AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: socle

form_srcid: socle

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 184.73.87.85

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: socle

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/08/20 01:57:39, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 20 2009,01:41)
I notice the number of comments on the Dembski Pro-ID Article post has slipped from 10 to 9. Anyone know which comment was the offender?

(FWIW current comments are from: Indium, David v Squatney, Sal Gal x 2, Dembski, Learned Hand, Dembski, ppb, Dembski)

Must be noted scholar's post that's gone missing.   :p

Date: 2009/08/30 13:22:44, Link
Author: socle
Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":
   
Quote

The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design.

Not only the act itself, but also the various methods by which the act was accomplished. MEs don’t ask just “was a murder committed,” but rather, “how did this person die?” An ME’s report that could not connect the cause of death with the proposed method of murder would not be credible in court, or otherwise. This makes it a poor analogy to ID, which rejects any attempt to analyze the methods and techniques of design.

A more analogous situation, although still strained, would be a mathematician or computer scientist arriving at an incident scene that has already been thoroughly studied and well-documented by trained professionals, who unanimously concluded that death was by natural causes. Having given the scene a cursory examination, the new arrival declares that the death could not possibly have occurred by natural causes, but that she has no idea how the murder was committed, and she will not attempt to find out. Moreover, she announces, the investigators who preceded her are moral monsters whose materialism caused the Holocaust. Few professionals would take this conclusion seriously.

Date: 2009/09/06 12:26:00, Link
Author: socle
Clive:
 
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Date: 2009/09/06 21:51:47, Link
Author: socle
Gil:
 
Quote


Clive:
Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,
Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

LOL  Oops.

Date: 2009/09/09 11:17:46, Link
Author: socle
Dembski:
   
Quote
In case you missed this blog (and now that The Brites are no longer in existence):


http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com

Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Date: 2009/09/16 14:09:51, Link
Author: socle
Wow.  For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
     
Quote

Or maybe more than a billion, Clive?

Many people who live in technologically advanced societies do not realize how much violence against women in many poor societies is driven by food shortages. Including female infanticide, dowry burns, widow burnings, etc.

When anyone, male or female, can get a paying job and buy lots of food, prejudice against females tends to wane. It just doesn’t matter that much whether your family added a boy or a girl, because either sex can get a job in a technologically advanced society.

Maybe not the same job, but a job that buys food. So … ?

"So ... ?"? 

Then it all goes pear-shaped:
Quote

Of course, we then get issues around obesity, but that’s choice, not desperation.

Investor tip: Invest in health clubs in nations where health gurus are screaming about excess fatness.


WTF?

Date: 2009/09/19 11:40:14, Link
Author: socle
Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.

Date: 2009/10/09 23:16:55, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Touchstone @ Oct. 09 2009,10:19)
Just getting around to reading this trainwreck of a thread, I'm struck by Dembski's finish to this comment:

     
Quote
If so, why not cheer Polanski on when he has the wisdom to see through the illusion and sample the choice flesh of a 13-year old?

*barfs*

I haven't been following UD for a few weeks, but I'd swear it's ten times worse than the last time I checked:  Global warming denialism, evolution => Hitler, Weasel: A New Beginning, Errington's meltdown, etc.  It's pretty bad when the only remotely science-related post on the front page was written by Corny Hunter.  What a bunch of putzes.  

Date: 2009/11/28 13:53:29, Link
Author: socle
Does anyone here recall ever seeing Dembski address the mathematics of climate science in any of his posts?  All I've seen is him parroting BS denier talking points about conspiracies, fraud, etc, without engaging any actual substance.  Even when other posters have tried to bait him into a discussion of the technicalities, he has studiously avoided the subject.  I simply can't accept that Dembski, with degrees in math and statistics, believes much of what he posts on AGW.

Date: 2009/12/15 16:45:34, Link
Author: socle
Why do I get the impression that Clive got a C- in his freshman writing class?   :D

Date: 2009/12/15 17:40:36, Link
Author: socle

Date: 2009/12/15 17:47:26, Link
Author: socle
Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,17:42)
Can I share?

Certainly!

Date: 2010/01/02 09:46:08, Link
Author: socle
Uh-oh, shit just got real:
 
Quote
I challenge Zachriel to a debate- we each put up $10,000 USD- we get a panel of referees (the loser also pays for the refs and the venue) and have it out.

Date: 2010/02/13 00:25:24, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,12:43)
IOW

How are those hydrogen peroxide treatments going, JoeG?  Do you still have an esophagus?

Date: 2010/02/17 21:44:40, Link
Author: socle
I suppose now would be a bad time to start a discussion on the Eucharist over there.

Date: 2010/02/18 09:34:02, Link
Author: socle
Fixed.
 
Quote
utidjian: One word: eucharist.

PaV: What you imply is sick and blasphemous, and grossly insensitive, not to mention the exact charge that pagans made against early Christians so as to have an excuse to feed them to lions. As a Catholic, I find your remark deeply offensive. *burp*

Date: 2010/06/20 09:30:28, Link
Author: socle
Quote (didymos @ June 20 2010,04:45)
Uh-oh,  we're in trouble now:

 
Quote
Nakashima is not Asian, it’s a sock puppet name, he’s been banned from here many times, his handle at After The Bar Closes is dvunkannon. He part of those folks that watch us like hyenas, you’d think with all their bloviating about their “scientific knowledge” they would actually discuss science instead of watching us like hyenas. We discuss actual ideas and science here, they just discuss us. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to mind their nonsense—it’s a sick internet culture that’s pervasive with them. To all of you at After the Asylum Closes, the gloves are off.


Well, I don't know about you people, but me? I'm utterly terrified.  No, wait...that's not right.   Moderately amused?  Yeah, that's the one.

To his credit, Clive could have made a worse choice for his comparison than hyenas.  

Date: 2010/06/20 10:13:30, Link
Author: socle
Quote (didymos @ June 20 2010,09:54)
Those are just wolves, right?  :p

Correct.  You can tell because they face to the left and are not as colorful as thylacines.

Date: 2010/06/23 11:55:56, Link
Author: socle
Uh, anyone else notice some fairly NSFW pics being displayed in the upper right hand corner of the page?   ???

Date: 2010/06/23 13:49:46, Link
Author: socle
I think my antivirus and malware software is up to date.  I just cleared my cache and everything's back to normal now.  Odd.  It was the search, members, and help icons that were borked, FWIW.

Date: 2010/07/30 22:58:22, Link
Author: socle
Advanced set theory:

 
Quote

Sheik:  

Do you claim that the sets {x,y} and { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } are equal?


   
Quote

Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


   
Quote

Sheik:

I didn't see this before my last post. The two sets are definitely not the same, however.


   
Quote

Joe G:

The CONTENTS are the SAME- they are EQUAL.

$30 = $30 so {x,y} has to equal { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }

What part of that don't you understand?

Date: 2010/07/31 10:03:32, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ July 31 2010,09:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?

Joe,

Here's another way to look at the issue using your money model:

{x, y} stands for an envelope containing a $10 and a $20 bill.

{ {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } stands for a large envelope containing four smaller envelopes.  One of the smaller envelopes is empty, one contains a $10 bill, one contains a $20 bill, and the remaining one contains a $10 bill and a $20 bill.

See the difference?

Date: 2010/07/31 23:07:19, Link
Author: socle
Quote

Joe G:

And I did find this on power sets:


As an example, the power set of {1, 2, 3} is {{1, 2, 3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}, {1}, {2}, {3}, ?}. The cardinality of the original set is 3, and the cardinality of the power set is 2[^]3 = 8. This relationship is one of the reasons for the terminology power set.


IOW oleg is exposed as an ******* with an agenda for continuing to deny the difference and insist a power set is a set.


Yeah, everyone knows that a power set is only a form of set.

Date: 2010/08/02 14:16:50, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 02 2010,13:05)
Quote (socle @ July 30 2010,22:58)

[blockquote]
Joe G:

Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30
[/blockquote]

I'm a little hazy on my set theory these days, but based on Joe's approach, shouldn't the power set be 60?

'cause I get {{0}, {10}, {20}, {30}} = 60

...and 60 /=30


:O

Joe never spelled out precisely how his operation of converting sets to dollar amounts works, so it's not clear.  But yeah, I think $60 would make more sense.

His position seems to have changed slightly, though:

Quote

Sheik:  I think you're learning, Joe, despite yourself. Do you now agreee that {x, y} ? { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} }?


Quote

Joe:  Hey asshole that has been my position all along.

Date: 2010/08/02 14:19:29, Link
Author: socle
And the "?" above should actually be a "not equal" symbol.

Date: 2010/08/05 17:43:47, Link
Author: socle
BA77:

 
Quote

I once had a teacher in college similar to Dr. Marks, he was ‘scary smart’. He would write equations that filled the blackboard from one end to the other. And he knew every nuance of them as to how the equations could be worked for different situations. How I ever got out of that class with a passing grade of C I’ll never know.  (I truly think those generic prayers I said before and during the final exam helped a lot).


Wasn't there some discussion recently about how BA77 was one of the most science-literate posters on UD?

Date: 2010/08/05 19:03:34, Link
Author: socle
Quote (dnmlthr @ Aug. 05 2010,13:35)
The set theory according to JoeG thread damn near made me break my nose facepalming. A more naked display of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action is hard to imagine.

Fuck. I get angry just thinking about it.

it's really a bizarre thread.  It reminds me of debating with afdave---you can show him to be wrong in any number of ways, and he will concede nothing.  

I have to give him credit for not deleting any of my posts, though, when others would have.

 
Quote

Sheik:  Will Upright Biped be joining the discussion? Maybe he'll tell us about his physically inert balls.


Quote

Sheik:  Let's say the set of items in your bedroom contains just three elements: a bed, a bureau, and a Justin Bieber poster.

Date: 2010/08/06 10:39:15, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 06 2010,08:12)
   
Quote
Sheikh (at bottom of page): Joe, I actually think it's more than likely you're joking here.

No, he's not. From a previous thread.

   
Quote
Zachriel: Every set is a subset of itself.

Joe G: That is false. The empty set is not a subset of itself.

It's not that Joe G is ignorant. That's curable. It's that he refuses to learn.

Wow, I just noticed the date on that thread:  December 5, 2006, closing in on 4 years ago.  And Joe still hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with elementary set theory.  Which primary school students master in a matter of hours.

Date: 2010/08/06 13:12:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 06 2010,11:45)
His posts just completely disrupt the fabric of reality; he's so much tard he actually creates a negative force of stupid on other matter nearby.

He's like the Chuck Norris of stupid---whenever he says something, the universe instantly reorganizes itself to make him wrong.   :D

To be fair, I will give him credit for one thing---he has defended Muslims when they've been attacked by the ignorant on UD.

Date: 2010/08/07 16:39:20, Link
Author: socle
Well, feck, looks like Joe's bailed, just when we got to his favorite subject, dolls nested hierarchies.

 
Quote

Sheik:  Here are all the dolls put together:

{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}



 
Quote

Joe:  Nothing there.

It is mothing but a bunch of {}.

But anyways thank you for proving you are ignorant of nested hierarchies.

I have nothing else to say to you.

bye-bye...


C'mon Joe, post my comments!  I spent 10 whole minutes on that tree diagram.   :angry:

Date: 2010/08/09 17:10:43, Link
Author: socle
lol.  Someone just did some major editing.  


The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions.  It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]].  Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible as they often come to their senses. </ref>  Here is a list of 4 counterexamples: but none of them actually shows that the theory is incorrect.

Date: 2010/08/10 11:04:53, Link
Author: socle
I wonder if he's ok with Galilean relativity.

Date: 2010/08/10 19:17:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 10 2010,18:57)
After a reference to her current favorite trope, evolutionists tax "mooches" (who use HER tax money to disagree with HER!!), she opines that maybe Chomsky had to bow down and worship Darwin to stay in the academic tax mooching business.  Yeah, just like he had to bow down and support the Vietnam war, for the same reasons, I guess.  


Yeah, it's hard to think of a bigger suck-up than Chomsky.

Date: 2010/08/14 13:14:36, Link
Author: socle
Quote (VeilsOfMaya @ Aug. 14 2010,13:03)
Hello everyone.

Apparently, I've recently been banned at UD. It seems that the site admins do not explicitly announce when you've been sent to dev/null nor do they provide any specific explanation...

 
Quote
veilsofmaya continues to erect strawmen and refues to address ID as it is instead of as he distorts it. It is useless to argue with a person who refuses to see reason.


Which I found quite confusing as I was merely pointing out that Barry Arrington had apparently made assumptions not listed in the two points he asked us to make.

Is this par for the course at UD?

Hi VOM,

Yes, Barry Arrington is a pretty sensitive guy.  He banned me as well for this comment.

Date: 2010/08/15 16:47:34, Link
Author: socle
DO'Leary:

 
Quote
In my own view, the key question is, do you want to believe that little separates you from a baboon or would you rather be an authentic human being? If the former, behave like a Darwinist troll. You can probably even get money for being a baboon’s cousin, if you do a good enough impression. If the latter, try Uncommon Descent, where you will learn things you will not hear from the Darwinists’ media sheep heard. [sic]


Yes, the key question is what you want to believe.  ASSF.

Her use of the "I ain't kin to no monkey" trope is interesting, though.  Why do we often find nonhuman primates repulsive?  Is it some sort of uncanny valley type phenomenon?  

And what if things had turned out differently and we were actually descended from felines, say.  Would we then find tigers, cheetahs, and panthers, which are generally regarded to be quite beautiful by primate-humans, ugly?

Date: 2010/08/16 13:29:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote

oleg: Joe, the entire cladogram is also a clade.


Quote

Joe: Not true.

Date: 2010/08/17 12:13:23, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 17 2010,11:59)
Sometimes Joe G is just plain funny.

<snip>

Here's part of my response to that, still in moderation:


Sheik:  The short answer is, you can't hold the empty set in your hands. It's like I'm talking to a materialist here. :D The empty set is an abstract entity.

Date: 2010/08/17 23:06:00, Link
Author: socle
Trying to explain math to Joe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTv6fFLVi4Q&feature=related

Date: 2010/08/18 14:58:32, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 18 2010,14:34)
Still, maybe I'm completely wrong; maybe creationists are just disgusted by their tendency to have course hair and their habit of eating lice and ticks off one another.

And the behavior shown in that disturbing chimp/frog video that PZ posted today.

Date: 2010/08/19 02:28:59, Link
Author: socle



The amazing thing is, running his posts through Wordle didn't result in any loss of information.

Date: 2010/08/19 16:45:34, Link
Author: socle
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 19 2010,16:20)
added in edit:  Nice of GEM to make it into a trilobite however.

I took it to be the island of Montserrat!

Date: 2010/08/20 10:37:49, Link
Author: socle
Zachriel posts his example patrilineage in tree form:



 
Quote


Joe:  I have never seen any tree that looks like that.

And there aren't any trees which grow from the top down as your example depicts.

Date: 2010/08/20 11:06:00, Link
Author: socle
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  

Date: 2010/08/20 12:23:12, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 20 2010,11:36)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 20 2010,11:25)
   
Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2010,11:06)
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are.  lol.  Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it.  

So the miniseries title Roots was not referring to genealogy?

IDiot.

Linky? Please!



Here's a link to the page.  I don't see how to link to the specific post, but it's around #707 or so.  (If that's what you're requesting).

Date: 2010/08/23 10:04:15, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 23 2010,08:49)
 
Quote
Zachriel: We infer monophyletic relationships from characteristics, but monophyly is defined in terms of ancestry.

Joe G: How it is defined is irrelevant.

How precious. We suppose it only matters if you care to understand what people mean by their words.

That's especially hilarious given how he clings to that so-called "definition" on the ISSS page.

Date: 2010/08/23 14:00:24, Link
Author: socle
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 23 2010,13:43)
 
Quote

Clive Hayden
08/23/2010
1:31 pm

Petrushka,
 
Quote

Disputing macroevolution is like disputing the orbit of Pluto because no one has seen a complete revolution.

I thought Pluto wasn’t a planet any longer.


Glad that's cleared up.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-362475

Are you sure Joe G didn't hack Clive's account?

Date: 2010/08/27 11:56:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 27 2010,06:56)
Dembski's former boss, Albert Mohler, declares evolution and Christianity to be incompatible.

Comments are open over there.

Mohler:

 
Quote

"We end up with enormous problems if we try to interpret a historical fall and understand a historical fall in an old-Earth rendering," Mohler said, referring to the school of interpretation that views a metaphorical reading of the creation passages in Genesis as compatible with both Christianity and evolutionary science. "This is most clear when it comes to Adam's sin."

"Was it true that, as Paul argues, when sin came, death came?" Mohler asked. "Well just keep in mind that if the Earth is indeed old, and we infer that it is old because of the scientific data, the scientific data is also there to claim that long before the emergence of Adam -- if indeed there is the recognition of a historical Adam -- and certainly long before there was the possibility of Adam's sin, there were all the effects of sin that are biblically attributed to the fall and not to anything before the fall. And we're not only talking about death, we're talking about death by the millions and billions."


I think his head is about to 'asplode.

Anyway, everyone knows Dembski already solved this problem, as long as we grant that effects can precede their causes.  I think StephenB proved that once.

Date: 2010/09/01 10:27:58, Link
Author: socle
More abstract thinking fail:

Quote

Zachriel:  The leaves on a tree when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy.


Quote

Joe: I would love to see you write that one up-

IOW Zach time to put your money where your mouth is- show us the nested hierarchy of a full grown hemlock.

Date: 2010/09/01 16:44:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2010,14:05)
Has Bob O' been expelled????!!!!one1

http://scientopia.org


"This Account Has Been Suspended"

I noticed the same thing a few days ago, but it was back fairly quickly.  Sort of alarming to see it happening again though.

Date: 2010/09/02 19:23:42, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 02 2010,18:53)
   
Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 02 2010,13:55)
Paging Glenn Morton.

Call for Mr. Morton.

http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/

Looks like Glenn hasn't posted on his climate change denier blog since 4/29/10.  I wonder if he's rid himself of (another) Morton's Demon.

Date: 2010/09/02 22:18:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 02 2010,21:46)
I haven't heard from since his birthday. He is very concerned (reasonably) with his prostrate cancer, and I doubt he feels like wasting much more effort on any controversies.

I was disappointed in his reaction to AGW.

Oh well.

Oops---I didn't even know he was ill.  Sorry to hear that.  

Date: 2010/09/03 22:08:32, Link
Author: socle
*sniff*
 
Quote

Note to readers

Because I am writing a book, I probably will not be blogging much before December, but expect to see me then, if not before. I did post some new material today. For stories on the intelligent design controversy, go to Uncommon Descent - Denyse


Until December...

Date: 2010/09/04 13:11:50, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 04 2010,12:45)
I don't know, but after taking the trouble to shave, she could at least have faced the camera...

Heh, nice.  A little less coffee and I would have missed it.  

Date: 2010/09/09 13:31:45, Link
Author: socle
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 09 2010,11:05)
Clive seems not to understand the difference between a representation of a number and the number itself.
     
Quote
Show me how 2+2=147. Not any other numbers, nor any other integers, nor any other symbols, but 2+2=147. I’d like to see how you can divide by zero, while we’re at it, and can you truncate the decimal of pie for me please? I don’t mean by just cutting it off or stopping it short, I mean by actually finishing it in just a few decimal places. I mean, if the particulars of math depend on man’s convention, this should be no problem. I’d also like to see a physical representation of the square root of two, that is, I’d like to see the actual physical object of it.

Are we allowed to use ? itself as a base?  If so, then ? = 10.  That's probably cheating though.

Date: 2010/09/09 13:33:50, Link
Author: socle
Oops, the "?" symbols should be the letter "pi" ("pie" for Clive   ).

Date: 2010/09/09 16:25:23, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2010,15:44)
Clive Hayden: Realized Master of the run-on sentence:
 
Quote
The digression to pragmatism, the need to remind me of “using whatever works” as a philosophy, is usually the default position of people that either don’t really grasp what I’m saying, or if they do, they don’t care for it, and are trying to, in a round about way, claim that since these descriptions of nature are useful, therefore they trump any other difficulties that may arise in our real knowledge of these descriptions.

 
Quote

NLParser cannot create syntax for the whole utterance.


Date: 2010/09/12 20:41:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 12 2010,10:15)
StephenB is not amused:

     
Quote
Having studied higher math myself in a formal setting where bluffing doesn’t work, I am not buying your argument from authority.

I remember well enough the law of exponents and many other laws which admit of no exceptions. Indeed, I once studied the my “identities” over a Christmas vacation. I know well enough the relationship between a philosophical syllogism and the laws of geomtery because I have studied philosophy in a formal setting as well. I also remember the pre-calculus laws of sines and cosines.

In keeping with that point, I gather that you have never heard of the law of limits with respect to calculus. Indeed, given your misguided notion that the laws of higher math contradict the laws of arithmetic (except for those times that you are claiming there are no laws at all) I am beginning to suspect that you are not even aware of the lower levels of association and accumulation that rule the arithmetic functions that you so disdain.


Stephen is forever stuck in Calculus I.  If he ever encounters modular arithmetic (5 + 8 = 1 mod 12), his blood pressure will shoot up. And if he comes across Grassman numbers, whose squares vanish, his head will explode.

That's unbelievable.  He thinks BarryR doesn't know freshman calculus?!  StephenB gets today's "Unskilled and Unaware of It" award.

Date: 2010/09/13 11:17:18, Link
Author: socle
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 13 2010,10:22)
StephenB
   
Quote
the laws of mathematics were discovered and are unchangeable.


Anybody care to ask what they are, exactly?

I'm sure a number of people would be very interested.....

If I had a functioning sock I'd ask StephenB whether or not the Banach-Tarski paradox is a mathematical law:

 
Quote

First stated in 1924, the Banach-Tarski paradox states that it is possible to decompose a ball into six pieces which can be reassembled by rigid motions to form two balls of the same size as the original.


It is a theorem, so it has the same logical status as StephenB's beloved law of sines (if you accept the Axiom of Choice, anyway).  

Of course some mathematicians do not accept the Axiom of Choice, despite this claim of StephenB's:

 
Quote

Irrelevant. Mathematicians are not free to pick and choose which mathematical laws they will honor and which ones they will not.

Date: 2010/09/13 17:19:19, Link
Author: socle
StephenB:

 
Quote

Also, don’t forget that mathematicians themselves call these laws by their proper name. Snells law, for example, is not called Snell’s axiom or Snell’s assumption or Snell’s proposition. These laws do not depend on some broader axiomatic formulation. If they did, they would not be laws. They would simply be derivatives of the mathematicians imagination.


Bizarre.  If we view Snell's Law merely as a brute fact description of how light behaves, then it's certainly not a mathematical law.  If we view it as a consequence of Fermat's Principle (or of some other more fundamental phenomenon), then of course it depends on a "broader axiomatic formulation".

Date: 2010/09/13 18:28:45, Link
Author: socle
markf:
 
Quote

BarryR has shown for several examples of mathematical law that you have suggested that they are dependent on certain axioms.

StephenB:
 
Quote

Barry has only made the claim, he has not provided any support for that claim. On what axioms do the laws of association and accumulation depend? Please be specific, name the axiom or axioms on which they depend and explain the relationship between the two.


It looks like StephenB now realizes the Snell's Law thing was a misstep.  

What does he mean by the "laws of association and accumulation"?  I don't remember those terms from any math classes I took.

Date: 2010/09/13 18:40:02, Link
Author: socle
I wonder if by "law of association", he is referring to what we normally call "associativity".  That would be fairly lame.

Date: 2010/09/13 18:56:55, Link
Author: socle

Date: 2010/09/13 19:40:56, Link
Author: socle
StephenB misrepresents BarryR's position, and tries to change the subject:
 
Quote

Now, let’s begin to discuss the laws of logic that you claim do not exist.

Funny how he's no longer interested in what axioms the "laws of association and accumulation" depend on.

Date: 2010/09/18 21:27:38, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2010,20:34)
OMG. StephenB has reverted to this stuff:
   
Quote
CY @13, you would have been entertained by a recent blogger who insisted that a crankcase could, indeed, be greater than an automobile, asking us to conceive of an artist’s conception in which an automobile was situated inside a giant crankcase. I am not joking. Obviously, he missed the point about the finte whole being greater than any one of ITS parts, but it was a wild ride which featured a number of Darwinists taking up for the irrational side of the argument.

Has StephenB always qualified his principle of wholes being greater than their parts with the word "finite", or is that a recent thing?  

I wonder what he'd say about this:

Date: 2010/09/19 01:24:34, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 18 2010,23:44)
As for the word "finite" being added there, I suppose he may have recently heard of set theory, in which "infinite" is defined as having parts with as many elements as the whole.

Henry

That's what I was thinking.  Now that he's mastered the law of accumulation (sic), there's no stopping him.  

I believe his "finite whole is greater than its parts" principle will still have trouble dealing with non-well-founded set theory, in which you can have sets which are elements of themselves.  For example, you can have a set 0* with the property 0* = {0, 0*}.  Presumably 0* is "greater than" its "part" 0* somehow?

Date: 2010/09/19 12:20:06, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 19 2010,04:28)
 
Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2010,01:24)
That's what I was thinking.  Now that he's mastered the law of accumulation (sic), there's no stopping him.  

I believe his "finite whole is greater than its parts" principle will still have trouble dealing with non-well-founded set theory, in which you can have sets which are elements of themselves.  For example, you can have a set 0* with the property 0* = {0, 0*}.  Presumably 0* is "greater than" its "part" 0* somehow?


Do you have a reference for this?  I guess I still have Stephenb's attention and would be interested to know what he makes of it?

In case you have second-second thoughts, the example of 0* = {0, 0*} is on page 7 of this: Non-Well-Founded Sets (warning:  33 MB file).

Date: 2010/11/13 10:15:06, Link
Author: socle
On a related note, I hear Alvin Greene is considering running for President in 2012.

Date: 2010/11/25 09:53:45, Link
Author: socle
'sup, Joe.

Date: 2010/11/27 08:59:50, Link
Author: socle
From the BBC:

Quote
But a random sample afterwards tended to tell a consistent story. People weren't necessarily opposed to Mr Blair's argument, but they found Mr Hitchens the more persuasive speaker.

A poll of audience members resulted in a defeat for the motion, by a margin of two to one.

Date: 2010/12/04 12:35:47, Link
Author: socle
Joe:
Quote

The Artic [sic] ice volume is up too.


lol

Date: 2010/12/05 10:53:51, Link
Author: socle
Quote

StephenB:

According to the common teaching of the Church, Mary’s will was made so free that she had no inclination or desire to sin and, therefore, could not have sinned.


I don't know anything about Catholic doctrine, but doesn't this explanation lead one to ask why God didn't also give Adam and Eve this additional free will that Mary apparently received?  Maybe the world would have been a better place without that "Fall" thing.

Date: 2010/12/06 21:08:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 06 2010,20:54)
Joe G everywhere repeats about his digit twiddling:
     
Quote
That would be the minimal specified information.

Wouldn't it follow that, given that your calculation reflects the "carrying capacity" of a sequence, that it discloses the maximum information content of that sequence, not the minimum?

He seems to be on the verge of discovering that everything he said about the information content of cakes, baseballs, rocks, etc. is crap.

Date: 2010/12/07 21:18:28, Link
Author: socle
WTF??  I don't remember having to be taught by my parents to be heterosexual.  Was vjtorley comatose throughout his entire adolescence?

Date: 2010/12/10 07:36:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 10 2010,05:01)
ETA: moar Stevie
 
Quote
Also, one can make a case for other kinds of sexual acts if they are not brought to completion and used as a preliminary to sexual intercourse.

Good grief.

Hey, it's all good as long as the spooge ends up in the right place.

Date: 2010/12/11 13:31:30, Link
Author: socle
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 11 2010,12:11)
I must be either too old, living in the wrong town, or just out of touch.

Where can I find this "widespread sexual chaos" they keep promising?

It's probably easier to find if you're a member of the Catholic Church.

Date: 2011/02/05 13:15:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2011,12:23)
StephenB:
     
Quote
If you are going to try to escape from all these materialistic implications by...saying that the mind and brain are, in effect, the SAME THING, then you need to explain how one can influence the other. How does the mind change the brain if it is the same thing as the brain?

Now there is an indication that Stephen just DOESN'T get it, if ever there was one.

Wow.  That's a classic.  

On the other hand, I'm sure he's totally ok with the idea of Jesus praying to God.

Date: 2011/03/26 19:37:16, Link
Author: socle
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 26 2011,17:41)
Fortunately it's back in time for this:

 
Quote
Finally, if anyone is deluded into thinking that ID is premised on the level of mathematical rigor that can be applied to CSI (particularly in regard to satifying the personable belief system of an implaccable opponent) they know nothing at all about ID.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-375185

No wonder Dembski's giving this thread a miss.  I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard.

Date: 2011/04/10 15:59:26, Link
Author: socle
Quote (didymos @ April 10 2011,15:05)
Clivebaby "explains" the contradictions in the Gospels:
   
Quote
The books do not contradict themselves, and besides, you’d have to have faith in them–that they were actually written for starters, and that they were about something in particular, and whether there was any actual events that they either do or do not conform to, to even say that there are contradictions that would have any meaning. All of this is taken on faith, as with any historical book. You have faith in lots of aspects even to claim any meaningful idea, even contradictions, to the texts of scripture.


So basically, after excising all the irrelevant, largely nonsensical verbiage (i.e. nearly all of it), said explanation amounts to....  "Nuh-uh!"

I love that last sentence of Clive's.  Can't he get through a one-paragraph post without melting down into gibberish?

It seems he's trying to say that it's impossible to determine the accuracy of any historical text, unless you accept by "faith" that it is accurate.  Or something like that.

Date: 2011/04/11 23:09:31, Link
Author: socle
Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:
Quote

If something is both complex and specified, then it is specified complexity.
An example would be shakespear’s sonnet. It is both extremely improbable to come about by chance and at the same time it is meaningful. So there.
Even if you cant calculate a number for it, we still know it is a real thing. You just cant argue that.

Date: 2011/04/12 00:23:10, Link
Author: socle
Quote (fnxtr @ April 11 2011,23:29)
       
Quote (socle @ April 11 2011,21:09)
Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:
         
Quote

If something is both complex and specified, then it is specified complexity.
An example would be shakespear’s sonnet. It is both extremely improbable to come about by chance and at the same time it is meaningful. So there.
Even if you cant calculate a number for it, we still know it is a real thing. You just cant argue that.

On second reading, I call Poe-sock.

I was almost convinced kuartus was a sock too, but sadly a little googling reveals his ID-friendly youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/Kuartus), as well as numerous 7-months-old posts on this youtube comment thread in which he spews the same nonsense:
   
Quote

But now if something is very complex and exhibits a recognizable pattern,such as methinksitislikeaweasel, we could rationally attribute it to design because it is very complex(very unlikely to come up randomly) and specific(corresponding to a line from william shakespear). We find such specified complexity in life,for example the bacterial flagellum.

***

Well, complex specified information is a synonym for specified complexity.


What a waste it is to lose one's mind ... or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.  

Date: 2011/04/14 22:48:53, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 14 2011,22:31)
Design Inference? ET in East Texas

 
Quote
"There is no animal that could cut it that perfect, no animal, so if it ain't a UFO what is it?" asked Don.


Proof the Designer is a fungus?  Or possibly fairies?

Hilarious.  That's the least impressive crop circle I've ever seen, though.  

Date: 2011/04/21 13:14:05, Link
Author: socle
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 21 2011,11:20)
Check this out too, from that thread:

<snip>

I'm seeing a lot of these:
 
Quote

Joseph Gallien says:

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Date: 2011/04/21 22:29:28, Link
Author: socle
Quote (noncarborundum @ April 21 2011,21:40)
 
Quote
The fossils are of organisms that once lived.

Thre, they are explained.


You might as well try discussing modulation indices and signal-to-noise ratios with a Pacific islander who builds radios out of coconuts.

Odd that Joe hasn't noticed after all these years that "Thre, they are explained" and the patternicity shtick cut ID off at the knees.

Date: 2011/04/30 20:04:20, Link
Author: socle
Thornton:
Quote

Just start screaming bloody murder that's really your father's name. Then bluster that if Joe doesn't stop helping people stalk your father you'll call your FBI special agent nephew in on the case.


Joe G:
 
Quote

He's already in.

Consequences will never be the same.

Date: 2011/05/06 21:39:36, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ May 06 2011,10:23)
Mapou is a few synapses short of a quorum:
   
Quote
It is easy to prove that infinity cannot exist. Any finite member of an infinite set is infinitely small compared to an infinitely large member. The contradiction is that a value can be both finite and infinite at the same time. Conclusion: infinity is as bogus as the flat earth hypothesis.

Yes, it’s really that simple to prove that infinity is nonsense, a million mathematicians notwithstanding.

vjtorley replies:
   
Quote

Mapou

It’s good to see you back. I haven’t heard from you in a while.

All right. Here’s a question for you. If God’s power and intelligence are limited, then what is God’s IQ?


Most philosophers/ESL teachers would be able to shred Mapou's "argument" a bit more decisively than that.  How did that man manage to get a PhD?

Date: 2011/05/14 11:34:43, Link
Author: socle
little help for joe

Date: 2011/05/21 11:03:09, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 21 2011,10:13)
Bully Arrington is impressed by a global warming article in the scientific journal First Things: (ironically titled)
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

I wonder if Barry has seen this video:

http://curtrosengren.typepad.com/alterna....od.html

in which Dr Happer (the author of the article) argues that the earth was "fine" 80 million years ago as primates were evolving and atmospheric CO2 was around 1000 ppm, therefore climate change is not a problem.  What a nutjob.  Reminds me of this guy:

Date: 2011/05/31 16:28:45, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 31 2011,16:00)
Upright Biped comments in a thread entitled "Why is the debate over design theory[what theory?] so often so poisonous and polarised:

what an arse!

I like this reply of Febble/Elizabeth Liddle to kairosfocus:

   
Quote
kf @ 34:

I apologise, but I managed to scroll past your post thinking it was one I had already read.

lol

Date: 2011/06/03 16:20:23, Link
Author: socle
UB:
Quote

The dumbfounding lack of curiosity, along with the level of sheer blind faith, is simply amazing.


EL:
Quote

What are you referring to, Upright BiPed?


UB:
Quote

Nothing Liz, feel free to ignore me.

Ignore me, in the same way in which you ignored the onset of recorded information in the thread yesterday.

The real details get messy… and they’re harder to scrub clean with that Darwinian Dishsoap you’re selling.


I'll give UB credit for having the sense not to engage EL on any substantial matters; as usual his role is simply to leaven the discussion with his douchebaggy comments.

Date: 2011/06/04 19:39:02, Link
Author: socle
Quote (noncarborundum @ June 04 2011,17:33)
 
Quote
The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about.

I lasted that long and no longer.

Jeezus.  Richard T. Jones' speech was more coherent than that.  

Date: 2011/06/06 23:06:23, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 06 2011,21:14)
Finding his Second Law paper tossed out of a peer-reviewed journal, oddball mathematician Granville Sewell announces the next best thing: he's made a video!

Comments are "off," -- but really, what comment could be funnier than the announcement itself?


Granville:
 
Quote
Suppose you and your wife go for a vacation, leaving a dog, a cat, and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly, otherwise you might have to take a much longer vacation to see the same effect).  When you come back, you will not be surprised to see chaos in the house.  But tell her some scientists say, "but if you leave the door open while on vacation, your house becomes an open system, and the second law does not apply to open systems ... you may find everything in better condition than when you left."

That's pretty funny

Date: 2011/06/08 19:17:11, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Turncoat @ June 08 2011,15:12)
True. And what distinguishes the ID leader from the average ID supporter is the ability to recognize when his arguments have become untenable, and to move on to new ones — without, of course, admitting to error in the old ones.

Behe abandoned his original notion of irreducible complexity. Dembski abandoned the explanatory filter, as well as complex specified information. But Darwin's Black Box and No Free Lunch continue to sell.

This reminds me of a series of posts VoxRat did over at TalkRational a while back on Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications.  It went through something like 29 printings and despite the fact that every claim in it has been refuted ten times over, it hasn't been updated.  And it's still getting 5 star reviews at amazon.  Nice example of how creation "science" works.  

Date: 2011/06/09 17:47:28, Link
Author: socle
Denyse's latest
   
Quote

Watch this spoof of the Darwinists at YouTube soon

Before it’s deleted: A riff on the publicly funded, court-enforced Darwin lobby. Stars long-ago scientist Richard Dawkins and pseudo-ID expert Barbara Forrest:

Lines like

“He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree!”

and

“You don’t know me, you don’t know Dick!”

Stuff that People Who Count complain about tends to disappear so, if interested, watch now


Seriously, get over there now!1eleventy1!!
 
Quote

Uploaded by 3requisite on Jul 29, 2008

Date: 2011/06/09 23:17:10, Link
Author: socle
ba77:
 
Quote

DrREC, it matters not one iota to me that you refuse to accept the evidence we now have in hand!!! You testify to your own dogmatic atheistic beliefs when you do as such, and further the case against neo-Darwinists when you do as such, so as far as I’m concerned RANT AWAY!!!

Date: 2011/06/10 14:45:15, Link
Author: socle
Robert "Whitey" Byers in the Darwin and the Beauty Pageant thread:
   
Quote
I noticed, and ruined the fun for me, that they selected girls for the states and for the final ten etc with an eye to identity.
Black, Mexican etc, Asian, others. were being obviously promoted for the great identity politics that run modern America.
These people demonstrate their belief that modern America must be kept a eye on and a close hand where ever anything reaches a audience.

Oops.

Date: 2011/06/12 09:06:32, Link
Author: socle
DeNews:
 
Quote

“Dawkins as Hitler” refuses to debate Craig

News

Here’s a hilarious YouTube that won’t be up very long …. great uniforms too, more’s the pity.


At least this one was uploaded recently.  It's a Hitler "Downfall" parody---WTF does she mean by "great uniforms"?

Date: 2011/06/13 10:32:30, Link
Author: socle
I think ba77 accidentally cut 'n' pasted from the wrong creationist website:
     
Quote
Elizabeth, ignoring your blatant ‘excuse mongering’ in the main of your post, let’s just look at your cited claim for a beneficial mutation:
   
Quote
... It would appear that the questioner is under the mistaken impression that beneficial mutations are a problem for creationists. Some creationists make this unfortunate error.  The mutations Q&A section of our Web site clearly teaches that the issue is not whether the mutation is beneficial but if it adds new genetic information (specified complexity).

Elizabeth, perhaps you would like to look for another ‘beneficial’ mutation???

Date: 2011/06/13 11:04:06, Link
Author: socle
ba77,,, cont'd
 
Quote
Elizabeth, and you might like to reread the part where the mutation, you cited as ‘beneficial’, was actually found to be deleterious as far as the overall functional complexity of the protein was concerned.,,, But then being fair to the evidence was not your primary concern in the first place was it???

Date: 2011/06/13 19:01:51, Link
Author: socle
I found this juxtaposition amusing:

tsmith to Driver:
     
Quote
oh and the quote obviously does….but don’t worry, you won’t let anything get in the way of your faith in the racist eugenicist theory of evolution….


and 22 minutes later attempting a bit of levity with EL:
     
Quote
Elizabeth…I was the first one to show concern…especially if you are beautiful and rich…

if not, nevermind…LOL

Date: 2011/06/16 00:46:44, Link
Author: socle
Tim Cooper's post finally gets through moderation:

Quote
I want to respond to the specific point raised in the initial post that our work supports a view that the fitness of the population that we studied will decline over time.

It doesn’t.

Our work describes evidence that the rate of fitness *increase* will decline over time. That is, the rate of fitness improvement slows, but does not become negative.

For anyone interested, a link to the actual article is now live on my lab website: web.mac.com/tim_f_cooper/Cooper_lab/Publications.html


I wonder if tsmith will notice?

Date: 2011/06/16 15:07:42, Link
Author: socle
Denyse: Karl Giberson and his famous "double helix" guitar

Date: 2011/06/19 21:02:17, Link
Author: socle
StephenB:
Quote
As God, He cannot suffer; as man, He can and did, and continues to do so through His mystical Body, the Church. Hence, when St Paul killed His disciples, He said,“Why do you persecute me?” At the end of time, Christ will stop suffering in his mystical body.

Any Protestant UDer's going to take the bait?


cont'd, in which StephenB demonstrates that he knows more about God than God does:
Quote
If God could suffer as God, He would be trapped in it just as his fallen creatures are trapped in it. The Divine judge would have been put in Hell by His own creatures. God loves, but He does not change emotional states, becoming angry one day, sad the next day, and happy the Day after. God, as God, is perfectly, eternally blissfully happy. If it were otherwise, there would be no hope for us since He could hardly take us to a state higher than He is, unless you think that everyone in heaven is happy and immune from suffering except God.

Date: 2011/06/21 19:47:57, Link
Author: socle
PaV:
Quote

Elizabeth:

Why not deal with an actual supernatural event?

I’m speaking of the liquefaction of St. Januarius’ blood which takes place whenever the vial containing the dry blood of the martyr is placed nearby his head.

This miracle has taken place for centuries upon centuries. And there is no plausible scientific explanation for this miracle.

So, in the presence of the supernatural, how do you propose we proceed?


:facepalm:

Date: 2011/06/21 21:00:47, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Badger3k @ June 21 2011,19:54)
First, we break open the jar and test to see what the "blood" is....think he'd go for that?

Heh.  PaV's motivation for posting that escapes me.  In the OP, KF calls out Lizzie for asserting that science is not equipped to study things with supernatural causes.  In his post, PaV states that "there is no plausible scientific explanation for this miracle", apparently supporting Lizzie's position???

Date: 2011/06/23 13:02:50, Link
Author: socle
That PaV is a kick:

Quote
Miracles happen all the time. St. Pio, who bore the wounds of Christ in his lifetime, cured a man who was blind. What makes it remarkable, was that he basically didn’t have any eyes; and yet, somehow, he was able to see.


According to wikipedia, "The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity."  As evidenced by PaV.

Date: 2011/06/23 16:32:37, Link
Author: socle
Dembski, on who should be President Bachmann's science advisers:

Quote
RodW: I know scientists who have specifically been denied membership in the National Academy of Sciences because of their sympathy (not outright support) of ID. In one case, the scientist was explicitly told that members voted again his admission because he had signed the Dissent from Darwin list. Independent-minded scientists (not necessarily ID supporters) who have paid a price for bucking the established scientific bureaucracy would be at the top of my list.


Dang, I guess that eliminates Dr Dembski himself.

 
Quote
Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.

Date: 2011/06/23 16:56:22, Link
Author: socle
Mung:
 
Quote
How long did it take for each mutation to become fixed in the population?


Lizzie:  
Quote
Depends on the degree of advantageousness.


Mung:
Quote
The degree of advantageousness?

That’s a new one on me.

As in some mutations are more advantageous than others? In what sense?

Date: 2011/06/27 11:44:58, Link
Author: socle
Eh?  10 bids within 4 minutes, all apparently by the same bidder?

Date: 2011/06/27 13:17:54, Link
Author: socle
Thanks, dvunkannon.

Date: 2011/07/02 18:48:56, Link
Author: socle
Quote
gaol


Date: 2011/07/03 13:07:35, Link
Author: socle
Happy birthday, Rich.

Date: 2011/07/09 16:06:43, Link
Author: socle
StephenB should maybe crack a book before lecturing on probability:
 
Quote
When I throw a pair of dice, for example, the outcome is determined by a number of physical factors, none of which have anything at all to do with chance. On the other hand, if the dice are fair, any number from two to twelve will have an equal chance of coming up.

Date: 2011/07/10 15:59:53, Link
Author: socle
Joe:
Quote
For years I have been saying that evolution does not predict/ expect a nested hierarchy. And for as many years evotards have been saying that it does.


which he has supported by citing that paper by Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics, which defines five different hierarchies, two of which are fully nested and two of which are semi-nested.  

Date: 2011/07/11 01:04:20, Link
Author: socle
Well I'm surprised.  StephenB actually admits he was wrong.  Ha, just kidding:  
 
Quote
—Acipenser: “Well if I recall correctly StephenB stated that all numbers between 2-12 have an equal probability of coming in in any roll of two dice.”

Not all numbers have an equal probability of coming up. The number seven, for example, is more likely to come up than any other individuall number. However, the dice should be fair, meaning that all numbers should be given an equal chance to come up. The dice should not be loaded to favor some numbers over others.

Date: 2011/07/11 12:43:46, Link
Author: socle
StephenB
   
Quote
—Acipenser: “Got it, Upbed, StephenB means what he says except when he doesn’t and somehow his ignorance of basic dice roiling probabilities is too be ignored. Too funny.

If you will recall, the context of my statement was to emaphasze the importance of randomness, the requirement of which is to give each side of each die a fair chance of coming up.

Thus, I was not talking about the normal distribution
[sic] of numbers, of which seven is the central tendency. If I had known readers would be trying to interpret it that way, I probably would have dramatized the distinction.

However, I have already had that discussion with Mung on another occasion, in which he insisted that seven was more likely to come up than all numbers combined. Naturally, I corrected him, indicating the seven is more likely to come up than any other individual number.

So, if I had not been aware of the difference, I would not have been able to issue the corrective. Naturally, Mung ignored the corrective as if it hadn’t happened.

So much for coming clean.  

Date: 2011/07/11 22:05:44, Link
Author: socle
StephenB
Quote
–Acipenser: “Are you going to deny that you stated that every number between 2-12 has an equal probability of coming up? Seems as if your trying to wiggle your way out of the situation.”

Nope, I said it and it was a badly written sentence calculated to emphasize the point that randomness means “giving” all numbers an equal chance to come up. However, once I explained the context, that should have been sufficient.

Like 2 and 7 have an equal chance to come up.  D'oh!
Quote
So, I explained how those probabilities work:

“There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number.”

Acipenser, thus corrected, and unwilling to admit his error, copies my statement word for word and attributes it to himself:

“There are six ways to get seven and only one way to get two. Seven is, indeed, more likely to come up that any other individual number.”

Obviously, it was Acipenser who didn’t understand basic probabilities or he would not have contested the matter or copied my answer word for word as the correct answer.

That's what we call "quoting" in L337 interweb speak, Stephen.

Date: 2011/07/12 01:32:24, Link
Author: socle
To be fair to StephenB, he did actually post something slightly more correct on this die roll experiment on 25/6/2011:
 
Quote
... the probability of seven is greater than any other individual number ...

I don't know if it was by accident or what, but he hasn't done too well since then.

Date: 2011/07/12 10:25:44, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Acipenser @ July 12 2011,09:24)
The point of the exercise was to see if StephenB had a ounce of humility which would permit him to openly and quickly admit his error.  

Of course he doesn't have that characteristic in his persona and was unable to bring himself to openly admit a mistake most everyone else easily detected.

As RB states it would have been soooo easy to make the admisssion and move on....but nope not gonna happen!

Nice work over there, Acipenser.  It's ironic how StephenB is now attempting a turnabout accusationTM when it was you that first brought up the problem.

Date: 2011/07/12 18:33:01, Link
Author: socle
StephenB
 
Quote
From 2-12: ANY NUMBER other than seven, includes 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

From 2-12: Any other INDIVIDUAL number other than seven is the ONE among the others that you choose.

From 2-12: ALL NUMBERS other than seven include, 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12

From 2-12: Seven is less likely to come up than any other number other than seven or all numbers other than seven [combined, put together, considered as an aggregate etc].

For a genius philosopher, he sure has a helluva time expressing himself clearly.  This is Joe G territory.

Date: 2011/07/18 21:19:18, Link
Author: socle
WTF tgpeeler

Quote
Well, I object to an eternally existing multiverse for a very simple reason. The multiverses are physical, therefore they cannot be eternal. Why not? Because they are physical, they can be counted. If they can be counted they are not eternal (infinite). Law of identity. Things are what they are.

Date: 2011/07/20 00:50:45, Link
Author: socle
Quote (olegt @ July 18 2011,07:21)
Hunter declares a recent Nature paper by Povolotskaya and Kondrashov "meaningless." He is so incensed that he writes two posts about it. Not surprisingly, he completely misunderstands what the authors did.

Join me for a round of a piñata here and learn some amazing science in the process.

Brilliant, oleg, those tables in Tuesday's post are very helpful.  I wonder if CH will acknowledge them?

Date: 2011/07/22 14:02:58, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2011,13:07)
Given the recent, prolonged non-calculation of CSI, or even operational definition of it, Dembski finally wades in:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plosion

And shows he's still shit at culture war.

Oh, this is classy:

Date: 2011/07/24 12:37:48, Link
Author: socle
junkdnaforlife:
 
Quote
Most cultures around the world generally find the design argument compelling. It with primarily white men that live in the US and England that get their panties in a bunch over it. Take a look at the new atheists from an ethnicity and economic perspective, basically they are all a bunch of well off cracker ass honkeys from the US and England.

Date: 2011/07/27 12:12:44, Link
Author: socle
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 27 2011,04:25)
Quote without comment:          
Quote
7
GilDodgen
07/26/2011 10:28 pm

Damn! Ever since I got religion and figured out that Darwinism is junk pseudoscience I’ve obviously lost at least 20 points of IQ.

Just think of what I could have done in aerospace R&D software engineering if I had just remained an atheist and bowed at Darwin’s altar!

Speaking of correlation between religion and lower IQ,  Robert Byers:
       
Quote
Oh brother. again they try to define truth by how smart or dumb the holders of some truth are.
first the most intelligent people in mankinds history, if I may say so, are the British Protestant people. i say this because of the puritan/Evangelical motivation. Of coarse also Gods blessing of the true faith as logically expected.

Date: 2011/08/03 18:27:31, Link
Author: socle
You just know Joe's typing that stuff with one hand.  lol

Date: 2011/08/04 11:22:43, Link
Author: socle

Date: 2011/08/04 21:02:39, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 04 2011,19:55)
In a thread headed 'To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides' Bully has an imaginary argument with Elizabeth Liddle. Guess who wins?

Barry:
   
Quote
Elizabeth’s Probable Response 3:
Let’s change the subject.


Rriiightt... I don't think he put much effort into that post.  It looks like he did upload it around 1:00 AM BST, however, perhaps to maximize the time before EL can see it and slap his shit.

Date: 2011/08/05 11:14:43, Link
Author: socle
material.infantacy:
Quote
And if you [Ilion] want to have a contest to see who can be the biggest prick about this, and turn it in to an unholy flame war, I might just be up for it.

(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread).  Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent.

Date: 2011/08/06 01:16:20, Link
Author: socle
Gil:
 
Quote
Concerning cosmological ID I’ve always wondered why it is almost never pointed out that the “who designed the designer” challenge is completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that even the most secular scientists now agree that time (along with space, matter, and energy) came into being at the birth of the universe.

Assuming the universe was designed (evidence from fine tuning), the origin of time at the birth of the universe means that the designer has no past (present or future, for that matter) since he/she/it created* time.

That which has no past has no origin or history, and therefore no designer by definition.




Hmmm.  Time came into being at the birth of the universe.  At its birth, the universe had no past.  Therefore the universe has no designer.

Date: 2011/08/07 12:46:27, Link
Author: socle
Mung accidentally tells the truth:
Quote
how do we know that Craig Venter’s name is incorporated into his life forms?

He took out a full page ad in numerous newspapers across the country?

Date: 2011/08/11 23:27:59, Link
Author: socle
DeNews demonstrates the Rules of Right Reason:
   
Quote
Philosopher Michael L. Peterson explains junk DNA for us at BioLogos in “Evolution and the Deep Resonances between Science and Theology, Part 5” (July 20, 2011):
   
Quote
Evolution is the only rational way to account for the molecular uniformity of all organisms, given that numerous alternative structures and fundamental processes are, in principle, equally likely. Moreover, the accumulation of damaged or “junk” DNA (mutations that do not affect function and thus are not subject to negative selection), passed on over time to species further down that branch of the Tree, makes the probability that evolution did not occur infinitesimally small.


Okay, so that means that if much that is thought junk turns out not to be, “the probability that evolution did occur infinitesimally small.” Right?

Date: 2011/08/14 16:47:50, Link
Author: socle
Barry just says wtf and rewrites history:



I count 5 EL callout threads posted by BA in the past 3 days.

Date: 2011/08/15 01:02:00, Link
Author: socle
Here's Lizzie's blog, Rich:

The Skeptical Zone

Date: 2011/09/19 16:59:03, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 19 2011,15:06)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2011,12:54)
Fans of Elizabeth rejoice:

http://tinyurl.com/66ucxqb....66ucxqb

Wow.

Four posts in and batshit77 is already screaming that Lizzie is a liar.

Joetard Gallien is doing his usual asinine IDiot dance claiming there is no evidence for abiogenesis, even though Lizzie has linked him to dozens of papers and offered to hand walk him through a few.

Chris Doyle accuses Lizzie of 'literature bluffing', demonstrates that he doesn't understand the first thing about how the scientific method works.

I have no idea how Lizzie keeps herself from beating the shit out of the lot of 'em with a tire iron.

It's amazing that Chris Doyle even still posts, given his cowardly douchebaggery over at Lizzie's blog.  Unfuckingbelievable.

Date: 2011/09/19 21:40:38, Link
Author: socle
hory shet, I didn't even see the part where Chris Doyle accused Lizzie of "disappearing"!  lol.

It's ironic that the topic of at least one of the threads CD deleted concerned how atheists supposedly have no rationale to act morally.  Then when he got his ass handed to him, he bailed out and destroyed the evidence.  I guess that's moral in his world.  

Date: 2011/09/21 16:46:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 21 2011,13:07)
What I think is most frustrating is (for example) Joe's absolute refusal to learn anything.

<snip>

IMHO, the key to avoiding this frustration is to think of Joe not as a serious debating opponent, but rather as a piñata.  It can be amusing to poke him with a stick, but ultimately it will come to no end.

Date: 2012/02/19 16:01:04, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,15:39)
An example of how easy it is to offend:

   
Quote
“I’d want to see the actual reasoning, and the actual probability calculations that you think make the chance remote. Not just liquid nasal ejecta :) ”


was quoted by butifnot on UD as example of me insulting Gil, who had said, in his TSZ post:

   
Quote
When I was growing up and learning mathematics my dad (a professor of chemical physics) admonished me to always check my calculations to see if they made sense on the surface (in my engineering department we call this “using the beverage out the nose” test).


That's why I'm trying to keep the place squeaky clean.

by butifnot on UD

Wow.  

I have to admit reading Gil's threads reminds me of those epic threads back in the day of IIDB, with lee_merrill employing similar tactics (lots of assertions, no arguments, ignoring relevant questions, etc).

Date: 2012/02/25 12:49:16, Link
Author: socle
Quote

Prof FX Gumby: If you can measure it, and other people can measure it and get the same answer, then it's science.

Joe:

 
Quote

How can we measure evolution via blind and undirected processes?

Funny how he's never at a loss when it comes to measuring bits in a fruitcake or whatever the hell else...

Date: 2012/02/26 16:22:33, Link
Author: socle
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 26 2012,15:19)
Now what are the options:
1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.
2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.
3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

Can we vote too?  

I don't know what to say about Gil.  I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.  

Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1)  He doesn't care about the truth.  All that matters is winning the argument.

2)  He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.

Date: 2012/03/04 18:53:46, Link
Author: socle
olegt:
Quote

That's an unorthodox statement of the 2nd law. Can you show that it is equivalent to either Kelvin's or Clausius's statement?


Joe:
Quote
Well anytime you want to demonstrate nature, operating freely building houses, I will take it back


Drink!

Date: 2012/03/07 14:35:25, Link
Author: socle
William J. Murray:
   
Quote
So, when you guys reference the supposedly vast amount of evidence contained in those papers, how many of them have you read? All of them that you are referring to - meaning, all of them, or else how would you know they all agree with NDE, or your particular understanding of it? Have you read "most" of the papers ever published relating to evolutionary biology? Dating back to when?

Careful how you answer, because then the question becomes: why this apparently obsessive compulsion to educate yourself so thoroughly in fields outside of your expertise so that you can independently evaluate research data about NDE? Why is it so important to you?



So if you haven't read "most" of the papers relating to evolutionary biology, you are unqualified to participate in a discussion of the science (as WJM admits to being).  If you have read the evolutionary biology literature extensively, then that is evidence of an "obsessive compulsion".  Brilliant!

Date: 2012/03/07 23:01:23, Link
Author: socle
Happy Birthday, Elizabeth!

Date: 2012/03/13 19:04:35, Link
Author: socle
Corny's signature sign-off seems appropriate:
   
Quote

It is yet another example of how the evolutionary thinking creationism is corrupting science and, in this case, basic mathematics.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Date: 2012/03/14 01:21:27, Link
Author: socle
Joe G:
Quote

Do you really think that your refusal to grasp a concept is somehow a refutation of that concept?


Date: 2012/03/14 02:18:26, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2012,02:09)
Normal / guassian / bell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......les.gif

I need an equation with only 1 input to give the corresponding output.

Thanks!

Rich,

There is a formula---Phi(x) would be the probability of getting a z-score of less than x, assuming a standard normal distribution:




(Stolen from the wikipedia page on the Normal Distribution)

Date: 2012/03/14 09:16:00, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2012,02:23)
 
Quote (socle @ Mar. 14 2012,02:18)
 
Rich,

There is a formula---Phi(x) would be the probability of getting a z-score of less than x, assuming a standard normal distribution:




(Stolen from the wikipedia page on the Normal Distribution)

I saw that.. but it has more than just 'x' in it.

Could anyone step through it for 2 standard deviations, for example?


Hi Rich,

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but you can use wolframalpha to evaluate the integral.  The url below shows that the calculation that about 95% of the values drawn from a normal distribution have z-scores between -2 and 2. There unfortunately isn't any way to convert the integral to a simple formula involving elementary functions.  

http://tinyurl.com/7n5a9ee....7n5a9ee

Date: 2012/03/17 09:17:21, Link
Author: socle
Joe G:
 
Quote
Materialism is a theological position with all of its pproponents being plain and simple.

So close...

Date: 2012/03/21 20:20:19, Link
Author: socle
Happy Birthday!

Date: 2012/04/15 09:39:47, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Amadan @ April 15 2012,05:43)
 
Quote
OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.

So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.

But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.


From here.

That really does deserve the Dembski Cup:

There are so many errors and misconceptions in that brief passage---I'm in awe.

I actually thought that Joe had in mind something relating to Mach's Paradox, but apparently I overestimated him (yet again).

Date: 2012/04/21 09:52:12, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 21 2012,08:30)
So.... are we having our Lensesgate now?

Ok, ok, just kidding!

Date: 2012/05/20 19:41:38, Link
Author: socle
Happy Birthday, Hermagoras!

Date: 2012/06/09 00:14:51, Link
Author: socle
Robert Byers:
         
Quote
At least it once again shows the powerful impact of ID/YEC creationism upon the modern times. We are truly the talk of the town and a rising threat to the old order. Either we will prevail or it become a newsworthy flop in our time.

Cleverbot:
         
Quote
I truly don't think you could pass the Turing test.

Date: 2012/07/14 10:45:45, Link
Author: socle
Quote (The whole truth @ July 13 2012,20:30)
"And FYI, proud and disrespectful mockers on UD, that T in my name that you and your ilk so lightly play scornful games with is there because the self same blood that stood on that hill courses in my veins.

A name that is a war cry."


Date: 2012/07/17 09:35:52, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 17 2012,08:55)
fnxtr wanted me to portrait KF as harlequin. He didn't specify the gender.


I'd give a week's pay to unsee that belt

*barfs in wastebasket*

Date: 2012/07/25 16:20:32, Link
Author: socle
What's that smoke off in the distance---strawmen soaked in ad hominem oil then ignited?

Date: 2012/08/01 09:19:15, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 01 2012,08:32)
Awwww... Back at Sandwalk.

   
Quote
Geez larry, all you have to do to silence us is actually step up and present positive evidence for blind and undirected chemical processes actually constructing new multi-protein machinery. But you are such a sad little man that you can't even do that.

Ya see Larry, you can spew insults all you want but being a little faggot yourself, your insults don't carry any weight- of course you carry a lot a of weight but that is another story.

Have a good day.

BTW if you want to see a decrease in evoTARDs just tell them to find me and insult me to my face. Go NRA!

 
Quote

Joe: Please, watch tone and language. KF

Date: 2013/03/26 13:03:50, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 26 2013,12:41)
 
Quote
JDH: Phinehas – Coming from the field of physics I have always thought about this lack of direction in evolution in terms of the problem of the perpetual motion machine.

A naive person can think. Oh let’s build a perpetual motion machine this way.

1. We line up bowls of water on a set of steps.
2. We wait for the natural process of evaporation and condensation to move the water up the steps.
3. We let the water flow back down to the bottom bowl through a turbine to create energy.
4. We use this as an infinite source of energy.

What the naive person fails to realize is the “natural process of evaporation and condensation” would be just as good at moving water from an upper bowl to a lower bowl as lower bowl to upper bowl. You get a random walk, not a directional flow.


Well, it's not quite perpetual. It only works until the Sun runs out of fusile matter—more or less.

Well, I guess they might as well blow up the Three Gorges Dam.  

Date: 2013/04/05 13:40:17, Link
Author: socle
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2013,12:28)
LOL

Joe and nested hierarchies vs and actual evolutionary biologist
Boom goes the dynamite.

This has probably been noted before, but I haven't been following Joe's blog lately.  

It's interesting to contrast Joe in 2006, in a post entitled "Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy (sic)":
Quote
That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.

with Joe now, at the Skepticink thread:
Quote
Nested hierarchies are constructed by making sets. Those are specified, well-defined sets in a specified well-defined order.

Date: 2013/04/06 19:43:43, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 06 2013,17:52)
Technical constraints: We have got only one pic each for Joe and KF, Joe full face and KF half profile, and most images of tango'ing couples are strictly profile. The one I picked was the only one that lent itself to 'shopping.
Besides, to do a bit of pub psychology, weirdly enough, I suspect that Joe has effortlessly gained dominance in their relationship - he is leading the dance by now.

I get that vibe as well.  That's a look of complete submission on Gordon's face.  

In this pose, "Joe" reminded me a little of Patrick Swayze (peace be upon him) if he had been a bit huskier.  And butt ugly.

Date: 2013/04/09 16:14:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2013,14:47)
Chubs asserts:

 
Quote
Yes, my IQ is much higher than fat Felsenstein's


Hmmm...

http://www.gs.washington.edu/faculty....ein.htm

 
Quote
2002. Felsenstein, J. Quantitative characters, phylogenies, and morphometrics. pp. 27-44 in "Morphology, Shape, and Phylogenetics", ed. N. MacLeod. Systematics Association Special Volume Series 64. Taylor and Francis, London.

2002. Felsenstein, J. Contrasts for a within-species comparative method. pp. 118-129 in "Modern Developments in Theoretical Population Genetics", ed. M. Slatkin and M. Veuille. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

2004.  Felsenstein, J. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

2005. Felsenstein, J. Using the quantitative genetic threshold model for inferences between and within species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B 360: 1427-1434.

2006. Accuracy of coalescent likelihood estimates: Do we need more sites, more sequences, or more loci? Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 691-700.

2007. Trees of genes in populations. pp. 3-29 in Reconstructing Evolution. New Mathematical and Computational Advances, ed. O. Gascuel and M. Steel. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

2007. Has natural selection been refuted? The arguments of William Dembski. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 27 (3-4): 20-26.

2008. Comparative methods with sampling error and within-species variation: contrasts revisited and revised. American Naturalist 171: 713-725.

2008. (A. RoyChoudhury, J. Felsenstein, and E. A. Thompson). A two-stage pruning algorithm for likelihood computation for a population tree. Genetics
180: 1095-1105.


That or ticks & watermelons, dragonflies playing, Pyramidology and the CSI or CAEK by letter-counting?

Tough call.

Joe Felsenstein vs. Joe G must be the greatest mismatch since Per Ahlberg vs. Dave Hawkins.

Date: 2013/05/04 09:02:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 04 2013,03:30)
Could bpragmatic be Joe's sock?

Likelihood:  approaching 100%.  Joe's problem is that he can emulate ...  only Joe.

Date: 2013/05/04 10:58:01, Link
Author: socle
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2013,10:08)
bpragmatic has been a semi-regular over on Cornelius' blog:

http://www.google.com/search?....pot.com

Wow, he's a lunatic.  But I'm now thinking that his writing style is too complex to be a product of Joe's mind.

Date: 2013/05/07 22:27:48, Link
Author: socle

Date: 2013/05/13 07:47:44, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:07)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:56)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:55)
Geez oleg sets A and B- TWO sets you fucking moron- YOUR definition includes TWO sets!

The Wikipedia entry states that A and B may coincide. Can you read? LOL

So you are proud to be an asshole.

Got it.

I know that A and B may coincide. I also know that A and B are two separate sets.

'sup Joe.  

Careful---asserting that A = B and A =/= B is a bannable offense at UD.

Date: 2013/05/13 09:13:30, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:10)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,09:09)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:05)
I wouldn't push it, Joe!  After all, "improper superset" and "proper superset" are subsets of "superset"!

But at least we are all on the same page now.

Took a while, and Joe has been kicking and screaming all the way. What fun!

So oleg, why did you switch from nested hierarchies to sets?

I say it is because you are an asshole. What do you say?

Joe G:

 
Quote
But anyway, as I told Andy, nested hierarchies are constructed by making sets. Those are specified, well-defined sets in a specified well-defined order.

Date: 2013/05/13 09:53:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:40)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)
   
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)
     
Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59)
And is a set its own superset?

So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

No!  Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!

Date: 2013/05/16 08:40:11, Link
Author: socle
Joe, replying to olegt, still having trouble with set theory:
Quote
And asshole YOU were the one who said that any set is a superset and a subset of itself. Are you really that fucking retarded?

Date: 2013/05/17 08:07:50, Link
Author: socle
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2013,15:55)
Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Please please please answer this JoeG.

Sadly but unsurprisingly revealing:
 
Quote
Joe G

What does it mean to be the same size? They cannot/ do not contain the same number of elements. In your scenario (super)set b contains more elements than its subset a.

Date: 2013/05/17 18:30:12, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Henry J @ May 17 2013,13:36)
How about making the question more specific:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?

 
Quote
Joe:

Not.


Ready, Fire, Aim!

Date: 2013/05/17 21:52:55, Link
Author: socle
Joe,

What would you say about these two sets:

A = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...}

B = {0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, ...}

You can see that A is a proper superset of B.  Do they have the same cardinality?

Date: 2013/05/18 10:41:51, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,10:08)
Hey fuckface,

Why is it that no one can tell me why they are exactly the same size?

Make your case as opposed to being a coward.

Obvioulsy you touchholes don't understand the use of elipsis in set theory.

Hey Joe,

Try this experiment:

a)  Start with a set of numbers, finite or infinite.

b)  Add 1 to each of the numbers in the set.  

Does that change the cardinality ("size") of the set?

Date: 2013/05/18 11:27:15, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Date: 2013/05/18 13:14:17, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
   
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Which is the "right" mapping, then, Joe?  

Hint: as long as there is a one-to-one and onto mapping from A to B, the sets have the same cardinality.  You just have to come up with one and the question is decided (oleg's, for example).  That's what the wikipedia entry states:

Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, that is, an injective and surjective function, from A to B.

Date: 2013/05/18 13:26:37, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:23)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,13:14)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
       
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
       
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Which is the "right" mapping, then, Joe?  

Hint: as long as there is a one-to-one and onto mapping from A to B, the sets have the same cardinality.  You just have to come up with one and the question is decided (oleg's, for example).  That's what the wikipedia entry states:

Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, that is, an injective and surjective function, from A to B.

AND {0,1,2,3,...} is a proper superset of {1,2,3,4,...}.

{1,2,3,4,...} will always be a proper subset of {0,1,2,3,...}

Yes, but again, no one has disputed that.

Date: 2013/05/18 13:41:53, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:29)
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,13:26)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:23)
   
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,13:14)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
         
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
           
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Which is the "right" mapping, then, Joe?  

Hint: as long as there is a one-to-one and onto mapping from A to B, the sets have the same cardinality.  You just have to come up with one and the question is decided (oleg's, for example).  That's what the wikipedia entry states:

Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, that is, an injective and surjective function, from A to B.

AND {0,1,2,3,...} is a proper superset of {1,2,3,4,...}.

{1,2,3,4,...} will always be a proper subset of {0,1,2,3,...}

Yes, but again, no one has disputed that.

That means one, the proper superset has more elements than the other, the proper subset.

No, that doesn't follow.  The cardinalities of {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} are the same.  So are the cardinalities of {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...} and {0, 1, 10, 11, 100, ...}, btw, as I'm sure you noticed.

Even freaking Conservapaedia agrees with us, lol:

For example here we see that the set of even numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers, and thus it is in a sense the same size, even though the set of even numbers misses out a lot of numbers from the set of natural numbers.

Date: 2013/05/18 14:03:58, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:58)
According to Lizzie's link, there is more than one set theory, each with its own rules.

That's true, although the ZFC system is by far the most commonly used.  If you want to use an alternate set theory, just tell us which one.

Date: 2013/05/18 14:25:17, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,14:06)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,14:03)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:58)
According to Lizzie's link, there is more than one set theory, each with its own rules.

That's true, although the ZFC system is by far the most commonly used.  If you want to use an alternate set theory, just tell us which one.

It doesn't matter because all of this is just a distraction because you asswipes couldn't support your position if your lives depended on it.

Evolutionism doesn't require math. Evolutionism is all about imagination and promissory notes. Oh and attacking everyone who points out taht it is not only useless, it isn't science.

Well, ID at least purports to be somewhat "mathy", so this isn't purely a distraction.  If you want to make arguments based on probability, you have to understand a little about set theory and cardinality.  And these concepts are quite nontrivial, tbh.  You can't just skim a wikipedia entry and expect to have mastered the subject.

In any case, I suggest you follow Lizzie's advice and study more intensively the topics you blog on before posting.

Date: 2013/05/18 14:32:05, Link
Author: socle
Ya, probably not gonna happen.  

Date: 2013/05/18 17:00:33, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,16:34)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Socle also added to it leaving infinity (three dots) before 100 and 101, therefore according to the logic now shown infinity ends at 100 or 101.

Hey Gary,

The sets such as {0,1, 2, 3, ..., 100} that Joe and I were talking about aren't infinite;  the "..." just represents a gap.  This set just has the numbers 0 through 100 as elements, so we are not presuming that "infinity ends at 100".

Date: 2013/05/18 18:34:06, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,18:18)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,17:00)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,16:34)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:06)
     
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,11:27)
       
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:21)
Try this:

{0,1,2,3,...100} compared to {1,2,3,4,...100}

Are they the same size?

No, but no one here claimed they did.  {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however.

Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }.

Well for the same reason {0,1,2,3,...100} is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...100}, {0,1,2,3,...) is not equal to {1,2,3,4,...}.

Arbitrary mapping doesn't cut it.

Socle also added to it leaving infinity (three dots) before 100 and 101, therefore according to the logic now shown infinity ends at 100 or 101.

Hey Gary,

The sets such as {0,1, 2, 3, ..., 100} that Joe and I were talking about aren't infinite;  the "..." just represents a gap.  This set just has the numbers 0 through 100 as elements, so we are not presuming that "infinity ends at 100".

That's not what I learned in math class. Three periods at the end are supposed to indicate infinity, not a gap.

My choice of the word "gap" there was not very good, but oleg's link explains the notation well.

Date: 2013/05/18 18:49:25, Link
Author: socle
BTW, Gary, do you ever code in Haskell?  There is a ellipsis type notation for constructing lists that is similar to Joe's and my usage:

     [1,2 .. 10] evaluates to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]

while

     [1,3 .. 10] evaluates to [1,3,5,7,9]

You can even use [0 ..] to get the list corresponding to the set {0, 1, 2, ...}.

Date: 2013/05/18 22:27:41, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2013,22:18)
 
Quote (socle @ May 18 2013,18:49)
BTW, Gary, do you ever code in Haskell?  There is a ellipsis type notation for constructing lists that is similar to Joe's and my usage:

     [1,2 .. 10] evaluates to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]

while

     [1,3 .. 10] evaluates to [1,3,5,7,9]

You can even use [0 ..] to get the list corresponding to the set {0, 1, 2, ...}.

Did you notice that there are two periods instead of three?

 
Quote
> [0,2..20]

http://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr....@sli@22

Why yes, I did.

Date: 2013/05/19 09:07:11, Link
Author: socle
Holy crap, he won't give up.  Too lazy to link, but from Joe's blog:

             
Quote
So if two sets are not equal, then they cannot have the same cardinality.

Date: 2013/05/19 10:11:00, Link
Author: socle
Joe,

Take a look at this page, especially the second example, which states:
 
Quote
Example: The cardinality of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, …..} is the same as the cardinality of the natural numbers with zero included {0, 1, 2, 3, …..}. We can do this by the correspondence 1?0, 2?1, 3?2, ……, n?n – 1,…….. Thus card({1, 2, 3….}) = card({0, 1, 2, 3…}).

oleg showed that yesterday.

That page also discusses the fact that there are many (infinitely many, in fact) infinite cardinal numbers.

Date: 2013/05/19 12:53:11, Link
Author: socle
Joe,



from this book.

Date: 2013/05/19 21:06:31, Link
Author: socle
Hey Joe,

Let's say we go with your claim that A = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and B = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} should have different cardinalities.  

Then what would the cardinality of C = {0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, ...} be?  It should be the same as one of those above, right?  But which one, A or B?

Date: 2013/05/19 22:38:23, Link
Author: socle
Quote
Joe: One set has every number of the other set PLUS one number the other set does not contain. To say they have the same cardinality or are the size, is just subjective. And just because you chumps buy it without question, don't get upset with me because I can see the obvious and you cannot.


You say it's subjective, Joe, but Cantor's definition works, whereas yours doesn't.  According to Cantor, these sets all have the same cardinality:

    {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

    {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}

    {0.5, 1.5, 2,5, 3.5, ...}

    {x, x + 1, x + 2, x + 3, ...}

    {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

namely, aleph-null.  How convenient.  

According to you, the first two sets have different cardinalities, and I have no idea what you would say about the others.  How will you even make sense of the size of {x, x + 1, x + 2, x + 3, ...} in your system?  Why would you want to choose such a complicated scheme, when Cantor's is so elegant in comparison?

Date: 2013/05/22 11:19:34, Link
Author: socle
Joe:
   
Quote
And not only that no oen can say what the practical application is for saying that the set of all non-negative integers and all positive integers have the same cardinality. It doesn't appear to have any use at all.

Dembski and Marks, in The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search:
   
Quote
... note also that such combinations, when restricted to a countable dense subset of Omega form a countable dense subset of M(Omega) in the
weak topology, showing that M(Omega) is itself separable in
the weak topology.

Date: 2013/05/24 08:41:18, Link
Author: socle
Joe has laid down an epic challenge:

Joe:
 
Quote
LoL! That's it?

No one uses Cantor's concept of cardinality with respect to countably infinite sets.

And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Date: 2013/05/25 12:29:01, Link
Author: socle
Admittedly, hypernatural numbers are not my field, but here is how I image Kulla might reply to keiths' post at TSZ.  I will write |S| for the "hypernatural cardinality" of set S, as defined by Kulla.

|{1, 2, 3, ...}| is the class of (a_n) = (1, 2, 3, ...).

|{2, 3, 4, ...}| is the class of (b_n) = (0, 1, 2, ...).

Now because a_n > b_n for almost all n in N (for any choice of "almost all n in N"), we have that |{1, 2, 3, ...}| > |{2, 3, 4, ...}|.  

Here's a question I have.  It seems to me a comparison of, say, {1, 3, 5, ...} with {2, 4, 6, ...} would depend on the choice of notion of "almost all n in N".  As Kulla mentions:
   
Quote
For example we can derive that (1, 2, 1, 2, 1, ...) will represent 1 or 2 but we cannot say which number. Okay I have to be more precise: You can find a concept ''for almost all n [in] N'' where the sequence will represent 1, but nobody has found a concept yet where you can decide for all pairs of sequences whether they are equivalent or not.

Is it possible that |{1, 4, 7, 10, ...}| is larger than |{2, 5, 8, 11, ...}|, while at the same time |{2, 5, 8, 11, ...}| is smaller than |{3, 6, 9, 12, ...}|?  If so, that would be a very strange notion of cardinality.

Date: 2013/05/25 13:43:57, Link
Author: socle
Quote (socle @ May 25 2013,12:29)
Is it possible that |{1, 4, 7, 10, ...}| is larger than |{2, 5, 8, 11, ...}|, while at the same time |{2, 5, 8, 11, ...}| is smaller than |{3, 6, 9, 12, ...}|?  If so, that would be a very strange notion of cardinality.

Ok, strike that last question.  

Date: 2013/05/25 22:17:33, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ May 25 2013,18:15)
Hi socle,

You don't need to know anything about the hypernaturals to see that Kulla's idea won't work.

Here's how I explained it to Joe:
 
Quote
In fact, any definition of cardinality is flawed if it holds that a countably infinite set is larger than its countably infinite proper subset...

The fact is that {1,2,3,…} can be converted into {2,4,6,…} without adding or removing any elements. You simply multiply each element by 2.

If one set can be converted into another without adding or removing any elements, by merely operating on each existing element, then the sets have the same cardinality.

Link to full comment

Hi keiths,

I certainly agree that if we require equivalent sets to have equal cardinality (and I can't think of a reason not to), then Kulla's definition fails.  I did find it slightly interesting that he seems to be able to assign infinitely many degrees of infinity in such a way as to ensure that if A is a proper subset of B, then |A| < |B|, for all A and B.

Date: 2013/05/26 08:32:04, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ May 26 2013,01:51)
I guess I just can't see the point of a "cardinality" which can be changed by simply replacing elements without any net addition or removal of elements.

To me, Kulla's definition seems more like a density function than a cardinality, and it can be expressed without the use of the hypernaturals.

To compare the densities of two sets of natural numbers, you could simply sum up their characteristic functions from 1 to n, take the ratio, and then find the limit of that ratio as n goes to infinity.  

If the limit is less than 1, then the numerator set is less dense than the denominator set.  If the limit is 1, they are equally dense. If the limit is greater than 1, then the numerator set is denser than the denominator set.

tbh, I don't see how it would be useful either.  However if I understand Kulla's construction, it actually does give different results than measures such as Banach density.

For example, if A = {1, 2, 3, ...} and B = {2, 3, 4, ...}, then A and B have equal density by the standard measures.

On the other hand, if we form the sequences of partial sums of the characteristic functions for A and B (which Joe interpreted in his Einstein Train Gedankenexperiment ), we find:

A -> (1, 2, 3, ...)

B -> (0, 1, 2, ...)

Then by Kulla's definition, |A| = [(1, 2, 3, ...)] and |B| = [(0, 1, 2, ...)] (brackets denoting equivalence classes).  

In the hypernatural numbers,

[(1, 2, 3, ...)] = [(0, 1, 2, ...)] + [(1, 1, 1, ...)]

and because [(1, 1, 1, ...)] = 1 in this system, this means |A| = |B| + 1, where |A| and |B| are both infinite and not equal.

Date: 2013/05/26 16:31:52, Link
Author: socle
Quote
Joe:  Hey assface, by the time I my junior in high school had ended I had my fill of high school math. They didn't have calculus. So in my senior year of high school I went to the local JUCO and took calculus at night. I was also the first underclassman at that school to hold the title of Chess Champion.

[ce

Date: 2013/05/26 23:35:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ May 26 2013,22:15)
   
Quote (socle @ May 26 2013,06:32)

tbh, I don't see how it would be useful either.  However if I understand Kulla's construction, it actually does give different results than measures such as Banach density.

For example, if A = {1, 2, 3, ...} and B = {2, 3, 4, ...}, then A and B have equal density by the standard measures...


True, but that's easily fixed by just summing the characteristic functions up to n and taking their ratio, instead of finding the limit.  If there is a value of n beyond which the ratio of the sums is always less than one, then the numerator set is "smaller" than the denominator set in Kulla's sense.  No need to invoke the hypernaturals.

Yes, I think that would be a nice simplification if we needed to compare two relatively well-behaved sets.

One thing I'm not clear on is how this would extend to the full power set of N in a consistent way, as Kulla's definition does, supposedly.  I can think of pairs of sets where the ratio sequence would oscillate around 1, even to the point where there is a subsequence approaching 0 and a subsequence approaching infinity.  I don't know how you would decide which set is bigger in such cases.

On the other hand, Kulla's cardinality (or cardinalities, I suppose) is not really computable except for rather trivial cases because of the dependence on the choice of ultrafilter, which is not known constructively.

Date: 2013/05/26 23:43:53, Link
Author: socle
Erm, I mean that you can only compare the cardinalities of sets under Kulla's definition in rather trivial cases.

Date: 2013/05/27 09:14:08, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ May 26 2013,17:47)
Cross-posted from TSZ:
         
Quote
Another attempt to penetrate Joe’s infinitely thick skull.

Joe, I showed you how to convert {1,2,3,…} to {2,4,6,…} without adding or removing any elements.

You politely and plaintively ask:
   
Quote
Where did all of the odd numbers go if you didn’t remove them? Or are you really that fucking stupid?

This may help. Imagine you have a countably infinite collection of objects, to which you have applied sticky labels with the numbers “1", “2", “3", etc., written on them. Each label is unique; no two labels contain the same number.

Now imagine that for each object, you peel off the existing label and replace it with a new label. On the new label you write a number that is twice the number on the old label.

The objects remain the same throughout. You haven’t added or removed any objects — you’ve just changed the labels. Because the objects remain the same, the cardinality of the set remains the same. As you like to say, it’s so obvious that even a fourth-grader could understand it.

Yet according to Joe Math, the set miraculously lost half of its objects when it was relabeled. Where did they go, Joe? Who removed them?

Yet another all-nighter in the ID lab...

Date: 2013/06/01 22:01:18, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2013,21:43)
You helped make it clear that this is a forum for mocking and ridiculing people like me, not a forum for civilly discussing the scientific issues you are in the habit of brushing off like there are no socially significant issues which must be taken seriously. Now that I spent as many class days here as I would where I worked in a public school teacher it’s time for me to get back to those who actually appreciate my work, and try to take my wife’s advice to get out of all forums like this one before it does further damage to my health and welfare which she is now seriously worried about because of nightmares that have me talking and fighting in my sleep, which had her sleeping on the couch more than once after almost getting kicked clear off the bed. This is typical of someone under extreme stress, a traumatic stress disorder brought on by years of fighting a system that literally gets away with murder then benefits from blaming the victims when they try their best to defend themselves against its smart-sounding bullies.

At this point in time one of the best lessons for you and others to learn is how it feels when you’re the one left with almost nothing to lose. You’ll at least have plenty of company who will also know what it's like to have their "balls to the wall" especially your friend "Driver” who now has a new signature line that is an excellent example of why a growing number of people (including myself) no longer have any respect at all for political activists who have been claiming to represent science and science education who instead trash educational resources self-learners rely on, and us personally.

Jesus.  Your wife has excellent advice, IMHO.  Get out and enjoy your life.

Date: 2013/06/06 19:50:47, Link
Author: socle
Just another day of "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning" for Joe:  

Quote
Jerad:  What about the cardinaloty of the rational numbers? Where does that fit in?

Joe: Up your ass?

Date: 2013/06/08 11:01:11, Link
Author: socle
Robert Byers:
 
Quote
Mental retardation is a form of drunkenness

Date: 2013/06/18 15:41:47, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 18 2013,14:18)
LOL@ KF correcting Joe over at UD. Roll over and show your tummy, Joe!

I haven't looked at UD in ages, but I had to peek.  It seems that KF has a revolt on his hands.  Is it wrong for me to be rooting for Sal and Joe G? 

Date: 2013/06/29 19:55:18, Link
Author: socle
This is a first.  keiths invites kairosfocus to join a discussion in another thread at UD:
   
Quote
I’m not trying to divert the thread. I’m inviting you to join the other thread, where bornagain77 and Joe are trying unsuccessfully to defend the notion of an immaterial soul against the evidence from observations of split-brain patients.

Are you up to the challenge?

No, it turns out.  KF is too busy:
 
Quote
Not interested in other threads, and the linked highlights the problems with mind and morality that evo mat faces.
 
Quote
KS: You are being rude and demanding, in a context where it is obvious that I have a real life living which has its own demands.

Date: 2013/07/08 01:25:48, Link
Author: socle
cantor:

Quote
Consider the following:

If I were to randomly select a group of 75 different people from a roomful of 200 men and 100 women, what is the probability that the selected group would contain exactly 25 women?


I believe the answer to this is C(100, 25)*C(200, 50)/C(300, 75), which is about 11.2%.  Unless I'm wrong.

Date: 2013/07/15 10:35:51, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Febble @ July 15 2013,09:10)
Joe G is walloping WJM!

Go, Joe!

Say what you like about Joe he gets some things right.

He's not one of you guys is he?

Heh.  Sometimes I wonder.  He is amazingly spot-on on some issues.  Assalamualaikum, Joe.

Date: 2013/07/17 08:43:36, Link
Author: socle
Right here:

Date: 2013/07/17 19:57:04, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 17 2013,19:27)
Socle got it right:

In my defense, any accurate information in my post was purely accidental.

Date: 2013/07/21 21:24:02, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 21 2013,21:14)
 
Quote (Febble @ July 22 2013,11:55)
There's a kind of elegance in the symmetry of moving from DU to UD.

And Axel, bless him, has been in the opposite corner in both places :)

DU? (Maybe I am being slow today).

www.democraticunderground.com, I'm guessing?

Date: 2013/07/23 20:11:04, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ July 23 2013,19:41)
Cross-posted from TSZ:
 
Quote
Announcement:

The “Rules of Right Reason” have been promoted to the “First Rules of Right Reason“, courtesy of StephenB.

Stephen’s post includes this bizarre bit of illogic:

 
Quote
One can say, “If A, then B”, only if everything except B is understood to be an impossible consequence of A.

Looks like they skipped the First Rules of Right Reason at StephenB’s school.

Nice own goal, however. How embarrassing for Stephen.

Maybe the Second Rules of Right Reason will be more successful.

Date: 2013/07/31 21:54:11, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 31 2013,20:51)
Wait a minute -- how do we know that our William J. Murray of Uncommon Descent wrote any of those books?  It can't be that unique a name.

See here for some discussion on Lizzie's site about WJM's books:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....n....nt-8540

Date: 2013/07/31 22:08:57, Link
Author: socle
WJM's Anarchic Harmony on amazon.com:
 
Quote
New. No dust jacket as issued. Signed by author. signed by Murray on 1/2 title page, dated 7/27/92, excellent addition to the collector's shelves! this copy came from Mike Hoy's (editor of Loompanics) personal library (although it is unfortunately not.. Trade paperback (US). Glued binding. 144 p. Audience: General/trade. I have a copy of Murray's other book Unconditional Freedom that IS signed to Mike if you're interested.

All yours for the low low price of $117.50

Date: 2013/08/09 18:53:02, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 09 2013,17:35)
There is no doubt that something changed which has it out taking frolicking hikes and having fun dancing around, even waggles. Later on in life becomes more set in their ways, less experimentative, like this one was in their (relatively speaking) adolesance.

Date: 2013/08/15 10:51:51, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 15 2013,10:27)
On the Bathroom Wall, cubist posted a link to Greta Christina's blog entry in which she discusses the situation.

I know you will eat me alive, but for once, I think she's 100% right.

I 100% agree, FWIW.

Date: 2013/08/17 22:22:18, Link
Author: socle
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 17 2013,20:11)
And it's a huge problem that sexual assault may very well not be sexual assault until after the fact.

OgreMkV,

I'm not sure what this means.  Could you elaborate for me please?  Thanks.

Date: 2013/09/02 23:58:34, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 02 2013,23:07)
I left a comment on Miller's blog…
 
Quote
Expelled for failing to adhere to a dogmatic orthodoxy? Interesting. Do you think there might be a movie in that, Kevin?

It is being held in moderation. We shall see if Miller chooses to let it out of moderation, and if he does that, whether/how he will choose to respond to it.

Date: 2013/12/09 18:24:38, Link
Author: socle
Quote (REC @ Dec. 09 2013,04:32)
Sal, next comment, indulges him:
 
Quote
Mapou,

The ID and creationist case maybe strengthened by developments in anti-mainstream physics, and a byproduct of this could be renewable energy. ....
I’ve also tracked developments in electro-alchemy.

For my Christmas present, I want to see Sal post an OP on his favorite anti-mainstream physics.  Maybe some Tom Bearden-esque crankiness?

Date: 2013/12/14 21:13:09, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2013,20:34)
I'm currently working on the IDLab4

Date: 2013/12/19 11:18:32, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 19 2013,10:44)
It would appear poker player Barry has had his bluff called by Reciprocating Bill:


   
Quote
In the words of the man in black, “get used to disappointment.” Your assertions in 15 are so egregiously off base that they indicate one of two things: (1) someone who is invincibly stupid and incapable of understanding the issues; or (2) someone being intentionally dishonest and attempting to obscure the issue. Either way, it is pointless to engage with you. BTW, charity compels me to assume (1) is true.

For the readers, I am not going to rise to RB’s bait. If anyone has a good faith question about the nonsense he spewed in 15, post it and I will answer it, or, better yet, go read the paper for yourself.


LOL@Barry. It's wholly unreasonable for Bill to expect you to argue your case. Bluffer Barry, I hope you're better at poker. You're embarrassing yourself, and it's quite enjoyable.

Such a fine example of Christian charity!

Date: 2013/12/20 10:53:03, Link
Author: socle
I like this statement that KN posted a few days ago at TSZ:
Quote
And once again, Arrington and his band of Merry Men demonstrate that the "science" of intelligent design relies on simplistic answers to poorly-formulated questions.

IDers like to keep their arguments sloppy and their definitions nebulous*.  They thrive in the absence of rigor.  That's their niche.

*This might be a paraphrase of something I've read, but I can't find it at the moment.

Date: 2013/12/28 21:12:13, Link
Author: socle
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 28 2013,21:02)
Axel joins in:    
Quote
It’s inconceivable, imo, that behemoths, such as Google and Microsoft, in this omnipresent medium, should not be in cahoots with US Intelligence and, secondarily, other national intelligence agencies, with a view to marginalising independent and almost, ipso facto, hostile, sites and posters, by suppressing their true following.

Link

Date: 2013/12/31 16:24:55, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
       
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


       
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

I am not a number theorist either, but AFAIK, the general problem remains unsolved.  See here: http://tinyurl.com/9oa3kjw....9oa3kjw

Only the first string of digits that KF posted occurs in the first 200 million digits of pi according to http://www.angio.net/pi....p....i....pi

Date: 2014/01/10 01:06:17, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 09 2014,20:26)
My scientific mission now has me in a global computer forum with a scientific theory that (according to what was said) over 99% of scientists agreed had to be pseudoscience. I'm again inviting trouble like crazy again, with something that was meant to scientifically be, because it's there (in science awaiting more detailed explanation). It's again good clean science fun, but what it is makes big waves off in some directions, where who knows what will happen next..

<cue mission impossible theme>

Date: 2014/01/11 17:17:38, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2014,17:01)
Oh, I'm still going with the flow of Joseph Campbell's work on the "hero's journey" as explained in a TED-Ed video, where there are villains of the story and expected cycle:  

Gary, I think your "mission" is better described by John Baez' Crackpot Index than by Joseph Campbell's work.  It's your life, though, if you enjoy coding your ID "Labs", then keep on keepin' on!

Date: 2014/01/11 19:07:47, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2014,18:24)
Music from my formative years makes this more precisely another fine Endless Enigma that I got myself stuck in:

Emerson, Lake & Palmer: The Endless Enigma 1

The persecution theme is evident in all your writings.  What makes you think that anyone is paying attention to your work, ... er, except for a few of us killing time on a forum dedicated to making fun of creationists?  What "trouble" has all this created for you, beyond what you have brought on yourself?  

But seriously, I would give anything for Greg Lake's J200.  Don't think he wears those clingy shirts anymore though:

The Sage

Date: 2014/01/16 00:16:19, Link
Author: socle
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2014,23:30)
Anyone speak Byersian?

   
Quote (Neil Rickert @ Jan 14 2014)
I sometimes say that when people disagree in what is said to be a logical argument,the disagreement is usually about the premises rather than about the logic.I think you are making a similar point.

   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan 14 2014)
YES. Its the premises. Yet I’m adding premises are so unknown that logic itself does not exist. or not as people use the word.
There is just profound accurate conclusions in the universe. Logic is a very special case dealing with this accuracy and so is almost useless in human thought.

Profound accurate conclusions in the universe == Dào.  Still working on the rest.

Date: 2014/01/28 16:11:37, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
 
Quote
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

I think he means but don't hold your breath.
UD link

Please please please let this happen.  Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD.

Date: 2014/01/30 22:38:01, Link
Author: socle
Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.

Date: 2014/01/30 22:54:30, Link
Author: socle
Quote (socle @ Jan. 30 2014,22:38)
Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.

stupid me, strike the first paragraph...

Date: 2014/01/31 22:59:06, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 31 2014,22:13)
 
Quote
Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?

Is circumference divided by diameter even a constant in those other two geometries?

I expect that the limit of that ratio would approach pi as the size of the circle approaches zero, from above in one case, from below in the other.

Henry

Is R^2 with the taxicab metric allowed?  

Date: 2014/02/01 12:09:31, Link
Author: socle
Quote (REC @ Feb. 01 2014,11:27)
I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?

Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps.

Date: 2014/02/02 23:47:48, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 02 2014,22:37)
If what you and others are saying is true then they are likely not who they say they are. I would not at all be surprised to find out it's another deception (false flag) from someone in your camp.

Perhaps Joe will one day settle this identity problem. But until then, I must assume that they are "Posting porn pictures" on your behalf.

If he's a deep cover sock, he's good enough that he was able to convince Kairosfocus to let him put up a guest post.  And we all know KF is quite a canny judge of character.  

Wait ... could it be that KF is also an undercover materialist working against the movement?  That would explain his preposterous rantings.

I'm not sure where this stops though.  If you think that Joe is likely running a false flag operation, then you have to conclude that BA^77, Byers, Mapou, and probably half the other ID "supporters" over there are as well.

Date: 2014/02/08 17:45:11, Link
Author: socle
Gregory, growing closer to Jesus every day:
Quote
You seem to give agent-hood status as a replacement psychological Solomon strategy without the Solomon. Ecclesiastes might help. It doesn’t bite. Open and read, Mr. 70 yr-old. Why not give a new flavour a try. Your generation was sucked of its soul, as most sociologists who study the phenomenon globally would agree. The only way out: try.

Date: 2014/02/18 15:55:00, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)
See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood

Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.

Nice to see Wally B's Hydropants Theory getting a mention by Joe in that thread.

Date: 2014/02/21 21:11:00, Link
Author: socle
Robert Byers:
Quote
Even as baby’s we are already as intelligent as adults. babies are simply very retarded people.

omg, he misspelled 'babbys' twice!

Date: 2014/02/24 15:33:26, Link
Author: socle
Speaking of Denyse, has her stint at The Best Schools blog ended?  I can still see google's cached snapshot from early February 2014, but now it seems the url redirects to thebestschools.org

Date: 2014/02/24 18:44:38, Link
Author: socle
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 24 2014,16:07)
They've still got this on Dembski.

I always assumed TBS this was a fake DO'L web-farm site. Maybe it was an unwitting host to an ID parasite akin to "Baylor University's Evolutionary informatics lab."

Interesting.  Too bad that Dembski interview is on such a useless website.
 
Quote
William Dembski: Thanks for the opportunity to do this interview, which looks as though it will be my most extensive interview to date...


Date: 2014/02/25 13:40:01, Link
Author: socle
Quote (khan @ Feb. 25 2014,12:33)
The Discovery Institute’s founding dates back to the early ’90s. It was started as a high-tech and public-policy think tank. George Gilder (left) was one of the key people providing it with vision.
Were I not already thoroughly disgusted by Dembski and the 'toot, this would be sufficient.

What an odious man.  

OT:  From Gilder's wikipedia page, on the origins of the Discovery Institute:
Quote
The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems

Heh.  Joe G will publish his CSI calculations in Nature before Seattle has a modern transportation system (I still love the town though).

Date: 2014/02/25 23:24:32, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,22:58)
Joe helpfully tells us that Laser stands for...

     
Quote
Light Amplification by Stimulations of Emitted Rays

Reminds me of a classic Damon Wayans character from back in the day.


   
Quote
I'd like to continue the 'redundance' of my quote, unquote 'intestinal tract', you see because to preclude on the issue of world domination would only circumvent---excuse me, circumcise the revelation that reflects the 'Afro-disiatic' symptoms which now perpetrates the Jheri Curls activation.

Date: 2014/03/06 18:41:02, Link
Author: socle
Now this is comical.  Gregory, talking down to Joe Felsenstein:

Date: 2014/03/07 22:45:51, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,21:41)
Bonus KF wrongity:

 
Quote
Franklin: You evidently do not recognise a logistic based, modified, product life cycle model. The one that is relevant to market type situations. And BTW, going viral is going to fit that as epidemics spread in much the same way. Surge and flatten out to a steady pattern. KF


Emphasis mine.

http://library.thinkquest.org/11170......le.html

 
Quote
An epidemic hits a population, runs its course, and dies out. It disappears either because of a cure, or everyone without immunity dies.


Emphasis mine again.

Date: 2014/03/15 20:33:22, Link
Author: socle
The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?

Date: 2014/03/19 09:20:43, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,07:49)
They all want to father their own information acronym:


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.

That's some nice cargo cult maths there.  

Or maybe I should call it "science work".

Date: 2014/03/19 11:43:54, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 19 2014,11:34)
Anyone know what JGuy is blathering on about in that thread?
 
Quote
There are some odd things in mathematics. One that I find peculiar is that the sum of all positive integers equals not infinity but rather -1/12. Of course, this requires a little creative math.. yet it’s apparently proven! So, my question is why would this most generic of divergent series (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …inf) have such a peculiar value? Zero would have been as unexpected, but arguably more intuitively palatable from a symmetrical point of view (i.e. why 12 would be found special use in our decimal numbering system?). But -1/12 is certainly more interesting than zero. How odd.. not only is it an unexpected fraction, it’s negative.

I really shouldn't care, but if there is a 'proof' it's probably hilarious.

I had to look this up too.  Here's some explanation:

http://tinyurl.com/mnp635w....mnp635w

Naturally, the idea that the literal sum in the infinite series sense equals -1/12 is rubbish.

Date: 2014/03/20 13:18:35, Link
Author: socle
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 20 2014,11:42)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 20 2014,11:13)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!

Is anyone in a position to ask why niwrad isn't using quaternions, or Clifford algebras?

(or, perhaps, Hundreds, Tens and Units, which he might aspire to actually understand.....)  :p

That sounds like a job for Kairosfocus!  

Date: 2014/03/22 17:34:04, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)
Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.

It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.

It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*.  

You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct?  Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like.

Date: 2014/03/22 20:35:50, Link
Author: socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,19:24)
Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.



Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.  

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.

I see.  Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory?

Date: 2014/03/22 20:58:16, Link
Author: socle
Here's one that comes to mind:

Date: 2014/03/24 16:22:52, Link
Author: socle
Quote (socle @ Mar. 15 2014,20:33)
The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?

U/D:  KF has finally broken his silence on the missing Malaysian plane.  On his blog, he links to an interview of Gen. Tom McInerney by Sean Hannity on Faux News in which the General discusses his theory that the plane was taken to Pakistan.  Hijacked by the "devout Muslim" pilot and copilot, of course.

Looks like KF missed the part about how the pilot looks to be a political progressive, possibly even an atheist, who posted videos to youtube on how to adjust air conditioning units.

Nothing in the copilot's background suggests a propensity to hijack airplanes either.  A family member of mine who was acquainted with him (the copilot dated her friend) reports that he seemed to be much more interested in the ladies than in jihad.  

Nevertheless, Kairosfocus lazily falls for the General's facile interpretation of the story, referring to "Gen. McInerney's educated guesses on the missing aircraft from Malaya [sic]" calling it "speculative" but "worth thinking on".

Oh yes, the General thinks all young Muslim men should be strip-searched before boarding airplanes.  He's also a birther.  

Nice job vetting your sources, KF.

Date: 2014/04/07 11:29:40, Link
Author: socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2014,09:41)

But you said:

"2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random."

You state that equiprobability is a necessity for Randomness. Then you claim that something that isn't equiprobable is also random because it is "a chance event'

You haven't thought this through, have you cupcake?

You might want to think about things before trying to define them for those who know better.

I notice Joe's blog archive goes back to Oct 2005.  8.5 years.  That's enough time to get a BS, MS, and PhD, starting from scratch.  Yet still we see these elementary errors.  It's mind-boggling.

 

 

 

=====