AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: sir_toejam

form_srcid: sir_toejam

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.227.62.141

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: sir_toejam

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/04/27 02:17:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm game.  data model looks good.

should be simple enough to create a front end for the tables you propose.  I assume you have a server set to host it on already?

a few questions:

Is there any argument against using the Index of Creationist Claims (IOC) as the primary template for distinguishing between various creationist claims?

for issues not contained within the IOC, should we discuss what heading they should be created under here?  I assume we will need some consistency.

will submissions simply be on random acquisitions, or will there be "fact finding missions"?

will conclusions eventually be drawn and a summary statement or response be submitted at some point, or will this be a more open-ended project that simply acts as a repository of information?

cheers,

t

Date: 2005/04/29 13:25:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"there is a bit of a time crunch. "

fire when ready.

cheers

Date: 2005/04/29 17:02:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"The Darwinian theory of evolution is based on the idea of slow steady changes arising from accumulated mutations. It is slow because, according to the theory, mutation is disadvantageous. The only mutations occur as a result of unavoidable errors in transcribing genetic information."

this is not actually precise.  

1.  the idea of slow and steady is a bit of an oversimplification that is based on what darwin himself thought without the benefit of the genetic information we have available.  it doesn't correctly translate to modern evolutionary theory.

2.  there is no assumption in modern theory as to the relative advantage/disadvantage of any specific mutation event.  relative selective pressures determine this, not any a-priori assumption.

3.  mutations can occur by a variety of mechanisms other than the one you list.  Moreover, errors are not "unavoidable" in any specific sense with regards to transcription itself.  there are actually very good mechanisms in place to prevent transcription errors, which make them typically quite rare.  hence, the sources of mutation don't always arise strictly from transcription "errors", but could arise pre-transcription from any of a number of sources; oncogenes, for example.

"The correct value for mutation is obtained by considering all possible mutations and assigning them a probability and a cost (or benefit). The net cost (benefit) of mutation is the sum of the costs (benefits) multiplied by the probability that they will individually occur."

Funny you should mention this; one of the leading evolutionary theorists of all time, Robert Trivers, is attempting to do just that:  attempting to produce equations that balance the absolute inclusive fitness of a trait.  the reason i point this out is that there are so many variables to calculate in real-world examples of inclusive fitness that calculating the "value" for any specific trait would be extremely difficult.

for example, you could have multiple, competing selective pressures on any given trait.  how would you be able to determine ALL the relevant selective pressures in the field?  Moreover, at the genetic level, traits can be linked.  While there might be significant pressure against one trait, it might be linked to another trait that is even more "favored".  Just two small examples, but you can see how complicated this can get.

You can't even correctly determine the "probability that they will individually occur" without more detailed knowledge of what factors into that.  even in its most simplistic form you propose, that of simple 'translation errors', it would take a phenomenal effort to calculate what the factors and frequency of translation errors occur within an individual population in the field, which is all that really matters.

"Of more importance, a beneficial mutation increases the long term probability of an organism having descendants and is limited by the impossibility that the probability can exceed one; similarly a deleterious mutation decreases the long term probability of an organism having descendants and is limited by the impossibility of the probability being less than zero"

congratulations, you essentially just reworded what amounts to the theory of inclusive fitness.

"At any point where the reproduction ratio drops sufficiently to virtually ensure extinction the long term probability of the organism having descendants is essentially zero. Consequently, the cost of deleterious mutations, as a fraction of this must also be zero."

the cost to whom?  individuals do not "divine" the relative value of deleterious mutations, nor do they consider the value of maintaining the "species".

On the contrary, it really depends on what specific selective pressure you are talking about as to what strategy actually makes sense under those pressures.

you can't generalize "environment" as a selection pressure per say.  There are numerous selective pressures that could conflict with each other and still come under the heading "environment".  Even if you restrict the selective pressures to purely physical ones.  However, restriction to purely physical selection pressures is very unrealistic.

you are mistaking something general (environment) with something very specific (a specific selective agent) when you use the example of a colony of bacteria "threatened" by an antibiotic.


look, essentially what the argument proposes is that generalists are favored under some conditions, specialists under others.  However, this has little to do with genetic mutation rates.  Selection could just as easily act on the variablity already extant in a population.  under such circumstances, it would simply favor those individuals with offspring already more compatible with whatever the primary selective pressure is.  In fact, it predicts the exact opposite of increased mutation.  I would expect to see those individuals with the greatest fitness under the restricted circumstances to be those with less variability in their offspring, but whose traits are more compatible with whatever the most prevalent selective pressure at the time is.  these individuals would have the most surviving offspring, not the ones with increased variability.

aside from all of that, what you are proposing is essentially that environmental bottlenecks end up producing most species, through a genetic mutation mechanism.  the problem with that is you can more easily explain it through standard evolutionary theory.

once you have an extreme bottlneck, afterwards you have a whole buch of blank niches to fill.  intrapsecies competion would then be a far greater selective pressure than interpsecies ones, which would then favor individuals to move into new niches.

no need to propose massive genetic mutation as a response to bottleneck-level selective pressures.

see?

Date: 2005/04/29 17:16:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"Intelligent Design works purely on the empirical basis of science to identify if an artifact is a result of design. "

then i would argue that ID is worthless, because the only way for you to identify if an "artifact is a result of design" would be to compare it to human endeavors, which is what we already do.

Show me one case in point where you can prove that an intelligence other than animal (humans included) produced a "designed" artifact.  How would one even go about proving something like that?

answer: you can't, because you have nothing to compare to.

this is why ID is so worthless.  It can't make testable predictions because it has nothing to base predictions on to begin with.

man, it is SO pointless to even attempt to frame this as a logical debate, let alone a scientific one.  

those who support ID shouldn't be arguing against scientists, they should be arguing against the rest of Christianity that disagrees with them.

all i care about as a scientist is about the political movement behind ID; all the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Date: 2005/05/03 01:40:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
maybe he doesn't bother responding because he doesn't really need to.

those of us who did respond did so simply out of a desire to throw rocks at trolls.

the burden is on yourself to show that the 'artifacts' you list have any supernatural cause, not on the rest of us to do it for you.

so get to it.

if you do, ask yourself... now what?

if you want a less sophomoric response, post something less silly.

Date: 2005/05/03 13:27:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol.

"This kind of logic is inane."

It just goes to show that the fact that you can use the word "logic" in a sentence does not imply that you can apply it in the real world.

The whole last paragraph of the missive you pooted makes no sense at all.

you make so many incorrect cross-analogies it made me laugh.

dude, what drugs are you on?

maybe you can find someone who can explain what the #### you are trying to say?  

Get them to post for you.

Date: 2005/05/04 23:38:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*sigh*

so with each new discovery, will you again proclaim:  goddidit! while providing no evidence, and ignoring all of the similar things that have come before, that are explained quite well by evolution?

you will have a busy but very unproductive life.

for anyone who cares, the same argument was made about flagella, and those are quite easily explained by evolutionary theory; pick a study:

http://www.google.com/custom?....ins.org

You will never win this challenge you have set up for yourself, Charlie.  you will just keep pushing the goalposts farther back for yourself.

bye.

Date: 2005/05/17 15:37:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Ok, paul.

Please list your evidence for creationism in this thread.

then we can address each, one at a time.

cheers

Date: 2005/05/18 20:28:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
what he is saying, Charles, is that your opinions bear so little weight, both of logic and evidence, that they don't warrant more than a standard response.

again, seems appropriate to me.

besides which, he did answer the question posed, which was whether he thought ID was involved or not.

case closed.

Date: 2005/05/20 14:37:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, those nobel laureats and the folks who vote for them are all materialists, so what do you expect?

;)

Date: 2005/08/16 16:34:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
now if you only understood half of what you read charlie, your post would actually make some sense.

extrapolation from a genetic disorder to make broad proclamations about the evolution of behavior and interaction of genes and environment on behavior is simply not warranted.

that evolution did not "produce" the abnormality described is obvious, but not particularly instructive.

You can't assume that there is an "underlying" behavior that is simply masked by the presence or lack thereof of a specific set of genes.  It simply doesn't work that way.

Why do you bother continuing in this vein?  I'm not even a specialist in this field,  but managed to learn enough in graduate school alone to know you are way off base here.

I don't understand why you so adamantly refuse to go and learn anything about the subjects you seem to be so interested in.

nuff said.

Date: 2005/08/22 17:24:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm not sure if this should be a wess and russ only thread.  if so, please feel free to remove my comments.

"...and was meant to refute ID but in actuality never once examined or properly defined ID."

speaking of which, I have yet to see ANYONE define what the actual scientific theory of ID is either, ID supporter or not.  It isn't defined on the DI site, Dembski has never actually defined it, nor Johnson...

can you?  I'm willing to listen to your or any published references to an actual scientific theory of ID if you can provide one.  

Do remember the qualifier of scientific, tho.

Date: 2005/08/22 17:31:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"The average well educated Joe or Jill over a large age range has an instant dislike for peole who display the arrogance, elitism and self congratulatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited daily here and throughtout the evolutionist community. It hurts the cause of your team when people demean, attack and belittle people who they disagree with and discredit their credentials,abilities and accomplishments in outrageous and demonstrably inaccurate polemics..."

hmm.  does it hurt your "team" when you are shown to be liars (Dembski), use spin instead of science to further your position and hire PR folks instead of scientists (Discovery Institute), engage in spurious lawsuits in order to paint yourselves as victims (lawsuit against Eugenie Clark), etc., etc.,???

as to whether your "team" is winning or not, what did Bush's science adviser say after Bush's innane comments about supporting ID the other day?  can you tell me?

hey, i'll take vitriol over pure deceit any day of the week.

you can delude yourself all you wish, however don't expect the rest of us to encourage or address your delusions specifically.

do enjoy the world you seem to be painting for yourself.

Date: 2005/08/22 20:55:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
then why does the DI feel it isn't ready to be taught in schools yet?

why did Johsnon himself say there is no scientific theory?

just because someone "thinks" they have a scientific theory does not make it so.

do you actually understand what is involved in creating a scientific theory?  does ID in your mind meet all the criteria, if you do know them?  How so?

nothing you have presented here actually indicates a scientific theory of any kind.  you mereley present a description and opinion of events, not based on even independent observation, with no testable predictions.

none of the 4 part process of "design" is testable, is it?

As i mentioned, you really can't argue these points if you don't understand what a theory represents to begin with.

I'll go ahead and please Lenny by asking him, yet again, to post the list of what constitutes the elements of a scientific theory.  Then, if you would, please show me how what you have presented as an answer to my question fits the standard definition of a scientific theory.

If you choose not to wait, here is a nice little powerpoint presentation that will fill you in on the basics:

http://www.cofc.edu/~delliss/Biol101Page/Bio101ppt/NatureOfScience.ppt

Moreover, aside from the fact that the evidence you present in the form of meyer is laughable - (he relies on Bill Gates as source material??). None of that relates to a testable theory.

perhaps you should actually examine the statements of those who supposedly "lead" the ID movement, who don't think ID is "ready" to be taught yet?  why do you think they said that?

I think you need to be much more analytical in your examination of ID, as even you recognized the immediate gaping holes.  Especially if you think to actually " one day contribute to filling them in."

look, the reason i even bothered to post this is that i am hoping you can see the difference between the process real scientists follow in order to produce and test a theory, vs. the bizarre nature of the poltical/social experiment that those behind ID are performing.

you must learn for yourself that there is NO science here.  no evidence, no theory, no testable predictions...  

you might try asking a science teacher like Ed Darrel to refer you to some good basic texts you can peruse that will elucidate standard scientific method for you.

Science is just a set of tools that has been shown over hundreds of years of success to be the best way to approach the practical exploration of our world, nothing more.  the current attacks on science and evolutionary theory have NOTHING to do with any flaws in science or evolutionary theory, and everything to do with the sociology of politics and control.

acceptance of ID is like shooting yourself in the foot.  It's like taking your car to a shaman to be repaired instead of a car mechanic...

I could understand the appeal of the shaman... if it wasn't obvious that a car mechanic could do a far better job asessing your car's difficulties and fixing them.

realizing that a car mechanic is better at fixing cars says nothing about the value of the shaman in spiritual matters, tho.  just as science says nothing about the value of religious faith in general.

Date: 2005/08/22 21:07:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
again, just for clarity, i won't take offense of any kind if you wish to remove comments extraneous to the thread's intended topic, Wes.  I just felt it important to point out the necessity of understanding what a scientific theory actually is, before any meaningful discussion could proceed.

Date: 2005/08/22 21:30:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
agreed.  I'll catch up with you in some other thread on PT.

Date: 2005/10/06 18:04:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
6 months and still nothing.  not surprising, really.

Date: 2005/10/08 17:16:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
be careful, creationists might see your post as supportive of their position :p

"Helium turned into the human brain"

I can't believe nobody has made a joke out of this yet.

I think IDiots are the perfect case in point, they must be the progenitors of the human race as their brains are apparently made mostly of things lighter than air, like helium.  they ARE the missing link.

ooh, don't forget the Flinstones - there's the real evidence that dinos walked with humans...

Date: 2005/10/18 17:12:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@ghost:

"I am personally working on a project using information theory to demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of common ancestry in light of data involving intron loss in the white gene of butterfiles and similar organisms."

uh, you are aware that dembski has stated his support for common descent, yes?  will you now say that debski is "unenlightened"

put yourself up to the mirror and see your own hypocrisy. the folks you hold up as models of enlightened thought are mere poster boys for political groups.

get a clue and move on.

Date: 2005/10/19 15:14:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
wrong.  would you like to view the actual tv interview where dembski clearly states his support for the theory of common descent?  now if he supports the theory of common descent, how is that just being "open minded", eh?  how can one say he supports one scientific theory and claim to support another "theory" which is supposed to be an direct alternative to it in the same breath?

I'm sure i can dig up the link for you should you wish, and if not, actually have the video clip on my hard drive for you to take a gander at.  otherwise i'm sure it shouldn't be too hard for you to find.  or, i could even quote directly from the video if you prefer?

now, once you have seen what he has to say, we can argue about WHY he says it.  however, he is very clear on stating his support for common descent.

Now, I suspect you actually know WHY he states support for common descent, but if you don't, i would be pretty shocked.  I would also be absolutely convinced you don't know ID conceptualizations half as well as you claim to.

look at this as a test, if you will.  if you already know the answer, you'd gain at least some credibility in my book, if not....

but, i'm sure you really don't care about credibility one way or the other.

so maybe my test is pointless to you.  I'll leave it to you to decide.

Date: 2005/10/19 15:31:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
will evopeach take odds in his favor?  or has he already decided on even odds *snicker*

Date: 2005/10/19 16:17:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
awww, now i am disappointed.  you should know the answer already.

The interview was done on a nightline special a few months back. here's one of the sites that still has a link to the video clip:

http://philbio.typepad.com/philoso....sk.html

let me know if you have problems with the link or download.  i could email you the vid; it should be about 15mb or less compressed, if your email can handle that, or i'd be happy to post it on my own ftp server if you prefer.

IIRC, it's about 11 minutes or so in, after a commercial break, where dembski clearly responds in the affirmative when questioned about his support for CD.
*edit* actually, my version of the clip starts later, and his statement is about 1:30 in.  so you might find it far earlier.  In either case, if you haven't seen it, you might find the interview interesting (i found it rather boring, actually) so you might as well watch the whole thing.

once you watch it, you should have an obvious response as to why he responds in the affirmative, but again, i am dissapointed you didn't already know, and you have lost serious cred in my book.  boo-hoo, right?

However, if you want to play this game, you need to know ALL the angles.  To be honest, it surprised me that he said that as well, until the qualifiers became clear.

I hope you now have one more tool in your arsenal of crap to thow at those YOU wish to test.

oh, and good luck with that.  I personally think you are wasting your time, either way.

Date: 2005/10/19 17:59:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh come on. it should be patently obvious to anyone that has lived more that 20 years that someone who feels such a desperate need to constantly spout credentials (phony or not) does this because they simply can't rely on the strength of their arguments alone.

let me just add that evopeach is the nuttiest poster i have seen on PT, in well over a year.  and that includes folks like JAD, Charlie Wagner, and Blast.

he should congratulate himself!

Date: 2005/10/20 10:24:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i'll take that bet, and raise it again:

not only does the loser have to admit they lost, but they must grovel and beg for forgiveness for being so pig ignorant to have ever doubted the outcome to begin with.

Date: 2005/10/20 10:32:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I really don't care about your opinions


now THAT'S laughable.

you clearly DO care about our opinions, so much so in fact, that you are willing to spend most of your supposedly valuable time posting here just to receive our endless derision for your false logic and moronic constructions.

I feel very sorry for you.  I can't believe you ever lived a life, because anybody who had wouldn't waste so much time here.

the only conclusion i can make is that you are either very young, or very old; if the later, you must be in a mental institute somewhere.

either way, you ARE mentally disturbed.

good luck with that.

Date: 2005/10/20 12:22:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol. very witty, wilde.

Date: 2005/10/20 12:32:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ahhh, if only your logic was as sharp as your wit.

Actually, as I intimated earlier, your initial lack of knowledge regarding ID constructs as proposed by Dembski allows me to easily dismiss your current persona as nothing more than a feeble attempt at intellectual masturbation.

again, good luck with that.

Date: 2005/10/21 16:33:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'd say to be careful in how you define a degree as "worthless".  that would depend on a great many factors.

just as a generalization, every university i have ever taken note of typically has general requirements to meet for a BA of any major that most would consider valuable assets in increasing ones' level of awareness.

even a BA in liberal arts or *shudder* english gets enough of a broad education that I personally would still consider it to be of value.

why specifically do you devalue a degree in english?

just curious.

Date: 2005/10/21 16:41:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
every once in a while, i like to post resources that track the history of where the term "neocon" came from, and what it currently represents from a social and political perspective.  Take them for what you will, but they are historically accurate, if nothing else.  The first is more detailing the philosophy behind "neocon" in the guise of Strauss, the second is more an example showing how the term is applied and utilized in current socio-political debate.

I don't intend to participate in commentary here, but feel free to post commentary if you are so inclined.

without further adieu:

http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/Strauss.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

enjoy.

Date: 2005/10/21 17:45:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
careful - you are treading on the same grounds as those who would eliminate artistic expression of artworks they find objectionable.

censorship has little place in an educated society.  as you clearly point out, pure economic value isn't the only criteria of value to be used in education.  otherwise, all we would have are business and trade schools.

those wonderful works of literature you admire might fade into dust without english majors...

would you like your kids being taught high school english by an engineeer, or an english major?

i for one, wouldn't want to make decisions on what the value of an education is in purely economic terms; that would devalue any education in and of itself.

note, I have a masters in zoology, but still wouldn't consider my friends with advanced degrees in english to have wasted their educational time.  Nor do i consider my education in zoology to be one that contributes or has high value "economically" (at least presently - it did when i embarked on it many years ago tho. ), regardless of the amount of hard science involved in obtaining it.

Date: 2005/10/21 19:07:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol.

rigggghhhhttt...

I would rather say:

"All school boards should be at least somewhat vigorous and informed when it comes to not including unsubstantiated and well rejected claims from the general public."

sadly, this board is not so informed nor vigorous.

Date: 2005/10/21 20:42:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm. that's a problem then, steve.

you can't see the similarity between judging the worth of an education and judging the worth of a particular piece of art for public funding?

I would certainly label the public funding of art based solely on the potential economic value of the art to be censorship, wouldn't you?


I ran into PhD's in physics working at McDonalds; does that really say anything about the value of a degree in physics?

One of my undergrad professors told me a story of a PhD in marine biology he met in a logging camp in B.C. who was a prostitute.

does that shed any light on the value of marine biology as a career?

what part of that has no connection to:

"But I don't think such degrees are nearly as valuable"

do you feel qualified to sit in judgement as to which educations are "valuable" and which are not, because you met english majors at Barnes and Noble?  What if you met a PhD in physics working as a cashier in McDonalds?

each person's history is unique, and their current circumstances don't always reflect their educational backgrounds by any means.

Simply because you were successful with your degree in physics, do you really feel qualified to judge the value of everyone elses' education, both on an individual basis AND as those educations might contribute to the world as a whole?

I'm sure you're a nice, reasonable guy Steve, but I certainly wouldn't vote for ya, no offense.

of course, all this is an aside to whether it would be a good idea to publically fund advanced education or not, but still...

Date: 2005/10/21 20:52:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch "

lol.  well, at least when compared to folks of the 'peach's bent.

then they look like the most reasonable folks imaginable.

I guess 'peach's constant spouting of public opinion polls means his parents never gave him the "..and if your friend's all jumped off a bridge.." speech.

I'm sure all the Catholics out there are thanking you for your constant irrationality, peach, I'm sure you have swelled their ranks all by yourself.

btw, i got lost in all your drivel; several folks accepted your "wager" regarding the outcome of the court case and even upped the ante.  are you willing to accept the new wager?  

just so we're clear, a "loss" for you simply means that the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs on the primary complaint, while a "loss" for us would be that the judge dismisses the plaintiffs action in its entirety, and rules  in favor of the defense.  Is this correct?  any other stipulations you wish to place on it?

do so now or forever hold your peace.

oh, and do remember that the <i>overwhelming</i> majority of the american public was against legalizing abortion when roe v wade came down the pike.

Date: 2005/10/22 22:11:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, I'm not surprised, but i will miss him backpedalling on the trial wager he proposed.

no big loss.

Date: 2005/10/23 11:08:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
GP-

I have only one, simple question:

Do you want to believe there were no moon landings?

Date: 2005/10/23 11:56:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
as brought up later in the thread this came from...

Europe.

Would most compare the bulk of Europe to any of the 3 cults listed by SS?

Date: 2005/10/23 12:04:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
bah, if peach was even remotely accurate about his assesement of the popularity of ID, it would seem to me you could just go to any public place and recruit a replacement for him, if you are really concerned about dissenting opinion.

do try to recruit somebody with at least a slightly more rational brain, if you want dissenting opinion rather than just op-ed humor.

Date: 2005/10/23 13:39:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
okeedokee, but my point wasn't about the definition of "cult" here, or whether the 3 cases above fit the description of "extreme", it was that increasing levels of secularism don't result in anything like the extreme positions implied by the 3 things mentioned in the first post.

Most of Europe being a case in point.  Scandavia being an excellent subset in that it has very rapidly become secularized in the last few decades, and of course has not "imploded" into radical extremist sects.

perhaps i should always spell out what i mean instead of assuming understanding of implied inferrences.

Date: 2005/10/23 14:59:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
perhaps, but at least you would have to think before you did so.

i guarantee that a real debate with any of the leaders of the ID movement wouldn't be quite as simple as you might think.

ask Wesley; he has debated Dembski at least once.

In contrast, i often feel i have to dumb down to debate most (not all) of the IDers who post on PT or here.

but then, it's that way with most forums, most intelligent folks don't want to submit themselves to hostile opinions, period, so most semi-rational IDers would consider coming here to post their positions worthless at best.

speaking of Dembski, he has dropped in to post on PT on several occasions, but apparently has never actually been interested in debate in this format.  Even i have to admit, he wouldn't find an impartial audience here, now would he.

Date: 2005/10/23 15:51:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
but.... you didn't answer the question, either, regardless of you dismissing the importance of it to the actual substantive position one would take wrt the data surrounding the moon landings.

I hate to sound patronizing (meh, no I don't..), but do you understand why i asked?

Date: 2005/10/24 14:38:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
nope, just further defining your position.

as i thought, if you "want" to believe that the moon landings never happened, and you want us to believe that you are being honest about that, then how can you claim to be objective about the data presented?

don't bother to answer, the answer is obvious.

You are just pulling our chains.

fun, isn't it?

for the record, i never implied you to be a "member of Pandas Bum" as er, PT doesn't have members.

If i believed you to be sincere about any of your positions, it would be worthwhile involving myself in debate, but i don't.

my only point in all this is to bring that point home for those who actually considered that you WERE serious about anything you wished to debate here.

you're just another troll.

so long as folks realize that, i encourage all to have fun debating you.

Date: 2005/10/24 14:47:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i think their budget has gone to pot, er, literally...

agreed.  i too wish there would be some new Venture Bros. episodes.

Date: 2005/10/25 18:43:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
totally off topic, but interesting to those who follow local economics:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily....016.htm

Uncomfortable? yes
Surprising? No

I truly hope this is the beginning of the end for Walmart as it currently exists.

Date: 2005/10/26 15:48:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
local as in at the city-level.

walmart is typically invited in to cities who drool over the short-term increase in local tax base, and forget about the long term damage to same.

Date: 2005/10/29 17:32:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I wonder if we'll ever know.


something published by smallmind and dumbski?

i wonder if we'll ever care.

Date: 2005/11/12 16:21:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Who gives a sh*t?

actually, that's a much less flippant question than it would appear on the surface.

the answer to it would say volumes, i think.

Date: 2005/11/13 20:09:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, not any more anyway.

there was a time when the catholic church was the primary repository of scientific information in the world, but that was, er, several hundred years ago by my reckoning.

Date: 2005/11/14 15:33:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and back the the title of the thread..

as i was trying to present in the original post on PT, arguing whether this is science or not is summed up nicely by CJ, though i tended to ramble on a bit in the original PT discussion.

"But, the search, absent a priori reasons to believe design occured, would be about as productive as an intensive search of pre-Cambrian strata looking for Haldane's rabbit. (That is, not very.)"

it all boils down to what those a priori reasons would be based on, and as far as i can see, currently those are all subjective when we are discussing anything other than ourselves.

it doesn't rule out that there might appear objective evidence that would then give us a priori reasons in the future, but those don't exist now.

Date: 2005/11/14 15:45:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
suppose some rich, deluded person gave a group of molecular biologists and computer scientists a load of cash to look for such messages - would that be a valid "scientific" project?


uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you in the same post claim that SETI was a red herring?

why not just simplify the argument and let's discuss whether SETI itself is a truly scientific endeavor.

Date: 2005/11/14 21:13:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Genetic homogeneity is a good sign of design


in a lab, maybe.  in the field don't forget the effect of bottlenecks.

for example, california sea otters have a very high degree of homogeneity.  does that mean they were designed?

nope, it means they were hunted to the point where there were only one or two mating pairs left that served as the nucleus for most of the otters now existing off the coast.

same with elephant seals iirc, and many populations of african lions (tho in that case it was mostly due to a disease).

Date: 2005/12/06 02:13:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
wow, I knew Sal was a moron, but those posts of his in the flank thread are really, uh, pushing the envelope.

I too was convinced it was Dave Scott.  Sal has completely lost what little sanity he apparently ever had.

I don't understand why Sal doesn't just put the three letters he cares about over and over again, in big bold caps, and say nothing else.  His posts would make far more sense.

How do you "debate" someone who shows such little concern for rational discourse?

Date: 2005/12/14 23:39:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, there's a reason i call him "slaveador".

... and it's not just his behavior towards Dembski.

he's a slave to his artificial constructs.

he is just to be pitied and waved away.  I've rarely seen him engage in rational discourse, and he seems to be getting more and more unable to do so.  take a look at his "discussion" with lenny in the other thread.

Sal always has and always will be the perfect poster boy for exactly what is wrong with the whole "ID" movement.

All of it's supporters take a narrow view of whatever they see, and are blind to the rest.  Just like PaulK has shown here, as but one very small example, Sal limits his knowledge of Dawkins to the very few lines of text that he thinks supports his artificial constructs, and ignores the rest.

ID would not EXIST at all if it wasn't for the exact mindset and behavior shown by Slaveador here.

I personally think it's a psychological condition, and folks suffering from it should seek medical attention, rather than trying to change laws and invade school boards.

Date: 2005/12/15 08:45:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
er, not that evolution is a belief, as it's an entirely observable phenomenon.

Date: 2005/12/17 21:45:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
based on the text of Gary's post, I'd say that Gary wanted to play up the attack and the ridiculous responses to Mirecki's email by the Kansas electorate and KU administration, while most of the other contributers wanted to do the reverse and not make a big issue out of it.

I can see value in both positions, however i too lean towards playing this down, as the result of over-publicizing the event will likely lead to more violence (especially if it makes national news).

The publicizing of this debacle wont really educate most folks, who already know that midwest redneck fundies can be prone to violence, and it might actually give more fundies the idea that beating up professors is a good thing.

OTOH, i certainly can understand Gary's frustration about the issue, and the total collapse of the expected University support system in the face of ridiculous commentary by the electorate.

Rather than address the attack itself, it might simply be best to deal with the inappropriate response exhibited by the University of Kansas to the revelation of a PRIVATE email.  Any of us who deal with any university administration should use this case to point out just about the WORST possible response a university could have to this situation.

It appears Kansas is becoming a sink-hole.

I feel for Gary big-time.

Date: 2005/12/18 09:22:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
CRANKIEST:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

pretty much says it all.

Date: 2005/12/19 08:26:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
as an aside, since there is a legitimate question as to why the authorities nabbed Mirecki's laptop;

Your computer can be seized at any time without a warrant pursuant to the patriot act.  all someone has to do is convince someone in homeland security that you have terrorist leanings or are somehow a threat to national security.  representatives of homeland security have the authority to do searches and seizures without the need for a legal warrant.

we should all be careful about what we keep stored on our laptops these days.

:p

Date: 2005/12/19 12:43:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
without any further evidence, sounds like any one of the three is at least plausible.

It could also be that the seizure of mirecki's laptop had to do with an unnanounced complaint from one of those "offended" by his comment on the list.

or it could have actually been university property, and the administration requested law enforcement officials recover the machine after they forced him to resign his post.

under normal circumstances, the description so far sure sounds like an unreasonable search and seizure, but we simply don't have all the facts.

Even without all the facts in, forcing Mirecki to resign his chairmanship because of that email is ludicrous at best.

the point is, all of us should be quite wary of when and how we express ourselves in these times.

We already have lost the freedoms we have grown accustomed to.  

the continuing hypocrisy of the right in claiming their free speech is being trodden upon by not letting them teach creationism as science, while those criticizing them are treated like Mirecki is continues to astound me.

Gary sure nailed that one, regardless of what the facts end up being in this case.

Date: 2005/12/19 13:08:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin....V10.DTL

Is it really just about anti-terrorism?

hmm.

Date: 2005/12/20 02:41:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
for the facts they turned up show quite clearly how some Darwinists treat scientific dissenters when they believe no one is watching.


uh, that's not what was indicated in the investigation at all.  perhaps Witt should re-read the report?

or is he saying that Sternberg was acting correctly when he bypassed protocol to help publish an article that shouldn't have been published in the first place?

oh BTW, what happened to Sternberg, eh?  lose his job did he?  get beaten up for his beliefs did he?

nope.

now let's see.... what happened to Mirecki for simply stating privately what a fat lot of cretins IDiots are.

hmmm, seems he lost his chairmanship, among other things.

who exactly is the side that is being persecuted?  

Date: 2005/12/20 08:36:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
For those who want to celebrate the fact that Judge Jones put his foot so far up ID's *ss that his toenails are scraping placque off the back of ID's teeth!

WOOT!

Date: 2005/12/20 10:37:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Best #### Xmas present I have received in quite a long while.  Made the whole year for me, and gave me a glimmer of hope for the future.

Date: 2005/12/20 14:51:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
The judge clearly made his anger at the lies put forward by the defendants in the trial known during the trial itself.  
I think he clearly wanted to make this decision something that would punish these defendants from as many angles as possible, while leaving no recourse for them by not actually charging them with perjury.

The further beauty of it is that there is NOTHING in the substance of the decision that lacks detail or is appealable.

I hear much screaming and nashing of teeth coming from the TMLC over this.

bwahahahahaha!

'breathtaking inanity'

agreed; #### it sums up in 2 words everything about ID since it's inception.

Date: 2005/12/21 11:46:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Happy Noodle-dee-do to you too!

Pastalavista.

Date: 2005/12/28 11:06:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
you must forgive Paley, he's a closet racist and doesn't even know it.

Often conveniently forgets that there are as many Xian terrorists as there are in any other religion.

extemeism is a state of mind, not a religious principle.

Date: 2006/01/04 12:07:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey all,

just a placeholder to continue some very interesting discussion on economic theory, game theory, and social impacts of various strategies.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/04 15:10:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I won't deny that people attempt to apply economic pressures for moral reasons, but this doesn't make economics moral anymore than using a baseball bat to mug someone makes the bat a mugger


in fact, we seem to readily forget how evolutionary theory has been abused by those who want to find their own justifications for racism, etc.

I certainly wouldn't fault evolutionary theory for the abuse of bigots, nor would i fault economic theories for the abuses of politicos and corporate wankers either.

Which is exactly why i wanted to track down the origins of the current competing economic theories and seperate them from the various abuses that they have been subjected to.

Date: 2006/01/04 15:25:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
where can i get a talking beaver of my very own?

Date: 2006/01/06 12:30:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And this is true because the market IS amoral


well, there's the way we like to think of market forces in general, and then there's reality.

I have one quick question:

If you really believe that Flint, would you have any objections to free-market secondary school systems?

corrollary:

why do we have standardized testing?

while i completely agree that we MUST start with a purely amoral analysis in order to derive economic models, in reality any model, economic or biological, must incorporate non-standard variables in order to more accurately represent real world observations and data.

It's unrealistic to assume free market forces to be amoral, or not to be influenced by moral interpretations of one kind or another.

I'm sure you realize this.

There is value in modeling; it's always a good place to analyze assumptions and make new predicitions, but I see all too commonly that modelers try to over-extend the value models have wrt to natural systems.  

this is as accurate whether we are speaking of economics or global warming models.

It's not realistic to view Walmart's success or failure purely on the basis of free market economics.  Nor is it realistic to presume morality plays no part in free market forces.

I hope that really isn't the point you were really trying to make, and that you really meant to just be arguing for the value of predictive models in economics.

Date: 2006/01/06 12:41:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
But all these damaged community members *continue* to shop at WalMart. So are you arguing that everyone else is stupid, or that they are all immoral?


FLINT!  ask yourself why so many americans support ID, then think about the answer to your own question.

did you ever see that southpark episode they did on Walmart?

Date: 2006/01/06 13:09:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Unfortunately most people *just don't care*.  


hmm, I'm not sure i would equate apathy with actually not caring.

in cases where the issues come to a head, like Dover, it seems a great MANY people care.

Americans in general seem to have become quite apathetic when it comes to defending our constitution, until the issue ends up in their backyard.

How's that old saying go about how they came for the Jews, and I didn't care because i wasn't one... etc.

If asked directly, a lot of folks are willing to express clear views on this issue, they just seem unwilling to do anything about them.

so, i guess what I'm saying is that education still has tremendous value in this culture war.

ask Bill Dembski :)

Date: 2006/01/06 13:54:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Almost no objection - I think light regulation would be helpful, things like your standardized tests


uh, you have GOT to be kidding!  standardized testing itself would NOT be considered "light" regulation under a free market scholastic system.

You really are living in a dream world if you think a free market educational system would actually create anything other than complete dogma in a very short time.

I underestimated you Flint.  I was thinking you were just arguing from a postion of theoretical economics, but now i see you have totally swallowed many false presmises that simply don't jive with the real world.

You live in fantasyland if you really beleive that truly free-market economies actually work.  or true democracies, for the same reasons.

The reason so many folks shop at Walmart is exactly the same reason folks end up supporting ID;

pure ignorance of the consequences.

I worry for you, truly, that on the one hand you can clearly see the problems inherent with teaching ID theory, yet on the other can't see the problems with the assumption that Walmart is simple free-market economics in action.

sad.  very sad.

With that viewpoint, i really can't see any reason to continue this discussion further.

you have a very disjointed thought process.

Date: 2006/01/06 14:00:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
. Attempts to legislate morality, though, are invariably attempts to frustrate the perceived self-interests of others, where we ourselves are otherwise not directly affected.


it is rarely the case (ever?) that another's version of morality does not directly affect our own in a public circumstance.  Regardless of whether you view a system of morals as merely extensions of self interest or not.

hence we have a legal system to regulate the inevitable conflicts.

would you prefer a laisez faire system instead?

watch how fast your personal system of morality lasts in a true laisez-faire system.

truly, i don't think you have thought this out very well.

I've seen far better and more coherent arguments from you on subjects you haven't claimed to have spent time studying.

Date: 2006/01/06 18:18:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And here we are, in a field where I know much more than you do, and the pattern is impossible to miss.


what's hard to miss, is my shock that you would actually propose the value of a true free market economy in the face of the utter failure of laisez faire economics throughout history.

the same is true of pure democracies, or pure communism.  they fail because of the nature of humans, not because in principle the theories or models are flawed, but because they can't take into account the variability and vagaries of human behavior.

greed is NOT good.  this is a myth.  just like a true democracy, a true free market economy would NOT result in a better standard of living, or a better set of products, than a regulated economy would.

Funny, but I've heard your exact same arguments before; economists and politicians using them were often termed "Social Darwinists".

Put that in your irony meter.

Oh, and if you want to ever discuss anything with me ever again, or avoid having me hound YOU on every thread, I highly suggest you stop taking this debate to other threads.

that's extremely bad form.

How could you possibly understand the value of a classic education if you never had one?

calling me a creationist is really a form of projection, there Flint.

You can win this argument quite easily:

1.  show me any time in history where a true laisez faire economy ever produced a stable and viable result.

2.  show me any economic periodical that espouses the virtues of a free-market educational system over a public one, and provides data to support such an argument.

You may have studied some economics texts, but your knowledge of history appears astoundingly bad.

I can only conclude that this is the result of that "lack of classical education" that you espouse as a virtue.

but, as i said, I'll give you this argument hands down if you can do what i asked above

Date: 2006/01/06 18:30:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ok, now i see this:

Quote
Since you ask, absolutely not. Laissez faire systems as I understand them don't work - they tend to reward cheating and other mendacity and punish industry and honesty. Regulation is a practical necessity.



... and now I'm confused.  a true free market system IS a laissez faire system.

regulation is indeed a practical necessity.

uh, that was exactly what i was arguing for, and why i said a free-market educational system wouldn't work.  

could all this argument be over definition?

please tell me it ain't so.

Date: 2006/01/06 18:53:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
stil there Flint?

or are you busy trying to invade yet other threads with this?

you can still end this any time.

remember, it wasn't me who got mad that folks disagreed with me, I disagreed with YOU, albeit vehemently.

so who is acting like the creationist?

Date: 2006/01/11 09:11:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I don't want to sidetrack the current state of this discussion.  I've been quite busy the last several days and kinda feel I've fallen too far behind in this discussion to continue.

I'll sum up all of my previous comments about Flint's free market arguments by addressing this single comment by Flint:

Quote
I don't know where we'd draw the line and say "Beyond X amount of regulation, this isn't free market anymore.


hmm.  unless i missed the point of the basic definitions I was taught in the economics course i took, ANY amount of regulation makes it no longer a free market by definition.  You now have a regulated market.

I think all of our arguments are based on a misconception of what the terms free market and laissez faire actually mean.  Laissez faire, is typically used in cases where it meant "hands off", as in NO regulation, and is commonly used to mean a "true" free market.

In support of this definition, I give you wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

After saying you had little or no problem with free market educational systems, you followed that up by noting that appropriate regulation in an economy stems corruption and provides stability.

this is exactly what i was trying to get at.  So, aside from the rest of the BS on both sides, it appears we actually agree that free market systems don't actually work.

If there is further clarification of your position you wish to make, please do so, but refer back to your earlier statements and clarify those as well then, if you would be so kind.

otherwise, I'm just as happy to let those who have started new conversations in this thread to continue on as if i never posted this.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/11 09:26:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think there are different flavors here. I know at the company I just left, there was a program of granting options to those above a certain pay grade. But this didn't increase the number of shares outstanding on the books.


Actually, working in Silicon Valley, I found it's pretty common to offer options in publically traded companies in leiu of benefits or pay raises, for all pay grades.

but as you point out, options are NOT shares.

The excericise of options can be arbitrarily regulated by the company itself, in order to control how those options actually are converted into shares.

Yeah, I learned that at my company too.  the hard way.

Also, there often are not only written rules as to how options may be excercised, but there are internal "pressures" as well.  Your boss might pull you aside, for example, and warn you that you should wait until X time to excercise your options.

If you work for a company that actually offers shares instead of options, you work for a company that likely has a decent income outside of profits from the sale of shares.  that's a good sign.

If you start work for a company that immediately offers you options in leiu of an appropriate pay scale, or benefits, I would be highly suspicious and suggest checking out that company's sources of income and expenditures.

There were a lot of "junk" tech companies in the 90's that simply ran off income from stock sales, with no actual product line even.  

There were even companies, like the one i mentioned I worked for above, that actually shifted their business model in order to take advantage of this.

If not sustainable in the long term, it can be quite profitable in the short term.

but then, we start talking about issues of morality again.

Date: 2006/01/11 09:35:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ask him when he will get around to addressing the age of several old testament protagonists.

even when Carol blathers about how there is NO conflict between the "true" and "correct" judaistic interpretation of genesis and science, she contradicts herself immediately when presented with this issue.

know any 900 or 600 year old folks?  I sure don't.

even Carol admits this must be a miracle.

except in her mind, miracles are part of science.

ask heddle if miracles are part of his definition of science as well.

Also, someone made a plausible case that Carol is the "Carol" that Landa dedicates his book to, which would make Carol his wife.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:04:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think it's entirely legitimate to start up a company armed with a really good idea and an effective business plan, and sell ownership in the company to raise capital. I've done this myself.


of course it is.  but you do know what i mean by "junk" companies yes?

the issue is one of motivations and intentions, and these inevitably lead to discussions of morals.

basically, what we saw in the 90's was similar to the junk bond issues we saw in the 80's.  In the case of "junk companies" There was no dissuasion for anyone who wanted to set up a company under false pretenses, then artificially inflate the stock value (it was - and still is- very hard to "nail" someone legally for doing this).

This of course helped to contribute to the bubble we saw.

I could argue a similar pattern occurring in the real estate market, with the bubble occurring from pure speculation, and Greenspan warning (as he did with tech investments) that real estate is in an artificially inflated bubble.

the fed has only one apparent way of dealing with this: rate hikes.

One wonders why rate hikes weren't more common during the "internet boom", considering Greenspan made essentially the same arguments at the time.

right, so a small bit of history aside; it does come back to motivations and intentions, and thus how can it not inevitably lead to discussions of morals?

I assume your morality (like mine) dictates that you wouldn't "abuse" start up funds from investors in order to just artificially inflate your company's value (for quick profit taking).

However, it is a quite common practice (or at least used to be during the 90's).  so not all share these morals.

in fact, many investors (and investment funds) specifically WANTED these kinds of quick turn-arounds on their investments.  ####, who can argue with a quick 500% or better return on your initial investment?

same reasoning involved in why junk bonds were so "popular" in the 80's.

Those of us with any morals saw the damage junk bonds would eventually cause, and the resulting S&L collapse will be paid for by all of us over several generations.

If it were just about making money, I'd be all for junk bonds, real estate speculation, and stock speculation.  

But it ain't.  So, if it isn't, then the only conclusion I can make is that regulations attempting to stem such behavior can only result from the moral implications involved with "passing the buck" basically.   A moral view, I would add, that is certainly NOT shared by many neocons.

I have several times seen the pure generation of wealth presented as an argument for the functional purpose of any economy.  However, I have seen no support for that being a stable, or even a realistic, position when applied historically.

But what makes it unstable?  

Doesn't it inherently boil down to a perception of "fairness"?

past experience of societal revolutions against pure top-down wealth structures are not based on generation of maximum wealth, but rather on a perceived imbalance in the distribution of that wealth.

so, the inherent instability in a pure free market system has less to do, imo, with economics per sae, than it does with the application of morals and ethics.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:17:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
-You find dubya a little bit too liberal where it counts


oh man, if you want to see that in spades, check out the discussion forum over on christianexodus.net sometime.

I think they want to see 'ol W get recalled at this point, especially after the harriet Miers fiasco.

It gets pretty funny, especially when you see them squirm while trying to deal with the conflicts presented by their anti-uber-government stance, rabid anti-terrorist stance, and GW's private spying attempts.

GW presents a real world case of a love-hate relationship for them.

It's like watching a schizophrenic having a conversation with himself.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:21:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that sounds like a wiki question to me.

and, no, i don't believe affirmative action was ever meant to be racist (or reverse-racist), regardless of how the policy may have been abused in some circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Date: 2006/01/11 12:58:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, and John A. Davison.

but that's it..

aside from all that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Date: 2006/01/11 13:01:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
He has admitted that he thinks the Bible was divinely inspired and is factually inerrant, so we can take that to mean that he accepts the miracles contained therein


accepted.  However, that does not answer the question of whether he accepts miracles to be within the purview of science itself, as Carol genuinely appears to.

i like your "burning bushes" scale, btw.  I can even picture the little burning-bush icons that would make up the counts.

Date: 2006/01/11 13:09:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sounds good Mr. christopher.

be prepared just in case someone from the school board wants you to speak to these issues in person.

which, if i were you, i would offer to do in any case.

If you decide to speak publically about these issues, there are plenty here who have already done so and I'm sure would be happy to give advice.  I think Wes has done the most and has had a decent amount of success with it; I'm sure he would happily share his experience with you if you shoot him a msg.

good luck, and er, godspeed ;)

Date: 2006/01/11 15:18:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
But maybe some of the junk tech companies weren't set up under false pretenses, they just quickly figured out that (a) they had a ton of money; and (b) their business plan couldn't work. Now what? Wouldn't YOU be tempted to stash away a bundle, go through some motions, and give up?


It's true that some of these companies started out with what they thought were "legit" business plans, then realized too late they wouldn't work.  However, it's even more basic than that.  some of them were deliberately set up on the premise that the presentation of a flashy logo and a lot of PR would suffice in leiu of a product in order to generate increases in stock value. This was considered a legitimate business plan in and of itself.  

Again, when we think in terms of "legitimate" business plan, you and I don't necessarily just think in terms of just equating that with "profitable".  Which means we include moralistic limitations to what constitutes a "legitimate" business plan.  There are a lot of investors who would see any business plan that would generate a significant return on their investment as "legitimate", regardless of whether any real product or service was intended or whether it was all an elaborate front intended to deceive.

####, I used to have a collection of these "companies" stored away on my links, but that was many computers ago.  I suppose it wouldn't be to hard to track some historical examples down; I'm sure someone has archived a few examples somewhere.

I personally dealt with the mindset involved in forming feaux companies like this; the CEO of my own company was such a shark on raising investment capital in LA that he was famous, at least in "shark" circles ;).  He got called on it once or twice; but suffered only minor penalties.  less than a slap on the wrist, really.   His name is Rainer Poertner and he used to manage the Rolling Stones, once upon a time (no kidding!;).

I'd say he ran the gamut, from the production of products that were misrepresented as to their efficacy (entirely), using PR to generate capital investment instead of actual product sales (hmm, you might remember a product called "Soft Ram" that came out about 8 years ago?), to the co-option of businesses like the one I was involved with that actually DID produce legitimate products and services, but changed its business model almost yearly to accomodate the latest "trends" in internet investment.

in any case, the bottom line is that, imo, what constitutes a legitimate business model, in itself, is dictated by preconceptions based on morality, rather than immediate profitability.

many folks don't care about whether the companies they invest in survive long term, only whether they generate significant return in the short term.  

There are an awful lot of ways to generate investment dollars short term that have nothing to do with a legitimate business model like you put forth, and I would agree with.

Quote
always come back around to information, though. If I took a risk based on an accurate representation of the situation, and the risk didn't pan out, I don't mind. But if the representation was wrong, then I very much mind.


indeed, but as i pointed out, wouldn't you mind if the information was accurate, but representative of the type of business model I described above?

I could come to you and say, "I have an idea on how to make money by pushing a fake business".

that would be exactly representative of the situation, and there would be risk, but also accurately represented.

they could even show a pretty good track record of success on significantly increasing your initial investment with this "business model".

would you bite?

Date: 2006/01/11 15:45:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I don't think your classification of Carol is necessarily accurate.

I have seen her many time argue that the purview of science is too narrow, and should include philosophical discussions as well. Have you ever checked out her posts about support for teaching ID in science class, or discussions about the time she spent as a "science advisor" to a school district?  look for phrases like "elephant in the room" to locate these; i forget which threads they originally appeared in, but it was within the last month.

I could not find in the thread you linked to, her specific addressal of AC's critique of her logic about labeling moses' age a miracle.  perhaps you could name the specific numbered post?  What i saw was her statement of transcription of years to be essentially that of standard years, and then when called on the fact that this would of course mean that many protagonists were hundreds of years old, claim that this is a miracle, and we should uh, just "move on".  I never saw her ever deal directly with the conflict in logic this causes her original overarching statement of the compatability of science and the OT.

Assuming she did and i missed it: Regardless of her latest backpeddaling, how would you resolve the inherent conflict in her logic when she states things like:

"there is no conflict between science and the OT"

with the idea that there are miracles needed to explain a lot of it, but that these are not within the purview of science to explain.

which part do you think she will have to cave on then?

I find the idea that she accepts miracles to be within the purview of science to be totally consistent with much of her earlier writings on PT.

If there was more recent backpeddaling it's most likely simply because of the immediate and very clear inconsistency this position raises with her overarching and oft stated belief that if we just translated the OT like landa does, we would see no conflicts with science.

so, I'm gonna go on record as disagreeing with ya there.

...and the question is still wide open wrt Heddle.


why am i making a big deal out of this?

because just like IDer's, folks like Carol MUST essentially redefine either the definition or purview of science in order to accomodate their belief systems.

that makes them just as much enemies to the success of science as any IDiot, in my book.

It's all about projection, clear and plain, and both of them suffer from it (and denial) in spades.

edit:

in further parsing your link i see you were referring to the post where Carol says:

Quote
There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection.


but this is the exact quote that started the whole debate about "miracles" that she commented on later in the thread.

It did not clarify her position, but rather was the nucleus for the rest of the whole debate to begin with!

look again at the last line there:

Quote
You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection


yikes, now that's serious denial.

it essentially amounts to saying:

everything in here is consistent with science, except the bits that aren't, like miracles and whatnot.  

It's an entirely untennable position, starting from the position of inclusiveness Carol began with.

which i think Arden made quite clear in his followup post.

Date: 2006/01/11 16:13:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is this legal?


hmm. debatable.  I have seen a well presented argument that it is entirely legal, but I never bothered to followup because i considered the whole idea much like you just did.

those that promote this kind of business plan are the WC Fields type; sucker born every minute and it's their fault if they get stuck type.

In practice, it works out very much like a pyramid scheme, and as such, various laws could cover it, but there you would lose me.  I haven't checked into how the law is applied in these cases (the very few times they ever went to court).

Quote
I'd really need to know my exposure here.


that would differ no more than any other "risk" factor to many investors.

they could always claim they themselves were duped.  How could you prove they weren't?  because they made money?

the only people really at risk are the CEO of the company itself, and related officers, and I'm quite sure there are many ways to minimize one's exposure, tho i wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable of the specifics.

I HAVE seen several cases brought against fraudulent PR and "pusher" campaigns on blogs intended to artificially inflate stock prices, but even that is hard to prove (and isn't even always involved in these fictitious businesses).

Quote
I should think constructing elaborate fronts with the intent to deceive are, shall we say, less winked at today than they were pre-Enron when everyone was getting rich selling one another spun sugar.


people said the EXACT same thing after the junk bond craze finally died out, and the S&L's were blown open.

it will go quiet for a time, then resurface with a vengeance.  Again, i think there are a lot of loopholes for folks selling this type of business model to hop through.

I haven't checked out how common they are at the moment, i kinda deliberately avoided staring at the issue after having been burned by something similar.  don't care to dredge up the muck, so to speak.  I'm sure if you are interested, you could even track this stuff down via googling.

I do remember sitting at my desk one day a few years back, where we for a lark started tabulating the number of businesses that we could readily tag as fictitious, then checking on how their stock was doing.

now don't get me wrong, junk businesses aren't nearly as common as honest ones, of course!  or even the case you noted above of mistaken optimism in a product line.

but they are out there, and i have talked with the folks that have no moral issues with promoting them.

Ever met somebody that has no problem with pyramid schemes?

same mentality.

I'll check out that article in Science next time i hit the library.  sounds interesting.

we never really got much into game theory in this thread; it is an interesting topic and perhaps worthy of starting a new thread.  

Perhaps I'll start a new one after I check out the article in Science.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/11 16:23:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm. what about setting some rules like:

-posters who frequently attempt to lead threads off topic, and are warned at least once.

-posters who repeat the same exact argument more than 3 times in a thread, and are warned at least once.

just those two things would pretty much cut out a lot of the nonsense.

and of course, these woud only be in-thread moderator enforced bans.

then, if repeatedly in-thread banned for violations, warnings could be issued for a more lasting ban.

etc.

would folks consider that reasonable?

Date: 2006/01/11 18:42:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
There is no denying that miracles are part of the Bible. And I don’t think that is in conflict with science. It is outside the domain of science, but not contradicted by it.


in saying this, Carol is essentially saying that if one defines any part of the bible as "miraculous" it is outside of the domain of science...

uh, hmm.  isn't that exactly where we started the whole thread?

the ability to subjectively decide that something is a "miracle" basically puts the entire bible out of the domain of science, period.

so, back where we started then. and as i suspected, everything both Carol and Heddley posted was a complete waste of time.

not the first time i have said this.  

I'm sure it won't be the last.

I'm sure we will have to remind Carol of this exact quote over and over again, while she calls all of us "close minded".

*sigh*

the futility is ovewhelming.

Date: 2006/01/12 16:33:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
her last post in that thread today, completely ignored addressing the entire critique directed to her earlier statements, and as an excuse, claimed she doesn't post in threads where there are "confederate revisionists".

uh, right.  so in spouting BS about why she isn't responding to criticism, she posts in direct contradiction to what she uses as an excuse, for uh, not posting...

my head is spinning.

oh, and she has now shortened her spiel to the bible not being in conflict with evolutionary theory, as opposed to science in general.

I tried to get her to come back and explain the change in her position, but to no avail.

so, any time Carol pops into a thread, we can remind her of her performance in that thread and basically label her as what she essentially is, no more than a troll, just like heddle.

Date: 2006/01/12 16:43:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I know I'm gonna hate myself for doing this but...

Quote
The only thing I can think of that is totally unique to the African American experience in this country is that, alone among all ethnic groups, African Americans were enslaved by white Americans.


that isn't technically nor historically accurate.  Native americans were also used as slave labor (mostly before the southern plantations became commonplace), as were chinese (railroads, shipping).  I'm leaving some out, to be sure, but there it is.

what you could say is that it is a rarity that "whites" in this country were ever used as slave labor, so in that sense "whites" cannot share that historical experience, or even really understand it from that particular perspective.

as far as the Jewish people are concerned, you don't need to imagine anything.

they were enslaved by the egyptians.  How long did it take them to recover from that?  several generations at least?

and yeah, if they had to STAY in egypt after they were "emancipated", one can only guess it would have taken even longer.

Date: 2006/01/12 17:03:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
those are some amazing stories, flint.

just as a counter, growing up in CA and having lived here all my life, all i will say is that my experiences are quite a bit different from yours.

almost exactly the opposite, in fact.

My experiences of the African American acquaintances i have known is that they are almost overcompensatory in their work ethic, reacting to the exact views you just expressed.

Howver, that was mostly at the University level and in technology sector settings.

fascinating.

I guess we can only see from this that overgeneralizing an entire ethnic groups' behavioral patterns is unproductive, huh?

shall we move on to those lazy mexicans now?

oh, and for the record,

Quote
But I think Dr. Diamond was onto something when he proposed that different degrees of socio-economic success are due to external factors, not genetic factors


I would tend to agree that like in chaos theory, your starting conditions tend have an overwhelming effect on the endpoint, even out of all proportion to what the starting conditions might suggest.

That's as far as I'm going in this debate.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/13 09:32:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
any chance you could expound on that a bit?

the link you provided took me to a registration page instead of the article you were trying to reference.

Date: 2006/01/13 14:33:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
thanks flint.

I'll definitely check out the article next time i hit the library.

Date: 2006/01/13 14:37:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
or apply economics to fisheries. and then wonder whre all the fish have gone?


been there done that, several times.

check out the history of the fishery for angel sharks off of CA, USA sometime.

quite depressing.

on the bright side, the idea of preserving breeding refugia is starting to take off, so maybe that will do something to stem the tide.

I'm not gonna hold my breath tho.

Date: 2006/01/13 19:03:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
unlimited growth of an industry based on a very finite resource is bad?

Date: 2006/01/14 11:56:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm... fox, fox,  your name sounds familar now that you mention it.

wouldn't be related to andrew fox by any chance?

http://www.sharkfoundation.com/

in any case...

First off, I'd like to say that even tho i worked with many species of sharks for many years, I still don't consider myself an "expert" in this field.  there are many researches who specialize in shark research and behavior, even in CA, that i would quickly refer to as more expert than myself.

My primary specialty was in the study of pomacentrids (damslefishes), and shark research was an interesting sideline i participated in for several years when living in the Monterey Bay area in CA.

Henry Molet at the Montery Bay Aquarium has done a nice job of summarizing the various research groups working on elasmobranchs, which you can see here:

http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Links.html#Elasmobranch%20Research

second, this will likely be a rambling missive, so tune out whenever you get bored :)


However, I'm happy to answer what questions i can, and will readily admit when I'm out of my depth on any specific issue.

that said...


Whatever JAD was really trying to get at, as usual, is likely beyond human comprehension.  I'll take a stab at it tho.

There are in fact many species of sharks that have live birth (viviparous).  Elasmobrachs as a group exhibit the entire range of gestation type, from completely oviparous (egg laying), to ovoviviparous (meaning they retain their eggs internally until they hatch), as well as what would be considered viviparity.

In viviparous species, again, there is a range of species that exhibit more or less "true placenta", meaning that they provide nourishment through a blood supply from the mother directly to the offspring.

interestingly, viviparity is not a feature shared by even all lamnid sharks.

White sharks, for example, are ovoviparous, while lemon sharks are viviparous.

there have been a few studies to look at the selective advantages of each type of gestation method, and i seem to recall one paper that looked at ovoviparity vs. vivaparity to compare offspring growth rates in sand tigers vs. lemon sharks.

sand tigers are the poster child for oophagy - that is a form of cannibalism where the young feed on the eggs that the mother produces, or even their fellow embryos (embryophagy).

comparing the growth rates of embryos in sand tigers to lemon sharks, one can see tremendous advantages to oophagy over straight viviparity, which may be one reason why ovoviparity is maintained in so many species of sharks.

see here for an overview (and a decent shark bio site)

http://www.elasmo-research.org/educati....ism.htm


I'm not a paleontologist, so I'm not as familiar with when the various modes of gestation are typically considered to have evolved in the various species and families of sharks.

However, I do know that sharks as a group have essentially remained unchanged in morphology and physiology for tens of millions of years, so I would suspect that both the evolution of heat-exchange systems and viviparity appeared quite some time ago.

the best person i can think of to elucidate the current school of though on this would be Dr. Barbara Block, who was working at Hopkins Marine Station in Monterey last i checked.

here's a link to her stuff:

http://www.tunaresearch.org/reprints/reprints.html

she published a paper on the evolution of heat exchange systems in many species of fishes about a decade ago that would cover this issue quite nicely:

http://www.springerlink.com/(4jlzgo....02877,1

Trying to address JAD "pant-loading" hypothesis however, I suspect JAD remembered that sharks in general have an ancient lineage (the elasmobranchs have existed as a group for over 350-400 million years), so perhaps he is thinking that since all these gestation types exist in modern sharks, that makes them great examples of "frontloading".

however, there have been numerous studies indicating the evolution of viviparity independently in several families of sharks like this one:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(sf2cju....02024,1

EDIT:  hmm. this link doesn't seem to work correctly, so here is the abstract:

Quote
Proceedings: Biological Sciences
ISSN: 0962-8452 (Paper) 1471-2954 (Online)
Issue: Volume 264, Number 1386 / September 22, 1997

Pages: 1309 - 1315
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0181
URL: Linking Options  
Evolutionary transitions among egg-laying, live-bearing and maternal inputs in sharks and rays


N. K. Dulvy, J. D. Reynolds

Abstract:


Sharks and rays are thought to have a large number of independent origins of live-bearing. We examined evolutionary transitions to live-bearing and maternal input to embryos in this subclass by optimizing reproductive characters onto a composite phylogeny. Egg-laying (40 per cent of all species) is the likely ancestral reproductive mode for this clade, and there is evidence that live-bearing has evolved independently 9–10 times and maternal input 4–5 times. Most transitions (12–15) have been toward live-bearing with provisioning limited to yolk. These have occurred from egg-laying ancestors or live-bearing taxa that provide maternal input to embryos. Only 2–3 transitions have occurred in the other direction, i.e. away from yolk-only bearing. Egg-laying has evolved from live-bearing ancestors in skates, Rajidae (25 per cent of all species) and possibly in the zebra shark, Stegostoma fasciata. Thus, although there has been an overall trend toward the evolution of live-bearing in elesmobranchs, the evolution of additional maternal input has been extremely labile.



which of course completely refute the idea of Pant-loading in sharks.

similarly, we can find far more references of indpendent evolution of quite a few traits in most other groups.

sharks as a whole are still an understudied lot, mostly because they aren't as common as fruit flies, for example, and are notoriously difficult to study in the field (and in the lab, for that matter).

even so, there is plenty of research on the evolution of both gestation strategies and heat exchange systems in sharks.

one thing i would like to point out since we are talking about sharks, is that regardless of the method of gestation used, sharks as a group have VERY slow rates of reproduction.

this has caused them to be highly susceptible to commercial fisheries, and a great many species are in trouble right now.

please encourage anyone thinking about using products made from shark cartilage not to do so.

these products have NO proven medical benefit whatsoever, and in combination with the shark fin fishery (for asian shark-fin soup), are decimating shark populations worldwide.

here's a nice little summary:

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Shark-cartilage/

ok.  i'm gonna end this "chapter" here.

let me know if there is something specific, or you wanted to know what it's like to work with sharks, or see pictures etc.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/14 12:04:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
did you want to know more about how the heat exchange system works in sharks (same as in bony fishes that also exhibit this, like tunas, btw).

hot stuff (heh)

also of note is that this is the same construction that allows bony fishes to adjust the gas volume in their swimbladders.

Date: 2006/01/14 12:57:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
turtles warmblooded you say?

hmm. news to me.

you should ask Lenny.

he's more of an expert on reptiles than I.

however, a quick search shows that by jove, you are correct (well, at least that they share a similar heat exchange system).

wasn't hard to find, and yes, they use a similar counter-current exchange system using capillaries.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people....low.htm

note that's DAVIDSON.edu, not davison :)

hmm. that would make the rete-mirabila system of heat exchange an even better example of convergent evolution than i had anticipated.

It appears to be quite a ubiquitous trait among ectothermic pelagic swimmers, to be sure.

hmm.  which brings up the question of whether ALL sea turtles exhibit this, or only ones that have a more pelagic existence, or spend a lot of time migrating in the open ocean.

note however, that we still consider ectotherms, even with heat exchangers, to still be ecototherms.

the system for regulating body temperature is entirely different from a true endotherm, like a mammal.

Date: 2006/01/14 13:12:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I hereby put forward the hypothesis that Larry Fafarman is a flu germ.

does anybody need me to elaborate?

Date: 2006/01/14 13:15:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I say, Lionel, catch...



why do i think this is going to somehow become another version of Sam Peckinpah's "Salad Days"??

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/saladays.htm

cut to apology...

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/apology1.htm

Date: 2006/01/14 13:22:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
write to the author of the article, and his editor, and show them the proveable fallacies in the article.

write a letter to the opinion section of the paper doing the same.

... and have fun ;)

Date: 2006/01/14 13:58:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, and continuing on the thread title;

the evolution of shark species in general, and white sharks in particular, is an active and ongoing area with several heated debates between various factions.

you can kinda get a picture of this from this recent article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050502144430.htm

to put it simply, there is still much debate about the exact lineage of Carcharodon carcharias, with the older synthesis having them coming from the famed "Megalodon", while more recent theories have them as being derivative of more modern lamnids.

I'm sure this picture gets even more interesting as the molecular biologists get involved.

Date: 2006/01/16 08:28:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I know i said I wasn't going to participate further, but when I see something i said being used for such gross overgeneralizations, i must protest.  Not ignoring Flint already addressed this, since i posted it, I feel the need to respond as well.

Quote
Sir_T.J. has experience of working with blacks at the University level. So they are obviously succeeding.


now, now, Stephen.  didn't I say in the same post it isn't productive to overgeneralize?

don't you think making pronouncements about the success/failure of an entire socio-economic group based on the personal experiences of 1 or even dare I say 2, people is a bit of an overgeneralization?

It's like saying because you found someone from Afghanistan who was the CEO of a successful american company, there is nothing wrong with the economic situation in Afghanistan.

If you want to overgeneralize, at least use some statistics to back you up.

I'm sure they're out there.

Please don't miss the forest for the trees, here.  My point was about making gross generalizations based on personal experience, not just that my personal experiences conflicted with those stated by Flint.

thanks

Date: 2006/01/16 09:44:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
That was badly written on my part. I wasn't overgeneralising.


fair enough.  I think i may have overreacted.  Hence why i don't like getting involved in these kinds of discussions in the first place.

;)

Date: 2006/01/16 11:18:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Did evopeach ever admit defeat?  Did he admit he lost the bet?


he managed to go (WAYYY) off the deep end and get himself banned before the verdict was announced.

go figure.

Date: 2006/01/16 11:50:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Jocularity!

Date: 2006/01/17 09:00:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I do remember when evo was banned; he said some very naughty things (foul language included), and was promptly tossed.

anybody can appeal their banishment.

in any case, why not ask him to follow the terms of his own wager?

we have far too many trolls on PT as it is, and Larry is far more humorous than evo ever was.

Date: 2006/01/17 17:48:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
add at least one lutheran sect to your list:

http://www.thelutheran.org/news/

scroll down a bit to:

ELCA scholars comment on 'intelligent design'

Quote
Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. “The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge,” he says. “They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God’s creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. ... Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up.”

Date: 2006/01/18 10:29:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Larry sobbed:

Quote
I will not post again on any of your threads until I have received an assurance from you that you have cleaned up your act.


man, he sounds more and more like JAD with each  post he makes.

makes me think they share a similar pychological malady.

Date: 2006/01/18 11:25:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
for those wondering about evopeach:

here is the thread where he was banned from PT:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....2;st=10

Quote
Moderator



Posts: 23
Joined: May 2002
 Posted: Oct. 22 2005,12:54    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the board rules

Warnings were issued, and ignored. Say goodbye, "evopeach". Others who want to continue to use this BB for playground antics will follow. Is that clear?  


somewhere about a week before that, evo made all of PT a bet that the plaintiffs would lose dover, with the stakes being that the loser would leave PT.

I can't find the original bet he proposed now, but found several references to it.

If anybody finds it, post it here.

it should be somewhere around Oct. 15th, if that helps any.

Date: 2006/01/18 11:56:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
, I've been spreading myself too thin with the fish fossil stuff.


lol.  no kidding.  I think the good doctor just removed one of your kidneys on that thread.

one does begin to wonder how many times you can be eviscerated and still have some "guts" left for your "guts to gametes" drivel.

I'm beginning to think you closely related to holothuroids.

do you know what sea cucumbers do when frightened?

Date: 2006/01/18 12:02:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
JAD hasn't taught since the late 80's.

he has emeritus status with the university of vermont.

i wrote the university and asked whether they endorsed his views, since he is using university resources to post them.

they essentially replied:

"John who?"

Date: 2006/01/18 14:12:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
don't forget that a lot of the comments are transfered from PT (red bolded poster handles), and so if they had quotes in them, you will see angle brackets instead of square.

Date: 2006/01/18 15:30:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Well, I've just replied to "Ripper" Brazeau, not that anyone's gonna read it....


oh, i read it..

*snicker*

do you really value your opinions that much?

as to sea cucumbers, when they feel threatened, they spew their digestive tract out which become sticky strands hopefully meant to dismay or tangle a potential predator.

remarkably, they manage to regrow their enitre digestive tract after a couple of weeks.

sea cucs are mostly bottom feeders; collecting and processing detritus via long feathery arms.

gee, sounds like you more and more now that i think about it.

good luck with that "guts to gametes" thing, if it's anything close to being as ridiculous as your cladistics arguments, I'm sure I'll get a laugh or two out of it.

Why DO you hang around here anyway?  for the snappy political reparte?

Date: 2006/01/18 15:35:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
... and you mean Larry's not  'here'?


if you see larry's name in black, he posted that here. if  you see it in red, he posted it somewhere else and somebody tossed it in here because it was stupid and offtopic.

Date: 2006/01/18 16:57:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Other than snacking on small rodents and insects that is


hmm, if the ID is related to an iguana, he should be herbivorous.

however, it is certainly possible that space faring iguanas might have become omnivorous, or ever carnivorous.

I haven't seen any papers published on their dietary preferences (spacebound ones, that is).

Date: 2006/01/18 17:17:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
uh oh, i feel kinda sorry for UD -

As noted earlier, they opened the flood gates for JAD and let him post his entire PEH for comment.

you know, the same PEH that was voted "crankiest" evolutionary theory EVER over on crank.net.

I figure that unless they ban him outright in the next week or so, his unending inanity will drive out the remaining few posters on UD.

perhaps a deliberate tactic on the part of WD40 and DaveSnot?

It does seem that there has been a very deliberate effort of late to make UD look as completely ridiculous as they possibly can.

for what reasons, only WD40 really knows, I'm sure, but the pattern is too obvious to ignore.

Date: 2006/01/19 11:37:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
flint:

Evo isn't posting here, he's having his PT posts tossed in here for obvious reasons.

when a person's name is highlighted in red, it means their post originated somewhere else.

fyi.

Date: 2006/01/19 16:54:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Salvador Cordova is now a 'contributor' at UD.  His first post?  "Intelligent Design in the National Football League."


right. remember what i said about deliberate silliness?

I'm sure WD40 thinks that spiralling his blog into the garbage can this way is just too funny.

that way he can claim anything said on UD was more meant as, dare I even say it: Street Theatre.

pretty obvious ploy if you ask me.

WD40 has said some pretty disturbing things that even the DI would want covered up on that site.

this seems a deliberate strategy intended to "trvialize" his own blog.

I'd bet money on it.

WD40's "Street Theatre" always reminds me of the Jon Lovitz skit on Saturday Night Live where he played "Master Thespian".

The parallels work on so many levels.

Date: 2006/01/19 17:37:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm.

makes me think "spiracles".

Date: 2006/01/19 20:13:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm.

I'm working on a theory (like Paley ;) ), and am wondering if our Islander friends can clarify Blair's position on ID for me?

I've read several UK news articles, but all seem to actually deal with his positions kind of indirectly.

Is he voicing 'teach the controversy', open denial of evolutionary theory, or just what exactly?

thanks

Date: 2006/01/20 08:39:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
not to plug slashdot, as i grew tired of the circus there ages ago, they actually did have a decent discussion of this issue there that was worth checking out.

all of the relevant bases were covered, including whether or not your personal information was really being given to the feds, whether the subpeonas were even legal, and what the motivations were on both sides.

an informative discussion, for once.

Date: 2006/01/20 08:43:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Seems pretty clear how creationists would use power if they ever got any.


indeed;

i keep going back to the time that Pat Robertson ran for President...

and got way too many votes for comfort.

I've seen too much for my comfort zone over the last 20 years, that's for sure.

Date: 2006/01/20 09:16:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is that lunatic preacher in the USA "Pat Robertson?" (not sure on name). Could you imagine living in a country where he had absolute power?


Quote
Happily, Robertson will never be in a position of power in this country.


two things:

1.  Robertson ran for President not that long ago (late 80's, IIRC), and received quite a few votes.  enough to be taken as a serious contender for the republican nomination, at least early in the running.

2.  What makes you think Roberston is NOT in a position of power in this country?  Just because he is not an officially elected representative, doesn't mean he has no power.  don't kid yourself.

Date: 2006/01/20 18:11:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Does anybody know what’s up with the Cobb appeal?

I haven’t seen word one on this in weeks.

has it gone to decision already?

any expected release date if so?

Date: 2006/01/20 18:20:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
At least not until the NCSE goes to court and fights against the actual version of intelligent design.


"er, I mean whatever the version is that we make up that week, anyway."

"no, wait, scratch that... what i REALLY mean is 'whatever version we post hoc onto whatever criticism arises of whatever our current version is... at whatever time said criticism was made.'"

"yeah, that's the ticket"

Date: 2006/01/20 19:27:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Kennedy on the nomination of "scalito"

Quote
Judge Alito's consistent advocacy of what he called "the gospel" of the "unitary executive" is just as troubling. Professor Steven Calabresi, one of the originators of the unitary executive theory and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, has acknowledged that if the concept is implemented, it would produce a radical change in how the government operates.

As he wrote in the Harvard Law Review in 1992, "The practical consequences of this theory is dramatic: It renders unconstitutional independent agencies and counsels to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power."



goodbye republic, hello empire...

I for one welcome our new overlords.

*gulp*

(pssst: hey, buddy, is there a back door to this place?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....15.html

Date: 2006/01/21 08:46:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol.  

I don't know because your link goes to the same place!

gotta register to get to where it was supposed to go, and I never bothered.

Date: 2006/01/21 09:01:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
JAD has managed to curb his temper so far. Has anyone suggestions for some awkward questions that might be asked. there is a chance that someone who can still post there might spot them and oblige.


hmm, I seem to recall having REALLY pissed him off one day in attempting to pursue what happened to him in the 80's that changed his publications from scientific to crank crap.  If you look at his CV, there is a clear schism that happened in 1984 (IIRC), and shortly thereafter he was banned from teaching at UV, and started attempting to publish his crankier stuff.  

Something definetly happened to him then; mild schizophrenia maybe?

in any case, he really freaks when you start asking him about it.  I mean REALLY.

it was in the thread PT created specifically for him, but that was a long time ago.  

If anybody can remember the month, it is likely in the archives somewhere.

Date: 2006/01/21 09:10:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog


lol.

ask yourself:

why did WD40 let the axeman (DS) run free on his blog to begin with?

c'mon!

do you REALLY think 'ol WD40 has just lost his mind?

hardly.

he's just having some fun spinning his blog into the trash can, while trivializing it at the same time.

if you make a joke out of months and months of posts that contradict the party line, you have a nice bolt hole to escape some rather sticky questions.

many times, PT commenters and even contributors have refered to UD in order to show how dishonest WD40 is, how many times he has directly contradicted the DI party line, as well as the random drivel he has posted there over the years.

Dembski shut down his blog.... then lo and behold, all of a sudden he comes back and lets the lunatics run it.

It shouldn't take much thought to figure out he wants to spin his entire blog as just so much "Street Theatre".

Every time somebody here on PT points out the ridiculousness of DS or JAD or Slaveador over on UD, WD40 knows he is accomplishing his goal, and is laughing all the way.

Debmski can't be happy with JAD???

exactly the opposite.

prove me wrong.

Date: 2006/01/21 12:39:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
So you plan to offer 'malcontented immigrants' cash bribes to emigrate on a 'voluntary basis'?


hmm.  what about malcontent naturalized citizens?

i coud use a bribe right about now.

I once read an article in National Review Online (came out about a year ago, IIRC) where one of the contributors was suggesting a plan to offer cash bribes to ship US malcontents (read: all those who disagree with Bush) out of the US.  he suggested Canada, and even offered to contribute some of his own money to such a plan.

I actually wrote him and asked him to put his "money where his mouth is", and send me money for a plane ticket to New Zealand.

never got a reply.

go figure.

Date: 2006/01/21 15:01:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
did somebody say truffles?

Date: 2006/01/21 20:02:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
thanks for the alternative perspective.

I hear different things from different folks there of course, and have talked with friends who have spent a lot of time there off and on.  some stressed that there are far more there than here that actually care about controlled growth and protecting environmental resources.

I doubt you would find any government anywhere that isn't dealing with similar issues these days.

bottom line tho, the main difference to me is that NZ is, well, small.  

You guys aren't planning on invading any foreign countries in the near future are you?  

no plans to have your government become an empire?

while a "significant" portion of NZ might be contrary to my sense of taste, it isn't the larger majority, as it has become here in the US.

plus, there appears to be a rapidly increasing interest in Marine research there, and I'd love to get back into doing some research again, especially with a totally different ecosystem than the ones in CA and the tropics I'm familiar with.

I'd love to chat more with ya about it in private; shoot me an email:  fisheyephotos AT hotmail DOT com.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/22 09:18:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
That's it? The bible is totally, absolutely consistent with science - except when it isn't, and then it's a "miracle"? That's a bit disappointing, isn't it?


yup, that was the same conclusion i came to when Heddle first started posting his interpretations of the bible as science eons ago, and Carol simply clarified it.

How is this perspective any different than a god of the gaps argument?

"god exists in the things we can't explain with science (we call 'em "miracles")."

what defines a "miracle" seems to be a pretty subjective thing to me, but then I've never seen one myself.  

Anybody else seen one?

Bueller?  Bueller?

Paul:

let us know what you think of landa's book; post any pithy quotes you find.

cheers

Date: 2006/01/22 11:10:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You’ve asked me this, and I told you I do believe in the long ages are scientific, not miraculous. There is a post brewing about this, in the series GCT mentioned (in the comment above, where he says he comes to my blog for amusement.) It will go something like this: modern science is gaining an appreciation for the genetic causes of aging, and some foresee greatly extended lifespans. If so, then longer lifespans in principle are not unscientific. (This would mean that God intervened to alter our genes to reduce lifespans) But I need to do some homework on this topic.


actually, i don't recall ever asking you this directly, or much of anything else for that matter. but it doesn't matter.

However, your statement here supports my contention quite clearly.

god is no longer in this particular gap in your mind.

Carol still defines the age of these biblical OT protagonists as "miraculous" :

Quote
On page 123 Landa, I mean, Carol writes:

Quote  
So we arrive at the conclusion that the individuals from Adam to Noah who lived such extraordinarily long life spans, did so miraculously.



so here we clearly see that miracles are indeed subjective by definition, and are therefore just gaps one can stick god into.

why would you presume, by your own logic then, that any of the other things in the bible you currently think of as "miracles" would not also be considered in a similar fashion?

I suppose, if you reject all "miracles" as simply gaps in our current scientific knowledge, and transliterate it "correctly", then yeah, the bible is completey compatible with science.  I could say the same thing about Dianetics.

I think at heart, both you and Carol realize this.

Quote
Science can never, for example, explain the resurrection.


never say never...

Date: 2006/01/22 16:14:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Needless to say, no such examples were forthcoming.


I thought just today they were pointing out how they have all now decided that common descent works with ID?

I remember WD40 putting forth this unusual (at the time) statment during his first "debate" with Ruse.

Date: 2006/01/23 09:08:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Miracles have a certain flavor about them i.e.,—short duration, clearly written as miracles and most importantly recognized as miracles by the witnesses.


oh?  prove it.  you're just backpeddaling, there davey boy.

Why do Carol/Landa, who claim to be expert on OT transliteration, and involved in publishing on the topic, have less expertise on the subject that youself?

do you think your opinions on the subject more authoritative?

like i said... prove it.

Quote
You guys want this too-simplistic criticism—that anything that is shown to be unscientific can simply be declared a miracle—but that is unthinking.


my logic is perfectly clear.  the unthinking part is a pure projection of your own making.

Date: 2006/01/23 09:25:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Hey pussy!  don't let uncle georgie do your work for you!

Anytime you want to get rid of me faster,all you have to do is send me a check.

I've made the same offer to dozens of "patriotic americans" who have suggested things similar to your own.

none of them seem to be able to put their money where their mouth is.

all of them, like yourself, full of sound and fury.

wrap yourself in the flag if you want.  it won't help you from being a pussy.

pussy :p

Date: 2006/01/23 09:52:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
isn't 144K the number of folks supposedly left after the "apocalypse"?

Date: 2006/01/23 09:57:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.


well, that was the plan, as i keep saying.

However, at least latin soap operas have some sweet looking women in them.

WD40's "inner circle" is really just one big circle jerk.

Date: 2006/01/23 11:45:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
In response to something Carol posted over at PT, instead of here, where it actually belongs:

Carol of course, and as usual, simply dismisses analysis that shows her own statements to be contradictory.

scroll back a bit Carol.... take a look at the direct quote from landa that you also posted (and made note of) about the OT protagonists' age being miraculous.

now look at Heddle's post just a few down from that.

What does he say?

now tell me who is lying and who isn't.

again, your logic fails you, as it does Heddle.

It seems quite clear from Heddle's own analysis that he considers what you would call a miracle to be just a god of the gaps argument; one that can be solved with modern science.

it's not a simplistic argument, but it is a simple one on the face of it.

you both are dealing with heavy issues of denial.

You can go ahead and try to stroke each other's fur all you want.

it's kinda funny, really.

Date: 2006/01/23 12:29:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
like i said....

pussy.

Date: 2006/01/23 19:12:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
agreed.



Based on what I've seen, The land "down under" has gone bonzo conservative in the last decade or so. it might overall be even a bit to the right of the US.  

I tried to figure out what might be fueling this trend, but I came up empty.

btw, it's always been my impression that the Canadian goverment is pretty much only for those that live in Montreal; maybe has a bit of influence in Toronto, but that's about it.

has that changed?

seems like the time I spent in Vancouver, it was like they didn't even know they had a government!

Date: 2006/01/24 14:08:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm gonna post this here; seems appropriate.

I'm worn out with "troll wars".  

I'm tired of arguing science with folks that have no clue what science is.  it's like trying to define the color "red" to someone who is colorblind.

I'm even tired of seeing folks argue with folks that have no clue what science is.

It seems after the Kitzmiller case, that PT has become inundated with trolls, and the entertainment value of them has severely diminished.

Some might find a barrel of monkeys more fun, and more power to you, but IMO, ya see one monkey fling crap on the walls, ya seen 'em all.

In any case, I'm just announcing that I'm taking a vacation from PT.

Hopefully after a few weeks or so, folks will get tired of feeding the trolls, and enough of them will die of starvation that PT goes back to some semblance of normality.

In the meantime, I'm going into hibernation, see you all in the Spring!

cheers

p.s.  keep pushin that thread to 1000 posts!

Date: 2006/02/08 12:48:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Nevertheless, the fact is that natural selection does not account for most evolutionary change.


i disagree that you can quantify this in such a fashion, even taking a horribly small subset of traits and characteristics in order to formulate a hypothesis.

there are simply too many traits and too many variable mutation/selection agents to make the relative contributions on a large scale meaningful.

in one population, you might see neutral mutations as being the dominant force driving phenotypic changes over time, while in another, selective forces could be quite different, and far more important.

How many natural populations can you cite where ALL selective pressures have been quantified over time, and compared to the effects of neutral mutation?

fancy trick, that.

perhaps you are leading up to the models suggesting that selection acts as a primary evolutionary force only in small, isolated populations?

Date: 2006/02/08 19:21:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The main thing God needs to account for is existence itself, life itself.


work the problem in reverse:

what is life?  how do you define it?

self reproducible?  energy conversion/synthesis?

once you start looking at what you define to be "life" it all of a sudden doesn't start looking all that complex.

about the "creator" issue...

you are certainly welcome to view all of existence as divine, and nobody will stop you.

however, of what practical value is that viewpoint?  how can it generate useable predictions?

it had thousands of years to do so, and failed to generate anything of significance in a practical sense.

take another look at ID.  same thing.  no testable predictions, no practical value.  

that's why it's not science.  nothing to test, nothing to generate predictions with, no practical value.

you don't feel a personal need to justify your belief in a creator, do you?

then why support a dead end fiction like ID?

Date: 2006/02/09 11:00:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
For you, this is apparently an easy question. I don't think we have the answer, though.


...

so, you won't even attempt to address the question for yourself?

you base your entire argument on life being somehow "special", but can't even define what makes it special to begin with?

yikes.

you need to go back to some basic questioning about your own beliefs.

it's like saying you think math is "special", but don't even know how to add.

Date: 2006/02/09 11:14:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the concept goes that since evolution does not require a supernatural explanation for the diversity and "specialness" of life, then it defacto removes god from the equation, thereby promoting atheism.

I personally prefer to think of all of science as leaving room for atheism, which ID/C of course, does not.

moreover, as the majority of practicing spiritualists (for want of a better term) will tell you, all of science leaves room for their beliefs as well.

just ask Wesley or Ken (if you're a christian).  

or Lenny (if you're a buddhist).


kinda off topic, but...

Quote
Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?



huh?

i can think of at least 2 species "capable" of doing so right off the top of my head.

sperm whale (eat giant squid, which are quite a bit larger than a human)

killer whale (eat seals and sea lions; equivalent or larger than humans in size).

however, to my knowledge there has never been a confirmed report of any whale species actually eating a human.

Sperm whales have been documented to actually ram and bash ships and sink them (happened rarely during older whale hunting eras).

Killer whales have attacked humans (almost all recorded attacks happened in sea parks).

Date: 2006/02/09 14:32:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, i haven't seen any actual IDers respond to your question, so in the interest of off topic frivolity...

Quote
- but wouldn't a killer whale - well - chew you up a bit?



the conical teeth of whales are not for slicing off chunks or chewing, they are simply meant for grasping.  so yeah, they mostly swallow stuff whole (that doesn't break up just due to jaw pressure alone, or from violent head motions with the prey held firmly by the teeth, like a croc might do).

however, yeah 2 inch (killers) to 6 inch (sperm) teeth would have a tendency to inflict quite a bit of damage if they chomped directly on ya.

in thinking about it further, with the broad shoulders of a full grown human, I'm not absolutely sure a killer whale could pull it off.  even tho elephant seals and sea lions can be heavier and larger in bulk that humans, they are more hydrodynamic in shape, and so have a narrower shoulder width.

Quote

I suppose a Sperm whale might get you down whole though


most likely.  at 60' long, they probably have a big enough esophageal diameter to manage it, since they eat large prey.  It seems plausible that a sperm whale could have swallowed a human at some time, though i studied marine mammals pretty well, and have never seen any official record of this.

nice little overview of sperm whales:

http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=190

note however that large baleen whales, like blues, which can be 100' long, only have esophageal diameters of several inches.

here's a nice little addressal of the whole johah mythos thing:


http://www.probe.org/content/view/727/95/

edit:

oh my, and how could i forget the most famous incident with a whale, EVER:

http://www.perp.com/whale/

you really MUST see this to believe it.

i think most of those Oregonians must ha been IDiots.

Date: 2006/02/09 14:51:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
glaikit numpty


??

ok, i gotta call this one in.

alleviate my ignorance, please.

Date: 2006/02/10 09:25:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
But suppose that human reason is inherently flawed, and misuses the senses to arrive at a false conclusion?


now why on earth should we ever assume that, since ALL evidence to date indicates that human reason has, in fact, done a great job of explaining observable phenomena?

I hope in saying this you are trying to typify the standard mistaken notions of creationists here?  Otherwise, it becomes just another rejection of methodoligical naturalism without even recognizing the fact that it has resulted in hypotheses that generate predictions that have been proven correct over and over and over again, #### near ad-infinitum, since the general adoption of the scientific method.

I'll take hard certainty over hand wringing and imaginary postulation any day.

why?  simple.  it works.

*sigh*

I still think the exploding whale is much more interesting.

Date: 2006/02/10 13:22:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It was not a joke. I don't think animals can evolve into different genii by small mutational steps. And if I'm right...


but... you're not.  so why persist?

oh, and btw, the plural of genus is genera, genius.

Date: 2006/02/11 15:31:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
dude, speed kills!

stop smokin' crack, eh?

Date: 2006/02/11 18:50:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
avo, you sound a lot like GOP on one of his crankier days.

and i mean cranky as in whacky, not angry.

you're almost funny.

a clarification for you:

Quote
I know that you consider mutations the driving force of evolution, and that I don't
.

not correct.  evolutionary biologists consider mutation one of the primary sources that generate variability, in a population.

It is natural selection (including sexual selection) that is considered to be the primary mechanism that acts on those changes to produce overall change in a phenotype in the population.

I won't even bother to go into the more esoteric arguments involved past that, unless you can even grasp the essentials of the primary arguments first.

since you seem unable or unwilling to, I doubt there will be any need to go further.

btw, don't you have your own thread to expound your nonsense in?

Date: 2006/02/11 19:00:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, he better go tell Bill he ain't no xian before bill teaches his next seminary class.

god forbid we wouldn't want no heathens teachin' no bible class!

Date: 2006/02/12 01:23:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
then act like it, doofus.

all you have shown so far is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the evidence and theory presented to you.

give me one good reason why any of us should bother conversing with you.

Date: 2006/02/12 01:29:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And they said there are 8 million life forms, and I respect them for that. They're in the ballpark a couple of thousand years ago.


what ballpark was that?  that ballpark would be so small you could hit a homerun with a drinking straw.

you are one whacky dude.

Date: 2006/02/12 17:37:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The above plus phishpaste's instant dislike of Sir_T confirms for me that he is John Davison.


hmmm. that works.  the last time he posted on PT, seems i made him blow a gasket.

I really feel sorry for the guy.  He obviously was a decent scientist at one point in his career, now is simply a cranked-out attention seeker.

some sort of mental schism happened to him in the early 80's, and he's never been the same since.

I once tried to contact UoV to see what his status was with the University.

their response was:

"John who?"

seems they had forgotten all about him years ago.

just as a reminder for those who haven't seen it, JAD's PEH (evolutionary "manifesto") earned him the title of Crankiest in the evolution section over on Crank.net last year:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

I'd like to think the folks at PT helped him get nominated.   ;)

Date: 2006/02/13 10:48:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
If any of you ever get tired of laughing at the comic relief UD provides, you might want to check out how the "leaders" of the ID movement present their arguments in a more "thoughtful" context:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152.html

not saying this isn't just as funny, but it is far more educational.

You will find Dembski, Nelson, and many other familiar names weighing in over there.

Date: 2006/02/13 11:05:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sorry, being a marine biologist, i simply knee jerk must correct errors in representations of sea creatures.

my apologies for stepping on your attempts at humor.

er, carry on.

Date: 2006/02/13 11:36:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
that they can be made to look like blithering idiots without any effort at all


they do just fine in that regard all by themselves, with no help whatsoever!

I still love Dembski's homeresque line:

Quote
By your great mass of words and facts you’ve lost the train of the argument


*snort*

Date: 2006/02/13 15:36:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
actually, i think that was a rather crappy start  :p

Date: 2006/02/13 20:07:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
never underestimate the insane.

Date: 2006/02/13 20:13:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Face it. These kids are just screwed.  No amount of reasoning is likely to change that.


while a bit of an extreme statement, the reasoning behind it is EXACTLY why we struggle so hard to make sure IDC doesn't ever get taught as "science" in our public school systems.

it's like teaching your kids that crack is OK, because your parents smoke it.

Date: 2006/02/13 20:19:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
IDists consistently find the Darwinists impervious to evidence and rational argument, and to be motivated by dogmatic loyalty


the big difference is, in the case of ID supporters, it is just projection.

they haven't presented any evidence yet, nor even a coherent testable hypothesis.

go ask Dembski, Nelson, etc.

so any arguments made that evolutionary biologists are "ignoring" evidence are defacto just projections by wishful thinking, but rather mentally disturbed, ID supporters.

have you decided which you are yet?

Date: 2006/02/13 21:22:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
He is ok with all of evolution and that stuff....but we did not come from Apes....he is confident of that.


and what happens when you try to challenge his belief on this issue?

bet he gets all defensive, eh?

so he's perfectly alright, except for certain bits...

that's called cognitive dissonance, and it's what characterizes the bulk of ID supporters who decide they need to post on this site.

it's also the result of teaching stuff that has no rational basis, like ID.

Date: 2006/02/14 13:44:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
One of these days the Insane Creationist Clown Posse is going to accidently ban themselves.


"Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad!
Suicide squad, attack! (they all stab themselves)

That showed 'em, huh? "

Date: 2006/02/14 16:40:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
nice mullet.

:p

Date: 2006/02/14 22:19:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
####, gotta hate stream of consciousness ramblings from crack addicts.

you do know there are treatment programs for that, right?

Date: 2006/02/15 08:34:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
better known as Mr. (cane) Toad's wild ride:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common....00.html

another interesting case of a rapidly evolving invasive species.

Date: 2006/02/15 08:45:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
AC did a nice summarization.

arguments with Carol remind me of the old arguments with JAD, it didn't matter how many holes you poked in his arguments, he just kept repeating them over and over, ad infinitum.

and he still does.  His only champion appears to be someone just as looney as JAD, Dave Scott.

I think Carol should write up a complete paper on her OT thoughts, and submit it to crank.net to see how it fares.

JAD won the title "crankiest" in the evolution section.

I wonder how Carol would do?

Date: 2006/02/15 08:52:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
One thing’s for sure, I’ve forgotten more than he ever knew.


Quote
Miracles DO happen. Wesley claims he didn’t change anything but trackbacks all of a sudden started appearing. It’s a miracle! ;-)


hey, if we have "miracles" on our side, what do we need with knowledge and science, eh Dave?

Date: 2006/02/15 10:03:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
now that could be an experiment worth pursuing...

Date: 2006/02/15 17:36:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
like i said, coherence has never been Carol's strong suit.

she claims to have been a science advisor at one time, but her glaring misconstruals of scientific method have convinced me that can't be her strong suit either.

hmm.  now that i think about it, i have yet to see exactly what Carol's strong suit is.

maybe her strong suit is argument for the sake of hearing herself speak?

If she would only come off as a little less of an authority figure than she does, she might actually be able to generate legitimate conversation.

Somehow, she thinks because she spends time with Landa, that makes her an authority.  

Can't figure out why that is, really.

Date: 2006/02/16 11:22:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I think you guys spiked that punch.

Date: 2006/02/16 13:51:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
enough with JAD and pant-loading, please!

I've seen this drivel interminably from JAD, then Dave Scott (who has become his biggest fan), then Blast from the past.

one does get weary of hearing the same old pant-load over and over again.

this is where JAD's PEH/pant-loading belongs:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

his "evolutionary manifesto" earned the title Crankiest, as soon as it was posted there.

it's crank, that's all it is, and all it ever will be.

It's an argument as old as genetics itself, has had that much time to gain support, and never has.

Isn't anybody else as tired of hearing it as I?

Date: 2006/02/16 13:59:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.


we have, for years now, with no luck.  Your response is just a cop-out.

ask Dembski; it doesn't exist.

tho I'm sure he will also respond - we're working on it!  any day now!

uh... yeah.

Debmski appears to be the ONLY IDer who claims that he is truly interested in setting up research into the "questions" raised by ID.  Why don't you go ask him what his research protocol is.  

We've been asking since 1998, and he just keeps putting it off.

If he was a grad student, using ID for his thesis topic, he would have washed out of grad school years ago, simply because he never came up with any method, or even a hypothesis, to test.

Is this truly the kind of science you want for your kids?

I think you better take another look.

If you don't believe me, you can email Wesley and he will provide you direct questions asked of Dembski over the last 6 years or so about this very issue.

the answers, while humorous, came as no surprise to the rest of us.

Quote
I could agree except it all depends on how you define nature. I, for instance, don't really believe in a material world. I think there is only the spiritual world.


well, then, proceeding from there, you have a lot of work to do inventing an entirely new way to test hypothesis and predictions, as there is no way to utilize the scientific method to answer any questions arising in your world.

good luck with that.

Russel's response to your freudian references is exactly correct, btw.

Date: 2006/02/16 14:17:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Dogs are fallible, do we describe dogs as being "flawed"?


the following is totally pointless mental masturbation based on a nitpik of the choice used in the example given. :p


that's an interesting question from a philosophical standpoint.

since dogs (assuming you meant domestic?) are products of artificial selection, we could describe certain traits as "flaws", and often do in fact.  I seem to recall that exact word being used at a recent dog show...


If ID were correct, would we think the intelligent designer could recognize similar "flaws"?

I could image a "human show" on another planet somewhere where a "handler" (read: intelligent designer ala Behe) would be listing the flaws in the particular human specimen selected for show.

sounds like a plotline for a Futurama episode.

Date: 2006/02/16 14:46:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm,

for starters, how 'bout:

pseudo-statistics 101:  the course where you learn how to take surveys using front-loaded questions, and that correlation DOES equal causation.

Advanced recti-linear algebra:  Learn how to put any idea in a box of your own making!

I'll stop there... let's make a list!

Date: 2006/02/16 16:08:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."


ROFLMAO.

poor, poor, John.

Date: 2006/02/16 17:43:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
To modernize Swift, what do you consider that stuff that comes out your ass?


ahh, that, which by any other name, would smell as sweet...

Date: 2006/02/16 19:40:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
He did use an ID topic for his thesis. I read it recently. I can't remember just what it was.


not quite... and what do you think happened to Dembski after he graduated?  did he go on to pursue a career in science?  no?  where is Big D right now eh?  Ever take a look at one of his current course syllabi?  is that the kind of stuff you would teach your kids?

Quote
I assure you, it is the very same world, and everything still works. Don't fret.


you sir, certainly don't make me "fret".

however, please do show us how the scientific method works to test "spiritual" hypotheses, or even how you manage to create one to begin with.

It sure seems you have constructed your own little pocket of null-reality there.

and speaking of null-reality...

Quote
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found it.


*sigh*

I assume you are referring to JAD?

If so, man, you sure are heading farther and farther into null-space.

why don't you ask Jon why he has never tested his PEH sometime?

and ask him why it ended up as the crankiest evolutionary theory listed on crank.net, while your at it.

really, if you think PEH, or any other pant-loading concept holds water, you have no business being here.  You're too far gone to bring back to reality.

bye bye.

Date: 2006/02/16 19:52:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I dont really care about time....the question...and a rather simple one at that...is how long would it take for you to count to a billion....off the top of your head.


How long does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

Date: 2006/02/17 10:34:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
it's gone to decision, and because it is an appeals case, there is no hard and fast rule about how long it will take.

could be several more months before anything is announced.

Date: 2006/02/17 10:38:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (improvius @ Feb. 17 2006,12:17)
Apparently the designer is really PO'ed at Australia.  Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson if he knows why.

in this case, the only folks to be pissed at are the "intelligent" human designers that thought bringing the toads in way back in the 30's would alleviate their introduced beetle eating their introduced sugar cane problem.

Date: 2006/02/17 10:52:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
This theory (front loading?) ...


I prefer "pant-loading"

it's far more descriptive of the value of the concept.

Date: 2006/02/17 14:00:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
just a correction:

Quote
I get the feeling ID "science" is more like a handful of quacks and theologians writing ID propaganda.


would be more consistently written:

Isn't ID "science" more like a handful of quacks and theologians wrting ID propaganda?

there, that's better.

;)

Date: 2006/02/17 14:14:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
would it have mattered, really?

a toad is a generalist predator.  they stuff into their craw anything that moves and is small enough to fit, period.

a very bad choice for a biological control mechanism, no matter how you slice it.

...and i hear that when you "slice" a toad with a nine-iron it tends to come apart; better to hit them a bit fat with a driver.

from a bit of a classic usenet post (look away if you have a sensitive nature):

Quote
...They found a natural predator in the cane toad, which came from Hawaii
of all places.  In 1935, 55 pairs (as in 110) cane toads were released
in the small North Queensland town of Gordonvale.  Unfortunately,
Australia did not have any predators that liked to eat the toads,
probably due to the poison glands on the back of their neck.
Similarly, the cane toads found that there was much more interesting
and tasty stuff to eat than boring old cane beetles.


The result was a plague of biblical proportions.


As a consequence, every man, woman and child living north of Sydney
has grown up knowing the extreme pleasure of killing cane toads.
Motorists swerve to hit them, cricketers hoist them for a six
(equivalent of home run for you 'Merkins) over the boundary, weekend
gardeners chase them down with a lawn mower.


The following, is some of the many varied ways I have dispatched these
nasty little buggers while I lived in Queensland.  Perhaps some other
Aussies can add to the list, what about you Hawaiians out there?


THE THONG SLAP (TS)


The Thong Slap (TS) is not fatal to a cane toad, but is an important
component of many of the other means of disposal.  To perform a TS,
one quickly removes their thong (rubber, sandal-like footwear) and
slaps a toad hard on the head.  This stuns the toad and stops it from
hopping all over the place.


DEATH BY CLUBBING
#1) Take golf clubs out into the back yard, usually only a 2-wood,
6-iron and 9-iron.  Find a toad and dispatch with club of your choice.
If the toad is sitting upright, use the driver.  Extra points are
awarded for lofted shots over the house and on to the street.  Hitting
a "slice" tends to result in separate pieces of toad.
#2) Take a field hockey stick and dispatch as above.  Remember not to
raise the head of the stick above shoulder height, otherwise a penalty
may ensue.
#3) Using a cricket stump, first smash the toad with the blunt end,
then reverse the stump and impale it with the pointed end.  Shake the
toad off the pointed end and repeat if necessary.


DEATH BY GARDEN TOOL
A special class devoted to common garden tools.  Favorite tools are
the shovel (hit with flat side, then chop up with blade), the mattock
(chopping only), the pitch fork (see how many you can collect) and the
axe (slice and dice).


DEATH BY SPORTING EQUIPMENT
Another special class, covering those instruments not involved with
clubbing.  Some nice effects can be gained with tennis rackets (small
toads only - great for perfecting that two-handed backhand), darts
(nothing like a moving bullseye) and football boots.


DEATH BY SLICING AND CHOPPING
#1) Take you mother's best carving knife outside and see if you
*really* can throw it like a Bowie knife.
#2) After performing a TS, flip the toad over and use an Xacto knife
to practice your vivisection techniques.  See how much you can remove
and still get the toad to hop away.
#3) Perform TS, throw toad into the air and try to hit with a machete.
More points are awarded if the pieces are equal in size.


DEATH BY SQUASHING


#1) One of my all-time faves: Perform a TS, then throw the toad out
onto a bust street.  Bet with friends how many cars will miss it
before it goes POP.
#2) Go to the local cricket field late at night.  Using repeated TS's,
gather a large quantity of stunned toads.  Arrange in a line and then
run over them with the heavy roller used for the cricket pitch.  Try
to get them feet first so all the guts pop out the mouth.
#3)  The two footed jump.
#4) The brick target-toss.  TS a toad, then step some distance back
and lob bricks at it.


DEATH BY PROJECTILE
#1) The air rifle.  Try to get those difficult lung shots so they hop
around blowing red frothy bubbles.  Try a hard to get glancing head
shot, that leaves the skull exposed and the toad still alive.
#2) Target shooting.  TS a number of toads and then pin them to the
clothesline with pegs.  Keep shooting till they break off.
#3) Get some long wooden cotton swabs that you use to clean VCR heads.
Sharpen the end of the stick, then soak the swab in alcohol (or
gasoline).  Load backwards into air rifle (so sick comes out first)
and shoot toad.  Light the swab as it hops away so remaining shots in
the dark are easier.


MISCELLANEOUS
#1)  Douse toad in kerosene and light.
#2) Rummage through doctors trash cans for discarded syringes with
needles.  Inject toads with various chemicals and note results.  DDT
based insecticides work well.
#3) Put toad in jar with pool chlorine.  Add vinegar so chlorine gas
is produced.  Cap jar and watch toad turn white.
#4) Fill a bucket with boiling water.  TS toads, then drop in for
instant gratification.
#5) Put football inflation needle on the end of a bike pump.  TS a
toad, then insert needle into toad's bum.  Pump vigorously and see
which organs are expelled through the mouth.
#6)  Tie toads to the back of your bike, then go off for a fun ride!

Date: 2006/02/17 14:25:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
there's more than you might think but there's just no time.


hey this is YOUR thread, eh.

you have as much time as you want.

based on your current level of knowledge of the topics at hand, I predict it will take you about a year to come to any coherent reckoning.

I'll check back then.

Date: 2006/02/17 16:19:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
What's all this then?

it appears I've already become 2-dimensional, and I haven't even had one yet!

I'll have another, barkeep; and keep 'em comin' till i say stop, or become trod underfoot...

If I'm to be plastered, i'll do it the right way before you tack me up on a wall somewheres...

by the by... I see Julie is a South Park denizen, but I can't quite make out what I am...

Date: 2006/02/18 16:51:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*sigh*

Date: 2006/02/20 15:11:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I've often wondered about Dembski's use of google ads on his site.

anything to make money, i guess.

but still...

this was the ad that greeted me when i glanced over there today:



irony, thy name is UD.

btw, the ad leads to:

CoffeehouseTheology.com

irony, indeed.

Date: 2006/02/20 15:30:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Sometimes, I wish Jesus would come back and smite liars like Ken Ham. The fact that He doesn’t makes me wonder if He is real or not…


doubtless Ham himself wonders that too, he just doesn't admit it.

Date: 2006/02/20 16:54:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, he's saying that blood type variability arose before H. sapiens evolved.

Date: 2006/02/20 17:22:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and of course as usual, Wd40 makes no relevant point with the posting of this email exchange.

His inability to make relevant points seems to be rapidly diminishing with "age".

at this rate, nobody will remember who he was or what he represented in about a years time.

some might get a chuckle remembering how he let his personal blog literally "go to the dogs", but that's about it.

Date: 2006/02/20 18:23:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey all python fans...

pbs is doing a new special this week and bringing python episodes back (again).

http://www.pbs.org/montypython/

cheers

oh, btw, "There is absolutely no cannibalism in the British Navy. And when I say there is no cannibalism, I mean there is a certain amount."

Date: 2006/02/20 18:32:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Or, would there perhaps be no such distinction between humans and their predecessors that marked the emergence of the first human because evolution is so gradual?


this is closer to being a correct interpretation.  

your first deduction would have to envision the emergence of H. sapiens from a single point mutation.  hardly likely, when you think about it, is it?  not supported by the fossil evidence garnered so far either.

note that your initial argument begins to sound like the "cats from dogs" argument often made by creationists.

while the fossil record for homid evolution is decent, it certainly isn't as complete as some of the transitional fossil records we have that provide clear evidence showing how species diverge from one another.

currently, all the evidence points to hominids evolving in similar fashion to everything else studied.

since the characteristics that distinguish this species from its predecessors didn't all appear at once, it's also likely that blood types were carried along as well as the species diverged.

check the talk origins site if you want to see some cool sets of transitional fossils, or grab some references regarding hominid evolution.

Date: 2006/02/20 18:44:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Michael Ruse often goes on the "debate trail" with Dembski, where he presents the "evolution" side of the debate.

In fact, their first televised debate last year (which i still have, if anyone wants it) is the first time I saw Dembski admit the overwhelming evidence in favor of common descent.

basically, Ruse just called him a rube being used by the political right.

I'm getting the impression that this has become mostly a dog and pony show these days, as both participants have learned they can make money "debating" the issue.

hence, Denton's critique of Ruse's behavior, and the distancing of Ruse from the rest of the scientific community.

Dembski has on occasion claimed that he and Ruse are bossom buddies.  Haven't really got a clue about the truth (or relevance, for that matter) of his statements regarding that, but I do notice that he and Ruse are most often paired up on the debate circuit lately.

Date: 2006/02/20 18:49:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
ps. How did you edit your post after it was published? Can we all do that?


there should be an "edit" button on the top banner of your post, towards the right edge.

Quote
It would also appear then that you do not believe that all humans share any single common ancestor. Would that be correct?


hmm, i think you are mistaking the definition of "ancestor"

when we speak of it here, we mean a population of related, but distinct (and extinct) species that H. sapiens evolved from.

Not ancestor like your grandma.

is that clearer for you?

Date: 2006/02/20 18:53:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the difference is that Miller and Behe don't go on tours together, or share private emails with Dembski.

I think comparison along these lines will likely end up being unproductive.

Date: 2006/02/20 19:10:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
actually, i don't quite understand your question.

if you can rephrase it, suggest you start a new thread to discuss it as this thread ain't mine and is supposed to be for discussion of matters pertaining to the cometragedy that is UD.

cheers

Date: 2006/02/20 21:27:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ah, yes, one of my very favorite bits.

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/8889/poetry/mp-wilde.htm

very very witty.

Idle's mum you say?

any tales of the encounter beyond just the aquaintance?

Date: 2006/02/21 11:46:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
the rest of the world: Whatever.


hmm, I'm sure you didn't intend to, but you bring up an important point here.

it's the general apathy of the american people that is letting these fundies attempt to rewrite the very definition of science itself.

Maybe now that it has grabbed a bit of media attention, mostly because of the Dover trial, at least some of america seems to be waking up to how serious this issue really is.

Date: 2006/02/21 11:53:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Whenever I think of ID, the argument sketch always comes to mind, especially when debating Blast from the Past:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

Quote

M:  I came here for a good argument.
A:   No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M:  An argument isn't just contradiction.
A:   It can be.
M:  No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A:   No it isn't.
M:  Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A:   Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M:  Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A:   Yes it is!
M:   No it isn't!

Date: 2006/02/21 12:03:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
"This contest is good enough for Jehovah!"


hmm, where's my flat rock with the sharp corners...

Date: 2006/02/21 21:06:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
attention UD watchers...

Quite a while back, I saw a debate between WD40 and Michael Ruse where WD stated that the evidence for common descent was overwhelming and undeniable (setting aside for the moment that the idea is to re-interpret the evidence in "light" of ID).

I have since seen WD40 state similar things on UD, and set his "bulldog" DS to chew up any toy that denied the evidence for common descent there.

so... it seemed like a simple bait and switch to me; claim you support the evidence for common descent, but totally make up what the conclusions based on that evidence should be.

However, Pim has raised some conflicting posts by WD40 that raise some doubts about whether or not he actually even supports common descent superficially.

for example, check out WD40's take on Woese:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/676

So....

it's time to settle the issue:

Does WD accept the evidence for common descent, and what is his official postion regarding the validity of it?

If so, are we agreed that this is just a simple bait and switch?  or is it something else?

It's actually a bit important to resolve this, and nail down what the actual official position WD40 and the DI will try to take on this, so any input (especially in the form of direct quotes from Dembski or other DI representatives) would be appreciated.

thanks

oh, btw, if anybody wants to see it, i can post a link to download the Dembski/Ruse debate i was referring to.

Date: 2006/02/21 21:23:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
meh, don't concern yourself with what davison thinks.

It's pointless to concern yourself with the ravings of madmen.

Date: 2006/02/22 15:20:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I don't know if it's been pointed out before, but does anybody else find it oddly ironic that evangelical christians focus on the flagellum as an argument for "irreducible complexity", when the original usage of the word flagellum referred to the type of whip that was supposedly used to flog Jesus with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging

coincidence?

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/deathchr.html

Quote
Scourging

"After a criminal's condemnation, it was the custom for a victim to be scourged with the flagellum, a whip with leather throngs." 10 This wipe usually had pieces of metal and bone attached to it, thus inflecting even more pain and damage on the body. It was the normal procedure of the Romans to flog the victim until his blood began to flow.11 "Roman scourging was so severe that victims often died under it. For one charged as Jesus was, with sedition, it would have been merciless." 12


Are IDiots just engaging in self flagellation, literally, when they utilize the flagellum as an example of IC?

Date: 2006/02/22 15:47:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
he better be careful;

last month he was flagellating anybody who disagreed with the theory of common descent... now he's treading dangerously close to promoting front-loading instead.

I wonder how he will adapt (read butcher) both explanations to fit the same set of evidence, as I'm sure he will try to do within the next day or so.

schizophrenia or just idiocy?

you decide.

p.s. I can kinda guess what he will do, which will make him one of only two people in the world to do so... and i won't say who the other is but his initials are JAD.

Date: 2006/02/22 15:51:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God!  This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection.  I'm sure it's relevant somehow.


Relevance is futile!

You will be assimilated!

Date: 2006/02/23 10:13:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
myself included.

however, it does provide fertile ground for rather tasteless jokes...

Date: 2006/02/23 10:26:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Believe it or not, on occasion Dungeons and Dragons comes up in dicsussions on PT.

for any old D&D fans out there, if you haven't seen this yet, i highly recommend checking out The Order of The Stick:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=1

cheers

Date: 2006/02/23 12:16:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
rewrite the definition of science to fit your personal beliefs, rewrite the constitution to fit your personal beliefs.

what's the difference.

same mindset.

I wish these folks would just get on with their own personal "rapture" and leave the rest of us out of it.

Date: 2006/02/23 12:21:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'm quite convinced that if by some miracle one single generation could be raised without exposure to religion..


lol.  no pun intended?

Date: 2006/02/23 12:24:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
a sense, the richer you were (which implied that you worked hard and were honest), the holier you were.


so... Bill Gates is the second coming?

Date: 2006/02/23 16:01:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
ID will be presented alongside RM+NS and the two will have to compete in the open on a level playing field for the hearts and minds of a new generation. All of us here I think are quite comfortable letting ID and RM+NS compete on a level playing field.


...projection...

there already exists a level playing field.  It's called peer review and publication.

We've invited them to play, but they'd rather wipe out the playing field and put up condos instead.

level playing field???

is he kidding?

when I can come to his church and teach about evolutionary theory, then I'll think there is a level playing field.

#### no, it's exactly the opposite; the vast majority of the audience in the US is subjected to far more religious arguments than they ever are scientific ones.

If we got a chance to teach evolutionary theory every sunday, to every kid from the age of 5 up, how many IDiots like Dave would there be after 20 years?

ridiculous.

stop playing the martyr, ya bunch of pussies!

The playing field is there; put up or shut up!

Date: 2006/02/23 16:13:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Usually the only option available if you disagree with what you are hearing from the pulpit is to leave.


well, actually, it's been my experience that if enough of a congregation disagree with what their pastor is saying, they'll dump him/her in favor of somebody with a more compatible worldview.

back in the days when I used to actually attend a Lutheran church, I saw this happen over and over.

In fact, one of the reasons i started to bag on the whole church idea as a teen was that the congregation would toss pastors out that focused on biblical passages about love and generosity, (there were arguments about whether the church should side with the inclusionists or not), or attempted to try to get the congregation involved in public service of any kind.

I often wonder whether this played at least some small role in my rejection of the value of relying on the authority of people as opposed to scientific data in general.

probably why i find it offensive to be labeled a 'Darwinist'.

Now, i can't say whether this is true in evangelical churches or not, not having ever attended any.  

Date: 2006/02/24 10:34:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
But you have it backwards--for Dembski the equation is:

"abortion is bad = right-wing culture war = intelligent design = irreducible complexity = bacterial flagellum"


doubtful.

more like:

money is good => right-wing culture war is good for business => intellgent design is an easy way to sell books => NFL => $

There is NO consistency in Dembski's positions; he's simply trying to make a living off of the rubes, just like the televangelists.

Date: 2006/02/24 18:19:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
doubtless it has to do with some sort of politcal quid-pro-quo scheme between Billy boy and the Feds.

I'm of the opinion, and have been for some time, that the DI is NOT a ground-up grassroots organization.

It's a top-down political machine.

Date: 2006/02/24 19:44:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
here's an interesting bit for discussion...

Quote
New evidence that natural selection is a general driving force behind the origin of species


http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html

Quote
“Darwin’s famous book was called ‘On the Origin of Species,’ but it was really about natural selection on traits rather than species formation. Since our study suggests that natural selection is a general cause of species formation, it seems that Darwin chose an appropriate title after all.”


...yet another "gap" bites the dust.

Date: 2006/02/25 08:35:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
thanks Alan.

good luck, Jean; keep us posted!

Date: 2006/02/25 09:26:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The NCSE and Smithsonian conspired to ruin the career of an editor of a peer reviewed journal who dared to allow an ID sympathetic article be published.


lies.

you #### well know that what was going on was that he violated the very rules of the journal itself to get that article in there.

THAT was what got the rest of the smithsonian crew up in arms.

oh, and as to "ruined his career"... shall we go into EXACTLY what happened to him, eh?

did they fire him?

no.

did he lose his office?

no.

yup, he sure was "ruined"

phht.

now YOU want to play martyr??

like i said, a bunch of pussies.

Quote
Church attendence is voluntary.  High school biology isn't.  False analogy.


is it now?

do you have kids?  do you take them to church?  did you ask them if they want to go?

pathetic.

Date: 2006/02/25 09:34:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, Davey,

this whole argument that your ideas are being repressed is just ridiculous.

Heck, you can publish ridiculous books based on empty-headed drivel any time you want (ask Dembski).


again, all your side has to do is go out and actually DO some friggin science, rather than attempt to publish critiques of already published science.

go out and be productive in the science realm, rather than just sit and masturbate all day long.

...and you'll have a chance.

otherwise, you'll just lose, as you have been, for decades now, over and over and over again.

kinda frustrating, huh?

go shake your fist harder, boy!

Date: 2006/02/25 09:44:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
ToeJam - I said NCSE and SI conspired to ruin Sternberg.  I didnt' say they were sucessful.  Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.


...and that's the best you can do to claim martyrdom?

ROFLMAO!

hmm, seems i can recall a certain professor whose career really WAS ruined because of comments he made contrary to IDiots like yourself, just in an EMAIL, let alone a journal article.

shall we go there?

Quote
But I'm an advocate of teaching both...


oh, let's do see your lesson plan.  What EXACTLY would you teach for the "other side"?  where is the positive evidence for ID?

oh, that's right, it doesn't exist.

Quote
I'd love to take enough of it to cause you pain...


and that's what your side is all about, right Davey?

got nothing to do with trying to support your ideas through research, like an actual scientist would do.

all you care about is giving the "vice" to anybody who disagrees with you.

again, that's pretty pathetic.

shake your fist harder, boy!

Date: 2006/02/25 10:10:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Oh hold, it.  Mireki's comment had nothing to do with science, did they?  And no one ever found out who it was that slapped his face, did they?


right, obfuscate and deflect.

exactly my point, dufous.  Mirecki got nailed for vehement disagreement with something that ISN'T EVEN SCIENCE.

you're losing, Davey, face it.

Quote
So I guess you don't want to bet on your so-called knowledge that I haven't taken any biology classes beyond high school.  That's the first smart thing I've seen from you.


huh?  that wasn't me, but then it doesn't surprise me you would get confused.  It's a particular quality you exhibit so commonly.

it's not what classes you took, Davey, it's what you managed to learn.

and you sure didn't learn much.

oh, and btw, why are you posting as "picofarad" instead of using your handle on UD?

afraid the sychophants over on UD might catch you consorting with us?

oh, and Davey:

keep shaking your fist harder, boy!

Date: 2006/02/25 10:23:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Nowhere have I argued that descent with modification from a common ancestor isn't the best explanation for the diversity of life


..except when you argue for front-loading.

why don't you reconcile that for us there, Davey.

hmm, i think i actually have a bunch of questions for you there, davey boy, now that you deem yourself fit to regail us with your presence:

as to martyrs, ever thought to look to your own?  Dembski is a great case for martyrdom, but I doubt you'll get him to admit it.

why are you posting as picofarad again?

have you ever considered yourself to be suffering from cognitive dissonance?

you exhibit all the classic symptoms of projection and denial.

do you ever wonder why we laugh at you for your behavior on UD?

do you wonder why those you banned for no good reason come HERE to post, even those who had been supporters of Dembski for months?

I have lots more.

Date: 2006/02/25 10:46:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
edit

Date: 2006/02/25 10:56:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Nevertheless, their huge dataset should easily provide an answer to my interrogation. Maybe a more complete paper is on its way.


that's why i thought this to be an interesting paper to discuss.

Quote
They have to be careful with such a claim.


i read it as more of an abstract "sound bite".  

I have time to finish reading it tonight, and will jump in again tommorrow.

oh, btw, one of the co-authors on that cichlid paper (Axel Meyer) and i were both grad students in the same lab at the same time at Berzerkely.  I'm happy to see he's done well.

cheers

Date: 2006/02/25 11:28:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*sigh*

looks like Davey ran home; he's not logged in any more.

guess we will have to wait for further "insights from beyond".

Date: 2006/02/25 11:33:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
you're not the only one  ;)

Date: 2006/02/25 20:50:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Just one point - there's no conflict between front-loaded evolution and descent with modification from a common ancestor.  Front-loading merely means the descent occured in a prescribed fashion.


tada!

I knew you would say that, Davey.  so did Jeannot.  

ah yes, Davison's PEH...you know, the "theory" that was voted the crankiest concept EVER in the evolution section of crank.net?  did you need me to reference that for you?  

Ever wonder what defines "crank", there, Davey?  

We know that your entire understanding of biology these days proceeds from your "discussions" with JAD; it's been quite amusing to watch that little love-hate fest unfold.

but just like we asked JAD when we let him spout his drivel over here for a while, the first question you should have asked was:

Why didn't JAD ever develop an actual testable hypothesis, and proceed to test it?  He had the resources, he was a professor, after all, and he had an OK, if not great, publication record (at least up until 1980 or so).  Anybody worth their salt would have been able to set up some experiments to test their ideas.

was he not as clever as Gould?  or was there something else going on... like it was ridiculous from the start, and there WAS no way to test it?

thanks for yet again, pointing out how you side with the documented crankiest old man out there.

..and after deciding his ideas had merit (??), prompty kicked him off UD (twice no less) for being exactly who he is...

a crank.

you should pay more attention to him, he is a glimpse into your future, after all.   A raving lunatic that even YOU booted out of a den of raving lunatics.

Soon, you will have to ban yourself, I guess.

Date: 2006/02/25 21:05:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
"PicoFarad" apparently doesn't mind telling whoppers.


doesn't mind???

he positively enjoys it!

the only question really is why.

what IS Dave's motivation in all this?

he says he wants to support ID, because it's not religious, but it's nothing but thinly veiled religious apologetics.

he bans anybody who disagrees with anything he says from UD without a second thought, but says he needs all the supporters of ID he can get.

he moderates a website called "Uncommon descent", but says he "beleives" in common descent.

other that being terribly confused and simply enjoying confusing the #### out of everybody he comes in contact with with lies, distortions, etc., i really can't figure out what his motivation might be.

did some biologist steal your girlfriend in a past life or something, Dave?

Date: 2006/03/03 17:28:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote


I'm completely lost now


yup.

Date: 2006/03/04 13:54:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
at least he didn't kill anybody.

that's a bit of bad news there, but what was your point in bringing it to our attention?

Date: 2006/03/04 15:26:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i wonder if we should ask dembski what the probabilities are of drivin an SUV on the sidewalk and NOT killing anybody?

must be evidence of ID.

;)

Date: 2006/03/04 15:34:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The idea of a large-scale fundamentalist education secession is really scary to me.  Right now, the fundamentalists are at least exposed to some outside influences.  In a little fundie, hothouse cocoon they'll really be indoctrinated to believe that they are God's chosen.


it's starting to sound like the plotline from the current season of Stargate on the Sci Fi channel.

and I'm sure you've seen the christian exodus site, yes?

http://www.christianexodus.org/

Date: 2006/03/05 15:08:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
right...

so you all do the "math"

here you have someone with not one, but 2 PhD's, linking to an article on how SLoT supports creationism, the week after he posts an article on "bible codes".

there are ONLY two conclusions one can rationally make from this:

1.  He's completely insane (possible, but not likely)

2.  He figures this is what the sycophants that buy his books WANT to see from him.

Dembski is NOT like Behe.  I don't buy for a second he really buys into any of this crap; he just figured that it was a better way to make money than mathematics.

so far, he's been right.

expect him to post ever more ridiculous crap over the coming months, both as a backhanded way to indicate he really doesn't buy any of this stuff, and at the same time to generate more book sales.

If you've ever actually watched him in any meaningful debate, you know what I'm talking about.

he's not stupid, he simply is playing a game seeing how narrow a path he can walk and maximize his earnings at the same time.

when he finally gets bored, he'll call everyone a sucker and retire on his earnings.

Date: 2006/03/05 19:26:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'll go with Larry.

It's funny, if irritating, watching Larry try to "learn" on the fly from wikipedia.

Date: 2006/03/06 08:41:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Um, prove it.  And while you're at it, show us a cake that has been unbaked by advanced intelligence to support your "baked theory"


i assume you really meant "half-baked theory".

Date: 2006/03/06 10:16:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...stay unchanged once created


I predict that continued discussion with shi will be unproductive.

Date: 2006/03/06 10:33:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'll brew you a cup of coffee through the Explanatory Filter


hmm, seems to me that the end result of brewing a cup of coffee in that manner would be... an empty cup.

if we assume coffee and water to be ingredients based in objective reality, then since the explanatory filter blocks all objective reality, it would be a rather unproductive way to brew a cup of coffee.

OTOH, it sure would cut down on one's cafeine intake.

Date: 2006/03/06 15:25:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If you think you can publish major challenges to dogma without providing a new theory to explain the challenges better, you are being naive about the science profession.


ridiculous.

I see critiques of hypotheses (even well accepted ones) all the time;  they're usually published as notes.

pick up ANY scientific periodical and i can guarantee that about 80% of the time or more, you will find published notes that contain dissenting opinions.

you're a joke, shi.

Date: 2006/03/06 15:34:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naw, slaveador is too much of a toady to write his own book; he'll let Dembski do it for him.

Date: 2006/03/06 15:36:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
go take a gander at their forum some time and see.

It's mind boggling.

Date: 2006/03/06 18:25:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Well, after years of thinking about it, I finally started encoding all of my old articles digitally.

Here's the very first article i ever published (I did the work as an undergrad at UCSB, and published it when I got to Berzerkely a couple of years later).

It's short, so anybody interested shouldn't get too bored.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/articles.html

Kudos to anyone who can determine the primary flaw in the experimental design.
(hint: it's a one-word answer, and to get kudos you should be able to get it BEFORE you get to the discussion section.)

The study of ontogentic color change in damselfish was my thesis topic back when i was a grad student.  What was really nice about it was that most damselfish are tropical, so it took me to some rather nice locales like Tahiti, the Carribean, Mexico, etc.

It's still quite an interesting topic to me, especially from an evolutionary standpoint, so feel free to jump in if you find yourself interested in the topic as well.

I also threw in a link to Ken Miller's popular Ohio talk for those that hadn't seen that yet.

cheers

edit (5/17):

hmm, i suddenly realized readers here probably haven't a clue what these guys look like, nor what the color differences are.  I'd post my own pics, but I have as yet not converted them from the old slides to digital, so:

http://www.oceanlight.com/lightbox.php?sp=hypsypops_rubicundus

some good examples there.

Date: 2006/03/06 18:35:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
what is the point?


indeed, not uncommonly have i wondered about the point of Uncommon Descent.

It sure isn't winning over any converts.

Must be just Dembski's way of laughing at the nutters on his own "side".

Date: 2006/03/07 07:51:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Going by the 'best case scenario', I'd say #1.  


I'd say it's more a combination of 2 and 3, plus it still gives him ad revenue and publicity for book sales.

Quote
He's busy doing other things.


He's teaching seminary classes.  last i checked, he had two scheduled.

have either of you seen the course syllabi?

some scary (as in stupid) stuff there.

I pity his students.

Date: 2006/03/07 07:56:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
In the interest of balance


enough, Alan.

you seem to have had a perverse fascination with JAD ever since you first came to PT.

Haven't you gotten bored with him yet?

He never says anything new.

As nutty as Dave Scott Springer is, at least he vents new drivel almost every day.

You should get a new hobby.

Date: 2006/03/07 08:53:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
uh oh...

sounds like we need to have a "rename Dave" contest.

what are the rules?

does the new name have to include any part of his current handle?

Date: 2006/03/07 09:28:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Intelligent design is a Gut Science!


...and we all know what comes out the end of a gut.

Date: 2006/03/07 11:10:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
(Maybe I'll try scuba-diving;)

hey, i can highly recommend that.

been doing it since i was 15 and find it to be one of the best sport/hobbies ever.

Date: 2006/03/07 13:03:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
about bringing Hovind to Dover...

I suggest you write a letter to the new head of the school board there to ask her how it came about that Hovind is speaking at Dover High.

Here is her email:

Bernadette Reinking [breink@DOVER.K12.PA.US]

She is a nice lady (I've communicated with her previously), and might have some insight into what's going on there.

I wrote her myself and will post the response.

Date: 2006/03/07 13:07:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
a testimonial for Hovind's seminars on that site states:

Quote
I am excited about the opportunity to see the seminar in person and hopefully find more direction from our Lord, the Creator!!! If you are thinking about coming, quit thinking...! You will be blessed!


exactly, well, except it should be rephrased to more correctly say:

"Quit thinking and you will be blessed!"

Date: 2006/03/07 20:45:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The ignorant can't understand the intelligent


indeed.  I think that's why you have your own thread, because you're too ignorant to argue any valid points with most of the regulars here.

You might have noticed that Shi's ridiculous arguments were shot down rather quickly, and it didn't even take a population or molecular genetecist to do so.

the statements he made were patently ludicrous.

shall you now follow suit?

Date: 2006/03/07 20:50:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I hope his earholes turn to ar5eholes and he sh1ts all over his shirt


nice.  just added that to my list of great sayings from outside of the US.

another recent addition was provided by guthrie(?) from Scotland:

glaikit Numpty

glaikit= thick, stupid, kind of drooling at the mouth idiocy.

Numpty- a fool.

Date: 2006/03/07 21:30:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that's right, shake your fist harder, boy!

Date: 2006/03/07 21:36:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You fail to see the irony of your statements.


ROFLMAO

Quote
I think Shi's point was quite simple


simple it was, which is probably why it appealed to someone like yourself.

however, it's still wrong.

did you even bother to examine the flaws in his reasoning, or did you just automatically accept his drivel on face value because he thought he had the ToE "licked"?

do you know anything about genetics?

molecular biology?

population biology?

no?

then why would you accept Shi's statement at face value?

because your a moron?

yup.

oh, and learn how to spell, your grammar smacks of a second grade reading level.

Date: 2006/03/08 09:34:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If this is the level of exchange to be most commonly found within "scientific" community then it should be clear that the battle with be lost to those with much more persuasive verbal skills in the court of public opinion.


BWAHAHAHAHA!

funniest thing I've seen so far today.

Date: 2006/03/08 11:47:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
A basic rule of slander is the Total Reverse of Terms


is it slander, or just psychological projection, especially with the example just pointed out above?

I go with projection.

I see no intent to slander on the part of folks like larry or blast, but a whole lot of projection.

we should keep terms like slander where they belong, with the politicians.

Date: 2006/03/08 15:27:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'm neither religious nor anti-Darwinist


nope.  just your run-of-the-mill idiot.

Date: 2006/03/08 15:52:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but at home I just chat and read webpages.


then buy whatever you can get the cheapest, which is likely the PC.

by the time you figure you might have some specific serious needs, you'll probably want to upgrade again anyway, and then you'll have more info to make your choice with.

bottom line, I can't see any reason for you to switch away from what you are already using.

Date: 2006/03/08 16:02:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, well then...

:p

One thing i would note is that the new apples with the intel chips are getting fantastic reviews;

evidently the best combo of hardware/OS ever.

mucho dinero.

It's like buying a car.

you have to decide whether you really need a ferrari to drive to the grocery store.

Date: 2006/03/08 16:47:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
nice Wes, that should come in handy.

Date: 2006/03/11 16:23:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What kind of world are we living in?


You post here and you don't know the answer to that?

we of course live in a world where Larry Farfarfromsane is the norm, rather than the aberration, and the scientists are the minority.

the only real question is whether any of us care whether we are the minority or not.

Date: 2006/03/19 15:35:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What I find mystifying is why Arden Chatfield and stevestory and hehe and Sir toejam and all the rest of the unpublished lightweights over at the Bunker keep picking in poor David Stringer who, like them all, also has no credentials or publications, when they could be taking on a real honest-to-God published scientist like myself.



lol.

right.  I'm sure that was written AFTER I posted the link to my oldest article i just digitized.  It's listed on the second page of this very forum.  This is one of the primary reasons he was banned.  he simply refused to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation, and deliberately chose to ignore just about every piece of information we posted.

JAD HAS NO HYPOTHESIS.  All he has is a ridiculous and unsupported conjecture (that's why it's officially listed as "crankiest" over on crank.net), based on some sort of psychic schism he experienced in the mid 80's.  Whatever happened to him, it resulted in suspension of his teaching and departmental priviledges at University of Vermont, and he has not published anything in any REPUTABLE journal since.

any idiot can simply take a gander at his CV and see exactly where he nose-dived.

enough already.

Date: 2006/03/19 18:36:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Thordaddy, please point out which of these definitions you're using.


he already did...

the "true" one.

*snicker*

really, I do wonder why you all even bother replying to it.

His drivel is barely comprehensible, and his thinking is about elementary school level.

I guess things are getting pretty slow round these parts.

Date: 2006/03/19 20:02:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
guess what.

nobody gives a rat's ass if someone who is as clueless as yourself doesn't respect science.

a better question is - why on earth should anybody care what your opnion is?

based on your vast repetoire of knowlege?

based on your witty reparte?

*snicker*

Date: 2006/03/20 07:46:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sanctorum:

second warning:

[Messages posted by proxy from banned users are not welcome here. Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying.]

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2006,02:24

[Sir_Toejam, please refresh your recall of the rules: Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.]



Date: 2006/03/20 07:58:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Your reply betrays your sentiments.


LOL.

talk about stating the obvious.

Date: 2006/03/20 08:05:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It just occured to me. Humans are actually fighting the so called "intelligent designer" when they make new drugs, are they not?


there are several major religious sects (like Jehova's Witnesses) in the US that believe this.

They fervently believe that sickness is the will of God, and curing it by artificial means thwarts the will of God.

at least they're more consistent than the IDiots.

Date: 2006/03/20 16:41:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Is Dave another refugee from the UD snake pit?

Date: 2006/03/21 15:44:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The problem of course is that you're a scientist and so your thinking on the matter at hand will be quite limited..


well, actually it's more to do with rational thought limiting irrational drivel like your own, than any
relation to science in a more specific sense.

If you're saying that IDiots don't limit themselves to rational thought and logic, well, you're certainly correct there.

whacky...  just... whacky.

Date: 2006/03/21 15:58:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Davetard vs crandaddy?...can't they somehow both lose?


They did, but it happened long before they started posting on UD.

as to nuclear power...

I grew up surfing near San Onofre nuclear power plant in So. Cal.

accidents were a regular occurence.  I observed mass shipments of radioactively contamined sand on more than one occasion.

as to fatality statistics....

the difference between nuclear and coal is that nuclear is MUCH harder to clean up after an accident; the land becomes unuseable for decades.

birth defects, crop failures, etc.

or did you forget about the aftermath of chernobyl?

The risks are simply not worth it, no matter how rare "serious" accidents are.

It's like saying that many more people die from accidental explosions of standard munitions than from nuclear ones.

it's a pointless statement that ignores the tremendous qualitative differences between a "nuclear" accident and a standard one.

Date: 2006/03/21 16:05:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What can science say about a mother that drowns her five children one by one... nothing!


hmm.  what makes you say that?  your gross unfamiliarity with psychology?

can your total ignorance be any more glaring or amusing?

as to your motivations for posting here.

you're a sociopath.

look it up.

Date: 2006/03/21 19:24:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
does that partnership come with a 401k?

Date: 2006/03/22 10:24:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The partnership comes with lots of fringe benefits and shares in the business.


No way!

that's the exact same scam i fell for when i went to work for an internet media company during the dot.com boom.

fool me once...

I think I'll stick to doing science because it satisfies my curiosity and provides useable information.

Feel free, if you ever decide to actually DO any science, to sacrifice your results on the altar.


Quote
"Holy smokes, I forgot to set the timer!"


that made my day.

Date: 2006/03/22 10:43:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I am telling you that misfortunes are on the way. Your precious Ph.D., or whichever degree you went through long years of hard work to acquire, may be worth less than you think. Your specialized training may become obsolete. You may find yourself over-qualified for the available jobs. You may be declared redundant


hmm.  seems i recall an episode of the Twilight Zone (the original BW) where Burgess Meredith played a librarian who was considered "redundant" (obsolete) by the State, and sentenced to execution.

Anybody who has seen that episode knows how it ends.

Any state willing to condemn as redundant those who provide information and knowledge is doomed to sentence itself as redundant.

Dave doesn't realize, as those who the original TZ episode was aimed at didn't, just how redundant THEY really are.

I wonder if Dave will ever bother to take a gander at the history of what happens to folks who think like himself?

...

ah, isn't the internet wonderful:

http://www.tzworld.com/THEOBSOLETEMAN_EP.html

Date: 2006/03/22 11:01:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Put a six year old in front of a porno and they will react quite predictably


one does wonder how Doug knows this...

Date: 2006/03/22 12:02:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think most of the Faust discussion is needless once one remembers that the actual video tape was in the school library and had been for 20 years.


not when the circumstances prompt the question:

Is it still there?

Date: 2006/03/22 13:12:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
heck, if it weren't for CSI I'd have cancelled my cable by now because UD gives me all the entertainment I need.


actually, I'm not a big fan of sit-coms.  the novelty of watching the raving of lunatics wears off rapidly.

Date: 2006/03/22 16:40:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol.  It's like Slaveador has literally put a mental block on the Kitzmiller case in his head.

How many licks DOES it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop, there, Slaveador?

Quote
I welcome the Darwinists showing up in court under intense cross examination and trying to demonstrate theirs is a case of unalterable fact. The vise strategy will squeeze the truth out of them.


and when they do, AGAIN, and you lose AGAIN...  what then oh licker of other people's bottoms?

What Slaveador wants is not a court of law, but a court of inquisition, where he himself could torture the innocent to get them to "confess".

It seems like they tried poking us with soft cushions, it's time to move on to...

dum dum DUMMMM!

The Comfy Chair!!!!

Date: 2006/03/23 12:50:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
someone else regularly suggests slashdot style moderation.

that would work against all trolls, larry included.

probably too much work tho.

easier would be just to get the contributers to recognize larry (gees, it's not hard) and toss his stuff on the BW more regularly.

seriously, Larry is immediately recognizable no matter what name he posts under.

Date: 2006/03/24 23:18:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, i've noticed some extreme difficulty today accessing ATBC; it's acting kinda like it's under a DOS attack.

I wonder if Davey over at UD is up to something not kosher?

It would be just like him to pull a DOS attack to try and show us all how "smart" he is.

phht.

more likely it's just some database issue.

Date: 2006/03/31 15:50:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Ok, here's an interesting little diddy:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/31/content_4368130.htm

Quote
A new study on the therapeutic power of prayer from strangers has found that it does no miracle to the recovery of patients who have undergone cardiac bypass surgery, researchers reported Thursday in the American Heart Journal.  


from the source of this news bite, to the work itself; lot's to chew on I think.

Quote
Scientists have been trying for at least a decade to determine whether organized prayer at a distance can influence the outcome of medical studies. Some scientists hoped the results of the study would bring an end to the long controversy over therapeutic prayer.


does it?

anybody have access to the original cited article?

edit:

here's an abstract of the original article referred to by the Chinese media:

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract

and here is a "response" article from the same journal:


http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006484/fulltext

Date: 2006/03/31 16:34:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And what we've been presenting to thordaddy is evidence. As though it matters. Let us pray...


as i started in the other thread, apparently research indicates the value of prayer is overrated.

I think it would have similar efficacy whether used as an aid in healing, or as an aid to promote acceptance of rational thought.

Date: 2006/03/31 16:42:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Let's make it a little more interesting: Let's say just before you enter the building, you know for certain that if you go in, you will die, but that your orphaned kid will grow up to be a Crack-Dealing Gangsta who votes Republican, but if you live, he will win the Nobel prize in Medicine for curing AIDS


well, winning the nobel is all well and good, but will he vote democrat?

Date: 2006/04/01 01:57:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm, the news report from China refers to publication in

"American Heart Journal"

last Thursday.

I suppose a pub med search would find it.

I'm surprised nobody seems interested.

I guess ya all would rather argue with morons like Thordaddy.

oh well.

Stephen-

of particular interest is that if the Forbes article and the Chinese media are reporting on the same study, there is a huge difference in the emphasis and wording of the two news articles, eh?

compare the two styles!

amazing.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:24:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I can't say I would expect that praying for someone who is unaware (of the prayers) to help any.


Neither would I, nor would i think it mattered even if the patient was aware (not a double blind test*), but you might have a different rationale for reaching the same conclusion.  

so, if you don't mind my asking...

why not?

btw, i found nothing nonsensical about the methods used.

check the abstract and see for yourself.

As far as I can tell, this is the same result as the other 20 studies or so that have been funded to research this "issue" over the last 20 years.

but i guess as long as the Templeton foundation wants to fund 2.4 million dollar studies to "prove" the efficacy of prayer, and don't mind continual and repeated failures to do so, I don't see the problem with 20 more of the exact same studies.

it's their money, after all.

it kind of reminds me of the independent study sponsored by Walmart to "prove" they had a positive impact on local economies, that instead ended up showing quite the opposite.

anywho, if anybody has a better method for how to test the efficacy of prayer than what was presented in this paper, I'd love to hear it.

*in fact, when the patients DID know they were being prayed for there was actually a HIGHER (barely significant) trend towards complications after surgery:

Quote
...but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Date: 2006/04/01 02:40:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
so...

does this study empirically confirm your suspicions?

or not?

Date: 2006/04/01 03:09:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Do you mean. "Does this experiment prove to me that prayer (unknowingly done by others) does not help people to heal"?


...

what if it also showed that it doesn't help even if the person DOES know they are being prayed for?

hint:

read the abstract before you respond.

er...

hold that thought; i need to attend to a few things.

I'll be back in a few hours.

Date: 2006/04/01 11:20:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
henry;

i seldom check the bw any more.

why don't you post your items as new threads?

It certainly is more interesting that Thordaddy's drivel.

cheers

Date: 2006/04/01 11:33:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think the pencil experiment wins, hands down.


yeah, but could you get 2.4 million for your pencil study?

actually, rigorous studies of this type are extremely valuable to point to as tools showing that science does indeed, not simply run away from anything that smacks of the supernatural.

the issue is, nobody here is studying the cause, only the effect.

perfectly legit research.

as to interest levels, check out the first paragraph of the response article published in the same journal:

Quote
Systematic study of intangible “noetic1” or “frontier2” healing methods such as intercessory prayer, defined as “widely practiced therapeutics with no plausible mechanism,2” is an area of great public and scientific interest, as well as of great controversy.3,4. Although prayer is one of the most ancient of healing practices, the scientific literature studying prayer is still quite young. In this issue of the journal, Benson et al report the sixth and largest prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study of distant prayer scardiovascular patients1,5-8 in the STEP.


@Stephen:

funny enough, but i think the article you referenced in the Lancet is actually a compeletly different study regimen (MANCA instead of STEP).

interesting that they published at almost the exact same time.

Date: 2006/04/01 12:14:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Indeed.  That's likely the reason the STEP program was funded by the Templeton foundation.

no joke.

unfortunately for them, the 6 studies they have funded so far have all shown the same results, similar to those here.

maybe the seventh time is the charm...

Date: 2006/04/01 12:36:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm not sure i get your point here;

It seems to me that the Templeton foundation wants to fund STEP in order to produce positive evidence for the efficacy of prayer; they just haven't succeeded in doing so ;)

If you check out the review article i posted, you will see a desire on the part of the reviewers to see studies funded that would pursue the potential pyschological damage resulting from faith healing efforts.

In support of their desire is the odd result from the cited study that shows a slight but statistically significant increase in surgical complications when the study group knew it was being prayed for.

I find that to be quite unexpected, myself.

Being funded by the Templeton foundation, i can understand at least the potential reasons why the authors chose not to pursue the implications of those results at length.

Date: 2006/04/01 13:12:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Does anybody else giggle when they read comments like that?


LOL, glad you saw the same things i did.  oh yes, mucho giggles.

It seemed mandatory that they put some sort of this type of criticism of the methods used in there somewhere (it's basically the primary criticism made by certified ™ xians any time one of these studies is done; "oh, but you didn't include OUR kind of prayer..."), but do note their overall satisfaction with the STEP study detailed in the first couple of paragraphs.

also note what i pointed out above; their curiosity as to why the authors of the article did not pursue the implications of the results of the "C" group.

all that said, did you also read the abstract?

anything different you would have done to make the study more rigorous than it was?

i sure can't think of anything.

Date: 2006/04/01 13:43:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Oh, you mean:
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer


uh, yeah, that one... the one i already provided a link for earlier, along with a link to the review article in the same journal.

I moved the links to the first post to make them easier to find.


as to sandard, I guess you'd be surprised how non-standard many of these studies have been.

the STEP program has done a decent job of trying to utilize large numbers and double-blind groups.

Quote
nothing really clever here, not even informing one group that they would be prayed for


hmm, i don't think you read the methods closely enough.

this is the first study to compare the double blind group to the group that actually knew it was being prayed for... and found significant results opposite to what one might expect for that group.

Date: 2006/04/01 14:47:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm, if the religious sponsor a study that essentially disproves their claims, wouldn't that go much farther towards disillusioning folks than one sponsored by NSF or NIH, say?

That's one of the reasons i find this so fascinating, that Templeton(a rather religious foundation) would fund these studies over and over again, while obtaining essentially the same result every time.

that must be disillusioning to some, at least.

Date: 2006/04/01 14:58:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
russel said:

Quote
you know the true believers are not going to be influenced


well, i tested your postulation, and so far have found you to be absolutely correct.

every religious person I personally know was not swayed in any way by the results of this study, even tho they could find no flaw with it.

they all essentially said:  "you believe what you want to believe"

there is no hope when the vast majority prefer to base their actions and belief structures on ideas soundly rejected by evidence.

It's like arguing with folks that think the sky is green instead of blue.

I doubt Norman nor myself will ever find that "magic bullet", no matter how rigorous the study, or clear the results.

oh well.

Date: 2006/04/02 10:21:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It does not surprise me too much. But I would have thought the knowledge might help some people.


it doesn't?

your second paragraph implies that you thought foreknowledge of prayer intercession would have a positive influence on attitude.

so I'm surprised this doesn't surprise you.

Moreover, the results show significant (tho slight) increases in complications after surgery in this group, as opposed to the double blind group.

THAT is very surprising, at least to me.

Date: 2006/04/02 17:21:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
go right on ahead, flint.

however, it doesn't make any difference what their religious beliefs are, so long as the methods are rigorous and repeatable.

in fact, the only critique of the methods used i can find is that perhaps they were too rigorous.  Perhaps too narrow in their choice of groups to act as prayer intercessionaries.

However, you have to be very rigorous in this area in order to have the experiment be repeatable.

so, with that in mind, did you bother to actually read the abstract, even?

results were statistically insignificant for the group that did not know they were being prayed for, and showed a significant increase in complications in the group that did, when measured against the control.

the study was funded by a religious foundation, so wouldn't you think any bias would have found exactly the opposite results?

the dataset is large, the experiment repeatable, and the methods essentially sound.

how would you go about testing it any differently?

Date: 2006/04/03 00:33:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, i see it all the time.

good science can still be done with "bad" funding.

unless your funding organization entirely depends on private donations (don't we know an organization like that...;) ), then your credibility weighs in on how much funding you get, even as a foundation (foundations often rely on grants from other foundations).

Credibility in funding organizations is often influenced by the value articles published by scientists they fund have to the scientific community in general; that is, one, is it good science, and two, is it interesting.

so, yeah, even the Templeton foundation wants to encourage the folks they fund to do rigorous science; it helps them get more funding, and avoid critcism.

Not to say that there aren't foundations that don't give a sh*t about anything but their private agendas, but typically those don't last long unless, as i said, they have a continuous source of private funding coming from somewhere (oohhh, like Howie Ahmanson, say).

One could say that money is the great equalizer; it's required by both the religious and non-religious alike, and if you are a foundation funding research, your credibility is everything.

Quote
If the 7ish% difference is really down to negative effects of prayer it would need to be repeated with the same results to sway me.


interestingly, a friend related a story to me today about a time when his mother was in the hospital for surgery.  Seems one of her friends (who was very religious) called her pastor and asked him to go to the hospital and pray for her friend (my friends mother).  Well, seems my friends mother is not only not-relgious, she abhors it (one wonders why her friend did not know this?).  So, when the pastor came to her, she told him in no uncertain terms he was not needed.  However, he refused to leave, saying that it would be better if he stayed and prayed for her.  Turns out this upset my friends mother so much they had to cancel the surgery and postpone it to a later day.

moral of the story is, it seems possible that the 7% increase in complications could be explained by objection to being prayed for, and the resultant stress.  It's even possible that participants did not wish to express outward negativity towards being prayed for, for a variety of reasons.

I'd like to see the full discussion in the paper, but the review article suggests the authors did not address this implication.  

Now THAT'S where a legitimate bias could have come in.  the design is rigorous enough, but one could easily leave out potentially controversial (even if obvious) implications in the discussion section without getting too dinged for it.

Date: 2006/04/03 10:08:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Coppenger says. "But I don't see him cooperating in a test."


hilarious!  just yesterday i bet a friend of mine that someone would say this very thing about this study.

One wonders what all the religious supporters of ID think of logic like this...

because if they agree, then I could of course make the same argument; ID will never be testable because the "intelligent designer" will never cooperate.

phht.

Date: 2006/04/03 10:12:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I spent some time hanging out with scripps students and profs when i was deciding which grad school to attend.  

just curious; when were you there, Russel?

Date: 2006/04/03 15:46:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
timewave, singularity, Mayan-calendar-end-of-the-world-in-2012 business?


of course!  duh!

*snicker*

as lenny would say...

Waterloo!!!!

Date: 2006/04/04 09:46:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
just start it and see what happens, Kevin.

If they let thordaddy post threads, and not get banned, certainly nothing you could do would warrant punishment.

cheers

Date: 2006/04/04 10:08:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
They’re comrades…darwinite cultists.


...and the hits just keep on comin'

The continuing degradation into never ending inanity of ID supporters after the Dover decision really does support my contention that most of these folks are in fact suffering from a pyschological schism, brought on by the continual pressure on their egos from everyday reality.

expect the forms of denial and projection to become ever more bizarre as that pressure continues to mount.

It's absolutely imperative we make every effort to keep these folks from hurting themselves or others as their dementia reaches the state where they think the only defense is to kill everyone else.

To all those on UD:

seek treatment immediately!

Date: 2006/04/04 16:11:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
new talk


uh, you're a bit behind the times there, eight ball.

and no, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, unless you want to explore the exception proves the rule angle.

wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot?

forget i said anything.

Date: 2006/04/04 16:17:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Wes won't delete the first one, but if larry posts the same drivel a second time, they both will be deleted then.

what's on the line here?  just bragging rights?

Date: 2006/04/05 00:20:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'm thinking Wes may let it be if no-one really responds.


ahhh, but aren't you biasing the settings for the wager if you actually reply to Larry?

meh, besides which someone already did, a noob, no less, and immediately saw the inanity of larry's poots:

Quote
(Zombie Jesus help his state’s bar association if he’s an attorney.)


so, i proceeded to inform our noob of larry's status as an escaped mental patient.

Date: 2006/04/05 09:07:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And the answer is: 10:12 am eastern.


but, it was after he posted twice, yes?

so, er, who won?

Date: 2006/04/05 09:12:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
while the onion considers that quite rightly satirical content, it is also technically accurate.

go check some of the more extreme xian fundie forums (like the christianexodus site) and you will see that many fundies are very dissapointed that Bush hasn't done more for their agenda, and do in fact think he is straying too far from "God".

Date: 2006/04/05 09:21:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
coincidence that that Onion article appears right now while we are discussing this very issue?

I think not!

*shhhh!*

(they're watching us)

:p

Date: 2006/04/05 11:06:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ouch, yes, that was a bit before my time;

I was hanging about there from time to time around '83/84, '87/88, and a wee bit around '90.

I was greatly dissapointed at the time in the emphasis shift from organismal to molecular biology that was happening there (one of the reasons i decided against it for grad school), but I can see the advantages now (still don't like it :p ).

I wish I had been a marine biologist in the 70's, when there was still plenty of money floating around for organismal marine biologists.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/04/05 13:53:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
So why can't evolution derive a probability distribution of this "fitness influence"?


Actually, you stumbled on a very interesting current area of reseach.  short answer: they have done this, in the lab.

Wes posted some articles relating to this a month or so ago.

scroll back and check them out, or ask Wes.

as to what can be done in the field; selective pressures are extremely variable in most instances, and #### near impossible to account for every current and potential pressure on a specific trait, let alone traits that might be linked, without some serious controls in place.

It makes it very difficult to calculate exact probabilites like you want, but there are folks out there trying to do that very thing.

why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out.

oh wait, that's right.  Based on your past posts about the inadequacies of cladistics, I'd say your reading comprehension is not sufficient to the task.

oh well, you could always try anyway.  ####, you might learn something.

Date: 2006/04/05 14:59:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Even Mr. Brazeau conceded that several of his earlier criticisms of Arnason et al. were refuted in the literature,


but not any of the ones raised by you, nor were any of the objections raised by you logical or relevant.

face it, everyone here agrees you were completely shredded there, except you of course.

that says a lot about your ability to reason.

Quote
And what predictions have they made? Take your time - it's an important question.


As usual, I'm not gonna do your work for you.  You're simply not worth more than a sidenote to any lurkers that the issue is worth investigating.

Quote
why don't you spend some time at your local university library and check it out.

Date: 2006/04/06 10:47:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I get so
irritated with this inefficiency and waisting of time!  There is a reason
why this country won’t develop anytime soon, there’s no concept of
efficiency and the existence of time.


LOL.  does your friend do much traveling?

Pretty much de rigeur for most out of the way places I've visited.

The travails detailed in the second letter serve as a good reminder that the problems we talk about here are as nothing compared to most of the rest of the world.

Date: 2006/04/06 11:18:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I hate to say it, but it looks to me like it's time for her to take a break.

I trust she realizes that she isn't invulnerable, and that she isn't going to change an entire culture without some serious support, right?

Based on her second letter, it sounds like she actually made progress in getting the folks in that village to at least give some thought to the beating issue.  I'd call that at least a minor victory and be willing to retreat and come back later.

I would have hated to be in Rwanda during the mass genocides.  Would have been an extremely hard thing to watch and not try to do something about.

Date: 2006/04/06 11:33:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Can anyone point me to any statement that Pianka made that comes any closer to advocating killer pandemics than what I just said? If not, either Dembski has hit a new low, or I should be reported  to the DHS as well.


as expected, there were no statements in the transcript that have Pianka advocating the use of a virus to wipe out humanity.  It was just like we (I include those who actually have rational thought processes) thought.  he simply identified a potential agent of population reduction, based on current and predicted levels of population growth and interaction.

nothing new, nothing novel, nothing even too controversial.

leave it to the IDiots to make irrational assumptions and deliberate falsifications.

again, nothing new, nothing novel.

as a side note, did anybody catch the story about the deputy press secretary of DHS being arrested and indicted for child pornography and soliticing sex from a minor?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....58.html

where DO they find these folks?

 Not just my question mind you, but now the subject of a Federal Investigation.

Date: 2006/04/06 11:38:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...gruesomely slaughtered (and perhaps tortured),


...by putting their heads in a vise, perhaps?

(If I take who you're implying correctly)

Date: 2006/04/06 12:14:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, sorry, what i was referring to is already on record.

go take a look at Dembski's "vice strategy", complete with pictures of a little toy darwin with his head being crushed in a vice.  He put it on UD last year, and not only was the article a treatise on their wish to torture their enemies, but several commenters, including slaveador, have since promulgated their desire to put "darwinists" under a kind of spanish-inquisition (his view of a "correct" court of law) in order to "force the truth" out of them.

these folks ARE scary, and often demonstrate such publically (think Robertson as well).

Perhaps you were in fact referring to someone else?

Date: 2006/04/06 14:07:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
think John Lovitz during his saturday night live days:

"Acting!"

Date: 2006/04/06 14:26:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Drew -that's one of sal's tamer quotes on the subject.

don't be surprised if a lot of the original discussion has been "sanitized" since.

you might even be better off checking the archives on PT for the discussion of the vise strategy.

Date: 2006/04/06 15:04:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
this is more like the swine casting the "pearls".

except in this case, although round they aren't quite the same color...

Date: 2006/04/06 19:33:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that doesn't surprise me a bit that you would be peeved at those folks, Wes.  I agree that a strongly worded letter is in order.  It must have been with severe restraint that you didn't ask us to write one here, so I will:

go check out the link Wes posted, and write a strongly worded letter to the misbehaving agency.  We have enough problems with endangered and migratory species without the wrong regulatory agency getting involved.


that said, on a more frivolous note...

so Church-burning Ebola Boys, eh?

hmm.

is there any way to reword that so it's a better acronym?  

gotta have a good acronym.

oh, and can somebody loan me a lighter?  I don't smoke so it's hard for me to get access to church burning tools.

Date: 2006/04/06 19:49:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Davey boy said:

Quote
The best defense is a good offense. Change the subject and go after Mims makes perfect strategic sense from the standpoint of the Church Burning Ebola Boys (or girls in this case).


let's play the projection game, shall we?

change the wording so it more accurately reflects the NON projected reality and you get:

The best defense is a good offense. Change the subject and go after Mims Pianka makes perfect strategic sense from the standpoint of the Church Burning Ebola Boys IDiots.

and what subject would they be trying to get their followers' minds off?

pick one:

Dover
Ohio
Tiktaalik
the resignation of Delay
?

so many to choose from.

however, and as usual, their attempts at diversion have backfired on them.

It's about the only real humor i get from all of the shenanigans they try to pull; they just aren't smart enough to plan ahead and see where their idiocy will take them.

kinda like Iraq.

Date: 2006/04/06 19:57:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2006,00:44)
church-burning ebola boys would make a good acronym.

CBEB's. Which works, as an unintentionally similar acronym to CBGB's.

As far as lighters, part of my job involves scientific glassblowing, so what do you need? custom-built torches? Can do.

hmm, I was thinking of an acronym that actually spelled something appropriate.

we have time, we should get this right.

custom built torches??!!

*drool*

acetylene, propane, or butane?  

I'd like a high-pressure acetylene torch with a dead-man switch.  Preferably with a quick release trigger.

no wait, that's my ideal "burning man" rig.

hmm, burning churches is different.  I'd guess low heat, high volume type of thing; probably propane, but I'm new to this church burning thing.  what would you recommend?

:0

Date: 2006/04/07 11:09:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
The Daily Show did a story on this study last night.

funny stuff.

GW:

"I am sustained... by the fact that millions of Americans pray for me."

JS:

"So THAT'S what went wrong!"

Date: 2006/04/07 12:53:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Does Dembski qualify as a math weenie?  or does he not even reach that level?

Date: 2006/04/07 13:10:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Edit: On closer inspection this may be a joke, the class listed is called ID 101.


perhaps; but you can see WD40's class schedule and syllabi here:

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

and yeah, you might think that too is a joke.  

Unfortunately, it ain't.

Date: 2006/04/07 17:46:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
could this be our first mission, CBEB?

Quote
Dino Adventure Land Could Face Extinction
Nick Matzke posted Entry 2190 on April 7, 2006 09:04 PM.
Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2185

Boy, this is not turning out to be a good week for the creationists. Now the famous museum of Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino, has been closed. Read “Park could face extinction” in the Pensacola News:

It may have been built with heavenly intentions, but a judge has ruled that the creationism theme park known as Dinosaur Adventure Land still must obey earthly laws. […]

Owners of the park, which shows how dinosaurs may have roamed the Earth just a few thousand years ago, did not obtain a building permit before constructing the building in 2002. They have argued in and out of court that it violates their “deeply held” religious beliefs, and that the church-run facility does not have to obtain permits.

After almost four years of litigation, the judge disagreed and said the county has the authority to close the building until the owners comply with regulations.

The judge also fined two church leaders $500 each per day for every day the building is used or occupied. If church officials continue to refuse to comply with local ordinances, the judge may decide that the building can be razed, Allen’s ruling said.


now that's a church worth torching!

Date: 2006/04/07 18:46:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Could it be we have stumbled on the ancestral home of the FSM?  or pasta forbid - the FSM itself?

http://www.physorg.com/news63632824.html

of course, the non-believers have named the patterns after the lowly spider, but we know better.

Date: 2006/04/07 18:52:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*smacks head*

doh!

yeah that's right, it's uh, a spider, yeah that's the ticket, just a spider.

nothing to see here, move along...

Date: 2006/04/07 19:01:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Sir, your thought processes are medieval.


Indeed they are; appropriate for the circumstances.

I just found it a bit too coincidental that a judge talks about razing the Dr. Dino church.

wonder why he used the term "razed"?

gotta be a code word.

he is in our pocket, yes?  I mean, he is an "activist" judge, right?

:p

Date: 2006/04/08 07:21:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I am beginning to suspect that the reason Dembski put DS in charge of UD is for the exact reasons we like him so much.

His antics are just so goddamn funny.

It's amazing how he can make almost one serious error in logic or position each and every day, deny it vigorously, and then simply move on.

it DOES stimulate the "morbid fascination" centers of one's brain.

Dave is in danger of burning mine out completely tho.

Date: 2006/04/08 09:03:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I've been working on a theory for a while now that Dembski himself isn't and never really was an ID supporter.

Posts like this support this contention.

I think he just wanted to use ID to prove a point and make some money while doing so, and so far he has succeeded at it quite well.

He has posted subtle hints like this many times that suggest he is leaving himself a "backdoor" to try to salvage his reputation at some point, by claiming it was all just 'street theatre'  (again, think John Lovitz 'ACTING!';).

OTOH, there's the time he spends teaching classes on "logic" at the seminary.

If he really is just duping folks, he's done way too much damage already to ever salvage his reputation.

Date: 2006/04/08 10:08:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
In WD40's latest missive on the Templeton foundation, he apparently is more concerned with the ambivalence of the xian community than the foundation itself.

However, of note is this in the last paragraph:

Quote
The physicist F. Russell Stannard, a member of the Templeton Foundation Board of Trustees, contended that prayers can heal the sick — not through the placebo effect, which is an established fact, but through the intercession of God. In fact the foundation has supported studies of the effectiveness of so-called intercessory prayer, which have been inconclusive. . . .


note that he left the invitiation (....) at the end of that sentence.

Remember the post on prayer efficacy i made last week?

On the study funded by the very Templeton foundation he is referring to here, and the very study implied by his last sentence?

inconclusive?

hmm.

EDIT:  hey! this suggests that the TF will fund a 7th study into the very same issue!  another 2.5 mill for some lucky bastards.

I think he is testing his audience to see if they ever actually keep up with this stuff.  

Again, this supports my contention that WD doesn't believe any of the ID crap himself.  Why else would he leave an open invitation to his sycophants to examine the clearest evidence yet that not only is prayer ineffective, but perhaps even damaging!

He's setting his own folks up.

Date: 2006/04/08 10:33:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, in saying so aloud, you've tipped your hand.

too late.

go ahead and say it:

Red Reader is dumber than DaveTard.

there.

now don't you feel better?

it's bad to bottle your conflicts inside.

leads to the kind of projections and denials as psychological defense mechanisms that we see so commonly on UD.

Date: 2006/04/08 12:25:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Could somebody explain to me what you guys get out of arguing "issues" with the mentally retarded?

It's amazing how long these ridiculous threads go.

Date: 2006/04/08 15:52:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
McEevo’s


??

that's a new one on me.

is that supposed to mean evolutionary biologists are the 'fast food' of science?

perfect projection on the part of a creationist, if so.

Date: 2006/04/08 15:59:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
AAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Aw, shlt, now I have to change again.


aww, quit whinin' ya #### elitist McEevo!

go count all that money you've made being an elitist scientist.

:p

Date: 2006/04/08 16:11:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I wonder if they dream about us being inflicted with Ebola, or do they dream us with 'Ebola basket' in hand, spreading it about like some Johnny friggin' Appleseed?

both?

Quote
I think stupidity is America's only truly limitless natural resource.


now if only we could figure out a way to harness that, we could kill two birds with one stone:

We could help end oil dependence and

the creos could finally contribute something to society other than incessant irrational whining.

Date: 2006/04/08 20:39:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
you mean aside from the fact that the kinds of folks with detailed knowledge even in the subjects listed er, haven't exactly "jumped" at the opportunity to ride along on the ID bandwagon?

What ARE these folks smoking?

I thought they stopped spraying paraquat on dope in the 70's.

Date: 2006/04/09 12:03:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
does he even need to?

Quote
...we have to refrain from judgement regarding Dr. Pianka’s TAS speech.


LOL.

yeah, right.  that'll be the day.

Date: 2006/04/09 13:26:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey that 1 out of 100 just might miraculously be right.

not surprising behavior for those that believe in miracles to begin with.

Date: 2006/04/09 13:32:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Read it here


why?

nothing new has been stated, and the bit you posted is factually incorrect.

why is it worth the bother?

Date: 2006/04/09 15:04:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...be irresponsible if they did not investigate what was meant by “we’ve got”


"What we've got here, is failure ta communicate!"

put 'em in the box!

Date: 2006/04/09 18:17:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
again i ask, what do you folks get out of arguing with the mentally retarded?

just whittling knives?

what?

Date: 2006/04/09 20:45:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
actual;y, I found his list of comparisons between Jesus and DeLay to be amusing, if not completely original.

I particularly liked this one:

Quote
Jesus rolled back the rock; DeLay crawled out from under one.


yup.

DeLay opitmizes all of the modern "right" that vexes me so.  

The problem is, once one of these idiots self implodes, like DeLay now has, they just get replaced with another of similar "quality".

*sigh*

think about it:

has there been a leader of the republican house or senate that hasn't stepped down due to some scandal of their own making in the last 15 years?

moral majority?  well, i guess so, considering they seem so ubiquitous.

Date: 2006/04/10 08:33:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I don't want to derail another thread over there, so I thought I'd revive this one


well, it IS almost Easter.

Date: 2006/04/10 10:14:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
which brings up an interesting point;

what if we could change our gender at will?

some fish species change sex over time, some are protogynous (many wrasses, for example) and some protandrous (some groupers).

how would one classify their sexual behavior, then?

if one month a wrasse mates with a female, and the next a male, is that at any point homosexual?

what about garden snails?  they're hermaphrodites.  Are they always homosexual whenever they have sex then (heh, i guess that would be more bisexual, come to think of it)?

oh, wait it's all about the reproduction aspect, right?  

if you can reproduce with the act of having sex, it's not "gay" right?

bah!

all this crap boils down to one thing:

those that don't LIKE homosexual behavior will simply invent excuses to discriminate, just like those who invent excuses to discriminate against race.

same mental issue, same pathology, same arguments, same results.

Date: 2006/04/10 11:17:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sometimes i get the sense he's just a moron.

actually, more than sometimes.

sometimes i think we need more interesting topics to discuss.

sometimes i think it's a complete waste of time to argue with a rock.

sometimes i think it would be best to just ignore the ramblings of lunatics.

sometimes.

Date: 2006/04/10 11:36:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Amusingly, Davetard just put up blog stats to show how successful they are and how fast they're growing


with the referrals issue in mind, has someone tried matching up traffic on PT to traffic on UD?

or even noting whether a significant rise in visits corresponds to the formation of this very thread?

Steve's most likely correct in thinking that a large portion of the increase in visitations is due to PT itself, and regulars and visitors going over there to troll material to laugh at.

Date: 2006/04/10 13:52:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...homosexuals commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals...


..or that discrimination is responsible for higher suicide rates...

Date: 2006/04/10 14:50:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
talk about basing your conclusions on no data!

LOL.

besides, what's the problem with pictures of objects and people?

*snark*

hey paley, I'm laughing at you.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:09:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I agree that promiscuity has both medical and emotional side-effects, none of them desirable.



that is ENTIRELY dependent on the specific society you wish to use in your analysis.

there are many societies that have/had regarded polygamy as the norm, and have no problems with that.  Others that use promiscuity like the bonobos do, as a social binding force.

it's this specific society that has problems with the types of behaviors being discussed.

Paley, and now Flint(?) appear to be ethnocentralizing their thinking here.

why not investigate how other societies that are different from that in the US deal with these issues?

As we all struggle to figure out what works best for american society, we shouldn't ignore how others have dealt with similar things, even if the circumstances and environment are different.

perhaps sociology as a science isn't as worthless as some would contend.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:19:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yes, this was mentioned on PT as well.

did you check out the recommended reading list?

Any reason we shouldn't write to the instructor for clarification?

Date: 2006/04/10 15:26:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, yeah, sorry.

doesn't he have some amphibious fish work to do too?

busy, busy boy.

Quote
poll which found that christians were more likely to support torture than secular people.


I'm sure Salvador was a datapoint in that poll.  speaking of which, I missed that one.  got a link?

Date: 2006/04/10 15:30:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL.  amazing.

I think you maybe need to use smaller words for him, or something?

maybe if you pointed out the inherent contradiction in his non-answer?

how bout this:

TD:

IF there is a gay gene, would that refute ID?

maybe it's the emphasis that's missing?

I can't think of any simpler words to use, actually.

but i have a question for you:

Do you really expect an answer worth the time you spent asking him?

Date: 2006/04/10 15:39:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Putting the issue of truth aside, many people need religion.


do you?

why?

oh, sorry, there i go distracting you from all the other important theses you are supposed to be developing.

my apologies seven.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:52:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
was that supposed to be a joke or something?

not even worth a hyena laugh.

oh, and btw, I'm a church-burnin' Ebola boy.  not a hippie.  get with the times.

I think OA stated my position on this issue better than i could have.

I can't think of anything else worthwhile to add.

cheers

Date: 2006/04/10 16:01:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I can think of no better way of entertaining myself


I understand; forget i asked.

er, carry on.

a bit of parting advice:

"Don't play games with pickups that have shotgun racks."

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda taught me that.

Date: 2006/04/10 16:13:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
will it conveniently hide a blowtorch?

I like the knife and fork motif on the flesh eating bacteria.

Date: 2006/04/10 16:33:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
This is somewhat outside my knowledge. Can you provide a few links?


cool.

hmm, it's been 20 years since i studied anthropology and sociology, but it's worth a shot.  I think i still have many of the texts even.  I remember generally that there were African and South American societies that fit what I was describing, but I have to lookup the specifics that described the relevant environmental circumstances.

Also, i recall a more recent documentary that covered how different societies deal with homosexualtiy and transgender issues.  IIRC, that was on Nat Geo not too long ago.  that shouldn't be too hard to dig up.

I'll post the links in a new thread Wednesday or Thursday, as I have a bit of work to do tommorrow.

acceptable?

and no, i won't pull a ghost on you and forget :p

cheers

Date: 2006/04/10 17:03:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I wonder what UD will think of this?

Date: 2006/04/10 17:29:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It's very bizarre.


it is, unless you consider they share a common psychological malady.

then it makes perfect sense.

ever talk with a true schizophrenic, or even seen a recorded conversation with one?

the parallels are simply too much to be a coincidence.

I'm not saying that all religious/utlra right wing zealots are schizophrenic, but there are commonalities, and similar defense mechanisms.

hmm, I'll bet a video of such a conversation exists somewhere on the net, or at least the text of such conversations.  If anybody locates one, post it here so you can see what I'm talking about; if i run into one, I'll do the same.

Date: 2006/04/10 18:09:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
should we write to Cornell and call for a boycott?

Date: 2006/04/10 18:34:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
send me a PM.

Date: 2006/04/10 19:14:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ditto.  check your inbox.

Date: 2006/04/10 19:50:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
from Telic thoughts

Quote
thebluesite Says:
April 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm  

~expletive deleted~


shhh!

Date: 2006/04/11 08:46:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, having done two tours in 'Nam would make you an expert on what is violent, that's for sure!

I'd agree with you, for the time it seemed awfully brutal.

but of course i was only 9 when it came out (my brother snuck me in to see it - shhh!;), so...

IIRC, that was the first time i ever saw a naked woman on the big screen.

actually, I've of course seen it many times since, and yes, there are some scenes that still disturb me.

which means it's a good movie.

Date: 2006/04/11 10:44:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Sound a little familiar?


yes, that's why i bring it up.  It should sound familiar to anybody who has spent time arguing with enough creationists.

thanks for posting that bit.

Date: 2006/04/11 10:48:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I answered your question with an unequivocal NO and you still claim I haven't answered your question.

Will a "gay gene" refute ID, you ask?

No, I say!  Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.


Holy dense as a black hole, Batman!

Didn't someone in another thread point out a major sociological distinction that TD fits to a "T"?

He is apparently completely mentally incapable of understanding conditional statements.

or any kind of logic, in general.

Date: 2006/04/11 11:00:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
wow, OK, i can see where this game can be fun.

requires little effort to demonstrate a general sociological idiom.

do you think that pickup he drives will ever run out of gas, Seven?

Date: 2006/04/11 11:17:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
go away troll.

yay! finally someone who gets it.

Date: 2006/04/11 13:59:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
gees, eric, stop already, would ya?

i beginning to wonder exactly who has the obsessive-compulsive disorder;

the troll, or the respondents?

Date: 2006/04/11 14:05:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
uh, aren't you guys forgetting something...

THIS IS antievolution.org

or did you forget the big freakin banner at the top of the site?

this is NOT PT.

so, combining this site with the PT contribution gives what % of the traffic on UD?

anybody?

.55%

yup.  Davetard has just admitted that about half of his top external referral traffic comes from here and PT.

what's that tell you, Dave?

one thing i can say:  Dave, you've done wonders for increasing the traffic to UD all on your own.

congratulations.

*snort*

of course, looking at the referral numbers, we see that the top refferals don't really account for much of the overall traffic on UD (about 2% it looks like).

which only says that either UD's log system does a poor job of tracking referrals, or that the vast majority of the traffic comes from random IP addresses.

Date: 2006/04/11 14:19:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
arden:

http://www.fing.it/

Date: 2006/04/11 14:29:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
technically, i think that's the eighth time you have repeated the question using the same phrasing.

did i miss one?

Date: 2006/04/11 15:08:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and to think that Cornell is the home of Stephen T. Emlen.

my oh my.

harumph i say!  

harumph!

Date: 2006/04/11 15:20:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Check out the Sal post on this over on UD.

it will be interesting to see if DT can convince his flock of his "fox in the henhouse" hypothesis.

Will DT present evidence to support his hypothesis, or will he simply browbeat his crew into submission with threats of banishment?

tune in tommorrow and see, on...

"As the 'Tard Turns"

Date: 2006/04/11 15:59:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Look at the typical gay parade


spend much time watching gay pride parades, do you?

I thought you had important issues to address, like your theory of life, the universe, and everything, as well as telling us what the recent amphibious fish find "isn't"?

how is it that you have time to attend all these gay pride parades?

hmm.

oh, and I'm still laughing at you.

Date: 2006/04/11 16:03:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Davetard pokes who now?

Date: 2006/04/11 16:36:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Gees, Russel!

talk about pearls before swine.

Your asking someone who can't comprehend conditional logic to actually read and cogently comment on an actual published scientific article?

blood from a stone, man.

Date: 2006/04/11 17:10:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
don't tell me we hooked the wrong fish?

Good luck with your course.

Date: 2006/04/11 17:26:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the latest quote from Salvador -if only we could submit darwinists to the inquisition - Cordova:

Quote
Dang, if only we IDists could have a chance to teach it at a secular university the right way, things would really sizzle.


LOL

he still doesn't get it.

Date: 2006/04/11 17:31:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
in light of, well, current evidence - I thought other, more sentient, folks might appreciate those references, too.


so start a new thread where we can discuss the specifics of these papers, epigenetics, and the future of sociobiology.

wouldn't that be more interesting than what Mr. Black Hole has to say?

how many times can you pass a pickup with a ferrari and still have fun with it?

(er, don't answer that, Seven ;) )

Date: 2006/04/11 17:39:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, wasn't that part of the plot of the Seventh Sign?

Date: 2006/04/11 18:16:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL

Date: 2006/04/11 19:27:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
from Sal's thread, doug says:

Quote
In college, we’re asking for critical thinking which is where the relatively new ID sciences can shine.


LOL.  D*mn, these folks ARE funny!

it's like saying,

"d*mn, if only we could get those guys with the nukes and tanks to fight us!  Boy our sticks and stones would show them, by golly!"

Date: 2006/04/11 19:35:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
He acts like a living animal, then he meets up with his ovum friend, and then she kills him.


don't tell me; let me guess...

you're married, right?

Date: 2006/04/11 19:39:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
homosexuals need more friends like thordaddy.


I suspected as much.

sure your name isn't "sugardaddy"?

Date: 2006/04/11 19:52:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I assume someone will now raise the issue of human clones?

Date: 2006/04/11 19:57:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I feel sorry for the liberal indoctrination you have endured because it will take many long years and much ridicule to free yourself from this ideological stance.


man, sure am glad i wasn't drinking a glass of milk when i read that.

much ridicule??

do tell, sugardaddy!

serve it up!

Date: 2006/04/11 20:05:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I wonder what sugardaddy thought of Rocky Horror?

Date: 2006/04/11 20:33:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sexist pig brits, always talking about wasting sperm, but do they ever talk about wasting ova?

huh? hmmmm?

Date: 2006/04/11 20:37:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
stunning commentary there, sugardaddy, simply stunning.

Date: 2006/04/11 21:01:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
so... we need to have the almightly remind us not to waste sperm, but the bucks do just fine for ova, eh?

got it.

Date: 2006/04/12 07:52:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
How about we skip to the end of this thread.


second.

Date: 2006/04/12 08:00:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
daamn, that was beautiful, Russel.

almost perfect analagous reasoning!

OTOH, if IDiots could understand analogies, I guess we wouldn't be here.

Date: 2006/04/12 08:05:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Sir T, -10? I need a metric that is more consistent.


ixnay!

PM's should be used to discuss these important issues, or we should set up a private chat room somewhere.

Date: 2006/04/12 08:10:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Why not let the evidence speak for itself?


I thought we were supposed to learn from your shining example?

Quote
And an ounce of clear thinking is worth a pound of cure.


LOL.  two great statements in the same post!

physician, heal thyself.

I'm still laughing at you.

Date: 2006/04/12 08:25:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
see?  now you know why i maintain such a ridiculous name.

'cause it makes IDiots want to use it for themselves.

er, wait...

let me get back to you.

Date: 2006/04/12 11:04:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'd completely forgotten about that SP episode.

Any chance you could dig up a transcript of that one?

Date: 2006/05/03 13:41:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
here's a fun little article that touches on the human/nature engineering aspect:

http://www.physorg.com/news65887053.html

Quote
"The bat keeps the compass direction to the target a constant, but it changes its flight direction at the same time," says Ghose. "So, when the bat chases an insect, if the insect is initially located to the northwest, the bat maneuvers to always keep the target to the northwest while closing distance.

"This strategy is called parallel navigation after the parallel nature of the bearing lines. Interestingly, in the late 1940s engineers working on the problem of how to program guided missiles to hit their targets implemented a similar strategy."



something crunchy to chew on...

Date: 2006/05/04 10:17:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dave, you must learn that authority is no substitute for learning the issues involved yourself.

why don't you pick up a basic biology textbook sometime and learn these things for yourself?

You could have learned how transcription actually works, for example, or how cells divide, or how chromosomes are constructed, rather than relying on "authorities" to tell you how it is.

Of course, I suppose you should only bother if the issues you raise are actually important to you.

If they aren't, then why do you keep coming here?

It's not anybody's job here to continually educate you about basic biology.

and you really aren't even that amusing.

Date: 2006/05/04 13:08:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
GoP answers Seven Pope's heritability of "gay" question...

fricking hilarious!

Seven-

How many times do you think you will pass him in his truck before he figures it out?

Date: 2006/05/04 15:28:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
GoP:

"Er, what I meant to say yer Majesty was, uh, was ummm.."

yes, yes?

"oh phhhbbbbbttt!"

He won't even admit he got caught on a rather simplistic joke.

when will these folks stop taking themselves so seriously?

I swear.

and the rest of you.  do you really find letting these idiots set the agenda for discussion at ATBC to be amusing after all this time?  That's what they are doing, in case you hadn't noticed.

As such, their troll-goal ™ has been achieved in more than full.  the terrorists have won; the towers are down.

aren't you bored out of your skulls yet?

I thought the unending UD thread to be more than sufficient as sustenance for laughing at clowns.

at some point, don't you just start to feel sorry for them?  what fun is that?

Date: 2006/05/04 15:56:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
did i just hear you say you want to be spanked?

that would explain a lot.

Date: 2006/05/04 17:00:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Opus Dei would tell you that self-flagellation is the Xian thing to do, Gawp.

Date: 2006/05/04 18:38:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
TDiddy says:

I don't think they will say anything.  What's a bastard child these days anyway?  Traditional marriage is a discriminatory and intolerant institution.  You should be applauding my "liberalism" and instead you intend to stab me in the back.  This is "liberalism" at its finest.  No principles and no conviction.


I suppose you think you meant that as a joke, but I don't see liberalism.  I see someone who is angry they have to pay child support, and/or angry that their wife dumped them, so now they claim marriage to be discriminatory and intolerant, and wants everybody else to feel his internalized hatred, including gays, and anybody else he feels he can marginalize.

Quote
Better make that a severely retarded anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive one.


don't go overboard.  he's just full of projection and denial, natural defense mechanisms, but amped up to "11" in his case.

He should still seek treatment.

Date: 2006/05/04 18:48:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
says the pot to the er... actually no, it's just the pot talking.

Date: 2006/05/05 22:47:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
So med school and residency are gruelling tortures that act as a seive, letting only the hardiest and most dedicated through.


i got news for ya.

in any grad school that's worth it's salt, getting a PhD is a gruelling torture that acts as a sieve.

med students may get crap hours for their residency phase, but they don't put any more hours in in a week than a ecology PhD studying for their dissertation defense.

Date: 2006/05/06 15:04:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
justify your ignorance


bingo.

that's the only reason dave and tdiddy are here.

they want us to justify their ignorance for them, so they can feel better about themselves.

they don't want us to tear down their irrational defenses, they want us to reinforce them.

Now, only the truly desperate will stick it out here week after week, when again and again they are given nothing to prop their defenses up with.

Rather than answering their moronic questions, you all should be directing them to seek treatment from a mental health care professional.

Date: 2006/05/07 22:20:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
She's also a single 34-year-old...


uh huh.

Date: 2006/05/08 17:07:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I’m really curious to hear your answers.


you are?  really?

I'm of the opinion that "AF" dave was booted on a section 8.

I'm also beginning to think that most here apparently have a morbid fascination for the mentally handicapped.

Date: 2006/05/09 11:06:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Oh, you don't want to know what the guinea pigs did...


being the omniscient being, it was pre-emptive punishment for guinea pigs far in the future allowing themselves to be abused in a certain way by Richard Gere.

If you don't know what I'm speaking of, you don't want to, as the author of the quote correctly implies.

Date: 2006/05/09 11:12:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
chris, rather than bother responding to each piece of dave's ramblings, there is a single word that correctly summarizes ALL of Dave's drivel:

PROJECTION.

in spades.

Date: 2006/05/11 17:48:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
That's some kind of recursive irony.


better known as projection.

I tells ya, all dem IDiots exhibit projection in spades.

it IS a common character trait; one could almost say a defining trait.

It's what leads me to believe that support for ID mostly comes from those suffering from an undiagnosed psychological schism.

for those we know some history of, it fits perfectly.

for example, Dembski managed to acquire multiple graduate degrees.  no small feat.

now what does he do?  think that was his plan?  think it has and still irks him?

oh yeah.

Davetard is almost the exact reverse issue, but still results in schism.

Davetard starts at Dell as engineer (IIRC).  makes megabucks.

why?  not because he was an engineering genius.  no no.  but rather simply because he was on the ground floor of a company that took off and offered copious stock options.

Dave made money off the stock options, not off of his genius.

so here we have an artificially inflated ego; way beyond the bounds of any real-world background to support.

Dave thinks because he was successful in making money, he must be a genius.

Never bothers to figure out just how lacking he really is.

so on the one hand we have dembski; a smart guy who thinks he was let down by the "system" and so goes off on a bitter crusade to show up the world, and loses his mind in the process.  

and on the other we have dave; a dumb guy who thinks he has mastered the system because he made money, but is frustrated that nobody listens to him and can't figure out why.

both just as delusional.

both torn across different realities.

both dealing with massive traumas to their egos.

both spinning psychological defense mechanisms like mad.

both need serious medical help.

Date: 2006/05/14 11:22:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I was erroneously misled by darwinian mythologies in my youth.


my broken record says:

Classic case of projection.

Date: 2006/05/14 19:29:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
that's my impression of eric murphy...


...and here's MY impression of AFDavey:

Date: 2006/05/14 20:14:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dembski is so far gone it's funny.

In a small way, I pity him.

In a larger way, I forgot about him ages ago.

In about a year's time, so will everyone else.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:05:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
amazing.

are you REALLY asking why you aren't homogenous with everybody else??

er, ironically quoting a famous line from Holy Grail...

"What... is your favorite color?"

get it?

Date: 2006/05/15 10:12:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think he's just blithering now.


er... just now?

when wasn't he?

Date: 2006/05/15 10:26:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, no.

Paley wanted abuse.  that's next door, IIRC.

Date: 2006/05/15 10:46:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no... family guy is the show with the kid who rides the skateboard and says "cowabunga, dude"...

;)

Date: 2006/05/15 11:55:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, no, that was the flintstones...

southpark was where the rabbit always says "what's up doc"...

Date: 2006/05/15 14:27:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
comes from studying marine biology.

all us fishy types are deviants.

embrace your inner fish.

Date: 2006/05/15 14:35:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
salmonids, eh?

population biology?

Ever heard of Jennifer Nielson?

Date: 2006/05/15 17:44:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Friend of yours?


LOL.

yes, indeed.  We were friends when i was getting my degree at Berkeley, and afterwards when she was at Hopkins Marine Lab and I was working on elasmobranchs at Monterey Bay.

Unfortunately, we lost touch after she left Hopkins.  I heard she went "North", but nobody seemed to know exactly where.

It never ceases to amaze me how small the world of fish is.

Are you still working on salmonid demographics in the great lakes area?

send me a PM.

Us fishy folk need to figure out a way to hook up (pardon the pun) somehow.

Date: 2006/05/15 17:50:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is every sperm good?


you DA*MN well know the answer to that....

more than good...

everybody sing...

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3

oh, and before you start producing a laundry list of all the horrid little nasty beasties in "Creation", I suggest you grab your rosary beads and pray along, brother...

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/dullugly.mp3

Date: 2006/05/15 18:17:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that sounds like a great book!  I look forward to purchasing it once my budget recovers a bit.

edit:

here's a link to a used copy for 45.00

http://www.alibris.com/search....zEGJjNw


surprised Milton Love wasn't involved with that somehow.

yup, that's her.

No wonder I lost touch!

she's all the way up in Juneau now.

ack.

Date: 2006/05/15 18:32:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Can God create a better God?


well, that WOULD explain where he's been all this time.

working on making ever better clones.

can you imagine?

"Well, this God's OK, I guess, but I'm sure I'll get it even better with the next one!"

etc., etc.

How could he stop once he started?

We'll never see him again.

God, we hardly knew ye.

Date: 2006/05/15 18:38:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Hmm, I must be missing something here.

botanical polyploidy has been a well known phenomenon for decades.

It's not clear to me how this is anything new?

Date: 2006/05/15 18:43:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but often he seems to sort of have a plan with what he says


I think you give him too much credit.

ever seen that commercial with the guy who simply by eating a bowl of loud crunchy cereal gets promoted?

he simply can't hear anything going on around him, but ignoring everything his boss keeps telling him results in his magical promotion...

sound familiar?

Date: 2006/05/15 19:09:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
man, it's been a few years since my last fishing trip.

I do miss those from time to time.

Jen is a high power population genetecist, primarily known for her work on genetic sustainability in salmonid populations in CA and the pacific NW.

Not sure what she's up to these days, but being up in Juneau it's a good bet she's now working for NMFS.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:00:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yes, and my point remains.  this mechanism has been known for years.  what, specifically, is this article contributing to our knowledge?

Date: 2006/05/16 09:29:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Edit:

I see Jeannot suggests it's the contribution to unraveling partial vs. whole genome duplication.

Is this correct?  Is the method for DNA fragment analysis a new contribution as well?

look, you should know by now that I'm not a hollow minded AFDAVE here.  I wasn't questioning whether the article should be published, but rather attempting to elucidate what is new in it.

Date: 2006/05/16 09:37:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, you didn't.  You must be missing what i meant by that.

which is why i edited the comment.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:05:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Hmm, I'm not sure about that.  the historical perspective on polyploidy and speciation has been covered before.

I tend to think any real significance to the scientific community might be more related to the specific methods used in this paper, which is what i was kind of hoping someone would expound upon.  

I should always be more specific when in this forum.

this is what i want to focus on:

Quote
But because of the rapid, massive gene loss after a whole-genome duplication, these events are notoriously difficult to detect after millions of years. So dePamphilis and colleagues relied on a statistical filter to hunt for ancient duplications.


It's their new (?) analytical technique used to examine DNA fragments from whole genome polyploidy events that appears to be significant here, but isn't exactly covered in detail in the news article.  IS it new?  

I was hoping that someone more conversant with the literature in this area could shed light on the significance of the technique used.  Is this technique amenable to analysis of other genome datasets?  

It appears the full text of the article is locked to everybody but journal subscribers, so I personally can't check out the methods used.

OT: as a side note, I do hope that the open journal standard starts to catch on a bit more.

here's a list of open journals:

http://www.doaj.org/

/OT

Date: 2006/05/16 10:15:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
1) My use of the word "liberal" is a bit misleading. I should probably switch to "leftist". Well, "Pinko" has a better ring.


not humorous nor explanatory.  As usual.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:30:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
actually, re-reading the report, it says it's in a JUNE issue of the journal, so it may not have made it online yet.  I was looking at another article there that was locked, so it too would have been locked of course.

so it ain't you that's "dumb".  blame it on me.

You have a subscription to that journal?

Date: 2006/05/16 10:57:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Apparently, my lab has access to this journal.


ah, well I guess i would humbly ask that if you get the time, revive this topic when the issue is released?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:01:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
not the funniest, but I remember seeing that the first time and pretty much rolling on the floor laughing.

so i guess i lean towards funny, rather than stupid, in case that wasn't clear.

are we doing a survey?

Date: 2006/05/16 11:05:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
It really sucks not having direct online access to a university library these days.

*sigh*

for me these days, it means an hour and half drive to UC Riverside if i want to check out recent periodicals.

there's gotta be a better way.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:38:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Do we really need to continue?


did anybody really need to even start?

look, it's easy enough to develop a search pattern for creationists.

If they bother to pose their posts as questions, the questions are already loaded with their presupositions.  So they aren't even questions.  They're mere strawman statements with question marks on the end.

usually quite obvious from the very first post.

I've perhaps seen one counter example to this in two years of luking on the thumb and ATBC, and i can't even remember the specifics now.

I assume you all do this for the humor factor, and to sharpen your knives on blunt stone.

am i wrong?

if not, why even bother to question why anybody here continues to argue with singularities like AFDAVE and Puff-Diddy?

you can get more thoughtful argument from the idiots over on ARN, and even the DI folks comment there sporadically.  Always fun to poke holes in their arguments, which actually ARE arguments (albeit readily recognizable as wrong), rather than the inanity continually posted by our resident trolls.

Date: 2006/05/16 11:44:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
his barrel will always be too short, his aim will always be off


well, he does have kids, doesn't he?

or am i confusing him with T-diddy?

Date: 2006/05/16 12:04:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
does your authentication system not require you to utilize a password system somewhere along the line?

or does it just assign specific IP blocks as default access?

if the latter, i assume you have to get an ip assigned by your department, or the university IT dept.?

that would be a common way of limiting access.

It used to be that i could access any of the UC systems externally with a simple password access thru any UC bio library.

but of course to get my password, I had to be affiliated officially with the university in some way, which i no longer am.

I could ask acquaintaces at berkeley or santa cruz or santa barbara to give me a copy of their password, but somehow I never felt comfortable doing this.  Trivial issue, but I wouldn't want them to be responsible if something ridiculous happened.

I guess it's high time i did something to increase my access though.   I wanted to start an offical paper discussion group here on ATBC (using a different moderated forum), but my problem is i would need better access to be a productive contributor myself :) ).

Date: 2006/05/16 12:08:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And education could fix that.


doubtful at this point.

maybe his kids still have a chance though.

Date: 2006/05/16 12:59:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, way to ruin a perfectly interesting conversation there, T-diddy.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:08:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"hold my ears..."

Date: 2006/05/16 13:15:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, but can you prove you are who you say you are?

c'mon! let's see the evidence!

If two free plane tickets and reservations for a 2 week dive trip to the northern great barrier reef appear in my mail within the next week, I'll consider your claims truthy.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:25:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
YEEEEOOOUUUUCHHHHH!

Ok, so there's some truthiness to what you claim...

I'd still prefer the dive trip to australia if you don't mind.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:31:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, they kinda make it a bit unclear whether he's saying that, or "laugh and cry".

I've seen some pretty funny bits in FG.  the new season wasn't too hot though.  I doubt it has much time left.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:35:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
meh, you can have my flying monkey.

10 minutes and I'm already bored of it.

besides, it makes a terrible mess.

ever try to clean monkey crap off of the top of a ceiling fan?

too much work.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:46:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the new season also has definetly changed stewie to be more just a fop than the evi-mad-scientist-kill-lois-world-domination type of character he used to be.

he's become more just a reactionary to brian now.

way less interesting from my perspective.

er, not that i wanted to be a mad scientist bent on world domination or anything.

really.

Date: 2006/05/16 15:05:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
'Shapers of our world'? ? ? Biologists are 'the shapers of our world'?


LOL.  I do recall Larson himself making fun of this notion ages ago.

I used to have a far side panel up on my office door that showed some guy in glasses all duded up, with two thugs pushing folks aside as he walked down the sidewalk.

IIRC the caption was:

"Get out of the way! An ecologist is coming!"

Date: 2006/05/16 15:19:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL.  knowing that, I'd say it's less a rip and more of a pun on two ideas at once, and credit to those who recall the strip you mentioned.

Larson wasn't big on plagiarism, so I'm sure the exact similarity was completely intended.

*sigh* too bad i can't locate an online copy of that panel.

Have you seen a copy of the one you refer to?

Date: 2006/05/16 15:40:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The coherence that we have achieved through much study and, roughly, science, is neither appealing as a concept to them, nor is it coherent to them.  


so...
the reason that Dave is here is because...

he doesn't really have faith in his own worldview?

he wants another line of reasoning to bolster his shaken worldview?

or is it that he feels in his mind that he is doing the same thing many here think they are doing:

"sharpening knives on a dull stone"

does Dave, based on what you just said, view us all as dim-witted?

seems probable.

interesting perspective.  Never really seen the particulars worked out before, but it makes sense.

Date: 2006/05/16 16:12:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, i went to irony divining rods the moment i saw my first troll on PT, and read Dembski's first post.

kinda misses the more subtle irony, but the lack of moving parts makes them far more durable.

Date: 2006/05/16 17:53:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Keep trying to insult me, Aftershave.  It might work yet if you just keep it up long enough!  


really?  will it only work for him, or can the rest of us pile on?

Date: 2006/05/16 18:01:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no consesus that I recall.

I for one do not believe he is.

he is like Slaveador is to Dembski.

just another psychophant, but this one devoted to Berlinski instead of Dembski.

Date: 2006/05/16 18:04:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Berlinski has himself said that the very idea of defending astrology is absurd


except when he's on the stand in a legal proceeding...

Date: 2006/05/16 18:09:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i have to uh, keep up with what the mad scientists of the world are thinking so i can, er... stop them!

yeah! that's the ticket.

Date: 2006/05/16 18:23:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
of course.

I should be ashamed for getting those two confused.

I'm going to go write a big long letter of apology to both of them right now.

Date: 2006/05/16 20:05:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the title of his site:

Into Good and Evil
Nietzsche or Anti-Nietzsche? Do not mind me!

do not mind me?

riggghhhhtttt...

these dolts understand Nietsche about as well as they understand evolutionary theory.


pseudointellectual intellectualism, indeed.  I think our resident who coined that is right on the mark.

I couldn't find a single post (well, i didn't look THAT hard) that wasn't essentially complete projection.

"liberals" that give liberals a bad name?

nope, that's the neocons giving the conservatives a bad name.

I'd feel sorry for these folks if they truly thought "don't mind me"; instead I feel they should be forced to seek medical treatment for their obvious mental blockages.

seems he plays a lot of "Age of Mythology".

hmm, stuck in a mythological world he finds preferable to reality....

Date: 2006/05/17 10:29:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh my, i was gone for a while and didn't even realize somebody had bothered to respond to that post.

It had been up for a quite a while.

thanks for the head's up.

Date: 2006/05/17 10:51:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 30 2006,09:38)
The item in the methods section that I saw as a problem was that the group of treatment fish was so small. I see that in the discussion, you note that specific thing as a reason to treat all results as preliminary. But I didn't see a way to state that in one word, so I think you must be referring to something else.

ack! sorry for being so long answering the response; I was gone for a while and hadn't seen any responses for at least a couple of weeks prior, so i figured there hadn't been any interest and forgot all about it.

you're red hot, but you must have covered the answer with your foot :)

not just small, but singular!

only one treatment fish of each type was used.

the term I'm sure you recognize for this is:

"pseudoreplication".

for those unfamiliar with the term, it basically refers to an experimental design where there are multiple variables, but one or more of them is insufficiently replicated within the design of the experiment.

for a more in depth discussion of what this is and the prevalence of it in the literature, here's an abstract of a nice little review paper (which i was forced to read by my advisor after i published that paper :) ):

http://www.esajournals.org/esaonli....ge=0187


In this specific case, there are two primary variables we are looking at, the behavior of the adults, and the color of the treatment fish.

to control for randomness (and help control for other potentially competing variables), we replicate, of course, and the adult subjects were replicated (sufficient at least for a non-parametric analysis - ask if you want me to elucidate the difference between non-parametric and parametric), but the treatment fish were not.  This introduces the possibility that the specific treatment fish may have been abberations.

Ideally, in a better design we would replicate the treatment fish as well, in order to control for this.  

The only justification for non-replication of treatment fish in this experiment was that prior to this study, most all similar studies of this type were conducted with painted model fish (again, no replication).  I figured at the time that the general color of the animal was the most likely trigger for variable behavior in the adults (that's what I was testing, after all), but of course in hindsight, there were other possibilities....

any guesses?

and, thanks for expressing interest.  always nice to know someone read it.

cheers

Date: 2006/05/17 11:00:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2006,09:42)
but how much ontogenetic depth do the damselfish have?

well, since it's a made up term by a bunch of confused pseudobiologists...

I'll say it's got a whole lot of "OD".

let me see if i can make up something to justify that (note that the following IS essentially correct and accurate, I'm just playing with the interpretations to smear the innocent >: ) )...

hmm...

OK Pomacentridae (the family that damselfishes belong to), is a highly diverse family with lots of genera and species, that exhibit a wide range of morphology and behavioral "sophistication".

some exhibit parental care, and others even have a limited form of "agriculture" (they selectively farm single algae species within their territories).

If I understand what Nelson was getting at (I rarely do, so please feel free to correct me), the development of such sophisticated behavior would indicate significant ontogentic depth in general within the family.

how's that?

Date: 2006/05/17 11:49:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
They try so hard, and yet reading UD is still like watching a monkey hump a football


flying monkeys or materialistic monkeys?

makes a big difference.

Date: 2006/05/17 11:56:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
(What the #### does saying that science is a "finite product" mean anyway?)


If you've ever seen a few of Carol the Zionist Clouser's posts, I think she spells it out more clearly.

It's the idea that science is extremely limited in the scope of answers it can provide.

...wheras psuedoscience based on the supernatural provides limitless answers, because you don't need to test the assumptions or implications!

grand, eh?

It still pains me whenever somebody doesn't catch that Carol is no different than Dave Scott.

reallly.

Date: 2006/05/17 12:01:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And a content-free post. As usual.


pot-kettle.

..and all you deserve.

Date: 2006/05/17 12:09:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Davey spoke up for CS Lewis...

Dave, stories of talking lions are about as impressive in a scientific discussion as watery tarts tossing swords about is in a political one (MP fans I'm sure recognize the reference).

CS Lewis is recommended reading for children.  Haven't you moved past elementary school yet?

don't answer, that was rhetorical.  all of us here already know the answer.

@BWE:

Quote
Your head is planted in your ass hole.


hey, you saw the photo of Dave i posted?

Date: 2006/05/17 12:42:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@bwe

hate it I do to say this, but you should move that question to the thread on my paper, where'd I'd be more than happy to discuss it at length.

I hate discussing real science in a thread started by the singularity in mind that is Dave.

more on topic, I wonder if the Air Force is proud of Dave's reasoning abilities?  I have friends in the AF, and I can't recall any of them who actually fly with such backwards logic and reasoning capabilities, even the religious ones.  

funny enough, one of my oldest friends who went into the airforce (now flies bombers at a base in Oregon) was also named Dave.  I should ask him what he thinks about AFDave's arguments...

Date: 2006/05/17 13:11:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Dieses Gewinde uber Alles!


hmm, can you post foreign language symbols here?

needs an ümlaut.

Kannst du Deutsch?

I think it would be quite humorous if we all started talking about Davey in German for a while, just to see if he reacted to it.  Heck we're all intellectual nazis anyway, right?  Give me a chance to brush up too.

Vieleicht?  Was denkt ihr?

Date: 2006/05/17 13:21:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no worries; just a thought.

Date: 2006/05/17 13:54:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (BWE @ May 17 2006,18:12)
By the way, I am still reading that paper you wrote and I am curious whether you tried to measure any of the wild responses as a control group. i.e. did you watch an event in the wild and then try to recreate it with your fishy in a baggie? And if so, did you set up a categorization system for natural responses that was separate from your experimental response? -(what did you do to control for the effect of the baggie and the observer)

-I appologize if you cover that toward the end, I haven't quite finished yet.

good questions.

In general "wild" observations are only covered in passing, as it was a very short paper.

the entire experimental design was actually based on watching interactions in the wild to begin with.  It was an attempt to control other variables aside from color variation in determining adult response behavior.

typically, juveniles dive into holes too small to follow when adults start chasing them, so you don't get much time to quantify what the actual behavior toward various color patterns is.  However, my personal observations tended to agree with the results of the experiments; adults didn't appear to be any less aggressive toward juveniles (in bags or not) than they were toward other adults that wandered into their territories.

yes, controls were conducted with empty bags; this is mentioned in the methods section.

"seperate from the experimental response"

could I ask you to clarify what you mean here?  thanks.

feel free to fire away; it's always an ego boost to discuss one's own work, even if it was an age ago and full of fun little blunders ;)

on a related note, it would be fun to discuss the evolutionary implications of the preferred "habituation hypothesis" of Thresher at the time I published this work.  I always had some theoretical issues with this.

How on earth would a color pattern that reduces adult aggression evolve to begin with?  what would favor it?

think about it:

in a population of individuals with no likely degree of relatedness, what would be the advantage to an adult to reduce it's level of aggression towards a juvenile?

Moreover, preliminary diet studies indicated that there is overlap in resource utilization between adults and juveniles (not for nest space of course), but at least for food.  There was also some indication that juveniles can be egg thieves from time to time.

It was this hypothesis that i was most deliberately attempting to refute with this design.  

As far as i know, this was the very first study to attempt to actually quantify and test adult aggression towards juveniles in this fashion, such as it was.

Date: 2006/05/17 14:02:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Intelligence can be heterogeneously distributed across a person's beliefs


indeed, but what we see with AFDave is different than holes in knowledge, it's a basic difference in the way his brain processes and rationalizes logic.

to whit:

we've fed him copious amounts of information to balance his lack of intellectual knowledge on the subjects at hand, to no avail as far as i can see.

his brain is wired differently.  has nothing to do with general or specific intelligence, AFAICT.

here's another example:

someone mistranslates a phrase in german and so misconstrues its meaning.

typically, if it was a matter of intelligence a quick refresher course in german would repair the matter, but if it was AFDave, my prediction would be that he would still prefer the mistranslated, misconstrued version, and state that all those who actually know how to speak german are simply wrong.

Quote
yet insane in others


yes, that's been my leaning for a long time now.  hence my broken record "projection" statements.

learning to recognize when we are utilizing pyschological defense mechanisms instead of rational thought processes is beneficial to all of us.

I'm reasonably (?) sure that in some other area which he has yet to demonstrate, AFDave can exhibit rational thought.

but not here.

perhaps "insanely stupid" would be a more comprehensive description?

Date: 2006/05/17 14:16:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
flying mammals


not flying monkeys.

Date: 2006/05/17 14:27:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The english version of most technical words often finds it's way into German, which explains why I can be nearly ten years in a german speaking land and still suck at German


yes, German is definetly filled with huge bizarre nouns composed of several other nouns, often bastardized and co-opted from english or elswhere.  I've seen several 20 letter plus nouns, and I'd guess that you could probably find a german noun that takes up 30 or more letters without looking too hard.

However, it IS the most descriptive language I think I've ever looked at.

and some of my favorite authors wrote in that language too.

Lorenz comes to mind.

...unfortunately i probably should have studied french or spanish given the places where i did my field research :p

oh, and thanks steve for the tip on posting symbols!

Date: 2006/05/17 14:31:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
dhgoza -

lol.

i think you just got "called out"?

Quote
Do not debate evolution at this level, you do not do your self justice.


grrr! bark bark! grrrrr!

I wonder where this will go...

Date: 2006/05/17 14:45:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
? hard to tell exactly, but I would guess the objection stems from a misconstrual of what dhgoza said.

or else Hunter is just pissed off at being apparently stereotyped along with the rest of the IDitos over on UD?

Date: 2006/05/17 14:52:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naw, it's worse than that, the plane is stripped of valuables, as well.

you know, I often listen to green day when reading the posts here from UD; and those of T-diddy, AFDave, etc.

I would highly recommend it to all the UDiots as well.

specifically, i highly recommend "American Idiot" and "Warning"

great background music for reading creationist drivel.

Date: 2006/05/17 15:03:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL

Date: 2006/05/17 16:03:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i added a link to some pics of these guys in the original post.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:19:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm, I'm curious;

what does that cartoon you posted say to you dave?

ignore the talking beetles (and the talking lions, for that matter), and just tell me what you see there.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:23:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
*Ahem* ... sorry ... I should have said these used to be predictions of evolution ...


oh?

do please point us to the volume(s) where an evolutionary biologist published these "predictions"?

no Dave, these were never predictions of ANY theory, ever.

they're lying to you again.

wake up, would ya?

Date: 2006/05/17 17:28:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote

Just be as influential as Jesus was and you too can have dates referenced to your birth!


so influential that 2/3 of the world think otherwise, eh?

hmm.

I take it back.  there is absolutely no hope for you.

you drowned in the sea of your own ignorance too long ago to be served by a hand up from anybody here.

you're just a rotting corpse and don't know it yet.

but hey, I like zombie movies....

Date: 2006/05/17 17:32:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.

takers?

Date: 2006/05/17 17:39:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
has it been that long?

*sigh*

I guess that makes me officially middle-aged.

I better start doing something more productive than arguing with zombies.

bye Dave.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:45:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The bold is what Dave preserved; he turns a reasoned argument and constructive suggestion into parting shot of someone flummoxed by superior argument.


pitbulls are so unpredictable, aren't they?

congrats!

Date: 2006/05/17 17:49:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I wonder if he'll pay off to the first person who disproves his conjecture?


WD40 has shown his inability to recognize correct resolutions of his conjectures before (many times, in fact).

I predict NOBODY will get this cash, as he mentally is incapable of recognizing the correct resolution of this conjecture to begin with.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:53:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sounds like you're pushing for a top-ten list of reasons 'ol Dave makes a box of hammers look smart...

Date: 2006/05/17 18:09:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oooh!  Princess Bride is on AMC right now (no joke)!

that's better than a zombie flick any day.

Date: 2006/05/17 18:40:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
tommorrow... princess bride is on and it interests me far more than zombie dave.

Quote
He's already basically stated such, if I recall.


oh, i must have missed that.

shocker.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:41:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What do the adults see?


indeed.  not just the adults, what about predators?

colors that look like bright blue spots to us, might look black to a predator, or neutral gray.

think leopard spots, tiger stripes, etc.

I tend to lean towards more simple explanations of camouflage these days to explain OCC; but it's VERY hard to gather evidence to attempt to refute this to begin with.

example:

how would you gather conclusive evidence to refute the idea that a leopard's spots help to camouflage it from its prey (or potential predators - yes, lions will kill leopards, for that matter)?

you'd have to know something about the way the common prey animals process their surrounding visually, and maybe even paint a few leopard's spots out to see if it has a direct effect.

not easy.

John Endler has been doing a lot of excellent work on this question lately in fish.  I've half thought about getting another degree and apply to his lab.

money is always the issue, tho.  It's really hard to get money to study this kind of thing, interesting tho it might be to some.

as to reef fish changing color...

many fish can radically alter their coloration on short time scales.

if you ever get the chance, try doing a night dive and a day dive in the same area and you will see great differences in not only the species assemblage, but also the colors of many of the individuals that are present at both times.

parrotfish, for example, can look like a totally different species when they are "sleeping".  

diet can also have an effect on fish color.  in reefs that are shifting away from live coral and more towards dead coral with algae (common in the tropics these days), this will result in some shifts in diet which can affect color.

note that these issues are entirely different than OCC, just to be clear.

Quote
I brought my 6mm wetsuit and hood.


lol.

a full 6 mm?  that would be a bit toasty.

I often wear a full 3 mm suit in the tropics if I'm doing a lot of diving.  around 30 feet plus, the water ain't THAT warm.  Even at 80 f, your body is still losing heat pretty fast without a suit on.

I did some snorkelling off the keys last year (near key West and a bit south of Largo); is that where you were?

Date: 2006/05/18 09:55:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think the best strategy would to be honest.  You've already made is clear that scientists will blur the line between science and ideology.  Nothing has been more clear since I've joined antievolution.

You and many others already make wild assumptions and dismiss relevant information.  This is clear to any discerning eye.


hmm, can someone point out ANYTHING in T-Diddy's response that isn't pure projection?

Date: 2006/05/18 09:59:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Just in case there was somebody here who didn't already know.

Carol is a fundie just like the other creos that come here.

the only difference is that she is a zionist fundie instead of a christian one.

otherwise, treat as having same logic, and essentially the same base arguments.

she IS more well read than the average IDiot that comes here, but that's about it, really.

Date: 2006/05/18 10:22:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong


this got me thinking...

90% of AF personal are NOT pilots.  Why did we conclude Dave ever flew a plane again?

did he say he was a pilot somewhere?  Did I miss that?

Date: 2006/05/18 10:56:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and how would you know how dawkins writes, gawp?

you wouldn't understand half of his popular works, let alone any of his research articles.

I'll give you one thing:

you actually DO read things more than Dave does.

not that it apparently helps you with that horrid mental constipation you suffer from.

But, you're not helping Dave.  He can't understand even the less-than-subtle nuances of what you posted.

or haven't you actually read Dave's posts?

random psychophantery isn't going to help Dave understand anything there, gawp.

Here, let me rewrite what you wrote so it becomes a bit clearer what you really mean:

Quote
Don't let those big meanies get to you. All of their claims, when examined with blind eyes and numb brain, fail to support their case. Here's a random quote from the guy whose ass I'm not fit to lick because I can't understand a single word he says. Note that because this guy talks down to the authors of the paper he mistakenly attacks, he comes off with an aura of authority I personally find sexually appealling, and you will too!


there, now it's clear what you meant.

Date: 2006/05/18 11:05:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
aw c'mon Jean, only one psycho per thread.

it's tiresome enough as it is, and gawp already has his hands full in other threads.

Date: 2006/05/18 11:09:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, it's just a friendly warning.  feel free to start a dialogue if you wish, just don't expect to get very far.

Date: 2006/05/18 11:37:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sorry, Dave, she has a long way to go before she makes as many mistakes in a month as you do in a single post.

I agree with the others here; get on with presenting your evidence, or change gears and get on with presenting more humor.

but don't pretend one is the other.

Date: 2006/05/18 11:51:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Patrick: agreed. I don't think I can pin down any one "primary" reason why they engage in this other than a desire for power--the ability to tell you, your kids and so on...what to think and how to think and how to behave/act. They all seem to want that.


broken record time again:

all the denial and projection exhibited over and UD are classic examples of psychological defense mechanisms.

If you ever found your entire world-view under attack by simple reality, you'd start spinning off defense mechanisms by the hatfull too.

One thing I will give credit to AFDave and T-diddy is that their weeks-long posting gives very clear evidence to support my contention.

Date: 2006/05/18 12:03:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I think Steve's post is actually a pretty cogent summary of just about every thread AFdunderhead has posted in.

so with a proper summary in hand...

is there anything left but humor?  any knives that are left to be sharpened?

I think we should just send Dave to UD so we can lump all the humor at watching someone continually spin irrational defenses in one place.

There's nothing left to learn here, is there?

Date: 2006/05/18 12:24:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
meh, still takes money to do research.  Most of my research grants were just big enough to pay my food and lodging expenses; well short of funding my research needs.

Even at Berkeley, the school had little money left to fund the basic research of its grad students ( I think MAYBE i got about 400.00 year for basic research from Berkeley as a grad student there - and even that was competetive).

NSF found my proposal to fund research in OCC worthy of merit (it won some kind of award that i can't recall now), but not enough to warrant any significant monies.

OCC is the kind of research that could occur in an already well-funded lab (like Endler's), or if one was independently wealthy already (tried that too, btw - ask if you want to know that sad story)

I've since become more interested in trophic interactions within specific ecosystems, and models for fisheries management.  More money for that, but I never did lose my interest in OCC.  I suppose I'll get back to it someday (heh, reminds me of exactly the words Ron Thresher used when i first spoke with him 15 years ago).

responses to thoughts:

infrared would be pretty useless underwater; it gets absorbed quite rapidly, but i get where you are going with the idea, and yes, spectral analysis and pattern analysis is where folks in this area are going these days.

cold in puget sound?  you don't have to tell me :)

It's even cold in Monterey (average around 50 f).  I have a 7 mm full suit with johns and coat for Monterey.  Is a 6 mm enough for Puget Sound?

I'd be thinking dry suit at that point.

ever get hit by one of those fire sponges when you were in FLA?

####, i hate those things!

Date: 2006/05/18 12:39:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@sylph:
I assume your only point in saying such is to address the pointlessness of discussing the nature of god in a thread devoted to "evidence", yes?

to which i respond:

that wasn't the intent of the question AFAICT.  It's more a probe of Dave's personal thought processes, in case those weren't abundantly clear by now.

as such, it's still a legit question.

Date: 2006/05/18 12:42:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'll take Toejam's hint and just tell her to errm..something.


easy.  don't respond.  she'll get bored and go away.

Date: 2006/05/18 12:56:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
55? why that's positively balmy! don't see why you'd even need a wetsuit ;)

speaking of UV, I'm sure you have at some point seen one or more of those nature proggies on TV that show how a bee "sees" by using a computer enhanced image showing UV reflections from flowers, etc?

When i was in grad school, it was thought that UV was, like infrared, essentially not utilized underwater because of rapid absorption.  However, since then it's become clearer that not only does UV penetrate further than previously thought, but there are now documented visual pigments indicating utilization of UV in several marine animals.

er, that's a long-winded way of saying, yeah, UV might be important.

as to grad school; yeah my life would have been MUCH easier had i chosen to work on cichlid behavior with my major prof.

I only have my own ego to blame :)

hmm, i think i have some pics i took of barracuda when i was in the carribean; impressive critters, no doubt.

I'll see if i can dig one up.

...

ahh, here we go:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/barracuda-1b10x7.jpg

I took this in Cozumel, but it's the same species as the ones in FLA.

Date: 2006/05/18 13:06:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
(God, apparently, is the opposite of an insurance company. He offers flood protection, but no other coverage.)  



well, that proves it!  Robertson was right and the folks in New Orleans canceled their flood insurance policy with G.O.D. Inc.

Date: 2006/05/18 14:15:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
awww, don't tell me you chastized BWE?

he was just warming up.  I was hoping he would end up producing a "top ten reasons Dave is a moron" type post sometime in the near future.

Date: 2006/05/18 14:25:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*whew*

;)

Date: 2006/05/18 14:54:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I certainly don't expct that everyone will be moral, all the time. If you know of such a person, who is living, please point that one out to me - I'd become their student!


how would one go about finding such a person?

morality being relative, you'd have to refine that to saying you seek someone who follows all of the moral precepts you defined, all of the time, yes?

but would i consider the same person to be "moral"?

would anybody other than yourself, really?

example:

Quote
One can judge how beneficial those behaviors are to the people and try to figure out principles that apply to the observed events


that would only work for the time, place, and specific circumstances in which you measured the apparent 'benefit' of a given behavior in an altruistic sense.

and that of course assumes that altruism is a moral characterstic to begin with, yes?

Date: 2006/05/18 15:15:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
let me try this out:

A handful of raisins can solve any problem.

how?

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

you might be onto something there...

Date: 2006/05/18 15:32:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yup. now I'm really confused.

...and i still don't buy the guy's a pilot.

did he go the academy in colorado, oh wait that's for AF, where's the naval flyboy academy?

Date: 2006/05/18 16:07:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, i suddenly realized i have now spent more time on PT/ATBC than i have on any other form I've ever been on, including opendemocracy.org, and the popular photography forum.

....and after 12 plus years, I've also suddenly grown weary of my handle.

time for a change.

so, for a little bit of fun, I'd like to throw it out to those who've seen me at my best and worst, for about 2 years now.

I'll leave this open for a couple of weeks and select what suits me at the end of that time.

no need to be tasteful, just "fitting"  ;)

(and original)

cheers, and thanks

S_T

Date: 2006/05/18 16:13:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sure that's not a picture of GW during his reserve days?

Steve- sorry, thought i'd play along and see where this was going.

you mean it's not as obvious as it looks?

Ved... oh do please continue your story.  it was just gettin good.

Date: 2006/05/18 16:22:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
btw, it's not Davey's intelligence i question so much as his intractability and ability to think rationally at all.

I can't see him making it through the AF academy.

Date: 2006/05/18 16:25:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
navel gazing?  i thought we were talking air force here?

Date: 2006/05/18 16:29:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Oh, wait, that last one's been used.


yeah, it's gotta be original.

..and mine's "Toad the Wet Sprocket"

Date: 2006/05/18 16:36:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
my first nomination!

I'd like to thank the academy, my mother, apple pie...

*sniff*

god bless america!

(hooked off stage)

Date: 2006/05/18 17:09:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and like i said before, there's more at work here than a mere difference in intelligence.

you simply CANNOT attribute Dave's reactions to the evidence presented to him as simple ignorance.

as to where he claimed to be a pilot, i had to look in another post, but he did say he WAS an air force pilot, so unbelievable as it is to me, I guess I'll just have to take his word for it:

 
Quote
Who said anything about me being neutral?  I'm an active Creationist and very involved politically.  I am also an Electrical Engineer, former AF jet pilot, very successful business man, and a large contributor to various causes ... maybe yours if you're nice to me and convince me why I should.  But I try to be polite and I honestly like to hear evolutionists state, in their own words, why they believe in macro-evolution.


remember that thread?

that was April 18th

exactly one month ago.

literally HUNDREDS of posts later, and Davey seems to be getting WORSE instead of better.

sorry, that ain't got nutin' to do wit smarts.

Here's the difference:

for example, even tho I suspected he was not an actual air force pilot, if he had provided evidence that he was (a picture isn't sufficient evidence, actually), I would have accepted that and moved on.   I seem to be the only doubter, which also points out the fact that most here seem ready and willing to accept Dave's claim he IS an air force pilot.  based on what, exactly?  a picture of him in a flight suit?  Is GW a Navy man because he has a picture of him in a flightsuit on an aircraft carrier?

On the plus side, it shows that most here are more than willing to accept arguments with even the slightest shred of evidence to support them.

Unfortunately for Dave, the picture of him in a flightsuit is about the only evidence he has presented, of ANYTHING.

we have presented far more convincing evidence to Dave about ToE, and his intractability has only grown.

so is it about intelligence?

nope.

edit:

Quote
Jonathan Wells can have a PhD from a good school on one hand, and be a Moonie on the other.


so does JAD.

insanity can strike anybody.  not a matter of intelligence, per sae, but when a broken mental function is pointed out over and over and over again, one does have to wonder if the damage has affected intelligence overall.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:27:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
lol.

well, that might work for this particular board.


I was kinda thinking about "Church-Burning Ebola-Boy #32"

but again, it's just so topic-specific.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:31:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
####, you beat me to it.  I was kinda hoping he would expound on the history of the portuguese language for us.

oh well.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:38:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, I have an idea.  You think Dave has redeeming qualities, and an ability to exhibit rational thought outside of this arena?

OK, this is for Dave then:

You've thoroughly trashed your rep here because you haven't been able to produce a rational argument backed with evidence.

face it Dave, you failed this course.

Prove to me that you at least do have the ability to think rationally.

Show us something, somewhere, where you can demonstrate a clear, rational, logical, thought process based on evidence.

somewhere, anywhere.

really.

Do you have some copies of discussions you have had with others on totally different topics, like jets, or business, or whatever?

pick something you have discussed that you really know your stuff on.  things you know you would get an "A" on if given a test in college, or high school, even.

You wanted to come off as a reasonable guy.

prove that you are, at least somewhere.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:51:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ya know, i think you should take that seriously Steve.

producing a downloadable archive of the "best of UD and Davetard", would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Heck, I bet even Dembski would be willing to pay for a copy of that.

I know I would.

proceeds to benefit PT?

It wouldn't be hard to set up a pay-per-download site for it.

what do you think?  I think it would be worth at least 5.00.

Date: 2006/05/18 17:59:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yes, i know this.

don't you want to see Dave argue electrical engineering or some similar topic in a rational fashion?

look, it goes to exactly what you are saying.

you want to humanize Dave?

let him show he actually IS rational on anything first.

I don't say he should start a topic on a subject in electrical engineering here, but rather simply point us to a place where he has discussed a topic (any topic) in a rational fashion.

I do have my doubts.

again i bring up the spectre of JAD.

if you could have had a discussion with him prior to 1980, i bet it would have been rational and stimulating.

now look at him.

complete gibbering idiot.

All I'm asking is...

Is Dave like JAD, or does he maintain a level of rational thought somewhere?

I'm trying to broaden my own horizons here.  I think there is pathology behind creationism.  

I think that pathology becomes pervasive in all areas of thought, not just on the religious front.

Dave can shoot this down quite readily (er, pun unintentional).

chalk it up to the scientific curiosity in me that keeps wondering what it is exactly that produces the kind of creationist represented by Davescott, AFDave, T-diddy, etc.

it's not just religion, otherwise there would be no scientists, just religious aplogetics (and Wes wouldn't have made this board)

it's not just intelligence or strict ignorance.  That's become quite clear to me over the last 2 years here.

it's not just pure trolling.  nobody has that kind of endurance.

so it seems likely, based on the tremendous amount of projection and denial that can be consistently read into their canned responses, that there is some psychology to this.

It could be compartmentalized abberations, but i seriously doubt it.

I think the pressure on their egos that reality causes the creationist worldview must affect more than just one part of their thinking processes; it would very likely spill over into other areas.

Date: 2006/05/18 18:17:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
right, and so how many fellow military participants have you met that showed this kind of intractable behavior?

Do you?  not that you've exhibited on any topic i have seen you participate in.

I had the same reaction to scientists I have known that have exhibited this behavior as well, but it has less to do with ignorance than psychology.  I watched this very thing happen to a grad student at berkeley in the MCB department.  

Edit:  by "thing" i mean serious creationist leanings affecting his ability to think in other areas as well.  He was actually a close friend of mine at the time, and i watched him try to struggle with this stuff.  Part of him knew it made no sense, and yet...  he once stood up to give a lecture on it in the museum of Vertebrate Zoology.  It was a sad thing to watch, let me tell you.

I expect eventually someone will reference studies on brainwashing, or whatnot.  whatever.

surely you aren't objecting to a request for Dave to show us how he thinks on other issues, yes?

I can't think of any other way to suggest there to be any reason to continue responding to any of his posts here otherwise.

He might strike a cord with you, but he sure don't with most folks here.

Date: 2006/05/18 18:27:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
meh, no worries.

I'm actually hoping Dave will entertain my request to show us his thinking on other issues anyway.

Dave - take a gander at the discussion between Steve and I over on the other thread for background.

once you have looked at that:

could you link to somewhere where you have threads or written discussion documenting your thoughts in an area where you have some expertise?

you said you had an engineering degree.  Is there somewhere you have discussed a topic in engineering where your knowledge base is more detailed than on the topic of ToE?

you could show us you actually DO have the capacity for rational argument, at least with topics you have familiarity with.

humor me?

Date: 2006/05/18 18:34:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
again, I'm not saying he NEVER had the ability to think rationally, I just want him to show us he does NOW.

I thought the example of JAD i provided kind of made that point.

ooh,  this is exciting.  I see competing hypotheses developing that only Dave can answer for us!

here's your chance to participate in science Dave!

refute my hypothesis that your lack of ability to rationally argue in this topic will be reflected in other areas as well.

Just to be clear, Steve's is that your inability to process logic is compartmentalized to this one area.  Is this a correct rendition of your hypothesis Steve?

Isn't science fun?

Date: 2006/05/18 18:38:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, there's always that.  I wouldn't consider it a "handle" tho.

Date: 2006/05/18 18:53:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
cool.

now is there a plan to index these snippets eventually?

I'm starting to agree with others here that the inanity is worth preserving for future reference.

hey, even a niche market can produce profit!

Date: 2006/05/18 18:56:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ok....

then what's the point of staring at an orange?

Date: 2006/05/18 19:05:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
eric, just for kicks, could you put a number on the percentage expectation you realistically have of him ever addressing the evidence for the age of the earth?

if it were me, I'd put the figure somewhere around 4%, slightly below standard level of significance.

but, yes, the answers would be far more interesting than verification of his military record, I have to agree there.

Date: 2006/05/19 19:29:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Vicious fish...

leader so far.

I was also thinking about "embraceyourinnerfish"

but it's kinda long.

Date: 2006/05/19 19:48:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*sigh*

let me get this straight.

we spent an entire page of posts asking Dave to give us even a shred of evidence he is able to think rationally outside of this area, in any area of his choosing, and he ignores this request entirely.

now my feelings are hurt, Dave.

you big meanie.

oh, and Steve, to support my hypothesis go check out what Dave has to say about his theory that portugeuse is a mixture of french and spanish.

see anything similar there?

Date: 2006/05/19 20:03:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
as to Dave's "wager"  did i miss something or did anyone else immediately think

Hovind.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear....nge.htm

No matter what is wagered, Dave will always claim to have won the wager, because he initially set himself up as the arbiter and the "decider" (pardon the pun).

Dave's entire worldview literally depends at this point on him being "right" about everything, or it collapses under its own weight.

Dave- you are in a very dangerous state of mind right now.  I highly suggest you take a look at what happens to folks juggling your type of worldview.

(hint: they go off the deep end)

seek medical treatment.

seriously.

Date: 2006/05/19 20:13:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@faid, who said:
Quote
Well, it seems my old question was finally answered. Thanks Dave.


it was?

unless your question really was, "will Dave give a non-response to even the simplest questions"

then I can't see how his answer addresses your qeustion.

seems all he did was say:

It's too hard for me to think about right now, maybe my strained brain will be able to think about it later.

do you see an answer there I don't?

Date: 2006/05/19 20:21:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person


LOL

you ARE kidding, right?

At what point did you think Europe made inroads into colonizing Africa?

1950?

LOL

gees, you are funny.

yes, in the 1800's the english hated the french, etc. (er, those are nationalities at this point, not "races"), but they made SLAVES out of Africans.

nope.  no racisism there, not at all.

Date: 2006/05/19 20:30:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
No reasons why 9-10 is excessive,


*sigh*

I have to unfortunately take some blame for that.

I once told larry that OJ had too many lawyers defending him in his case, and rather than get the joke, he took me at my word and ever since has been claiming anything over 4 lawyers on a case as "excessive".

No, I'm not kidding.  

I tried to clear this up for him on any number of occassions before finally realizing it didn't matter what i said in the slightest.

I for one am DAM*N glad he's gone from PT.

one of the most irritating trolls I've ever seen.

Date: 2006/05/19 20:35:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And there's your new handle, STJ.  "Hideous Spleen."


not bad...

Date: 2006/05/19 20:50:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
As I mentioned above - if morality is relative and the cannibal came to your house for dinner, there is no argument you could make that would keep you out of the pot and you would have no reason to feel bad looking out at the world from the cannibal's tummy.


sure there's a reason why the cannibals morals would lose in MY home.

now if I went to HIS home, I'd have to make sure I understood how he sees things, so I don't make a mistake that would make me legitimate fodder for the pot.

your premise assumes that the cannibal eats other humans at random, which is demonstrably untrue in any society that has ever exhibited this behavior.

I think you will quickly find your logic to be too flawed to continue with your endeavor, but hey, good luck.

Date: 2006/05/19 20:54:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that's an insult to Wayne Newton, and i don't even like his music!

@Deadman:

I would also suggest a subscription to TREE, if you are interested in applied evolutionary theory/ecology.

http://www.trends.com/tree/default.htm

Date: 2006/05/20 10:16:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The way I get from A to B is the same way ericmurphy gets from A to B.


I trust at this point that it is abundandtly clear that this is NOT the case.

In fact, both T-diddy and AFDave seem to share similar ways of getting from A to B, but are not shared by anybody who thinks rationally.

I'm gaining more and more support for my theory that there is a common pathology (beyond religious belief) that these types of creationists share.

I'm not going to try to get a degree in psych, er, not that it's necessary to observe the rampant behvioral malfunctions exhibited by folks of T-diddy's ilk, but I might go so far to invite someone who does have a degree to come observe and comment.

Date: 2006/05/20 10:20:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, I'm not sure he consciously "chose" that little "debate" to be representative of his ability to think rationally, but it is telling nevertheless.

What say you Stevestory?

Does  how Davey argued his position on the portugeuse language support my hypothesis or yours?

Date: 2006/05/20 10:27:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
even more laughing!!!

Hunter, you actually thought my posting 1950 as the date erupopeans colonized Africa was anything but pure sarcasm at the answers you already messed up so bad????

Just for you, since you seem incapable of comprehending sarcasm...

take a closer look:

I asked when YOU thought the inroads were made, and based on your idiotic comments of no racism before 1900's, i could only assume YOU were thinking somewhere later, and sarcastically asked you if it was as late as 1950.

to which, even though you posted dates BEFORE 1900, you didn't retract your idiotic premise.

gees, you have more pyschological problems than i can count in a single post.

What does it mean when somebody can't grasp sarcasm at such a basic level?

Are you getting treatment?

I sincerely hope so.

oh, and...

Quote
love of frogs


bwahahahahaha!

what a clown.

as a tip, I do think you are confusing culture with race there, old boy, not that that is the only thing you are apparently confused about.  

There really is far too much confusion in your thinking for me to ever fully straighten out, so if you choose not to seek treatment, do feel free to make me laugh some more!

you're still funny.

Date: 2006/05/20 10:40:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is it too soon to wonder if the silence of the dave signals a long-overdue moment of reflection on the possibility he might be wrong?


yes.  far too soon.
I think you might be waiting for an independent event to signal such.

something like...

He11 freezing over?

Date: 2006/05/20 10:48:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You could adopt a symbol, like the Chinese character for fish, and you could then be "The blogger formerly known as Sir T"


check out the avatar...

something like that?

Date: 2006/05/20 11:00:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
not a bad idea.  I'll think more about this.  I'm english/irish/NA Indian by geneology.

I wonder if there is a celtic symbol for fish?

EDIT:

LOL, of course the first thing i ran into in a search for celtic fish symbols was this:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm

"Vesica pisces"

oooh.  I think that just moved to the top of the list.

so much symbology, so much history.  



ah yes, this is becoming more and more productive the more i delve into it.

This definetly looks promising to generate both a new handle and an appropriate avatar.

from NA Indian mythos:

Quote
Fish: In North American Indian cultures, the fish represents a refusal to recognize the power of another's magic.


Indeed.

The fish.  such fertile ground for examing Xian mythology.  I think by tommorrow next week, I'll have worked something out to show ya all.

Date: 2006/05/20 11:44:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Neither. You're both wrong.


alternative hypotheses are welcome.  this IS a science forum in part, after all ;)

Date: 2006/05/20 11:53:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, the remorseless killer of hundreds, was an athiest, it's odd that he sent his kids to Catholic school.


you're setting yourself up for an obvious creo answer.

should I?  of course :p

Obviously the reason that the Iceman sent his kids to Catholic school was so that they wouldn't turn out to be evil murdering atheists like himself.  It's just further proof that atheism causes mass murder.

duhhhh ;)

sorry, i just had to.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:00:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Norm, your hypothesis intrigues me, but I so far only see assumptions and correlative evidence.

I wonder if Wes could track the IP for us so we could see if one of your suppositions is correct?

Date: 2006/05/20 12:12:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL.

nice catch.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:33:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
3 moons.  1... 2... 3.  yup.  looks right to me.

do you have enough information to speculate how many moons circle Dave's version of Earth?

Quote
Maybe he's cuckoo for cocoa puffs.


Norm? any thoughts on that?

Date: 2006/05/20 12:40:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dave, I'm no etymologist (neither are you, obviously), but isn't assuming one language as derivative of another based on phonetic similarity kinda like assuming oranges are derived from lemons because they are both round?

think about it for a second.

when you say "portugeuse is a combination of french and spanish", you literally are saying that there is no distinct portugeuse language outside of these other two.

Is that what you really think?

I doubt many portugeuse linguisticians would agree with that statment.

would you say american english is a combination of french, german, spanish and UK english?

or is it really that culture influences all language to a greater or lesser extent, and so words are adopted into everybody's language that reflects this?

just for ONCE in your existence on ATBC, use your brain and work this out.

Date: 2006/05/20 12:47:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.


I do hereby rest my case that what you have in fact shown is a complete inability to rationally parse any argument whatsoever, and even to recognize that fact.

I again ask you to provide evidence that you can form logical, evidence based, rational argumentation on any subject you have a more relevant background in.

engineering, perhaps?  didn't you say you had an engineering degree?

care to show us anyplace on the web where we can examine your ability to rationally parse arguments in engineering?

Quote
(And while you are all at church tomorrow, you can confess all your arrogance and unkind words)


there's that projection again.

Dave, I should have gotten your comments on the parallels drawn by this simple comic which perchance even your addled brain might grasp:

Date: 2006/05/20 12:58:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You might be taken more seriously if your didn't start with faulty assumptions.  I'm neither a creationist, a Christian nor any religion.


that was funny.

this:

Quote
I grew up in a liberal society and only now am I beginning to see the deception I was immersed in.


was REALLY funny.

I could care less what you call yourself, doofus, you missed the point entirely.

your last quote exhibits a pychological malady you and AFDave share in abundance.

Projection.

look it up.

Date: 2006/05/20 13:02:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
awwww, Davey doesn't wanna play no more :(

Quote
I will pretty much abandon the Ape Thread now as it has served its purpose.  I have successfully shown that there is nothing more than flimsy evidence which could be construed as positive support for Common Descent of Apes and Humans, although there is excellent evidence for common ancestry within the Apes as well as within all the other originally created kinds.


oh yeah, i completely agree Dave has shown us all exactly what's what.

It's just not what he thought he was showing us.

Here, Dave, maybe this textbook will help you find your way:

Eggbert the Slightly Cracked Egg

http://www.amazon.com/gp....4845637

better hurry before that crack finishes its inevitable progess!

Date: 2006/05/20 13:15:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
"I’m not a Democrat! I don’t think I should have to listen to this stuff!”


LOL.

naw, that's sounds more like gawp than davey.  the difference is that Dave says he DID come here to listen to this stuff.

a lie of course.  he came here to preach, just like all the others.

dull stone, dull stone.

my knife is sharp enough.  now I'm pulling out the scalpel and forceps.

Quote
In the mean time, there is a good lesson on my "Prove Evolution to AF Dave" thread on the Bible's admonition that "Pride goeth before a fall."


If that's true, then you must be speaking from the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Date: 2006/05/20 13:23:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, ask him how many moons!  sky colors are too variable.

Date: 2006/05/20 13:53:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I don't dodge rubber bullets, dave.

wait, let me correct that.

I don't dodge nerf bullets, dave.

there, that's better.

Date: 2006/05/20 13:59:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
My favorite on the list is:

#15 - The universe tends towards love. [love = exergonic reactions]


does that explain Woodstock?

Date: 2006/05/20 14:04:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
could you provide a caption Steve?  I don't recognize the reference.

Date: 2006/05/20 14:25:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, i certainly recognize the second picture.  

Does it count if i say I've seen that movie half a dozen times?

forgive me if my memory of every scene isn't perfect.  My memory rarely is any more.

oh, and can i have my stapler back?

Date: 2006/05/20 14:29:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
put away your nerf gun, Dave.  You're killin' us.

I'm bleeding foam blood.

Yup, Dave gives definition to a new term:

the Nerf Driveby.

Date: 2006/05/20 15:35:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
looks pretty slick.

show it to Pim or Wes and see if they can get the full article for the thumb.

Date: 2006/05/20 15:49:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that's ALL?

Dave pulls out his Nerf AK47...

Look, Dave.  It's obvious you just don't get it.

You don't just disagree, you project, you deny, and you rationalize based on that, but you don't actually debate.

Norm's right in one sense, you DO act like you come from a different planet, where rational argument is apparently based on nothing more than perception without observable evidence.

again, i say to you; you ARE suffering a form of psychological malady, and you do both yourself and your children serious harm by attempting to maintain it without treatment, or even recognition.

When your kids grow up, they'll have the same problems as you do, unless you recognize your own mental blockages and allow them to move beyond you.

having taught at the college level, I can truthfully say I've seen what happens to kids of folks like yourself on many occassions; trying to deal with the non-reality you impose on them when they get to college causes them no end of grief.

Is that really what you want for your kids, Dave?

Again, this has nothing to do with your religion.  It has everything to do with how you project the worldview you created around it onto your kids.  Really, not ALL xians, or even most, think like you do.  Take Ken Miller for one example, Wesley Elseberry for another, and there are many more here in the same boat.  They have no problems accepting the mountains of evidence for ToE, and no problems utlizing the same evidence in order to further our knowledge.

Don't hold your kids, or those around you, hostage to your maladies, Dave.  Let them move beyond your messed-up head.

Date: 2006/05/20 16:18:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...


not even close to anything i ever said.

really, put away your nerf gun dave.  you're scaring the cat.

Please tell us you were lying about having kids?

as to your wanting a victory... i already asked you to point me to a debate where you had some background knowledge to begin with, like someplace you debated a topic on electrical engineering, say.  Apparently, you can't even show us any time or place where there is some record of you having argued anything in a rational fashion, based on you actually having some knowledge of the subject material yourself.

you want a victory?  show us one.  anywhere.



I have a new proposition:

as far as i can tell, the evidence is that kids of folks whose mind works like Dave's are far more messed up as adults than adopted kids of gay parents.

I say we make it illegal for creos to marry.  It definetly sullied the institution of marriage, and the results are definetly a drag on society at large.

It's like letting serial killers marry and assuming their kids won't grow up the same way.

whaddya think, Dave?  time for a divorce?  You already divorced yourself from reality at some point.  Why not keep up the trend?

Date: 2006/05/20 16:32:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
that's way more scary than any attempt at argument you have made so far.

I'm not kidding.  

Let them move beyond you.

You'll be doing them a grand favor.

the best you possibly could.  Better than giving them anything else they could possibly ask for from you.

You'll give them a chance to see the world through open eyes, rather than closed ones.

...and no, it's not us whose eyes are closed, Dave.

ask anybody you know who doesn't think like you do to examine your "debate" here and judge whose eyes are open to the evidence, and whose are not.

really.  You're nuts.  It's OK, many of us are, but don't inflict it on your kids.

Date: 2006/05/20 16:39:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
what you just did there is called "projection", Dave.

Do you know what that means?

Well, it really doesn't matter, but trust me when I say that you saying WE need to call for treatment is pretty funny, and #### near exactly what I would expect you to say.

did you know that schizophrenics often think that it's the rest of the world that's gone crazy, not themselves?

How would you solve that dilemma, Dave?

I'm of the strong opinion that the reason you have stuck it out here so long is because you are really crying out for help.

Sorry, I don't think anybody here has the background to properly help you with your particular affliction, but I hope that putting pressure on you here will perhaps get you to consider seeking treatment yourself.

there's nothing bad about mental illness; it's just like any other illness, and can be treated as such.

However, just like any other illness, if left untreated it can get worse.  Moreover, since you have family, it can be contagious, in several senses.  there might be a genetic component to it, in which case you need to be VERY careful about how you expose your kids to how you think, as they might as easily as an addict become just like you.

really Dave, there's nothing more clear to any of us here than the fact that you have been posting here for over a month, and have presented nothing but speculation, denial, and projection in your posts.

No hard evidence, nothing to indicate you can mentally process the arguments or information presented by any of us here WRT the ToE.

there's only one conclusion to make.

You need help.

seek it and you'll be happier.  Your wife will be happier.  Your kids will go farther in life.

good things all around.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:12:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*sigh*

oh yes, by all means...

On with the show.

Quote
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
Were so glad you could attend
Come inside! come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
Be careful as you pass.
Move along! move along!

Come inside, the shows about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart
Rest assured youll get your moneys worth
The greatest show in heaven, he11 or earth.
Youve got to see the show, its a dynamo.
Youve got to see the show, its rock and roll ....

Soon the gypsy queen in a glaze of vaseline
Will perform on guillotine
What a scene! what a scene!
Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
To alexanders ragtime band
Roll up! roll up! roll up!
See the show!

Performing on a stool weve a sight to make you drool
Seven virgins and a mule
Keep it cool. keep it cool.
We would like it to be known the exhibits that were shown
Were exclusively our own,
All our own. all our own.
Come and see the show! come and see the show! come and see the show!
See the show!

Date: 2006/05/20 17:19:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
In the meantime, the kids are exposed for years to the kind of thinking processes Dave exhibits so profusely here.

I don't share your optimism that a lot of kids can simply shrug off years of exposure to this crap (and the fact that the numbers of folks who think like Dave hasn't actually changed much in over 20 years in the US also supports this - see the data in that Nat. Geo article from Nov. 2005).

In fact, while a few do, a lot simply don't, or only are able to partially in my experience, and that limits how well they can do in fields like science, where crtical thinking and logic are extremely important.

If Dave feels fine with limiting his kids roles, there's no law stopping him, but it still pains that there will be another 5 kids having to deal with what essentially is no better than the mindset of an alcoholic.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:27:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
it never ceases to amaze me what a diverse group we have hanging about.

now we know where to go with linguistics questions.

thanks Arden.

I'm sure Dave will be correcting you any moment

*snicker*

Date: 2006/05/20 17:38:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Interesting.  still reading it, but had a couple of questions, if you don't mind?

How old were you when you wrote this?

What were you doing (in your life) when you wrote this?

How close are the ideas presented to what your ideas are now?


just curious.

thanks

and Russel -

you didn't miss a thing but more incorrect assumptions, presumptions, and projection from Dave.

so, IOW, you missed nothing.

I'm sure it will all get repeated tommorrow.

Date: 2006/05/20 17:44:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Perhaps it was his assertion, on one of these threads, that the U.S.A. was founded on the christian bible (IIRC).


I must have missed that one, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he had.

Date: 2006/05/20 18:07:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Buddy, I don't mind losing but I like to play first.


so would the rest of us, but Dave's rules don't make enough sense to even get started, and he won't accept the rules the rest of humanity uses.

Maybe a good game of dodgeball would suit him better?

Date: 2006/05/20 18:18:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'm taking odds on this wager, if accepted.

don't ask me to cover any bets.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/20 18:21:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i'll take it the questions aren't welcome.

fair enough.

Date: 2006/05/20 18:42:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ahhh, that explains it.

Davey thought I was you.

Dave said:

Quote
Hey Toejam ... I remember something about you promising to become a Creo if you saw me win an argument on an unrelated topic ...


still not exactly what you offered, but close enough for Dave to confuse not only what you said, but who actually said it.

yikes.

pathology, indeed.

good luck

Date: 2006/05/20 18:50:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
It' s like i said earlier, Arden.

Dave sees phonetic similarity and assumes it had something to do with the actual history and genesis of the language to begin with.

kind of like thinking an orange is a lemon because they're both round.

so... you too see the similarity in argument between the two topics Dave knows nothing about.

Now we need to see Dave argue something he actually DOES know something about.

so far he has refused to do so.

Date: 2006/05/20 18:53:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
How do you get a "victory" out of a statement that Portuguese is "phonetically closer to French than Spanish"?


answer your own question.

How does one get a "victory" out of being totally incorrect?

only one way i can think of.

Date: 2006/05/20 18:56:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hasn't come back in 30 years?

hmm, I have to re-examine what i thought about having gay sex with sheep.

Date: 2006/05/20 19:06:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'd hate to see what it would take to make you think you'd actually lost.


now were back to the "he11 freezing over" thing again.

Date: 2006/05/20 19:16:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the only group which can justifiably be discriminated against are those who discriminate.

wait...

Date: 2006/05/20 19:18:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
English is a Germanic language. Period.


I knew there was some reason I studied German.

Date: 2006/05/20 19:46:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@norman:

finished.

I found this line of particular interest in the current discussion:

Quote
The believer can no longer imagine, comfortably, a world view without his faith, his illusions.  The
emotion attached to these religious ideas is stronger than the emotion attached to the concepts and ideas in a more rational mind.


yup.

Date: 2006/05/20 20:27:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
don't get all hissy.

Dave will have forgotten everything said today by tommorrow anyway.

You need to wait for him to come back, and then try again.

Date: 2006/05/20 20:43:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
k.e. likes to call "cognative (sp: cognitive) dissonance".


lol.

ke didn't even need to invent this.

it's standard psychology, and exactly what I've been pointing out is wrong with the creobots for years.

they all suffer from it.

external symptoms include mad spinning of psychological defense mechanisms to give the brain some room to breathe.

these include... wait for it...

projection and denial.

Yeah, there's a reason psychologists get PhDs.
There really is something to the science of psychology.

The kind of stuff exhibited by the likes of good ol Dave can be gleaned from a psych 101 text.

but that doesn't qualify me to treat him, or make a definitive diagnosis, even halfassed in an online forum.

You can google search on the term yourself and see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It seems blatantly obvious to me, but hey, now I'm trying to play M.D. where i probably shouldn't.

Could do more harm than good.

Date: 2006/05/20 21:02:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Whatever the case (I think Pim actually was the first to use it on a PT board in a discussion we were having about a year ago on this very issue), I think if you spend an hour or two checking out the basic psychology involved, you'll start to see a repeated pattern, and it is pretty interesting.  Worth the time if you have an hour or two to spare.

I had to study psych as an behavioral ecologist, of course, but that's about as far as it went.

I do know some psych grads who might have better insight, if i can find them.

the problem is, say you manage to diagnose someone as schizophrenic.  How do you go about convincing them of that?

Do you think if we showed Dave how much the way he processes questions looks like cognitive dissonance, that he would say, "By Jove, I think you're right, I should see somebody about that!"

It's all very frustrating.

Date: 2006/05/21 09:37:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
sir toejam,

You might have to articulate a little further.  I'm not sure why creationism or religion enters into any of your posts in this thread.  That was my point.


sorry, i really can't take anything you say seriously enough to bother to elaborate.

have fun with your thread.

Date: 2006/05/21 09:40:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Now, what WAS his name?


Kunte Kinte?

;)

Date: 2006/05/21 09:52:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
His psychology is messed up for sure. But we all have our crosses to bear, right?


of course.

After seeing the endless parade of IDiots wander through this forum and preach at us, I thought perhaps that rather than doing the usual; that being trying to actually show them evidence (which never seems to work), I'd try to investigate if there was perhaps a more productive way to approach them.

seeing that most of them appear to share a common psychology, it seems a natural point to press and see where it goes.

What if we actually do get somewhere in convincing a creobot that their thinking processes themselves are disfunctional?

for once, progress other than convincing lurkers these guys are idiots could be made.

I just don't know enough about psych to feel qualified to pull it off.

I decided yesterday i would try to track down some old friends and get their input.

one has a Masters in clinical psychology, and the other a PhD in cognitive psychology.

that should be a pretty balanced perspective, and either dispell my notions right quick-like, or else provide some positive input to act on.

Could take me a week or so to track them down tho.  I'ts been a few years...

Date: 2006/05/21 09:59:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Eric ... you seem to misunderstand the Creationist position


The MOMENT i read this, my first thought was...

Dave will now regale us with an exactly WRONG version of standard creationism.

which he promptly did.

at least he's consistent.

Dave-

you still don't get it.

We don't care if you disagree with us, it's WHY you disagree that is so ridiculous.

It's your presupposition that what you use in favor of your "arguments" actually constitutes evidence.

It doesn't.

as i said before, all it constitutes is projection.

Doesn't it puzzle you in the slightest that everybody here keeps asking you to provide evidence for your position, when I'm sure it seems obvious to you that you already have?

are you capable of analyzing yourself in the slightest bit?

Date: 2006/05/21 10:05:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no...

that ain't no crow, it's a heavily laden african swallow.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:09:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Finland is in a different time zone to him.


ahhh, Finland...

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/finland.mp3

What else is there to say?

Date: 2006/05/21 10:16:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*clears throat*

ahem.

I know I'm going to regret saying this.

but...

Davetard's fungus research (rotten tho it was ;P ), is still more than any other IDiot can claim to have done in the last 2 years.

Unlike his hero Dembski, who "laments" the lack of research in ID, but actually DOES nothing, Dave at least tried to do something.

for that, if nothing else (poor design, poor analysis, poor interpretation of results, etc.), he should be commended.

there really is no better way to explore one's world than by performing scientific experiments.

now, of course, it works far better if you actually know what the heck you are doing when you put together your experiments, but at least his heart if not his brain is in the right place.

/end plug for science

Date: 2006/05/21 10:22:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Just for KE:

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/halfabee.mp3

I don't think half-Dave would even be equivalent to eric, as i believe half-Dave is only the ass-end.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:26:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Well, I see that not everyone agrees with C.S. Lewis ... what a surprise!


LOL.

yes, what a surprise that everyone here doesn't see the author of fictional children's novels as authoritative in the world of science.

complete shocker!

Date: 2006/05/21 10:30:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote


It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see this, Arden.  


*sigh*  Why doesn't it surprise me that right after i said Dave would be popping in soon to "correct" Arden, he does attempt to do just that?

see, BWE, i told you Dave was completely oblivious.

feel free to set your trap.  he won't see it, even if we discuss the details.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:33:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@fractatious:

Do you have a background in clinical psych?

if so, could you comment on the theory that Dave is suffering from a form of cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by the rampant denial and projections he spins daily?

@steve:

Quote
that I should read Mere Christianity and that if I could refute Lewis's arguments I'd be world famous. I had a good laugh at that.


did you point him to the already world famous folks that stood in line to do just that, years ago?

Date: 2006/05/21 10:40:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I recently heard that viruses represent the majority of biomass in oceans.


Really?  I always thought it was nematodes.

Can you dig up the reference for that, Jean?

sounds like yet another bit of my knowledge may have become outdated.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:44:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
one of these days, Steve, you should just make a post over on the UD thread that simply consists of all the made up DT "ban lines".

some funny stuff there.

Date: 2006/05/21 10:48:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, for better or worse, I'm going to catch the film version right now.

I'll give a full review in a few hours.

wish me luck.

Date: 2006/05/21 15:16:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Well, I'm sure those who hated the book are going to find this surprising, but I found it to be a well acted, well directed, well paced flick.

there was some stress to keep the interpretations "open ended", which actually improved the premise over that of the book (even if only slightly), IMO.

My main criticism would only be that it actually stuck too close to the book, and so tried to include a bit more than was really necessary at times.

I've ceertainly seen far worse flicks in the last year.

I'd give it a B grade overall.

worth seeing if you like "action mysteries", and can stuff your conceptions of reality in a box for a while.

Date: 2006/05/21 15:24:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
My prescription: Taking up the cloth and living on a mountain. Preferrably one 6000 years old.


er, i don't know of any EXACTLY 6000 years old, but would it be ok if it were younger than that?

If so, I have a suggestion for Dave:

go study on top of Space Mountain at Disneyland.

-It's intelligently designed
-Is less than 6000 years old
-the creator of the Eden it's in shared a lot of your senses of morality
-It has fun things to do when you get bored of being a hermit

sounds perfect!

Date: 2006/05/21 15:39:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I don't have the original article where they estimated the total biomass of 'oceanic' viruses.


thanks jean, it's a start.

You probably wouldn't be surprised how often the biomass question arises in discussions with students.

It does surprise me tho, that this factoid is not referenced in the paper you quote from.  It should have been.

KE - I'll get back to that later, if you don't mind.

Date: 2006/05/21 16:09:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
which is NOT my purpose at all,


yes, yes, Carol.  We all know what your purpose here is.

I think now would be a good time to espouse your new "why Landa's book sits so low in the Amazon book rankings" theory.

well, maybe when your done preaching, eh?

Date: 2006/05/21 17:00:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL.

yes, thanks Carol.

You define the word "predictable" almost as well as AFDave.

Done yet, or do you want to taunt us a second time?

Date: 2006/05/21 17:13:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
a distraught call comes from someone who seems to have just run up from the beach........

after bursting through the door and regaining his composure, the man, who just happened to be named Victor, quickly informed Hugo that he just saw a giant tentacle come from the ocean, grab several beachgoers, and then disappear beneath the waves.

"Great Scott!  That sounds like an Architeuthis attack!  I've never heard of one this close to land before.  But then, I'm just an ichthyologist, I don't normally study cephalopod behavior.  Perhaps we should try to locate someone more familiar with squids before we begin our investigation?"

...and so, having completely forgotten the attractive woman who had been eyeing him previously (biologists can be like that whenever an interesting fish tale arises), Hugo and Victor set off to examine the scene of the apparent giant-squid attack, and see if there were any cephalopod experts hanging about on the beach....

Date: 2006/05/21 17:29:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is this something we should care about?


surely you mean that rhetorically.

Date: 2006/05/21 17:33:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,


just out of curiosity, is that where CS Lewis got the idea for the talking lion?

Date: 2006/05/21 19:20:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Is there a Penguin Kind?


that brings to mind an old addage an ornithologist once told me that's kind of a running joke with them:

there's only 4 kinds of birds:

hawks 'n eagles (any raptor or related)
little brown birds (sparrows and the like)
dickie birds (humming birds and the like? - not quite sure i remember exactly)
ducks 'n stuff (any bird that ever goes near water)

penguins would come under the "ducks 'n stuff" category.

;)

Date: 2006/05/21 19:27:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, but he's got competion from AFDave.

Is there a clear winner?

I can't tell.

Date: 2006/05/21 19:31:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
But at least Carol, evidently being Jewish, seems not to believe in a vengeful god.


best to again specify that you mean that rhetorically, as I'm sure none of us here care to hear Carol expound upon whether Landa's translation of the OT defines whether the refered to deity is in fact vengeful or not.

Date: 2006/05/21 19:44:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I hope that helped.


yup; it's a start.

The reason i ask is that we've been dealing with Hovind types here for years (again, reference AFDave for a perfect example), and they seem unable to utilize evidentiary argument (just as you note with reference to Hovind).  the commonalities are pervasive and consistent.

I was hoping that if we start approaching the issue as if these posters might be suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance, a more productive approach might be discovered.

There has to be a more productive way to engage folks whose minds function like Hovind's does than by arguing the evidence, which seems to lead nowhere fast, or by simple ridicule which ends up being just negative reinforcement; which also doesn't appear to be very productive (well, except for the humor value).

so, not intending to put somebody on the couch, so to speak, could you point to ways you've been taught to more pragmatically converse with those apparently suffering Hovind's form of dissonance?

cheers

Date: 2006/05/21 20:03:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
..and yet CSL also dealt with final conflicts and the war between God and Mammon.

still food for thought.

yes, he might have picked the lion symbol for the "king of beasts" reference, but there might also be alternative reasons for why he chose that particular symbol.

christians get eaten by lions...

could be dual symbolism.

heck, i never bothered to really give it much thought before.

I also found it interesting that the villain was feminine in the CSL tale that was deemed fit for the screen.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:04:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
go figure...


indeed.  It's not like this isn't a repeating patten.

THE BEST, I have ever seen an evidentiary argument produce in a creobot is a temporary recognition and retraction.

It's always been the case that within a day or so, they completely block out the inroads on their psychological defenses and go back to square one.

again, this supports the hypothesis that these folks are suffering a severe psychological schism that they need to keep reinforcing defenses to protect.

the longer they stay here, the more I think they are crying for help, and the more I think we should be directing them to seek professional care.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:09:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
so, are you in effect saying that there is no productive way to communicate with folks who suffer such?

I'm not quite clear what your recommendation is here.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:17:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And if I want to marry a goat because god tells me to, then who am I to criticize?


I thought you said god was into sheep?  something about him going off with a sheep for 30 years or sumat?

Date: 2006/05/22 09:27:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
@fractatious:

thanks.  that was exactly what i was looking for.  Much to think about.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:39:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If you are referring to the origin of life this is a seperate issue form evolution. Also do you know what you mean by Darwinism?


you're kidding, right?  Dave doesn't even know what he means by 'information'.

I thought we conclusively established his overwhelming ignorance weeks ago.

Date: 2006/05/22 09:43:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
'Sumat'? Are you from northern England originally? 'Cause the only other person I've known who used that term was from West Yorkshire...

(Tho I think he usually spells it 'summat'.)


must be 'genetic memory' :)

Truly, I haven't a clue why i used that word.

Maybe it has to do with the references to sheep sparking something in my subconscious from my Irish/English ancestors?

I wonder if further discussions of relationships with sheep will spawn more instances of northern UK dialect...

somewhere, deep in the recesses of my subconscious, I feel a joke coming on...

Date: 2006/05/22 10:34:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
everybody, pause and take a minute to thank your lucky stars that our opponents are this stupid


*sigh* I do wish that made a big difference in the larger scheme, but the election 2x of chimpy-McGrin leads me to think otherwise.

AFDave was right on one thing, the ignorant appear to be inheriting the earth.

Date: 2006/05/22 10:54:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm, as cynical as I usually am, I still am leaning towards trying to figure out if there is a better way of communicating with folks who are as dissonant as AFDave.

there might not be, but one does get weary of the banging-head-on-wall sensation that is sparked by continual diatriabe with such.

Quote
Some find that they are prepared to let go of the intellectual dishonesty.  The others... well there are none so blind as those who won't see.


In the parable depicted by Breughel in "bling leading the blind"

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html....le.html

Breughel actually includes every known cause of blindness at the time he painted it, except the most common one, willfull blindness.

He should have added a picture of a man, perhaps even the leader, whose hands actually cover his eyes.

did you see Fractatious' response to the same question on the other thread?

There's gotta be something simple to help point these folks towards self-recognition.

I haven't seen negative reinforcement having much effect, and while postive reinforcement works, it's hard to get them to do anything to begin with that's worth rewarding.

We try to get them to read links, which they then promptly process through their distorted worldview and spit back nonsense.

*sigh*

back to the drawing board.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:00:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Gawp writes:

Quote
I am not a crank.


that sounds vaguely familiar somehow...

"I am not a crook."

Date: 2006/05/22 13:07:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dave-

Quote
Uh ... no, it doesn't puzzle me.  I did enough reading about the mindset of evolutionists before coming here that I was well prepared for what I would encounter.


here's a useful excercise for you.  Can you provide us with the references you used to prepare yourself for "the mindset of evolutionists" before you came here?

I'm genuinely curious as to what you used to innoculate yourself against plain evidence and logic.

You could say it would help defer all the time you've wasted here on this site if you could provide that list for us.

I wonder if alchoholics used to have source material to justify their disease as well.

You need an intervention, Dave, but it simply can't be done in an online forum.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:12:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
This, again, looks to me like classic projection. Defeated six ways to Sunday, afdave will be damned (perhaps literally) if he's going to let down Team Jesus by admitting it!


actually, that's a much better description of the other psychological defense mechanism employed frequently by creobots.

Denial.

same underlying pathology you are pointing to though.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:16:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dave's Denial:

 
Quote
Oh really?  How do you explain my very forthright and honest concession that I was wrong about the AIG-chimp-chromosome thing?


you did, and then essentially retracted it.  Or did you forget?

talk to AIG yet about how they lied to you?

Quote
Quote
 
All by itself, a broken GULO gene does not prove much of anything -- but it is one line of evidence.



Thank you, Norm.  Would you please explain this to your friends and to Dr. Max?  They don't seem to get this simple point.


more denial.  Your mind refused to actually see the point that was made in the original post, and instead selectively only saw "broken gulo gene does not prove" .

Can you actually even type what was said in the original post, or do you physically find it difficult to move your fingers to the proper keys on the keyboard?  It's beyond me asking if you even understand the point that was actually made in the post.  It is rampantly clear that not only do you not, you are mentally incapable of doing so.

and this, specifically argued ad naseum by the rest of us, simply to show HOW much you utilize denial in your arguments, is the topper:

Quote
No.  I won the Portuguese thing thanks to Rilke's Wikipedia article, my Medieval Encyclopedia and your own admission.


I really can't think of a better example to try to get you to recognize how badly your defense mechanisms have interfered with your perceptions of reality.

Did you go through some serious PTSD during your military career?  I'm betting you won't admit it, but your particular level of dissonance suggests severe trauma during at least one point in your history.

what could it hurt to see a psychologist and get an independent determination, Dave?  IIRC, the military even has financial support for that very thing, so you wouldn't even be out any bucks.

really, give it a shot.  You might learn something more there than you ever could, or are currently capable of, here.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:28:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Are you serious, Ghost?


sorry, but that's a dumb question.

does it even matter?

He will of course, say he is, but that means nothing.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:35:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
russel:

from the article on Scabia you referenced:

Quote
Recently Justice Antonin Scalia, running neck and neck with fellow justice Clarence Thomas to become chief justice...


you just ruined my dinner.  

Scalia and Thomas are the two top contenders?  that's like saying Beavis and Butthead are competing for a Nobel Prize.

*sigh*

I've gotta get my shit together faster and get outta here.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:54:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
They're not teachable.


What I'm saying is not a disagreement with that as far as ToE is concerned, but rather that perhaps there might be some way to get through to them just how badly their thought processes differ from what would be considered "rational".

What we've been doing up to now seems to me like trying to convince a smoker to quit by pointing out statistics on lung cancer.

doesn't work.

you have to convince them that there's a psychological addiction they are facing first, get them to recognize that, and go from there.

same with alcoholism, or most addictive behavior for that matter.

again, I'd consider it a major victory if we could just get ONE of these creobots to recognize that they might not be thinking rationally.  Maybe that would be enough to get them a bit more introspective, and hopefully enough that a few might seek to explore that.  Folks as bad as Dave is should seriously be considering seeking professional treatment, as there may be underlying causes to the dissonant behavior that could produce far more unwanted results than depicted here in these forums.

Alcoholism was, until relatively recently (say 60 years?), not considered to be a real problem for society at large.

I don't think very many think this way any more (laws against drunk driving, thousands of treatment programs, AA, etc.).

I'm beginning to suspect that the type of dissonant behavior shown by creobots is becoming a more recognized and pervasive problem now in the US.  Heck, it seems pretty obvious that our own president seems to suffer from it to a greater or lesser extent, based on his reactions to logical questions about his policies.  I'm certainly not the first to notice, either.

Adam, on the PT board yesterday, also made a point of detailing the difference between "religion" and the type of behavior exhibited by AFDave.

again, an alcoholic comes to mind.  Most of us can drink alcohol and not become adversly psychologically affected (addicted) to it, but some cannot.

we realize the best treatment isn't to eliminate the sale of alcohol to cure alcoholics, but rather to remove the individual from the source.  Even before that, however, you have to get the individual to recognize that they have a problem.

I've decided to explore how one would go about doing just that, if there even is a way to do so via an online forum.

It's gotta be more productive than head-banging and ridicule.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:07:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no no; think "herd" hypothesis;  to get your really dumb posts to be hard to pick out, you have to surround them with posts that are at least close to being just as moronic for the dilution effect to actually work.

don't second guess yourself, I still think you're onto something....

;)

Date: 2006/05/22 14:16:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Good luck arguing with that.


hmm, I think you're missing my point.

Arguing evidence is exactly what I'm saying is so fruitless.  Rather than argue the evidence, we might look at the mindset and attack that instead.  document the clear instances of projection and denial constantly used in their arguments, rather than document their misinformation and ignorance all the time. Not saying there is no value to lurkers (or ourselves sometimes), but that it is of little value to folks like Dave.

as you rightly point out, it's quite clear there is little point arguing evidence with folks like Nelson.

let's get to the pathology of the issue, and see where that leads us.

You gotta admit, it's not a commonly used approach.

and, just to repeat myself... it couldn't be any less productive than the current approach (lurkers aside; as the evidentiary argument mode is the best for that).

You really can't argue that in a month, we have made ANY headway with AFDave arguing from an evidentiary standpoint, can you?

of course not.  If anything, the pressure on his worldview seems to be causing him to spin out defenses at an ever more rapid pace!

the difference in approach would simply be to try to get him to recognize that, rather than to actually accept any of the evidence provided, which he is clearly unable to do.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:58:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naw, he just finally realized that compared to AFDave, he's the library of congress, and actually capable of providing rational argument (at least on rare occasions), so he better get started spewing his drivel out there.

and it's true, compared to the stuff that poor Dave spouts forth, his posts are sheer genius.

doesn't really make them cogent or supported, but hey, everything is relative to some extent.

That's right Dave, GoP is using you to further his own agenda.

How does that make you feel, Dave?

Date: 2006/05/22 15:01:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
May you rest in peace, Speccy.


sorry for your loss.

should we send flowers...?

Date: 2006/05/22 15:06:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Yeah, I remember the first time I took too much, too.


"Have you ever looked at the back of your hand?  I mean, really just looked at it?"

Date: 2006/05/22 18:26:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
wow.

Although I can reasonably predict he won't be, Dave should be proud of that.

I don't think he (can) grasp how many have come before him, and just how idiotic they all have been.

To be labeled "funniest" is quite a compliment.  Really.

Now if he knew the definition of self-deprecating humor, it would truly be funny, rather than pathetic and sad.

For example, gawp CAN be funny, and he occasionally sees that.

Dave is incapable of being funny intentionally, and can't begin to see why we think his responses are humorous anyway.

oh well, the show must go on.

Ohhh Daveyyyyy!

5 minutes to curtain Mr. Dave, 5 minutes...

Date: 2006/05/22 18:31:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...a microwave oven, a Mercury Montego, a Mazda, a Monza, a Winnebago—a whole herd o' Winnebagos, we're givin' 'em away! )—and, of course

a baby's arm holding an apple.


thanks, that does bring back some memories.

lol.

I haven't even heard that on the radio in at least 10 years.

Date: 2006/05/22 18:38:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
what's the likelihood that we would get a straight answer out of "honest Dave" if we actually asked him?

not bloody likely given his reponses so far, but we could always give it a shot and see what happens.

Care to fill us in, Dave?

What was your actual flight training; did you actually fly missions or just training?

What made you leave the military?

You could actually provide something worth listening to here, if you wanted.

Date: 2006/05/22 18:59:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Bah, I should not post when I haven't slept for 2 1/2 days.


i hear the price of eggs in outer mongolia went up 2 cents today.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:16:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Dave looks down on us from 30000 feet in his jet-trainer and says...

"I welcome your comments, but get ready to be challenged! "

ROFLMAO!

the only challenge is in keeping your own sanity while you observe the total lack of his own.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:20:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that this is the same circular reasoning on both sides.


I can tell just from the tone of your post I'm going to regret bothering to ask, but...

could you point out exactly where you see circular reasoning on BOTH sides?

or are you just farting your 2 cents?

here, let me help you:

what you see on DAVE'S side is not only circular argument and reasoning, but rampant ignorance, and hardcore projection and denial.

what you see on our side that you misinterpret as circular, is the fact that we have to repeat ourselves a dozen times or more before Dave can apparently parse even a few words of what we are trying to show him.

see?  not circular, just patient.

You don't need to go farther than the first few pages on any of Dave's threads to see the answers to his drivel are already there.

The rest is us just excercising our wit, or our skulls by banging them on ridiculous pyschological walls Dave has built around himself.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:28:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
so stop preaching and start asking.

what are your questions?

oh, and i suggest you start a new topic to address them.

as you may have noticed, this thread has become a bit long in the tooth.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:33:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I wonder what his AF buddies thought of the obvious cult he had been indoctrinated into as a kid???

did I ever tell you how much i HATE missionaries?

single most destructive occupation on the face of the earth.

aside:

Quote
there is no threat and it justs wastes time that could be applied to real work.


multiple things wrong with that statment.

1.  If we are here, we have time to waste.  All my work is done at the moment.  anybody else taking off time from research or work to post here?  no?  didn't think so.

2.  Standard response:  what we do here helps lurkers who haven't seen the various positions argued ad nauseum, and we often post useful information, not just for lurkers, but for each other as well.  I learn new stuff here almost every day, and I AM a scientist.  there's quite a diverse group with a lot of expertise that you just won't find on very many forums.

so... did you actually have questions?

Date: 2006/05/22 19:39:06, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i'll add it to the list, if you tell me it has a happy ending

;)

Date: 2006/05/22 19:43:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Am I the only one wondering if things are running backwards in ID-world?


no.

projection. def.:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

Date: 2006/05/22 19:47:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
exactly what i just posted above.  maybe with a brief discussion of the theory of cognitive dissonance thrown in for good measure.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:50:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Sorry, Tina, but I’m not going to take the bait, tempting as it is.

Comment by William Dembski — May 22, 2006 @ 2:24 pm


that's because he's been burned every time he's tried.

Date: 2006/05/22 19:59:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I've forgotten 10 times the number of books i remember.  

you know you gotta read too much shit in this profession anyway.  I have an entire garage full of periodical reprints alone!  I've finally managed to donate the other garage full of texts and books i was toting about for decades.

so, to answer your question, probably, but I'm sure I've all but forgotten which ones and when.

Heck, these days it's great if I can remember most of a book i just read last week.  Most of the info. just gets absorbed into the "gestalt" along with the rest.  specific memory was always a weak spot with me.  Ask me how a theory works and how and when it is best applied? no problem.  ask me who was the originator of the theory?
thank god for google.

In case your wondering, I studied a bit of anthropology (and California history) as an undergrad, and most of my opinions of missionaries came from direct observations of their impact on culture and environment.  Not pretty.

I have a totally different view of missions when i visit them than most folks do.

Date: 2006/05/22 20:08:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
i picture many juvenile practical jokes being pulled on our davey...

got a few ideas of what they might have been, OA?

Date: 2006/05/22 20:15:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
told from whose perspective?  the missionaries or their victims, er, i mean "students"...?

It starts to sound familiar... did they make a flick out of that story about 10 years ago?

Edit:

nvmn, i went and looked it up.  it does sound like a great tale.

kind of a more modern "Lord Jim"

and no, looking at the list, i can't recall ever having read any of her books before.

Date: 2006/05/22 20:32:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
"Everything this man says is a lie"

"Now listen carefully... I am lying."

Do you think we could explode Dave's brain with this dated bit of trivia?

Date: 2006/05/22 20:52:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
http://www.thetubes.com/lyrics/life.htm

hmm.  I don't suppose you're a Guess Who fan as well?

Date: 2006/05/22 21:03:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, don't look at me.  I gave up on his ability to even understand an evidentiary argument after his very first post.

At this point, I'm more interested in seeing if there is anything practical that would result from disecting his brain.

Date: 2006/05/23 09:57:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
there probably isn't an underlying endogenous pathology


I do recall several fairly recent studies suggesting otherwise; one of which was posted for discussion on the 'thumb a few months back.

However I get the point you're trying to make.

Quote
They're not going to listen to reason, whether it's reason about evidence or reason about reasoning.


yeah, you're probably right.

However, it is a different way of looking at the issue, and maybe it will convince some to think about the ways they themselves process information.

Date: 2006/05/23 10:12:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Maybe you and Arden and Rilke and Faid can start a whole thread to in effect prove me wrong when I say the sky is blue.


the problem is Dave, we are the ones saying the sky is blue, YOU are the one saying it isn't.

not only that, but we showed you WHY the sky is blue, in great detail, and you still can't fathom it.

Why are you here?

Quote
It isnt just based on sequence identity. It is the mutations that have occured that are the important part, but you seem to be ignoring this point.


ignoring it, willfully, because understanding any point we actually make here would deflate his argument, and in his mind, even that tiny bit of doubt is unacceptable.

Date: 2006/05/23 10:32:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I'm, uh, not sure why all the other primates got their Vitamin C taken away, too. Hopefully AFD will explain that.


meh, I'm sure god thought we all look alike.  Apes, humans; what's the diff?

and he probably even said:

"Whatever.  I'll sort it all out later"

;)

Date: 2006/05/23 10:42:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
In short, Dave's "medieval encyclopedia" is probably some book about Templars and the Holy Grail.


Dave's encyclopedia is The Davinci Code?

Date: 2006/05/23 10:46:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And commies, pinkos, liberals, blacks, browns, uppity women, Labor Unions, volvos, perrier, and the educated intelligent class.


I think we established in one of AFDave's threads that he must hate all primates in general, and maybe even certain rodentia.

Date: 2006/05/23 10:58:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What's he going to do next?  Fart in our general direction?


be careful what you ask for.  Perhaps you recall how that particular exchange actually ended?

not pretty.

Quote
GUARD:  You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!  Go and boil your
     bottoms, sons of a silly person.  I blow my nose at you, so-called
     Arthur-king, you and all your silly English kaniggets.  Thppppt!
 GALAHAD:  What a strange person.
 ARTHUR:  Now look here, my good man!
 GUARD:  I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal
     food trough whopper!  I fart in your general direction!  You mother
     was a hamster and your father smelt of eldeberries.
 GALAHAD:  Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
 GUARD:  No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
 ARTHUR:  Now, this is your last chance.  I've been more than reasonable.
 GUARD:  (Fetchez la vache.)
     wha?
 GUARD:  (Fetchez la vache!)
     [moo]
 ARTHUR:  If you do not agree to my commands, then I shall--
     [twong]
     [mooooooo]
     Jesus Christ!
     Right!  Charge!
 ALL: Charge!
     [mayhem]
 GUARD:  Ah, this one is for your mother!
     [twong]
 ALL:  Run away!


Moral:

Even ridiculous folk can lob cows at you with catapults.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:40:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Hey guys, I just poured a glass of water and the water took the exact shape of the glass. I am not kidding, there is an amazingly small probability that the water will arrange itself into the exact shape of the glass, but it does. Must be divine intervention!


not so fast, Drew!

have you seen this:

http://www.physorg.com/news66924222.html

Quote
“It is seldom that you see a new stable structure appearing spontaneously in a completely symmetric environment,” explains Tomas Bohr, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark. “Usually you have to do something to break the symmetry. But we’re not doing anything to break the symmetry. The system does it all by itself.”

Date: 2006/05/23 11:49:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, after a month of seeing everybody literally tossing pearls before a pig, I'm following the sensible crowd and leaving you to your dementia.

bye Dave.

I do feel sorry for your kids.  But, there's always hope they don't share your mental disorder at the genetic level.

Isn't sex great?

btw, i prefered Norm's theory of there being a difference in the number of moons in your reality.

It's more quantifiable than sky color, and even you could use your fingers to count.

Date: 2006/05/23 11:57:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
and what would marginalize somebody more than providing clear evidence they are suffering from a long-recognized mental disorder?

just ask JAD.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:10:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
touche.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:16:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think you'd have to do some kind of kidnapping-and-deprogramming to make a dent.


I gotta admit I'm a bit stymied at this point as to specific approaches to try.

however...

that's why rational folk would turn to experts in this field for advice, which is exactly what I intend to do.

I'm going to drop this for a while until i can track down some old friends and get their input on how and whether there is a productive way to proceed along these lines within the constraints presented to us in an online forum.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:40:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, that is a problem, as none of us here are liars.

Where IS Mudd when you need him?

Date: 2006/05/23 12:55:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
aftard needs a reality check.


Mad TV style?

"Good evening, y'all. I'm Tovah McQueen. (And I'm Belma Buttons.) And this is, reality check. The show where you leave your delusions at the door, sit yo' ass down, open up wide for a big ole' slice of truth, with a side of wisdom.
"

Yes indeed, it's overdue time for an aftard reality check...

1...

Date: 2006/05/23 13:53:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
exactly, you must have some idea about the probability distributions in order to make statements about probability.


That's just so untrue...

he can perfectly well make as many IRRATIONAL statements about probability as he wishes.

gees, it's not like that isn't essentially what he's been doing for the whole last month with every topic he's approached.

didn't BWE just spend about an hour or so compling a bunch of statements of this very nature in the other thread?

Date: 2006/05/23 14:40:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Hypothetically, say science is wrong. Hypothetically, evolution is incorrect. Then give the Intelligent Design model using scientific methodology. Evolution would fail under scientific methodology, then show how Intelligent Design will excel above it, using scientific methodology.


don't think you're the first to ask this.  We often ask it of UDites that come to PT, more or less.

for example several of us (including myself) asked Salvador Cordova that very question in one of his infrequent visits to PT, and Wesley Elsberry essentially asked the same question of Dembski in a debate some years back, which related to what science ID was planning on doing.

if you want to see what their response looks like, ask Wesley.  It's quite humorous, but I'll paraphrase here:

"uhh, yeah, that's a good question, I think we're working on it; expect an answer soon."

Look, perhaps you have noticed by treading through AFDave's endless monologue ('cause that's what it is from his perspective), that these folks are mentally INCAPABLE of answering that question.  Nor does it affect their ability to spin a tale to promulgate their worldview.

You'll never see an answer to that, or an answer even as to how one could begin to construct and experiment to test the currently non-existent scientific hypothesis of "intelligent design".

It really doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, by any real definition of the term.  It only qualifies as an idea, and not one that is even based on any objective observation.

I guess, all I'm really saying is:

Join the club.  What you are asking them is a great question, but it's no magic bullet.


EDIT:

ahhh, here's a great example:

Wesley frames the question thusly:

Quote
Basically, I said that I had been at the 1997 “Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise” conference where the ID advocates said that they didn’t have a scientific hypothesis of ID and a means of testing it, but that they were working on it. I asked Dembski what progress ID had made in the intervening years.


Here is the response (from AMNH Debate Transcript):

WD (William Dembski):
Quote

Well, let me answer you in two parts. One, if you throw enough money at researchers, you’ll be getting research, right. So I think, uh, I think the, you know, the, the research you’re citing, I don’t mean to dismiss it, I think there’s a lot of good stuff being done, but it’s certainly, the moneys, the research funds are the evolutionary side, we don’t have very much funding, we’re not getting funding from NSF and NIH, so it’s a mainly, mainly private at this point. And I would say yes, we have our work cut out for us. In 1997 we met at a conference, but there was a conference later that year that which was a private gathering, titled “A Consultation on Intelligent Design”, Where the idea was to try to jump start this as a research program. We weren’t there at the time. So, you know, I, I agree, we’ve got our work cut out for us, but, uh, we’re making some slow, slow progress. You know I think uh, we’re still at the point, I mean, I think that my, my work in No Free Lunch and um, Design Inference was trying to lay some theoretical foundations. And, Uh, you know. But I, I do see, there’s, there’s some good work being done, and, I can, I can list some for you. We are getting some stuff into the peer reviewed literature, it’s not, it’s not a whole lot, you know. So yeah, we’ve got our work cut out.


and that's from a supposed "leader" of the ID movement.

If it had anything to do with science, ID would have been embraced, just like it's twin "creation science" would have years before.

There is, however, no way apparently to demonstrate that to the likes of AFDave.  Isn't it readily apparent why that is after a month of examining his mental masturbation?

Date: 2006/05/23 15:19:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
By the way, as for Dembski's quote, I would LOVE to be paid for my research,


I feel your pain.

Dembksi was essentially lying, btw. Not only has the DI never actually funded any research (only PR), but money to do actual research was offered (some NGO - IIRC the Templeton Foundation), and grudgingly rejected by Dembski et. al. when they couldn't even produce a single hypothesis or experimental design to test.

as to published papers in the peer reviewed literature... more lies.  To date, not a single experiment to support ID has EVER been published in any scientific journal.

the papers he is referring to really are just ID mental masturbation (no evidence or experiments, just attempts to poke holes in current ToE), or are provably completely unrelated to ID itself.

the funny thing is, this isn't hard to find out as the DI put up a list of these so called "peer reviewed" works last year.

we got a big laugh out of that one.

Date: 2006/05/23 18:34:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I didn't expet to find that much ignorance in one post.



*sigh* do we really need to do this every day?

this, class, is an example of projection.

and for our new student, here's a definition:

Projection:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

other examples:

Quote
Plus Mayr is much too much of an apologist for me.

Date: 2006/05/23 18:47:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
...the rest is just plain old misinformation and ignorance, which we CAN help with.

example:

 
Quote
Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  If you don’t understand that, there’s not much anyone can do for you.


is criticized by our new student thusly:

 
Quote
Evolution does not occur at the population level, all diversity occurs at the individual level, actually the molecular level to be exact.


which is close, but not quite right.

selection acts at the individual level, which results in observable changes eventually at the population level.

so it is just fine to say we see evolution at the population level, so long as we define how selection is acting on the individual first.

Now skeptic, if you actually want to be treated with respect, rather than coming here and assuming you  already know all the answers, and we are just morons YOU need to educate, you might want to re-think your approach.

for example, you could tell us things you learned from a specific source, and then ask if anybody knows if that is correct or not, and go from there.

example:

instead of saying:

 
Quote
Efforts to debuke >debunk< ID at all costs only make us look dogmatic and something akin to religious fanatics.


a better approach would have been:

I can't figure out the value of debunking ID.  To me it seems to make scientists look dogmatic.  Does anybody here have a clue as to the value of spending so much time trying to debunk ID?

to which most here would have gladly pointed out why it is that there is value in continually pointing out how scientifically vacuous the whole idea of ID is.

understand?

Date: 2006/05/23 18:58:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote


Actually, I disagree.  I don't see any value in debunking ID.



ok, one more time.

the fact that YOU don't see any value in debunking ID has NOTHING to do with whether it actually does have value or not.

If you wish to learn how it DOES have value, then ask.

or, don't, and go read the reasons why Pandas Thumb exists by glancing over the links on the front page of the 'Thumb.

otherwise, trust me when i say that it is readily obvious you have no information of interest to share with us.

so, if you actually DO have legitimate questions, i would suggest you scratch out your entire thread and start over by actually asking some.

Date: 2006/05/23 19:04:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL.

ok, we gave you the benefit of the doubt, now we see you're just a complete idiot.

shame indeed.

If you actually DID want to discuss science, do try again by actually posing or asking some questions that would be of interest to a scientist.

trust me, I am, and you haven't.

feel free to play again tho.

until then...

you are the weakest link.

bye bye

Date: 2006/05/23 19:12:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like.


IDiots often miss this simple point, when they try to use "apparent human design" arguments to support their position.

It's a basic flaw that precludes any further development of any hypothesis, because the observations such a hypothesis would be based on have no objective basis.

there is no independent way to observe an omnipotent being, let alone any way to objectively assess the motivations of such.

their entire concept is predicated on knowing aspects of a designer that we have never seen.

Now, if a UFO were to land, and the aliens let us study them and give us a history of their development and technology, we would have a template to use to "filter for design" independent of the human one.

Can anybody tell me if they've met any aliens, supernatural beings, etc.?

Date: 2006/05/23 19:18:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
...obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful capabilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life.


OGG MAKE FIRE!

FIRE GOOD!

Date: 2006/05/23 19:24:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
in case anybody is still watching and needs more examples of projection:

1.  
Quote
Its amazing, the level of arrogance is monumental.



2.  
Quote
The defensiveness is extreme and none of you has spoken a bit about science.


3.  
Quote
In my estimation, you have no real understanding of this topic, you just like to play on message boards


I'm not sure about the very last sentence, it's not projection so I won't include that one.

let's see, so if we remove all the projection, we are left with:

Quote
As to being a scientist, please!


which is a classic bit of denial.

well done.

not a bit of content in your post.

what were you saying about wasting time and whatnot?

Date: 2006/05/23 19:28:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Wes, when I saw your post, I was expecting you to reveal that 'skeptic' was AFDave, Larry F, Davetard, or some such. Dang.


Quote
I'm a biochemist and a computer programmer and I'm interested in multi-variant systems.


well, from that I would guess it's Behe himself.

lol.

Date: 2006/05/23 19:33:02, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, the poster said he was suffering from insomnia...

Date: 2006/05/23 19:49:41, Link
Author: sir_toejam
..and on that note...

Aufwiedersehen to this thread.

Date: 2006/05/23 20:17:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
repetitive principled argument


LOL.

that's a great catchphrase!

full of irony.

mmm, irony goodness.

Date: 2006/05/23 20:32:04, Link
Author: sir_toejam
why do I see Eric with far fewer hairs on his head after all this, and a big bruise on his forehead?

In fact, that looks pretty bad, Eric.  I think you should get a head CT after banging your head so hard against that rock.

I gotta give you credit though, your skull must be far more resistant to damage than mine is.  I would have had severe brain damage after the 10th page or so, and be totally bald from ripping my hair out.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:34:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Is extreme religious indoctrination child abuse?

Over on PT Nick Matzke posted a reaction to the writings of Nancy Pearcy:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/yet_another_ver.html

In that post, we see Nancy describe both her "early struggles" with her religious beliefs, as well as her current recommendations for how to indoctrinate children.

Nancy tell us what it was like to grow up orthodox Lutheran, and how much she struggled with it in high school; note the last sentence.  No, I didn't clip anything out, it really is a stark transition:


Quote
I grew up in a Lutheran home where I was taught orthodox Christian doctrine from an early age. I went to a Lutheran grade school. I knew the word “evolution” and I knew in some vague fashion that “they” were wrong and “we” were right. But the how’s and why’s, specific scientific theories and evidence, I was never taught.

Halfway through high school, I realized I did not believe the Christianity I had been taught for so many years. I was hanging onto it out of respect for my parents. But I personally had no reasons for believing it to be true. I had no criterion for holding to creation instead of any other world view. I decided the only honest thing to do was reject the faith. I embarked on a tumultuous and painful search for years through agnostic philosophies and eastern religions.

What I had was a borrowed faith. I was a “second-generation Christian.” I believed because my parents and teachers told me to. My borrowed faith lasted only until I found out other young people believed opposite things because their parents and teachers told them to. Without being able to put it into words at the time, I realized that this was not an adequate reason to belive.

I did eventually become convinced of the truth of the Bible and accept Jesus as my Lord.


OK, so she was born again.  Let's move the current day, where she now profers this as the best way to indoctrinate (er, i mean teach) kids:

Quote
It is a major concern of mine to help children make creationism their own. That happens only when the child, on whatever level he is able, thinks the issue through for himself. I hope not only to teach the subject of creationism, but to teach children how to think.

To help our young people find their way through the creation-evolution debate, we need to teach them how to handle basic scientific concepts. What is the difference between a fact and a theory? Between data and interpretation? How can the same data be explained by different conceptual schemes? What constitutes evidence? What does it mean to say a piece of datum is evidence for or against a theory? How can we misuse evidence, or mislead with statistics?

It is not enough to teach children to memorize individual proofs for creationism. It is good to know, for example, about the implications of the contemporaneity of man and dinosaurs.


do note the last sentence again.

This got me thinking.  First, that parents who expose their children to extreme religious viewpoints, while not preparing them for how those views differ from observable reality set them up for the kind of mental dissonance that Nancy describes in the first quote.  I don't know just how extreme it was, but it's not like I  (nor I'm sure most of you) haven't seen this kind of reaction before, and watched teenagers (and older) suffer as they struggle to reconcile an early set of taught beliefs with what they actually see and learn as they get older.  Second, that the way Nancy describes the way she wishes kids taught reminds me of descriptions of some brainwashing cults.  

It's probable that if we actually asked Nancy to detail what she really wants wrt teaching kids, it wouldn't look so odd.  However, on the surface at least, there are some disturbing things in what is quoted above.  What I see is someone so convinced of their worldview, that they would be willing to distort information and out and out lie to kids to "prepare them for us evilutionists" (to borrow from our favorite AFDave).  Which got me thinking that that sounds an awful lot like cultism.

Further, if we think about the implications of cultism on children, one could make an argument that this is a form of mental abuse, and therefore child abuse.

Now just to be specific, I’m not talking religion in general here, but working back from extreme examples of cultism, and eventually locating exactly where the kind of indoctrination profered by Nancy fits on that scale.  Moreover, our own AFDave has provided examples of the places he is indoctrinating his kids at (and proud of it).  Are these examples of cultism?

so let’s start with the most extreme example i can think of that actually DOES happen:

If your neighbors had kids and submitted them to a brainwashing cult, would you consider that child abuse or not?

To steal a post from that thread, Registered User had this to offer as a place to start:

Quote
Posted by Registered User on May 24, 2006 01:16 AM (e)

http://www.da-tulareco.org/child_abuse.htm

There are four forms of child maltreatment: emotional abuse, neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse.

Emotional Abuse: (also known as: verbal abuse, mental abuse, and psychological maltreatment) Includes acts or the failures to act by parents or caretakers that have caused or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. This can include parents/caretakers using extreme and/or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement in a closet or dark room or being tied to a chair for long periods of time or threatening or terrorizing a child. Less severe acts, but no less damaging are belittling or rejecting treatment, using derogatory terms to describe the child, habitual scapegoating or blaming.

i.e., “That’s God’s punishment for what you did;” “When you do that, you make Jesus sad” “Do you want to go to ####?” etc., when spoken to 3-6 year olds.

Whether that sort of stuff can constitute child abuse hasn’t been addressed directly, as far as I know. The big bad atheism-promoting ACLU hasn’t gone there, to my knowledge.

Many people — even self-identifying “libertarians” — believe that parental autonomy is a fundamental right. It’s an interesting and (IMHO) an important political issue but one that this country is far far away from ever seriously addressing.


well, if we're far away from seriously addressing this issue in general, perhaps we should get started here.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:56:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Why is it a good idea to start a new thread devoted to AFDave? He's got way too many as it is. If there was a way to merge all the AFD threads into one and delete the originals, I'd be all for it.


didn't Wes already attempt this?

Date: 2006/05/24 10:12:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
a little addition:

today our own AFDave posted this in one of his screeds:

Quote
Oh, by the way, I also like to write poetry.  You will see mine in the form of a soon-to-be-released new Dynamation called "The Watchmaker" at www.kids4truth.com. See, we want to get to these kids with the truth at a young age, so that they will not go wrong in science like you did when they grow up.


Is this evidence of cultism, or not?

judging by Dave's statement that he had no idea of the difference in genetic similarity between chimps, gorillas and humans, it's at the very least an indication of the kinds of kids produced by such an approach.

Date: 2006/05/24 10:43:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote

Do you think 'Skeptic' is probably the copycat PZ is describing HERE?:


no.  totally different writing styles, and the writer PZ exposes firmly believes Behe is on firm foundation.

bottom line though, who cares?

If our own "skeptic" can't even figure out how to detail his own argument, let alone how to actually ASK a question, what does it matter how we categorize them except as an utter waste of time?

Date: 2006/05/24 11:17:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It has parallels with the vehement atheist's occasional sweeping generalisation of religious belief as a mental illness.


funny you say this, because it was an argument about dawkins that got me going in this direction to begin with.

do please note what i mentioned in bold tho:

I’m not talking religion in general here

just to be clear.

I assume there is a sliding scale, and want to figure where we DO draw the line, legally and socially, as to what is cultism, and what is child abuse.

Quote
The caveat I raise is that, to a greater or lesser extent, ALL education does this.


but this is a gross overgeneralization, and a mischaracterization wrt public education in general.

why?

because the difference is that public education is designed around parsimony based on evidence, while at the opposite extreme, cultism is based on forced ideology with NO evidence (or faked evidence).

I see a BIG difference between the two, with a ton of room to explore in between.

Date: 2006/05/24 11:28:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
on the contrary, Dave has all the "evidence" HE needs.

I asked him point blank if he thought he had posted tons of evidence in his threads that the rest of us had simply ignored, to which he of course replied that he did.

What you saw him posting IS how he views evidence.

his mind works very differently from ours.  

Try to pretend you're speaking to a chimp that has no idea what we mean by evidence, and simply isn't capable of even grasping the concept.

no, wait, IIRC, didn't somebody recently demonstrate that a chimp could deductively reason that paint could cause color and not a knife?

so, put chimps above Dave.  I give up, you'll have to come up with another analogous critter that reasons like Dave, if there exists such a thing.

hmm, maybe Dave is the space alien Behe et. al. have been looking for?

Date: 2006/05/24 11:33:21, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
In America, that's called child-abuse.  Should we report you?


Is it?

I'd welcome your thoughts on the issue in the thread i created to discuss that very thing.

Date: 2006/05/24 11:37:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I have an EE degree so I can say this.


let's ask Mr. Science! he has a master's degree in... Science!

ahh, brings back memories.

oh and dave, parse this equation for me:

undergrad EE degree = PhD in linguistics

true or false?

Date: 2006/05/24 11:42:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
In the interest of "truth" (for kids) are you open to posting on your k4t site a writeup of the gulo story by us AtBCers?


of course he won't like that, it would confuse the poor kids...

strange enough exactly the same argument I would make as to why we shouldn't include creationism in k-12 science courses.

It's a double standard Dave could never understand.

Dave:

have you ever wondered why us "evilutionists" have never come to your church bearing signs that read:

"teach the controversy!"

Date: 2006/05/24 12:07:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh and even though he has already concluded it to be a waste of time, I steal a post that says why we do this about as concisely as I could imagine:

Quote
Posted by Mike Rogers on May 24, 2006 05:01 PM (e)

Bazell’s article was largely supportive of evolution, but his description of scientists as “whining” about intelligent design just shows that he doesn’t understand what’s happening.

Working scientists are busy people and we would much rather not have to spend any time on this kind of bullshit. We are only starting to respond after having been specifically targeted by the religious right and put at the front lines of a culture war in which they are unquestionably the aggressors. Make no mistake: They want to change the role of science and the way science is done in order to render it more amenable to their world view, or at least something they perceive to be more amenable.

What Bazell describes as “whining” is actually the scientific community waking up to the fact that their community is being targeted, attacked and demonized in an attempt to gain political control of science education and probably, ultimately, the institutions and processes of science itself. And now the fundies have the political winds at their back. If fighting against this is “whining” I’d say we need to do a lot more of it.


I would also suggest he read the thread on PT titled, appropriately enough, "Why We Do This".

Date: 2006/05/24 12:13:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
No it doesn't, because the Bible is not true. It's wrong on the age of the earth by six orders of magnitude.


Clouser, Clouser..., Clouser!

(sung to the tune of Beetlegeuse)

Date: 2006/05/24 12:49:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
let me clarify something Dave said:

 
Quote
Reading comprehension, Rilke.  Not the public HERE.  The public OUT THERE.  See, let me walk you through it again.


translation:

I've never been in public before, so I'm afraid that reality might conflict with my worldview, and came here first so i could run away if that was true.

 
Quote

(1) AF Dave needs to sharpen his arguments because he is actively involved in the education of children with regard to Origins.  See www.kids4truth.com.  He does not want to lead these children wrong, so he wants to test his arguments against some evolutionary biologists.  He has big plans for greatly expanded information to be available at k4t.



translation:

I wanted to find out what the real arguments are, so i could effectively produce half-truths, obfuscations, and outright lies to cover them up for the kids I want to indoctrinate into my cult.  Wouldn't want them seeing any form of reality before I'm done with them.

 
Quote

(2) So he comes to PT and finds some willing participants at ATBC, some of whom, like Rilke, have absolutely no clue what his goals are, but they try to guess.


translation:

I know my goals are obvious, but i figured you wouldn't be able to resist arguing with me anyway.  

 
Quote

(3) AFD has immense fun debating, achieves his goal of honing his arguments, the ATBCers are happy because they think they are honing their arguments, or watching a comedy, practicing their insults, or whatever.


translation:

I didn't really learn anything.  But am encouraged to proceed to indoctrinate kids anyway, and I had fun trying to comprehend your "monkey language" (gee you guys talk funny).

 
Quote

(4) No one gets bored contemplating their navels. (or someone else's)



translation:

well, it sure wasn't boring for ME!

 
Quote


It's a win-win!



except for the poor kids he wants to indoctrinate into his cult.

really, I encourage all here to re-interpret Dave's behavior from the angle of his motivation for coming here simply to be to gather arguments for deconstruction and obfuscation.

He's as much as admitted that IS his motivation, so with that in mind, does what he has posted over the last month make more sense now?

does to me.

Also, it becomes clear that continuing to try to clarify things for him simply becomes more homework for him to obfuscate our clarifications to better indoctrinate kids.

seems all we are doing is aiding and abeting a felon.

Date: 2006/05/24 13:04:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Yes, 'chalk' not 'chock' ... silly me.


YAYY US! We got Dave to admit he's silly!

WOOT!

I claim victory for now and all time, infinity times infinity.

nyah nyah!


Dave, didn't christ encourage his followers to be childlike, not childish?

Date: 2006/05/24 13:09:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The data : primates can synthesize vitamin C and all they also have a broken copy GULO. Guinea pigs have also a broken GULO a can't live without vit C.
Now, since GULO wasn't broken in the common ancestor of primates and guinea pigs (otherwise, all rodents would need some vitamin C to survive), common descent predicts that it broke independently in primates and guinea pigs.


yeabut... what about Bigfoot?

Date: 2006/05/24 13:32:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
here's the best thing i found on Dave's blog:

Quote
posted by Dave Hawkins | 7:11 AM | 0 comments

Date: 2006/05/24 13:37:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Here's another recent study on cooperation:

http://www.physorg.com/news67694761.html

just FYI

Date: 2006/05/24 15:29:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but a fundie would be quite certain you were abused.


that's a bit of a cop out.

it's like saying there are no objective ways of determining child abuse.

Would a disciple of Manson say we are all abused?  of course they would! (and they, in fact, did!)

does that mean they are correct?  

would someone who beats their children (and i don't mean "spanking" i mean BEAT) consider someone who doesn't to be abusing their children?

taking your argument, we could say, sure they do.

but there IS a measurable, consistent negative psychology that results from beating your kids that doesn't when they are not.

hence, that's why it's been considered child abuse for some time.  It wasn't always.

that's what I'm trying to explore here.

Are there measurable, objective negative psychologies that result from cultism?

can you honestly answer "no"?

OK, let's knock it down a notch to the kind of "education" profered by Pearcy.

Seems that based on her own history, the very thing advocated by Pearcy could result in severe negative psychology in the long term.

should we as a society be responsible for the damage these kids end up causing when they grow up and try to ram their forced belief structures down everybody elses' throats?

Take a gander at AFDave.

Is AFDave the result of a psychological dysfunction?  Is that dysfunction having a negative impact on society at large?  Would allowing AFDave to indoctrinate children in ever more dysfunction qualify as abuse?

Date: 2006/05/24 15:35:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What's the history of cases involving brainwashing in the western world?  Have they ever been considered?  Have there ever been any cases concerning the brainwashing of minors?


the easy answer is yes.

If nobody provides specific examples on point in the next day, I'll go ahead and see what i can dig up.

EDIT:

as a quick start, and to support the idea that "there is nothing new under the sun", evidently not only is thinking of extreme religious indoctrination as child abuse not a new idea, it seems to have had a go in the courts a few times, based on this attempt at defense by thefamily.org website.

http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book3/chapter3.htm

this specifically is giving a brief overview of the "brainwashing" or mental abuse aspect of cultism in the courts, but it's a start.

do note the interesting case cited at the end, where the ones who did the DEprogramming were actually held liable!

might as well start with the most extreme counter-argument, eh?

Date: 2006/05/24 16:04:32, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
This is a REAL thorny issue, is all I'm sayin'


couldn't agree more.  which is why i thought it would be a great thing to toss about here at the bar.

watch out for flying beer bottles.

Date: 2006/05/24 18:58:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
point taken, its just second nature at this point to refer to it as Darwinism for common understanding.


also incorrect.

as much as you would like to think of me as "not a scientist" I actually HAVE done work in this field, spent many years working with evolutionary biologists, and not a one of them, or myself, would ever use the term "darwinism" to label evolutionary theory, nor would any of us ever call each other "darwinists".

why?  for a very simple reason several others here have already touched on.  It simply isn't the same set of hypotheses that Darwin developed, regardless of Darwin setting the framework to start.

I doubt Einstein himself would recognize what's become of quantum theory since his day.

that's why we call it quantum theory instead of "Einsteinism".

It's simple errors like this that make us think you don't have enough background to explore the kinds of questions you apparently want to ask.

I'd recommend Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for a great text you could self-study over a couple of months and get a much better grounding to be able to ask better questions.

oh, and also work on your grammar and spelling if you want to be more convincing.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:03:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
nice try BWE.

;)

Date: 2006/05/24 19:07:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, I can clearly see now how a "biochemist" could become an ID supporter, thanks to skeptic.

Other than assuming some sort of mental disorder, I couldn't figure out how Behe ever became an ID advocate, or forced his mind to generate the IC argument to begin with.

now i see.

arrogance + ignorance = claptrap.

alles klar.

 
Quote
and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote


would it matter if he had?

Quote
its just a term that we all recognize in the forum and it easier to type than evolutionary theory.


the only people who use it in the forum are creobots.

it's a poor term, and you should know this.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:18:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, it always ends up becoming a discussion of "baraminology" without them even realizing it.

look, I'm going to throw this out there again...

Dave is NOT here to learn the arguments for evolutionary theory to correct his knowledge.

he is ONLY here to learn what the current arguments are that he must figure out a way to obfuscate for the kids we wants to indoctrinate.

as far as i can tell, all evidentiary arguments are doing at this point is just giving him more homework to do; more lies he must create to protect the children.

in other words, we're just giving him ammunition.

at what point do we stop helping him?

Date: 2006/05/24 19:23:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
What do you say to that?


umm, i say:

"Very very witty... very very witty, Wilde."

and

"I wish I had said that"

;)

skeptic:

here's your argument at this point:

Date: 2006/05/24 19:26:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
The fact that they don't exist...


OUCH!

you're done here.

games up.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:30:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
c'mon now, admit it!  You're just pulling our chains.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:39:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but I have to say, I'm pleseantly surprised, after last night I expected this to be a limited engagement, but this looks more promising.


LOL

actually i was just thinking the exact reverse after your last idiotic comment.

you're a complete bore.

good luck with that.

You really should consider arguing BWE's points.  he makes a lot of sense.

here's where your argument stands now:

Date: 2006/05/24 19:54:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
LOL, yeah i thought that might get your attention, Wes.

do yourself a favor.

don't bother.

It's pretty obvious this guy's just here to pull some chains.

BTW, your PM box is full.

Date: 2006/05/24 20:59:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naw, bastardized german

think back to the 80's....

"Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?"

Date: 2006/05/25 01:42:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Comment by lucID — May 25, 2006 @ 2:14 am



gees, what a wanker, to borrow a term.

sure it isn't IllucID?

Quote
Hmmmm, maybe this should be posted on the child abuse thread?


bring it on.  more the merrier.  It's turning into a bit of interesting discussion, in case you tire of "the two Daves*" hijinks.

*reference to "The Two Jakes"; which was the sequel to Chinatown.

Quote
14.  Rollins is hateful, intolerant and ignorant. Also, I could definitely kick his ass.

Dan

Comment by Dan — May 24, 2006 @ 8:41 pm


no wonder these idiots all love the war in Iraq; well at least until you ask one of them to go.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:00:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I may be behind the times, I freely admit, but could someone point me to a reference that documents the demise of "punctuated equilibrium"?


IIRC, this is another area Wes is an expert in.  Check the section on Gould in the Talk Origins archive for a nice rundown.

EDIT:

ahh, yes, here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html


 
Quote
species selection


I seem to recall the species selection argument having been rejected decades ago.

I have seen occassional attempts to revive it wrt some specific circumstances, but never saw any real-world support from any experiments.

Have you run across some new arguments?  I have big holes in my net these days.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:19:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
as likely as anything.

shoud we tell him that the christian fish is actually stolen from the pagan symbol for a woman's genitalia?

Date: 2006/05/25 04:27:10, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Then Jung ..hehehehehhehe..the man who explained the symbology of ALL religion as Myth


small correction:

Jung explained the symbology of religion as being part of the collective unconscious; he never made any judgements as to whether they were "myth" or not (at least not in the commonly understood definition of what a myth is).

In fact, poor Jung may have studied this particular topic a little too intensely.

have you ever read:

"Aeon, the Phenomenology of Self?"

His works on mandala symbolism were interesting, and written in a rational, analytical style.

Aeon was, well, #### near stream of consciousness in parts.

I read it once about every ten years or so, just to see if it makes any more sense to me.

so far... i think about half of it does.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:41:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hmm, i think you are unintentionally grouping where you shouldn't.

perhaps another question would make it clearer:

How would you characterize the lion vs. hyena encounter?

occassionally, a large group of hyenas can wipe out a small pride of lions from an area as they compete for food and living space.  sometimes vice versa.

monkeys fight other monkey species that overlap in home range and/or resources.

maybe you prefer more human examples like tribal warfare?

simple competition bewteen individuals, who may or may not travel in groups.  

two similar species like the two hominids you mention would likely overlap in resource utilization at some point; especially if large scale climate changes caused one group to migrate into the other's normal area.

It's still considered selection at an individual by individual level.

If this isn't clear, we could go into more of what was meant by the old concept of species selection, before the more modern interpretation of individual selection was adopted if you like.

I believe that this also is covered somewhere in the TO archives.

do a search on "species selection" and see what pops up.

bottom line:

the reason individual selection is favored over species selection is both theoretical (check out the history of game theory), and observational (we've never observed any instance of selection acting at the species level).

moreover, the species selection idea can get confusing, as the idea of species and/or population level selection existed long before Gould, was rejected and then resurrected by Gould in a slightly different incarnation.

So far as I know, that too has been rejected.  I have yet to see any evidence presented since Gould to support it.

(hence my surprise at seeing it mentioned, and me wondering if I missed something)

as to this:

Quote
I'm still waiting for Skeptic, or someone, to point me to a reference documenting the demise of PE


IIRC, it was more a consesus after much debate that PE didn't actually fit either the theoretical models, northe current observational data, and ever more recent transitional discoveries in the fossil record were also not terribly supportive.

Wes would know better than I if there was a seminal reference during this time period that signified this.

bottom line though, it was simply a matter of parsimony; PE while a well thought out hypothesis, when rigorously examined against current and more recent evidence, simply wasn't needed.  I don't think it ever was "disproven" per sae, just kinda shoved to the back burner.

Date: 2006/05/25 04:52:50, Link
Author: sir_toejam
...aiding and abeting a felon...

Date: 2006/05/25 04:57:16, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
(list) How does that grab you?


promising.  Did you check out the link provided by Registered User in my original post?

read the section on how abuse is defined; here's a relevant snip (sorry for the repetition, Renier):

 
Quote
Emotional Abuse: (also known as: verbal abuse, mental abuse, and psychological maltreatment) Includes acts or the failures to act by parents or caretakers that have caused or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. This can include parents/caretakers using extreme and/or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement in a closet or dark room or being tied to a chair for long periods of time or threatening or terrorizing a child. Less severe acts, but no less damaging are belittling or rejecting treatment, using derogatory terms to describe the child, habitual scapegoating or blaming.

Neglect: The failure to provide for the child’s basic needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional. Physical neglect can include not providing adequate food or clothing, appropriate medical care, supervision, or proper weather protection (heat or coats). It may include abandonment. Educational neglect includes failure to provide appropriate schooling or special educational needs, allowing excessive truancies. Psychological neglect includes the lack of any emotional support and love, never attending to the child, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse including allowing the child to participate in drug and alcohol use.



I see several aspects of the definitions of emotional abuse applying here, and the potential for using neglect as punishment.  Renier has already started on some of these.

compare/contrast.

I'll have more later.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:09:12, Link
Author: sir_toejam
thanks for tossing one back with us, Lou.  Your perspective is certainly a welcome one on this issue.

I'd comment further, but I'm out the door and will return a bit later in the day.

please feel free to continue on, all; i'll catch up.

Date: 2006/05/25 05:32:30, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naw, too "truthy".

Date: 2006/05/25 05:43:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
short answer:

yes.

the long answer will have to wait (I'm heading out the door), and likely would be the topic of a rather long post, actually.

Please forgive me if I don't get around to it today, but do remind me if I forget as it's probably worth a post on its own, as the issue seems to get confused (even by myself on occasion :) ).

In the meantime, I would also recommend seeing if the Berkeley evolution site has some history of the species vs. individual selection arguments to check out, and grab a copy of Futuyma if you can.

Date: 2006/05/25 16:47:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
like i said, Steve; I think you should work on a compilation of the best of UD.

I can think of nobody better qualified, nor someone who could really put the love into such a project that it deserves.

get of yer butt and do it already!

Date: 2006/05/26 10:43:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
No worries.  This is a contentious issue on the face of it, let alone when we grind out some of the details.

feel free to add your perspective as you deem fitting.

Date: 2006/05/26 10:53:42, Link
Author: sir_toejam
would it help this discussion to get some summary legal opinions/statues/court cases to go along with the few referenced so far?

I'd be happy to do so.  

I think Nick might also have some ideas on where to get some legal perspective on this issue as well.

other directions/input anybody would like to see?

The court cases i cited from the family.org site suggest this is a REAL issue, not just one we are bantering about here, so I personally would like to see as many perspectives and as much evidence as possible.

Date: 2006/05/26 10:58:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote

Ah, I really think you got something there. How does the childhood thing of "invisible playmates" differ from the way the fundies construct their "personal" relationship with Jesus?


there are fundamental differences in reinforcement.

In the latter case, especially wrt what we specifically are addressing here, there is a potentially significant reinforcement influence (both positive and negative) coming from the parents themselves.

How is this the case with an imaginary friend?

   
Quote
If a child grows up believing he11 is true...


Would convincing a child that the concept of he11 has validity constitute an aspect of coercion that could be construed as the kind of child abuse we are discussing here?

 
Quote
3) Belief without evidence, even though if the belief were correct, evidence would be overwhelming. "I believe in <insert god of choice>"
4) Belief in defiance of evidence. "I believe the earth is 6000 years old."

The fourth category clearly reflects parental abuse, or at the very least malignant neglect. The believer has a no-doubt-about-it damaged brain.


perhaps, as noted above (beervolcano), one of the key constituents that seperates abusive parental behavior from non is the coercion aspect?

If i present a set of religious beliefs to my kid, and they accept that, it's one thing.  However, if I present those same sets of beliefs, and then utilize coercion to force them to accept them, that's something different, yes?

Date: 2006/05/26 11:26:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I doubt that I could support any of your points,...


uhh, perhaps you didn't notice, but you already had supported several of AFDave's arguments.  That's why he was being so civil.

as to neutral mutation's role in NS, I do believe Wes has been doing a bit of work looking at this in the literature recently; he posted a bit on his thinking a few months back if you care to scroll back a few pages or so in the forum.

otherwise, you could send a PM to him here, or an email to his PT box.

BTW, THAT would be a productive area to begin your researches into alternative mechanisms for evolution aside from standard RM+NS.

Don't expect to grasp the arguments or be able to peruse the literature on this subject in an afternoon, though.

However, if you actually spend some time to learn at least the general details of how the neutral mutation hypothesis developed, what the supporting arguments and evidence is, it would be quite worthwhile to come back and start a new thread to discuss it.  

I expect it will take you about 2 months of devoted literature research to get to where you could argue intelligently about it, based on your current level of knowledge, and assuming you want to actually ask questions of someone who knows what they're talking about along the way.

However, it's more probable based on your current behavior that you will be unable to ask the questions you need to, and so will never get to the point of being able to grasp it.

If I were you, I'd stick to chemistry.

Date: 2006/05/26 11:31:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Russel:

I think Jean did a pretty good job of addressing the species/individual selection issue.

Did you want to discuss it further?

Date: 2006/05/26 11:57:20, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Or "This level of irony is known to have deleterious health effects, and should be avoided"


This is why I don't spend as much time in this thread as I might like.

eventually, the more i read, the more my head starts to hurt.  I think permanent genetic damage can result from the kind of radiation emitted from UD posts.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:04:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I just get the sense that you're trying to get rid of me.


you should put a link to the source where you get your irony meters from.

However, I did mean that based on your current exhibition, you really do need to go back and look at the basics again; peruse the primary literature, ask frequent questions, etc.  It does seem you have some rather large gaps in your knowledge you need to address before your arguments can get past the "crashed and burned" stage.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:12:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
just to be clear:

Am i wrong in saying that vacate is not the same as "thrown out"?

The ruling was sent back for further review, but the headline implies that it was overruled.

Of course the IDiots would like to play this off as a victory, but really, talk about counting your chickens...

Date: 2006/05/26 12:20:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Please, keep making those informed decisions of yours, you super-cell you!


Well, that fits. I've often thought of Davetard as amoeba-like; extending and retracting his psuedopods as input from the psychophants warrants.  Though, I have yet to see any signs of anything more than general sensory input involved in the decisionmaking process.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:26:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You have your pinhead shoved in so deep you need a glass belly button as a porthole to see out.


Daaammmmnn!  That's a gud un!

Original or plucked?

If original, I think you should trademark that immediately.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:33:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Its not that I'm unaware of what you call the basics,...


well, you're either oblivious or lying through your teeth then.

When you said there are no transitional fossils, you essentially clearly stated you haven't examined the basics in enough detail to warrant further discussion.

clear?

crashed and burned.

go back to drawing board.

get a clue.

better?

..and I am through.

*snap*

Date: 2006/05/26 12:37:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
So... does this latest bit tell us that Kansas is still going backwards?

I did recall it was hard to control the lever on the time machine once it was pulled.

Predictions on how far back Kansas will go before the time machine finally stops?

I'm guessing somewhere around 1850.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:53:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Lou presented his own case as evidence on point.

I didn't really see anybody disagreeing with that.

Is there a general consesus then that what Lou describes is in fact, child abuse?

It even seems like long-term institutionalized abuse in general.

It would seem so to me (obviously), but is this the point we start from, or the point we end at?

Date: 2006/05/26 13:02:24, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Dr Dembski: You’re not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.


Yeah, true, but it creates more traffic, and so more money from banner ads.

and that's what UD is really all about; dembski supplementing his meager income with a couple hundred in banner ad revenues per month.

Date: 2006/05/26 13:10:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Paul, your post, along with the thousands of others documenting rampant destruction of irony meters around the globe, are clearly indicitative of the economic cost of fundamentalists.

Surely fundies are the reason gas prices are so high...

I personally think they should have to compensate the rest of us for the drag on the economy they are causing.

...and that's only half a joke, really.

Date: 2006/05/26 14:39:56, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Of relevance to several discussions current in the forum, here is a recent study supporting the notion that we really need to be teaching more basic science K-12:

http://www.physorg.com/news67859236.html

Date: 2006/05/26 15:20:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
He's nuts if he thinks he can explain it.


?? you mean you need that to confirm the man is nuts?

You are a hard man to convince.

__

EDIT:

AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/26 15:34:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I think that everyone who posts to Dave's threads should add this quote:


shortest trend in history?

Date: 2006/05/26 15:38:01, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
. He almost sounds like he believes his own denials.


uhh, that IS a basic characteristic of denial (the psychological term).

otherwise, we wouldn't use denial as a defense mechanism to begin with.

...and don't quote me on that, or i'll deny I ever said it ;)

Date: 2006/05/26 15:43:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
umm, ok...




__

AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/26 16:05:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, they do place a lot of stock in things that don't exist...

By Jove! I think you're onto somehting there!

Date: 2006/05/26 16:26:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but I knows what I want, and I ain't changing it


prepare to be attacked by the "Popeye" segment of the culture.

Date: 2006/05/26 16:51:17, Link
Author: sir_toejam
why do i always feel i need to put up a ward against evil every time i see something from Hovind?

Hovind makes a great case on point in support of the thesis of extreme fundamentalism being a form of child abuse.

ever see one of his lectures to kids, Fractatious?

*shudder*

btw, as someone with some background in the field, would you consider this:

Quote
"Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute


to be a good example of classic projection?

Date: 2006/05/26 17:13:18, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Do try harder, thanks.


there is only 'do' or 'do not'; there is no try...

Date: 2006/05/26 17:23:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
well, technically i was making a joke (pretend I'm small and green with large ears and gravely voice),

but yes, you are correct.  Dave tried less than skeptic.  definetly a 'do not' scenario.

Date: 2006/05/26 18:03:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
^[chucklehead]^

Date: 2006/05/26 18:33:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
^[CHUCKLEHEAD]^

and a liar:

Quote
please tell me you don't look at the fossil record and see transition

you were doing so good!!


remember now?

so, is it pure psychological denial in your mind, or is it just plain old lying?

which is it, chucklehead?

go back to school, doofus.  come back when you know something interesting.

Date: 2006/05/26 18:40:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
you remind of john lovitz:

"Yeah, that's the ticket!"

amazing that anybody here even bothers to give you the time of day at this point.

oh, wait.  there's a frickin' 40+ page thread of folks saying:

gays suck.

no they don't.

yes they do.

...



nevermind.

Date: 2006/05/26 18:44:28, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
ignorant fundy pseudo-patriots like AirFarceDave


or george bush.

who you should be even more pissed off at than AFDave.

GW is "supposed" to be sane.

Quote
Here's a guy who wraps himself in the flag to preach his cause, and yet he's doing everything in his power to weaken the country by undermining the science education of our children.  Assholes like that just make my blood boil.


exactly.

Date: 2006/05/26 19:02:44, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Well, i didn't assume you weren't as pissed off at GW, I just thought I'd bring it up in case.

as to hunting... GW (Chimpy McGrin) presents such a squirmy and fast-moving target, I doubt ol Cheney could have hit him in the face with a shotgun even if he was trying.

hmm, is it possible we're projecting our hatred of Chimpy onto AirFarceDave?

nawwww.  Dave is an entity unto himself.

Date: 2006/05/26 19:25:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the man(?) who claims to be a biochemist can't answer this:

 
Quote
why do proteins fold into specific forms


nuff said.

Quote
creationisty


i like it! sounds like the opposite to "truthy"

but...

who cares if it's a creationist or not?  It's obviously a complete chucklehead, no matter how you slice it.

Date: 2006/05/26 19:31:47, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
and he's just repeating the same stuff now


yeah, but the real question is, will we manage to push it to 40 pages?

*sigh*

Date: 2006/05/26 20:14:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Thankfully, no *twitches*


hmm, I may have to torture you with one if i can find the one I'm thinking of.

In it, he instructs young children how to respond to their teachers by saying:

"Were you there?"

EDIT:

I found the actual text of the line he speaks in the video, but haven't found the video itself:

Quote
 Now kids, here is what you need to do, when you are in school and some teacher says, "Millions of years ago," just say, "Excuse me teacher, were you there?" They will say, "No, of course I wasn’t there millions of years ago." And say, "Teacher, do you know the earth is millions of years old or do you believe the earth is millions of years old?" See, that is not something you can know. You cannot test it, demonstrate it, prove it; you can only believe it. That is part of your religion, not part of a science. The earth cannot be billions of years old, in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, it can only be a few thousand years old which we will cover here in just a minute.


and gets the kids to repeat it back with him.

If i find it, make sure you haven't eaten anything, and are not holding any sharp objects when you watch it.

anybody else have the link to that one?

Date: 2006/05/26 20:25:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
f) Get a crayola and scribble PHD across it.


lol.

The thread on indoctrination and child abuse has me thinking about working on characterizing Hovind's children's seminars as a case study in child abuse.

Date: 2006/05/26 20:28:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I pushed your momma to 40 pages last night, homo! -dt


ROFLMAO!

####, you're WAY better at that than Davetard.  he should pay you to license those gems for the UD forum.

Date: 2006/05/26 20:34:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
new face? or did i miss it?

if not, welcome crabby.

Date: 2006/05/26 21:08:07, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I just happen to be concrete


freudian slip?

Date: 2006/05/26 21:34:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I remember 25 years ago when the conservatives were all saying that the scientists who were calling for bans on CFC's to reduce ozone depletions were all "chicken littles" (literally ; )

guess what?

seems the scientists were right all along.  What a shocker (NOT!)

http://www.physorg.com/news67869676.html

   
Quote
Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.


Now if we could only get the idiots who claim there is no human influence on global warming to put this in their files to remind them....

I'd really rather we dealt with the issue now, than be able to say "we told you so" 25 years later.

oh, and in case you hadn't noticed yet, I've been spending a lot of time on physorg.com lately.

check the archives there; lot's of great references to recent studies in a lot of different fields.

Date: 2006/05/26 22:07:33, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
DS's motto: "Uncommon Dissent: Love it or leave it!"


now why does that sound so familiar...

Oh yeah, that's right, that's exactly what the Rush Limbaugh fans told me to do when I challenged the assertions for going to Iraq on the OpenDemocracy.org forum.

...and the same thing the LBJ supporters told objectors to the Vietnam War...

hmm, there seems to be a pattern emerging... I can't quite... make it out...

Date: 2006/05/27 08:47:03, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I'll do anything short of sending him money for his own TV ministry

???

Date: 2006/05/27 08:50:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
pardon's in the mail.

;)

Date: 2006/05/27 09:00:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
*rubs hands together like monty burns*

eeexxccelllenntt...

lol.

Thanks, that's quite helpful.  I'm barely scratching the surface here, but I still would guess that somebody HAS tried this angle before.  It's so rare that a truly new legal argument of this nature appears.

do you have the full reference to Eysenck, 2004?

also do you have other source materials you would recommend I check out to get a better background in this area?

I'm an ichthyologist/behavioral ecologist; my background in psych is pretty much limited to a one year undergrad course, and those bits and pieces directly related to classic ethology.

thanks

I sent you a PM; check your inbox.

Date: 2006/05/27 09:04:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 27 2006,04:28)
Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,22:29)
This is not the same abundance of forms that was predicted

Really? Let's see some justification for that claim.

Here is my rebuttal of that general claim.

980413?

You should update that Wes!

Date: 2006/05/27 09:09:05, Link
Author: sir_toejam
oh, don't worry, the mud is apparently enjoying it as well.

*rolleyes*

Date: 2006/05/27 10:01:46, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
After a while of that, they start to realize the stupidity of the statement and how stupid someone looks for saying it.


yer a fool fer sanity, BV!

more power.

;)

Date: 2006/05/27 10:09:43, Link
Author: sir_toejam
your last name wouldn't be Ferrigno, by any chance Lou?

;)

chill; the subject was OT from this discussion, hence the PM.

this too is OT, so I'll move further discussion back to the other thread momentarily; I just wanted to catch up on the other threads first.

and..

Quote
And I'm really surprised there's not more conversation going on in that thread.  Maybe I dun skared 'em all off!


nawww.  it's just that most folks here would rather lampoon the AFDaves than try to figure out other ways of marginalizing them.

it's far simpler and way more fun.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:15:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Goggle for his "prescribed evolutionary theory", he has his own website and blog and everything.


he also has his own entry on crank.net.  

in fact, he's ranked "crankiest" in the evolution section there.

and still, you're wrong.  Davison fully accepts evolutionary theory; it's just that he thinks it all happened LONG LONG ago, and there has been no evolution since.

hence the "prescribed" part.

yes, it's just a form of creationism; it's just he assumed all evolution occured essentially in a "genesis-like" fashion.

also, before you waste your time, let me fill you in on something:

Davison used to be a productive biologist and teach at UVM.  In the early-mid 80's, he had some sort of mental break, and began spouting complete nonsense.  UVM immediately revoked his teaching duties, and gave him emeritus status.

bottom line, he's completely nuts.

which means skeptic should find his ideas quite compelling.

oh and this:

Quote
a well knwon opponent of "Darwinian" evolution


is also incorrect when examined outside of the little circles we discuss here.

example:

call UVM and ask them about Davison.

response:

who?

nobody even knows who the guy is outside of the folks who frequent UD/AIG and PT/ATBC.

Date: 2006/05/27 10:34:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the bathroom wall is the repository of OT crap from the 'thumb, not from here.

if you want to get a post tossed there, you have to post some ridiculous OT stuff over on PT.

You can also just post there directly, as i think you already have?

Date: 2006/05/27 10:47:40, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
People were saying things like "CFCs made the 'ozone hole'" as if they knew for sure that this is the case.


as if we need to rekindle a 25 year old argument that was actually resolved in lab tests and field tests over 20 years ago.

*sigh*

well, here goes.

they did.

how?

1.  lab studies showed exactly how CFC's affected ozone degredation.  there were hundreds of published studies on this in the 70's and 80's.  perhaps you should have read a few of them?  Heck, I even remember my old high school chemistry professor having us look at the chemistry involved in class.

2.  field studies with ultra-high-flying jets that could do stratospheric sampling conclusively demonstrated the effect of CFC's on stratospheric ozone in the early and mid 80's.

3.  global levels of ozone and CFC's can be indirectly measured via satellite sampling (looking at UV irradiance measures, etc.) and again, by subsampling directly with UHF jets.

4.  you ignored the part of the article which mentions the theoretical models that were developed in the late 70's/early 80's to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone depeletion.  these models were based on stratospheric ozone (again, as mentioned even in the news article).  Current measurements EXACTLY fit the predictions made for stratospheric ozone regeneration based on measured levels of CFC reductions in the stratosphere.

5.  Yes, the lower level atmospheric ozone is more complicated, and because of variable unpredictable inputs (like volcanic), models don't fit as well.

Is that so surprising?

amazing you could be so resistant to seeing the whole point of the article.

no wait...

It's not like i never saw this kind of reaction before.

hence the exact reason i posted the article.

thanks for reminding me of some of the ridiculous arguments made against the protocol before it was finally established, and showing the lurkers here the same.

I'm sure some of them are too young to remember.

oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed :)

Date: 2006/05/27 11:01:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
hey, I'm going by his first proclamations on PT years back, along with his actual "thesis" on PEH that he has on his website.

However, like i mentioned, he's nuts.  He says all kinds of random and contradictory crap on forums.

hence the reason i recommended anybody thinking about checking him out that it might not be worth their time.

now please, pretty please, with sugar on top, can we NOT get into a debate about the delusions of JAD??

Date: 2006/05/27 11:10:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
naww, one argument is one argument.

I'm sure i could even find something i agree with AFDave on.  

I just haven't seen it yet.

and actually, i rather appreciated your response in that thread.

took me back.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:28:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
you face immediate assault charges (hit can be defined as push and slap), it would seem that in relation to children, its subjectively defined. Ok, I'm getting off topic a tad bit but I do have a point to this.


no, I think the analysis of subjectivity in definition and usage is right on point here.

Quote
However religious families find away around a childs rights with:

Quote  
Article 26.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.



Are there records of parents utilizing this article as support in a civil or criminal case?

Quote
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.


SO much contained in a simple sentence.  Seems we could spend weeks trying to unravel exactly how  "prescribed by law", and "protect ... fundamental... freedoms"  influence the decision on what is and is not child abuse.


So... would a productive approach be one of volume?  compare how these issues have balanced out in actual legislative action in various places and states, and in actual court cases?

I bet some of the underlying issues have been addressed by the US Supreme court at one time or another.

thoughts?

Date: 2006/05/27 11:32:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Unfortunately the US refuses to ratify it.   Conservative opposition and our insistance on being allowed to sentence minors to death have gotten in the way.


Penny:

do you think the refusal of the US to ratify the document itself makes the arguments contained therein moot from a US legal standpoint?

I keep wondering if anyone in the US has tested the arguments in court somewhere.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:43:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
How is this not, by anyone's definition, child abuse?

The speaker has:
1. Invoked the ultimate, omniscient, invisible authority
2. Demanded unquestioned self-abasement and servitude to that authority
3. Insisted that irrational delusion replace observed reality which in turn can only harm the ability of the listener in question to function
4. Threatened not only harm, but eternal, unspeakable torture as the only alternative to #2 and #3 above


hmm.

Lou, have you ever considered following this up legally?

It would seem, based on our admittedly armchair analysis so far, that you might have a case for a civil suit.

It might be fulfilling to approach a lawyer with this and see if you might make it to plaintiff status.

Also would be a great way to explore the legal arguments involved.

Please do note though:

-I'm no lawyer (I don't even play one on TV :) ), and can't really say one way or the other whether there is a real legal argument here; this is all just "mental masturbation" at this point
-I'm also no psychologist, and you might be far better served exploring what happened to you with a professional therapist before attempting any legal avenues.

Either way, don't think you're alone. as you note, there are entire educational systems and institutions devoted to the kind of brainwashing you document here.  You might actually be able to contribute to knocking them down a peg, AFAICT.

You might try locating others who are in the same boat as yourself.  there's bound to be many "graduates" from the same places as yourself that feel exactly as you do.

It would be very worthwhile if you could contact them and speak with them about the issues as well.

... A giant class-action child abuse civil suit.  I wonder how well they would swallow that, eh?

cheers

Date: 2006/05/27 11:48:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I knew gawp was smarter than he played on TV.

or maybe it's because he ate his spinach today?

;)

see, BV, you never know what you're gonna agree with somebody about, even if you disagree with just about everything else they ever even thought about putting in print.

Quote
oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed


in fact, IIRC, the prevalence of arguments against the protocol within the GoP at the time is one of the reasons I decided to dump the party and start voting demo.

Date: 2006/05/27 11:54:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
yeah, i probably could have abbreviated it to:

"he's completely nuts"

and left it at that.

Date: 2006/05/27 12:14:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
JonF--  Anxious aren't we?  We're not to the Flood yet.  Next topic is age of the earth.  But no need to repost all of Kevin Henke's 25,000 word rebuttal to preempt me.  We all know where to find all the relevant docs


translation:

"*sigh* yes, yes, I know I'm absolutely wrong, but I have to plow ahead with my idiocy anyway.  It's a tenet of my "faith", so bear with me."

Hey davey:

I'm wondering if you would throw a hissy fit if somebody filed a civil suit against one of your beloved kids indoctrination institutions for child abuse?

I'm genuinely curious to see your input over on the child abuse thread.

I have some suspicions...

Date: 2006/05/27 12:31:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Therefore, raising the issue within the evolution/creationism context is only going to start fights, make the evolutionists look like zealots, etc.


We don't necessarily have to raise the question in the context you specify.

Indeed, one of the main reasons i wanted to punt the idea about outside of PT was for this very reason.

ATBC itself isn't necessarily the ideal place to address it either, but it's a place to start, anyway.

 
Quote
since it seems to me that there is no way that parents merely teaching their children young-earth creationism or even flat-earthism can qualify as child abuse.  


I think it's been clearly established so far that the issue isn't necessarily the beliefs themselves, but the WAY they are taught that could fall under various mental abuse statutes.

this goes directly to the argument of actions you present.

as to courts addressing the issue, please check out the link from thefamily.org site I noted above.

seems the ideas to some extent have already been bandied about in the courts.

 
Quote
If the court gave these guys a pass for their religious beliefs, it would have to do the same for every other "God told me to do it" type of excuse.  Thus the insanity defense was excluded.


I think you are missing the next step implied by this case.  the murderers were tried on their actions, not their beliefs, as you rightly note.

If the methods used for coercion of beliefs are considered to be "actions", how is that not related to supporting the case for child abuse; completely aside from the beliefs themselves?

 
Quote
Emotional abuse and brainwashing might be different, but it would have to me much more than simply "you are going to #### if you say/believe X."  Cults tend to control every aspect of a person's life in a very rigid way, which gets us back to actions.


yup, and is pretty much the direction the discussion seems to be headed.

 
Quote
Another random thought is that I keep noticing weird parallels between cults and anti-cult groups.  Scandals, lawsuits, etc.  Is it just me or is there something here?


hmm, I'm not sure if this is a real or simply a perceived phenomenon, resulting from the kinds of counter-suits filed by those charged with abuse to begin with.

again, take a gander at the few cases listed here:

http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book3/chapter3.htm


Quote
What nick said.


uh, you wouldn't care to elaborate on that profound statement, would ya?

Date: 2006/05/27 12:38:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the substantive arguments haven't changed, but there are lots of new discoveries that could be discussed to add even more weight and bulk.

It might be worthwhile to add a link to the spot in TO that documents recent transitional finds, for example.

Date: 2006/05/27 12:42:27, Link
Author: sir_toejam
You should wait until i put up the official poll then.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain to me why it is so much more fascinating to argue the value of gay marriage with bigots that have bricks for brains?

;)

Date: 2006/05/27 13:24:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
You might look up cases involving conflicts between government child welfare departments and various religious groups.  I think the best-known conflicts arise over medical issues -- vaccinations, refusing medical treatment, and the like.


that sounds like a productive area to research.

thanks.

 
Quote
When you're so crazy you're saying that the people who don't want to discriminate against gays are bigots,


yeah, I really couldn't fathom that one myself.

Lou:

Quote
I wonder if there's an AA analog somewhere for this.


I bet these guys would know:

http://www.factnet.org/Children.html

Date: 2006/05/27 14:58:57, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ahh, I saw this:

http://www.factnet.org/cris.htm

linked on that page and thought maybe it was  a legitimate support group kinda thing.

sorry.

from your description, it sounds like it's one fundamentalist group trying to save folks from the rest?

Is this accurate in your opinion?

I haven't checked these, but if you find any useful resources feel free to share them:

http://www.factnet.org/orgspubs_list.html

they might all be related.  I don't know.

It's just the first place i ran into when I thought about the AA thing.

Date: 2006/05/27 15:22:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
as a related, but side venture, I'd like to take a look at something Steve said:

   
Quote
When you're so crazy you're saying that the people who don't want to discriminate against gays are bigots, you're as bad as any creationist.


One of the reasons i started this thread was that based on many conversations with, looking at writings of, and watching the behavior of creobots on this forum and in many other places, they do seem to share a fundamental similarity in psychology.

-irrational rejection and denial of even basic evidence
-tons of projection
-inability to recognize basic flaws in logic.

You can see this if you look at the arguments of Behe, or AFDave.  Dembski, or Thordaddy.

The point is, after spending YEARS attempting evidentiary argumentation to refute creobots, I see little traction gained with the creobots themselves.

This ISN'T saying that evidentiary arguments have no value in these "debates"; obviously they do, hence we have Kitzmiller, etc.

However, when looking at the results amongst the creobots themselves, I see little progress being made.

40 + pages of essentially the same arguments over and over again in the gay marriage thread; even more than that in AFDave's threads.

has there been any support that an evidence based argument is affecting the arguments used by T-diddy or AFDave?

any support that evidentiary argument has been successful in changing what Behe has to say?

nope.  none.

why is that? i kept asking myself.

well, steve points to it, but I'll spell it out:

You can be successful with an evidentiary argument when debating an idea, but not when your arguing against a psychology.

If a schizophrenic tells you that there are blue bugs crawling up the walls behind you, it really doesn't matter WHAT evidence you present to them to the contrary.  they will think you simply can't see the obvious, and wonder why you are so blind you can't see the #### bugs crawling up the wall.

so while it was a half-assed question i posed to steve, the answer says volumes about exactly what I think we are dealing with here, and why i think that evidentiary argument will not be productive in obtaining any positive conclusions to these "debates".

Religion is an idea that can be debated.  I don't see any religion presented by AFDave.  I see a psychological pattern very reminiscent of aspects of schizophrenia.

so, bottom line, one of the reasons i posted this was in fact, to seperate the psychology from the idea; to seperate the religion from the "fundamentalism"; to seperate the creobot from the Xian.

This is of value not just to the issue wrt science, but also from the viewpoint of religion as well.

not a new argument, I know, but I felt it needed to be made here regardless.

feel free to prove me wrong.  I have no personal stake here; but if you can explain the behavior of AFDave, or any of the other rampant creobots anybody has seen here or elsewhere, I'm all ears.

Date: 2006/05/27 15:33:51, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
it's just there's a large amount of fundy commenters on the christianity section of the boards, no real discussion about recovering from fundyism, or the harm it causes.


non-moderated forums are no place to spend your time with an issue like this.

I would search the links for professional support groups instead.

look for something moderated by an accredited psychologist if you insist on trying to do this in an online medium.

However, I would hope the links would somewhere point to an "in person" support group network, much like the AA to which you referred earlier.

In fact, you might not go wrong contacting AA itself, to find out if there are support groups in your area that deal with issues relating to your own.

here is the main AA site; perhaps if you contact them they will have some better ideas than myself.

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org

keep us posted.

Date: 2006/05/27 15:37:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
can you explain what you mean by can and can't get out?

did you mean forced coercion by use of some physical restraint?

Date: 2006/05/27 15:43:13, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
And feel free to posit that I'm just really brilliant for a reason I managed to get out.  I'm pretty good with that one.


ok, consider it posited.

with the caveat that it's posited by someone who has no real background to say such

;)

Date: 2006/05/27 15:50:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
We tend, unfortunately, to use our reasoning skills to justify beliefs we already have.


agreed, but let's focus on one phrase here:

Tend to.

It could be argued that the difference between a religious person and a creobot is one of degree, yes?

while we all "tend to" use our reasoning skills in a similar qualitative fashion, there is a great difference in how that relates quantitatively.

for example, let's take AFDave again.

You can see a difference i trust, in the degree to which AFDave "tends to" use his reasoning skills (if you can even call them that) to justify his beliefs, vs. the others who post in his thread, yes?

would you qualify the overusage of the tendency to rationilize your belief structures "normal" or "abnormal" from a psychological perspective?

Quote
Conversely, the problem with religion is it demands you commit to certain conclusions at all costs


I'm not at all certain that can be qualified as a blanket statement.

but then that's kinda the core of my argument.

Date: 2006/05/27 15:54:39, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Physical restraint is unnecessary to keep the faithful in line.  That's the point of this thread, in a way, isn't it?


yes, but I'm still unsure how to answer your original question.

Date: 2006/05/27 15:58:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
It's an awful position to be in. You see the lengths to which he must go to deny reality, to try to preserve all those religiously-required beliefs.


exactly the kind of thing that causes cognitive dissonance.

Quote
Oh it's absolutely normal, it's a 50-year-old theory in social psychology that people will rework their set of beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance.


and do you see AFDave doing that?

I sure don't.

It's my position that the level of cognitive dissonance exhibited by AFDave has already caused significant damage.

I don't see him trying to do anything rational to reduce the level of dissonance, i see projection and denial as mechanisms to deal with it instead.

normal?

natural, maybe, but it wouldn't qualify as "normal" in any pych text I've ever perused.

oh, and glad to see the subject has garnered your interest.

:)

Date: 2006/05/27 16:06:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam


"Were you theeeeerrrrrrre?".

*sigh* too bad Hovind isn't on that boat.

Date: 2006/05/27 16:12:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
methinks you'll recover.

:D

besides, the basic argument BV was making was a good one.

It IS always good to doublecheck research results posted as popular fact.

and he was correct in pointing out the model's failure to predict results in the lower atmosphere (missed by half; I've seen worse, but still)


I just disagree with the specific results obtained by BV by doing so in this case.

I'm sure I'll say something overgeneral tommorrow that he will be quite right to call me on.

*shrug*

such is life.

Date: 2006/05/27 16:21:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
One more fact to file away. But say this conclusion violates the foundational beliefs you have about the world. If this is right, everything you know about the universe and your place in it is wrong.


Is that why the gov. refuses to show us the aliens they found in area 51?

sorry, had to pop that out there. couldn't resist. :D

I understand your argument, but have this to say as a less flippant repsonse:

the actual belief itself is not what is at issue, but rather how it is defended.

as nick pointed out above; it's not the thought, but rather the actions that are significant.

I don't care if the murderer is mormon.

Date: 2006/05/27 17:02:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
They wind up with all kinds of special pleads all over the place


exactly my point.

others, simply, do not.  

You don't.

I don't.

most here don't.

and not even all creationists do.

hence our friend Lou, who "escaped" for lack of a better term.

In that light, how would you answer Lou's question?

Quote
And of course, this ability or inability to change a belief is not confined to scientists and ministers; it would have to be found in varying degrees in all people.


I'm reminded of a quote from near the end of the movie "Dogma"

after having actually MET god and saved the world from annhilation, there is a brief discussion between an unknown disciple of Jesus (Rufus) and the "last zion" (Bethany):

Rufus says:

"crisis of faith over?"

Bethany:

"I think I'm blessed with an overabundance now."

Rufus:

"Does that mean you believe?"

Bethany:

"No.  But I have a pretty good idea."

Rufus nods in agreement.  Rufus' point was made earlier in the film:

"You can change an idea, but a belief? that's MUCH harder."

Date: 2006/05/27 17:17:15, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
how'd you like to be Dembski? How'd you like to try to reconcile the following two beliefs:

1 I am a revolutionary, genius scientist
2 My followers are Salvador Cordova, DaveScot, GlennJ, DougMoron...


I've often wondered how he deals with this myself.  I saw some of his early discussions he posted from his college days, and it seems he embarked on this "adventure" as a bit of a lark, maybe make some bucks along the way.

I do wonder just how deep he has fallen into the hole he has dug for himself.

OTOH, I'd bet he's actually making quite a bit more money than myself these days.

*shrug*

Quote
And I don't really have an answer for that.


nor did I.  which is kinda what motivated me to start this bit of investigatory debate.  I'm sure i could make a more convincing argument if I had more than a year of undergrad pych under my belt, but I kinda feel like I know "just enough to be an idiot" if you catch my meaning.

Date: 2006/05/27 17:25:36, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
I know going in that both Dave and Bill are wrong. But I can't wait to see in exactly which way they're wrong.


hmm, will they be independently in agreement?  or will they have entirely different arguments?

Quote
Sir Terriblename


yeah, yeah.  I'm workin' on it.

Date: 2006/05/27 17:29:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
do you mind if we end this side discussion here for now?

I don't want to get too far off the main thrust of the thread, which I'll pick up again tommorrow.

cheers

Date: 2006/05/27 19:55:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
[deleted]

Date: 2006/05/28 08:30:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
World Book encyclopedia is a favorite resource of mine


I prefer "Ranger Rick's Jungle Adventure Book" myself.

better pop-ups.

Quote
I am successful in showing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old


a couple rambling insane paragraphs later:

Quote
With Aftershave's cave paintings dated at an equivocal 15,000 ya, we can expand this...


uh, yeah.

You did a great job of showing the earth is less than 10K years old by agreeing it's at least 15.

National debate teams should hire you as their coach!

Date: 2006/05/28 11:51:52, Link
Author: sir_toejam
sorry, i was evidently giving you too much credit.

I thought that was part of your argument based you quoting this part of the article:

Quote
It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.


this was in response to explaining why the model did not as acurately predict ozone changes in the lower atmosphere, so I naturally thought that's what you were pointing out.

so sorry.

really, I think you're digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but go right on ahead, don't let me stop you.

again, it's not like I haven't seen this argument before.

at this point I suppose there's little point in me reiterating that you take a gander at the subsampling studies on levels of CFC's in the stratosphere that were used to build the models to begin with?

naww.

Date: 2006/05/28 15:08:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Thanks.


please tell me you didn't just take that as support for your argument??

are you on something?

In my first rebuttal in incorrectly used "lower atmosphere" to refer to lower stratosphere.  However, this is what I was on about:

The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The puzzle: In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes.

Date: 2006/05/28 15:47:19, Link
Author: sir_toejam
silly game???

tell you what BV and all, if you want to challenge the findings of this paper, and all the research that lead to the protocol, go right on ahead.

feel free to show me the models that would predict the same results based on changes in H2S, or nitrous oxide, or whatever else you wish.

feel free to reference primary literature that conflicts with the studies on CFC's from the 80's for example.

To me, what I see is beervolcano attempting to start an argument based on his assumption that any of the variables he mentions were never covered by anyone involved with the models used to support the protocol; which is a pretty ridiculous position to take (Did he think they were retarded?)

Hey, wanna prove them wrong?

go right on ahead.  You got about 30 years plus worth of articles to review and reject.

In fact, if you're really interested (are you?) i would highly encourage you to do so.

I'm sure we would all garner valuable information from the attempt, one way or the other.

I must admit that I haven't glanced at much of the primary literature in this area in over 10 years.  I could use a refresher, and this study, and my support of it, could be completely wrong.

I just don't think it logical to expect 30 years of research to be overturned because you thought they might have forgotten to include NoX or H2S in the models.

Also note that the reason i posted this here was to mainly to bring up the "good news" that the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.

onto another thing.  It's been my experience that the "chicken little" argument usually comes from those that have never had to deal with Government agencies or representatives of congress.

If you want to accomplish ANYTHING, you almost HAVE to overstate your case.

Not that I'm saying the case for CFC's was in this instance, but rather, that there is some political expediency to the "chicken little" syndrome.

I want to point this out, because I very often ran into scientists, in my own lab and when i was working with ngo's, that wanted to wait and wait and wait until every single detail was worked out, when it was blatantly obvious that at least some aspect of a particular issue could be acted on with likely productive results immediately.

Being careful is a good thing, but when you let the forest be bulldozed because there isn't rock-solid evidence that this forest is the ONLY significant gene pool for a specific species, well.... I think you can see what i mean.  And yes, this isn't too far from many of the examples I saw both as a student, a researcher, and when working with ngo's.

You can make all the arguments for prudence you wish, BV, but can you really say that you examined the data and research at the time the protocol was put into effect enough to conclude there would be no benefit to reductions in CFC outputs?

Your general point of prudence in science is obvious.

Your specific contention that there is no value in the models used to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone levels needs more evidence.

Quote
I would have to do a lit search. Apparently you already have. Maybe you can just give me the weblinks you used to find these articles.


EDIT:

hmm, this does bring up a bit of an issue if we want to actually hash this out.

I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries.  the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to.  I'd bet that both you and I are in the same boat that we can't afford easy access to anything but abstracts these days.  If you can find links to abstracts to support your refutations, at least I can check them out the next time I hit the library.

It's likely to get pretty frustrating tho.

got a better idea?

and no, wiki doesn't qualify as primary literature ;)

Date: 2006/05/28 16:57:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ah, sorry.  I think I actively put Dembski content out of my brain.

not enough room in there for sustained idiocy, and I use "irony divining rods" these days (blew too many fuses with normal irony meters), so you have to kind of bonk me on the head with any less than completely obvious irony.

BTW:

what the heck happened to the Piston's last night?  I saw your post that it was within 1 point, went to try to find the game updates online, and by the time I did, it was pretty much over; the Piston's apparently having fizzled completely after they brought it to the point you mentioned.

Date: 2006/05/28 17:29:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Deadman and BWE did a great impression of Mad TV's Reality Check.

I almost expected the "... and we ARE through" at the end.

bravo!

You know, it's often pointed out that it's the creobots providing the source of humor on these threads, but really it's the rest of the gallery here that does it.  Dave is just a bore.

Date: 2006/05/28 17:43:45, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
(I'm not sure if the link will work without a login)


nope, but that's not surprising really.

thanks much for the effort though; it's still valuable info.

I do hope someday that the effort towards the Open Journal standard will gain more ground.

Date: 2006/05/29 08:25:37, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the obvious answer is that it isn't his thread.

someone made the argument that he constantly wants us to do battle on his terms.

why would we expect he would want to present his "evidence" on our terms?

Date: 2006/05/29 08:36:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
but it also tells us how it should be...


I don't think you've actually read the thing very closely.

what about when the bible tells us it's right and proper to wipe out every man, woman, and child in a village?

is that how it should be?

stoning adulterers.

is that how it should be?

Dave -

do you pick and choose what you think "should be" from the bible, or do you accept it as is?

which are sins and which are not?

are the ten commandments in the KJV the ruleset you follow?  How do those agree or conflict with the new covenant?

I'd say for the satement of yours that i quoted to be correct, you'd have to be awfully choosy about what you ignore, even in the KJV, let alone any other bits of scripture that were left out of that version.

but then you are VERY good at ignoring the obvious.

What say you?

Quote
You should investigate the Bible for yourself.  Many a skeptic has done just that and become a believer.



and vice versa.

Date: 2006/05/29 08:47:38, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no, BV.  You're the one who challenged the paper and the position.  You're the one who needs to provide evidence to that effect.

If it's of interest to you, feel free, but if you don't have time, don't.

It's already a resolved issue in my mind, but I'd be more than happy to examine any specific primary references you run across, including the ones you posted above.

If you actually do have some access, you can search Current Contents for any of the hundreds of references on this stuff from the 80's, but that's your job, not mine.

ah, and while we're at it:

Quote
Quote

oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed  

which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it.


well, it has nothing to do with experimental methods or results, but it has a lot to do with interpretations and the politics involved with making the protocol work.

certainly you don't think that politics had nothing to do with the preponderance of conservatives speaking out against the protocol and the general effects of CFC's, do you?

Date: 2006/05/29 08:58:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Anyone care to give us an update on fractal modeling technology?


I have read some articles on the use of fractal modeling to predict growth patterns in some organisms.

Would that be of interest?

If so, I can try to dig the references up for you.

Date: 2006/05/29 09:12:31, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Look, the OP and the article (which I still can't find, must not be on the web yet) say that the Montreal Protocol is responsible for the steady levels of ozone. While they may have evidence to back up this claim. It doesn't mean that they can claim these things unequivocally.


what can we say but that we have evidence to support a theory?

uh, multiple pardons, but that's kinda what science is all about.

I could understand the position you are taking if the model was less accurate than it apparently was at predicting ozone concentrations in the upper stratosphere, but don't you think they ran any kind of statistical tests for significance before deciding to publish the paper?

Perhaps the reason the paper garnered attention to begin with was for the simple fact that the evidence to support the CFC model IS becoming clearer now?

btw, IIRC, that's pretty much what everybody was saying 20 years ago; that it would take 20 to 30 years before enough data could be collected to confirm or reject the model's predictions.

Moreover, it seems you are conflating the "science" of the work, with the politics involved in getting a protocol to fruition.  The two are not always (actually rarely) related.

 
Quote
 
Quote

please tell me you didn't just take that as support for your argument??

What? That we don't know how natural the ozone hole may be? We don't.


lol.  no, that you took someone who clearly professed having no background on the subject claiming she has no idea as evidence to support your argument.

which you apparently did, based on your response.

Look, why don't you boil down EXACTLY what argument you are trying to make here.

Is it that all of the data that went into the models predicting the effects of CFC's on ozone concentrations in situ are wrong?

Is it that some major piece of data was completely ignored that totally invalidates the models, like temperature?  

Is it that you don't like that politics affects how the results of scientific experiments are interpreted and used?

I don't think you or i have the time to explore all 3 possibilities, so pick the one that has you the most peeved and we can go from there.

Quote
All you did was point to their work. Now, you're challenging me to duplicate years of work by 100s of people. Gimme a break.


funny, i was viewing this in almost the exact reverse:

"All you did was refute their work.  Now, you're saying that the work of 100's of people over several decades is wrong because you assumed they didn't include interrelated variables in their models.  Gimme a break.

interesting.

I have no idea how to resolve such a basic impase of viewpoint on the issue.

Date: 2006/05/29 09:26:25, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Hey, worked for Bush!

And I haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet, so the war in Iraq must be working!

But ok. Maybe you HAVE to say "We're all doomed" before anything will happen at all.


you mean like saying we have to invade Iraq because Saddam is about to use his links to al Qaida to blow us all up with his WMD's?

Yeah, that's exactly the argument I'm trying to make.

You see the argument, but not the implication.

Of course it isn't the case that extreme arguments always produce results that are desirable.

it's that extreme arguments are often the ONLY way to achieve any result at all in politics, for better or worse.

Want to change that?

Hey, like I mentioned to you in the other thread; more power to you.  You have the right attitude, and as i said, I don't argue against the prudence position as a scientist.  If you could somehow change the world of politics such that scientists were listened to without having to create extreme scenarios to begin with, I'd vote for ya.

I spent several years myself trying to this exact thing.

I worked with a large NGO entitled "Committee for the National Insitute for the Environment" that was trying to promote legislation to form a federally funded organization on a scale and structure similar to NIH, but with the specific goal of promoting long-term ecological research, instead of health research.  It was a very sound approach, and we had the support of the director of NIH at the time, as well as a large handfull of congressmen and senators.  We even managed to get a bill put before the house, which was promptly tabled.  Since then, funding issues (national) has relegated the grand plan to little more than the effort to produce a national online library for environmental studies.

ever hear of the National Institute for the Environment?

I bet not.

But hey, if you have a better idea on how to bring scientists closer to the ears of politicos, go for it.

right now, we're still left with the "chicken little" approach being the primary MO to accomplish anything in congress.

Date: 2006/05/29 09:39:00, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Did you get scared? Is that why you changed your voting habits?


no, you entirely missed the point.

the reason i changed my political affiliations was because the irrationality of the argument was entirely on the side of the conservatives in this case.

It wasn't a case of republicans challenging the data with with actual research, it was a case of complete denial of the problem to begin with.

very much like we have heard for the past 15 years plus with the majority of "global warming deniers" being of the republican persuasion.

are they arguing for scientific prudence, or are they arguing for some other, rather obvious reason?

Think Bill Frist cares about scientific prudence?

Is that a bit clearer?

If not, here it is again:

I changed my voting strategy because there was a preponderance of obvious lying and denial gaining ground within the party i had been voting for previously, and that hasn't faded any in the convening 20 years.

If anything, it seems to have gotten worse within the GoP.

do i need to point out the parallels between the ozone issue, global warming, and the creationism/evolution issue?

hmmm, there does seem to be a pattern....

Quote
Really, I'm not that interested, but you seem to be emotionally invested in this.


I'm not emotionally invested in the science itself; as i said, the issue seemed pretty clear to me ages ago, but even then was happy to check out any support for your refutations.  I AM emotionally invested in the politics surrounding the issue, though.  

Two different issues here:

the politics surrounding the protocol, and the science.

Date: 2006/05/29 09:52:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Wes, this seems to be turning into a valuable thread.

maybe sticky it?

Date: 2006/05/29 09:55:48, Link
Author: sir_toejam
no thanks, my doctor told me to cut down on my intake of complete idiocy.

Date: 2006/05/29 10:08:08, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If God struck down a bunch of ancient Mesopotamians for trying to build the tower of Babel and reach Heaven via the sky, why didn't He strike down Yuri Gagarin and Niel Armstrong, who not only tried to reach Heaven via the sky, BUT ACTUALLY GOT THERE?


dam*n, if space is "heaven", no wonder I gave up on xianity.

who would want to spend their eternity floating in a cold harsh, relative vaccuum?  

OTOH, i hear the view is spectacular.

Date: 2006/05/29 10:12:49, Link
Author: sir_toejam
the topic of language and writing formation and evolution actually IS interesting.

Any possibility we could extract it from the living he11 of inanity that is this AFDave thread and give it life of it's own?

Date: 2006/05/29 10:23:55, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
That everyone would have cancer unless we stopped using CFCs? and methyl bromide, etc.?


strawman.

I never claimed that republicans were arguing against the notion that we would all get cancer unless we banned CFC's.  I was focusing entirely on the republicans who kept denying there was a problem, at all.

In fact, did you ever consider the possibility that stating the issue in the extreme terms you mention was a deliberate political tactic to begin with?

kind of like saying that all enviromentalists want is to prevent economic growth of any kind, and they're all "tree-hugging hippies".

You're attacking the second-tier political argument, if that makes sense, rather than the primary one.

btw, can we focus here?

which do you want to explore:

the politics or the science.

if the science, then yes, if you want to claim the models were based on faulty data or assumptions, I'd say you would at least have to spend some time looking at the original research that was used to develop them to begin with.

I don't see that as an outrageous request.

I'm reading the articles you posted, so obviously you had enough interest in tracking those down.  

as i said, if you have access to CC, it shouldn't take you more than an hour to track down a significant proportion of related articles.

actually, if it were me, I'd probably start with the references listed in the appendices of meetings surrounding the formation of the protocol to begin with.

should be able to google that document up, and go from there.

but, implied in your statement is that you either didn't before or no longer recall having read any of the literature during that time period.

without having done so, I can imagine this argument going round and round and round.

Date: 2006/05/29 10:51:59, Link
Author: sir_toejam
agreed.

so hypothetically, if you had conlusive (for the sake of argument) evidence that global warming was occuring, and was primarily due to human activities, what would you do to try to convince your congressional representatives that some action needed to be taken to try to limit or slow the impact?

how would your actions be affected if you weren't the scientist directly involved with the study, but a layperson who read it and became convinced of the general conclusion it made?

what if it wasn't conclusive, but highly suggestive (e.g., large trend towards, but not yet reaching the defined level of significance of 5%)?

ever try to explain to someone with a general knowledge of science like Bill Frist what the difference is between 5% and 6% that makes something "significant" as far as science is concerned?

I kinda think one of the reasons we often sharpen our knives on the AFDaves of the world is to prepare to present just such a case.

but how much traction do OBVIOUS arguments, let alone subtle ones, have on changing the viewpoint of someone completely ignorant of how science works?

hence, screaming that global warming is a BAD, BAD, thing over and over again motivates the real influencers of congressfolk, their constituents.

as BV pointed out with reference to the Iraq war, simple, scary arguments work well with constituents.

I don't know how many times i can say this, but I guess one more time couldn't hurt:

I don't disagree with the idea that scientists should be appropriately prudent wrt to interpreting the results of their own work, or when reviewing others.  I've been in the middle of just such issues for a long time.

EDIT:  as an example, try bouncing around the political football that surrounds great white shark research.  If you work for an NGO, one part of your mission is to gather data and do research, but the other is that your subjects are at significant risk of dissapearing altogether, so you need to call attention to get laws passed so they don't.

However, there is a reality here that contrains the effectiveness of the scientific method when it enters the realm of politics.

the obvious response to the claim that extreme positions are negative in toto is:

what would happen if we had done nothing to try to stem the production and usage of CFC's (as a specific example, but extend it to any you wish - lead in paint, tobacco, the value of seat belts or motorcycle helmets, etc.)?

Again, if someone can think of a better way to translate scientific data into political action, go for it.  I tried as best I could for about 10 years without much success.

Is it the evidence for evolution that changes the minds of politicians about whether we should teach ID in schools or not?

ask George Bush's science advisor.

Date: 2006/05/29 11:32:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
If we're not going to die from UV rays,


are you now going to say that there is no evidence that there is an increase in skin cancer with increasing exposure to UV?

I'm going to stop here until i finish reading the articles you posted, and continue tonight.

Date: 2006/05/29 13:02:53, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I've seen the idea that YEC's have used the argument of variable decay rates before, but haven't seen the exact source of that argument, only the repercussions from it.

namely:

the idea that if radioactive decay rates had changed as much as the creos would like to fit their YE theory, the entire earth would be a smoking wasteland of radioactivity.

IIRC, a similar argument to variable decay rates has also been put forward by YEC's wrt the speed of light, and the rate of plate movement in tectonic theory.

Date: 2006/05/29 14:02:29, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Read this page:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=592383

It explains things way better than I can.


(emphasis mine)

I just did.

If you really think that it explains things way better than you can, then we can end this right here.  I can just hand it off to the first responder to the op-ed piece you just linked to.

You did read the responses to that op-ed piece, didn't you?

I think your argument is better suited to continue over there than here.

However, I am still interested in any primary literature you might run across that would serve to refute the validity and predictive power of the models referenced in the article I originally posted about.

In fact, when it does come out, if you get access to it, we can examine the methods and conclusions together if you like.

Until then, having glanced at what you consider to be a good representation of your viewpoint, I feel I'm wasting my time to continue.

Here's what I will cede you:

My own political biases and the emotional stake i have in ridding the US of the neocon idiocy did indeed flavor the content of my original post.

in fact, one might have almost considered it an attempt to troll and see if there were any such conservatives hanging about.

instead, it seemed to catch yourself.

oh well.

live and learn.

I'll be happy to pick this up again once the article comes out and both of us have access to it.

Date: 2006/05/29 14:39:11, Link
Author: sir_toejam
I've got some references to track down and some things referenced by others in this area to read, so I'm paying attention, but before we go much farther, I'd like to be able to say I know a bit more about what has come before in the areas being discussed.

It seems all agree that one of the main ideas here is to somehow generate some objective way of qualifying whether a specific indoctrination practice would be considered to cross a line into mental or emotional abuse.

Is this essentially correct?

a sliding scale is an excellent place to start, one with as large a scale as possible.

scale of 1-100?  pretty good sized scale.  might even make it larger until we can get a clearer picuture of exactly what is meant by mental and emotional abuse, see further examination of cases on point, etc.

I figure as the picture becomes clearer, the scale will narrow.

then, I suppose we would need to figure exactly where an specific set of circumstances would become actionable.

I'm no lawyer, but I wouldn't doubt there is a veritable cornucopia of relevant cases to study.

Hmmm, I guess what I'm really asking is, "raise your hand" if you want to do some legwork so we can all come to some workable and productive conclusions here.

Ideally, some time spent gathering relevant court cases would be helpful;

also treatises on the psychology of cultism, examples of "brainwashing" and methods used to treat same (professional only, not amateur).

any current work on the phenomonon of cognitive dissonance, or whatever is currently the relevant area of investigation.  Ways mental health-care professionals use to analyze and treat related symptoms, etc.

I'd like to see this proceed beyond a well-reasoned set of assumptions based on very little data, into something where we all agree there is some value.

there's no rush.  posts on ATBC stay indefinetly, so we can always come back to it as new things come up, and time becomes available.

at the very least, I hope it will eventually become a decent repository of references and information, and it certainly will be interesting, as it's already achieved that, at least in my mind.

cheers

Date: 2006/05/29 16:41:35, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Although the topic has certainly tweeked my nose, in all honesty I'm not even remotely capable of rendering an unbiased opinion, synopsis, or review of anything on subject.


that's fine.  nobody at this point has asked for any unbiased opinion on the surface, as all opnions will end up in the mix.  I personally am only asking that each of us spend a bit of time tracking down some relevant actual research or cases that work to generate a more informed opinion, regardless of bias, for all involved.

for that matter, I count myself as having little more than biased opinion at this point as well.

in fact, a specific bias can be helpful at times.  allows for a different perspective that might be missed otherwise.

heck, haven't you learned something from watching AFDave flail about?

In fact, I think I will have to thank AFDave for being a great resource on point.

Date: 2006/05/29 16:55:54, Link
Author: sir_toejam
from henry:
Quote
Accelerated decay rates?


I think i tend to take T.O. too much for granted.  the archive there is getting pretty big.  Hard to find anything in "creation" (pun intended) that isn't in there at this point, and I don't think I've seen a new creationist claim that wasn't covered in the index in quite some time.

Quote
It's kind of entertaining how he can dismiss entire scientific disciplines


and

Quote
Amazing that Dave can be so incredulous about actual evidence, but so incredibly credulous, gullible even, when it comes to his Bible fairy tales.


sums up why I think we all stay for the show.  It's so freaky that it's hard to turn away from.

Has anybody here ever met someone in person who is like the AFDave we see here?

Date: 2006/05/29 17:08:26, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Are fig leaves more flame-retardant than skivvies?


that would depend on the freshness of the fig leaf, and the material of the skivvies, of course.

of course, I suppose asbestos skivvies would pretty much be always more flame retardant than a fig leaf.

kinda itchy tho.

Date: 2006/05/29 17:18:23, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
if God can magic all decay rates up by a factor of a million or so, why can't He magic away the heat, magic away the radiation, and magic away all other effects?  What's a few more miracles among friends?


a few more than anyone has ever independently documented and confirmed?

Date: 2006/05/29 17:51:34, Link
Author: sir_toejam
why does this kinda feel like shining a magnifying glass on an ant?

... don't stop 'till he starts to smoke, tho.

Date: 2006/05/29 18:01:14, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Quote
Later, after a commenter named Zachriel has helpfully supplied an absorption spectrum for chlorophyll...


interesting, the link provided came from the Monterey Bary Aquarium Research Insitute.

I used to work with those guys once upon a time.

check out the main site sometime:

mbari.org

(creationist content free, trust me)

Date: 2006/05/29 18:25:22, Link
Author: sir_toejam
just checking:

has skeptic reinvented evolutionary theory yet?

no?

I'll check back in again in a couple years.

Date: 2006/05/29 18:37:09, Link
Author: sir_toejam
Ok, here goes.  after much internal debate, I decided on something relatively simple, but obscure, with an appropriate oxford definition and an interesting history:

"Ichthyic"

Oxford English Dictionary (C.E.) defines "Ichthyic" as "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of fishes; the fish world in all its orders."

and with this:



as an avatar (it's a very fishy version of the triquetra), I'm sure I'll arouse enough confusion to be able to send all those idiots who think they understand the  "Ichthus" to places like this for their education:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html

or here:

http://altreligion.about.com/library....eta.htm

or maybe teach them some celtic mythos.

so here goes nothing...

hmm, seems account names and handles are attached at the hip.  I'm guessing I'll need Wes to change it.

Date: 2006/05/29 20:01:58, Link
Author: sir_toejam
ahh, thanks.

good luck reading that fatty; sounds like good bedtime reading ;)

let us know if anything interesting pops up relevant to the other thread on religious indoctrination.

 

 

 

=====