AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: sparc

form_srcid: sparc

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.226.46.21

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: sparc

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/09/24 13:29:11, Link
Author: sparc
Nelson:
Quote
Unfolding astonishing vistas of puzzling data, theory nowhere in sight, hard creative thinking required.
I guess he ment hard creationist thinking

Date: 2007/11/07 00:40:17, Link
Author: sparc
I added this comment at UD:
Quote
DaveScot:
 
Quote
I suggest that reptiles turned into mammals in the same manner that ontogenesis turns a single cell into a mammal.
So is this the biogenetic law of frontloading and you did you finally turn into the Ernst Haeckel of ID?
Lets's see if it shows up.

Date: 2007/11/13 14:21:55, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 13 2007,13:28)
A quick scan of UD reveals the following most popular recent posts (with number of replies):

Darwin at Columbine (152)
Veritatis Splendor or Veritatis Peccator? (94)
Future Risk Assessment in the Genome (79)
P.falciparum - No Black Swan Observed (72)
Low Probability is Only Half of Specified Complexity (70)
Pathological consequences of Darwinism vs ID (59)
On Moral Progress In A Materialist World (57)
Provine and Nelson at Cornell, November 12: If Neo-Darwinism Fails, Then What? (56)
I Liked the Old Atheists Better (48)
Getting Hollywood to “Sell the Product” to Children (47)
PBS’s Judgment Day - Don’t believe Darwin’s kludge? You just don’t understand it! Or else … (45)
“Is Belief in Divine Creation Rational?” (44)
The science rule the Christian Darwinist doesn’t want (34)
Dodgen Daily (31)
Will Darwinists just grow up about social Darwinism or not? Maybe not … (26)
Antony Flew interview (24)
Reading Level Comparison (23)
Turning Cars Into Submarines (16)
New assessment dramatically scales back ape language skills (16)
Mike Behe and bad design (16)
Orwellian world an inevitable outcome of materialist philosophy (12)
GA This! (10)
Weather Channel Founder: “[Global Warming] is the greatest scam in history” (9)
Not a Darwinbot? Got a story? Tell it to The EXPELLED! (8)
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (5)
IntelligentDesign.org (5)
“Punctuated Evolution” (3)
O’Leary on radio today, tonight (2)
Level Four Tornado Through Kentucky Junk Yard Self Assembles Lime Green Hummer. (1)
ID lectures at the University of Buffalo (11/8) and Daemen College (11/9) (1)


All science so far!

One must keep in mind that the different threads experienced different levels of re-design, especially the notorious "No Black Swan".

Date: 2007/11/22 13:44:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
[e]xplanations
Does Casey Luskin want to indicate that the original text contains "xplanation" instead of explanation? It would indeed make sense it one reads itas X-mas: Christplanation.

Date: 2007/11/25 23:30:02, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
"The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved."


Quite amusing considering what showed up in the preview window of my RSS reader for this UD post
Quote
7 Minute Expelled Preview


Copyright © 2007 Uncommon Descent. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact legal@www.uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.Plugin by Taragana

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:16:40 +0000

Date: 2007/12/11 23:49:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
DaveTard becomes JAD:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-155433

Quote
The front loading hypothesis doesn’t require that there be any “code in waiting” today. Consider the possibility that creative evolution has come to an end and there’s nothing left in the preprogrammed sequence to produce. In other words, the program has self-terminated with rational man as its final product. In the front loading hypothesis phylogeny parallels ontogeny. Both are self-terminating when a final product (an adult form) is produced.

....

(emphasis mine)
Let's wait if Jonathan Wells comments on DaveScot's Haeckelian views.

Date: 2007/12/20 14:38:32, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
There are as of yet no substantive arguments (not even in the OP) on the ancestral whale thread, but that would be unusual for sure. There are, however, the usual arguments from incredulity, including this classic from Dr. Dr. Dembski hisself    
Quote
Pardon my naivete, but don’t really really big animals (like whales that can weigh 200 tons) need all sorts of different homeostatic mechanisms to control body heat, etc. compared with much smaller deer/rat-like creatures? Silly me, of course evolution can produce these mechanisms — it created everything else.


So, Bill, what is your explanation for whale evolution?
It's amazing how little this guy knows about biology. And Kleiber described the relation between body size and metabolic rate in 1932. BTW, Dembski himself developed from a few Kg to about 70-80 Kg. His logic would imply that he developed    
Quote
all sorts of different homeostatic mechanisms to control body heat, etc.
OK, he lost brown adipose tissue and shifted from non-shivering to shivering thermogenesis, but that's all.

Date: 2008/01/01 23:17:33, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Is Salvador really so stupid?
Obviously,when you compare his post titles
Quote
A YEC student gets an A in a JHU physics course :-)
Quote
“A” stands for rectum

Date: 2008/01/05 23:25:15, Link
Author: sparc
Sal:    
Quote
Well, let me tell you Jeff Shallit, I’m an ID proponent and I’m not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo because my tuxedo costs lots of money.
Argueing that Sal isn't a creationist because he spent too much money to dress up follows the same logic as The Emperor's new Clothes.

Date: 2008/01/05 23:56:20, Link
Author: sparc
Due to the way Sal talks about his appearnce in Nature I am pretty sure he bought the tuxedo to be prepared for a phone call from Stockholm. However, as reported on the CRWU pages laureates are not stupid and only buy a piece of clothing that you can not really use at other occasions after receiving the phone call:
     
Quote
In 1954, Frederick Robbins entered Bunce Bros. men's store on Shaker Square in search of a black tuxedo to buy. The young salesman who waited on his was startled, since someone actually buying a tuxedo was exceedingly rare. "What did you do, win the Nobel Prize?" the salesman cracked irreverently. As a matter of fact, he had. Robbins informed the salesman that he was going to Stockholm for the ceremony. After a moment of stunned silence, the salesman removed his foot from his mouth and found Robbins a fine tuxedo to take along on the Queen Elizabeth into the annals of medical history.
(emphasis added)

BTW, a friend of mine who worked at the Karolinska Institute and and once was invited to join the ceremony told me that nobody there would buy a tuxedo because it's much cheaper to rent one.

Date: 2008/01/06 07:31:38, Link
Author: sparc
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)

Date: 2008/01/06 23:45:56, Link
Author: sparc
Some of Sal's logical inconsistencies:
       
Quote
Well, let me tell you Jeff Shallit, I’m an ID proponent and I’m not a creationist in a cheap tuxedo because my tuxedo costs lots of money.
 
Quote
... creationists are wearing expensive tuxedos (creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists) ...

Date: 2008/01/06 23:46:57, Link
Author: sparc
Sal:
Quote
creationist engineers and creationist medical doctors, after all, make much more money than Darwinist biologists
I thought after all ID was about saving your ass at the end of times and not about materialism.

Date: 2008/01/12 12:34:44, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad.
Seems as if Gil accepts some kind of selection, though only with respect to airplanes.

Date: 2008/01/13 21:16:38, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad
Kind of judicium Dei.

Date: 2008/01/14 13:46:15, Link
Author: sparc
According to quantcast the average OE reader seems to be >55 years old which somehow doesn't fit to OE's mission statement:      
Quote
Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school and college students (though non-students will be permitted, this is a site geared towards and created for students) can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution.

We believe that today's students are smarter than for which they are given credit and that rather than being told what to believe, they have the ability to explore the range of possibilities and figure out what to believe on their own.

This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts.

“hammer dropping facts” or “maybe not a fact facts.”

Date: 2008/01/14 21:50:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I have my own list of answers
That's exactly why ID-creationism is not science. If it were WAD would have questions.

Date: 2008/01/15 13:59:34, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
One rather visible (pun intended) example that gets a lot of popular press is the insertion of a gene that codes for a luminescent protein that glows under ultra-violet light. It’s been inserted in things ranging from tobacco to fish to cats. Glow in the dark pets are coming soon to a petstore near you!
Since I forgot my UD password I would really appreciate if someone could tell Dave that most of the published GFP/YFP/RFP transgenic organisms have been generated by random insertions. And in some of these cases the procedures even included a selection step.

Date: 2008/01/15 21:39:09, Link
Author: sparc
Maybe WD can't publish his answers before his papers passed the review process. From Designinference.com:  
Quote
<> Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper develops a general method for critiquing inflated claims about the power of evolutionary computing.
<> Active Information in Evolutionary Search. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Olle Häggström’s 2007 article in Biology and Philosophy titled “Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems.”
<> Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Thomas Schneider’s 2000 article in Nucleic Acids Research titled “Evolution of Biological Information.”
Obviously, evil reviewers are trying to hinder scientific progress.

Date: 2008/01/16 11:10:00, Link
Author: sparc
ID proven!

PaV:  
Quote
In post #20, I wrote this:      
Quote
[I](7) Using the analogy of a computer program, one would expect what I call “subroutines”, or, put another way, various parts of the genome that are used for a variety of purposes in an “on-demand” basis. These “subroutines” would be part of the “regulatory” system of the genome.”[I]

I’m happy to report that this prediction has been confirmed. See here.
You will find the following where PAV links to:  
Quote
Dr. Behringer describes the significance of his finding as such: "Darwin suggested that "successive slight modifications" would ultimately result in the evolution of diverse limb morphologies, like a hand, wing, or fin. The genetic change we engineered in mice may be one of those "slight modifications" to evolve a mammalian wing."
PaV's logic has advanced to post-scientificism.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:25:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
We could expect an engineer to leave some form of signature or copyright notice on their creation (signing it, if you will.)
The data are available at GenBank, ENSembl etc. Thus, they would have the opportunity to identify those signature. I would suggest to start with something small like HIV.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:41:23, Link
Author: sparc
They should rather look at the protein level. Since blast is obviously unknown over at UD I've performed some quick searches for them"GOD" resulted in        
Quote
No significant similarity found.
      "Christ" was not much better  
Quote
>sp|P18570|VS09_ROTGA  Glycoprotein VP7 precursor (Outer shell glycoprotein)
Length=249

Score = 21.4 bits (43),  Expect =   227, Method: Composition-based stats.
Identities = 5/6 (83%), Positives = 6/6 (100%), Gaps = 0/6 (0%)

Query  1   CHRIST  6
                 CHRIS+
Sbjct  187 CHRISS  192
This is the closest one can get. Please try "ALLAH" instead.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:51:09, Link
Author: sparc
Shit, I have overseen the crystal clear signature of God in the blast search for Christ  
Quote
+
Recognize the signs!

Date: 2008/01/18 23:30:49, Link
Author: sparc
Looks like Jerry will be with the banned soon.
Quote
PAV
Quote
jerry (145)[for the time being]

Date: 2008/01/18 23:34:29, Link
Author: sparc
actually Jerry's last comment is currently listed as #144. Has another comment been deleted?

Date: 2008/01/22 11:16:34, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
PaV: When I read “breeding”, I think of active, human agents being involved, and understood things this way.

Quote
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

Date: 2008/01/23 22:51:22, Link
Author: sparc
ajl:    
Quote
Would it be difficult to just remove the orphaned genes from the mice, and see what they produce after a few generations. If there is no difference then I suppose the genes really do have no function.
It's not too difficult if one knows the underlying biology. Obviously, this is not the case:    
Quote
Another experiment would be to cross breed the knock-out mice with regular mice that have the orphaned genes and see what happens.
Seems that commenters at UD are unaware that mice are diploid and that KOs are generated by inactivating one allele in ES cells. Maybe accepting alleles is too Darwinian but I rather assume that they just don't grasp Mendelian laws. Provided the orphan genes are not on the X or  Y chromosome cross breeding heterozygous mutants to WT mice would only result in heterozgous mice and WT mice again. If he meant breeding homozygous mutants with WT mice he would end up with heterozygous mice only. Thus, he wouldn't get homozygous KO mice.
Oherwise ajl would know when a phenotype will appear  
Quote
But, if after the 3rd or 4th generation, I wonder if we would start to see anamolies in the mice.
I can not imagine that he wanted to imply that orphan genes are genarally epigentically regulated. And he surely could not have meant complex traits in which a phenotype may show up only after several rounds of breeding. Thus, it's just the common ID drivel.

Date: 2008/01/23 23:02:17, Link
Author: sparc
Mapou is adept at mouse genetics and transgenesis and he seems to be willing to follow Denyse and handle data in a non-materialistic way  
Quote
I’m not sure how one would interpret the results, good or bad.
(emphasis added)

Date: 2008/01/24 11:20:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Here I agree with DLH (2) and not with Shaner74 (17); this is not terrifying, but rather exhilarating. (BTW, Bob O’H [13] and DaveScot [15], there’s a way to do this without getting one’s lab coat dirty; it’s called graduate students
May somebody please tell Paul Giem that citing the numbers of previous comments may cause quite some work for DaveScot when he deletes posts later.

Date: 2008/01/24 14:21:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The movie is slated for April release in all major movie theaters.
Didn't they promiss to start EXPELLED aka FLUNKED on Darwin day?

Date: 2008/01/25 22:25:56, Link
Author: sparc
A sentence of truth  
Quote
I’m the dumb kid in the family
the rest of Sal's post "The home I was raised in" is just repugnant.

Date: 2008/01/27 00:41:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Also, am I counting wrong or does Sal have three undergraduate degrees for some reason?
If the only panel to discuss your ideas consists of me, myself and I you need a degree for each of them.

Date: 2008/01/29 22:12:57, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Mind and brain: How do unconscious people know when to wake up?
Brain and mind: How do brainless people know how to write mindless posts?

Date: 2008/01/30 11:35:54, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
To refresh his or her memory explain that DNA is a long string of nucleic acids adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (ACGT). These are further organized into groups of three called codons. Strings of hundreds to thousands of codons are further organized into genes where a gene is coded representation of a protein. Proteins are long strings of 20 different kinds amino acids. Genes are copied from the DNA molecule into an intermediate nucleic acid string called RNA which is essentially DNA only single stranded and where thymine is replaced by uracil. RNA molecules are fed into a machine called a ribosome which reads the codons one by one and builds a protein string by adding one amino acid at a time for each codon as it is read.
I am afraid molecular biology is not DaveScot's field of expertise.

Date: 2008/01/30 22:19:05, Link
Author: sparc
DLH
Quote
This is an ideal example of Intelligent design
rather an example of lacking reading capabilities and/or absence of any comprehension.
From The New Scientist (emphasis added)  
Quote
The diversity of life on earth evolved using genetic code made from arrangements of four genetic "bases", sometimes described as letters. They are divided into two pairs, which bond together from opposite strands of a DNA molecule to form the rungs of its characteristic double-helix shape.

Random generation

Frustrated by the slow pace designing and synthesising potential new bases one at a time, Romesberg borrowed some tricks from drug development companies. The resulting large scale experiments generated many potential bases at random, which were then screened to see if they would be treated normally by a polymerase enzyme.

With the help of graduate student Aaron Leconte, the group synthesized and screened 3600 candidates. Two different screening approaches turned up the same pair of molecules, called dSICS and dMMO2.

The molecular pair that worked surprised Romesberg. "We got it and said, 'Wow!' It would have been very difficult to have designed that pair rationally."

"We probably made 15 modifications," says Romesberg, "and 14 made it worse." Sticking a carbon atom attached to three hydrogen atoms onto the side of dSICS, changing it to d5SICS, finally solved the problem.
Obvious signs of design indeed.

Date: 2008/01/30 23:09:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Obvious signs of design indeed.
I guess DS will claim that this is proof of front loading.

Date: 2008/01/31 06:49:16, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
GilDodgen
01/30/2008
11.15 pm

If, through my influence and the evidence of design, even one person should be liberated from the burden and curse of the nihilism under which I labored for so many years, I will consider my life to have been well-lived.
Seemingly he failed until now.

Date: 2008/01/31 08:51:59, Link
Author: sparc
Can somebody explain to me what idnet.com.au wants to say with the post Details Of Nuclear Pore Complex With Spin?

Date: 2008/01/31 10:09:11, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
He said, "machine."
I see. Being just a reflex explains why the rest of the text didn't arrive in idnet's upper parts of his nervous system. Provided these parts are present I hypothesize that he is carrying some explanatory filter that protects his brain from realizing "evolution" in any text.

Date: 2008/01/31 22:53:40, Link
Author: sparc
Patrick  
Quote
The Designer, Musgrave, rigged the question to get just that result.

Indeed, and all the evil scientists who added sequences to genbank, swissprot, ensembl etc. did this    
Quote
purposely
which is a clear    
Quote
instance of design
.
In addition, they do not allow ID-creationists to    
Quote
to do any research to discover the functionality for the sequences.
Furthermore BLAST is obviously
 
Quote
an alternative method for detecting design
I only wonder why Dembski didn't make these points himself.

Date: 2008/01/31 23:04:57, Link
Author: sparc
I forgot that that's beneath him  
Quote
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

Date: 2008/01/31 23:28:18, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, I would appreciate a sequence analysis tool based on Dembski's Explanatory Filter to judge sequencing results. If natural sequences are designed such a tool should easily identify errors introduced during sequencing.
Hopefully, Dembski doesn't regard this as another pathetic level of detail?

Date: 2008/02/01 12:28:00, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
I have a challenge for Ian Musgrave. The sequences provided code for 80 amino acids. That’s almost certainly not a whole protein and not enough information to determine design/non-design. Indeed, none of the six sequences begin with a start codon which means we aren’t given enough information to even frame the sequence into codons.
I wonder how ID-creationist can claim any "junk DNA" has  some function if they need an initiation codon to analyze a sequence.
In addition, it escaped Daves notice that there are noncoding DNAs which can not be analyzed under his premise.
But OK, as I mentioned earlier Dave has a kind of creative understanding of molecular biology.
Quote
To refresh his or her memory explain that DNA is a long string of nucleic acids adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (ACGT). These are further organized into groups of three called codons. Strings of hundreds to thousands of codons are further organized into genes where a gene is coded representation of a protein.

Date: 2008/02/01 23:28:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Insulin is a peptide hormone composed of 51 amino acid residues and has a molecular weight of 5808 Da.
If you deprive DaveScot of the complete information (pre-pro-insulin, 110 aa) he can not analyze the sequence.

Date: 2008/02/01 23:46:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
ID:
1- Does not claim that it can identify every instance of design.

2- Cannot detect for certainty that something was not designed.

This leaves, however, the detection of some things that are designed (focusing particularly on clear-cut cases at the end of the spectrum).
Next he will claim that the end of the spectrum comprises bacterial flagella.

Date: 2008/02/01 23:54:03, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
To make this a more rational challenge, we would have to have a number of non-designed sequences (i.e., random sequencing), and one designed sequence.
random sequencing? Eric doesn't have a clue. "bad biology at UD" deserves its own thread. Just remember DaveScots haploid Jesus.

Date: 2008/02/02 11:15:17, Link
Author: sparc
The Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate is back but only with six comments.

Date: 2008/02/02 14:20:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
No, that is a different thread.

The original thread still links to an Error 404 - Not Found.
Sorry, but sometimes UD is a little bit too cluttered.

Date: 2008/02/04 22:43:09, Link
Author: sparc
Casey Luskin's post surely qualifies to be labbeled as

"BSpr3 (Bullshit on peer reviewed research)".

Could somebody please provide an appropriate icon?

Date: 2008/02/05 14:31:19, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
it would not be the first time that a different set of rules has been applied to ID proponents vs. other scientists.

preparing to sell himself as EXPELLED!

Date: 2008/02/05 22:29:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Nevertheless, I know ftk is wrong about this point.
I must emphasize that there is a huge difference between "being wrong" and "lying".

Date: 2008/02/06 11:26:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Quote


 
Quote
DaveScot

02/06/2008

9:05 am

Clarence

The Discovery Institute doesn’t have a biology lab. They don’t have enough funding to even begin assembling one.

From Wikipedia:  
Quote
The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. It is funded by the Discovery Institute with the stated purpose of doing biological research.

Date: 2008/02/06 12:09:58, Link
Author: sparc
Brilliant! Their "Wellcome" is coming soon!

Date: 2008/02/07 00:51:55, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
DaveScot

02/06/2008

9:05 am

Clarence

The Discovery Institute doesn’t have a biology lab. They don’t have enough funding to even begin assembling one.

According to this report  they even do research there:
Quote
The next presentation in this session was by Ann Gauger, a microbiologist and employee of the Biologic Institute, whose presentation was entitled, “Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an experimental test.” Her presentation was remarkable in part because she performed experiments and reported original data.
Unfortunately, they do not generate results that would support ID-creationism
Quote
She began with the repetitive attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, stating that the current complexity of metabolic pathways within cells could not have been created by gene duplication or gene recruitment (another name for co-option), and therefore they were designed. She suggested that contemporary evolutionists believe if there is not a payoff in terms of adaptive value within a few generations, any duplicated gene will be lost, and that for recruitment/co-option to work, function must change within a very few mutations. It is factually untrue that these assertions are an essential part of Darwinian theory. At most, they were initial starting points for investigations into protein evolution long ago, but today’s evolutionary biology does not adhere to any of them. Gene duplication is considered an integral part of evolutionary dynamics and one major source of the co-option that is so ubiquitous in evolution.

She suggested that when similar proteins are “arranged by hierarchy,” the evidence suggests they arose from a common ancestor that predates the eukaryote/prokaryote split and perhaps even the Archaea. Gauger thus, like Behe, accepted not only a phylogeny of life but an ancient singular origin of life. Then she embarked on a series of experiments designed to emulate 2 billion years of microbial evolution in Petri dishes over a few bacterial generations. Specifically, she wanted to see if either of two forms of a protein would mutate directly into the other under those experimental conditions. They did not.

Gunther Wagner congratulated Dr. Gauger on doing some great experimental work, but noted some logical inconsistencies in inference. The first is a phylogenetic comparative issue; it is necessary to know the ancestral state of the two proteins. If you are dealing with two proteins each derived separately from a common ancestor, then the experiment involves a minimum of two steps, backwards to the ancestral condition and then forwards to the alternative derived condition. It seems unlikely that you would be able to do that experimentally, especially if you have no idea of the environmental conditions under which the evolutionary diversification took place, and no idea if there were any intermediate forms that no longer survive. In response, Gauger admitted that the two proteins she studied are quite old and that studies of enzymes that are more recently diverged from each other report a lot of functional co-option, but only on a small scale.

She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.
(emphasis mine)

Date: 2008/02/08 09:21:03, Link
Author: sparc
unfortunately, the code didn't work in blogger and I had to use the picture. I hope nobody will complain about this Luskinesk behaviour at bpsdp.org

Date: 2008/02/11 14:04:40, Link
Author: sparc
I was surprised that DO'L at UD missed it but luckily, one can always count on Sal Cordova. He celebrated the notorius Warda and Han paper on February 8th:
Quote
Creationist paper passes peer-review, Darwinist Endosymbiotic theory trashed
Obviously this is not enough, later he writes:
Quote
I foresaw this event.

Date: 2008/02/16 00:39:20, Link
Author: sparc
Frost122585
Quote


Bill, I was curious whether you are in the film Expelled or not. If not, how come? It seems to me that your contributions to ID are inextricable from it’s successes as well as NDE’s shortfalls yet I haven’t read or heard anything about you in regards to the film.

I would also like you to know that I sense a bright and healthy future for ID. My intuition tells me that ID science is just beginning to take off and will progress in leaps and bounds in the near future thanks to the strong and healthy foundation you and your colleagues have laid down for it- although along the way expect shortfalls for ID as well…

Keep crack’n.
Sounds like Vincent Edward St. Francis

Date: 2008/02/16 01:38:04, Link
Author: sparc
Frost122585
 
Quote

Bill, I was curious whether you are in the film Expelled or not. If not, how come? It seems to me that your contributions to ID are inextricable from it’s successes as well as NDE’s shortfalls yet I haven’t read or heard anything about you in regards to the film.
Actually, I demanded that Dembski's case is presented in expelled already in September 2007  here and in comment 1167 at the Expelled blog.
Quote
This Behe guy expelled? Hey, he's still at Lehigh. OK, his faculty has this disclaimer. But would you call this expelled? Lönnig and these other guys? Removed some web pages from the web site of their institute or didn't get tenure. The only one who ever was kicked out of an academic institution was Dembski. And the very same institution did it again! That's real martyrdom. Besides William Demski is the only one in the ID-creationist camp who is experienced in the movie business. OK, it was just fart overdubs, but did Behe make such sacrifices? He is still playing the distinguished elderly science professor and makes tons of money. Did he ever piss off a university president by knowingly publishing a faked e-mail? Does he have to deal with these mentally disabled guys who say the designer is God when it is not appropriate? Does he have to ban all these nasty rationalists that try to undermine his blogs? Did Behe have to apply for a postdoc position at the university that booted him.

No!!

THE ONLY REAL VICTIM ON THE ID-CREATIONIST SIDE IS WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI!
HE HAS TO BE THE STAR IN EXPELLED!
Please go over to Ben Stein's EXPELLED blog and support this demand.

Cross posted at EXPELLED!


UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Behe's

   "irreducible complexity is a special case of specified complexity" (W. Dembski: No Free Lunch, p. 289)

that Dembski identified. Behe had to use his poor mouse trap example to explain his creationism while Dembski provided mathematical proof for "The God Delusion". And he owns two PhDs.

So, who should be staring EXPELLED?

It must be Dr. Dr. William A. Dembski!

Date: 2008/02/18 22:31:02, Link
Author: sparc
It's been so quite over in the tard mine.
Did they finally close UD?

Date: 2008/02/19 11:25:14, Link
Author: sparc
According to a review of EXPELLED by Tom Bethel that  PZ links to Dembski finally made it into EXPELLED:  
Quote
We are introduced to the leading expellees, including Caroline Crocker (from George Mason University), Rick Sternberg (from the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History), Guillermo Gonzalez (Iowa State), and William Dembski (Baylor).
I've been asking for this months ago.

Date: 2008/02/20 13:01:52, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I guess no one bothered to tell these ass holes about rapid chromosomal speciation in mice introduced to small oceanic islands by Europeans
Allen MacNeill tried to explain it to the IDiots in his comments on this post.
Joseph disagreed    
Quote
Just an observation but the mice in comment 97 are still mice.

Allen tried to explain it again
 
Quote
As to the comment that the mice on Madeira are still “mice,” this misses the point entirely. They are, in fact, six different species of mice, all descended from one original ancestral species brought ashore about 500 years ago.
to Joseph Joseph replied with this fine piece of tard      
Quote
I have no doubt that the points being made are entirely different. But six different species of mice in 500 years from one ancestral stock pales in comparison to what would have had to have occurred in the YEC scenario following The Flood.

IOW in light of the evidence you presented post-Flood rapid speciation claims do not seem so far-fetched. However even that does not explain the differences that need to be explained between chimps & humans.

Date: 2008/02/20 23:02:57, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, did Allen MacNeill show up again after the above mentioned thread? At one point he seems to have accepted that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion at UD.

Date: 2008/02/22 23:06:30, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot belongs in the middle of Saint Gasoline's scheme

Date: 2008/02/24 11:35:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote

Quote
 
Quote
28

larrycranston

02/23/2008

11:51 pm

Well said sparc!

Alternately, one could use a gif of some praying Marines to tag parody posts that might be interpreted as sincere.


Um, if Dave sees that, it'll mean more work for RB.


larrycranston's comment is already gone

Date: 2008/02/25 13:52:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Looks like the whole Expelled release/Darwin's death day thread has been 404-ed.
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.

Date: 2008/02/26 11:26:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Quote
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2008,06:39)
   
Quote
(CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2008,02:58)
 
   
Quote
(Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
       
   
Quote
(sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.


I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.


I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!


I think 1805 may be year that you are searching for. Observe.


I don't know...

Your link indicates that Paley's father was a cannon, so now we are back to the artillery thread...
Yes I was referring to the day William Paley died in Lincoln.

Date: 2008/02/29 11:37:31, Link
Author: sparc
A voice crying in the wilderness.
I think it is legitimate to ask who really is the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" : DO'L is close to 1000 points at Overwhelmingboredom while the WMAD is still at -15.

Date: 2008/02/29 14:00:55, Link
Author: sparc
I don't know why but I assiciate DO'L with dead fish rather than with a cross.

Date: 2008/02/29 14:43:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I don't know why but I assiciate DO'L with dead fish rather than with a cross.
I guess this is the reason why: D'OL and dead fish.
BTW, does one have to capitalize fish in this context?

Date: 2008/03/03 23:46:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The thread “No process can result in a net gain of information” underlies 2LoT is silly, and doubly so.
Don't be unfair. Due to the main stream science conspiracy they don't get funding and have to pick the evidence from their alphabet soup.

Date: 2008/03/09 13:46:02, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H    
Quote
This might disappear, it might remain,
There seems to be a good chance that it will stay. Actually, Jerry needs you:    
Quote
you are depriving us of a learning experience and letting us flounder here, missing your insights.

Date: 2008/03/10 15:34:59, Link
Author: sparc
Turner Coates in the "New revelations on gene expression" thread:  
Quote
Yes, I’m aware that William Dembski took a shot at penalizing “specification dredging” in his latest (last?) revamp of complex specified information. His reasoning hinges on a revolutionary approach to statistical hypothesis testing. I said revolutionary, not correct. The correctness of what he’s done to Fisherian statistics has nothing to do with ID per se, and it would take clinical paranoia to claim that his reputation as an ID advocate would keep him from getting fair reviews at statistics journals. For that matter, he could submit under a pseudonym, e.g., Student or Finch. I completed only a graduate minor in statistics, so my belief that the approach is wrong doesn’t carry much weight. But the fact that he’s had 3-4 years to get it through peer review as pure statistics, and has failed, is a strong hint that the statistics scholars are with me.
I get the impression that even WMAD and DS don't read the comments over at UD but just wait what shows up here. I hope Turner accepts my apologies in case his comment disappears.

Date: 2008/03/10 15:38:56, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, in the same thread Jerry wellcomes discussing biology. Unfortunately he is not too familiar with the processes and the correct wording:  
Quote
From what little I understand the egg contains mucho enzymes that are accessed at conception to affect gestation. It is only till much later that transcripted proteins start playing a major role. Is that your understanding?
OK, he might get contaminated with reason in case he read a basic biology textbook.

Date: 2008/03/10 22:40:39, Link
Author: sparc
Jerry
Quote
sparc,

A transcripted protein is one that is the result of the transcription process of the cell as opposed to one that appears from outside the organism. If you want to add translation etc, go ahead.

Proteins can be created in a laboratory and thus would not be a transcripted protein. But that was not what I was talking about.

Now in a zygote there are apparently many proteins that were placed there during development of the mother and not produced by the transcription process in the cells of the embryo. The zygote/embryo uses these proteins but does not produce them. Eventually after a time the cells will start to produce all their own proteins.
Seemingly Jerry is referring to parentally expressed proteins although I do not see in which way they are "un-transcripted". But I am lost with his next sentence
Quote
Don’t ask me what these proteins do, because I do not think they understand then completely.
Are these proteins developing some kind of consciousness and will understand later? And what are they going to understand?

Date: 2008/03/14 23:01:54, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
So here is ID research that is on going and supporting ID. The authors just don’t know it.
link

Date: 2008/03/14 23:04:27, Link
Author: sparc
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote
Lead blogger? Whoever you are I salute your courage undercover tard miner.
You beat me to it.

Date: 2008/03/20 12:51:28, Link
Author: sparc
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Quote
Roll up, roll up.

Come gather round and watch the magical caculation of CSI take place. Many have said it cannot be done, but lo! Dave of Scot has performed this feat, come gather round and watch....
Unfortunately, DaveScot choose ATP synthase as an example. Today PZ discusses a new paper on ATP synthase over at Pharyngula and concludes:
Quote
This is obviously what we'd expect from evolution: that a molecular machine would not be an all-or-nothing affair, but that incremental variations would produce incremental changes in efficiency.

Date: 2008/03/20 13:51:57, Link
Author: sparc
priceless:
scordova  
Quote
A great way to meet authors and commenters from the Uncommon Descent community is to attend Discovery Institute events like this one:
The Devil’s Delusion U.S. Book Tour with David Berlinski

TannebergOmega  
Quote
Sal, the link goes to a book on Chaos Theory.

Date: 2008/03/21 23:56:58, Link
Author: sparc
After saying only  
Quote
"Hello World!"
for more than 9 months the Biologic Institute finally published managed to get a post published:  
Quote
Comments on F-type ATPase

There is no junk here.  The ATPase is made not of four amino acids but four thousand—more like an essay than a paragraph (much less a word).  Could it have started out much smaller?  Not much, in view of the two sections that have to be coupled for it to work.  Like an essay, it might withstand trimming in some places, and some of the parts might be reworded if we knew the rules of composition for proteins.  Typos can be tolerated to an extent, as with essays.  But none of this explains how random single-letter changes can produce new essays, whether from scratch or from existing essays on other subjects.  According to intuition, there’s only one way to get an essay.
Quite disappointing considering that this is supposed to be the blog of the ID research lab.

EDIT: Seemingly, comments are not welcome.

Date: 2008/03/22 12:34:12, Link
Author: sparc
Sal:  
Quote
For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth!
More experienced biologists may know that one of the X chromosomes of XX male contains parts of the paternal Y-chromosome and that this is a result translocating the SRY gene from Y to X. Thus, paternal meiosis is absolutely required for this process. But it surely is not Sal's task to meet my pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2008/03/22 14:38:02, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, I guess Sal is the only person on this planet that can not cite Nature without adding    
Quote
the prestigious scientific journal
in front of it. I guess he didn't do this before his name was printed in there.

Date: 2008/03/26 23:43:40, Link
Author: sparc
GilDodgen  
Quote
BTW: I will be attending a big event tomorrow night at Biola University with Ben Stein. It should be interesting. I’ll take notes and report on the event at UD.
That will indeed keep Dawkins and PZ away from the screening and hopefully make it a really private event. As a second line of defense they use tickets ($10) this time. Since ticket prizes will not be sufficient to protect the screening Christian Apologetics supplied additional  sponsoring.

Date: 2008/03/27 13:42:46, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Letter frequency analysis reveals the the four most frequent letters in the codetext are a, e, t, and i. The four most common letters in English written communication display signs of irreducible complexity:

Date: 2008/03/27 15:06:45, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
what the heck good is the EF?
Tough question indeed. At least there is evidence that it is specified by ignorance and fueled with an overdose of (8R,9S,10R,13S,14S,17S)-17-hydroxy-10,13-dimethyl-12,6,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17-dodecahy-
drocyclopenta[a]phenanthren-3-one
which would make it some kind of moelcular machine, presumably at the nm level because it has not been observed directly as yet. However, it does not seem to be too complex (see carlsonjok's comment). Thus, it's still under debate if it was intelligenly designed.

Date: 2008/03/27 15:22:30, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, mentioning moelcular machines: Have you seen Biobotz's Kinesin?


Biobotz has been formed by students of Wake Forrest University and    
Quote
aims to produce an educational interactive online game, an animated television series and ancillary stuffed toys and action figures starring characters based on the amino acid chains that operate like tiny robots inside human cells.
Could be a nice idea. However, Jed Macosko one of the few Discovery Instute fellows who actually does research is involved in it. He stated that    
Quote
They’re trying to create the Pokemon of molecular biology
According to his publication record he does reasonable science but you will also find some "molecular-machines-can-not-have-evolved-stuff" written by him.

Date: 2008/03/28 00:26:49, Link
Author: sparc
It took quite some time but finally DaveScot did it  
Quote
This is starting to look like a John Davison blog entry. Comments are now closed on it.
To say it with JAD's very own words
Quote
I love ist so!

Date: 2008/03/28 15:17:18, Link
Author: sparc
If I wanted to sockpuppet UD I would choose the name tuaTARD.

Date: 2008/03/29 00:05:21, Link
Author: sparc
DLH    
Quote
Imprisoning or killing objectors. (e.g. in the USSR under Stalin for not complying with Darwinian Lysenkoism)
leo stoch  
Quote
Say what? “Darwinian Lysenkoism” is an oxymoron. Under Lysenkoism, it was the scientists who believed in natural selection (Darwinists, if you will) who were sent to the gulags. Stringing these two terms together shows that you are either regurgitating arguments you don’t understand or just throwing out emotionally charged buzzwords, in hopes of riling up those interested, but ill-informed onlookers, who don’t know any better. In either case, this is not what I would consider an acceptable level of scholarship.
Bob O'H  
Quote
Do you have the faintest clue what you’re on about here?
sparc  
Quote
 
Quote
“Darwinian Lysenkoism” is an oxymoron.
Unfortunately, DLH’s comment is only moros without any sign of being oxy.
DLH kind of backpaddels  
Quote
leo stotch 55, Bob O’H at 60, sparc 63 etc.
I agree with you on “Darwinian Lysenkoism”, so I deleted “Darwinian” above.
but still repeats his argument in the next sentence
Quote
I am trying to point out fascist and/or totalitarian imposition of world views with consequential loss of freedoms, and that those regimes were also undergirded by Darwinian principles and/or imposing them.

Date: 2008/03/30 14:58:15, Link
Author: sparc
Sal and FTK always appear together lately. Are you sure that FTK is not just Sal answering his own questions? I know FTK has her own blog but does this prove that Sal and FTK are not identical?

Date: 2008/04/02 13:26:09, Link
Author: sparc
Scordova has his own blog and doesn't depend on WMAD to find a few who read his babble? Not even close.

Date: 2008/04/03 11:51:42, Link
Author: sparc
A post by Bob O’H lead me to the web pages of the Biologic Institute on March 8th which contained a single entry at that time. It said:  
Quote
Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
which was followed by single comment:
   
Quote
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.

The comment was published at July 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm (presumably Seattle local time).

On March 28th the Biologic Institute published a new post on their blog and the “Hello world!” disappeared. The new post contained their usual arguments (this time they choose ATP synthase instead of bacterial flagella):    
Quote

There is no junk here. The ATPase is made not of four amino acids but four thousand—more like an essay than a paragraph (much less a word). Could it have started out much smaller? Not much, in view of the two sections that have to be coupled for it to work. Like an essay, it might withstand trimming in some places, and some of the parts might be reworded if we knew the rules of composition for proteins. Typos can be tolerated to an extent, as with essays. But none of this explains how random single-letter changes can produce new essays, whether from scratch or from existing essays on other subjects. According to intuition, there’s only one way to get an essay.

Today this post is gone again and we find another one instead:    
Quote
Welcome
Welcome to Biologic Institute – a scientific research organization pioneering a fresh approach to biology.
Contact Us
April 3rd, 2008
Biologic Institute
16310 NE 80th Street
Redmond, WA 98052
United States
425.296.4400
info@biologicinstitute.org
Posted in research | No Comments »

Obviously, their traffic gained some momentum. It will remain their secret though, why they don’t archive their posts and, more importantly, why they post “welcome” under research.

Date: 2008/04/04 14:48:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Fill In The Blanks:  F _ _ _ Y _ _.
I didn't know that Sal will join the framing debate. :)

Date: 2008/04/04 23:33:03, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, today it's 275 days or 9 months since WMAD posted three papers with R. Marks as being under review on his Design Inference Website: THE WRITINGS OF WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI.
TWOHUNDREDSEVENTYFIVE DAYS and counting.
Yeah, ID 's still going strong.

Date: 2008/04/09 22:09:53, Link
Author: sparc
Gil doesn't know DaveScot's bike

Date: 2008/04/09 22:13:52, Link
Author: sparc
This one may be even bigger but it's inappropriate for American ID-creationists because the engine is Russian (Stalin!) and it was built in Germany (Hitler!)

Date: 2008/04/11 13:45:04, Link
Author: sparc
Don't miss David Bolinsky's e-mail published at RichardDawkins.net:  
Quote
To the anti-ID community which is giving XVIVO support in our ideological battle against the microcephalic apostates of "Intelligent Design":

XVIVO created The Inner Life of the Cell for Harvard, through fourteen months of painstaking examination of how a myriad of systems, functional structures and proteins in a cell, could be depicted in a sweeping panoramic style of animation, reminiscent of cinema, that fundamentally raised the bar on the visualization of molecular and cellular biology for undergraduate students. In depicting what we did, other than merely maintaining the intent of the syllabus, we needed to edit like mad. A cell has billions of molecules, millions of active functional proteins and tens of thousands of structural elements separating, sequestering and joining compartments and systems into a functional whole. An initial foundational decision process of our creative vision, consisted of editing out 95% of the contents of our cell in order to gain, for our virtual camera, a vista to visualize what elements we left in. The decisions we made blended aesthetics with science. They were not made lightly, nor were they made without extensive consultation with researchers at Harvard, and an extensive body of literature, including protein data libraries and new findings by Harvard researchers.

Given the vast number of structures to be removed, and given the structures remaining "on camera", whose positioning and relationships, both aesthetic and functional, needed to remain true to the function and beauty of molecular biology, it is inconceivable, mathematically, that the animator hired by EXPELLED's producers, independently and randomly came up with the same identical actin filament mesh XVIVO depicted in one scene, which had never before been rendered anywhere in 3D! It is astonishing that among well over a dozen functional kinesins from which an animator might choose, we both chose the same configuration of kinesin, pulling the same protein-studded vesicle, on the same microtubule! Can YOU believe we coincidentally picked the same camera angles and left in the same specific structures in the background, positioned with the same composition? Equally astonishing is the "Intellgent Design" treatment of these and other proteins surfaces, which XVIVO derived using procedural iso-surface skinning of the PDB cloud data of our proteins' atom placement. There are an infinite number of possble "correct" solutions to that problem.

Coincidence? Given their "access to the same literature" we had, where Graham Johnson at Scripps so brilliantly worked out the real motion of kinesins, I am simply blown away that the "Intelligent Design" animators slavishly made the hands of their kenesins move exactly as we did, even though we intentionally left out the stochastic Brownian motion which actually characterizes the tractive force and periodic pedicle placement of these tiny motivators. We simply did not have the time or budget to render these, and a dozen other details, to the level of insanity we would like to have done! This was, after all, an underfunded proof-of-concept piece. The cellular biology that serves as "filler" material, between scenes copied from Inner Life, is riddled with biological errors. Imagine "Intelligent Design's" depiction of protein synthesis without ribosomes!

To Mr. Dembski: The only reason I am involved in this discussion is because I do not want the reputation of my company, hard-earned as it is, to be sullied by even oblique affiliation to your sort of smarmy ethics, if only through works of ours, purloined to fit your agenda. Last year you were charging colleges thousands of dollars to give lectures showing a copy of The Inner Life of the Cell, you claimed you "found somewhere", with Harvard's and XVIVO's credits stripped out and the copyright notice removed (which is in itself a felony) and a creationist voice-over pasted on over our music (yes, I have a recording of your lecture). Harvard slapped you down for that, and yes there is a paper trail. One can only assume that had we not taken notice then, we would be debating The Inner Life of the Cell being used in EXPELLED, instead of a copy. You have enough of a colorful history that Harvard, in its wisdom, decided to 'swat the gnat' with as little fuss as possible. Imagine our surprise earlier this month, to see our work copied in a movie trailer for EXPELLED! And you are in the movie too! Not quite a star, but brown dwarfs are cool. XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!

It makes me happy, though, that you decided to implicate your friends in print, on your blog (http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619), in what is legally, malignant infringement, since you no had doubt discussed with EXPELLED's producers, Harvard's previous legal infringement action against you, the Discovery Institute, where you are a fellow and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where you teach. Once we uncover the EXPELLED animation dollar trail, and bring it to light, we will have even more fun. The sublimely ridiculous claim that EXPELLED uses completely original animation, in light of copying our work so closely that a budget was reserved to pay for an infringement suit by Harvard, is delicious! Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free! So go ahead and release your movie. Just keep track of how many tickets you sell. We may just find that data valuable, too.

David Bolinsky

Date: 2008/04/11 23:29:50, Link
Author: sparc
Did you realize that under more descent UD links to a "Free Gonzalez" site?

Date: 2008/04/13 02:25:35, Link
Author: sparc
Do you remember WMAD's take on Robert Pennock's "Intelligent Design Creationists and Their Critics"?      
Quote
It appears that Pennock and MIT Press are legally in the clear -- Pennock selected pieces for which he was able to obtain copyright permissions without having to consult me.
Well that's the way things go with copyright. If you sell them the new owner is free to permit the use of your writings to whoever he wants. They don't have to ask the author.
Dembski continues:  
Quote
There's more to ethics, however, than legalities.
Too true, if Dembski only would care about legal standards (all the quotemining and pubjacking at UD only allows the conclusion that he has given up ethical standards anyway).
One may get the impression that while replying to Pennock Dembski had the idea for future strategies. The only difference is that he scipped asking for copyright permissons:  
Quote
Imagine if someone critical of Darwinian evolutionary theory decided to publish a book titled _Dogmatic Darwinian Fundamentalists and Their Critics_, managed to obtain copyright permissions for pieces by prominent Darwinists (mostly outdated pieces at that), and then situated their pieces within a collection of critical replies designed to make them look ridiculous.
Thus, back in 2002 he was aware of copyright laws. So he knew damn well knew what ID-creationists were doing when they added pictures from "The inner Life of a Cell" into the Design of Life draft.

Demski concludes:
Quote
thus casting me as a creationist, which in contemporary academic culture is equivalent to being cast as a flat earther, astrologer, or holocaust denier. There's no way I would have allowed my work to appear under such conditions if I had any say in the matter.
Either he doesn't have any say in the matter or he doesn't read any comments at UD.

Date: 2008/04/15 22:43:18, Link
Author: sparc
I wonder why UD doesn't mention the work of
Jed Macosko who apparentenly is affiliated with the DI.
 
Quote
Dembski is known to all, Jed Macosko perhaps not so. Macosko holds the PhD in chemistry from UC Berkeley, and in his portion of the introduction he recounts living in Johnson's basement for a period while in grad school. He is an ISCID fellow, and was a DI/CSC fellow between 2001 and 2003. He is currently an assistant professor (of biophysics) at Wake Forest University. Unlike most ID supporters, he seems to actually publish peer-reviewed scientific research, though none of it appears to offer a theory of intelligent design or any explicit discussion of design.


He actually has a kinesin picture on his site:


Another depiction of kinesin prepared by his students for educational purposes is this one


but I am pretty sure that this was not the basis of Premise Media's animation.

Maybe Macosko just doesn't want to loose his reputation and thus stays out of the discussion.

Date: 2008/04/17 11:15:54, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
  89 pages (single-space, 8½x11)
 40805 words
 239671 characters
most of it is copy/paste, isn't it?

Date: 2008/04/18 14:40:38, Link
Author: sparc
And seemingly I am the only person who reads Sal's tard.

Date: 2008/04/20 09:35:00, Link
Author: sparc
Three of the EXPELLED are now EXPOSED on the People page of the Biologic Institue that showed up yesterday. At first I thought they finally managed to really get fired but it turns out that they are listed with their usal addresses:    
Quote
Guillermo Gonzalez is an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, soon to become an associate professor of astronomy at Grove City College in the Department of Physics.

Robert J. Marks II is a Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University.

Richard von Sternberg is a research collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History.
So what the hell are they doing there? Does the BI need a pipetting astronomer? Or is this the BI's scientiffic advisory board. But then they would have more advisers than working scientists.

Date: 2008/04/20 09:44:11, Link
Author: sparc
I had the same with PT which I guess is hosted on the same server.

Date: 2008/04/20 11:17:31, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
Darwin Central Advocates Crime - Make a Pirate Copy of Expelled
Quote
Comment written by a moderator of Darwin Central:
Quote
Someone desparately need to blog an exclusive pirated copy of Ben Stein’s Expelled.

Somehow my comment didn't go through:
Quote
In contrast to Dr. Dembski they will surely use the unmodified original version

Could somebody check if they disabled comments completely?

Date: 2008/04/24 22:51:36, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H
Quote
Shocking news, as reported by me at my new blog home:

The Biologic Institute's webpage has evolved.

During the last weeks the BI has evolved to The Home of the EXPELLED

Date: 2008/05/10 11:10:34, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Various topics are covered in O' Linky's (ok it's never going to be a successful meme)
D'OLD'OL            
Quote
Also just up at the Overwhelming Evidence blog
Being nearly the only one posting at OE seems to get frustrating. I would suggest that they change their credit point system. Unfortunately, I only have 3 data points (February 18, 2007, August 2, 2007 and today) which indicate that D'OL increased her daily gain of points by nearly 30% from 2.8 points/day to 3.6 points/day. However, IIRC their scoring system also takes comments into account. Thus, she should rather start commenting on her own posts than adding post after post.
BTW, WMAD points are still negative: -15!

Date: 2008/05/11 13:46:13, Link
Author: sparc
It would be even better if Finch has been Dembski using Marks' Baylor account.

Date: 2008/05/13 14:47:28, Link
Author: sparc
To be fair: Wendy Wippel actually is acknowledged on a CDC-NIOSH page as a member of the CD-ROM development of the NIOSH Safety Checklist Program for Schools.She also was involved in some risk assesment of natural latex.

Date: 2008/05/15 11:30:29, Link
Author: sparc
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote
You need fuel to accelerate

only if you stick to your materialistic worldview.
BTW, why doesn't UD's own speed of light expert weigh in?

Date: 2008/05/17 13:35:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I haven't peered into the innards of the cell myself (erm, which cell??)
I am pretty sure that UD posters are mostly interested in sperm cells:

Date: 2008/05/17 23:00:11, Link
Author: sparc
Stash:
 
Quote
{By popular demand I’ve toned down the language in this post, eliminated some ad hominems, and will try to behave myself from now on.}
IIRC, the last one who made a bolded comment in curly brackets directly under the header has been Botnik  
Quote
{For heaven's sake people, THIS IS A P-A-R-O-D-Y!!}

Stash = Botnik = Dembski?

Date: 2008/05/19 21:46:16, Link
Author: sparc
His sermon could have been even better if he were aware that snakes produce disintegrins.

Edit: Vipera lebetina venom contains two disintegrins inhibiting laminin-binding beta1 integrins.

Date: 2008/05/20 14:21:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Teh Lamininz is teh True Cross!" thing is that most historians and archaeologists think Jesus would almost certainly have been hung up on on a crux commisa or Tau Cross
This indeed explains the existence of topless laminins.

Date: 2008/05/20 15:05:08, Link
Author: sparc
Actually, when I see Laminin I always see a strawman. Maybe because I've been working in ECM research for five years in the nineties.

Still, I think soon someone over at UD will mention that the laminin's G-domain resembles Golgotha.

Date: 2008/05/21 22:40:40, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I hope to write a book with a Canadian physicist about “God vs. the multiverse”
What's so special about Canadian physicists?

Date: 2008/05/22 13:06:58, Link
Author: sparc
Is Leo the identical with the Leo Stotch who has been banned by DaveScot recently?

Date: 2008/05/22 13:34:38, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD
Quote
[Leo: I’m afraid you don’t have the right sense of humor for this forum. Goodbye. –WmAD]
I finally got it: Bannianation is the running gag at UD. According to Wikipedia    
Quote
often, the humor in a running gag derives entirely from how often it is repeated.

Date: 2008/05/22 22:48:59, Link
Author: sparc
Apparently, due to Cue's lack of humor UD lost another commenter:      
Quote
63

William Dembski
05/22/2008
7:55 pm

Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.

Date: 2008/05/26 11:30:46, Link
Author: sparc
356 days and counting

Date: 2008/05/26 14:44:21, Link
Author: sparc
Is Mavis fooling KF?
Quote
8
Mavis Riley
05/26/2008
5:37 am

Again, you can’t filter what you don’t already recognise.

Date: 2008/05/26 23:26:27, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Bad Math Alert!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-289509
What else would one expect from someone who describes himself the following way:
Quote
So anyway as one can carefully see half this blog is centered around a new approach to politics but the other half has to do with things that allow you to be someone that can't in anyway be labeled as average. It's primarily centered around being a superhuman, or super soldier so to speak. If you care about playing a huge role in this nation, and you want to die knowing you made a positive change, these articles should give enlightenment.

Date: 2008/05/26 23:41:17, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses
17? OK if he'd be 10 or 12. But 17? Completely retarded.

Date: 2008/05/27 00:09:14, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Could you quantify that retardation on a scale of zero to Salvador?
Beyond Sally because I haven't seen anything by Sal about weapons and marksmanship.

Date: 2008/05/28 10:03:55, Link
Author: sparc
the leading secular religion
Quote
8

DaveScot

05/28/2008

9:23 am
Fusion power is already here. It’s called “the sun”. We just have to get better at collecting the energy.
Did DS finally join the
Quote
the leading secular religion

Date: 2008/05/28 12:28:46, Link
Author: sparc
Oh,  
Quote
ME
is Dave.
Initially I had the impression that he was talking about somthing opposite of  
Quote
GE
he mentioned earlier in his comment.

Date: 2008/06/02 11:32:47, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Then there's most of the field of psychology. The placebo and Clever Hans effects are especially relevant.
I guess what people experience with phone calls is hindsight bias.

Date: 2008/06/03 22:52:39, Link
Author: sparc
Happy anniversary Dr. Dembski      
Quote
Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

Looks as if Dr. Dembski changed his mind on June 5th 2007 and now is seemingly quite willing to wait two years to get things into print:
   
Quote
Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper develops a general method for critiquing inflated claims about the power of evolutionary computing.

This paper is still available on the publication page of the The Evolutionary Informatics Lab
     
Quote
Active Information in Evolutionary Search. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Olle Häggström’s 2007 article in Biology and Philosophy titled “Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems.”

The link leads to a paper on the publications page of the The Evolutionary Informatics Lab. However, the title is different. Currently it is titled  "The Information Cost of No Free Lunch"
         
Quote
Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Thomas Schneider’s 2000 article in Nucleic Acids Research titled “Evolution of Biological Information.”

This link leads into the 404-Nirvana.

365 days under review and counting. Peer review indeed is a pain in the ass.

Date: 2008/06/04 12:39:54, Link
Author: sparc
Discovery Institute's own Biologic Institute published peer reviewed research in PLOSone.
Unfortunately, I can not judge it but at least it doesn't contain the term intelligent design and it doesn't cite Behe or Dembski.
Hopefully, the Avida guys around here will comment on it.

Date: 2008/06/05 22:29:59, Link
Author: sparc
Wesley R. Elsberry  
Quote
My take on Stylus

Still no joy on getting it running here.
PLOS journals offer the opportunities to discuss their papers on their web pages. In addition PLOSone allows trackbacks to the article:  
Quote
Start a discussion on this article
Add a note to the text
Make a general commentSince she seemingly just copies content from one of her blogs to another there are at least two links to this statement:
View / Join ongoing discussion ...
Trackbacks
And BTW, D'OL is already working on an EXPELLED strawman:  
Quote
Guess someone will have to lean on PLOS One to take this paper down.
Seemingly, she is just copying posts from one of her blogs to another: link 1, link 2.

Date: 2008/06/05 22:54:42, Link
Author: sparc
One shouldn't miss the references provided by Axe et al: To my best knowledge the only article that may remotely be linked to ID is      
Quote
Eden M (1967) Inadequacies of neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. In: Moorhead PS, Kaplan MM, editors. Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press. pp. 109–111.
Besides Axe's own papers there's not a single citation of all those ID articles pathetically listed by the DI. Where are those ground breaking articles by Behe, Dembski, Lönnig et al.? Not quite what one would expect in a vivid field of research.

Date: 2008/06/12 13:59:57, Link
Author: sparc
I think they didn't intend it but that's how the Biologic Institute's feeds are displayed:  
Quote
Leaping into Trouble
Introducing Stylus—New Software for a New Take on Evolutionary Simulation

Date: 2008/06/14 22:22:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
It's too much to expect that hooligans would appreciate Ms. O'Leary's tireless efforts at hard work:
(Highest Users - Overwhelming Evidence)

oleary 2206
Especially, when you compare these numbers with those of WMAD
Quote
WMAD    -15

Date: 2008/06/18 23:24:58, Link
Author: sparc
No increase in user points for one week. Did DO'L finally give up overwhelmingevidence?

Edit: data

Date: 2008/06/22 14:03:41, Link
Author: sparc
Since my comment is awaiting moderation I put it here:
     
Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Patrick

             
Quote
Some critics have argued that the problem lies not in the way the simulation models selection, but in something more fundamental. They claim that any simulation of RM + NS is doomed to fail, because computer code is designed and therefore cannot accurately model an undirected process such as RM + NS.

         
Quote
I’d like to meet the ID proponents who make such arguments, if they exist, and bop them on the head for making such a foolish argument.


Didn’t GilDogden imply something like that  here and here at UD.

Date: 2008/06/27 21:50:41, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
My personal opinion is that God gave us, as part of being created in His image, the ultimate ability to restore paradise.
By keeping evil out of UD Dave is obviously doing his best to create heaven on earth.

Date: 2008/06/27 22:03:54, Link
Author: sparc
D'OL  
Quote
I can only get over this fit of envy by writing another book.

Hey, I have been a book editor most of my adult life. I know books. I know them well.

...

Yes, book writing is indeed a dying art, and I’ll die with it - but … not yet.

I will write one more book.
I do understand that D'OL is threatening the world with yet another book and that her motivation for doing so is questionable. But what the hell is the rest of the post about?

Date: 2008/06/30 15:54:48, Link
Author: sparc
stevestory  
Quote
Wasn't that the purpose of Overwhelming Evidence? How's that going Bill?

I've collected some current developments and data on OE
here.

Date: 2008/07/04 12:45:37, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
Rumor has it Galapagos Finch’s real name was discovered by the evos, outted, and because he’s at risk for job discrimination for public support of ID he decided discretion was the better part of valor and buried the site.
I guess Robert Marks will be delighted to be kind of officially outed by DaveScot.

Date: 2008/07/05 01:38:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote


...Aaaaand you're an idiot.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/561#comment-2007

I guess Patrick doesn't care as long as he gets 6 OE user points for that. He's the only one (+16) beside D'OL (+80) with an increasing user point number since since June 18th.

Date: 2008/07/13 04:42:32, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
John A Davison posts at Overwhelming Evidence

...and no one cares.
Maybe SCordova does because Davison was the last to comment on youngcosmos.

Date: 2008/07/14 22:33:39, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot
Quote
Roy Spencer
Quote
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.
Didn't ID run under a different name back in 1988? Something starting with "C" and ending on "ism"?

Date: 2008/07/17 23:20:52, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
17 July 2008
How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist — Or Not
William Dembski

Coming this October…
I always thougt  
Quote
Buy my book
was a trademark held by D'OL.

Date: 2008/07/18 15:09:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Like, pick out an outfit that you think he looks nice in to make up for all the times you've poked fun of his sweater, etc., etc.
Maybe he should try ManU's current outfit

Date: 2008/07/20 02:02:50, Link
Author: sparc
D'OL
Quote
I am a machine. No, I am a tree. Here’s the problem with analogy …
Isn't analogy with machines one of the central arguments put forward by Dembski, Behe et al.?

Date: 2008/07/24 22:24:52, Link
Author: sparc
Jim_Wynne:
Quote
So I waited.

In addition we are waiting for three papers Dembski announced on June 5th, 2007. According to his The Writings of William A. Dembski the drafts are today under review for 416 days. 416 days and counting.

Date: 2008/07/25 14:40:26, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD
Quote
Denyse, You’re too kind (to Atticus that is). I’ve booted him/her off the forum.

Date: 2008/07/25 14:50:39, Link
Author: sparc
Dembski is working on the myth of being EXPELLED:
Quote
The most notable case was an old mathematician friend of mine from the University of Chicago (now elsewhere) who didn’t want to be acknowledged for providing the crucial help I needed to prove a theorem that is the key to a paper Bob Marks and I currently have under submission at THE JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY (well, actually, no, it’s not been submitted there; but if it were and if I had just announced it here, you can be sure the editors at JTB would hear about it and urged to reject it).
He doesn't even consider the possibility that his paper could be rejected just because it is bad.
As I mentioned earlier today Dembski has three other papers under review for 416 days!
BTW, didn't he and MArks anounce a new ID journal a few months ago?

Date: 2008/07/27 00:17:07, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Is Salvador back on UD?
He always was and still is on their about pages. Maybe they didn't want to loose their only (kind of) Nature author.

Date: 2008/07/27 13:15:35, Link
Author: sparc
Seems as if D'OL doesn't have banination rights.

Date: 2008/07/28 14:03:34, Link
Author: sparc
I'm afraid this will not show up:
Quote
sparc

07/28/2008

1:17 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   
Quote
Bob O’H is no longer with this forum.


It will indeed help the discussion of biology that the last biologist has been banninated from this “forum”. E.g., PAV discussing a paper

   
Quote
without having access to the entire paper

Date: 2008/07/28 14:50:40, Link
Author: sparc
Granville Sewell
Quote
Although I have posted on this article before, I don’t think Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig and Heinz-Albert Becker’s Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article on carnivorous plants has received the attention it merits.

I'm afraid this will be another comment that won't show up at UD:
Quote
You can learn from Lönnig how to make ID popular:

1. Create (sic!) your own publishing house (Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag Köln) but don’t mention it’s your creature.

2. Publish your ID work there (you are author, reviewer and editor)

3. Cite your own books massively.

However, unlike Lönnig you should make sure that the address of your publishing house is different from your private address.

Date: 2008/07/30 22:52:20, Link
Author: sparc
gpuccio at the A Simple Gene Origination Calculation thread sees intelligence all over the place:    
Quote
Regarding the immune system, the scenario is completely different. Primary antibody diversification is a process which uses random variation very intelligently targeted to generate a repertoire of basic antibody specificities to cover, at a low specificity level, a search space which is very big, but not immense, referring to possible epitopes in nature (an epitope is a very small aminoacid sequence, usually a few aminoacids, or up to ten -fifteen). Even so, the basic repertoire is very unspecific, and can ensure only a low level interaction with possible epitopes. Antibody maturation “after” primary response, instead, is a typical process which utilizes random variation very intelligently targeted plus very intelligent selection to increase the specificity of the immune response. Indeed, the process utilized here is the same as used in modern protein engineering: the results of targeted random variation are “measured” against the original epitope, and intelligent selection takes place (obviously, here selection includes very specific informatioon about the target, that is the epitope itself, and is therefore very efficient).

So, as you can see, there is nothing in what we know about antibody generation which is inconsistent with my “assumptions”. Antibody generation is a perfect example of intelligent engineering using the realistic resources of probability. It is therefore perfectly natural and reasonable that the immune system of birds or mammals can “produce antibodies against antigens that they or their ancestors never encountered before”.

Date: 2008/08/01 10:01:28, Link
Author: sparc
I don't understand what bfast wants to tell me:  
Quote
sparc, you are putting words into gpuccio’s mouth. You suggested that his claim that antibody generation is “engineered” is equivelant to saying that random variation is an intelligent process. This is a poor inference. If one can show that engineers use random processes than one can demonstrate that random processes are used by engineers. I would suggest that the random orbital sander is an excellent example of exactly that. As engineers clearly implement randomness as a component of their processes, when we see a “turn on random generator” phenomenon in nature, we can conclude that there is no inconsistency between nature and the metaphore of human-engineered technology.

Date: 2008/08/03 00:44:49, Link
Author: sparc
bfast doesn't read comments at UD
Quote
GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.
Well KairosFocus only mentioned it about 100 times though only few people reacted (see my correction  here)

Date: 2008/08/03 00:53:43, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, FSCI has been mentioned in that very thread  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Seems like bfast was afraid to admit that the emperor is naked.

Date: 2008/08/03 05:06:18, Link
Author: sparc
kairosfocus referring to PaV's post   as    
Quote
PaVian calculation
is really funny for German readers

Date: 2008/08/03 05:13:01, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H    
Quote
It's good to see you taking up the mantle of rationality over there again.  Enjoy the fun, and keep away from wMad.
Seems that after a few days of free access my comments are moderated again. Maybe it was not a good idea to add 16 links to every UD comment on kairosfoucs's FSCI at once.

Date: 2008/08/03 23:34:44, Link
Author: sparc
Zachriel:  
Quote
We could say that sparc is a leading critic of the Theory of Functionally Specified Complex Information.
I wouldn't claim that I understand Kairosfocus but I have the feeling he is saying that after all there indeed is something like a free lunch  
Quote
beyond the Dembski bound
unfortunately made up of crackers and wine only.

Date: 2008/08/04 11:41:30, Link
Author: sparc
Venus Mousetrap
Quote
Don't be hard on DaveScot. He's putting people in moderation to reduce the tardflow to more manageable levels for us.
Not quite an effective method if you are working in a self-spamming entity.

Date: 2008/08/04 22:46:23, Link
Author: sparc
I'mve been with the banned.
For 8 h 1 min.

Date: 2008/08/06 23:35:00, Link
Author: sparc
Text questions at Second Baptist Houston

According to a quick TagCrowd counting the christian god in its (his, her?) different forms appears 89 times in the questions (god (70) jesus (12) christ (7)) although ID doesn't say anything about the nature of the designer.

Date: 2008/08/07 12:12:49, Link
Author: sparc
Dembski:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....respond  
Quote
(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.
I get the impression that WMAD is developing some brand new ground breaking new thoughts here.

Date: 2008/08/08 23:07:24, Link
Author: sparc
Don't miss DaveScot's D'OL bashing that continues here.

Date: 2008/08/09 00:03:40, Link
Author: sparc
My prediciton in the long run:
Quote
La Révolution est comme Saturne: elle dévore ses propres enfants.
However, until then a soon to come 404 solution for that thread will do.

Date: 2008/08/11 13:13:51, Link
Author: sparc
lcd
Quote
To any UD proponent.  Is this true?  Did Dr. Dembski actually misuse someone else's work for his own profit?

You better don't ask this question at UD.

Date: 2008/08/14 22:43:01, Link
Author: sparc
Do UD readers completely ignore  Dembski?
Four comments in three days. Three of them being even more off topic.

Date: 2008/08/14 23:32:03, Link
Author: sparc
This is priceless:
DaveScot
 
Quote


Ted

they aren’t about to sign up for ID unless it were unequivocally and absolutely committed to the legitimacy of such inferences as the earth’s great age

They’re already signed up for ID by being theistic evolutionists. Everyone who refuses to say that the universe lacks purpose and direction is an IDer by technical definition whether they sign the enrollment sheet or not. You’re failing distinguish ID by concise definition:

ID Defined

     
Quote
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

   In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

   ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

   Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.          


from ID as a political and cultural movement. You aren’t “signing up” for the latter but you’re a member of the former automatically because of your view that the universe has purpose and direction behind it.

The age of the earth is not a part of ID by definition. If some IDists believe it’s old and some young that’s their personal opinions not the position of ID either as science or as a movement. Both camps fall under the same tent simply because they agree with the definition I posted above. If you disagree that design and chance can be discriminated from each other then your sole basis in saying that the universe has purpose and direction is faith in scripture. I would then rightly say it’s you who has the irrational belief that doesn’t have any place in scientific inquiry. The YEC people at least try to show that science supports their belief in Genesis. What bit of science supports your belief that the universe has purpose and direction if not the science of design detection?



Ted Davies
         
Quote
I’m still paying attention. :-)

But, as I fade into the background, I thank to DaveScot for pointing me to the formal definition of ID on this site. I hadn’t seen that before, and I’m glad to have seen it. A portion of it formally confirms what my instincts have been telling me for quite some time, instincts that were alerted when I read some of the things that John Calvert (as in the “Intelligent Design Network”) put on his web site.  

(...)

Apparently, as I now see from clicking with my mouse, Calvert or someone close to him wrote this definition, and Bill or someone else decided to use it as the operative definition here. But, I guarantee you, this combination of words was not randomly generated; it was intelligently designed to be very sensitive to the junk science that Whitcomb and others helped created. We are no longer talking now simply about the ID *movement*, DaveScot; if we’re talking about the definition of ID itself, then were talking ID *ideas*. Or else, to use the most favorable possible light I can shine on this, someone was asleep at the wheel when they chose to use this definition in its entirety here, without deliberately intending to endorse or accept the part I have highlighted. It’s even possible that they were unaware of the history I’ve briefly narrated, and the implications of this for ID; as I say, this is the most charitable light that I can shed.

At least by this definition, ID has obvious links with and roots within “creationism,” extending to the explicit endorsement not only of “design,” which creationists obviously also endorse, but also the explicity endorsement of the crucial methodological principle that really defines what creationism is about (on the “scientific” side, not on the Biblical side). Although I’ve suspected something like this, I’ve always wanted to give ID the benefit of the doubt. I can no longer do that.

DaveScot
       
Quote
Ted

First of all it was ME who put that definition of ID on this website. Bill Dembski wasn’t even consulted in the decision. I simply googled the web and copied what I thought was the best definition. As it turns out that definition was worked out and adopted by a large group of ID proponents. No wonder I liked it, a lot of work went into it from a diverse group.

Date: 2008/08/15 00:56:01, Link
Author: sparc
As Ted pointed out and UD states on its ID-defined page the original source of UD's ID definition is http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/.

Date: 2008/08/16 01:33:18, Link
Author: sparc
What a difference a day makes
 
Quote
15 August 2008
Nick Matzke’s TTSS to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative Refuted
DaveScot
Although Nick Matzke’s problematic evolutionary narrative of the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) into the bacterial flagellum never (AFAIK) made it into a peer reviewed journal the response from the ID camp did make it.


 
Quote
15 August 2008
Nick Matzke’s TTSS to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative Refuted
DaveScot
Nick Matzke’s problematic evolutionary narrative of the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) into the bacterial flagellum quickly made it into a peer reviewed journal while the response from the ID camp took two years longer.

Date: 2008/08/16 15:02:26, Link
Author: sparc
Shit happens        
Quote


8

DaveScot

08/16/2008

12:46 pm

Dear bililiad,

I installed a WordPress upgrade that included a beta test version of something called Troll Filter v1.0. Upon activation all your comments disappeared. Sorry about that. We’re working with wordpress to determine the root cause of the problem.

bililiad in his own words
     
Quote
I must write anonymously, because where I live creationists and ID Proponents are treated like blithering idiots with nothing useful to say about science.


The only difference between where Bililiad comes from and UD is that over at UD he is treated by blithering idiots with nothing useful to say about science.

Date: 2008/08/17 22:53:16, Link
Author: sparc
bannination or is DS posting in the wrong thread?
Quote


5

DaveScot

08/17/2008

9:27 pm

Ted Davis,

If I gotta be associated with people I don’t agree with I really, really, really prefer the YECs to the likes of those found at Pharyngula. But hey, if Pharyngula is more your style and that of the ASA, knock yourselves out. Just don’t drop the soap, if you know what I mean.

Date: 2008/08/18 12:55:36, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I've always wondered why there are no balloon animals in the air. Filling a sac with gas is really easy, much easier than flying.
Hot air may work. Hopefully, we will see Dave take off one day.

Date: 2008/08/18 23:14:02, Link
Author: sparc
I think GG could be more successful if he presented his "the universe is set up for discovery" BS in the way Billy Preston did it.

Date: 2008/08/21 22:14:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
But look,  she's the "points' leader at OE:  
oleary      2459

Currently DO'L holds 44.8% of all user points ever credited at OE. According to an EXCEL sheet of her user points I've started some time ago she generates appr. 0.045 user points per day. A rough estimate predicts that she will cross the 50% border in about 114 days.

BTW, WMAD is still at the very other end of the list:  
Quote
WMAD aka William Dembski aka the Newton of information theory has only a single post on his OE blog: After a promising start on December 12, 2006 which gained him 1 point he fell down to -15 user points at the latest from February 18, 2007 on.

Date: 2008/08/22 02:21:10, Link
Author: sparc
Is UD currently down or do firewalls of universities protect users from ID BS?

Date: 2008/08/22 11:25:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
5

DaveScot

08/22/2008

12:30 am

Tard Alert!

sparc

I suggest you heed my prior warning to you about one line replies lacking any explanation of the point you wish to make.
IIRC, I cited PaV  
Quote
Radial and bilateral symmetry are radically different body types. How do Darwinists explain the presence of needed genes for a bilateral body plan inside an organism that has radial symmetry? What possible evolutionary advantage would these impart?
and suggested to search Medline for Buddenbrockia plumatellae and Nematostella vectensis

Date: 2008/08/23 14:57:16, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
5

DaveScot

08/23/2008

11:40 am

Tard Alert!

In order to make this thread a little easier to manage any critics of Fuller’s must use their real name to post a comment. Check the anonymous bravado at the door. I ought to make that a policy for the whole damn blog not just this one thread.
KairosFocus may never return.

Date: 2008/08/23 15:01:13, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, according to Google Trends for websites quite a fraction of UD visitors come over here.

Date: 2008/08/23 23:19:07, Link
Author: sparc
StephenB
Quote
In fact, we cannot be reasonable unless we sit passively and obediently before nature and allow it to reveal its secrets to us. Each time that happens, we find that the “how” does indeed inform us about the “why” and vice verse.
Thus, there's absolutely no need for experiments, labs and funding.

Date: 2008/08/25 11:39:06, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Actually, their current statistics show an average of 68 hits and 134 page views per day
OE's current site meter statistics reveal that 19 of the last 100 visitors came from here. In the moment I am the only visitor over there.

Date: 2008/08/26 11:25:03, Link
Author: sparc
The undeniable JAD appeared in the top five users of OE. Until now he has been credited 160 user points. Last time I had a look below the fold on May 14 he only had 10 points.

Date: 2008/08/26 14:56:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Our Dave      
Quote
I’m talking about far more than the maternal effect. I was being literal about the cytoplasm determining whether a cell is destined to become a fly or a horse (fly/horse taken from title of geneticist Sermonti’s book “Why a Fly is not a Horse”).

Translation for non-computer engineers (aka biologists):    
Quote
There is no such thing as a maternal effect, Homo. I was being literal about irreducible complex molecular machines.


Date: 2008/08/29 11:48:20, Link
Author: sparc
Ah, finally molecular biology again. This is so exciting that I post it here before my comments make it through the moderation at UD:  
Quote
Some of us knew more than just the math. Some of us knew about complementary pair bonding between amino acids and how this works in determining whether any given miRNA sequence will bind with any given mRNA sequence.
Hope such results of design research will be included in Dembski's next text book.

 
Quote
 
Quote
MicroRNA regulate protein production in a process known as base pairing – in which complementary codes found on microRNA bind to the corresponding mRNAs much like a lock and key. This process leads to inhibition of protein translation and, in some cases, to degradation of the mRNA itself.
Thus the order of the amino acid sequence is indeed critical.
Don't ask me why programs like miRanda and miRacle search 3'-UTRs for miRNA targets only.

Date: 2008/08/29 16:17:19, Link
Author: sparc
My French is lousy but doesn't the French title "Du cerveau à Dieu" of DO'L's "The Spiritual Brain" mean something like

"From brain to God"?

In contrast the Dutch version is just translated:

"Het spirituele brein"

Date: 2008/09/01 12:42:26, Link
Author: sparc
A new kid in town?  
Quote
11

Berceuse

08/30/2008

3:08 am

Sorry, but what is front-loading?
Berceuse, the common result of frontloading is BS at the opposite end.

Date: 2008/09/01 22:57:05, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD never gives up:  
Quote
Randy Isaac, the executive director of the ASA (i.e., the American Scientific Affiliation — an organization of evangelical Christians largely committed to theistic evolution) will give a talk titled “Science: A Misused Weapon in a Religious War” at Baylor on September 9th. I’m fifteen minutes from the school, so I’ll probably be there.

Date: 2008/09/01 23:33:33, Link
Author: sparc
Andrew Sibley, author of this UD post surely is a reliable witness when it comes to the question if ID is creationism. He even wrote a book on the issue. From a review:  
Quote

If Christians are really concerned about ethical standards they must restore and develop a proper understanding of Natural Theology tradition, both in terms of the appearance of design seen in nature, and also in terms of our response to the Creator. The author writes from a young-earth creationist perspective, but is sensitive to those who think differently. This book is highly recommended for all who are seriously concerned about the moral and spiritual state of society, and we would especially urge those who hold a "progressive creationist" or "theistic evolutionist" position to read it carefully.
"progressive creationist" position = ID?

Date: 2008/09/07 10:54:43, Link
Author: sparc
Seemingly, Ben Stein pissed off DO'L.  
Quote
That no one thought Palin could achieve this may be inferred from Ben Stein’s early pointed dismissal (which annoyed many fans of Expelled because Palin is not a Darwin hack). In fairness to Ben, he may have mistaken Palin for one of the cackling horde of entitlement/extortion babes who want to play with the boys - by girls’ rules.

On one of her other blogs she writes:      
Quote
ID folk should stop promoting Expelled until Stein apologizes for the damage he is doing, implying that Palin supporters are yay-hoos and rubes.
Is EXPELLED still in the theatres?

Date: 2008/09/07 10:58:27, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, did anybody here save a copy of the Warda and Han paper upon mitochondria, body and soul? Proteomics removed it from its web pages and I can't find my pdf copy.
Please pm me if you could send me a copy.

Date: 2008/09/10 22:02:43, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
How does junk like this get published at UD without correction of obvious flaws?
I guess while writing this DS was smoking something.

Date: 2008/09/11 11:28:20, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
What a pair of maroons Sheldon and Hoover are. Neither Eldredge nor Gould said any such thing.
I'm afraid that's not what will appear in their correction:
Quote


3

sheldonr

09/11/2008

10:42 am

Correction: to be published in “Instruments, Missions and Methods for Astrobiology XI” (2008) Proc. of the SPIE, eds. Hoover, R.B. et al.

Date: 2008/09/11 11:40:19, Link
Author: sparc
Although astrobiology may be a legitimate field of research it seems to attract guys with ideas that have been rebutted before. E.g.. in 2002 Christian Schwabe (re-)published his Genomic Potential Hypothesis in an Astrobiology Special Issue of the Anatomical Record.

Date: 2008/09/14 23:09:04, Link
Author: sparc
Interestingly enough, WMAD doesn't say what he actually thinks about the paper. However, why should he encourage a discussion if he thougt it were BS?

Date: 2008/09/15 14:29:24, Link
Author: sparc
J-Dog
Quote
POTW!!!
I agree.But who will explains Amadan that a week at this thread has only four days?

Date: 2008/09/16 22:17:17, Link
Author: sparc
afarensis    
Quote
Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design
Didn't you read the rest?    
Quote
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.
IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways:
- rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved
- instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity

Date: 2008/09/20 04:11:31, Link
Author: sparc
GilDogden
Quote
When I figure out what works I don’t argue with the results.
So this would be exactly of what Dembski, Behe et al do: Arguing with the results without ever having figured out what works.

Date: 2008/09/20 04:13:18, Link
Author: sparc
I don't know if this is due to bannination but it seems as if the've messed up the Obama thread. It doesn't build up completely.

Date: 2008/09/23 23:29:11, Link
Author: sparc
Does anybody know why the Fanie Mae, Fraud, Kickbacks, and Obama thread has been deleted?

Date: 2008/09/29 22:49:50, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Paul, looking at Schwabe's papers on relaxin, how do you deal with that 500 million year figure in this one of Schwabe's publications???
Paul A. Nelson on ICSD:      
Quote
As an undergraduate, I beganUnfortunately reading Schwabe's work on anomalies in the distribution of the hormone relaxin, and then moved on to his discussions of the historical topology of life.
Since he moved on he missed a reply to Schwabe in the FASEB Journal  I had the pleasure to co-author: Does a "500-million-year old" hormone disprove Darwin?
Although  concerns about Schabe's Ciona work came up instantly the flaws in his experimental work could satisfactorily shown only after the Ciona intestinalis genome had been sequenced.

Date: 2008/09/30 22:03:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The world is officially 5769 years old today!
Have you been there?

Date: 2008/10/07 11:46:50, Link
Author: sparc
Quote


1

tragicmishap

10/07/2008

10:41 am

The Large what Collider?

Dave will find the answer at answers.com

Date: 2008/10/07 23:38:50, Link
Author: sparc
Unfortunately, DaveScot corrected "Hardon Collider" to "Hadron Colider".
ETA:
BIG SCIENCE is so ... ehm ... masculin. Maybe this explains why the majority of SciAm subscribers are males.

Date: 2008/10/08 01:47:01, Link
Author: sparc
It is quite telling whom DaveScot is citing:  
Quote
Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc
emphasis mine

Date: 2008/10/14 23:19:25, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L    
Quote
I’ve always felt there was something pretty fishy about this “Turing test”
Who wouldn't if one can not be sure that ones own writing wouldn't pass it.
Actually, the same is true for everything at UD due to the way ID proponents argue: arbitrarily pick up an issue one comes across in the internet or (less likely) in the literature and hope that it survives the environment of comments at UD and elsewhere. If the thread is gone later one never knows if the 404 page was created by UD posters or was due to computer problems.

Date: 2008/10/16 23:18:38, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Wow, 7 out of 10 responses to Scooter's post on Joe the Plumber are from... Scooter!

By Nov 4, Scooter will be the only one left on UD, and he won't even notice.
Seems like Dave's transforming into JAD II.

Date: 2008/10/17 12:47:05, Link
Author: sparc
Any volunteer to congratulate Dr. Dr. Dembski at his own blog on having three papers under review for exactly 500 days today?

 
Quote
<> Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper develops a general method for critiquing inflated claims about the power of evolutionary computing.

<> Active Information in Evolutionary Search. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Olle Häggström’s 2007 article in Biology and Philosophy titled “Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems.”

<> Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites. [posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II. This paper critiques Thomas Schneider’s 2000 article in Nucleic Acids Research titled “Evolution of Biological Information.”
link

Date: 2008/10/18 00:33:52, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot:          
Quote
I’m a bit of a poll junkie.

DaveScot:        
Quote
I’m filing this under education and intelligent design because it points out that a certain segment of the public veers radically from everyone else and it’s the same segment that radically opposes intelligent design.

From Gallup 10/16/08 presidential tracking poll:

Education: Obama%/McCain%

High School or less: 42/48
Some College: 41/52
College graduate: 46/49
Post graduate: 55/40
 
Quote
27 January 2006
Harris Poll Shows ID Support Rises Fastest With Education
DaveScot

From Table 7 of the Harris Poll

Belief in Evolution doubles from 17% to 35% as education goes from high school to postgrad.

Belief in ID triples from 6% to 17% as education goes from high school to postgrad.
WMAD:
Quote
belief in ID is more common among Democrats than Republicans
DaveScot
Quote
Poll results can vary a lot for no apparent reason.
Maybe postgraduate Guillermo Gonzales wasn't interviewed by Gallup.

(I'll add links once the http button works again)

Date: 2008/10/20 23:23:21, Link
Author: sparc
DO'l's world:

Nazis = Fascists = Nazis
Communists = Fascists = Nazis
Socialists = Fascists = Nazis
Liberals = Fascists = Nazis
Atheists = Fascists = Nazis
Non-Christians = Fascists = Nazis
Moslems = Fascists = Nazis
Non-Republicans = Fascists = Nazis
Human rights activists = Fascists = Nazis
Pro Abortion = Fascists = Nazis
Scientists = Fascists = Nazis

What about Federal judges? Baylor Presidents?

It's too late. She's surrounded by them. They are everywhere. She's alone.

Hopefully, she will post something on those black helicopters soon. Or maybe something on Nazi-aliens who Nazi-kidnapped her in their Nazi-spaceship to their Nazi-planet where they did Nazi-surgery on her spritual brain.

Date: 2008/10/21 11:33:54, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD
Quote
And for a limited time when you order this bundle we will include free copies of the three of the best selling Intelligent Design documentaries: Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Privileged Planet, and The Case for Creator. Normally this bundle would retail for $125
$ 125? At Amazon you will get the collection for $ 61.96. If you choose to get the NEW Amazon.com Rewards Visa® Card you will even get the "SUPER BUNDLE" for only $31.96.

Date: 2008/10/21 11:50:57, Link
Author: sparc
How do
Quote
Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Privileged Planet, and The Case for Creator
fit with the Expelled:

Date: 2008/10/23 10:48:16, Link
Author: sparc
A momment of truth?
As a non-native speaker I have to ask if  
Quote
"But that is without saying intelligent design does not always have to be primarily focused on the supernatural."
isn't actually the same as
"But that is with saying intelligent design does always have to be primarily focused on the supernatural"?

Date: 2008/10/25 02:17:48, Link
Author: sparc
DI folks should have known better: Larry Moran debunked Schwabe's claims back in 1992. Still, they continue to cite Schwabe, the latest example being WE Lönnig in his Dollo's law paper. The reason is obvious: They present Schwabe's "Genomic Potential Hypothesis" (GPH) as another "alternative" to evolution theory to corroborate their claim that there is more dissent than just ID and that there is something like a controversy. However, ID-creationists do not dare to discuss Schwabe's claims (who IIRC according to a news article I once read claims to be an atheist). Either they are not interested in doing this or they are afraid of running the risk to question their own claims when doing so. Thus, they can cite Schwabe in footnotes or subordinate clauses only. Calling this    
Quote
Much Ado About A Footnote Citing Christian Schwabe
is just ridiculous.
BTW Paul Nelson has some problems with properly citing. He mentions Schwabes FASEB paper but doesn’t give the exact reference (Georges D and Schwabe C (1999): Porcine relaxin, a 500 million-year-old hormone? The tunicate Ciona intestinalis has porcine relaxin. FASEB J 13(10):1269-75). Is this just incompetence or did he do so by purpose?
Being cited as    
Quote
Hafner and Korthof (2006) argue vigorously against Schwabe’s position
doesn't really hit the point. Besides indeed discussing the absurdity of Schwabe's GPH Geert and myself have shown that at least Schwabe's Ciona data are completely flawed: Actually, there is no relaxin gene in C.  intestinalis.

Date: 2008/10/28 12:26:18, Link
Author: sparc
William Dembski  
Quote
the high-tech engineering inside the cell
This sounds so - materialistic.

BTW, this is not the publication Dembski announced recently or is it? UNfortunately, I can't find that thread on UD and their google search results in too man yresults.

Date: 2008/11/03 11:34:51, Link
Author: sparc
Did WMAD temporarily shut down UD?
Last post    
Quote
1 November 2008
[Administrative:] Need Webmaster
William Dembski
Last comment  
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-your-best-shot-a-response-to-new-scientists-recent-hit-piece-on-non-materialist-ne

uroscientists/#comment-297202]
4
reluctantfundie
11/02/2008
9:23 am
[/URL]

Date: 2008/11/04 21:44:02, Link
Author: sparc
P. Nelson:  
Quote
In any case, the point of my Schwabe reply wasn't to endorse all of Schwabe's arguments or claims, but to illustrate the existence of a genuine controversy about relaxin, which Timmer had denied.
In contrast, according to an article by Daniel Conover which appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on March 29, 2004 Schwabe doesn’t endorse Nelson’s arguments at all:
 
Quote
It's the kind of argument that irritates mainstream scientists who say that regardless of whether intelligent design constitutes a meaningful critique of evolution, intelligent design is not science. Why?
 
Quote
"Because you can't make predictions from (intelligent design),"
said Schwabe, no fan of the movement himself. Despite his dismissal of I.D., descriptions of Schwabe's theory routinely show up on intelligent-design Web sites.    
Quote
"And this just makes it more difficult, you see," Schwabe said. "They're desperate to get rid of Darwin, and they're misusing (the idea)."

Date: 2008/11/05 22:33:00, Link
Author: sparc
Stevestory  
Quote
 
Quote
johnadavison | Mon, 2008-11-03 23:33

You publish my last and final comment or I will make your life so miserable that you will wish you never heard of me. Then go have a party with the most miserable excuse for a human being that ever walked this earth. You two deserve each other.

Got that? Write that down!

If you have the guts you can publish this one too.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
 
Quote
Blocked
Patrick | Tue, 2008-11-04 03:23

I have no problem publishing your last comment since it provides a clear record for why you were banned. I try to be fair and you respond with empty threats. If you really desired to continue on this site all you simply had to do was act civil. John, seriously, seek professional help. If your behavior on the internet represents your behavior in person in any fashion then you need it.
What a complete nutjob.
Guess who's new at OE?
VMartin!

(according to Pharyngula AKA Huslista, jenik, janko, anodano, Pjetiir, DobzhanskyisInvalidFly, Pjeter, pjotr, FRANK2, SKAS, skuska, deletedtext, John's friend, ForbiddenTruth, anti-darwinians, Peppered-antimoth, CharlatanDarwin, Anti-darwin, skusto, zakazaneovocie, and others)

Date: 2008/11/06 15:47:13, Link
Author: sparc
Reg
Quote
The first speaker (Mr McDowell?) mentions the fine-tuning of gravity required for life: equivalent to one inch in the diameter of the universe stronger or weaker and life wouldn’t have been possible.


Apollos
Quote


Reg, one of the numbers I found for gravity’s fine tuning is 1 part in 10^40.

Inches per mile: 6.336*10^4
Miles per light year: ~5.878*10^12
Light years across universe: 1.56*10^11.

Inches across universe:
(9.3*10^10) *
(5.879*10^12) *
(6.336*10^4) = ~5.81*10^28

This is actually not even close to 1 part in 10^40. In terms of inches, the fine tuning would be to 1 part in ~1.72*10^11
of an inch. So McDowell’s assertion regarding moving the constant 1 inch to the right or left is entirely correct, even dramatically understated.

Any corrections to my math are welcome and appreciated.
IIRC, gravity on Mt. Everest is about 3 * 10^-1% smaller than at sea level and still one will find life there. Still, I am optimistic that his numbers will enable Apollos to develop an ID research program that will identify the exact position of Garden Eden.

Date: 2008/11/10 11:04:15, Link
Author: sparc
Unfortunately, I currently don't have access to Mims's Science and Nature "papers" (I guess these were rather just comments because otherwise one would find abstracts in Medline). However, one of his "article" is freely accessible: Avian Influenza and UV-B Blocked by Biomass Smoke. Again, it is just a comment.
From the title one would think that "biomass smoke" blocks Influenza. Not so, in the article Mims agues that  
Quote
periods of prolonged cloudiness and severe smoke pollution could play a role in initiating avian and other influenza outbreaks by attenuating the solar UV-B that might otherwise suppress influenza viruses in outdoor air exposed to sunlight.
Is that the kind of research ID will produce?
Aetiology has more on Wells, Mims and influenza.

Date: 2008/11/11 11:48:10, Link
Author: sparc
This was a quick one: Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspective. IIRC it posted by idnet.com.au. Here's what is left in UD's feed after it has been 404ed  
Quote
Proteins with cruise control call for a new perspective

“Princeton University research offers evidence for a hidden mechanism guiding the way biological organisms respond to the forces of natural selection. Research on proteins constituting the electron transport chain (ETC), showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order. “The discovery answers an [...]

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:26:53 GMT
Most of it  was more or  less copied from a Princeton University news story:Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective. Seems like DaveScot thougt this were an issue better handled by himself because now you will find his take  Emphatic non-buttressation of ID posted at November 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am.

Date: 2008/11/12 21:50:42, Link
Author: sparc
Patrick learned a lot from Sarah Palin:
Quote
Nowadays, real SETI researchers aren’t even looking for prime number sequences like what was proposed by Sagan.
Next he may point to unreal SETI research done - I kid you not - in Paris, France.

Date: 2008/11/12 22:18:08, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, Nature's own Adam Rutherford replied to idnet.com.au. He drilled a rich TARD bonanza that hopefully will keep delivering for some time . E.g.:         
Quote
gpuccio
ID is a scientific theory. Pandas and People, in all its versions, is a book. Which, by the way, I have never read. I am really surprised that you have difficulties in understanding the difference.

Date: 2008/11/13 22:59:52, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Barry has organized UD as a non-profit corporation and plans to take UD in some new directions that will increase its readership, sense of community, and impact.
Will DaveScot have a future over there?

Date: 2008/11/13 23:52:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Barry has organized UD as a non-profit corporation
Has it been for profit before? If so did WMAD profited from my comments?

Date: 2008/11/14 10:24:13, Link
Author: sparc
I can not imagine him being quiet, So will WMAD reactivate one of his other sites? International Society for Complexity, Information and Design? Design inference website? evolutionary informatis? Together with Bob Marks he's currently measuring the cost of success. I just wonder if uncommondescent was worth the costs. His reputation may not have been the best before but he did not do himself a favour with all the crab that showed up at UD.
BTW, I wonder if there's a difference between horizontal and no vertical free lunch. At the end of the day one will still be hungry.

Date: 2008/11/14 10:26:23, Link
Author: sparc
I won't name him but thanks to the Designer who created the EDIT button!

Date: 2008/11/14 11:13:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Those bastardos still won't let my puppet post!
 
Quote
praise Dr Dr Dr Dembski to the roof and they'll let you become one of the chosen.....
I successful got through by kind of praising Dave.
Let's see if this will still works tomorrow.

Date: 2008/11/14 22:30:57, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print.
The three papers he lists as being under review on the Design Inference Website were submitted on June 5th 2007. I am not sure how many of you guys here had a paper under review for 529 days. Fivehundredtwentynine days! And still another 201 days to wait.

Date: 2008/11/14 23:21:15, Link
Author: sparc
Is Dave feeling bitter?  
Quote

3
DaveScot

11/14/2008

10:54 pm

I feel I must warn our supporters (there’s no press in the back of the room is there?) that there is going to be a “generated” interbloggatory crisis early in Barry’s term to test this new guy’s mettle. Think of how JFK was tested in Cuba only different. Barry’s response may not be popular and you may not understand it but, no matter how far we sink in the polls, we need to count on your continued trust and support.

Now please donate until it hurts. It’s patriotic.

Date: 2008/11/16 23:24:03, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
gpuccio (quote mined)
Someone will have to look at the growing body of facts, sooner or later, and start to make the right questions.

We live exciting times.


Yes, these are exciting times indeed.
The growing body of facts led me to ask the following ground breaking question right now not later:
Are there several UD universes (at least Dave's and Barry's) or just a single one with an intelligence not sufficient to keep it fine tuned?

Date: 2008/11/17 00:11:01, Link
Author: sparc
Too sad. As long as the issues have not been evolution, global warming, politics etc. Dave was the only voice of reason over there.

Date: 2008/11/17 02:16:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
17 November 2008
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington
DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.
Just some minor corrections to an earlier post by D'OL
   
Quote
Naturally, we don’t want you to miss out on the fun.We want students everywhere to speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution BS at UD and turn “Darwin Day”  November 17th into APseudoacademic Freedom Day.

Date: 2008/11/17 11:21:57, Link
Author: sparc
Seems the new moderators are not really qualified  
Quote
9
sparc

11/17/2008

3:03 am

We want students everywhere to speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution and turn November 17th into Academic Freedom Day.
the day DS was booted from UD.

Date: 2008/11/17 11:51:11, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
DaveScot Has Resigned
maybe not by Barry A. but how often did WMAD himself used the verbal funeral  
Quote
X is no longer with us.
Thus it should rather read  
Quote
DaveScot Has BEEN Resigned

Date: 2008/11/17 12:52:41, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot Has Resigned EXPELLED!

Date: 2008/11/17 22:22:34, Link
Author: sparc
Seems Dave is right about the additional workload caused by the Relaxed moderation rules.
The "DaveScot is no longer with us" thread is redirecting to the "DaveScot has resigned" thread and Dave's "No atheist/theist slugfest here" thread has been 404ed. Luckily oldmaninthesky saved it.

Date: 2008/11/17 22:53:41, Link
Author: sparc
BTW "DaveScot is no longer with us" doesn't appear in the "recent entries" side bar anymore.

Date: 2008/11/18 11:43:43, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L:
splicing = quotemining = design
Quote
Quote
Scientists discovered that when a cell produces an RNA transcript, it cuts out huge chunks and saves only a few small remnants. (The parts of DNA that the cell copies are called exons; the parts cast aside are introns.)
(Note: Re the business about cutting out huge chunks and saving only a few small remnants … Brings back memories. We textbook editors used to do that when we were racing a deadline. We would copy a whole chapter from the master copy of the manuscript to date, and then select only a few pages for which final revisions had been ordered. Then we just recycled the rest of the pages of the chapter. Wasteful? Yes, of paper. But not of time. Under deadline panic, the most important quantity was time, not paper. And we knew from experience that our method was slightly faster. So I would recommend caution to anyone making claims that such methods show that the system cannot be the product of design.  When we editos did it, that’s precisely what it was - design.

Date: 2008/11/18 12:29:30, Link
Author: sparc
It looks as if UD is currently running in copy/paste mode only.

Date: 2008/11/18 23:25:06, Link
Author: sparc
Since UD recently got so boring I really appreciate their addition of Google ads. Without, I would have never come across the treasure of  DNA activation:              
Quote
What exactly is DNA Activation?

Most people know that DNA is the 'blueprint of life' and is located in every cell of the body. In addition to each chromosome's 2 strand double helix of DNA, there are an additional 10 etheric strands of DNA available to each human, which have been dormant since the beginning of recorded history. Each additional strand possesses attributes that permit the individual to perform greater human accomplishments. Scientists acknowledge that we currently only use 3% of our current 2 strand DNA. Thus we live in a society where people are sick, unhappy, stressed out, create wars, have difficulty experiencing love, and are totally disconnected with the universe.
             
Quote
This is the Original Divine Blueprint, what man USED to be. It has been written that Jesus had 12 strands of DNA activated.
             
Quote
The Earth distortions in history have actually created a planetary DNA distortion that has made every living organism’s DNA on the planet to falsely appear as Base-4, with only 4 chemicals. Humans are supposed to have 12 chemical nucleotide bases. This would allow us to have 144 physical chemical chromosomes as well, whereas now we only have 46. Also the original Angelic Human DNA Template which most people on the planet have, called the Diamond Sun DNA Template, is 12 strands, allowing for 12 dimensions of consciousness, and is built for transmutation from carbon to silica based body, and eventually pre-matter liquid light. This body is not meant to “die”. It is because of the DNA distortions in ancient history (25,500 B.C) that have blocked people from bringing light into their field and naturally evolving through DNA activation. Most people on the planet only have 3 strands active, which only allows 3 dimensions of consciousness and thus they are stuck in 3D.
 
Quote
First of all, it is important to know who you are working with and what type of DNA template THEY have. I was guided to do this work because I am an Indigo Type 1, with a 48 strand template. That means I can draw and hold much more frequency than most people that only have a 12 strand template, and then transmit this to others.
 
Quote
There are at least 2 DNA Activations required to activate as many strands of DNA that your energy body can handle at this point in your evolution, and the sessions should be done about a week apart. These sessions promote permanent, lifelong changes and are given with a gentle, loving intent. The investment in yourself for the first four sessions(Auric Clearing, Karmic Session, and 2 DNA Activations) is only $400. You can also just purchase 1 session at a time. The Auric Clearing and Karmic Sessions are $100 each, and the DNA Activation sessions are $100 each.
ETA: Actually, DNA activation would DaveScot explain his haploid Jesus hypothesis

Date: 2008/11/19 23:37:26, Link
Author: sparc
Did I miss something?
Scordova at youngcosmos:  
Quote
#

I’m no longer at UD. DaveScot dismissed me. I’m still on good terms with Bill Dembski who lobbied to get me a scholarship in Engineering under the tutelage of Robert Marks. Bill Dembski’s mentorship prodded me to go back to grad school.

I decided not to let my dismissal by DaveScot ruin my good relationship with Bill Dembski and Robert Marks. At this time I have no intention of trying to go back to UD. I have other work to do.

Comment by scordova — November 19, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Back in 2007 he said something different:  
Quote
My retreat from the public view….
scordova

As some of you know…

I have been accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. I attempted to apply both at Hopkins and at Baylor. I was attempting to work with Dr. Robert Marks at the evolutionary informatics lab. 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.

Recently, I have received ‘advice’ from faculty at other universities (not from any faculty at JHU) that I may expect possible complications for my public involvement with ID.

I’d like to emphasize that the faculty at JHU have not threatened complications, and even one of their professors has publicly assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I stand committed to bringing respect and upholding the reputation of the academic institution I am now affiliated with. I would like to publicly thank Johns Hopkins for the opportunity they are giving me. But in light of the advice I’ve been given from faculty at other universities, it would be best I if I simply not rock the boat by publicly being a part of the ID movement.

Thus, on the advice of professors from other universities, I have decided to play it safe and retreat from further public debate (at least under my own name).

I will limit my posting under my real name at UD or the blogsphere in general.
I would like to thank the UD community for all they have meant to me.

I would like to assure everyone that I have also found a new job which I will work at while I go to Johns Hopkins part-time in the evenings.

I have degrees, in Computer Science, Math, and Electrical Engineering, so I’m not worried about my immediate or future employment. However, now that I have ambitions to go through the program at JHU’s Whiting School of Engineering, it would be best I not make any more waves.

Thank you everyone for a wonderful time at UD.

I would welcome everyone’s prayers on my behalf and that of my family.

God bless you,
Salvador Cordova

Date: 2008/11/27 11:51:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The predictable has happened to JackInhofe:
   
Quote


58
Barry Arrington
11/27/2008
12:21 am

JackInhofe, it does not matter. I gave two chances (you know what I mean) and you did not explain yourself. You are banned.

Bannination by a lawyer is so second class.
It's just not the same.
JackInhofe deserved better.

Date: 2008/11/27 13:10:01, Link
Author: sparc
Just found a link to this



at PT. For more go here.

Date: 2008/11/28 22:08:30, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Might as well put this here now then before it "goes".
Quote

colin_evans101
11/28/2008
6:46 pm
No, Ms O’Leary this is your opinion and there are many of us who look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion. And that’s not because we are willfully naughty atheists, but simply because we don’t think the quality of the evidence is all that good. And just because we don’t except this - what is it we need hope for?

I’m starting to think that your anti-Darwinian obsession (he’s dead by the way) is starting to curdle your brain. But it makes for good entertainment. The ridicule you receive across the Internet is well-deserved! Bravo!
I always wonder if D'OL ever received bannination rights? Or does she only ban secretly?

Date: 2008/11/29 07:03:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
4 Responses

 
Quote
1

Barb

11/28/2008

8:59 pm

Do you look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion because you’re an atheist?

It’s accept, not except, by the way.


 
Quote
2

Barry Arrington

11/29/2008

2:57 am

colin_evans101 is no longer with us.


 
Quote
3

Praxiteles

11/29/2008

4:09 am

?

Barb, I don’t think that Denyse is an atheist.


 
Quote
4

O'Leary

11/29/2008

4:37 am

Denyse is a Roman Catholic Christian journalist based in Toronto, Canada.


I guess DaveScot would have rather deleted the whole thread before producing such a confusion.

Date: 2008/11/29 23:25:24, Link
Author: sparc
JackInhofe
Quote
And the moderators didn’t even make me change my name to my middle name, even though I offered to, so it wouldn’t upset some of the more religious members of the board.

Jack Hussein Inhofe?

Date: 2008/12/03 23:07:27, Link
Author: sparc
Seems that the Oloffson thread already evolved experienced some not too intelligent design:  
Quote


24

feebish

11/26/2008

2:25 am

@ Barry #24: Insects are designed with four life stages: egg, larvae, pupae, adult. To exterminate an insect you have to kill all the life stages. That’s what makes it so hard. I did some googling and found that in some mosquito species the adults hibernate through winter, in others the larvae are the ones who survive, and in others it is the eggs/embryos.

@ ribcynski #25: Davescot needs you to lecture him on how science works like he needs a hole in the head. And before you criticize Dr Dembski’s ideas, you should read some of his books.

(1) Does a law explain this?
(2) Does chance explain this?
(3) Does design explain this?

Date: 2008/12/03 23:17:33, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Credit where credit's due:  This is the first time I can recall Dembski publicly 'fessing up to serious mistakes in his work.  Maybe there's a sliver of hope for the guy.

Or maybe not.  

We'll see.
IMO, this is just another notpology. Dembski:    
Quote
(1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with given up the EF. It suggestsed I claimed that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not I was completely wrong.
Fixed this for him.

Date: 2008/12/04 11:46:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote


47

DaveScot

11/26/2008

1:50 pm

rib

NDE doesn’t predict when or if significant changes will happen. Since you cannot seem to acknowledge that simple fact you need to move along. Don’t post any more in this thread. Other authors here may continue to entertain your obstinance but I will not.

Quote


171

DaveScot

12/03/2008

10:43 pm

ribczynski

I asked you to stay out of this thread several days ago. If you continue to post to it I’m just going to delete them as I did just now.
I was rather hoping for
Quote
rest in beace rib

Date: 2008/12/05 12:33:54, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Dr. Buggs Followup on his Chimp Comparison
Either Patrick messed up the server or the half life time of UD posts is approaching zero.

Date: 2008/12/07 00:54:27, Link
Author: sparc
gpuccio  
Quote
Indeed, I think that God, who is not designed, does not know by inference. So, inference is probably a process inherent in the designed structures used by consciousness to express itself effectively at the consciousness-mind-matter interface.
I am lost. Does this mean that god had to design things  in a predetermined way because he didn't know better?
Consciousness-mind-matter interface? Sounds borderline.

Date: 2008/12/08 21:49:39, Link
Author: sparc
Seems UD is currently down and moved to another server.  http://uncommondescent.com redirects to a page stating  
Quote
You have reached the future home of:
uncommondescent.com
http://www.uncommondescent.com will take you to the login page.

I wonder if UD readers will consider chosing media temple as the new host as blasphemous.
OTH, media temple's about page may sound familiar to UD readers:  
Quote
[…]10 reasons […]
[…] Why Us? […]
[…] 10 of the many reasons […]
[…] We never close. We never leave, and the lights are never off. […]
[…] When you truly consider the facts […]
[…] when you add up all of the features […]
[…] we undeniably offer more value […]
[…] Sometimes you have to look beyond […]
[…] consider all things […]
[…] There is a cost […]
[…] don’t let it burn you […]
[…] talent runs deep within our organization […]
[…] This means […]experience for you […]
[…] Our  […] written competency tests take approximately 2 hours to complete (yes, we’ll give you a Red Bull) […]
[…] the most talented individuals possible and we work hard to keep them […]
[…] Serving since 1998. We’ve been in the web […] for over 10 years (in “internet years” that’s something like 30 years!). […]
[…] We're not “fly by night” - we’re not going anywhere. […]
[…] Our longevity and experience matters […]
[…] Traffic is up and traditional servers are buckling under the pressure […]
[…] A new solution was needed […]
[…] We had to re-invent […]
[…] If you’d like - go ahead and call us […] 2.0. […]
[…] the highest level of design and engineering […]
[…] surpass all previous standards […]
[…] World's greatest designers […]
[…] have trusted […] for years […]
[…] this has strong merit […]
[…] Innovation […]
[…] new technologies […]
[…] we were the first […]
[…] now we have just released the world’s most powerful […]
[…] We rise to the challenge  […]
[…] Just like all complex systems […]
[…] something unexpected happens […]
[…] we immediately rise to the challenge […]
[…] provide transparent status […]
[…] stay updated […]

Date: 2008/12/09 22:48:13, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
DaveScot:
IDSkeptic

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.
Did DS loose global bannination privileges?

Date: 2008/12/11 01:59:50, Link
Author: sparc
Dembski
Quote
I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I’ll make sure it stays in circulation.
That's indeed how science works.

Date: 2008/12/11 11:39:05, Link
Author: sparc
Patrick
Quote
I think that’s the main brunt of criticism and it can be easily be fixed by updating the graphic and publishing it in a new book.
If it weren't Patrick I would say this guy is taking a piss at WMAD but I guess he is really serious and will be the first to buy it. Or second behind DS.

Date: 2008/12/11 22:43:39, Link
Author: sparc
Nnoble prize laureates run the risk of too close encounter with El Naschine

Date: 2008/12/14 12:06:18, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
To be fair, no one seems to know how to define FCSI rigorously.
I rather had the impression that even at UD nobody cares about FSCI  
Quote
 
Quote
85

sparc

08/02/2008

11:22 pm

KF, FSCI (functionally specified, complex information) is not

       
Quote
stoutly resisted


here at UD but rather ignored. I am aware that FSCI is regularly mentioned by KF. However, only very few people here took the bait. According to the results of the UD search pages only 14 comments contain replies to FSCI statements (6 by Atom, 2 by Phineas, 2 by Carl Sachs, 2 by aiguy and 2 by Megan.Alavi) while FSCI to my best knowledge has never considered in the posts of Dr. Demski or any other UD contributor. I don’t know if this is the reason but as I understand FSCI it goes beyond Dembskian CSI and is defining some kind of The Edge of Intelligent Design by leaving the realm of ID as defined by the leading heads of the ID movement.


 
Quote
86

sparc

08/02/2008

11:42 pm

It won’t change much but my FSCI numbers were wrong: I’ve missed 2 comments on KF’s FSCI by Frost122585 and JunkyardTornado. So we now have a total of 16 opinions on FSCI at UD. Actually, I haven’t looked for those entries omitted by the search engine because they are

       
Quote
very similar to the 55 already displayed



   
Quote
87

bFast

08/02/2008

11:43 pm

GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.

Could you clearly define the difference betwee CSI and FSCI. It would appear that CSI is information that specifies something complex where FSCI is information that specifies something that is both complex and functional. Is that about it?

As I see it CSI includes some pretty non-functional concepts. For instance, the value of pi seems to be CSI. Certainly the value is complex. It specifies something — the relationship between the radius and the circomference of a circle. As such it would qualify as CSI but not as FSCI, have I got this or am I barking up a different tree?


   
Quote
88

sparc

08/03/2008

12:35 am

bfast

       
Quote
GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.


If you use the search link on the upper right corner of UD to look for FSCI you will find seven result pages (each with 10 results). Considering the 55 omitted search results FSCI has been mentioned about 120 times at UD only. Thus, it is not surprising that you have missed it.

Date: 2008/12/15 11:31:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
On the "Re-instating the Nixplanatory Filter" thread, KF's latest comment has got to set some sort of bloviation record. It is 2,317 words and 11,518 characters long; per usual, it adds nothing to the discussion except smoke. Where's DT when you need him?
If you have commenting previledges just mention Gordon Mullings. Last time this happened he disappeared until DaveScot retired.

BTW, isn't calling KF "insular friend" as Prof Olofsson did quite ambiguous.

Date: 2008/12/15 23:18:27, Link
Author: sparc
After 1.5 days Mario Lopez finally not-pologizes: It surely wasn't my fault:  
Quote

My apologies to everyone. Thank you, AussieID, for pointing to the source of that last quote. The original blogger on this is found here:

http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com/

–Mario

Date: 2008/12/16 11:38:05, Link
Author: sparc
Since my question to KF, Jerry et al. didn't appear at UD:
Did Dembski or Behe ever use the term FCSI?
I guess it was KF who coined it.

Date: 2008/12/18 21:37:09, Link
Author: sparc
Off topic: The worst Christmas album covers

Date: 2008/12/18 22:44:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
khan        
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 17 2008,21:19)
is it just me, or does the current situation at UD seem less than stable?
The tard is approaching critical mass?
Seems like. However, I have the feeling that global tard is limited because while tard is currently concentrating at UD tard increase at OE came to a standstill recently.

There was a minor fluctuation (+10 user points in 20 days) in the O'Leary tard stream. However, it should be noted that tard increase during the last months was due to the O'Leary tard entity. The other tard streams have dried out even earlier.
It has indeed been predicted that the OE tard mine will be closed down in June 2009. Still, one should be aware that this may lead to over-critical local tard concentrations that may errupt in other places for which UD is the best candidate. Since UD is permanently observed by experienced tard investigators there's hope that ejected tard can be contained and that the consequences for the public will remain small.

Date: 2008/12/18 23:06:19, Link
Author: sparc
Is there something like partial bannination at UD?
I still can log in to comment in some other threads but if I try to comment on D'OL's latest I am again and again re-directed to the UD login page and the comment window doesn't open.
ETA: Seems that has been a technical problem. I can log in again.

Date: 2008/12/23 09:58:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Reasonable comment is banned from Uncommon Descent.
Actually, it is impossible to identify any reasonable comment as long as KF and gpuccio spam UD.

Date: 2008/12/23 13:13:35, Link
Author: sparc
Though I don't read KF's comments I strongly encourage him to make even post longer comments. A second user name, e.g. Gordon or "our insular friend", would help to add additional content.
Who cares? WMAD? I guess he doesn't.

Date: 2008/12/23 22:00:21, Link
Author: sparc
D'OL missed some main developments:

WMAD dismisses EF
WMAD reinstates EF

DaveScot is no longer with us
DaveScot has resigned

Date: 2008/12/25 00:20:23, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Davey weighs in on the Lengthgate scandal:

   
Quote

163

DaveScot

12/24/2008

10:56 am

kairosfocus

Your comments far, far exceed the average length here. You claim that “serious and responsible” responses require that length.

By implication you are saying that people who make responses in tens or hundreds of words instead of thousands are not serious and not responsible.

In point of fact you are the irresponsible party unwilling to muzzle yourself for the sake of almost everyone else who has the common courtesy to not spam the comments here with such long winded bloviation. Get over yourself.
KF replies:  
Quote
blah, blah blah ...
 
Quote
blah, blah, blah ...I am actually only intervening because of a recent crisis on the site with implications for the wider Design movement.
KF = Savior of UD

Date: 2008/12/26 00:28:13, Link
Author: sparc
Crater is a soul whose intentions are good :        
Quote
You know, it really isn’t necessary to be insulting to others in the design community. We were doing fine before you chose to grace these pages and will no doubt continue to advance the science long after you retire a second time.
Unfortunately, this seems not enough to get rid of UD's insular friend.

Date: 2008/12/26 00:43:52, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I have to admit, I'd never realized just what a pompous ass KF really is...


Pompous ass indeed. But wait till someone mentions Gordon Mullings again.

Date: 2008/12/26 22:24:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Sparc, what did you say?

Actually, I don't remember. Maybe because KF's Caribbean Tard is something that interferes directly with phylogenetically older parts of the human brain. It just excites some automatic defense and escape reflexes and doesn't really get to the thinking parts of the brain.

Date: 2008/12/28 22:36:50, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Any idea who Baylor Bear is? New poster? Marks? Dembski?

Still a good question after 35 days

Date: 2008/12/29 00:45:52, Link
Author: sparc
G.Gonzalez really claims that people who watch an eclipse should be thankful to the designer.
Quote
No one on the ground would have seen the eclipse if the clouds had prevailed along the entire eclipse path.

Indeed, the prevalence of cloud-free weather on planet Earth enables us to view not only eclipses but also stars, galaxies, and other planets. Although we tend to take this for granted, it certainly isn’t the case everywhere. In fact, we have several examples in our Solar System of worlds with nearly opaque atmospheres—Venus, the giant planets, and Titan—where the kinds of celestial observation we enjoy on Earth would be impossible.
link
I wonder why he's wondering why he didn't receive tenure.

Date: 2008/12/29 14:51:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Imagine doing that with real slides.  That get stuck in the slide projector.
Where's the difference? The only thing that is different today is that rather graduate students are simultanously manipulating the beamer, the cables and the computers while in those golden ages elder professors used the frames of their glasses to dig for stucked slides.
There is one good thing about beamers, though: Physicians can no longer do double projections (I've never seen a biologist do anything like that).

Date: 2008/12/30 10:24:18, Link
Author: sparc
gpuccio on the EV ware thread:
 
Quote
13
gpuccio
12/29/2008
2:37 am
Atom:
Wonderful work! As it is evident from most of the discussions here at UD, demonstrating that algotithms cannot generate CSI remains the main point of ID. While we rely on the work of our theorists (Dembski and Marks) to get ever better theorical demonstrations of that, your practical implementation showing clearly to us non mathematicians what is really at stake is extremely useful. I have often used your weasel ware GUI to help friends who are not familiar with mathematical concepts what is really happening in the different models. The ev ware is another precious tool.
I can’t understand why some people find it difficult to understand the fundamental intuition behind these analysis: these softwares already know the target! They just refrain from giving you immediately the correct answer, because otherwise there would be no game, and give it to you in small pieces. But they know the answer!
The evolutionary process, as it is conceived, does not know the answer. Indeed, it is not even interested in it. Natural selection can only select function, not information. GAs, instead, select information. Their only meaning, in practice, is to sow that: if I already know information, I can select it. What an achievement!
I have always thought that the only true evolutionary simulation should be like that: take a system (a computer) and implement in it simple digital replicators subject to random variation (possibly at an adjustable rate). And then just wait for their “evolution”. We have all that is necessary. One could say: but where is NS? Well, NS is in the same place where it is supposed to be in natural history: it is in the rules of the system and in the rules of the replicator. The replicator has all the chances to become more efficient by random variation and profit of the rules of the system to become something better. So, just wait!
But the moment the programmer, tired of that infinite wait, starts saying: well, let’s help it a bit; after all, we know what we want to achieve.
Well, I suppose that’s exactly what a patient designer has been doing…

 
Quote
15
gpuccio
12/29/2008
3:06 am
Seversky:
You ask:
“The question is, what is meant by “information” in this context? Information in DNA, for example, if it can be said to exist at all, does not appear to be the same as the information being conveyed in these posts. There is no ‘meaning’ in the sense of that which is intended by a sender or that which is apprehended by a recipient.”
Your question shows probably a lack of familiarity with the ID concepts.
Of course there is meaning in DNA, and that meaning corresponds to the specified information. As you probably know, information in the ID theory means that some result is fixed out of all possible theoretical results (in a system). So, if we are talking of a binary string of 130 bits, for instance, like in the example Atom makes commenting the GUI, any single random string is information with a complexity of 1 : 2^130. That kind of information is only a probability, and has nothing to do with meaning. Indeed, in Shannon’s information theory, meaning is not even an issue. Shannon’s theory is a theory about information in this blind sense, and not about meaning.
On the contrary, specified information corresponds broadly to our intuitive concept of meaning. Specified informations is a subset of all possible information, usually a very small one. “Specified” means all information which has some properties which allow us (intelligent observers” to distinguish that information from a generic random information.
There are many ways that information can be specified (see Dembski). Bit for our purpose, only one is important: functional specification. An information is functionally specified when, in the right context, it can do something which would be impossible without it.
Going back to your example (DNA and these posts): both are examples of functionally specified complex information. These posts are information which, in the context of english language, transmit to the reader some specific knowledge or thought. DNA (the protein coding genes) are information which, in the context of the language of the DNA code, transmit to the translation system the correct functional sequence of a protein.
In both cases the meaning is abstract, and is encoded in a symbolic language. Both cases are examples of a functional message being conveyed through a symbolic language. Both cases are CSI.
Just to show you the similarity. I can use this post to send a message to you, a fellow biologist, saying:
Hey friend, this is the protein whose properties you should study. Just synthesize it and study how it folds. Here is the sequence:
GTGCTGTGAACTGCTTCATCAGGCCATCTGGcCCCCTTGTTAATAATCTAATTACeCTAGGTCTAAGTAGAGTTTGACGTCCAATGAGCG



TTT
As you can see, I have used this post exactly to do what DNA does; to convey a specific useful information.
I can agree that these posts can convey a grater variety and complexity of meanings, but after all DNA is only a static mass memory, while we are using these posts to communicate in almost real time. But there is CSI, and therefore meaning, in both.

 
Quote
19
gpuccio
12/29/2008
10:13 am
jdaggs:
This is just a request for information, in order to uderstand better. Indeed, I don’t know in detail the ev program, so I would like to be sure I understand how it works.
I have tried to read the paper, and i am interested to understand how the selection process works, because I think that is the most relevant point.
shorter:
 
Quote
blah, blah, blah [...] blah, blah
I don't have the slightest clue of what I am talking about.

Date: 2008/12/30 10:27:38, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot posts on global warming again and his comments are displayed with the white background usually reserved to UD authorities.

Date: 2008/12/31 00:02:43, Link
Author: sparc
It's always worthwhile to go back to older UD threads where the tard had the chance to mature to ripeness:    
Quote
10
Atom
12/28/2008
5:50 pm

[...]
2008 was a good year for ID, since ID research was being done.
Politics and opinions do not change truth;
as long as the ID project is moving forward, then ID is having a good year.
The only bad year for ID is when ID research is not being done.

Date: 2008/12/31 10:40:37, Link
Author: sparc
DaveScot is not too happy with the new developments at UD  
Quote
76
DaveScot
12/31/2008
9:32 am

WJM
 
Quote
what gets authorized here as a legitimate part of the ID discussion has ramifications.


Yeah but it’s not like Bill Dembski is doing the authorizing anymore and it’s not like Barry Arrington, who is doing the authorizing, is a fellow of the Discovery Institute.

So I wouldn’t worry too much about those ramifications when the sources are so easily impeached.


As somebody predicted here there is going to be a tard fight. I would never have thaugt that tribune7 would agreed to a comment of mine:
 
Quote

77
tribune7
12/31/2008
9:57 am
Quote
Thus, irrespective of being true or not FSM is fully compatible with ID and should not be expelled from the discussion of possible designer identities.

Exactly! And we should remember to point out that the FSM is a far more reasonable hypothesis than whatever flavor of the day the materialist crowd is using to explain what came before the Big Bang.

Date: 2008/12/31 23:21:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote

34
sparc
12/30/2008
11:15 am

gpuccio,
there’s a mistake in the sequence you’ve presented.


Quote
35
gpuccio
12/30/2008
4:49 pm

sparc:
Maybe an useful mutation? :-)


My next comment referring to the IUPAC code didn't show up but I'll try it again.

Date: 2009/01/02 09:26:10, Link
Author: sparc
KF is still optimistic:
Quote
Indeed, just by reading and taking seriously posts in this thread, we have intuitively used such an approach in deciding that posts are real messages, not mere lucky noise mimics.
KF, your posts are just noise, amplified by self-referential feed back.

Date: 2009/01/04 23:04:28, Link
Author: sparc
D'OL discloses the identity of UD's new webmaster: Jack Cole. Within this post she only refers to his psychology blog. She referred to his second blog earlier at one of here too many blogs. This is or actually has been
Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution, and Theology because Cole opened another blog in August 2008: Intelligent Design and more.

Date: 2009/01/05 14:31:53, Link
Author: sparc
Bob  
Quote
The next exciting instalment of The Steve Fuller Show is up!
Maybe it's because I am continental and don't have this fine insular appreciation for entertainment but for me Fuller's posts are as exciting as KF's comments. Actually I am so bored that I am considering to read his posts backwords. They may contain hidden messages in that direction.

BTW, one of his first posts has evolved to nearly 100 comments and the question
Quote
How have all these different gods evolved?
Maybe my answer to this question will show up:
Quote
You kid us not? Evolved gods?
No, no no.
Not even micro-evolved gods.
Because they are indeed irreducibly complex: Take away one of their characteristics, e.g. immortality, and they are no gods no more. Thus, they are designed, indeed intelligently design. And this time we indeed know the designers.

Date: 2009/01/07 11:51:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Dembski personality traits and priorities on display:


 
Quote

1

   P.S. I own intelligentevolution.org.



He forgot to say "FIRST!!!!!"

Guess who owns ERASMUSPRESS.NET that is selling Dembsk's new writings:
 
Quote

Registrant:
  William Dembski

  Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
  Domain Name: ERASMUSPRESS.NET

  Domain servers in listed order:
     NS1.HOSTMONSTER.COM
     NS2.HOSTMONSTER.COM


  For complete domain details go to:
  http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?Domain=ERASMUSPRESS.NET

Who is Erasmuspress?

Date: 2009/01/07 14:15:14, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, what happened to the peer reviewed work Dembski announced.
Will he refer to the rigid peer reviewing process at erasmuspress soon?

Date: 2009/01/07 23:21:49, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Publication Frequency

The Journal of Evolutionary Informatics is a quarterly journal published in January, April, July, and October.
So it will come soon.
link

Seems that they forgot to publish the October issue.

Date: 2009/01/08 22:55:37, Link
Author: sparc
I am trapped:
Quote
You are attempting to log out of Uncommon Descent

Please try again.

Date: 2009/01/10 14:51:01, Link
Author: sparc
Steve Fuller  
Quote
Newton was preoccupied with theology throughout his career but minimized its presence in his scientific writings, largely for the same reasons ID advocates do today

Newton must have been foreseeing Darwin otherwise it wouldn't have made much sense to minimize the presence of theology in ones writings in the 17th century.
Anyway, if Newton managed his to publish his research by minimizing the presence of theology in his writings the same should be possible for ID proponents today.
Or did they do it already?
Jerry:
Quote
The research would not be identified as ID research or else it would not be published but the research is ID research even if the researchers say they are anti ID. They are just doing ID research without knowing it or saying it. It would be interesting to see what they would say if they are told they are supporting ID since this type of research is basic to evolutionary biology.
Maybe they are amongst us already.

Date: 2009/01/12 14:32:09, Link
Author: sparc
May I add that "Idiot" is a common German word that actually is the perfect description of what you call idiots in the US?
Dummkopf just describes somebody who is not too intelligent. To make oneself an idiot requires willfull ignorance and being unteachable. Of course a dose of fundy Christianity may also be helpful.

Date: 2009/01/17 13:49:09, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I haven't visited her blogs since.
Who actually does?

Date: 2009/01/28 12:38:09, Link
Author: sparc
After receiving the following message
Quote
Sorry, you do not have permission to reply to that topic

You are currently logged in as sparc
I've sent a mail to Arden and voila it works again. Thank you so much.

Date: 2009/01/28 13:34:07, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
27 January 2009
Missile Guidance Systems and Darwinian Logic
GilDodgen

Seemingly nobody informed Gil that the most effective weapon of the ID movement is BS carpet bombing.

Date: 2009/01/29 23:07:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Hey, we're all burned out on the UDers calling us Nazis. By calling us Commies, they're trying to branch out
Really? I am afraid they will next cite German right wing politician Edmund Stoiber  
Quote
Nationalsocialists have been first and foremost socialists

Date: 2009/01/31 00:32:45, Link
Author: sparc
Currently, only three contributors provided entries to the contest. I wonder what they will do with all the videos and books they reserved for the remaining seven finalists
Quote
Up to 10 finalists will receive their choice of a free book or DVD

Date: 2009/01/31 01:43:00, Link
Author: sparc
Actually, there is some kind of BA77 thread. However, it is inactive since mid 2007 and on a different topic:Near Death Experiences, The tard, it burns

Date: 2009/02/01 00:18:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
In November 2008 I recruited three of UD’s most insightful and prolific commenters – StephenB, GPuccio and Kairosfocus – to craft a revised “Frequently Asked Questions” section for our homepage.

Barry is wrong about the date if he's not lying. Actually, it was my idea to hire KF as an official UD writer:
 
Quote
167
sparc
12/24/2008
2:47 pm

I would appreciate if KF could become an official UD contributor.

I admit, though, that I did so for completely different reasons:
Quote
It would be much easier to rather skip complete threads than to identify the ends of his interspersed comments. BTW, did WMAD ever react to any of KF’s musings?

Date: 2009/02/01 22:21:27, Link
Author: sparc
sledgehammer    
Quote
Durston    
Quote
I won't be able to continue this discussion, as I already indicated. I realize I probably have not convinced even one person, but I do hope I've introduced a few things to think about.
That's what ID is all about. Shoot and forget or as I've put it recently: Bullshit carpet bombing. Something will stick around for a long time.

Date: 2009/02/02 11:50:46, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, as you've mentioned Dembski's "Information Search": Until now Dembski's and Marks's  Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (JOEI) doesn't contain any information not to mention functional specified complex information.

PS: Don't miss JOEI's rules for "peer review".

Date: 2009/02/02 11:52:07, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H
Quote
sledgehammer can haz POTW icon?
seconded

Date: 2009/02/02 12:34:34, Link
Author: sparc
Don't miss PZ's take on Jonathan Wells's latest BS.
That Dembski and Behe cooperate with guys like Wells indicates that they've given up any rest of self-respect.

Date: 2009/02/02 22:28:13, Link
Author: sparc
I am afraid I've hurt Gordon's feelings in the gene origitination calculation thread (here, here, here, here and especially here and here) when I argued that FCSI is his very own invention that is mostly ignored by other UD regulars. Thus, he had to add it to the faqs:          
Quote
28] What about FSCI [Functionally Specific, Complex Information] ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD?Not at all. FSCI — Functionally Specific, Complex Information or Function-Specifying Complex Information (occasionally FCSI: Functionally Complex, Specified Information) –

blah, blah blah [...] blah, blah, blah




Interestingly, he uses the term FSCI that he used on his own webpages while at UD he used the term FCSI instead ("occasionally FCSI" is indeed pathetic).

BTW, I've dropped the pedantics of correctly displaying KF's formating. I must admit though, that the original fits his unreadable writings perfectly.





Date: 2009/02/02 22:56:04, Link
Author: sparc
ETA:
Two Three Four tThings I am missing on UD's faq pages:
1.) blood clotting
2.) immune system
3.) wedge
4.) mouse traps
5.) Nylonase

ATA again: Maybe these are strong anti-ID arguments

Date: 2009/02/03 14:13:49, Link
Author: sparc
Have you seen UD's glossary? What the hell are Goldilocks Zones? Something safe to google at work?

ETA: Obviously, at least JLT has. seen it. One should never send a comment that one forgot to send more than an hour ago.

Date: 2009/02/05 12:29:11, Link
Author: sparc

OE is brain dead since sometimes between December 14th and December 18th 2008 when D'OL gained her last 10 user points.
Due to the efforts of JAD she finally didn't cross the 50% hurdle.


ETA:
According to this OE comment  carlsonjok linked to D'OL has been paid for writing OE posts until November 2008. After the contract ceased she didn't publish much on OE.

Date: 2009/02/05 12:44:49, Link
Author: sparc
I wonder if the user point system was only established to calculate a sum WMAD or whoever had to pay for her "writings".

Date: 2009/02/05 23:17:35, Link
Author: sparc
seems as if Sam Fuller didn't hear about the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics.

Date: 2009/02/05 23:34:42, Link
Author: sparc
We don't have an actual Darwin birthday party in Cologne but the topic of this years Cologne Spring Meeting will be

The variable Genome

with some emphasis on evolutionary issues. It will take place March 18-20, 2009 in Cologne, Germany.

The meeting is open and no registration or attendance fee is required.

The topics include:
The Impact of New Technologies in Genomics
Molecular Evolution and Population Genetics
The New RNA World
Phenotypic Consequences of Genomic Variations
Evolution of Susceptibility to Disease
Public Understanding of Evolution


 
Quote
The following speakers have been confirmed:

Stephan Beck
University College London, London, UK

Sebastian Bonhoeffer
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland

Sydney Brenner
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, USA

Brian Chadwick
Duke University, Durham, USA

Antony Dean
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA

Manolis Dermitzakis
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK

Anna Di Rienzo
University of Chicago, Chicago, USA

Richard Durbin
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK

Xavier Estivill
Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain

Adam Eyre-Walker
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

Timothy Frayling
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

Kelly Frazer
The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, USA

Laurence Hurst
University of Bath, Bath, UK

Steve Jones
University College London, London, UK

Andrew Leigh Brown
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

John Mattick
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Rasmus Nielsen
University of California, Berkeley, USA

Howard Ochman
University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Redmond O'Hanlon
Church Hanborough, UK

Svante Pääbo
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

William Provine
Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

Nikolaus Rajewsky
Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany

Stephan C. Schuster
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

Kári Stefánsson
deCODE genetics, Reykjavik, Iceland

Shamil Sunyaev
Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA

Amalio Telenti
University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Harmen van de Werken
Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Joris Veltman
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands  
You will find more details here:
http://jakob.genetik.uni-koeln.de/springmeeting/index.php?id=4
Please feel invited.

Date: 2009/02/06 11:21:39, Link
Author: sparc
J-Dog
Quote
Someone should send your post and links to the IDiots at UD.
I don't want them IDiots here.

Date: 2009/02/06 13:07:09, Link
Author: sparc
JT
Quote
What is poly(A)?
These guys are indeed qualified to discuss biology.

Date: 2009/02/07 22:40:41, Link
Author: sparc
jerry pisses of KF

         
Quote
74
jerry
02/07/2009
11:07 am

StephenB,

I am saying that faq1 and faq2 are the same. We just need to broaden our horizons and they will collapse inward to make one faq.

continues to piss off every othther UD reader          
Quote
I continually chide people here who say there is no ID research by saying that anyone mapping a genome is doing ID research and they quietly go away. But not one person on this site, anti ID has disputed the claim or pro ID has defended the claim except me.

is pissed off by all readers          
Quote
So it is obvious that the claim is not taken seriously. Otherwise it would have been a no brainer to include it in faq1 and faq2 and it was not and only appears because I bring it up. And there is no movement to include it.

pisses off IDiots again
         
Quote
I believe we are sitting on great answer for both faq1 and faq2 and yet it is continually ignored. Thus, I claim that those who support ID here really don’t understand the implications of the edge of evolution and what supports it and where it can go.

by endorsing Behe, DaveScot and Durston he pisses off Dembski          
Quote
Behe obviously understands it by his comment about Lenski. DaveScot is the only other person here who has taken up this idea in some of his comments.

I think Dembski’s approach will gradually fade away and the field will concentrate on Durston’s area on one end and Behe’s approach on the other end and eventually squeeze out everything in between. In the mean time we spend our efforts here trying to defend the more generalized approach of intelligence which is well and good but because it is still very nebulous when it gets operationalized and thus, ID gets caught up in its knickers trying to defend it.


Jerry, you better not piss off the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith aka inquisition aka KairosFocus aka KF aka GEM of TKI aka Gordon Mullings because he is asking the tough questions:      
Quote
76
kairosfocus
02/07/2009
11:51 am

Jerry:

Do you accept that Information theory is Science?

Do you accept that it is the intersection of Info Th and molecular bio that is much of how ID speaks into biology?

Do you accept that those who use PCs and recognise posts as messages are thereby inferring that lucky noise did not mimic signals — though it is strictly logically and physically possible?

Do you accept that to so act is to imply acceptance of a simple, intuitive version of the explanatory filter?

Do you accept the implications of the above?

Especially, in light of:

           
Quote
I should note that in Wk Arg 1, the focus was on the SCIENCE of ID. In Wk Arg 2, the rhetorical fire shifts to the scientists involved in ID (which is why the rebutting note that the objector — who is communicfating using telecomms equipment and systems founded on info theory principles as well — is also using ID principles is cogent, as it exposes selective hyperskepticism and self referential inconsistency).

Why/why not?

GEM of TKI
However, Jerry is not impressed and continues to piss off KF:      
Quote
89
jerry
02/07/2009
7:09 pm

kairosfocus,

I will try to answer some of your questions. But I don’t think they are very relevant to the point.

“Do you accept that Information theory is Science?”

I am sure it is but I know little if anything about it and I have not seen anyone provide an easily to understand description of it and how it applies to ID. I am interested in the evolution debate and not the general ID debate so if it applies there I will have little interest in pursuing it.

“Do you accept that it is the intersection of Info Th and molecular bio that is much of how ID speaks into biology?”

I have no idea what you mean but doubt that it is what you claim. DNA in parts specifies RNA and protein molecules. That is all I know and haven’t got a clue how that relates to information theory. Nor have I seen anyone who makes a clear case for it. Don’t ask me to read anything you have written because I find your style sometimes too rambling.[b] You are a good thinker but a lot of it gets wasted because of your style of prose.

“Do you accept that those who use PCs and recognise posts as messages are thereby inferring that lucky noise did not mimic signals — though it is strictly logically and physically possible?”

[b]I haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
If you want to say that people understand each other’s language, then I understand that and if you want to make an analogy to DNA, then so be it. I have made that claim about 500 times here and several in the last few days and also on this thread. So what is your point?

“Do you accept that to so act is to imply acceptance of a simple, intuitive version of the explanatory filter?”

No one said the EF was not useful in some cases. And I probably accept the process in general. But I have said no one and I mean no one has explained just what CSI is so that it can be conveniently used in the filter or any place else. And I pointed out in the past when we were on one of the endless discussions of just what CSI was that bfast was the one to point out that specified means when one set of data specifies something else that has function. When he said that and I never saw anyone before him say it, the issue became clear. And that was over two years ago and was the first time that anyone I saw make that connection. Since that time especially in the last year it has become more common to limit any discussion of CSI to FSCI.

“Do you accept the implications of the above”

It sounds like I am being indoctrinated into some society and asked to make a pledge of allegiance. So I will answer that as long we use the term CSI here we are inviting problems. That is why I said get rid or CSI.

Now Behe’s work is different from CSI no matter how one spins it. I didn’t say he objects to it. He does not use the concept in his work and does not need to. I believe it would only confuse people if he did.

And last but not least, Behe’s work has been much more valuable to ID. Durston’s work seems to be up there too but it depends primarily upon ideas such that the proteins are very, very isolated in protein space and thus explains why Behe’s edge of evolution is so insightful. I do not know for sure if that is Durston’s work. Durston’s other conclusion is closer to Dembski’s work in that the construction of these long proteins are beyond the resources of the universe. But it is the rareness of the proteins that to me is key but wiser heads may think otherwise.

So Durston is contributing in two areas and each is very important and is new. I hope it all stands up because it could be devastating to the anti ID folks. Our weapons are expanding while the Darwinists are getting thiner.

After that Barry closed the thread.

edited to correct bold tags

Date: 2009/02/07 22:49:36, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, Patrick is kind of pissed off as well.
However, for completely other reasons:  
Quote
86
Patrick
02/07/2009
5:29 pm

I have only one comment for the FAQ so far: it does not acknowledge the contribution that DaveScot and myself made toward it. This FAQ originally started as a series of one-liners that Dave wrote for a page he called Put a Sock In It. His focus in writing it was very narrow since it was targeted at trolls.

Date: 2009/02/08 23:28:03, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Author?  Linky please?
May be arbitrarily chosen from UD. You'll always hit the right one.

Date: 2009/02/11 10:07:55, Link
Author: sparc
GilDodgen:  
Quote
[...]
I earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace research and development, and since one of my specialities is guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) software development for precision-guided airdrop systems
Is this the cause of friendly fire?

Date: 2009/02/11 13:18:47, Link
Author: sparc
jerry
Quote
The objectives of the designer may be much more insightful than anything we could come up with
which of course doesn't hinder jerry to believe his insight being sufficient to explain what Godthe designer wanted.

Date: 2009/02/11 22:08:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
StephenB: During the nineteen forties, fifties, and early sixties, composers used rich harmonic patterns, such as minor sevenths, major sevenths, thirteenths, flatted-fifths, and other richly conceived combinations, all of which had a unique capacity to appeal to the noblest motives of the human heart. By the late sixties and early seventies, musical trends gradually stopped trying to move positive emotions and began to aim directly at the glands.


       
Quote
8
Borne
02/11/2009
10:15 am

I believe it was Edward Gibbon who noted that when civilizations begin to see the vulgar, the nonsensical, the ugly, the foolish as “art” and when they focus on outward beauty and fleshly pleasures they are in an advanced state of decline.


I guess we've heard these arguments before:




Still, GilDodgen is preparing his old Dawinist --> atheist --> Nazi --> communist argument.
These hypocrites make me vomit.

Date: 2009/02/11 22:10:31, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, here in Europe it is Darwin Day already. Enjoy.

Date: 2009/02/12 21:59:33, Link
Author: sparc
Denyse O'Leary
Quote
Writing a commentary on this paper in the same journal issue, David Leopold at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, said the findings [on fMRI] were  
Quote
“sure to raise eyebrows among the human fMRI research community.”
Isn't the her book "The Spiritual Brain" based on fMRI work of her co-author Beauregard ?

ETA: added "[on fMRI]" for clarity

Date: 2009/02/12 22:53:30, Link
Author: sparc
Have you ever seen Darwin smiling?

Date: 2009/02/12 23:38:17, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, the  "Academic Freedom Day Video Contest" finally ended with five contributions.

Date: 2009/02/13 12:47:12, Link
Author: sparc
Thus, DO'L claims that her co-author has proven the existence of the soul by materialistic means (fmri) that now have been proven to not work for any such purpose.

Edited to repair link

Date: 2009/02/13 23:55:21, Link
Author: sparc
finally my question about Beauregard's fmri studies showed up in the social neuroscience thread but Denyse is not willing to meet that pathetic level of detail
Quote
blah, blah, blah
laminar correctly sumerizes
Quote
16
Laminar
02/13/2009
5:53 pm

It seems like a bizarre contradiction to me but you seem to be saying that if the mind is the product of real (observable and measurable) processes then it is an illusion, but if it is caused by unreal (unobservable and unmeasurable) processes then it is real?

Date: 2009/02/16 23:04:10, Link
Author: sparc
Actually, Dembski didn't even give a "scientific" presentation a " according to his own words (video) it's a sermon given  
Quote
during a seminary chapel service

Actually, I was not aware that he is such a boring speaker.

Date: 2009/02/17 11:15:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
For example, no human engineer has designed technology that can hold as much information in such a compact way as the DNA found in cells, he said.
Why do ID proponents then conclude that life is the result of design?

Date: 2009/02/19 23:23:35, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (baikinman @ Feb. 19 2009,14:05)
I know it was a late night and I checked in after a substantial amount of fine Belgian ale, but I thought I saw another Baylor Bear rant about academic suppression of tenured faculty. The usual spin on academic repression the result of a "Statement on Evolution" appearing on the Department of Chemistry website. Linky. Interesting, aside from the usual Expelled mentions, in that several names were mentioned with a bit of background. Check in to UD this morning and it’s no longer there. Was I the only one who saw it?


If you are missing UD posts you may find them at Overwhelmingevidence UD news aggregator which together with the other aggregators for Thelic Thoughts, ID the future, The Design Matrix and Design of Life is providing the outward impression of OE being an active site.

I guess posts stay visible there for a limited time only which of course isn't much of a problem if nobody is posting anymore like in the case of DOL.

Date: 2009/02/20 22:08:50, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
prhean:  I don’t see many rectangles occurring in nature. In fact, I can’t think of any.


Wait until the IDiots discover balls in nature


and that balls are everywhere:
Moeraki Boulders (taken from wikipedia):


Moqui Marbles (taken from wikipedia)


hermatite concretions:




According to University of Utah the same ball creating intelligence must have been active on Mars:



However, researchers were obviously unaware that they were doing ID research.

Date: 2009/02/21 22:47:28, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Forget irony meters!
True, orchidometers are much more appropriate for the UD crowd including Denyse.

Date: 2009/02/23 01:22:17, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
If we assume that the number of posts here varies proportionally to the activity of the IDiots at UD, it seems that they're slowing down!
I don't know.
I guess this conclusion is premature because one has to take the fact into account that some tard (e.g. KairosFocus) is more resistant to mining than other: Your efforts are best described as superficial scraping tard surface which will lead to a kind of wound healing reaction leaving hypertrophic tard scars containing more tard than before you’ve injured it.
In addition, fermentation like processes produce tard blisters full of explosives. Thus, in many cases such tard may rather unearth itself by self-ignition than being excavated by the brave miners here.
Still, total tard mass will not be reduced but will rather continue to increase because tard behaves differently from most other known substances: Like gaps (i.e. closing one gap means opening two others) tard tends to replace its excavated parts by at least twice the amount of itself. Thus, it would be principally possible for the universe to contain more tard than molecules if no counter acting processes existed: In some, yet poorly understood and unpredictable cases,  tard mass gets locally over-critical and induces meltdowns (most likely on Fridays), leaving empty cavities of 404 background radiation as the only remaining sign of formerly present tard. Unfortunately, these natural self-destroying processes are not sufficient to eliminate tard completely. Thus, the total amount of tard will always remain above a certain value for which I suggest the term Behe-Dembski-edge.

Date: 2009/02/24 10:35:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I think that I am permanently on moderation as well.

Isn't that the normal state at UD?

Date: 2009/02/24 23:37:12, Link
Author: sparc
Is there some hidden code CSI in Dembski's tie?

ETA: replaced cody by CSI

Date: 2009/02/25 11:42:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
9

William Dembski

02/24/2009

5:23 pm

To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed.

Does this mean that Dembski lost bannination privileges?

Even on his own threads?

ETA for hopefully better English.

Date: 2009/02/25 13:53:31, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
It's been revised (without note, of course)  
Quote

Quote
To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum
Doesn't a revision require some change? Here's the original again (copied from JLT's comment):
Quote
To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum.
I don't see any difference.

Date: 2009/02/25 14:53:38, Link
Author: sparc
Other interesting titles by Thomas Schirrmacher:    
Ausverkaufte Würde? Der Pornographie-Boom und seine psychischen Folgen. Hänssler: Holzgerlingen, 2000. (with Christa Meves). 130 pp. The psychological results of pornography.

Internetpornografie. Hänssler: Holzgerlingen, 2008. 156 pp. [Internet pornography] Intense study of spread of pornography, ist use amongst children and young people, ist psychological results and dangers, including steps how to escape sex and pronography addiction.

source

Date: 2009/02/25 21:05:03, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Focus on the vinyl.
I assume this is you playing GilDodgen.

Date: 2009/02/27 11:30:08, Link
Author: sparc
I've tried my best but my comment on ID research  didn't see the light of UD therefore I'll put it here
Quote


24

sparc

02/26/2009

11:39 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Quote
As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis.


To my best knowledge Ann Gauger from the Discovery Institute related Biologic Institute is already doing research similar to Lenski’s experiments. So there is ID research and Gauger reported about some unexpected “leaky growth” she observed at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium. It has been reported that, unfortunately, a debate of these results of ID research seemingly has been preveted by the moderator by halting questioning.

Date: 2009/03/01 22:44:02, Link
Author: sparc
http://evolutionconspiracy.com/about/  
Quote
I run BackJunkyard Phenomena Investigations, a Michigan-based paranormal research group.
Is anybody looking for a 747?
Edited for correction

Date: 2009/03/04 22:55:59, Link
Author: sparc
Why is Billy Gibbons on that chart?

Date: 2009/03/04 23:04:14, Link
Author: sparc
Since they are counting at UD: How many biologists added replies on the previous pages of this thread during the last 24 hours?

Date: 2009/03/05 23:33:52, Link
Author: sparc
I am considering to declare that I was WMAD or Kairosfocus.

Date: 2009/03/06 11:29:21, Link
Author: sparc
May I ask a layman's question: Does tard evolve?

Date: 2009/03/06 22:19:43, Link
Author: sparc
midwifetoad      
Quote
You used to get bannated for suggesting ID was religion.

ID is indeed not about religion. Never was and never will be.
It is rational.
It's about facts.
It's about evidence.
It's about reality.
It is hard science
and a CHI massage will make it even harder
and add the benefit of an experience of pleasure
     
Quote
43

Oramus

03/06/2009

12:48 am

OK here me. I have no formal education, just a semester of college. I’m a Christian sailboat, and currently docked in Taiwan. I work in the technical textile industry.

I believe in ID as a rational, logical conclusion to observed reality. Belief in the unseen is, contrary to skeptics claims, a rational perception. As well, I believe the senses are necessarily a practical tool for mobility (with the added benefit of an experience of pleasure), but not tools for understanding reality.

Some things that have affected my life:

1) I belief I had an out of body experience. I thought I was dreaming that I flew to Asia. but when my dream stopped, my body shuddered so hard, I almost fell out of the top bunk I slept in with three other brothers. Later reading about the idea of out of body experiences led me to believe I had actually left by body and the jolt happened when I entered back in.

2) Recently, I had the wonderful experience of actually feeling my life energy or Chi.(different from my soul). During a massage theraphy session (the therapist was using a lymph technique), something started throbbing in me. It felt as though an earthquake was taking place but the therapist said no the room was perfectly still. After the initial throbbing, there was this feeling of circular motion going from my head down the right side to my feet and then over to the left side and back up to my chest. There must have been at least 5-7 rotations before it subsided.

That reminds me of a comment a poster made regarding Vitalism, which is, I hear, riciduled in the West. Well, Chi is real even if western science can’t isolate it, or can’t figure out how to anaylze it.

3) A couple of months ago, I went to a funeral for a client’s father. I was sitting in a row of portable chairs in the middle right of the room, and suddenly a feeling when through and past me. The feeling was not unlike the experience of my Chi (described above). But in this case the feeling was not circulating within me, but when through me. Make of it what you will, but to me I can now understand what people past and present feel when they talk about sensing a presence. This is abjective reasoning to me. Knowing something is real from my experiencing it directly, even if it cannot be wielding, cut, and put on a glass plate for examination under a microscope.

Date: 2009/03/08 00:38:54, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 07 2009,14:11)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 07 2009,12:51)
That BIG ID no-no nasty word is indeed "catholic".  Dr. Dr. was one, before he "got saved" and clearly the IDists are all about catering to modern Fundy thought, and your basic modern Fundy hates Papists, and the Whore From Rome.

I realize that you and I, and most sane people that read and swite in English are aware that there is more than one meaning for the word "catholic:", but you made the mistake of posting "catholic" at UD.

It was like waving a red flag before El Toro, or holding the large size bag of Cheesy Poofs in front of a certain ill-mannered Texas bully-boy - something was going to snap.


Particularly since they didn't want to teach the notroversy.

 
Quote
I also realize that O'Leary claims to be Catholic, but really... she is so far over the edge she's as Catholic as Hitler was on a church-going day, plus she belives in a Spatuala Brain, so she is twice destined to anathema.   Sooner or later she will realize that you can't out-dick the Pope, and she will re-cant her ID heresy, but basically, IMO she just don't count as catholic - hence your banning.


Hmmm: Opus Dei, holocaust-deniers, paedophiles, fraudsters, and  . . .  WHAT???? a vacuum-skulled scientific illiterate who's been hanging around with Red-State Fundagelicals?  GET THE HELL OUTA HERE, LADY!

 
Quote
I think you just mis-judged the raw amount of stupid at UD, which is easy enough to do.


Only in one direction

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 07 2009,12:51)
That BIG ID no-no nasty word is indeed "catholic".  Dr. Dr. was one, before he "got saved" and clearly the IDists are all about catering to modern Fundy thought, and your basic modern Fundy hates Papists, and the Whore From Rome.

I realize that you and I, and most sane people that read and swite in English are aware that there is more than one meaning for the word "catholic:", but you made the mistake of posting "catholic" at UD.

It was like waving a red flag before El Toro, or holding the large size bag of Cheesy Poofs in front of a certain ill-mannered Texas bully-boy - something was going to snap.


Particularly since they didn't want to teach the notroversy.

 
Quote
I also realize that O'Leary claims to be Catholic, but really... she is so far over the edge she's as Catholic as Hitler was on a church-going day, plus she belives in a Spatuala Brain, so she is twice destined to anathema.   Sooner or later she will realize that you can't out-dick the Pope, and she will re-cant her ID heresy, but  
Quote
basically, IMO she just don't count as catholic - hence your banning.


Hmmm: Opus Dei, holocaust-deniers, paedophiles, fraudsters, and  . . .  WHAT???? a vacuum-skulled scientific illiterate who's been hanging around with Red-State Fundagelicals?  GET THE HELL OUTA HERE, LADY!

 
Quote
I think you just mis-judged the raw amount of stupid at UD, which is easy enough to do.


Only in one direction


Meanwhile Bruce Chapman teaches Benedict XVI what catholic really means

Date: 2009/03/09 13:03:20, Link
Author: sparc
Well done George
Quote
198
George L Farquhar
03/09/2009
12:50 pm

Joseph  
Quote
For example George, please show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that E. coli’s flagellum “evolved” via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/sc.....tnG=Search

Which one would you like to start with?

Date: 2009/03/09 23:25:59, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
If George is one of us, PM me - I'd like to send you a digital beer!

I am surprised George has not been Banninated yet - he is clearly making the usual UD denizens cry and kick their legs in anger.

I'm thinking the usual 404 within 24 hours.
Who should 404 it? KF or Jerry? These self referential pompous ass hats? They actually do beleave what they say and are convinced that they can make an argument.

Date: 2009/03/10 00:41:24, Link
Author: sparc
Didn't Dembski receive US$100K from the Templeton Foundation?
ETA: for a book he has never finished?

Date: 2009/03/10 14:10:38, Link
Author: sparc


shall this picture make me feel like an onlooker?

Date: 2009/03/13 00:06:40, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who's 1899 "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" makes the identical complaint as Clive about Darwinism,  [...] What wankers.
Too true. Even parts of the NSDAP program (bolded below) fit in their pages without catching anyone's eye:  
Quote

22
sparc
03/12/2009
12:19 am

     
Quote
I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.


Thus, you would subscribe the following:

     
Quote
The same is true of the numerous stupid and clumsy attacks on Christianity. Remarks such as “Christianity has done nothing but harm” prove only that the person who makes the remark has no tact. It is easy to criticize the political church; and even the most devout Christians condemn the atrocities committed in the name of the cross during the Inquisition and Witch Trials. But one cannot blame the mistakes and perversions of individuals on one of the most powerful institutions of mankind.

   For untold millions, the Christian religion has meant hope and spiritual elevation that transported them beyond human suffering to God. The entire culture of the Middle Ages was inspired by the sign of the Cross. The heroic deeds, self sacrifice, fervour and courage of faith all had their roots in Christianity. One must always distinguish between the, spiritual nucleus of Christianity and the distortions of its secular manifestations.

Would you?

Date: 2009/03/14 05:22:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
52
Arthur Smith
03/14/2009
2:59 am
Quote
Arthur, calling Denyse names is abusive, insulting and obscene.
Clive, I tried searching the site in question, but the facility offered appears unworkable. I scrolled back over as many comments as I could find, and I can’t find any insults to Denyse written by Bob.
By coincidence I did see Amanda Gefter (writing in this week’s New Scientist) referring to Denyse thusly:
Quote
from the staid…-to the silly-”Yer granny was an ape!” (creationist blogger Denyse O’Leary)

It seems Denyse is getting noticed!
You wiill find Gefter's full text here.

Date: 2009/03/14 11:41:57, Link
Author: sparc
Sorry, I have to confess that I do have an UD account but have only been  
banninated for 8 hours and 1 min.
That big marine finally decided to protect me from our insular friend.

Date: 2009/03/14 23:40:02, Link
Author: sparc
Has anybody seen the  
Quote
Aliens Among Us
thread that according to my RSS reader showed up at UD at Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:57:45 GMT?

Date: 2009/03/15 00:04:15, Link
Author: sparc
Has anybody seen the      
Quote
Aliens Among Us
thread that according to my RSS reader showed up at UD at Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:57:45 GMT?

ETA:
You will find the thread i the Yahoo cache
Unfortunately, I get the message tha I am "not permitted to use this board" as soon as I add the URL of the original search. Just use    
Quote
Aliens among us site:uncommondescent.com
at Yahoo and you will get the thread with 8 comments:

Quote

 
Quote
14 March 2009
Aliens Among Us
Barry Arrington

File this one under grasping at straws.  Poor Darwinbots.  It seems that when one has been taught to substitute the imagination of the researcher for actual evidence, there’s no end to the buffoonery that may result.  On second thought, the checkout clerk at the gas station down the street was acting very strangely yesterday . . .
 
Quote
1
David Kellogg
03/14/2009
2:21 pm

I don’t understand your objection, nor the title and content of your post. The article is not looking for alien forms of life on Earth, but for other types of life elsewhere.

Why is that a bad thing? I thought ID people were positive about SETI as a kind of ID. So that’s a good way to look for life outside Earth, but this is a bad way?

Date: 2009/03/17 13:33:47, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 16 2009,19:19)
This is great.  

       
Quote


68

R. Martinez

03/16/2009

7:04 pm

Sparc (#51): “I will miss DaveScot who has been banned from here just because he tried to keep UD connected with reality.”

Once again, you have misunderstood.

I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him to lose composure and lash out against his Christian opponents with very ugly slander.

Ray


Link

Either the link is wrong or DaveScot is experiencing Damnatio memoriae at UD.

ETA: In the momment Ray's statement on Dave being a double agent is still found by UD's own Google search in a commet made by Atom. However, nothing of this, not even Atoms comment, appears when you go to page the search result links to.

Date: 2009/03/17 13:41:39, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, if I were a double agent at UD I would rather behave like Ray Martinez, KairosFocus or Jerry than DaveScot.

Date: 2009/03/18 00:29:11, Link
Author: sparc
After logging into UD I accidentally ended up on the  UD dashboard which contains some interesting data:
 
Quote
At a Glance
3,520 Posts            103,474 Comments
   29 Pages              84,834 Approved
   36 Categories               8 Pending
   28 Tags                18,627 Spam

I wonder if 18% spam relates to bannination and 404ing only. Also, I would like to know where the 5 missing comments are and what they have been about.

Date: 2009/03/18 02:32:13, Link
Author: sparc
Those of you who happen to be in Cologne today, tomorrow or on Friday should join the Cologne Spring Meeting on "The variable Genome". It doesn't require registration and is cost free. Where else will you get the opportunity to see Sydney Brenner, Svante Pääbo and Steve Jones these days.

Date: 2009/03/19 00:11:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2009,15:26)
Clive is watching us!!!

Originally I thought Clive was either paged by KF or was annoyed hisself by a recent comment I left at UD in which I included several links to self-evident educational resources explaining FCSI:              
Quote


151
sparc
03/17/2009
11:42 pm

             
Quote
David Kellog @ 129

   jerry [127], FCSI or FSCI (it can’t even decide!) is even more woolly than CSI. [...] I’m not aware of the concept being used in the scientific literature.


Even UD regulars initially had problems grasping the advanced concept of FCSI that goes well beyond Dembski’s CSI. Since FCSI has been discussed in depth at UD ( here, here and here) and links to other FCSI discussions in the internet have been provided (see especially here) KF surely doesn’t have to match your pathetic level of detail, especially because FCSI is a newly emerging concept that has not received the attention it deserved by other ID theorists . Still, taking into account the warm welcome the concept of FCSI experienced at UD I am optimistic that Drs. Dembski and Behe will include it in future peer reviewed publications.


Unfortuntely, the first link was not correct. If Clive would have followed the links he would have got something like this (linked comments shortened):

Quote
151
sparc
03/17/2009
11:42 pm

             
Quote
David Kellog @ 129

   jerry [127], FCSI or FSCI (it can’t even decide!) is even more woolly than CSI. [...] I’m not aware of the concept being used in the scientific literature.


Even UD regulars initially had problems grasping the advanced concept of FCSI that goes well beyond Dembski’s CSI.            
Quote
GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.
Since FCSI has been discussed in depth at UD ( here            
Quote
I am aware that FSCI is regularly mentioned by KF. However, only very few people here took the bait. According to the results of the UD search pages only 14 comments contain replies to FSCI statements (6 by Atom, 2 by Phineas, 2 by Carl Sachs, 2 by aiguy and 2 by Megan.Alavi) while FSCI to my best knowledge has never considered in the posts of Dr. Demski or any other UD contributor. I don’t know if this is the reason but as I understand FSCI it goes beyond Dembskian CSI and is defining some kind of The Edge of Intelligent Design by leaving the realm of ID as defined by the leading heads of the ID movement.
here          
Quote
It won’t change much but my FSCI numbers were wrong: I’ve missed 2 comments on KF’s FSCI by Frost122585 and JunkyardTornado. So we now have a total of 16 opinions on FSCI at UD. Actually, I haven’t looked for those entries omitted by the search engine because they are          
Quote
very similar to the 55 already displayed
and here        
Quote
bfast        
Quote
GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.
If you use the search link on the upper right corner of UD to look for FSCI you will find seven result pages (each with 10 results). Considering the 55 omitted search results FSCI has been mentioned about 120 times at UD only. Thus, it is not surprising that you have missed it.
and links to other FCSI discussions      
Quote
Actually, a google search for
“Functionally Specified Complex Information” site:uncommondescent.com
links to 52 pages at UD. If the abbrevation FSCI doesn’t appear in the same threads (which I doubt) this would result in about 170 comments (including KF’s own) in which either the term or its abbrevation occurs.
I did my best to look through the threads my original UD search linked to but I do admitd that due to the length of KF’s comments which usually run over several screens it is difficult to identify comments by other users that used FSCI. You’ll find comments on FSCI by Atom here, here, here, here, here, and here, comments by Phineas here, and here, comments by Carl Sachs here, and here, comments by aiguy here, and here, comments by Megan.Alavi here, and here, one comment by Frost122585 here, and one comment by JunkyardTornado here. You may add those that I’ve missed.
in the internet have been provided (see especially here) KF surely doesn’t have to match your pathetic level of detail, especially because FCSI is a newly emerging concept that has not received the attention it deserved by other ID theorists      
Quote
KF, FSCI (functionally specified, complex information) is not        
Quote
stoutly resisted
here at UD but rather ignored.

Still, taking into account the warm welcome the concept of FCSI experienced at UD I am optimistic that Drs. Dembski and Behe will include it in future peer reviewed publications.


I must admitt that KairosFocus finally successfully introduced the FCSI-BS at UD. Unfortunately, saying that the emperor is naked won't help over there. While Gordon succeeded the UD voice of reason, DaveScot, the only UD official who was resistant to KF's rants has been banned.  Quite telling.

ETA: I corrected the first link in the quoted text and ommitted links in secondary quotations.
I apologize that most of the UD comments linked are mine.

Date: 2009/03/19 02:54:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
i wish someone would poke KF and make him click those links.  
It is more promissing to mention his Gordon Mullings  for which DaveScot banninated me. But, as I mentioned earlier, it lasted only for for 8 hours and 1 min.  He let me in later again. I guess he was happy to diss our insular friend a little bit.
In hindsight it might have been more honorable to stay banned because being banninated by DaveScot Springer is something completely different compared looking forward to being profanely banned by some unknown Clive character.

Dave had style.
From his mouth "SPARC is no longer with us" would have had the sound of music.

Date: 2009/03/19 14:35:48, Link
Author: sparc
KairosFocus aka KF aka GEM of TKI aka Gorden Mullings keeps giving:
Quote
179
kairosfocus
03/18/2009
2:36 pm

PS: We tend to have an off-line life, so please remember that a lot of things around UD proceed from day to day, not moment to moment. (For instance I have been with two sets of clients, have been to the local public library, and have done several family chores plus communicated directly with people in three other islands so far today, plus putting up significant materials on an online education project I am working on; all since my previous comment here. And more has to be done, on several fronts.)
Actually, I didn't get the impression that KF has been off-line.

Date: 2009/03/20 13:22:15, Link
Author: sparc
Looking what KairosFocus aka KF aka Gordon Mullings wrote besides his FCSI rants I came across a a post on his private parts that left me disturbed
(you will have to scroll down to "On "Theocracy," 12: Rom 1 - 2 & 13, liberty and the public vs. private spheres"

     
Quote
My wife drew my attention to it,
otherwise he wouldn't have realized it
Quote
and late one evening I took time to watch;
it was really hard for him to find time for such entertainment    
Quote
only,  to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women,
shocking, who would have expected women  
Quote
"won" by one who shocked her companions by exposing
seemingly Gordon was not as shocked  
Quote
then pulling down her underwear
KF is approaching a climax  
Quote
and publicly sexually manipulating her now quite plainly visible private parts
and finally gets relieved  
Quote
in front of the now tightly focussed, pruriently watching cameras
of course KF wasn't peeping it was those nasty cameras

Date: 2009/03/20 14:13:54, Link
Author: sparc
From those statutes
Quote
Candidates for a seat in the Academy are chosen by the Academy on the basis of their eminent original scientific studies and of their acknowledged moral personality,
. Thus, Dr. Dembski has to disapprove them.

Date: 2009/03/20 16:35:11, Link
Author: sparc
Albatrossity2
Quote
and had one of them (Paul Berg) as a teacher
Does that mean that you are part of the Protein Synthesis video? If so, what did you take on the set?

Date: 2009/03/21 00:44:02, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
O'dreary:
If you have decided that a multiverse makes more sense than a designed universe, chances are, you will rethink after you see this:
Quote

1
Jehu
03/20/2009
10:31 pm

I don’t think every possible universe is the same thing as every conceivable universe.
Quote
2
Frost122585
03/21/2009
12:16 am

I think his point is exactly right. Basically a theory like multiverse which exponentially increases the universal probabilistic resources in order to account for specified complexity leads to an even more outragous and reduculous view of physical reality than the simple one held by the biblical literalists- and of course there is even less physical and empirical evidence that multiverse exists than that say the garden of eden did.


Observing the multitude of blog universes created by a singular Toronto based intelligent entity I am forced to conclude from analogy that the existance multiverses wouldn't contradict intelligent design. Assuming that multiverses have been as heavily connected by self-referential links I am pretty sure that multivers theory will rather be accepted as proof of design by the scientific community soon.

Date: 2009/03/21 15:20:57, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Hits on Google for '"gordon mullings" intelligent design':
"Gordon Mullings and Evolution" gives even more hits, my favourite being a comment he left at Preposterous Universe:
Quote
I have observed that, all too often, discussions of ID-related topics – including especially the thermodynamics of the origin of living systems at molecular level -- deteriorates into a tired polemical monologue.

Date: 2009/03/23 12:52:40, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2009,08:55)
Sorry - Crosspost.

Someone get this on UD so THEY can mock him also:

Mwuahahahah!

Joe has measured the CSI of a cake. NOT!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008....1061841

 
Quote
At 7:48 AM,  Joe G said…

Measuring the CSI of a cake:

Given the following recipe:

• 1 cup cornmeal
• 3 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 1/3 cups white sugar
• 2 tablespoons baking powder
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 2/3 cup vegetable oil
• 1/3 cup melted butter
• 2 tablespoons honey
• 4 eggs, beaten
• 2 1/2 cups whole milk
• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C), and grease a 9x13 inch baking dish.
• Stir together the cornmeal, flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a mixing bowl. Pour in the vegetable oil, melted butter, honey, beaten eggs, and milk, and stir just to moisten.
• Pour the batter into the prepared baking dish and bake in the preheated oven for 45 minutes, until the top of the cornbread starts to brown and show cracks.

A simple character count reveals there are over 650 characters.

Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit.


Wow - 'the complete works of shakespear' can't have much information in it.

Does the information content change when the recipe is translated to another language and how will tis affect the taste of the cake?

Date: 2009/03/23 13:20:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
was he talking about the physical cake having the "information" that the recipe allegedly has?
Indeed, he was:
Quote
Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits

BTW, one has to be careful with the information content of the oven: 350 degrees F, 175 degrees C, 350°F or 175°C will indeed make a difference.

Date: 2009/03/23 14:54:23, Link
Author: sparc
I am currently experiencing problems with my UD log in. I always get the message "Error: Incorrect password".
Is this a general problem in the moment?

Date: 2009/03/23 15:04:43, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
IDIsTheBestest IdeaEver
I am shocked. Id is an idea. Just another odd idea? And not reality?

Date: 2009/03/23 15:14:17, Link
Author: sparc
Since I can not log in at UD I would appreciate if somebody could ask Atom if Weasel Ware 2.0 can be used to detect, calculate, demonstrate FSCI.
Actually, I would like to know what Dembski thinks about FSCI/FCSI. To my best knowledge he ignored any question about his position towards FSCI/FCSI until now. I can not imagine that Dembski, Marks or Behe take clowns like KF, Jerry, gpuccio, Ray Martinez serious.

Date: 2009/03/23 16:04:47, Link
Author: sparc
The cake  described by Joe raises interesting questions that currently can not be published at UD:
- Is this cake irreducibly complex?
- Has anybody tried to reduce certain ingredients or to remove them completely?
- What about cakes with of higher complexity?
- Where is FSCI in this recipe?
- Is the complexity rising when energy is added to the system?
- If so, does it make a difference if energy is introduced the American (°F) or  the European (continental) way (°C)?
- Is CSI higher before or after baking?
- Do designers need recipes?

One question remaining for ATBC contributors:
Will anybody try to re-engineer the cake?

edited for spelling corrections

Date: 2009/03/23 23:14:05, Link
Author: sparc
scordova    
Quote
Here are excerpts from The Design Matrix by Mike Gene

Obviously, Sal didn't realize that back in 2007 Dr. Dr. Dembski was quite pissed off by other excerpts from Mike Gene's book:  
Quote
The vast majority of scientists do not view Intelligent Design as science and I happen to agree with them.” (pg. xi)
 
Quote
“I should make it explicitly clear from the start that I did not write this book to help those seeking to change the way we teach science to our kids. I do not argue that design deserves to be known as science. At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science and thus does not belong in the public school curriculum. Nor does this book argue that evolution is false and deserves to be criticized in the public school curriculum. If the truth is to be told, I oppose such actions.” (pg. xi)
(emphasis mine)

Of course WMAD's followers took the bait.
E.g.:  
Quote
1
Nochange
12/19/2007
10:47 am

proto-science? That’s a slap in the face. People have been doing work on intelligent design for nearly 2 decades, right? It’s gone well past being a proto-science, and well into being an established (if controversial) science.

I think it’s time to move into the next phase, and do some applied intelligent design work!

Date: 2009/03/24 00:37:07, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, could somebody please program a UD viewer that allows to exclude posts comments of scordova from being displayed?
I will not be able to stand Sal attitude of blowing his own horn, his slimy homophobic misogynic tirades and his lack of self-awreness.
And especially not his hypocrisy:
Last November Sal claimed                  
Quote
At this time I have no intention of trying to go back to UD. I have other work to do.
although JA Davison pointed out that DaveScot's power had been minimized after Barry Arrington took over UD. Seems like Sal was shit-scared by Dave      
Quote
I’m no longer at UD. DaveScot dismissed me
     
Quote
By the way Abbie, I did not like the fact DaveScot kicked you off of UD. I was kicked off myself.

5 Comments »

1. You were kicked off UD? I thought you left of your own accord. Maybe this refers to a different time than the one I know of.

     Comment by Hermagoras — March 3, 2009 @ 12:17 am
 
2. I was kicked off by DaveScot in 2008. I am not allowed to post at UD. I have not sought to return. I chose not to protest to Bill Dembski lest I put Bill in an awkward position. I’m still on good terms with Bill.

[...]

I’ve been less restrained to be on good behavior, and it probably shows here on YoungCosmos.

Thanks for asking.

     Comment by scordova — March 3, 2009 @ 11:00 am

3. FYI: I was booted for linking to an article about an incident at a university involving Feces Swapping and digestion.

DaveScot accused me graphic content and gave me the boot, ignoring the fact he has done worse in the past (like talking about PZ private parts). I felt he rationalized a reason to get rid of me. I don’t think he always approved of my views. He was ready to find an excuse to dismiss me.

     Comment by scordova — March 3, 2009 @ 12:07 pm


In 2007 this read completely different        
Quote
1 September 2007
My retreat from the public view….
scordova

As some of you know…

I have been accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. I attempted to apply both at Hopkins and at Baylor. I was attempting to work with Dr. Robert Marks at the evolutionary informatics lab. 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.

Recently, I have received ‘advice’ from faculty at other universities (not from any faculty at JHU) that I may expect possible complications for my public involvement with ID.

I’d like to emphasize that the faculty at JHU have not threatened complications, and even one of their professors has publicly assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I stand committed to bringing respect and upholding the reputation of the academic institution I am now affiliated with. I would like to publicly thank Johns Hopkins for the opportunity they are giving me. But in light of the advice I’ve been given from faculty at other universities, it would be best I if I simply not rock the boat by publicly being a part of the ID movement.

Thus, on the advice of professors from other universities, I have decided to play it safe and retreat from further public debate (at least under my own name).


I will limit my posting under my real name at UD or the blogsphere in general. I would like to thank the UD community for all they have meant to me.

I would like to assure everyone that I have also found a new job which I will work at while I go to Johns Hopkins part-time in the evenings.

I have degrees, in Computer Science, Math, and Electrical Engineering, so I’m not worried about my immediate or future employment. However, now that I have ambitions to go through the program at JHU’s Whiting School of Engineering, it would be best I not make any more waves.

Thank you everyone for a wonderful time at UD.

I would welcome everyone’s prayers on my behalf and that of my family.

God bless you,
Salvador Cordova


Thus, it is appropriate to call Sal a liar.
One wouldn't care if he kept his word:    
Quote
I don’t have anymore to add to the debate than what I posted at UD over the years.
   
Quote
Besides, I’ve wasted enough of my life on the internet.


He wouldn't deserve his nickname if he hadn't prepared some way back into UD:    
Quote
I’m still on good terms with Bill Dembski who lobbied to get me a scholarship in Engineering under the tutelage of Robert Marks. Bill Dembski’s mentorship prodded me to go back to grad school.

Isn't that slimy?
Especially, if it is taken into account that his "mentor" was not willing or able to protect from the mentor's own blog czar.

Date: 2009/03/24 02:19:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
He would have fitted right in with some of those threads.
He surely thinks he deserves a more prestigious come back, his name has been mentioned in the                  
Quote
prestigious scientific journal Nature

links (examples only):
here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
here, here and here.

 
Quote
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Date: 2009/03/24 12:55:39, Link
Author: sparc
Is this UD's own scordova?

Date: 2009/03/24 14:09:04, Link
Author: sparc
I've posted this a week ago or so, KF in his own words;  
Quote
My wife drew my attention to it, and late one evening I took time to watch; only, to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women, "won" by one who shocked her companions by exposing then pulling down her underwear and publicly sexually manipulating her now quite plainly visible private parts in front of the now tightly focussed, pruriently watching cameras -- and this, in front of not only adults but children present [some of whom had particpated in the lewd conduct].


 
Quote
that sounds a lot like bigotry and stirring up of misunderstanding, leading to unjustified resentment and hostility to me. For shame! END

Date: 2009/03/24 16:16:20, Link
Author: sparc
Quote


78

Clive Hayden

03/24/2009

3:47 pm

R. Martinez,

“Stephen is catering to ignorance, subjectivity and corruption..”

“Apparently he cares more about being liked than he cares about the truth”

Ray, do you think this sort of attack helps the discussion? Do you think it wise to impugn someone’s character for what you think are his motives? You do this sort of thing often, which is why I put you on moderation. If you continue, I will delete your comments before they are posted, and then, if you continue, I will be forced to ban you. I’m being dead serious Ray, you can contribute all day long to the discussion as long as you leave insults out of it.


 
Quote
La Révolution est comme Saturne: elle dévore ses propres enfants.

Date: 2009/03/24 23:58:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 24 2009,22:20)
 
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Mar. 24 2009,22:15)
From a bit back, courtesy of Erasmus:

   
Quote
by the way this means that Ayn Rand's books are chock full of CSI!!!!  also gulag archipelago and war and peace.


So what would be the FSCI or CSI (or FDIC, or FSLIC, or Bayern Leverkusen FC or whatever) of Finnegan's Wake?  And how long will it take Joe to bake his CSI: Seattle (This fall on CBS starring Dr. Dr. Dembski, Casey Luskin and Dense O'Leary!) cake?*

*Feeling a bit loopy on the lovely cough syrup given for a touch of bronchitis.  FSM  bless prescribed narcotics!

Minor correction.  Finnegans Wake -- no apostrophe in the title.  

Sorry: I'm a jerk that way.  And I did my undergrad thesis on the Wake.

A minor but important correction because I am afraid you've hurt the feelings of the people of Leverkusen.
It is Bayer Leverkusen. Bayer refers to the chemical company Bayer (inventor of Aspirin) whereas Bayern refers to Bayern München from Munich, Bavaria.Bayer is a club most people just don't care about while real fans of the game don't like Bayern.

Date: 2009/03/24 23:59:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 24 2009,22:20)
 
Quote (SoonerintheBluegrass @ Mar. 24 2009,22:15)
From a bit back, courtesy of Erasmus:

     
Quote
by the way this means that Ayn Rand's books are chock full of CSI!!!!  also gulag archipelago and war and peace.


So what would be the FSCI or CSI (or FDIC, or FSLIC, or Bayern Leverkusen FC or whatever) of Finnegan's Wake?  And how long will it take Joe to bake his CSI: Seattle (This fall on CBS starring Dr. Dr. Dembski, Casey Luskin and Dense O'Leary!) cake?*

*Feeling a bit loopy on the lovely cough syrup given for a touch of bronchitis.  FSM  bless prescribed narcotics!

Minor correction.  Finnegans Wake -- no apostrophe in the title.  

Sorry: I'm a jerk that way.  And I did my undergrad thesis on the Wake.

A minor but important correction because I am afraid you've hurt the feelings of the people of Leverkusen.
It is Bayer Leverkusen. Bayer refers to the chemical company Bayer (inventor of Aspirin) whereas Bayern refers to Bayern München from Munich, Bavaria.Bayer is a club most people just don't care about while real fans of the game don't like Bayern.

Date: 2009/03/25 00:01:35, Link
Author: sparc
sorry for posting twice but I received a strange error message saying that my "real paths are protected" or somethig similar.
"real paths"? Sounds as if KF programmed the icon board software.

Date: 2009/03/25 00:26:26, Link
Author: sparc
Just out of curiosity:
Has anybody seen bornagain77 at UD recently?

Date: 2009/03/25 13:12:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote


57
jerry
03/25/2009
12:36 pm

I hope Allen’s comments get posted immediately. I personally have learned a lot from Allen in the last couple years through what he has said and what he has recommended.
Either Jerry discussed with some other Allen MacNeill or learning has a completely different meaning for him than for the genral public. E.g., their exchange on this thread.

Date: 2009/03/25 13:16:56, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I've never seen that before.
repression of painful memories?

Date: 2009/03/26 15:13:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 23 2009,14:54)
I am currently experiencing problems with my UD log in. I always get the message "Error: Incorrect password".
Is this a general problem in the moment?

May I take pride in saying "I am with the banned" after being unable to log into UD for 3 days or do I have to wait longer.

Date: 2009/03/27 00:46:58, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 26 2009,22:45)
...  i suspect this manuscript is like many others fabled in ID mythology, ever forthcoming, always in edit

Actually Dembski has recently updated his site covered the tracks at hisDesign Inference Website THE WRITINGS OF WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI The tag "Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design " doesn't appear anymore (you'll find older versions of the pages at thewayback machine).


The paper          
Quote
Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success.
[posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II.
now appears as          
Quote
Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, forthcoming pro-ID peer-reviewed article in the math/eng literature (name of journal will be announced when the article appears in print).

The paper        
Quote
Active Information in Evolutionary Search.
[posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II.
is completely gone.


The paper        
Quote
Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites.
[posted 5jun07] Paper currently under review on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design coauthored with Robert J. Marks II.
can not be found but IIRC may be identical with or related to the currently displayed          
Quote
The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, forthcoming pro-ID peer-reviewed article in the math/eng literature (name of journal will be announced when the article appears in print).


Three papers proudly announced as being under review 661 days ago that should have been      
Quote
the mathematical foundations of intelligent design
Seemingly they are not on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design anymore and none has seen the light of a peer reviewed journal. What's left then?

Do these clowns really beleave that this will increase their hirsch-factor?

Date: 2009/03/27 10:53:42, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 27 2009,02:09)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 27 2009,00:46)
 ...
Do these clowns really beleave that this will increase their hirsch-factor?

You know, it probably will.

Of course one should correct for self-cited articles before calculating h. But even if not it is unlikely that Dembski's ISI h-index will ever reach 10 because that would require at least 10 peer reviewed papers, ten of which have been cited at least 10 times.

Date: 2009/03/27 12:35:49, Link
Author: sparc
I was always wondering why ID creationist were so obsessed with the flagellum. I guess DLH's latest post explains a lot: It is all about sex. Male hyper-masculin capitalized Sex. And the flagellum is just a metaphor for hard evidence, increasing hard evidence.
Still, I don't want to envision any of the UD posters following the invitation to  
Quote
Exercise Your Wonder.

Date: 2009/03/27 12:41:39, Link
Author: sparc
Maybe it due to my native language but I had to laugh when I saw that the first to comment after erectile dysfunction was introduced at UD is pendulum.

Date: 2009/03/27 13:15:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Me and my GF tried erotic dancing on TV and the damn thing collapsed.
In DHL's words: Your wonder collapsed during excersize.

Date: 2009/03/28 00:18:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Disclaimer - I'm very drunk.
Are you sure the state you're in has not been caused by tard?

Date: 2009/03/28 00:33:52, Link
Author: sparc
You survived harvesting levels of tard. Maybe alcohol has some protecting effect.

Date: 2009/03/28 22:41:43, Link
Author: sparc
I can log into UD again. Thus, server issues rather than banning may have been the reason for not letting me in.

Date: 2009/03/28 22:50:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
121
scordova
03/28/2009
7:25 pm

Thanks to all for commenting.

I regret to inform you all that UD has just been subjected to a very large SPAM attack since this moring. The volume of the attack is so large that it is possible some of your comments might get deleted accidentally as we try to deal with the problem.

At this point, I’m afraid I’m going to have to sign off monitoring the SPAM and moderation queues for the time being.

As a result, you can keep trying to comment, but I cannot guarantee that the comments will get through.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in this discussion.

For most of us here this will not make much of a difference.

Date: 2009/03/29 00:59:10, Link
Author: sparc
Unfortunately, creationists drivel is not limited to Texas and the US and is a threat to free speech in other parts of the world, e.g. Turkey:
Cigdem Atakuman has been EXPELLED as editor of Bilim ve Teknik for planning a front-page story on Charles Darwin and evolution by the deputy director of the Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council Omer Cebeci. You' ll find an interview with Cigdem Atakuman at Spiegel Online International.
According to Times Higher Education        
Quote
Dr Atakuman was reinstated as editor of the journal. However, she said she would "see how it goes".

Still, protest is welcome. A draft for a protest letter that should be sent to the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey has been published at evolutionsbiologen.de.

Date: 2009/03/29 14:04:26, Link
Author: sparc
Interestingly, even Jerry is under moderation censored at least when he implys that KF is stupid        
Quote
         
Quote
95
jerry
03/29/2009
9:31 am

This comment was deleted after it was posted at 7:47 as comment #89 this morning. I assume someone found something objectionable in it. Here is what I wrote earlier.

             
Quote
Kairosfocus, you wrote

     
Quote
“There is actually very little point in onward extension of the issues over minutiae of Weasel”


There is nothing but truth in that. But you then wrote about 3000 words on the subject.

Your are being baited and by responding to the bait you are feeding the Alice in Wonderland world this new group of critics are trying to create.
They will make up nonsense and you feel you must refute every bit of nonsense they write. For example, two have already wrote about artificial selection or breeding as part of this discussion. My suggestion is that you and the rest generally ignore them. As I said they are not here to discuss or learn or have an honest debate. They are here to thwart, deflect, distort and then revel in their own absurdity.

It is easy to determine when an honest discussion is going on and when it isn’t. I suggest politely saying good bye when it becomes obvious that one is not being held. They will claim all sorts of victory with their last comments and their objections to ID or anything else being said are not being answered but attempts to answer each irrational and farcical thing they say is only feeding them.

Watch what they say to this comment that I am making here and if you or anyone else tries to answer them, they will silently know they have won.
—————-

Interesting why it was deleted but I will keep posting it till I am told why it shouldn’t be posted.
           
Quote
98
madsen
03/29/2009
12:50 pm

It seems more posts have gone missing. Is this due to the spamming problem, or have they been deleted by a moderator?
         
Quote
99
jerry
03/29/2009
1:16 pm

madsen,

My post went up at 7:47 this morning on a laptop as I was eating breakfast. I went up stairs about an hour later to our office and used a second computer and saw that my post was gone. I went back to the laptop and there it was on the browser as I left it. I saved the file and took a screen shot to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. I then refreshed the browser and the comment that had been deleted was still there. I opened a new window and a new screen of the page and it was still there. I tried to refresh again and it was still there but not on the other computer which I now had side by side.

I closed the browser on the laptop and reopened all again and the page was still there on the laptop but not on the desk top computer. This has never happened before because I frequently refresh the screen when I am logged on to see if something new came up and it always updates correctly. So while I understand the cache often has pages saved when I refresh they always change to the updated version but not this time. The odd thing was the page that was deleted kept on reappearing and it had my deleted comment on it as if it was trying to fool me into thinking it was still there.

I then turned the computer off and after rebooting the page with my comment on it was gone and replaced by one with other comments that was on the other computer. Very strange. But I do have the screen shot and the old saved file still on the laptop.
         
Quote
100
madsen
03/29/2009
1:28 pm

jerry,

One of my posts also vanished this morning. Hopefully some explanation will be forthcoming.


edited to correct bold tags.

Date: 2009/03/31 12:48:27, Link
Author: sparc
k.e.      
Quote
I like the ones with women and snakes .....but not talking snakes ......huge huge anacondas
so does UD's own DLH although he left out the best parts of Glicksman excercise your wonder article:
     
Quote
But Mrs. C. gleefully concluded her story by telling me that as she leaned over to console him in his misfortune, she inadvertently brushed her hand against his inner thigh resulting in Mr.C. quickly experiencing a very firm erection.
   
Quote
I think most people would agree that in order for the homonid species to have come into existence the male external genitalia with its associated functions was absolutely necessary.  The male penis serves two purposes: the release of urine and its chemical contents derived from the kidney, and the release of sperm and seminal fluid during ejaculation for reproduction.  The latter function is what concerns us in this column.

The condition now known as erectile dysfunction, but up until recently more commonly as impotence, points to a serious matter that requires a neo-Darwinian explanation.  For not only does impotence refer to the inability to have an adequate erection to engage in sexual intercourse, but the word itself strikes at the heart of all that is sacred and holy in the life of an evolutionary biologist.  To be impotent is to be; ineffective, powerless, or helpless, all the characteristics of a life form that is surely destined to fail in the battle for the survival of the fittest.  Being impotent is mutually exclusive to the concept of fitness and therefore its opposite, the development of potency, which is a necessary function for neo-Darwinism, needs to be explained in logical and scientifically verifiable terms.

Penile erection is achieved by hydraulic pressure.  Running the length of the penis, surrounding the urethra and above and to each side of it, are the corpus spongiosa and the corpus cavernosa.  These are tube shaped venous chambers that are surrounded by strong fibrous tissue.  They have the capacity to be filled with blood, upon proper neural stimulation, by dilation of the arteries supplying blood to this region, which combined with partial occlusion of venous outflow, results in erection.
   
Quote
the hydraulic system for adequate penile erection to allow for human sexual reproduction and survival of the species is irreducibly complex at both the gross anatomy and neurophysiological levels.
   
Quote
One needs the properly outfitted penis, the internal genital organs for sperm and seminal fluid production and transmission, and the neuromuscular set-up for controlling the action of sexual reproduction.  But we as yet have not addressed what is going on at the biomolecular level and it is to this now that we turn.  For without a  full understanding of what is going on biochemically, one cannot appreciate the genius, worthy of the Nobel prize, behind the creation of Viagra.  Evolutionary biologists are likely to be among some of the people who have benefited from this discovery, yet it seems to me that they have never bothered to ask themselves how the human male developed the capacity for proper erectile function (sans Viagra) in the first place.  

Date: 2009/03/31 22:25:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
AmericaninKananaskis, I am told that Richard Owen invented the term “dinosaur.” If so, that would make him pretty important in the history of evolution. He did not need to have agreed with Charles Darwin about everything.
By these standards, G. Agricola  who coined the term "fossil" in 1526 would have been an "evolutionist" though for obvious reasons he couldn't agree with Darwin. The same would be true for the beatified N. Steno who has shown that fossils are derived from living individuals.

Date: 2009/04/02 21:37:57, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ April 02 2009,04:52)
Heeeeessss BACK!

I was hoping for DaveScot.

Date: 2009/04/05 00:54:02, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
my stepfather, Frank Olver
Maybe you could ask if he is willing to write a comment on the Abel paper to Int. J. Mol. Sci.?
BTW, it is the David Abel of    
Quote
The Origin-of-Life Prize ®
The Gene Emergence Project ®
The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc.
closely related to the Guleph Creationists.

Date: 2009/04/07 23:00:36, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Quote (JohnW @ April 07 2009,19:21)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2009,16:16)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-of-law

   
Quote
The Rembrandt of flash animation and I are working to enhance “The Judge Jones School of Law.” As a first step we have made the animation less offensive to more refined sensibilities. All the overt flatulence has therefore been removed. Go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com for the less objectional version of this animation (we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).


Emphasis mine.

I wonder if he sits at night sipping his single malt that really belongs to someone else thinking 'why did I write that? What was I thinking?'

What an instrument of grace he is!

Dr Dr D plays a mean delete key.  As this is still up on UD for all to marvel at, I think we can conclude that the Isaac Newton of Farty Noises stands by his statement.

I missed both versions. Are they archived somewhere? I just went to OE and didn't see it in any obvious location.
Quote
DvK Kitteh am late to teh parties

Maybe the good doctor is hoping that OE expires in July unnoticed.

Date: 2009/04/08 01:09:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The Gordon Mullings virus spreads.

Seems they are trapped in some latch 22 logic.

Date: 2009/04/10 01:03:09, Link
Author: sparc
Wesley              
Quote
Dembski hasn't updated us about the impending printing of his essays.
Actually, it is 675 days (= 96 weeks = 22 months) today since Dembski announced three Dembski and Marks papers as being under revision. For good reasons Dembski recently updated his Design Inference page. Earlier annivesaries of Dembski's original writings have celebrated here, here, here, here and here.

OTOH, Dr. Dembski is prepared to wait longer though he admits that it pisses him off:          
Quote
"I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print"
- William Dembski in The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001

Date: 2009/04/12 14:42:55, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
That's hilarious! There have been working versions of Weasel for a generation, including the video of Dawkins in 1987 (about 6 minutes in) showing random mutation, not latching. Weasels with Attitude replicates this result quite clearly by showing all the children rather than just the best of the brood. Quite obviously, there is no "latching".
If Dawkins had chosen another weasel-free sentence Kairosfocus might have given up already. But "WEASEL" may have another meaning for him. Weasels are DAEMONS:    
Quote
Philip Pullman's controversial Dark Materials trilogy and the about-to-be released movie that we discussed last time around, have another side -- a neopagan aspect that at first sight does not seem to fit in well with an atheistic-agnostic, evolutionary materialist worldview.

For instance, if you go to the Movie's web page, the teaser begins with a picture of the anti-heroine, Lyra, standing amidst ice and snow, with an armoured polar bear. Then, a shadow of a weasel runs across the picture to the right hand side, and materialises into a solid animal [a daemon -- pronounced "demon"]. Right next to is is a caption: Meet your Daemon.
Don't miss the rest of his post in which he proves that all this does of course fit in well with an atheistic-agnostic, evolutionary materialist worldview.

Date: 2009/04/14 23:32:50, Link
Author: sparc
To me S. Huang is an example why many of the currently opened open access online journals will not work, unfortunately. The peer review process may just not be rigid enough.

In addition, articles like his may turn Nature proceedings in a BS sink. Maybe that's exactly what Nature editors wanted. Rather than arguing with cranks who are pissed off because their "work" doesn't get published in Nature they could tell them that there is this nice site for ongoing "work". I wonder why Dembski, Marks and other ID proponents didn't have a try there.

Date: 2009/04/15 14:26:06, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
87
JohnADavison
04/14/2009
6:45 pm

I see Alan Fox is still following me around whereever I go as the self appointed one man goon squad for Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins.

[...]

Fox has a special affection for me. He suffers from a severe case of geriatrophilia. In other word he likes old guys a lot, at least this one!

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

Not at all. It has been going on for at least three years.
I wonder what he thinks of VMartin.

Date: 2009/04/16 23:25:55, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 16 2009,12:29)

Contour plot of the 5 runs per data point dataset for proportion of losses visible in summary output.

Hopefully KF will comment on the couple of copulating  adult rabbits near the X-axis between 250 and 410 and their offspring between 50 and 80 and 125 and 180. Presumably they formed due to some latching.

Date: 2009/04/25 00:36:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 24 2009,23:19)
Am I wrong, or did Gil Dodgen's latest piece on AI, LS-DYNA, cartoons, and simulation just vaporize after about 3 hours? It's not on the top of the UD home page, and the Google link to it goes somewhere broken.

Indeed. But you didn't miss much because he was just pretending again:

   
Quote
||: blah, blah, checkers, blah, blah, software engineer blah, blah,  programing in aerospace industry blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah:||
da capo  al fine


In his own words (still visible at OE):      
Quote
AI, LS-DYNA, Computer Simulations, and Cartoons
Uncommon Descent - 4 hours 7 min ago

A number of years ago I developed an interest in AI (artificial intelligence) games-playing programming, and pursued a research project in that arena with so much success that I eventually lost interest, because there were no remaining human opponents to challenge. You can read about the project at my website. Real-world experience demonstrated the success of the project.

I now earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D with a specialty in computer simulations, and as a result have pursued another interest: transient, dynamic, nonlinear, finite-element analysis (FEA) using a simulation program called LS-DYNA, originally developed in the 1970s at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to simulate underground nuclear tests.

My company sent me away to LS-DYNA school after I volunteered, but I was warned that it would be really, really difficult, and that I had better bone up on the relevant math and engineering concepts. I took this advice to heart, and spent at least 200 hours preparing for the five-day course. Even with vast experience in software engineering and this preparation, it took everything I had to keep up with the instruction. The LS-DYNA course was a huge eye-opener concerning computer simulations and reality.

On the first day of the course, our instructor, Dr. John D. Reid, who was absolutely fantastic, commented that it is really easy to make “cartoons” with LS-DYNA. (Dyna not only produces vast quantities of data, but generates AVI animations of the simulation.) By that he meant that without a thorough understanding, it is easy to make a Dyna simulation produce whatever results you like, that might look cool, but have no correlation with reality.

LS-DYNA has been under development for more than 30 years by the most brilliant scientists in the field, and its simulations have been compared repeatedly against real-world results. Material properties are well known, tested, and quantified (Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, mass density, area moment of inertia, etc.), and the physics involved can be simulated and represented with absolute mathematical precision.

Yet with all of this, the results of a simulation must be scrutinized and evaluated against reality, because a single erroneous assumption or programming error can render the simulation completely invalid.

Which brings me to the point of this essay: The notion that any computer simulation of biological evolution has anything to do with reality is a complete fantasy. And the notion that any computer simulation of the earth’s climate into the distant future can be relied upon is an equivalent fantasy.

These computer simulations are cartoons.


Actually, he wrote the same before:
   
Quote
12 July 2007

LSD and the Relevance of Computer Simulations to Biological Evolution
GilDodgen

No, not lysergic acid diethylamide, but LS-Dyna, perhaps the world’s most sophisticated engineering computer simulation program, developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, originally for the development of nuclear weapons. I’m studying LS-Dyna feverishly, since my company is sending me off to LS-Dyna school in Livermore, CA at the end of this month.

I have a lot of experience writing computer simulations of the reasoning process in intellectual games such as checkers and chess, and nearly as much experience developing software for guided-airdrop systems, which involves a lot of simulation work. But LS-Dyna has been a real eye-opener.

LS-Dyna models the laws of physics and the material properties of the components of a dynamic, non-linear system with extreme mathematical and computational precision (assuming the user knows what he is doing), but if a single assumption is erroneous, or a single detail left out, the model can produce worthless (even subworthless, i.e., misleading) results. Fortunately, LS-Dyna simulations can be tested in the real world to verify their validity.

For an example of what LS-Dyna can do, see this short AVI of the simulation of a car airbag.

Computer simulations are often touted as verifying the power of random mutation and natural selection. Over at Evolution News and Views, we read:

   On June 26 the New York Times ran an article by Douglas H. Erwin, senior scientist at the Smithsonian „¢s National Museum of Natural History, in which he stated as demonstrated fact the power of natural selection to create the eye. We now can see (forgive the pun) that natural selection “is the primary agent in shaping new adaptations.

   His example? “Computer simulations, he declares,  “have shown how selection can produce a complex eye from a simple eyespot in just a few hundred thousand years.

   Really, Dr. Erwin? Where is your proof of this important fact? What computer simulations, published where and when and by whom? Just a citation or two will do.

   One also might scoff at the exaggerated faith shown computer simulations in general, since they frequently cannot even predict next week „ weather accurately. But leave that topic alone for now. Let just have the evidence of published computer simulations referred to by Dr. Erwin.

As it turns out, in this case the referenced computer simulation never even existed.

Then there is Avida, which is touted as having refuted the challenge of irreducible complexity. You can read Eric Anderson’s take on this here at ISCID.

The take-home lesson is that computer models can produce valid results, if the problem is thoroughly understood and the model accurately represents reality. Even then, modeling something as straightforward as a car airbag inflating is a Herculean task, and the results can only be finally trusted when the simulation is tested against the real thing.

Computer simulations that claim to provide insight into biological evolution are massively oversimplified caricatures of the real thing, and are so divorced from the real world that no one should take them seriously.

When they actually exist, they turn out to be digital just-so stories.


Maybe it isn't a good idea to state again:    
Quote
The notion that any computer simulation of biological evolution has anything to do with reality is a complete fantasy.
while Dr. Dr. Dembski and Prof. Marks run an "Evolutionary Informatics Lab", Atom writes simulation programs for them and the Biologic Institute recently published Stylus.

ETA: IN addition, one shouldn't forget that in terms of numbers of comments WMAD's recent The Simulation Wars was one of the most successful posts at UD ever.

Date: 2009/04/25 01:51:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
You mention OE - does that site have some sort of mirror function for UD?

UD posts are collected in the OE news aggregator. I guess they are stored there only transiently. Still, one may find additional older UD content  on the  saved OE news pages at the wayback machine. Just select a date and click "Join the OE army" to open the first page where you will have to click "latest news".
(ETA the correct  procedure)

Date: 2009/04/26 14:04:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Badger3k @ April 26 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (khan @ April 26 2009,11:18)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 26 2009,09:57)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2009,07:51)
Fun with BIG numbers!

       
Quote
William Dembski: Public Service: Visualizing a Trillion

Trillions are much in the news lately regarding the economy. Such large numbers also come up in the small probability arguments inherent in design inferences (small probabilities are reciprocals of large numbers).



And that is only about one hundredth of the number of bacteria in the average human gut, or one hundred billionth of the number of bacteria in humanity's collective gut, which is only a fraction of the number of symbiotes in the guts of termites or cows.

Would I be right in thinking that wMad took these pictures from off the web somewhere without attribution?

It does look familiar.

This was going around  the net and emails a short time ago.  The pagetutor link, IIRC, in the images link given, was the one where I saw it at.

Did you see the links pagetutor provided below the money piles?
My favorite  
Quote
How to keep an idiot busy


One really wonders what Dr. Dr. Dembski was looking for. Maybe:
Quote
Step by step calculations & dimensions are here for those who may be interested.

Date: 2009/04/26 21:41:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
3
Avonwatches
04/26/2009
7:58 pm

@4.

You do not address what TCS writes.

Assuming that Avonwatches added his comment immediately after comment 4 we have another two deleted comments. Has ther been something by Mauka?

Date: 2009/04/28 23:14:37, Link
Author: sparc
Not really on topic:
It's 99 days today since Dembski announced two peer reviewed papers.

Date: 2009/05/02 00:37:29, Link
Author: sparc
The blacked out parts of the article reads:
Quote
International Journal of Fun and Games – You’re too Clever – Gotcha!

Seems they've been taught some lesson by Olegt.

Date: 2009/05/04 11:38:58, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
111
jerry
05/04/2009
10:12 am

Here is a very brief layman’s explanation of the paper in one page but it does not answer all the questions and probably opens a lot more.

http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....embski.php
If you follow the link provided by Jerry you'll find an article by Dr. Dr. Dembski under the section header  
Quote
SALVO: Sex, Science, Society

Date: 2009/05/04 11:43:30, Link
Author: sparc
ERV, I would really appreciate if you could provide the youtube link for that dog in your icon again.

Date: 2009/05/04 11:46:58, Link
Author: sparc
Thanks.

Onlookers, go have a look there.

Date: 2009/05/04 14:27:09, Link
Author: sparc
When Dembski worte for SALVO mag he obviously didn't want to put too much effort in it:                
Quote
Needle-in-the-haystack problems—where one searches for small targets in large spaces—are common throughout science. With such problems, a blind search stands no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. This assistance takes the form of information: Searches require information to be successful.
Think of an Easter-egg hunt where saying "warmer!” or "colder!” indicates that the finder is getting nearer or farther from the eggs. This information, if accurate, greatly speeds the finding of eggs. But where does the required information come from?

To even raise this question is to suggest that successful searches do not magically materialize but need themselves to be discovered via a search. In other words, another level of information is required to determine successful search criteria in the first place.

The important question is whether such a higher-level "search for a search” is ever easier—is simpler or requires less information—than the original search.  


Compare this to his The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search he co-authored with Robert Marks:
               
Quote
Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search stands no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. But whence the assistance required for a search to be successful?

To pose the question this way suggests that successful searches do not emerge spontaneously but need temselves to be discovered via a search.

The question then naturally arises whether such a higher-level “search for a search” is any easier than the original search.


ETA: link to Dembski's SALVO article

Date: 2009/05/06 13:22:59, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Best Fallacy logical
Nobody can beat  
Quote
Earn free stuff!

Date: 2009/05/09 23:01:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 09 2009,19:52)
   
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,18:01)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:00)
Nils, it's been about six hours since you asked that question.  So far we have had five real live biologists, two student biologists and one person who was trained in biology, but works in another field respond to you.

Ok, I was wrong, there are indeed many scientists in the field of biology on this forum. This means your opinions here might be relevant for my questions.

There are many biologists in the ID movement:
Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien.

Three in the ID movement vs. 5 just commenting on this website.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

You may add me to the list:
Diploma in zoology, PhD in molecular biology.
Worked in animal physiology, immunology, extracellular matrix research and skin biology, mouse genetics.

In contrast to the UD guys I actually did ID by being involved in planning, designing and creating more than 30 mouse mutants during the last 10 years.

Date: 2009/05/10 01:01:37, Link
Author: sparc
seems like DO'L has a new book out: Canada Export Denyse O’Leary

Date: 2009/05/11 21:36:27, Link
Author: sparc
When it comes to economics ID proponents appreciate surviving of the fittest as a natural change.
DO'L
Quote
I can’t think of a worse solution than a bailout, of course, because the change is a natural one, caused by the redundancy of information sources. Should the government have rescued companies that sell carbon paper and whiteout in the 1990s? Why?

Date: 2009/05/14 11:29:26, Link
Author: sparc
Adnar Oktar on ID in his own words:      
Quote
I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually.
The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

Date: 2009/05/14 11:40:33, Link
Author: sparc
Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya:
Quote
"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions

In rejecting one false claim such as evolution, one must be very careful not to fall prey to another of Satan's snares. One of Satan's main objectives is to prevent the recognition of Allah by any means possible, and to cause people to ignore His remembrance.

There are those whom Satan has not been able to deceive with the concept of evolution. But if he can divert them in another direction, such as that of "intelligent design" he will again have achieved his end, in turning people away from remembering Allah.

How Satan manages to appear in the name of truth and causes people to deviate by obstructing truth is revealed in the Qur'an:

He [Satan] said: "By Your misguidance of me, I will lie in ambush for them on your straight path. Then I will come at them, from in front of them and behind them, from their right and from their left. You will not find most of them thankful." (Qur'an, 7:16-17)

It should be known that overturning the theory of evolution and revealing the "chance" mindset as invalid both demonstrate the existence of Allah, by Whom everything was created, and not of "intelligent design."

To say, "If there is no evolution, then there is intelligent design" is nothing less than adopting yet another false idol to replace the one of evolution.

Date: 2009/05/14 12:37:50, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L:  
Quote
This isn’t either a police station or talk radio, it is a recorded public medium. Duly recorded, and to be followed up.

I realize that for growing numbers of people - influenced by Darwinism and many similar causes - the idea of just letting someone have their say is outrageous.

Well, get used to it. That’s how we do it here
priceless

Date: 2009/05/14 20:59:11, Link
Author: sparc
I wonder if DO'L and EXPELLED star Ben Stein know Harun Yahya's aka Adnan Oktar's book
Quote
“HOLOCAUST DECEPTION
The Hidden History Of Nazi-Zionist Collaboration And The Inner Story Of The Hoax Of “Jewish Holocaust”
which can be found here.

Date: 2009/05/14 23:10:19, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L wrote about Adnar Oktar back in January 2009:  
Quote
I know little about Yahya myself – and find it useful to know more.My chief worry with Islamic apologetics (which I take to be his primary purpose) is anti-Semitism – a major problem right now in Canada. Yahya says he is totally opposed to anti-Semitism.
Is GOOGLE not available in Canada? Wikipedia might have helped However, Denyse never pays
Quote
attention to Wikipedia, a vast source of false information where the intelligent design controversy is in view.

Date: 2009/05/15 09:54:34, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2009,06:55)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ May 15 2009,07:39)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ May 14 2009,10:04)
   
Quote
O'Leary:  In 400 words, to be judged in two weeks, and printed as a post: What do we really know about human evolution that could not simply be overturned by a new find?

Humans evolved. (2 words)
Humans are related to toads. (5 words)

Humans evolve. (2 words)

O'Leary knows jack shit about human evolution. (7 words)

Nobody will beat Ray Davis  
Quote
Im an ape, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
ETA:
not even Jagger/Richards
Quote
Well, I am just a monkey man
I'm glad you are a monkey woman too

Date: 2009/05/15 13:23:19, Link
Author: sparc
Seems like PaulN has been caught with his knickers down:      
Quote
Oh, you can actually dismiss that question, I must have inadvertently skipped over Kairos’ post before I posted.

A likely story, indeed!
KF posted his comment at 7.02 am, Paul added his first comment at 8.50 am and the one cited above at 9.02 am. Thus, 2 hours after KF's original comment.

Hey Paul, do you know anybody who is reading KF's comments?

BTW, KF does addresses  "Folks" rather than "Onlookers" now.

Date: 2009/05/15 13:38:40, Link
Author: sparc
While "Onlookers" fossils are quite common in KF's bequest we can count ourselves lucky that a transient form I mentioned above ("folks (and esp. onlookers)") survived in the same thread.

Date: 2009/05/15 23:14:47, Link
Author: sparc
Here's what Wolfram|Alpha has to say about ID:  
Quote
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.

ETA: and here's how Wolfram deals with WMAD:
Quote
Input interpretation:
William Dembski (religious)
emphasis mine

Date: 2009/05/16 23:22:28, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 14 2009,14:34)
Jeez, just a quick Google would disabuse them of this "single coffin" crap, but they're too stupid or convinced of "rightness" (okay, both) to even strain their dainty fingers to do so?

Wankers.
Maybe they will find time to look it up in June because

Date: 2009/05/17 11:12:14, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H
Quote
OK, sparc.  How did you know that?

SPIEGEL-Leser wissen mehr.

Date: 2009/05/20 22:24:14, Link
Author: sparc
Beelzebub gets nasty    
Quote
Denyse,

I find that the decision to take someone seriously is better based on the quality and cogency of their ideas than on their location and occupation. After all, a good idea remains good even if it comes from a Canadian journalist with no scientific training, and a bad idea from someone with two PhD’s, four masters degrees and a BA is still a bad idea, isn’t it?

There won't be too many fulfilling these criteria:    
Quote
   * Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1996).
    * MDiv. Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).
    * M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1993).
    * Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago (1988).
    * S.M. mathematics University of Chicago (1985).
    * M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago (1983).
    * B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago (1981).

Date: 2009/05/26 22:56:57, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD
Quote
I’m a big fan of the Scottish common sense realists (especially Thomas Reid) and will be publishing an anthology later this year collecting together writings of Hume, Reid, and Paley on natural theology.
No risk of copyright problems.

Date: 2009/05/30 23:39:06, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD        
Quote
He’ll be discussing his new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, demonstrating that the digital code embedded in DNA points to a designing intelligence and brings into focus an issue that Darwin did not address.

From the Editorial Review on the Amazon pages:      
Quote
Product Description
The first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community.

I read this as:

1. There hasn't been any major scientific argument for ID before. Previous arguments were either minor or not scientific.

2. No leading spokesperson ever presented major scientific arguments ID before. Thus, Dr. Dembski, Dr. Behe et al. aren't leading spokespersons.

3. Nobody who who argued pro-ID before is or has been part of the scientific community.

I wonder what Dr. Dembski will think about this and left a note at UD.

Date: 2009/05/31 23:57:34, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Count down -- UDer saying that it was the Darwinist's fault that George Tiller was shot.  

I don't know, I guess they will rather distance themselves from the murderer. E.g., not  an UDer but someone who appreciates ID on his blog:    
Quote
Some radical, pseudo-pro-life murderer has just done more to hurt the pro-life movement than all the pro-choice advocates put together--just when the pro-life position was starting to gain ground, some sicko sets us back 20 years!

When they catch the perpetrator, prosecutors should seek the death penalty.
Killing the murderer is just the next logical pro-life consequence. Or is it pseudo-pro-life consequence?

Date: 2009/06/01 01:08:58, Link
Author: sparc
PAV      
Quote
I’m old enough to remember feeding punch cards into a large computer. The nucleotides are nothing more than those punch cards. So….the cell must act like the computer. And, of course, we all consider computers to be ‘designed’, don’t we?


Nakashima      
Quote
If we go back to your analogy of genome to deck of punch cards, imagine an elaborate system of card readers, sorters, copiers attached eventually to some CNC milling machines. The instructions on the cards, after several steps of sorting, copying, etc direct the milling machines to make parts for more card readers, sorters, copiers, and milling machines!

I think that is a rough analogy to the processes going on in the cell. But you may notice that we don’t have a CPU anywhere. That is because there isn’t one in the cell. So while analogies to digital information work, analogies to modern computers don’t work.


PAV      
Quote
Here’s a related question: what do you mean by instructions? You talk about “punch cards”, well, WHO punches them? What language does he or she use?
Be careful, because if you start saying that this ‘milling machine’ punches cards in the same way that the genome mutates, you would still be presuming that the genome functions as an information processor, which is what I claim. You then would simply be claiming that a machine can act like the genome. But, then, I ask the question: where have you seen machines in real life other than those produced by intelligent agents—we humans?


Nakashima      
Quote


Mr PaV,

We can’t push our punced card analogy too far. Punched cards are analogous to nucleotides. In discussing the information processing system, they are just a given.


PAV      
Quote


[22] Mr. Nakashima,

I disagree. Punched cards are not analagous to nucleotides.Punched cards use machine language, and are ‘punched’ by intelligent agents. Punched cards are analogous to genomes, which contain functional information, and which, therefore, have all the hallmarks of intelligent design, just as punched cards do. You can’t presume that material forces alone brought about the genome, and then use the functionality of the genome to demonstrate that nature can, indeed, contain functional information. This is circular reasoning.


Nakashima      
Quote


Mr PaV,

     
Quote
The nucleotides are nothing more than those punch cards.


These are your words in post 9. I
have tried to apply them in what I thought was the most straightforward way.

priceless

Date: 2009/06/01 03:27:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World
The end of christianity is ok with me. But what does finding god has to do with its end?

Date: 2009/06/01 12:44:54, Link
Author: sparc
Didn't Gil recently promise to restrain himself from posting at UD?
At least he didn't mention checkers, missile guidance systems, being a software engineer in aerospace research and development,  artificial intelligence, navigation and control in aerospace, finite element analyses or precision-guided airdrop systems. Still, I don't know if one should interpret this as a major achievement.

Date: 2009/06/01 22:51:55, Link
Author: sparc
tacitus  
Quote
As for the title, "The End of Christianity," it's a rather poor attempt to shock people into picking up the book to see what it's about.  He needs almost a full page to explain what he title is supposed to be about, and I'm sure the vast majority of readers, especially those not imbued with Christian theology, will be left scratching their heads.

Maybe WMAD is just referring to some spiritual music he enjoys in the evening like this Stooges song or the 2001 Nightside album.

Date: 2009/06/02 21:25:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ June 02 2009,20:52)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 03 2009,09:48)
 
Quote
2. Jesus’ Y-chromosome. If we accept (as Christians do) that God wished to redeem the human race from the effects of the Fall by sending His only-begotten Son, then clearly the birth of His Son would have to be an event whose timing and occurrence depended purely on God’s will, and in no way on man’s. Hence the birth of God’s Son could not be the result of human sexual intercourse. It had to be an act of Divine intervention. Hence the necessity of a Virginal Conception.

But we now know that males have a Y-chromosome, while females (generally) do not. So where did Jesus Christ get His? The data from Scripture and tradition indicates clearly that Jesus took flesh from the Virgin Mary, so we might suppose that God somehow interposed to convert one of the Virgin Mary’s X’s into a Y, after the chromosomes divided.

Secular humanist critics have pointed out that additional tinkering by God would have been required, to make sure that Our Lord did not get a double copy of any defective genes His mother may have possessed, and to initiate genomic imprinting, which requires genetic input from both parents in the ordinary course of events.


WOW! Reading this, any good Christian should feel like I felt when stupid Qui Gon Jin explained Midiclorians as the source of the Force in Star Wars episode I. eg: like crap!

There should be some kind of mandatory exam to be allowed to do science...oh, wait...

No this skeptic asks why are the birth stories are completely different between gospels and have historical markers that contradict each other.

Not only that, the necessity for a virgin birth was a mistranslation of a part of the old testament which was also taken out of context.

Didn't DaveScot hisself solve this problem already in his 2006 post
There are more things in heaven and earth, Paul, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The translation for non-computer scientist aka biologists by PZ Myers may be helpful: Jesus was a defective mutant, born of a cytological error

Date: 2009/06/04 23:12:43, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
adjunct professor at Biola Cornelius Hunter

Is he really teaching there? I couldn't find any C. Hunter on the Bioloa pages. Not even in the 2003-2005 Biola catalog in which adjunct faculty is named.

Date: 2009/06/07 00:07:07, Link
Author: sparc
Does anybody have a clue what DO'L's Hoppocratic Oath post is about? She links to some pro-life-anti-abortion site and claims that Canadians
Quote
have recently beat back this challenge in the Province of Ontario, in Canada.
but doesn't provide a link for the later statement. Assuming that it is something about abortion and Ontario I did a quick google news search and this came up first:
Quote
Charge dropped against suspect in shooting of Ontario abortion doctor

Date: 2009/06/07 00:13:47, Link
Author: sparc
Gil is back.


ETA:

Date: 2009/06/07 00:25:28, Link
Author: sparc
It didn't last long. GilDdgen's "final" post appeared on April, 25. He tried to resist the TARD but the craving was stronger and he got in touch with what he tried to avoid on May, 31 again.
Seemingly UD TARD producers are as addicted as TARD consumers here.

Date: 2009/06/08 23:36:01, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 08 2009,21:40)
Hey, I just noticed the Authors list on the UD page. Was that always there? OLeary has recently overtaken DaveS as the second most prolific author. That must burn!

I wonder why DaveScot is now presented as Dave S.
Even in the archives his original author name is not displayed anymore.
Just compare the current version of his Miller-Urey post with what has been saved by the wayback machine.

Stalinesk.

Date: 2009/06/09 11:26:25, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,03:28)
Tonight I was savoring (so to speak) the poetic justice of Dembski's Baylor cafeteria bannination when I got to wondering what the food was like at his new institutional home.  Here's this week's menu:
     
Quote
Monday  
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Sliced Chicken w/ Peppers OR Chicken Tenders
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mac & Cheese, Mashed Potatoes



Tuesday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Meatloaf or BBQ Chicken
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mac & Cheese, Mashed Potatoes



Wednesday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Chicken Fried Steak or Meatballs
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese



Thursday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style Entrees : Chicken Fried Chicken or BBQ Beef
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese



Friday
Lunch  11:40 am - 2:00 pm
Home-style  Oven Fried Chicken OR Salisbury Steak
Sides : Corn, Green Beans, Mashed Potatoes, Mac & Cheese

That's gotta hurt.  At least they switch the order of mashed potatoes and mac and cheese for a little variety in the second half of the week.

Bwahahahaha.

Besides keeing him healthy SWBTS.edu's musical fruit based diet may have helped Dembski to produce the judge Jones soundtrack :  
Quote
Beans, beans, the miracle fruit.
The more you eat, the more you toot.
The more you toot, the better you feel.
So eat your beans with every meal!
Quote
Beans, beans, they're good for your heart.
the more you eat 'em, the more you fart.
The more you fart, the better you feel...
eat those beans at every meal!

Date: 2009/06/10 11:57:02, Link
Author: sparc
Since it didn't show up at UD I'll repeat it here:
If GilDodgen is serious about his broken computer analogy he will also have to claim that it is impossible to develop any new pro ID argument without prior brain surgery by Dr. Egnor.





Date: 2009/06/10 23:18:03, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Every single one of those topics include at least one, and sometimes several, links to his own pathetic blaggery.
Thus, we can be optimistic that he will copy his recent Pyknon prediction that he alredy linked copied to ENV will show up at UD. Of course he doesn't mention that the Pyknon concept has been criticized:
Quote
An example of underestimating the probability of frequent word occurrences is apparent in a recent study by Rigoutsos et al [16]. They reported that certain DNA words, termed pyknons, appear frequently in human gene-related sequences andin noncoding regions, in restricted configurations, and presented many arguments for the pyknon’s functionality. By relying on a Bernoulli model, they reasoned that 16-mers should appear in a random genome sequence more than forty times with a probability <10-32. Such a word frequency, however, is not as extraordinary if we take into account the universal shape of genomic spectra. A DPL distribution fitted to the human genome spectrum yields a P-value of 0.001 (see Supplementary Material).This latter translates to about four million 16-mers that are expected to occur at least forty times in a random genome-sized sequence. Strikingly, at least 460 thousand frequent words appear already in the repeat-masked sequence as accidental constituents of the fitted distribution’s heavy tail.
(Csurös M, Noé L, Kucherov G. (2007): Reconsidering the significance of genomic word frequencies. Trends Genet. 23(11):543-546; a free author's copy can be found here)

Date: 2009/06/11 11:49:56, Link
Author: sparc
Seems my log in data don't work anymore. Maybe this is due to a comment I've tried to add to WMAD's post on the impact od ID. While he let through the following:  
Quote
3
sparc
06/08/2009
10:32 pm

IIRC, there have been claims on these pages that ID has to be ignored to win.
my questions about the renaming of DaveScot didn't show up:  
Quote
7
sparc
06/09/2009
11:51 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Since Dave W. mentioned the Soviet Union: There is a “Dave S.” in the author list in the sidebar who contributed 568 posts at UD. When long time UD readers follow that link they will find posts they know: It’s the legacy of a long time UD author, blog czar, life long marine, retired Dell employee, global warming denier and banninator. Seemingly current UD authorities are trying to hide any fossil traces pointing to the former role of DaveScot here at UD. Indeed a case of Damnatio memoriae.


Alternatively, DO'L may have disliked my question if Canada was already celebrating Loving Day back when
Quote
Mr. Benga was probably only a few kilometres from Canada at some points. He could possibly have been rescued from these vile people and their zoos.
I didn't even mention Judge Basil who stated during the Loving vs.Virgina trial that    
Quote
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Date: 2009/06/11 14:53:03, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, Cornelius Hunter ignored my hint to wolves and thylacines.

Date: 2009/06/12 21:19:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2009,14:29)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 12 2009,14:24)
   
Quote
1

Nakashima

06/12/2009

2:11 pm
Mrs O’Leary,

I was going to write something trivial about fly fishing, when I was suddenly struck by the contrast between your treatment of Charles Darwin and your treatment of Adnan Oktar.

What is it about about Oktar that exempts him from your fulminations? Whose views are closer to von Brunn’s, Darwin’s or Oktar’s? Why wasn’t your headline Breaking Story Holocaust Museum murderer influenced by Turkish Anti-Semite Holocaust Denier?

Your double standard is obvious, but do you have an explanation for it deeper than Proverbs 30:20?


For the Bibble-challenged among us:
   
Quote
This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, "I have done no wrong."


cue bannination for accusing DO'L of adultery in 5, 4, ...

PoTW by proxy.

Seconded.
And here's the missing link.

Date: 2009/06/14 00:36:51, Link
Author: sparc
The "tree of life"  quote is from Paul Nelson which refers to articles in the Telegraph and the New Scientist.

Date: 2009/06/14 04:28:10, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L:
Quote
Fronting Wilson’s “explanation” of Mother Theresa is the surest sign of the slow suicide of materialist/Darwinist ideology - but the death watch will take a long time.
(emphasis mine)
As if we weren't living in times for which Intelligent Design being accepted as a mainstream idea has been predicted (R. Smalley, 2004).

Date: 2009/06/15 11:53:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 15 2009,10:30)
 
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 15 2009,15:53)
I have developed a theory about KF - he does not exist, in actual fact Gordon Mullings has been playing around with a creationist version of an automatic research paper generator.

Simply input some cdesign proponentist keywords and watch as it generates line after line of garbage.  It is being developed to increase their chances of getting science papers published in 'peer reviewed' journals.  Automatic research paper generators seem to have a better publication record than ID at then moment.

That's pure genius!

Just try the Inauthentic Paper Detector.

Date: 2009/06/17 23:17:25, Link
Author: sparc
since linking at UD never works properly, since I am afraid it will not show up anyway and for your entertainment I put this link here.

Date: 2009/06/18 23:39:57, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
I now earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace research and development, with specialties in navigation and control software for precision-guided airdrop systems, and most recently in explicit finite-element analysis of dynamic systems. I became interested in software engineering when I discovered artificial intelligence in the mid-1980s, and am the primary author of two world-class AI programs. I am almost completely self-taught in all disciplines outside of those represented by my college degrees.

Could somebody please re-engineer Gil's album cover with the title "Colateral Damage"

Date: 2009/06/19 23:34:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (J-Dog @ June 18 2009,09:54)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 18 2009,07:34)
Gil has seen God
       
Quote
Why be a Christian when perhaps being a Deist is more congruent with ID?

Because the Judeo-Christian depiction of the human condition comports precisely with what I observe, in others, in history, and, most importantly, in myself: made in God’s image but in a fallen state, from which we are incapable of rescuing ourselves in our own strength. Thus, each individual human heart must be transformed. (emphases added)


Or at least he's seen an image of God.   Must have left an old photo lying around somewhere .

I think he thinks this is it....


With respect to his shirt I conclude that this is the god he has seen.

Date: 2009/06/21 00:55:21, Link
Author: sparc
In case you are wondering where my avatar comes from   go here. You will also find it in google maps

Date: 2009/06/21 04:42:52, Link
Author: sparc
Isn't it rather Tarda in Poland?

Date: 2009/06/21 04:48:17, Link
Author: sparc
OTH, although it has been stated at UD recently that there are no species among plants we already have a species named Tulipa tarda and a disease, Porphyria cutanea tarda, which surprisingly is manifesting rather in liver than in brain.

Date: 2009/06/21 22:44:52, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Well, I propose an experiment:  sock and non-sock commenters at UD refrain from commenting on new posts for, say, two weeks.  Any posts in which you/your sock have already participated are still fair game: keep commenting if you so choose.  However, if you haven't already participated, you can't comment on the old posts either.  

Could you please leave a note when the experiment is over?

Date: 2009/06/22 14:29:55, Link
Author: sparc
If Diffaxial will stop posting over at UD for 14 days I will miss things like this  
Quote
457
Diffaxial
06/22/2009
6:20 am

StephenB @ 308:

   Methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983.

And StephenB @ 360:

   what does that have to do with what is being argued, which is the fact that methodological naturalism has no history?

And @ 375:

   As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear.

(Some history is quoted)

StephenB @ 450:

   Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm…

   Haeckel and his phony drawings were starting to become serious players and the roots of methodological naturalism were indeed being planted, though they had not yet fully taken hold…

   What Darwin had begun, his followers felt they had to finish. Indeed, some think that methodological naturalism was starting to get an oral history in the early twentieth century, and that it took fifty years before Devries finally coined the phrase and made it his own….

   That is as far back as he can realistically stretch it—-the middle of the 19th Century. That’s when the seeds were planted, as I have pointed out Still, the hammer had not yet dropped…

Other phenomena with no history (by StephenB’s standards):

- Aviation
- The Republican Party
- Communism
- Electronic communication
- Baseball
- Impressionism
- Ice cream

We await your best Nathan Thurm, Stephen.

(”I knew that. Do you think I didn’t know that? I knew that. I knew the idea has a history. Did you notice what I left out? I meant no history before the 19th century. Everybody knows that. You knew that. And I said no history as a RULE. I knew it had some sort of history. Why are you lying about that? See how easily you lose focus? Did you think I didn’t know that?”)

Date: 2009/06/22 14:30:32, Link
Author: sparc
If Diffaxial will stop posting over at UD for 14 days I will miss things like this    
Quote
457
Diffaxial
06/22/2009
6:20 am

StephenB @ 308:

   Methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983.

And StephenB @ 360:

   what does that have to do with what is being argued, which is the fact that methodological naturalism has no history?

And @ 375:

   As I already explained, it has no history, a point that I have made abundantly clear.

(Some history is quoted)

StephenB @ 450:

   Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm…

   Haeckel and his phony drawings were starting to become serious players and the roots of methodological naturalism were indeed being planted, though they had not yet fully taken hold…

   What Darwin had begun, his followers felt they had to finish. Indeed, some think that methodological naturalism was starting to get an oral history in the early twentieth century, and that it took fifty years before Devries finally coined the phrase and made it his own….

   That is as far back as he can realistically stretch it—-the middle of the 19th Century. That’s when the seeds were planted, as I have pointed out Still, the hammer had not yet dropped…

Other phenomena with no history (by StephenB’s standards):

- Aviation
- The Republican Party
- Communism
- Electronic communication
- Baseball
- Impressionism
- Ice cream

We await your best Nathan Thurm, Stephen.

(”I knew that. Do you think I didn’t know that? I knew that. I knew the idea has a history. Did you notice what I left out? I meant no history before the 19th century. Everybody knows that. You knew that. And I said no history as a RULE. I knew it had some sort of history. Why are you lying about that? See how easily you lose focus? Did you think I didn’t know that?”)

Date: 2009/06/23 11:45:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
anyone have good questions for Stephen Meyer?
what the hell is he doing with the colored orchidometer? And why is it small compared to this one? Does that mean that evolution is true?

Date: 2009/06/23 23:01:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ June 23 2009,11:45)
 
Quote
anyone have good questions for Stephen Meyer?
what the hell is he doing with the colored orchidometer? And why is it small compared to this one? Does that mean that evolution is true?

Dr. Meyer starts playing with the orchidometer at 22:05.

Date: 2009/06/25 23:57:41, Link
Author: sparc
Gordon produces highest quality tard in the Answers for Judge Jones thread
       
Quote
210
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
9:34 am

Folks:
       
Quote
211
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
9:43 am

PS:

         
Quote
214
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
10:51 am

DK:


         
Quote
215
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
11:02 am

PS


         
Quote
216
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
11:12 am

PPS


         
Quote
217
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
11:17 am

PPPS:


         
Quote
223
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
11:37 am

Further note:


         
Quote
224
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
11:49 am

DK:


         
Quote
226
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
12:29 pm

One last point:


         
Quote
229
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
12:38 pm

Rob:


         
Quote
231
kairosfocus
06/24/2009
12:40 pm

DK:


         
Quote
293
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
2:28 am

A further footnote:


         
Quote
294
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
2:29 am

7 –>


         
Quote
296
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
2:55 am

PS:


         
Quote
303
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
7:50 am

Onlookers:


         
Quote
344
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
12:29 pm

LH:


         
Quote
346
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
12:42 pm

PS:


         
Quote
347
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
12:49 pm

PPS:


         
Quote
349
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
1:16 pm

Footnote:


         
Quote
350
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
1:27 pm

PS:


         
Quote
351
kairosfocus
06/25/2009
1:37 pm

PPS:



Summary of the relevant parts:
   
Quote
PS:
PS
PPS
PPPS:
Further note:
One last point:
A further footnote:
PS:
PS:
PPS:
Footnote:
PS:
PPS:

To be continued.





Date: 2009/06/26 01:34:40, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, for us non-native speakers following the Judge Jones thread: Does "learned hand" have some co-notation UD commons miss?

Date: 2009/06/26 11:46:19, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ June 25 2009,23:57)
Gordon produces highest quality tard in the Answers for Judge Jones thread

[...]
       
Summary of the relevant parts:
       
Quote
PS:
PS
PPS
PPPS:
Further note:
One last point:
A further footnote:
PS:
PS:
PPS:
Footnote:
PS:
PPS:

To be continued.

Continued in the very same thread    
Quote
PS:
PS:
PPS

Is FCSI emerging from it?

Date: 2009/06/26 22:43:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (someotherguy @ June 26 2009,15:36)
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]

If I understood it correctly the registration fee is 50 USD only. Isn't that an invitation for some Sokal hoax.

Date: 2009/06/26 22:46:41, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, Dave Scott (sic!) and James Irwin drove earlier on the surface of the moon than    
Quote
Astronaut Charlie Duke
who    
Quote
will be keynoting the conference, describing his experiences as the first and only person to drive on the moon

Date: 2009/06/28 21:53:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 28 2009,11:04)
   
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 28 2009,10:06)
     
Quote (khan @ June 28 2009,10:02)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 28 2009,11:00)
       
Quote
It should be repeated for the 100th time, common descent is not the same as common ancestry.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-323621

I've been following the endless argument for several decades and haven't encountered this claim. I'm trying to imagine some context in which it could be physically possible.

It does boggle.

Every time I read that line I have a giggling fit.  What the fuck?

"Common ancestry" could refer to the sort of ancestry you see within baramins (originally created kinds in garbled Anglophone pseudo-Hebrew; min baru would be closer to the mark IIRC), but "common descent" means there's only one or a few original common ancestors and is not compatible with baraminology, and thus is right out. Or so I gather.

This creationwiki article exhibits Jerry's position on common descent vs.  common ancestry as 100% YEC:  
Quote
By contrast, creationists believe that God created many kinds of organisms, and that innumerable species developed from those original kinds through microevolution via inherent genetic variability and natural selection. That tigers, panthers, and cheetahs share a common ancestor is a view accepted by most young earth creationists. However, the belief that biological evolution supports that these felines share ancestors with horses, dogs, and bats is point where the evolution and most creationists part ways.
[...]
Given a purported absence of hard evidence to support belief in common ancestry under evolutionary conclusions, creationists typically argue that common descent is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence.

Despite this conclusion readers are redirected to the common descent page when they click the common ancestor link embedded therein. I guess this is the vicious circle Jerry's argument is based on.

Date: 2009/06/28 23:08:43, Link
Author: sparc
I've already voted for grrlscientist but the others here may want to support Wesley's way south.

Date: 2009/06/28 23:16:16, Link
Author: sparc
Since my last comment which linked to the original web site didn't show up here is another try send Wesley south. However, I voted for grrlscientist before I realized that he joined the race.

ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize that my comment just showed up on the next page.

Date: 2009/06/29 11:27:35, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Reed @ June 29 2009,01:36)
BTW sparc, expelling Wes to the frigid south has it's own thread.

Thanks for the hint.
Actually, I was in Leiden for a workshop on innovative mouse models and may have missed some developments when I scrolled through these pages to catch up after I returned.

Date: 2009/06/30 12:07:12, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ June 26 2009,11:46)
 
Quote (sparc @ June 25 2009,23:57)
Gordon produces highest quality tard in the Answers for Judge Jones thread

[...]
       
Summary of the relevant parts:
         
Quote
PS:
PS
PPS
PPPS:
Further note:
One last point:
A further footnote:
PS:
PS:
PPS:
Footnote:
PS:
PPS:

To be continued.

Continued in the very same thread      
Quote
PS:
PS:
PPS

Is FCSI emerging from it?

Maybe Gordon is going for a new record soon.
He will have to beat his own  
Quote
PPPPPs
which he only reached once.

Date: 2009/07/02 22:23:30, Link
Author: sparc
On the Closer to truth pages are several clips in which WMAD presents his views. E.g. How is God the creator?    
Quote
We are finding signs of intelligence in ways that we can access it scientifically I think this is an exciting development  - if we are right. If we are wrong - well,we have wasted our time.
He? That's it? It's as easy as "if we are wrong we have wasted our time?" Man, I know you don't give a shit but you are wasting my time. Especially, since you have been proven wrong and even lying time and again.

Date: 2009/07/04 13:56:11, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Looking forward to this comment's reception by the Intelligent Design Community

It's currently quite safe at UD. Somehow I get the impression that even moderators either don't read, lack the necessary knowledge or don't comprehend comments. I tend to the later because they didn't care about me citing Warda and Han.

Date: 2009/07/04 13:56:58, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, did KF disappear?

Date: 2009/07/05 00:29:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Questions?  Comments?
According to the law of information conservation Gil's comments contain identical amounts of christian supererb idiocy (CSI). Thus, we are rather dealing with a constant and the differences we note are just in the eyes of us observers. Actually, why should somebody be less stupid while programing checkers than during hang gliding.Thus, in conclusion we don't need to  match the pathetic level of detail of the categories you've introduced. In principle it should be sufficient to post just  
Quote
Gil
and everybody will know what the post is about.

Date: 2009/07/06 11:52:40, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Here's the link again:Girl on the Right: As opposed to the other 364 days

She also says they all huff gasoline and she's not too fond of Palestinians either.  She's my idea of an absolutely typical conservative.  
Is Wendy Sullivan real or even a woman?

Date: 2009/07/07 12:00:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (ppb @ July 07 2009,09:52)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2009,10:46)
It would seem one could form a bacon tree (yes Joe, its a nested hierarchy). But I don't want to ham bush this thread.

OK, back on topic.

According to Oracle Of Bacon, William Dembski has a Bacon Number of 2.

         William Dembski
                    |
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
                    |
              Ben Stein
                    |
Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)
                    |
            Kevin Bacon

Actually you can use the calculator for other purposes:  
Quote
William Dembski  has a Hitler  number of 4.
and  
Quote
William Dembski  has a Joseph Stalin  number of 4.
Luckily  
Quote
William Dembski  has a God  number of 3.
Of course at least one is doing better:  
Quote
Pope  has a God  number of 2.
Unfortunately though, something must have gone completely wrong during the last 2000 years: Different Jesus guys (II, III and IV; who knows what happened to I) have God numbers of 4 which is worse than WMAD's. They've acted in more interested movies:
Jesus II - Blind Sex Dates 3 (2005)  
Jesus III -Craving Foreskin (2001) (V)
Jesus IV - Circus Camp (2006)

BTW, Dr. Dr. Dembski is linked to God via Hugh M. Hefner but at least his God number is better than those of any Jesus.

Date: 2009/07/07 21:42:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Lowell @ July 07 2009,16:44)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,21:01)
Granville Sewell's post is lingering like a pimple on a forehead:
   
Quote
I wish someone would add a new post, mine has been at the top for nearly two days, this one isn’t worth that much exposure.

Denyse, Bill, somebody…post something new and more interesting!

Granny's plea appears to have been deleted, and it's been more than two days since a new post has gone up.

I assume the Intelligent Design Community is hard at work somewhere trying to figure out how much CSI is in a fracterial blagellum?

That's how the end of overwhelmingevidence.com started.

Date: 2009/07/07 22:10:22, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, WMAD updated the OE domain registration recently. The new expiry date is June 3, 2010. I am afraid it won't help much:
Last comment 7 weeks and 5 days ago
Last user point increase: sometimes between December 14, 2008 and December 18, 2008 Denyse O'Leary was credited the last 10 points. Her total of 2709 points equals 41% of all user points ever awarded at OE.

Date: 2009/07/07 22:22:25, Link
Author: sparc
Some posts like G. Sewells latest are displayed black when I open them in Firefox (newest version). The comments section remains readable. This wasn't the case when it was published and it's still OK in Explorer 8.
Do other people experience the same?

Date: 2009/07/07 23:52:31, Link
Author: sparc
After having asked Joseph to elaborate his thoughts on information and DNA  
Quote
Unfortunately, you may have overseen my last question regarding how your take on the DNA/information issue fits with the ideas of leading ID proponents like Dembski, Behe and Meyer. I would appreciate if you could convince the founder of this platform to add his thoughts to this discussion.
he replies:  
Quote
Dr Meyer appears close to my comcept but as of chapter 7 he really hasn’t made the plunge.

As for Wm Dembski, my plan was to develop my thoughts a bit more.


I am still working on a test.
(emphasis mine)

Date: 2009/07/08 01:36:33, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ July 07 2009,21:42)
 
Quote (Lowell @ July 07 2009,16:44)
     
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,21:01)
Granville Sewell's post is lingering like a pimple on a forehead:
       
Quote
I wish someone would add a new post, mine has been at the top for nearly two days, this one isn’t worth that much exposure.

Denyse, Bill, somebody…post something new and more interesting!

Granny's plea appears to have been deleted, and it's been more than two days since a new post has gone up.

I assume the Intelligent Design Community is hard at work somewhere trying to figure out how much CSI is in a fracterial blagellum?

That's how the end of overwhelmingevidence.com started.


Fixed that for you.

Date: 2009/07/12 23:40:08, Link
Author: sparc
D'OL's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam":
Quote
By the way, if news reports distinguished between findings that are well founded and findings that are not, all but 5% of everything written on evolutionary psychology could hit the recycler, bypassing the press.
Does evolutionary psychology assume a gene for bad writing or why is she so afraid of evolutionary psychology?

Date: 2009/07/13 00:54:36, Link
Author: sparc
Just for the record. I replied to Clive's question
Quote
Just out of curiosity, are you an After The Bar Closes Atheist? How do your views fit with the official position of the Panda’s Thumb?
but it remained in the moderation queue
Quote
1. I’ve been an atheist long before something like the internet or ATBC existed. You know, these were the days when creationists were honest creationists.
2. I am pretty independent of PT and must admit that it was more interesting during the Kitzmiller days when DaveScot was still ruling UD. You know the times when Dr. Dembski didn’t show up in Dover.

Date: 2009/07/14 22:36:03, Link
Author: sparc
deadman 932
Quote
A greater level of detail concerning isolative mechanisms, repeated episodes through time, drift, sympatry, gene flow, SELECTION, etc. is what Von Buch and Wagner also lacked.
didymos
Quote
You have to see the full context ...
Did you never hear about  
Quote
your pathetic level of detail

Date: 2009/07/15 23:10:54, Link
Author: sparc
I 've just received this wordpress error message from UD:
Quote
Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you've already said that!
Obviously, a useful tool. I only wonder how KF, Jerry, JoeG et al. can circumvent it.

Date: 2009/07/17 11:36:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 17 2009,07:11)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 16 2009,23:00)
         
Quote
7
O'Leary
07/16/2009
5:30 pm
Oh, so Larry the Laff was just settin’ them up, eh? Well, if he doesn’t write in to say any different, that’s where we’re gonna leave it.

As far as I know, no reasonable person has ever tried to provide a naturalistic account of the virgin birth, because it has never been conceived (so to speak) as a naturalistic event.

Arguments around whether it occurred generally revolve around issues of theology, not technique.

I would like to hope that the devout lay Catholic and the Jesuit brother on the panel made that point clearly at least.


tran-mother is a GEEEEEEENIUS

Actually, didn't Davescot speculate on just that matter a few years back when a Komodo Dragon conceived and gave birth through parthenogenesis?

EDIT:  Yup.  Here it is.

I've actually added a comment with a link to Dave's 1n Jesus post at UD earlier today. Unfortunately, passing the moderation  queue takes about 12 hours. At least if one is posting from Europe.    
Quote
12
sparc
07/16/2009
9:38 pm  
Quote
As far as I know, no reasonable person has ever tried to provide a naturalistic account of the virgin birth, because it has never been conceived (so to speak) as a naturalistic event.
Actually, one of the brightest thinkers of the ID movement, UD’s own former blog czar DaveScot, tried exactly that here at uncommondescent.com in the following thread: There are more things in heaven and earth, Paul, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. IIRC, starting from John A. Davison’s semi-meiosis hypothesis (for details see “Intelligent Design Links” in the sidebar of this page) he concluded that Jesus must have been 1n.

Date: 2009/07/19 12:52:14, Link
Author: sparc
In the long run it may be a good sign that DO'L is taking over UD completely: After the same happened to OE all other posters left (IIRC, JAD was banned):

Date: 2009/07/20 23:19:45, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD:            
Quote
Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

My appeals to THE ID authority are being ignored:            
Quote
5
sparc
07/20/2009
9:19 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dr. Dembki,
Kairosfocus introduced the term FCSI (aka FSCI) on this forum. I may have missed it but do you or the other EIL members use this term. If so could you please share your thoughts on it?


           
Quote
185
sparc
07/09/2009
11:48 am

Joseph, did you finally present your ideas about information stored in DNA but not its sequence to Dr. Dembski? I am eager hear his opinion.
In addition, has he finally subscribed to FCSI, FSCI or other combinations of the four letters?
I had the impression that he kept the three letter CSI.


         
Quote
25
sparc
07/06/2009
11:47 am          
Quote
The instructions are not the sequence any more than the computer program is the disk.


Joseph, could you elaborate this further. I also would be interested if Drs. Dembski, Behe and Meyer share your views.


         
Quote

32
sparc
07/06/2009
11:45 pm

Thank’s for your efforts Joseph. I still don’t grasp the following:          
Quote
The seq spec is just to carry out the code and the instructions.
The instructions are not the sequence any more than the computer program is the disk.


Do you refer to epigenetic effects like TF-induced DNA bending, DNA methylation, histone acetylation, nucleosome positioning, higher order DNA structures? This is how I read your next comment            
Quote
The instructions are on/ in the DNA.

Or are you heading towards DNA activation as described by Alexander.
Unfortunately, you may have overseen my last question regarding how your take on the DNA/information issue fits with the ideas of leading ID proponents like Dembski, Behe and Meyer. I would appreciate if you could convince the founder of this platform to add his thoughts to this discussion.
 
Quote
34
sparc
07/07/2009
11:37 pm

Dr. Meyers may come even closer in the following chapters.
As for Dr. Dembski I guess as the founder of UD he will be aware of the thoughts you have published here.
 
Quote
35
sparc
07/07/2009
11:58 pm

   Do you have knowledge of data packet sending/ data communications? Or computer bus structure?

No, but I have added several Mb to organisms as different as E.coli and M. musculus. I also contributed something like 1/1,000,000 of humen and mouse sequence information to the databases back in the 90s and was involved in the sequencing of several Mb of the IgH locus of 129 mice.

   There is information on/ in the DNA that is not part of its physical make-up.

I assume that this can not be expressed in IUPAC code or other measures of physical properties. Thus, I would suggest that you try to formulate it in pure mathematical terms though I must admit that this is not my field of expertise. Still, mathmaticians like Dr. Dembski would surely appreciate this.


To my best knowledge Dembski still never commented on FCSI.

Date: 2009/07/20 23:26:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
you can't play the blues on a piano unless the PIANO IS FUCKING BLUE.

Brilliant, I will use this as my personal sig line.

I hope somebody will add this to UD when the "you have to rock the computer to simulate an earth quake" bull shit come up again.

Date: 2009/07/20 23:33:33, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (didymos @ July 20 2009,13:03)
Clivebaby's gonna be busy:

Exhibit A:
 
Quote

StuartHarris

07/20/2009

12:03 pm

Where did all the other bloggers at UD go? The site seems to have become an almost exclusive place for Denise O’Leary. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy her posts, but five or six a day from one person is a bit much and pushes everything else below the fold.

Also O’Leary’s and other posts are increasingly just links to external stuff rather than original commentary.


Exhibit bFast:  
Quote

bFast

07/20/2009

12:06 pm

Wow, we made it. This has now completely become the O’Leary site. There are no posts on the main page posted by anyone but the ubiquitous O’Leary. Yaaaay!


Do it Clivebaby: Defend Her Honor!

DO'L is nothing compared to scordova who according to his blog's side bar turned into a self commenting entity.
I just wonder if JAD left or if Sal banned him.

Date: 2009/07/20 23:46:34, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2009,17:02)
 
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 11 2009,22:47)
Been awhile since I've posted.
I received my weekly edition of Chemical and Engineering News, standard with my ACS membership. This one was full of letters to the editor saying, in essence, discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory, and include Intelligent Design. I'm confused; is it inappropriate for chemists to pass judgment on evolutionary theory? Haven't evolutionary biologists answered all these supposed claims and found them lacking? I want to write a letter too, but the last time I tried it was rejected. Are other science publications seeing this nonsense?

I'm also an ACS member, and I've also been reading these letters, and amusingly I've also had letters criticising this nonsense rejected. Solidarity, comrade!

I'm debating whether or not to keep my ACS membership in the absence of a serious statement from the ACS regarding this matter.

Louis

Finally, this has been mentioned at UD:  
Quote
10
Gage
07/20/2009
10:39 pm

In his zeal to complain, I think Pinker got his facts wrong. I believe Judge Jones used the term “breathtaking inanity” to refer to some of the school boards member’s behavior, never to ID theory itself.

Also, Pinker is again way off when he says “Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously…” For just one example, take a look at the Letters section (p 5-6) of the July 6th issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Of six letters published in response to the Editor’s heavy-handed dismissal of ID, five acknowledged flaws in evolutionary theory and, it seems to me, all five were supportive of ID too.

Date: 2009/07/21 23:34:47, Link
Author: sparc
Dr. Dembski is seemingly still not willing to talk about FCSI/FSCI:
Quote
4
sparc
07/20/2009
9:19 pm
Dr. Dembki,
Kairosfocus introduced the term FCSI (aka FSCI) on this forum. I may have missed it but do you or the other EIL members use this term. If so could you please share your thoughts on it?

   
Quote
29
sparc
07/21/2009
11:21 am
   
Quote
4
sparc
07/20/2009
9:19 pm
Dr. Dembki,
Kairosfocus introduced the term FCSI (aka FSCI) on this forum. I may have missed it but do you or the other EIL members use this term. If so could you please share your thoughts on it?

   
Quote
13
kairosfocus
07/21/2009
6:24 am
Pardon a cross-thread remark:
Re Sparc @4 above:
The underlying objection in the cross-threaded question has been (again)answered in the eye into materialism thread at 200.
Indeed, the Weak Argument Correctives 26 - 29, especially 28, have long had an adequate answer. (But objectors to the inference from reliable signs such as FSCI — and the broader CSI — to the signified, empirically warranted intelligent causes thereof, have been desperate to rhetorically blunt its force without dealing with the issue squarely on the merits.)

Don’t you agree that a simple “yes” by Dr. Dembski would help you?


   
Quote
7
sparc
07/21/2009
11:36 am
What about Dr D himself??
Unfortunately, Dr. Dembski doesn’t take part in the discussion as much as he did when he and DaveScot were running UD. His contributions would help to clarify some issue like the use of FCSI by KairosFocus.


   
Quote
43
sparc
07/21/2009
10:44 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
BTW, Ms O’Leary, do you agree with KF’s FCSI/FSCI views? And do you know Dr. Dembski’s position on FCSI/FSCI?


   
Quote
5
sparc
07/21/2009
11:08 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
CannuckianYankee
What do you get when you combine an obese John waters film actor/actress with a door-to-door salesman?
Do you intend to suggest that the result contains FSCI?


   
Quote
6
sparc
07/21/2009
11:08 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
If so, would Dr. Dembski agree?

Date: 2009/07/23 11:53:10, Link
Author: sparc
You may want to take a glimpse at UD at GOOGLE ad planer (The link is set to US, you may choose other countries)

Date: 2009/07/24 11:24:09, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Zachriel @ July 24 2009,06:44)
Quote
kairosfocus: Similarly, in a GA, its code is not allowed to vary at random as part of the normal execution. Nor that of the underlying operating system

After all this time, they still haven't learned the fundamentals of modeling. They still think you have to randomly mutate the operating system to simulate evolution. Or spin the computer on a rope to simulate planets in orbit. Or heat a computer in a vat to simulate the turbulence of boiling water.

Gil Dodgen, what have you wrought!

I always wonder if Gil drops his computer out of a plane when he is testing his  
Quote
guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) software
by simulating  
Quote
precision-guided airdrop systems
. And what does his boss think about this.

Date: 2009/07/27 11:52:17, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (JLT @ July 27 2009,07:48)
 
Quote (Maya @ July 26
2009,15:11)
Jerry
brings the tard in response to BillB:
       
Quote
"the FSCI in a GA, in a pen, a rock or anything else for that matter."

There is no FSCI in a pen or a rock though I could imagine how some intelligence might make it so. I assume it is a normal pen. In a GA, just use the letters or individual units of code and do an analysis such as the the amount of variation in an English sentence.

"Methinks I am contrary" as opposed tp "ivjioe kjfe faod tm q"

or 2^21 for each. Neither would be FSCI except there exist an independent mechanism to relate one to something else. Both of these other entities (that which does the relating and that which being related to) are completely independent of the initial entity or data set which is the source of information.

Now maybe in some other language or by using some encryption technique we can relate the second string of information to something else. If that is true, then that string is also FSCI.
There is no FSCI in a pen, therefore a pen is not designed. Got it.

Jerry follows up, admitting an error! His FSCI calculation for "Methinks I am contrary" is now 27^21, presumably the number of letters in the alphabet, plus a space, raised to the power of the number of letters in the sentence. Now, he's still wrong (surprise, surprise) for at least two reasons. First, he's using both upper and lower case letters, so he should come up with 53^21. Second, the number of bits required to describe 53 different letters is approximately 5.72, so Jerry's number should be about 5.72^21 or 8E15.

So Jerry is asymptotically approaching the ability to do junior high school math. Hopefully some kind sock puppet will explain to him that the real problem lies in applying that number to an actual biological system. Going from "it takes x bits at a minimum to describe this system" to "therefore this system is designed" requires a bit more detail than his handwaving about relating to external entities.

I can't even begin to understand how he can admit that "mabye in some other language . . . we can relate the second string of information to something else . . . then that string is also FSCI" and still claim that FSCI is well-defined.

Every time someone at UD "calculates" the FSCI by simply pointing at the length of an "instruction" that cracks me up.
All this obfuscation and in the end they're back to Look how long it is, the probability of that turning up all at once is [made up reeaallly small number] ergo GOD.
The fascinating bit about this is how inconsistent they are in applying it.
Take e. g. an enzyme X that binds substrate A and with a much lower efficiency a substrate B. After a gene duplication one of the "daughter"
enzymes X1 retains the ability to bind A but the other one (X2) mutates and binds B now with a much higher efficency (while binding A with much less efficency or not at all).
By their normal method of "calculation", X1 and X2 together are longer than X was = contain more FSCI = increase in information.
But No, they say, the information to bind B was already present in X, so it's actually a loss in information (X2 lost its ability to bind A) or at least the information content stayed the same.*
So even whole genome duplications that might have provided some of the "raw materials" for diversification in the history of vertebrate evolution (if
it happened
) wouldn't constitute an increase in information content for your normal "I'm not even using my fingers to count" FSCI
professional.**
So, in all these cases length is not equal to FSCI. But as soon as someone asks how FSCI is determined they are back to Number of basepairs = FSCI.

Invariably, whenever gene/genome duplication is pointed out and they realise that they can't maintain their length equals FSCI BS or else they'd admit that evolutionary processes can form new information, they ask where the information came from in the first place.

IMO, that's the reason why Meyer wrote his book - while the alleged impossibility of OOL was always a part of creationism, for ID (at least for the part of IDists that accepts that e.g. gene duplication followed by diversification of function can happen and has happened) it's the last argument they have left.




* The same kind of "logic" allows them to accept articles that show that a gene arose from a transposon or ERV sequence (and even see it as evidence for their claim that there's no such thing as junk DNA – the logic of which I've never understood; why should pointing out the rare exceptions where these sequences did gain a function prove that they always have a function?). That's clearly gain of function but in their mind didn't constitute an increase in information because the sequence didn't appear out of nowhere.  

** BUT, humanz has moar infomashion than monkeys!

As I've pointed out at UD the FCSI of any of KF posts is a constant that equals GOD. In the same comment I've introduced EFCSI (effective functional complex specific information). According to a quick google search KF writings did not produce many reactions outside of UD. Thus the EFCSI of his complete work approaches zero. However, another measure ESDFCSI (effective self delusional functional complex specific information) of his posts is big and keeps increasing.

ETA according to JLT's corrections

Date: 2009/07/27 22:03:30, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Amadan @ July 27 2009,19:33)
 
Quote
1 –> The simple metric of FSCI is based on thresholds that give us the ability to make a conclusion based on a topology of islands of function in a sea of non functional configs, and in the further context of sufficient information storage in the function that unaided random walk based search strategies and the like will be maximally unlikely to succeed in reaching shores of function

It took me a while, but I eventually figured out what he means:


Is it just me or does the island in the foreground lack FSCI.

Date: 2009/07/27 23:04:12, Link
Author: sparc
DO'L:    
Quote
8. I wish to express thanks to kairosfocus at 97 for defending my fellow blogresses and myself.
Don't miss the 450 words of self-flagellation DO'L thanks KF for:

 
Quote
Mrs O’Leary:

First and foremost, on seeing the behaviour you and other ladies have been subjected to, I am ashamed for my sex; that some of us refuse to learn basic gentleman-ship and good broughtupcy. (Mr Day: were you under my household, you would now have an appointment to publicly wash out your mouth with soap, followed by a face to face apology. FOR SHAME!)

Madam, I feel a duty to you to apologise on behalf of my sex, that you as a Woman, a Lady and a Grandmother, should be subjected to such verbal filth, whatever the “justification” proffered. NOTHING can justify contempt, derogation, habitual distortion and misrepresentation, denigration, disrespect and demonisation.

ESPECIALLY when it is offered in the persistent absence of being able to understand and cogently address a vital issue for our civlisation issue on its merits.

And, that is redoubled when such abuse and resort to vulgarity and slander is a part of what is now a routine rhetorical resort and pattern used by Darwinists (and a great many others supporting various politically correct secular humanist- statist- globalist agendas . . . [if you doubt me, just Google Bjorn Lomberg]):

[1] distraction [i.e red herrings, dragged across the track of truth to pull us away, and led out to . . . ]

[2] distortion [i.e strawman caricatures of real arguments (hint to EL at 65: address the real issue on its merits, not a handy strawman distortion), soaked in ad hominems based on . . . ]

[3] demonisation and derogation [i.e. igniting the ad hominem-soaked strawman, clouding, confusing, poisoning, and choking the now highly polarised atmosphere, so that ability to hear and correctly/fairly judge on the merits towards the truth is diminished, leading to . . . . ]

[4] unjust dismissal and incivility [down which road lies a great danger to our whole civilisation].

_

In short, Mrs O’Leary, by their habitual abusive and unjust conduct, the Darwinists are telling anyone who will but listen carefully and read between the lines, that they have no real case on the merits, but are so committed to a destructive agenda that they would disrespect and denigrate any who challenge them; recklessly putting our civlisation at risk — democratic self-government by free people depends for its sustainability on mutual respect, civility and a determination to pursue “liberty and justice for all” — to sustain an agenda that cannot stand on its merits in power.

And that its truly shameful misbehaviour.

GEM of TKI

PS: Back to my vacation, after one more short break to answer EL’s off- topic attempt to caricature and dismiss someone not present to defend himself through a turnabout false accusation, at 65.

Date: 2009/07/28 22:28:02, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Satirizing ScientismGage

I wanted to highlight a friend’s blog
If you follow the link you will find the following:  
Quote
Join this site
with Google Friend Connect
There are no members yet.

Date: 2009/07/30 01:05:55, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 30 2009,00:30)
I see the list of Authors has reappeared on the UD sidebar. (Must be a full moon) When will Nakashima be allowed to join this glorious company?

Dave S aka DaveScot still finishes 3rd. Until recently, he must have been #2:

William Dembski (1412)
O'Leary (637)
Dave S. (568)
scordova (225)
GilDodgen (160)
Barry Arrington (149)

Date: 2009/07/30 01:11:37, Link
Author: sparc
Meanwhile at OE:  
Quote
Recent comments


 […]
10 weeks 6 days ago
 […]
11 weeks 13 hours ago
 […]
14 weeks 10 hours ago
 […]
18 weeks 1 day ago
 […]
18 weeks 1 day ago
 […]
21 weeks 1 day ago
 […]
23 weeks 4 days ago
 […]
25 weeks 2 days ago
 […]
26 weeks 2 days ago
 […]
28 weeks 6 days ago

Date: 2009/08/02 00:21:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (utidjian @ Aug. 01 2009,09:41)
KF is truly amazing. I don't think I have ever run a cross a kook that can crank out so much tard and other goofiness at the rate he does. Hard to imagine him being gainfully employed at any job that requires more than a couple hours a week in order to get paid. Anyone know his occupation?

-DU-


Did you hear about many prophets who worked themselves? And Gordon E. Mullings envisions himself as a prophet. Otherwise statements like this wouldn't make sense:  
Quote
Clearly, intellectual leadership is a decisive factor (for good or ill) in the present crisis, and must therefore be a key to the sound and sustainable reformation of the Caribbean.  This is not new; the need for prophetic intellectual leadership was also a central issue faced by Paul, most notably on his visit to Athens.  Therefore, his example provides quite relevant insights that we may use to guide our own initiatives.


Thus, his employments / missions don't necessarily qualify as work in the sense that common people use it.

Date: 2009/08/02 11:01:47, Link
Author: sparc
The ugly side of open access.

Date: 2009/08/03 11:47:02, Link
Author: sparc
Is UD going the OE way? No post since July 31.
Or has DO'L taken her summer break.

Date: 2009/08/04 11:43:22, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 04 2009,10:26)
Whenever an IDist cites something....

"Exerpts" by idnet.com.au
       
Quote
Genes may be freely shared around, but where did they come from is the first place?

Collectivist revolution in evolution Mark Buchanan Nature Physics 5, 531 (2009) doi:10.1038/nphys1352 excerpts

“A coming revolution in biology, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution as the key explanatory process in biology.

The evidence for this radical turnabout has been accruing at an accelerating pace. A fair fraction of most bacterial genomes have been acquired not solely through inheritance from earlier generations, but also through horizontal gene transfer. DNA flows readily between bacterial chromosomes and the external world.

Such gene flow exerts an enormous influence on evolutionary dynamics. This was first suspected when a number of bacteria around the world rapidly gained resistance to multiple antibiotic drugs. Such resistance spread too fast to have been ‘invented’ independently by distinct species, but clearly seemed to have spread from one species to another.

The clear impact of horizontal gene transfer on bacterial evolution has been established only fairly recently.

Horizontal gene exchange may have been the dominant force in an earlier era of evolution. The conjecture is that horizontal gene transfer was indeed required for the present genetic code to take the form it has.

Exploring that point in greater detail will be a task for a new kind of biology, one that breaks with many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking.”


The original:
       
Quote
Physics in the past few decades has become increasingly focused on collective phenomena — on the fundamentals of phase transitions and other ordering phenomena in condensed-matter systems, on pattern formation out of equilibrium, and on the rich cooperative dynamics of granular and glassy systems, polymers and other forms of 'soft matter', or charge carriers in high-temperature superconductors and other exotic materials. Maybe this was the inevitable second act following the heroic development of the standard model of the fundamental forces in the 1960s and 1970s.
It now seems clear that biology may also have a second act linked to the widespread importance of collective phenomena. The explosion of genetic and proteomic data, of course, has ushered in the era of systems biology, as biologists have come to recognize the need to gain a more holistic understanding of the functioning of organisms. But this may not be the most radical transformation in store for biological science. A coming revolution in biology, some suggest, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution (in its modern form) from its position as the key explanatory process in biology, and may just bring back some form of Lamarckian evolution — that old idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
The evidence for this radical turnabout has been accruing at an accelerating pace. Nearly a decade ago, a review in Nature already surveyed broad evidence showing that the genetic diversity of many bacteria has arisen not solely through inheritance from earlier generations, but also through so-called horizontal gene transfer — the direct bacterial acquisition of new gene sequences from other contemporary organisms (H. Ochman et al. Nature 405, 299–304; 2000). For example, the traits that distinguish the bacterial species Escherichia coli and Salmonella don't seem to have derived only from a long history of genetic mutation following the divergence of these species from their common ancestral lineage — the typical image of evolutionary differentiation. Rather, the differences seem to have been driven by different genes entering individual bacteria from the environment and spreading within populations, which have subsequently remained genetically distinct.
It seems that a fair fraction of most bacterial genomes have been acquired this way, and that DNA flows readily between bacterial chromosomes and the external world. How does it happen? Apparently, by at least three mechanisms known at present, the simplest of which is 'natural transformation', in which bacteria under ordinary conditions simply take up foreign DNA from their immediate environment — DNA that has been either actively excreted from other bacteria, or that comes from decomposing cells or viral particles. A wide range of bacteria, including human pathogenic bacteria, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, do this routinely, typically in response to environmental cues such as altered growth conditions or starvation, which trigger a physiological change to a state known as 'competence'.
A bacterium can also take up new genetic material more indirectly when infected by a bacteriophage, which can introduce random DNA fragments from another organism it has previously infected. Or genes can be transferred during physical contact between a bacterium and a cell of some other organism, including many plants. Further research will no doubt explain other mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.
But whatever the mechanism, it is clear that such gene flow exerts an enormous influence on evolutionary dynamics. This was first suspected even in the 1950s,when a number of bacteria around the world rapidly gained resistance to multiple antibiotic drugs. Such resistance spread too fast to have been 'invented' independently by distinct species, but clearly seemed to have spread from one species to another. Recent studies show that bacteria exploit pools of available genetic material in a variety of ways, including the discovery and adoption of new genes required for establishing virulence in specific organisms. This seems to be a crude analogue of social learning, in which one species can learn the good tricks already discovered by another.
And what we know now is presumably only a beginning. The clear impact of horizontal gene transfer on bacterial evolution has been established only fairly recently using large-scale genome sequencing, and in the context of a small number of bacteria. Biologists have only begun exploring the various environmental factors that promote or limit horizontal gene transfer, and know almost nothing of how this mechanism of genetic sharing influences the overall logic of the evolutionary process itself.
After all, the apparent ubiquity of horizontal gene transfer implies that microorganisms have an impressive capacity to actively alter their genomes in response to environmental stresses or opportunities, and this capability is intimately linked to their involvement in a larger community in which the diversity of genetic material resides. Consequently, as some authors have suggested (N. Goldenfeld and C. Woese, Nature 445, 369; 2007), the basic concept of an organism as an isolated biological entity with a unique genetic make-up makes little sense in the bacterial world, as the genetic repertoire of an entire population, as well as foreign species, is available to any individual within it.
This profound difference also raises the interesting possibility that horizontal gene exchange may have been the dominant force in an earlier era of evolution. A host of empirical studies suggest as much, and the need for such a perspective has also arisen from careful consideration of the genetic code and its optimality. Some suggest that the structure of the code can be understood as having an optimal character, but not if considered from a perspective based on standard vertical evolution with genes only flowing downwards through inheritance (K. Vetsigian, C. Woese and N. Goldenfeld Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10696–10701; 2006). The conjecture is that horizontal gene transfer was indeed required for the present genetic code to take the form it has, and that the emergence of life most likely went through a series of stages, with the early stage more Lamarckian in character, and only the latter stages becoming more Darwinian.
Exploring that point in greater detail will be a task for a new kind of biology, one that breaks with many of the presuppositions of traditional evolutionary thinking, and explores the potential for rich and surprising dynamics in a collective setting. It will almost surely benefit from the ideas and experience of physics, which has already experienced its own collectivist revolution.

["exerpts" bolded, interesting ellipses in red and two nice Woese references in blue]

It's more interesting to consider why idnet left out the bits I highlighted than what he actually posted.
It seems that he doesn't like the fact that HGT was known to happen for quite a while and only the whole impact of HGT was discovered recently (because whole genome sequencing became possible).
He also doesn't like references to empirical research and/or evidence in earlier studies. That's understandable, he being an IDist and all.

Brillant. Thanks JLT.

Date: 2009/08/04 22:42:34, Link
Author: sparc
DId KF leave UD again? I haven't seen him for days.

Date: 2009/08/09 00:02:54, Link
Author: sparc
Something pompous Sal didn't let through:
Quote
200
sparc
08/06/2009
11:27 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.  
Quote
When I was visiting with Dr. Sanford, I suggested a more accurate way to empirically measure the phenomenon would be through examining the spread of single nucleotide polymorphisms (or any mutation for that matter) in deeply “conserved” regions between humans and mice or even between humans.

   [...]

Unfortunately, the idea came up at the end of an 8-hour conversation at his home, and we weren’t able to work out the details of a possible exploration and appropriate experiments and observations. Maybe next time. I hope to see Walter ReMine in a few weeks.


Come on, Sal. Do you really want to tell us that science missed an opportunity that would have changed the world? There are things like e-mails, telephones, faxes today. Even in earlier days scientific exchange was not depending on meetings. If you were really on to something you would have followed it. With or without Dr. Dr. Sanford. And you wouldn’t wait until you meet ReMine.

Date: 2009/08/10 22:56:07, Link
Author: sparc
I wonder if it is just a technical problem: My comments at UD don't appear as being under modertion anymore. They just disappear after hitting the submit button.

ETA: Since the good Dr. appeared personally and my comments currently don't go through I would appreciate if someone would kindly ask him to share his thoughts on KF's FSCI fuss.

Date: 2009/08/10 23:14:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
you have achieved full bannination.  congratulations!!!
Really? Must be silent bannination then. But who did it? Wanna-be-blog-czar Clive? I must admitt that I would feel disappointed if this were true. It's just not the same as being banninated by DaveScot, altough this was for only  8 hours and 1 minute.

Date: 2009/08/11 03:49:57, Link
Author: sparc
So Gordon Mullings aka KAirosFocus has reasons to hide his name?

Date: 2009/08/11 21:46:27, Link
Author: sparc
Oh no. Michael Behe has his own UD blog now. Seemingly, no comments allowed.
Do we need an extra thread?

Date: 2009/08/11 22:12:38, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
29
MeganC
08/11/2009
1:53 pm

kairosfocus,

I heard that you invented FCSI/FSCI and I understand that the ‘F’ stands for ‘functional’. So I was just wondering if this renders the information part of the original CSI concept, as invented by Dr Dembksi, as non-functional?
Until now Gordon Mullings didn't reply.

Date: 2009/08/11 22:16:32, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 10 2009,20:35)
cuckoo!  cuckoo!  

 
Quote
11
bornagain77
08/10/2009
8:00 pm
Hey Dr. Dembski,
Do you think I can get some credit for a grade from you to? I’ve posted at least a few hundred times on hostile sites. Shoot I even had a site set up to mock me that I had run across,,,that should count for extra credit…LOL

Evolution: Redefined- Geoff Moore and the Distance
TARD VIDEO


B^A certainly deserves some sort of degree.

Do we have to call him Dr. BA77 soon?

Date: 2009/08/11 22:56:49, Link
Author: sparc
Since I don't want to do sock puppeting I would appreciate if someone else would introduce FSCI to Dr. Behe and ask for a brief peer review of Gordon  Mulling's thoughts.

Date: 2009/08/11 22:58:41, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 11 2009,22:56)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329744

 
Quote
8
GilDodgen
08/11/2009
10:30 pm

Michael Behe and I have something in common


Your ass and your mouth were switched at birth?

This is normal for Deuterostomia though earlier during development.

Date: 2009/08/11 23:02:28, Link
Author: sparc
Seemingly, Behe's blog is just a copy of his Amazon outlet.
I guess DO'L will soon pick up this idea thereby doubling her output. BTW, did she take a break?

Date: 2009/08/12 23:42:35, Link
Author: sparc
Gil:
Quote
a few million nucleotides being zapped by cosmic rays to produce errors in the genetic code
Maybe it's just my English skills but wouldn't one rather use"coding sequence" rather than "genetic code" that will remain unchanged in the vast majority of cases. OTOH, the common UD "I am a prgramming airospace engineer" suspect doesn't make a difference between coding and non-coding sequence. Besides, it should be "changes" rather than "errors".

Date: 2009/08/13 12:01:33, Link
Author: sparc
Seemingly, KF realized that Dembski just doesn't notice him:
 
Quote
107
kairosfocus
08/10/2009
1:49 am

PPS: Clive:

A SUGGESTION: Can we get Dr Demski’s permission to post the 1999 Touchstone article here st UD, with perhaps an introduction that sets in context and follows up [or, in he case of the EF, slightly updates by focussing attention on the particular aspect in view] its contents?

[I think this will go a long way to dissipating the sorts of slanders above; as will a link to the SM history of ID and the review on the truth about the Wedge document that I linked above.]
There's hope  
Quote

108
Clive Hayden
08/10/2009
2:33 am

kairosfocus,

I’ll ask him.
that continues
Quote
110
kairosfocus
08/10/2009
2:49 am

Clive:

Great!
and continues, and continues, ...

Still, not the same as asking what the good Double Doc thinks about Gordon Mulling's own FSCI

Date: 2009/08/14 23:36:50, Link
Author: sparc
Cornelius Hunter:
Quote
It is not a matter of whether or not DNA is an explanation for inheritance. It is a matter of whether or not DNA is the explanation for inheritance.

Brilliant. And nasty evolutionists knew it all the time. They just don't tell the public about mammalian red blood cells which are alive without DNA. Another little dirty secret: The same is true for thrombocytes.

Date: 2009/08/14 23:38:51, Link
Author: sparc
Actually, if DNA were the explanation for inheritance we couldn't explain Jesus.

Date: 2009/08/15 01:52:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 15 2009,01:37)
Paul Giem brings out the science...      
Quote
I would not prejudge the success of theist defenses, but would point out one interesting point. An adherence to the Biblical creation story interpreted relatively straightforwardly basically eliminates the problem. [of natural evil]

In the original account, there was no rain. The earth was watered by a mist, or by streams (the term has been translated both ways). Thus there were no floods or droughts, and presumably no hurricanes or tornadoes. If the earth was stable, and plate tectonics were initiated during the Flood, in the initial state there would not have been earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanoes. Even childbirth was apparently not intended to be painful initially. So most, if not all, human suffering was not there originally, and in this view can be attributed directly to human sin. In fact, even the original animal diet, according to the record, appears to be plant food, making the problem of animal suffering less severe if not eliminating it.
All Creation Science so far!

From AIG:  
Quote
Dr. Giem is assistant professor of emergency medicine at Loma Linda University. He holds a B.A. in chemistry from Union College, Nebraska, an M.A. in religion from Loma Linda University and an M.D. from Loma Linda University. Dr. Giem has published research articles in the areas of religion and medicine. His current research includes work on carbon-14 dating methods. He is author of the book Scientific Theology, which deals with a number of science–Bible areas, including dating methodology and biblical chronology.1
Or as Dr. Giem stated at UD in his own words  
Quote
There are doctors and there are doctors, whether MD’s or PhD’s. Some MD’s do come up with theories on their own, and even do research. MD’s are not all totally dependent on PhD’s


Indeed, there is no difference between ID detection as performed by Dr. Cornelius Hunter (PhD) and creation science as done by Dr. Paul Giem (MD).

Date: 2009/08/20 11:19:30, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2009,11:06)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 20 2009,10:51)
 
Quote
jerry: The only logical thing to explain the results in the Blind Watchmaker is a latching mechanism .

No. The results in Blind Watchmaker are entirely consistent with a fair reading of Dawkins's description as phrase selection, not letter latching.

   
Quote
jerry: It actually makes better evolutionary thinking too ...

Which simply reveals that, after all this time, you still don't understand "evolutionary thinking".

   
Quote
jerry: ... since once something is selected it is unlikely to unselected and not disappear so easily.

Latching means there is *no* chance a trait will disappear.

-
Not Xposted to Uncommon Descent, because it never shows up anyway.

Didn't David Kellogg show the UDiots a website where someone went through the weasel section of The Blind Watchmaker sentence-by-sentence to show just how wrong the whole latching argument is the last time they had this discussion (sorry, no link, my Google-Fu is acting up today)?

Of course, they could just read the actual text themselves, if they could get over their fear of actually learning something.

Do mean more weaseling at software matters?

Actually, Patrick May concludes that
Quote
Incidentally, neither Dembski nor Marks have any excuse for their mischaracterization of Dr. Dawkins' work. Wesley Elsberry informed Dembski of the issue  back in 2000. Marks has to have known since the date of that post, October of 2007, at the latest.

Date: 2009/08/20 11:48:05, Link
Author: sparc
Gil, Jerry and KF are certainly much better in weaseling than Double-Doc-D.
Have a look here to see what weaseling does to onlookers.

Date: 2009/08/20 21:35:12, Link
Author: sparc
Since we were just talking about weaseling and latching:

Date: 2009/08/20 22:48:25, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
That's a squirrel

This is a weasel
I am fully aware of that fact. Still, the question remains if it just weaseled in or if it is the result of latching.

Date: 2009/08/23 21:43:13, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Goffr @ Aug. 22 2009,02:36)
Dumski thinks he is a clever dick. From his paper

       
Quote
E. Partitioned Search
Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure
best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character
phrase

METHINKS ? IT ? IS ? LIKE ? A ? WEASEL. (19)

Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters
is

SCITAMROFN ? IYRANOITULOVE ? SAM. (20)

Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are
shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these
letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new
letters and obtain

OOT ? DENGISEDESEHT ? ERA?NETSIL. (21)


Oh wait what is that random phrase reversed?
SCITAMROFN ? IYRANOITULOVE ? SAM

MAS EVOLUTIONARYINFROMATICS

OOT ? DENGISEDESEHT ? ERA?NETSIL

LISTEN ARE THESE DESIGNED TOO.

oh ha ha.

It's a shame Dawkins' program DOESN'T MUTATUTE EVERY CHARACTER EACH GENERATION. Man is this guy full retard.

Since Dembski and Marks used reversed sentences one may consider that niwrad is one of them.

Date: 2009/08/28 11:35:18, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end.
And they do stuff it into the wrong end the vast majority of Bilateria says.

Date: 2009/08/28 22:50:59, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2009,15:20)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 28 2009,14:14)
     
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 28 2009,12:41)
We also have "JLT" posting from Germany, you can always pm her.

sparc also posts from over there.  And I will be soon as well.

Darwin --> Nazi's proved again!

German --> Nazi?
Calculate the FCSI/FSCI  for a male catholic, non-drinking, non-smoking, occasionally home- and job-less, Wagner loving, former austrian non-scientist.

I must admit though that I've quit smoking recently and that I've worked in Braunschweig where the guy mentioned above became German.

Date: 2009/08/28 22:55:57, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, congratulations Bob.

ETA: In addition, thank you for helping me finding Jesus.

Date: 2009/08/29 10:01:10, Link
Author: sparc
When you follow niwraD's link niwraD's link you will find yourself in the middle of CCSI like this one:  
Quote
Male and female individuals of a species have apparatuses exactly organized to interface each other. Male and female individuals of a species have the same degree of complexity. They are quite similar but not identical. The key point here is the interface between them, which in this case is based on their differences. It would be a non-sense to consider the male reproductive apparatus alone, without considering the complementary female reproductive apparatus. Each of these two organisms independently from the other can entails Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Each of these two organisms can live in the environment and exploit many identical functions. But there are highly complex functions that can be achieved only if they strictly cooperate thank to their complementary apparatuses. So we are in front of something that is sensitive to name "complementary specified complexity

Date: 2009/08/29 23:49:08, Link
Author: sparc
Bob O'H
Quote
I'll be in Frankfurt
Ah, Grie Soß. They even built a monument for it.

Date: 2009/09/01 20:31:20, Link
Author: sparc
Denyse O'Leary
Quote
Bloggingheads is vastly better off without people like Sean Carroll.

It won’t remain useful if it doesn’t host the real people involved in controversies – and just let them speak.
Indeed. Looking forward to seeing her interviewing Adnar Oktar.

Date: 2009/09/01 21:31:44, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 01 2009,20:40)
chuck norris and ray comfort debate positive evidence for selection in divergence between sapiens and neanderthal lineages

next week on blogging heads

followed by charlie daniels and charlton heston covering whether all illegal immigrants should be doubly taxed after the rapture

Tranmaw really is fishing for a seat at b-h, or a bucket to sit on, or anything it can fill with enough slop to spread to three or four of it's blags

Since Dr. Dr. Dembski is seemingly unwilling to state what he thinks about FSCI my favorite would by Kairosfocus debating Gordon Mullings on this issue. They may also have to add something significant to the discusssion of how fashion influences women's lifes.

Date: 2009/09/02 22:43:32, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
2
Edson
09/02/2009
9:35 pm

The growth of public interest in ID is an inevitable tendency.


Indeed, as Google Trends clearly shows:

Alexa data are as convincing:


You know: a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Riesel, Texas

Date: 2009/09/02 23:36:42, Link
Author: sparc
Kairosfocus aka Gordon E. Mullings renowned selfspamming bandwidth burning UD entity has another alias: Dictionary    
Quote
Dictionary  // February 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Onlookers:

While I am busy elsewhere on the Internet, I have noticed the current discussion has now come to address issues and controversies surrounding origins science and in particular the inference to design.

Much of the commentary above is of the Dawkinsian school of thought, that in effect those who disagree with evolutionary materialism are by that fact “ignorant, stupid, insane . . . or wicked.”

[...]

1 –>[...]
2 –> [...]
3 –> [...]
4 –> [...]
5 –> [...]
6 –> [...]
7 –> [...]
8 –> [...]
9 –> [...]
10 –> [...]
(a) function-specifying complex digital info is the product of intelligence

(b) computer procedural and data storing languages/codes are the product of intelligence

© algorithms — step by step sequences of actions that carry out a process or solve a problem — are the product of intelligence

(d) functioning programs that carry out such algorithms are the product of intelligence

(e) the machines that work together to execute the programs physically are the product of intelligence.

(f) the probability of such originating by chance + necessity without intelligent action — while such is logically possible [a hurricane in David Edge computers creating and programming a PC] — is of such vanishing improbability that we immediately conclude that such entities are works of art, not accidents.

11 –> [...]
12 –> [...]
Nor are biologists, Qua Biologists particularly well-qualified to address the issue or rule on it. For, it is a matter of information theory.

I trust that helps.

GEM of TKI

PS: I will stick up a helpful link or two . . .
   
Quote
PPS
   
Quote
PPPS

 
Quote
Dictionary  // February 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Oops, forgot my own discussion [warning, fat web page -- download and save to your own PC please . . .]:

http://www.angelfire.com/pro....nce.htm
[QUOTE]
LINK

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Date: 2009/09/05 22:23:32, Link
Author: sparc
Gil
Quote
All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation
I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?

Date: 2009/09/07 23:18:59, Link
Author: sparc
dvunkannon
Quote
I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be.
I guess much of what you are looking for is included in this article by Daniel J. Fairbanks and Bryce Rytting and in the Mendel Marginalia they published as supplemental material.

Date: 2009/09/11 11:16:58, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 11 2009,02:46)
Gordon Mullings is still posting on the Weasel thread
   
Quote
Absent such, this thread will have achieved something else, which is perhaps even more important if we care about science and our civlisation: it demonstrates the utter willful untruthfulness and unfairness of typical darwinist approaches to origins science issues and to those who challenge the holy rulings of the a priori materialism neo-magisterium wearing the holy vestments of scientists’ lab coats.
Tard.

No Gordon, what the thread shows is that no matter what the evidence shows you think Dembski = Right.

I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.

Date: 2009/09/12 00:28:18, Link
Author: sparc
What do you expect from somebody who wrote a  manual for running a fundamentalist cell.

Date: 2009/09/12 00:49:15, Link
Author: sparc
BTW, I always wonder why burning strawmen should be bad. We do this once a year in Cologne and it is fun:
link, link, link

Date: 2009/09/13 00:34:47, Link
Author: sparc
In case KairosFocus should make fuss about his Gordon "Sissy" E Mullings identity again you may point him to his own latest post at Creation: By Design that starts with        
Quote
Ths is a superb apologetical summary from a commentary on the Uncommon Descent site.
and is signed by      
Quote
Gordon Mullings
Kairos Focus

Indeed, exactly what you would do if you want to stay anonyous. What I find even more disturbing though not really surprising is the fact that  both, the "superb summary" and the original "commentary", are authored by KF.

Date: 2009/09/15 22:09:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.    
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

I must admit that I've used "Case Lost Luskin" occasionally.

Date: 2009/09/17 23:36:32, Link
Author: sparc
Dembski
Quote
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
Quote
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?

Date: 2009/09/22 11:47:40, Link
Author: sparc
Since I got the German version of Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation" I looked up what he had to say about ID and found this:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A NEW AGE THEORY

Denyse O'leary who  interviewed him recently will not be amused.

Date: 2009/09/22 22:09:13, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (didymos @ Sep. 22 2009,20:30)
Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.

What about Lewis Hamilton?

Date: 2009/09/23 22:57:48, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 23 2009,20:44)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,13:01)
I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.

It's on The Original WEASEL(s) thread, and I notice there is a 'usefulness' voting function.

This is like searching KF's first use of the term FSCI (you may judge if my comment on my comment on FCSI explanation in the UD Glossary is helpful). So,  which was the original Weasel thread? Link please, I want to leave my vote there.
If you want to link to your sidewiki entrance directly you will find it in your google profile. Just copy the link address under the "more" button. Your comment will pop up together with the original page you commented on.

Date: 2009/09/26 00:23:35, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the ever-lovely Denyse:

     
Quote
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.



Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.

Date: 2009/09/28 11:38:32, Link
Author: sparc
Let's see what UD wil make out of this.

Date: 2009/09/28 12:22:28, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2009,11:49)
 
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of this.

Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.

This was not unlikely because according to the only relevant ID site Bob has many more publications than the staff of the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2009/09/28 23:16:57, Link
Author: sparc
What is StephenB intending to say by    
Quote
ID, consistent with but not tied to the Biblical view expressed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s existence is made evident in his handiwork and that design in real
Wouldn't that statement imply at least another view consistent but tied to the biblical view expressed Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20? Or is good old fashioned honest creationism no christian world view anymore?

Date: 2009/10/01 14:02:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 01 2009,13:05)
Clive Hayden proposes that the laws of nature have changed since duh flud.  When astonished Nakashima asks for any evidence of that, Clive responds:      
Quote
It’s in Genesis. If you think Nature, in her present form, explains herself, you’re mistaken. She doesn’t now and she didn’t before the Fall. All we have are repetitions of nature, where is the evidence that we should believe this to have always been the case? Repetition? That’s not a real reason, not a reason perceived reasonably, for the repetitions in nature are not connected philosophically like the laws of logic are, they only repeat. Why they repeat, or why they must be as they are, we have no evidence for, and since we have no evidence for why whether or not they are necessities or not, we cannot reasonably say that they couldn’t have been otherwise. The narrative is the real story, the real explanation, the physical repetitions are, and can only be, descriptions. But descriptions are not explanations. And what point does a literalist worldview bring me to? If you claim that nature is immutable, you are begging the question, for that is your philosophical point of view, which is not empirically evidential.


If this guy is someone's sock, congrats to the owner on infiltrating the inner sanctum of the ID movement and moderating the TARD.  If, on the other hand, he is real... O well, I can't imagine that Clive is for real.  It just boggles the mind.

I wonder if Dr. Dr. D. can feel intellectually fullfilled with company like this.

Date: 2009/10/03 23:52:52, Link
Author: sparc
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:  
Quote
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.

from the Christian Post

Date: 2009/10/05 11:51:36, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,10:37)
   
Quote
DLH: DNA Preservation discovery wins Nobel prize

One of the winners is Jack Szostak, who has also done significant work in abiogenetics.


genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb

DLH speculates 
Quote
These telomeres can probably be shown to be essential to survival.
Mice live quite happy without telomerase and to my best knowledge telomerase is inactive in the majority of somatic human cells. Maybe it is not as irreducibly complex as DLH thinks.
Actually, DNA_Jock is currently teaching them UD-creationists telomer biology:  
Quote
6
DNA_Jock
10/05/2009
11:31 am

Yes, Borne, the Darwin camp predicted telomeres: when they elucidated the mechanism of DNA replication, they said “There’s a problem with the ends of linear chromosomes, they should get shorter and shorter, there must be some mechanism that protects the ends…” So they went and looked at the end of linear chromosomes, and found telomeres. And they built artificial chromosomes from scratch, and did all sorts of experiments and found telomerase and new targets for cancer therapies etc, etc.
And, DLH, anyone who knows anything about biology knows that telomeres are not “essential to survival”: bacteria don’t have them.

Date: 2009/10/05 12:40:27, Link
Author: sparc
Borne:
Quote
Yet this is exactly the kind of thing ID would predict – stability and protection mechanisms.
They actually had the chance
here, here, here and here where telomerase was mentioned at UD earlier.

Date: 2009/10/05 12:46:51, Link
Author: sparc
Actually, this is what Cordova wrote about telomerase back in 2006 arguing that telomer research is ID research:
Quote
I would like to add that I made a small amount of money ($400) after buying shares in a company, Geron, that unwittingly profited from this approach (For the record I sold my shares, and this is no way a stock promotion, and I have no longer any financial interest ).

Geron noticed a correlation between the “age” of a cell (its closeness to senescence) and the amount of junk DNA at the end of a chromosome (telomeres). They must have thought something like, “it’s always hard to tell cause from effect, but ‘what the heck’, let’s see if playing with telomere length will affect longevity”

What they did was work the hTRT gene that affected telomere length, and then “voila”, the cell became immortalized! The junk DNA essentially served as a road map for the researchers. How hard would it have been to uncover this without “junk DNA”!

Geron’s work may lead to important medical advances in curing burn victims and spinal chord victims and help us understand the keys to longevity. Thus, already, some biotech firms are inadvertently happening upon the “user manual” qualities of junk DNA as Dembski envisioned in his steganography speech.

Date: 2009/10/05 14:30:00, Link
Author: sparc
Any sock around that could ask KF, Dr. D et al. what CSI/FSCI of the string TTAGGG is?

Date: 2009/10/07 09:47:41, Link
Author: sparc
Joseph paging Gordon Mullings
Quote
You make a copy of something and altough you have two of it the information is the same.

Date: 2009/10/07 11:38:17, Link
Author: sparc
The Chemistry Nobel Prize 2009    
Quote
"for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome"
will offer UD-creationists more opportunities than the teleomeres awarded in Medicine and Physiology.Thus, be prepaired to see more like this    
Quote
I think the ribosome is the ultimate testimony to irreducible complexity and complex specified information. The flagellum is trivial in comparative complexity but to give credit where credit is due, the flagella’s structure is more readily understood due to widespread understanding of motors and propellers whereas the ribomsome is most like a computer controlled 3D milling machine programmed to make all the parts required to build a duplicate of itself.
and this    
Quote
The ribosome should be our focal point. Other ID proponents, Bill Dembski in particular, say that the DNA/protein paradox is too complex for lay persons to easily grasp and the ribosome’s structure doesn’t immediately bring to mind any machines people are familiar with. And so the flagellum remains the icon of ID instead of the ribosome.
If Dr. Dr. Dembski only listened to DaveScot the ribosome would be UD's mascot.

Date: 2009/10/07 11:42:50, Link
Author: sparc
overwhelmongevidence seems to have finally passed away.
Quote
Unable to select database

We were able to connect to the MySQL database server (which means your username and password are okay) but not able to select the database.

The MySQL error was: Access denied for user 'cdslayer_cds'@'localhost' to database 'cdslayer_live'.

Currently, the database is cdslayer_live. The username is cdslayer_cds and the database server is localhost.

   * Are you sure you have the correct database name?
   * Are you sure the database exists?
   * Are you sure the username has permission to access the database?

For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.

Date: 2009/10/07 12:29:19, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:22)
What's with the one white glove thing?

Is ...that... could it be... Michael Jackson's real dad?

I don't know about the glove but you can get this kind of paper crown at Burger King for free (at least in Germany).

Date: 2009/10/08 09:28:33, Link
Author: sparc
Since all his posts are so similar I may be wrong but IIRC Cornie's "Segmental Duplications and Evolution" was followed by comments yesterday.

Date: 2009/10/08 12:36:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 08 2009,10:36)
 
Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,16:17)
Please won't someone think of the children!!!

And a post that will never see the light of day.....

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Lets say I’m a atheist materialist that favors property rights. No god, I just like my stuff. The first and foremost property is one’s own body. Violations to that right (and particularly minors who are less able to defend their right) should be prosecuted.

I suppose this blog argues all legal codes ever evolved from the Old Testament? You should really take a look at Numbers 31:18.

Or maybe this should this be the punishment?
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl…..” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NI
….

You beat me to it:
     
Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I have a daughter, and plenty of instincts to protect her, I also like living in communities where I feel that I and my family are safe (it would be a bad survival tactic to do otherwise). I wouldn’t want someone to force themselves on my daughter, and thanks to an ability to feel empathy I don’t want to see that happen to anyone else.

The result is a belief that it is wrong for people to force sexual acts on unwilling participants.

Given that the Bible has this piece of advice:
     
Quote
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version

It is clear that rape is disapproved of, but do you believe that the punishment it advises is just – particularly from the girls point of view?

Unfortunately, I can not judge how reliable the following source is that came up when I googled pedophil "southern baptist" but according to The Southern Baptist Church Has A Dirty Little Secret their pastors must be hard core materialists by Arrington's measures.

Date: 2009/10/09 23:39:38, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
9 October 2009
Transcript of McWhorter-Behe Blogginheads Discussion
William Dembski

For the original online McWhorter-Behe discussion, go here. Thanks to one of my research assistants for making the transcript.
We can conclude

1. WMAD has or at least pretends to have more than 1 "research" assistant
2. If that's what WMAD calls research one doesn't want to know his other research
3. It must suck to be WMAD's "research" assistant

Edited to add link.

Date: 2009/10/10 03:45:57, Link
Author: sparc
More than 24 hours The Consummate WEASEL and KairosFocus aka Gordon E. Mullings didn't show up. Has he been silently banniated too?

Date: 2009/10/10 21:19:18, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
10 October 2009
The 4,000
Barry Arrington

This is UD’s 4,000th post.  Congrats and a hardy well done and thank you to all of our posters!
Osteonectin rightly asks which posts they are counting exactly
Quote
Including those that had been 404ed?
BTW, if my counting is correct this is the 5328th response at ATBC (I guess without those that had to be moved to the bathroom wall).

Date: 2009/10/14 22:08:31, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 14 2009,19:20)
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 14 2009,13:41)

Post of Teh Week !  
(or is this Photoshop of Teh Week?)

Good stuff either way.

seconded

Date: 2009/10/15 22:22:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 15 2009,12:34)
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 15 2009,10:00)
Quote (KCdgw @ Oct. 15 2009,14:24)
You have to love this:

Doomsday Smith:

       
Quote
Whatever the actual reason, though, there’s still nothing in thermodynamics for either you or ID in general to latch onto and that poor horse is still stone-cold dead. If it seems like it’s still twitching a bit, that’s only because you keep whacking on it so much.

eric B answers:
     
Quote
In short, “mechanisms which can produce biological complexity derive power from the sun.” is a bogus concept, a fiction. There is no support whatsoever, either empirical or theoretical, for supposing there could be such a mechanism in an undirected prebiotic universe.


Funny. I always thought we knew such a mechanism....


Actually, he probably would dismiss that.  Notice that "pre-biotic"?  He's got an abiogenesis hang-up.   Of course we do know of such a mechanism: chemistry.

Didn't somebody at UD recently claim that plants don't evolve because they are no animals?

Date: 2009/10/16 23:23:30, Link
Author: sparc
William Dembski
Quote
My own mother, now 77, grew up in Nazi Germany, was just outside Berlin at the end of WWII, and lived through the Berlin Airlift.
Does this mean he has German ancestors?

Date: 2009/10/17 23:41:24, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 17 2009,08:10)
niwrad summarizes the discussion on the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

         
Quote
It seem to me an important questions is: Maxvell’s demon does violate or does not violate SLoT? Just here not all commenters agree. In my opinion Maxvell’s demon can be considered in two main senses: (1) a machine, an artificial system (one-way filter); (2) a thermodynamic metaphor of intelligence.

(1) Maxvell’s demon as a machine. But there are many kinds of machines, and then we have again to distinguish.

(A) Maxvell’s demon as a mechanical-thermo machine. In this case I agree with Monastyrski #71 when says “the decrease in entropy caused by the intelligent demon is more than compensated for by an increase in the demon’s own entropy”. SLoT is not violated.

(B) Maxvell’s demon as a computer. If the Maxvell’s demon is a computer for which the Landauer’s principle is involved, according to givemeabreak #75, there is no increase of entropy because computation per se does not consume energy. SLoT is violated.

(2) Maxvell’s demon as intelligence. But what is intelligence in the first place? This is one of the above fundamental and difficult questions. Without knowing what intelligence is how can we to speak about Maxvell’s demon, which is one of its symbols? Intelligence can be considered in two main senses: (A) physical intelligence; (B) pure intelligence or metaphysical intelligence.

(A) If intelligence is a physical agent then energy is involved. SLoT is not violated.

(B) If intelligence is a metaphysical entity then no energy is involved. SLoT is violated.
(...)


Could it be that niwraD comes from eastern Europe? Googling "Maxvell" and "dilema" resulted rather in Russian than in Italian sites.

eddited to correct tags.

Date: 2009/10/19 11:39:18, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 18 2009,22:23)
Has anyone listened to this? At 3' 22'', W. Dembski says about his paper  "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success":
     
Quote
We have some powerful results that follow up on this paper. This is a paper called "The Search for the Search", which is coming out... It should be out now, but there is some delay in the journal's publishing [???]. That will really nail things down.
(my own transcript)

I didn't have the stomach to listen to the whole thing, but I'm quite interested in this new paper.

BTW, Dembski says about the first paper:    
Quote
It shows that Darwinian processes require information.

Um, not information as we know it, Jim.

You can download Dembski's draft for "The search for the search" here.

He describes it as  
Quote
forthcoming pro-ID peer-reviewed article in the math/eng literature (name of journal will be announced when the article appears in print).

Date: 2009/10/19 12:38:16, Link
Author: sparc
I bet within 12 hours someone at UD will post about Lenski's latest.

Date: 2009/10/20 23:13:27, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2009,13:55)
Would a green banana prove anything?

This was the promiss to East Germans back in 1989.

Date: 2009/10/20 23:23:15, Link
Author: sparc
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.

Date: 2009/10/20 23:27:00, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Session 8: Incorporating Science and Faith Issues into Your Church, Ministry, or Career
they forgot to mention that the carrer of most students starts in a public school.

Date: 2009/10/23 01:19:06, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 23 2009,00:57)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 22 2009,22:35)
ShawnBoy reports Allen MacNeill to the thought police:
 
Quote
115

ShawnBoy
10/22/2009
10:51 pm

OT: The shifty professor, Allen MacNeill, is making questionable claims about U.D. and its members at another I.D. blog (October 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm).

I don’t want to seem a trouble maker, I just thought you all should be made aware of it.


Allen's crime?  Pointing out that there are lots of YECs at UD.

Really.

What's more, he didn't even say anything about UD until someone else brought it up specifically. He was just talking about YEC and ID in general.

OMG, Scordova is in that thread on that other I.D. blog. Didn't he promise to stay out of this business to concentrate on his university studies?
BTW, has anybody seen KairosFocus aks Gordon E. Mullings from Montserrat recently?

ETA link

Date: 2009/10/25 14:00:18, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Maya @ Oct. 25 2009,12:15)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 25 2009,04:45)
I noticed the sidewiki comments at UD have disappeared. Same story at TT. Do site owners have the power to make that happen? If so, sidewiki is utterly useless.

It's probably just a glitch, but if anyone would complain to Sidewiki, it would be Barry "Free Speech" Arrington.

Sidewiki is still running. Comments by: Jack Mollier, Tom English, Colin Purrington and Alan FOx

Date: 2009/10/25 22:35:04, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
200
Nakashima
10/25/2009
9:27 pm

Mr BA^77,

Please continue. Quote the paper that says the genetic code measures 6.7 megahilberts (the standard measure of technical brilliance) and the code of the global weather forecasting system only measures 4.5 megahilberts. I haven’t been able to find it with Google Scholar



BA77 has teh refarences    
Quote
201
bornagain77
10/25/2009
9:50 pm

Nak,
Here is more stuff for you to pretend that doesn’t matter:

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick! (Trifonov, 1989) No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). There are about three-billion letters of code on the six feet of DNA curled up in each human cell. If you were to read the code aloud, at a rate of three letters per second for twenty-four hours per day (about one-hundred-million letters a year), it would take you over thirty years to read it. The capacity of a DNA molecule to store information is so efficient all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram. The information needed to specify the design of all species of organisms which have ever existed (a number estimated to be one billion) could easily fit into a teaspoon with plenty of room left over for every book ever written on the face of the earth. For comparison sake, if mere man were to write out the proper locations of all the protein molecules in just one human body, in the limited mathematical language he now uses, it would take a bundle of CD-ROM disks greater than the size of the moon, or a billion-trillion computer hard drives, and that’s just the proper locations for the protein molecules in one human body, that billion-trillion computer hard-drives would not contain a single word of instruction telling those protein molecules how to self assemble themselves. (The Bit and the Pendulum – Tom SiegfriedSamuel Braunstein)

“To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt – the paradigm takes precedence!” – Michael Denton

Psalm 139: 14-15
“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.”
convincing evidence, indeed.
(emphasis mine)

Date: 2009/10/25 22:52:41, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 25 2009,13:30)

The lunatic now seems have his own blog as well:

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

Moderated of course.

And just a single post, dated October 19, 2009. It reads almost exactly as any of his crazy UD screeds, except it's 100 times as long. He probably uses it as a convenient online source for his cut-and-paste jobs. Maybe he even uses a random sampler to generate automatic posts. What a maroon.

Quite impressive how selective reading atually can be. 117 pages and 51,461 words.

Date: 2009/10/26 00:22:28, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2009,22:52)
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 25 2009,13:30)

The lunatic now seems have his own blog as well:

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

Moderated of course.

And just a single post, dated October 19, 2009. It reads almost exactly as any of his crazy UD screeds, except it's 100 times as long. He probably uses it as a convenient online source for his cut-and-paste jobs. Maybe he even uses a random sampler to generate automatic posts. What a maroon.

Quite impressive how selective reading atually can be. 117 pages and 51,461 words.

BA77 actually provides 472 links.
An initial analysis indicates that he seemingly doesn't trust Dr. Dr. D's site too much because only four addresses link to UD while at the same time he gives 130 links to youtube.

Date: 2009/10/30 00:18:34, Link
Author: sparc
GIldodgen
Quote
Brain Secretions and Gravity
GilDodgen

Why is thought, being a secretion of the brain, more wonderful than gravity, a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it is our admiration of ourselves…
— Charles Darwin, age 29, in his notebook

This is an incredible comment. It is difficult to understand how anyone with a brain could not observe that thought produces such things as symphonies, literature and mathematics, while gravity just makes things fall down and holds planets in their orbits.

Furthermore, thought does not secrete like insulin from a pancreas, it is willed (at least that’s what I do, and I assume others do as well).

Darwin was far more simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking than I realized. I already knew that he was simpleminded, naive, and superficial in his thinking when he ignored the obvious evidence of design in nature, in favor of his “random variation and natural selection can turn microscopic bugs into Mozart, given enough time” thesis.

How this patently absurd idea could have completely taken over the intellectual elite is still a mystery to me, when all the evidence of modern science contradicts it. The only conclusion I can reach is that they are desperately trying to deny the obvious, because they hate the light.
I always thought he was hang gliding which of course wouldn't work without gravity.

Date: 2009/10/30 22:45:38, Link
Author: sparc
WMAD:
Quote
ID, per definitionem, is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence.
I am correct if I conclude that the bible code is all natural?

Date: 2009/10/31 00:56:22, Link
Author: sparc
[quote=JLT,Oct. 30 2009,15:31]
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 30 2009,19:58)
Darwin was Wrong!
I may add: PAV is really stupid!

Edit: corrected tags and deleted remaining debris of a nasty comment I finally decided not to publish.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:47:15, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 31 2009,12:31)
Jehu is a lying slimeball:
 
Quote
Matzke will certainly use any underhanded dishonest tactic available, no matter how transparently stupid, to win a debate.

I remind the readers of this Nick Matzke classic from a debate I had with him a couple of years ago.
 
Quote
Jehu: We are supposed to believe that in fewer reproductive events than malaria has in one year, mammals evolved from small shrew like animals into humans, bats and whales? So mammals can create mammary glands, fur, wings, flippers, human intelligence, echolocation, and placentas in fewer reproductive events than Malaria has in one year, yet after 100,000 years Malaria cannot adapt to cold weather? Interesting.
 
Quote
Matzke: Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?

How stupid is Matzke’s argument? Hmmm, let me count the ways.

1. P. falciparum, the parasite that causes Malaria, cannot reproduce below 60ºF.

2. Water freezes at 32ºF.

3. The mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus that carry the Malaria parasite have a habitat that extends into cold climates, including freezing climates and is vastly larger than the warm areas where the Malaria parasite is found.

4. The reason for the distribution of malaria in warm climates is because they can’t reproduce below 60ºF, not because mosquitoes freeze.

5. Many flying insects, including mosquitoes, do in fact survive in sub-freezing temperatures.

6. Not a single fact that Matzke spews out seems to be accurate in this particular quote.

7. Matzke fails to even connect his false facts into a logical coherent argument.

8. In spite of his embarrassing ignorance, Matzke’s sarcasm and arrogance are uninhibited as he ridicules “Behe’s fans” for missing his “perfectly obvious explanation” which is in fact an uninformed brain fart.

I have never met anybody that could pack more wrongness, stupidity, and arrogance in a single paragraph than Nick Matzke. The above exchange is why I no long waste anymore time with him.

What actually happened is that Jehu misrepresented Matzke's argument, and I (as 'ribczynski') called him on it:
 
Quote
ribczynski
11/26/2008
6:04 am

Jehu,

You owe Nick Matzke an apology.

You wrote:
 
Quote
I debated Matzke on the topic of Behe’s Edge and Matzke resorted to the claim that malaria causing parasites had never evolved the ability to reproduce below 68ºF because all of the mosquitoes freeze below that temperature. Unbelievable. Matzke is simply not a credible source -ever.

I read every comment by Matzke in that thread and he says nothing of the sort.

Here is what he actually says about why malaria is not found in cooler regions:
 
Quote
Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?

Looks like I just did.

Comment by Nick Matzke — July 27, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

He says that the malaria-carrying mosquitos die when the temperature hits freezing.

The malaria parasite lives in the saliva of the adult mosquito. When the mosquito dies, the parasite dies.

Jehu lied about Matzke's position then, and now he's conveniently 'forgetting' to mention that he (Jehu) was proven wrong and forced to revise his own position.

Yet even his new counterargument fails. Matzke was responding to this statement by Behe:
 
Quote
Although malaria is a ferocious parasite, quite willing to eat anything that gets in its path, P. falciparum needs a warm climate to reproduce. If the temperature falls below about 65° F, the parasite slows down. When the temperature gets to 61° F, it can't reproduce.  It's stymied. If a mutant parasite appeared that was tolerant to somewhat lower temperatures -- not to freezing conditions, just to cool temperatures -- it would be able to invade regions that are now closed to it. Despite the huge number of P. falciparum available to mutate over thousands of years, that hasn't happened. Not all seemingly simple problems can be overcome easily, or perhaps at all.

The Edge of Evolution, pp. 82-83


Matzke's point was that P. falciparum lives in adult mosquitos only.  If the adult mosquitos die during the winter, then the parasites die with them. Thus there's no selective advantage for cold-tolerant mutant parasites. Behe (and Jehu) missed this obvious point.  

The fact that some mosquitos can overwinter as adults is irrelevant, because the species that carry malaria overwinter as eggs or larvae only.

Let's fix Jehu's statement for him:
 
Quote
Matzke Jehu will certainly use any underhanded dishonest tactic available, no matter how transparently stupid, to win a debate.

you may want to vote up a related sidewiki comment

Date: 2009/11/01 23:13:59, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
33
Oramus
11/01/2009
10:03 pm

Bornagain77,

Great stuff. It will really pay dividends for ID.

An’ if ya dun mind, I think I’ll just put that stuff in ma toolbox, thx.

Keep jammin’.
   
Quote
34
bornagain77
11/01/2009
10:18 pm

I dun mind at all,, hope it helps.

Since his blog is not really handy I've prepared a condensed toolbox with links to BA77's complete "knowledge" sorted by URL, it saves you from reading his BS.
1,, 2,, 3,, 4,, 5,, 6,, 7,, 8,, 9,, 10,, 11,, 12,, 13,, 14,, 15,, 16,, 17,, 18,, 19,, 20,, 21,, 22,, 23,, 24,, 25,, 26,, 27,, 28,, 29,, 30,, 31,, 32,, 33,, 34,, 25,, 36,, 37,, 38,, 39,, 40,, 41,, 42,, 43,, 44,, 45,, 46,, 47,, 48,, 49,, 50,, 51,, 52,, 53,, 54,, 55,, 56,, 57,, 58,, 59,, 60,, 61,, 62,, 63,, 64,, 65,, 66,, 67,, 68,, 69,, 70,, 71,, 72,, 73,, 74,, 75,, 76,, 77,, 78,, 79,, 80,, 81,, 82,, 83,, 84,, 85,, 86,, 87,, 88,, 89,, 90,, 91,, 92,, 93,, 94,, 95,, 96,, 97,, 98,, 99,, 100,, 101,, 102,, 103,, 104,, 105,, 106,, 107,, 108,, 109,, 110,, 111,, 112,, 113,, 114,, 115,, 116,, 117,, 118,, 119,, 120,, 121,, 122,, 123,, 124,, 125,, 126,, 127,, 128,, 129,, 130,, 131,, 132,, 133,, 134,, 135,, 136,, 137,, 138,, 139,, 140,, 141,, 142,, 143,, 144,, 145,, 146,, 147,, 148,, 149,, 150,, 151,, 152,, 153,, 154,, 155,, 156,, 157,, 158,, 159,, 160,, 161,, 162,, 163,, 164,, 165,, 166,, 167,, 168,, 169,, 170,, 171,, 172,, 173,, 174,, 175,, 176,, 177,, 178,, 179,, 180,, 181,, 182,, 183,, 184,, 185,, 186,, 187,, 188,, 189,, 190,, 191,, 192,, 193,, 194,, 195,, 196,, 197,, 198,, 199,, 200,, 201,, 202,, 203,, 204,, 205,, 206,, 207,, 208,, 209,, 210,, 211,, 212,, 213,, 214,, 215,, 216,, 217,, 218,, 219,, 220,, 221,, 222,, 223,, 224,, 225,, 226,, 227,, 228,, 229,, 230,, 231,, 232,, 233,, 234,, 235,, 236,, 237,, 238,, 239,, 240,, 241,, 242,, 243,, 244,, 245,, 246,, 247,, 248,, 249,, 250,, 251,, 252,, 253,, 254,, 255,, 256,, 257,, 258,, 259,, 260,, 261,, 262,, 263,, 264,, 265,, 266,, 267,, 268,, 269,, 270,, 271,, 272,, 273,, 274,, 275,, 276,, 277,, 278,, 279,, 280,, 281,, 282,, 283,, 284,, 285,, 286,, 287,, 288,, 289,, 290,, 291,, 292,, 293,, 294,, 295,, 296,, 297,, 298,, 299,, 300,, 301,, 302,, 303,, 304,, 305,, 306,, 307,, 308,, 309,, 310,, 311,, 312,, 313,, 314,, 315,, 316,, 317,, 318,, 319,, 320,, 321,, 322,, 323,, 324,, 325,, 326,, 327,, 328,, 329,, 330,, 331,, 332,, 333,, 334,, 335,, 336,, 337 ,, 338 ,, 339 ,, 340 ,, 341 ,, 342 ,, 343 ,, 344 ,, 345 ,, 346,, 347,, 348,, 349,, 350,, 351,, 352,, 353,, 354,, 355,, 356,, 357,, 358,, 359,, 360,, 361,, 362,, 363,, 364,, 365,, 366,, 367,, 368,, 369,, 370,, 371,, 372,, 373,, 374,, 375,, 376,, 377,, 378,, 379,, 380,, 381,, 382,, 383,, 384,, 385,, 386,, 387,, 388,, 389,, 390,, 391,, 392,, 393,, 394,, 395,, 396,, 397,, 398,, 399,, 400,, 401,, 402,, 403,, 404,, 405,, 406,, 407,, 408,, 409,, 410,, 411,, 412,, 413,, 414,, 415,, 416,, 417,, 418,, 419,, 420,, 421,, 422,, 423,, 424,, 425,, 426,, 427,, 428,, 429,, 430,, 431,, 432,, 43,, 434,, 435,, 436,, 437,, 438,, 439,, 440,, 441,, 442,, 443,, 444,, 445,, 446,, 447,, 448,, 449,, 450,, 451,, 452,, 453,, 454,, 455,, 456,, 457,, 458,, 459,, 460,, 461,, 462,, 463,, 464,, 465,, 466,, 467,, 468,, 469,, 470,, 471,, 472

The whole thing seems to be made for the dyslexic: Google video goes from 84 to 94, Youtube starts at 340 and ends 469. Additional videos are embedded on other linked pages.

Date: 2009/11/02 22:40:51, Link
Author: sparc
From the Darwin was really wrong thread:  
Quote
11
DiEb
10/31/2009
2:58 am

Wow, scientists don’t like when someone tells them (even correctly :-) ) that they aren’t right. That’s not much of a revelation.

@Dr Dembski : How is the peer-review for “The Search for a Search” going?

Date: 2009/11/04 11:49:33, Link
Author: sparc
Hope to see this soon at UD:

Date: 2009/11/04 21:10:56, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 04 2009,13:45)
SPARC - Everytime we post here at ATBC we "show the finger" to UD and UDers.  

And just how in the name of DaveTard did you find that insane 95 thesis finger crap anyway???

Did you google "Show Me Crazy"?

Everytime I search "Show Me Crazy" I get Glenn Beck.

I found a smaller picture of a German version in a report on evolutionsbiologen.de and then just used the domain name for a Google image search.

Date: 2009/11/08 00:01:09, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 07 2009,12:08)
 
Quote
MichaelJ, posted 11/07/09 2:01 AM
I wrote a forth interpretor in Z80 assembler for my Amstrad 64k. Do I win the geek prize?

Not until you've written a fifth one as well.

Henry

I am afraid that somebody will soon present something that he claims is the source code that you can not find after 20 years.

Date: 2009/11/09 21:52:39, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,20:49)
 
Quote
jitsak: Are deuterostomes “really different” from each other? They are all just modified tubes, right?

Microevolution.

Not even microevolution when one considers them one species.

Date: 2009/11/10 21:40:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
Is this his personal bible in his hands? If so it is one of those editions that lack the interesting parts.

Date: 2009/11/10 22:32:14, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 10 2009,22:17)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 10 2009,19:40)
   
Quote
Is this his personal bible in his hands? If so it is one of those editions that lack the interesting parts.

I don't know, but he's clearly about to whip it at someone in the front row. I think it's DiEb.

take the bible away and you get this:

Date: 2009/11/11 23:10:35, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 11 2009,19:54)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
       
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.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece penis.

FTFY

Someone had to do it.

first time first year seems inappropriate in your case.

Date: 2009/11/12 00:01:41, Link
Author: sparc
After learning via John Lynch that WMAD is running his own publihing house which  
Quote
celebrates the divine creativity that animates all aspects of reality
I checked if his other publishing endeavour made any progress. Seems as if some Sokal-momentum could help.

Date: 2009/11/12 00:21:20, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 12 2009,00:01)
After learning via John Lynch that WMAD is running his own publihing house which          
Quote
celebrates the divine creativity that animates all aspects of reality
I checked if his other publishing endeavour made any progress. Seems as if some Sokal-momentum could help.

After re-checking again it seems as if I owe an apology to Dr. Dr. Dembski  because Robert Marks is the only editor listed on the JOEI pages. Anyway, the double-doc is editing yet another journal of comparable success:    
Quote
PCID - PROGRESS (sic!) in COMPLEXITY, INFORMATION, and DESIGN

Date: 2009/11/14 00:06:26, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 13 2009,15:23)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 13 2009,10:10)
     
Quote
on ths board, we need More DiEb.

Thanks! I'm glad - btw - that P. Olofsson reiterated my concerns: hopefully, his comment isn't ignored - as dozens of mine are...

On the "Dembski at Texas A&M" thread, osteonectin says that Dembsky and Marks' “Search for a Search" paper is available at their "Design Inference" website...

Osteonectin posted at 11/13/2009 12:29 pm.

Uh, It's not there anymoreeEe, osteonectin.

Osteonectin's comment looked different in the pre-view. Here's the original formatting:  
Quote

The article you are asking for is currently still
available at the Design Inference Website.
Robert Marks may have had problems with
Dieb’s comments.

Date: 2009/11/14 15:38:10, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 14 2009,13:21)
Speaking of Granny Gordo, anybody report any sightings of him recently?

Gordon E. Mullings has been sighted at Barbados Underground. He's operating under the name Dictionary. Still he can not hide:    
Quote
Dictionary  // October 28, 2009 at 7:07 AM

Mr Pearson:

Technician has crossed serious lines, first by resort to vulgarity, now by making an unsubstantiated — and false — accusation of lying.

I ask you to speak to him about his uncivil conduct.

GEM of TKI
 Even without this it would have been obvious. Just search the page for "moderators", "onlookers", "PS", "PPS" and "PPPS".
Seems as if he's too busy over there to comment on UD.

Date: 2009/11/15 00:19:05, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 14 2009,10:38)
Check this out!
         
Quote
News Channel
The Time for Debate is Over
Written by Administrator  
Tuesday, 29 July 2008 23:15

For years we have been spining our wheels debating and arguing with evolutionists with nothing tangible to show for our efforts. I and my IDCS Network collegues agree that it is time to end the debate and move on with action. Toward that end, the IDCS Network has developed the Information Technology infrastructure to support the collaboration efforts of leading ID and CS scientists with the belief that in doing so, major advances in all areas of science will be possible.

With this new environment, ID and CS scientist will be able to collaborate without having to fear over the possibility of loosing their job because of their scientific views. Nor will they have to debate endlessly over why they are pursuing a particular line of inquery.

IDCS Network has setup various communities based on a wide variety of subjects and interests. Each community will have a community leader, blog, forum, event calendar, and internal forum messaging. Other features such as realtime chat, photo galleries, streaming video, and document management on a per request basis.

Unfortunately due to the anger and hostility of many of the opposing views, we are forced to opperate using an invitation-only model for our communities and projects.

IDCS Network has also seen the need to establish and support communities in the areas of Education, Business and Technology, and the establishment of club chapters at our educational institutions.

Now that the debate is over, it is time to move on as one community and begin to push back the boundries of ignorance and reach for the stars.

Keep watch for your exclusive invitation and take advantage of this one of a kind opportunity

http://www.idcsnetwork.com/joomla/index.php/idcs-network-blog
The first line is exactly right!
       
Quote
For years we have been spining our wheels debating and arguing with evolutionists with nothing tangible to show for our efforts.


Is this the same IDCS Network that should have opened last year:      
Quote
 
Quote
Welcome To The IDCS Network


THE WEBSITE WILL OPEN

AUGUST 3, 2008


The Intelligent Design Creation Science (IDCS) Network is a diverse collection of educational resources, communities, and projects involved in exploring the origins of the universe and life. In addition to supporting scientific research and development of technology, the IDCS Network also supports cultural renewal through art, literature, film making and various other pursuits.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
The hypothesis of Intelligent Design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and life are the product of intelligence rather than mindless purposeless forces. The discipline of intelligent design is the search for patterns that signify intelligence.

CREATION SCIENCE:
Creation Science (CS) is the search for scientific evidence supporting various theological beliefs about origins. In addition to studying theories of Intelligent Design (ID), Creation Science investigates questions about the age of the universe, earth, and life. Creation science investigates the possibility of various global cataclysms (such as a worldwide flood), evidence for the existence of God, and evidence supporting the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

IDCS Network hosts a variety of competing views about origins. The IDCS Network encourages the visitors and participants to consider the variety of views expressed and follow the evidence where ever it leads.
   
Quote
Time Left Until Launch!


-470 Days

Date: 2009/11/15 12:38:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2009,11:27)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 15 2009,11:20)
Ah, so it's Casey who is among the 99% who give the other 1% a bad name.

Casey comes up on the youtube thread Sal posts his video on (have a look at his 2 subscribers btw)
   
Quote
Oakram,

Casey is with IDEA. IDEA is not the same as the IDCS Netork. Casey has nothing to do with the IDCS? Network.

Any more falsehoods you wish to post?

If this is in fact the same IDCS Network I have mentioned above the unused adress is quite telling: http://idea.bkc-inc.com/

Date: 2009/11/15 22:58:59, Link
Author: sparc
since  I don't know if osteonectin's latest comment will show up at UD:
Quote
In all fairness: UD's and your personal handling of copyright is not really consistent. Copying of complete articles is not really uncommon. E.g., your post on ID in NATURE

Date: 2009/11/15 23:15:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (cogzoid @ Nov. 15 2009,23:04)
But I'm also going to point out that fair use copyright laws make a clear exception for scholarship and education.

IMO in the case I've mentioned above Dr. Dembski can not claim fair use because there is not to much scholarship or education in his post.
I also wonder if "a clear exception for scholarship and education" would account for "idnet.com.au" who published content of Nature, Science, Science Daily etc. at UD.

Date: 2009/11/16 01:40:56, Link
Author: sparc
UD and WmAD have quite a copyright history:
Quote
[The AAAS copyright people asked for this review to be removed from this site. --WmAD]

Date: 2009/11/16 08:11:19, Link
Author: sparc
In his latest post on saturday morning breakfast cereal WmAD omitted the picture on the upper right edge of the site from which he copied the cartoon. It says:    
Quote
Whatch my videos, Idiot.
emphasis mine.
BTW, what about SMBC's copy right?

edited for clarity

edited again: depending on whatever circumstances the upper right picture shows another more Jebus-like figure that says:
Quote
Please watch my videos

Date: 2009/11/16 11:50:16, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2009,08:40)
It must suck to be Dembski.

Indeed

Date: 2009/11/16 22:43:24, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2009,11:50)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2009,08:40)
It must suck to be Dembski.

Indeed

To further work out some of Mortenson's details :
     
Quote
There is only one reason that Dembski has come up with this very mistaken theodicy. He provides no really defensible logical or exegetical reasons for it. The fundamental reason is, as he clearly states, that he has accepted as proven fact the claims of evolutionary geologists and cosmologists about millions of years and the claims of unbelieving archeologists and anthropologists about ancient Near-Eastern history.
But those claims are interpretations of observations based on anti-biblical assumptions. Dembski, however, uses these “facts” to reinterpret or reject the plain teaching of God’s Word and to redefine terms.
Dembski says
     
Quote
A young earth seems to be required to maintain a traditional understanding of the Fall. And yet a young earth clashes sharply with mainstream science. Christians therefore seem to be in a position of having to choose their poison. They can go with a young earth, thereby maintaining theological orthodoxy but committing scientific heresy; or they can go with an old earth, thereby committing theological heresy but maintaining scientific orthodoxy (p. 25).

Clearly, he has chosen the side of “scientific orthodoxy” (even though the leaders of the scientific establishment are very fallible and the vast majority of them are hostile to biblical Christianity). And he has chosen not to take the side of historic orthodox theology, which is based on the sound exegesis of the inspired, inerrant Word of the infallible Creator. But Dembski has done so with little evidence of really understanding (or even reading carefully) the RATE research done by eight Ph. D. creation scientists. And he has accepted what the evolutionary scientific establishment dogmatically claims about the age and history of the creation, even though he apparently rejects what that same establishment claims about the origin and diversification of life.But if someone, especially a non-scientist, doesn’t accept what the majority of scientists say about biological evolution, why should he trust what the majority of scientists say about the age of the creation? To do so is inconsistent. Also, as a philosopher, Dembski fails to see or deal with the naturalistic uniformitarian philosophy which dominates geology and astronomy and which is the real source of the idea of millions of years.

Date: 2009/11/18 22:58:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 18 2009,20:35)
Is this the end for Nakashima??

Quote
STOP THE PRESSES!!!1!ELEVEN

I, Nakashima, have just been convinced of the non-material reality of FSM. You are going to Hull. I will pray for you, but without much hope for your immaterial portion of the divine sauce.


or will Kattarina have to pay out twenty Euros?

I guess they just want to know Nakashima's real name.

Date: 2009/11/19 14:13:53, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
163
jitsak
11/19/2009
2:54 pm

Joseph,

   I would think that first one would need evidence for the theory of Common Descent- as in what is the evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

I sometimes wonder if Joseph is a very deep-cover Poe who is pretending to be very misguided.

Come on, Joe. The morphological fossil evidence and the DNA evidence give us pretty much the same phylogenies.
If he like Jerry is another sock who is actually left?

Date: 2009/11/20 21:36:27, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Nov. 20 2009,13:07)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 20 2009,13:43)
DiEb
       
Quote
Dear Dr. W. Dembski –
à propos publication of a seminal work: what’s the status of the peer-review of your article “The Search for as Search?”

Dr^n replies:
       
Quote
DiEb: It was accepted at a peer-reviewed journal that was a year behind in its publication schedule. We waited and waited … and waited, and now the journal is two years behind. So we withdrew it and resubmitted to another journal.

Yeah, right. Bwahahaha.

Well, to be fair to Dr. DrDr, JOEI is tough to get into.*  They've even shut down the website to curb the temptation of would be submitters.**




* Insert obligatory pants/sweater joke here.***

** Insert obligatory Frill Dodge'm joke here.***

*** May be the same joke.

It was accessible until at least November 12. OTOH, PCID - PROGRESS  in COMPLEXITY, INFORMATION, and DESIGN can be rulred out because it is already 48 months behind its publication schedule.

Date: 2009/11/20 22:02:13, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 20 2009,12:43)
DiEb
   
Quote
Dear Dr. W. Dembski –
à propos publication of a seminal work: what’s the status of the peer-review of your article “The Search for as Search?”

Dr^n replies:
   
Quote
DiEb: It was accepted at a peer-reviewed journal that was a year behind in its publication schedule. We waited and waited … and waited, and now the journal is two years behind. So we withdrew it and resubmitted to another journal.

Yeah, right. Bwahahaha.

Somehow Dr. Dembski's complaints are not really consistent: While he now complains about the journal being two years behind its publishing schedule he didn't bother to have three papers under review for at least  661 days under review.

Date: 2009/11/20 22:41:29, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 20 2009,21:39)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 20 2009,15:40)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 20 2009,12:35)
Before the Fall, when the SLoT hadn't yet been activated, it must have been frustrating trying to stir sugar into your coffee.

Lighting the fire to roast the beans and boil the water must have been a bugger as well.

Consequently there was very little farting. God's plan.

Shouldn't one then conclude that "breathing into someones nostrils the breath of life; and man becoming a living soul" wouldn't work either.

Date: 2009/11/21 21:26:34, Link
Author: sparc
But dead turkey may be tasteful, UD will never be.

Date: 2009/11/21 23:27:37, Link
Author: sparc
GIlDodgen
Quote
7
GilDodgen
11/21/2009
7:32 pm

My father is the most brilliant scientist I have ever had the privilege to know. He is also the most ethical and compassionate man I have ever known, although he is an atheist. In many ways, he modeled Christ for me.


He didn't mention his father's responsibility in an earlier statement:
Quote
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself. There was no doubt in my mind that God was a human fabrication and that we were the product of purposeless Darwinian mechanisms. In retrospect, however, I realize that I accepted these conclusions completely uncritically, which is ironic, because educated intellectual types supposedly take pride in critical thinking.

Date: 2009/11/23 21:33:54, Link
Author: sparc
Since we are approaching another 150th anniversery:
What and where would Dr. Dembski be without the celebrated book? And what about Denyse? Behe? Casey Luskin? Jerry? KF?

Date: 2009/11/25 11:22:58, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2009,05:47)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 25 2009,05:36)
     
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2009,19:54)
Why is it so important to the fundies that climate change (let alone AGW) isn't happening? Would it somehow reflect badly on Jeebus? Can someone please explain?!?

Pick one or more of the following:

1. Because the whiny Liberals believe in it.
2. It would cause them to curtail their lifestyles which is unAmerican
3. Its not in the Bible (ie God wouldn't let it happen)

For Dembski, it has the added benefit of feeding his bitterness, as can be summarized in the last paragraph of this article.
One should emphasize Dembski in this way:      
Quote
Scientists are not our masters. They are our servants, and they need a lesson in humility. It is up to us -- We the People -- to hold their feet to the fire. To fail to do so is to be complicit in their sins. God help us to preserve what freedoms we have left.
I wonder if he really believes that while he is  can playing this in-group/out-group game any real world scientist would consider him a colleague. On the other hand he may not call scientists his peer group.

Date: 2009/12/01 11:34:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 01 2009,10:35)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 01 2009,10:38)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 01 2009,09:12)
POTW.  Both here and at [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources








/#comment-341671]The Other Place[/URL]

Seconded!  

I can't remember the last time I saw Aristotle, the bible, food choices, and the utter futility of ID to explain anything expresed so clearly. :)

If there is any sock available to type "POTW" over there, it would be much appreciated on the banks of the Setagawa.

I am afraid this won't work:

Date: 2009/12/01 11:49:37, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 01 2009,11:44)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 01 2009,10:35)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 01 2009,10:38)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 01 2009,09:12)
POTW.  Both here and at [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ic-all-the-way-down-the-grand-human-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-probabilistic-resources







/#comment-341671]The Other Place[/URL]

Seconded!  

I can't remember the last time I saw Aristotle, the bible, food choices, and the utter futility of ID to explain anything expresed so clearly. :)

If there is any sock available to type "POTW" over there, it would be much appreciated on the banks of the Setagawa.

I'd love to, but I am still trying to build an extremely slimy kind of sock and need to stay undercover.

It would be cool if you highjackedthe name scordova.

Date: 2009/12/02 20:51:21, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 02 2009,11:04)
From "Is backwards or forwards time travel really possible?"
   
Quote
2
Gods iPod:
Yes. And I can prove it from the Bible alone :)

   
Quote
5
Gods iPod:
Denise, I’d love to share my theory here, but since I am fairly certain that I am the only person that has ever seen this in the Word, at least among the living and posting thoughts online, I am keeping it to myself for a future book.

I know, sounds like a cop-out crackpot*. I would be open to sharing it with you privately.

For those that missed my first post. I believe there is a crystal clear example of time travel in the Bible. So clear that when I explain it to you you’ll slap yourself for not having seen it before. I have shown it to about a dozen people, and the reaction is the same each time**, and no one needs to be “convinced” It’s just obvious.

Time travel is possible because there's an example of it in the bible. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR. And he is the only one who has ever seen it although "it's just obvious" and "crystal clear". Right.


* fixed that for him

** they very carefully back away?

I am pretty sure Gods iPod already has a reservation for the next Hale-Bopp flight.

Date: 2009/12/04 23:00:22, Link
Author: sparc
One wonders why the DI is so outraged. A few weeks ago they claimed that they are not involved:  
Quote
The complaint corrects a common misstatement about this case, accurately noting, “Discovery Institute was not a party to the contract between the Plaintiff [California Science Center] and Defendants [American Freedom Alliance] for the screening of ‘Darwin’s Dilemma.’”
(emphasis mine)

According to the following statement the DI even fucked things up itself:  
Quote
E-mails Show Viewpoint Discrimination
Most importantly, as noted the complaint contains e-mail documentation exposing the actual reason that the California Science Center cancelled AFA’s contract to screen Darwin’s Dilemma. As the complaint shows, the California Science Center’s e-mail officially cancelling AFA’s contract unashamedly reveals that the Center was most concerned about its “reputation” in the scientific community and its “relationship” to other scientific groups after having rented its facilities to a pro-ID group, throwing AFA’s constitutional rights under the bus. The complaint states:  
Quote
On October 6, 2009, Christina M. Sion, Vice President of Food & Event Services at CENTER, (hereinafter “SION”) wrote an e-mail to DAVIS [President of the AFA] stating that “we are cancelling your event at the California Science Center.” SION’s e-mail stated:  
Quote
“It has come to our attention that in a press release issued October 5, 2009 by the American Freedom Alliance, it is inferred that the California Science Center as [sic] a Smithsonian Institute affiliate is co-sponsoring the Darwin Debates. Your event is a private event held on the California Science Center property but is not affiliated in any way with the California Science Center or the Smithsonian. This press release has damaged our relationship with the Smithsonian and the reputation of the California Science Center. According to the Event Policies and Procedures that you signed to reserve the date for the event, you agreed to submit all promotional materials to the California Science Center for review and approval prior to printing or broadcast. Because you did not obtain this approval and the press release has had significant negative ramifications, we are canceling your event at the California Science Center.” (emphases added)
Before going further we must clear away some errors in Sion’s e-mail. First, the October 5th press release referenced by Sion wasn’t issued by the AFA, it was issued by Discovery Institute, and AFA had no control over that press release. Second, Discovery Institute’s October 5th press release didn’t claim that the California Science Center was “co-sponsoring the Darwin Debates” but quite plainly stated, “The screening is sponsored and hosted by the American Freedom Alliance.” Third, Discovery Institute’s press release was hardly inaccurate to observe that the California Science Center is affiliated with the Smithsonian. The California Science Center has a conspicuous page on its website, “Smithsonian Affiliate Designation,” touting at great length the Center’s status as “a Smithsonian Affiliate” that enjoys the “benefits of becoming a Smithsonian Affiliate,” even boasting that, for certain exhibits, the Center “is now authorized to use the tag line ‘in association with the Smithsonian Institution’.”

Thus, the October 5th Discovery Institute press release which Sion complains about not only wasn’t issued (or controlled) by the AFA, but it also wasn’t inaccurate. Thus, AFA’s lawsuit correctly notes that “The contract states nothing concerning promotions of the event by third parties nor requiring the monitoring, oversight, management, or control of third-party promotions.”
(emphasis in the original)

I wonder if they are really tricky lawyers fabricating a case or if they just fucked things up and are now trying to get the best out of it.


ETA missing link

Date: 2009/12/09 21:42:53, Link
Author: sparc
Since it didn't show up at UD until now:
Quote
8
osteonectin
12/09/2009
10:43 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Quote
Unlike Dawkins, however, who in 20-years plus has been purely a popularizer (of Darwinian evolution, materialist science, and atheism), Craig continues to publish at the highest levels of the academy addressing scholars of the highest caliber (and gaining their respect)


With all due respect, are you considering yourself as “publishing at the highest levels of the academy addressing scholars of the highest caliber (and gaining their respect)” or rather a popularizer (of ID creationism, anti-materialist pseudo-science, and religion)?


italics something osteonectin forgot in the original

currently under moderation if not banned already.

Date: 2009/12/09 21:46:32, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Raevmo @ Dec. 09 2009,15:03)
What's a pH.D. thesis? A thesis about the pH of Deuterium?

Hahaha! Gotcha! Seriously though, what a piece of crap. How is it even possible to get a PhD degree with that?

<eurosnob>Only in America!</eurosnob>

I don't know,if he had used a better printer he may have had a chance at an European university.

Date: 2009/12/09 22:01:38, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Raevmo @ Dec. 09 2009,15:03)
What's a pH.D. thesis? A thesis about the pH of Deuterium?

Hahaha! Gotcha! Seriously though, what a piece of crap. How is it even possible to get a PhD degree with that?

<eurosnob>Only in America!</eurosnob>

If he had used a better printer he may have had a chance at one of your Eurosnob universities.

Date: 2009/12/10 22:01:51, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 10 2009,14:35)
Mung has a wish:
 
Quote
I wish I had a nice warm blanket of CO2 surrounding my apartment just now to help keep the heat in

I wish you did too, Mung, preferably while Joseph and Clivebaby were visiting.

IIRC, the body temperature of mammals increases at higher CO2 concentrations anyway.

Date: 2009/12/11 23:25:10, Link
Author: sparc
I don't know if this has been discussed before:
IEEE Directions  WMAD is Administrative Chair of the Chapter"Computational Intelligence" of the IEEE Dallas Section.

Does he know what he would find if he searched for "evolution" on the Dallas IEE web pages?. He may also try to find Behe on the IEE pages and compare it with the results of a search at nature.com

Date: 2009/12/12 00:19:13, Link
Author: sparc
Dr. Dr. Dembski:
Quote
The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. On the one hand, we are told that ID is not science. On the other hand, articles in places like NATURE appear that are clearly motivated by ID. And yet, the articles themselves are scrupulous to avoid referencing ID, its proponents, or published writings lest we gain an entry in the Science Citation Index and thus can further strengthen the case that ID is indeed science

Dr. Dembski is selling himself short because one really can not say that ID has been ignored by Nature and its sister journals. On the contrary, there are indeed several articles
clearly motivated by ID. E.g.:
Dr. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" has been cited in Nature Immunology.
Salvador Cordova and the IDEA centers have been presented in Nature.
Dr. Dembski has been cited in EMBO reports published by Nature.
Drs. Behe and Dembski have been mentioned in Nature.
Also ID has been mentioned in Nature Medicine.
Just recently EMBO reports cited Drs. Behe and Dembski again (You really shouldn't miss what's behind this link).

Since I've left the same links at UD I am pretty sure that Dr. Dr. Dembski will publish a correction soon.

Date: 2009/12/12 00:36:11, Link
Author: sparc
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

Date: 2009/12/12 22:59:09, Link
Author: sparc
I wonder how moderation at UD really works. While osteonectin's links to ID-Creationism-unfriendly Nature publications and the statement that the good Dr. called Behe's work "ultimately wrong" went through this one never came up:
Quote

23
osteonectin
12/11/2009
11:54 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Quote
At no point in the paper is ID or any proponent of ID cited. Yet, when co-author Christoph Adami gave a PowerPoint presentation on Avida at a AAAS meeting some time back in Washington DC, his concluding slide showed Behe and his book DARWIN’S BLACK BOX. Moreover, Adami indicated that the whole point of this work on Avida was to refute Behe. Likewise, when co-author Rob Pennock wrote his expert witness report for the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, he claimed that his work on this NATURE article constituted a refutation of Behe.


Unfortunately, you’ve missed the opportunity to mention Dr. Behe’s work in a widely read journal yourself.

Date: 2009/12/13 00:47:08, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Benny H @ Dec. 11 2009,21:36)
Check this out: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Marks.pdf

Seemingly, there was or will be an audiofile of his presentation available. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work in the moment:
http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2009Marks.mp3

Date: 2009/12/13 20:51:31, Link
Author: sparc
Quote
ETA:  I see olegt has already made this point three pages ago! I'm late and lacking, as usual.
No problem, Dembski presents the the same claims every  five days. Thus, your comment will be appropriate any time.

Date: 2009/12/13 21:03:09, Link
Author: sparc
Why are these IDiots so obsessed with abbrevations? E.g., Signature in the cell:According to the DI:  
Quote
SITC Named One of Amazon.com's
Top 10 Bestselling Science
Books in 2009

According to abbrevations.com:  
Quote
SITC = Sex In The City

Date: 2009/12/13 21:28:50, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 13 2009,18:59)
   
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 11 2009,13:48)
Dembski is crowing about getting another article published.  Has the IEEE always had such low standards?
 
I note that these last two "papers" are conference proceedings.
The IEEE standards for accepting a conference paper and those for publication in one of their journals are vastly different.
 Conference papers are accepted purely on the basis of an abstract, with no peer review except by the session chairs, who often have a quota of slots to fill.
Later, after the conference, authors are often invited to submit a "proper" paper for peer review and publication in the appropriate journal.

ETA:  I see olegt has already made this point three pages ago! I'm late and lacking, as usual.

We are left with the question if more than 290 of Robert Marks' articles are not so good.      
Quote
Dr. Marks has over 300 publications. Some of them are very good.
Just wondering if he wrote this himself.

ETA: You will find the very same statement in Robert Marks biosketch published at UD by WMAD and on other Christian sites.

Date: 2009/12/13 23:09:47, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2009,22:15)
 
Quote

The IEEE standards for accepting a conference paper and those for publication in one of their journals are vastly different.
Conference papers are accepted purely on the basis of an abstract, with no peer review except by the session chairs, who often have a quota of slots to fill.


Conference papers are not always simply evaluated on the basis of the abstract. The IEEE is a vast organization with a great many special interest groups who put on their own conferences and have their own standards for acceptance. I have a paper in an IEEE SSCI conference from this year.

Elsberry, W, R., Grabowski L. M., Ofria C., and Pennock R. T. (2009). Cockroaches, drunkards, and climbers: modeling the evolution of simple movement strategies using digital organisms. IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, March 30 - April 2, 2009, Nashville, TN.

The full paper was evaluated for submission to the session, and the full paper is published in the proceedings. But, in general, peer review is less onerous for conferences. The computer science field tends to place much higher value on conference-based publications than one would expect coming from biology and zoology, where they are treated more like exploratory talks than a final product.

But you should look up the call for papers and instructions for authors for the particular conference or the conference series in order to find out what the reviewers actually had in hand to evaluate.

According to the conference web pages regular session papers have been peer reviewed:  
Quote

Regular Session Papers

Prospective authors are invited to submit their full-length papers electronically through the following link. Each paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow critical review. Each paper will be judged by at least two referees. The final paper included in the CD proceedings should be within 6 pages limit. Over-length page fee will be imposed.

Date: 2009/12/14 21:30:17, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 14 2009,15:35)
Sorry, providing links is a bit of a pain on my iPhone. But I've either made a design inference or a lucky guess. I just went through the conference programme for the meeting where Marks presented his stuff. And guess who one of the session chairs was? (hint: not WmAD)

Wes or someone knows the comp. Sci. area better - would the chair organise the reviews for the final version?

There was another chair, so Marks might have ensured that everything was above board, though, so there's no evidence for anything fishy.

The session was in T3, if anyone wants to go through the programme and check. It's in an excel sheet, of all things.

Actually it was T4. It's listed between line 64 and line 72 of the EXCEL sheet.
I guess what's quite telling is that Dembski is not mentioned in the authors list:        
Quote

Rm8(Computational Intelligence IV) Session Chair(s) Henry Chu/ Bob Marks II
Paper ID     Paper Title                                                                                               Authors
995            Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism                    Winston J. Ewert, Bob Marks II

Seems Dr. Dr. Dembski's name is notorious even in those engineers circles.

ETA: The good doctor's name neither appears in the printed version of the program (page 132 of the pdf)

Date: 2009/12/14 22:40:30, Link
Author: sparc
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 14 2009,21:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 14 2009,15:35)
Sorry, providing links is a bit of a pain on my iPhone. But I've either made a design inference or a lucky guess. I just went through the conference programme for the meeting where Marks presented his stuff. And guess who one of the session chairs was? (hint: not WmAD)

Wes or someone knows the comp. Sci. area better - would the chair organise the reviews for the final version?

There was another chair, so Marks might have ensured that everything was above board, though, so there's no evidence for anything fishy.

The session was in T3, if anyone wants to go through the programme and check. It's in