form_srcid: sir_toejam
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.96
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
"there is a bit of a time crunch. " fire when ready. cheers |
| Date: 2005/04/29 17:02:13, Link 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| agreed. I'll catch up with you in some other thread on PT. |
| Date: 2005/10/06 18:04:05, Link 66.133.236.230 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| 6 months and still nothing. not surprising, really. |
| Date: 2005/10/08 17:16:58, Link 66.133.236.230 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
be careful, creationists might see your post as supportive of their position  "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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.230 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| lol. very witty, wilde. |
| Date: 2005/10/20 12:32:27, Link 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
something published by smallmind and dumbski? i wonder if we'll ever care. |
| Date: 2005/11/12 16:21:17, Link 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 |
| 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 66.133.236.230 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.230 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
CRANKIEST: http://www.crank.net/evolution.html pretty much says it all. |
| Date: 2005/12/19 08:26:34, Link 66.133.236.48 |
| 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. |
| Date: 2005/12/19 12:43:45, Link 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
Happy Noodle-dee-do to you too! Pastalavista. |
| Date: 2005/12/28 11:06:11, Link 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| where can i get a talking beaver of my very own? |
| Date: 2006/01/06 12:30:33, Link 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.48 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
ok, now i see this:
... 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 66.133.236.48 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| 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:
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:
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||||
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).
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).
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
I know I'm gonna hate myself for doing this but...
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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,
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| unlimited growth of an industry based on a very finite resource is bad? |
| Date: 2006/01/14 11:56:35, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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.
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| Jocularity! |
| Date: 2006/01/17 09:00:09, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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'
|
| Date: 2006/01/18 10:29:19, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
Larry sobbed:
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
hmm. makes me think "spiracles". |
| Date: 2006/01/19 20:13:03, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
"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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
Kennedy on the nomination of "scalito"
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| did somebody say truffles? |
| Date: 2006/01/21 20:02:40, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||||
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" :
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.
never say never... |
| Date: 2006/01/22 16:14:35, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
my logic is perfectly clear. the unthinking part is a pure projection of your own making. |
| Date: 2006/01/23 09:25:04, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 |
| Date: 2006/01/23 09:52:29, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| isn't 144K the number of folks supposedly left after the "apocalypse"? |
| Date: 2006/01/23 09:57:29, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
like i said.... pussy. |
| Date: 2006/01/23 19:12:52, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
... 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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...
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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
well, i haven't seen any actual IDers respond to your question, so in the interest of off topic frivolity...
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.
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
?? ok, i gotta call this one in. alleviate my ignorance, please. |
| Date: 2006/02/10 09:25:12, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
dude, speed kills! stop smokin' crack, eh? |
| Date: 2006/02/11 18:50:53, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
they do just fine in that regard all by themselves, with no help whatsoever! I still love Dembski's homeresque line:
*snort* |
| Date: 2006/02/13 15:36:39, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
actually, i think that was a rather crappy start |
| Date: 2006/02/13 20:07:16, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| never underestimate the insane. |
| Date: 2006/02/13 20:13:53, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
"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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
nice mullet. |
| Date: 2006/02/14 22:19:21, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| now that could be an experiment worth pursuing... |
| Date: 2006/02/15 17:36:12, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| I think you guys spiked that punch. |
| Date: 2006/02/16 13:51:11, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
the following is totally pointless mental masturbation based on a nitpik of the choice used in the example given. 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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
ROFLMAO. poor, poor, John. |
| Date: 2006/02/16 17:43:41, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
ahh, that, which by any other name, would smell as sweet... |
| Date: 2006/02/16 19:40:41, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||||
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?
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...
*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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
How long does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop? |
| Date: 2006/02/17 10:34:39, Link 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
I prefer "pant-loading" it's far more descriptive of the value of the concept. |
| Date: 2006/02/17 14:00:01, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
just a correction:
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 66.133.236.204 | ||
| 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):
|
| Date: 2006/02/17 14:25:17, Link 66.133.236.204 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.236.204 |
| 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 66.133.236.204 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| *sigh* |
| Date: 2006/02/20 15:11:54, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
doubtless Ham himself wonders that too, he just doesn't admit it. |
| Date: 2006/02/20 16:54:14, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| no, he's saying that blood type variability arose before H. sapiens evolved. |
| Date: 2006/02/20 17:22:03, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
there should be an "edit" button on the top banner of your post, towards the right edge.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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
|
| Date: 2006/02/21 12:03:35, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
hmm, where's my flat rock with the sharp corners... |
| Date: 2006/02/21 21:06:59, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
Relevance is futile! You will be assimilated! |
| Date: 2006/02/23 10:13:32, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
myself included. however, it does provide fertile ground for rather tasteless jokes... |
| Date: 2006/02/23 10:26:46, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
lol. no pun intended? |
| Date: 2006/02/23 12:24:00, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
so... Bill Gates is the second coming? |
| Date: 2006/02/23 16:01:40, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
...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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
here's an interesting bit for discussion...
http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html
...yet another "gap" bites the dust. |
| Date: 2006/02/25 08:35:50, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
thanks Alan. good luck, Jean; keep us posted! |
| Date: 2006/02/25 09:26:14, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||||
...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?
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.
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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
..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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| edit |
| Date: 2006/02/25 10:56:45, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
that's why i thought this to be an interesting paper to discuss.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
you're not the only one |
| Date: 2006/02/25 20:50:19, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
yup. |
| Date: 2006/03/04 13:54:27, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
i assume you really meant "half-baked theory". |
| Date: 2006/03/06 10:16:01, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
I predict that continued discussion with shi will be unproductive. |
| Date: 2006/03/06 10:33:06, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
I'd say it's more a combination of 2 and 3, plus it still gives him ad revenue and publicity for book sales.
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
...and we all know what comes out the end of a gut. |
| Date: 2006/03/07 11:10:22, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
a testimonial for Hovind's seminars on that site states:
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| that's right, shake your fist harder, boy! |
| Date: 2006/03/07 21:36:45, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
ROFLMAO
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
BWAHAHAHAHA! funniest thing I've seen so far today. |
| Date: 2006/03/08 11:47:29, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
nope. just your run-of-the-mill idiot. |
| Date: 2006/03/08 15:52:47, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
oh, well then... 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| nice Wes, that should come in handy. |
| Date: 2006/03/11 16:23:41, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
LOL. talk about stating the obvious. |
| Date: 2006/03/20 08:05:22, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| Is Dave another refugee from the UD snake pit? |
| Date: 2006/03/21 15:44:40, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| does that partnership come with a 401k? |
| Date: 2006/03/22 10:24:46, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
that made my day. |
| Date: 2006/03/22 10:43:58, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
one does wonder how Doug knows this... |
| Date: 2006/03/22 12:02:00, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
not when the circumstances prompt the question: Is it still there? |
| Date: 2006/03/22 13:12:48, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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?
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
|
Ok, here's an interesting little diddy: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/31/content_4368130.htm
from the source of this news bite, to the work itself; lot's to chew on I think.
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
well, winning the nobel is all well and good, but will he vote democrat? |
| Date: 2006/04/01 01:57:44, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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:
|
| Date: 2006/04/01 02:40:06, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
so... does this study empirically confirm your suspicions? or not? |
| Date: 2006/04/01 03:09:11, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
... 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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:
@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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
russel said:
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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.
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
of course! duh! *snicker* as lenny would say... Waterloo!!!! |
| Date: 2006/04/04 09:46:36, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
...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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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:
so, i proceeded to inform our noob of larry's status as an escaped mental patient. |
| Date: 2006/04/05 09:07:54, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
but, it was after he posted twice, yes? so, er, who won? |
| Date: 2006/04/05 09:12:16, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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) |
| Date: 2006/04/05 11:06:23, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 ).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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||||
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.
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.
|
| Date: 2006/04/06 10:47:31, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
...by putting their heads in a vise, perhaps? (If I take who you're implying correctly) |
| Date: 2006/04/06 12:14:03, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
think John Lovitz during his saturday night live days: "Acting!" |
| Date: 2006/04/06 14:26:44, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
Davey boy said:
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 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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?  |
| Date: 2006/04/07 11:09:51, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
could this be our first mission, CBEB?
now that's a church worth torching! |
| Date: 2006/04/07 18:46:47, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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? |
| Date: 2006/04/08 07:21:48, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
?? 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
aww, quit whinin' ya #### elitist McEevo! go count all that money you've made being an elitist scientist. |
| Date: 2006/04/08 16:11:34, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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?
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
does he even need to?
LOL. yeah, right. that'll be the day. |
| Date: 2006/04/09 13:26:36, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
"What we've got here, is failure ta communicate!" put 'em in the box! |
| Date: 2006/04/09 18:17:53, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
well, it IS almost Easter. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 10:14:51, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
..or that discrimination is responsible for higher suicide rates... |
| Date: 2006/04/10 14:50:35, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
|
oh, yeah, sorry. doesn't he have some amphibious fish work to do too? busy, busy boy.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 cheers |
| Date: 2006/04/10 17:03:07, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| I wonder what UD will think of this? |
| Date: 2006/04/10 17:29:46, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| should we write to Cornell and call for a boycott? |
| Date: 2006/04/10 18:34:18, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| send me a PM. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 19:14:26, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| ditto. check your inbox. |
| Date: 2006/04/10 19:50:02, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
from Telic thoughts
shhh! |
| Date: 2006/04/11 08:46:15, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
go away troll. yay! finally someone who gets it. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 13:59:29, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
arden: http://www.fing.it/ |
| Date: 2006/04/11 14:29:33, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| Davetard pokes who now? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 16:36:18, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
the latest quote from Salvador -if only we could submit darwinists to the inquisition - Cordova:
LOL he still doesn't get it. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 17:31:30, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| yeah, wasn't that part of the plot of the Seventh Sign? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 18:16:02, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| LOL |
| Date: 2006/04/11 19:27:27, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
from Sal's thread, doug says:
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
don't tell me; let me guess... you're married, right? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 19:39:25, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
I suspected as much. sure your name isn't "sugardaddy"? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 19:52:13, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| I assume someone will now raise the issue of human clones? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 19:57:50, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| I wonder what sugardaddy thought of Rocky Horror? |
| Date: 2006/04/11 20:33:21, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| stunning commentary there, sugardaddy, simply stunning. |
| Date: 2006/04/11 21:01:16, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
second. |
| Date: 2006/04/12 08:00:28, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
I thought we were supposed to learn from your shining example?
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
|
here's a fun little article that touches on the human/nature engineering aspect: http://www.physorg.com/news65887053.html
something crunchy to chew on... |
| Date: 2006/05/04 10:17:22, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||||
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.
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
uh huh. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 17:07:07, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
my broken record says: Classic case of projection. |
| Date: 2006/05/14 19:29:12, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
...and here's MY impression of AFDavey:  |
| Date: 2006/05/14 20:14:53, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
er... just now? when wasn't he? |
| Date: 2006/05/15 10:26:26, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
no, no. Paley wanted abuse. that's next door, IIRC. |
| Date: 2006/05/15 10:46:08, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
salmonids, eh? population biology? Ever heard of Jennifer Nielson? |
| Date: 2006/05/15 17:44:26, Link 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| 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:
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
not humorous nor explanatory. As usual. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 10:30:42, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
well, he does have kids, doesn't he? or am i confusing him with T-diddy? |
| Date: 2006/05/16 12:04:31, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 | ||
| Author: sir_toejam | ||
doubtful at this point. maybe his kids still have a chance though. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 12:59:21, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| oh, way to ruin a perfectly interesting conversation there, T-diddy. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 13:08:03, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
| "hold my ears..." |
| Date: 2006/05/16 13:15:20, Link 66.133.237.164 |
| 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 66.133.237.164 |
| Author: sir_toejam |
|
YEEEEOOOUUUUCHHHHH! Ok, so there's some truthiness to what you claim... I'd still prefer the |