funny, but THAT is what I recall having prompted the liquid container ban.

have you ever seen the show "mythbusters"?

they actually tested the "explosive decompression" idea by doing various things like firing a gun at the window, the fuselage, blowing the window out with powder, etc.

it took a MASSIVE charge to cause any serious structural damage to the plane, and just blowing out the window caused nothing more than a minor inconvenience; no explosive decompression.

If you had a shampoo bottle of mercury in your bag you'd know it. A liter of mercury would be about 13.5 kg.
have you ever seen the show "mythbusters"?

they actually tested the "explosive decompression" idea by doing various things like firing a gun at the window, the fuselage, blowing the window out with powder, etc.

it took a MASSIVE charge to cause any serious structural damage to the plane, and just blowing out the window caused nothing more than a minor inconvenience; no explosive decompression.
Did they shoot a frozen chicken through it?  :)

Date: 2007/04/30 16:55:18, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ April 30 2007,16:35)
D'oh!  Thanks, I should have thought of that myself.  I happen to have some small bits of copper lying about, from when they put my heating in.

I'll try charcoal eventually, but really I need to make a metal box.

You could make a bit of copper nitrate, which is a very nice green color, and use it to color some of your glass, perhaps.

Damm, now I need to find a hobby that involves fire.

He he Fire! Fire!

Date: 2007/04/30 18:42:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,17:53)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 29 2007,22:11)
It should be remembered by all here at least, that Panda's Thumb contributers Ed Brayton, and Timothy Sandefur are rabid opponents of environmental protection or any form of government regualtion of mining, logging etc...

In general, I think that Libertarians tend to be . . . well . . . nuts.  When they start going on about charging people to use the sidewalk (free market, and all that), my eyes glaze over.

See, libertarian can mean a lot. I've come across libertarians (self proclaimed) that argue against toll roads and the like. Being a libertarian doesn't really mean that you think everything should be privatized. That's anarcho-syndicalism or something.

Having said that . . . .

I view political fights (like fighting creationism) much as I used to view union strikes.  Here's the line (literally, most times).  Someone is either on this side of it, or on that side of it.  Anyone on this side of it, is my friend, and I'll work with him/her all I can to win this thing.  Anyone on THAT side of it, is my enemy.  And I am utterly and completely ruthless to my enemies.

Jesus would not approve. :)

But don't you think that this is one of the reasons our country sucks right now? The "you're with me or against me" attitude?

I think people should try to de-emphasize labels in debate and politics. "Liberal?" WTF does that mean? "Conservative?" "Libertarian?" "Socialist?" All they tend to be are names for teams that line up on either side of some arbitrary line.

Whenever I argue politically, I try to come at a person from their own political classification of themselves. If they call themselves conservative, I'll try to convince them why my position would be conservative in some way. That way they can keep the label they like for themselves and I may convince them of my position.

Having said that...

ID people just can't do comedy. It isn't in them, I guess.

Date: 2007/05/01 16:48:46, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,20:11)
Quote (phonon @ April 30 2007,18:42)
But don't you think that this is one of the reasons our country sucks right now? The "you're with me or against me" attitude?

No, I think our country sucks because nobody wanted to bother to fight the people on the other side of the line, until AFTER they had already turned the US into a virtual Roman Empire.  And indeed, if there weren't a steady supply of body bags coming home, no one would STILL be bothering to fight them.

As a society, the US has proved time and time and time again that we simply don't care what's going on around us.

Well, I was just talking about political debate and not actual politics. I was probably a bit hyperbolic in saying that the "with us or against us attitude" was why this country sucks. The real reason it sucks goes back a long time, it's just being made so bad lately that it's difficult to ignore. I guess I meant that political discourse in this country sucks because of the team attitude.

I know this is getting way off topic for this thread, but this country has been imperial from its conception. This is no sort of new trend. Now, the blatant slashing of the Bill of Rights that has gone on lately is new (except for times during the civil war and wwII and for a bit afterward). Well, what's new about it is how blatant it is.

And, generally, people don't care about what's going on around them because they are still comfortable, for the most part.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."  - Jefferson

Date: 2007/05/01 16:51:12, Link
Author: phonon
that show is quite educational, on occassion.

and you get to watch things go boom.

I do remember an episode where they blew up an entire cement truck. It was pretty impressive.

Ah, found it on gootube

Date: 2007/05/01 16:58:54, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,20:30)
Quote (phonon @ April 30 2007,18:42)
Whenever I argue politically, I try to come at a person from their own political classification of themselves. If they call themselves conservative, I'll try to convince them why my position would be conservative in some way. That way they can keep the label they like for themselves and I may convince them of my position.

Well, I'm not at all interested in converting people from the other side, and I really don't care if they "understand me" or not.  Again, I look at it like a union organizer.  Either the boss will recognize the union, or he won't.  Either the creationists get to teach their crap in schools, or they don't. Either women, gays and racial minorities get the same rights everyone else has, or they don't.  Either we dump pollutants in the river, or we don't.  If we get what we want, then great -- we all get to go home.  If not, we fight for it until we DO get what we want.  

The two sides have utterly different interests, and they will never sit down, strum guitar, and sing Kumbaya together.  One side will win.  One side won't.  I prefer it be my side that wins.

That is what politics is, whether we like it or not.  

The right wing understands that, and it's why they've been so successful, while the "liberals" are left wringing their hands and worrying about how terribly divisive the whole thing is and why can't we all just get along and blah blah blah.  For six years, the rightwingers flipped the bird at the Democans.  Now, the Democans are cluck-clucking about how they want to be "uniters" and are making all sorts of noise about "bipartisanship". Whaaa ???  "Bipartisanship", my ass.  Those dickweeds didn't give two hoots in #### about anybody else while they were busily building a plutocracy.  I see no reason why we should not return the favor while we dismantle it.

Well, see, you say something about the right wing and liberals to start the last paragraph, then you end it by saying something that make it clear you don't really think it's about right/left. Of course it's not, it's what it's always been about, rich and powerful versus poor and divided.

Date: 2007/05/01 17:16:29, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 01 2007,00:20)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,17:53)
In general, I think that Libertarians tend to be . . . well . . . nuts.  When they start going on about charging people to use the sidewalk (free market, and all that), my eyes glaze over.

Yeah, they are "nuts."  No "maybe" or "they are sortofonourside" about it.  They are enemies of public education and the environment, and every civil right you or I thought we had.  

OH! they like greed.  Greed is good.  Small groups can organize to steal from everybody else, or kill them.  So long as the motivation is greed.  Greed is OK.  Killing is OK if there is a profit (and you wont be charged with anything).  It is only bad if a majority of people think that these stinking thieves should be stopped.  That is bad.  That is "anticompetitive."

Can you explain how a libertarian is an enemy of civil rights?
That's a new one on me.

Wow, and all these exaggerated characterizations of libertarians are amazing.

I guess I'm trying to defend libertarians because I respect so many libertarian people and agree with a lot of their positions, especially with respect to war. But again, there are a lot of total tards out there that want to call themselves libertarians simply so they can run cock fights or sell crack.

And just for the record, the SP guys think the notion of a South Park Republican is like totally dumb and stuff. I STILL cannot see the connection between Libertarians and Republicans. In my eyes they are night and day. I think it's another symptom of people labeling themselves libertarian without really knowing wtf they're talking about.

Date: 2007/05/01 17:33:01, Link
Author: phonon
Yeah, man, they have no concept of actual humor.

I mean, Jackie Mason?

Date: 2007/05/01 17:45:56, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 01 2007,17:33)
Quote (phonon @ May 01 2007,16:58)
Well, see, you say something about the right wing and liberals to start the last paragraph, then you end it by saying something that make it clear you don't really think it's about right/left. Of course it's not, it's what it's always been about, rich and powerful versus poor and divided.


And alas, the Democans have never been, and never will be, "left".  They are kinder, gentler, Republicrats.  Nothing more.

BTW, happy May Day, everyone.  "Ariiiiiiiise, ye victims of opppreeeeeeeeesion . . . . . "


Oh, when I say republicrats, I just mean both corporate parties together. I think a lot of independents (libertarians too) just call them The War Party. I've heard others divide the government into the Bloody Hands Party and the Clean Hands Party depending on who was for the war or voted for it and who was against it from the beginning.

Date: 2007/05/01 17:55:55, Link
Author: phonon

This is great.

Still don't think evolution is racist? Here we have a drawing of our origins coming from Africa (the new repackaged evolution idea). The arrows represent a evolution direction (like the evolution tree). Now look who is at the bottom. Now look who is at the top. So why do we come from Africa? Because that's where the sub-human black people live.

Or since north and south are arbitrary, if you turn the map still proves that evolution is racist.

And of course evolution is evil. It has something in common with Hitler AND Muslims! Extermination!!!
But let's be fair and balanced, shall we?

Ya can't beat religious fundamentalism.
No really, you can't beat it.

added: and looking over this site I realize that it's like a conspiracy theory website, and a very "high quality" one

Date: 2007/05/02 19:42:22, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (dhogaza @ May 02 2007,16:57)

Can you explain how a libertarian is an enemy of civil rights?

They don't believe that government should be in the business of legislating civil rights.

That was easy.

and wrong. A libertarian believes that the government's primary responsibility is to protect individual rights, civil and all.


Wow, and all these exaggerated characterizations of libertarians are amazing.

Having debated many of them over the years, I don't find the characterizations exaggerated at all.
Maybe we're getting into a 'true scotsman' situation here, but like I said before, libertarian can have a very broad definition and there are a lot of people who call themselves libertarian but are plainly not. In fact, from what I've heard there has been sort of an influx of people to the Libertarian Party from the Republican Party, so now a lot of their platform is just conservative and not libertarian. At least that's what I've heard. And like I said, a good example is that Bill Maher even calls himself a libertarian and he's just not at all.


I guess I'm trying to defend libertarians because I respect so many libertarian people and agree with a lot of their positions, especially with respect to war.

I've never noticed a consistent position among libertarians regarding war.  I'll note that defense is one area of government spending and control they believe is warranted.
Yes, as far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, due to the exodus from the Repubs, their stance on the war is confused. Basically the "real" libertarian position on war is that it should only be defensive and that  no country should never be the world's police or go around "liberating" countries through military adventurism.

My major problem with Libertarians is that they tend to be totally inflexible - government is ALWAYS bad, the market is ALWAYS better, regardless of whatever empirical data exists that refutes that belief.
Yeah, I don't agree with them on that either. I think maybe they are inflexible because they have the team attitude mentioned earlier.

Ayn Rand was a utopian whose right-wing fantasies were as impractical as the utopian notions of the far left.
You know, I don't know a lot about Rand. I've never read anything by her, seems boring as ####. The more sane people that I've spoken to (that call themselves libertarian) don't really talk about her, so maybe there's the "Ayn Rand Libertarian" and the "Non Rand" type.

A lot of software engineers are libertarian ... too much Robert Heinlein is my guess, an inability to see that entertaining utopian yarns like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" paint a very unrealistic picture of humankind.
Hey now! I like Robert Heinlein. I never gave a crap about whatever social statement he was trying to make. His stories were cool.

Interestingly, when outsourcing and H1Bs and the dotbomb combined to make it no longer possible to make $125K/yr as an HTML "programmer", a lot of anti-government libertarian dotcom young 'uns suddenly began screaming for government protectionism to help them maintain something like a reasonable salary ...
He he, these are just opportunists with selective morals.

Regarding comments like "Democrats have never been on the left ..." harumph.

Franklin Roosevelt was moderately socialist.  His ag secretary was an avowed socialist.  People tend to forget this because they forget (or never learned) that something like 2/3 of the New Deal was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And to declare that the two parties are nearly identical today.  Pfft.  I've been involved in forest and desert conservation issues since the 1970s, and there's no comparision between (say) Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and, in contrast, Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
I think some brit in some forum somewhere said "America wouldn't know the left if it came around and nicked all its guns." and I read another brit's column titled "There is no American left." Hey, maybe they were full of shiat. I'd say there are individuals who are very left, like say Dennis Kucinich. And the two parties, on the fundamental issues are virtually identical. They have different styles and appeal to different segments of the population, but when it comes down to it, they act in the party interest first, which usually translates into some corporate interest. And keep in mind, I'm talking about the National parties here. Of course, local stuff will be different.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 02 2007,18:24)
Quote (dhogaza @ May 02 2007,16:57)
Franklin Roosevelt was moderately socialist.  

Well, certainly the rightwing nutters thought so.  They always hated him (and still do), even though he saved their asses -- with them kicking and screaming and fighting him all the way.

Interesting. How exactly did FDR "save their asses?" I'm just curious as to what you're talking about.

Date: 2007/05/02 19:47:26, Link
Author: phonon

Some guy tried to get me to read this book. Actually, he gave me a copy of it. He said that it was inspirational and it may even lead me to Christ. Well, I read it through about a third of it and, man, I couldn't get any farther. It's like reading some 16 year old's myspace blog. It's really boring and meandering and has NO point. I couldn't even tell where the inspirational parts were, maybe those come at the end.

Blue Like Jazz is a book that holds truth, but should also be approached with caution.
This is a common theme for fundies. Books can be dangerous, so use caution! Like the warning sticker on a textbook.

Date: 2007/05/03 18:07:51, Link
Author: phonon
I started this thread just to have a place to answer questions about "politics" that come up in other threads. The name of the thread is intentionally ridiculous.

I don't know what's going on with the board. When I try to use a link, the preview pane puts it in html instead of the message board code. That's also why the thread title is messed up.

Date: 2007/05/03 18:14:03, Link
Author: phonon
This first post is to reply to this post by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 02 2007,20:49)
Quote (phonon @ May 02 2007,19:42)
Interesting. How exactly did FDR "save their asses?" I'm just curious as to what you're talking about.

At the time of the New Deal, the depression was raging, political radicalism was skyrocketing, and there were basically two choices --- reform, or revolution.

FDR forced reform onto the business interests, which saved them from revolution.

In return, they fought him all the way.  So he saved their asses, in spite of their opposition.


I didn't realize there was a revolution looming. I did hear about a proposed coup d'etat., so someone saved FDR's ass too.

I usually listen to these podcasts here.
Last week there was a historian on and FDR came up. You might think this guy's opinions are funny. He loves Warren Harding and hates FDR. It's here. The FDR stuff starts at about 20 minutes.

Date: 2007/05/03 18:17:44, Link
Author: phonon
Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in undercutting the growth of left-wing political movements in the mid-1930s by adopting much of the rhetoric of the left and co-opting many of its leaders.
I guess the Democratic Party never stopped that practice.

Date: 2007/05/03 18:20:55, Link
Author: phonon
Yeah, what's going on with the code for links?

Date: 2007/05/04 09:27:45, Link
Author: phonon
You totally beat me to it. I was coming over here to post that video.

Isn't it freaking ridiculous?

I am glad the question was worded in such a straightforward manner. Yes/No No room for BS.

Date: 2007/05/04 09:34:03, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2007,18:19)
1) Remember, square brackets.

2) Haven't heard that Clinton quote in a while.

3) Since this thread is about Lenny's political views, I have but two simple questions:

a) Should people be lynched for thinking "bad" thoughts?

b) If they shouldn't be lynched for "crime" thought, do you see any irony in equating a supporter of mob violence to a voice of freedom?

I look forward to your answer.

I did use square brackets. In fact, I used the little buttons on top of the pane. Somehow when the code was being changed to html, it got put into the preview pane as html, which didn't translate to the actual post.

If some admin person can take the [The Rev...etc] out of the title that would be great. I don't know how the original [quote...] got in there at all.

Oh, and this thread isn't just for Lenny's views, it was just because the other thread was getting too many OT posts.

Also, I just came across something. Went to to see what they thought about the GOP debate last night, and someone in the comments linked to a press release.
Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian and most people accept him as such, and he proposed legislation to protect civil rights. I didn't provide any evidence to my claim before (in the other thread) so I just wanted to do that here. He also voted against the Patriot Act itself.

Date: 2007/05/04 14:25:40, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (improvius @ May 04 2007,13:39)
To be fair (and cynical), the responses might not be completely honest.  The question might as well have been phrased "Who would you rather piss off?  Raise your hand if you want to alienate intellectuals, or keep it lowered if you want to alienate fundamentalist Christians."  Either way, though, I'll take the answers at face value.  Pandering to ignorance is just as bad as (if not worse than) merely being ignorant.

That's why the question was asked, IMO.

It reminds me of a question posed to Bush during the 2004 debates.

"Do you consider yourself to be an environmentalist?"

Perfect question for G-dub. There is no good answer for him.

Date: 2007/05/05 14:21:02, Link
Author: phonon
Over the past two years or so, John McCain has gone quite insane. The man is no longer in control of his mental faculties.

Date: 2007/05/05 19:28:28, Link
Author: phonon
Breaking news!! 100% of plants are fueled by radiation!!
and Dave can't help but spew tard
They ostensibly preceded any other kind of life by billions of years and still exist today in forms indistinguishable from those in past (as far we can tell what they were like in the past which isn’t a whole lot). One wonders how or why higher plants and animals managed to evolve and survive amidst these masters of survival.
Yes, the mind boggles at how plants and animals can survive with all these damned bacteria around!

The only way bacteria could survive longer is if they can somehow find a new habitable planet and translocate to it. This seems to require telescopes to locate habitable planets and spacecraft to get from here to there. Maybe that’s why we are here - to make sure all life doesn’t die when the earth is no longer habitable. Maybe that’s been the “plan” all along and this has happened before many times on many other worlds with ours just one more link in the chain. Why else would be building telescopes that can find planets around other stars and spacecraft that can escape the solar system? There’s no practical benefit in it except perhaps for this. Maybe it’s a biological imperative and we really have no choice about building telescopes and spacecraft.
The master plan, drawn up by the Master Planner, was to design humans so that they could design spacecraft so that bacteria could live on.

Well, sounds like a water-tight theory to me.



7:24 pm


Just as interesting as the atmosphere being oxygenated just right is the construction of massive underground reservoirs and filling them up with fossil fuels so when the technologic species comes along there’s a ready-made supply of coal, oil, and natural gas waiting for them to power a globe spanning industrial civilization. Pretty darn convenient. Happy coincidence or planned that way?
No comment.

Date: 2007/05/05 19:49:02, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 03 2007,20:15)
But for me, on the other hand, it is capital-ISM that is evil.  It's not the PERSON, it's the social/economic system that forces EVERYONE to act the same way. A business owner may be the sweetest person in the world; he may give money to the SPCA; he may help little old ladies cross the street -- but he MUST, absolutely MUST, treat his workers as "equipment" rather than as "people", if his business is to survive.  If Mother Theresa were to become a business owner, she would have no choice but to act in the very same way as the most heartless ruthless uncaring clod who ran a competing business -- because if she DIDN'T, she'd be broke and out of business in a very short time.  Capital-ISM, as a social/economic system, forces EVERYONE down to the lowest possible level, whether they want it or not.  To me, THAT is its greatest evil.

I know a guy that runs his own landscaping business. He hires illegals simply because he can't find any citizens to do the job. But, he pays these illegals at least $10/hr. He says he does that because he doesn't want to be a bitch and he wants his workers to be happy. I really don't know why he can't find citizens to do yardwork for $10/hr. Meanwhile a homeless guy is asking me for change.

Google, Inc. basically pampers its employees, who purportedly are more productive because of it.

So, it could be said that some employers realize the value of happy employees and their bottom line is actually improved by treating their workers like human beings.

Quote (Kristine @ May 04 2007,21:09)
My point is, it's all such an unholy incestuous contrived vampiric cluster-fuck that I'm not even sure it should be called capitalism anymore. It's looking rather Soviet (as opposed to Marxist) to me. The supposed laws of supply and demand seem rather quaint in comparison, and irrelevant.

Unfettered capitalism always tends toward monopoly (at least that's what I heard) so the incestuous vampiric clusterfudge is only natural. (if we had unfettered capitalism, which we do not.)
Quote (BWE @ May 04 2007,22:09)
Any system you want to implement won't work. The forces against it will have something to fight and the underdog evokes sympathy. The best we can hope for is a clusterfuck where no one has enough real power to make any good targets.

Money and power do weird things to people.

Yes, there is no magic system that will end corruption and greed. People will always find ways around any system so they can serve themselves.

Date: 2007/05/05 19:56:58, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2007,16:10)
 Let me know what you want the title to be, and I'll change it.

Well, I was going to ask you to change it so it doesn't have the bracketed "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank, but seeing how the thread is progressing so far...

Never Mind....

Date: 2007/05/07 17:14:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ May 07 2007,04:04)
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 07 2007,03:57)
I am not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I think you all understand.

If you want a single sentence that summarizes ID, I nominate this one.


Yup, that sums it up nicely.

And in this post by Densye, she lists off things that Darwin didn't accomplish but was supposed to have accomplished according to the conventional wisdom, but none of those things, from what I can tell, are the actual conventional wisdom. I guess, though, that all the Good Christian Soldiers™ need this to be the conventional wisdom. Otherwise, they wouldn't have much to fight.

2. The Origin did not “revolutionize” the biological sciences by removing the creationist premise or introducing new principles.
There was a creationist premise in biological science at that time? Didn't know that (or it's not true).  
On the contrary, Origin had little effect on the hard biological sciences because they were already mechanistic and experimental.
Yeah, you know, pipetting and stamp collecting.  
5. Darwin made little or no contribution to the renovation of theology.
Yeah, well since that wasn't Darwin's field nor was it his goal, I'd say, um...yeah.  
6. The Darwinian Revolution was, at the public opinion level, the fashion of free trade economics backed by the perception that Darwin and Spencer had extended that paradigm to all of living nature. This fashion enjoyed prominence in much of Europe and the United States, but began to fade around 1900. It was in no sense analogous to the Copernican revolution, with which it is often compared.
Yeah, I mean, it's not like an entire field of science was created that is still being studied to this day or anything. It's obviously nothing like the work of Copernicus. You don't see people scrambling around 500 years later trying to prove Copernican theory, so obviously Copernicus was right and Darwin was wrong.

So let's sum up.

Darwin didn't come up with natural selection or the theory of evolution. He didn't revolutionize people's thinking about life or their creationist ideas. He really made no contribution to science, when you think about it.

So, why are we so pissed at him again?
Why do we need to prove him wrong on everything?
Why are we damning his name?
I am not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I think you all understand.

Date: 2007/05/07 17:25:03, Link
Author: phonon
1) What is the origin of the universe?
Why is there something rather than nothing? How do you get matter and energy from nothingness? How do you get a rock out of nothing?
Godidit. Godidit. and Godidit.  
2) What is the origin of life?
How do you get life from non-life? How do you go from a rock to a tree?
by the power of God.  
3) What is the origin of mind?
Godidit, except in the case of God's mind, then it doesn't matter.  
How does a living thing become a self-conscious being? How do you go from a tree, to an animal, to a human?
Godidit and you don't go from a tree to an animal (unless God does it, of course).  
4) What is the origin of good and evil?
How does an amoral being become morally aware?
By eating fruit that you're not supposed to eat. Duh.    
I call them the Four Big Bangs:

1’) the Cosmological (the universe “just popped” into existence out of nothingness).

2’) the Biological (life “just popped” into existence out of a dead thing).

3’) the Psychological (mind “just popped” into existence out of a brain).

4’) and the Moral (morality “just popped” into existence out of amorality).
As you can see, we theists have all the answers, while those lousy unscientific atheists admit how dumb they are by saying they don't know.

Date: 2007/05/07 18:09:53, Link
Author: phonon
bornagain77 would like to add all of the scientific contributions of theism, no Christianity, has had over the ages.
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
Never mind that the concept of a singularity came purely from mathematics and physics. Or that the concept of spacetime, the foundation of big bang theory, came purely from physics.  
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
Never mind that quantum theory has nothing to do with God and was predicted entirely by physics and math.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
Never mind that the theory of relativity is entirely physical, i.e. materialistic.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants, for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
Never mind that this guy probably doesn't know what these "universal constants" are, much less that if the constants were changed life "as we know it" wouldn't evolve, but some other kind of life might.
5. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
Never mind that DNA was discovered and its genetic code elucidated through purely materialistic means and that materialists (scientists) deduced that DNA must be the genetic material, as in it WAS materialism that predicted the genetic nature of DNA.
6. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
Never mind that this doesn't make any sense.
7. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would have naturally expected this.
Never mind that anything simpler than a bacterium will either be "eaten" by said bacterium, or is a virus. And don't even think about minding the fact that theism doesn't predict anything about the complexity of life.  
8. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
Never mind that the oldest sedimentary rocks are about a billion years younger than the age of the Earth and that a billion years is a pretty long time.  
9. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Theism would have expected such sudden appearance of the many different fossils in the Cambrian explosion.
Never mind that theism (Christianity) also predicts a global flood and birds arriving on the planet before lizards.

Date: 2007/05/07 18:42:54, Link
Author: phonon
11:44 am

Another common factor is that United States is the focal point of both controversies. Funny how a nation of knuckle dragging bible worshippers is also the most technologically and economically advanced nation in the world. The mother of all non sequiturs is that progress in science and engineering is hampered by religious belief. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the proof in this case is that a nation founded on the principle of inalienble God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the best thing going. Judeo-Christian belief, whether true or not with regard to divine inspiration, is unquestionably a successful formula for the attainment of high living standards in a free society. I don’t know who said it but Never argue with success and if ain’t broke don’t fix it are apt here.
Let's try to address all the things that are wrong with this paragraph.

First off, DS says that it is a non sequitur, no, the mother of all non sequiturs, to say that religious belief will interfere with scientific progress, yet in 3 or 4 of the surrounding posts on UD, they try to make the case that no religious belief leads to all sorts of scientific errors and fallacies. Then he says that it is the principle of God given rights that makes US science the best science. I think Dave may have found a daughter to his mother of all non sequiturs. Then he says that belief in Jesus creates a high (material) standard of living, yet there are many countries that are predominantly Christian that do not have a high standard of living. I'm looking at you Latin America. He also says that Judeo-Christianity (wtf IS that anyway) also leads to a free society. Well, tell that to everyone who lived BEFORE the American Revolution. And then tell that to the people who say we still DON'T live in a free society.

William Dembski:
Certain sectors of science are notoriously corrupt, inventing threats and then setting themselves up as saviors so that anyone who resists their salvific efforts is branded as evil. This is an abuse of science, and UD will stand against it in whatever form it takes.
Yeah, you know, invented threats, like moral decay because of Darwinism.

Date: 2007/05/07 19:14:37, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 05 2007,10:20)
And of course you are entirely correct that unions themselves (particularly here in the US) have been crushed (legally and otherwise) virtually out of existence.

Hey now, there's one union that is making great strides. They work for you.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 05 2007,22:52)
Well, just like biological evolution, surviving in easy times is . . . well . . . easy.  It's getting through the TOUGH times that really draw the line.

As for small businesses, they are basically nonentities.  In terms of their economic and political power, they are non-players.  Indeed, they only exist because the big boys haven't yet bothered to either buy them out or drive them under.

I don't think Google or Costco are small companies.

Also, what about service related "industries" like law where the "workers" are paid handsomely?

The ironic thing is that Adam Smith's entire outlook (and indeed that of every free-market fan, including the Libertarians) is based on an economy of small shopkeepers -- a society that simply no longer exists.  The natural trend of any market system is towards oligopoly and corporate monopoly.  The big boys don't play by "the market" --- indeed they do everything they can to AVOID "the market".  And unlike the little guys, the big boys have the economic, political and social power to do it.
Well, no Google doesn't like to "play the market" and neither does any big oil company.

But, you can't just go from one extreme to the other. You can't say that because unfettered capitalism leads to tyranny we must become communist.

What would be nice is a government that can check corporate power instead of colluding with it and enabling it. Alas, there is no magic system that can circumvent human failings when it comes to corruption or greed.

Date: 2007/05/08 16:22:04, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 08 2007,09:09)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 07 2007,22:41)
Quote (phonon @ May 07 2007,18:42)
He also says that Judeo-Christianity (wtf IS that anyway) also leads to a free society.

Sounds like he and Skeptic read the same books.

Alas, Judeo-Christianity actually led to the Divine Right of Kings, which no one but an idiot could describe as "a free society".  Indeed, democracy itself was introduced, in the US and in France, by anticlerical secularists who specifically and deliberately excluded any religious test for government, or any government involvement with religion.

I doubt that Tard can explain that away any more than Skeptic can.

Does anyone actually practice "Judeo-Christianity"? Is that basically DaveTard's religion?

Maybe it's the recent converts from Jews for Jesus?  
One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind (see Devarim 6:4), and belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is held as incompatible with Judaism.
According to a common belief in Judaism, these "indications" are based on mistranslations and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah. The vision of God as a trinity is seen by Judaism as a deviation from monotheism and therefore is rejected.
"[a] note about Jews for Jesus, Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, and similar groups: Jews in these groups who have converted to Christianity but continue to observe various Jewish practices are no longer considered part of the Jewish community in the usual sense."

Maybe they celebrate Hanukkah AND Christmas. Lucky kids.
"On Moische! On Herschel! On Schlomo!
It's Hanukkah Harry 8 nights a year!
On Moische! On Herschel! On Schlomo!
Means that Hanukkah Harry is here!
Delivering Toys to Jewish girls and Jewish boys
We dance the horah around the menorah
'Cuz Hanukkah Harry is Here!"

Date: 2007/05/08 16:39:05, Link
Author: phonon
DaveScot is a tard prophet:
Is it supposed to “help” in some manner? I thought going where the evidence leads is just something that intellectually honest people do as a matter of course whether where it leads helps or not.
Or you could go where the lack of evidence leads. Isn't that what ID is all about?
Sometimes the evidence leads to a brick wall that cannot be seen over, around, or through. That’s just the way cookie crumbles.
And that's where ID comes in.
I don’t disbelieve in the big bang or black holes just because they end in just such a brick wall. If intelligent design by an unidentified and possibly unidentifiable designer is the best explanation for certain phenomena then that’s just the way it is.
Especially if the "evidence" for intelligent design is a lack (or not) of evidence for non-intelligent design.
Not knowing what’s inside black holes, what’s beyond the edge of the observable universe, or what came before the big bang are things I can’t change. I’m not so certain I can’t know the immediate origin of life on earth, one way or another.
So I'll just defer to my default position, which is that some quite intelligent guy poofed it there. Better safe than sorry, right?

Freudian slip?  
Different religions and philosophers have different views of gods, but what they all agree upon for some cause to be “god” is that it is personal, and creator. So green cockroach, giant old bearded man, a being with lion head and hore body, or whatever. These have nothing at all to do with my argument.
Someone spends too much time at the zoo. And I've never heard of sex tourism to Botswana.

Borne is his tardentity  
markf: “Because there is no evidence for this thing and it doesn’t solve any of the problems that bewilder me.”

What you really mean is, “there is no evidence I wish to acknowledge”. You yourself are evidence.
IS that what they mean by self evident?

JT75 didn't think it through  
Let’s put the discussion in terms of being and existence.
You are saying that the universe began existing without any cause for its beginning to be. Can this be held as a consistent view of causality?
Of course just replace the word "universe" with "god" and you get the same result. And no, JT, no one is saying it didn't have a cause, they are just saying they don't know what it was. You should listen to your prophet's sermon about brick walls a few posts up.

Date: 2007/05/09 17:53:23, Link
Author: phonon
SMURF (Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains)?

Well anyway, DaveScott says:
I believe in the evolution of life the same way I believe in the evolution of computers. It’s obvious both evolved in a stepwise fashion from simple beginnings but just as obvious is that neither could have happened absent contrivance.

Obvious huh?
Yeah, you're right, intelligent design is OBVIOUS.
If it looks designed, it probably is.
DS's work is done.

Vladimir Krondan
Why do scientists presuppose that elementary particles should behave like matter?
Oh, I dunno, maybe because they ARE matter?
If matter is made of elementary things, one cannot say that elementary things are then made of matter.
Uh, yes you can.
So why do scientists feign surprise when they discover that electrons do not behave like ping-pong balls?
Is that what they've been doing?

Date: 2007/05/09 17:57:56, Link
Author: phonon
Borne has already forgotten that the official position on eugenics from Dr. Dembski is that it is intelligent design and not Darwinism. And of course there is the wonderfully ironic bit at the end.

Personally, considering that Darwinism spawned the scientific background and justifications of the holocaust I see no reason to change the brownshirt terminology.

Not that all Darwinists are Nazis or even like Nazis. Nevertheless, that lame excuse for science, which is nothing but the materialist’s origins myth, was at the root of Nazi eugenics.

Given the way Darwinists have publicly and privately persecuted and attempted to intimidate ID scientists in the last years, (using the same pathetic tactics that hate groups like Nazis used before WWII), I see no qualms for abstaining from the use of brownshirts when applied to zealots posting propaganda posters.

A superficial visit to TPT should be enough to convince anyone of the kind of vehement hatred and vitriol that fuels so much of Darwinism today.

antg: Perhaps you ought to upgrade your knowledge of history?

And this is about politics, but it's from UD so...
Since Ron Paul wants the constitution to be respected and up held I think it would be relevant to urge everyone to support him.
That's fine. Why not? Personally, I think Ron Paul is the best (by far) Republican candidate. Tribune 7, what do you think?
Ron Paul is cool but he seems to be missing the point that winning the War on Terror is integral to defending the Constitution.
Ah, yes. Ron Paul just doesn't want to kill enough Muslims for your taste. That's understandable. By the way, since we're being all constitutional and stuff, when did Congress declare The War on Terror?

Date: 2007/05/09 18:13:42, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,17:55)
I'm simply sick to death of having to address this issue ~repeatedly~ .

I commend you for getting them into this argument directly. For one, it's the CENTRAL argument in the ID "controversy." Also, getting the UD crowd to admit openly and candidly their views on the separation of Church and State (they's agin'it) is something that should have been done long ago. It's really a shame that it will only be one thread at UD when they should have an ongoing discussion about it. Let them get their views out there for all their readers to see.

Date: 2007/05/10 13:39:47, Link
Author: phonon
But giving something a name doesn’t mean you’ve explained the phenomena...

You mean like "Intelligent Design?"
Germany will turn into a summer resort paradise.
I thought the theory said that if the waters of the North Atlantic become too warm, it will shut off the Gulf Stream and Europe will become considerably colder.
And we’ll even be healthier on average because the cold & flu season in the bitter north will be a thing of the past, more than offsetting additional heat-related deaths in warmer regions.

Date: 2007/05/10 14:04:54, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 07 2007,22:15)
Well, as I noted before, it is the corporados themselves who are building a socialistic economy.  They've already largely done away with private property and replaced it with socialized property.  The only difference is that they try very hard to monopolize all the decision-making power (and economic benefit) from it, in their own hands, and keep it out of everyone else's hands (such as, oh, the millions of people who are affected by those deicisons but who have no say in them).  

Which seems, well, rather undemocratic to me . . . . .

I think "fascist" is the word you're looking for. At least when using Mussolini's definition of the term.

This is the result of poor lawmaking and flaws in our constitution. It's too easy to buy your way into the pages of the US Code and make laws that benefit your financial interests.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 07 2007,22:20)
Quote (phonon @ May 07 2007,19:14)
What would be nice is a government that can check corporate power instead of colluding with it and enabling it.

Well, in a government where money rules and the corporados have all the money, it's simply impossible for any effective government control over corporations.  Fox, henhouse, and all that.

What would be needed is (1) removal of money from the electoral process and (2) government input in corproate decisions.  (Which sounds pretty, uh, socialistic to me . . . . )

The corporados will die fighting, of course, before allowing either one.

Direct government input into corporate decisions? I don't like it. It sounds too close to what we have now wrt to energy companies, telecom companies, and airlines and the such. If by "input" you mean the formation of laws that corporations have to follow, well, that's different.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 07 2007,22:31)
Quote (phonon @ May 07 2007,19:14)
Alas, there is no magic system that can circumvent human failings when it comes to corruption or greed.

Of course there is --- we call it "democracy".  It does a pretty darn good job of preventing corruption and greed from running rampant.  As George Bush and the Republicans are about to find out . . .

I think "democracy" is a wonderful thing.  That's why I think we should have it WITHIN the workplace as well as outside of it.

Hmm, unfettered "democracy" would lead to exactly what we have now. If you're rich enough, you can buy favors from politicians or supply your own, hijack the system. Voters are usually too stupid to notice or realize. This isn't really the way we envision democracy being practiced ideally, but it's the way it turns out in the real world.

My solution to that sort of thing would be public campaign finance and very strict laws regarding gifts to politicians. I'd basically outlaw it altogether and if there was so much as a fishing trip thrown in, the politician and the gift bearers would all be in prison for some number of years.

Now, wrt to "democracy within the workplace," what do you mean?

If you mean that corporate decisions are made by a majority of the workers in the company how would that work? First off, how would companies be started? Who would risk the initial capital? Then, once the company is started, who gets a vote? Does Bob in the mailroom who was hired last week get a vote equal to the VP of marketing?

Date: 2007/05/10 14:22:06, Link
Author: phonon
Also from that post:
This inclines me to think that God used a compiler to produce the DNA.

So we were programed in Pascal or C++?

About God’s compiler: I certainly agree, though I prefer to speak of designer(s), to stay consistent with the ID approach.

SHHHH! Don't say the G-word unless the post is about how atheists are evul!


“it is almost certainly mechanical and algorithmic at the level of lower implementation.”

Perhaps spiritual rather than mechanical? That’s why the “dynamic” transposons are there - spiritual remote control system through which the angels of God work through to bring about evolution and miraculous healings!
Troll alert!!! If not, then  :(

Cordova comes in to smack some sense into these fools:
The architecture of a self-healing multi-fault-tolerant system (like biology) will be radically different than the computer systems architectures we are familiar with.
So there! Bill Gates was wrong!

Date: 2007/05/11 16:49:08, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 10 2007,18:18)
Quote (phonon @ May 10 2007,14:04)
If you mean that corporate decisions are made by a majority of the workers in the company how would that work? First off, how would companies be started? Who would risk the initial capital? Then, once the company is started, who gets a vote? Does Bob in the mailroom who was hired last week get a vote equal to the VP of marketing?

Well, the same way it's done *now*.  

After all, a majority of shareholders (which of course in some companies does include all the workers) *already* votes to select the people who make the decisions (well, to be more accurate, a majority of SHARES does, which I would change to be more democratic).  Companies are *already* started by any shareholders who want to start one. Heck, most new large companies today *already* are based on research and development that is carried out at taxpayer expense, either by government-run research agencies (DARPA, for instance) or by nongovernment researchers under government contract and funding (academia).  After the company is started, all the shareholders *already* get a vote, one vote per share (which I would change to "one vote per shareholder", to prevent the wealthy from dominating the process).  If Bob in the mailroom *already* has any stock shares (even if he just bought them last week, or even just an hour ago) he *already* gets a vote, and one of his shares is *already* exactly equal in voting power to one of the marketing VP's shares

So what's the problem?

All I'd change is to make *everyone* in the county, state or nation, a shareholder.

An EQUAL shareholder.

Democracy in action.

Everything else that needs to be done will take care of itself, through the same democratic process we've had for 200-odd years -- and which, despite its initial (intended) undemocratic unfairness, seems to have served us pretty well, problems and all.

Let's say I wanted to start a company with my own money. Let's say it's delivering pizza (to Fort Dix). I risk a lot of my own money (maybe I mortgaged my house) to open this restaurant, but now I have to give the bus boy an equal say in the way the restaurant is run? I'm just trying to understand what exactly that you have in mind.

Now there are some companies, usually restaurants, that work somewhat on your basis. All the workers are "owners" of the company and they are paid based on that week's profits. They all own their share in the company and employees, but they don't make democratic decisions.

Let me ask you, under your democratic workplace, would customers also get a vote? If so, then I could see one vote coming up that would be bad. "Should we give away our product/service for free? Yes/No." Well, customers might just vote Yes.

Also, if someone is being negatively affected by a company's practices, i.e. someone's land is being polluted by a factory, then there is already an outlet for their grievances, which is the court system. They can sue.

Date: 2007/05/14 17:39:42, Link
Author: phonon
I'm really surprised that UD did not do a post about the Ray Comfort - Kirk Cameron debate where Comfort claimed he would provide undeniable scientific proof of God's existence without using faith or the Bible.

Here are his opponent's take on the matter. Of course they claim victory.

I can't find Ray Comfort's claim of victory anywhere. But on his main website, there is a banner that reads "Welcome Nightline Debate viewers." When you click it, it tries to sell you books and DVDs. Classy.

I hope Dembski posts about this soon. I'm just curious about his take on the whole affair.

Date: 2007/05/15 14:37:43, Link
Author: phonon
It's a conspiracy!

Date: 2007/05/15 14:48:58, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (blipey @ May 14 2007,18:34)
Comfort claimed he would provide undeniable scientific proof of God's existence without using faith or the Bible.

Wow.  After watching that I don't think that I'd count on Comfort to be able to prove the existence of the steak I have on the grill right now.

Not to mention the great skills of rebuttal that he and Cameron command.  My favorite moment was when Bashir asked if the had any comments to the 1st Law of Thermo argument.  And really, the way it was presented in the video there were many possible responses.  The blank stares and then Cameron's soft, "No" are fabulous.

I know, even after the other guy screwed up some facts (the universe has always existed, etc.) they just didn't want to address it.

If were there I might have gone with something like "Well, if God is all powerful he doesn't have to abide by any scientific laws, especially when they are only laws because we've never observed any deviation from them. God can deviate if he wants to. So if God is omnipotent, it's no problem for him to create matter and energy."

They didn't even do that much, so...

It reminds me of all the YEC's I've run into on the intertubes that try to explain how the Noah story could have physically happened. I always told them to just call it a miracle and get it over with. Why would God need to follow physical laws or even leave physical evidence?

Date: 2007/05/17 10:09:17, Link
Author: phonon
Well, if you have Bible Study at school in Hong Kong you might get in trouble for reading "indecent" material.

More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's Television and Entertainment Licensing authority (TELA) said it had received 838 complaints about the Bible by noon Wednesday.

The complaints follow the launch of an anonymous Web site -- -- which said the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

Date: 2007/05/17 11:00:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 11 2007,17:48)
Quote (phonon @ May 11 2007,16:49)
Let me ask you, under your democratic workplace, would customers also get a vote? If so, then I could see one vote coming up that would be bad. "Should we give away our product/service for free? Yes/No." Well, customers might just vote Yes.

Well, we already give away our sidewalks, roads and highways for free. . .  (shrug)

Indeed, I would HOPE that is exactly what everyone would vote ------ after we decentralize the economy and eliminate unnecessary duplication (for most industries, having big conglomerates that ship things all across the world to compete with other big conglomerates there, is a huge waste of resources).  So I'd prefer to let the local community itself decide, democratically, how many pizza parlors or whatever that it wants, and then put up the money, collectively, to establish them.  Then let the local community elect the people who run it (with the ability to UN-elect them if they do things the community doesn't like -- it's lots faster than lawsuits, and much cheaper too).  If we find we haven't enough pizza joints, we open another one.  If we find we have too many, we shut one down and use the money for something else.  Just like roads or highways.

So if 51% of people don't like a pizza joint and 49% do, then what? Would this be an example of tyranny of the majority? But you said that piddly pizza joints would be immune? Also, if we shut down a business, who decides which one is shut down? What happens to the workers of that business, who are trained in that area, but not in others?

And if the community does indeed decide that certain things should be free for everyone (such as basic food, shelter and clothing) -- and of course I would hope that it does decide exactly that --  then I would suggest that everyone, collectively, put up the money to meet those expenses.  Just like we do with free roads and highways today.

With larger economic units, like auto factories or airplane factories, same deal, but on the state or federal level rather than local.  Just like interstate highways.

My own preference would be that all the current corporate chain restaurants and mega-stores would be kicked out, and replaced with locally-controlled and locally-operated entities instead.  But again, that isn't my decision to make ----- that would be up to the community itself to decide, democratically.
Would people hold elections to figure out who runs the locally owned businesses? Or would  entrepreneurs put up their capital to open these businesses? Would their business be allowed to grow, or once it reaches a certain size, they would be subject to the will of others (51%) through ballots? If an entrepreneur risks his capital and his business is shut down, how would he be compensated? Where is the cut-off point between a locally owned small business and a business large enough to be subject to the new rules?

Date: 2007/05/17 11:04:59, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 11 2007,17:29)
Quote (phonon @ May 11 2007,16:49)
Let's say I wanted to start a company with my own money. Let's say it's delivering pizza (to Fort Dix). I risk a lot of my own money (maybe I mortgaged my house) to open this restaurant, but now I have to give the bus boy an equal say in the way the restaurant is run? I'm just trying to understand what exactly that you have in mind.

You proceed from a false assumption.  It's not pizza shops or donut shops or maid services that I'm interested in right now.  It's the economic big players, the corporados. My immediate goal is to democratize the economy and remove it from the control of then 1% of wealthiest families in the US who own most of the wealth and nearly all of the stock.  Your pizza parlor, quite frankly, isn't worth bothering with.  I want the big fish, not the minnows.

Once we, collectively, as a society, run our economy democratically with everyone's input and for everyone's benefit, THEN we can decide what to do with the piddley little pizza shops.  It's not up to me to decide that --- that is a decision that should be made by ALL OF US, democratically.

Okay then, so you would "democratize" Pizza Hut and Dominoes and not Joe's Pizza?

Date: 2007/05/17 17:14:26, Link
Author: phonon
Oh man, the E=mc2 thing is pretty funny. While, the technique is cool, the possibility of storing data indefinitely as bacterial DNA just wouldn't work like the article says. Would it eventually mutate here and there until the data is gone? Well, maybe not for a while though.

Anyway, if you're going to store your data in DNA, why have it in bacteria? I guess because it would reproduce?

I like dacook's outlook:
Maybe E=MC2 will evolve into the unified field theory physicists have been looking for. Just analyze the bacteria’s descendants!

Then bork becomes confused:
Well, in theory evolution doesn’t have bounds (to my knowledge). So, I think messages in DNA unexpectantly are possible. However, they seem very unlikely and would probably make a lot of honest people question their beliefs, and lack thereof…
Just like the Bible code, you can likely find whatever message you want in DNA, depending on what you assign the CGTA's to represent.

I mean, E=mc2 could easily be found if you just say that E is C; = is T; m is G and 2 is A (but how do you represent a superscript?)

And if anyone else here is a fan of Isao Tomita, well that would be cool as hell.
An excerpt from one my favorite tracks of his.
Amazing it's all from moog synthesizers.
(and they mixed up the titles, that's from snowflakes are dancing)

Date: 2007/05/18 18:18:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ May 17 2007,23:14)
And here:

it's implied that the positioning of the Polaris has something to do with Intelligent Design.

I live in the Southern Hemisphere, and have no pole star. Maybe the Intelligent Designer only designed the north.

But you have the Southern CROSS. I repeat CROSS.

Coincidence? or ID?

Oh, and whoever rejects the theory of evolution and sticks to Paleyism must be irrevocably mired in the 19th century.

Date: 2007/05/18 18:29:10, Link
Author: phonon

You read it here first! except you know, for those of you that read the original article first.

Actually, as I understand the sky is constantly shifting. I believe that the Polaris has only become the North Star since the time of Christ.
Didn't you know that's where Jesus lives?

Date: 2007/05/18 18:37:20, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 17 2007,19:56)
Oh, and in case you were wondering, Phonon, I'm pretty sure that no business owner or "entepreneur", of any sort, will like anything at all whatsoever that I propose to do.  Indeed, I think it's a pretty safe bet that they will resist it in every way possible.

But then, the 18th century French royal aristocracy didn't like that whole "democracy" thingie, either, and they too resisted it as long as they could.  (shrug)

To compare aristocrats to entrepreneurs isn't a good analogy. When I say entrepreneurs, I mean people who busted their humps to make some money, used that money (and lots of debt) to create a business.

Aristocrats were usually people born into money, land, and position or people who did a favor for the king (or whatever sovereign) and received money, land, or position as a reward.

Also, the democracy they resisted was with respect to the law, not the way a business or company is run.

It's just not the same.

Now, there are people in this country and others that can be compared to aristocrats in that they were born into money and position, but I wouldn't call them entrepreneurs. (eg, George Dubya Bush and/or J. Danforth Quayle)

Date: 2007/05/20 21:38:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 20 2007,14:23)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 20 2007,14:16)
I suspect if a highly educated black Republican came along with the correct religious and political credentials, the DI would probably hire him to show how nonracist they are.

Alas for DI, the Supreme Court got Clarence Tom first . . . . .

You're totally forgetting about Alan Keyes.

Date: 2007/05/20 21:41:18, Link
Author: phonon

Ok, myth may be a bit strong.

I got this off some blog.

I don't know how accurate it is.

Anyway, this has to be the worst climatologist ever.

He uses the "water vapor is the biggest GH gas by far" argument. What climatologist forgets the hydrological cycle? Water precipitates from the atmosphere. It's in equilibrium with liquid water. To quote the worst climatologist in the world. "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then."

Date: 2007/05/20 21:52:42, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 18 2007,23:30)
Quote (phonon @ May 18 2007,18:37)
To compare aristocrats to entrepreneurs isn't a good analogy. When I say entrepreneurs, I mean people who busted their humps to make some money, used that money (and lots of debt) to create a business.

Aristocrats were usually people born into money, land, and position or people who did a favor for the king (or whatever sovereign) and received money, land, or position as a reward.

Oh, I think it is quite a good analogy.  In both cases, they make decisions that affected everyone's lives, without any input or responsibility to anyone who was affected by those decisions.  And in both cases, they justify their autocracy with "But. . .  but . . . I'm the guy who MAKES the decisions and BUILT the country/company !!!!!! You commoners are just too STUPID to take over from me !!!!!!"

As for being born into it, uh, how did most of the richest people in the US get their fortunes?  That's right -- they got it the OLD-FASHIONED way ------- they inherited it.

The situation is PRECISELY the same.  Both set up a social system wherein their authority is not only unquestioned, but unquestion-ABLE.  And both resist democracy within their domain just as avidly as the other.

As for "busting their humps", surely you know that the way to get rich is NOT to work hard --- the way to get rich is to have lots of OTHER PEOPLE work hard FOR you.

I guess the question I keep trying to ask is where do you draw the line?

When does someone go from "hard working entrepreneur" to "corporado aristocrat?" When does he have to relinquish control of his company?

Date: 2007/05/21 10:49:19, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,07:10)
Quote (phonon @ May 20 2007,21:52)
I guess the question I keep trying to ask is where do you draw the line?

When does someone go from "hard working entrepreneur" to "corporado aristocrat?" When does he have to relinquish control of his company?

And the answer I keep giving is that it's not ME who draws the line, it's EVERYONE.

What I want, is simply to place the entire economy under democratic control, just like the political system.

When you say everyone, you really mean the majority. 51%

The business owners -- all of them -- are unelected, unchecked, and answerable to no one.

They are answerable to shareholders and ultimately the customer/consumer.

When the "corporados" infiltrate our elected government, that's when there is much less response to the customer and shareholder because they use the power given to politicians by voters, the 51%

I find that intolerable in any democracy, particularly when a corporation like General Motors or Exxon-Mobil has more resources than many governments in the world, and its decisions effect a larger population than the United States of America.
The oil industry is powerful, it's true, but to attack this problem, you'd change the whole system? The reason they were so powerful is because they buy politicians. If you could cut that out without changing the whole system, would that be acceptable?

So if you have some good reasons why business leaders or owners, alone of all social authority figures, should have the inherent right to make unilateral decisions affecting others without being answerable or responsible to anyone, I'd sure like to hear them . . . . I doubt any of them differ in any significant way from the very same arguments made by the French royal aristocracy to defend THEIR right to make unilateral decisions that effected others without being answerable to anyone.
The French aristocracy's reason was their "birthright" to lord over other people. The reason that a business owner should be able to make unilateral decisions regarding HIS business is because he OWNS it. He doesn't own the people working for him. They don't have to work for him. And you can make him directly answerable and responsible to his workers through worker organization (unions). The reason you shouldn't be forced to landscape your yard some certain way or paint your house a certain color just because a majority of people in your jurisdiction want your house to be a certain color is the same reason you should wrest control of a business from someone who started it.

As for "relinquishing control of his company", I've already shown that the corporados already did that, long ago.  The "owners" of a corporation (the tiny minority of the population that owns most of the stock) don't ned to actually control anything -- they make no decisions and introduce no new ideas.  Instead, they simply hire the ability of others to do that for them.  If all the stockholders of the world were to be kidnapped by aliens tomorrow, the corporations would all go on without them with barely any change at all.
Well, you know, except that the investment capital would be gone.

And as for the small businesses like "Joe's Pizza", they are also already steadily losing "control of their businesses", at an alarming rate, because of the capitalists themselves.  After all, any small business lives solely on the crumbs left behind by the Big Boys -- they live only because the Big Boys haven't yet decided to either buy them out or drive them under.  Indeed, the vast majority of small businesses [i]can't[i/] find enough crumbs to live on, and die within a few years.

The entire history of corporate America is the history of one corporation in each industry growing steadily to dominate that industry and drive everyone else into oblivion (or forced cooperation).  If the "small businesses" are to have any chance at all of survival against such an onslaught, they must consolidate their resources together under a joint management until they are large enough to compete (i.e., they must give up "control of their business" and in essence become corporados themselves).

So all I want to do is continue and complete the task that the corporados themselves are already doing quite efficiently.  It is the corporados who have already eliminated virtually all private business ownership, and replaced it with social ownership overseen by elected managers.  I simply want to consolidate those who haven't yet been consolidated, and then elect those managers with a larger electorate, which includes everyone rather than just the tiny minority of stockholders.

The economic structure that you (and all "free-market" apologists" want to defend --- an Adam Smithian large network of small individual shopkeepers --- no longer exists.  The corporados destroyed it long ago, and replaced it with socialized property ownership.
First of all, I'm just debating a point with you and my position here may not actually have anything to do with my actual opinions.

And I agree that unfettered capitalism and laissez-faire economics leads eventually to monopoly. There should certainly be checks on corporate power. But, to say that 51% of the population knows what's best, economically, for the other 49% is not what I'd call an improvement.

The problems that you aim to address by ("I simply want to consolidate those who haven't yet been consolidated, and then elect those managers with a larger electorate, which includes everyone rather than just the tiny minority of stockholders.") would still be there unless the people/voters were educated to the problem and care about it. Well, under our system you could still enact certain controls over large corporations through elected officials, but to do that you'd have to have a majority of people who are educated enough on the subject and care enough about it to vote in representatives that would actually fight for them in this way. There is no magic system. What it takes is overcoming human nature. Overcoming greed and corruption as well as ignorance and intellectual laziness.

Date: 2007/05/22 06:54:40, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (qetzal @ May 21 2007,21:24)
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either [Christianity or Atheism]

Yep. Ditto Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Agnosticism, etc.

Agnosticism? What can you do in the name of agnosticism?

As you blow yourself up in a market, is your battle cry "I DON'T KNOW!!!"

Date: 2007/05/22 06:58:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 22 2007,03:05)
I have racked my brains to think of a more extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by a intelligent professional scientist, but I cannot. Given some of the junk that has been pubslished in the past decade, that's saying a lot.

I was about to say something to the effect of "what about Dembski" but then I saw that he actually wrote "by a[n] intelligent professional scientist."

Date: 2007/05/22 07:19:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:25)
Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49)
And the answer I keep giving is that it's not ME who draws the line, it's EVERYONE.

What I want, is simply to place the entire economy under democratic control, just like the political system.

When you say everyone, you really mean the majority. 51%

That's what a "democracy" is.

Or, if you prefer, a Representative Republic.

Then our system is fine.

If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it.

OR maybe you should support Mike Gravel for president, or at least his 18 year crusade to institute the National Initiative. Personally, I think this is a great idea and it should have been done long ago. I still don't see 51% supporting 'democratic' micromanaging of the economy.

I'm really torn lately. I don't even usually bother with presidential elections because you usually get to pick between tweedle dum and tweedle dee, but this time we've got both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.

I think Ron Paul has a better chance of winning despite the fact that media people and the Republican Party itself are trying to sideline him. But I like this National Initiative idea from Mike Gravel. But I also like that Ron Paul says he'll attack the IRS and the Fed. Maybe if one wins their party's nomination he will ask the other to be his running mate.

I think though that if either of these men were president you'd have very little chance of this sort of thing happening:
Evolution opponent is in line for schools post

Kansas school board member who supports intelligent design might be next leader of national education association.

Date: 2007/05/22 07:23:21, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:29)
Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49)
The reason that a business owner should be able to make unilateral decisions regarding HIS business is because he OWNS it. He doesn't own the people working for him. They don't have to work for him.

Well heck, the King of France literally owneds the country.  He owned the treasury, he owned all the state lands, he owned the military and all its equipment.

"L'etat, c'est moi."

Furthermore, it was the King's sweat and brainpower that made the country what it was.  He decided matters of war and peace. He set economic policies.  He made laws as he saw fit.  He decided everything.  

So who were those uneducated peasants to take the King's country away from him . . . .?  Heck, if the peasants didn't like it, then let them move to England or something.  They don't HAVE to live in France.

So maybe comparing business owners to royalty is a bad analogy (I say again).

SO originally some warlord (king if you will) fought his way to the top of feudal society and conquered the land and ruled it. He took the risk and made the original "investment" in the venture. But then he passed ownership on to his progeny.

Maybe you'd like to allow those who built their businesses to run them as they see fit, but then when they die, the mob decides how the spoils are divided, if at all.

Date: 2007/05/22 07:28:35, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 21 2007,18:36)
Quote (phonon @ May 21 2007,10:49)
If you could cut that out without changing the whole system, would that be acceptable?

No, because even then, the corporados would still weild more economic and social power than many governments in the world do, and they would do so unilaterally, unanswerable to anyone but themselves (the "stockholders").

People with power over others (whether political power, social power, or economic power) should hold that power only with the consent of those who are subjected to it.  Whether it's the King of France, the President of the US, or the CEO of General Motors.

I think democracy is a wonderful thing.  I see no reason why it should end at the workplace door. Those who exercise unelected and unchecked power within the workplace, of course, are all FULL of reasons why democracy should end at the workplace door.  Oddly enough, people who have power are always anxious to tell you why they should have it, and you shouldn't.

I don't buy any of their arguments.

So any degree of "power" should be checked by the majority.

You have the power to keep me off your property and from trespassing in your house. I guess we should take up a vote to see if you should still retain this power. You should only be able to keep us out of your house with our consent.

Do you ever listen to brothers and sisters?

Date: 2007/05/22 07:37:55, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,04:42)
The great triumph of the right wing is to convince everyone that there is nobody but themselves and to look out for number one.  Whereas back in the 19th century, a great many working people knew that in unity lay strength, and also the ability to get things done.  

What would happen is that the revolution occurs, and everyone gos back to work as normal, but paid the same or whatever mechanism you want to introduce.  Jobs that are unnecessary, such as telesales and much marketing and so on, would decrease in number, and what would happen is that peopel would be pressured to find some sort of work.  Ideally, the working week would decrease due to all these extra people working away on useful jobs instead of pointless bureacratic jobs.

I'm not saying that is how it would happen.  It is how I can envisage it, IF you get enough motivated people together.  Heck, even Argentina can do it.  Back when they ahd the crisis a few years ago, a lot of bosses ran away to avoid paying their factory workers.  Who then occupied the factories and recomenced production, selling the goods they made and keeping themselves and their families.  Later on the bosses returned and tried to take the factories back.

I don't think you were speaking about libertarianism, but I think people allow themselves to be 'confused' about what libertarianism really means, even people who call themselves that. To say that that you need to look out for number one isn't an ideal, it's reality.

Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.
 - Bertrand Russell

Usually, though, libertarians believe that in the absence of government social engineering, people would spontaneously organize to solve social problems. To some extent I agree with that, but there would be no guarantee, no safety net. But, I guess under the current system, people still fall through the cracks.  

And I think it's funny that the term "right wing" is used to describe libertarians since the term originated to describe those that supported the King of France, of all people.

Date: 2007/05/22 07:42:11, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,07:37)
Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:19)
If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it.

Well of course if 51% wanted creationism out of schools and evolution in schools, then we'd have it.


We do.

How many public schools in this country teach creationism?

Date: 2007/05/22 07:45:26, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,07:32)
However, since people who monopolize power don't give it up willingly, I expect, uh, a bit of a fight over it.

Yes, we are just pack animals and will fight over material resources until everyone is satisfied (which never happens).

Date: 2007/05/24 08:30:03, Link
Author: phonon
Frontloading Frontloading!!!

Darwinism is dead!!

Primitive fish had genetic wiring for limbs

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Primitive fish already may have possessed the genetic wiring needed to grow hands and feet well before the appearance of the first animals with limbs roughly 365 million years ago, scientists said on Wednesday.

I guess that wraps it all up then.

Date: 2007/05/24 09:43:47, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:01)
OOps, there are times I forget about the cross Atlantic communications difficulties.  
Here in the UK, by using Right wing and referencing things like I have I was talking especially about Thatcher et al.  Their mantra was individualism, but what they practised was closer to state capitalism.  (The gvt actually grew under Thatcher, despite all the work she did in destroying public services)

Oh, right wing in the US also tends to be used to describe that type of thing. It's just that the term itself originated with a different meaning.

And what Thatcher did sounds like what Reagan started, but Dubya perfected. Grow gubmint while destroying regulation and social services.

I should have been more specific about looking out for number one- of course you are the only person who knows what you want and you are in a position to have a better idea of what is good for you in many instances.  However most people (who stop to think about it anyway) also recognise that they are part of society, and therefore there is give and take about exactly they can/ want / would like to do.  What Thatcher et al drove towards was a kind of rampant individualism, in which no emphasis was put on the kind of enlightened self interest previously mentioned.
Oh yes, this went on in the US too. Remember the 80s was the "greed is good" period and everyone was part of the "me generation."

Do you call yourself a libertarian?  

I don't like to classify myself, but I think I'm probably closest to a classical liberal. I'm definitely a civil libertarian in that laws should merely protect rights and not enforce a certain culture or try to keep people from harming themselves (e.g. the "nanny state"). But I also believe in environmental and corporate regulation, which I see as a way for the government to protect individual and collective rights. this is where I deviate from libertarians and classical liberals.

The way you have put it sounds rather like anarchism.
Letting business owners keep their property sounds like anarchism?

Which is not a million miles away from Lennies thing.  But what myself and many of my friends would like is a more socialised set up in which people are not permitted to fall through the cracks.  (Unless they really want to of course).

 You see, I can very easily imagine several scenarios involving countries which all somehow get into an anarchic setup, but because of the previous history of each country, will each take a different course in social provision etc.  Look at Europe and the USA.  Putatively similar, but due to different histories, have had interestingly divergent societies in the past 50 years.

I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people.
Yes, well, obviously people should be allowed to keep their guns. And yes, if someone owns something that is not violating the rights of others, they have the right to keep it. Also, a "true" libertarian may say "I don't care who falls through the cracks," but most of them are humans with compassion. They just don't think it's the government's job to provide a safety net and that any social safety nets should be provided through private organizations, like church's and charities. The main argument is that the government is too inefficient and tends to use force to solve problems, which leads to even bigger problems.

Date: 2007/05/24 09:47:09, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:02)
Quote (phonon @ May 22 2007,07:45)
Yes, we are just pack animals and will fight over material resources until everyone is satisfied (which never happens).

Not exactly.  We have negotiated settlements as well, which end up with enough for everyone.

True. But the pack that settles within itself will eventually find another pack to battle with.

Date: 2007/05/24 09:51:57, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 22 2007,17:52)
Quote (guthrie @ May 22 2007,11:01)
I have no particular problem with nice libertarians- its just the idea seems to attract "I've got my guns and I'm keeping all this to myself and I don't care who falls through the cracks" kind of individualistic people.

Yeah, the libertarians are indeed a strange animal --- part anarchist, part free-market cheerleader.

What they want, it sounds to me, is a return to pre-corporate days, where the economy consisted of individual Adam-Smithian small English shopkeepers.  Alas, those days are gone, gone, gone, and they will never return.

Of course, I have problems with the very philosophical basis of libertarianism, which is, as I hear it, "individualism is the basis of humanity, and we only form governments to protect our individualism from each other".  Rather a disheartening view of humanity, I think.

But then, as I said, the very basis for that is simply wrong.  Humans are NOT atomistic independent rugged individuals.  We are profoundly, deeply and irrevocably, SOCIAL animals.  Indeed, drop any one of us into the woods by ourselves, and we'd die within weeks.  We simply cannot survive outside a social framework.  We are utterly completely unchangeably interdependent upon each other.  Naturally, the very core of capitalist (and, it seems, libertarian) ideology consists of "every man for himself" (and that is indeed a convenient philosophy for a tiny minority of the population that fully intends to control the economic system for their own benefit and to abandon everyone else to their own devices), but that, alas, is not social reality. Individual greed has already proven itself simply an unworkable basis for an effective social system or a successful economy. That indeed is why "free market economics" was largely abandoned half a century ago, after the Robber Barons and the Great Depression gave everyone a good close look at what a "free market economy" is really all about.   We live today in a social economy, and indeed it was the **corporados themselves** who made it that way and indeed continue to make it even MORE socialized.

I don't view that as a bad thing.  Indeed, I welcome it.  I say let the corporados go ahead and socialize the entire economy.  It saves *us* the trouble of doing it.  In the end, all we'll have to do is kick them out of power and run it for ourselves.

Cooperation derives from individual survival instincts.

When will people realize that libertarianism is NOT anarchism?

Of course we are social animals. Of course we live in an interdependent society.

It's just that this society is composed of individuals with their own desires and drives and these desires should only be hindered by force if they interfere with others' rights.

I don't think libertarians want to return to any particular time in our history. I think they want something that has never really existed.

Date: 2007/05/24 09:57:14, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 23 2007,16:27)
How many public schools in this country teach creationism?


gotta be next to none.


hundreds if not thousands.

don't oversimplify the issue.  You damn well know there are hundreds of teachers that teach creationism that simply are left alone.

moreover, there are thousands (tens of thousands), who refuse to teach evolution either due to personal bias or because of external pressures from their communities.

so, don't oversimplify the issue just in order to argue with Lenny.

Well, then lets apply your realism to Lenny's proposal.

Even if we had perfect democratic control over our economy, what's to stop some people from circumventing it?

EDIT: I was just reading back through this thread and I had to add that keeping creationism out of schools has little to do with democratic action (except electing school board members) and everything to do with legal action to enforce a constitutional provision. If that provision weren't there, then you would likely see creationism spring up all over the place in public schools through democratic action.

Date: 2007/05/24 09:59:38, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 23 2007,18:48)
"Life of Brian" is absolutely the funniest movie ever made.

One of, for sure.

Date: 2007/05/24 12:32:06, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (guthrie @ May 24 2007,10:09)
Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,09:51)
It's just that this society is composed of individuals with their own desires and drives and these desires should only be hindered by force if they interfere with others' rights.

I don't think libertarians want to return to any particular time in our history. I think they want something that has never really existed.

Hang on, I thought that was what anarchists were on about as well?  No restrictions on people unless they interfere with others rights?  

The one thing I think all "isms" have in common is a drive towards some sort of ideal.  That this ideal has never really existed in the first place is besides the point.  Before the NHS we never had free at point of use universal health care in the UK, it was an ideal to be striven for.  Furthermore all sorts of nasty things were said about it before it happened, as if it would be impossible or if implemented, would lead to the collapse of society.  Now we've had it for decades, everyone takes it for granted and would fight its destruction.

(Except is is being destroyed right now, by stealth)

No, not as I understand it. An anarchist would say no restrictions on people and you defend your own rights, or organize locally to defend your rights as you define them. There will be no central government to defend them.

Date: 2007/05/24 17:48:09, Link
Author: phonon
These people are retards.

PaV links to an article about the discovery of Hox genes that are responsible for limb development, but in a paddlefish. An excerpt reads:
Tiktaalik provided a missing evolutionary link between fish and tetrapods and was among the first creatures that walked out of water onto land.

So Pav writes:  
Poor old Tiktaalik roseae! It’s fifteen minutes of fame is over. So much for “a missing evolutionary link”.

I mean, now that's just retarded.

Date: 2007/05/25 16:43:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,15:07)
I was just reading back through this thread and I had to add that keeping creationism out of schools has little to do with democratic action (except electing school board members) and everything to do with legal action to enforce a constitutional provision.

well, since you felt you had to add it, I think with a little more thought on your part (you started the process with school boards), you might feel inclined to retract that as well.

to make even one point against your contention; are you sure you don't think democratic action has anything to do with legal action?

Is there really a clear separation between the legislative/administrative and judicial in this country?


I'm not sure what you're talking about so let me recap to see if I follow.

I said:
"If 51% wanted what you propose, then we'd have it." (not necessarily true since it somehow may be deemed unconstitutional, but for the sake of argument...)

Lenny replied:
"Well of course if 51% wanted creationism out of schools and evolution in schools, then we'd have it."

So I replied:
"We do have creationism out of our schools."

I should have replied:
"51% in some areas actually want creationism in our schools, but they don't have it, because of a constitutional provision that is defended legally/judicially. But I don't think there is a constitutional provision prohibiting what you (Lenny) propose."

Democratic action has an indirect effect on judicial action, yes, since an elected official usually appoints a judge. In some cases judges are elected, but that will only affect the interpretation of the law, which can only be stretched so far.

I guess I should clear it up this way. When I said "democratic action" I meant direct democratic action in the manner that Lenny is proposing wrt the economy.

Date: 2007/05/25 17:18:37, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 24 2007,18:49)
Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,09:43)
The main argument is that the government is too inefficient and tends to use force to solve problems, which leads to even bigger problems.

Quick, can anyone tell me offhand how many forcible overthrows of elected governments the United Fruit Company has fomented in the past 100 years . . . . ?

How the hell does that follow from what I said?

As for "inefficient", that's pretty funny, coming from proponents of an economic system that, after three centuries, still can't even FEED everybody.
Uh, yeah, I'm sure we FEED everyone now, huh.

What happens when you feed starving people?
You get more people.
What happens when people fend for themselves?
You get more people.

So let's just feed everyone whether they fend for themselves or not, then we'll have more people to feed whether they fend for themselves or not. Where does it end? Or do you propose sterilizing everyone that is fed for free? Or maybe instituting a one child policy? then sterilizing them? What?

When feeding people for free, do they get to decide what to eat? Will you slip the sterilizing drugs into the vat of gruel served in the labor camp? or would it be just a government barracks?

I'm just yanking yer chain.

If the purpose of an economic system is to efficiently funnel wealth and resources from everyone's hands into those of a small minority of capital-owners, then indeed, capitalism has been quite efficiently successful.  In the US today, the wealthiest 0.5% of the population owns about one-third of the total wealth -- a proportion that matches pretty closely that found in Mexico or India or Guatemala.

Purpose? As if capitalism was devised by some evil cabal with the purpose of funneling everyone's money into their hands? If they are that powerful, why do they need money?

Anyway, yes, currently our system funnels money from the bottom up to the top, but it isn't capitalism doing it, it's corporatism. "Corporados" writing our laws and buying and selling politicians. This isn't capitalism, it's fascism.

If you want to talk about evil cabals, let's look at the number one money funnel that sends trillions from the bottom up to the top, The Federal Reserve System coupled with the IRS. It's a huge shell game that fabricates money out of nothing and makes your dollar worth less and less every year, which makes these privately owned banks richer and more powerful every year.

The dollar is also tied to oil, so that the Fed can basically tax the world because oil is bought and sold in dollars (that's changing and that's what all these wars are about) and held dollars are worth less and less while oil costs more and more. The spice must flow.

But if the purpose of an economic system is to, ya know, feed people, clothe them and shelter them, then I think it's awfully hard to describe capitalism as anything other than an abject failure.
Well, communism did a bang up job, didn't it?

Unless, of course, you (1) happen to be one of those fortunate few who monopolize the wealth, and (2) you don't happen to care about anyone other than yourself.
No, I'm no Rockefeller or Rothschild. And I say again, these people are not capitalists.

Date: 2007/05/25 17:19:05, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 24 2007,18:05)
Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,09:57)
Even if we had perfect democratic control over our economy, what's to stop some people from circumventing it?

Um, the same thing that stops it now.


People circumvent the law all the time and get away with it.
But in this case, you've got this hugely complicated and costly election system to hold votes every weekend on what to do about the McDonald's down the street, who will run it, and how long it can stay on that plot of land, etc. Why bother when the law (the arbitrary law that protects no one's rights, just enforces their whims) will be broken with little or no consequences?

But of course democracy *is* the very worst, most impractical form of government ever conceived of.

Except for all the alternatives.
There are many forms of this thing you call "democracy." Some are better than others. You are proposing an over the top form where everyone votes on every little detail of other people's lives. At least that would be possible under what you propose.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 24 2007,18:17)
Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,12:32)
An anarchist would say no restrictions on people and you defend your own rights, or organize locally to defend your rights as you define them. There will be no central government to defend them.

You labor under a (very common) misperception.

See my earlier post on this very topic.

Which post?

Date: 2007/05/25 17:23:33, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Louis @ May 25 2007,07:51)
I'm loath to comment on this thread because I know so very very little about economics and politics,

As you can see, that's not stopping any of the rest of us!!

Date: 2007/05/25 17:34:36, Link
Author: phonon
How many prestigious universities were founded by donations from wealthy "capitalists"? and are named after them?

I can think of off the top of my head:

Carnegie Mellon

There are many more, just can't rattle'em off.

Oh, I like the history of Cornell U.
After settling in at Ithaca, Ezra quickly went to work proving himself as a carpenter. Colonel Beebe took notice of the industrious young man and made him the manager of his mill at Fall Creek.
So, having purchased rights in a patent for a new type of plow, Ezra began what would be decades of travelling away from Ithaca. His territories for sales of the plow were the states of Maine and Georgia. His plan was to sell in Maine in the summer and the milder Georgia in the winter. With limited means, what transported Ezra between the two states were his own two feet.
Ezra made his fortune in the telegraph business as an associate of Samuel Morse, having gained his trust by constructing and stringing the telegraph poles between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland, as the first ever telegraph line of substance in the U.S. After joining with Morse, Cornell supervised the erection of many telegraph lines, earning a substantial fortune as a founder of the Western Union company.
Cornell retired from Western Union and turned his attention to philanthropy. He endowed the Cornell Library, a public library for the citizens of Ithaca. A lifelong enthusiast of science and agriculture, he saw great opportunity in the 1862 Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act to found a university that would teach practical subjects, as opposed to the classics as favored by more traditional institutions. Andrew Dickson White helped secure the new institution's status as New York's land grant university, and Cornell University was granted a charter through their efforts in 1865.
The youngest member of the Ivy League, Cornell was founded in 1865 by Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White as a coeducational, non-sectarian institution where admission was offered irrespective of religion or race.

I think they didn't want to call it White University because of Cornell's cool story. Being a brother in the Order of Death at Yale didn't sound so cool for a back story.

Date: 2007/05/27 12:06:45, Link
Author: phonon
What a coincidence.
I was making some lolcats right before I came here.


Date: 2007/05/27 12:18:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:05)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:34)
How many prestigious universities were founded by donations from wealthy "capitalists"? and are named after them?

And, uh, where'd the money come from . . . . ?

From the rubes?

Rubes who wouldn't have founded a university with it all spread out. It's only until the marks wanted to start communicating with each other and riding on railroads did they get suckered into paying for goods and services. Then the money was funneled into the Skull and Bones vault and stacked up until the Illuminati decided that the rubes needed edukayshun.


Date: 2007/05/27 12:25:52, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:21)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:18)
But if the purpose of an economic system is to, ya know, feed people, clothe them and shelter them, then I think it's awfully hard to describe capitalism as anything other than an abject failure.
Well, communism did a bang up job, didn't it?

I presume you mean by this the state capitalism that the Leninists have imposed (after first destroying all the democratic workers councils) . . . .

Oddly enough, though, they DID do a pretty good job at it.  In the space of less than twenty years, the USSR went from a peasant agrarian economy that could barely feed its people, to a heavily industrialized economy that was capable of supporting a world superpower.  No capitalist country has ever come close to the rate of economic growth carried out by the Soviet Union in the 30's (with the possible exception of Nazi Germany, which after all used many of the same methods).

For the most part, everyone in the Soviet Union got enough to eat.  Sure, it was the same boring meal every day, and they had to stand in line for two hours for it, but heck, I'd be willing to bet that most of them didn't mind that if the alternative was to be unable to afford food at all (like many of them, uh, now).

Seriously, though, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because it failed -- it collapsed because it succeeded.  It's sole and only focus, throughout its history, was to industrialize as rapidly as possible, since that alone would allow the state to build up sufficient economic (and military) resources to prevent its economy from once again being dominated by foreign economic interests.

Once that industrialization process was completed, there was no longer any useful economic purpose served by the Leninist state, and its demise was inevitable.  

In a strange twist of history, radical Islam is now serving the same purpose as Leninism used to, in many countries -- it's an ideological justification for keeping foreign economic interests from dominating the economy by excluding them or placing them under tight controls, and allowing native economic resources to be gathered and expanded as rapidly as possible.

and since the fall of the soviet union, and the institution of more "capitalistic" economic systems, has the standard of living in russia increased or decreased?

how about china?

there has never been "pure" communism just like there has never been "pure" capitalism

you always end up with a hierarchical  social structure one way or another

capitalism *is* the very worst, most impractical form of economy ever conceived of.

Except for all the alternatives.

Date: 2007/05/27 12:40:46, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:26)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:19)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 24 2007,18:17)
Quote (phonon @ May 24 2007,12:32)
An anarchist would say no restrictions on people and you defend your own rights, or organize locally to defend your rights as you define them. There will be no central government to defend them.

You labor under a (very common) misperception.

See my earlier post on this very topic.

Which post?

Well, that depends a great deal upon what one means by an "anarchist".  There are two flavors of "anarchists", and they really don't have much to do with each other (or much nice to say about each other).  One is the pseudo-right-wing "individualist" who simply doesn't want to be told what to do by anyone (especially by the government).  The libertarians and the free-market apologists seem to fit into that wing.  

Then there are the collectivist anarchists, who want a socially-oriented system in which nobody has power over anyone unless that power is elected and revocable. They are radical democrats (with a small "d")  -- it's not "the government" that is their enemy, but "unchecked hierarchy", in any form.  

It's not accurate to say that anarchists (the leftist anarchists, anyway) want "no government" or "no central government".  What they want is no unchecked hierarchical authority by anyone in government.

when i see the word anarchy, i think "no archy"

"unchecked" hierarchy is what this country's government was intended to be, but I don't think Jefferson and Madison called it "anarchy"

unfortunately, as someone put it, the constitution is all sail and no anchor, so it's not as checked as we'd like

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:33)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:18)
If they are that powerful, why do they need money?

They don't.  Money is just a method of exchange.  It has no more power in and of itself than a lump of coal or a pile of wooden sticks has.  The power lies within the  social system of exchange that lies behind that money.

In feudal society, there was virtually no money nor much need for it.  Yet the social relationship was pretty much the same.  At core, it consists of one group of people (who control the resources) saying to a larger group of people (who have NO control of resources), "Here, you can use my resources to produce lots of wealth, then keep a small part of that new wealth for yourself -- and I'll take all the rest."

Whether it's a feudal baron taking corvee from the serfs, or a majority stockholder taking dividends from GM, it's the same relationship.  "Money" is just the intermediary.

Well, it's all about control and money is just a means to that control.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:47)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:18)
Anyway, yes, currently our system funnels money from the bottom up to the top, but it isn't capitalism doing it, it's corporatism. "Corporados" writing our laws and buying and selling politicians. This isn't capitalism, it's fascism.

Well, call it what you will (and I think "fascism" is indeed a pretty accurate label for it) --- it's the inevitable product of capitalist competition.

When you have lots and lots of little competitors, some of them will of course lose, and their resources are then absorbed by the winners, who therefore become bigger.  That leaves fewer, but larger, competitors.  The more losers there are, the fewer (and bigger) the winners become.  After a while, you'll be down to just a handful of (very very large) competitors -- and anyone who wants to be a NEW competitor has to be able to cough up the cash to be **just as large**.  And since no bank on this planet is gonna loan Joe Truck Driver the billions of bucks he'd need to compete with Toyota or Microsoft or John Deere or Monsanto or Exxon-Mobil or whoever, the time quickly appears when there simply IS no new competition (other than perhaps a reshuffling of resources from one corporate bigshot to another) -- no one can afford to compete with the Big Boys who dominate each industry.  

The result --- corporate monopoly, in which the entire economy is dominated by a small number of gargantuan mega-sized resource-holders.

Sure, we can seize all those corporations, divvy up their resources and turn them back into bazillions of small individually-owned English shopkeepers.

Which will just begin the process all over again . . . . . (shrug)

The economic world of itty bitty non-corporate corner stores, which you seem to want to defend, no longer exists.  And it never will exist again.  Its very existence led inexorably to its own death.  And there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that.

its the result of unethical circumvention of competition through the buying of lawmakers

if you want to control markets, just buy politicians and write the laws

yes, unfettered capitalism tends inevitably to monopoly, but it tends to be a very slow process, unless you've got the law in your pocket

i don't agree with liberatrians, et al. that believe that the "invisible handjob" will always fix a problem in the market

wrt to Microsoft, there is competition from free OS's and software, but people are usually too apathetic to care or simply unaware that the software exists

anyway, the gubmint sets up tax laws as such that there are incentives for these uber-rich pseudo-monopolies to invest in charities

i think, between bill gates and warren buffet, something like $75 billion in foundations have been formed to do "the lord's work"

Date: 2007/05/27 12:43:03, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,19:46)
currently, both models have serious drawbacks, and nobody appears entirely happy with either, based on conversations I've had, anyway.

likely a combination of the two will be the solution for the US, but what that would actually look like is beyond my current comprehension.

The most comprehensive attempt at a plan was Clinton's (and even then, there were big questionmarks in it), but there was simply not enough support to even begin to flesh out the details.

I do worry that the situation here will continue to worsen to the point where something entirely drastic will be required just in order to meet basic needs.

The US already has a combination of both, and it takes the worst of both world's and combines it into a monstrosity.

I'm really anxious to see the new Michael Moore film, Sicko.

he he, even Fox News called it 'brilliant and uplifting'

Date: 2007/05/27 19:20:25, Link
Author: phonon
Someone here also is darwinoid at fark.

or maybe not

Date: 2007/05/27 19:26:53, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2007,19:23)
Quote (phonon @ May 27 2007,20:20)
Someone here also is darwinoid at fark.

or maybe not

I don't see 'darwinoid' at that link.

Shiat, i clicked the thread below it by mistake.

Here it is

I also love this one from:

and my latest, done just now

Date: 2007/05/29 18:13:30, Link
Author: phonon
Floating forest?

Kids, do you want to use silly "Human Reason" or God's word, that says there were floating forests and the Earth is 6000 years old? Here, have some ice cream.

Date: 2007/05/29 18:33:28, Link
Author: phonon

I was reading the 2007 IPCC report’s 2007 Physical Science Basis and it came as a surprise how much variance there is from year to year in how atmospheric CO2 increases.
Translation: "Yeah, I actually did some reading and I realized that I don't really know enough about global warming to draw the sweeping conclusions I have drawn in the past, so based on this new information, let me make a few sweeping conclusions."

t seems like it might be much more economically viable and beneficially desirable to pursue reforestation instead of reducing CO2 emissions.
Why even bother if CO2 has nothing to do with global warming?

And I'm not sure where he got the 100% figure, but CO2 obviously doesn't reduce by 100% before it increases by 100% and it obviously doesn't double year to year.

Date: 2007/05/30 13:58:00, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (JohnW @ May 30 2007,12:39)
bornagain77 gives us the hard stuff: pure, triple-distilled, illegal-in-27-states hardcore tard:

The truth is that children have a much higher incidence of positive afterlife experiences than s do (+90% to -20%). So it would seem children are much closer to the truth than we are. Since after life experiences are indeed validated as authentic experiences by Van Lommel and a number of other studies, the question now becomes, Why do children have a much higher incidence of positive after-life experiences when temporarily deceased than s do? I think the answer is fairly straight forward. I believe that they have not been corrupted by many of the materialistic lies saying that this world is all there is. Another interesting fact is that other drastically different cultures,Hindu, Chinese,Japanese etc etc.. have a majority of afterlife experinces that are negative when compared to our Judeo-Christian society. This is truly a very facinating phenomena.
I’ve got a short study that I’ve done on this and will send it to anyone via request.

P.S. It is in Pdf. format

Pdf format = Pulled from arsehole, presumably.

Notice how the string "adult" is missing from this passage. Is he some kid at home typing through some kind of Net Nanny filter? The kind that doesn't let you send "adult" or "blue footed booby" or "pussycat" or "Dick Tracy?"

And yeah, kids have positive "afterlife experiences?" WTF does that mean?

allanius is confused:
One possible reason for resistance to science is that science is often wrong. Darwin was wrong about spontaneous generation. Freud was wrong about the blissful possibilities of psychoanalysis. Marx was wrong about the fate of capitalism.
Darwin tried not to speculate on the ultimate origins of life. Freud and Marx weren't scientists.

And if science, which is based on physical evidence and observations and ideally all the evidence, is sometimes wrong, then what does that say about myths jotted down in some ancient book? Or stupidity jotted down daily in some stupid blog?

And I think the point of the article went straight over some people's heads.

This is the best part:

   This resistance … will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense

Hard to blame the kids when the “scientific” alternatives increasingly defy common sense.
I would be willing to bet that developmental data also suggests that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with reality.

Date: 2007/05/30 14:06:29, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 27 2007,15:49)
Quote (phonon @ May 27 2007,12:18)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:05)
Quote (phonon @ May 25 2007,17:34)
How many prestigious universities were founded by donations from wealthy "capitalists"? and are named after them?

And, uh, where'd the money come from . . . . ?

From the rubes?

Nope. Try again . . . .

Why don't you just tell me where you think the money came from.

Date: 2007/05/30 14:32:20, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 25 2007,18:21)
Seriously, though, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because it failed -- it collapsed because it succeeded.  It's sole and only focus, throughout its history, was to industrialize as rapidly as possible, since that alone would allow the state to build up sufficient economic (and military) resources to prevent its economy from once again being dominated by foreign economic interests.

Once that industrialization process was completed, there was no longer any useful economic purpose served by the Leninist state, and its demise was inevitable.

Sorry, but this is just not true.

Just read a brief history of 5 year plans and how they really worked well at first, and then, not so much.

Also, the people you say you care about so much, the poor, had to stand in line to get toilet paper and bread, etc.

I know a guy who used to live in one of the Eastern Bloc states and he can remember when all there was on the shelves at the store was vinegar.

But, hey, there was a great depression here too. Some people argue that it was the creation of the Federal Reserve and its ability to artificially grow or shrink the money supply that led to it.

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 27 2007,15:40)
Quote (phonon @ May 27 2007,12:25)
and since the fall of the soviet union, and the institution of more "capitalistic" economic systems, has the standard of living in russia increased or decreased?

For who . . . . ?

By the way, Bangledesh, Haiti, and Chad are capitalist economies, all.

How's their, uh, standard of living . . . . ?

There's more to a thriving economy than what economic system is in place. These places usually have poor political systems, especially Haiti and Chad. I don't think our country had such a great economy during the civil war either.

Haiti is pretty close to Cuba. How's that going?

So you see, there is no magic system. Whether a country and its people are prosperous has much more to do with natural resources, culture, and human relations. But the best way to ensure that the most people have a good life is for them to be able to freely buy and sell and to run their affairs as they see fit.
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 27 2007,15:44)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 27 2007,12:26)
What would it take to bring about the changes to society that you would like?

Depends on how hard the corporados fight against it.

If the corporados give up their power without a fight, it will take ballots.

If the corporados don't give up their power without a fight, it will take guns.

I don't expect them to give up their power without a fight.

Viva La Revolución!!

Date: 2007/05/30 14:59:55, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 28 2007,15:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 28 2007,12:44)
How can society ever be equal with the monetary system that is in place right now?

It's not the monetary system that matters --- money is just a medium of exchange and has no power over anyone in and of itself.

Change those power relationships, and the monetary medium doesn't mean anything anymore.

So what you are really asking is whether society can "ever be equal" with the POWER RELATIONSHIPS we have now.

And the answer is "no".  Those power relationships are specifically maintained to make them UN-equal.

As for "absolute equality between everyone", I don't know what that phrase means.  So I avoid discussions of it.  Just as I avoid discussions about "pure capitalism" or "pure communism".  I'm not interested in doctrinal purity -- purity is a matter for the church, not for a political and social movement.

Sorry, but this too is just plain wrong.

The power relationship is built on the monetary system.

Why did we go to war in the Middle East? We don't import much oil from there. But the dollar stays afloat because of oil. The US is much much richer (well, Wall Street is) because of it. The US monetary system taxes its citizens through the income tax (the institution of which was necessary to institute the Fed because the US govt had to guarantee that it would be able to pay interest to the Fed by a direct taxation on income) and through inflation, which is controlled by interest rates. It also taxes the world through inflation because countries have to maintain dollar reserves if they want to buy oil.

If we replaced Federal Reserve Notes (the green stuff in your wallet) with a fiat currency regulated by Congress, or a decentralized currency system based on a network of competing private banks, all that revenue for (?) dries up and the people could keep their income taxes and the world wouldn't have to pay interest through inflation on their dollar reserves, which they wouldn't have to even keep as much of.

One reason we went to war in the middle east is the oil-backed dollar. Another reason was to jack up oil prices. Saddam was flooding the market with cheap oil. Remember when gas got really cheap there in the late nineties? Oil companies hated that. Now they are making record profits.

If you want to get rid of monopolies, the Federal Reserve is the monopoly at the root of so many other monopolies and the problems that come from them. At least they are problems for everyone except the Fed banks, Wall Street, oil companies, and merc exchanges.

What do you think drives power relationships?


Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 29 2007,18:38)
Alas, the distribution of wealth hasn't changed much in the past 200 years, no matter WHAT monetary system was being used.

And that is because the power relationships within society have not changed much in the past 200 years.

Changing the monetary system, won't change those power relationships.

Again, NOT TRUE.

Let's just leave slavery out of this, though, shall we?

The distribution of wealth has gone up and down throughout US history (and extremely in British history).

Series of booms and busts have enriched and impoverished most of the population, but some folks at the top always seem to come out richer.

Date: 2007/05/30 18:44:04, Link
Author: phonon
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 30 2007,18:22)
Quote (phonon @ May 30 2007,14:32)
But, hey, there was a great depression here too. Some people argue that it was the creation of the Federal Reserve and its ability to artificially grow or shrink the money supply that led to it.

And those people would be wrong, since the Depression was a, uh, global phenomenon.

The economy was global then too.

The Great Depression started in the US after the stock market crash and spread worldwide.


I don't have time right now to answer anymore, I just came here to show an example of the "un-free" markets we have now.

got this from crooks and liars.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it. - A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was scheduled to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal, effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge has played out.
Can you believe that crap? A small company wants to test its cows for BSE so that it can tell its customers that the beef has been tested and is safe. The government is like anti-regulating here, and telling the company that it can't test for the disease because it'll hurt the big beef companies. WTF? Obviously someone had a scotch, a cigar, and a conversation with someone at the USDA.

An amazing country we live in.

Date: 2007/06/01 14:34:14, Link
Author: phonon
Conspirator talks about John Derbyshire talking about Sam Brownback talking about evolution. I was curious (since Derb is the tough guy who said that the British marines captured by Iran should have been much more Kamikaze and much more manly like Derb would have been and that the kids at Va Tech should have rushed the guy standing in the doorway with two pistols blazing) to see what old Derb had to say. I can't say that I have ever read NRO, and now that I have, I have to say that these people are definitely living in some sort of alternate reality.

For example:
Jonah Goldberg, yes that one. (What a joke of a writer.) posts this:    
More proof of the existence of God, from a reader:

   Circumcision:  No man would ever think about having it done, and no man would ever accede to the demand of a woman that it be done.  Therefore, the order to do so came neither from man nor from woman, but from God.  
Yeah, that's the ticket. I guess female genital mutilation is also ordered by God, along with putting that big clay plate into a hole in your bottom lip. mm hmm.

and others post things like
Re: Cousin Marriage   [Stanley Kurtz]

Jonah, there is a greater likelihood of birth defects in cases of cousin marriage. That is an argument against the practice, but it may not be a decisive one, because the effect is not massive.

But I will give Derb some credit for this:
Here is Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That's a bit like saying: "Here's Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations"

bornagain disagrees:
It is good to see that Sam Brownback has a good grasp of the situation.

Date: 2007/06/01 15:15:26, Link
Author: phonon
I mean, 10-15 years after the invention of the airplane, you'd think they'd start rushing around naming all the planes with the coolest, fiercest, fastest, most powerful names they could come up with and would use up most of the really impressive names for planes, but...

The Camel?  ???


Date: 2007/06/03 04:02:09, Link
Author: phonon
Jehu, let me fill you in on something.

Chu-Carroll then goes on to claim that Dembski’s No Free Lunch therom is based on an invalid premise.

No Free Lunch Theorems are not "Dembski's No Free Lunch Theorems."

He just tried to apply NFL theorems to evolution in an attempt to prove that evolution doesn't happen by chance.


oh - and OT, but I thought this was nice. Reminded me of Hovind.

Date: 2007/06/04 15:20:33, Link
Author: phonon
I can't see any of the images hosted by the lolcats site (hxxp://

Maybe it has something to do with that :8080 business?

Date: 2007/06/04 16:17:59, Link
Author: phonon
ID isn’t science, and just to make sure…
Paul Nelson

…we’ll deny tenure to anyone who wants to pursue the ideas, or develop them to the point where they can make predictions.

Just replace the word ID with astrology, tarot card reading, sceance, voodoo, psychic friends network, and phrenology.

None of that counts, however, as Hauptman sees it. Rather what counts is the definition of “science.”

Those evil "scientists" and their so-called "science" won't let me call my religious beliefs "science." Those "wankers."

That’s the bottom line. Or, perhaps more precisely, that’s the closed circle: science is applied naturalism; if you challenge naturalism, you’re not a scientist; and those who are not scientists do not deserve tenure in academic departments of science. Simple as that.

Well, Paul, if you observe some phenomenon, especially an astronomical one, and then your explanation for the phenomenon is "God did it," you won't make it very far in a science career. Can you see the seminar talk? or the papers that would come from this theory? It would most likely sound like Deepak Chopra on acid.

Date: 2007/06/06 02:31:11, Link
Author: phonon

Creation Museum needs a Geologist

   Speaker and Researcher of Geology
   Reports to: Mark Looy (for the moment)

   Duties and Responsibilities

   - Speak to layperson (and occasional science) groups across the country as requested through AiG Outreach Dept. Expected travel a minimum of 25%.
   - Literature and field research.
   - Write regular articles for web and other AiG publications.
   - Produce books, DVDs, curriculum materials, etc.

   Education, Experience and Skill Requirements

   - Doctorate in geology preferred, or some other related scientific discipline (e.g., paleontology).
   - Minimum of 5 years’ field or teaching experience in study discipline.
   - Extremely strong knowledge of creation – understanding both the biblical and scientific arguments.
   - Articulate and engaging speaker is a must, along with the willingness to be mentored in order to become an even better speaker (i.e., to be “teachable”).
   - Ability to express concepts in writing

   Items needed for possible employment

   - Resume
   - Salvation testimony
   - Creation belief statement
   - Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

Date: 2007/06/07 17:36:41, Link
Author: phonon
Why didn't Dembki "fisk" Chu-Caroll's fisking?

Isn't he the math wiz? (That comes in spread or spray form.)

He had to rely on some reader who didn't really fisk anything. He just basically said, "That wasn't a very good fisking. I've seen better."

Date: 2007/06/09 02:42:33, Link
Author: phonon

The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.

After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.

"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in a written statement.

Is that a fig leaf or are you just happy to see me?

Date: 2007/06/09 02:56:30, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2007,15:58)
Ars Technica looks at the idiotic museum.

I love some of the Flickr comments.

Re: the ark

Which stateroom accommodated the 350,000 species of beetles?


oh...apparently they just needed a couple--the variety is supposed to have recovered rapidly after that :)


If they recover that fast and diversify just as fast,...
Well heck then all he really needed was like 2 mammals, 2 amphibians, 2 birds, 2 fish, 2 insects and 2 reptiles.

Oh I see,..

Boy! God is a tricksy one! God made him lug around all those extras so that they would have food for the journey. Unfortunately they forgot that the had to keep 2 of every animal GROUP and accidentally ate cyclopses first..
(See I should write for the museum, I can make up all kinds of crazy BS) Also Jesus was actually Asian, and the first Ninja ever!


Say, who was hosting all of those obligate parasites, bacteria, and viruses?? You know, like tapeworms, polio, smallpox, cholera, plaque, diptheria, etc., etc., etc... Those gems of God's creation obviously survived the flood, too.


Also Jesus was actually Asian,

no, you're wrong.

he was mexican.


I hope they made a safe place for the termites. So much wood ... yum yum.


So, I guess the whole idea of this crap-a-rama is to not ask yourself any questions that would obviously pop into the mind of a 9 year old. That's how it makes "sense".


I'm gonna go with Pirate Jesus rather then Ninja Jesus.


Jesus was neither pirate nor ninja. Jesus was a zombie. Who else would rise from the dead?


Gotta admiyt...pretty cool that Noah built that all by himself in short period of time too. I think even Chuck Norris would break a sweat doing that. Oh God helped? That makes sense then. It was one of those "I know it's impossible, but it has to be done so do it anyway."

*Sings* And don't you for get my Unicorns!...

Date: 2007/06/11 14:37:46, Link
Author: phonon
bornagain77 makes sure the tard is just right.
Thanks Denyse,
You woke me up to the fact that all the weight of historical evidence points to the fact that something profound happened within the last 10,000 years to the Human species. I was giving more weight to the mtDNA studies which showed “Eve” originated, I believe the estimate was/is, 100,000 years ago. Thus I was giving more weight to the highly speculative molecular clock presumptions of DNA analysis than I was giving to actual history of humans as revealed by archeology. I wonder what was this profound event? Could it actually be true that humans were only created within the last 10,000 years as the historical evidence or Did humans wander around in caves for a hundred thousand years before coming together in societies?
Since I assume, based on nothing, that humans have only been around for 10,000 years, then all that genetic data must be false. Forget the evidence of humans wandering around from cave to cave long before 10,000 years ago. And then we should definitely assume that since history started about 10,000 years ago (which it didn't) then humans also started about then. Makes sense, no? No.

The whole point of the post was to minimize the connection between ID and creationism, although ID is merely a breed of it. So bornagain again sets the record straight.
The debate over the timing of Humans aquisition of profound knowledge is really besides the point. The main point that matters is “Was Man created or did he evolve?” I think an unbiased examination of the fossil record shows, as Richard Leaky has stated “An abrupt arrival of Man in the fossil record rather than the gradual process of evolving.” As well the principle of genetic entropy has sealed the fate of the RM/NS scenario. So in answer to the question of Man’s origins we can say, with a high level of scientific integrity that the fossil record and primary principles of molecular biology, that all empirical evidence not weighted with suggestive presumptions point to the sudden creation of Man as predicted by the Theistic philosophy.

Date: 2007/06/11 14:45:17, Link
Author: phonon
Sherrif Sewell strikes again:
That is why–contrary to what you have apparently been told–most ID proponents do NOT advocate teaching ID in science classes.

Sure, Granny, sure. What was Dover about again?

From his post:
We need to face the fact that it may still be a very long time before the majority of scientists will take seriously the idea that a designer may have been directly involved in the origin and development of life. However, it may not be nearly so long before they will at least finally acknowledge that science has no clue about the “natural” causes involved.

We're closer than you think, Sheriff:
The basic idea is that simple principles of chemical interactions allow for a kind of natural selection on a micro scale: enzymes can cooperate and compete with each other in simple ways, leading to arrangements that can become stable, or “locked in,” says Ken Dill, PhD, senior author of the paper and professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at UCSF.

The scientists compare this chemical process of “search, selection, and memory” to another well-studied process: different rates of neuron firing in the brain lead to new connections between neurons and ultimately to the mature wiring pattern of the brain. Similarly, social ants first search randomly, then discover food, and finally build a short-term memory for the entire colony using chemical trails.

They also compare the chemical steps to Darwin’s principles of evolution: random selection of traits in different organisms, selection of the most adaptive traits, and then the inheritance of the traits best suited to the environment (and presumably the disappearance of those with less adaptive traits).

Like these more obvious processes, the chemical interactions in the model involve competition, cooperation, innovation and a preference for consistency, they say.
In its simplest form, the model shows how two catalysts in a solution, A and B, each acting to catalyze a different reaction, could end up forming what the scientists call a complex, AB. The deciding factor is the relative concentration of their desired partners. The process could go like this: Catalyst A produces a chemical that catalyst B uses. Now, since B normally seeks out this chemical, sometimes B will be attracted to A -- if its desired chemical is not otherwise available nearby. As a result, A and B will come into proximity, forming a complex.

The word “complex” is key because it shows how simple chemical interactions, with few players, and following basic chemical laws, can lead to a novel combination of molecules of greater complexity. The emergence of complexity – whether in neuronal systems, social systems, or the evolution of life, or of the entire universe -- has long been a major puzzle, particularly in efforts to determine how life emerged.

Dill calls the chemical interactions “stochastic innovation” – suggesting that it involves both random (stochastic) interactions and the emergence of novel arrangements.

“A major question about life’s origins is how chemicals, which have no self-interest, became ‘biological’ -- driven to evolve by natural selection,” he says. “This simple model shows a plausible route to this type of complexity.” Dill is also a professor of biophysics and associate dean of research in the UCSF School of Pharmacy. He is a faculty affiliate at QB3, the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research, headquartered at UCSF.

Date: 2007/06/12 02:08:53, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 12 2007,00:12)


11:15 pm

Here is some surprising attempts at geneologies from other cultures. They all shockingly converge on the figure Morowitz cites:


   Data From 88 Generations of Kings of China - 2943 B.C.-314 B.C.

   Data From 124 Generations of Kings of India - 2964 B.C.-1193 A.D.

They also corroborate Cornell geneticist John Sanford’s Genetic Entropy hypothesis.

What is especially astonishing:

1. 7 geographically dispersed cultures independently discover agriculture

2. written language appears about the same time (again, in geographically dispersed regions).

3. Artifacts like pyramids appear about the same time in geographically dispersed regions.

4.Geneological records go back only to those times (ask yourself, why did this happen simultaneously to geographically dispersed cultrues).

Of course, one could argue there are geneologies that reach farther back, we just haven’t found them. They are missing links….

Quick, somebody tell Sal about the Younger Dryas!

Oh, hang on, you're all banned.  I'll have to do it...


Pyramids all over the world?


Date: 2007/06/12 02:11:41, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Mister DNA @ June 11 2007,23:17)
If Sal's gonna be quoting from sci fi movies, here's one that should be relevant.

Okay, so I'm definitely not the Rembrandt of Photoshop...


Date: 2007/06/12 10:17:37, Link
Author: phonon
This is a very well done video about Christian mythology.

I haven't seen "The God that Wasn't There." Can anyone tell me if this is pretty much what that documentary covers?

Date: 2007/06/12 15:08:58, Link
Author: phonon
It seems that everything we (in the west) do kills millions of people in Africa. Clinton blows up a pharmaceutical plant, so obviously millions die of malaria. We take away their DDT, so obviously millions die of malaria. We tell them not to burn fossil fuels, everyone dies. We don't stop genocide, millions die. We don't send enough AIDS drugs, millions die.

I'm amazed Africa still has a population at all.

But the take home lesson Barry A gets from all this is: scientists are wrong and will kill millions if they are not stopped! At least that's what I have to assume is his point since he cut and past yet did not comment. Not even a glib comment about evil scientists.

I guess Barry A will tell all the fundie nuts to stop trying abstinence only education in Africa, or, um, millions will die, of course. Maybe he will tell the fundie Christian nuts in Nigeria to stop feuding with the fundie Muslim nuts there, or, of course, millions will die. Maybe he'll tell missionaries to stop going over there to convert people because that leads to fundamentalism, and, uh, millions will die!!!

Date: 2007/06/12 15:25:34, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ June 12 2007,14:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2007,22:20)

Gaaaa...The ID movement is trying to get into my pants.  I think I'm going to be sick...

What could possibly be analogous to IDC trying to get into your pants?

Warning: don't follow the link while eating.

Whilst with the British army in Belize, we was warned about something similar. Aparently they where capable of swiming up a stream of urine and getting inside of you. The answer was to keep stopping the flow of urine so that you "pissed" in an interupted stream.

Once I got used to doing that it became a habbit. So much so that I occaisionaly still "pinch" when urinating now (aprox. 20 years on).


Date: 2007/06/12 17:31:33, Link
Author: phonon
Nice bumper sticker for the museum!!

He he.

Date: 2007/06/12 17:36:48, Link
Author: phonon
Oooh! aBOVE the garter!

he he

yeah, i thought the video was very well done

I had heard bits and pieces of all these observations, but they synthesized it so nicely. The thing I had never heard before was the thing about "ages" (aeons) and the precession of the Earth. I mean, WOW, that "the ancients" were able to keep track of the sun for so long to at least notice the effect of the precession of the Earth. That kind of crap blows my mind.

Oh, but I thought the whole thing about Set -> sunset is stupid. Hours and horizon for Horus is more believable because Latin and Greek are both hora and ora (for hour) respectively. But sunset is different. Only in modern English is it something like "set" (that I know of). Anyway, they may be right about "set" but it seems wrong.

Oh, and I'm watching it again now. They screwed up the date for Dionysus. They put ca. 200 AD when it should be ca. 200 BC. O well.

Date: 2007/06/12 18:31:39, Link
Author: phonon
When it got to the part about the pope's mitre being a fish head, I said "Come on!" (obviously it was meant for rabbit ears.) But then I looked into it.

Dagon the fish god.

There is a bunch of stuff out there by protestants trying to discredit Catholicism because of pagan symbolism. (hee hee).

Dagon (Daygon) is even mentioned by name in the Bible.

Date: 2007/06/15 16:28:10, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,13:47)
Jesus does NOT think its bad to rip people apart and hurt them.  After all, he sends all the ones who don't kiss his ass to hell for an eternity of punishment.

How in the hell do you equate believing that He was sent to earth to suffer and die for the sins of all, and in turn we are merely asked to accept the gift with "ass kissing"?  That's it - that's ALL the "ass kissing" we have to do.  

Hideous request, isn't it?!!  Horrible!  Devastating!  An impossible request!!

Are you sure that's ALL you have to do to get into heaven and stay out of eternal hell?

According to this video, it's apparently impossible to play by the rules in the Bible in order to get into heaven and not be thrown into a pit of fire for eternity.

Date: 2007/06/15 18:01:46, Link
Author: phonon
I like this one because it's edumakayshunnul.

But this one is pretty funny.

This one is hard to believe though.

I thought the name thing went Yeshua in Hebrew to Iesu in Greek/Latin because they didn't have the SH shound to Jesu in Europe because the Ye sound was made by J and not I and then on to Jesus in English because that's the nominative form and in modern English you don't change people's names depending on the case in which you use them.

And Christ is directly from kristos = messiah in greek.

Funny thing though, Yeshua also means savior. So the name Jesus Christ means Savior Messiah.

Date: 2007/06/15 18:17:01, Link
Author: phonon
I used to watch Mr. Wizard religiously when I was a kid. I used to hate how he treated the kids as though they were smart and dumb at the same time. And I hated how the kids were invariably super cheesy. But I still loved that show and I'm sad to hear that old Mr. Wizard has gone to the great baking soda and vinegar volcano in the sky.

(oh, and the show I watched was the one on Nickelodeon during the 80s. It would come on sometime around You Can't Do that on Television. I know he had another in the 50s or something.)

Date: 2007/06/16 12:06:11, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 15 2007,22:48)
Quote (phonon @ June 15 2007,18:01)
I like this one because it's edumakayshunnul.
GH Ah that is negatory there gud buddy
I thought the name thing went Yeshua in Hebrew to Iesu in Greek/Latin because they didn't have the SH shound to Jesu in Europe because the Ye sound was made by J and not I and then on to Jesus in English because that's the nominative form and in modern English you don't change people's names depending on the case in which you use them. Dis is gud, I tink

And Christ is directly from kristos = messiah in greek.

GH Well, no.  Try "anointed."  The Greeks neither had a "messiah" nor needed one.

Funny thing though, Yeshua also means savior.

GH Again wrong.  "Gift from God" would be an acceptable English translation.

So the name Jesus Christ means Savior Messiah.

Yah sure, what ever.  But "Anointed Gift from God" would be one hell of a great nick name.

ya need sum mor edumacation

Well, thank you. I never claimed to be a history expert.

"anointed" huh? So his name is Gift From God Smeared With Oil?

Sounds kinky.

Anyway, I've seen many different explanations for the meaning of Yeshua, from "The Lord Saves" to "Salvation" to "The Lord who Saves" to "no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever."

Oh and this is a great video:

Date: 2007/06/20 19:58:11, Link
Author: phonon
Wow. They REALLY have given up on pretending now.

One post about an ID friendly book called "God's Universe" then Billy D talking about anti-creationism = anti-ID.

Anyway, how would ID explain this?

Was God in the mood for some mite pr0n?

Date: 2007/06/20 20:00:40, Link
Author: phonon

Date: 2007/06/24 15:33:19, Link
Author: phonon
I never saw Bruce Almighty, only the commercials.

Anyway, what always struck me about the premise is that when Bruce is given the power of god, he does stupid petty shit with it. If you were given the power of god, would you even bother with crap like that?

Date: 2007/06/24 17:15:03, Link
Author: phonon
Found this on digg.

And here is the back.

Date: 2007/06/25 19:40:36, Link
Author: phonon
GD, I love that episode. It encapsulates so much of what's wrong with this society.

Oh, and totally OT, sorry, but apparently the Solar system did not originate in the Milky Way.

Date: 2007/06/26 13:04:53, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 25 2007,08:03)
Awesome. I had no idea T-Rex could breathe fire.

Yeah, watch out for that as you're pulling his arms off.

Date: 2007/06/26 13:16:04, Link
Author: phonon
I like this little comment from russ on the holocaust page:
Wow I’m considered dangerous! This could be exciting!

Yes. Your dangerousness and $4.55 will get you a Raspberry Mocha Frappuccino at Starbucks.

Is that grande or venti?

Date: 2007/06/26 13:26:11, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (stevestory @ June 24 2007,21:41)
Quote (phonon @ June 24 2007,16:33)
I never saw Bruce Almighty, only the commercials.

Anyway, what always struck me about the premise is that when Bruce is given the power of god, he does stupid petty shit with it. If you were given the power of god, would you even bother with crap like that?

Like, as Bruce did, making my girlfriend's boobs bigger?

(takes long, hard look at himself)

Yes...yes I probably would do that.


Without making your schlong 6 feet long first?

Even Carl thought of that one.

Date: 2007/07/01 23:25:50, Link
Author: phonon
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2007,16:24)
1.  In the beginning, there was this itsy bitsy point called a singularity.  It was a point of zero volume and infinite density, and then it had this quantum instability and went boom.

2.  And Moses sayeth unto the Lord, "WTF are you yammering on about, God??!111??"

3.  And with a loud voice God backeth up and beginneth again, for he messed up the setteth up line.  

4.  Actually that wasn't the beginning.  Before the beginning there was this other universe that wasn't quite fine tuned enough for humans.

5.  I dideth this thing with the dirt, and it didn't hold together so good.  What a mess.

6.  Anyways, where waseth I, Moses?

7.  And Moses questioned the Lord and quizzeth him thusly, "Could I just paraphrase?"

8.  And God smiteth his ass.

Singularity? Eh not so much.

New discoveries about another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today will be announced in the early on-line edition of the journal Nature Physics on 1 July 2007 and will be published in the August 2007 issue of the journal's print edition. "My paper introduces a new mathematical model that we can use to derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it travels through the Big Bounce, which replaces the classical idea of a Big Bang as the beginning of our universe," said Martin Bojowald, assistant professor of physics at Penn State. Bojowald's research also suggests that, although it is possible to learn about many properties of the earlier universe, we always will be uncertain about some of these properties because his calculations reveal a "cosmic forgetfulness" that results from the extreme quantum forces during the Big Bounce.

Obviously, this is a just-so story conjured up to try to take God, er, intelligent design out of the equation. Ah! But God is still there, lurking in the "free" variables. There's always a gap and there always will be. Look into the gap and the gap looks into you.

(waiting for the day I can use the phrase "singularity ensues" on Fark)

Date: 2007/07/02 10:12:58, Link
Author: phonon
That totally reminds me of this.

Date: 2007/07/08 11:39:47, Link
Author: phonon
Have you all been keeping up with the perpetual motion machine hilarity?

People at overwhelming evidence bought into the perpetual motion machine "orbo" a perpetual motion machine.

Fox News is there!

Infinite-energy theory challenges materialist thermodynamics dogma!!!

Ask a materialist if an infinitely powerful entity is possible, and they will give you a "No!", without even bothering to consider the question for a moment. The materialist understanding of the laws of thermodynamics exclude any understanding of systems that have infinite energy. Unfortunately for materialists, their understanding of these basic scientific principles is about to receive a major challenge.


ps- I see that you have posts on the subject. O well. It's still hilarious.

Date: 2007/07/16 16:35:24, Link
Author: phonon
Been busy, but this post on UD is so typical of them, and funny.

Is It Possible to Intelligently Design and then Deny the Intelligent Designer?
You dimwits do it all the time.

You are constantly saying that you don't need to know who/what/when/where the Designer is.

I find it almost infuriating that there are labs like Petr Kral’s all over the world that are doing this kind of work every day, and, yet, our Darwinist brothers tell us that, unlike any potential contact with ET’s, in this case we cannot possible know anything about any Intelligent Designer.

But that's what YOU idiots say. You're always going on about there being no need whatsoever to know anything about the Intelligent Designer. This post is almost infuriating. (not)

One has to ask the question: If the Intelligent Designer designed the universe, and the Designer’s intelligence is beyond anything we could possibly comprehened, then how is it that Einstein gave us a description of gravity, AND, in so doing say that his discovery was “like knowing the Mind of God”?
Yeah, how is that? Doh! Einstein is god. Of course! It's so obvious now.

How is it possible to examine biological life, AND on the BASIS of what one SEES, then construct a molecular machine of heretofore unknown sophistication, and then, simultaneously maintain that no inference about any so-called Intelligent Designer can be made?
I guess he's arguing with the ID crowd here? Is he finally demanding that they come clean and start to reveal who they have scientifically proven the Designer to be?

Philisophically speaking, how can you “study” that which is, per your own definition, “incomprehensible”? Would Darwinists like to ‘fess up about all of this?
What in the hell is he talking about? If anything is incomprehensible, Pav, it's your logic.

Date: 2007/08/30 16:25:15, Link
Author: phonon
Hi all. It's been a while since I went to uncommondescent, but in just one swift perusal there are plenty of chuckles to be had.

The best one has got to be:

What if we DID find irreducibly complex biological features?

What if? As in -we haven't- but what if we DID?

What if dog was spelled C-A-T? (obscure?)

another little humorous bit

Michael Behe has certainly given his critics a thrashing at his Amazon weblog.

O! Well, I have to see how he's thrashing all his detractors leaving nasty comments at his amazon blog.
What's this?
Comments disabled

Curses foiled again!

And since the Nobel committee isn't beating down Behe's or Dembski's door any time soon, they might as well have a few victories in the science fiction category.
I tell, you ID is catching on! As fiction.