AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: slpage

form_srcid: slpage

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: slpage

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


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/30 09:11:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2006,11:43)
Man, there are some idiots over there at Uncommon Pissant:

Not only is Dr. Davison an intellectual giant, he is also a giant of intellectual honesty. Truly a rare combination.

Comment by dougmoran — January 28, 2006 @ 10:46 am

A bit disturbing that someone would actually think that of Davison.

As an aside - Davison is not an emeritus prof at UVM.  He is just retired.

Date: 2006/02/01 10:34:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 01 2006,12:24)

(Have I missed something, or has Sal totally dropped out of PT since Dover?)

Sal dropped off KCFS also.

He had been doing drive-bys, mostly, but I had been trying to get him to offer some legitimate discussion on his claim that by employing a 10-letter "toy example" (his words) he could show how evolution should be erasing molecular hierarchies over time, and that their exixtence is a big problem.

His respopnses for fluff and topic changes, primarily.  He just didn't seem to get that 'mutating' a 10-letter sequence over 10 'generations' and 'erasing' a hierarchy is not quite the same thing as mutating a few nucleotides per generation in a genome of billions.

Date: 2006/05/18 14:15:56, Link
Author: slpage
Wow... long thread.

I was flattered to see that I was actually mentioned on Dembski's blog - in the comment section of that asinine ReMine/Haldane thread.

Another computer programmer (JohnnyB) creationist shows his stupidity...

Date: 2006/05/25 09:32:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Aardvark @ May 22 2006,14:47)


     You people are retarded.

     The email is a fake and you’re an idiot for not realizing that.

     Good show, Professor. This type of thing does wonders for your credibility.

     Comment by mamoulian — May 22, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

Probably won't last long either...

I found that one especially on-target.

Date: 2006/05/25 09:44:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Drew Headley @ May 23 2006,15:00)
Before reading this quote, please turn off your irony meters.

Turned off?


It never ceases to amaze me how many blogs write long, vitriolic attacks on Dembski whenever he posts anything. Just goes to show you, one side of this debate is running out of ideas of their own…

Comment by Qualiatative — May 23, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

I wonder if those stooges realize how utterly bassackwards they are...

It would seem not.

Date: 2006/05/26 05:07:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (beervolcano @ May 25 2006,15:42)
the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Yet, a wooden boat carrying all the species of the world while a god in the sky flooded the entire planet sounds pretty reasonable.

Or, maybe you don't believe that part of the Bible. But you must believe that a man was born of a virgin, then rose from the dead to take away your least in order to be head of the IDEA club.

'More faith' than he can muster?  Well, by golly, IT MUST BE FALSE THEN!!!

:D  :D

I see they keep trying ot dig up 'Haldane's dilemma', too...

Don't ask Dung to explain why it is even a 'dilemma', though....

Date: 2006/06/27 09:12:37, Link
Author: slpage
It is an interesting phenomenon, the engineers-as-YEC/IDist thing.  My two oldest nephews are engineers, and neither is a creationist (one has admitted in writing that he would not consider himself informed enough to even draw conclusions on the subject).  Some of the most eloquent and information-packed anti-ID/creationism arguments/'defenses' of evolution I have seen have come from engineers.

Yet, I think it is true, that at least as far as internet and 'professional' anti-evolutionists go, engineers take up a disproportionate number of slots in the 'big tent.'

Take this guy, or this clown, or even old Sal Cordova.

Not only do they convince themselves that they know more than they really do, they all ternd to use pretty much the same silly arguments - no new information (without ever really defining information in a meaningful way), too complex for 'chance', they 'know design' when they see it, etc.


Date: 2006/10/02 09:18:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2006,11:37)
Unfortunately, to most people, you come over as an obnoxious crank.

Indeed, Alan.

Not just obnoxious, but irrelevant.  His claims gets demolished on every board he transiently inhabits, which incites him to his paranoid, megalomaniacal excesses.

Date: 2006/10/02 09:24:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 01 2006,19:55)
Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez

I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy.

OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb.

The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly.

Its funny how the IDcreationists try to argue via (pseudo)authority.

Pathetic, yes, but funny.  Especially when one considers how they claim that 'credentials don't matter.'  Unless, of course, it is their supposed credentials which, as we so often see, are totally irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

Date: 2006/10/02 09:32:05, Link
Author: slpage
A gem from 'Russ':

The only realm in which I see this kind of litmus test for decency is liberal politics, in which liberals often believe conservatives are evil, but conservatives generally believe liberals are merely mistaken or foolish. Since I believe you identified yourself as a college professor (i.e. someone toiling deep in the heart of political liberalism), that explanation for your comment to bFast seems to fit. Am I mistaken?

Yeah, cuz that Ann Coulter is just so darn friendly to liberals from the get-go...

Date: 2006/10/04 09:52:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,21:15)
Having a closed forum is more than acceptable, but inviting comment, while banning reasonable argument, then crowing how no one has an answer, is beyond the pale.

I'm sure you know, but that is essentially standard operating procedure on most creationist-run boards.

Date: 2006/10/06 06:17:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 05 2006,15:29)
Do these people get out at all?  OE seems to be attracting the dim-bulbs quite effectively.

In this case Patrick states
More on the subject of flagella:

“The propulsive efficiency, defined as the ratio of the propulsive power output to the rotary power input provided by the motors, is found to be ~ 2%, which is consistent with the efficiency predicted theoretically for a rigid helical coil.”

An engineer can’t get much more efficient than that, in other words, even in theory.

Is this a case where we can apply the design inference to real life?  Is venture capital available and a start-up company in the works????

Why would an engineer design a propulsion unit as a helical coil in real life?  :(  Quick call DoD and have them change their present submarine propellers (probably greater than 60% shaft efficient) for  a rigid helical coil.  The fact that a biological life form has optimized a function to a certain theoretical maximum has nothing to do with ID.

I liked the first response to that post:

Thanks for a lot of interesting information. I think it's quite obvious that when we find a "machine" that is more efficient than anything man has made or we can even make theories about, than that has design written all over it. ..

Date: 2006/10/31 05:53:16, Link
Author: slpage
Well, Joseph (Joe Gallien, electronics engineer) would not know research if it bit him.  He is obsessed with 'Privileged Planet" and has declared that if someone watches it and is not an IDer when it is over, they are just liars.
He is too stupid to realize that advocacy videos are not the best place to find unbiased information...

Date: 2006/11/02 10:56:18, Link
Author: slpage
Same old lunatic, being helped along by his 'boy' Sal Cordova.

I see he's still quoting his out-of-date heros...

Pathetic as ever.

Date: 2006/11/06 04:41:30, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ichthyic @ Nov. 03 2006,01:20)
there's only one logical explanation for why UD is delisted, they just don't want to admit it.

they (most likely Dave "I'm such an uber engineer with a genius IQ" Tard) did a no-no that violated google search engine rules, and did it more than once (as you ALWAYS get a warning the first time).

if they want a witchhunt, they should start closer to home.

In fact, it was probably intentional action on the Springerbot's part after being jilted by Dembski in favor of Densye.  I guess he never figured WD40 would welcome him back into a menage-a-trois.


That would make sense -  he was banned from PT for, among other things (trying to impersonate me, for one), trying to hack the site.

Date: 2006/11/11 08:57:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 11 2006,01:10)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 11 2006,00:51)
Of course, Einstein's model had actual predictive power, unlike ID, and resolved a problem, unlike ID, and experiments were later done to confirm the theory's predictions, unlike ID. (Maybe there was even a Doktor Wilhelm Von Dumbkopfski at a backwater religious college who grumbled about Einstein's pathetic level of detail. ;-) )

Interestingly (ironically?) one of the new IDcreationist mantras is that the bland, imprecise, vague "this is so complex, it must have been designed" IS a 'prediction' and as AdR at ARN indicates, it is actually a 'predictive theory'.

This was in response to discussions on how evolution researchers are often 'surprised' by their discoveries - you see, IDcreationists would never be surprised (if they actually did any research) because they 'predict' that their Designer can do anything...

Date: 2006/11/17 07:39:20, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=IAMB,Nov. 16 2006,14:50][/quote]

Of course, DT's version of the ban, when asked by a commenter on UD, was something a bit different from reality(Source):
Quoth DT: My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names.

I attempted to explain the situation to the questioner, but naturally my comment never saw the light of day, meaning I never even got banned with insult... I was just simply blinked out of existence by the godlike tard powers of UD.

I have not followed the entire exchange, but if he is referring to his getting banned at PT, then David Scott Springer is a liar.

"Random" names - no, he used MY name, a name he KNEW was real.  He used it in an attempt to make me look bad.  The irrational person he is, he glommed onto me for reasons unknown to me and began, among other things, of accusing me of being 'GWW'.  Which was really odd, since I had only rarely posted at PT at all and when he started mentioning me, I had not even lurked at PT for some time.

He knew exactly what he was doing, and he got caught.

Date: 2006/12/01 11:44:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 30 2006,18:25)
On the Wikipedia thread here, Patrick claimed he too has been grievously wronged.  Within a Wikipedia article on the vermiform appendix, this originally appeared:
One explanation has been that the appendix is a remnant of an earlier function, with no current purpose.

Patrick substituted a much more detailed essay on the possible functions of the appendix, which began thusly:
For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults....

But ALAS!  He was almost immediately reverted, and his post identified as vandalism.

He wasn't entirely unappreciated, however.  Other sycophants at UD commented upon Patrick's erudition:
bFast // Nov 30th 2006 at 5:00 pm

Patrick, your knowledge of the appendix is incredible. I bet that if I assembled all of the physicians in my local hospital, they would not know as much as you about this appendage.

But Patrick is modest:
Not really “impressive”, I just spent the time to look into it. The problem is that the common view of the appendix is so entrenched that it’s become dogma. And information contrary to the dogma is buried under everything else (see TalkOrigins for example).

On a hunch, I googled the sentence, in quotes, "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function."  This turned up a 1999 "Ask the Experts: Medicine" response on Scientific - which happens to be the revolutionary appendix essay Patrick posted on Wikipedia, word for vermiform word. See: Sci Am

The original was penned by Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University. The article, or portions of it, is repeated here and there across the net (blogs and so on), including Patrick's repeat post at Overbearing Ungulates.  Where he again fails to credit the author.  

Way to go Patrick!  See, there is research going on within the ID community.  Not to mention a good deal of cutting and pasting.  

And good work digging up information hidden from us - buried, no less - DEEP within the vaults of Scientific American.

Incredible?  Impressive?  Try, "ridiculous."

What is worse is 'bfast's' drooling admiration of the plagiarist...


Date: 2006/12/04 09:30:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 03 2006,11:34)
Meanwhile, Joseph lectures a geneticist about genetics and the nested hierarchy (who does provide a cite to a cool phylogenetic tree for myosins).

Well, he does have a B.S. in Electronis Engineering, which he claims make shim a 'scientist', therefore, he is an expert on everything.  Because that is what scientists with B.S. degrees are.

Date: 2006/12/18 09:30:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 15 2006,15:49)
Quote (2ndclass @ Dec. 15 2006,10:35)
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 15 2006,05:49)
The argumentum ex ididntreallydoitandanywayijustwantedtoseewhatwouldhappen, to use the technical term.

Does anyone remember when Dembski coyly stated that he might be intentionally putting errors in his work just to see if his critics can catch them?  Can't find the quote now.

I don't think it is intentional errors. IIRC it was something about posting a draft version of papers/books to the Internet and then making changes based on criticisms. Of course, the way he described it made it sound like a cynical ploy to address criticisms before the work made it into print rather than after.

Problem with that is Dembski didn't seem to make many changes based on the rebuttals/critiques he got.  Take his 'paper' on human evolutionin which he, like so many creationists, makes a direct analogy between DNA and written language.  The flaws with that reasoning were pointed out by several people, yet it still made it into his final version. I guess when you have an 'argument' that the ignorant masses still swallow, you keep with it.

And Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski knows them all....

Date: 2006/12/18 09:43:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2006,21:35)
And, of course, at the bottom of his last comment he calls women dickheads.  He's such a nice guy.


BTW I looked at your picture and your gender, however those can be faked. It's the way you argue. But then again you could just be a d!ckhead.

Well, until he has 'threatened' you, you just don't know Joe.

You see, a few years ago, I was getting his goat pretty bad on the old OCW forum, and being the obsessive, anti-social, stalker kind of kook he is, he dug up my address, posted it, and declared that 'not everyone drives through Vermont to ski' ...

Of course, I was not the only one he did this sort of thing to - at least two other people had their addresses (one, in I remember correctly, even had his wife's name posted) posted in sick, sad attempts at intimidation.  Being perceived as 'right' is just so important to Joe G.

I believe this was around the time that he claimed that he should be considered a 'scientist' because he had a B.S. in electronics engineering.

Date: 2006/12/18 09:56:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 17 2006,12:29)
Ya know, every picture that Dembski publishes of himself, like the one at the top of this blog, leaves one with the view that he doesn’t have a sense of humor. Seems like he isn’t allowed to have a sense of humor.

Science not only asks you to accept the fantacy of neo-Darwinian evolution as “fact”, but it seems that you ain’t allowed to fart either.

Comment by bFast — December 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm

Bill can fart all he wants to, bFast, but if he wants our respect, he needs to earn it first.  Claude Shannon's motorized pogo stick?  After he pioneered information theory.  That famous picture of Einstein sticking out his tongue?  After general relativity.  "Isaac Newton" claims notwithstanding, what has Dembski done that we should indulge his flatulent animations?

Well, that is bFast, afterall - the guy who believes that a 2 year old news article disproves Darwinism...

Date: 2006/12/31 15:59:40, Link
Author: slpage
I was a positive atheist for decades until I read Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” 15 years ago. At that point I became agnostic.

Which tells me that a 150+ IQ is not guarantee against being taken in by underinformed rhetoric that you just really don't have a background in...

Date: 2006/12/31 16:18:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2006,04:09)
I doubt it'll show up there, Joe's blog is moderated the way ID blogs are typically moderated.

BTW, how on earth does Joe expect common descent not to produce a nested hierarchy? What in the world's all that stuff about?

What is it about?  It is about the fact that Joe Gallien doesn't have a freaking clue about any of this stuff.  I had to laugh at his antics in the Neutral Theory thread.  The guy is a git.

Date: 2007/01/09 07:44:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 04 2007,13:02)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 04 2007,12:50)
And FTK has to be an atheist sock puppet, too. I just can’t believe it. *Jaw drops*

Nope, she has her own blog:

Her own HEAVILY CENSORED blog - she really doesn't allow comments at all...

Date: 2007/01/09 08:08:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2007,03:17)]DaveT:
That plus I’m a jarhead and I like explosions and other things in general that make loud noises.


Taerd seems to have an odd obsession with his short stint as a Marine (supposedly).  He has NOT been a  Marine, if you accept his timeline, for going on 30 years, yet he says he is 'a jarhead'?  I was a paratrooper from 84-88, but I would be embarrassed to claim that 'I'm a paratrooper' 20 years after the fact.
The guy has major ego issues...

Date: 2007/01/09 08:37:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,07:22)
56. DaveScot  // Jan 8th 2007 at 7:56 am


If you’re an engineer and you’ve never had to find an answer using the scientific method then IMO you’re not doing anything really interesting. Conversely, if you’re a scientist and you haven’t had to engineer experimental apparatus in seeking answers to questions you’re not doing anything really interesting. Both disciplines overlap. The only real difference is motivation. Engineers only do science as needed and scientists only do engineering as needed.

I wouldn’t give you a plugged nickel for any engineering professor. Surely you’ve heard the saying “if you can’t do, then teach”.

Comment by DaveScot — January 8, 2007 @ 7:56 am

####, DaveTard never fails to maintain his idiocy.  Every post by him on this thread has at least one idiotic statement.  And BTW, DaveTard, it's "No True Scotsman" Fallacy, not the "True Scotman" fallacy.  He can't even get his logical errors straight.  

So according to DT's logic, if a scientist hasn't invented a new contraption in order to do his experiment, his experiment is worthless.  What a first class TARD statement from a first class TARD.

"If you can't do, teach"???????   LOL, I work in an academic clinical setting.  I have to "do" in order to "teach" everyday.  If I didn't, patients would die at the hands of residents.  I've worked private practice and academics.  Academics is by far more challenging in terms of the "do" portion of things.  Another baseless statement from the TARD-extraordinaire.  His level of experience in these matters is limited, yet he proceeds as if he is an expert in these areas.  Pathetic.

The old 'those that you cannot do, teach' is a clever way for those too stupid to teach to denigrate those that do.

it also ignores that fact, as you point out, teachers have to do first, then teach.  In fact, as everyone her eknow, of course, one must 'do' in order to get a job teaching at legitimate, accredited colleges and universities.

Date: 2007/01/17 07:26:58, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,18:42)
Ha, ha. Joseph challenges Lenny to a physical fight.  
This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

(and clarifies he does mean a physical fight in the comments)  
The OP is all about physical confrontation, ie fighting

Oh, man. Lenny, you should definitelyagree to meet him somewhere, preferably in the middle of nowhere. Then follow Dembski's lead.

Joe has a history of 'challenging' people to fight - and then, I'm sure you will be shocked - backing out.  
He used to write things like "I'm sure if we sat face to face, you would see things my way" when you explained to him that he was wrong about something.
That, and the fact that he took to posting people's home addresses and making little threats, got a few of us at NAIG riled up a few years ago.  I was on spring break, and as I live only 2.5 hours from Boston, I told Joe to name the time and place, providing it was before I had ot go back to work.  Amazingly, Joe stopped posting for several days (after having posted a dozen or more times per day up to then), and the thread scrolled to the bottom of the page.  The day before I have to go back to work, Joe starts posting in the scrolled-down thread about how he is ready 'any time'...

He also pulled something similar with a poster that went by 'Skepticboy' and an other guy named Robert.

He is s typical bully - bluff and bluster when he knows nothing will come of it.

By the way - he has had back surgery...

added in edit - and OA - forgot about that episode....


Date: 2007/01/17 13:13:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 14 2007,08:10)
Wait that photo is the real Dave Tard?

It appears to be...

Doesn't look 'strong as an ox', either.  Looks a bit... 'tarded...

But you're right - the delusions of grandeur are demonstrated in spades by that pic alone...

Date: 2007/01/17 13:25:29, Link
Author: slpage
Get a load of this meeting of the minds - a lunatic, an asthma researcher, a retired actuary, and an IT technician, all pontificating on evolutionary biology as if they actually understand it...

Date: 2007/01/19 09:34:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,15:24)
Sal Adds:




4:17 pm
The only ones not qualified to evaluate evolutionary claims objectively are evolutionary biologists. They have a nasty reputation of resisting criticism from other fields.

In contrast, I can’t imagine physicians and engineers resisting criticism from any of the hard science or math. I can’t imagine physicists and chemists and computer scientists telling mathematicians to buzz off. That is unheard of!

Evolutionary biologists seem to have a regular habit of resisting valid criticism from other scientific disciplines….

So what happened here them Sal?

Among Cordova's many other problems - his dishonesty,his basic incompetence, etc. - is his inability to tell the difference between valid criticisms and the uninformed bilge tossed out by creationists with math, law, engineering, etc. degrees.

Any old garbage, Sally old boy, is NOT in fact a valid criticism.

Like, for example, using "toy examples" (Cordova's actual words) of strings of only 8 characters to "prove" that "time erases hierarchies."  Why, amazingly, Cordova was able to "prove" this by using his amazing 8-character string, "mutating" one character each generation, and in only 8 generations, he 'erased' the 'molecular' hierarchy that did not even exist in the first place...

What a 'tard.

Date: 2007/01/19 09:57:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 18 2007,17:58)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 18 2007,16:47)
Being an anesthesiologist and dealing with these guys on a daily basis, orthopods usually are recruited from the best and the brightest in med school but they are FAR from the brightest docs in the OR.  We frequently joke in the OR about their neanderthalic qualities and exchange stories on a regular basis regarding their complete idiocy in dealing with matters outside of bones.  I had a friggin orthopod consult me on a patient with a serum potassium of 3.4 (normally 3.5 to 5.0) once at 6pm.  I told him to go read a textbook and deal with it himself.  I also told him not to consult me at 6pm unless it was an emergency.  I could go on and on about orthopods but I think I'll desist.  It is one of the reasons I am looking for a different hospital---too many orthopods here.  Dr. Cook needs to keep quiet about issues he knows nothing about before he further reinforces the medical stereotype of orthopods.

That hurt, jujuquisp. As a fellow orthopod (although, technically, I need 18 more months and a succesful exam to call myself that), that really hurt.

...And the fact that it's, more or less, absolutely true in many cases, didn't help ease the pain. :(

Soooo, Dr. Cook: Palmaris Longus?

Palmaris longus....

Wow - when I was in grad school, we did clinical correlation exercises with the medical students and one of the activities we did was to interview real patients who would describe their deficits and our job was to try to diagnose their problems (from an anatomical and physiological standpoint).  
Long story short, one fellow had gone in for carpal tunnel surgery and his surgeon snipped his median nerve thinking it was his palmaris longus tendon...

Date: 2007/01/19 10:17:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 19 2007,09:54)
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2007,09:34)
Like, for example, using "toy examples" (Cordova's actual words) of strings of only 8 characters to "prove" that "time erases hierarchies."  Why, amazingly, Cordova was able to "prove" this by using his amazing 8-character string, "mutating" one character each generation, and in only 8 generations, he 'erased' the 'molecular' hierarchy that did not even exist in the first place...

I looked for that, but could not find it. Do you have a link?

By the way, if you like toy hierarchies, I have devised a simple experiment along those lines, Zachriel's Nest of Letters. Even with just a few letters, Zachriel's Nest of Letters shows how neutral evolution can result in easily discernable nested hierarchies after several generations. It also shows when we might be able to predict the existence of intermediaries and the possible limitations of reconstructing the history of such a descent.

Sorry - it occurred at the old KCFS board.  Sometimes he referred to 10-character strings, sometimes it was 8.  It seemed to depend on how quickly he wanted to "disprove" evolution...

See one iteration of his 'toy examples' here, where he adds a symbol ('character';) to his string each 'generation' and darned if he can't make a hierarchy out of it in short order...
On page 2 of that thread, he introduces his 8-bit string.

His cluelessness, obfuscation, incredulity, etc. are exhibited in full glory in that thread...

Date: 2007/01/19 11:05:57, Link
Author: slpage
Hey - its 'Steve' the retard from!

Cute to see you 'siting' propagandist hacks like Sarfati - man, if you hold frauds like that in such high esteem, you are really clueless.  Dumber than I thought, even.

Date: 2007/01/19 14:19:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 19 2007,12:28)
But you forget your closer.  
Another unsupported assertion.

Who would have thought?

Hmmm... Let's give that a name - The Cordova maneuver*.

*The Cordova Maneuver was first used by creationist Salvador Cordova, the exact date is unknown, though it appears to have been used as early as 2004. The hallmark of the Cordova Maneuver is to reiterate an unsupported or even refuted position ad nauseum as though the position has not been addressed. Additional iterations of the claim are usually accompanied by self-aggrandizing commentary, dismissive insults directed at detractors, and weak attempts to belittle those that have rebutted the claims. It is a form of fallacious argumentation.
With an addendum:

A great deal of psychological projection is contained in the highly defensive posturing that accompanies the unsupported assertions.


I had forgotten about that.

Sometimes, I am so correct I scare myself.

I found anouther old exchange, showing the intellectual cowardice of the creationist -

see Sal run.

Date: 2007/01/19 14:49:42, Link
Author: slpage
I cannot decide if the creationists' continual reference to ReMine's application of Haldane's dilemma is pathetic or contemptible...

Probably both?

What no ReMine mongers (including Cordova) have ever addressed are, at least,  what their answers to these very important questions are.

Even if we consider an application of Haldane's model to be exactly as ReMine et al want it to be - that is, exactly as concocted in 1957, no exemptions, no modifications, no questions asked -  they must answer:

1. What was the ancestral population - what traits did it possess such that the hallowed 1,667 fixed beneficial mutations cannot account for human evolution from this population?

2. How many beneficial mutations are required to produce each phenotypic change you claim is required?

There are several others, along with these,  that they will ignore (ReMine always blows off such questions claiming they are 'posturing' or misrepresentation), but without knowing at least the anwers to these questions, yammering on about a 'speed limit' and some particular number of 'allowable' fixed beneficial mutations is pure soliphistic mental masturbation followed by bragging about how good you are in bed...

Date: 2007/01/22 15:14:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 20 2007,18:15)
bFast 01/20/2007 3:50 pm      
As far as I am conserned the whole “sexual selection” hypothesis totally collapses in light of reality.
I am the adoptive father of two girls who are the product of an FAS, mentally handicapped mother. She seems to breed like a rabbit. She has no trouble finding another partner. I, on the other hand, a fellow with a good career and above average intelligence was not able to establish a solid romantic relationship until I was 40. Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.

Okay, so what did we learn here?

(1) bFast adopted two kids...that's great, noble, A Good Thing ( unless bFast manages to stunt their intellectual growth to equal his).
(2) bFast thinks that HUMAN sexual selection means that the "mentally handicapped" (undefined in his example) are LESS likely to find willing casual sex partners. This is beyond ignorant.

Conversely, bFast is stating that "sexual selection" means males prefer increasingly intelligent women to have sex with.

By his reasoning, males shouldn't be lusting after Playboy models, but instead seeking out and avidly competing for Rhodes scholars. Like Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, or Lindsay Lohan --just to cite some current "sex goddesses?"

Or for a man of bFast's age...maybe he DIDN'T really lust after those hot babes of the 1970's and '80's -- he really wanted a tryst with Golda Meir and Madeleine Albright  

(3) bFast thinks that the less intelligent are " low on the evolutionary totem pole." in HUMAN societies, at THIS time in history.

This statement is more a reflection of bFast's own bitter, biased, ego-centric views than an honest appraisal of sexual selection. I have no real idea of the extent to which his adopted children's mother is "mentally handicapped" or how bFast is ignoring the historical, biological and social science data that downplays the role of female intelligence in MALE sexual selection. I do know, however, that  bFast is guilty of the worst sort of twisting and perversion of selection theory, game theory, human psychology, etc.

I have a very good idea of why you couldn't find a relationship up to your forties, bFast.

Note also that Bruce Fast - an IT technician - considers himslef of above-average intelligence.

I have a read a number of his writings on UD and elsewhere, and frankly, I don't see it.  I see the typical 'I know evolution is wrong, therefore, ID must be right, and anything that I can misinterpret to prop up my position, I will do' schtick.

These people do have one thing in common - an overblown sense of self-importance.

Date: 2007/01/24 09:32:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 23 2007,13:43)
Joe at UD:




2:31 pm
Here is the scenario:

The class starts by watching the videos “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and “The Privileged Planet”-

The class then argues that ID does NOT belong in a religious education class as ID is based on observational data and does not care about worship or beliefs.

Hmmmm... Why would a class 'argue' one thing like that?

Anyway, here is a better scenario - a class watches a couple of IDcreationism advocacy videos, then reads the rebuttals to the claims made, then discusses the manner in which the videos presented the information - only in a pro-ID light, while ignoring or disnmissing any and all contrary evidence.

Then the class discusses how slickly produced advocacy videos are tools for the deceptive to con the uninformed into adopting an at-best tenuous 'scientific' position that just happens to prop up an underlying religious belief.

Date: 2007/01/24 09:38:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 24 2007,03:07)
DaveScot, military analyst (my bold below):

Well Jim [Webb], I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert.

I don't think Tard could drop andf give himself 20 from the looks of his pic.

But I did not know that clerks engaged in wargames.

Date: 2007/01/26 09:31:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2007,15:32)
Funny how he didn't limit comments to those who have seen combat?

Cheesypoof Dave made sure the avionics where okay or some-such..

Is this accurate?

I had him pegged as a clerk of some sort, but an aircraft mechanic doesn't see combat either.

I suspected that he was not in a combat arms unit when he mocked me for being a paratrooper - the wannabe effect and all that...

Date: 2007/01/26 09:36:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2007,10:59)
Bfast lays it on the line: "fuck you, we refuse to do research, and we're proud of it!":

11:51 am
Ofro, “Go to the laboratory and provide empirical evidence that will convince everybody.”

The ID community is small compared to the research scientist community. However, the research sccientists are coming out with all sorts of evidence that cries for an ID interpretation. Do you remember those mice that had 100,000 highly conserved basepairs removed with no mesurable deleterious effects?

“Go to the laboratory” is a platitude, a brush off. While laboratory work is being done, analysis of the laboratory work of others is a hundred times more fruitful.

If anyone wanted a better statement of the parasitic nature of ID...

Yes, and science by quote is how the BEST science is doen!  Ask Wally 'electrical engineer creationist expert in all fields of science' ReMine - he'll tell ya'!

And way to go Brucie Fast - another in a long list of non-biologist computer tards who feel qualified - nay, compelled - to pontificate on things they have no education, experienc,e or training in.

Like science.

Date: 2007/01/27 09:06:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 26 2007,17:26)
Sorry Tracy, make that Ladies and Gentlemen.  

As for the question- I thought that they were all related in the first place, so the last common ancestor probablty had 5 fingers as well.  Not to mention that they inhabit similar habitats, so that physical laws ensure some convergence upon similar body shapes etc.  
That seems quite straightforwards.

That Hunter is questioning the issue of a shared pentadactyly in marsupials and placental mammals is  a clear indication that is really does not understand evolution very well.

I knew this after encountering him at Infidels a few years ago - clueless, but as seems to be a requirement for the IDcreationist crowd, very, very sure of himself and the authenticity of his naive positions. (I know, I know - all those ad hominems - keep in mind, I am not using this to rebut his claims - that is easily and has been done by others - no, I am just pointing out the obvious)

That none of his fellow IDers have taken him aside and explained the basics of the position HE is arguing says as much about them as it does him.  This sort of covered-up incompetence is endemic in IDcreationist circles, from Dr.Cook to Dr.Wells to Dr. Hunter - titles clearly have little value when you pontificate on things you clearly do not get.

The truly sad part is this - the bible -believin' audiences will take what he says at face value because he is, after all, DOCTOR Hunter, pro-IDcreationist.

And yes - the establishment of pentadactyly in extant vertebrates goes back well before the split between marsupials and placentals.

Date: 2007/01/27 09:13:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Jan. 27 2007,05:31)

You wrote: "What is "erroneous" about objecting to the use of the very same picture to represent two different species of mammals?"

No problem in pointing out my mistake.



A mistake is using "their" instead of "there", or writing "ilium" when you meant "ileum".

Using the same picture to represent two different species is not a mistake, especially when the picture was clearly manipulated (mirrored) in order to do so.

I mean, is it really that hard to Google Images for 'wolf'?

I smell purposeful dishonesty, myself.

But then, I have become conditioned to expect dishonesty and incompetence by the many egregious examples of this sort of thing from the DI crowd.

Date: 2007/01/29 09:41:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2007,10:45)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2007,08:05)
Dembski on Open Access: Is He Hypocritcal, Stupid, or Both?

Speaking of open access, the open access Intelligent Design 'journal', Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), last published an issue in November 2005, and that issue had five articles.

Last one was published Nov 05.

They've even stopped pretending to do science.

Not to mention that if you look back at the old issues of PSCID, the majority of the articles were rehashed internet essays by DI fellows.  None of them come close to, as best I can tell, original research.

Date: 2007/01/30 11:53:27, Link
Author: slpage
It seems Hunter has been beating the wolf/thylacine skull dead horse for at least 3+ years...

Date: 2007/02/07 10:36:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 06 2007,21:06)
BFast explains

WinstonEwert, “Allright, who can expound on the method used to achieve “IC”?”

I haven’t analyzed the source code of this particular project terribly closely. However, if two “mutations” are required to achieve a given result, then the pair of mutations would technically, barely, be considered “IC”. This would be achieved as follows: a “mutation” happens that “at least does no harm” so it is permitted to continue — then a second mutation happens that completes the “IC” scenerio.

Now, if the number of possible “mutations” is extremely limited (5^100), this scenerio can happen fairly regularly. If the number of possible “mutations” is huge, the chance of getting a matched pair becomes really low. Further, Behe’s recently published paper shows that it is possible, in bacteria (short lifespan, smaller genome) to get 2 component IC once in a blue moon. Getting 3 component IC is much harder, and 4 gets into the zone of rediculous. The number of “matching” mutations that would be required to assemble a bacterial flagellum from known components is, like, 20. Such is the nature of “a little bit IC” (2 component) verses “very IC”, flagellum.

Alright, we're making headway!  First ANY IC shows that evolution isn't possible.  Now, small amounts of IC occur naturally.  If only BFast would grace us by defining "a little bit IC" and "very IC".

Not to sound crass, but bFast is just a typical ignorant yet overconfident egomaniacal douchebag...

Date: 2007/02/16 11:47:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 15 2007,19:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 15 2007,15:15)
Challenge to UD

Hey you champignons champions of free inquiry:

PZ has listed the banned few from pharyngula and their offenses here:

Can you provide a similar list? Please note I only have 4 gigs of RAM. Thanks in advance.

Sure, I'll get it started:

Richard Hughes: homo. insults my mom. no Marine can forgive that.

Blipey: homo. I'll kick his ass when he comes out here.

Zachriel: homo. three times.

Arden Chatfield: homo. dumb bunny.

Lou: homo. thinks he's a woman. two women. He's outta here.

Kristine: lesbian. that's okay, but she frightens Bill.

k.e.: homo. says these weird things all the time. plus I think he's some kind of foreigner.

John Davison: homo. plus he's completely insane.

Alan Fox: homo. lives in France. plus he's too nice to Davison.

Lenny Flank: homo. probably does weird things with snakes when he's alone. On the plus side, PZ Myers hates him.

SteveStory: homo. taller than me. I think he's jealous of me.

GCT: homo. stole my picture. he's outta here.

Ichthyic: homo. I heard stories about him down at the aquarium.


(My apologies to anyone I overlooked, feel free to add yourself to this list.)

Well, I did try to register once and I was not allowed in at all.
 Does that count?

Date: 2007/02/19 13:35:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2007,20:00)




7:35 pm
DaveScot, do you know of any good global warming blogs around?




8:15 pm

Yeah, this one.


cool!  So bruce fast now fancies himself an expert on global climate change, too!


Date: 2007/03/02 10:28:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 01 2007,10:36)
It’s quite amazing that basically evolution is magic, yet evolutionists accuse ID of being magic.
To the ancients, lightning seemed like magic. To a child, a card trick seems like magic. This is a result of something called ignorance. To you, evolution seems like magic for the same reason.

But, I've got a feeling about Jared White. Maybe he's a faux tard? His whole post seems like it might be a fake.
Let science get honest, follow Newton’s lead, and just say, “we don’t know.”
Huh? Stop being reasonable!! You'll take all the fun out of this. Look, Dembski KNOWS dammit! He knows that Jesus Christ is the intelligent designer that created all of us to worship and praise him. Now worship!
Because they are far more beholden to actual empirical evidence. If physicists and chemists make up stories about their results, people can die.
Oh yeah, remember the massacre after the Jan Henrik Schon incident?
Physicists don’t. They consider the Big Bang, a “supernatural” event, to be a respectable idea. There is also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which an observer (a cognitive agent) is needed to collapse the wavefunction.
Take note, bfast. This is how real tard is done. Yes, the BB is supernatural, bfast. Don't start with that "we don't know" crapola. And the Copenhagen interpretation says that humans are supernatural. Didn't you learn that part in your QM class?
But physicists open-mindedly consider cognitive agency to be a potentially indispensible part of scientific explanation. Compare this to the closed-mindedness of “official biology.”
Yeah, bfast! Official biology posits that there are no observers. The data just assembles itself by...magic. Wow. Evolution IS magic, after all.

bfast is just a fucking[] retard[/URL], excuse my French...

Oh, and are you ready for this - he is a Christian!  But that has nothing to do with his rejection of evolution, oh no....

Date: 2007/03/07 13:24:04, Link
Author: slpage
Is this the type of statement that a scientific IDist would make:

" I have found real evidence of a world-wide super-flood that helps make sense of Noah. I have been expecting scientific evidence to support the Biblical assertion that our ancients lived for a very long time. I have heard tell that, like the flood, there are oral histories throughout the world which, as a pattern, suggest that our ancients live a long time. "

I thought that ID had nothing to do with religion...

Date: 2007/03/07 13:42:12, Link
Author: slpage
It was 'bfast'....

The Christian college grad software developer and expert on information theory and evolution...

Date: 2007/03/19 11:16:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 18 2007,07:28)
I thought about starting an Official Forthekids Thread a while back, but she doesn't say enough and hardly allows anyone else to talk. But this thread for cross-posting might be valuable.

She doesn't have much personality. She just seems like a female Joe G.

She is one of those 'just folks' types, who can 'see through the BS' and get to the truth.

At least that is how she likes to portray herself.

I think she is a moron, myself.  I'
ve tried to post at her blog about 6 times - none made it through.  Of course...

Date: 2007/03/21 15:56:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 20 2007,18:54)
Quote (Ogee @ Mar. 20 2007,20:21)

That's hilarious, given how DT squealed and whined like a little piggy when insulted at Alan's blog and at UDoJ.  I love the tough guy Marine act coming from a tubby yellow-bellied (or maybe those are just cheezy-poof crumb-stains?) REMF who speedily bans anyone who exposes his considerable inadequacies over at UD.  I suppose being a hypocrite is small beans when you're already a known cretin, bigot, coward and all-round uneducated moron.

Quoting the tardy one:

If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.

That is funny....

I've known many Marines in my day - most were just regular guys - not braggarts and wnnabes that spend the remainder of their lives yammering on about how tough they used to be.  Of course, there was that Force Recon Platoon that stayed in my barracks in 1986 - we had to throw out the mattresses from the room they stayed in because they got drunk and peed on each other...  

Anyway, while my blog is low-traffic and not very active (I only occasionally update it), Springhole left one comment there once, I replied, and he never came back.  He is not banned there, either.  

I also responded to one of his dumb claims here.  Also, never came back.

He is s typical bully - a coward deep down, only willing to mouth off to the big kids when he can hide behind teacher.

Date: 2007/03/28 11:00:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 26 2007,06:51)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2007,17:49)
What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

When I'm faced with people who tell me that atheists are all immoral, evil, baby-raping, homosexual murderers* (I think that's a direct quote), my response is something like: "Really? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of a single reason not to do all those things, other than that God tells you not to? That if you were to have a crisis of faith tomorrow, you'd be killing, stealing and raping before the day was out?"

If they say "Well... No. I suppose not..." then we can start a dialogue on the subject of ethics, and whether or not Christians really are better people.

If they say "Yes, that's exactly what I mean" (and it has happened), I back away slowly, being sure not to make any sudden movements.

* "homosexual murderers" does not mean "people who murder homosexuals", which is apparently OK.

An interesting point.  Years ago when I fist 'discovered' chat rooms (which I now avoid like the plague), I was chatting with a fellow in an 'atheism' room, and we decided to 'go private' (not that way).  He was a fundy, and he at one point asked me what I would do if I found out my son was gay.  I replied, "Beat him."  As I was typing a follow up message - "Just kidding, of course." - he writes "Me too, I guess we are not all that different."

I knew then that there are actually people that require fear of Hellfire to be decent people.


Date: 2007/03/28 11:30:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 28 2007,04:44)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,14:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,21:32)

Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.

Richard - Thanks for the link - At the end of the post, DaveScot tries to lure FTK to his little Texas Love-nest with his water-sport skilz.

I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:
Quote (Davescot @ his own deluded little world)
...once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics.

Does he not realize that people can, you know, see his picture?  I'm no Brad Pitt, but if that picture is remotely 'accurate' (it sort of has to be - he took it himself!), he must realize that he is not all that attractive...

Then again, delusional megalomania probably does not stop with assessments of one's intellectual capabilities...

Date: 2007/03/30 08:20:00, Link
Author: slpage
No Jesus, No Holocaust....

Date: 2007/04/03 14:26:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,14:59)
That’s an interesting observation, Stephen.  But, I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...


What was the last peer-reviewed paper that you read, and could you give us a quick summary of it?

Date: 2007/04/03 14:29:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:19)
Thanks for the welcome, Richard.  

My contributions to this forum will be sparse.  I find no reason to carry on sincere conversations with people who are incapable of respectfully considering perspectives that differ from their own.


So what is your position on people who simply ignore contrary evidence?

Date: 2007/04/03 14:35:00, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,13:43)

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

Stating your case is one thing -- nasty and vulgar responses on a regular basis is another, and you're certainly not going to convince someone of your point when you act in such an unprofessional and childish manner.

There's that strange right-wing obsession with potty-mouth.  Oh, they can claim that we are all deluded, deceived, all liars, incompetents, stupid, childish, etc. But boy if you toss out the a-word, they don't wanna talk to you meanie-heads no more!

Date: 2007/04/03 14:44:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ April 02 2007,18:03)
Biology certainly isn't rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it.

So, do you think one has to be a genius to engage in 'rocket science'?  I ask because, first of all, 'rocket scientists' are primarily engineers, which are applied scientists (that is, they take the primary research that others have done and apply it to particular problems).  Sure, there are physicists involved, but I don't suspect it is terribly difficult to plug numbers into alread-developed formulae to figure things out, providing you have the appropriate training.

Plus, I purchased this compendium of information on the Saturn 5 rocket - 4 DVDs with something like 16 hours of footage.  And I was surprised to see how many failures there were on the project - valves not working and causing explosions, welds not holding, incorrect values being employed producing catastrophic failures in test engines and fuel tanks and all kinds of stuff.

When you only focus on the successes, it sure is impressive to be called  a 'rocket scientist'. If you look at the big picture, they re really no 'better' than any other scientist.

And it is a HUGE misconception that biology is so easy.  If that were the case, people like3 Dembski would not still be relying on asinine english language analogies.

Date: 2007/04/05 14:59:06, Link
Author: slpage
Then there is the issue that nobody has touched on yet...

Perhaps those scoring well on ther MCAT are simply good at taking standardized tests?

I find that standardized tests like the MCAT, SATs, and even GREs are fairly poor indicators of success.  Sure, they have a role in assessment, but I've seen plenty of people who, for example, maxed (or very nearly maxed)  the MCAT have to take remedial courses in medical school - I know, I used to have to teach some of them.

I couldn't help but notive FTK's idiotic little quip.  Maybe she should check this out..

Not that she will, of course - she gets her info from the Disco liars for Christ.

Date: 2007/04/06 09:12:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2007,15:19)
Quote (slpage @ April 05 2007,14:59)
I couldn't help but notive FTK's idiotic little quip.  Maybe she should check this out..

Not that she will, of course - she gets her info from the Disco liars for Christ.

Actually, she did check in there and made one of her standard inane arguments (evolution and atheism go hand in hand) in comment 123.

One of the unanswered questions that I asked her re this correlation was "So what?" Are atheists somehow lesser human beings than theists?  And are all theists created equal; how would she feel about an evolution-denier who worshiped Odin, or Shiva? Or the Rev. Moon???

Inquiring minds still want to know!

Yes, I remembered having seen her silly quip over there after I posted this.

So irrelevant and insignificant was her post there that it slipped my mind....

Date: 2007/04/06 10:43:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (2ndclass @ April 03 2007,14:24)
What in the world has gotten into DaveScot?
Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won’t be holding our collective breath in the interim.

Since when are grandiose, substance-free claims against the ToE considered a bad thing at UD?

Interestingly, Ilion has been posting more at ARN, most likely as a result of his banning at UD.  I noticed this, and checked out the post re: Ilion on my blog and lo and behold, Davetard had left me a message:

"I just banned Ilion from Uncommon Descent for making wild claims and no substance behind them. Out of curiosity I then googled his name and found the same assessment from Scott L. Page. We finally agree on something, Scott. Funny stuff."

Yeah, funny.

It is not that hard to see Ilion as the underinformed, overconfident gasbag he is.

Date: 2007/04/09 09:25:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,22:43)
Popper seems to think that all science is "tentative" (no black swans). So I think FtK is on the right track.

FtK: Read Wes' paper, put your garterbelt on, come ove here and sit on my lap and we'll chat about it.

Popper - and Kuhn - are over-rated.  

By the way - with my heels on, I am pushing 6'8"

Date: 2007/04/11 09:33:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2007,09:08)

DaveScot said...

Sorry for the off-topic but I wanted to leave a note for Blipey and I know it'll get to him if I leave it here.

I was checking the calendar to make sure there weren't any all day soccer tournaments on Sunday, May 13th, and was reminded that's Mother's Day. I won't be available for any meetings on that day.

10:19 PM

Unreal.  A typical bully/coward.

Reminds me of those kids in grade school that would call the bigger kids names, and when the bigger kids had finally had enough and went after him, he'd run and hide behind the teacher...

What a Marine-pussy...

Oh - Rich - why do I think Popper and Kuhn are overrated.

First, neither (and, as far as I can tell, none of the 'biggie' philiosophers of science) actually had any experience in engaging in scientific pursuits.  Sort of like some Joe Sixcpack couch potato who never played football screaming at a quarterback in the NFL "You suck!  I could have done better than that!"
Second, neither seem to accurately portray the manner in which science is actualy engaged in, and worse, according to some of their acolytes (Lakatos for example) science is basically worthless and no better at finding 'truth' than sociology.
Several years ago (in the 1980s or 90s), there was a series of letters exchanged in Nature (I think - can't remember exactly right now) on the issue of the philosophy of science, and after the philosophers that were involved basically claimed science to be a farce (in so many words), a scientist replied to the effect that it was an interestign exchange on a topic that essentially means nothing.

So, they can philosophize away, and I don't really think it will have much of an impact on anyone except those who are outside of science and read their work and think they can then dismiss anything claimed by scientists (which I have seen happen).

Date: 2007/04/11 11:19:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2007,11:06)
Slpage: I'm a big Popper fan, because 'no black swans', empirical falsification, makes science perpetually open, hungry, subject to revision. Compare that to scripture. We never claim to be right, only to use the best current explanation given the data and the models fit. We are prepared to be wring and welcome it, because in revision comes greater understanding.


Rich - I agree with the 'spirit' of the falsification criterion, but a direct application of it is unrealistic.  That is, how often do scientists come up with an idea and say to themselves, "Hmmm...  Now how can I go about falsifying this?"

If it is not falsified, is it not science (this is a little claim of creationists on occasion - because ToE has not been falsified, it isnot scientific...)?  If it is falsified, then what?  
A more realistic application - and what, as best I can tell, actually happens - is that any new observations/experiments done with regard to a new (or ol) hypothesis/theory are de facto attempts at falisification.  That is, scientist X sets out to 'test' an idea in the hopes that the results will be supportive.  It seems to be human nature.

If the test ends up not comporting with the idea, then one would hope that scientist X reformulates his/her idea and tries again.  

I totally agree that any iteration of this is anathema to creationists, but that wasn't my point.  My point is that the 'biggie' philosophers of science took things to an illogical extreme in many cases, and so have been over-relied upon in many cases.

Date: 2007/04/12 12:13:44, Link
Author: slpage
I'm not sure what to make of the creationist fixation on  what they perceive as name caling and insults.

I wonder if they even read the material that their own side produces, and if so, if they perceive any negativity, incivility, etc. in it.  Most likely not.

It is that whole 'framing' thing - when an evilutionist tells a creationist he'she is closed-minded and ignorant, that is incivil, rude, name calling.  When a creationist says the same thing to an evilutionist, it is okey-dokey because it is 'the truth.'

The saddest part is, they truly do not seem capable of seeing their hypocrisy.

Date: 2007/04/13 07:20:07, Link
Author: slpage
Seems FTK, aka FtK, aka IAFM, aka Diana, aka Lapdog, aka.... is censoring posts at her blog as usual.

A guy can't even point out how much of a pussy her new pal Dave 'built like a football player' Springer is...

Thats ok, I'll do it elsewehere...

Date: 2007/04/15 11:08:43, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,April 12 2007,17:30][/quote]
No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.

Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.

Perhaps if you would stop writing about things that you do not know much about as if you knew a lot about them, you would not hear that so much?

It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.

Perhaps because that was not what the debate was about?

When one looks at the 'scientific' ID meetings - the ones at which they don't invite critics - they don't really discuss science, either.  Why is that?  Don't you think that a big meeting of the big names in IDcreationism on the 'science' of ID might garner some actual scientific discussion, as opposed to, I don't know, mock interviews by Lee Strobel, of the typical 'Darwin=Hitler' garbage that tends to be the focal points of these things?

Recall, FTK, that ID's own 'peer-reviewed' journal, PCID, has not even been published since 2005!  THE ID advocates cannot possibly claim 'anti-ID conspiracy' there, can they?  
The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.

Doing so looks very cowardly.

Ahy yes, that old conservative machismo...

Because, after all, 'debates' are how real science is done...  at least when opne side does no scientific research of any type - all that is left is public spectacles to woo the fence sitters with flowery rhetoric and fire-up the hard-core supporters.

Perhaps the SMU faculty could invite - challenge - the ID propagandists to discuss the issues face-to-face any time, anywhere...  Than, when they take up the offer, the SMU faculty could claim that they can suddenly only meet at specific times that will not be convenient for the IDcreationists, and warn them about their dogs... and their concealed weapons... and their call to the cops... and their chain saws... and how they are all built like football players - no, middleweight boxers...

Because apparently that sort of thing is the antithesis of cowardly in religious conservative circles.

Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out?  If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about.  As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.

How about we all wait until the well-funded DI actually produces some verifiable research supportive of their bombastic claims, instead of reading their bravado and rhetoric about public 'debates' and op-eds written by lawyers and theologians?

Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?  Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.

What is to debate?

The DI clowns will declare evolution caused Nazism, that Peppered moths were glued to trees, that Behe is the greatest scientist ever, that Dembski - despite being unable to hold down a job for any length of time - is the greatest Information Theorist ever, that Jon Wells, Spetner, Meyers, etc. disproved evolution, and then when asked what thye have that actuially SUPPORTS thier position scientifically, they will say, Why, we just old you!

What is to 'debate'?  Will the stacked audience really stop and think about what is being explained to them - between 'Amens', that is?

Open your eyes.  Public debates are for people that have no legitimate scientific support on their side.

It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

You are conflating a couple of issues here, deary.
There is a difference between making 'accusations' against "design" and calling out the antics of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement.  The Movement doesn't seem able to support their claims at all, not scientifically, so they rely on public spectacles and appeals to the masses.  They are, as Wes writes, snake oil salesmen.

Here's what I think.....

SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...

???  ???  ???  :D

Where did you get that picture of Springer?

Date: 2007/04/19 09:05:01, Link
Author: slpage
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.

Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...

Date: 2007/04/19 11:14:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2007,09:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,09:22)
Quote (slpage @ April 19 2007,09:05)
Apparently the shooter wanted to 'die like Jesus Christ'.

Doesn't sound like the soon-to-be-dying words of a Muslim or an atheist...

...or an 'Asian gang member'.

There was some 'on the cross' rhetoric in his video too.

that being said, he was a disturbed individual. I wont use him to club Christians with, it's not fair nor right.

Indeed not.  Trying to blame some supposed ideology or affiliation for the actions of an individual like that as an excuse to demean or villify said ideology or affiliation is pretty irresponsible and stupid.

Date: 2007/04/24 07:54:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2007,10:17)
In case you hadn't noticed, FtK posted this blog message yesterday.
Worth the read
Walt Brown has worked for 20+ years exploring a YE interpretation of scientific data, and over the years, has offered some fascinating theories. What I like most about his work is that it is very comprehensive. He has an eye for being able to see the big picture.

He has added a section to his website on the Grand Canyon. He has made many trips to the Grand Canyon over the years to conduct field work, and recently led a group in exploring his conclusions. Interesting read.

He also provides his take on global warming.

I sent her a comment, but it seems not to have made it through "moderation".


Brown's gibberish was demolished on KCFS with FtK often acting as the willing go-between as for some odd reason, Brown would not come to KCFS on his own.

FtK simply ignored the refutations of his claims and still, it appears, worships the charlatan.

So much for the 'open mind' of the IDcreationist...

Date: 2007/04/25 09:56:11, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,April 24 2007,14:08][/quote]
Uh oh - I found a typo:

Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND ABSORBED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".

Let me fix it:

Holy smokers, some of you people are dense.  I'VE DEBATED AND IGNORED VIRTUALLY TONS OF "CONTRADICTORY DATA".

Date: 2007/04/25 09:58:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (argystokes @ April 24 2007,18:53)
But, the biggest problem I have with common ancestry involves the scientific issues, not my religious beliefs (I couldn’t care less if you believe me or not).  I don’t think that common ancestry can be considered fact merely due to the similarities between organisms.

You say you've been following this issue for years. Surely you don't think that similarity between organisms is the only evidence common descent has going for it?

Sort of puts the lie to her claims of TONS OF EVIDENCE, no?

Date: 2007/04/25 10:03:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,07:19)
Doesn't anybody here like vodka?    :(

Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit...

I'm more of a Drambuie fan, myself.

Date: 2007/04/25 10:08:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (k.e @ April 19 2007,09:50)
Quote (guthrie @ April 19 2007,16:21)

Steve Fuller has a new book out soon.  
on amazon

The synopsis is interesting reading:
If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century's Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements' fortunes? Steve Fuller's brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science's most vociferous debate.

Now, apart from demonstrating that Fuller has no clue about science and how it is and has been practised, it shows that at least he agrees with Judge Jones on one issue- that ID is Creationism, with a religious presupposition.

I've had the 'pleasure' of listening to an interview with Fuller going on about his 'epistemology' at a great rate of knots. All with a hyper Disneyfied cheeryness overlaid with the taut smile of plastic surgeon's experiment on a goat off its chain. Hide the plastic toys, take the washing in and say goodbuy to the flower beds. The guy can I put this...well, he's not afraid of talking about nothing of great length.

It was interesting to watch Fuller have his hat handed to him on Berube's blog...

But, being a creationist, Fuller:

1. did not recopgnize it
2. acted condescending
3. declared victory

Thats what these people do...

Date: 2007/04/25 10:15:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Joe is the dumbest of the dumb.  All of his accumulated knowledge can be yours for only 20,000 USD.  But, if you don't have it, you're out of luck.  And this proves that he's really interested in disseminating information.

I am looking forward to the meeting. My list is completed. You will only see it once you give me the list I requested or $10,000. I don't give anything away for free.

I liked this one:

I would say that few people participate on my blog because they do not want to get their ass kicked.

Because, after all, Joe Gallien is a 'scientist' because he has a B.s. degree...

Date: 2007/04/25 11:13:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Darth Robo @ April 25 2007,10:38)
"Not since I drank a quart when I was 16 and tore the sink off of the wall in my sister's apartment and almost choked on my own vomit..."

Yikes, must have been a good night!      :O

Fun times....

After I emptied my intestines and drank a couple glasses of water, I was up for the night.

Amazing how much abuse a teenager's body can handle.

Date: 2007/04/27 09:56:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2007,07:01)
[quote=blipey,April 26 2007,02:38
For Posterity:

Weird - it was just the other day that I saw a football player/middleweight boxer with a pot belly and chicken legs...

He also doesn't lok like he's 6'2" or whatever his most recent 'I'm a big guy' claim was...

Date: 2007/04/27 10:04:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 26 2007,14:03)
Quote (argystokes @ April 26 2007,13:57)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 26 2007,11:44)
Why are so many people so jocular about Dave (Springer) Scot?
There is nothing too weird about the way he looks. A USA citizen a tad overweight (shock horror).
An ID proponent who has lied (shock horror).
C'mon. Is anyone really surprised? And what would you have to say if the situation was reversed and some ID suporters' main criticism of a pro-evolutionist was about looks/figure?
Yes I know it isn't exactly the same (the fool has said too much shiz for that to aply), just saying.

It's the irony of Dave making fat jokes about Ed Brayton, in conjunction with his bragging about his own physical attributes.

I "kinda" understood that (not the exact target admitedly). It is just that our side now looks no better. It is sillly to ridicule an argument on how your oponent looks unless references are given about their past comments doing the ecact same thing.
Maybe you dissagree.

EDIT: Dave Tard is a tit! There is no need to stoop to that level to point it out.

EDIT2: Sorry for being a boring git.

I don't see anyone saying that Springer's arguments are wrong because he clearly has a distorted self image.  His arguments have been shown to be lacking because they are not logical, are premised on unwarranted extrapolations and distortions, and his basic misunderstanding of most of the issues he pontificates on.

As has been pointed out, his appearance is 'ridiculed', if that is the right word, because he has made himself out to be some sort of paragon of masculine virility and he clearly is not.

Knocking down the braggart, as it were.

Date: 2007/04/30 09:18:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 30 2007,04:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2007,01:23)
Gary Hurd wrote:
It should be remembered by all here at least, that Panda's Thumb contributers Ed Brayton, and Timothy Sandefur are rabid opponents of environmental protection or any form of government regualtion of mining, logging etc...

But Ed Brayton at least does not seem to be a rabid global warming denier judging by his recent comments.

Hey Alan.
So you are the most ridiculous waste of space Darwin propogandist in the whole World and Wesley (the atheist) Elsberry puppet? Bloody ####, JAD is ranting about you.

JAD is still alive?


Date: 2007/04/30 14:05:36, Link
Author: slpage
I've been following the whole 'baraminology' thing since about 1998 (I've got some stories, ooo....), and I can safely say that, IMHO, the entire thing is a system established to 'disprove':
1. human relatedness to anything else (i.e., specially created status to be 'proven')
2. macroevolution

IN some of their earlier papers, baraminologists opted to use subjective, biologically irrelevant data to rely on when doing phylogenetic analyses to show that you can use standard phylogenetic analyses to show a discontinuity between humans and other primates - they rejected the analyses done using molecular, anatomical, and chromosomal data is favor of - and I am serious - whether or not monogamous pair bonds are formed, population density, dwelling type, etc.

Pretty blatantly non-scientific, if you ask me...

Date: 2007/05/01 08:09:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,20:40)
Quote (phonon @ April 30 2007,18:42)
ID people just can't do comedy. It isn't in them, I guess.

Well, fundies as a whole tend to be humor-challenged tight-asses.  Just look at Dembski's performance on the Daily Show . . . .  (shrug).

That was - almost literally - painful to watch.

I wanted to punch that smug twirp in the mouth....

Date: 2007/05/02 10:09:41, Link
Author: slpage
Got them - thanks!

Gishlick makes many of the same arguments I have made elsewhere regarding the Baraminology activity. For one, giving primacy to the "Scriptural criterion" seems to be a bit closed-minded and limiting on the 'objectivity' of the turht-seeking creation scientists...

Date: 2007/05/03 08:12:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ May 02 2007,19:38)
Wonder why Davetard's not wearing a wedding ring. Didn't he say he was married?

Is gay marriage legal in Texas?

Date: 2007/05/03 13:19:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 02 2007,22:10)


Also...I did not encourage Dave to do damage to Bilpey.  I was merely alluding to the fact that from the looks of both of them, Dave wouldn't need the dogs to protect himself from Bilpey.  

Why - is it his craggy beard, or his balding pate?
I know - it was his impressive mesomorphic V-shape...  which just happens to look more like a U...

He looks more like an embellisher and schoolyard bully than some sort of tough guy.


Truth be told, I'd grab my dogs too if Bilpey threatened to show up at my door.

It was a 'threat'?  I thought Springer was a tough guy former Marine built like a boxer/football player (pee-wee football, sure...)?

 It's kinda weird that he wants to visit Dave of all people.  Really creepy, IMHO.

IMHO, I found it creepy that you wrote that Springer was "looking good."  Makes me wonder about your self-description, as Springer's was clearly a bit fantasy-laced.

Oh, and yes, I am fuming that Slimeador cited me in his latest lie fest.  In fact, I pile on the exposure of his dementia and dishonesty here.

Sad thing is, I'll bet you lack the sense to understand that what he did - does all the time - is truly dishonest.

Date: 2007/05/03 13:31:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 03 2007,13:21)
[quote=Louis,May 03 2007,13:03]
Dave, however, went so far as to publish JJQ's real name and work address and phone. Kinda undermines any moral authority he might have fancied himself as having.

(Well, yeah, that and threatening to hack PT.)

Creationists are like that.

Joe Gallien, Blipey's next host, did it to at least 3 people I know of, including me.  He went so far as to post my home address on a website and wrote that "not everyone drives though your town to go skiing" (I live in Vermont).  He also went so far as to post the name of another guy's wife and phone numbers of a couple of people.  It was only AFER he did those things that efforts were made to find out who he was.  That odd paranoid double standard...

Springer, of course, also impersonated me on PT (and gave some lame excuse that he was really impersonating a guy he worked with that just happened to have the same name as me).

Date: 2007/05/04 07:17:56, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 03 2007,15:00)
But doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that FtK's first response to having that picture posted was to try to post some more pictures?



Very Creepy...

I recall that 'Joy' also claimed to have dogs, guns, and tight security.  She also had an extreme paranoid streak...

Just a coincidence, I am sure...

Date: 2007/05/04 07:24:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 03 2007,15:34)
Looks like I wanted to kill someone....oh, yeah, I did.  The speakers were all from KU and die-hard liberal evolutionists.

Yeah, because all evolutionists are librals' and need to be killed.

Like Krauthammer and George Will and Guiliani etc...


What is it with conservative religious fanatics and their death cult?  Always wanting to go to war (as long as someone else has to go fight), always talking about violence.


Date: 2007/05/04 08:53:05, Link
Author: slpage
Not specifically about UD, but that Scientist by virtue of having a Bachelors of SCIENCE degree in electronics engineering, Joe Gallien, has shown up at ARN hawking 'Priveleged Planet'...

Sad how dedicated a person can be to an advocacy video...

Date: 2007/05/07 08:11:27, Link
Author: slpage
Yeah, the mad picture looks better...

Date: 2007/05/15 14:27:06, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ May 11 2007,09:09)
 Sal's been teaching ID for years, and he covers plenty of ground.  Doesn't matter to me if it stays in that venue for a while -- in the longer run, people will insist it become part of mainstream curriculum.

Salvador Cordova is a lying little weasel and propagandist.  If he is 'teaching' anything, I sure hope his 'students' do not expect to be taken seriously and/or get a good deprogramming after having been brainwashed by the master baiter.

Date: 2007/05/15 14:38:44, Link
Author: slpage
I admit, I was granted tenure and I have far fewer publications that Gonzalez (but many more than Wells and Dembski) and have never even received a major research grant (I have received a few small ones).

Then, I am not at a major research institution, do not claim to be or present myself as a major researcher, have not claimed (implicitly or explicitly) to have overturned a major scientific theory or to have provided material support for a fringe ideology.  Nor have I ignored the course catalog description of a class and instead taught my preferred fringe ideology.  

Tenure is no guarantee, even if you publish, even if you have grants.  As others have pointed out, there is much more to it.  While I was in grad school, one of the profs in my dept. was up for tenure.  She had dozens of publications, had recently received a big NSF grant, taught several courses, etc., yet was denied tenure.  I know a major researcher at Harvard that has never received tenure yet has been there for decades.

For the ID crowd to whine about this is to yet again display their intellectual limitations, their spoiled child attitude, and their condescending hubris.

Date: 2007/05/15 19:38:39, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 15 2007,03:08)
Dumbski gets it wrong!

And I have to wonder why he admits it? Could it be that he realises how absurd it would have looked for him to be attacking Dawkins when his record of peer-review is, erm, what would be a polite way to put this? Differently abled to that of Dawkins....

Well, he did once 'attack' Richard Wein for having 'only' a BS in statistics and daring to try to rebut Dr.Dr. Dembski's mathematical genius claims...

Date: 2007/05/19 09:02:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 18 2007,19:57)
Joseph seems to think that he has to get stupider as time goes by:

To me the “amazing” thing about Polaris isn’t just that it sits above our North Pole, but that it can be found due to the pointer (Ursa Major) that accompanies it.

IOW to find Polaris in the midst of all the stars just find the “big dipper” (easy to spot) and follow the outside edge of its pot to Polaris.

Truly "amazing."

Clear evidence that this is, indeed, a Privileged Planet...

Date: 2007/05/23 08:17:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 22 2007,03:05)
Hmm, Sal gets all excited because Professor Tipler mentioned his name"  
My name was mentioned in the show because I had consistently described Tipler as a provisional atheist. That used to be the case for Tipler, but his research in physics has now persuaded him that God exists.
World Renowned Cosmologist Frank Tipler on Sci Phi Show!
Oddly this weeks New Scientist magazine has a review of his latest book! Some snippets below.
Tiper goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics justifications

When conventional physics dosen't provide a sufficient explnation for the religious phenomenon in question, Tipler reinvents it

A collection of half-truths and exaggerations

It is far more dangerous then mere nonsence, because Tipler's reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern physics, combined with his respectable research pegidree give the persuasive illusion that he is describing what the laws of physics imply. He is not

he then claims that withou Jesus's resurrection, our universe could not exist

I have racked my brains to think of a more extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by a intelligent professional scientist, but I cannot. Given some of the junk that has been pubslished in the past decade, that's saying a lot.

Why am I not surprised in the least that the uncritical thinkers over at UD lap this tripe up? I bel Sal is his biggest fan! They seem to think alike!

Was is Tipler that rebuffed Dawkins by telling him that he is a biologist and biologists are not sientists, or was that the other arrogant gasbag ID physicist?

Date: 2007/05/27 10:49:29, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (shi @ Mar. 15 2006,08:15)
Frankly, I am not that impressed with your lot of so-called scientists here in this forum.  

Are you a scientist, shi?

Date: 2007/05/27 10:52:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (shi @ May 25 2007,12:09)
I agree with the opinion of this well known IBM scientist Gregory Chaitin, who said "In my opinion, if Darwin's theory is as simple, fundamental and basic as its adherents believe, then there ought to be an equally fundamental mathematical theory about this, that expresses these ideas with the generality, precision and degree of abstractness that we are accustomed to demand in pure mathematics." His article is here

That is from his essay titled "Speculations..."


Date: 2007/05/27 10:53:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (don_quixote @ May 27 2007,10:08)
For those interested, here is Shi's Blogger profile*, and here is his blog. He does indeed seem to be a practicing scientist, at Burnham Institute for Medical Research! I wonder what his employers would think of this 'tard?

*found via JAD's 'blog'. (warning the 800+ comments on that link might make your browser crash)

Oh, I didn't see that before I posted - say, Shi - did you ever spam my blog under the name 'Designs'?

Because this 'Designs' jerk claimed to be a cancer researcher, but was fairly clueless about evolution...

Date: 2007/05/30 12:44:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Freelurker @ May 29 2007,20:26)
Sal recently provided another episode of posturing and distortion regarding engineering, science, and ID.

I provided several comments, six of which made it through moderation. Here are the two that did not:
bFast wrote: “It turns out that when we examine biological systems, we must envision them to be like the stuff that we humans intelligently design.”

You lost me there. Do you mean we must not envision them to be unlike the stuff we humans design? I can envision lots of ways a flagellum is not like anything we have ever designed. It’s really marvelous.

By the way, the letter we’ve been talking about says that physiologists model biological systems in a manner that engineers use to model other systems (specifically, as black boxes with input-output relations.) Nowhere does he say that the resulting biological models must be like the models of systems built by engineers.

StuHarris and bFast,

I’m having trouble with this idea that engineering is non-materialistic. (In fact, I find it absurd.) Could you give an example of engineering work where a non-materialistic approach was used? An example from your own work would be ideal.

I gather that the moderator did not want me to pursue the ideas of StuHarris and bFast. He accurately assessed that it would not have gone well for them at all.

And I so wanted to hear about non-materialistic engineering …   ;)

Well, as I am sure you know, bfast is sort of a retard...

Date: 2007/06/07 14:47:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,14:45)
And, if you’re interested in predictions from a creationist who is following the evidence where it leads, you can read through all of them thoroughly by going to this index and looking under “predictions of hydroplate theory”.

Cool!  Wally Brown the engineer again...

I guess FtK - after examining Brown's GARBAGE from every freaking angle, still doesn't know enough about the science involved to form a coherent, valid opinion.

That is not an attempt to intimidate, ridicule, or anything else.  It is simply the truth.

Shall AGAIN link to my demolition of Brown the engineer's silly book section on biology?

The guy cannot seem to tell when he is out of his league...  But why should he?  With hero worshippers and sycophants aplenty on the 'net...

Date: 2007/06/07 14:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,14:48)
Go read that guy. He is a christian, an ID supporter, and a former physicist, and he will tell you, plain as day, why ID is not science.

I am *quite* aware of why many people do not accept ID as "science".  I actually agree with some of their reasoning, but the fact remains that everything that ID relays to the public is scientific.  It's about science...not religion.

Such as?

Date: 2007/06/07 14:54:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,21:26)
Dang, Steve, I think this might answer one of the questions you keep throwing at me....

Read it and weep, boys.  Looks like ID has a lab at Baylor University.  :)


More crednetialism!

Can't wait to see the earth-shattering ID research churned out!

Date: 2007/06/07 14:56:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 02 2007,22:29)
LOL, Steve, I think you're getting kinda flustered over this new lab.  You've spit out about 10 little posts in a row...but, but, but, they can't have a lab at a university...they just can't!  



One lab.


At a Baptist University.

Look out Harvard, Yale, U of Chicago, Stamford, etc.etc.....

Date: 2007/06/11 10:14:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2007,22:52)
Davescot used my name to say awful things on a blog one time. Someone used FtK's name recently at PT. Someone's used Doc Bill at pharyngula recently to post stupid rantings.

Is this new? I've only become aware of it recently. Is this a new tactic by the trolls, or is there a history of this sort of thing?

David Scott Springer did that to me at PT - it was a contributing factor to his banning there (that and trying to hack the site - seems a computer super-genius like Springer should have not only been able to do it, but do it without leaving a trail).

His laughably pathetic excuse was that he was not really trying to impersonate me, but was really trying to impersonate a guy he worked with....  who just happened to have the same name as me...

The guy can't even lie very well.  Seems he has a reputation for this sort of thing.

Date: 2007/06/11 10:17:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,00:12)
Yeah, it tells me there are "nuts" on both sides.  Fr'instance, it's common knowledge that you use various names on other blogs.  Why, I don't know, but evidently that's not considered "nutty".

Not to worry though, I still love you.  I just think you're a bit of a fruitloop.

But there is a difference between using different names at different places (a means to shake off the stalkers) and intentionally employing the known name of another person.

Or don't you think so?

I once encountered an IDcreationist on a board who actually not only used 2 different names on the board, but he used them at the same time, and what is more,  one of his personas claimed the other was a former room mate, and the room mate heaped praise upon the other's antievolution claims.

When the site owner spilled the beans, the creationist actually tried to justify it all.

Odd how the cretin mind 'works.'

Date: 2007/06/19 11:03:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers?

I don't really care, but if a person claims to have done something and it is later found out not to have happened, it says a bit about the person's integrity.
I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact.  It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation.  And, it only covers topics ever so slightly.

And did you know that 400-level courses on molecular biology or parasitology or immunology use the same introductory texts?  its true!  And grad students?  Same intro level texts.  Its amazing, isn't it...

I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion?  I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP. :p

And do you ask the same questions of Walt Brown's assertions?

I know that you do not.  You accept the rants of creationists without question.  Hypocrite.

Date: 2007/06/21 06:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 19 2007,11:17)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2007,11:03)
Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,11:26)

What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me?

Dave Springer gave you a textbook?
Did he have you begging him to father a child, also?

No, really - let me guess, it is some freshman biology text?  

And reading with the intent to learn, not find fault (as I am sure you are doing) will amke you some sort of expert, right?  That is what Springer thinks, I am sure.  Which explains why so many of his claims are just plain stupid...

Umm, ease that back into the holster, okay?  The Dave she is referring to is not DaveScot, but our own Albatrossity2.

Oh well jeepers thanks....

Date: 2007/06/28 09:18:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 27 2007,15:15)
Should someone tell Joe the Maytag man that this thread exists? Might be good for giggles.

Hold on now - Joe G is a SCIENTIST!  He has even said so - because (and this was the rationale he used) he has a Bachelors of SCIENCE (in electronics engineering)!  So we must all bow down to Joe G's amazing super insights on all things scientific!

Date: 2007/06/28 09:24:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2007,06:26)
The Coyne review is one very long mishmash of ad hominem, argument from authority, misunderstanding, and question begging. The ad hominem (questioning my motives, gratuitously citing folks who disagree with me without saying why that’s pertinent to my argument, and so on) I will not reply to. The argument from authority is the most incomprehensible part of his essay. Alluding to my participation in the Dover, Pennsylvania court case of 2005, early in the review Coyne writes “More damaging than the scientific criticisms of Behe's work was the review that he got in 2005 from Judge John E. Jones III.”

Wow, more damaging than scientific criticisms?! Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness — for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians — the judge copied the lawyers’ writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.) Frankly, it’s astounding that a prominent academic evolutionary biologist like Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. If Coyne himself can’t explain how Darwinism can cope with the challenges The Edge of Evolution cites, how could a non-scientist judge?

yeah, whatever you say Behe.... I'm quite sure Judge Jones saw right through you and your little game.

Funny - I noticed that comments are disabled.  Shouldn't be surprised - these people's idiocy can only prosper when they can control the debate.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:20:13, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ June 28 2007,16:53)
Then have a discussion in which a method of testing can be hammered out. Then do it.

This is Joe's idea of a lesson plan.  He wants to show The Privileged Planet in schools and then discuss how the science might be done.  I suppose this means he wants to discuss it with the students.  Not really how science should be done, but with these guys the students are probably a lot smarter.

Maybe 3rd graders could show Joe how not to look so stupid.

Comments in the high 20s on this thread

I wrote a brief blog post about Joe's infatuation with THE PP.

I am not at all surprised that someone like Joe would find that line of 'reasoning' compelling - why, we are in just the right spot to see what we can see!  OBVIOUSLY designed!

Even a loony nut case creationist engineer agreed that
such 'reasoning' was silly...

Date: 2007/07/16 15:06:14, Link
Author: slpage
Do they really, truly think that silly analogies are evidence fo the ID as in the ID movement?

Can they really be THAT stupid and naive?

Date: 2007/07/16 15:10:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ June 29 2007,17:30)
Joe G claims he is not like DaveScot, then posts this in response to my accepting his invitation to his home:

And now you're stupid enough to go to a hunter's backyard and mess with him.

Stupidity. Sheer stupidity.

Similar to something recently...if I could only place it.

Well, not to sound macho or anything, but JoeG and Davey Springer are just old fashioned pussies.  They talk a big tough guy talk - on the internet - then suddenly try to avoid any actual meetings.  He has a history of doing that - me, Rob Rapier, Skepticboy, etc....

Date: 2007/07/16 15:12:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ July 14 2007,16:49)
Let's not forget the perfect asymmetry in the banning:

I didn't respond to DT's moronic math, therefore DT banned me.

DT didn't respond to Patrick Caldon's correction of his moronic math, so DT banned Patrick Caldon.

But... but.... IDists are OPEN MINDED and ENCOURAGE dialogue, unlike the hideous atheistic cult of Darwinism...

Date: 2007/07/29 12:42:00, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 24 2007,09:36)
Joe, do you still tell people you're a qualified scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science, Engineering Technology"?

:D  :D  :D

Actually, it is in Electronics Engineering.

Date: 2007/07/29 12:49:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:35)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 24 2007,20:31)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:30)
Does ID say anything about who to worship?


Does ID say anything about when, how, why or where to worship?


Does ID require a belief in "God"?


So please tell me the connection between ID and religion that doesn't consist solely of IDists.

IOW what IDists do or don't doesn't impact ID...

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HAA H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, Joe, you truly do live up to your reputation for tardness.

And you are still a freak.

Oh well.

Brilliant retort, ID's Bulldog!

Date: 2007/07/29 12:54:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:40)
And ya know something Lenny- I hope I am in the middle of it and have to testify in a Court of Law.

ID will surely get a favorable ruling once I am finished.

Hopefully you will be there and just have to eat everything I say and then swallow that favorable decision.

That day is coming. I love democracy!!!!


And what, exactly will you say in the court of law?

Will you demand to be allowed to show an advocacy video and then declare that all who do not agree that this is, indeed, a 'Privileged Planet' must be stupid or lying?  I'm sure that will sway the court.

Will you threaten the judge or jury be finding out their home addresses and claiming that not everyone drives through their town to ski (or whatever it is that their areas might be known for)?  Yes, I am sure THAT will convert all to your side.

Will you declare that all evidence for evolution is just evidence for common design?  I'm sure all will see the pure logic and irrefutability of that.  

Actually, I do sort of hope that you are a witness in an ID court case some day.  I eagerly look forward to seeing you publicly humiliated in such a setting.  I promise to gloat for years.

Date: 2007/07/29 12:59:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2007,13:43)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,13:24)
Quote (Arden Chatfield Posted on July 27 2007 @ 12:14 )
The thing that fascinates me about Joe, something other IDers don't do, is his willingness to tell preposterous lies about himself when he thinks it'll help him win an argument...

You gotta be kidding right? Or can DS actually violate SLOT on his keyboard, AFDave has real evidence for the flood and Larry Fafarman is a legal genius etc.?

Yep you must be kidding.

Note I said 'tell lies about themselves'. So saying retarded things about science that one actually believes (DT's typing violates SLOT or AFD has proof of the flood) doesn't count, nor does being completely delusional about oneself (Larry Fafarman tells us what a brilliant legal mind he has).

I'm talking about deliberately lying about one's own religion, or denying having posted a statement to a blog just 10 minutes before, when the liar in question knows full well it's nonsense. Crazy shit that anyone can disprove, shit that probably even embarrasses FTK. Takes a special kind of mind to do that, tho Joe is clearly up to the challenge.

Can we say "cross examination"?


Date: 2007/07/29 14:46:12, Link
Author: slpage
Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Date: 2007/08/02 12:34:12, Link
Author: slpage
Hi Red,

I too would like a workable definition of genetic information and a quick explanation for how it is measured.


Date: 2007/08/31 13:00:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 28 2007,11:46)
Not sure if he has made that explicit. ?He once told me, however, that he worked on stuff that required an extra-special, top secret clearance and that was the reason he couldn't discuss any of his job qualifications.

He never did answer my inquiry into whether or not the NSA was happy that he constantly jawed about his security clearances, place of work, and home address all in the same 3 sentences.

He has also claimed that he had to take an IQ test for his job, and boasted on the KCFS forum that he did it very quickly, and that the title of his job has the term 'scientist' in it.

Date: 2007/09/06 13:53:44, Link
Author: slpage
So, is VMartin really an eastern european, or is he someone else pretending to be?

I refer to his on-again-off-again typed broken english.  I understand that such things happen in spoken language, but I have a hard time accepting that you can exhibit 'broken english' when you type... sometimes...

Date: 2007/09/09 14:49:26, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 06 2007,18:26)
Joe G made similar threats against Dr. Scott Page and Dr. ?Joe Meert. I believe he posted Meert?s home address and said something to Page about driving thru his town to go skiing. I seem to remember Joe posting Meerts address at the Baptist Board evo/creto debate pages. And his threats against Page at some other board. Both Meert and Page at the time took what Joe said as implied threats. There was more than that, but that?s all I can remember.

The person that had something to do with Joe?s workplace fiasco was Robert Rapier. Robert was debating Walter Remine at a now defunct creto board, as was Page and Joe G around the same time all the threats happened. ?Joe had made some threats against Rapier somewhere along the line also. I think that was documented on the NAIG web site.

Dredging up all these memories has Joe?s asinine comments reverberating in my head. The guy has said such stupid things over the years that my head explodes when I remember them. Like, he?d accept a fossil of a hoofed reptile as something being truly transitional, and Saturn is where it is to protect humans from comets.

By the way. As far as I know everyone he has threatened is still living, and Joe hasn?t shown up at anyone?s door. The guy?s just a prick with ears. Otherwise harmless.

Actually, he mentioned that 'not everyone drives through (my town) to go skiing.'  This was after he had oh-so-cleverly put my address in his signature line.  It was as if he thought those who he threatened would just retract all of our statements and declare his every utterance truth and factual because we would be all a-scared of him or something.  
Also, while Robert Rapier was involved in the discussions at the time, and Joe had 'challenged' him to come say things to his face and such, he did not contact Joe's employer, and I do not know who did.  Generally, I am against such activities (as I have actually had creationists threaten to contact my colleagues and my employer not because I threatened them - I have never done anything like that - but because I showed them to be wrong, ignorant, etc.), but in Joe's case, I think the fact that he was making threats from his place of work (he was also posting as two people at the time, claiming that his 'alter ego' was a coworker, one 'Cool Hand Luke', who also tried to intimidate people he disagreed with) to multiple people warranted some sort of intervention.  It wasn't as if tempers flared and one discussant writes 'I'll kick you ass!", he was actively stalking people, posting personal information about them on the net, and making implicit threats, all because he could not handle the fact that he was (and still is) too underinformed on the issues he tried to discuss and was put in is place.

He also tried to 'arrange' meetings between himself and one 'Skeptic boy' and I at least 2 other people if I remember correctly, and each time, he mysteriously stopped posting for several days.  On one occasion, he actually claimed to have been at the place that where one of these 'meetings' was to take place, but he was unable to describe the place.

He is s typical bully.  A coward at heart.

By the way - just in case anyone might need such information, he let it slip one time that he had had surgery on his lower back...

Date: 2007/09/12 07:49:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Feb. 19 2007,19:32)
Dr. Hunter:

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.

There's a lot to say about this paragraph, but since I'm tired and irritable, I'll give you time to support this statement if you wish. Just two questions:

If molecular phylogenies are simply exercises in forcing the evidence to match preconceived ideas, then:

1) Why do the molecular trees surprise scientists so often, and

2) How are these phylogenies able to predict patterns of SINE insertions? The Afrotheria hypothesis was validated by retroposon evidence, and while it's true that the authors posit a "hypothetical evolutionary scenario" to explain a possible discrepancy caused by one insertion, the overall pattern supports common ancestry for these mammals.

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.

What an ignorant fool.

He must have gone to the Paul Nelson school of molecular phylogenetics.

Nelson once claimed that the order in which a taxon is placed in a dataset and then aligned will dictate its position in the phylogeny, that experimenter bias essentially produces the desired outcome.

So, I took a dataset that I had been working on at the time, scrambled the order of the taxa in the alignment, coded their names, and removed all gaps.  I offered to send him this dataset, provided links to free software with which he could align them himself, and to free phylogenetic software that he could then run his dataset through.  I wrote that if his outcome was different than the outcomes that I got with that dataset, then he might have a point worth discussing.


Darn it, he just didn't have the time...

... to test his claim....

But he went right on making it.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that these people are just plain old pathological liars.

Date: 2007/09/14 13:23:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Sep. 14 2007,12:37)
I hope its alright if I post some ARN trard. Ilíon links this article in his thread "Sea-water As Fuel?".
First, Ilíon defends the article:        


Say no more...

Date: 2007/09/17 11:17:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 16 2007,18:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
Dear Ben,

I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.

Keep up the good work.


Savour, just savour.


If I had to guess, I'd say that's a not-so-deep cover troll.  There are just too many telling indicators--the mention of the engineering degree, the arrogance, the overt ID-is-about-God comment, the complete nonsensical reasoning. . .etc.  Yep, that's got to be a troll.  I hope.  ???

I wouldn't be so sure....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:04:57, Link
Author: slpage
Ah, Superspammer finds yet another place to regurgipost.

So, Sport - have you figgered out where RNA transcripts come from?

Know what "information" is?

Read my post explaining how Pellionisz isn't really telling you the whole truth about junkDNA?

Nah - you don't read stuff....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:07:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....

Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]

I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.

Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases -- heart disease, cancer, MS, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc etc......none of which have cures and all of which are killing more and more and more people despite the trillions of dollars being pumped towards Big Medicine.

I acknowledge that some diseases have been controlled or even cured, but nothing new least nothing that's doing all the killing.

Right, well, maybe your pal Bruce Lipton can cure all these diseases with his mind....

Date: 2007/09/18 20:11:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
My philosophy:

When you sit back and look at this whole thing, the debate is so polar opposite it’s almost eery. But I just thought I’d compare and contrast what I consider the most obvious difference in philosophy.

Materialists: believe that lifeforms are evolving upwards from something ugly (bacteria, fungues, etc) by way of a purely physical mechanism…(no thought or intelligence required)

SS: believes that we are devolving downwards from something beautiful (God) by way of the mind or mental processes.

Materiatists: say genes get passed down through the generations.

SS: says the mind gets passed down through the generations.

Materialists: say the genes control the mind

SS: says the mind controls the genes

With this comparison, it is easy to see who the real competitors are: the competition is between the physical actions of genes and the mental/spiritual processes of the mind. It can be no other way. Either information gets squeezed out of the random actions of genes or it gets squeezed out of the purposeful processes of the mind.

Evolutionists give the genome the credit for being the origin of information. I, on the otherhand acknowledge that the genome is a data base of information, but is merely a storage device and does not act as the generator of information. Instead, information’s source is ultimately God, but as we were made in God’s image, information’s source also resides in our minds just like it resides in God’s mind.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases. Society is certainly degenerating genetically…this fact alone dispells the notion that we’re in the process of increasing in complexity, as darwinists insist…instead we’re deteriorating, decreasing in complexity. But is the deteriorating genome the source of degeneration? I would say not because I believe the mind and mental processes are in control of the genome…and if this is the case, then the spiritual MIND is ultimately what’s degenerating, which makes the physical genome a follower of degeneration, not a leader. Likewise, with the emergence of new traits, the genome (the storage device) is not the leader, it’s the follower. New traits don’t come from a change in the genome, new traits come from a change in the mind.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.

Why do you keep cut-and-pasting (spamming) your own posts on multiple boards?  That is one of the reasons that you got banned for the creationist-run Christian Forums (one of the few such forums at which the administration actually has sense).

You are boring - not just because of your monumental ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, but because you do not even have the cajones to admit errors when you make them - and you make many - and then run away spamming boards with thread after thread.  Which, by the way, I don't think you'll get away with here...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:13:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:17)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...

no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?

Assertions only count as 'reasons' to fools like your pals Coadie and Scarlets...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:16:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.

Have you proven that there IS degeneration?  Or are you just relying on a creationist's claims?

And where is that evidence that the mind controls gene expression?

And please - not the already refuted snail shells and caterpiller coloration nonsense...

Date: 2007/09/18 20:24:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations + selection change a creature, yet not change a creature?

Ever seen a dwarf?  I mean, their body parts look very different from ours - some even have different numbers of joints between the bones in their fingers and toes.

And all due to a single point mutation in one gene...

But Sport knows that genes are irrelevant, so I guess the minds of the dwarfs are somehow changing their phenotypes  - so please, explain it all to us, sport.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:33:24, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,14:27)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,14:03)
I see that the category 3 shitstorm has left the building.

So, sport, when you return, please don't continue to ignore this query, which seems to have disappeared under the deluge of geological claims and counterclaims.  

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion  

Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

I suspect that if you can actually do this, you will quiet many of your critics here!

every phenotypic modification and every piece of new morphology stems from mental processes.  For example, and I gave this earlier, a flea can create a new spine for itself in the presence of predators.  (pg.2)

Changes in morphology, thus, must come not from changes in genes, but changes in the mind.   Since this is true, genetic change (aka materialism) does not explain how we got here morphologically......the mind/mental processes do.   But we can't make ourselves...thus, we must have been created by a mind other than our own.  I'm not going to get too much into this because I realize you don't really care to hear it.

What a fucking idiot....

This is how Supersport justifies this moronic position - you see, if any structure associated with the nervous system is involved - and this includes the endocrine system vis a vis the hypothalamus and pituitary - then by his own tadry definition, "the mind" is really in control.

The stupidity of his position has been explained to him probably 2 dozen times, yet here he is, posting the same old garbage.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:39:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.

So, when your mommy and daddy touched their thingies together, they really put their minds and bodies in mommiy's woowoo, not a sperm and an egg each with half of the diploid complement of chromosomes?

I'm shocked!

Date: 2007/09/20 11:32:33, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,17:40)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

genes aren't definable either!

Pellionisz is a kook and self-promoter and has been disingenuous in his characterizations of the 'junk DNA' issue.

As I have explained to you twice already.

That it is clear that you simply ignore sound refutations of your claims, only to make them again and again, shows you to be at the very least suffering form some type of antisocial disorde, and at worst,a total fucking moron.

Date: 2007/09/24 08:00:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 23 2007,10:23)
It's simply an observation. Joy routinely makes false claims to support her positions, and when her claims have been shown to be false, claims her positions to be supported anyway....
She is not knowledgable at all in the field of biology, TP.

Joy is exceptionally paranoid and self-important, and I agree with JAM - not very knowledgible in biology.

Date: 2007/09/24 08:13:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:17)
Good luck with your recruiting efforts. You'll need it.

Yeah...  I wonder - how many new people post at TT?

I've not wasted my time there in some time, but when last I visited, I recall seeing the same few names starting threads and making comments.

Must be all those folks that are signing on to ID are doig it elsewhere.

Date: 2007/09/24 11:46:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?


Let's see...

A dude that literally cuts and pastes thread-opening posts on half a dozen discussion boards, spam-trolls with 158 posts in 3 days (he has thousands of posts at CARM), evades, ignores replies, shifts goalposts, changes topics, etc., is banned one of only a couple of people ever banned here -  and you want to compare that to your extreme mesomorph pal Dave Springer who has banned more people than post at UD for such infractions as not agreeing with him on the the definition of a word?


Date: 2007/09/27 14:13:58, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=Ftk,Sep. 27 2007,08:32][/quote]
FtK who is ignoring me because I am such a meanie troll:
No doubt you're somewhat familiar with Brown's work, but to accuse him of "armchair bullshit" is pushing the limits here.  Brown has spent endless hours in the field, and I know this because I've had conversations with him about his work in this respect.  His most recent theory in regard to the Grand Canyon required an extensive amount of research in the field over the years.

And because you have talked to him, he is right?

What a strange position to hold.  It is fairly common among creationists, I would add.  For example, I recall discussing some of Jon Wells' lies and distortions on the old CARM board, and a creationist there, Helen Fryman, steadfastedly defended him, and the primary defense was that she "knew the man" and had sat down and had dinner with him (at creationist meetings), therefore, she knew he was right.
It didn't seem to matter that he described pharyngeal pouches as ridges, or that he quote mined Jain, Lake and Rivera.  Oh no - she 'knew' him, thus he is always correct and honest.

I don't care how long Brown claims to spend 'in the field', the fact of the matter is that he is way out of his league on any number of subjects he pontificates about, whether you have 'talked to' him or not.  I posted some of the flaws in his biological claims on KCFS, for example, and you totally ignored them, but doubtless because you 'know the man' you will just 'know' that he is right and anyone daring to question his claims is just an arrogant atheist...

Have you *ever* considered coming down off you high horse of arrogance and pick up a phone and talk to some of these creationists you so loath?  Perhaps your view of them is not as accurate as you would like to believe.

What would change, exactly?

I've exchanged pleasant emails with Jerry Bergman and he seems like a very nice fellow.  But he is still a dishonest and incompetent propagandist.  I used to think that Paul Nelson was a good guy, also, after several pleasant email exchanges I had with him, then I discovered that he was in cahoots with Woodmorappe and has engaged in some smear tactics against those on the 'dark side.'

So maybe Walt Brown is a hell of a guy - how does that possibly impact the error of his claims?

Looks like you ascribe to the George W. Bush doctrine of placing loyalty to an ideal over competence.  It worked wonders for FEMA and DoD and EPA and the AG's office, etc...

I can tell you long as you "mainstream" scientists refuse to take creationists somewhat seriously, and continue to treat them like dirt you'd like to scrape from underneath your shoes, the public is going to continue to view you as a bunch of arrogant assholes.

And thus evolution must be wrong.


Date: 2007/09/28 13:35:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 27 2007,14:25)
SuperSport is now posting at FtK's blog.

A regular Meeting of the Minds...

Hey FtK - ask SS where RNA comes from!

He says it comes from "the mind", but I don't believe him.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:01:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,20:11)
Yeah, pretty much...because the poster is not the extent to which these perverts play and the behaviors they endorse.

Why are conservatives so concerned about what other consenting adults do in the supposed privacy of their own homes?

Are their own lives really so miserable that they feel the need to inflict their own Larry Craig-style morality on everyoner else?

Date: 2007/10/01 13:04:55, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,23:01)

Promiscuity seems to be the nature of the beast...

Have you ever talked to a college student?  And I don't mean the former president of Wheaton...

and, why promote homosexuality by having "gay parades" etc., where participants seem to get off on wearing outrageous attire or acting like loons, rather than featuring loving, caring, relationships.

Yeah - and those costumes worn in the Rose Parade - I mean what kind of relationships are THEY endorsing!!???

Date: 2007/10/01 13:06:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 29 2007,23:07)
Why are your stereotypes any more valid than a Klansman's opinions about Black people?

Any chance of you answering my questions?

Funny you write that - have you read about the Christian 'family'  group that purchased the KKK's mailing list to recruit members?

Date: 2007/10/01 13:07:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 29 2007,23:34)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,23:32)
 Just because I don't agree with someone's lifestyle or something they adhere to which I heartily disagree with doesn't mean that I hate or even dislike them.  

You make it sound like people choose to be gay.

Well of course they do.

It is my understanding that a huge number of people chose to be Jewish in the 1930s in Germany, too.

Date: 2007/10/01 13:20:53, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 28 2007,21:49)
Paul –

I can see a day where in fact the main center of Academia is outside of the university, and in fact am hoping to work towards that over the next year.

Translation: I am flunking out of community college.


Yeah, old JohnnyB is a funny one. He's a ReMine acolyte and - get this - an engineer!

Date: 2007/10/01 13:37:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 01 2007,00:25)
bFast is a tard

Who would have thunk it?  Some casual computer programmer-type sits about and comes up with some major problems for theoretical physicists!  

Of course, bfast has a history of doing what creationists with such backgrounds do - pontificating on matters that they have no business pontificating on.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:32:30, Link
Author: slpage
So basically all one has to do is add the word "Family" to the name of a group and it will automatically be seen, by conservatives, as good and wholesome and 'traditional' and such.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:40:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 02 2007,13:32)
Meantime, Dembski is back on the EIL list:

I liked the Grasse quote on their.. quote page...

The only other person I have seen quote from Grasse's 1977 book is John A. 'I love it so' Davison.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:48:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Tom Ames @ Oct. 02 2007,15:57)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 02 2007,11:32)
Meantime, Dembski is back on the EIL list:

Anyone look at the CV of Dembski's colleague Thomas English?

It's on what looks like the website for his apartment (which he's given the grandiose title 'Bounded Theoretics'), and shows that Dr. English has spent 8 of the last 10 years as a "Researcher" for "The Tom English Project". Not even a Senior or Staff Scientist--just a "researcher"!

Reminds me of that "Smartest Guy in the World" character who was on ARN for awhile, and who wrote a chapter for Dembski's book on ever-so-smart people who agree with him. (Langdon was his name, I think.)

Yeah - the guy that took the MENSA exam first with a fake name, then re-took it under his own name so he could get a higher score...

Date: 2007/10/04 11:19:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 03 2007,11:00)
Since when they say Family they just mean gay-haters and Klansmen, I think we should let them keep it. The Church-Burnin' Ebola Boys have some scruples.

I must concur...

Date: 2007/10/04 11:26:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,10:47)
Funny...that coming from you blipey, because at my blog you are continuously suggesting that I go private again.

I took down all personal photos at my blog...

ie.. Dembski's doubt the admin and regents addresses are common knowledge and listed on the internet.  But, I don't condone what he did and was very glad to see an apology put forth in that regard.

My personal information is not public and I want it kept that way.  The way some people talk to me online, I really don't know what some of them are capable of.  Just the other day someone was madder than hell at me for letting Skatje's comment go through moderation because they believed I was writing comments for her and using her name.  I wasn't, but this person was HIGHLY pissed off at me, even though I was honest about the entire situation.

You really think these foklks put their home addresses on the internet?

I can guarantee that I never put such informationon th einternet, so when your pal JoeG. posted my address on the net, he was doing some stalking.  He also posted the name of one other guy's wife and someone's phone number.  Because, after all, if you can intimidate someone into not posting on a discussion board, creationism will be true...
No outrage from creationists when he did it, though...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:27:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:31)

If Dembski had been given a chance at Baylor, perhaps  you would all have been surprised about the output...then again, maybe not.  But to gag IDists and not allow them to receive grants, etc. from mainstream sources is a mistake on your part.  

Why, exactly, did Dmebski need a "lab" at Baylor to do his "research"?

Dembski's "research" consists of using a computer.  He doesn't have a computer?

He cannot do his "work" where he is?  

Let's face the facts - Dembski does nto do any sort of work that requires anything more than a computer and internet access.  He doesn't need a 'lab' - even a virtual one.

It was a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

And as far as "Expelled" goes, well, we heard the same 'warnings' when the Dover trial started...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:30:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 04 2007,17:01)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,16:31)
What I should have said was that you evos have been trying to find something, *anything* that you can claim is an example of a macroevolutionary change taking place in nature...something we can empirically detect with our own doesn't exist.

Gee, when I was a postdoc, I did my own sequencing and empirically read the sequences with my very own eyes. Nowadays, I send DNA off for sequencing, but I can still read the trace files that are emailed back to me.

How can you babble about seeing things with our own eyes when yours are firmly closed to looking at any real evidence?

I wonder - has FTK ever actually seen Jesus?

Date: 2007/10/05 13:37:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,20:56)
Richard,  creation science is out there in the private sector...what good is keeping it private doing them?  You've admited to never reading any of it... most people haven't.  Until fairly recently, most people had never even heard of the advancements in creation science, and it's been around for years.

Advancements?  Like what (not that I will get an answer)?

I own and have read Icons, Refuting Evolution, Biotic Message, etc. - no original science in anyo them.

I own several volumes of CRSQ.  Propaganda mostly, and the 'science' in it must conform to Scripture.

Not agreeing with it and seeing it as garbage does not mean we don't read it.

Date: 2007/10/05 13:39:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:08)
You know, when you say stuff like that, it's like you *want* people to laugh at you.

Yeah?  Well, you won't be laughing when February 2008 comes around.  

The Darwin thought police have made one two many unfair arrests lately, and it's going to come back to haunt them very, very soon.

Right, 'expelled' again...

Stenrberg the non-Martyr...

Crocker the creationist proselytizer.....

Gonzalez the guy who stopped doing research but wanted tenure...


The only folks that will believe the garbage in it are the same folks that think Limbaugh is a patriot and Larry Craig was framed...

Date: 2007/10/05 13:43:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 04 2007,22:00)
When I use the word "private", I mean Creationist or ID journals --- not mainstream science journals.  Unless theories are published in "MAINSTREAM JOURNALS", they are assumed to be pseudoscience and completely ignored by scientists in general.

But see, the creation ID scientists could then point to their published work and say "See?  We DO engage in scientific research and the evil Darwinists are suppressing the truth!"

It is truly idiotic to claim that there is no reason to publish in their own journals.  If that were so, why were the journals set up in the first place?  Didn't the DI folks understand this?

Date: 2007/10/24 13:57:23, Link
Author: slpage
Busily looks for Tard's claims about being built like a middle-weight boxer or a lineabacker....

Date: 2007/10/24 14:02:34, Link
Author: slpage
Joey really has no idea how much of an asshole he makes himself out to be, does he?

"Cetaceans are much more than a loss of hind-limbs. There should be at least 50,000 intermediates."

Looks like somebody has been listening to DI philosopher-idiots again...

Date: 2007/10/29 10:35:20, Link
Author: slpage
In case you hadn't noticed, that linebacker-build possessing extreme mesomorph Dave 'tardy' Springer is at ISCID, duking it out with fellow misanathrope John A. "I love it so" Davison...

A classic bit of hypocrisy from tardipus rex:

Tony Blair's isn't a botanist that I'm aware of. Have his findings been published in a peer reviewed journal?


Is Davy Springer a physicist?  A biologist?  A geneticist?  ?????

Date: 2007/11/07 08:23:14, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:39)
I'd prefer that it be taught at the university level...FAIRLY.  But, since it is obvious from the syllabuses that I've read from those professors already teaching ID, I'm not sure how one would get to the truth of the issues.  Students don't have the time or interest to check out pro-ID sites to get to the truth of the matter.

I know you are ignoring me because I am mean and all, but what, exactly, should be taught in a university class re: ID?

Date: 2007/11/07 08:31:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,19:03)
3,4) If a (neo)darwinism is a scientific theory I don't see a reason why telepathy and astrology are not also taught at school.

Anyway some basics of religion should be taught at schools for those childrens whose parents are fanatic atheists or neodarwinists and do not talk with their children about religion which formed thinking of our grand parents and our predecessors more than 1.000 years so intensively

Also children should know some other evolutionary approaches as well - it means ID, orthogenesis etc., and their basic arguments - if they want to study it outside school. They should be taught more facts about "natural selection" and what some great scientists thought of it. They should be taught about living organisms and Nature  from some different point of view, which is much more sensitive and have more sympathy for life as those reductionist concepts of "struggle for survival", "selfish gene" etc...
Such concepts  have harmful effect on youngsters on my opinion. Whats more such concepts are unscientific. Such concepts spoils the perception of beauty of living world, where "struggle for life" and "natural selection" obviously play no main role, but creativeness of life itself.

Ooh, I like his answers much better than mine.  Especially his answer to questions 3&4.  That is sooooooo true.  

No doubt in the future when students read about neo-Darwinist beliefs in regard to dino to bird, ape to man etc., etc., they'll split a gut laughing at how backwoods we used to be.

"Mom, can you freaking believe scientists used to think that we all evolved from a common blob?"

My daughter has gone to church several times with her conservative christian friend.  This the friend who has, on at least 2 occasions, asked my daughter if she likes GW Bush, and when my daughter has said no, her christian friend has pointed at her and yelled 'Democrat!  Democrat ! Democrat!'  My daughter isin 5th grade.

This is also the 'friend' that told her a few years ago that if you don't believe in god you are "stupid" and are going to hell.

My daughter thinks religion is silly.  And my wife and I have never talked to her about it, except to answer her questions.  She came to that conclusion all by herself, about 2 years ago, in part when she found out that I am the Tooth Fairy - she thought for a second, then asked about the Easter Bunny.  I nodded.  Santa?  Nodded again.  God?  I smiled.

Kids are pretty smart, providing they have not been brainwashed by repetitive mantras and browbeating by authority figures.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:31:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,13:13)
Good grief...teachers will need a *de-briefing* packet after reading that one sided rag.  The Discovery Institute should be allowed to distribute a packet as well.  

Here's the hilarious the books section they offer 14 books supporting evolution, and 1 in regard to design.  

Most high school teachers don't have a clue as to the depth of this debate.  Pity...

The depth?

Perhaps they should include a link to UD and Joe Gallien's blog to see the 'depth' of the debate.

Or maybe a list of 'scientists' that doubt Darwin.

Or maybe one of Dembski's new collections of rehashed nonsense.  Or maybe Behe's latest collection of pre-refuted gibberish.

Because, after all, they really cannot supply any actual primary research information...

Date: 2007/11/08 09:36:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)

LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

They cannot even seem to produce anything for THEIR OWN journals.

 And, of course evolution will have more published papers anyway because the mechanisms of evolution are empirically sound and quite valuable to science on a *microevolutionary* level.  Macro=worthless to science  

Then perhaps you can explain WHY macro-evolution is wothless.

PBS looks ridiculous when they only allow *one* book on ID.  Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.  

How many pro-evolution books are referred to in Expelled, do you think?

If they actually allowed 14 of the best on that list, and high school teachers actually read them, you people would be up a shit creek without a paddle.  You'd be stuck answering endless questions, rather than merely dousing them with the "facts".

Which 14 would you suggest?

Date: 2007/11/08 09:37:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,14:10)
Hey FtK what do you think of the ID camp refusing to be interviewed?  

Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of intelligent design."

Read more

And I'm still curious to know which ID books your children have read.  Well other than the bible.

I submit that they refused to be interviewed because they know what THEIR side does to interviewees and how thier tapes are edited.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:41:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,15:14)
We all know that NOVA is part of Team Dogma when it comes to evolution.

Just a big conspiracy to keep THE TRUTH from getting out...

Date: 2007/11/15 11:45:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 13 2007,19:37)
They showed a clip from some Discovery Institute DVD. While the DI voice over talks about scientists doing research, the DVD shows Michael Behe in a lab coat, which should make anyone chuckle, and Stephen Meyer giving in a lecture.

One hard thing for anyone who moderates here is, the only approprate response to that is "Fucking lying bastards." yet we need to not have that kind of intemperate speech around here.

Good luck Lou.  :p

The DI whiners are complaining that the PBS show was 'lying' because they really sent the DVD version of 'Icons...' not Unlocking...  Because that is just a great big lie!

But I got a chuckle out of seeing Meyer in that clip as the DNA narrator was talking about scientific research....

Date: 2007/11/27 09:28:33, Link
Author: slpage
And, of course, FTK sticks her wet little nose in it and pulls back a turd:


"Okay, I haven't had time to follow this latest melodrama, so let me see if I have this straight.

Dembski used a clip easily found on the Internet, and he credited the source.

Now, Darwinists here and at Harvard are pissed because it was used in an ID presentation. Correct?..."

Date: 2007/12/03 20:46:40, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 02 2007,20:24)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,20:19)
If I exclude Blipey's comments, I post about 99.9%.  There are not many people here who can say I've not put their post through moderation unless it was virtually content free or nasty.

Just for the record, I have had quite a few comments not appear on FtK's blog. Not hundreds, and not recently, because I have quit commenting there. And exactly none of them have been "content-free, or nasty."

Just the facts, ma'am.

Same here.

But then, I am one of those "meanie" evilutionists who dissed crazy Walt Brown and showed SLimy Sally how sleazy and stupid he is....

Date: 2007/12/03 20:56:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,22:01)
That is a comment that doesn't deserve a response.  Behe just wrote an entire book sharing his work (which could never have been considered 20 years ago).  Technology advances and so does ID and creation science, though it has yet to see the light of day in mainstream journals or labs.  It’s censored, so books are written instead.  

Dembski wrote a book providing his research.  You may not call it lab research, but just the same, it raised the level of understanding about the immense complexity of the universe.  Gonzales wrote the Privileged Planet and lost his job because of it.  All these books provide information due to what we've learned from advancements in science.  

Evolutionists have aided in advancing creation science and ID as well, and that’s helpful because their research will get published whereas those who have made public that they support ID won’t get published.   That’s also a little scary, because I sometimes wonder if scientists might stop publishing certain things simply because it could be considered as support for ID.  

Just recently Panegea has finally been questioned by mainstream scientists.  If anything further comes from that, some creationists will certainly benefit.  

Nothing coming from a creationist or IDists would ever be believed, so it certainly wouldn't be considered "doing research".  Brown has all done all kinds of research, and has made numerous predictions, but they don't count unless a mainstream scientist bearing a Darwin emblem on his chest makes the same claim.   Then we can finally claim it as research.


Did you read Behe's new book?

How much of his own amazing new ID research did he discuss?

Let me help you here - NONE.

Because he hasn't done any.

You didn't read it, did you?

What is your evidence that Behe's 'research' is censored?  Or are you just pulling a Cordova?

Dembski doesn't do research.  He writes books yammering on with his religiously-inspired hack-kob opinions that even other mathematicians find vacuous and useless.

Gonzalez writes about his anthropocentirc fantasies with his theologian co-author.  He stopped doing research when he became a creationist.

Your whining about these things that you are totally clueless on is so.... typical....

Date: 2007/12/03 21:06:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 02 2007,22:21)

Sal is not sleezy.

Yes he is.  He repeats things he knows to be false.  He embellishes events to the point of absurdity.  He almost literally worships IDcreationists (' Sir William'.. .how gay is that???*)

Darwin did beat a puppy in order to feel powerful.  He later felt sorry about it, and hopefully it the only incident of animal abuse.  

Better had he just shot some herons for being alive, right FTK?

If you want me to post the rest of the quote at YC, I will.  Personally, I think Sal was posting it in jest.  He already knows that Darwinists get highly irrate about that quote because I've seen him post it numerous times in the past and receive the same comments.

So, you mean he purposefully provokes irate replies?  Why would people be irate if they did not know that he was lying about it?  Maybe people get irate when they see a sleaze bag like Cordova engage in repeated acts of dishonesty while claiming to be part of a cult that possesses superior morals and ethics because they do not question the words written by Bronze Age nomads in a collection of plagiarized fairy tales...

Sometimes I post things just to rile the lot of you as well.

Oh, well, what better way to change people's negative impression of you!

 I know that's nice a kind thing to do, but it gets really old watching you guys put me down consistently every single day.  No doubt he gets sick of it at times as well.

Here's an idea - maybe if you two actually, you know, STOPPED doing the things that make people label you the way they do, maybe THAT would be better?  If someone thinks Sleazy is a liar, for example, is the best thing to do is lie some more?

I don't have one of those devices on my computer to block what my kids read, but the other day I wondered if I should get one so I could block out this site.  Maybe that would keep me from watching you people treat me like dirt.

You mean you let them see what sort of nonsense you write?

Wow...  I envision that teenage 'I'm embarrassed of my parents' stage being a long and justifiable period at the FtK compound...

*not meant as an offense to homosexuals

Date: 2007/12/03 21:16:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,07:22)


Typical...make sure everyone knows that although he BEAT a dog to feel powerful, he later regreted it.

Um.. Mrs. Christian?  Did you see the part where he said it happened whilst he was a "little boy"?
Shall we degrade and despise your precious angels when they are old men for killing herons simply for being there?

Date: 2007/12/03 21:24:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,09:58)
Dave, how can one NOT get past Abbie's shrill behavior? It's over the top, just like PZ's.  She's went absolutely postal due to Dembski using a youtube clip that GAVE CONCENT FOR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  If they didn't mean for anyone to use it for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, then they should have put that in writing.

Consent for education use providing it was not ALTERED and they were given CREDIT.

I guess you missed those little things...

Because afterall, details don't matter to the YEC cultist...

Date: 2007/12/04 08:02:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (JAM @ Dec. 03 2007,18:05)
Quote (Joy @ Dec. 03 2007,17:03)
...Mark wasn't upset about that action and didn't whine to high heaven about some non-existent "right" to have his typing etched into net-stone...

Ah, a fake quote from the deluded Joy.

If you didn't have the reading comprehension of a seven-year-old, you would have noted that Frostman was stunned by the hypocrisy and dishonesty at TT. He made no claim of any "right."

What he doesn't realize is that your reflexive dishonesty is the norm, not the exception.

Not to mention the paranoia...

Date: 2007/12/05 11:15:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 05 2007,00:28)
Hey, all you people who've actually voted on tenure?

Does alluding to a potential tenure case before it comes up actually open a review board to lawsuits? If so, what's the justification behind the legal precedent in question? It seems like it'd be a bizarre prohibition to me, but if there is such a prohibition it's the only part of the entire case that isn't founded on bad logic from the very beginning.

I don't think so.

At my University, when a person comes up for tenure one of the first steps is for their department to review their materials and openly discuss their merits.  Then there is a departmental vote on whether or not the chair should recommend the person to the dean for tenure.  Depending on the chair's input, the dean then sends the materials to the promotion and tenure committee, members of which have the authority to ask for additional information form any party involved.  If everything is in order, the committee approves the application and sends it to the Provost for final approval (it then goes to the president and the board of trustees).

I suspect that the process is similar at other institutions.

If the decision of the committe is appealed, then here it goes to the President, who can also gather more information, including testimony.  It is all fairly open, expect for, for example, the committee deliberations themselves (however, minutes of the meetings are avilable afterwards).

So, unless there are legal reasons for gagging those involved, the process is generally pretty open, again at least at my institution.

Date: 2007/12/05 11:27:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,16:12)
Hey.  Why don't some of you dodos come diet with me?

There have to be a couple of you who are interested in healthy eating and losing weight.

Lurkers are welcome too!  The more the merrier...

Well, if I'm an extreme mesomorph, built like a middleweight boxer or football linebacker, you know, I could just drop 10-15 pounds without thinking about it.
But I don't want to, and that is why a look more like a couch potato with chicken legs...

Date: 2007/12/14 16:58:37, Link
Author: slpage
Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski

What the F#$K????

DEMBSKI IS NOT NOT NOT A SCIENTIST AT ALL, much less a "leading one"..

Why do these people have to embellish so much?

Date: 2007/12/17 16:38:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 14 2007,15:05)

Anything involving your invisible theory needs to go in your cosmology thread or here on the wall.

I see. Franz Heikertinger, Adolf Portmann, Otto Schindewolf, Leo Berg, Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse (president of the French academy of science), Punnet (Punnet square), Robert Broom, John Davison are wrong and should be only at  the "Bathroom Wall". They are all "outdated" with no "predictions". And it's only you who veni, vidi, vici as administartor of AtBC, hehe.

I'm shocked!  JAD's acolyte trying to wow us with irrelevant name dropping and crdential spamming?

Davison is a kook.  He was once a legitimate scientist, then he became what he is today - a snake oil peddler...

And vmartin digs it...

Date: 2008/01/03 08:04:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,07:47)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,08:33)
You are *completely* missing the point.  It's all about personal morality and how we establish our morals.


YOU missed the point.

The point is that Sal is incapable of winning an argument with PZ (or any other grown up) so went after his seventeen year old daughter and quotemined her to insinuate that she was fucking pigs in order to gain cheap rhetorical points in his war on reason and that makes him a low life, amoral bastard and you defend him.

Sick, isn't it, what religious zeal, stupidity, and hubris can do to a person?

So, Sally boy gets an A in a college class and feels the need to boast about it on his website.

I'll bet he'll be using that grade to 'prove' that he is an expert on all things scientific...

Wait - he does that anyway, because he had a music minor ...

Date: 2008/01/03 08:37:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 01 2008,21:28)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 01 2008,18:03)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 01 2008,17:29)

That statement was qualified.  As to the chick, she and our subject are not related.

I'm just sayin' it's still a bold statement.  It's tripping my no true Scotsman filter.  This Prof. Smith is obviously not who (s)he says (s)he is, but I don't think we need to make such sweeping statements either.


Let's not get hung up on this minor point.  I speak from personal experience acquired on several campuses, but maybe I'm generalizing a bit.  It's not important.  

The story with Dr. R. is ridiculous on another level.  On the one hand, professorsmith is hiding his/her creationist ideology from "materialist" colleagues until tenure.  On the other, he/she is openly arguing a creationist stance before Dr. R., who is also a colleague.  Why risk blowing cover if it supposedly is so dangerous?  That doesn't make sense.

Maybe this ProfessorSmith is a professor in the same way that Joe Gallien is a 'scientist'?

Date: 2008/01/03 21:23:21, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (factician @ Jan. 03 2008,12:30)

I was looking through the eTOC (electronic Table Of Contents, for those of you not in academia) for Nature today, and saw this:

News and Views
Nature 451, 22-23 (3 January 2008) | DOI:10.1038/451022b; Published online 2 January 2008

Magnetism: Freedom for the poles
Oleg Tchernyshyov1

Yes, my new friend olegt and managed to get a piece into Nature.

From what I understand of the article, someone has shown that it is possible, in theory, for magnets (like bar magnets) to only have one pole.  This is the stuff of science fiction, but is it any more use than Darwinism?

Well done Dr. Tchernyshyov!

This is written with the intellectual maturity of an intelligent adolescent.  Anyone want to wager that professorsmith is a sockpuppet of Slimy Sal?

Could explain why he refuses to let any of my comments through moderation....

Date: 2008/01/07 08:35:46, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 06 2008,18:01)
Is this just a retake on ReMine's BS?

Monday, November 5, 2007
Using Mendel's Accountant to Simulate Mutation Accumulation and Genetic Load in Plants.
John C. Sanford, Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), Los Alamos, NM 87545, Paul Gibson, Int'l Inst. Cooperative Studies, Cooperative Studies Inc., PO Box 12830, Overland Park, KS 66282-2830, Wes Brewer, Computer Science & Electronic Engineering, Handong Global University, Handong, South Korea, and Walter ReMine, Science & Mathematics Dept., Northwestern College, St. Paul, MN 55113.

Northwestern College is a Christians College....

The only place a hack like ReMine could get a job...

Interestingly, he is not mentioned in the Science and Mathematics faculty list, evan as a part-timer.  Hmmm....

Date: 2008/01/07 09:09:40, Link
Author: slpage
1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

Interesting that 'analogy' is #1.  Anti-evolutionists actually seem to employ analogies as evidence, which Gene appears to be doing by using it as a primary criterion for establishing Design.  

The ONLY potentially objective criterion is #2 - the others are pure ID gobbledegook.

I will not be buying this garbage.

Date: 2008/02/01 12:39:44, Link
Author: slpage
Some UD drone writes:


“PZ easily won the debate.”
Thankfully “winning” a debate does not the truth make.

Funny - they seem to think debates are the bvest way to get to the truth when they perceive THEIR guy to have won...

Date: 2008/02/01 12:44:01, Link
Author: slpage
Computer programmer creationist and, apparently, brain expert, bfast wrote:

I suspect that the differences between human and chimp brains are vastly more significant than PZ makes them out to be. I note, for instance, the HAR1F gene that is rock stable throughout mammals, yet is different in 18 bps in humans. I find the HAR1F to be inexplicable within a neo-Darwinan framework.

No explanation why it is inexplicable, and doubtless, personal incredultiy will be his 'evidence.'

bfast is a douchebag.

Date: 2008/02/01 12:45:41, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
FtK will no doubt cry "censorship!"

*Rolls eyes*

And surely, SHE, with your scientific brilliance, will be able to point out and explain all of PZ's "atheist lies", right?

Date: 2008/02/01 12:47:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,11:50)
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

Could that be a documented lie from the creationist/IDist Simmons?

Date: 2008/02/05 17:51:30, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2008,15:48)
Casey Luskin at BPR:


Second, I want to state upfront that I have no ill will towards anyone on this thread. But it saddens me that from the very first post on this thread and others, people were directing users to pages that made unjustified personal attacks against me (there are various examples on this thread, but here are two: “Casey Lying For Christ” and another user even linked a URL where people can talk about “about how terrible Luskin is”). People commonly make unjustified personal attacks against me, and my response is not to get mad or even get upset. Rather, my response is that it is to feel that this kind of behavior is saddening because it does damage to what might otherwise be a fruitful, friendly, and objective scientific debate. Regardless, I absolutely refuse to respond in kind as I do not make personal attacks against other people. That is my personal ethic, and though I am not perfect, I try to live up to it.

Emphasis in original.

The following is from something Casey Luskin wrote up for consumption on the private "phylogenists" "intelligent design" creationism email list, subsequently posted by a fellow list member to a public Usenet newsgroup. It falls into that category of candid speech that belies public stances.


Scott definitely speaks "scientese".  She presents herself as a scientist, which she once was, who is trying to do the right thing for science.  She is very charismatic, funny, and very good at getting people behind what she's saying. It's no wonder she's the director of the NCSE.  In the past I've compared Eugenie C. Scott to Darth Vader because she is full of internal contradictions, knows in her heart she's lying, powerful, persuasive, and most importantly, she travels around representing the dominating power (the Empire) and fighting the good guys.  All in the name of ...well, I'm not exactly sure what her motivation is yet. It's certainly not truth.

(On the other hand, there is the rebellion against the Empire.  Small, understaffed, often outgunned and outmanned, but not outsmarted.  However, the rebellion has the people of the galaxy behind them, and most importantly, the Force.  Of course not all of us in the rebellion believe in the "force" (the analogy is God), but what unites the rebellion is the common belief in the problems with the current establishment, and the desire to replace it with something better.  When we introduced ourselves in the class, I should have said I was Luke Skywalker, but I suppose I was under the control of her powers at the time so I just said I was Casey, an earth sciences major.)


A "personal ethic" is something that is always active, whether one is speaking publicly or privately. I'm not sure what Casey's stated stance of not making public personal attacks may be, but I doubt it qualifies as a "personal ethic".

And he now 'regrets' writing it, because, after all, he doesn't do that.

Does he regret writing it because we know about it, or because it was against his 'ethics' to write it in the first place?

Date: 2008/02/06 07:21:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 03 2008,21:31)
In regard to divorce, it has become almost an epidemic.  People divorce their spouses for any number of insignificant reasons.  I can certainly understand divorcing someone for infidelity, abandonment or abuse, but the problem is that infidelity is almost a way of life these days.  It’s wrong, and it’s harmful to our children.

And who gets divorced more - Christians or non?  Conservatives or Liberals?  Red staters or blue?

Hint:  Who has been divorced more, Rush Limbaugh or John Kerry?

Date: 2008/02/06 12:23:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 01 2008,16:00)
Somehow the Coulter ref put me in mind of this video.

How about this one...

Date: 2008/02/06 12:40:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (REC @ Feb. 06 2008,10:29)



9:05 am


The Discovery Institute doesn’t have a biology lab. They don’t have enough funding to even begin assembling one.


Hmm....kinda answers all my questions on what the content of all the 'peer reviewed' literature DI is generating will be

<link fixed - Lou>


We just refurbished a storage room and turned it into a functional but small modern molecular biology research lab for just over $100,000.
Surely the DI can cut its PR budget enough to cough up that....

Date: 2008/02/10 14:47:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2008,08:54)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 04 2008,08:43)
Hi Alb, and others,

Chien's description has been changed to "biologist."


Since the original statement in EE read thusly    
This point has been further emphasized by a recent Precambrian fossil find near Chengjiang, China. Scientists there recently discovered incredibly preserved microscopic fossils of sponge embryos. (Sponges are obviously soft-bodied. Their embryos are small and soft-bodied, too—other than their tiny spicules.) Paul Chien, a marine paleobiologist at the University of San Francisco argues that this discovery poses a grave difficulty for the artifact hypothesis.

and since Paul Chien has NO credentials in paleontology, how is this new wording any less misleading?

Why didn't you change it to "Paul Chien, a toxicologist..."?

Or does Paul suddenly have a bunch of peer-reviewed publications in the field of paleontology? I looked in the web of science, and I didn't find any. Perhaps you can point me to those.


It seems sort of like referring to Wells as either an 'embryologist' or a 'molecular biologist' depending on which one will get more traction, while neither ir really all that accurate.

Creationists of all stripes have a long and sordid history of embellishing their credentials to make their commentary seem more relevant.

I wasn't aware of Chien's mischaracterization.  Must have just been a little editorial mistake - like Paul Nelson said, all texts have them.  But it is odd that this editorial mistake in a text has been used in several other venues.  Hmmmm....

Date: 2008/02/10 14:52:21, Link
Author: slpage
Well, Sal is the same fellow who declared that evolution is false because it would be impossible for the sternum to form...

Date: 2008/02/11 11:39:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,23:32)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 10 2008,23:28)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:28)
You people are's rubbed off on me, and now I'm part of the problem when I enter ATbC bizzaro world.

I've never seen you act like anything other than a dishonest, lying and disingenuous twit myself.

Oh, that's another reason why I keep coming back.  To defend myself.  I've never been anything other than honest....yet, "twits" like this clown keep accusing me of dishonesty.


Poor widdle FtK, all alone and always the victim...

Never has this paragon of virtue, intellectual honesty, and brotherly love ever done anything to deserve anything but friendship, respect, and admiration...

Date: 2008/02/13 11:00:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 13 2008,00:55)
Oh, just found this new tard


peter borger


10:36 am

Non Mendelian inheritance is often observed. It is caused by Variation inducing genetic elements VIGES, previously known as ERVs, LINEs, SINEs, ALUs, etc.

VIGES integrate into certain areas of non-coding parts of genetic instructions and modify protein expression patterns and other genetic output. They have an ability to excise an reintegrate, duplicate or diminish, and this explains the non-mendelian fashion of inheritance.

I have completed a MS (200 pages) containing the complete overturn of the main Darwinian hypotheses and GUToB, a set of testable hypotheses that explains what falsifies Darwinism.

Is there an interested publisher around?

I hope he sticks around, it could be fun.


Borger is an asthma researcher and hard core creationst.

I've encountered his idiocy on EvC and seen his claims get demolished at ISCID.  He jsut keeps pumping out the same moronic bilge.


Not at all.  Infuriating and annoying?  Yes.

He claims, for example, that some loci mutate so nonrandomly as to appear random.

Major tardage.

Date: 2008/02/20 11:28:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 17 2008,16:18)
4:50 pm

Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

You're right, bFast.  It took considerably longer than a million years.

Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

Why should anyone CARE what a  software developerthinks about DNA?

Date: 2008/02/20 11:42:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (1of63 @ Feb. 17 2008,14:01)
The problem is that believers assume that these experiences happen while the brain is flatlined.  But there are periods before the op when the patient is being put under and prepped and afterwards when they are coming out of it when these experiences could easily have happened.  That's the more likely explanation.

The fact is we have no evidence that consciousness can exist apart from the physical brain and these stories just don't cut it.

Not to mention the fact that most of the aspects of NDEs - the light at the end of the tunnel, a feeling of euphoria, etc - can be induced by deprivijg the brain of bllod, as often happens to pilots and astronauts undergoing high-G training.

Date: 2008/02/27 14:13:55, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:49)
BTW: You're also shifting your ground. First you said evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life and then you turn around and say the theory of Panspermia is useful. Which is it?

Actually, panspermia subsumes the existence of life.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:04:43, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 10 2008,01:21)
bFast - just a couple of observations.
1. It would help if you could clarify your terminology.

Well, he is a computer programmer creationist with no background in biology.

Which is why, of course, he must be right on everything he writes.  Because creationists without biology backgrounds with computer/engineering backgrounds know everything about everything.  

And if there are any truly brilliant engineers out there, they would side with creationist bfast and his ilk on these issues.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:06:04, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (bFast @ Mar. 10 2008,09:53)
JAM, you bore me.  You don't at all answer my real question, but spend all your energy trying to twist what I am saying into something racist.

Do you think anyone is not bored by your typical, mundane, arrogant creationist pontificating?

And you might want to work on your spelling - it detracts from your vacuous claims.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:29:25, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 10 2008,22:09][/quote]

2, You suggest that you and I are 99.99% identical.  If there are 25,000 genes, with an average of 100 aminos per gene, that would mean that there's about 250 alleles.

What does the average amino acid number have to do with it?  How you get 250 alleles out of that is a mystery of creationist math and biology.

From my understanding there are at least seven alleles that control for eye color (I recognize that these alleles may have other effects, as is so common.)  So eye color eats up 35% of the available alleles.  I don't believe it for a moment.

What you 'believe' or not is immaterial.

My bet is that there is [sic] no less than 1000 alleles that affect the phenotype within humanity.  Even 1000 would be an amazingly small number considering the amount of variance within humanity.

Why is that?  Do you have a rationale for that statement?  How much change does an allele produce?  Is it quantifiable?  Do all alleles produce the same or similar amount of change?  And how do you know?

 Further, if there really are this few alleles, getting to an accurate cause for all genetically caused diseases should be pretty darn easy.

"There are over 6000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through generations." ( That would indicate that there are 6 genetic disorders for every allele. ;)
You demonstrate nicely a common problem with IDcreationists with no biology background attempting to pontificate on biological matters.   For starters, why do you assume a completely uniform distribution of allelic difference?

Date: 2008/03/11 13:05:00, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,11:19)
slpage, you are distracting from this topic.  Please go away.

Sorry, you can't pull strings with your imbecilic buddies and order people around on here.

You don't seem to understand the difference between genes and alleles, that much is obvious.  You are clueless.

Date: 2008/03/11 13:09:13, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 11 2008,11:30][/quote]
Clueless creationist....

Richard Simons:  
bfast, I am not convinced that you have the concept of alleles completely straight as you use the word in an idiosyncratic manner.

My bet is that there is no less than 1000 alleles that affect the phenotype within humanity.

Here you seem to be using allele when you actually mean locus.

No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  

Do you even know what a GENE is for christ's sake?

No, an allele is a variant form of a GENE.

You should stick to whatever it is you think you actually understand, because this ain't it.

Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.

Clueless.  I may be distracting from is topic, but you should not even be discussing it with this level of ignorance.

 Honest, I doubt if I could have carried this conversation on this long with Zachriel if I was unaware of what an allele is.

Well, you have been yet you are very clearly unaware.

Creationists have never let their ignorance stop them from pontificating, though.  So keep going - it is entertaining to see someone so clueless carry on as if they have some sort of in-depth understanding.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:05:13, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2008,16:31)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,14:19)
Wesley Elsberry, thanks for getting to a real number to my question.

But no thanks to those who corrected your gross misunderstanding of the fundamentals you need to understand to construct a useful model.

Never admit an error, bfast. That does wonders for your credibility.


bfast has a pretty fragile ego, and refuses to acknowledge error and will ignore those that demonstrate his shallow understanding of issues that he nonetheless pontificates on.  I have seen him do this on forums before.  He is what one might call a 'baby'.

And worse, he is a Salem Hypothesis poster boy.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:08:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,18:31)
JAM, and the other peanut gallery critics,  has it dawned on you that Zachriel, an actual Ph.D. biologist, has not questioned my understanding of what an allele is.  Convince him that I misunderstand or SHUT UP!!

Sorry, bfast, I too have a PhD in biology (anatomy and cell biology, to be precise) and you clearly don't even really understand what a gene is, much less an allele.

Here, I will prove it:

"An allele is a variant of the same protein. "

An allele is not a protein.  Nor is a gene.  You clearly don't know, whether Zachrial pointed it out or not.  Maybe he just has a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance.

Perhaps YOU should SHUT UP since you are clearly well out of your league on this basic issue.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:11:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,21:40)
And, gentlemen, if my understanding of alleles is so messed up, why could Zachriel simulate my ideas in his pre-built allele simulating software?  Answer me that one?

Simulators do not rely on erroneous understandings, they use numbers.  Pretty simple, really.

But, you are a computer technician creationist, and you know everything about everything.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:22:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 11 2008,21:28)

I am aware that alleles are variants of genes. But genes make proteins, amongst other stuff that they do.

Yes, but they are not proteins.
Google expertise is not real expertise.
Only alleles of genes (two variants of the same gene) which actually affect the phenotype of the organism need be considered in this context.  I actually understand all of that.

Yet you wrote that alleles are variations of proteins, so clearly you don't.  If it had been a mere misstatement, then you would have had no problem admitting the error and moving on. But you actually expanded on the error:

No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

And now you are attempting to minimize/equivocate by offering up some Wiki expertise (that still seems to ignore the resources Wes provided).

Now, back to the first question.  How many alleles are there which affect the organism's phenotype (in this case a mammal, I don't care which one) in any measurable way?  

Who knows?  Maybe you can ask DaveScot - he has a high IQ.

I understand perfectly what an allele is.  You all are just playing the "creationists aren't evolutionists because they don't understand the basics" card.  It is bull!

An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

'Bull' must be creationese for 'true'.

If I get any more of it, I will end this thread.  I am getting interesting results on my extended simulation, but I think I'll find a less rejecting audience.

You mean like a bunch of sycophantic know-nothing fellow creationists who seem to live to pat each other on the back for spewing nonsense on moderator-protected creationist havens like UD?

What a spoiled baby.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:23:32, Link
Author: slpage
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (digitus impudicus @ Mar. 11 2008,22:01)
At first guess, I would say that he made a decision to use the appropriate definition of an allele in the model.....

We now return you to your lurker free channel

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Date: 2008/03/12 08:45:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
Another piece in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?

I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.

Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...

Date: 2008/03/12 09:22:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:08)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:08)
You clearly don't know, whether Zachrial pointed it out or not.  Maybe he just has a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance.

I did try to clarify bFast's terminology earlier in the thread in order to fully comprehend what he was trying to claim. However, he hasn't been too forthcoming on answering my questions. I am still willing to give him a chance to make his point.

(The problem remains of how to generalize the results sufficiently as to make a valid claim about biology. I remain very doubtful. The results so far actually contradict bFast's understanding—even within the toy universe. But first things first.)


This reliance upon 'toy' examples has a long history in the IDcreationist realm.  I am reminded of Cordova's insistence that his "toy example" (his words) of molecular phylogenetics - employing a whopping 10 letters, 'mutating' 1 per round of 'evolution', and showing that after only a few such rounds, hierarchies were impossible to make - proved that molecular phylogenetics was unrelaiable and also, of course, that somehow this showed evolution was wrong.  This occurred on the old version of the KCFS forum.  To employ a hackneyed phrase, it wasn't even wrong, and here we have a simulator violating Borel's theorem right before the creationist's eyes.  Amazing.

In the end, my 'predicition' was right - you just have a higher tolerance for arrogant ignorance. :p

Date: 2008/03/12 18:34:03, Link
Author: slpage
[quote=bFast,Mar. 12 2008,15:10][/quote]
I understand that an allele is a version of a gene.  I understand that there are non-coding genes.  I understand that introns, for instance, often affect the phenotype.

Who wrote this:

"No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein. "


 I would assume that an intron would be seen as a non-coding gene.

No, an intron is part of a gene.
However, I may be incorrect when I assume that an intron would be seen as a gene, or a portion of a gene even though it is not a gene that codes to protein.

No, an intron is a part of a gene.
 Alas, this only goes to the question of exactly how the word "gene" is defined by biologists, not to my understanding of what an allele is.  

"No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein. "

I don't think it is the biologists that have the problem.

It is the non-biologists that think they can gain google or wiki expertise or read a few creationist books and pontificate on biology on par with actual biologists.

Date: 2008/03/12 18:37:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,17:29)


A common definiton of evolution is, "change in allele frequency over time", correct?

Yes - not protein, not intron.

Please, gentlemen, hash out between yourselves a comprehensive definition of allele, I will happily use your definition.

Nice way to cover your ignorance.

Stick to writing scanning software.

Date: 2008/03/12 18:44:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 12 2008,09:11)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 12 2008,08:45)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2008,07:32)
Another piece in the Joe G puzzle. In response to a question from Allen MacNeill:

And, while we’re at it, what field and laboratory research have you done to collect empirical evidence for an alternate theory, and where has it been published?

I have been too busy working on national security issues- detecting biological & chemical agents- and recovering from injuries I sustained in Iraq- three surgeries down and hopefully only one more to go.

Looks like he is a bit delusional.

He's an electronics engineer - a technician - for crying out loud...

Sounds like he may have been a civilian contractor. Maybe he hurt his back lifting a refrigerator.

Or digging a latrine...

Unfortunately, ol' Joey complained about having back surgery YEARS ago - well before the 'war on terror'.

I think he is just milking it, trying to make himself out to be a tough guy getting hurt in Iraq.... digging latrines...  I think his original back problem stemmed from trying to engage in autofellatio and realising that he couldn't quite reach.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:49:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,19:24)
Honest folks, I think that this thread has meandered into people finding fancy ways of telling other people that they are stupid becuase either you all have narcisistic personality disorder, or because you fear that I have your pet theory by the short hairs.

The irony is rich.

The creationist not only projects, but then goes on to engage in the rampant megalomania that seems nearly endemic in those that inhabit protected pro-creationism blogs and forums.

Let us not forget that bfast the computer tech not only claimed that alleles are proteins, but EXPANDED on that theme:

No, I actually mean allele.  An allele is a variant of the same protein.  Somewhere in the genome there is a protein that controls for eye color.  One variant produces blue eyes, the other produces brown eyes.  Likely the allele producing green eyes is a third allele of the same protein.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:50:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,20:03)
I am fed up with this "you don't know what you are talking about" bit.

You are fed up with the truth?

Too bad.

Date: 2008/03/13 07:51:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 13 2008,03:49)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 12 2008,19:24)
you fear that I have your pet theory by the short hairs.

A Nobel awaits then, once you disprove "evolution".

But, but - Warren Bergerson already did that!

Date: 2008/03/13 08:00:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2008,06:57)
bFast is imposing a contrived situation to match his expectations.

Well, of course.

That is what these people do.

I mentioned Warren Bergerson (aka 'LifeEngineer')above - surely most of us remember him?

If not, he is a retired actuary who claimed for years that he had disproved evolution using 'actuarial math.'  And, after years of claiming this, it was drawn out of him, on ARN, that he had in fact never done any calculations at all, he just "knew" that if he had done so, it would have disproved evolution.

After some prodding, he finally revealed his math on Terry Trainor's MSN group, Talkorigins (note that the guy that pointed out Bergerson's stupidity was eventually railroaded and banned - just like what happens at UD).  His claims were challenged, and he ended up changing his formulae and inputs 3 times when shown to be in error (never admitting it, of course), each time coming up with the same answer.  That is, he rigged the formulae repeatedly to get the results he wanted, to include doing a simple probability calculation backwards.

Same thing with this UD denizen.  He's just making it up as he needs it to be.

Date: 2008/03/13 13:53:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 13 2008,11:52)
Oh come on!  There's no chance that a real journal will ever consider these results.  They don't do that.  

Why would a real journal consider this amateurish pulp fiction?

You could try ISCID I suppose - they are hurting for pro-ID 'science'...

Date: 2008/03/15 11:16:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 13 2008,18:58)
Quote (bFast @ Mar. 13 2008,17:02)
My current algorithm and reasoning is as follows:

I have no idea what you are doing. What happened to the 2-allele? Are considering only the first gene, which is normally a 0, but once in a population a 1? What's 1/10th the population? I don't get it.

bfast doesn't either.  It is just creationist blathering.

Date: 2008/03/15 11:18:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 14 2008,07:07)
You appear to have abandoned your original model because it didn't show what you wanted it to. Perhaps it was trying to tell you something.

Perhaps he is channeling Warren Bergerson?

Date: 2008/03/16 11:26:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 16 2008,10:26)
bfast -

I'd be interested in seeing the code for a simulation of intelligent design.

Wouldn't that amount to a hideously long series of assignment statements?

Isn't tht an interesting proposition - to see IDcreationists actually try to model THEIR OWN ideas to see if they have merit.


Too risky for them.

Date: 2008/03/17 11:54:42, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guest @ Mar. 17 2008,11:41)
Biology...the major for engineering, physics, and chemistry dropout students.

Pitiful...just pitiful.


One of my former advisees switched majors from biology to mechanical engineering after flunking introductory biology...

Of course, Eaton seems to be a big fan of Gish's, so if he knew much of anything, he'd know that adoring Gish is a badge of stupidity.

Date: 2008/03/21 07:56:00, Link
Author: slpage
Where is the "libral' media" in all this?  This sounds like at least page 2 material to me....

Date: 2008/03/23 15:05:16, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,11:54)
Hey Richard: As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. As a journalist supposedly reporting the news for a major daily, Cornelia Hunter is.

Is there an obligation to be truthful at least?

Apparently not.


Date: 2008/03/23 15:08:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,12:42)
Oh wow, you caught me, guys. Pants down and on fire! Anything to avoid the real issue I guess.

Real issues?

You mean like Crocker getting canned for being a crappy teacher and peddling lies in class and NOT because she was just trying to present 'both sides'?

Date: 2008/03/24 17:46:25, Link
Author: slpage
That is his way.  He did the same thing at when his claims were questioned - spewed a few insults then runs back to tard-protection land.

IDiots are intellectual cowards.  Or should I say pseudointellectual cowards - even extreme mesomorph and failed jarhead Davey Springer.

Date: 2008/04/01 11:45:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 30 2008,14:22)


"For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific kinds of sub-atomic events."

Now, this is Tippler the physicist?  Tippler the guy that claimed biologists are not scientists (he's a theoretician... huh...)?

And he is saying that XX is male?

Tipler - and Cordova - are, I'm sorry, fucking idiots.

XX is female, Sally.

Date: 2008/04/07 09:18:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 05 2008,08:33)
At the start of his post on Fisher's Fundamental Theorem, Sal quotemines four people: Walter ReMine...

Well who better to quote than an electrical engineer YEC nutcake?

Date: 2008/04/07 09:30:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ April 05 2008,16:28)
I think Dr. Dembski has something like three PhDs.

So that would make him Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski??

Gee, that would not be an attempt to agument via authority or credentialism, now would it?

Date: 2008/04/09 09:19:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 08 2008,23:26)
Dave Scot worships Rush Limbaugh and wants to be him.

And here Rush goes off and says something that Dave bans people for saying.

Bless his obese, oxycontin-addled soul.

I love it so!

And I would like to know why Limbaugh took a bottle of Viagra to the Dominican Republic - a place known for its underage male prostitutes....

Another great spokeman for the Christian Right!

Date: 2008/04/09 13:59:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2008,09:57)

Funny how a glorified Space Invaders jockey tries to insult  a biologist:


It’s a good thing an organic coin collector like you was around to correct the misclassification which is akin to putting a Liberty Head dime into a Roosevelt dime collection.

What a dick.

Date: 2008/04/09 14:02:57, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Kristine @ April 09 2008,13:13)
Well, I hope his idea of a date isn't crashing his hands through window glass reaching for girls - I got creeped out enough by that watching Legend of Boggy Creek last year. :) (Boggy Creek 2 is only worth watching if you have the MST3000 version.)

Come on now, I still remember the Travis Crabtree song...

Date: 2008/04/09 14:13:47, Link
Author: slpage
The student body where I work is generally conservative.  I am developing an evolution class, but only a few of our classes directly touch on the subject.

I've been here 8 years, and only twice had people question me directly about it, and only once have a student make anoffhand comment about it.

One question blew me away - not THAT the question was asked, but when.

I was teaching a comparative anatomy of the vertebrates class.  The first week is all background material - a brief overview of anatomical terms and the historical treatment of the field, then a day or two on why comparative anatomy even makes sense - evolution.  Can't cover much in 2 class periods, so I hit the basics - concepts like homology, cladistics, fossil record, etc.  
So, we are about 10 weeks into the semester, doing dissections in lab one day, and this student, totally out of the blue, says, "Do you really believe in evoluton?"
I was taken aback - why was she asking this NOW?
Several students within earshot started paying attention, so I used it as a teaching opportunity (it was a class, after all).  I explained the difference between 'believing' it and acceoting it, and explained why, from my perspective, I accepted it.  She wasn't convinced, but she did not seem to be in a position to argue about it, at least she let the subject drop.

But I generally only discuss the subject (cre v. evo) with colleagues.

Date: 2008/04/13 08:34:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Annyday @ April 12 2008,23:06)
FtK's claims about being outraged by atheist blogs from professors are a little weird. She took college biology years ago, but she is only now in retrospect learning that universities are atheist indoctrination centers? This seems a little bit backwards to me, much like realizing you were at a Nazi rally after the fact from Goebbels' journals would be. If her claims are true, it should be logically impossible that she didn't notice it at the time.

I suspect that, like many right-wing bible thumps, for lackwits like FtK, a lack of explicit endorsement of conservative Christianity is interpreted as hostility toward it.  

I took many classes in several colleges, at least 2 of which were taught by people I knew to be atheists, and religion was never discussed at all in their classes.  The only class I can remember religion coming up in at all was an American Gov't class I took, and it was a religious student that broached the subject, not the teacher.

While I am sure that there are atheist professors out there who belittle religion in their classes, I also know that there are plenty of religious professors who use their classrooms as evangelizing tools.

I took a few classes at a community college in Lansing Michigan in the late 1980s and the physiology instructor, one 'Roscoe Root', was an evangelical who not only routinely took out full page ads in the school newspaper decrying either abortion or evolution, but also declared in his classes that evolution was false (even though he taught no classes that dealt directly with evolution).  I know several students who had complained about his open prosyletizing, but nothing was ever done.

He was never expelled.  I'd bet FtK would see nothing wrong with what ol' Roscoe did.

And, ol' Roscoe does his part in proclaiming the impossibility of evolution on the RAE TV show:

Program Number:    141  The Mystery of Life
Guests:  Roscoe Root
Date Produced:  07/17/1998   Run Time: 29:29

Program Description:  Roscoe Root discusses the inability of genetics to explain the origin of new species. He give examples of anatomical structures that could not have evolved.

I'm sure it was jam-packed with facts!  Never mind that Root's specialties did not include genetics...

Date: 2008/04/28 14:12:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Art @ April 27 2008,13:29)

Commenter Jean asks about another commenter's publication record, responding to a quip about Berlinski. A quick check of Berlinski's h-factor on SCI yields a value of 1, and an average citation rate for his papers of 0.1 (probably rounded - he has three citations total for all 27 articles/notes/comments/reviews).

Yup, that's a real powerhouse of scholarly output.  Berlinski has been cited THREE times in scholarly works over the years.

Jeez....  A paper I published when I was still in grad school has been cited 65 times....

I must be 22 times the scholar Berlinski is!

Date: 2008/04/28 14:14:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 27 2008,18:33)
Bradford snivels some more, gives us a clue to his educational background:

Obviously a PhD is more likely to have insight into technical details but intellectual snobbery is a bore and a sign of insecurity.

So is that why IDcreationists are so quick to point out Dr.Dr.Dembski's  (irrelevant) credentials?

Date: 2008/04/30 10:56:38, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 30 2008,10:31)
DaveTard is such a nonce. Analogy is evidence? That means shuttlecocks are birds, ovens are suns, waterfalls are designed by god for showering porposes...

Unless Dave means everything we know is designed is designed, which I'd agree with... ???

IDcreationists have been using analogies as evidence for years and years.

But try to tell them that analogies are nto evidence, and they accuse of 'elitism' or some such douchery.

Date: 2008/05/18 17:45:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 18 2008,08:17)
A Sunday morning outing in the UD ponds revealed this gem of projection, from commenter johnnyb.      
Just to point out - one of the reasons I didn’t go into biology was because Darwinism looked, well, BORING. Darwinism - the way they teach it in the school - is waiting for something to happen, and then ascribe the cause to nothing particular.

I, for one, am very thankful that johnnyb "didn't go into biology". Wankers like johnnyb should stick to apologetics, or engineering, or hanging around public libraries to use the computers, or whatever line of employment he might be in these days.  But I really doubt that he is telling us all the reasons for that momentous decision...

Well, johnnyb is Jon Bartlett, a creationist computer programmer (what else?) in case you didn't know.  He has championed the 'no new information' routine, Haldane's dilemma (ran away from a discussion I tried to have with him on it to Fred William's draconian-moderated board where he whined about it all), dino-man coexistence... Typical numbskull YEC with an engineering background who therefore thinks he knows everythying.

Frankly, I find engineering boring.

Date: 2008/05/18 17:50:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 18 2008,15:23)
Poachy invokes the Joe Gallien theory of simulation:


When a computer simulation of reality doesn’t match up with reality we (speaking as a computer scientist) usually consider the model to be the source of the error instead of reality.

If they really wanted to model climate, they really should be subjecting the computers to swings in temperature and humidity. But, I am willing to bet that they aren’t.

Are there really people that stupid?

Date: 2008/05/21 16:49:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (PTET @ May 20 2008,03:56)
Born in Glasgow, lived lots of places, and now so central in London it would make your eyes water... As would the tiny size of my flat (or "apartment", for you colonials)  ...

A Londoner, eh?

I spent a few months in England in the mid 1980s, and spent several days in London.  I loved it.  

Me?  Central Vermont.

Date: 2008/05/21 16:53:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Kristine @ May 20 2008,15:49)
I'm orginally from Minnesota too.

I recently moved to *redacted* not far from *redacted* still in good ole MN. ;) I've been to Germany, Austria, France, Jamaica, Ecuador/Galapagos, and Canada. I loved Paris. I COULD LOVE LONDON! (I want to go there in a major way, being that I was an English major and all.)

Are you going to the annual meeting of the SSB and ASN?

I wonder if ReMine is going.

Date: 2008/06/17 07:31:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 15 2008,07:14)
By popular demand and via the kindness of Jasper, the Walt Brown thread from KCFS is now available in the archives here.

If you'd like to get all the pages for your local reading in one operation, click "Save As" on this link.

Wow, such bad memories....

I was tickled by Sal's extrapolation of Berthauld's (sp?)sedimentation 'experiments' in a glass retort to cliffs in the Grand Canyon (apparently) on page 10...

Date: 2008/06/17 07:51:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 16 2008,17:12)
When I was a wee lad, brand spanking new to the forums at KCFS, I was seduced by the fetching FtK who had posed a question I could answer.

I know that, I said!

And I held forth and offered FtK a chapter and verse from my favorite undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy book.  FtK thanked me profusely and told me she had taken that course, but used a different book.

I asked FtK if she wanted a copy and she said, no.  I asked, are you sure?  And she said, no, on my honor.

So, she offered her honor, and I honored her offer.

Then for weeks afterwards is was honor, offer, honor, offer...

Finally, I realized that I was being used and she had no intention of accepting the answer to her question or learning the reasons why.  After that I switched from mentor to mocker.

And, I haven't had a drink since.

I learned FtK's truse nature very quickly and treated her in the appropriate manner and was vilified for it by some on our own side - some who now are 'meaner' to her than I ever was.  

It's funny - I often seem to be ahead of the curve on these types of things and I often get kicked around for it, only to see those doing the kicking doing the same things I was kicked for later on.  My most famous example - about 13-14 years ago, on the first incarnation of the Internet Infidels forum, PZ Myers chided me for being so vocal a YEC-basher.  The times they change, eh?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:25:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 22 2008,19:36)
So you're fighting a losing battle, Rich--again.

Losing battle...

Say - did you guys break even yet?

How do feel knowinng that you portrayed Crocker as a martyr when she was in reality an incompetent hack spewing creationist lies and nonsense in her classes?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:28:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 23 2008,07:40)
Paul dropped by yesterday after church, and he is a bit early this morning    
Paul Nelson   Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes...   June 23 2008,07:28

I think he is trying to mix up his schedule for us. I guess we should hold off on using his appearances to synchronize our watches, or the trains.

Hey Paul - did you ever get someone to run the alignment and pnhylogenetic analysis on the sequences I sent you via Helen Fryman a few years ago to test your claim that investigator bias totally skews such analyses?

Date: 2008/06/25 14:31:18, Link
Author: slpage
I wonder if there will ever come a day that Dembski's sycophantic readers actually grow tired of shelling out bucks for the same recycled, repackaged shit every year or so...

Date: 2008/06/25 17:35:09, Link
Author: slpage
So let me get this straight - Davetard thinks Lenski is wrong because he did not consider the mythical non-random mutation as a source of variation?

What a fucking imbecile.

Date: 2008/07/08 11:59:43, Link
Author: slpage
Yes, Alonso is a sleazeball.

Knew that when I first encountered him on the old KCFS board several years ago.

He's a classic argument-via-analogy and assertion clown, who, like most creationists, immediately resorts to labelling exposure of his ignorance as "ad hominem" attacks.

Such a little boy...

Date: 2008/07/08 12:05:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 05 2008,15:17)
- Again I defend my position on the Davies quote; I defend my position on
the theism thing.  That is an entirely rational, on-topic post.
- That post is deleted, without going to the memory hole.
- I inquire again about these deletions.  Those inquiries are deleted.
- Keith posts the deletion policy at TT.  That is deleted.
- Every post thereafter which either (1) defends my position, or (2)
questions these deletions in light of the policy, is deleted without being
moved to the memory hole.
- The thread continues to hold only Bradford's harsh claims against me, with
all of my responses to those claims deleted.


Shades of the older ARN board, when 'Mike Gene' and his sycophants ruled it with an iron hand.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:08:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 05 2008,16:12)
I think I've been in online discussions with Nelson Alonso since about 1997, and met him in person in 2002 at the AMNH IDC debate event. I'm not surprised.


Is he as annoying in person as he is on the internets?

Date: 2008/07/08 12:10:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:10)
How would you know this is a science blog? You're obviously scientifically illiterate.

So sayeth the fellow taht has declared that analogies are evidence....

Yes, I do remember.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:15:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,02:27)
It'll be fun excersize for the comming weeks to continue to point out just how deceptive the denizens of AE can be, perhaps even occasionally cross post it to AE. See you guys later.

Projection AND spelling errors...  How... typical...

BTW - 'coming' has one M.

Date: 2008/07/08 12:19:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,05:47)
So I wonder what the point of this thread is then if no one knows my position. Perhaps that will become clear in the comming weeks.


Once is a typo.

Twice is the sign of a dumbass.

'Technical' blogs... Riiiightt......

Date: 2008/07/08 13:52:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,15:06)
lol PCID was never an actual ID journal they invited all kinds of complexity theorists.

So, if they invited all sorts of such folks, shouldn't it be bursting with articles?

Date: 2008/07/08 14:06:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 07 2008,19:01)
The suggestion that Nelson/Guts may be into AIDS denialism reminds me of this post by Mike Gene to
Democratic Party Family Values

1.  Adultery is not bad as long as it is between consenting adults

2.  Wife-beating is okay as long as the wife doesn't care

3.  Women should get jobs benefits if they perform sexually for the boss

4.  If "everyone does it," it is good

5.  Character doesn't matter

It is the only post by archived at Google Groups.  A web search on that address confirms it is the Mike Gene of the intertubes ID debates.

I was reminded of this because, like AIDS denialism, it is one of those things which suggests our friends may be a bit off kilter in ways other than the ID realm.  It's a second data point.  There are of course scientists who happen to be politically conservative, however the kind of stances that Mike Gene has taken above are indicative of something beyond merely being conservative.

'Mike Gene' also has/had the aol screen name nucacids.  As many sockpuppet creationists do, he actually appeared on one of the newsgroups as nucacids referring to mikebgene in the third person, heaping praise upon 'his' claims and such.  It was soon discovered that nucacids was mikebgene, and he gave some lame excuse for pretending not to be himself.

If one has the stomach and time to waste - and if the archives were not purged* - one can peruse the less-frequented ARN forums and see 'Mike Gene' reveal his true, right-wing ID/creationist ideology in less guarded moments.

*ARN had an odd history of having 'oopsie!' moments that resulted in massive deletions of posts.  Just a big coincidence/mistake, though...

Date: 2008/07/08 14:09:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2008,12:30)
Nelson has hit the wingnut big time: an entry on FSTDT:

I agree that ID has an unfair advantage, but this is simply because the evidence is in it's favor, for example, we don't rely on "unknown steps" or "future theories" as evidence for our theory. We rely on the data.
Nelson Alonso, ARN Discussion Forum [Comments (28)] [2003-Jan-01]

Be sure and read his comments following, where he vanished as soon as someone asked him to give his supporting data.

Easier that way.

Date: 2008/07/08 14:28:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Zachriel @ July 07 2008,07:35)
Note to Guts

It is quite possible to have a reasoned discussion on this board. BFast once proposed a computer simulation concerning evolution. Though it didn't show what he thought it did, and while he abandoned the discussion when it was obvious he was incorrect, and although he never modified his views accordingly, it was a fruitful discussion while it lasted.

That is what Bfast does.

He is a creationist, and the creationist cannot admit error on anything.  They just run away and make the same claims elsewhere.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:40:02, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:13)
Hon, he postulates how hernias, hiccups, and snores evolved from freaking fish.  Come on...  

And you say an anthropomorphic superbeing willed it thus on a whim...

I know which 'story' I find more plausible.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:42:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:13)
 Why would someone in the ID movement try?  ID = design detection.  The theory itself doesn't comment on common descent.

Sorry 'hon' - ID is not even a theory and if you knew as much about your own positon as you pretend to, you would know that Johnson, Nelson, etc., acknowledge that there is no 'theory' of ID.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:44:18, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,21:35)
Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent. .

So, what, EXACTLY, was 'hindered' in your informed opinion?

Date: 2008/07/10 07:49:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,22:17)
Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"

Not a damn word you spew.

I wonder though - will these folks emerge from this meeting claiming "Phil Johnson was right!  Behe is a god!  Dembski knows all!"?

I sort of doubt it.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:53:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Gunthernacus @ July 10 2008,00:24)
I wonder which it was in this case of diametrically opposed statements?  A knowing lie to try to save a bankrupt argument, or innocent cluelessness from a known liar?

Ummm.... Yes.

Date: 2008/07/10 07:56:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2008,16:37)
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,14:23)
Cajuns, on the other hand, do like swamps. They live there, so that surely means something. I have no problem with Cajuns living in swamps if that's what they like, but I'd never choose it. I'm a Highlander... I am here on purpose.

And in the mountains it's easier to steer clear of them Gummint agents tryin' to suppress your superconductivity research.

Well, she did once claim that she has barbed wire, guns and dogs protecting her home as she has been 'stalked' by people from the internet....

Date: 2008/07/10 07:57:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:21)
HI JOY!  You're awesome.  Love your posts and comments at TT!  I'm you're biggest fan - in this neck of the swamp anyway!!!!

Blind leading the blind?

Stupid swaying the stupider?

I'm at a loss.

Date: 2008/07/10 08:01:12, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,21:56)
So I guess my question is this. Based on my readings at TT, it appears that both you and Nelson know next to nothing about biology. Yet this whole discussion is about biology, trying to distinguish between two explanations for the observed diversity of life on this planet.

I've never been a working biologist other than seriously applied bio-physics in action. But my elder sister (we shared a room for 17 years!) is a Ph.D. plant physiologist. And I grow ginseng, goldenseal and black cohosh (endangered all) right here that I can see out my window. That sister (unlike the other two, who went into medicine/programming instead) was once the world's foremost expert in American Mandrake as a treatment for cancer (now bioengineered into ridiculousness). We're planning a Materia Medica. Have been planning it for the past 40 years.

Why do you think they call it "Health Physics?"

Ah, so you have agarden, thus you can comment authoritatively about evolutionary bioloogy and associated topics.

Well, at least you are being logical and rational.

As for health physics, I was my old unit's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare assistant NCO.  So I guess I can comment authoritatively on what you did for a living.


Date: 2008/07/10 08:02:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joy @ July 09 2008,22:46)


Without 'delete' control, these people usually don't last long.

Date: 2008/07/10 08:12:52, Link
Author: slpage
So Sally the closeted IDiot 'conferenced' with ReMine a few weeks ago - I wonder if ReMine went to he big Evolution meeting there and told everyone present how they are all wrong and that he, Walter J. ReMine, electrical engineer, YEC, expert on all things, is right and evolution is wrong.

Sally just loves stroking ReMines.... ego....

Date: 2008/07/16 11:26:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sparc @ July 14 2008,22:33)
Roy Spencer
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.
Didn't ID run under a different name back in 1988? Something starting with "C" and ending on "ism"?

Is that Roy Spencer the same Roy Spencer that is a global warming denier?

Date: 2008/07/16 11:28:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (EyeNoU @ July 13 2008,20:00)
Most obsessed with homosexuality....Sal Cordova

Most Likely to Have Wet Dreams while dreaming of a walk with Dr.Dr. D - Sal 'Sally you're cute in them jeans' Cordova

Date: 2008/07/20 13:43:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Frostman @ July 13 2008,15:51)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 13 2008,15:00)
MikeGene blogs a Farewell to Telic Thoughts.

Here was his previous farewell as Julie Thomas.

Until the next pseudonym, Mike/Julie.

P.S. Oh and don't worry about the inmates--they'll be running things quite nicely.

Interesting.  I read recently that the late homophobic racist Jesse Helms may have been a crossdresser (total hearsay, but not the least bit surprising if true).

Mike Gene/Julie Thomas.

Sally Cordova callking Dembski "Sir William."

Lots of wide-stancers appear to be of the IDcreationist pursuasion...

Date: 2008/07/20 13:59:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ftk @ July 18 2008,07:36)
I'm going to try to get in touch with this Mazur chick and find out what's really going on here.  I've never heard of the gal in the ID camp, so I don't know why she would be out to stick it to you guys.  It certainly couldn't be good for her career to do so.  We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.  

DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.  Bow before Darwin you fools!

As you bow down to Brown?  And Cordova?  And Behe?  And whoever else with irrelevant qualifications who also happens to be a bible-nut happens to spew some erroneous gibberish that props up your religioous fantasies and martyr complex?

Sorry - only creationuts are that weak willed and brainwashable.  Pity that your superior morals continue to allow you to endorse and promulgate fabrications.

Date: 2008/07/20 14:03:43, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Chayanov @ July 18 2008,11:39)
First the Altenberg 16 were going to put all us Darwinists in our place.

We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"

But now it seems they're also part of the conspiracy.

Of course, I guess it makes sense that the "16" wouldn't allow Pivar or Fodor to comment or participate in any way since they actually question the extent to which the ToE is a viable theory.

And in other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.


These people (creationuts and their kind) are so laughably predictable and dense.

Just as Judge Jones was 'one of us' who was going to put 'Darwinnism' in its place, until he looked at the evidence and declared ID to be creationism to be non-scientific and suddenly he was a left-wing activist...


Sorry, but that is the only word that comes to mind when I consider folks like FtK.

Date: 2008/08/04 13:56:58, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 02 2008,16:30)
I had forgotten about Jerry Don Bauer!  He is right up there with the best of the totally impenetrable creationists.

And you know he 'taught' an online ID class focusing on - get this - genetics and information, right?

Yup.  Hosted it on his own website.  I can only imagine the shock and horror of the fools that actually shelled out the 80 bucks he was charging to see him declare that because water fleas exhibit recessive traits evolution is wrong...

Date: 2008/08/04 14:00:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 03 2008,00:53)
BTW, FSCI has been mentioned in that very thread  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Seems like bfast was afraid to admit that the emperor is naked.

Brucie Fast has a hard time admitting anything.

Date: 2008/08/05 07:34:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 31 2008,19:28)
I've always been a fan of his 'psycho with a dead animal on his head' photo:

Brags about being in Mensa? Mohawk? Sci-fi fan? Thinks women* who get raped 'asked for it'? He must be a devil with the ladies.

(*who, by the way, shouldn't vote.)

These uber-macho right-wing types usually seem ot have something to hide...  Like their wide-stance...

Date: 2008/08/05 07:40:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).

Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...

Date: 2008/08/05 07:42:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ July 29 2008,11:01)
Joy gives Zachriel a lesson in new math.

It wasn't an explosion (relatively speaking) because it took maybe 30 million years? That sort of demands we sacrifice basic understanding of relative comparisons and factors of 10. 30 million years compared to 3.8 billion years deals with exponentials. It took just over one ten-thousandth [10^-5] of total evolutionary time for the animal kingdom to diversity as far as it was going to diversify clade-wise, everything else was just fun with evo-devo and expression in ecological interplay. Tinkering. That seems fairly 'explosive' to me, relatively speaking.

Ummm.  If memory serves right, Joy was educated in the US, where a billion is 10^9, not 10^12 (as it would be in Russia).  So 30 million = 30 x 10^6 divided by 3.8 billion = 3.8 x 10^9 is 0.008, i.e. about 10^-2, not 10^-5.

Lots of creotards have math issues.

I saw a guy on the CARM board try to denigrate an evolutionist by writing that 1/1000 would be written 1x10^3....

Date: 2008/08/05 12:22:31, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,08:34)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,07:40)
Quote (dogdidit @ July 24 2008,07:49)
The End of Days. Apocalypse. Supper's Ready (for you aging Genesis fans).

Well, I'm not that aging, but I saw them in Albany last September.  I had to sit throught their post-1980 top-40 garbage, but the handful of old gems they played - anad played well - was worth it.
It killed me to see hundreds of thirty-somethings get up and leave during their last encore song - the Carpet Crawlers...

A fan? Cool!! Pre- or post-Gabriel departure? :)

I first saw them at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go in Hollywood is nineteen-mumbledy-something. Peter Gabriel in a giant tetrahedral papier-mache head, bouncing around to Apocalypse in 9/8 time. I was so-o-o-o-o-o stoned.

I was pretty wasted the first time I saw them - 1983.  I've seen Gabriel twice.  I'm a bit too young to have seen them together.  I think Trick of the Tail was their best post-Gabriel effort, though Wind and Wuthering had some good cuts on it.

I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...

Date: 2008/08/05 12:24:07, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 01 2008,10:19)
Quick! Shield your irony meters!  Joy holds forth:
If you are not just playing internet footsies and are indeed the college educated engineer you claim to be, you should have a better understanding of science than you display.

Well, I expect no less from Joyhole...

Date: 2008/08/07 15:22:27, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 05 2008,21:27)
Quote (slpage @ Aug. 05 2008,12:22)
I've even got my kids (7 and 10) humming along to 'Watcher of the Skies'...

Too funny! Next thing, they'll be doing an entire vaudeville version of "Harold the Barrel" in your living room.

Reminds me of a colleague who's kids "rediscovered" the charms of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Entire scenes of dialogue being recited randomly throughout the house, and the toddlers dragooned into shouting "NI!" at almost any prompting...

*looks around in surprise*

What, too off-topic? Oh, uh- something to do with B B King, right? Oops, wrong thread...

Thanks for the memory lane visit, slpage. Cueing up Foxtrot as soon as I'm done here.

O Knights... who until recently said Ni.

Date: 2008/08/18 16:48:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Alan Fox @ Aug. 17 2008,18:05)
I had to smile a little at this comment from Joy regarding her recent foray here:        
  Oh, good grief! You may want to fool yourself into believing a gaggle of minor league gangstas are capable of "independent thinking," but don't be attributing any such foolishness to me. My brief appearance was just me busting into their filthy treehouse to yell at them about the trash they threw in the front yard. I've zero tolerance for pasty creeps pitifully trying to make up for substandard man-parts with macho posturing.

So let that be a lesson to you, you pasty creeps, or, no doubt, Joy will taunt you a second time.


Yeah, minor league... And I suppose Joy is Major League?  So major league that she has had her computer hacked repeatedly by people she gets into arguments on the internets with (doubtless because she overpowers her opponants with straight-talking truth and facts) and has barbed wire and dogs protecting her property....

She is a paranoid megalomaniacal bitch with withered lady parts, who knows next to nothing about the relevant issues surrounding the so-called ID/Evolution 'debate.'

She can stay at TT and have the female equivalent of circle jerks with FtK and Julie Thomas.  About all she is good for.

Date: 2008/08/18 16:51:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (rhmc @ Aug. 17 2008,19:23)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Aug. 17 2008,19:15)
Hi dhogaza,

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.

if you're looking for war crimes, look to dresden, hamburg, the fire raids on tokyo and other japanese cities...

plenty of crime to spread around.  the nuclear weapons were just flea bites compared to what was done earlier...

I understand that Curtis LeMay once commented that he was certain that if we had lost the war, he woul dhavce been executed for war crimes (he was the guy behind the fire-bombing of civilians).

Date: 2008/08/18 16:58:01, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ July 20 2008,16:22)
Shorter TP: "Some of my best friends are PhD types."

Spare us the backpedaling, TP.  Here are three examples of your bigotry against "PhD types", all from the same thread (a fourth, of course, is your very use of the phrase "PhD types" itself):

From here:
I'm lucky to get the majority of my terms spelled correctly much less use them properly. Arguing about terminology is something PhD types do when I present them with my working prototype of an invention they said would be impossible to build.

And here:
Now you are sounding like PhD types when engineers put them into embarrassing situations. "When I said that it would take years to do what you did in two weeks I hadn't completely developed the algorithm yet."

And here:
Then with a flourish of PhD babble concerning sets he ended up providing his fully developed conclusion on page 31.

Yeah - I'm sure engineer technicians so frequently embarrass PhD types- you know, those clumsy bookworm egghead types that have no real world experience...

I rented this DVD on the Apollo program - you know, the best engineering minds in the country working with essentially endless funding to meet a common goal - and I really enjoyed watching all the big explosions and failures,and was a bit surprised to hear that every Apollo flight was plagued by all manner of problems.  

But hey,thye don't use fancy words and cut to the chase without going through all the hoops.... Maybe that explains ..... nah....

Date: 2008/08/18 17:04:03, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (creeky belly @ Aug. 18 2008,01:55)
This is the general lack of scholarship and hubris which gets the goad of many of the scientists around here. In your mind, you're doing scholarly and revolutionary work; to me, and I suspect others on this board, you come off as anti-intellectual and arrogant.

Wow - that describes this dude Mark Kennedy to a T.

He's been making - literally - the exact same arguments for 4 or 5 years, and every time his errorneous claims are corrected, he simply re-terates them and insists that nobody has addressed them.

It is like a requirement or something...

Date: 2008/08/19 08:09:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 18 2008,20:01)
Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).

There was near-total confidence that the uranium gun would work, so much confidence that they didn't bother testing it.  They built one, moved on to the plutonium implosion design.

As for justifying it as payback, having burned over 200,000 Japanese civilians to death in Tokyo alone was more than sufficient to balance the books over about 3,500 military dead and the handful of ships permanently lost, don't you think?

In the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese Navy was fastidious in targeting our armed forces only (I'm well aware that such fastidiousness wasn't typical of the Army, but then again, they weren't involved).  Can't say that about the Home Team after LeMay got involved.

Heck, most of those BBs were raised and shelled the hell out of Japanese-held islands in preparation for invasion.  My guess is that these resurrected ships themselves killed more Japanese than our deaths in the Pearl Harbor raid ...

And water boarding?  Well, that is a war crime.
Or was until we started doing it...

Date: 2008/08/24 11:54:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,15:51)
Why don't you tell them they are wasting their time and that you've in fact got it all solved already?

They are wasting their time.

There's not a shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible nexus, actual or hypothetical, between the trivial effects of random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms.

Just look at molecular motors.

Yeah, no evidence at all.

Funny how little minded folk can be so impressed by fancy diagrams and computer generated clips...

Date: 2008/08/24 11:56:15, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:16)
Don't you find posting more or less the same thing under different names is not really advancing the cause? Do you think people are going to read such blog posts and be convinced? You say it is so, and it is so?

I always post with my real name, except on Pharyngula.
PZ doesn't like me so he blocks my name and IP address (with no success, I might add.)

As a parent of 4 children and a teacher for 33 years, I don't underestimate the value of repeating the same thing over and over.
You just never know who is paying attention.

Teacher?  Oh my....

Date: 2008/08/24 11:56:59, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,16:35)
So, what happened then. According to you?

I don't have a clue...but neither do you.

Like everyone else, we just have to deal with being in the uncomfortable position of not knowing.


Date: 2008/08/24 11:59:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 15 2008,17:02)
Molecular motors – a lesson in nanotechnology from Nature
Roop Mallik

They are small, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, a thousandth of the thickness of human hair, but robust and designed for an amazing variety of functions. Science fiction? Think again … this is real, as real as flesh and blood !! If you can get your hands on a high school biology text book, flip through to the mandatory schematic of an animal cell. Look closely, what you will see is not a floppy bag with random things thrown in here and there. There is amazing structural organization within the cell, with several compartments (e.g. the nucleus, Golgi bodies, mitochondria) at specific locations. Many of these compartments are specialized “factories”, each with its own assembly line which requires specific raw material as input and generates specific products. A constant give-and-take of materials occurs within these factories, because each is dependent on the other. In the big picture of things this incessant exchange of material keeps the factories of the cell functioning, which in turn is what keeps us alive.

Read entire article:


Ah, the argument from metaphorical language and analogies!


Date: 2008/08/24 12:01:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 16 2008,16:26)
All algorithms are the result of intelligent input.

Well, you see, assertions and illogical syllogisms have got me totally convinced.

I mean, ALL algorithms are designed by intelligence totally proves it all, doesn't it?

How about only a conscious mind can produce information?  Like that one, too?

Date: 2008/08/24 12:08:29, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (charlie wagner @ Aug. 23 2008,12:54)
Even if you can concede the possibility of
the eye itself evolving, you would have to account for the concurrent
evolution of the bones of the head, the eye socket, etc, the muscles that
control the eye, the nerves that carry the images, the blood vessels that
supply the eye,  the biochemical reactions that make vision possible and the
cerebral cortex necessary to process the images. Evolutionary biologists
forget, sometimes, that all of an organism is integrated together, the parts
and processes are not separate. For one to "evolve", all must evolve and in
a manner that allows the parts to function together. This would require such
a fantastically large number of intermediate forms with various combinations
of "beneficial" mutations that it puts the whole concept of evolution well
beyond the reach of chance.

I see that your arrogance is inversely proportional to your khowledge of developmental genetics and the actions of genes.

Date: 2008/08/27 08:00:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2008,22:04)
Local control over schools seems to be the root of the problem. Local control is not something we'd accept in other important areas. Next time you're watching COPS, and a strangely high amount of the action seems to be taking place in Lowndes county, Georgia, ask yourself if you'd want a local citizen's council of real estate agents and retirees voting on how and on whom to use the nukes at nearby Moody AFB.

Exactly.  When I lived in Michigan, there was a school budget or bond vote that got a lot of attention (I don't remember the details).  The locals came out soundly against it - the main opposition was regarding a few thousand dollars for computers.  The local news covered it, and they interviewed some of the voters as they left the polls.  One chap in particular I remember plain as day - scruffy beard, missing some teeth, 'REDMAN' tobacco hat on - he voted no of course, and his rationale was that he "didn't have no computers" when he was growing up, and didn't see why 'these kids' needed them either...

Local control is a bad, bad idea.

Date: 2008/08/27 13:57:20, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,13:17)


Actually, it is very compressible if it is a DNA sequence, since codons (triplets of base pairs) code for only 22 possible states - start, stop, and twenty amino acids - even though the symbol set could accommodate 64. So the real measure of information in DNA is no more than 4.5 bits (log2 of 22) for every three base pairs, not 6 bits (log2 of 64).

Yes, but isn't the compression you write of 'conceptual' (I can't think of a better word)?
Sure, you can run a computer file through a compression algorithm and all that, but DNA is physical - more akin to trying to 'compress' a CD as opposed to the 'information' ON the CD, if my point is making any sense.


Message one's sequence codes for a protein.
Message two's contains junk DNA.

Does message 1 contain more information?

Difficult question. What you're asking is how much entropy (uncertainty) is there in the sequence of amino acids (our message set) in the proteins that make up the human proteome. Are some amino acids rarer than others? Are some amino acids sequences more likely than others? If the answer is yes, then the entropy of the source will be less than that of a source whose symbols have equal probability. That would reduce the information content from 4.5 bits per codon to something less.

Junk DNA, assuming it is not under selection pressure (else why would it be "junk"?), would be likely to accumulate mutations more rapidly than DNA related to the proteome, yes? Those mutations should help to "shuffle the deck" and over time one would expect the symbol set to drift toward equiprobability. (But never quite get there - equally random sequences of base pairs does not code for equally random sequences of amino acids.) So my guess is that yes, the junk DNA has more information (as defined by information theory) than DNA that codes for proteins.

OK, so while we are discussing hypotheticals, how about this one.

Two DNA sequences, both 1000 bps long, both identical with one exception - one sequence starts with TAA instead of TAC.
The 'functional sequence' has a measured information content of (just tossing out a number here to make it simple) 1000.
Would the non-functional sequence have a content of 999 or 0?

Date: 2008/08/28 11:06:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dogdidit @ Aug. 27 2008,17:24)

The OP spoke about using bits to encode the nucleotides:
Quote (goalpost @ Aug. 27 2008,12:21)
Both messages contain a human DNA sequence - ACGT etc etc, each letter coded as two bits, ie 00 = A, 01 = C, 10 = G, 11 = T. I was responding to that. I would agree that compressing functional DNA does not seem possible. Perhaps a very large steam press...


This has always sort of bugged me in these discussions - talk of compressability and information and DNA.  
OK, so while we are discussing hypotheticals, how about this one.

Two DNA sequences, both 1000 bps long, both identical with one exception - one sequence starts with TAA instead of TAC.
The 'functional sequence' has a measured information content of (just tossing out a number here to make it simple) 1000.
Would the non-functional sequence have a content of 999 or 0?

1000. That assumes a C is as likely as an A. Functionality ("semantic content") is irrelevant.

@Turncoat: yep, I am using Shannon's definition (and thanks for not mentioning my errors).

Interesting.  Funny - when I present IDcretos with similar scenarios, then get themselves into a tizzy and can never seem to even try to address the question.

Date: 2008/10/03 11:44:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 28 2008,08:54)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2008,00:53)
Whew. That review doesn't pull any punches.

Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn't simply evidence-free (although it is); it's borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery's authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. And, if there's any controversy, then students should apparently think twice before accepting that science actually knows anything about the evolution of life on earth.

Paul, will you guys ever stop lying? Seriously, is your long-dormant shame circuitry ever going to rewake and force you to retract all these fibs? You're doing wrong, Paul, and you need to get right.

Be sure to follow the link to the Schwabe paper. "Borderline deranged" is charitable. The paper is psychotic.

What sort of weird moon-man language was that written in?
Were NONE of his references checked by the reviewers?

Date: 2008/10/08 10:19:41, Link
Author: slpage
Does anyone know if Caroline Crocker's book about integrity in science has come out yet?

Also, it will be great fun to watch as Religulous surpasses 'Expelled' in earnings...

Date: 2008/10/08 10:25:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (BopDiddy @ Oct. 06 2008,16:45)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 06 2008,07:13)
I was going to register for Scordova's Young Cosmos, to link to my previous comment, but I couldn't figure it out. Then I noticed that the vast majority of the recent comments were by John A. Davison.

I must say, that while I think the claim of LOLing is a tad overused and overstated, I did, for the only the 2nd or 3rd time in my internet discussion forum career, actually laugh out loud when I saw that picture.

Date: 2008/11/07 07:54:32, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 05 2008,03:12)
The brain is a semi-liquid organ, always in motion, so live brains do indeed change themselves all the time.
Whoa!  I've heard the brain described as like jello, but "semi-liquid" is a first.  ..

Because it is stupidity akin to 'the internet is like a series of tubes.'

Date: 2008/12/23 08:17:39, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,13:17)
Odd thing is, he didn't even wait for my apology.  :p

Not odd at all.  That is what those people do.

Many years ago, I was in a similar situation on ARN.  An exceptionally smarmy and smug creationist had recently died, and in the ensuing Nixonization of him (all past misdeeds were forgotten, he was elevated to 'great man' status, etc.) was getting out of hand, I wouldn't play along.  We had gone back and forth well prior to his death about his claim that phylogenetics fails because it does not meet the "Kock rules."  He would never explain what he meant.  After his death, in the lament thread, I commented that now I'd never get to know how the 'Koch rules' applied to phylogenetics.  A number of indignant creationists complained to the ARN thugs, and I was sent an email by Paul Nelson explaining that folks were demanding my banning unless I apologized.  About 10 minutes after I got the 'warning' I went to ARN to apologize, and I was already banned.

I guess they like to be able to say that they came down from the mountain to give the poor heathen a chance.

Date: 2009/01/02 12:56:38, Link
Author: slpage
Who wrote this:

Berg essentially argues against selection using many examples from modern biological history.

I've also read recently, the excellent books "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton.

I also respect immensely Dr. John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, although I must admit, much of it is over my head.

I myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.  I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

Date: 2009/01/19 20:47:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

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

Date: 2009/01/21 10:34:51, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

“The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search”
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.

assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

So, I wonder who reviewed this 'paper'?

Date: 2009/01/21 10:36:44, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:27)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

Strange.  I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one.

Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received.

Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent.

Regarding publishing:  
both should be published later this year

So, does this esoteric exercise in circular reasoning by the Baylor ID lab have any application to real life?

Date: 2009/01/22 09:02:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,21:05)
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 19 2009,20:47)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Jan. 19 2009,11:43)
I was ready to rush right out (to and order a copy, but for some reason amazon knows nothing of Dr. Crocker's opus.

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

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

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

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

Looks like the same one.

That website has a different format - you can no longer email her directly.  Several months ago, when there was an email link, I emailed and asked her if she could tell the difference between a hyrax and a hyracotheium.  No reply...

I also noted on her whiny 'replies' link that she claims the things at Expelledexposed about her are wrong.

I especially liked this loaded phrase:

"· After having been banned from the GMU lecture hall..."

Due to the poor economy ( we lost about 1/4 of the worth of our endowment, apparently), we are pink slipping a number of adjuncts.  

Will it be correct for them to claim that because their contracts were not renewed that they have been 'banned'?

Date: 2009/02/09 19:01:50, Link
Author: slpage
Seems Axe penned an essay at the Biologic Institute, declaring Darwinism dead.

It was pwned at

Well, going to the source, it looks even worse (because I can actually read it).

I found the usual creationist sleight of hand trick:

Now, there are two important questions to be asked here. The first, which Durrett and Schmidt address, is the question of whether this kind of two-step conversion can evolve in a Darwinian fashion—and if so under what circumstances. The second, which they largely avoid, is the question of relevance to Darwin’s grand vision. That is, even if we knew these binding-site conversions to be feasible, would that give us any reason to think that the more profound conversions are feasible?

Axe is making a rather disingenuous extrapolation - that ALL of the steps of 'Darwin's grand vision' required at least the 'two-step conversion' process outlined int he artilce he refers to.
There is no rationale for this - he surely provides none.

As things stand, scientific caution dictates a ‘no’ answer to this second question.

Actually, intellectual honesty dictates that one would not have even asked that question.

The main reason is simply that converting one binding site to another accomplishes no significant structural reorganization, whereas transitions to new life forms would require radical structural reorganization.

Surely Doug Axe, molecular biologist, knows how development works? Does this fellow really think that all evolutionary processes are dictated by changes in binding sites?

By way of analogy, you might easily cause your favorite software to crash by changing a bit or two in the compiled executable file, but you can’t possibly convert it into something altogether different (and equally useful) by such a simple change, or even by a series of such changes with each version improving on the prior one. To get a substantially new piece of software, you would need to substantially re-engineer the original code knowing that your work wouldn’t pay off until it’s finished. Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this.

He is right about one thing - Darwinism just doesn’t have the patience for this sort of nonsense. Why use a tired analogy? Because an honest treatment doesn't accomplish what he wants.

Furthermore, returning to the first question, it seems that even humble binding-site conversions are typically beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. Durrett and Schmidt conclude that “this type of change would take >100 million years” in a human line [1], which is problematic in view of the fact that the entire history of primates is thought to be shorter than that [3].

Right, because all changes in evolution require a two-step process as described in the article.

It is a shame really - Axe at one time was about the only IDcreationist actually doing research. Now, apparently relaizing that hsi research is not demonstrating ID or Creation, is doing what all of these people end up doing - Egnor, Wells, Behe, etc. - writing op-ed pieces littered with logical fallacies and unwarranted extrapolations.


And one last thing - I have to wonder why Axe didn't mention this form the paper he refers to:

In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.

In fact, the more I read the paper by Durrett and Schmidt, the less honest I see Axe has become.

I guess that is what happens when you become a professional creationist

Date: 2009/02/10 11:11:15, Link
Author: slpage

Is Axe hoping that the sycophantery will not question his implicit claim that all evolutionary changes require two sequential mutations in a receptor gene?

Date: 2009/02/16 09:56:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain ( Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

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

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

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

Date: 2009/02/16 09:58:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 16 2009,07:18)
What a pathetic blog.

What pathetic posts.

Surprisingly, despite its simplicity, very little is known about Placozoa. But what we have been discovering recently is very interesting……

Is that the royal "we" Mike? Are you getting your hands dirty with actual research?

No, thought not.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see what sort of research is done at the van Andel institute.

Date: 2009/02/16 20:37:22, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,17:54)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 16 2009,17:29)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,15:01)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 16 2009,14:41)
Tardstorm warning!

Walter ReMine and his dratted Biotic Message have surfaced!
Batten down yer baramins!

You gotta love the reviews, from here.
"Apart from the Bible I've never been so enthralled by a book in all my life!"
Christopher Chaney, Horseheads, New York

Has he updated anything?  Or is this just a "buy my book!!" push for the same rancid horseshit he self-published over 15 years ago?

Apparently not..
In 1982 he began eleven years of laborious research, culminating in his treatise, The Biotic Message.
Copyright © 1997-2007 Saint Paul Science Inc., All Rights Reserved.

 So, he finished his "research" in 1991 and has been waiting 18 years for the "right moment" to publish :p

ReMine's  a creepy* self-promoting shyster.  Question his claims and he accuses you of "posturing."  Ask him to support a claim, he says it is "in my book."  If you read his book and point out something silly, like how he claims it takes more than 500,000 beneficial mutations to get a 'sapien from a simian', he accuses you of 'misrepresenting' him.  Make him a 'moderator' of a discussion board to entice him to stick around, and he makes Davescot look like a gentleman.

He's showed up on email groups (a ggogle Mormon gourp, and posing as 'fans' of himself, talking about himself in the third person, and when he gets caught, he just goes on as if nothing happened.

His monumental ego has garnered him a small legion of dimwitted followers, who are - lucky for him - ignorant of the issues involved in his claims and find him hero-like in his stature.

As far as Message "Theory" being testable and such, well, I wonder why he's not tested it.  There are no such tests in his book.

*I came across a weird google group several years ago - Laotian refugees or some such thing - while googling ReMine.  One of the people on the group, a young Laotian woman, had apparently rented an apartment from ReMine, who had left copies of his book out for her to see - opened to certain pages - and he would show up 'unexpectedly' to discuss it with her.  That was weird - but she actually seemd OK with it.  Which seemed weirder...

Date: 2009/02/16 20:41:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 16 2009,20:07)
All this made me go read Wikipedia's page on Haldane's Dilemma again. That page never looks the same from one visit to the next!

Reading the discussion panel was fun. Hilarious to see WalterR talk about himself in the third person.

Isn't that weird?  Who talks about themsleves in the third person, besides that nutjob on Seinfeld (Jimmy)?

it is bad enough that ReMine does this when he is pretending to be someone else, to do it while you sign your own name is just plain odd.

He also seems to practically live on that Wiki page.  Musn't let anyone correct his errors or point out his ignorance.

Date: 2009/02/16 21:30:26, Link
Author: slpage
Oh, those internets...

I think I just discovered a keen way to argue against ReMine's claims - by using his own words!

ReMine wrote in 2002:

Let me again emphasize the key point.  Haldane's Dilemma puts a limit on the rate of beneficial substitution. It places no limit whatever on the rate of non-beneficial substitution -- substitutions that are harmful, neutral, or inert (i.e. unexpressed). These changes are abundant in nature, and extremely rapid. For example, x-ray a population and watch the "genetic diversity" rapidly increase. In these ways, "genetic diversity" can arise extremely rapidly, and that does not lessen the problem of Haldane's Dilemma. They are largely separate issues.

Well, OK - most of the mutations producing phenotypic changes that lead to human evolution from an ape-like ancestor were NOT beneficial.  Simple as that.

Date: 2009/02/26 14:39:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 16 2009,20:25)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,10:08)
Quote (slpage @ Feb. 16 2009,09:56)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,07:02)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 16 2009,01:26)
I also notice that Mike Gene's IDthink page at his publisher's site comes up:

"SUSPENDED: This Domain ( Has Been Disabled"

Maybe someone hasn't been paying the bills?

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

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

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

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

I am not a librarian, but I am reasonably sure that Arborvitae Publishing only planned to publish one book: The Design Matrix.  The web site of this publisher is down but you can access its old pages via Wayback Machine:*/
The web site was created shortly before the intended release of the book (Fall 2006) and folded shortly after the actual release (November 2007).

Sounds a lot like the 'publisher' of ReMine's book..

Where the 'publisher' just happened to use the same email address that ReMine did...

Date: 2009/03/26 09:05:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 24 2009,11:00)
How many times has Joe suggested physical confrontation to someone an ID or evolution board?

I don't know, but I may have been among the first.  I guess it must have been about 8-9 years ago on the old OCW forum.  He was his usual self, and a few of us had put him in his place on the issues and we all know that little Joey don't like that.

He posted my full name and my home address in a post, and later wrote that he might be passing through, and that "not everyone goes to Vermont to ski".

It came up again on NAIG shortly thereafter, and I'd had enough. We only live a few hours apart, and spring break was coming up, so I told him to give me a time and a place, and I'd be there.  He was suddenly too busy to post for about a week, and on the last day of my spring break, when the thread was about to scroll off the board, he makes a post boasting an 'anytime' sort of thing, then later claimed that I had chickened out.

He later 'challeneged' Chris Seibold and Robert R., and who knows who else, and I know dates and places had been discussed for at least a couple of people - Chris showed up at the agreed to time and place, Joey didn't, but he later claimed to have been there waiting (but could not accuratley describe anything at the venu) - or was that Blipey?  Or has that happened on more than one occasion?
I stopped interacting with him shortly thereafter, but I can only imagine how many times he's done this.

He's a classic internet bully/punk - talks tough when he knows there is little chance of actual confrontation, shows himself to be a big talking pussy when his bluff is called.

As an aside - he did also write of having had back surgery and to have re-injured himself in Iraq (I guess digging latrines is hard work).  Just mentioning a choice target and an obvious handicap, just in case... :p

Date: 2009/03/26 09:10:35, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,02:55)
Oh dear.  Clive is annoyed  

Clive Hayden


5:20 pm


“And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.”

Prove it. I know you quoted it, but if you endorse it, then prove this charge if you maintain that it is true. Otherwise, you are getting personal and invoking a self-styled motive to paint Remine and all other Creationists with a wide brush. If you cannot prove this charge, then this quote of yours belongs in the scrap heap of ego-maniacal evolutionist rants. And that is exactly where it will go if you cannot prove it.

So Pendulum swings into action



6:19 pm

Clive, please don’t apply this standard even-handedly. If bornagain77 has to prove genetic entropy every time he quotes Sanford, we’ll be here forever! Just ask Allen if he read the frickin’ book, and if he says no, delete the comment.

Which does bring us back to the issue of blog entry as advertising tease. If Message Theory doesn’t put in a timely appearance, we should all ask for these posts to be filed in the Memory Hole. My 2d.

Oh - Alan quoted my ReMine review!  I'm all aflutter...

Date: 2009/03/26 09:17:35, Link
Author: slpage
I also liked how crazy Joey the 'electronics engineer' (i.e., radio repairman) claims that all that needs to be done to refute ReMine is to, in effect, demonstrate the opposite..

And does anyone else wonder how many sets of kneepads Sally Cordova must go through when he attends YEC conventions?

Date: 2009/03/26 10:36:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 26 2009,10:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2009,09:38)
Interlibrary loan works. I requested "The Biotic Message", and got Notre Dame University's copy. I was the first person to check it out from them, too...

ETA: Later on, I found a used signed copy of "The Biotic Message" that I added to my collection of religious antievolution literature. I also have a copy of "The Genesis Flood" signed by Whitcomb.

I read ReMine's chapter on Haldane's Dilemma and his paper on  "Cost Theory" which he tried to publish in  The Journal of Theoretical Biology, but got frustrated when the reviewers failed to see how it contributed anything to what was already known, and ended up publishing in ICR's Technical Journal. I think it's no more than a trivial exercise in algebra.


I think Felsenstein's review is most notable - not just in what he actually wrote, but in the clearly dishonest way that ReMine characterized the reviews in general.

Felsenstein's review is available on the web (he got tired of the embellishments ReMine was giving himself via the reviews) - he notes the non-academic (i.e., unprofessional) style and the fact that it's math is correct, but irrelevant.

Hey KC - email me when you get a chance (I've lost your email address...)

Date: 2009/03/26 10:40:52, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 26 2009,09:27)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 26 2009,10:10)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2009,02:55)
Oh dear.  Clive is annoyed    

Clive Hayden


5:20 pm


“And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.”

Prove it. I know you quoted it, but if you endorse it, then prove this charge if you maintain that it is true. Otherwise, you are getting personal and invoking a self-styled motive to paint Remine and all other Creationists with a wide brush. If you cannot prove this charge, then this quote of yours belongs in the scrap heap of ego-maniacal evolutionist rants. And that is exactly where it will go if you cannot prove it.

So Pendulum swings into action



6:19 pm

Clive, please don’t apply this standard even-handedly. If bornagain77 has to prove genetic entropy every time he quotes Sanford, we’ll be here forever! Just ask Allen if he read the frickin’ book, and if he says no, delete the comment.

Which does bring us back to the issue of blog entry as advertising tease. If Message Theory doesn’t put in a timely appearance, we should all ask for these posts to be filed in the Memory Hole. My 2d.

Oh - Alan quoted my ReMine review!  I'm all aflutter...

Many props to you for reading it.

Is there a research library of "literature" like this? Somewhere scholars can access the original sources without paying loons like ReMine?

I must say, to avoid putting money in that charlatan's pocket, I got an inter-library loan rather than buying it.

As far his his refs, any good overview of population genetics covers them all, or most of them.  Of course, his book is now 13 or so years old, and he claims that he took 12 years to write it, so his sources are pretty out of date (i.e., the book would nto contain the many, mnay newer publications on the subject), and he just sings the same old tune anyway.

Date: 2009/03/26 10:47:48, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2009,09:38)
Interlibrary loan works. I requested "The Biotic Message", and got Notre Dame University's copy. I was the first person to check it out from them, too...

ETA: Later on, I found a used signed copy of "The Biotic Message" that I added to my collection of religious antievolution literature. I also have a copy of "The Genesis Flood" signed by Whitcomb.

I got Dartmouth's.  I was the second person to sign it out, and the front cover had a stamp indicating that it was a gift.  I don't recall now who it was a gift from, but at the time, I recognized it as a lower-level creationism activist.

Also of note, it is interesting tha ReMine left a whiny post on ARN a few years ago in which he accused evolutionist writers of engaging in all sorts of untoward antics in their writings to make their case seem more impressive than it is.  One of the things he claimed was the extensive use of jargon, and using multiple citations for non-controversial issues while offering no support for their controversial claims to lull the reader into complacency.  I easily documented HIM doing exactly that in that review:


He uses quote after quote - sometimes incorrectly, as in his quote of Van Valen on p. 219 - to support non-controversial subjects. For example, he uses 14 citations to support his statement that under Haldane’s model, one gene per 300 generations can be substituted (p. 216). This is not in dispute. But how many citations does ReMine supply for this:

“Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?”

Ignore for now the clumsy prose, and look at what he is asking/saying. He is implying that 1,667 changes - in a genome of ~30-40,000 genes - is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. Never mind that he does not identify the ancestor, so he has no way of knowing what changes have to be accounted for. But he is saying that more - many more (he mentions “500,000 selectively significant nucleotides” on p. 209, implying that even this is far too few; odd considering the size of the genic portion of the genome) are ‘necessary’. THAT deserves some support - science by quote, if you will. And if you have or have read the book, tell us how many quotes ReMine provides to support this implication.

None. Not one.

This antic is repeated throughout the book

Date: 2009/03/26 10:49:37, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2009,10:14)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2009,10:08)

I understand you are a retired airline pilot.


I thought Joe worked for GE, which means it is possible that he was a jet engine technician.

If he worked for GE, it was for far less than 10 years, for when I first encountered him, he worked assome sort of technician for an electronics firm in Maynard, MA.

Date: 2009/03/26 11:06:08, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2009,10:58)
I seem to recall googling him after one of his memorable outburts and finding his Linkedin profile that indicated he worked at GE.  But that was a while ago, so I could be wrong.
Of course, he lists his affliation here as GE.

Could be his affiliation with GE is like Dembski's with Princeton...

Date: 2009/03/26 11:14:17, Link
Author: slpage
Sycophantic Sally at UD
7:58 am
Nice to see you!
If you were not aware of it, one of your key claims in Biotic Message regarding Haldane’s Dilemma has been unwittingly affirmed by an National Academy of Sciences member, Masotoshi Nei. Nei affirms the truthfulness of Haldane’s dilemma in his paper Selecitonism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution.
Your critics have attacked your use of Haldane’s dilemma to defend Message Theory. Ian Musgrave, Nuny, etc. might consider making retractions in light of these developments.
I would highly recommend discussing Nuny and Jody Hey’s work. I think your work on population genetics might help get readers more interested in the details of message theory.
I became interested in message theory because of your exposition on Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection and the work of Motoo Kimura.
For the reader’s benefit, and because Walter might be too modest to highlight this fact, the book Genetic Entropy by Cornell’s renowned genetic engineer, John Sanford, was inspired by Message Theory!

Wow… Where to begin?  
First, Nei’s paper does nothing of the sort.
Were Nei to ‘affirm the truthfulness of Haldane’s dilemma’, there would first have to have been a dilemma.  “Haldane’s dilemma” was not Haldane’s model, it was a term coined by an individual who believed that Haldane’s model did not allow for the “necessary” amount of mutational change (an amount never actually identified) to account for the evolution of large, slowly reproducing mammals.  The term was coined at a time when it was believed that the human genome contained more than 100,000 genes.
ReMine’s use of Haldane’s “dilemma” was to declare that under the assumptions of this model, no more than 1,667 beneficial mutations could have been fixed in the lineage leading to humans from its split with a common ancestor some 10 million years ago, and that this is too few to account for human evolution.  ReMine never explained why it is too few, he just knows and wants us all to believe that it is.  I submit that it is premised on his religion-based anthropocentrism and human chauvinism, and nothing more – for surely, if evolution happened (and of course, ReMine ‘knows’ it didn’t), there would have to be many, many, many more such mutations that separate us from the apes.  Apparently.  But ReMine never even tries to tell us why, certainly not in any scientific sense.  He instead employs cheesy prose and rhetoric.

On to Nei’s paper and the ‘truthfulness’ of ‘Haldane’s dilemma…

I suspect Cordova hangs his hat on this passage:

“This justifies Haldane’s theory of cost of natural selection and supports Kimura’s argument for the neutral theory of molecular evolution.”

Well, the first part of it, anyway.
But Nei makes an interesting justification for his criticism of Kimura:

“In practice, the unit of selection should be a gene or an amino acid, because noncoding regions of DNA are largely irrelevant to the evolution of proteins and organisms.”

Hmmm…. I wonder if Cordova and ReMine agree with that?  Noncoding regions can be regulatory in nature, and while changes to them may not alter protein structure, they most certainly can influence phenotype, and how Nei would not know this is a mystery.  Altering, for example, the timing or extent of expression of a developmental regulatory gene would certainly affect the organism as a whole.

But anyway, back to the ‘truthfulness’ of Haldane’s dilemma..

Nei takes for granted the constraints and criteria of Haldane’s model, regardless of whether or not they are truly realistic.  Here is one example:

“In other words, for a gene substitution to occur in a population of constant size every individual
should produce on average more than one offspring…”

Note the requirement that the population remain at a constant size.  When this requirement is removed, the ‘cost’ of natural selection essentially disappears.  Why this requirement is taken for granted is a mystery to me.
We should also note that Nei states openly in his introduction that since he has played a role in this, that his take is biased (he apparently favors a pro-Haldane approach, at least in the part of the paper Cordova skimmed).

Anyway, one will note that Cordova completely ignored Nei’s statement that the neutral theory is also supported – meaning that selectionism is NOT the sole arbiter of evolution, so Haldane’s dilemma is NOT the sole sieve through which evolution of humans should be viewed, even if we are to accept that Haldane’s model is 100% accurate, precise, and universally applicable.

Some other interesting indications in Nei’s paper:
-The biological definition of “neutral” is more useful than the statistical one (i.e., the observed effects of a mutation that does not produce a selectable difference in phenotype is more relevant than applying an abstract mathematical formula to the mutations)

-The abstract mathematical treatments of neutrality and costs of selection of individual loci “never occur in natural populations” (i.e., appending selection coefficients and the like to individual genes devoid of their genomic and organismal context is not justified)

-Despite initial resistance and apparently conflicting evidence, ultimately the data indicated that in fact the neutral theory is the ‘null hypothesis’ of molecular evolution (i.e, most mutation is selectively neutral, only those mutations that become subject to selection are therefore not neutral – seems a bit of a tautology, then, tautologies are by definition true!)

In the end, I think Cordova’s drooling sycophantery is indicative of the level of scrutiny that creationism/Intelligent Design acolytes and cheerleaders apply to their sources and the level of true understanding of the issues these people possess.  I submit  that Cordova likely discovered this paper by doing a keyword search, not by engaging in any sort of scholarly literature review, for his conclusions are not justified by the actual content of the paper, and it is fairly obvious that there are a few phrases and sentences that, devoid of context, would seem to support Cordova’s position.

What is worse for Cordova, the ‘support’ for Haldane’s “dilemma” seems to be mentioned more in passing than anything else – after discussing the ‘cost of natural selection’ in the first section of the paper, Nei then goes on for some 40-odd pages discussing the evidence supporting neutral theory, positive and negative selection, and data indicating the selection of beneficial mutations.  Funny, is it not, that none of this seemed important enough to Cordova to even mention?

Having encountered Cordova before, I know what sorts of argumentation he employs to prop up his positions.  They are shallow, naïve, and simplistic, but presented with unyielding confidence.  Which makes it more likely, in my experience, that those even less informed than Cordova will be impressed by his presentation.

Date: 2009/03/26 19:32:58, Link
Author: slpage
I left this at her blog:

Your comment is awaiting moderation

slpage Says: .

March 27, 2009 at 12:20 am | Reply
Hi Lisa,

You wrote on Sandwalk:

“The genetic evidence is spurious as well.”

I’d hate to think I wasted 5 years in graduate school producing 9 publications while generating about a quarter million nucleotides worth of DNA sequence data for analysis.
Other than conspiracy theories, what do you have?

Further, the Table of Contents in your book lists this, Chapter 5:

Concocting Genetic Clues
46 Evolution’s Timepiece
47 Phylogenetics: The Guessing Game
48 The Holey Trees
49 Defective Corrections

My graduate research was on the molecular phylogeny of primates. You appear to be accusing me - and those who do this type of research - of something very sinister. If you truly believe that phylogenetics is a “guessing game”, then I should like to see your evidence for this. I will not buy your book, that is for sure, but I do hope that you have the confidence in your ‘research’ to supply the evidence for these apparent accusations.

Here is one of my papers:

Please demonstrate my errors. Show the “spurious” genetics.


Scott L. Page, PhD.

Considering that it is 'in moderation', I have a feelig it will never see the light of day...

Date: 2009/03/29 11:21:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 26 2009,19:48)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 26 2009,19:32)
I left this at her blog:

Your comment is awaiting moderation

slpage Says: .

March 27, 2009 at 12:20 am | Reply
Hi Lisa,

You wrote on Sandwalk:

“The genetic evidence is spurious as well.”

I’d hate to think I wasted 5 years in graduate school producing 9 publications while generating about a quarter million nucleotides worth of DNA sequence data for analysis.
Other than conspiracy theories, what do you have?

Further, the Table of Contents in your book lists this, Chapter 5:

Concocting Genetic Clues
46 Evolution’s Timepiece
47 Phylogenetics: The Guessing Game
48 The Holey Trees
49 Defective Corrections

My graduate research was on the molecular phylogeny of primates. You appear to be accusing me - and those who do this type of research - of something very sinister. If you truly believe that phylogenetics is a “guessing game”, then I should like to see your evidence for this. I will not buy your book, that is for sure, but I do hope that you have the confidence in your ‘research’ to supply the evidence for these apparent accusations.

Here is one of my papers:

Please demonstrate my errors. Show the “spurious” genetics.


Scott L. Page, PhD.

Considering that it is 'in moderation', I have a feelig it will never see the light of day...

I think your comment is much more likely to lead to her investigating the absorption powers of Depends, and I will bet you Dembski's famous single-malt bottle of scotch that your moderation is permanent.


Good comment, thanks, good to have you here.

Well, the moderation was not permanent - it was the next best thing - 'buy my book and you'll have your answer.'

Date: 2009/03/31 09:41:28, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 14 2009,18:42)

You make a good point; at least Genie isn't actively trying to get tard into the public schools. He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence.

Nice review.  I took note of this:

Gene relates an anecdote that, according to him, shows that ID inferences are not scientific dead ends; they can act as a "research guide". This is his "prediction" that proofreading also occurs during transcription. He predicted it from a teleological standpoint, and it turned out to be experimentally verifiable.

My jaw dropped.  

He relayed this anecdote years and years ago on ARN, before I was banned for the third time.  I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.


As I had written then, Gene's 'prediction' was written about after a discussion on translational proofreading had occurred on ARN.  When he talked about his 'telic prediction' being borne out by (other people's) research, I noted that when doing a search on Pubmed for 'proofreading', the paper he cited came up.  It also came up searching 'translation proofreading' and any other combination of relevant terms.  I asserted that he had simply seen that paper during the course of the previous discussions, and either purposefully or maybe subconsciously used it to formulate a "prediction" to impress the rubes.

Other than 'Nyuh-uh!', he never really had any sort of explanation for how it just happened to occur to him after a discussion on translational proofreading...
I am too cynical to think the two were unconnected.

That he put that in his book is just...  wow...

As for "He's still a conclusion-begging sanctimonious wanker who hides his theological bias with a smokescreen of sciency-sounding blather, and apparently thinks that analogies are evidence."  

I'm happy that I am not the only one who has concluded this...

Date: 2009/03/31 09:56:45, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,14:17)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 30 2009,14:14)
Clive stands up to Davison:

No childish name calling will be tolerated here John. I’m serious. And secondly, the merits of the arguments stand or don’t stand on their own. You’re welcome to demand no anonymity on your own blog, you’re not welcome to demand it here as a prerequisite to commenting. Let this be a warning.


Clive, part-time and very selective moderator.

Surely you've seen the sophistic and self-congratulatory gibberish that he and mynym spew on his blog....

Being a psychologist and all, how can his amazing powers of insight be wrong?

Date: 2009/03/31 10:40:50, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2009,17:44)
Sig worthy?:  
bfast (#48):

Thank you for mentioning those interesting news. Obviously, I have never believed in all those goofy attempts of the official academy to cover the embarassing truth of the Ediacara and Cambrian explosions with all kinds of unlikely theories. That is only evidence of how uncomfortable they are with those realities.

And if, in the opinion of JayM, I am “misrepresenting the mainstream view”, I am very happy and proud of that.

And yes, this (like many other things) is MAJOR evidenciary support for ID!

-from gpuccio

Well, bfast has never been one to be very concerned about truth or honesty.  Or sense or intelligence.

But hey - he's a YEC with an engineering background.  He is always right.

Date: 2009/03/31 10:45:11, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2009,10:26)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 31 2009,09:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2009,14:17)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 30 2009,14:14)
Clive stands up to Davison:

No childish name calling will be tolerated here John. I’m serious. And secondly, the merits of the arguments stand or don’t stand on their own. You’re welcome to demand no anonymity on your own blog, you’re not welcome to demand it here as a prerequisite to commenting. Let this be a warning.


Clive, part-time and very selective moderator.

Surely you've seen the sophistic and self-congratulatory gibberish that he and mynym spew on his blog....

Being a psychologist and all, how can his amazing powers of insight be wrong?

He has his *own* blog?

If he's country shrink....

Date: 2009/04/26 16:26:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ April 24 2009,08:15)
Veteran Joe watchers:  Have you heard this?
BTW I was a staunch evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the scientific data while studying to be a zoologist/marine biologist.

If so -- details, please!

I guess that was before he decided to go to electronics engineering (i.e., technician) school.

I have heard that line so often ('I used ot be an evo until I did research') that I typically do not read past the "I used to be an evo..." part.  Each and EVERY time I have heard or read someone make that claim, it has turned out to be completely false.

Joe Gallien was never studying to be anything other than a technician wannabe.

Date: 2009/05/07 07:43:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (keiths @ May 07 2009,00:02)
Sal Cordova:
The geneology of Christ might have some support from the work of Cornell Geneticist John Sanford. I wouldn’t write his work off just yet. He too, used to be an atheist.


Yes, of course Sanford used to be an atheist, and somehow, he suddenly became a YEC.

Because of all the evidence from jebus, I guess.

Why do they tell such lies all the time?

Date: 2009/05/12 12:09:49, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 11 2009,09:29)
On the Walter Remine thread, Ray Martinez has a classic comment.  
Evolutionist Scott L. Page has a review posted at Amazon. He points out that you support undisputed claims ad naseum but fail to support disputed claims.

I haven’t read your book but I can tell that Page has made a careless blunder or deliberate misrepresentation. Knowing evolutionists, I am quite confident that the latter is true.

It would appear that Ray did not bother to read my review, either:

After encountering ReMine on the internet on several occasions, I decided to read this book of his that he and lay creationists laud as the best thing written on the subject. After reading some of the reviews here, I must say that at first I thought I had read a different book. From an author who "knows what he is talking about"? He "pulls no punches yet he is not rude"?
First off, ReMine is not "Dr.ReMine". He has a master's degree in engineering.
Second, if you want to consider the fact that he accuses evolutionary biologists of colluding to hide the 'truth about Haldane's dilemma' for more than 40 years, and repeatedly referring to evolutionist 'storytelling', is not being 'rude', so be it.
The substance of this volume is not in his use of quotes - which his 'customer service rep' told me via email is how some of the "best science" is done - but in his lack of them.

He uses quote after quote - sometimes incorrectly, as in his quote of Van Valen on p. 219 - to support non-controversial subjects. For example, he uses 14 citations to support his statement that under Haldane's model, one gene per 300 generations can be substituted (p. 216). This is not in dispute. But how many citations does ReMine supply for this:

"Think about it again. Is 1,667 selectively significant nucleotides enough to make a sapien out of a simian?"

Ignore for now the clumsy prose, and look at what he is asking/saying. He is implying that 1,667 changes - in a genome of ~30-40,000 genes - is too few to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor. Never mind that he does not identify the ancestor, so he has no way of knowing what changes have to be accounted for. But he is saying that more - many more (he mentions "500,000 selectively significant nucleotides" on p. 209, implying that even this is far too few; odd considering the size of the genic portion of the genome) are 'necessary'. THAT deserves some support - science by quote, if you will. And if you have or have read the book, tell us how many quotes ReMine provides to support this implication.

None. Not one.

This antic is repeated throughout the book - citations galore supportive of non-controversial facts, no citations at all supportive of his 'Biotic Message' fluff.

ReMine says over and over that this or that in fact supports his 'theory'. He says over and over that his 'theory' is "robust", "testable", and "scientific." Readers and accolade-heapers should ask themselves - If this is true, why did not ReMine provide a single test? Why did not ReMine provide some real-life examples of the application of his 'theory'? What he did was lay out - usually in a demeaning way - some aspect of evolution and claim that it actually - magically - supports his 'theory', not evolution!

And, more importantly, one should wonder why ReMine's amazing 'theory' can only be read about in his vanity press book? Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as "John Woodmorappe", not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

This book belongs on the scrap heap of egomaniacal creationist rants.

Date: 2009/05/12 12:14:13, Link
Author: slpage
It is also interesting to note that cvomments are turned off in that ReMine thread now.

Old Wally just can't change his stripes, I guess.

Date: 2009/05/15 10:16:34, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 12 2009,14:32)
Quote (slpage @ May 12 2009,12:14)
It is also interesting to note that cvomments are turned off in that ReMine thread now.

Old Wally just can't change his stripes, I guess.

I have a comment window, though I don't care to comment there.  It may be that nobody else cares about ReMine either.

Yeah, I was surprised at how few pro-ID comments are in the ReMine trifecta.

Date: 2009/05/18 12:21:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 18 2009,09:26)
Quote (KCdgw @ May 18 2009,09:05)
Joe G is brave:

Balad, Iraq March 2004.
I think I was trying to prove one can outrun an RPG

Adel DiBagno is impressed (or sarcastic):

We are all in your debt for your service to our country.
A debt we can never repay.


Joe Gallien (Joe G) is a bullshit artist who has floating this "I was wounded fighting in Iraq" lie for years.

When pressed on the details, turns out he was never in the military.  He spent a month or so there as a contractor, and somehow hurt his back in a totally benign manner, lifting something the wrong way.

It steams me no end to see this chickenshit dishonor the real men and women who fought for our country and who were wounded or killed there.  :angry:

Funny - he was mentioning his hurt back well before he supposeldy went to Iraq.  He mentioned it wayyyyy back on the old OCW forum probably 7 or 8 years ago - claimed that his prayers helped it heal.

Date: 2009/06/19 13:09:10, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 19 2009,12:50)
Reading the discussion has made me reconsider Wesley's earlier suggestion that you guys build a better program. It might be a way of collecting your observations.

However, if "Mendle's Accountant Cooked the Books," Sanford et al will merely claim that your new program has predetermined its answer.

And from what I have seen, he would then just be projecting.

I am still wondering why they think that constraining the outcomes to a constant population size is biolgically realistic.

Date: 2009/06/23 19:06:44, Link
Author: slpage
"... only sort of cause known to produce information."

Ah, the old arument via analogy.

I'm sure that is gold to the Heritage Foundation crowd...

Date: 2009/06/23 19:10:47, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Steve Schaffner @ June 19 2009,13:33)
Quote (slpage @ June 19 2009,13:09)
I am still wondering why they think that constraining the outcomes to a constant population size is biolgically realistic.

It's a feature of many population genetics models. It has the advantage of being simple. How accurate it is depends a lot on what organism you're looking at.

Of course, there's a big difference between using models to analyze how particular aspects of evolution work and trying to model the entire process well enough to say whether it can occur.

Which is sort of my point.  Their claim is that this is state of the art and realsitic, yet they appear to have employed certain parameters for simplicity rather than realism.

Constant population size is one of my pet peeves with Haldane's model as well.

Date: 2009/06/23 19:13:09, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Henry J @ June 19 2009,16:16)
Of course, there's a big difference between using models to analyze how particular aspects of evolution work and trying to model the entire process well enough to say whether it can occur.

Well, that's just being picky! :p

But yeah, if populate size is allowed to go way up, then the simulation would have to deal with food shortages (i.e., fitness would drop across the board if population gets too large for the food supply).


I don't mean just allowing it to grow willy nilly - that is not realistic, either.  But if they want to claim 'most realistic' then it seems to me employing non-universal constraints negates that claim.

I also gather that while deleterious mutations are allowed to accumulate and not reduce, that beneficials are allowed to be lost.  Is that correct?

Date: 2009/07/19 17:48:17, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (silverspoon @ July 17 2009,22:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 17 2009,14:11)
Vintage Joe G from the Tardmines:

I wish I still had links where Joe G. (AKA John Paul) wrote he would accept a reptile with hooves as a TRUE transitional, and where he once told me the gas planets like Jupiter & Saturn were put there by the designer so Earth would be protected from asteroids and comets. I really miss his YEC arguments. Speaking of which, check out this where he was a contributor to a YEC website.

Ah, Luke Randall, molecular biologist creationist.  The grand poobah who once declared that humans have "3 billion codons" and when I corrected him, he deigned to declare that I should learn some biology before daring to do so again, lest he make me regret my ignorance...

Date: 2009/10/15 07:16:36, Link
Author: slpage
"Rather than debate the science, Darwinists try to suppress it. They simply can't stand to let people know the truth about the shoddy case for Darwinian evolution."

This from a guy who sees no problem with Jonny Wells REFUSING to test his claims re: molecular phylogenetics with real data.

The hypocrisy just oozes from these creeps.

Date: 2009/12/04 13:56:50, Link
Author: slpage
A 'hero'?


What an asshole....

Date: 2010/03/02 14:24:54, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Date: 2010/03/03 10:23:06, Link
Author: slpage
never mind

Date: 2010/03/04 11:30:05, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:35)

BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species".

But not in editions 1-5?


IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory.


Is it your opinion that non-IDC claims (i.e., evolutionary claims) can make it into textbooks without having to have gone through the 'normal' process of having had been vetted through the peer-review process and been considered established science first?

Date: 2010/03/04 11:33:24, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:37)
Read the commentary here

You refer to a commentary by a computer technician creationist with a documented history of distorting facts?


Date: 2010/03/04 11:43:05, Link
Author: slpage
I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile(sic) thereof, is just an illusion?

What success is that?

What Design has been detected in biological entities using the EF that does not rely on using analogies as the foundational basis?

Date: 2010/03/08 11:03:25, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 07 2010,10:58)
Upright Biped -

Upright BiPed


1:24 am

Note to self:

Education cannot kill rationality. I refuse to believe it. There are too many who are a contradiction to the idea. So, what can? What is the force that binds such educated people to utter stupidity?

Let me know when I find out.

I engaged Upright Biped on HuffPo a few months ago.  He comes across like a whiny spolied brat.  You show he is wrong about something and he claims you are 'incivil' then runs off declaring victory.

Date: 2010/03/09 11:56:04, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (REC @ Mar. 08 2010,12:01)
JohnnyB should really outline his arguments before presenting them:

Johnny B uis one of the multitude of YECs who is not as bright as we wants to think he is.

he, after all, thinks thata decorated pig carved onto the wall of a temple in Cambodia is 'proof' that stegasaurs roamed with people

Date: 2010/03/11 13:03:36, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:31)
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 02 2010,14:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

So, an aardvark only 202 characters?

Didn't Berlinski count 50,000 character differences between cows and whales?

Dr Page proves he is an imbecile.

The definition of an aarvark only has that many characters.

Are you that stupid that you can't even understand what I post?

Do you realize that 13 year olds understand what you cannot?

Hi Joey,

I see that you - being a scientist and all, what with your degree in electronics engineering - can only respond in  that oh so Christian (or is it still Muslim?) spirit.

You see, Berlinski claimed to have gotten to 50,000 characters that seperate whales from camels.  You got a mere 202 characters that 'define' an aardvark.  

If there are more than 50,000 differences between a whale and a cow, surley there are many more than define each species.

So, this must mean that whales have at the very least nearly 250 times as many characters as aardvarks.

Does that sound right?

Which one of you is correct?

Date: 2010/03/11 13:05:19, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,09:37)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2010,09:34)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:51)
In the post "Measuring Information/ specified complexity" I used the definition of an aarvark as an example of how to measure specified information to see if complex specified information is present.

And what was the value you determined for the amount of information in a Aardvark?

And is that more or less then the information in a bacterial flagellum?

Do you really think your ignorance helps your case?

Even if ID is bunk you still couldn't support your position.

I take that bothers you.

Your response does not in any way appear to remotely address what had been asked of you.

Was your combat wound in Iraq to yiour head?

And why was it not on the news?

Date: 2010/03/11 13:07:23, Link
Author: slpage
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:11)
There isn't any data which demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans.

Is there any evidence that this can be accomplished by a disembodied unknown "intelligence"?