AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: someotherguy

form_srcid: someotherguy

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.170.136

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: someotherguy

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 'someotherguy%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/09/21 15:09:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
*delurks for the first time*

Earlier today, I registered at UD and made what I thought was a very polite suggestion that, if they stopped deleting posts and comments, maybe people like Wesley would not feel the need to make archives of the website.  My comment hasn't made it through the moderation filter.  I'll be suprised--but pleasantly so--if it does.

Date: 2006/09/24 09:04:09, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:09)
... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

After having read about 150 pages of the previous thread, I assure you that you are in no position to be able to do this.

Date: 2006/09/24 09:12:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2006,19:58)
dam. now I want some boxing gloves and a lucha libre mask.

Dude, I don't know where you live, but if it's anywhere near Southern California, you should drive down to Tijuana, Mexico.  They've got vendors walking around, selling lucha libre masks by the dozen!

Date: 2006/09/26 10:46:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
The gods smile upon those of use who are addicted to the the creationist culture wars:

Michael Behe is writing a new book!

Thinking about all the wonderfully hilarious PT and ScienceBlogs smackdowns this book will produce puts a smile on my face.

Date: 2006/09/26 15:24:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
From "Darwinoctonus" blog at Overwhelming (lack of) Evidence:

Quote
I'm delighted that this site is up and running. I hope to see it generate much fruitful discussion. Students are systematically being disenfranchised by the powers that be, being force fed an overwhelmingly unsupported theory (Darwinism) and given no alternatives. This site represents a sea change in the current debate.

(emphasis mine)



"That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. . ."

Date: 2006/09/26 17:33:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 26 2006,21:38)
They have a new user, Davetard!
edit: and
pwnedbyjones
Pwned is apparently videogamer slang for "owned", to be "owned" is to be humiliated by an opponent.
Wiki
Quote
The slang term pwn (pron. pown [as in p+own] or phoned), a term used primarily in the Internet gaming culture, means to defeat an opponent with little or no competition. In this context, to be pwned can be defined as "to get your butt kicked," with the strong connotation of also having been "made a fool of." It is generally used for taunting of a player's in-game enemies, and rubbing in any victories.

LOL.  Here's hoping the site gets overrun by sarcastic, Evilutionistic Darwinists! :D

Date: 2006/09/26 22:26:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2006,00:49)
One thing caught my attention looking at the blogs (warning: your didn't think I could sink any lower in your esteem, I'm about to disprove it).

The two most recent posts are from yesterday (the 26th).  The previous post is from July.  Similarly the posts in the fora: a couple of recent ones, and then stuff from July or earlier.

According to Dembski, the site was "not yet up and running" on the 10th August (
link).  So how could people post blog entries and forum comments?

Curious.

Bob

I wondered the same thing.  Very strange. . .

Date: 2006/09/27 10:37:35, Link
Author: someotherguy
Holy Cow! Heddle's on a roll!

Quote
I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people where the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you’ll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.

Date: 2006/10/02 16:04:21, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 02 2006,17:01)
OverwhelmingEvidence's most prolific blogger wishes it to be known that he has just been sacked.

Not only were you booted, but they appear to have deleted your blog posts.  Lame; hardly surprising, but lame nonetheless.

Date: 2006/10/09 19:34:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 10 2006,00:05)
 
Quote
2. Jehu  // Oct 9th 2006 at 6:45 pm

A bigger question is why do atheists bother with anything other than perhaps eating, sleeping, defefacting, and “continuing their genetic matter.”

What I mean is, if life has no meaning, if there is no right or wrong, no good or evil, how can they possibly complain about a violation of their rights? On what basis do they make the complaint? How do they posit that any such rights exists and if they do exist why should anybody care if they are violated?

Comment by Jehu — October 9, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

I don't believe in God, but I'm sure glad that belief in him manages to keeps all* of these Christians with anti-social tendencies at bay.  Praise Jesus!


*Well, maybe not all. . .

Date: 2006/10/10 14:58:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 10 2006,19:34)
must have been the voices of all the gleeful salmon that sparked my remembering that little "canned salmon" comment of hers.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/123199_dye23.html

I'm not surprised.  Salmon do have a reputation for being vindictive bastards.  You don't want to mess with 'em.

Date: 2006/10/11 10:25:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2006,14:49)
JAD GETS BOOTED AGAIN

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1694#comment-68137

I love it so!

I knew there was a reason I keep coming back here--and to UD--day after day.  Hilarious.

Date: 2006/10/11 12:40:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:37)
Quote
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
by William Dembski on October 11th, 2006 · No Comments

Check out this great looking website (if only the content matched in quality): http://richarddawkins.net.

Anybody who is willing and able to upgrade the look, feel, and functionality of this site (Uncommon Descent) to match that of the Dawkins site will receive three of my books autographed. What a deal. Think it over.

Filed Under: Evolution · Intelligent Design · Darwinism · Religion · Science

That's a pretty tempting offer.  I could use the paper to roll a heckuva lot of cigarettes.

Oh wait. . .I quite smoking.  Nevermind.  :(

Date: 2006/10/13 15:17:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Now, granted that I haven't had to expend energy arguing against GoP, but I must say that I am more than a little impressed by GoP's trolling skills.  For some reason (after lurking in these forums for quite a while), I'm somewhat relieved that GoP was a troll.  Thatt makes me feel better about humanity.  Now if only afdave was faking it. . .

Date: 2006/10/14 10:20:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (MidnightVoice @ Oct. 14 2006,15:07)
Quote (Russell @ Oct. 13 2006,16:32)
In light of "Ghost of Paley"'s coming clean, I'm reluctant to waste more time on the likes of AFDave, perhaps only to learn months from now it was all just a drawn-out joke.

OK, I have been away, and have had no luck searching  :D

Link?

See this post from the "LUCA" thread.

Date: 2006/10/14 19:56:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 14 2006,23:43)
Allen MacNeil schools Dembski check it out before the thread disappears.

Summing it up, Dembski mentions 8 symptoms of groupthink, inviting comments about which ones describe academia.  Allen gives him a frank answer.  Dembski threatens to boot him.  Then sparc tries to get booted by using nothing but Dembski's own words.
 
Quote
6. sparc  // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:25 pm

   5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;

   …

   8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

William Dembski:

   For your fatuous remarks above, I should boot you from this forum

Comment by sparc — October 14, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

That comment from sparc must have been deleted; I'm not seeing it anymore.

Date: 2006/10/16 15:24:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 16 2006,19:25)
It's mysterious, though. Some of the IDers are much smarter than others. Davetard's IQ is probably something like 105, waaaay smarter than the average over there. How many TroutMacs and Josephs is it going to take before it dawns on him, that he is on the side of stupid?

Maybe he thinks it's better to reign in #### than serve in Heaven?

Date: 2006/10/26 15:29:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 26 2006,18:21)
I think his Tardness is gonna have to pull the plug on this thread:

 
Quote
31. bebbo // Oct 26th 2006 at 4:41 pm

Dave, just out of curiosity would Phillip Johnson be banned from this blog if he decided to post here? After all, it was he who said “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” If the “grandfather” of the ID movement is wrong that the designer is God then is it any wonder other people think so too?

Comment by bebbo — October 26, 2006 @ 4:41 pm


Then his Tardhood's reply (you can see he's getting irritated here -- you don't question the authority of an ex-Marine):

 
Quote
DaveScot // Oct 26th 2006 at 6:17 pm

bebbo

In answer to your question, have you seen any posts by Phil here?

Comment by DaveScot — October 26, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

I think DaveScot has officially jumped the shark with that comment.  It's obvious that he cares nothing about ID is only in this fight for the powertrips.

Date: 2006/10/27 10:45:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
I think Dembski should change the name of his website from "Uncommon Descent" to "Uncommonly large number of words written about Richard Dawkins."  It's less catchy, but far more accurate.

Date: 2006/10/28 07:52:42, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 28 2006,09:52)
Quote
[Request:] Need to quote-mine Gould
by William Dembski on October 27th, 2006 · 3 Comments


I seem to recall that Stephen Jay Gould, when pressed about his views on evolution before his death, remarked that he was a “Darwinian” or “Darwinist.” Can someone provide me with the exact quote as well as with the exact reference? (The context: I’m writing about punctuated equilibrium being at best a slight variant of Darwinism and that even Gould realized this.) Thanks.

–Bill Dembski

Isn't this what his research assistant is for?

Date: 2006/10/28 16:39:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
<Cartman voice>I love you guys!</Cartman voice>

Date: 2006/10/29 15:27:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Nice Ben Folds reference.

Date: 2006/10/31 16:59:32, Link
Author: someotherguy
Oh my, even as creo sites go, "Evolution Sucks" really sucks ass.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:26:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2006,11:23)
BWAHAHAHAHA.

I love today.

Indeed, what a fantastic way to start my day.  I heart UD! :D

Date: 2006/11/03 08:46:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 03 2006,14:23)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 02 2006,19:45)
Kent could get as much as 288 years; Jo could get up to 245 years.

Wha..? For a tax-fraud? :O
Just to be sure I read this correctly, does this means prison for life?

(I'm not american, you know.)

That's the maximum sentence that Hovind could get.  In all likelihood, he (they) won't get anywhere near that many years.

Date: 2006/11/04 08:15:14, Link
Author: someotherguy
I don't get it.  They're putting out another textbook before coming up with an actual scientific theory, before gaining any credibility within the scientific community?  Don't they remember that. . .uh. . .minor fiasco they had in Dover, PA?  Maybe they'r hoping to avoid a trial repeat by foisting this book upon college freshman rather than poor, innocent highschoolers.  But the next question is, what respectable college is going to use a biology textbook from Wells and Dembski?  Maybe they they aren't aiming for respectable, decent unversities.  Hmmm. . .maybe at this point, they don't give a flying Hanky the Christmas Poo about science--as if they ever did--and this is all about making money selling drek to the rubes.  Oh, I think I get it now.

Date: 2006/11/05 08:30:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
I, for one, welcome our new Dolphin Overlords.

. . .


Somebody had to say it!

Date: 2006/11/05 08:56:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Wait, did afdave really say that?  Oh my!  I don't know jack shit about physics, and yet I am still aware are laughably, ridiculously wrong that is.

edit:  I see now that it wasn't afdave who said this, but instead was that other great font, Dave Scot.  Even better!

edit: I just finished reading the entire UD thread where that quote was found.  Awesome.  I wish DS was given as much free-reign now as he was back then.  His constant self-fallation brings a joyous tear to my eye!

Date: 2006/11/05 10:55:15, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 05 2006,15:47)

Wes is archiving the site, I believe (probably why we're hearing all this "Google delisted us" nonsense from the UDers). Maybe Barb Forrest could write a book on this, too. I'd do it if someone would finance me. ;)

I'll chip in five bucks.  Who's with me? :D

Date: 2006/11/05 10:58:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
AFDave is AtBC's resident Youn-Earth creationist.  His hilarious hijinx can be witnessed here.

Date: 2006/11/05 20:41:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2006,05:18)

Excuse me, I have to go and sacrifice a goat to Dobzhansky.

Oh shit, is it Dobzhansky this Month?  I've been praying to Mayr!  Oh well, I guess I better hold a seance to summon the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace and beg forgiveness for my insults to the Darwinistic Pantheon

Date: 2006/11/06 17:36:09, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 06 2006,21:27)
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 06 2006,13:15)
DaveScot came to my blog to say Hi. (Actually, he called me a "potty mouth freak.") :D

I don't feel so special anymore.  I was sure (no, really) that DaveTard only had special feelings for me.

He doesn't say hi to anyone, though he does state clearly that he will not skip out on my visit to Austin.  I'm looking forward to meeting him...it will be a high (low?) light.

Nothing like a juxtaposed quote to bring out that delicious smell of fresh tard!

Date: 2006/11/07 22:10:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
Porn certainly feeds quite a few more mouths, though (pun  definitely intended).   :D

Date: 2006/11/08 20:09:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 08 2006,17:08)
 
Quote
The best evidence that I am being taken seriously is the fact that my name is not being mentioned much at the usual ideological bastions like Panda’s Thumb, EvC and Pharyngula all of which have banned me from their proceedings. They don’t want to open a can of worms because if they recognize me they will have also to recognize my several sources some of the finest biologists of the past. It has always been their tactict to pretend that they have no critics. They have gotten away with all too long.


So, uh, if nobody mentioned JAD ever again, that would prove that we all admit he's right!

Is that how things really work, the more nobody mentions you, the more right you are?  Well shit, then I've got some ideas that are really gonna revolutionize the he11 out of theoretical physics!

Date: 2006/11/14 00:29:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 13 2006,22:02)
Quote
This is a quote that we see repeatedly from Dave, but I'd like to point out a few missing dead things we've found buried in rock layers:

1. Modern humans
2. Modern cats
3. Modern dogs
4. Pigs, deer, rabbits, frogs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, lions, tigers, antelopes, zebras, kangaroos, anteaters, water buffalos, bison, mountain lions, woodchucks, skunks, raccoons, opossums, etc.

Why are all those fossiized remains missing in your "millions of dead things"?

Where are all the people??
Think about the capabilities of all these organisms ... they are very mobile.  They can CLIMB ... hills and mountains that is.  When the water finally gets them they are very high and are not trapped by sediment.  They drown and meet the same fate as a run-of-the-mill dead fish, i.e. they get eaten by scavengers.  Dear me!  What do they teach these kids in school?

Oh my, somebody get the folks from Fundies Say the Darndest Things on the line.  This one's a keeper!

Date: 2006/11/24 14:45:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 24 2006,14:06)
I'm feeling left out of the whole PZ/RSR/Ed Brayton thing.  Anyone else up for a pointless, self-destructive religious war?  Jesus' foreskin, what a mess.

Yeah, it's a complete and utter mess.  I'm getting kind of depressed about the whole thing because I really enjoy and respect all of the parties involved (except for Larry Moran, I really didn't know anything about him until a week or two ago), and don't enjoy seeing them snipe at each other so mercilessly.  Things seem to be getting worse, too.  Meh   :(

Date: 2006/11/26 15:05:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one that's bothered by this massive cluster fuck of an argument.  For what it's worth, I'm an atheist, but I think I must belong to Moran's "Neville Chamberlain school of Evolutionists" because I just can't seem to be able to get all hot and bothered about what a person believes as long as religion is kept out of the science classroom and they don't force anything on me (I know that's a bit of a cliche position, but it's pretty much an accurate representation of what I think).  Having said that, what really bothers me about this whole debate is not any of the positions being supported, but the massive amount of invective being expressed by the proponents.  To me, seeing people I otherwise respect go straight for each other's jugulars instead of arguing calmly and rationally is somewhat disconcerting.

Date: 2006/12/04 16:36:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
Okay, now I'm curious.  Does anybody know of any Mormons prominent enough in the pro-evolution fight to have need of anonymity?

Date: 2006/12/09 13:46:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2006,13:37)
But seriously, this is a joke--right? This cannot be real.

It's performance art--gotta be.

Uhh, I think the phrase you're looking for here is "a bit of street theater." :p

Date: 2006/12/10 01:16:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2006,22:52)
Quote
I think you're the closest they ever get to a girl that they don't have to inflate first.

The Inflatable Designer is female?
     
Quote
According to that guy at UD logic and reason are meaningless to an atheist. I didn't realise we need a belief in God to make logic and reason meaningful.

Yeah, well, I just sent in my last post at UD. Swan song about how life is to be lived instead of sitting around coming up with all these %^$# purposes for our lives that I worked so hard rebelling against in my dog-kicking small town! Because where I grew up, girls weren't supposed to be dumb but they also weren't supposed to be too smart (and certainly not writers, dancers, or actresses). Because here in Minnesota, an "interesting" life is a nice way of saying "you're soul is devil's barbeque." Because I was not a hit in my hometown.

Which was this center of nowhere, by the way.

North St. Paul snowman sums it up: white,
rotund,
cold,
inert.

Yeah, #### doesn't seem so bad.

Would you believe me if I told you that I graduated from high school at North High in North St. Paul (go Polars!. . .or something).  ####, I use to live in an apartment only about a hundred yards from the school.  I cashiered at the Super Target that's just down the road from the school.  Weird. . . :)

Date: 2006/12/10 13:09:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 10 2006,10:53)
Quote
Would you believe me if I told you that I graduated from high school at North High in North St. Paul (go Polars!. . .or something).  

No way!

"Hail, Polars, one and all, we're there for you/
fight, fight for North St. Paul/we'll see you through..."

or something. What year? I hope you didn't know me then for the big (well, little) ugly dork I was...I almost won "shyest" for my class except not enough people knew my name...  ;)

I graduated in 2001 (yes, yes I'm a youngin).  I really only lived in North St. Paul for a year--my parents moved there in 2000, I graduated HS in 2001, and then moved to Chicago for College.

Date: 2007/01/11 15:08:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote
If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn’t get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new “Department of Biological Engineering”; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new “Department of Nature Appreciation” (didn’t Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?).


OMG.  This is close to the the most ridiculously hilarious thing Dembksi has ever said in public.  
I hope this broadcast far and wide.  As JAD is wont to say, "I love it so!"

Date: 2007/01/11 20:08:17, Link
Author: someotherguy
HodorH ain't long for this world (the UD world, that is):

Quote
If Dr. Dembski were president of a university, one would expect him to want to generate a fruitful biological ID research program. It would seem appropriate, then, to preserve and hire faculty members that actually have some depth of understanding of biology. Additionally, students attracted to a Dembski-led university would likely be interested in ID, and would benefit from learning some biology. Thus, eliminating a biology department might not be a very good way of advancing ID’s scientific endeavours.

Date: 2007/01/27 16:50:40, Link
Author: someotherguy
I'm a rather large fan of all the great apes.  Here's a picture I took during a recent trip to the San Diego Zoo of an orangutan named Satu:



I'm also rather fond of this (admittedly off-centered) bonobo photo that I took:

:D

Date: 2007/02/14 21:57:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote
By the way, I take it as a compliment when an asshat like you calls me “Tard”. Thank you


I thought UD was supposed to be family-friendly!  What if the children at Overwhelming Evidence see this foul, this filth?

Somebody think of the children!!!!!

Date: 2007/02/21 23:54:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Michael Tuite @ Feb. 21 2007,22:13)

As WAD might say,

"I want to suggest that in this postmodern age," your art "serves as sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of" cartoonishness that "runs throughout" IDists' thinking.

Date: 2007/02/26 01:04:36, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 25 2007,20:28)
“Fetch ... The Explanatory Filter!”

Simply because this work of genius has not yet elicited a comment, I must say that I bow to your masterful skills of satire, sir.  Huzzah!

Date: 2007/03/02 21:12:09, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 02 2007,20:35)
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 03 2007,04:10)
Funniest post on OE yet.

I'll withhold further comment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Brilliant!!

Date: 2007/03/04 02:51:17, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2007,01:18)
Another bon mot from Bob Mort over at OE.

Bob's is the first comment.

Ah yes, Anhar_Miah.  I remember him/her from the Evolution/Creation forum at IIDB.

Date: 2007/03/10 19:23:35, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2007,19:09)
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

It really is amazing what a bitter person Dembski is.  "Sucking up to the 'Big D?'"  C'mon, that's just pathetic.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
. . .

Okay, it's kind of funny. ;)

Date: 2007/03/11 16:50:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 11 2007,15:19)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 11 2007,14:51)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 11 2007,14:32)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 11 2007,14:13)
Do you accept PayPal?

Yes I accept it. Don't like it though. I prefer payment in-kind, deviant that I am.

Kinds?? What are you, some kind of Baraminologist?  :angry:

No! Just a pervert. Nothing as complicated as a barminologist. I am a simple (even if perverted) soul.

*Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap*

So, as an in-kind payment, you want Arden to spit beer on you?  Are you a beer fetishist, then?  :D

Date: 2007/03/11 17:09:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 11 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 11 2007,15:50)
So, as an in-kind payment, you want Arden to spit beer on you?  Are you a beer fetishist, then?  :D

A beer fan would be a more acurate description. But fetishist will do. Who cares, as long as I get more beer? It had better be good beer though. None of that American crap! Old Speckled Hen FTW!

Hey now, not all American beer is crap.  Once you've tried Stone Brewing Company's (a local San Diego, CA Brewery) Arrogant Bastard Ale, even the heinous American sins of Bud, Miller and Coors can be forgiven.

Date: 2007/03/11 19:56:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Mmmm. . .Belgium beer is nice.  These two are my favorite Belgium brands:



Date: 2007/03/11 22:04:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 11 2007,20:37)
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 11 2007,19:56)
Mmmm. . .Belgium beer is nice.  These two are my favorite Belgium brands:




I was at the Dead Mule Club today getting liquored up and watching the NC State / UNC game for the ACC championship, and I noticed Chimay on the shelf. Never had it. Good?

Oh my, yes.  Do try it sometime!  Actually, I think they make at least three different styles, all of which are top-notch in my opinion.

Date: 2007/03/12 22:28:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote
The journey is the destination!


Only birkenstock-wearing, lice-infested, liberal hippies think like that.  Go finish you're journey somewhere else, homo. - dt

Sorry, it was my first time using the Voice.   :)

Date: 2007/04/07 23:21:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
I guess it might be Dembski's site, but the WHOIS registration info for www.thebrites.org is very different from either UD or OE.

Date: 2007/04/22 13:05:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
An OE update:
 
Quote

Recent comments

   * Actually...
     1 week 2 days ago
   * what does it matter what the Pope thinks?
     1 week 3 days ago
   * Substance not Spin
     1 week 3 days ago
   * Brilliant research
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * Yes I agree,
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * I wish I had invented it!
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * temporo-spacial anomaly on Noah's Ark: fascinating
     2 weeks 3 days ago
   * (Off Topic): What technologies did pre-noahic people have?
     2 weeks 4 days ago
   * I don't think the Bible contradicts the existence of cavemen
     2 weeks 5 days ago
   * Ugh! Ugh!
     2 weeks 5 days ago

Whenl is Dembski going to realize that if he wants this site to survive, he's going to have to bring back the trolls?

"But where are the trolls?
Quick, send in the trolls.
Don't bother, they're here."

Date: 2007/04/26 23:37:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ April 26 2007,19:02)
Drinking a Smithwick's ale right now. I've gotta say, I'm not impressed.

It's waaaay better on tap.  

As for the others talking about American stouts, don't write them all off until you've tried the Stone's Imperial Russian Stout.

Date: 2007/04/27 14:31:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
I simply don't get this "Darwinists are impeding research into so-called junk dna" argument.  The people who can most legitimately be called "Darwinists" are the scientists who are mostly likely to support the supremacy of natural selection and the idea that most or all traits arise over the course of evolution because they provide reproductive benefits to their recipients (ie., they are functional).  FTK should really read some serious adaptationist writing like What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.  In it, he is very skeptical of the idea  that living things have non-functional traits or genes.

Date: 2007/05/12 15:21:57, Link
Author: someotherguy
FWIW (ie., little), I'd read it.

Date: 2007/05/27 12:41:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Much is being said   about AIG's new, laughably insane Creation Museum.  It strike me that, while  many sciencey types will no doubt be visiting and commenting on the museum over the next few weeks, it would be fun to have a vew from ATBC's. . .err. . . uniquely irreverent perspective.

With that in mind, I think it's time to call for volunteers.  Who will be the courageous man/woman/gender neutral person to brave the dangers of the creationist propaganda jungle?  Who among you is willing to shell out the big bucks for the Industrial-strength Irony Meter needed for such a venture?  I call on you, O Brave Midwest and Easterners, to do your duty and spare the rest of us, your geographically-challenged allies, from the agony of waiting any longer.  The Creation Museum must be mocked viciously--and soon!

Whoever is willing to undertake this dangerous mission will, upon your return, be lauded with great praise, massive quantities of beer* and more homosexual innuendo from DaveScot impersonators than you could possibly imagine.  So, do we have any volunteers?

*of the virtual kind

Date: 2007/05/27 15:55:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (dhogaza @ May 27 2007,15:15)
Quote of the day ...
 
Quote
Anthropogenic warming through CO2 is a fallacy. It can’t stand up against the evidence even now and all it’s going to take to make a laughingstock of the consensus science and agenda driven politics behind it is finding the real cause of climate heating and cooling. When the anthropogenic global warming hoax falls it’s going to give consensus science a black eye that will IMO take down other consensus science just-so stories along with it. NeoDarwinian macro-evolution is one of those other stories.

I won't bother identifying the author of this gem.  Y'all have already figured it out :)

That would be the latest piece of paradigm-shattering, autodidactical research from our much-beloved DaveScot.

Date: 2007/05/28 14:12:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Stephen,
FWIW, the response seemed pretty even keel to me.

Date: 2007/05/28 14:20:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Agreed, Steve.  That was an excellent response.  I wonder if he'll response to Dembski's latest missive.

Date: 2007/05/31 20:58:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ May 30 2007,19:27)
The thing Rich linked to:

Quote


40

scordova

05/30/2007

6:11 pm

What people don’t realize is the financial power of the YEC movement.

Discovery Institute CSC annual budget: about 800,000

YEC Annual Budget (my estimate): 20,000,000 to 50,000,000 world-wide and probably growing

The Darwinists had their hands full with the tiny ID movement, now the YECs are coming back stronger than ever. The Darwinists must now defend themselves on two fronts (ID and YEC) in the USA, and more fronts world wide…..

What needs to happen is to crush the political and financial clout of the Darwinists. No more NSF or taxpayer monies to fund their scientifically useless and socially harmful enterprise.

The Darwinists also grossly underestimate the abilities of the modern YECs to debate. 20 years ago the YECs were easy pickins, not any more. That’s because some major developments in science have come through for the YECs where they most needed it:

1. Doubts about the Big Bang

2. Secular Physcists advocating Variable Speed of Light theories

It’s a whole new ballgame.


Even though I know he's a liar, I can't shake the feeling that sometimes, somehow, he actually believes what he's saying.

Sal makes me giggle.

Date: 2007/06/02 11:09:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
Oh my.  That's pretty much Grade A, 120-proof tard.  It's like Everclear, only it causes much, much more brain damage.  The fact that I read it this early in the morning is, I think, a clear signal that I have a serious tard-addiction.

Date: 2007/06/07 20:55:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2007,19:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2007,20:01)

I'm not drinking anything right at the moment, as I have a lawn to mow.  

Non Sequitur.

It's funny 'cuz it's true.

Date: 2007/06/09 20:04:34, Link
Author: someotherguy
If I pretend to be an outspoken creationist, could I possibly get somebody to send me a free textbook?

Just checkin'.

Date: 2007/06/10 17:54:35, Link
Author: someotherguy
Ichthyic, for some reason I've always been under the impression that you are the same person as Sir_Toejam at PT.  Is that right?

Date: 2007/06/10 19:21:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 10 2007,18:45)
Uncommonly Denyse has made it her business to simultaneously display and celebrate ignorance, to a degree that must be read to be believed even for those familiar with her usual drivel. This post is beyond ridicule, save self-ridicule.

Go here, where UD has effectively become an extension of the Uncommonly Dense thread of AtBC, and rendered it unnecessary.

"Wow" is about the the only word that comes to mind.

Date: 2007/06/10 22:46:14, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:31)
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,22:25)
Quote
Woodward closed by setting the date for the end of Darwinism’s reign as the dominant paradigm at ...wait for it...2025.


When will this annoying 'wait for it' meme die?

I predict the waterloo of the wait for it meme in less than 5 years!

...and you can quote me on that.

Hmm. . .I doubt it.

The "wait for it" meme has been going strong for what. . .100+ years now?  I don't think it'll die in the next five.

Date: 2007/06/10 22:53:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 10 2007,22:48)
(psst!)

*satire*

My bad. :(

I blame my poor comprehension on a lack of beer consumption.

Date: 2007/06/10 22:58:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
You could peruse Telic Thoughts too.  IIRC, frontloading is the main game in town for them.

Date: 2007/06/10 23:23:15, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:02)
I'm embarrassed. How do you expect to fit in with the Church Burnin Ebola Boys if you aren't liquored up? That's how we roll.

I'm obviously going to need to get on a strict all-beer training regiment if I'm going to have any chance of becoming a real member of the elite Darwin Police Force! :D

Date: 2007/06/10 23:26:42, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:20)
FYI, I think the best death would be the one described by Hunter Thompson, where you put a case of Wild Turkey on the passenger seat of the convertible, turn the radio way up and the lights etc, and start taking those dangerous Kentucky curves way too fast.

(that's a vague memory. Read it years ago. But anyone who's been on those dangerous Kentucky curves knows what I'm talking about)

As it turned out, Thompson's real death was--how to say it?--less than ideal.

Sigh. . . :(

ETA: Oops, I cross-posted with Ichthyic.

Date: 2007/06/10 23:30:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:26)
It's easy to keep within the right levels, though. When Uncommonly Dense starts to make sense, that's how you know you drank too much.

:D

If Denyse's latest "contribution" is any standard, I'll be found lying dead in a pool of my own vomit before that happens.

Date: 2007/06/10 23:51:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
AFDave, it seems, has migrated to IIDB.

Date: 2007/06/12 20:30:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
If by some misfortune you didn't go to Pharyngula today, read this now.

When the guy is on, he's on.

Date: 2007/06/12 23:26:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 12 2007,21:23)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 12 2007,21:19)
I promise, whatever lackwit one liner he posits, I won't say a word in response.

er, other than this.

That *was* nice, but I think this one is still PZ's best.

That was the first pharyngula post I ever saw.  Been reading it ever since.

Date: 2007/06/13 20:12:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (J-Dog @ June 13 2007,10:10)
Yes - PZ is one hell of a blogger.  As a matter of fact, I would like to see PZ run for President.  We've tried the Creo-Moron type - that didn't work out so well.  

Maybe a voice of reason would be a good idea - what do you say America?

And BTW - I don't see PZ losing his watch in a crowd either.

Duh.  Pirate cephalopods don't wear watches. :p

Date: 2007/06/15 15:56:40, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 15 2007,15:51)
Quote
You must know that evolutionists speak in churches and claim that TE is a religious position as well.


THAT i gotta see.

do show us an actual evolutionary biologist standing in front of a congretion, attempting to show how the ToE is a religious position.

I rather think you are completely delusional.

and yes, I'm being deliberately redundant in saying so.

My guess is that by TE ftk meant "theistic evolution," not "evolution, theory of."

Date: 2007/06/15 23:22:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Steviepinhead @ June 15 2007,15:43)
Just finished Valentine's "On the Origin of Phyla."

Awesome.  Even if you don't want to read about the fine structural and developmental details of, oh, priapulids, Valentine is such a smooth writer that you keep on plugging away as if you were gonna learn whodunit just around the next paragraph (hint: not Teh Designist).

And VAlentine's an especially good writer when he's not writing about inividual phyla or fossils or traces or embryos.  When he's writing about the "combinatorial" construction kit of the genome, or overviews about almost anything, he's just awesome.  In fact, the further he drifts away from his academic and career specialties, and the more he has to explain things that are at least somewhat novel even to him, the more clarity and muscularity he brings to his writing.  

Great illos and diagrams as well.

And that's almost without presenting any form of critter that's newer than the ordovician.  No cute and cuddlies: 97% invertebrates.  And no "higher" cephalapods like octos, either.  But what cool-ass vermiform little invertebrates!

I can't reccommend this more highly for digging into the meat of the Cambrian "explosion" and the origin of metazoan phyla.

I've been wanting to read that for some time now.  Sadly, no libraries in my area carry it, and I'm to cheap to shell out the big bucks to buy it.

Date: 2007/06/20 21:06:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote

Dr. Dembski — this thread is quite appropriate to the debate. I think it’s almost safe to say we won the science and now it is just a matter of politics and the press.

I'm calling it, folks.  That's definitely the most unintentionally funny thing I'm going to read this year.

Date: 2007/06/21 20:03:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Dear God, I hope that woman does not have children.  She makes AFDave look. . .well, not normal, but slightly less tard-tastic, at least.

Date: 2007/06/22 21:01:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2007,19:29)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2007,03:54)
GilDodgen notes:  
Quote
Another enigma about the development of life: A single cell divides into two identical cells, which divide into four, etc. How do the cells, since they are identical copies of the original cell, know when and how to differentiate? Where does this information come from?


Well, even I know that one! Gradients right? You'd think that Gil would pick up a damm book before pontificating.

do you think we would make Gil's head asplode if we linked him to PZ Myers posts where he explains how this works?

Agreed.  That's got to be post of the week or something.

. . .Along that line, Steve, do you think it would be worth setting up a separate OUDDT "best of" thread where high-quality comments like Bill's can be highlighted so they don't disappear into the vast underbelly of this thread?

It's just an idea, and perhaps it's an unworkable one, but, then again, perhaps not.

Date: 2007/06/29 21:21:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 29 2007,17:35)
PaV has an interesting prediction re Behe's latest book:
     
Quote
I’m not given to hyperbole, but I must say, taken as a whole, TEOE strikes me as possibly being as powerful and influential a book as “The Origins of Species”.

Once I would have said words fail me but I guess I'm too used to the never ending stream of nonsense coming out of UD.

Oh my.   :p

Date: 2007/07/01 19:32:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2007,18:20)
First draft of graphic:


I like it, but I think it might be improved by changing the font  style of the "hi I'm with the" in the top box.

Date: 2007/07/07 14:26:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (PennyBright @ July 07 2007,09:00)
Dr.GH - please document and support these claims, or retract them.  

 
Quote
He is also a avid supporter of efforts to eliminate public education, unions, environmental protection and antipollution laws, and civil rights laws regarding equal access to jobs, and public facilities- schools, parks, and restrooms.

I read Ed's blog rather. . .err. . .religiously, and I don't recall seeing him support any of the positions that Dr GH claims he does.  I'll second the request (possibly in another thread so as not to derail this one any further) for evidence supporting Dr GH's claims.

Date: 2007/07/19 10:08:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Surely people are not actually stupid enough to go to this conference?
Right?

RIGHT?

oh. :O

Date: 2007/07/24 23:05:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Oh my.  This will be entertaining.

Date: 2007/07/29 20:05:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Free beers for Bill!

Date: 2007/08/01 20:36:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.

Date: 2007/08/01 20:58:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 01 2007,20:36)
I do have a copy of the third edition of Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma.  There is a hand-drawn picture of various embryoes taken from Romanes, 1901--which I believe was taken from Haeckel--but the caption does not even refer to Haeckel, instead it uses the pictures to describe van Baer's Law.

Notably, this picture comes in the midst of a section of text (pgs. 652-653) that decribes Haeckel's ideas, but then goes on to debunk them at some length.

For anybody who is interested, I've scanned the two pages that contain the embryo image and the context of the discussion.




Note especially the text on the bottom of the 1st page and also the caption text.

Date: 2007/08/02 21:39:11, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

Can you provide some examples or links?

Date: 2007/08/02 22:07:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 02 2007,21:39)
     
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 02 2007,21:38)
Sal Cordova the slimy piece of shit has hit a new low.

It didn't surprise me that he deleted my threads with no board notice

It even didn't surprise me when he began cutting out parts of my replies to give the impression I agreed with him, again with no board notice

Now the cocksucker has started editing my posts and replacing my words with his own words praising Sal's work.

Not even AIG, ICR, or UncommonDescent stooped to falsifying posts under a user's name.

I hope everyone disseminates this far and wide, to let the world know what a worthless shitheel that asshole really is.

Apologies for the language, but I'm pretty  :angry: right now.

Can you provide some examples or links?

     
Quote
Tiggy

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 33


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:52 pm  
:
Salvador did an outstanding job.

[admin note: Tiggy's post had some editorial imporvements made to it by the moderators]


The admin note was just added a few minutes ago, after which the post was locked so I can't edit it.

Sal's a classy act for sure  :angry:

That is very, very lame. :angry:

Date: 2007/08/03 14:21:48, Link
Author: someotherguy
I love this thread. :D

Date: 2007/08/05 12:06:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Is anybody else noticing that, apart from the actual content of the book, the writing itself seems really quite bad?  They say the book is aimed at college or AP bio students, but it sounds like they're talking to twelve-year-olds.

Date: 2007/08/05 14:53:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 05 2007,14:12)
Again with Sal.

 
Quote
Hermagoras sez:  
Quote
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 
Quote
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.


But earlier you wrote:

 
Quote
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.


If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?

LOL.

Date: 2007/08/19 22:14:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2007,21:29)
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007....er.html

Denyse says:

Quote

Can you believe it? Darwinism is obviously in ruins, and they would actually make a statement like THAT?


For a journalist, Denyse is a terrible writer. Really substandard.

Luckily, what she lacks in written communication skills, she easily makes up for with her clever ideas and amazing mental acuity.

Oh wait. . .

Date: 2007/08/22 20:25:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 22 2007,16:34)
PZ Myers was interviewed, and a segment appears in "Expelled". However, he was not interviewed for "Expelled":

   
Quote

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

Even for creationists, I find this kind of behavior to be somewhat shocking.

Date: 2007/08/26 02:22:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2007,00:57)
Dembski's employer, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has enhanced its already stellar academic reputation by offering a new cutting-edge major in homemaking:
 
Quote
The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers coursework in Greek and Hebrew, in archaeology, in the philosophy of religion and - starting this fall - in how to cook and sew...

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."

Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home - teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children's spiritual, physical and emotional development.

...A description of the homemaking program on the seminary's Web site says it "endeavors to prepare women to model the characteristics of the godly woman as outlined in Scripture. This is accomplished through instruction in homemaking skills, developing insights into home and family while continuing to equip women to understand and engage the culture of today."

Bad news for Richard, however: the program is open to women only. I wonder if they admit transsexuals?

I know there's a "barefoot and pregnant" joke here somewhere, I'm just having a hard time teasing it out. . .

Edit:  Nevermind.  Lenny was well ahead of me.

Date: 2007/08/26 23:52:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2007,15:20)
WHERE IS MY QUILL?,I HAVE FORGOTTEN
I PUT CRAYOLAS UP MY BOTTOM.
WITH SUPERVISION AND SOME TIME
WE'LL PAINT A PICTURE OF DESIGN

That, sir, was well-deserving of a hearty chortle.

Date: 2007/09/02 12:58:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
What a way to start my day--thanks UD!

Date: 2007/09/02 13:10:38, Link
Author: someotherguy
Happy birthday, guys!  Don't spend too much of it working down in the tard mines (unless, of course, that's what you were wanting to do)!

Date: 2007/09/02 13:20:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
In interesting comment from Peter Irons in the above-mentioned Pharyngula link:
 
Quote
In reply to Bob O'H, Denyse O'Leary all-but-confirmed to me that Dembski wrote the hoax letter, after I told her I suspected his authorship, telling me that "Botnik" was someone "of whose identity I suspect there is little doubt." Dembski hasn't denied it, although I've given him the opportunity to do so.

If true, it's yet another piece of confirming evidence that Dembski is in dire need of an immediate visit from the Common Sense Fairy.

Date: 2007/09/02 19:11:35, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2007,18:57)
"My motto is, 'once on the web, always on the web'."

-botnik

The strange irony is that when "Botnik" made that comment he certainly must have understood that the thread was not long for this world.  Utterly bizarre behavior, if you ask me.

Date: 2007/09/02 20:13:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 02 2007,20:01)
Quote
Clearly, readers of UD fell for it, but so did many people on the other side, judging by all the many emails they sent President Lilley...


Phh! I called the FBI. Aren't I a shit?

Lollerskates! :D

Date: 2007/09/16 12:44:02, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 16 2007,11:33)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,12:21)
Jean - I think your nixplanatory filter needs to be serviced.


Um, no.  I didn't mean that way.  Now you'll need to clean it before you take it to the engineer.

Bob

I fell for it too.  I think my nixplanatory filter is also in need of servicing.

It's not your filter that's the problem, it's Dembski.  His behavior has, over the past several months, grown increasingly close to what social scientists call "Crazy Mad Fool" (CMF) behavior.  And as everyone who has read Dembski's works knows, the EF breaks down when the potential Intelligence in question is operating under a consistent CMF state.  Instead of giving a reliable design-detection score, with margins of error based upon the Universal Probability Bound, it instead starts quoting lines from David Lynch films while playing Slayer songs backwards.

If your EF is doing anything like that, don't blame your equipment--blame the test subject.

Date: 2007/09/16 18:19:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,06:46)
In amongst Glen's short and pithy replies, we have this:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comment-1275
Quote
Dear Ben,

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

Keep up the good work.

Josh

Savour, just savour.

Bob

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

Date: 2007/09/17 21:30:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 17 2007,21:19)
Word is that Dembski said, in the OU question/answer session, that he doesn't believe in the descent of man from other primates.

More street theater?

Oh please, let it be true!

Date: 2007/09/18 01:01:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2007,00:54)
Quote (ERV @ Sep. 18 2007,01:47)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,00:29)
     
Quote (ERV @ Sep. 18 2007,00:24)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 17 2007,21:19)
Word is that Dembski said, in the OU question/answer session, that he doesn't believe in the descent of man from other primates.

More street theater?

Ive got it on tape.

:)

He also said he wasnt aware of the behavior directed towards me on UD and my blog... yet he knew my handle was 'ERV'... HMMMMM.

He also about shit a brick when I mentioned maybe he didnt notice what was going on at his blog at the time because he was busy composing fake letters from the President of Baylor.  His eyes got as big as saucers.  He was visually stunned by this, and didnt deny it.  Audience cracked up. :P

Did you get this gem on tape?


Yup :)

Though the audience laughing overtakes part of Dembskis reply (along the lines of 'thats another topic').

He did a very poor job of defending the behavior of UD goons.  :)

I don't know if I've told this story here before, but long story short, a guy I know had a bad breakup, the girl's brother made totally crazy threats from his work computer to my friend's blog and email, my friend complained to the brother's employer, and when the guy was fired the next day, his stunned response was something like "That wasn't real...that was just online BS." It didn't occur to him that his assholey online behavior would come back to bite him in 'real life'.

Maybe Dembski just had a moment like that.

If by "a moment" you mean "the past three years," then I think you might be on to something, Steve.

Date: 2007/09/20 14:27:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,12:08)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,12:00)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 20 2007,17:49)
     
Quote (factician @ Sep. 20 2007,10:25)
Densy:

       
Quote
Anyone who thinks that the fact that girls are not as good as boys in math means that girls do not rule is obviously not in contact with many girls.


Ummm...  Huh?

Link

"Math is hard!" - Barbie

"Math is a meaningless non word, created by someone who decided that Mathematics was somehow not a plural" Pedantic Brit.

Now, now...

It's biology, not biologies
It's chemistry, not chemistries
It's math, not maths
It's Darwinism, not Darwinisms (heh)
It's computer science, not computer sciences*

Only Physics, as it should, warrants the "royal we."

--------
*But that wouldn't matter anyway, because of the old adage: any discipline with the word science in its name, isn't.

But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.

Date: 2007/09/23 11:12:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,23:21)
Yeah, yeah, I meant ScienceBlogs...silly IDiotic me.  I'm gonna go try to find me a theist out of that bunch...anyone wanna place bets as to whether there are any?

Yes, please I would like to bet you a lot of money that there are theists at Science Blogs!

I know for a fact that there is at least one:  Rob Knop.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Mark Chu-Carrol of Good Math, Bad Math is also a theist of some type.  

I'm sure there are more that I don't know about.

edit:  I see that I was beaten to the punch.  Oh well.  We can all split the take, right guys?

Date: 2007/09/23 11:55:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,11:48)
DHeddle Finds Tarden Chatterbox Sexi_Hawt

I think this revelation may come as a surprise to DHeddle. :D

Date: 2007/09/23 17:23:01, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02)
 
Quote
someotherguy, posted 9/20/07 1:27 PM
   
Quote
(dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,11:08)


But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.


You're suggesting getting grammar advice from someone who once said "the who whatting how with huh?"? ;) :p

Henry

I will not suffer the impudence of those who would besmirch the good and honorable name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  You're outta here!

:p

Date: 2007/09/23 18:26:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 23 2007,17:30)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,17:23)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 23 2007,17:02)
       
Quote
someotherguy, posted 9/20/07 1:27 PM
         
Quote
(dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,11:08)

But oddly enough, as Buffy has shown us, it's magics, not magic.

You're suggesting getting grammar advice from someone who once said "the who whatting how with huh?"? ;) :p
Henry

I will not suffer the impudence of those who would besmirch the good and honorable name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  You're outta here!

:p

Feh!, The only good thing to come out of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was Angelis...and Spike early on before he wussed out.

*Sputters and chokes on rage as he attempts vainly to compose a stirring rebuttal to Afarensis gross ignorance and hideous bigotry while choking back the tears*

Damn you, Afarensis!  I'm not reading your blog anymore!

*Sob*

Date: 2007/09/23 18:47:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
Okay, ignore the pseudo-creationistic topic description--I just couldn't think of anything more clever.

I'm curious of anybody knows of some quality blogs that deal primarily with Conservation Biology and Biodiversity.  Conservation is a topic that is very important to me, but I'm not familiar with many blogs that deal with it heavily (but to be honest, I haven't searched too extensively either). Anybody have any recommendations?

Date: 2007/09/23 23:10:15, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 23 2007,22:54)
I'm reading the new Arnold book about hybridization and evolution and I'm impressed with the concept of reticulating lineages and the possibility that gene flow between lineages can increase genetic variability for selection to work on.

I'm fairly interested in this topic (although not knowledgeable by any means!).  Which book are you referencing here?

Date: 2007/09/24 20:16:55, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2007,17:16)
 
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 24 2007,17:15)
 
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ Sep. 24 2007,14:19)
DaveScot
   
Quote
All we can do is look for inconsistencies (violations) of the rules that govern the model. So far I don’t think we’ve categorically observed any inconsistencies but since the apparent history of the model, viewed from inside the model, is manipulable by an outside agency we really have no way of knowing if the clock was stopped and the rules were changed and the state of the system changed to make the new rules appear to be the rules that were there all along.

That's weird.  I have it on good authority that DT violates one of the rules that govern the model every time he types.

DaveTard violates most of the laws of nature..

As if your puny and disfunctional mind could even figure that out!  I've forgotten more laws of nature than you'll ever know, homo. - ds

Date: 2007/09/29 10:37:01, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 29 2007,10:32)
For about a year I was unable to contribute (including contacting the admin) because, although being listed as logged in, it would tell me I was logged out. The only way I found around the problem was to get a new password every time and to re-log in, and that was not reliable.

About a week ago the problem vanished. I do not know if the computer had a belch and removed an internal blockage or if someone here fixed something but, anyway, thanks.

I had that same problem, but I emailed steve and, presumably, he fixed it for me because the problem went away.

Date: 2007/09/30 21:47:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,19:42)
Quote
(Which makes your earlier statements equating consensual homosexuality and child rape even more bizarre).


Okay, Bill, let me try this one more time.  Please excuse me if I have to get just a wee bit graphic here, kay?

Okay...

My link was about lowering the age of consent that was being supported by a group of questionable individuals who it seemed were not necessarily interested in monogomous, loving relationships with said teens (or animals for that matter).

Now, I was not taking into consideration the consent issue with the five year old, I was talking about the sex act itself...an old man vaginally penetrating a five year old is sick...part A does not belong in part B...it was not designed for that.  

In a similiar fashion, said homosexual male sticking his penis in another man's anus is sick, IMHO.  Again, part A does not belong in part B...it was not designed for that.

Now, I will retract the part about the non-consenting child being equivalent to the consentual gay adults.  It was not what I had intended to agree with in that conversation, but apparently you and others took it that way.  So, I would certainly agree raping a child would be even more perverse than two homosexuals sticking parts where they don't belong.

Now, I completely understand that none of you agree with me, and that is fine.  I'm not about to stop anyone from sticking their private parts wherever they want to stick them...vaccum cleaner hoses, pencil sharpeners (for you littler guys), car mufflers, whatever....BUT THE PARTS WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT!  Got it?  Good.

Oh, BTW Bill, I do still love you just like I stated on my blog. ;)

Quick question:  Do you consider the act of fellatio between married, monogamous individuals to be "sick" because "part A does not belong in part B?"

Date: 2007/10/04 14:30:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2007,14:01)
Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Quote
Cambridge, Mass. - October 1, 2007 - Harvard University scientists have identified a virtual "speed limit" on the rate of molecular evolution in organisms, and the magic number appears to be 6 mutations per genome per generation -- a level beyond which species run the strong risk of extinction as their genomes lose stability.

iirc, the average mutation rate for the coding section in humans is what, 1 or 2 per generation?

Henry

Wow that is really fascinating.  Should be interesting to see what kind of responses this paper gets.

Date: 2007/10/05 22:33:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist dumbass. Swing and a miss.

I think you may have missed a fairly important comma there, Ian.

Date: 2007/10/05 23:07:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 06 2007,04:33)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 05 2007,22:23)
I know this is against the nice-nice code, but it has to be said.

Einstein was a deist dumbass. Swing and a miss.

I think you may have missed a fairly important comma there, Ian.

It's been added.

Mea Culpa.

In my defence, it's twenty to five in the morning and I'm a tad tired.

No worries.  I should have added a smiley for de-emphasis. :)

Date: 2007/10/09 14:45:28, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2007,10:12)
DaveTard:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-141187

(I've bolded the good bits)



 
Quote
17

DaveScot

10/09/2007

9:40 am
Paul

An ID proponent would never have made it through peer review with such an incoherent, disjointed, fantastic yarn. It’s amazing that someone without the taint of ID attached to them could get it through. The reaching and stretching involved in drawing parallels between cosmology and biology smacks of desperation - clutching at straws. I will give credit to the author for at least recognizing that the current biological creation yarn spun out of NDT is untenable and he’s to be congratulated for having the courage to say so and offer an alternative yarn in its stead.

The striking parallel that evolution story tellers need to recognize is that phylogenesis mirrors ontogenesis. Both processes are ones where unexpressed potentials are expressed in a predetermined sequence with chance playing little if any role in the process and where the environment at most provides cues for when to proceed to the next predetermined stage in the unfolding process. Both processes are self-terminating when the predetermined course of diversification reaches a final stage. A single cell is the beginning of every chicken and an adult chicken is the preprogrammed terminal stage where that cell stops diversifying. Phylogenesis appears to be the same process played out over a much longer span of time. It may or may not have terminated. Certainly many branchings have terminated as evidenced by the extinction of 999 out of 1000 species that ever lived after an average span of about 10 million years of life.

A big mistake in NDT inspired ideology is that the earth’s changing environment gradually molded life to fit it. That’s bass ackwards. Life molded the environment, paved the way so to speak, for the next predetermined phase of phylogenesis. That’s why the process took billions of years. It isn’t quick or easy laying down foundations that span an entire planetary surface. The atmosphere needed to be oxygenated. The time of great upheavals and catastrophy in a young solar system had to be waited out. Fossil fuel reserves had to be laid down to power an upcoming industrial species. My contention is that industry didn’t arise because a power source was available for it but rather a power source was made available so that industry could arise. The way was prepared in advance. It was planned that way.

There are two important and basic questions raised by the front-loaded phylogenesis hypothesis.

First and most amenable to finding a definitive answer is how, when natural selection is unable to conserve unexpressed genomic content, is that content conserved for geologic timespans. That such a mechanism exists seems evident in the result of a knockout experiment where 1.5 million base pairs of DNA highly conserved between mouse and man was deleted from the mouse and the resultant GM mice were indistinguishable in any metric from unmodified mice. *Something* acted to conserve that apparently unexpressed DNA for 180 million years of reproductive isolation between the mouse and man lineages. That much is obvious. What isn’t obvious is what mechanism did the conserving. When we find that mechanism we’ll have our answer, or at least an experimentally demonstrable possibility, to the conservation mechanism required by the front loading hypothesis.

The second question is less amenable to finding an answer. That question is what was the source of what must have been a hugely complex front loaded genome. How, who, or what generated the original uber-genome? We might never know the answer to that question but that’s just how the cookie crumbles in science. We might never know the origin of the observable universe either. But just because we hit a brick wall where it seems there is no way to find further answers it doesn’t follow that we should ignore the evidence that we can observe as far back as practically possible. *Something* caused the observable universe to come to exist just as *something* caused organic life on earth to come to exist. We can at least follow the story back to the wall beyond which we cannot see. We might not ever discover with any degree of certainty how the universe or organic life first came about but it appears we can at least decipher how it works and how it evolved after it appeared.

Everything in evolution makes ready sense in light of a front-loaded genome. Little makes sense in the absence of that light.



Presumably all those mass extinctions were were intelligently designed too then, right?

I think this a brilliant hypothesis which will no doubt open up many fruitful paths of research.  In fact, it seems positively clear to me that within DT's insight lies the key to finally indentifying the Designer. .

It's Zeus, only he doesn't hurl lightning bolts from atop Mt. Olympus, he (sometimes) hurls giant meteors from Uranus!

Date: 2007/10/09 23:08:57, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2007,22:28)
Pim van Meurs posted a bit from my PT post to the ASA email list, and got a reproof from one of the list members. Pim was upbraided for defending Dawkins, citing PZ Myers, and then, horror of horrors, expecting people to read stuff I've written.

That was amusing. . .in a sort of sad clownish way.

Date: 2007/10/22 00:22:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 22 2007,00:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 21 2007,18:28)
Logo inspiration for IntelligentDesignNews.org

http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....002.asp

I vote for the first one, but with a paper bag over the head of the guy on the right.

Bob

Genius!

Date: 2007/10/23 13:56:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2007,10:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,11:26)
Davetard:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-143636

 
Quote
10

DaveScot
...That minimum falls far short of an omnipotent, transcendent entity with the capacity to create our entire observable universe.

Oh, it's not transcendent, is it?

Quote
The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

--William Dembski

quick, read it while it lasts:

Quote


re: comment #10

“The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe’s irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.”

–William Dembski

Date: 2007/10/23 21:44:01, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2007,21:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,20:31)
WND IS AWESOME:

http://www.healthresources.net/eoc/landing9.aspx?SC=HEF1549

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

"BIG MEDICINE" DOESNT WANT YOU TO KNOW.

Fuck me, is Davetard credulous.

The impression I'm getting from Davetard is that he'll just fall for any scam or hoax you come up with.

Wait, what does that link have to do with DT?  Did he post it at UD somewhere?

Date: 2007/10/24 13:55:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 24 2007,13:49)
And of course this:
 
Quote
I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that's the bit about it being unplanned.

(No link, because this was disappeared by the Big Head.)

It's funny to imagine him saying this now to the current crop of UD denizens.

Date: 2007/11/03 02:35:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 02 2007,19:50)

(If not, you can e-mail him and ask him for it directly. I know he plans on sending it to Ed Brayton)

Really?  I thought they kind of, er, hated each other.

Date: 2007/11/03 14:07:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 03 2007,12:27)
Quote
Quote
(If not, you can e-mail him and ask him for it directly. I know he plans on sending it to Ed Brayton)

Really?  I thought they kind of, er, hated each other.

Who, Brayton and Myers? Why?

Yeah, those two.  I don't know all the details, but I didn't think they were really speaking much.  I could be wrong, of course.

Date: 2007/11/06 20:05:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote
Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism


. . .and has yet to be published.

Date: 2007/11/14 00:14:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 14 2007,00:07)
Anybody know if this will be available online?  I flipped over and saw that it was on but this is my Bones/House night and nothing interrupts that.

Go here on November 16th.

Date: 2007/11/19 02:10:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 19 2007,01:31)
Gil wants a brown nose!
I'm guessing that's so BA77 will say he's got more information.

Bob


Quote
Dear Phillip,

Neither you nor I have any notion of the magnitude of the ripple effects that have emanated from Darwin On Trial, but I can tell you this: That book cut through all the Darwinian story-telling presented as science like a razor. Darwin On Trial, combined with Michael Denton’s first book, made me slap myself on the forehead and proclaim, “Holy mackerel, I’ve been conned!”

Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes — thus all the hysteria on the part of its adamant proponents, whose meaning in life (or lack thereof) is inextricably linked to it.

Thanks for your contribution in helping to reveal and clarify the essential issues, which have been, and continue to be, veiled in a pedantic smokescreen by Dawinists.


Unfiltered tard--does the body good.

Date: 2007/11/19 14:18:40, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (BopDiddy @ Nov. 19 2007,13:28)
From here:

Solon:
 
Quote
the Apostle Paul spoke of the rise of pseudoscience in the last days and we should be ever vigilant.


Over. The. Top.

I practically peed.  Golf clap for that one.

Yeah, Solon is awesome.  Way over the top, but nobody seems to be calling him/her on it.

Date: 2007/11/22 10:28:54, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 22 2007,08:03)
Life is paid for by this same Solar energy, life being a tiny and temporal swirl of matter as energy is dissipated in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

[BA77] Wrong!  Life was paid for by the de^ath and resurr^ection of Jesus Christ, which theism predicted by the way!  [/BA77]

Date: 2007/11/26 19:40:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2007,19:36)
The backchannel is jumping with loads of juicy gossip. If half of it pans out, there's a humdinger of a Friday Meltdown in the offing. Just not sure exactly when the hammer will fall.

Wes, you tease!   :O

Date: 2007/11/26 19:47:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 26 2007,19:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2007,19:36)
The backchannel is jumping with loads of juicy gossip. If half of it pans out, there's a humdinger of a Friday Meltdown in the offing. Just not sure exactly when the hammer will fall.

YOU TEASE!!!

Sorry, that joke's already taken.  Find your own!   :p

Date: 2007/11/27 00:55:38, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 26 2007,23:39)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 26 2007,19:47)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 26 2007,19:44)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2007,19:36)
The backchannel is jumping with loads of juicy gossip. If half of it pans out, there's a humdinger of a Friday Meltdown in the offing. Just not sure exactly when the hammer will fall.

YOU TEASE!!!

Sorry, that joke's already taken.  Find your own!   :p

I did it independently on my own.

:angry:

My nixplanatory filter says otherwise, and as William A. Dembski has shown us--using copious amounts of complicated mathematics, no less--the nixplanatory filter never lies.  Except for when it does.  But this isn't one of those times!!!

Date: 2007/11/27 00:57:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 27 2007,00:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 26 2007,16:08)
On the scientists r dumb (quantum doubly so) thread at UD it appears Lawrence Krauss has taken time out to respond directly to UD reprinting the story of the day as-is.
 
Quote


Bill: Thanks for attacking me.. always makes me feel good when you remember me.. But it would be good in future to look at the submitted article itself instead of press reports about the article.. it is somewhat mathematical, but you can try… and alas, it does not say we are destroying the universe by looking at it.. and thanks also to Bob O’H for having the foresight to point out what I actually might have been saying.

best

L. Krauss

Linky. Liking the math dig.

Of course, I only put up the quote because someone here had already found it.  I'm just the messenger.

Bob

Unfortunately for you, UD has a nasty habit of shooting the messenger.    :(

Date: 2007/11/27 11:34:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 27 2007,11:28)
I hear that the Monday notpology is demonstrating rapid evolution.

Seriously, Wes, these teasers need to stop.  Give us the juicy details.  We wants them, we needs them! :p

Date: 2007/11/28 11:02:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
So, would I be correct in assuming that somebody actually is trying to figure out who added the voice-over to the video?  The version that Dembski claimed he found on the "internet" hasn't actually been found by anybody else, has it?

Date: 2007/11/28 16:47:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (ERV @ Nov. 28 2007,15:24)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 28 2007,11:02)
So, would I be correct in assuming that somebody actually is trying to figure out who added the voice-over to the video?  The version that Dembski claimed he found on the "internet" hasn't actually been found by anybody else, has it?

'We' have been looking for it for two months straight.

No one on the planet has mentioned the manipulated animation, on the internet, except for summaries of talks given my DI fellows.  Yes, I mean 'fellows' and not 'Dembski.'

Its all a coincidence, Im sure.

Cool.  I hope your efforts continue to be fruitful.  :)

Date: 2007/11/28 21:14:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 28 2007,20:53)
It could be a very gay guy who just happens to "uh" just like Dembski, and who I erroneously perceive the same halting word frequency and speaking speed from.

Does it make me a bad person that I really, really hope that's true?   :D

Date: 2007/12/04 01:59:28, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (George @ Dec. 04 2007,01:57)


Science: Ovis aries juvenile.
FtK:  Cute!



Science: Austropotamobius pallipes
FtK:  Icky!

A wee quiz:
One of the above species is endangered and legally protected.  One of the above species is a valuable part of natural ecosystems while another is responsible for large scale environmental degradation.
Please discuss the relationship between cuteness and the conservation value of species, and how these relate to the ethics of killing them.

Extra credit:  Discuss how this illustrates to why emotional considerations make for crap science.

Extra extra credit:  Provide your favourite recipe for lamb.

Post of the week, anyone?

Date: 2007/12/04 18:39:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Ah shucks, Louis.  I'm sorry everybody here's bein' all mean to you. FWIW, some guys--who are obviously totally straight and get to make teh whoopee with girls all the time--think that chunky guys are sexi hawt!

Date: 2007/12/05 01:55:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 04 2007,20:56)

BTW, you stated that the lectures were "Intelligent Design lectures".  I not familiar with Venter, but I highly doubt he is an ID supporter.  So what you mean to say is that it will be a "Darwinist lecture butchering Intelligent Design".

You should google Venter.  That joke went right over your head.

Date: 2007/12/06 12:26:21, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 06 2007,12:18)
Who knows what you guys will pull next.

I do. MUWAHAHAHA!  

Oh wait, no I don't.  I get invited to neither the top secret churn burnin' planning orgies nor the ebola distribution potlucks.  

*sigh*

Date: 2007/12/06 13:14:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
I'm sure y'all were going to tune in anyway, but just in case you weren't already in the know, NPR's Science Friday is going to do an interview tomorrow with fired Texas Science Curriculum Director, Christine Castillo Comer.  See here for the details.

Date: 2007/12/06 14:51:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
So, did Kwok read the book before reviewing it?

Edit to add *teehee*:  Add me to the list of people who think Heddle's a pretty good guy.

Date: 2007/12/06 16:50:38, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 06 2007,16:37)
Quote
That's wonderful, and I respect Jeremy for that. But guess what?  There are different ways, and different people, and different tactics in the world. Jeremy and I are different persons.


Classic.  No further comment on that...I'll just read between the lines.  

Dave, your arrogance is nauseating.  Tell you what, when you finally come to the point in your career when you are able to come down off you high horse and acknowledge that your "facts" about Darwinism (and I do not mean evolution here) are anything but, I'll listen with open ears.  But, until you can come to terms with that, I don't think there is much more we can discuss.   Though, I look forward to seeing you at KSU again sometime as I'm sure there will be several more enlightening lectures on the subject.

Shorter FTK:

I'm not talking to you again until you decide I'm right.

Date: 2007/12/06 17:44:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 06 2007,17:41)


The origin of LOLCats, ca 1912.

Huh.  Very cool, if accurate.

Design inference says. . .intelligently faked.

Date: 2007/12/07 11:15:36, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 07 2007,10:53)
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 07 2007,09:03)
If thats the 'best' youve got, Im going to continue not liking you.  Youre nitpicking on a completely irrelevant point and proclaiming its a damning argument.

Dave Heddle, overreact to a small flaw of ours? Trying to magnify it to be equivalent to the misbehaviors of the IDers? I can hardly imagine that. Whoever heard of the like?

LOL.

(disclaimer: i haven't followed this particular argument at all. Dave may be in the right this time, I don't know. But ERV's not the first person to accuse Dave of this)

Okay, I've got to step in here and say that, no, I don't think Dave is overreacting to anything (actually he seemed quite calm to me).  Many people, including Dave (and I'll add myself to the chorus as well), are strongly disagreeing with ERV's defense of reviewing books that one hasn't read.

If anything--and I say this with all due respect--I think it's ERV who is overreacting to what I perceive to be well-intentioned criticism of her position.

My $0.02.

Date: 2007/12/07 12:00:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 07 2007,11:58)
Salvador Cordova:
Quote
bestiality is the logical consequence of Darwinism

http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/141#comment-672

Hot damn!  If that's the case, then I'm going to have a very interesting Friday night!   :p

Date: 2007/12/07 15:53:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 07 2007,15:34)
I love it when that happens. Almost any institution that goes back more than 30-40 years has, somewhere in its history, done some things that are either extremely backwards or extremely shortsighted in hindsight.

Is Dave aware that Hitler was considered a conservative good-old-boy prior to WW2 when that award was given, and that Stalin was considered a vanguard of the free world against Nazism during WW2 by people on both sides of the political spectrum, or that "person of the year" is supposed to be for total impact? If he is, he has a funny way of showing it.

... but you know he'd be talking about how prestigious Time was instead, if one of the IDers had gotten into it somehow.

Time's person of the year award isn't an accolade for being a hero or doing something for the public good.  It's a recognition that Person X has--for better or for worse--had a large impact on the world that year.

ETA:  Drat!  Beat to the punch--and by that bastard Arden, no less!

Date: 2007/12/07 16:56:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2007,16:02)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 07 2007,15:53)
ETA:  Drat!  Beat to the punch--and by that bastard Arden, no less!

HAH-hah!


Go ahead, laugh now. . .while you still can.   :angry:

Date: 2007/12/08 11:20:54, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2007,10:40)
Upon actually reviewing the emails in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position:

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:
                       
Quote
11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by memores of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, wors directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.

This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:
                     
Quote
Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.

All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.

Could somebody do a post on this at Panda's Thumb?

Date: 2007/12/18 15:06:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
With the exception of the last couple of paragraphs--which exhibited great confusion about the nature of speciation (note:  Carl Zimmer pointed this out before me)--I thought the article was fantastic.

Date: 2007/12/19 09:01:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 19 2007,08:45)
In anticipation of a special anniversary tomorrow...

I Am the Very Model of a C-Design-Proponentsist

[Note: Malicious allegations have been made that this work somehow plagiarises something by W.S. Gilbert. Nothing could be further from the truth and I emphatically state that I have nothing to apologise for. And I'm really sorry. Comments on this subject are now closed.]


I am the very model of a c-design-proponentsist
The diametric opposite of all that is materialist
My engineering cert allows me call myself a scientist -
We won't discuss those classes in Biology I may have missed

I work in a diploma mill I call a university
And there I struggle long and hard to teach the controversity
I welcome all opinions notwithstanding their diversity
I just reject the fact-based ones as atheist perversity

He just rejects the fact-based ones as atheist perversity
He just rejects the fact-based ones as atheist perversity
He just rejects the fact-based ones as goddam pervertersity


My publication record is quite pre-dispen-sensationalist
I regularly top the polls of books that are salvationist
Applause in the reviews keeps copies flying off the bookstore shelf
I couldn't be more pleased if I had written the reviews myself

He couldn't be more pleased if he had written the reviews himself
He wishes Amazon would keep his IP numbers to itself


When I go up for tenure I'll submit my publication list
And if they ask for science then I'll scream “Discriminationist!”
Religion has no place within the quest for natural knowledge
At least until I am the one who's put in charge of college

I'm waiting for the day in court when Darwin meets his Waterloo
Though I might find that testifying isn't what I ought to do
I know that what's in Genesis is strictly and completely true
It's just a shame it's stuck in a six-thousand-year-long peer review

He knows that what's in Genesis is strictly and completely true
He knows that what's in Genesis is strictly and completely true
He wishes that the IRS would let him see his research through


I claim that Dover came about because the judge was activist
I dazzle congregations with my jargon that's distractivist
I never answer awkward questions even if you do insist
I really am the model of a c-design-proponentsist

He never answers awkward questions even if you do insist
He really is the model of a c-design-proponentsist

Post of the week right here!

Date: 2007/12/19 14:32:35, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 19 2007,14:29)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 19 2007,13:23)
  Can I have those magazines when you've finished with them?

Hmmm. You sure? I have a hell of a time getting the pages apart.

*blink*

Date: 2007/12/20 08:58:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Just got on and saw this:

75 guests, 12 Public Members and 3 Anonymous Members  someotherguy >Bob O'H >MillstoneCam >BGOG >olegt >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Reciprocating Bill >Annyday >IanBrown_101 >JAM >Louis >Albatrossity2

75 guests?  C'mon people, register and join the fun!

Date: 2007/12/20 09:08:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2007,09:05)
I'm not here.

Oh and I'm off to India for a couple of weeks on Saturday, so before I forget:

Happy New Year to one and all (plus Merry Religious Festival Of Your Choice Should You Celebrate One)

Cheers

Louis

Cheers, Louis!

Date: 2007/12/20 09:39:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 20 2007,09:31)
Sort of like a kind of placing the moth on the trunk kind of thing.

I always knew you were a fraud, you dirty-dog darwinista!  Consider my "cheers" revoked!   :angry:

:p

edit:  to enable smilies and because I'm a sheep.

Date: 2007/12/20 22:01:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 20 2007,21:17)
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...

What's more, it doesn't suck!  

Not that I expected it to, by any means. :D

Date: 2007/12/21 08:27:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Well, Dave's sold me--I'm sure all of his logically-rigorous predictions are soon to be vindicated.  Somebody should probably alert T. Ryan Gregory about the impending revolution in Genomics.

Date: 2007/12/21 22:37:17, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 21 2007,22:25)
   
Quote (jupiter @ Dec. 21 2007,23:17)
"Ben Stein" in jumbly letters? Why? The crossbar in almost-illegible typography? Why?

I've never understood what the deflicted red x is supposed to mean.

Looks like an upside-down cross to me.  Perhaps they want their audiences to be reminded of the cruel Darwinists Romans who crucified St. Peter?

Date: 2007/12/22 12:14:28, Link
Author: someotherguy
As we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa (does anybody really celebrate Kwanzaa?) and Cephalopodmas, it's worth thinking about those people who don't have enough food for their next meal, much less a holiday feast.  In that spirit, I wanted to alert y'all to what may be the single coolest website I've ever seen:  Free Rice.  Here's how it works:  the folks running the site provide English vocabulary trivia questions.  Each correct answer brings up an ad from one of the site's sponsors, which allows the organization running Free Rice to send the equivalent of 20 grains of rice to the United Nation's World Food Program.

Frankly, I think this concept is pure genius (and I can't help but wonder if this model couldn't be modified for further charitable uses).  The game itself is highly addictive--with each successive correct answer, the trivia questions get harder and harder--and it's all for a great cause.  So far, almost 11 billion grains of rice have been donated.  Why not take a few minutes to play?

Edit to add:  this is obviously off-topic.

Date: 2007/12/22 13:40:21, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 22 2007,13:11)
Very good innitiative, however I still wonder how good the rice gets delivered at the right people knowing that Africa is as corrupt as the White House.

True, institutional corruption is certainly a danger to the efficacy of international relief efforts, but I guess that just goes with the territory.

Date: 2007/12/22 13:40:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 22 2007,13:37)
ha ha one of the words I got was "mesomorph".

I also got "vacuous". No "notpology", though...

LOL.  And people say that UD is a waste of time--not so!

Date: 2007/12/22 20:02:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Because I'm bored--and leaving aside for the moment the fact that popularity is not necessarily correlated with quality or accuracy--here is a very incomplete list of books that are currently out-selling The Design of Life at Amazon (in no particular order):


#1,487: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (paperback pre-order) by Richard Dawkins

# 212: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (hardcover)

# 2,482: The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

# 1,723: Evolution by Jean-Baptiste De Panafieu, Patrick Gries & Linda Asher

# 389: Biology by Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece

# 678: The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary Edition by Richard Dawkins

# 2,617: Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts & Peter Walter

# 2,810: The Third Chimpanzee:  The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal by Jared Diamond

Date: 2007/12/22 21:15:18, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 22 2007,20:36)
Just for giggles, I checked to see the status of one of my books on Amazon. Unfortunately they only have the first edition (there was a second edition, really), it is currently ranked at #1,056,389 in sales, and you can get it for as cheaply as $0.35.

But it does have an average of 5 stars (from one reviewer)...

Still and all, I'd like to think that it did a lot more good for the world of science than any of Dembski's efforts  :)

A five-star review by Lin Shih-Lu in Taipei, Taiwan?  I think not, Dr. Rintoul (if that's really your name).  You wrote this book in 1990 and traveled to Taiwan, where you spent the next 10 years posing as Ms. Shih-Lu, a mild-mannered--but oddly attractive--molecular biology student.  After writing that glowing review, you discarded your identity--as you have with so many others--then moved back to the states.  After making up a story about a fishing accident and a long stint on a desert island, you resumed your life as Dr. Rintoul and have been indoctrinating your students in the ways of Darwin and Satan ever since.

Until now.  I'm hip to your sinister plot, sir, and it ends today.  It's the Big House for you!

Date: 2007/12/22 21:41:17, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 22 2007,21:36)
You guys and your pathetic level of book sales.

I’ll probably write book that outsells you all combined — when I get time off from my scientific research with Reciprocating Bob's Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evilutioninfo.org).

Okay, I'll admit to looking up that link just to see if there was anything there.  Sadly, no.

Date: 2007/12/23 12:40:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
# 7,001

Date: 2007/12/24 09:15:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Get bent, chance-worshipers.  Either that or have a safe and fun Holiday week! :D

Date: 2007/12/24 09:47:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 24 2007,09:34)


Someone's waiting for you under the mistletoe!

WISHING ALL MY FRIENDS AT ATBC A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

Don't drink too much spiked egg nog!

While you're here, I think somebody has a list of questions you might want to take a look at. . .

Just kidding.  Merry Christmas!   :)

Date: 2007/12/24 10:36:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 24 2007,10:16)
"Spiked Egg Nog"

Wait....is there another kind????

Sadly, yes.

Date: 2007/12/27 14:29:42, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,11:51)
We'd like you to write more, Bill.

Ramen.

Date: 2007/12/27 15:29:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 27 2007,15:24)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 27 2007,15:29)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,11:51)
We'd like you to write more, Bill.

Ramen.

Well, thank you fellers.

Let me just say that my noodles are made from enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, niacin, male enhanced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, lysergic acid), vegetable toil (contains one or more of the following: crayola, cottonseed, palm) preserved by TBHW, silt, spitassium carbonate, soy sauce (water, wheat, soybeans, silt) sodium phosphate, sodium carbonate, turmeric. Soup base from spit, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed corn, wheat and sly protein, dehydrated vegetables (onion, garlic, jive), sugar, licktaste, spices, powdered choked chicken, cabbage insert, turmeric, disodium insinuate, and disodium guano.

(Did I mention salt? Sheesh.)

Licktaste?  Licktaste?  Well, sheeeeiiittt!  I take back my laudatory comment!

Edit:  for legit grammatical reason (yeah, right!)

Date: 2007/12/28 23:22:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,22:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 28 2007,22:18)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,22:38)
Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in what literature you've read in regard to creation science.

As for me, very little. Life is too short for that. And I trust the integrity of expert contributors such as Wesley. I can't say the same for the principals of the Creation Science/ID movement.

Your feelings in regard to Sal = My feeling in regard to Wes.

Just fyi

That's telling.

Date: 2007/12/29 17:00:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 29 2007,16:56)
Anyone who checks into the sources will find out I'm right, so what FtK hopes to accomplish with her latest line in vituperation is beyond me. It seems like she wishes to make sure that no one could reasonably continue to extend the benefit of the doubt to her.

And in that endeavor, she has succeeded in spades.

Date: 2007/12/29 17:44:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:32)
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

Okay folks, it's time to pack this particular conversation in.  Anybody who can say the above without an immediate outpouring of uproarious laughter is clearly beyond the pale.  You all know it, and any lurkers reading this--and I mostly lump myself in with that lot--know it too.

Date: 2007/12/29 18:24:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:02)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,17:44)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:32)
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

Okay folks, it's time to pack this particular conversation in.  Anybody who can say the above without an immediate outpouring of uproarious laughter is clearly beyond the pale.  You all know it, and any lurkers reading this--and I mostly lump myself in with that lot--know it too.

Dawkins says that the "God Hypothesis" is a legitimate consideration in the scientific realm.  He believes that, through science, God can be eliminated from the picture.  Dawkins is considered a "real scientist", not a psuedoscientist.

Dawkins tampers with religion on a daily basis while using science (especially evolutionary theory) to do so.  His motivation in doing this is to eliminate god so that the masses can enjoy his atheistic enlightenment.  He has religious motivation....most definently.  He's certainly not the only scientist with this motivation.

Hence, support for my quote:

 
Quote
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

And in response I think I'll channel Ed Brayton and say, "I'll take blathering non sequitur for $500, Alex."  

Ftk, the science of evolutionary biology rests upon 150+ years of research, hard work, and insight from thousands of scientists coming from many, many different religious--and non-religious--backgrounds.  Evolutionary biology has been around long before Dawkins, and it will continue to be pursued by passionate people of all religious stripes long after his death, so trotting him out as your atheist whipping-boy is really just an illogical waste of time.

Date: 2007/12/29 19:56:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:34)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,18:24)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:02)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,17:44)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:32)
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

Okay folks, it's time to pack this particular conversation in.  Anybody who can say the above without an immediate outpouring of uproarious laughter is clearly beyond the pale.  You all know it, and any lurkers reading this--and I mostly lump myself in with that lot--know it too.

Dawkins says that the "God Hypothesis" is a legitimate consideration in the scientific realm.  He believes that, through science, God can be eliminated from the picture.  Dawkins is considered a "real scientist", not a psuedoscientist.

Dawkins tampers with religion on a daily basis while using science (especially evolutionary theory) to do so.  His motivation in doing this is to eliminate god so that the masses can enjoy his atheistic enlightenment.  He has religious motivation....most definently.  He's certainly not the only scientist with this motivation.

Hence, support for my quote:

   
Quote
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

And in response I think I'll channel Ed Brayton and say, "I'll take blathering non sequitur for $500, Alex."  

Ftk, the science of evolutionary biology rests upon 150+ years of research, hard work, and insight from thousands of scientists coming from many, many different religious--and non-religious--backgrounds.  Evolutionary biology has been around long before Dawkins, and it will continue to be pursued by passionate people of all religious stripes long after his death, so trotting him out as your atheist whipping-boy is really just an illogical waste of time.

Then maybe you can tell me why almost every regular poster at this forum is an atheist or a strong agnostic.  If it were not for the philosophical and religious issues in this debate, none of you would be so hell bent on protecting Darwinism to the bitter end.

Your motivations are no different than my own....the only difference is that I'm honest about it.  We are all interesting in the scientific aspect as well as the religious implications.

Ignoring for the moment that the religious beliefs of people posting on a message board have little or nothing to do with whether or not the science of evolution--which, as you know, is researched, promoted and generally advanced by thousands of scientists all around the world who follow hundreds of different religious traditions--stands or falls. . .  

Actually no, I'm not going to ignore that for the moment, because it's the whole damn point!

Science stands on the evidence, and the evidence of evolution is accessible to--and has been accepted by--many people from all sorts of religious traditions.  A bunch of atheists (along with a bunch of other people who are probably not atheists) talking on a site owned and operated by a Christian (Thanks for the space, Wes!) about a topic that has been of great political controversy in the US does not change that.

Date: 2007/12/29 19:58:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,19:57)
Gotta make my kids an egg omlet...they came up for air after a wii marathon....be right back.

LOL.   :D

Date: 2007/12/29 20:16:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,20:09)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,19:56)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:34)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,18:24)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,18:02)
     
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,17:44)
       
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,17:32)
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

Okay folks, it's time to pack this particular conversation in.  Anybody who can say the above without an immediate outpouring of uproarious laughter is clearly beyond the pale.  You all know it, and any lurkers reading this--and I mostly lump myself in with that lot--know it too.

Dawkins says that the "God Hypothesis" is a legitimate consideration in the scientific realm.  He believes that, through science, God can be eliminated from the picture.  Dawkins is considered a "real scientist", not a psuedoscientist.

Dawkins tampers with religion on a daily basis while using science (especially evolutionary theory) to do so.  His motivation in doing this is to eliminate god so that the masses can enjoy his atheistic enlightenment.  He has religious motivation....most definently.  He's certainly not the only scientist with this motivation.

Hence, support for my quote:

       
Quote
ID is no more religiously motivated than blob to man.

And in response I think I'll channel Ed Brayton and say, "I'll take blathering non sequitur for $500, Alex."  

Ftk, the science of evolutionary biology rests upon 150+ years of research, hard work, and insight from thousands of scientists coming from many, many different religious--and non-religious--backgrounds.  Evolutionary biology has been around long before Dawkins, and it will continue to be pursued by passionate people of all religious stripes long after his death, so trotting him out as your atheist whipping-boy is really just an illogical waste of time.

Then maybe you can tell me why almost every regular poster at this forum is an atheist or a strong agnostic.  If it were not for the philosophical and religious issues in this debate, none of you would be so hell bent on protecting Darwinism to the bitter end.

Your motivations are no different than my own....the only difference is that I'm honest about it.  We are all interesting in the scientific aspect as well as the religious implications.

Ignoring for the moment that the religious beliefs of people posting on a message board have little or nothing to do with whether or not the science of evolution--which, as you know, is researched, promoted and generally advanced by thousands of scientists all around the world who follow hundreds of different religious traditions--stands or falls. . .  

Actually no, I'm not going to ignore that for the moment, because it's the whole damn point!

Science stands on the evidence, and the evidence of evolution is accessible to--and has been accepted by--many people from all sorts of religious traditions.  A bunch of atheists (along with a bunch of other people who are probably not atheists) talking on a site owned and operated by a Christian (Thanks for the space, Wes!) about a topic that has been of great political controversy in the US does not change that.

You're simply in denial.

LOL!  Well, you got me there, Ftk.  I bow to the overwhelmingly persuasive power of your argument.   :p

Date: 2007/12/29 20:20:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,20:18)
:p   Good...you should bow to me as it is true, I am extremely overwhelming. ;)

:D

Edit:  for no other reason than to do a bit of good-natured pigtail-pulling.

Date: 2007/12/29 20:26:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Had some of this--specifically, the Premiere--last night:



Fantastic, as always.

Date: 2007/12/29 22:51:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Date: 2007/12/29 23:13:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Dec. 29 2007,23:09)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 29 2007,22:51)
Waterloo called off on account of nobody showing up:  Design of Life is #28,829 in books at Amazon.

Weren't they skiting just a few days ago that it was at number 4,000 or something?

It was close to # ~3,000 about a week ago, yeah.

Date: 2007/12/31 12:33:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,12:06)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 31 2007,11:56)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,11:54)
Arden, just go over to pz's place and try to reason with the man.  Please.  He has the largest atheist following on the Internet....not a good sign.  And, those comments are frightening.

Now, go be a good atheist and set that man straight.

You're changing the subject.

And you seem to be awfully easily frightened.

In my day, if a kid in class would have degraded and belittled the entire class as he did (substitute anything for the bible) for whatever reason during a class speech, the teacher would have sent him directly to the Principle.  And, as a student or a teacher, I'd have thought the kid was on the verge of a mental breakdown (which yes, could render him violent).

This is not what the 1st ammendment implied in regard to freedom of speech.

In my day, I experienced harassment from many different people--including some so-called friends-- on an extremely regular basis that was much more pointed and cruel than anything that guy said.  I won't defend they way he made his "presentation" but I think the moral of the story here is nothing more than "Many kids--though by no means all of them--are big assholes."

Date: 2007/12/31 13:11:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,13:08)
I've read a few children's naturalist origins storybooks, so I get the jest of it.

Freudian slip?   :p

Date: 2007/12/31 17:31:11, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,17:21)
We don't even use half of the brain capability that we have.  How in the world did it evolve without being used in some manner?

Got a citation for that?  I'm pretty sure that we don't use all of our brain all of the time, but the idea that we only ever use a small percentage (or less than half) of our brain is, I think, an urban legend.

Date: 2007/12/31 17:42:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 31 2007,17:36)
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 31 2007,17:31)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 31 2007,17:21)
We don't even use half of the brain capability that we have.  How in the world did it evolve without being used in some manner?

Got a citation for that?  I'm pretty sure that we don't use all of our brain all of the time, but the idea that we only ever use a small percentage (or less than half) of our brain is, I think, an urban legend.

Yep.

Scientific American also has some info on this:

Quote
Why would a neuroscientist immediately doubt that 90 percent of the average brain lies perpetually fallow? First of all, it is obvious that the brain, like all our other organs, has been shaped by natural selection. Brain tissue is metabolically expensive both to grow and to run, and it strains credulity to think that evolution would have permitted squandering of resources on a scale necessary to build and maintain such a massively underutilized organ. Moreover, doubts are fueled by ample evidence from clinical neurology. Losing far less than 90 percent of the brain to accident or disease has catastrophic consequences. What is more, observing the effects of head injury reveals that there does not seem to be any area of the brain that can be destroyed by strokes, head trauma, or other manner, without leaving the patient with some kind of functional deficit. Likewise, electrical stimulation of points in the brain during neurosurgery has failed so far to uncover any dormant areas where no percept, emotion or movement is elicited by applying these tiny currents (this can be done with conscious patients under local anesthetic because the brain itself has no pain receptors).


The past hundred years has seen the advent of increasingly sophisticated technologies for listening in on the functional traffic of the brain. The goal of behavioral neuroscience has been to record electrical, chemical and magnetic changes in brain activity and to correlate them with specific mental and behavioral phenomena. With the aid of instruments such as EEGs, magnetoencephalographs, PET scanners and functional MRI machines, researchers have succeeded in localizing a vast number of psychological functions to specific centers and systems in the brain.  With nonhuman animals, and occasionally with human patients undergoing neurological treatment, recording probes can even be inserted into the brain itself. Despite this detailed reconnaissance, no quiet areas awaiting new assignments have emerged.

Date: 2007/12/31 18:05:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Has he given any indication at either his blog or UD as to what he researches?

Date: 2007/12/31 18:08:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2007,18:04)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 31 2007,12:50)
..I wish I had a dime for every time some yahoo in my hometown referred to a book as a "piece of crap." I'd be rich.

I resemble that remark!  :angry:

Wait, I'm confused.  Which remark do you resemble?  Are you a hometown yahoo, a piece of crap, or rich?

I realize that these three options are not mutually exclusive.

Edit:  Or, are you perhaps making a terrible, terrible pun about your name?   :D

Date: 2008/01/01 13:07:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 01 2008,12:59)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2007,15:51)
To give you an idea of the scientific level, I'll point out this recent gem:
   
Quote

Milk Genes

I was thinking about lactose tolerance the other day and managed to scrounge up an article that I had remembered reading.  This article relates the findings that lactose tolerance is something that evolved in humans rather recently.

The findings supports the idea that milk drinkers became widespread in Europe only after dairy farming had become established there—not the other way around.

This has been a contentious issue for some time now, about how/when lactose tolerance came about.  The new findings support that lactose tolerance came about after dairy farming was established, and this presents a tough problem for evolution.  Why would humans undertake dairy farming if they couldn’t actually eat/drink dairy products?  This question alone is enough to dispel the evolutionary hypothesis.  If, however, we were designed to drink milk, then it is only natural that we would search for other milk sources that we could utilize.

I replied:

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze archaeology of Mesopotamia sheds an interesting light on the early status of pre-domesticated cattle.    The iconography of Sumeria used the bull’s horns as signs of divinity with as many as 14 pairs worn as a helmet by the supreme god Anu, or An.   Even after the domestication of cattle in the bronze age, wild cattle were hunted by Neo-Assyrian kings who wore two pair as symbols of their power.  The Ugaritic texts form a critical corpus to understand much of the early Bible. There, the king Nimrod is renowned for his ability to hunt cattle which he provided to feasts of the gods hosted by El, and Bal Hadad, to which selected kings were invited.  Nimrod was also attested biblically.

You can get a quick introduction to this in;

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.  Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Black, Jeremy, Anthony Green, Tessa Rickards (illustrator)
2003 "Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia" Austin: University of Texas Press.

The domestication of cattle, and even dairy farming clearly preceded the bulk of the biblical texts, as we read in Exodus  3:8.  “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”  We can assume the reference is to cattle, or goats milk, although, human milk “on the leg” as it were, was a beverage served at feasts for gods and kings, and is obliquely referred to biblically in Psalm 89:5-6 which is derived from the incipit to an Ugaritic praise hymn. (See  Pardee, Dennis 2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, and Dahood, Mitchell 1965 Psalms I, 1-50: Introduction, Translation and Notes  New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday and 1968 Psalms II, 51-100: Introduction, Translation and Notes  New York: Anchor Bible- Doubleday).

This brief note is merely to observe that the interactions between humans and cattle are ancient, and important.  And, more obviously, there is much more to cattle than raw milk.  Without doubt, the original motive for domestication of cattle was for meat, hides, and not milk to drink.  

You have made some gross errors when concluding that “The new findings support that lactose tolerance came about after dairy farming was established, and this presents a tough problem for evolution.”  And “This question alone is enough to dispel the evolutionary hypothesis.”  

First, you should already realize that drinking raw milk was rare in the ancient past, and is actually rare today except among northern and central European populations.  However, fermented milk products such as yogurt, and cheese are far more common and do not require the same lactose tolerance that drinking milk does.  So without much grasp of biology or archaeology, you should have known that the PNAS article could not represent, “… a tough problem for evolution.”  This would be true even of a good reading of the popular press blurb in National Geographic.

Second, you relied on a popularized blurb from secondary sources to rest your very sweeping conclusions.  This is always a mistake, one a professor ought to know to avoid.   You should read the original article, “Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans” J. Burger, M. Kirchner, B. Bramanti, W. Haak, and M. G. Thomas, PNAS | March 6, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 10 | 3736-3741 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/10/3736

The article is quite interesting and I am sure you will enjoy it and learn a good deal about evolution.

Looks like your reply is still sitting in the moderation queue.  Will it ever see the light of day?  Stay tuned. . .

Date: 2008/01/03 09:35:38, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 03 2008,09:24)
Best of all, Sal also promises    
Quote
Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.

Where's the popcorn?

Since the current discussion is obviously going absolutely nowhere, what does everybody think of dropping the topic and waiting until Sal posts again to post in this thread?  I'm sure he'll give us much to argue about.  

Just an idea.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:30:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:38:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (csadams @ Jan. 03 2008,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 03 2008,17:30)
Ya'know, I remember a day when this thread was about the craziness of Sal Codorva's Young Cosmos blog, not about Ftk.    Is there any chance that folks could get back to discussing Sal in this thread and Ftk in her own thread?  Just another thought.

Sorry.  I just got fed up with the question-dodging.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Oh, you certainly don't need to apologize.  I was just putting out a statement of general preference about what comments should go on which threads.

Mostly, I just think that all the bruhahaha over the Zoophilia Incident and Backlash is getting in the way of some serious--and well-deserved--mocking of Sal's writings.

Date: 2008/01/03 17:44:14, Link
Author: someotherguy
If it turns out that, despite my assumptions to the contrary, I do not number among the ranks of the "True Atheists" ™, I sure do hope that somebody--anybody!-- promptly reclassifies me under my new, true metaphysical philosophy, lest I be consigned to forever wallow in existential purgatory!   ???

Date: 2008/01/03 18:24:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,18:11)
Quote
When you asked me to provide a synonym that would be more appropriate, I gave you several. And then you implied you might as well keep using 'condone' because all those synonyms meant the same thing!


LOL, that does sound bizarre!  Here's the deal.  I must go down on record saying that I believe that "condone" is the best word to use in this instance.  I'll remember to use the synonyms in the future at this forum.

As far as the definition of moral relativism, here is mine:

Quote
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism.

Not basing one's morals on some alleged "universal standard" != basing one's morals on "nothing."

Date: 2008/01/03 18:27:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2008,18:22)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,19:02)
I've discussed *the point*, which is moral relativism and the fact that atheists have no moral base.  Their morality is based on evolutionary change over billions of years.  That is why bestiality cannot be deemed *immoral* by an atheist.

Ftk: All you've done is define "morality" such that your conclusion must be true. To whit: "morals" for you are BY DEFINITION universal, absolute, unchanging, and God-given. Then, of course, atheists must BY DEFINITION lack a moral base, and by implication lack morality.  

But here is the definition my (online) dictionary produces:

   
Quote
moral |?môr?l; ?mär-|
adjective

concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character : the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgment.

• concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society : an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code.
• holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct : he is a caring, efficient, moral man.
• derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these : the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems.
• [ attrib. ] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct : moral philosophers.
noun
1 a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience : the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has.
2 ( morals) a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do : the corruption of public morals.
• standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable : they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted.


That's it. You notice the complete absence of "universal," "absolute," "unchanging," and "God-given."

Most atheists, agnostics, and others who don't share your religious predelictions remain interested in a code of interpersonal behavior, proper conduct, ethical principles, standards of behavior and so on. It is only by insisting upon your own, idiosyncratic and inherently religious definition that you can argue that they are not. Indeed, IMHO, they are more likely to have given the ethical questions and dilemmas with which they are confronted real thought, because canned, absolutist, and ultimately authoritarian solutions to those dilemmas are not of interest to them.

Exactly what I said--only a lot better!   :D

Date: 2008/01/03 19:13:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2008,18:59)
We're beginning to stray afield of Sal and his (utter and complete lack of) morals, his blog, or his stupidity.

If we're not going to get back to Young Cosmos and the vacuity and idiocy of that place, then we need to move this conversation back to Ftk's thread.

So true, and I was part of the problem this time.  

*Hangs head in shame*

;)

Date: 2008/01/04 09:27:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:23)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 04 2008,09:15)
Quote
I'm kinda likin' Huckabee.  He can play a mean guitar...

In fact, I *heart* Huckabee.


 You would.  he pardons rapist and murders and all sorts of scumbags for all sorts of things.  your kind of company.

FtK, can you invite Huckabee here?  He might not have all that much time for teh webz what with being all campaign-y and stuff, but who knows?  Surely y'all know each other...

I didn't say I'm voting for him.  I said I *heart* him.

I'm undecided as to who I've vote for at this point...rather favor Obama, Giuliani and McCain at the *moment*.

If you vote for Obama, we'll be voting for the same candidate!  

*Swoon*

:D

Date: 2008/01/04 09:45:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 04 2008,09:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,09:49)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>  
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2008,08:36)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 04 2008,08:34)
Interesting hobby you've got going there....

Not as interesting as Ted Haggart's.

Yeah, but there is a big difference.  With Ted Haggard, we recognize that what he did is really slimy, wrong, and immoral.

Obviously, it was the dizzying hypocrisy of Haggard's behavior (given the bloated, judgmental self-righteousness of his extremely prominent public persona) and his attempt to lie his way out of his dilemma that was instructive. Not the garden variety sexual and substance behaviors with which he was struggling.

RB, you're only saying that because you aren't living by a moral standard!

Date: 2008/01/06 09:56:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 06 2008,08:46)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,08:31)
Quote
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
 
At UD his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      
Quote
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
(emphasis added)

At the EXPELLED pages he tells a different story      
Quote
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
(emphasis added)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

I know that, given his epic inability to tell the truth in the past, there is no reason that I should be surprised by this latest fib, but it's really amazing just how much he does lie, and how poor a job he does of it, too!

Date: 2008/01/06 16:22:01, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 06 2008,14:20)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 06 2008,14:10)
 
Quote

More dogs in the snow

Lately, I’ve seen a lot of Darwinists on this blog, so I’m glad it’s Sunday when I can put up pictures of my dogs and not have to worry about their dogmatic mindsets.  I just happen to like these pictures, and I hope you do too.


It's strange to hear this from a guy/gal claiming to work at a state university, a place presumably crawling with Darwinists.  How do you keep your sanity at work, Prof?  :p

um... is that second picture a picture of dog poo?  I dont see a dog in it...


What atheist dogs do on Sunday mornings:

As they say in rural Minnesota:  "Oh, fer cute!"

Date: 2008/01/28 15:32:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2008,15:26)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,18:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2008,12:31)
True story. I once brought half a cup of coffee back up through my nose and elected to catch it back in the original cup.

here's the cool part: It was regular coffee originally, but cappuccino at the "second coming".

Is this:

A) Design
B) A Miracle
C) Transmogrification
D) Unaccounted for by darwinism
E) Sick

F) British Haute Cuisine.

Slander, libel and calumny!

I demand a notpology!*

Louis

* Or at least a meltdown.

Well lookie here!  If it ain't the arch-royalist hisself!

Date: 2008/01/28 21:14:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,21:04)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,18:27)
 
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 28 2008,16:47)
     
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,16:12)
 *Peaks out from behind Maya's skirt*

Ha ha!!!! Take that, Richard Hughes!!!

This skirt ain't big enough for the both of us.

Oddly enough, my wife said something similar the last time I was trying to get into her pants.  :(

So, she was wearing the pants and you were wearing the skirt?

. . .Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Date: 2008/01/29 11:15:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Wha--WHA--WHAT?

Date: 2008/02/01 22:49:51, Link
Author: someotherguy
So, over at the Rants 'n Raves forum, we're reminiscing about some of our friend AFDave's finest moments.  I mentioned that my favorite AFDave moment was on this board when somebody showed that he had added a data point to one of the graphs he had posted. One of the folks there wasn't aware of this particularly hilarious incident, so I'm trying to track down a link to that post (or series of posts).  I really have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through those two ginormous threads, but does anybody remember this incident and have a link handy?
Thanks!

Date: 2008/12/26 14:04:40, Link
Author: someotherguy
My, my, but it's been a while.  Due to a very hectic schedule  and an all-consuming obsession with the Presidential Election, I haven't visited AtBC in slightly over a year (prior to that, I'd mostly been a lurker).  But I've recently found some down time, which, having absolutely nothing better to do, I used to read through this thread in its entirety.  It sure has been a good year for TARD, but I think I may now need a drink (or several)!

My favorite tardalicious event was when Dembski nonchalantly retired the EF (which DaveScot agreed was an excellent idea) and then, for reasons related only to his ego, brought it back from the grave (which DaveScot agreed was an excellent idea).  Primo stuff, there.

Since this is the time for retrospection, what were y'all's favorite UD moments of zen tard in 2008?

Date: 2008/12/28 20:54:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 28 2008,16:24)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 28 2008,17:06)
Kairosfocus is still smarting from the charges of windbaggery...

I enjoy this opening paragraph of the article to which his name links on UD:
   
Quote
INTRODUCTION: The raging controversy over inference to design, sadly, too often puts out more heat and blinding, noxious smoke than light. (Worse, some of the attacks to the man and to strawman misrepresentations of the actual technical case for design [and even of the basic definition of design theory] that have now become a routine distracting rhetorical resort and public relations spin tactic of too many of the defenders of the evolutionary materialist paradigm, show that this resort to poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion is in some quarters quite deliberately intended to rhetorically blunt the otherwise plainly telling force of the mounting pile of evidence and issues that make the inference to design a very live contender indeed.)

You got to admire a paragraph that is 90% parenthetical (and 10% [nested parenthetical]) and 100% twisty little passages, all alike.

Somebody should create a KF parody account at UD and call themselves "tl;dr."

Date: 2008/12/29 13:57:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Oh noes!  D'OL is concerned that Obama's pick for director of the White House Office of Science and Technology is a "crank."  Truly, irony is dead.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:44:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 29 2008,12:48)
Dembski in 2004      
Quote
showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

William J. Murray 2008      
Quote
Fuller says: “After all, what good is a theory of ‘intelligent design’ if it has nothing to say about the nature of the designer? ”

Uh .. it will make testable predictions and will lead to better working understandings of features of the universe and life than the non-foresighted, non-designed model? It will lead to an easier and faster understanding of phenomena, instead of trying to shoehorn everything into the non-foresighted model?

Link
So, four years ago Dembski notes he expects "better insights" from an ID viewpoint, four years later the fans at UD are still talking about these "insights" in the future tense.

ID will lead to an easier and faster understanding of phenomena?

When?  :D

Thinking about Dembski's predictions, I can't help but imagine that he likes to hum this song to himself when times get tough:

The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!*
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!


*of a distinctly telic, non-materialistic variety


Caption:  William "Daddy Warbucks" Dembski and his pal Denyse O'Leary (and their plucky mutt, DaveScot) in a soon-to-be-realized future filled with money, respect and frequent trips to the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2009/01/06 10:48:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2009,05:58)
The comments in the latest Steve Fuller thread are really heating up (this is the entertainment, sparc - not so much Fuller's post, but the reaction to it).  Sal Gal is standing up for Fuller's approach, but the regulars aren't having any of it: I'm sure if Dave still had his bannination button, Sal Gal would have been long gone.  

A world in which DT's cheesy poof-encrusted finger is not twitching nervously a half inch above the bannination button is simply not a world I want to live in!

Oh how far the mighty have fallen!  *sob*

Date: 2009/01/06 10:53:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2009,10:48)
Denyse O'Leary, the master of self-awareness:
Quote
A couple of years ago, after I had been following the controversy for several years, I found myself listening to a long lecture by a Darwinist, replete with bafflegab and pretty lame examples. Finally, sensing (correctly) that I was unconvinced, he proclaimed to me, “You just don’t understand how natural selection works, do you?”

And suddenly, the penny dropped. What he meant was that I just don’t believe in magic. I can’t make myself believe in magic; I haven’t been able to since I was a child. And I was no longer going to give the matter any attention. What I really wanted to know then and now is  - how magic became so important a principle in science?

Apparently Denyse is unfamiliar with Michael Behe's much-celebrated "Poof" theory of life's origins and history.

Date: 2009/06/06 13:51:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
I just blazed through the past 60+ days of UD goodness in less than 24 hours.  I can't tell whether the sensation I'm now experiencing is Tard Miner's High or anaphylatic shock.  In any case, you lot better start bowing down to my inhuman levels of tard-tolerance.  I also think I may need to have my kidneys checked by a specialist.

Date: 2009/06/06 14:34:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (khan @ June 06 2009,14:26)
Quote (someotherguy @ June 06 2009,14:51)
I just blazed through the past 60+ days of UD goodness in less than 24 hours.  I can't tell whether the sensation I'm now experiencing is Tard Miner's High or anaphylatic shock.  In any case, you lot better start bowing down to my inhuman levels of tard-tolerance.  I also think I may need to have my kidneys checked by a specialist.

And liver.

That too.  :)

Date: 2009/06/06 14:37:21, Link
Author: someotherguy
John Wilkins is my favorite Australian philosopher of evolutionary systematics whose internet avatar is an albino gorilla.  By far.

Date: 2009/06/06 14:52:23, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 06 2009,14:42)
Quote (someotherguy @ June 06 2009,14:51)
I just blazed through the past 60+ days of UD goodness in less than 24 hours.  I can't tell whether the sensation I'm now experiencing is Tard Miner's High or anaphylatic shock.  In any case, you lot better start bowing down to my inhuman levels of tard-tolerance.  I also think I may need to have my kidneys checked by a specialist.

You still have sensation???

Well, it's mostly a dull aching sensation, but it's a sensation nonetheless.  

Also, apropos of nothing, while slogging through the backlogs I came to see that reading jerry's comments at UD becomes far more hilarious when imagining him not as a standard-issue creobot but instead as an uber-genius of epic proportions (and also a magnificent bastard, of course) who spends all of his time as a deep-cover operative whose only mission is to entertain us.  Thanks for all the laughs!

Date: 2009/06/06 17:39:32, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Louis @ June 06 2009,17:33)
Quote (someotherguy @ June 06 2009,20:37)
John Wilkins is my favorite Australian philosopher of evolutionary systematics whose internet avatar is an albino gorilla.  By far.

I agree, In fact I'd go further: John Wilkins is my favourite Australian philosopher of evolutionary systematics whose internet avatar is an albino gorilla AND whose name is John Wilkins.

Make no bones about it, Wilkins is a shoe-in in the popularity stakes. I'd say that it would be an understatement to claim he had his toe in as far as approval goes. He is a man of great sole. In fact I'd say without fear of over-egging the pudding that he really could lace things together. Not only that his knowledge of IDCists could tar Sal's (geddit?) drivel with the brush it needs. Mind you, as he is Australian, I'd hate to have to foot the bar bill.

Louis

All jocularity (HAR HAR THIS IS YOU - dt) aside, I do love me some Wilkins.

(And yes, I do think he should use that as his sig line).

Date: 2009/06/26 13:48:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Voted for ya, Wes.  I too expect a live penguin in payment.   :D

Date: 2009/06/26 15:08:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (k.e.. @ June 26 2009,13:54)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 26 2009,15:17)
 
Quote (didymos @ June 26 2009,02:24)
OK, so looking over the Pandas stuff from Stephen B that's been quoted, I found a real gem. Man, StephenB is just...uh....words nearly fail. It's almost a flawless, glittering jewel shining with the light of the purest of pure tard:

       
Quote


364

StephenB

06/25/2009

4:51 pm

Echidna Levy:

—-”The term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists”

What is it about these Darwinists that render them impervious to reason. The scenario you have copied from Barbara Forrest didn’t happen. It is so funny when folks like you try to send someone like my [sic] to an intellectually banrupt [sic] site like Pandas [sic] Thumb to “learn something.” I have a bit of homework for you.

You did find a real gem.  Perhaps the Nope Diamond of denial.

That has a certain ..let's say n3Z to it.

I think it's more of a je ne ce tard.

Date: 2009/06/26 15:36:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Looks like the good DrDr will be getting another chance to visit the Baylor cafeteria after all:

Quote
   Dear Friends,

   I wanted to bring to your attention a unique opportunity this summer. The annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation will be held at Baylor University July 31-August 3. The ASA is the world’s largest organization of evangelical Christians who work in science and engineering, and it provides a forum to discuss faith-science questions.

   The program this year is particularly exciting with a mini-symposium on string theory and the alleged multi-universe and another symposium on origins where theistic evolution and intelligent design will be discussed. Timely issues raised by the human genome and its interpretation by some to imply a non-historical Adam and Eve will be discussed by three outstanding theologians, including Jack Collins from Covenant Theological Seminary (with 2 degrees from MIT in electrical engineering). Astronaut Charlie Duke will be keynoting the conference, describing his experiences as the first and only person to drive on the moon…..and his journey to faith subsequently. Exciting sessions on sociology and psychology and Christian faith, history of science and faith, and human conscientiousness are also included along with two sessions on appropriate technology as a means of ministering to the poor.

   Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, Bruce Gordon, Doug Axe, Robert Marks, David Snoke and Richard Sternberg will all be presenting in the Origins mini-symposium. The complete program can be found at www.asa3.org by clicking the link for the program for the 2009 annual meeting.

   The deadline for early registration discounts is June 30th, so please check it out quickly the program and register by next Tuesday to get the early registration discount.

   See you at the conference,

   Walter

   Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D., P.E.
   Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering
   Baylor University
   Waco, TX 76798

[emphasis mine, because I was amused]

Date: 2009/06/26 20:38:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2009,19:53)
Clive tells it how it is
 
Quote
You should use Occam’s razor on yourself if you really want to know if ghosts exist. Just kidding, don’t do that. Yes, some dead, but not all, can be communicated with, but we are not supposed to do that. This question has been answered for me since I was a kid. My grandparent’s house was haunted, and my whole family, including cousins, including myself, had encounters with this ghost. Including actually seeing it. Unless we grant perpetual hallucinations of entire groups of people all seeing the same thing, Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that a ghost was what they indeed saw. If you deny this, that’s your business, but you do so to a prior commitment to materialism, and actual observation doesn’t much matter to you if observation competes with your world view. If you are not an embodied spirit, then there is no “you” to begin with.

Fuck.

This explains much.

Date: 2009/06/27 14:31:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 27 2009,07:32)
kairosfocus's head explodes:
 
Quote
DK, Re 464:

I will say this much, you have a technically correct cite [one that is from a different part of the article and again your previous is incorrectly cited], but one that is highly misleading (as circa 1986, there was no terminology for a design thinker i.e. you have committed a fallacy of equivocation. [And note, at that time, Meyer was not a PhD philosopher and historian of science specialising in OOL and related issues, i.e you cannot simply cite his words as reasonably definitive.] To the merits, to the merits, to the merits, we must go.)

So soon as we turn to those merits, we easily see that your dismissal by labelling attempt also reflects the same pattern of distraction, distortion and demonisation, then dismissal we have noted above on Behe: THE ARGUMENT TBO MAKE IN TMLO IS NOT ABOUT GENESIS OR WHETHER DATA CAN BE FOUND TO SUPPORT IT, BUT IS A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE STATE OF OOL RESEARCH CIRCA 1984: MILLER-UREY TYPE EXPERIMENTS (AND THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATOR INTERFERENCE), CONVENTIONAL GEO-TIMELINE — NOT YEC! — EARLY EARTH ATMOSPHERIC CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPLICATIONS FOR PRE-BIOTIC SOUP FORMATION AND BREAKDOWN, DETAILED CLASSICAL AND STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS OF MOLECULE FORMATION IN (GENEROUS) PRE-BIOTIC SOUP CIRCUMSTANCES, RELATED INFORMATION THEORY PER BRILLOUIN, PROPOSED MECHANISMS FOR FORMATION OF EARLY LIFE, PROTOCELLS, etc. (Remember, TMLO is the book that marks a new departure. I happen to have in hand a copy of Morris’ Scientific Creationism, of that general era, and I assure you it speaks to nothing like that.)

So, once we see that not once do you pause to address the technical merits of the discussion, but jump to labelling and dismissing, we may properly draw a conclusion on prudence in face of evident threat: what your remarks boil down to is agenda-linked prejudice: so soon as you can ind a way to attach the label “Creationist” you dismiss without actual consideration on the merits.

For shame!

Worse, your remarks also reflect a clear agenda — and here, I must read from you to the Anti Evo group you represent, and beyond to the Lewontinian a priori materialists and their public policy allies in NCSE, NAS, NSTA, ACLU etc, and now in courtrooms and even halls of government otherwise — that is utterly destructive: to redefine science (cutting clean across its history and related philosophy) as applied materialism/atheism, and to exclude — that is: EXPEL — anyone who has theistic leanings.

Sorry, DK, you just declared culture war. And we will not simply surrender to you and your ilk.


Etc. A couple more zany posts follow.

This rant becomes far more entertaining if you imagine KF as an especially loquacious Dalek.  

"EX-TER-MIN-ATE. . .MA-TER-I-AL-ISTS!"  

Date: 2009/06/29 20:22:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ June 29 2009,07:17)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 29 2009,03:44)
Pullman's Dark Materials posits that Jehovah is a poser, not the creator, but a regent who usurps the throne.

Hence the OT combination of superpowers and moral perversion exhibited in the Fall, the Flood, etc. Basically a James Bond megalomaniac with actual magic powers.

In the happy ending, Metatron (Jehohah) is overthrown, The Authority (creator) dies of old age, and all the dead souls are released from heaven, which is a kind of gulag.

Some thumpers were a bit put off by the fact that this was a popular children's book. They managed to kill off the movie series.

Yeah, read those. It was a little different than how you've put it though:  Yahweh was The Authority, and he was simply the first angelic being to form (spontaneously, apparently). He later claimed to be the creator to secure his throne, and various religious texts like the Bible were more or less just political propoganda.  The Authority, having gotten a bit old and tired, appointed Metatron (who was once Enoch) as regent, after which Metatron covered up God's increasing senility, eventually locking him away in a box, and became the new, de facto Authority.  Also, the afterlife wasn't supposed to be heaven.  It was going back to ancient netherworld concepts like Sheol, Hades, etc. and everyone went there after death, bad or good or indifferent.  Oh, and after getting sprung, they just dissolved away into fundamental particles, basically.  Not exactly awesome, but much better than an eternity of numbing gloom.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the first two, but the last one was, well, preachy.  I quite dug the whole concept of God-as-False-God-usurped-by-yet-another-False-God, but as the final book went on I felt more and more like I was being lectured at and that Pullman was overindulging a bit with the whole "Take that, Christianity!" thing.  Later I found out it was more like "Take that, Chronicles Of Narnia...especially The Last Battle!" which is appropriate because the final Narnia book suffered from the same lack of subtlety and "author lecture" syndrome that the earlier books had kept much more in check (but still lapsed into now and then).

Agree completely.  The plot of the third book definitely suffered from the preachiness.

Date: 2009/06/30 13:08:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Happy birthday, Mr. Story!  In honor of your birth, we will all be liberally sample our favorite libations.  Sadly, we're a bit short on cash at the moment--do you think you could pony up for the tab?

Date: 2009/06/30 19:53:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (JLT @ June 30 2009,16:27)
Dembski:
     
Quote
The suppression of Alan Carlin’s report arguing against anthropogenic global warming serves as a warning to anyone who would facilely contend that science is self-correcting. Science by itself is not self-correcting. It only becomes self-correcting when scientists and outsiders refuse to let dogmatists who pretend scientific objectivity monopolize the discussion. Science is not about consensus. It is about informed dissent. Indeed, progress in science is only possible through informed consent. Those who suppressed Carlin’s report should read John Stuart Mill, who stressed the need for all sides in a debate to be fairly represented. This applies the debate over design and Darwinism as well.

Dembski's source is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). That's really worth looking at...
     
Quote
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change. [...]
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.

The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
Source: The Guardian
     
Quote
ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.

In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." [...]
The senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and the Tech Central Station Web site as beneficiaries of Exxon's efforts to sow doubt within the public about the scientific consensus behind global warming.

"We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy," the letter said.

The letter said ExxonMobil's efforts to confuse haven't worked everywhere.

"It has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community," the senators wrote.
Source: abc
     
Quote
But interests will always find a way to be heard, lobbyists say. One is through think tanks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a "major donor" largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

"I think what attracted them to us was our position on global warming," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel. "And we hope to get support from other industries that agree with us."
Source: Washington Post

Soooooo. A think tank that is funded by people and groups who want to push a specific viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus, that therefore lies about and distorts science and scientific facts, and complains about these mean science dogmatists who suppress opposing viewpoints.

Hmmm... somehow that sounds familiar. Can't really put the finger on it tho.

ETA: link, spelling...

Real Climate had a delightfully blunt assessment of that report.

Date: 2009/06/30 20:00:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Also, I recently confirmed that I still have a non-moderated UD account that I have barely even used (and not at all in the past year).  Hmmm. . .I wonder how I could make use of that. . .

Date: 2009/07/01 21:29:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 01 2009,21:16)
Oooh, lookee!  A prediction:

 
Quote

lamarck

07/01/2009

9:02 pm

[Nakashima:] “It makes the last months of 2004 sound like the ID best times. Wow!”

No that’ll be 2012


Everyone, mark those calendars!

Eureka!  Obviously the Mayan pantheon is, collectively, "The Designer!"

Lamarck, please head immediately to Sweden.  For your efforts and hard working at uncovering the true nature of The Designer, you will be awarded this year's Nobel Prize for Sciencey-ness.  Well done, sir!

Date: 2009/07/01 21:37:14, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 01 2009,21:32)
Dr. Dr. gives us the news:

"We are now at war with Front-Loading.  We have ALWAYS been at war with Front-loading."

I could be wrong, but I think the kind of front-loading discussed here is not the same kind of front-loading that Behe and Dave Scot proposed.

Date: 2009/07/01 22:50:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 01 2009,22:31)
hahahahaha at Poythress
 
Quote
He is an advocate of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional apologetics, particularly the ideas that epistemology and ontology must find their ultimate grounding in the Trinity. He has also sought to work out presuppositionalism's central claim that there is no neutrality in the area of science and mathematics. In a manner akin to Augustine's view that truth is divine, Poythress views scientific law as a form of the word of God.[2] In 1976, Poythress broke new ground with an article on "A Biblical View of Mathematics," while in a 1983 article, he argued that mathematics is the rhyme of the universe.[3]
A central idea in Poythress' thought has concerned the validity of multiple perspectives, or multiperspectivalism, a project that he shares with his teacher and collaborator John Frame. In Poythress's seminal work Philosophy, Science, and the Sovereignty of God, he explored how the scientific concepts of wave, particle and field can be used analogically to demonstrate different ways of looking at things. He argued that such a triadic structure is a "a means of avoiding unhealthy dualism",[4] and he continued on this line of thought in Symphonic Theology, where he applied multiperspectivalism to theology.


in addition to being deep cover pomo Poythress wrote his own wiki entry.  loser.

The first line of an article he wrote called Why Scientists Must Believe in God:

Quote
All scientists—including agnostics and atheists—believe in God. They have to in order to do their work.


Somebody should invite him to be a front-pager at UD.  Oh, the fun that could be had!

Date: 2009/07/02 15:13:21, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 02 2009,13:46)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 02 2009,00:51)
Chesterton's main strength seems to have been to miss the bleeding obvious.  For instance, he thought it was significant that cultures around the world have similar laws.  Therefore Jesus.  Other people note that there are very few cultures full of people that want to be robbed, therefore laws against robbery.  

I'm sure you know Lewis used the same argument, basically. Laws are the same because morality is objective. "Authentic" objective morality = God. Subjective morality = Satan. The argument was wildly popular because it was so malleable. All you have to do is divvy cultural moralities up into the slots and ignore what doesn't fit.

Discussing this with AFDave, the thing that was amusing was that even J.R.R. Tolkien chastised Lewis on this obvious bullshittery, saying Lewis just avoided the implications of things like, oh, say classical Greek slavery, treatment of females and teh ghey of their world.

Chesterton and Lewis... eh, their crap is taken seriously by brain-damaged twits like Clivey-baby, who wets himself over the duo.  

A lot of this was dealt with in Humphrey Carpenter's "The Inklings," but I'll be damned if I can find my copy of it. I might have to buy another

I have several friends who find the shared morality = objective morality argument to be persuasive.  I've never thought much of it myself.  I mean even if you were able to show that there are certain moral precepts common to all humans (which, I think can be disputed strongly), all you would have shown is that humans share a common subjective set of morals.  But taking that set of shared morals and then extrapolating it into the fabric of the universe--which seems to me to be the point of the argument--is wildly unjustified.

Date: 2009/07/05 18:19:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ July 05 2009,17:38)
Quote
Unfortunately, human error caused a semi-catastrophe. A G-force detector in the space capsule was mounted upside down...

If they hadn't forgotten to turn the computer upside down when they were running the simulations, they would have caught the problem.

POTW

Date: 2009/07/05 22:48:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 05 2009,22:31)
LOL:
 
Quote

90DegreeAngel

07/05/2009

10:12 pm

Gil,

I have great respect for your contributions here at UD. I also find DK et al rather annoying and patronizing.

In regards to your friend that was part of the team at JPL. I can sympathize with him. I too have worked on projects wherein we simulated physical phenomena and then ended up not capturing the true complexity of the event with our simulation. I assume you suggested to your friend that they should have turned the computer they ran the simulations on upside down. This would have fixed the problem.

The follow up is also good:  

 
Quote


Sorry my good friend from the far east. If you are familiar with Gil’s theories about simulations you will understand that to simulate playing checkers you must take into account all of the phenomena that might impact the game in an actual gang. For example, I play checkers in the park. It’s a tough neighborhood. Therefore if the simulated opponent is playing well, I might want to throw my computer to the ground in frustration. These actions have a real effect on the computer and therefore the simulation. This better simulates the reality of playing checkers.

So I am sorry Nagasaki, You are wrong.


ETA:  I see that I was beaten to the punch.  *shakes fist*

Date: 2009/07/12 16:28:48, Link
Author: someotherguy
More lock:

Quote


Hey Dov, not being flippant here, I really have to point this out.

When you say there are two physics (astronomically or otherwise) and in the next or previous breath, refer to the ‘oneness’ of the universe (fractally or otheriwse) it sounds to me like you are reiterating a very old prinicple and trying to frame it with new language.

Many out here understand the principle well (and respect its mystery too).

You are acknowledging both the unity and diversity of reality as a whole. We just call it the trinity. It is not a new concept.

In my estimation yours is a kind of trinitarian materialist point of view. Another piece of evidence for those of us who understand that materialism is simply another religion. Even your post (in it’s entirety) has a very abstract religious flavor to it along the lines of, ‘I am the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end.’

You are on to more than you may realize and I understand very well. The only difference I would encourage you to study is in the language. With one language, reality and its self originating qualities is expounded upon as a living being. Therefore life and being originate in Him. He is not simply the origin of life and truth, but as Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”.

In your language, reality is not personal in the sense of being, but just is. The way you express it contains a presupposition that reality is not a ‘who’ but a ‘what’.

Interestingly it takes a ‘who’ (in this case you) to say it. Many others have preceded you in what I consider to be this error.

I have observed for some time (and I think this is right) that science has demanded that the language be framed in the kind of presupposition that you yourself are using. I wonder if you are conscious of it?

The philosophy in question (materialism) works well for science when uderstanding cause and effect relations in many areas. But to use it absolutely and apply it to ultimate reality in terms of origins is not science at all but strictly philosophy or metaphysics if you prefer.

Your comments are not really observations at all. They are speculations. They are possibilities that have the quality of a declaration. The kind of declaration that logically can only be truely made [with conviction] by a man who thinks himself God.

That being said, your comments show not only tremendous intelligence, but a simultaneous lack of perception regarding the necessity of the simple framework in which the mind must, at once, be inarguably anchored if those ideas to be meaningfully and consistently stated.

Congratualations on discovering the trinity. Now stand up and declare yourself to be the universe (and its reality and origin) incarnate like Jesus did, and you’ll have some real attention.

Since I can never stop writing I might as well add that at some point, materialism will reach that point. A man (or more likely a plurality of ‘mankind’) will declare himself to be God, not just implicitely as is so common now, but outright and boldly.

Then… many on the sidelines will have to make a choice. Is Jesus God, or is this ‘new man’ who unknowingly says the same thing as Jesus?

Or… maybe it’s just coincidence? ;)


link

I'm guessing sock too, but if that's true, I'm sort of worried for the person who's doing the socking because that right there is some seriously deep crazy being tapped into.

Date: 2009/07/12 17:19:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 12 2009,17:12)
Quote (someotherguy @ July 12 2009,17:28)
I'm guessing sock too, but if that's true, I'm sort of worried for the person who's doing the socking because that right there is some seriously deep crazy being tapped into.

It just occurred to me that Lock is channeling Lock - the messianic character from Lost. It's a good way to do a sock, as it provides a generative backstory and POV from which to generate beguiling nonsense.

Gil, UB, and herb are already entranced. Hell, Gil and UB are openly identifying with Lock's messianic delusions. Somebody needs to go in as Jack and set up some real tensions.

Well done.

You may be right, but if so, I almost feel bad for Gil, et al., because they're getting played hard.

Date: 2009/07/12 20:01:34, Link
Author: someotherguy
The more he posts, the less I am able to believe that Lock is a sock.  If I'm wrong, one of y'all (just one?  Hah!) is truly a sick fuck.  His latest:

 
Quote


Correction to post #8 just in case there are any theological hair splitters like me out there…

I did not mean to express that Jesus is the universe incarnate or that he claimed to be. What I meant is that He is reality (God) incarnate and claimed to be so.

It is the materialist along the lines of Dov’s comments who would be claiming to be the universe incarnate. That is the equivilant of what Jesus claimed but from a materialist angle.

Anyway, I wanted to make that clear for any who noticed the problem.


I, for one, make declaring myself to be the universe incarnate part of my morning routine--usually after shaving but before brushing my teeth.

ETA:  fixed link.

Date: 2009/07/14 15:46:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 14 2009,15:05)
magic!


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-326444

Quote
32

Hedge

07/14/2009

1:39 pm
I think Dr. Hunter may be on to something with regard to the similarities between marsupial vs. non-marsupial mammals that call into question their evolutionary origins. I once read an online debate about whether or not thylacines and wolves could really be considered examples of convergent evolution due to their extreme similarity, and when shown side-by-side pictures of the two animals, I for one could not distinguish between them!

*giggles*

Date: 2009/07/15 15:35:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Henry J @ July 15 2009,15:06)
I hope k.e.. gets well soon...

From what I can tell, whatever he is suffering from is both debilitating and prolonged.

Date: 2009/07/15 20:15:36, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 15 2009,17:37)
Jesus, Mapou really hates General Relativity:
Quote

Mapou

07/15/2009

4:28 pm

Of course, dark matter and dark energy are just a pile voodoo science. It is the sort of BS that physicists conjure up whenever one of their most idolized theories (Einstein’s general theory of relativity), is squarely and mercilessly falsified. Of course, when push comes to shove, they would rather blame it on long gone Sir Isaac rather than admit to the world that Einstein was dead wrong. And God forbid anybody should mention that everything else in cosmology (black holes, Big Bang, accelerating expansion, etc.) is automatically suspect and should be jettisoned with the rest of the hogwash. What a marvelous house of cards these these savvy gentlefolk are building!

But how can their theories not be wrong? They have absolutely no clue as to what causes gravity. They are willfully ignorant of and uninterested in foundational issues. Relativists will even tell you with a straight face that science is not about the why of things but the how. In other words, we don’t know, we don’t want to know and neither should you. We tell you what’s important and what to think about because we are the lords of physics. And don’t you forget it.

Gravity physics is not really science. It’s more like everyday engineering. It’s just a bunch of mathematicians adjusting coefficients, constants and equations until their theory somehow agrees with observation. It explains nothing in terms of particles, their properties and their interactions, which is what real physics should be about anyway.

Science is in dire need of a Kuhnian revolution, in my opinion.


Mapou is in dire need of a re-read of Kuhn, and that's a fact.  He's also in dire need of a lot of other stuff too, like therapy.

Does he not realize that if we throw out the Big Bang it's back to steady state cosmology again?

Date: 2009/07/16 22:04:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 16 2009,21:29)
Gil likes to discover stuff by talking to himself:
Quote

GilDodgen

07/16/2009

9:13 pm

On the subject of miracles, I once asked myself, “Self, what is a miracle?” The answer seemed obvious: an event with no naturalistic explanation or cause.

Then it suddenly dawned on me: The origin of the universe was a miracle, by definition. The origin of the universe could not possibly have a naturalistic explanation or cause, because nature did not exist until the universe came into being.

We therefore have logical and empirical verification of at least one miracle, and on the grandest scale imaginable.


Yep.  That's stupid alright.

Sweet Jesus, that's dumb.  Travel back in time a few hundred years and that same argument can be used to prove that lightning and earthquakes are also miracles.

Date: 2009/07/16 23:49:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ July 16 2009,23:19)
'Ras,

It just occurred to me that k.e. is your sock. Well done.  And at AtBC, of all places!

What if he were KF's sock?  Now wouldn't that just blow your mind?

Date: 2009/07/17 20:35:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (JohnW @ July 17 2009,18:35)
Quote (didymos @ July 17 2009,16:16)
OK, I am now virtually certain herb is a Poe:
 
Quote

herb

07/17/2009

3:45 pm

Robert Byers,

Nice to see you posting here. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that biogeography “works”, but that the evos are interpreting the evidence incorrectly. Furthermore, some population(s) descended from the original dog kind microevolved marsupial features over the last 4500 years while migrating by land to Australia. I hadn’t heard this particular hypothesis before, but it sounds plausible to me. Even more importantly in view of the topic of this thread, you haven’t based your argument on any religious premises, which is where Coyne and the Darwinists go wrong.

The post by Robert Byers that inspired herb, in its full tardeliciousness:

Quote
111

Robert Byers

07/17/2009

5:17 am
I am YEC and I love and insist that biogeography is a friend to biblical Christianity.
It all works and this coyne is just wrong.

This creationist says marsupials are in fact just placentals with minor adaptions to areas they migrated too.
A marsupial wolf, bear, lion, mole, tapir, mouse, are in fact the same creatures as their namesakes in other countries.
The marsupial wolf looked like a dog, moved like a dog, hunted like some kinds of dogs, and howled at the moon like the others.
The marsupial lion is clearly just a lion with a pouch.

These creatures all came from the kinds off the ark.
Marsupialism is just a minor change of the same creatures entering the farthest areas on earth from the ark.
Likewise this law is repeated in the fossil record time and again . Same shaped creatures are said to be unrelated because of some details and classified as separate with no more justification then the marsupial/placental case.
I wrote an essay on this some time back calledd “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by Robert Byers. just google.

Coyne and company must also remember YEC don’t accept the rock strata as coming from eons but only from a single or few events.
Please stop saying creatures swam from the ark. They walked . Just ask the armidillos.

Wow, that's some strong stuff.

Date: 2009/07/19 16:04:36, Link
Author: someotherguy
Okay, after this pleasantly subtle argument in favor of intelligent falling, I am once again convinced that Lock is a sock.

Date: 2009/07/19 22:59:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 19 2009,22:43)
Everybody send your sock over there to vote for Nakashima for posting privileges. His campaign bus is heading for New Hampshire and he needs your support!

ETA to ad beter speling

Happy to do so, but can you point me in the direction of the appropriate thread?

Date: 2009/07/20 00:02:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 19 2009,23:50)
Awesome.  Jerry rules:
Quote

If Theodosius Dobzhansky were to make an honest statement about biology it would be “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of functional complex specified information.” That would be a more accurate statement than the one he made.


I expect that were old Theodosius to rise from the dead for a pronouncement in response to that, it would be along the lines of "Go FCSI yourself!"

Instant classic.

Date: 2009/07/20 13:44:30, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (JLT @ July 20 2009,13:33)
Mapou:
 
Quote
I am a Christian but I admit that I do enjoy whacking the enemy with a two-by-four every once in a while. I think it’s funny. And I think that we should be allowed to rough them up a little before you ban them. Who says that UD needs to be fair?

Link
LOL.
UD moderation policy explained.

As that great philosopher Willow Rosenberg once said, "A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend."   :p

Date: 2009/07/20 17:43:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 20 2009,16:29)
Mapou babbles:  
Quote
Wow. A cause in physics is a violation of some conservation principle. The cause of movement is an interaction between two particles. If they have equal positions, they must interact due to an exclusion principle which is itself a consequence of a conservation principle. An interaction lasts as long as the two particles violate the principle. As soon as they move away from each other, they are no longer in violation and there is no reason that the movement of either particle should persist. If it does, it is because they are continually interacting with other particles. Consequently, we are swimming in a highly regular ocean of particles.

The reason objects in motion tend to remain in motion is a direct consequence of the conservation of mass/energy/momentum principle, since to do otherwise would require an expenditure of energy.
 
Quote

[As an aside, for the Biblical minded, The books of Ezekiel and Revelation compare it to a sea of glass (transparent), like crystal (lattice)].

It is all very simple really, so simple in fact, that children will have no trouble grasping it. However, I am afraid that, after centuries of wearing blinders, physicists have become so accustomed to wearing them that they will feel very unconfortable (sic) if they are forced to take them off.


And some of us outgrow our childish intuitions of how things work, after we grow up and are presented with irrefutable evidence that our childish intuitions are wrong.
And some of us just never advance that far.
(bolding mine)

Ha ha ha!  That is truly awesome stuff.  If there is a God, surely he will cause Mapou to be given UD posting privileges!

Date: 2009/07/20 22:15:54, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2009,21:52)
Hey, boys and girls, guess what?  I'm an alchemist!  With an ilk!

Just between you and me, I've always been rather fond of your ilk.   :D

Date: 2009/07/21 16:37:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Check out the top post on PT.  Anybody have a clue what the hell that's about?  Has Reed been sampling from his mushroom garden again?

Date: 2009/07/21 21:13:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
The latest O'Leary post and subsequent comment thread is full of the good stuff.  Mr Charrington is fighting a valiant, if ultimately futile, effort.

Date: 2009/07/21 21:18:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
Thanks for the info, Wes.  I look forward to learning Mr. Mystery's true identity!

Date: 2009/07/22 13:48:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2009,13:36)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 22 2009,13:46)
I've taken the trouble to send an email to W.F. Doolittle to ask for his thoughts on the matter.

The good Dr. has kindly and quickly replied that he is aware of this kind of thing, and unequivocally denies that he is a supporter of ID and denies that he denies either common descent or descent with modification.

In short, the UDers are full of shit, as usual. (but we already knew that, didn't we?)

On a side note, I'm always so pleasantly tickled that I get responses, invariably quickly, from established members of the scientific community. Seriously, I'm basically some anonymous overaged undergrad half a world away, and yet they always, without exception, take time to answer my questions or send me a copy of their paper, or whatever.

How cool is that?

On the off-chance that he gave you permission to post his reply, I may know of somebody (*wink wink*) who has a working UD account and would be happy to post it.

Edited to fix spelling

Date: 2009/07/22 17:01:55, Link
Author: someotherguy
BillB twists the screws just a bit harder:

Quote
BillB

07/22/2009

4:45 pm

Clive, I’m confused by your comment at 66.

You appear to be claiming that if a person makes and then repeats a claim about another persons position on an issue, one which that person has explicitly denied holding, then the claim is true. Assuming this is correct it would appear that in this particular instance you are accusing W.F. Doolittle of lying.

Is this true?

Date: 2009/07/24 14:24:38, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,14:09)
can anyone provide any evidence that any other 'players' in this petty worldview war (constructed in Dembski's head) instruct their students to go out and troll creationist blogs?  

what a warped sombitch

I bet his classes are a trip.  Maybe somebody should start a CBEB fund to send an intrepid sock puppet eager student to enroll in his class.  That person could report back here, and much fun would be had by all!

Date: 2009/07/24 14:48:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 24 2009,14:38)
Quote (someotherguy @ July 24 2009,12:24)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,14:09)
can anyone provide any evidence that any other 'players' in this petty worldview war (constructed in Dembski's head) instruct their students to go out and troll creationist blogs?  

what a warped sombitch

I bet his classes are a trip.  Maybe somebody should start a CBEB fund to an intrepid sock puppet eager student to enroll in his class.  That person could report back here, and much fun would be had by all!

Screw that: we go in with a full team and plant multiple spy cams which communicate via long-distance wifi link (high powered directional antennae of course) with a server which is connected to a high-capacity dedicated line .  Some sort of self-destruct mechanism would be advisable in the event of discovery.   Probably should pay for the bandwidth via an offshore account of some kind as well.
We will then use this resource to make crappy and poorly edited YouTube videos with thematically inappropriate but currently popular Top 40 songs.

You sir are a genius.  An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.  I submit that an operation of such audacity requires an appropriately awesome name.  How about:  "Operation Cardigan Cleanup."

Date: 2009/07/24 15:51:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 24 2009,15:34)
Quote (Lowell @ July 24 2009,14:43)
Not it! I wanted to see what his students had to say, so I looked him up on Rate My Professor

Check out this guy
Drinkard Joel.  Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -librul and scared!
Amusingly, out of 35 rated professors Dembski comes in at 30. Not such a great showing for a Dr Dr Dr!

Why do they list the good Dr. Dr.'s department as "Finance?"  Did he sneak in another degree while nobody was looking?

Date: 2009/07/24 20:38:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afarensis @ July 24 2009,19:18)
Speaking of the besweatered one:

FIRST-PERSON: Science czar as science abuser :

Quote
Holdren and his fellow scientific priests, as does our president who has promised to support them, spurn the sanctity of life. But in the short term, expect them to focus on global warming, using it as a means to amass great power to themselves ("green companies," like GE, will collaborate with them in a conflict of interest that will be marvelous to behold).

At the same time, expect them to go after education, further ramrodding Darwinian and materialistic conceptions of science down our children's throats (and outlawing intelligent design to boot). And, in the end, with great reluctance but, so they assure us, because it is the only hope for humanity, all aspects of human reproduction and life will fall under their control -- unless they can be stopped.


He goes on to say all scientists should have their heads put in a VISE, or their feet held to the fire, or something, and that we have very little freedom left. Apparently it's all a plot on the part of scientists to "...force on the wider population government-sanctioned programs for social control...", such programs were used on Bill to deprive him of access to the Baylor cafeteria so he knows what he's talking about.

LOL.  Whatever else he once was or could have been, Dembski is now, simply, a classic crank.

Date: 2009/07/26 16:22:09, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 26 2009,15:12)
Quote (keiths @ July 26 2009,10:00)
Joe G. chimes in:
 
Quote
BillB,

One would measure the information in an object by determining what it took to bring said object into existence.

That said for a GA just count the bits it contains and that would give you the minimum amount of information (SI) it takes.

The same goes for a pen.

The bottom line is it is a measurement.

Information. The information age. Information technology. Information theory.

I guess that in refrigerator school, they don't teach you that the number of bits it takes to represent an algorithm depends on the style of the programmer and the language in which the algorithm is represented.

It's even worse than that:  What compiler is used? How much optimization does it do on the intermediate code? What form does that intermediate representation take anyway?  What architecture does the machine code run on?  Is that the same as the one the compiler is run on? How large are the instructions and how many of them does it take to represent a particular algorithm?  Is there any optimization done by the assembler?  What linker is used?  How much optimization does that do? How many shared libraries are involved and are any of them unnecessarily linked?  Is the linking static or dynamic, and how is each implemented? Does the processor do any reordering or break instructions down further into micro-ops? How large are the various integer and FP representations on that arch?  Does the program actually need the full range of any of those?

Then you have to ask whether the amount of CSI/FSCI in all those various links in the toolchain should be counted as well, since they're necessary, as is the OS on which all of them run.  Oh, and then you have a bunch of other "runtime" things to account for: Is this running on an emulator of some kind? How faithfully does it emulate?  Or is this maybe running on an OS which is in turn running as a guest under virtualization?  What kind of virtualization is used? Is the language actually an interpreted one and not compiled at all?  Which interpreter is being used? And on and on and on.....

What, you mean to tell me that the argument from analogy is not 100% effective in every conceivable situation?  Lies!!!

Date: 2009/07/27 00:27:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ July 26 2009,21:56)
Mapou is kickin' it TARD school:
Quote

Very nice synopsis. In my opinion, Watson is the real discoverer of DNA’s structure. He doggedly insisted against the advice of his less inspired colleague that the consistent finding of “twoness” in nature meant that DNA’s structure had to be a double helix.

Watson had tapped into an extremely powerful and fundamental aspect of nature that Chinese philosophers had understood for millenia, the yin and the yang. I believe that the yin-yang concept is the key to understanding everything about reality. Soon it will lead to a breakthrough in our efforts to grasp consciousness. Cristoph Koch, the Cal Tech scientist who has been searching for the “neural correlates of consciousness” for decades (without success, of course, since he denies duality from the outset), would do well to meditate on Chinese philosophy in his spare time.

In this regard, Dr. Meyer’s work is a continuation of the dualistic theme. Just as consciousness requires a knower and a known, a code requires a coder. It’s that simple. Note also that duality is not the exclusive domain of Chinese philosophers. Judeo-Christian theology is based on the same idea (”I and the father are one”; “the two shall be one flesh”, etc.).

In sum, opposites are ONE. This should be the basis of all science.


What happened to cherubim and seraphim being fundamental particles?  Oh, I get it:  Lucifer and his hordes are anti-particles. It's like the Tao Of Judeo-Christian Physics.

When are the powers that be over at UD going to come to their senses and make Mapou an official front-pager?  His stuff is pure gold!

Date: 2009/07/27 13:07:51, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote
Mapou

07/25/2009

6:57 pm

We need a knockout left hook from nowhere.

Ah yes, the infamous infinite-wavelength zero-energy left hook.  Many an unsuspecting materialist has been done in by that powerhouse move!

Date: 2009/08/01 00:24:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 01 2009,00:18)
GAB OF TALKY:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-328516

Quote
...The standard tactic is red herrings led away to strawman distortions soaked in oily ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.

Or, the level of flak and such like goes right up as the bomber approaches the Ruhr; precisely because it is the critical target zone; thus, duly ringed with huge phalanxes of 88’s, searchlights etc.

...


Deepest.Cover.Sock.Eva.

That comment alone could very well warrant its own entry in the DSM-V.

Date: 2009/08/05 16:22:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2009,15:31)
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 05 2009,14:20)
Looks like Afarensis needs a bit of encouragement and a new computer.

You can donate here:

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/


he promises not to spend it all on womens clothes.

Although, if he posted pics and/or videos of himself wearing said women's clothing, it might help drive blog traffic.  Well, at least from Louis.   :p

Date: 2009/08/06 14:03:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Reading some of Sal's comments at UD, I am once again amused by the fact that Intelligent Design, a putative explanation for the history of life on earth, is alleged to be  just as compatible with an earth that is 6k-10k years old as it is with an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old, and apparently few, if any, IDer's seem to understand why that might be a problem!    

As the saying goes, all science so far!

Date: 2009/08/08 14:27:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 08 2009,13:31)
deadman_392 slaps the UDiots' faces with a glove:
 
Quote
With ID, there’s this odd tendency of ID-ists to cry “conspiracy!” and huddle together in specifically moderated environments, rather than going out and confronting critics directly. There are exceptions: Cornelius Hunter once went over to an adjunct of Panda’s Thumb. John Baumgardner had the honor and decency to publicly voice his views at Theology Web (a site primarily run by theists). John Sanford was supposed to show up there, but hasn’t as of yet.

I’d like to invite anyone from UD — capable of actually debating the topics and simultaneously exhibiting a modicum of politeness — to venture on over to Theology Web and see how well your ideas hold up under scrutiny where the moderators aren’t your fellows.

Go on, Clive baby (yes, we know you're still lurking here), show Deadman how much confidence you have in your position -- ban him and remove his comments.

That comment was a tour-de-force of non-tard, which at UD means it will be met with hostility and misapprehension.  In other words, entertainment will soon ensue.

Date: 2009/08/08 21:08:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
FYI, I'm down in San Diego.  Would love to meet some CBEB (and more reputable types as well, of course) if any of y'all happen to live/visit here.

Date: 2009/08/09 13:56:43, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2009,10:53)
Deadman's smackdown is priceless. I bet StephenB goes missing for a while...

Au contraire, he actually doubles-down:  

Quote
I appreciate what you are saying, but I am communicating primarily to onlookers. My adversaries are not open to my views; most of them are impervious to reason. My task is to expose their irrational posture, which is evident when probed. Sometimes, though, they expose themselves with no help at all from me.


Much more good stuff here.

Deadman, you're comments at UD have been extremely entertaining thus far, so even though StephenB is refusing your challenge, I hope you'll continue posting there, if only for our entertainment!  :)

Date: 2009/08/10 13:03:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2009,01:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 10 2009,00:50)
Clivebaby gets pissy:

   
Quote
103

Clive Hayden

08/10/2009

12:26 am
deadman,

I stated that I wouldn’t be debating you here because of good reasons that I gave. Your reaction, StephenB, was to offer up one bogus excuse and vapid non-responses. So, I can always go back to my usual haunts and enjoy the proceedings from afar. You can read them at that site which cannot be named.

You have no good reasons whatsoever. Admit it. Go lurk in the back corner with the rest of those mockers at the sight which should not exist.


Clive, mocking this post would be guilding the lilly. He listed his reasons. You joke.

Edit to add link:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329372

I responded to Clive...here it is, in case it disappears:

 
Quote
"Gee, Clive, I realize of course, that you’re merely being mildly provocative — however transparently — but thanks for reassuring me about my concerns regarding impartial moderation and people acting as foils.

I realize that a one-on-one thread devoted ONLY to StephenB and me debating strikes you as an invalid reason to want a change of venues, but given recent events, I’d again beg to differ.

I also notice that StephenB hardly even responded to my criticisms except to ask me a question about who I was referring to in my post.

Yeah, that’s impressive.

So, yes, I will go back to that “sight” that should not exist, Clive. Where Alexa stats outshine other “sights.”

P.S. It’s very clear to any unbiased observer why some people here never appear on any forum other than Uncommon Descent. Thanks for your hospitality while it lasted, Clive!"


Eh, I have to begin putting in an entire (ducted) A/C system and dedicated circuit starting tuesday, so I don't feel any real regrets.

ETA: If I were a more cynical person, I might suspect that some of the hospitality there was insincere --  perhaps driven by a desire for the kind of site hits that people here deliver to UD, and a desire to "rehabilitate" a ban-happy image .

Deadman, your comment hasn't appeared yet.  Were you being moderated prior to submitting this?

Date: 2009/08/10 14:02:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (tard-aholic @ Aug. 10 2009,13:45)
Hello All,

Long time lurker, first time poster etc etc.
This nugget by Joseph is priceless:
     
Quote
Shubin finding Tiki had nothing to do with non-telic processes.

As for the standard of evidence it appears that evos will acecpt anything besides the design inference, whereas to reach the design inference specific criteria must be met.

Thenthere is the fact that you can’t produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes…


Is that bold bit sig worthy ?
.... I report, You decide ....

Definitely sig-worthy.

Date: 2009/08/10 15:27:41, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (tard-aholic @ Aug. 10 2009,13:45)
Hello All,

Long time lurker, first time poster etc etc.
This nugget by Joseph is priceless:
     
Quote
Shubin finding Tiki had nothing to do with non-telic processes.

As for the standard of evidence it appears that evos will acecpt anything besides the design inference, whereas to reach the design inference specific criteria must be met.

Thenthere is the fact that you can’t produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes…


Is that bold bit sig worthy ?
.... I report, You decide ....

I'm trying to think of an alternative interpretation of Joseph's claim that "you can’t produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes" which keep this from being one of the single stupidest things he or anybody else has said at UD, but I'm coming up blank.

Date: 2009/08/10 17:57:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (hooligans @ Aug. 10 2009,17:36)
First of all, I just wanted to say that I was the one to point out Dembski's kooky teaching methods. I was waiting to see his response and . . . yes it has arrived! My favorite part:    
Quote
In any case, I’ll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following disclaimer — “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited” — and I’ll make sure my students don’t post on your sites.


The Irony !!!! LOL . . Man . .. you cannot make up that kind of delsional wackiness. AWWW poor Dembski got his panties in a bunch becasue his students might get banned for debating ideas!!! HAHAHAHAH you are completly MAD, MAD, MAd

Update: 1st post on the thread:  
Quote
1

Graham

08/10/2009

5:21 pm
I did a quick pass through the course descriptions and its pretty scary stuff.
Can this be called an education ?

Too subtle or not subtle enough?

Quote
It seems to me that the act of ruminating on the problem of why God does not appear to heal amputees can be a highly stimulating intellectual excercise, especially if done on a regular basis. Such an activity can really be a great way to relieve intellectual tension and replenish one’s mental focus.

Date: 2009/08/10 22:36:55, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 10 2009,21:47)
Bat^Shit!!!  at pharyngula

 
Quote
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 10, 2009 8:55 PM
Hey PZ,
Do you think I can get some credit for a grade from you to? I've posted at least a hundred times on your site.
Evolution: Redefined- Geoff Moore and the Distance
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVwFYpFemE4]TARD video again

I thought that the phrase "Geoff Moore and the Distance" sounded familiar, so I clicked over to that YouTube video. Sure enough, Geoff Moore and the Distance was a late '80's/early 90's era Christian rock band I was familiar with  while I was growing up (as an evangelical pastor's son).  I'm pretty sure I've even seen that video a few times before.  Suffice to say, I had sort of a strange childhood.

Date: 2009/08/12 16:36:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 12 2009,16:17)
Wow, Clivebaby is upset. Barret Brown has added an epilogue to his Huffington Post article in which he says
   
Quote
<snip>
Clive Hayden, meanwhile, asks that I engage him in a discussion on the subject of evolution and how it relates to each person's efforts to verify his worldview. I am disinclined to do so insomuch as that Hayden appears to have difficulty with his memory to such an extent that to debate him further would be much akin to arguing with a persistent amnesiac;<snip>
.
Clivebaby:      
Quote
BarrettBrown,

   
Quote
   Hayden denounces me as “a comedian;” I would note that we’re now represented in the Senate, as we should be. Comedians are the greatest people in the world.

   He also asks an astonishing question:

   
Quote
       He must really dislike certain outcomes of evolution. Whence comes the discernment between competing worldviews that are all outcomes of evolution? If evolution, to Barrett, admittedly produces false worldviews, such as religion, then why trust it in any other regard?


   I don’t trust evolution any more than I trust gravity or attractive women. I don’t make any claims to the effect that evolution only produces swell things and makes everyone smart and honest. I’m not all totally in love with evolution; I just think it’s the case. And I’m amazed that Hayden would ask me to account for the results of the process to which I ascribe when it is he and his fellow intelligent design advocates who attribute divine purpose to nature, not I. And what’s up with those airline peanuts, amirite?
That is a complete non-answer. I’ve asked you to give a real response again, your update on HuffPost doesn’t cut it for it doesn’t even address my questions. I answered your questions, now you answer mine, and don’t weasel out of it by talking about my memory. Can you not answer my questions? Can you not? It certainly appears that you cannot. If you can, do it here and now. Evasion won’t work Barrett.

Fightin' talk!

Somebody needs to inform Clive that any attempts to pull a "davetard" will be doomed to immediate failure if he doesn't use at least one of the following words and/or phrases:

homo
mesomorph
I slay myself
Dell patent
Houseboat
Marines
You're outta here!  
. . .is no longer with us

(add more as you see fit)

C'mon, Clive.  The playbook exists for a reason.  Learn it, love it, live it.

Date: 2009/08/12 20:23:30, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 12 2009,19:55)
Frost122585 is a tard:
Quote

As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human – mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven.


Add mitochondrial DNA to the list of things Frosty fails to understand.

My sock's shtick is normally to go for the "full tard," but I couldn't resist breaking character to try to clear up Frost's confusion.  We'll see how he responds.

Date: 2009/08/12 20:37:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 12 2009,20:23)
 
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 12 2009,19:55)
Frost122585 is a tard:    
Quote

As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human – mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven.


Add mitochondrial DNA to the list of things Frosty fails to understand.

My sock's shtick is normally to go for the "full tard," but I couldn't resist breaking character to try to clear up Frost's confusion.  We'll see how he responds.

I apparently failed:

 
Quote
I think you understand my point regardless of whether Eve is one particular creature or representivite of the very specific and closly related creatures denoting the missing link which leads us into modern humans.

Date: 2009/08/12 22:13:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 12 2009,22:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 12 2009,08:13)
hahahahahahahahahahaha  I would like to see Gordon E Mullings fight a tornado

Definitely a Pay-per-view goldmine.  We could hold it in a junkyard.  In a ring of fire made from burning strawmen soaked in the oil of ad hominem.  Two enter, one leaves.

Where did the "I would like to see (insert tard) fight (insert something humorous)" thing come from?

Date: 2009/08/13 12:58:27, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 13 2009,11:06)
Speaking of Lewis and Chesterton, Dembski has just rolled out a buy-my-book campaign for The End of Christianity.  The post lists a bazillion endorsements, one of which calls him the C. S. Lewis of this generation.

That's a rather telling statement about the trajectory of Dembski's career.  Going from the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" to the "C.S. Lewis of this generation" is quite a profound demotion.  No wonder he's so bitter.

Date: 2009/08/13 23:42:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 13 2009,23:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 14 2009,07:13)
HAR HAR THIS IS YOU


####

RAS LINKS BY SMOKE SIG

http://419eater.com/images/trophy_room/kothapalli_rao.jpg

####

I want trophy photos of you showing a sign that

1: You don't have a clitoris.

2: You fart links out of your ass and you use an ass phone to smell out the cheesy goodness.

3: You don't have a VT-150 as a terminal.

k.e., seek help.  I beg you!

Date: 2009/08/15 16:02:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 15 2009,14:40)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 15 2009,14:31)
ok, I hurt my head listening to John Mark Reynolds for an hour. Math proves God, If you read Gary Habermas you will believe, so if you don't believe you must be wrong. gah

Does he subscribe to Big Tent Math, in which 6000 is equivalent to 4.5 billion?

What's a half dozen orders of magnitude between friends?

Date: 2009/08/19 12:33:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:43)
Hedge:
   
Quote


I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too.

Perhaps we should help them think of a name! How about...

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/

?

Something (call it intuition) tells me that Hedge might be aware of OD already.   :D

Date: 2009/08/21 12:19:18, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 21 2009,11:25)
It's gratifying to see that, after all these years, the UD regulars are finally starting to realize that Weasel was meant to illustrate just one aspect of evolution: cumulative selection.  After typing millions of lines on the subject, Gordon E. Mullings got around to actually reading Dawkins' original text!  

I suppose we can call it progress.  What's next?  Asking DrDr why he made Weasel the centerpiece of his article?  I think not.

The whole UD obsession with "Weasel" seems really bizarre until you take into account their obsession with analogy in general.  Much of ID is an argument from analogy (it looks like an outboard motor, so somebody must have designed it!), and it seems like many UD'ers think that if they can poke holes in Dawkins' evolution analogy program, then somehow they'll be defeating all of evolution in one fell stroke.  Because analogies are reality to them.  

At least, that's what it seems like to me.

Date: 2009/08/22 16:59:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (khan @ Aug. 22 2009,16:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 22 2009,17:43)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 22 2009,15:08)
I'd be really creeped out if this hobby sport? (tard-baiting?) wasn't so consistently amusing

Not to worry...

IMO it's not a hobby or sport, it's science, and we do it for the sake of knowlege.  We do it for teh sake of humanity, dammit!

Our Tard-Watching is Anthropology in its most pure form.  We are all like Little Margaret Meads, immersed in a very strange culture, living with the natives of Tard-Ola and trying to make sense of their wierd rituals.  

After I publish, with all regulars listed as authors, be ready to book your flights to Stockholm.

Which will be immediately after Paul Nelson gets back to us with answers to our questions, and after Ben Stein apologizes for being a dishonest shill, and after Dembski sends us all that single-malt bottle of scotch.

I must confess, I do feel like any anthropologist observing the aliens.

I don't recall Margaret Mead mocking the natives quite so much.  Her loss.   :D

Date: 2009/08/24 10:13:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Well this thread has given me nightmares for years to come (me too - dt), so Blipey I hope it was worth it.   :D

Date: 2009/08/25 18:55:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2009,18:30)
WAD: ID is a virulent infection.
 
Quote
Callaway remarks: "Even if a paper supporting ID has made it past peer review — and no doubt the arguments will rumble on — it seems like nothing much has changed"...

Nothing much has changed when a camel first starts sticking its nose into a tent. And nothing much has changed just at the moment something begins to slide down a slipperly slope. Nothing much has changed when a virulent bug first invades a body. But soon enough everything has changed.


ETA: I reached the peak, and found Maya and Deadman enjoying a smoke.

Are you saying that Maya and Deadman just had sex on the top of a mountain?  How positively sordid!   :p

Date: 2009/08/26 11:26:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 26 2009,09:54)
The peasants are revolting!
 
Quote
Scientists, when they write computer programs and make scientific claims based on their performance, are supposed to make the code available. Thomas Schneider has done this with EV. Christof Adami has done this with AVIDA. It is simply unconscionable that over 20 years after the program has been out and used to argue for Darwinism, Dawkins still has not made this code publicly available.

I’m not sure I’m being too hard on Dawkins. Granted, The Blind Watchmaker and his WEASEL program came out in the 80s before easy dissemination of the program code on the Internet would have been available. But the program has been much discussed on the Internet in the last decade. So where is the code?


It never ceases to amaze me that seemingly every person at UD is pathologically incapable of letting go of the complete and utter distraction that is Dawkins' 20-year-old Weasel program.  It was a neat little pedagogical device when he wrote the book, but even he admitted that its utility was extremely limited as a metaphor for actual biological evolution (and I realize that everybody here already knows this).  So why can't the UDer's just let it go?  Because if they could, they wouldn't be tards.

Date: 2009/08/26 21:48:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2009,21:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 26 2009,21:39)
fuck steve that is the post of the year.

DO NOT ASK WHENCE ALIEN DUDE CAME!!!!!1!!

Seconded.

Thirded.  Great, great stuff.

Date: 2009/08/27 18:42:15, Link
Author: someotherguy
Poor, oppressed WAD plays the martyr:

 
Quote

William Dembski

For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ign-fatal/

AND

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....atics-lab/


ETA:  Deadman may have beat me to this latest bit of breaking news, but my post had links and quotes, damnit!

Date: 2009/08/27 18:50:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2009,18:44)
TeeHee. I used "edit" to put in teh LINKY!!

You. . .BASTARD!

Date: 2009/08/29 23:39:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 29 2009,23:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 29 2009,22:41)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 29 2009,22:45)
Richard Dawkins states that his original Weasel code did not latch correct letters, in this thread on Pharyngula.

I'm sure that Gordon will just call him a liar.

and further, he links to the video where you can just watch "correct" letters revert to "incorrect" ones. ...from the period of time in question, with short shorts to boot.

I watched it earlier today when he linked to it (all five parts from "the unofficial Richard Dawkins" YouTube channel), and it was really interesting to watch in spite of (and because of) the anachronisms. The old computers were neat to see again, and the progress with robotic intelligence. Damn though, Dr. Dawkins looked like a college kid (kinda hawt, even then!).

ETA: and who gives a fuck what Gordon E. Mullings of the Kairos Initiative aka GEM of TKI aka Kairosfocus aka Gordy the Bahamanian Fucktard thinks? He's a moron, and a lying dipshit who doesn't know shit from shinola.

I watched it a little while ago and Dawkins is right. You can see several correct letters changing to incorrect letters. Has anyone pointed out Dawkin's response to GEM of Tinkle yet?

Best not.  If Gordon found out about that video he would probably write a post so long that it would make Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" seem brief and to the point, arguing that what is plainly obvious to any reasonable person just ain't so.  And who would want that?

Date: 2009/09/02 19:30:54, Link
Author: someotherguy
I believe a tard boycott was proposed a while back, but I don't think much came of it.  I, for one, have let my sock lie dormant in the closet for the past few weeks (not that it was ever too active), but that's just because I'm busy (read:  lazy).

Date: 2009/09/03 11:37:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Somebody get Cuttlefish in here.  He was born for this!

Date: 2009/09/03 11:44:05, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 03 2009,00:22)
Quote
clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

Is Erasmus, FCD really a Denyse O'Leary sock?
Does anybody else in the world talk that way?

We report, you decide.

I've grown increasingly certain that everybody here and at UD are socks of k.e.  He's been on a bad acid trip for the past five years or so, and a few million words later (give or take), the results are quite, erm, illuminating.

Date: 2009/09/03 16:56:52, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2009,15:53)
Quote (dogdidit @ Sep. 03 2009,21:49)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 03 2009,15:02)
Ouch. MeganC replies:

     
Quote
Her ashes are nearby, so I guess the answer to your question would depend your ‘worldview’.

Damn, she put some stank on that one. Marry me, MeganC.


On an unrelated note: sixteen more posts until we have a 5-handle on the number of pages on the UD2 thread. I can remember when the ol' jalopy still had that new car smell.

I was thinking something very similar. That 1k post mark will roll around any time now and then we'll have to pull Steve Story away from his chewin' baccy, crazy triathlon training, suspicious booze combos and molesting wild animals (but not squirrels, that's Deadman's dept) to start a third.

Either that or we'll have to stop looking at UD forever and ever.

Wait, does that mean that via the Copenhagen interpretation it will cease to exist?

Louis

If you're serious about trying to rope Mr. Story back onto the tard farm, I might be able to assist.  He frequents another blog/forum that I read and post on, and I occasionally talk to him there.

Date: 2009/09/03 17:56:12, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2009,17:35)
A tragic solo when denied entrance to the cafeteria?

Something like this?  



DAAAAAAAWKINSSSSSS!!!!

Date: 2009/09/03 18:10:18, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 03 2009,17:57)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 03 2009,16:59)
 
Quote
If you're serious about trying to rope Mr. Story back onto the tard farm, I might be able to assist.  He frequents another blog/forum that I read and post on, and I occasionally talk to him there.


Tell him we love him and miss him, and wish he could appear every now and then.

Well, I dunno if I luuuuuuuuuuv Steve, but I do miss his wit. A lot.

And, um...sometimes I wake up screaming and weeping, then I curse the unfairness of it all and tear at my flesh with a wood gouge or minitorch because steve isn't around. Is that like love?

                                 -- Mystfied in Manitoba

ETA: Yep, seriously, someotherguy, he should be back here.

I will pass on the message, though I may omit the flesh-gouging parts.  :)

Date: 2009/09/03 22:38:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 03 2009,22:22)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 03 2009,19:44)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 03 2009,00:22)
 
Quote
clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

Is Erasmus, FCD really a Denyse O'Leary sock?
Does anybody else in the world talk that way?

We report, you decide.

I've grown increasingly certain that everybody here and at UD are socks of k.e.  He's been on a bad acid trip for the past five years or so, and a few million words later (give or take), the results are quite, erm, illuminating.

Thankyou, that's made my everyones day.

You made one slip though.

How did you make me post that?

......erm

Just think of me as a manifestation of your more mischievous side.    :p

Date: 2009/09/04 16:37:48, Link
Author: someotherguy
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
- Corny could write a blog post that didn't link back to one of his other blogs
- Denyse could write something that didn't cause English teachers everywhere to start calling suicide hotlines
- Davetard could sell his houseboat and travel to Tibet to seek personal enlightenment
- KF could admit, in a post of less than 500 words, that "quasi-latching" and "implicit latching" are just bullshit concepts that he made up to avoid admitting defeat
- StephenB could apologize--and actually mean it
- Dr. Dr. D could be invited on a reality TV show to get a wardrobe makeover
- All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature


Okay, I admit that last possibility is probably rather remote!   :D

Date: 2009/09/07 17:40:39, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,17:31)
Pav clarifies ID. Somebody has to.
 
Quote
I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.
Argh. And "IOW"? That reminds me of someone....

Argument from analogy now!  Argument from analogy forever!

Date: 2009/09/14 19:01:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
In order for this debate to have even the smallest hope of becoming a productive conversation, we're going to need to reach some sort of agreement on a working definition of Christianity, along with the minimum set of beliefs that one must hold to be legitimately considered a Christian.  Otherwise, this isn't going to work.

Date: 2009/09/14 19:41:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 14 2009,19:36)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 14 2009,19:01)
In order for this debate to have even the smallest hope of becoming a productive conversation, we're going to need to reach some sort of agreement on a working definition of Christianity, along with the minimum set of beliefs that one must hold to be legitimately considered a Christian.  Otherwise, this isn't going to work.

You mean, as in, a Christian being anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as being their (spiritual) Lord and Savior, the one who will bring him/her salvation?

Yeah, something like that.  Sort of what CS Lewis was trying to with Mere Christianity--pairing what it means to be a Christian down to a minimal set of tenets--except with, hopefully, less apologetics.

ETA:  I realize what I'm suggesting is a rather difficult task (understatement!), I just think it's a necessary condition to be able to have this particular discussion.

Date: 2009/09/14 21:06:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 14 2009,20:31)
I am new to PT and atbc and I want to say how glad I am to find you.  I have been involved in an ongoing thread about ID on a local site and have gotten very frustrated about trying to communicate with people like FL.  It feels really good to not be alone.  

Now to this discussion:  FL's first assertion is that Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

Wrong.  I am a Christian, ie, I believe Jesus Christ is my personal savior.  I also believe in evolution.

Do I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, NO.

Do I believe that FL and his ilk have the right to judge if I am the RIGHT kind of christian, NO.

A lot of the stuff you guys discuss I don't understand.  It's been more than 30 years since I studied geology and more than 20 since I stopped working in the field.

Welcome!  And don't worry if you don't understand what we're talking about.  Half the things said here are inside jokes referencing things that happened on obscure websites several years ago.  The other half consists mostly of bathroom humor.   :D

Date: 2009/09/15 17:56:18, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 15 2009,17:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 15 2009,17:05)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 15 2009,14:06)
Just go ahead and lay your hands on this Pittsburgh Steelers fan!

I think this went to the wrong forum, Heddle.  This is ATBC.  Sara Palin doesn't post here.

But she might. I'm waiting. Once, on TV, she winked at me!

I'm experiencing starbusts just at the thought of it!

Date: 2009/09/16 13:31:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Here's an (unoriginal) thought:  doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?

Date: 2009/09/16 15:28:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,15:12)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2009,13:38)
Oh and who the hell cares about tennis? It's called "woolly balls" for a reason. Find a proper sport. When's the last time you beat us at rugby or cricket?

Not "American Football"* or "Baseball"**, but real sports played outside the USA by lots of important folks like the Aussies***.

Louis

* A game of badly played rugby for homosexualist motorcycle couriers who are afraid of getting hurt and have to wear pads.

** Badly played cricket for people who can't manage a full test match length sport.

*** I have made the point before that colonials frequently misunderstand the true nature of a test match. It is a test of manners. If they beat us then, as we are the inventors of the sport, they clearly haven't been playing properly and thus have failed the test of manners we set them.


We beat you in wars and in soccer. You have rodent mothers and your fathers smell of elderberries. Your food sucks. USA, USA!  (I admit Wales is a much cooler place, and it does produce beautiful women who also happen to be smart enough to marry the winners!)

Oh shit.  Heddle just said something nice about the Welsh.  This will not end well.

Date: 2009/09/17 14:16:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FloydLee

Your comment has already been addressed by others, but I have a question.  

If all the Evolutionary Biology textbooks take out any overt statements about teleology like the ones you listed below (note:  this would not include taking out explanations for how natural selection and mutation work), which would then make the textbooks just as "silent" on the issue of teleology as the other sciences, would you then concede that evolution is compatible with Christianity?  If not, why not?

Date: 2009/09/23 18:54:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Let's go back a bit and look at FloydLee's first point about why evolution is incompatible with Christianity:

Quote
1.  God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity.  Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.


Note that God is the "required" explanation.  FL's problem isn't with evolution, per se.  His problem is actually with people using science to examine biological origins.  Science, as it has been practiced for quite some time now, does not rely upon the supernatural (which I hope most of us can agree would include God) as an explanation for a given phenomenon.  Therefore, whatever scientific explanation we might come up with for biological origins--whether that is Darwinian evolution, inheritance of aquired characteristics, spontaneous generation, etc.--must necessarily be incompatible with Christianity, according to FL's rules.  

In effect, FL is saying that it is fundamentally unchristian to examine biological origins in a scientific manner.  As his entire argument rests on this premise, and since he is probably the only person here who agrees with it, this entire conversation is destined for futility.  Of course, you all knew that already.

Date: 2009/09/24 13:52:06, Link
Author: someotherguy
As an atheist who believes that Christianity can certainly be reconciled with evolution, I think I'm going to convert to Christianity.  Just to spite* FloydLee.  


*I figure that with all the Republican politicians around the country embracing him, Jesus must  be getting used to self-serving confessions of faith made with a total lack of sincerity by now.

Date: 2009/09/25 14:07:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 25 2009,13:15)
Quote
Read, "biological origins" as "origin of life."

Hmm.  Is that the sound of a goalpost moving?  You guys are rather surprising sometimes.

Darwin's book "Origin of Species", is 100 percent talking about biological origins.    But here you are, trying to do the bayou bougaloo on the spot, trying not to acknowledge the obvious.

Honestly, are you trying to tell me that the evolutionist claim that all living organisms originated (via evolution) from one or a few common ancestors is NOT a claim concerning biological origins?  

Now y'all know better 'n' that, don't ye?

When many of us hear a phrase like "biological origins" we tend to think that it's referring to the origin of biology--ie. the origin of life.  Hence the confusion.

Date: 2009/10/02 10:59:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,10:11)
Quote
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.


what the fuck is that

I think that was Clive proving the existence of the multiverse.

Date: 2009/10/04 12:24:20, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,11:36)
BarryA, classy guy, quote mines Seversky in a newly open thread:

 
Quote
But Seversky’s defense of porn and his attempt to smear millions both pale in comparison to this gob-smacking passage: “I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.”

There you have it. Our opponents count among their number a man who would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.


Here is Seversky's unabridged quote:
 
Quote
As for charitable donations, I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization as part of their program.

It is clear that he was not saying that he would prefer to pay the pimp, but rather that he would give to a charity that does not proselytize.  

Barry, you might want to post a correction and apologize.

Luckily, BA is getting his ass handed to him in the comments.

Date: 2009/10/04 13:33:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Me thinks the Clive doth protest too much

Quote


Learned Hand,

   Seversky’s point is exactly the opposite of what you imply. In fact, he explicitly refers to “a few Catholic priests” (emphasis added). He does not suggest in any way that the failings of a few are extensible to the many; it appears, in fact, to be entirely contrary to his point.

He points out that Christianity doesn’t absolutely and in every case immunize everyone from sexual misdeeds by mentioning a few cases. The implication is that Christianity doesn’t stop sexual immorality in general. Barry’s characterization is right. Seversky’s point would be trivial if he only meant it to apply to a few men in the history of the faith and the enormous numbers of believers over that history. And, not to mention, how could anyone know how many people have refrained from sexual immorality because they were Christians? How do we know that it hasn’t been a calming effect on the otherwise rampant nature of the sexual impulse? The individual testimonies of Christians is such that this is vindicated as an outlook on the whole affair.

The only moral failings I see in this chain are yours and Seversky’s. Barry’s characterization of Seversky is exactly correct and spot on. That you would attempt to turn the argument around shows your intentional intellectual dis-ingenuousness to back your side when your side is clearly wrong, and this flies in the face of common decency. I recall that you claim to be an attorney sir, and this disappoints me. You give life to the atheistic/materialistic stereotype that perverts justice and argues vainly. I wonder about your interpretative ability, you see the opposite of what should be seen as obviously written and obviously intended. This has happened over and over, to the point that I doubt we can have any useful conversation. Claiming that pornography has been around a long time whether we like it or not, is implying that it is something that just “is” wherever humans are as a result of being human, and something that just “is” a result of being human and existing over the course of human history is to give it a normative place in humanity. This implication is obvious, but for you, either you don’t get it, or you intentionally avoid this implication to back your side of the argument. I think you get it, and I think that you think that the gray area is enough for you to move in. That anything short of explicit and unalterable declarations, you have room to change meaning from what was originally implied. I’ve seen this consistently from you, and it’s very annoying. I bet you even pride yourself with this manipulative ability. It certainly seems evident that you consider yourself talented enough to be brazen in your employment of it, that’s obvious. And the interesting thing is that you’re quick to fault Barry for what you perceive to be the same tactic. Barry doesn’t have the guile that you have, nor the self-referential incoherence, nor the hypocrisy. Good day sir.

Date: 2009/10/04 14:19:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Do you have a sock that you're not using?  Clive invites you to go out in a blaze of glory:    
Quote


BillB,

   The FACT is that Barry’s post is deeply dishonest and an immoral slur, the kind of thing we normally expect from KF.

It is not even shallowly dishonest. And I don’t appreciate your slur on KF either. Maybe this should be the post which acts as a clearinghouse of all you who want to get off your chest what you really think and risk being banned.


His near pathological inability to see the clear dishonesty in BA's post is pretty damn telling too.

Date: 2009/10/04 18:42:26, Link
Author: someotherguy
Check out the addendum to the original post in which BA dials the asshattery up to 11:

Quote
Update:  As I write this 27 comments have been made.  As I expected, the materialists have stood by their man Seversky, mainly by advancing patently absurd interpretations of his comments.  And they’ve even attacked me, also as expected.  Pathetic.  Again, I was tempted to delete their comments, but I will not.  Instead, I will leave their moral squalor on display for all to see.

Date: 2009/10/06 14:26:40, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,13:19)
Quote
The Pope, as been repeatedly noted, rejects your so-called conflict.

But the Pope has not rejected the Big Five Incompatibilities, and in fact has affirmed the first Three of them in comments that were quoted in this thread.

If the Pope believes in Evolution and also believes that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, he must regularly experience a painful amount of cognitive dissonance.  Poor guy.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:25:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Does anybody else think that the latest explosion of stupidity and banninations at UD is a perfect excuse to actually try our much talked about (but never actually attempted) Tard boycott?  At this point, I'm of the opinion that any non-sock UD posters who aren't either banned or so disgusted that they've given up have to be so far gone that they aren't even worth laughing at anymore.  I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but in general, I think it's true.

ETA:  What I mean is that when all it takes to be labeled as a moral monster is to calmly point out that a moderator is blatantly misrepresenting the opinions of another poster, maybe it's time to shake the dust off your sandals* and leave them to their misery.

*New-testament style, of course.

Date: 2009/10/09 15:55:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
I've noticed (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that Floyd Lee tends to take the opinions of certain atheistic scientists on the topic of compatibility between religion and science as the final word on the subject.  But then he ignores them when they talk about all the evidence there is for evolution.  I wonder why that is?

Date: 2009/10/09 16:21:10, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 09 2009,16:17)
So he avoids, misdirects, tries to create smokescreens of vapid words and flings fallacies with the frantic screeching of a prosimian up a tree.

No fair!  Screeching prosimians have many warm and endearing traits*!

*Especially if you, like Louis, enjoy having feces hurled at your head.   :p

Date: 2009/10/09 16:36:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)
Quote
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.

Here you go.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die

That article is a perfect demonstration of the absurdities that result when you take something that is fundamentally not about science and try to wring some sort of scientifically useful "truths" from it.  Thanks for the laugh!

Date: 2009/10/17 18:49:28, Link
Author: someotherguy
This is about to get very entertaining very fast.

Date: 2009/10/20 18:30:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (khan @ Oct. 20 2009,18:21)
Quote
She's treating science like a religion (again).

Since Darwin is Evolution God and Dawkins is Evolution Jesus, Denyse simply needs to show that Evolution Jesus is flawed.  Then, since Evolution Jesus is flawed and Jesus Jesus is not flawed, all the evilutionists will stop worshipping Evolution Jesus and start worshipping Jesus Jesus.  All that's wrong will be righted and all Denyse's prose will be coherent.

It works in bible class.


Even god couldn't do that.

Indeed.  In the ancient Greek system of thought, Denyse was defined, axiomatically, as "She by whose hand nary a coherent sentence may be written" (the name was meant to be ironic).  Under this system a god could no more easily cause Denyse to produce a well-formed, intelligent piece of prose than he could create a boulder so big he couldn't lift it.  Zeus, Apollo and Yahweh all tried--and they all failed miserably.  I think the embarrassment may actually have caused them to go into retirement.

Date: 2009/10/21 00:02:45, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 20 2009,23:23)
Seems as if they are running out of personnel:
Meyer and Richards will have to give 4 talks, West and Bohlin will give 2 presentations. Only Dembski and Keas will only appear once on stage.

Dembski's appearing only once because he just has the one sweater.

Date: 2009/10/26 19:13:25, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 26 2009,18:13)
Great post by Seversky

I love the Ranger Marcus Cole quote!

I'll see your "Babylon 5" quote, and raise you an "Angel" quote:

Quote
KATE: I just couldn't... My whole life has been about being a cop. If I'm not part of the force it's like nothing I do means anything.

ANGEL: It doesn't.

KATE: Doesn't what?

ANGEL: Mean anything. In the greater scheme or the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win.

KATE: You seem kind of chipper about that.

ANGEL: Well, I guess I kinda worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward, finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it.

KATE: And now you do?

ANGEL: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

Date: 2009/11/08 13:06:50, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

Date: 2009/11/08 15:14:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

     
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

     
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

     
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

     
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

     
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

     
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

     
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Date: 2009/11/11 16:50:24, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,03:55)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:38)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:05)
Biology only deals a little with evolution. its easily accepted by biologists because it makes no difference to practical biology. Very little overlap.

That sentence alone marks you as an ignoramus.

Are you a biologist? How many professional biologists do you know?

There are several on this board, including me, and I'd be really interested in any evidence you can provide for this assertion.

But evidence is not really your strong suit, is it?

Its my knowledge and observation that biologist deal with biologists deal with biology or life systems. The word is life.
Evolutionary biology deals with ideas on past life systems but not actually watching.
Biology is a study where test tubes and getting ones fingers sticky is the order of the day.
Biology is not a study where the tools are pick axes and dynamite.
Biology deals very little with evolution except as a mandatory introdution paragraph.

As Faulkner said and biologists everywhere know, "The past isn't dead.  It isn't even past."

Date: 2009/11/12 11:39:00, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2009,09:42)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,10:19)

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?

um quack please don't run him off.  i need my daily dose of FSTDT without actually going there.

I think that you can't really tell the difference between Bubba, a bot, and a english as third language born again missionary.  that is entertaining, but you don't have to take it seriously. for all reasonable purposes it is a bot.

Nobody will ever compare to AFDave, though.  As far as I'm concerned, he is the Hope Diamond of internet creationist tards.  Let's bring him back here!   :p

Date: 2009/11/16 21:24:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 16 2009,21:04)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2009,20:47)
What is that supposed to be, a blog or "The Village People"?

I tend not to see UD as an actual blog; it's more like a highly dysfunctional family with a really really bad gene pool.  Oh, and they all inter-marry.

Think about it: it has all the ingredients that make up a good "weirdo next-door neighbor household".  The rotten, resentful drunk of a father who constantly lives in the shadows of those greater than him.  The bratty little son who is so pathetic he gets picked on by everybody else.  The eccentric uncle who plays piano and has a "thing" for frilly shirts.  The overbearingly aggressive nephew who was beaten as a child so he takes it out on all those around him.  The bearded brother-in-law who just can't seem to get his shit together.  The Monstserattian "family friend" who is a total pain in the ass and not to mention a raving lunatic, but they put up with him anyway because he's on the run from the Jamaican government and has nowhere else to go.  Of course there's the curmudgeony old grandma who's past senile and nobody really seems to give a flying fuck about.

And lest we forget, there's poor old Uncle Dave, but they're not allowed to talk about him too much around the house.

This sounds like the premise for a highly-successful sitcom.

Date: 2009/11/17 13:36:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Luskin ventures into the Darwinist Abyss that is The Intersection:

Quote


I want to echo Chris’s call for people to read and review Meyer’s book Signs of Intelligence. And I appreciate Chris’s candid admission that the book “is scarcely being refuted” so far. As far as I can see, Chris is pretty much right on that point.

As an ID proponent myself, I feel it would be great to see some serious critiques of Meyer. I’ll give critics three tips on how not to critique Meyer:

First, don’t call Meyer a young earth creationist, because he isn’t. (Jerry Coyne tried that tack and had to retract the claim.)

Second, don’t try to cast Meyer’s argument as a mere negative argument against material causes, as Mooney claims that Meyer “throws up his hands, and says, it’s so improbable, God must have done it.” Meyer arguments for design is unmistakably a positive one, and is not merely a negative argument against evolution. (In The Republican War on Science, Mooney affirmatively quoted authorities similarly trying to misrepresent Meyer’s PBSW paper as “simply lacking” a “positive case for the necessity of ID”. Seriously? See Part 12 of “Whose War is it Anyway”, which is linked from my name, for a lengthy refutation of Mooney’s claim.)

Third, don’t attack Meyer’s book before you read it. Anyone who claims or insinuates that Meyer’s argument for design is merely a negative critique of evolutionary mechanisms has clearly skipped a lot of chapters.

There are other common fallacies in most attempts to refute Meyer, but I look forward to someone who respectfully critiques Meyer without misrepresenting his arguments, and has read the book.


Heh.  This could get entertaining.

Date: 2009/11/17 16:50:55, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 17 2009,16:45)
Davey disses Granny

 
Quote
On 7/18/2006 03:44:00 PM, Blogger DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...

   I hate to disappoint the church burnin' ebola boys but I won't be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I'm going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he's going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it's back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He's napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we'll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

   P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

   HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!

That comment alone spawned probably half of our most favoritist inside jokes.  For singlehandedly inspiring it , Lou, you should win some sort of Lifetime Achievement in Tardmining Award.

Date: 2009/11/17 22:13:44, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,22:00)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,14:34)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,13:23)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,01:24)
I'm always curious about what makes people tick.

Chocolate truffles, a bottle of Grey Goose, and a fresh pair of "C" batteries.

Just sayin'...

Batteries for the game controller thingy, no doubt ;)

Yes.  It is, indeed, a joystick.

You folks need to get a handle on this dirty pun business.

Date: 2009/11/24 22:03:33, Link
Author: someotherguy
Here's a piece of friendly advice for you, Robert:  when your arguments don't even reach the "random YouTube commenter" level of coherence, it's probably time to rethink your whole approach.

Date: 2009/11/27 15:29:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 27 2009,14:17)
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 27 2009,13:32)
Dembski posts an adaptation of "a close colleague's email" describing an article which in turn describes some of the source code leaked from CRU, and draws a conclusion which is suitably tentative and provisional:
       
Quote

This is unquestionably the biggest fraud in the history of science

This verdict is based on an article describing "hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files". The article's author acknowledges that "IDL is not a native language of mine" but he's found comments in some of the files which warn that some data manipulation is approximate or should only be used within certain stated date ranges. So there is source code and it's got comments in which warn of its limitations. It's the smokingest gun ever! Really; the article's author describes it as "maybe the most important strike in human history".

That thread is just as hilarious as the previous one. In the comments the UDiots are urged to write their Senators!

Could someone with an active sock please remind them that the University of East Anglia is in a part of the world where their Senators have very little influence?

They're starting to call for climate scientists to be sent to Gitmo.  I suggest we archive this thread--I have a feeling it's going to be a keeper.

Date: 2009/12/01 20:10:48, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 01 2009,19:22)
Ouch. Intelligent Design Guys Put the Sleeperhold on Darwin's Defenders.

I watched Schermer screw-up against Hovind some years ago. I hope they at least got a lot of money.

Gary, check the PT front page.  Prothero, Shermer's co-debator, has a guest post up about the event.

Date: 2009/12/05 20:09:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,19:47)

 
Quote
Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that all lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance.

But ID has nothing to do with creationism.  Also, ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

Date: 2009/12/12 19:16:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 12 2009,15:45)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 12 2009,00:36)
 
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Dec. 11 2009,23:08)
How dare you defame David Brent in such a way!  

I like this comparison better:






Kneel before Bob!  

Err . . .


I don't know if he sees himself like this:

but it is from his own ASA presentation

You guys missed my FAVORITE Boob Marks pic:

From his website.

The same website where he photoshopped his eyes a preternatural blue in a diff. pic. Notice the background wallpaper, depicting his true love.

Yeah, the boy has issues.

I think he's doing his Christopher Hitchens impression.

Date: 2010/01/10 21:53:09, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (REC @ Jan. 10 2010,21:37)
Clive argues that the pending victory of evidence-based-medicine and the skeptical Cochrane review against Roche's marketing department* is the death of evolution.  

* and the public health departments/politicians who chose to stockpile doses as evidence of their strength against pandemic

Is is a bit telling that instead of linking to the BMJ website Clive links to PrisonPlanet.com?  It is crazytown over there....

Hahahaha!  Somebody archive this one.  Clive basing a post on an article from PrisonPlanet--which makes the WorldNetDaily look like the NY Times--has got to be a new UD low.

Date: 2010/01/19 17:29:48, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2010,17:23)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 19 2010,17:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2010,16:29)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 19 2010,16:24)
P.S.  PM Ras!

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y163589

No way?

I thought you knew! LOL.

This isn't actually true, is it?

Date: 2010/01/20 18:59:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,18:35)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 20 2010,18:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,12:28)
If you're really Jerry, say something about No Free Lunch in your next comment over there.

Well I'll be...

damn near fooled me

hee hee. . .

Date: 2010/01/26 19:56:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (khan @ Jan. 26 2010,19:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,19:58)
Ouch - the stupid hurts! O'Leary:
 
Quote
What I don’t understand is, if ecology is that fragile, how come life has existed continuously on Earth for about four billion years?

That much stupid should be painful, to the disseminator.

I'm pretty sure that there's a strong, positive selection pressure at UD for anything that can weaken one's ability to experience stupidity-induced pain.  Call it lack of sense as survival strategy.

Date: 2010/02/13 17:57:42, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,17:43)
Science has a very bad PR problem as an amoral servant of Power. Not your fault (or anyone's here), just a fact.

So true.  While traveling in between the chemistry, biology and physics buildings, I am accosted on a near-daily basis by angry hippies who accuse me of being a subservient, suck-up to "The Man."  Furthermore, whenever I tell people outside a university setting about my love for science, they always get this strange, agitated look on their faces and begin quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics at me.  It's the damnedest thing!  

It's hard out here for an evolutionary biologist.

Date: 2010/02/15 18:32:28, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 15 2010,17:04)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2010,06:07)
Bolding mine. OK, a non controversial example for you:



Please, using your US high school chemistry (something I've encountered btw), provide me with 1) an original retrosynthesis of azadirachtin (shown above) giving clear indications of why you chose each step, 2) a fully planned original forward synthesis detailing your chemical reasoning for all reagents and conditions, with references, 3) probable byproducts for each step of your forward synthesis and potential pitfalls, 4) predicted spectra (specifically IR, UV, 1HNMR and 13CNMR, LRMS and HRMS (using ionisation methods of choice), and calculated elemental analyses) for each intermediate and final product.

Okay, now my brain hurts...

What do the dotted connection lines mean?

And what's "Me"?

Does "CO2Me" mean that each O is bonded once to the C and once to the Me?

I'm not a chemist, but I'll take a stab at your questions.  

The dotted connection lines are covalent bonds.  The dotted line is a convention meant to indicate 3D structure--specifically, it indicates that the bond is not in the plane of the page and is instead pointing "into" the screen (away from you).  

"Me" stands for "Methyl."  It is a carbon atom with three hydrogens covalently bonded to it.  The carbon atom is also bonded to another non-hydrogen atom (frequently another carbon).  

I believe the arrangement of Co2Me would be something like this: Carbon is doubled-bonded to one oxygen and single-bonded to the second oxygen.  The oxygen with the single bond is also bonded to the methyl (CH3) group.

Date: 2010/02/16 18:56:49, Link
Author: someotherguy
And in other news, Ken Starr--of Clinton impeachment fame--has been named as the new president of Baylor University.  

Will the possibility of getting an autograph while enjoying that lovely cafeteria pasta be a temptation too great for Dembski to bear?  Only time will tell. . .

ETA: for stylistic reasons

Date: 2010/02/16 19:00:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,18:56)
Stephen Elliott:
 
Quote
I think this lead to the "ebola boys" claim and Dembski calling homeland security.


"Ebola boys"??? There's more than one?

Church Burning Ebola Boys:  my all-time favorite UD-related meme.

Getting back to the point, I, like Stephen Elliott, am still confused about whether or not you were accusing Eric Pianka of advocating mass murder.

Date: 2010/02/16 21:24:03, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 16 2010,21:03)
Wesley:
 
Quote
The fact that she buys into the IDC propaganda about Pianka is quite damning enough; the fact that she participates in the inflationary universe of antievolution is documented by her unsupported use of the plural.


So much bullshit, so little time...

1. Where did I "buy into" the IDC propaganda about Pianka? Come on, Wesley. I know you are capable of parsing a paragraph. I've left multi-detailed instructions.

2. Where did I use the plural? Using your own fan club's misrepresentations as fodder for pointless re-misrepresentation is awfully low-level even for you [personally]. This stupid shit is enough for me. I've learned everything I needed from you [figurative].

Figuring you [figurative] out fortunately didn't take the five-plus years it took to figure out the 'other' guys. Comparatively, you [figurative] are rank amateurs. I think you're [figurative] out of your [figurative] depth on this front of the Culture War. Explains a lot, actually.

How disappointed I am personally is probably just a leftover of my long-time desire that science grow up to be all that its promise once held. I'll live. It's the frustration I can no longer tolerate. Buh-bye.

The considerable pleasure of a semi-weekly flounce out notwithstanding, if you can seriously not understand how we would read the text keiths quoted above, even in context, as a statement in support of the claim that Eric Pianka advocated mass murder, then I think you may have taken one too many lessons from the "Denyse O'leary School of Opacity in Communication."

Date: 2010/02/19 12:41:56, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 19 2010,07:51)
Excuse me, I'm looking for the thread that discloses "Where The Hot Chicks Are".

No!  Of course not, for me!  For this friend I've got see, plus Richard and Louis wanted to know.

I very much doubt that Richard wanted to know where the hot girls are.

Date: 2010/02/19 13:43:07, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 19 2010,13:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 19 2010,12:44)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Feb. 19 2010,12:41)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 19 2010,07:51)
Excuse me, I'm looking for the thread that discloses "Where The Hot Chicks Are".

No!  Of course not, for me!  For this friend I've got see, plus Richard and Louis wanted to know.

I very much doubt that Richard wanted to know where the hot girls are.

Here are my HOT THREADS:



HOMOS.


FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: 2010/02/19 22:41:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,18:57)
Owwww!!!!! My EYES!!!!!!

Richardthughes, is that a picture of you? Just asking (and no, I'm not posting it yet again by quoting). Betty Bob the Redneck Transvestite is much prettier than you are. IMO, of course...

I'm pretty sure that's Sean Connery, in his early porn star phase.

Date: 2010/03/02 18:56:59, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 02 2010,17:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,13:11)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation.

Ha!  But you see, we live in the Matrix...so nature is a computer!  OK wait, I think I see a problem....

If we lived in the Matrix, wouldn't the food be better?

They tried making the food better, but no one would accept the program.  Entire crops were lost.

Date: 2010/03/02 23:30:19, Link
Author: someotherguy
just bumping the page

Date: 2010/03/04 20:33:08, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

Date: 2010/03/09 18:33:34, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,18:16)
Meanwhile equinoxe weighs in on Dawkins:
   
Quote
First, I can honestly say that I had engaged some of these questions in greater depth by the time I was ten lying in bed at night than Dawkins does here. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot.

No doubt he had a firm grip on the issues.

I chortled.

Date: 2010/03/09 22:02:58, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 09 2010,20:27)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,17:57)
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,19:33)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,18:16)
Meanwhile equinoxe weighs in on Dawkins:
       
Quote
First, I can honestly say that I had engaged some of these questions in greater depth by the time I was ten lying in bed at night than Dawkins does here. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot.

No doubt he had a firm grip on the issues.

I chortled.

You chortled the chicken?

Which came first: the grip or the issues?

I think you mean "tissues."

Date: 2010/03/10 17:44:53, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:22)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,18:21)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:18)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,18:16)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:11)
   
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2010,18:07)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,13:56)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 10 2010,15:42)
       
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 10 2010,11:50)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,04:15)
         
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 10 2010,05:59)
         
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,20:02)
           
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 09 2010,20:27)
           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,17:57)
             
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 09 2010,19:33)
             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2010,18:16)
Meanwhile equinoxe weighs in on Dawkins:
                   
Quote
First, I can honestly say that I had engaged some of these questions in greater depth by the time I was ten lying in bed at night than Dawkins does here. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot.

No doubt he had a firm grip on the issues.

I chortled.

You chortled the chicken?

Which came first: the grip or the issues?

I think you mean "tissues."

Nope.  The issue goes in the tissue.

He says he wrapped his head around some slippery notions.

Have we reached the meat of this topic and beaten it sufficiently yet?

I think it will stand up to some more abuse.

Such activity, this mass debate.

This discussion is hard on me.

There's no wick for the rested.

Slow down Bill, you could have a stroke!

That rubs me the wrong way.

You find it hard to swallow?

I just look at this and wonder how we ever pulled it off.

With a jerk and a tug, I'd imagine.

Date: 2010/04/22 15:03:46, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 22 2010,14:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 21 2010,07:02)
Does anybody remember when he published the private addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the Baylor Board of Directors?  That may have had something to do with Veritas losing his phone number.

September 14, 2007

Carlson, I think you must have the most well-organized archive of UD's greatest hits anywhere.  You should turn it into a book someday!  :)

Date: 2010/05/07 14:26:37, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Jkrebs @ May 07 2010,12:47)
What I don't get is how people like Phaedros don't get that we don't get it, and that there is no reason that we should.  Standing back from a different, unbelieving point of view, it just doesn't make sense that this is the way their omni-everything deity has chosen to relate to the world.

Having grown up immersed in evangelical culture, I think that there are actually quite a lot of people who do get that we don't "get it."  But many of them actually take pride in this--as if the strangeness of their belief was somehow evidence of its truth.  There's actually a biblical passage about this (from Paul, I believe), but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Date: 2010/05/08 10:35:04, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Turncoat @ May 08 2010,01:07)
Quote
1 Corinthians 1:21-25 (New International Version)

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


I'd forgotten this gladly, but saw some of it in a Powerpoint show by Bob Marks, Science, God, and Christ: Genesis and Science: Compatibility Extraordinaire.

I regard Jesus as an incredible teacher -- particularly the Jesus of The Gospel of Thomas. As for Paul, the author of the passage above, I'd say that the depiction of him as a huckster in The Last Temptation of Christ is about right. The "Christ crucified" is of course also the Christ resurrected, so the notion that "what was preached" had no "miraculous signs" is garbage. Paul got carried away by his own rhetoric, which he of course meant to be taken as very wise.

That's the passage I was thinking of, thanks!

Date: 2010/05/26 23:24:57, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 26 2010,16:32)
Innie? Outie?

It was the old in-out, real savage, that caused all the trouble.

Somehow, bringing "A Clockwork Orange" into this mess makes the whole thing that much more disturbing!

Date: 2010/06/12 12:42:17, Link
Author: someotherguy
USA vs. England is set to start in less than hour.  To all of you Anglo-Saxons out there, allow me, an up-jumped Yankee colonist, to apologize for the brutal, humiliating defeat you are about to experience!   :p

Date: 2010/06/12 13:09:47, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 12 2010,12:46)
You should check the John Oliver segment of yesterday's Daily Show...

EDIT: linky

And France will suck, as always!

oh god, that was brilliant!  Thanks!

Date: 2010/06/13 13:01:22, Link
Author: someotherguy
Any Germans or Australians here who want to get in a little pre-game trash-talking?  

Also, all you haters can go suck it.  I don't even like sports that much but the World Cup is just fucking awesome!   :D

Date: 2010/06/23 08:46:31, Link
Author: someotherguy
15 minutes until showtime!

Date: 2010/06/23 11:06:13, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (someotherguy @ June 23 2010,08:46)
15 minutes until showtime!

America:  FUCK YEAH.

Date: 2010/06/28 09:54:29, Link
Author: someotherguy
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 28 2010,06:47)
Monday morning funny.


Thanks.  I needed a good belly-laugh.

 

 

 

=====