AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: steve_h

form_srcid: steve_h

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: steve_h

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/01/27 14:42:06, Link
Author: steve_h
And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable. These are no scientists but rather people with an anti-religion agenda who won’t let facts get in the way of their agenda.

DaveScott is right. You really should attack the ideas and not the despicable, fact-resistant, agenda-pushing, fake scientists that hold them

Date: 2006/02/17 06:14:24, Link
Author: steve_h
Re: the front loading.  Doesn't that mean that the common ancester of humans and all other apes (which JAD and DS accept) had to be more complex than humans or any ape? - it had to have the information to make all subsequent apes including humans. And the common ancester of all mammals had to be  much more complex than any mammal including humans.

Normally creationists/IDers seem to think that Humans are the most complex of The Designer's creation because of music, philosophy, science etc. etc., and not what you are left with, having discarded most of the information from some ancient single celled ancestor.

Date: 2006/03/02 07:46:37, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2006,17:44)
I've added some code that checks incoming IP addresses against multiple realtime blackhole lists. There may be some collateral damage because of this.

That explains why I couldn't view this forum from home yesterday. I can read and post from work though. Couldn't you allow read access to banned users? The UDers complain that evolutionists go further in thier attempts at censorship, because P.T bans people outright (omitting, of course, that only a handful of people and thier sock puppets have been so banned)

Date: 2006/03/06 04:17:46, Link
Author: steve_h
I wonder if DS's ruling on entropy is intended to draw a line under the whole thing. I can imagine Valerie, who has been pointing out the rather obvious flaws in the arguments so far, getting a long overdue ban if she disagrees with this one.

If DaveSchrott is right and there are indeed different kinds of entropy for heat and information, I wonder which one the 2nd law of thermodynamics is referring to.

I quite like the idea of the sun sending information rather than heat in the second comment (whether true or not).  I wonder which, of a science book, a book on ID or an empty diary all of equal mass, keeps you the warmest when burned :)

Date: 2006/03/07 13:29:52, Link
Author: steve_h
How’s this for ID research ...

Wow! apparently, human beings can design things. Maybe therefore all things are designed? Grasping at straws anyone?

These particular designers seem to have used their knowledge of evolutionary theories to bring about a desired result using an evolutionary process. That sure will put those nasty Darwinians in thier place!

They don't appear to have used any input from the ID community though apart from the phrase "Intelligent Design" and they don't seem to be suggesting that thier work shows ID is a better explanation than natural selection for what we see in nature.

Date: 2006/03/08 15:59:27, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 07 2006,14:34)
I DaveScot wrote:
I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it.

The only thing DaveTard gets right in that quote is that degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature.

Come to think of it, the one thing he gets right in that quote is wrong.  Temperature is measured in kelvin, not degrees Kelvin (N.B. I am not a physicist so I apologize in advance for any schoolboy bloopers in my post) (Also, I'm not a schoolboy)

To prove it, here's what it says on wikipedia (Sorry DaveScrott, I couldn't find a thesaurus definition) at

The word "kelvin" as an SI unit is correctly written with a lowercase k (unless at the beginning of a sentence), and is never preceded by the words degree or degrees, or the symbol °, unlike degrees Fahrenheit, or degrees Celsius. This is because the latter are adjectives, whereas kelvin is a noun. It takes the normal plural form by adding an s in English: kelvins. When the kelvin was introduced in 1954 (10th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), Resolution 3, CR 79), it was the "degree Kelvin", and written °K; the "degree" and the uppercase K was dropped in 1967 (13th CGPM, Resolution 3, CR 104). Of course, the temperature scale is the Kelvin (adjective) scale.


Kelvins and Celsius
The Celsius temperature scale is now defined in terms of the kelvin, with 0 °C corresponding to 273.15 kelvins.

kelvins to degrees Celsius
C = K − 273.15

I thought everybody knew that !

See also:

Date: 2006/03/12 01:31:37, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 12 2006,02:46)
This is off topic but I thought all the youngsters here should know that “degrees Kelvin” was the proper expression from 1954 until 1967 when the International Bureau of Weights and Measures decreed degrees be dropped. This is sort of like the U.N. decreeing that French is the international language of diplomacy. Some decrees are accepted to a greater “degree” than others.

Do'h!, I should have known that it is the international standard that is wrong, not DaveScrote.

Date: 2006/03/15 08:33:39, Link
Author: steve_h
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

How’s this for ID research …

I get the impression that if any scientist uses any of Dembski's favorite words in any context, Dembski is now going to claim their work as a branch of ID.

Let's see your impression of someone falling off a blog, dt.

Date: 2006/03/15 13:03:29, Link
Author: steve_h
Wow, I.D. just keeps on evolving.  Actually I guess it's always being tinkered into a new form.  So now I.D. encompasses any field that detects design?

No, any field that uses design, or mentions design, or uses any of the following terms: complex, specified, information, snake oil,

I hereby design-ate you an ex-commentator, dt.

Date: 2006/03/15 15:17:06, Link
Author: steve_h
Mathematician/Cosmologist wins religion prize, for "progess toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual realities" in religion, shock, horror.
Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design?
No!, er, I mean yes!, er... I mean, as long as it doesn't contradict the bible :)

Date: 2006/03/16 06:52:32, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:36)
A bunch of really retarded ones like where he says that his typing this sentence violates the 2nd Law? Yeah, where are those?

I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I'll tell you where they are. They're on my harddrive. Anybody who wants a copy of the page, send an email.

They are still on the original 'Thermodynamics fo^W by Dummies' thread (886 not 884)

Confusion about 2LoT in regard to heat and information

Date: 2006/03/16 06:59:10, Link
Author: steve_h
Oops. It's been pointed out already. Sorry.

Date: 2006/03/17 03:21:53, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 16 2006,18:0)
March 16, 2006

Double Helix Nebula

Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4<!--emo&:04 pm

Are we supposed to infer that the Designer put the double helix there?  Dembski is wisely silent on this, though I note that he filed this under "Intelligent Design", not "science".

There's comment by someone named MRMorris which just happens to be the same name as the Prof. quoted in the article. It says this nebula can be explained by current physics.  Scrot, noted for knowing who the experts in any given field are, immediately notes that he is
making up stories (but curiously doesn't ban him).

I wonder if it's the same M. Morris - Commenter #4 certainly seems to think so. Has Dembski set a trap for Scrot?

Date: 2006/03/19 05:36:04, Link
Author: steve_h
Here you assume Stevestory made assumptions. But because you expect to agree with him you accept those assumptions while my statement gets an obnoxious demand -not a request - for evidence.
By the way - speaking of semantics - if I made an assertion it was regarding the honesty of scientists. It happened to incorporate my assumption, but not assertion, that mattison is  a scientist (as he stated).

It is quite reasonable to accept Stevestory's statement that Mattison0922 is an ID supporter. Mattison has already told us he is a closeted IDT supporter. He is the only person who can know if that is true or not,so we can only take his word for it.

I am prepared to accept Mattison0922's claim to be a biologist, despite the fact that people on the internet often claim credentials they don't have. I think Arden Chatfield was wrong in this case, but then he was talking probababilities (or "odds") and had a point.

What is it that makes the following question an "obnoxious demand"?

And your evidence that mattison0922 is a scientist is...what, exactly?

As DaveScrot might say, "see the question mark?".

Also was ds being obnoxious when he asked Mattison to prove his credentials by entering the relevant details into his database or when he wrote the following?

Finally… in my personal and professional opinion (Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology),

I’ve taught bio at the university level for some time now…

Sorry, but you’re going to have use your real name if you want to claim those credentials. -ds

If so, why haven't you castigated him for it? After all, describing Arden  Chatfield's question as an obnoxious demand, while ignoring DaveScrot's would fit the definition of Hypocrisy that you gave.

Date: 2006/03/19 08:00:06, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Sanctum @ Mar. 19 2006,12:49)
Case in point:
I do recall part of this exchange:
Finally… in my personal and professional opinion (Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology),

I’ve taught bio at the university level for some time now…

Sorry, but you’re going to have use your real name if you want to claim those credentials. -ds

but not on which thread it appeared.
Could you provide me with the link or even the title?

(yes, please answer, I do want the information)

My correspondence with Eugenie Scott on ID in the universities  


Date: 2006/03/19 14:12:28, Link
Author: steve_h
HTH: Hope this helps (Assuming you are not going to use the information for 'evil' purposes  ) :)

Date: 2006/03/22 13:04:41, Link
Author: steve_h
I have to sympathise with ds here. I frequently make such slips: "their" instead of "there" or "they're";  "not a play" instead of "and a play"; or "No, that's completely wrong! Check your facts or be banned, you idiot " when I mean "Oops! maybe that was a typo".

However, in common with all right-thinking people, I also think, that any small admission of error by the ID side, no matter how insignificant, does indicate that everything about ID and the speaker's religion is completely wrong. This admission could just be the thin end of the wedge (not that wedge, a different one).

(warning: may contain non-counting grammatical errors, typos and/or sarcasm)

Date: 2006/03/23 04:08:51, Link
Author: steve_h
Listen to your Doctors: They know the Truth.
Mind you, this is only one data point from a small sampling of physicians, but it is a good one: not one of these fine people believes in Darwinian Evolution. One told me that “Any physician who doesn’t see intelligent design in even his most troubled patient is either blind or stupid or just not paying attention
After DaveScot chips in, 'Physicist' reminds him of his recent remarks (engineers are the experts at spotting design and Biologists Are Not Design Experts), to which DaveScot replies:
I fail to see how biology is outside the field of medical doctors. I took pre-med Human Anatomy and Physiology in college and I can assure you there was little if anything in it that wasn’t biology. Maybe some of the lab work where we learned how to use common clinical diagnostic tools wasn’t precisely biology even though it was about the metrics of biological systems. -ds
So doctors are qualified in design recognition because of their training in biology. But biologists aren't qualified in design  recongnition because thier training is in biology.

Date: 2006/03/23 12:06:54, Link
Author: steve_h
(Off Topic) Sunstorm
This is just another example of desperate positive atheists trying to claim a great mind as one of their own. They also claim Einstein and half the founding fathers.

Immediately after the same author claims them all as his own (in the "front-loading" group).  No prizes for guessing who it was.

Date: 2006/03/25 09:02:29, Link
Author: steve_h

is there a particular inconsistency in that post which you feel deserves this award or is that the whole
post contains so many that it somehow instantly qualifies him for a less specific "lifetime services to
inconsistancy and self-contradiction" award?

The main ones I would count in that thread are:

He asserts that no evidence can prove or disprove that gods exist or would act in a particular way
and also that he is more able follow that "real evidence" to whereever it leads.
(Contradiction spotted by ctaser, who was subsequently banned for it)

(in reply 14) He seems to be saying that he has more freedom to reach a decision based on all of the
evidence, precisely because he's already made his mind up and therefore can't be swayed by the evidence
(at least thats what I understand by "can't threaten his worldview")
(Contradiction spotted by woody, who was subsequently banned and/or disemvowelled for it -- but only having
responded to an additional clarification by DS)

He says atheists must preclude certain possibilies because they have already decided the "theory"
is wrong and then in reply 5 says theres a faction in the atheist camp that is open minded.
(my emphasis and quotation marks)

He says that atheists, having decided they don't believe n God, are rejecting an infinitite number of potential truths. He's doesn't seem to realise that by accepting on faith that a particular god is the truth, he too is ruling out a infinite number of truths (-1 for his God, but +1 for potential truth of "no God"). However he doesn't mention that he's doing this so maybe it's not in the same class.

In an article/thread  about intellectual dishonesty, he is intellectually dishonest. He holds atheists and theists to different standards on grounds of the stance he wrongly assumes each has taken. When a contradiction is pointed out he answers it with a link which he claims explains why there is no contradiction but which turns out to be a syllabus for a logic course with no answer.

Date: 2006/03/26 03:20:13, Link
Author: steve_h
100 More Heretics in 30 Days

Do you happen to know the approximate total population of PhD scientists in our country?


The number of professors is the relevant number ...
So that figure of 100 is way too high because it's includes lowly PhDs "grunts" . And I guess the Prof's area of study isn't relevant either.

In comment 2 we learn of another academic, Francis Beckwith, who has been turned into a verb after being denied tenure by the evil atheist metarialist dictatorship at Baylor university, the worlds largest *cough*baptist*cough* university. Just shows how far the insidious influence of Darwin has reached -- AFAICT Baylor doesn't even have the life science departments in which the Darwinists normally lurk, discussing ways to suppress real science, etc.  

It does have a school of engineering and computer science though. I am surprised they didn't  pounce on this chance to permanently secure someone who could teach and research thier design recognition program.

Date: 2006/03/26 07:49:54, Link
Author: steve_h
Hope, not Proof
That said, ID does have implications for ethics and morality.

Because while ID does not depend upon a supernatural designer, it does not exclude a supernatural designer either. ID does not speak of – far less prove the existence of – the God in which I believe, but it is not incompatible with His existence
The implication: Either there is such a thing as absolute morality or there isn't. Great! that's narrowed things down for me a lot - no way I could have worked that out by virtue of its being bleedin' obvious.

But let's assume that ID is right, that all life is designed and it is the moral obligation of all designed things to do whatever the designer designed them for. Surely the work of ID is now just beginning and it shouldn't just congratulate itself on a job well done and concentrate on wringing money out of the terminally stupid. They should tell us how they are going to scientifically determine what our purpose is so that we can fulfil it.
If the designer wants us to hurt each other, or is taking bets on how the middle east turns out, or which nation will  press the button and destroy the world, then anybody not involved in needless violence may actually be acting in an immoral way.

Date: 2006/03/26 08:22:15, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Renier @ Mar. 26 2006,13:11)
DaveScot:This demonstrates a misunderstanding of ID. ID positively identifies design. It does not positively identify what is not designed. What is not identified as design may still be designed, it simply isn’t positively identifiable as design. In more formal terminology ID does not produce false positives but it may produce false negatives.


Except of course for the original designer. Every known designed thing was designed by something more complex than it. Applying the "theory" of design tells us that the original designer must have been designed as well which is ludicrous.  That's a false positive.

I know how the other side try to get around this one. They describe anyone who points it out as a boring panda:
This argument points out that, by inferring a designer from complexity in machines, the designer must also be complexity. Why? Well just because it seems like he/she/it would.  ... The really weird part is the argument is broadcast to us using a computer that was the result of intelligent design.
Davescot doesn't seem to realise that the designer of the computer is much more complex than the computer itself, so his own counter-example contradicts him. If something less complex than mount Rushmore or a mousetrap could be capable of designing things, he should have no problem describing how.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:31:04, Link
Author: steve_h
I would like to add that I can in no way condone forcible deportation of people who are sensitive to offence they might cause to muslims, jews and/or jehovah's witnesses.

And I certainly would not in any circumstance  
kick in a dime to help cover the one-way boat ride to any far away port.

What *WE* Are Up Against!

Date: 2006/03/31 07:53:23, Link
Author: steve_h

The simplest bacteria need almost twice as many genes to survive than scientists first believed, according to new research published in Nature (30 March 2006).

The study is partly right and partly wrong. The above bit is obviously right (apart from the  as...than), but
The researchers have developed a way of predicting bacterial genome content using two bacteria that have evolved from E.coli.
They accurately predicted about 80 per cent of the gene content of the two bacteria, including some of the non-obvious features of their genomes.
is clearly wrong, as it is a well-known fact that the theory of evolution can not be used to make predictions.

Date: 2006/03/31 13:46:01, Link
Author: steve_h
Is a zygote capable of suffering? Is the woman who carries it?  At which point does the zygote's right to a miserable existence on earth and the likelihood of a future in underscored's brimstone-and-torture-land(*) - as opposed to its otherwise guaranteed one-ness with him and eternal cosmic bliss - outweigh the mother's right to her freedom?

(*) I wanted to write "####" but it got hashed-out, and I was afraid it might get confused with a naughty word of some sort.

Date: 2006/03/31 14:03:56, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Russell @ Mar. 31 2006,19:31)
You can assume that you've got time to get EITHER the two-month old out, or the thermos out, NOT both, and that whatever is left in the building is toast.

And that there is no time to hang around asking philosophical questions. Any stalling results in the death of the two month old and the end of the contents of the thermos. Act!

Date: 2006/03/31 14:21:11, Link
Author: steve_h
Good Democracy, Bad Democracy, and No Democracy


For example, in a 2002 NSF survey, less than half of those polled answered that humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. This in mind, I think you’re entering dangerous territory when you advocate letting public opinion dictate what we teach in science.

Given your inability think through any of the nonsense you write I’m surprised that you know dinosaurs and humans didn’t live at the same time. Now go away and take both your brain cells with you. -ds

Scrote banning an entirely reasonable poster for posting something he agrees with.

Date: 2006/04/01 14:00:57, Link
Author: steve_h
TD, What does the human zygote have that the equivalent in a dog or a rat or a fish does not?  As I see it, the only thing that it currently has is potential, but it is not currently more conscious, more capable of suffering, more intelligent, morally superior, or in any way  'better' than those others. Every human sperm and egg has potential but we allow millions and lots respectively to go down the pan (or whereever) without undue worry, so why kick up a fuss here?  As I see it, the only thing you might claim for the human zygote apart from potential that the others don't have is a soul, but that's religion.  What is being lost that wouldn't also be lost if the sperm and eggs donors had decided to go to church instead of having sex?

Also, I missed your answer to the "who would you save" diliemma and can't find it. Could you repeat it for me please?

Date: 2006/04/02 04:48:22, Link
Author: steve_h
All non-answers, TD. As far as I am concerned, your "Troll" status is confirmed - I can be a little slow to catch on sometimes. If any one else, from any side of the discussion, thinks I have wrongly dismissed any honest answers I will be happy to elaborate, but I will not be feeding TD directly any more.

Date: 2006/04/03 11:18:06, Link
Author: steve_h
Please note, that many us at atbc do not condone the use of nuclear ebola bombs to destroy churches. However,  maybe I'll report myself to my local Fremdenpolizei just to be on the safe side.

Date: 2006/04/04 07:54:33, Link
Author: steve_h
Re "Also, could he draw a triangle where the internal angles don't add up to 180 degrees.
not enough information, do you mean degrees Kelvin or Celcius?

Date: 2006/04/04 12:41:42, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (GCT @ April 04 2006,13:21)

Um, I thought we were talking about triangles, not photon energy?

They are the same thing: - 351,000 hits.

Date: 2006/04/04 13:43:47, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2006,17:52)

Likewise, googling the phrases "italian language" and "spanish language" together generates 1.59 million hits. I can't see how this could mean anything other than that Italian and Spanish are the same language.

Well duh!  This whole spanish-italian differentiation is just a scam to sell spanish-italian dictionaries to the unwary.    

However,  I seem to have taken us off-topic. Apologies to TD, and I will limit such proofs to the UD thread in future.

Date: 2006/04/06 11:34:39, Link
Author: steve_h
It has come to my attention that another American academic may be planning wholesale slaughter. The Mathematician, philosopher and theologian of whom I speak may have joined some sort of death-cult which is eagerly anticipating an end of the world scenario in which everyone not on thier side will be gruesomely slaughtered (and perhaps tortured), leaving themselves to enjoy a new idyllic existence in the aftermath.  Not only that but they all think such an occurence will be a good thing. Maybe giant mutant multi-headed beasts will be involved.  Maybe some of them are trying to think of ways to make it happen sooner and are engaged in breeding and design programs .... I haven't seen any transcripts or anything yet, but it makes you think doesn't it?

So, should I report this guy to the cops? Would it be an idea to hint that he might be armed so they go in shooting?


Date: 2006/04/06 11:55:03, Link
Author: steve_h
Yes, I've heard of vices being mentioned. Not in respect of the end of world scenario, but to extract information or force confessions from opponents while they are waiting for that.

(I think your take is correct, but I would not like to go on the record about that until I've seen the transcripts)

Date: 2006/04/06 12:05:22, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25)
ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Time goes fast when you're having fun.  Maybe you could try holding parties in your lab?

Date: 2006/04/06 15:02:36, Link
Author: steve_h
[UPDATE:] $1000 reward and $1000 bet — Pianka again
Uncommon Descent has been scooped by the Pearcey Report: go here. The $1000 reward is herewith withdrawn — the bet still obtains.
Either the guy in the transcript or the transcriber seems to have had three or four too many. Given that the transcriptee got a standing ovation from dozens of respectable scientists, I'd go with the latter.

Also, why withdraw the reward? Isn't this the time to pay up?  I'm confused - am I missing something here?

AFAICT this is all about a speech at the Texas Academy of Science on 3.3.2006. Am I confusing two different events?

Date: 2006/04/10 11:22:59, Link
Author: steve_h

how about publishing the top referral sites? My hunch is that PT and similar sites and will feature prominently and that referrals from sites critical of pseudoscience will probably outnumber those from sites dedicated to design recognition (aka engineering),  biology, palaeontogy etc., and/or which are not taking the piss.

Date: 2006/04/11 12:53:13, Link
Author: steve_h

Top Six External Pages
———————- 0.91% 0.42% 0.26% 0.17% 0.13% 0.13%

Not quite what I expected. But three of the top six were from sites pointing out the stupidy of UD and its owner (antievolution, leiterreports and pandas) and the fourth is from wusses (who don't count :)).

The one I don't understand is  The New York Times' official page was always at www.newyorktimes was originally some sort of cybersquatting advertising site which was eventually given up after a bit of a fight.  If you visit newyorktimes now, you get redirected to nytimes. Maybe on non-IE explorers the redirect happens invisibly so that newyorktimes stays in the address of the referral. But I'd expect more referrals from nytimes unless someone has been, say, tweaking the results.

Also mentions of Dembski in the nytimes have been quite rare in the last six months. Most were before September. The exceptions during the boom time for UD being  two in December which relate to a story about some judge who rejects teaching Intelligent Design and one entitled "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting its Maker". I don't have a subscription for the nytimes archive, but maybe they having a bit of a chuckle too.

Date: 2006/04/11 15:36:56, Link
Author: steve_h

yup.  Davetard has just admitted that about half of his top external referral traffic comes from here and PT.

I make it 1.08% vs 0.94%.  About 40% of the (reported) direct referrals from external web sites are from sites like PT and antievolution. The majority are from people who go directly to the site using bookmarks. Maybe these are in the same ratio but  I suspect those bookmarks are mostly us and the registered posters at UD. Dave, what percentage of visits are from IP addresses associated with banned users?

Anyway why stop at 6? nobody stops at six unless 7-10 tip the balance in favor of the 'other side'.

Date: 2006/04/12 12:49:40, Link
Author: steve_h
Congratulations to Uncommon Descent Bloggers!

Ergo, all you anti-ID folk tune in here because you can’t wait to hear what outrageous thing I’m going to say next and you tune in more frequently than the pro-ID folk. Thanks for all your support and thanks especially for allowing me to play you like a fiddle. The funniest part of this is that even though you know I’m playing you, you won’t stop. You can’t help it. You just have to hear what I’m going to say next. It’s an addiction.

I think many of us have long suspected that Dembski's approach to ID is that "Writing stuff you know ain't true can be a good way to make money" . Very different  from science related blogs such as The Panda's Thumb where the emphasis is not on generating revenue but on improving public knowledge about a subject and correcting the misinformation of scam artists.  However,  I'm not sure revenue is DaveScot's motivation despite his claims. Does he get a cut of it? Is he really deliberately making ID and its followers look stupid because he sees it as the best way to contribute to ID?  The "Can't admit to non-trivial mistakes" explanation still seems the most likely to me.

However, FWIW I do accept his explanation of the newyorktimes thing and the termination of the list at place six. For completeness Dave, I think should not count as an external referrer as it's also owned by Dembski - UD is just  its blog section. That would reduce serious external interest in your blog to trace amounts but if that was your plan all along...

Date: 2006/04/14 03:47:07, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 13 2006,11:48)
2 children, if it splits.

In which case we have one zygote which began at conception which becomes two which began at the time of the split. We had one "person" and now we have two, so one is slightly older than the other, even though they both began at the same time(s). :)

Date: 2006/04/14 12:24:48, Link
Author: steve_h
Oops! sorry Nike, I've not been following this thread very closely, but I just went back and found your comment. I like the way that it that must not be fed subsequently quotes your questions about these examples but makes no attempt at all to answer them.

Date: 2006/04/15 06:50:32, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 15 2006,11:33)
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”!
Junk DNA, nothing to do with ID.

Don't scientists often obtain useful information by examining fossilized feces? If so, I think this proves that all crap is actually intelligently designed road map.

Date: 2006/04/15 11:13:14, Link
Author: steve_h
Steganography belongs to the field of digital data embedding technologies (DDET), which also include information hiding, steganalysis, watermarking, embedded data extraction, and digital data forensics. Steganography seeks efficient (..) and robust (..) algorithms that can embed a high volume of hidden message bits within a cover message (..) without their presence being detected. Conversely, steganalysis seeks statistical tests that will detect the presence of steganography in a cover message.

Oh dear, I think I foresee an upcoming mathematical tour de force which 'proves' that our DNA contains a notarized hidden instruction manual. Unfortunately the contents of that manual will remain unknowable without  considerable outlay.

Date: 2006/04/16 02:39:32, Link
Author: steve_h
“Darwinian theory of evolution is silent on the question of whether a supernatural intelligent designer exists”
Sober argues in his logic stream that “mind” is irreducibly complex(IC). I do not see this to be necessarily the case. Can we comment on whether something as etherial as “mind” is IC? I think Michael Behe had very well defined physical systems in mind when he defined IC. I do not think he would consider that “mind” is IC.
This flaw in Sober’s logic stream is fatal to his conclusion that “mini ID” is necessarily supernatural.
Don't minds require brains which in turn require rather elaborate support systems?  Or is talking about disembodied non-supernatural minds here?

Date: 2006/04/27 12:52:22, Link
Author: steve_h
A Tenner (Sterling) says we never get (3)-(5). Possibly on account of us being too rude,  not deserving of the truth, or similar. (Max. 1 taker)

Date: 2006/04/28 08:03:41, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2006,11:0)
Hi AFDave
You hypothesize that it rained last night
You predict “If it rained,  my driveway will be wet”
You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway
I think he's doing something worse. He's observed a wet driveway and is trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain it:  "God's very powerful, he could wet my driveway if he wanted to" and goes on to  'predict' that his driveway will be wet.  IOW he's recycling the observations he intends to explain as predictions.  Not only that, most of them don't follow from his hypothesis; Maybe God could wet his driveway, but he could also choose not to, or he could dry a previously wet driveway. A wet drive, a  dry drive or anything in between are all possible outcomes of his hypothesis, so none can be said to be the predicted outcome.

Date: 2006/04/28 14:48:19, Link
Author: steve_h
No, it's worse than that. He is not trying to come up with a hypothesis to explain anything. This is what he learned in fundy school and therefore it must be true and scientific. If science doesn't agree, then science must be wrong... for that is also what he learned in fundy school.

It's worse than that -- it's not just him, there are loads of 'em.

Date: 2006/04/28 15:25:49, Link
Author: steve_h
Worse than that. He was elected twice! (Well, maybe once, sort of)

If you have a comeback, I hereby offer advance notice of my desire to give in on this one.

Date: 2006/04/28 15:44:21, Link
Author: steve_h
So, has anyone here come to believe in a 6,000 year old earth and accepted Jesus as their personal savior thanks to Afdave's devastating arguments?
I almost did, but then I didn't.

(Added quote)

Date: 2006/05/02 10:49:39, Link
Author: steve_h and
I’d want to see other researchers get similar samples from an unearthed location at the same site taking extraordinary precautions to ensure that it wasn’t contaminated during or after removal then isolate at least some fragmentary DNA from the samples and have multiple labs replicate the results. From what I read there was nowhere near good enough handling of the samples to insure no contamination because no one expected any need for sterile handling.
The "knee-jerk remarks" in bfast's comment (#4) on the UD link match SirLinkalot's comment in the second link. Also the above quote  appears as a '-ds' addition to the bevet's comment (#8) and is also in bfasts/SirLinkalot's comment  in the second link. I'm confused. How do you tell who is a sock puppet or who is copying whom?

Date: 2006/05/03 06:13:30, Link
Author: steve_h
Good to see ds showing some intellectual honesty and correcting a mistake by a fellow ID supporter.

With this in mind, I claim the work of the company genetic-ID is an instance of the Explanatory Filter.

However, it's not the first time someone has made that "mistake" (charitable version) at UD:
Information Forensics (IF) — another branch of ID:
 On that occasion, none of the regulars were brave or honest enough to speak up. One guy asked "What's this got to do with ID?" and was banned on the spot by Dembski. Brown-noser DS obsequiously offered a candidate for lamest backup of all time with a "proof by google".

I also recall someone (I think it was Dembski) arguing that someone who was designing things was therefore utilising ID "theory". I don't recall enough details to find it.

Date: 2006/05/12 09:01:04, Link
Author: steve_h
The first of those regular expressions only matches quotes with no attribution. The second mathes only one with them. So as long as you do something like


   {quote} .... {/quote}
 {/quote} and don't nest any deeper you should be OK

Quote (A @ B)


This has been driving me crazy for ages. Thanks for the code snippet.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:02:46, Link
Author: steve_h
Not sure that a full parser is necessary. If you add a (.*) to the front of your pattern (To slurp up the longest text that doesn't contain {quote}, you can find the last complete inner quote. Then iterate until you find no more or you hit a limit (to avoid infinite loops if there is a mistake). I also combined the handling of {quote=} and {quote} forms, otherwise it still gets hopelessly muddled.

Code Sample
#! perl

$_ = <<END;

{quote=wes, 08:00:10}
        Three quotes
          {quote=steve, 01:15}  yes but  {/quote}
          {quote}  no but {/quote}
          {quote=xxx, 01:17}  yes {/quote}
          get a life, steve

  {quote=blah, blah} blah blah {/quote}
  {quote} yawn {/quote}

for( $i = 0; $i < $MAXQUOTES &&  $_ ne $old; $i++)

  s{(.*)\{quote(=(.+?),\s*(.+?))?\}(.+?)\{/quote\}} {
       if ($2 ne "")
        $x = "$1 {QT$n of=$3 at=$4} $5 {/QT$n}";
         $x = "$1 {QT$n} $5 {/QT$n}";

 #   print "Iteration $i:\n $_";

die "unmatched quotes" if (/{\/?quote}/);

Code Sample

{QT8 of=wes at=08:00:10}
        Three quotes
           {QT5 of=steve at=01:15}   yes but   {/QT5}
           {QT4}   no but  {/QT4}
           {QT3 of=xxx at=01:17}   yes  {/QT3}
          get a life, steve

   {QT2 of=blah at=blah}  blah blah  {/QT2}
   {QT1}  yawn  {/QT1}

edit: purged spurious last if.

My deepest sympathy to anyone that can make any sense of the above "edit" comment.

Do you have the code that handles hyperlinks handy? They've caused me considerable annoyance of late.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:27:56, Link
Author: steve_h
genetic-id, an instance of design detection? (topic revisited)
(In an effort to help my IDEA comrades at Cornell I revisit the issue of Genetic-ID. My previous post on the issue caused some confusion so I’m reposting it with some clarifications. I post the topic as something I recommend their group discuss and explore.)

I think there is a way we can use the explanatory filter to detect man-made alterations to crops without using a library of genetic patterns. At first it doesn't seem so easy because the EF tells you only that all crops are designed and nothing more, whether by the Intelligent Designer or an intelligent designer. However, modified crops have been designed twice, once by each [Dd]esigner so there is a way - put it through the Explanatory Filter twice ! Or three times if you want to know if a man made design has been illegaly copied.

Nobel prizes and license fees to the usual address.

Date: 2006/05/12 23:47:37, Link
Author: steve_h
Wow thanks Wes. I didn't expect you to implement it. I thought you'd say it would be far too slow because it has to loop once for each quote tag. One way to make it faster would be to do this only when text was being input by the user  and turn matched "quote"s to matched IQUOT../IQUOT (or similar) and save that in the DB. Then when viewing you could process the start and end tags separately with simpler regexps (Simple string replacement for end tag) in one pass because you know they already match up. Of course you then have to handle internal tags entered directly by the user. And you'd have to turn IQUOT back to QUOTE for editing. Etc. etc. etc.

Re. the other topic: I'd like to see the page number which contains the first post entered after my last page view (not made in the current session) so that I could go directly to where I left off last time. Alas, I fear that may be impossible  :)

Date: 2006/05/15 12:27:29, Link
Author: steve_h
Is there such a thing as copyright protection for blogs?

if not, I guess it won't be long before some people complain loudly that there is. If so, it might be more ethical only to publish links to copies of modified posts rather than the entire content.

Also if not, I think in future I might link to the advert free copy rather than providing dumsbki and scrote with the "oxygen of publicity" that they crave  (shudders at thought of mrs T.)

Where are people like BarryA when you need them? :)

Date: 2006/05/17 14:01:08, Link
Author: steve_h
I think the word you're looking for is
(Der/Dieser) Diskussionsfaden  or (Der/Dieser) Thread. The english version of most technical words often finds it's way into German, which explains why I can be nearly ten years in a german speaking land and still suck at German (unless you count the other reason, which is that I'm not very bright)  Gewinde refers to the sort of thread you find on a screw. Umlauts are no problem here (eg äöü) if you have a German keyboard. Otherwise, on windows (and maybe PCs generally), you can hold down the alt key and enter the three digit ascii code, one digit at a time on the numeric keypad before releasing the alt, so ü=alt-(1+2+9) ö=alt-148 and ä=alt-132 (Uppercase versions are left as an exercise in googling for the reader). Failing that you can write "ueber", "Goedel", "Schoenborn", Motoerhead etc. "ß" is alt 225 and isn't on my swiss-german keyboard as the swiss always use "ss".

Also the tall skinny 'S' was IMO almost certainly intended as self deprecating humor.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:39:20, Link
Author: steve_h
S.P. Near Basel.

Egbooth: I'm the wrong steve but see:
Main post, and comment 14. Also at comment DM provides as supporting evidence a link he obviously hadn't looked at.

That was March 8th, and ran alongside  'Hate Speech'  and "Heat=Temperature".

Erratum: Hmm,  "Der Thread" probably only refers to lightweight processes etc.

Date: 2006/05/19 13:19:17, Link
Author: steve_h
Creationist anti-ID bumper stickers?  
A student of mine heard second-hand about anti-ID bumper stickers being handed out at a creationism conference. Unfortunately, my student didn’t have any details. Does anyone have any information about this conference or the actual statement on the bumper stickers?
Reassuring to see, that on important matters at least, Dembski is prepared to check out the validity of stuff related to him second or third hand before commiting.

Date: 2006/05/19 14:21:55, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (beervolcano @ May 19 2006,15:56)
The first thing I thought wasn't gene regulation.

Were you on your boat  at the time you thought this? - heroically peering into a perfectly adequate, though not quite state of the art, marine microscope while struggling with a nasty bout of scurvy?  No, I thought not. Evolution loses.

Date: 2006/05/21 14:01:46, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (beervolcano @ sometime)
Did Dawkins say this or did Dembski insert it?
If so, he has sooooo much room to talk.

Ironically the answer to this question comes from GilDogen on

Comment on God’s best gift to intelligent design by GilDodgen or
God’s best gift to intelligent design if you are not concerned with historical accuracy and enjoy contributing to UD hit counts.      
To wit, it was inserted by the liar Dembsi, as part of a lie, to lie about what was actually said by Dawkins.

Incidentally, Wesley, I had some trouble getting multiple URLs within a quote to work correctly, so in the end, I quoted only the first of thee URLS. You really should encourage your loser geeks to sort this out using whatever pyschological subterfuge you can.

Date: 2006/05/22 14:32:16, Link
Author: steve_h
Ignore, Laugh, Fight, Win      
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. –Mahatma Gandhi

This quote is ruined for me by association with Robbie William's screechtastic single "First they (find another station quick)".
However the quote obviously doesn't apply to ID. There have been numerous rounds of laughing and losing to both scientists and lawyers - However, as sometimes, Ghandi comes to the rescue with an ID-centric quote:
I have been known as a crank, faddist, madman. Evidently the reputation is well deserved. For wherever I go, I draw to myself cranks, faddists, and madmen.
and many along the lines of       
I am a proud staunch Sanatani Hindu.
[Shurely you mean Christian, ed.]

Date: 2006/05/24 11:54:35, Link
Author: steve_h
Woody Allen’s Match Point    
Quote (Dembski @ 21 May)
Woody Allen’s latest film, Match Point, illustrates the depths to which Darwinian nihilism is dragging popular culture. The protagonist, Chris Wilten, murders his pregnant mistress and an innocent neighbor in order to protect his position in his wife’s wealthy family. His philosophical justification for his crime is that human existence is due to pure chance, hence is morally meaningless. Here is a direct quote from the film:

Quote (Fictional character in film @ sometime)

It seems that scientists are confirming more and more that all existence is here by blind chance—no purpose, no design.

I don't understand what Dembski is getting at here. I for one, have never heard a non-fictional atheist try to justify murder this way. However it is a much loved argument used by creationists and attributed to atheists,  despite our frequent attempts to explain to them that get our morality from living with other human beings. He should be praising Allen for helping to spread the lie for him/them.  

Thinks.... Would ID supporters sink to those sorts of depths? I wonder...
Quote (BarryA @ One day earlier)
Mark, I am sorry I must speak so forcefully, but this statement is simply absurd. For the ethical implications of atheism I will let Dostoevsky speak: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” The 20th century’s wars of atheism were caused by people who were not restrained by a belief in a transcendent ethical system established by God. If that is not an implication for a “relationship with another being or for how to behave” I don’t know what is.
- A Reply to Mark Frank:

Date: 2006/05/25 12:32:18, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 25 2006,15:46)
"I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot’s posts. Among these, 3 have been either explicit or implicit calls to “Stop the ACLU.”
To the first of which, Denski  replied
Quote (Demsbski @ 22may)
Right on!

We’ve learned about “Kevin Padian hating fundamentalists,”

The whole Kevin Padian thing was started by Denski. The posts no longer appear (If I were to be charitable, I would assume that it's because KP asked Denski to remove the offending comments. If I were to be less charitable, based on the two-faced 'apology' I might have assumed it was removed as part of the cover up of embarrassing mistakes. Threads 1109, 1113 and 1114 are no more;  PT was mostly down that day; and there was no anti-blackhole mirror back then; so I have no quotes for this one. IIRC, it was all based upon the allegation that an observation that an audience was largely "young, asian and fundamentalist" was the same thing as saying "All asians are young fundamentalists" or something, although it wasn't spelled out quite like that. He just observed that it was somehow "racist" and left the mob to determine the finer detail.
and that Judge Jones apparently belongs in the same category with a carefully cherrypicked list of former Time Men of the Year which includes Hitler, Stalin, Krushchev, and Khomeini. And, we’ve learned that its important that members of the Marine Corps be allowed to pray.

To which Denski comments:
Thanks, Dave, for contextualizing this milestone in our proper appreciation of important personages. . . . What a crock.

The point is not whether I agree or disagree with any of this. The point is that any student in a freshman composition class can identify all of this as wildly off topic.

Dr Dembski: You’re not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.


Comment by SteveB — May 25, 2006 @ 3:43 pm "


DaveTard is not OT:          
This blog is for me mainly to get out news items about the ID movement and my work in particular.
 Denski's work just happens to include character assassination and uncritical repetition of libellous material in addition to his bread and butter misapplication of mathematics to religious topics.

Date: 2006/05/25 13:09:38, Link
Author: steve_h
You guys need to buy yourselves some decent irony meters. They are very expensive and they tend to explode after only a few seconds at UD, so if you rely on them too much you'll never have spare cash for anything else. Ok, maybe the manfacturers should go to Saatchi & " for something more catchy. The point is, most of great_ape's posts don't seem to be toeing the party line.  I think he's having a gentle dig.

edit: towing->toeing

Date: 2006/05/29 13:17:28, Link
Author: steve_h
'Tard is right.  Notice the peak in the blue region - most of the light received from the sun is in the blue region too - that's why the sky is blue (I can't find an appropriate smiley which shows how sarky I'm being here, could you do something about that Wesley?)

Also note: this graph was produced by people who are part of a conspiracy. It appears to show aborption trailing off at the periphery when in actual fact it, it jumps back to about 50% for all values outside the visible range, bringing up the average (searches for smiley again, D@mn! ).

Date: 2006/05/29 13:56:32, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,18:34)
I take the fine tuning argument as an uninteresting given - the universe was evidently designed and only pseudoscientific infinite multiverse theories can begin to dispute it. -ds

So you posit a designer which is outside the universe, making it, by your words above, "pseudoscientific nonsense". Couldn't agree more, Davetard. Right now DougMoron is looking at you and saying, "BRING IT ON, SPRINGER."

link to thread

No, he could have been some sort of omnipotent omnibenevolent, omniscient super-alien of infinite grace who lives inside this universe, which he designed to be just right for him, and subsequently saw to be good - I mean, er, you're a boring panda, consider yourself triple-plus-and-then-some banned (again).

Date: 2006/05/29 14:39:40, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Henry J @ May 29 2006,19:21)
Re "most of the light received from the sun is in the blue region too"

Hmm. So what color does the sun have to an observer in orbit above the atmosphere?
(Assuming appropriate gear to dim it enough to allow observation.)


It would be blue. However, there's so much blue that the blue receptors in the eye are completly overloaded. The non-blueness of the sun is a side effect of the human visual system, er, and and cameras and such. (For non-Brits, sarky = sarcastic, pertaining to a low form of mocking 'wit', which we Brits sometimes confuse with irony).

Smilies etc.

Date: 2006/05/29 14:49:28, Link
Author: steve_h
My query had to do with the question of how efficiency was being defined for this particular discussion. I find the argument that some process only makes use of some small percentage of an available resource indicates that that process is inefficient to be unconvincing. To me, efficiency has to do with what the process does with that small percentage that it actually does something with.

priceless. Everything is 100% efficient if you use the right definition.

Date: 2006/05/30 12:28:02, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Faid @ May 30 2006,13:35)
Post 1168 in a nutshell, the way I see it:
Churches! Youth clubs! Christian colleges! Order a copy of my books for your library! They help people find Jesus again!

'Nuff said.

I agree. But once again, it's one of those that Denseski posts without adding any comment of his own.  He gets to say "Id proves that people who don't believe in God are wrong wrong wrong" under the classification "intelligent design" and have his morons whoop and ye-hah and generally agree, but then he can still later say that "ID doesn't take a stance on who the designer is, we are not responsible for  what Jerry Bergman says".

Date: 2006/06/01 12:48:30, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Fross @ June 01 2006,14:44)
this show aired the Padian story yesterday, yet they forgot to mention that the story was made up and an apology was made.

This guy doesn't approach the reported remarks the same way as Dembsi
"That church is so large and it's influence is so extensive, especially among asian students, it's,  harder to teach evolution. Many students are young, asian and fundamentalist[s], and that," he says, "is what we are up against today"

to which Denski starts inventing racist motivation behind the remark, and podcast fundy says    

edit: I thought in the original, Padian was remarking that his current audience was mainly "young", "asian" and "fundamentalist". PF is reporting a version that's been summarised by a different number of editors.

Date: 2006/06/06 12:58:41, Link
Author: steve_h
Hi, Wesley, whose mailbox runneth over.

I have  never voted in a poll. If I simply look at the results, I am informed that I have already voted. Which one got my vote in each case - the first one on the list?

Date: 2006/06/07 16:17:01, Link
Author: steve_h
Every time I get into it with PT, I get this sick, dirty feeling, like I’ve been to an outhouse that’s in constant use but hasn’t been cleaned in years. I’m closing this thread down as well and will be more careful in the future about taking their bait.
Translation: This thread is making me and my obnoxious following look bad. To make things worse, I can't just "disappear it" as in the past, because I kicked up such a fuss about having to archive what they, or as it turns out, I, said, in order to prevent them from revising and/or disappearing their (and/or my) comments.  Therefore, in the interests of damage limitation, I am going to pre-censor any further embarrasing comments on this subject. Is there no depth below which those vile PT people will not sink?

Date: 2006/06/08 15:27:53, Link
Author: steve_h
In all the anti propaganda we hear “ID versus Evolution”. As far as I understand it, YECs believe in very fast evolution within limits. IDers believe in evolution, slow or fast within limits of the design criteria. Why do we not change our name to “ID Evolution”, as we are really opposed to Darwinian Evolution, not to change over time per se?

Sneaky. Now they are trying to kill evolution once and for all by associating it with themselves. We're doomed, doomed I tell you.

Date: 2006/06/09 15:39:59, Link
Author: steve_h
English (fails to impress)
German (could do better).
Other (can order beer)

Date: 2006/06/22 13:38:04, Link
Author: steve_h
Uncommon Descent Sees Record High Traffic in May
No big surprise there. That was the month of the Padian affair. Dembski had to issue a public apology to someone he(*) had libelled, and disappear some threads related to it. Public Retraction and Apology to Kevin Padian,disappeared topic 1114,disappeared topic 1113
May was also the month of the laughable photoshop forgery of marines praying to The Designer, and a major spam attack (which I suspect may have  inflated the posting statistics).

UD thrives on making itself a laughing stock. Last time Otto wrote on this subject, he boasted about how they boost the stats by favoring sensationalist crap over academic substance:      
So I use the Howard Stern model which is that people who don’t like you listen to you longer and more often than people who do like you. NBC in New York took a listener poll of Howard’s show that asked “Do you like Howard Stern?”, “Why do you listen to the Howard Stern show?”, and “How long do you listen on average?” The top answer among both Stern likers and Stern haters for why they listen was “I want to hear what he’s going to say next”. The people who like Howard listened for 40 minutes per day. The people who disliked him listened for 1 hour each day. This strategy made Howard the highest paid entertainer in history

Congratulations to Uncommon Descent Bloggers!

- Steve_h, a member if the Fangclub.

(*) edit: they->he, disappered->disappered, topc->topic , add space after period.

Date: 2006/06/24 15:33:49, Link
Author: steve_h
In an OT quote-mining comment at "Uncommon Descent Sees Record High Traffic in May, Scordova reports:  
Time for the UK to confront ID

Intelligent design is now a coherent movement with vocal, well-educated proponents, extensive literature, substantial funding and a relentlessly enthusiastic online supporters’ community.

Hear hear, Uncommon Descent!

Comment by scordova — June 24, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
Actually "Time for the UK to confront 'intelligent Design'" was a sub-heading. The main heading is
Sneaking God into science by the back door
. The paragraph immediately before the one Scordova quotes is
One of the interesting features of the intelligent design debate in the US was the initial unwillingness of the scientific authorities to engage in debate on the issue. Intelligent design, as an offshoot of creationism, was seen to be self-evidently dodgy. Scientists didn't want to dignify it by speaking out against it. This is an understandable tactic which eventually backfired, allowing the intelligent design factions to take a 'what are they scared of?' approach.

Despite scordova's "hear hear" remark,  there is no mention of Demsbki or his sychophatic following at UD. PZ Myers, Dawkins and Stephen Jones are mentioned among the good guys but the nearest thing to a mention of UD is
However, after a first glance, and after wading through the mass of scientific jargon in pro-ID material like Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box ", or any of the innumerable ID blogs out there, one thing becomes clear - intelligent design is a religious position, not a scientific one. By attempting to frame this argument in terms of science, the intelligent design movement are seriously misrepresenting their own position in an attempt to garner popular and political support for their agenda.

Date: 2006/06/30 06:32:16, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (bystander @ June 30 2006,06:51)
Does this mean that you could find in a jellyfish DNA the information to create a human? If it does then it's testable isn't it?
The only other thing I can think of is that the original critter had DNA that created everything and DNA gets thrown out as species develop. That is as the first amphibians left the water they threw out the fin making genes and the fish knowing that amphibians had evolved throw out the genes for making legs.
If you look carefully, you'll find code for detecting when the time is right for the next planned mutation(s) to take place, and machinery for executing those none-random mutations. If you find a front loading fan who is not averse to pathetic levels of detail, he will happily point out exactly where that code is.
One prediction of front loading is that if you keep cloned bacteria isolated from each other but otherwise in identical conditions they will all experience roughly the same mutations in roughly the same order. Naturally, no so-called scientist who is part of the conspiracy would ever dare to do the experiment.
Front loading also explains why certain identical features are found in diverse places in the 'tree of life'. Conventional Darwinism can't explain that so they normally just deny that it happens. The common ancester was a single celled organism which had dna code for producing high intelligence and opposable thumbs, but that code usually only gets executed if you are human. However, if you zap the right 'call' instruction into the dna of a bacterium (or change the call address of an existing one) it will instantly acquire those traits.  See, for example, the famous picture of a mouse suddenly spouting a human ear. That set the Darwinists in a real panic and they had to invent a rather implausible alternative explanation.

Date: 2006/07/03 07:12:25, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2006,20:07)
Maybe if Ian Peters had a BSEE, Dembski would consider him an expert in medical research. Or perhaps a law degree.

Peters is still slighty better qualified to speak on biological matters than the average Joe riding the Riesel-Waco omnibus.

Date: 2006/07/08 07:16:32, Link
Author: steve_h
Anyone else think it's ironic that the UD folk are identifying Ken Miller as a closit ID supporter so soon after they accused him of lying under oath?

Date: 2006/07/08 07:34:45, Link
Author: steve_h
Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism      
Quote (Dembski @ UD)
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed,I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :D ..

Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” — and my role in it
Quote (Dembski @ UD)
The problem with Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” is, of course, Where did the raccoon come from? To be an adequate theory of life, we need to couple the “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” with a “Spontaneous Large-Cute-Furry Mammal Theory,” which explains how primordial matter spontaneously generates humungous raccoons whose gas attacks ultimately generate us. Provided the “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” is coupled with this more basic theory, we have an adequate comparison with conventional evolutionary theory.

Q) Does this mean we should ask about the origins of the designer?
A) You're banned.

Date: 2006/07/20 12:59:33, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2006,16:22)
The comment form is now open on the top thread at UD. I posted a comment. It's in the moderation queue. Let's see what happens.

In case you're wondering, the post is

If a system inspires us to design something, is that evidence that the system itself was designed? When or when not?
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4:11 pm

and my comment is

If we notice a boulder laying on something, preventing the wind from blowing the something away, and we are inspired to make a paperweight, does the paperweight imply the boulder+something system was designed?

and I just added another comment

If we see a hurricane blow a pine needle through a sheet of aluminum, and we're inspired to create air guns, does that mean the hurricane is designed?

I added the following

How about:

Lawn sprinkler.  Designed to water a garden in much the same way that the natural water cycle might otherwise. As far as I can tell, the water cycle although arguably irreducibly complex, could have arisen by natural materialist means.

Log Effect Gas Fire:  Designed to recreate the warmth and visual appearance of burning wood. TTBOMK a designer is not necessary to make wood burn.

Plasma Ball. Designed to imitate lightning , which although awesome, lacks specificity (as I have recently learned here), and therefore need not have been designed.

"Precious thing" / snow globe.  Designed to conjure up a magical blizzardy experience.

If it somehow makes it through, I imagine an obvious comeback would be "but they are not biological systems". The question didn't specify biological.

* "Precious thing" is a reference to "the league of gentlemen" but that's not important.

Date: 2006/07/22 12:12:47, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2006,11:17)
If you pull something out and it stops working, then its irrdecibly complex, so its designed.

If you pull something out and it keeps working it has redundancy, so it's designed.

We've gotta stop pulling things out.  Sadly, not an issue for me these days.

Date: 2006/07/22 16:45:00, Link
Author: steve_h
Is there any way to search for all my own comments? - or those of another person?  I seem to recall seeing the posting history of a particular naughty person one time, but maybe that was recreated manually, or maybe I subsequently constructed a false memory, as can happen.

Date: 2006/07/23 05:50:26, Link
Author: steve_h
DaveScott still seems to be infuencing things via William Dembski's subconscious:  
By the way, I think there’s an analogy between Arthur (ID) and the Black Knight (evolution) to be made here.
Comment by DaveScot — October 1, 2005 @ 12:15 am

or maybe he was inspired by this ID classic from DougMoran:The Problem of Improvable Design

Date: 2006/07/24 11:14:23, Link
Author: steve_h
Dembski’s inference of design is then undermined by the recent realization that there are many naturally-occurring tools available to build simple computational processes. To mention just four, consider the recent work on quantum computation [42], DNA computation [47], chemical computing [55, 89, 74], and molecular self assembly [79]. Furthermore, it is now known that even very simple computational models, such as Conway’s game of Life [3], Langton’s ant [26], and sand piles [33] are universal, and hence compute anything that is computable. Finally, in the cellular automaton model, relatively simple replicators are possible [5].

The phrase “naturally occurring” was being equivocated here. What do you think when you hear the phrase, “naturally occurring”? Is it consistent with the way Shallit uses the phrase, “naturally occurring”?

Wesley, the bit about "quantum computation" being a natural tool (cue jokes), and probably some of the others, is a little counter-intuitive to me. Can you elaborate on that?  The appearance(?) that someone at  UD might have a valid point is disturbing me somewhat.  Has this has already been dealt with somewhere?

Date: 2006/07/24 13:23:59, Link
Author: steve_h
Meanwhile, despite our initial doubts, the ID Research wiki continues to go from strength to strength.

Date: 2006/08/11 15:26:49, Link
Author: steve_h
This just in from a respected colleage:        
Repent ye sinner lest thee be consigned to the burny burny fires of H*ll. Don't forget, Jesus died for your sins.  Hi Doctor Dembski, remember me? I'm one of the many distinguished scientist who peer-reviewed your book(s) and was subsequently hunted down like a dog by the materialistic forces of oppression, and who doesn't think you look like a OL's girlfriend in your masthead.

Filed  under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 5:126 am Comments (0)

Date: 2006/08/19 15:48:45, Link
Author: steve_h
I'd be happy to chip in with an insubstantial donation for a new server. It would be nice if you could indicate how much is needed and how long into the future at current rates the running costs are covered etc. as I wouldn't want to be subsidising a life of luxury.

I also often get the "text only version". I guess that's because an attempt to retrieve the images and  stylesheet, have failed. Have you been under DoS attack, or has your "declining popularity" since Kitzmiller reversed?

Date: 2006/08/20 13:40:54, Link
Author: steve_h
Ditto. Please don't spend it all on beer and prostitutes
unless you really have to.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:47:46, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (tribune7 @ UD)
But it you want to use quantity to make your point —

Google shows 14 million webpages containing the phrase “intelligent design”.

Google shows 3,330,000 for the phrase “Theory of Evolution”

Of course Evolution gives over half a billion. Narrowing down to Evolution+Biology a mere 87.7 million - of which .edu sites feature prominently in the first few pages.  

"Intelligent Design" + "Biology" still gives a whopping 11.5 million but no .edu sites near the top (mainly the usual suspects and newspapers).
The first result on that search is to "Intelligent Design Theory: Why it Matters" (See almost any topic started by D.o'L recently to see the irony).

Levelling the field on T7's second query:
"Theory Of Evolution" 3.3 Million
"Theory Of Intelligent Design"  0.147 million

Of those .147, Skeptics Dictionary and the Flying Spaghetti Monster ranked above all of the usual suspects bar one (The Intelligent Design network).

edit: Narrowing->levelling

Date: 2006/08/22 12:32:31, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2006,00:08)
10 input “Enter description of the entity”;A$
20 Print “GOD DID IT”

That's not fair. Much research has been done and the algorithm has been modified accordingly:

Code Sample

15 input "Do you have any sort of clue as to how " & A$ & "  might have originated?"; B$
16 If left$(B$,1) = "N" goto 20
17 gaps = gaps - 1
18 print "Darn! Let's try another entity"
19 goto 10

Date: 2006/08/22 16:17:31, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Dembski @ 2006-08-17)
Tiggy,you’ve become boring. Farewell. –WmAD

Quote (Dembski @ 2006-08-22)
Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I’ll be booting all three of you.

Dembski isn't as good as banning people as I remember. I think he should get DaveScot back in as the banning Tsar. The DaveScot who is just an uninformed author at UD and and commenter at UDOJ just isn't funny enough when he isn't the official banninator of the ID movement.

Date: 2006/08/26 10:46:19, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 26 2006,21:55)
My comment on the speculations about DOL leaving UD.

Quote (Denyse O'Leary @ 21-Aug-2006)
by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent
As I might have mentioned, I'll be a bit light blogging in the next few weeks, as I tackle revisions to forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).

Date: 2006/08/27 11:18:40, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 27 2006,19:53)
but ...but...He WAS 'an all-around Bad Guy' ......why he was  resposible for Hitler AND Global Warming..

Except now it seems that it was creationists who were responsible for all of the theories that fuelled the genocide and communism. Darwin was only a plagiarist. However, if Hitler ever plagiarised anyone, that was because of Darwin. ;-)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 27 2006,19:53)
In the first case Hitler mentioned 'god' thousands of times ...

I expect Blyth did that as well. Further proof that  Hitler was a Blythist / Creationist who would no doubt be an ID supporter if he were around today.

Date: 2006/09/13 15:58:12, Link
Author: steve_h
Hey Karl, if you want to talk about the substance of my posts, by all means do and I will respond. If you want to whine and nit pick rhetorical flourishes, don’t expect me to 1. respond; or 2. leave your whiny comments on the thread.

Comment by BarryA — September 13, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

Doh! I never could tell the difference between a rhetorical flourish and making up stuff about your opponents to make them look bad.

Also, BarryA removed a comment of mine on that thread consisting only of remarks he had made and which had no "whiney" additions of my own. I wonder at which point those words became unacceptable.

Date: 2006/09/13 16:26:32, Link
Author: steve_h
Someone said they like juxtaposed quotes:    
As I was revieing Strangelove’s comment history here to see if there was any good reason to keep him around I found this
Strangelove and Cogzoid are the same person. Since Cogzoid was banned by Professer Dembski a year ago, and it’s been my experience that Bill’s decisions in these matters are sound ones, Cogzoid under his new name is no longer with us. Fare thee well, Cogzoid.
Comment by DaveScot — September 13, 2006 @ 4:31 am
DaveScot said,
I'm baffled as well. I would have had Carlos on the moderation list like Jack Krebs is and would have disapproved few if any of his comments.
I can't always predict what will go against the grain with Bill. Ofttimes I will disapprove a comment to protect a commenter from getting banned by Bill. He does a permanent banning while I only add names to a list of commenters that need explicit approval for each comment.

First quote from UD/1600 yesterday. Second from three days ago.

So are Dembski's decisions sound or aren't they?

BTW, following the link to Strangelove's/Cogzoid's first banning, it looks like he was banned for hypocrisy: Criticising sarcasm while employing it at the same time.

Edit: apostrophe added.

Date: 2006/09/21 08:03:22, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 21 2006,19:26)
Until such time as the UD/Google access flap has a known etiology, BUUD is off the air. If there is any chance that Google interpreted BUUD as a "link farm", the proper thing to do is to close access to the site.

1) Mr Christopher has already suggested blocking google from buud. Then it could not interpret it as a link farm and UD could not be damaged (traffic-wise).
2) How about changing it so that only _modified_ articles and comments are shown. I'm sure that would come under 'fair use' -especially as one grateful commenter recently pointed out:    
P.S. Sal - if you delete this I can just pull up a copy from Wesley’s archive too. That archive exists for the express purpose of keeping us at UD honest and I’m going to use it to keep you and Davison honest.
Evolutionary Manifesto by John Davison (part II-1,II-2,II-3)

Date: 2006/09/21 08:24:33, Link
Author: steve_h
Also, you could have any links back to UD generated by javascript (a trick many sites use to hide email addresses from robots) - just show the post number (eg UD<nnnn>) as text.

Date: 2006/09/23 09:02:01, Link
Author: steve_h
Thanks Carlsonjok, it's nice to have one's efforts appreciated.  Never did get a reply.

Date: 2006/09/28 12:32:27, Link
Author: steve_h
EDIT: Update. Apologies to DaveScot. My post showed up
with an apology.

I just posted this to UD - it didn't show up. I don't consider it a serious mistake on DS's part, but it is a factual error, and he was just using 'irksome' 'factual errors' as an excuse to threaten Carl Sachs with bannification.  I guess I've been identified as a spammer since I pointed out light-heartedly a few days ago that Denyse O'Leary had explained what the point of her post was twice with two conflicting explanations.

DaveScot :
Note that the title of the article has "Intelligent Design" in it. Note that the body of the article does not.
From the body of the article:    
The standards also clearly state that they do not endorse teaching intelligent design.
..., none included questions about intelligent design in their high school science state tests.

I'll get me coat.

Date: 2006/10/01 10:55:20, Link
Author: steve_h
At Overwhelming'dence, the "LATEST NEWS" page ( bears a striking resemblence to UD's front page.  Don't those high school students realise that Google may see this as a "link farm", thus causing real damage to UD?
I was going to comment on this at UD but decided to read the recent comments first:    
Anyway, did we really need another Uncommon Descent mirror, albeit with more colourful graphics?
Comment by MikeFNQ — September 30, 2006 @ 8:28 pm

MikeFNQ: There’s a phenomenon called a neighborhood effect, in which similar entities enhance and reinforce each other. I’ve removed you from the forum.
Comment by William Dembski — October 1, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

"similar entities"? Entities owned and run by the same people.

Date: 2006/10/01 15:44:21, Link
Author: steve_h
Steve Story:  wow you've got 30 points and are in joint second place on the highest users board.  I think someone will have to step in and restore you to your rightful place before long.  I'm sure the points system will be abused --  there's no way of telling if points are from genuine users or from some sort of bespectacled points tzar, or his research assistant (delete as appropriate). Maybe user's should be required to enter a anonymous reason for their plus/minus-ing activitities, that will force him (or him - delete as approproate) to be creative at least.

I will not be registering. I'm sure most of the contributors are forty-somethings, but I think there is something 'icky' about representing oneself as a schoolkid at my time of life.

Date: 2006/10/03 12:11:42, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 03 2006,17:56)
After having banned most everybody who disagrees, GilDodgen is now triumphantly declaring, "Defending the indefensible is a difficult task that requires a great deal of passion."

I didn't realise Gil banned anyone.  DS banned Tom English  and Scott is looking hard for an excuse to ban Karl Pfluger (and is currently insisting that he demonstrate that "Avida proves that blind, comatose, natural mechanisms can build highly complex, specified, cellular machinery which requires all of it’s components simultaneously to function" when what Karl actually said was that  "Avida has shown that a Darwinian process is capable of producing irreducible complexity."

Gil has retreated to proclaiming that his sound drubbing at the hands of Tom and co. shows how much he has hurt them, and countered with an ID standard argument from personal incredulity (this time about bat evolution), and the guys are rallying around to help rebuild his ego.

Date: 2006/10/09 14:45:57, Link
Author: steve_h
In Memoriam: Thread 1695 "The Real intelligent Designer" quietly blackholed on 9-oct-2006. Leaves some orphaned links on the  'recent comments' page (for the time being).

I honestly have very little recall of the original post despite commenting on one of the comments. Wasn't it by ID's pre-eminent research assistant?  

In the interests of balance, I should take this opportunity to criticise Richard Dawkins (or his pet web master) for pulling the embarrassing 'God is testable' article (frowns).

edit: relocated apostrophe.
edit edit: opportunity- IC->ID. Am not going to read whatever results this time.

Date: 2006/10/10 12:57:51, Link
Author: steve_h
Pete Chadwell (TRoutMac) has some articles featured at the DI and is also referenced here

Chadwell, Darwin and Scopes All Agree That Students Should Critically Analyze Evolution

Pete Chadwell, a graphic artist in Bend, Oregon understands what so many Darwinists don't: students are being short changed in their science education when they learn only half the story about evolution. Teaching students both the scientific strengths and weaknesses is good education, good science, and good for students.

Darwin himself would support this approach to teaching evolution. As Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species,

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

And as science teacher John Scopes said some 80 or so years ago,

"If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. ... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."

So, now we have Pete Chadwell who has an excellent article in today's Bend Bulletin. Here's what Pete says:

Date: 2006/10/10 15:06:05, Link
Author: steve_h
UD: iIllustra Media: Case for a Creator Documentary

Access Research Network (ARN) reports: The The Case for a Creator DVD Available

Surely they mean cdesigner?

Date: 2006/10/28 11:46:04, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 27 2006,22:05)
Nothing. Okay, that's all we can do:

Subject, "Overwhelming Evidence" date of death October 27th, 2006.

It's a shame, so young yet so crap..

You couldn't be more wrong.  Sam Chen (SChen24, top contributor and moderator/banninator) features in a new podcast about OD at IdTheFuture in which he tells us among other things of his dislike for supression of discussion, and about recent activity at OD.

[Disclaimer: All quotes are slightly paraphrased and have bits missing - I don't do transcripts, I type too slowly and I overshoot most of my attempts to wind back to the bits I missed, then I get bored and frustrated. I don't think I have changed any of the meaning though]

In the last few days there's been a lot on the blogs and comments discussion forums on Michael Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity .. and challenges that are opposed to it. It's interesting to see different views and different perspectives. Does Behe's concept of IC answer Charles Darwin when he proposed that if such a complicated system were to be proposed [sic] then his theory would break down?, and lots are asking if Behe's concept of I.C meet this criteria, some are saying it doesn't some are saying it does and some are talking about challenges to the idea of ic and if the challenges hold water ...
Also there's been lots of discussion on Darwinian conservatism, Carson Holloway talks about it his  book "The right Darwin?", and whether or not we can use Darwinism in the sense of social issues ...(FF)...  A wide variety of topics from the moral issues and religious issues relating to Darwinism & Intelligent Design all the way to the purely scientic issues.

So you get lots of different viewpoints and lots of different subjects, not just science?



"The reception of overwhelming evidence has been pretty good so far. We're in our third week now and we have nearly a hundred active members that are blogging, and posting and commenting, and so forth. It seems like there are more adults than students on right now, or at least the ratio is very close and we are hoping to get more student involvement, which we expect to see in the next month or so"

Some notes:
Despite having nearly a hundred active members, the "users by points" link shows just over thirty, including admin, wmad and test54 (which I guess are there for testing of the points system during development as they are all on negative points). Maybe that means they've banned twice as many as they have allowed to stay.
He say's anyone can contribute, not just students, so I take back the remarks I made when SteveStory registered. It also means TRoutMac isn't breaking any rules.
Also I can't find any mention of Carson Holloway on the site (Or just Carson or Holloway. I've a feeling Sam Chen was fleshing out the content on the fly.

Date: 2006/10/30 16:32:29, Link
Author: steve_h
The article contains no science whatsoever.  Nor is it a review article, as little literature is actually presented and reviewed.  Rather, it is a series of armchair declarations regarding both what the origins of life must entail (symbolic, computational processes that are by definition independent of physical causality, and that could not have arisen by means of physical causality) and the inadequacy of several extant lines of research into self-organizing/self-ordering systems to account for origins in these terms.
Exactly! it's just a list of short statements. Statements and/or sentences are sometimes combined into some sort of narrative. Statements here are disjointed. Some times statement collectionifications  just look like the bullet points from a presentation. Headings are absent. The presenter's dialog is absent. Perhaps a computer generated the abstract. Words like 'ordered' and 'organized' would need to be weighted. Words with larger weights appear more often in the final text. Don't peer reviewers check for readability or sumfin nahdays?.

Date: 2006/11/08 16:32:11, Link
Author: steve_h
Just been reading Emkay's explanation of the trinity. I don't want to be accused of bringing religion to UD so I thought
I'd add a few additional trinities here:

Human senses:  Taste, Touch, sight, hearing, and er #### #### ####.^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W

Human Senses:  Chemical (taste, smell),  Remote (Sight, Hearing), Contact (Touch)
Solar System: Sun,  things that orbit the sun (Planets, Planetoids, asteroids, Comets), and things that orbit the things that orbit the sun (Moons).
Porridge: too hot, too cold, just right.
Things for filling a god-shaped hole: Power, Sex and Money.  (Emkay had them down as bad things but failed to note they are a trinity)
Sexuality: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual.
Relationship (1): Husband, wife, and child
Relationship (2): Husband, wife and girlfriend
Relationship (3): Husband, wife and milkman
Recreation: Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll
Payment details: Cash, Card or Cheque
Soccer:  Attack, Defence, Midfield.
Soccer:  First Half, Second Half, Extra Time.
Soccer:  Normal Time, Extra Time, Penalties.
Soccer:  Win, Draw, Lose
Soccer:  Home, Away, Neutral Venue.
Soccer:  Players, Fans, Officials.
Types of taste:   Any three from {Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter, Astringent, Pungent and Umami}
Bag of marbles: First marble, Second marble and the Rest of the marbles ^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W
Bag of marbles: The Bag, The Marbles and the, er, Containment.
Certain Things: "Death", "And", "Taxes".

Soccer (which we call "cricket" in England) seems to crop up quite often. God must be a fan.

Date: 2006/11/08 16:48:22, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2006,23:36)
I'd love to see a soccer match played with cricket bats...

Like Hockey, but with more blood.


Don't tell Mourinho that.

Date: 2006/11/22 16:44:17, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Nov. 22)

I arranged a googlefight to resolve this situation.

Good one Dave. But I'm confused.
I thought marines were tough.
I guess that also shows that Dembski isn't smart.

Actually it's worse than that:

Dembski not smart.
A very large proportion (89%) of the "dembski smart" matches are qualified using "not". It turns out that Demsbki is objectively less than 1% smart.  ;-

Date: 2006/11/22 18:11:19, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 22 2006,23:55)
Googlefight--guy stuff. Make love not war!

What else can Google do?

It's very OT but ...

One of the things that spoiled the last two seasons of TV's  "24" was that every time I saw Jack Bauer's love interest, Audrey Raines (played by Kim Raver), I couldn't help but think of William Dembski -- every single bloody time.  

Anyway, I just used google to find "24", then "Kim Raver" and, with the help of "google images", several pics of her, and I've convinced myself that they are, in fact, different people.

Now if there should ever be another series of "24" and he is not in it, I will enjoy it just that little bit more.

(I thought about doing a "private-eye" style "lookalikes" feature where side by side images have their captions "accidentally" interchanged, but after due consideration I realised that I  couldn't be arsed)

Date: 2006/11/27 15:25:55, Link
Author: steve_h
Maybe all of the contributors are busy writing articles for their UncommonlyDense4Kids site.

Date: 2006/11/27 18:42:01, Link
Author: steve_h
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,14:43)
A few technical questions I can't believe I haven't gotten around to figuring out:
Method 1.
(1) How do people get their quote-boxes to include the source in the heading, like this:            
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2006,01:22)

1a. Use the "quote" button, shown at the top-right of every comment, to quote an entire post.
1b. Enter some text in the first window, cut bits from the quote which you don't want  in the second window.
1c. Preview - you see a preview of your post. The first window is now modified to include the quoted text in quote tags. You can now proceed exactly as if you'd entered the quote using method 2. Normally I preview again at this point.
Method 2.
2. and/or enter quoted text between
Code Sample
[quote=x,y] blah blah blah[/quote]

where x is normally the poster name, and y the date. You can write anything in place of x and y but they must be seperated by a comma.  (see page one of this thread for some convoluted examples).
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,14:43)

(2) What does the iB Code Button marked "Code" at the top of the "Reply" box do?

It does the same as the "permalink" link. It gives you a way to provide a link to an individual comment which you can, for example, post to interested others. To use it, click on the icon, and then copy the link from the address bar of your browser. That was completely wrong. It lets you write code segments which are pretty much taken exactly as you type them. The first time you press it, a code tag is added at the end of the input box. You then enter your code sample and then press the code button a second time to generate a closing tag.  For example, I use a code segments below to show how to use EMAIL tags.   
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,14:43)

(3) What does the _@ Code button do?

It asks you for an email address. The email address will be displayed an an email link by dressing it up with bb stuff which eventually gets replaced by html stuff. The stuff gets written at the end of the input area, not at the current cursor position so you may have to cut and paste. Alternatively click not the button but enter
Code Sample
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,14:43)

(4) How do you use fonts other than with the [b], [i], and [U] options?

(5) How do people get bullet-point lists to appear as bullet-point lists?

(6) How should I have learned all this stuff by myself, and, once I know the answer to that, will I find a wealth of other dazzling cyber-wizardry with which to win friends and influence my uncle?

I don't know if 4 & 5 are possible. Answers to 1,2, and 3 have so far proved dissapointing in regards to improving wealth and influence
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 27 2006,14:43)

-Russell, an old fart for whom all this new-fangled technology just moves too fast.

edit: the bit about CODE was completely wrong.

Date: 2006/11/27 18:52:48, Link
Author: steve_h
Using guesswork and preview
Code Sample

[*] point 1
[*] point 2

  • point 1
  • point 2

    I couldn't get level 2 items using
    Code Sample

    Wesley, what software are you using? Is there a  version freely available for inspection somewhere?
  • Date: 2006/11/27 19:00:37, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I don't know about using other fonts etc, but if you see any examples (which I haven't), you could always try using the "quote" button to see how the original poster did it.

    (edit) However the "posting abilities" section suggests that some users (Wes, Steve Story) could be entering plain HTML which would give them full control over the appearence of thier posts (boo hiss etc). (/edit)

    Date: 2006/11/28 21:14:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 29 2006,00:48)
    The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom. (Dembski)

    In this witty allusion to the Titanic, Dembski seems to forget all the low class, expendable, "unwashed masses" (his pet phrase) who were locked in the lower cabins and went down with the ship.

    Wasn't that Phillip E. Johnson using the battleship Titanic metaphor, Lou(*)? (How to sink a battleship)

    * or whoever.

    Date: 2006/11/29 17:34:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    What's the name of that fish that puffs itself up to look big?
    the looksbigger fish?

    Date: 2006/11/29 19:43:19, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Um... Steve.  Are you quietly asking if Kristine is one of my sockpuppets?

    That's too funny, and you're paranoid.  My two girls don't post here, although they're big fans.
    Well someones's sock puppet.  She talks about sex and orgasms a lot which could be Kristine's "Korporal Kate", and she apparently has "designs" on Dembski which could be an attempt to entrap an ID big wig.  There was a certain amount of publishing-in-a-minor-journal so that I could claim credit for the exposé  if I somehow turned out to be right - or just let it go unnoticed if not - on my part. I didn't really think I was right about that, but nonetheless slightly worried about the possibility of complaints about cover blowing etc.

    Date: 2006/11/30 15:29:17, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 30 2006,03:33)
    Oh, and PZ's met her in the flesh.

    That pretty well settles that.

    I guess it does. Sorry, Lou and Kristine.

    Date: 2006/12/01 13:03:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I found a by guessing at filenames:
    A list
    • one
    • two
      • 2a
      • 2b

    red otherBig
    non-proportional font
    MMMMMMMMMM.  Thanks for the correction, Scary

    Code Sample
    A list[list][*] one [*] two [list] [*]2a [*] 2b [/list][/list]
    [color=red]red[/color] [color=#00FFCC]other[/color][size=12]Big[/size]
    [font=courier]non-proportional font
    MMMMMMMMMM.  Thanks for the correction, Scary.[/font]

    Comic sans
    Edit: corrected font name as per the following post.

    Date: 2006/12/03 21:13:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 04 2006,03:44)
    What do people make of that "TalkOrigins Delisted by Google" post?

    It looks like has been hacked. AFAICT this site has never contained any advertising except a link to the panda's thumb for years. See for snapshots of it in the past.  I would advise everyone to be on the lookout for anyone  with any or all of the following attributes: a grudge against Wesley; a history of threatening him or his sites with hacking; personal experience of the damage that delisting can cause; and an inability to  suppress his or her glee at the delisting.

    ;)  added for legal reasons.

    Date: 2006/12/04 18:34:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The page about the delisting of talkorigins has been removed. There is a statement to that effect by Davescot on Dembski's 'Schadenfreude' post.  Nothing wrong with that, the post didn't just dissappear without trace as was so often the case.

    I was just about to make a copy for the record of that page because the last thing on it was DaveScot asking if anyone would be willing to trawl through for evidence of hacking in late last September. I was rather amused by this. It wouldn't have been much work, because the archive has been blocked from UD since april 2005. However, I spent a few minutes looking at records of UD which all date back to then, and when I had finished, the entire thread was gone. Bugger.

    The archive might have provided neutral confirmation of rewriting of history, which is a common occurence at UD, but as it was blocked, Wesley set up his own archive, BUUD, so that some evidence of deletions would remain.

    After the UD delisting DaveScot complained that BUUD might have been responsible because the guys at google may have seen it as an attempt by UD to manipulate thier google page rank and threated to set the lawyers on Wesley.  Wesley being a classy fellow, stopped BUUD because it seemed to be the right thing at the time.

    There was also a comment in the "talkorigins delisted" thread to the effect that Google had informed DaveScot that BUUD would not have been a factor in their delisting and he retracted his ealier claim and mentioned an email that he sent to Wesley. Does this mean BUUD could be restarted? Not that Wesley would necessarily want to of course.

    Date: 2006/12/04 18:45:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I should have added: Thanks to William Dembski for his call for restraint and expressing a wish for talkorigins to be relisted as soon as possible.

    Date: 2006/12/11 16:34:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    ID gives no help whatsoever to this problem.
    Nonsense!  The ID version of howstuffworks gives intellectually satisfying answers to a wide range of problems:
    Q1) How does consciousness work? A) It is designed.
    Q2) How does an atom bomb work? A) It is designed.
    Q3) How does my computer work?  A) Designed, designed, designed, designed.
    Q4) Why do my knees and back hurt? A) They are well designed.

    The unrelated discipline of religion, gives additional insights to Q4:  Without any challenges, the world would be hideously boring and meaningless (Gil on self-refuting argumentation). Hmm, isn't he describing Heaven there?

    Date: 2006/12/13 19:39:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 13 2006,02:35)
    Anyway, I guess I tend to over-analyze stuff, but I don't remember Dawkins, Dennett, and whoever the guy in the middle is [Lawrence Krauss, maybe?] as having much to do with anything Judge Jones was presented.

    I'm just surprised that Hitler and Stalin weren't included.  Those UD (sic) adolescents must be slipping.

    Date: 2006/12/13 22:22:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I should add. I'm a closet ID supporter, I think Dr Dr Dembski is just great and that blacks, homos, democrats and people who understand either information theory or the second law of thermodynamics should be brutally XXXXXXXXXX in the name of the my favored deity (or alien).

    Edit: XXXX this XXXXXXX censorship software.

    Ha ha ha. No one will fall for this obvious trollery. I'm just going to kick up a big fuss about it and act as if everyone did.

    Date: 2006/12/15 21:17:17, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The DI spin and the Congressional report spin are each severely divorced from reality.
    Ridiculous! Mark Souder is as impartial as they come.

    Date: 2006/12/21 19:17:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Originally Nottm, UK (Go magpies), then London (Go Smoke FC), Swindon (Go Robins), Rüegsauschachen, Switzerland (er, yay! ) and now near Basel, Switzerland (Hopp FCB).

    Date: 2006/12/28 18:01:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 29 2006,00:35)
    Couldn't have said it better myself (whatever "it" is).

    It’s time for everyone to face the fact that Darwinism is an ideology. Darwinism isn’t science. It’s time to get tough as nails with these poseurs. This is war and it needs to be fought like one.

    This is absolutely disgraceful! This UD person is seriously advocating the mass killing of evolutionists using guns and bombs, and is possibly considering nuking Oxford because it's where Dawkins lives. It's almost as bad as the fart animation. Someone should get on to homeland security first thing in the morning.

    Date: 2006/12/28 18:16:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    and what's more, the moderators, who usually act so swiftly to ban commenters for polite informed criticism of ID, stand idly by and allow this hateful incitement to go unchallenged. Unbelievable. (Wrings hands)

    Date: 2007/01/12 06:13:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I don't think DS is contradicting himself in the above (*)example.  He sometimes argues that according to RM+NS,  anything not immediately useful will be lost. From his own perspective, there are designed mechanisms which allow stuff to be conserved indefinitely (eg for front loading of human beings into a much more complex single celled ancestor).

    Edit: (*) New page. D'oh!

    Date: 2007/01/12 15:35:06, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 12 2007,16:31)
    I don't think DS is contradicting himself in the above (*)example.  He sometimes argues that according to RM+NS,  anything not immediately useful will be lost. From his own perspective, there are designed mechanisms which allow stuff to be conserved indefinitely (eg for front loading of human beings into a much more complex single celled ancestor).
    Call me dense, but I don't see it.

    Was the genetic information for making vertebrate specific stuff "immediately useful" for the billions of years during which vertebrate ancestors were single cell organisms?

    yes [ ]
    no  [ ]

    Are "designed mechanisms" an exception to this rule? So information not "immediately useful" gets lost ("pretty basic stuff") except when it's not?

    Just because the Tardster has thrown some words at the contradiction doesn't mean the contradiction went away.

    He argues that if RM+NS is correct, things not immediately useful would be lost. Some stuff with no apparrent immediate use does not get lost, therefore RM+NS is wrong.

    Designed things are an exception, because there could also be other mechanisms designed to preserve stuff that survives; to delete stuff that doesn't survive; and to modify stuff when the time is right. IDers do not need to find out what they are because that sort of detail is only valued by people with nothing better to do in the soon to be closed down biology departments.

    Date: 2007/01/12 21:32:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    For a limited time only, a slightly more intelligent version of uncommonly dense :) and no one banned so far.

    EDIT: s/tad/tard

    Date: 2007/01/21 18:33:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    steveh is no longer with us

    Well, it's taken some time, but what finally seems to have tipped the balance was me pointing out that html tags inserted into the title of a post, were left unmatched after the thread title was abbreviated for use in the previous-thread link at the top of the page.  Those comments no longer appear, although an ID friendly comment about fire investigators' shameful disregard for the non-material were allowed to stand.

    Also Dave,  I found another bug. I still get the comment box despite being banned.  Of course, I will respect your wishes and not add any more comments until, for example, a future regime, indicates that polite disagreement is, for the time being at least, tolerated.

    edit1: added prev para.
    edit2: added "edit:"

    Date: 2007/01/21 19:16:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (DS @ UD)
    Actually fires are routinely determined to be Acts of God.
    I assume this is agnostic humor, rather that a honest belief that "acts of God" really means "Supernatural causes".  If you read it, which is by no means obvious given your earlier quoting history, the wikipedia article explains that "act of god" means unforeseeable or not under human control and not literally caused by a supernatural agent. OTOH, You could also cynically be taking advantage of the fact that much of your readership will understand "act of God" as literal scientific fact.

    Incidentally, you seem to have been a little muted on the evolutionary psychology threads. Can we expect a few insights in the foreseeable future?

    Date: 2007/01/21 19:32:39, Link
    Author: steve_h
    AIR,  DS has used ID to determine the cause of a fire on one occasion at least: he figured that readers of the panda's thumb web site had set fire to a church, but it later turned out that the instigators were local christian thugs. Anyone still got the link handy?

    Date: 2007/01/21 21:36:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (russ @ UD)

    Perversly,Fire Ma[r]shalls do seem to focus on finding purely material causes for fires.

    Perversly, some people think that to suggest the existance of non-material causes requires us to explain everything by non-material causes.

    Perversly some people are able to distinguish between "Fire Marshalls do not consider supernatural causes" and "Fire marshalls should only consider supernatural causes". Although not at UD where such people are banned.

    PS. Thanks Carlsonjok. Someone mentioned this before. Maybe it was you. IAC I am pleased to have made an impression sometime, someplace, somewhere (*), and can return slightly invigorated to my otherwise pointless designerless existence.

    ed: (*) goody, goody, yum yum.  Too much martini again.

    Date: 2007/01/25 14:15:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Speaking of this, I have a question - does ID predict that a purpose for these conserved basepairs will be found (i.e. they were conserved because they serve a subtle purpose), or no purpose will be found (the base pairs were "front loaded" and serve no current purpose
    although they may have served a purpose in the past or future)?

    There are other valid alternatives.  A common ancester of A and B would need DNA for A and B. Therefore B may inherit some DNA that was intended for a distant descendant of A (or C or D or ...) intended to be used in a very particular situation which may never actually arise.  In such cases, this DNA could be preserved indefinitely by carefully crafted information preservation mechanisms or simply be allowed to gradually degenerate into junk.  As there's a whole lot of DNA required by creatures which are not B, there could be a lot of junk. Conservative estimates vary between 0 and 100% although with over 700 of the world's best and bravest scientists mulling things over in thier spare time, that could get narrowed down very quickly.

    A prediction:

    Front-loading predicts that all of the so-called junk DNA is being used in a subtle way, or was used by an ancestor in the past, or could be used by a descendant in the future, or could be present because it could one day be used in a different branch of the tree of life by a totally different hypothetical creature, in some hypothetical situation beyond our understanding, or could just be accumulated junk.

    Date: 2007/01/25 19:47:42, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I know, you’re thinking that the frontal noodlepacks and the mesobrainstalk danglingbasil also grow echoing motorplants through more massive bundles of sparky angelhair. And you’d be right.

    Sorry to nitpick but the noodlepack-mesobrainstalk interface is known to be IC and can never be transversed unless the sparky angelhair is "in knip". Other than that, I think you've nailed it.

    Date: 2007/01/27 18:16:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    ... when all one has to do is view this to understand just how hard the man is:

    Well hard.

    Difficult to be believe - he really is that 'ard!

    edit: i before e.

    Date: 2007/02/15 15:30:52, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (franky172 @ Feb. 15 2007,15:08)
    So the odds of any 2 happening on a specified day are:

    (3,2) 1/30*1/30*29/30 or about 0.32 %

    The odds of any two happening on any day are:

    (2,1) 1/30*29/30, or about 6%.

    That's assuming my rusty combinatorics are still correct...

    I get a different result (9.8%) for the second calculation by using 1 - odds of all happening on different days.  However, my combinatorics never reached the dizzying height of 'rusty', so I could be wrong.

    Date: 2007/02/16 15:33:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Another poster at UD getting everything bass ackwards

    Once again the liberal spin machine is more concerned with its agenda than with science.

    Date: 2007/02/17 06:53:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Definition of science extended to include 'Gut Feeling' at UD.
    Let me back up a sec.. when I say science, I don’t neccessarily mean science that you only find in books or labs w/ beakers, flasks & test tubes. Here it means also the innate sense of ’science’ that I think all of us have from birth.

    Date: 2007/02/19 15:26:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 19 2007,13:41)
    DS continues his solitary rant:
    blah blah blah...So where is all that excess 0.85w/m^2 going? It’s going to turn ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C and after that it can drive evaporation turning warm water into warm water vapor, all the while not driving up the temperature of the earth as a whole because the energy is simply being stored as chemical and kinetic energy.

    If this was where all that excess energy was being stored what would the symptoms look like, Zach?

    <snipped symptoms of born again kookiness>
    Those would be the symptoms.

    But at least we don't have to worry about the increased temperature melting the ice caps, causing desertification and playing havoc with the weather. All the incoming energy (which is another word for temperature, IIRC) will be simply be lost turning ice into water and water into vapour and dumped into a more energetic atmosphere.

    Date: 2007/02/20 09:21:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,12:00)
    Not quite. Temperature is related to energy. Roughly speaking, temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. However, you are right that DaveScot answers his own question. The Earth is heating. The climate is changing. The ice is melting. The sea levels are rising. And human technological activities are a significant factor in these changes.

    I wasn't being entirely serious. It was a reference to
    DaveScot insisting that (other) people check their facts before posting.

    I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

    Date: 2007/02/21 13:19:48, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 21 2007,19:13)
    sagebrush gardener      
    All biology research is ID research, and it is making NDE look more ridiculous every day.

    So if Dembski ever realizes his dream of "sternberging" all of the biologists at his university  (apart from maybe Sternberg if he's there), he will actually be damaging ID research.

    Date: 2007/03/02 10:24:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    This chapter develops a relational ontology of communion in which to be is to be in communion, first with God and then with the rest of creation. Moreover,  when entities are in communion, what they communicate is information. Information thus becomes a metaphysical relation between entities that gets reflected in the complex specified information observable in the physical world. It follows that the fundamental science - indeed the science that needs to ground all other sciences --- is a theory of communication. Such a science is incapable of being divorced from metaphysics in the way that the mechanistic  science of the modern era was regularly divorced from metaphysics.

    (Typos mine) Extract from Dembsk's proposal for a book on real ID that he would write for the TF. I suspect this chapter was missing from the book on ID-lite that he actually delivered. They should ask for their money back.

    Date: 2007/03/04 11:51:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2007,16:12)
    PZ Myers - Fierce Like a Potted Plant

    It seems The Discovery Institute recently quoted PZ Myers in one of his more memorable faux tough guy ravings and to my delight Paul Myers, the red-faced raving labcoated academic pansy, in response treats us to another display of impotent, impudent juvenile rage...He rants to a crowd of nerdish college kids that aren’t old enough to shave and despite their best efforts to change the situation are all still virgins. Warning the juvenile sycophants about teh ne plus ultra danger of Intelligent Design like it was capitalism encroaching on the communist world and extoling the virtues of Teh Scientific Way like it was Marxism reincarnate.

    Examine the above post.  Some subtle self-reference going on:

    - Impotent?  Check.  
    - Juvenile?   Check.
    - Impudent? "Impudent" is disqualified for poor word usage.
    - Addressed to dimwitted virgins?  Check.
    - Motivated by ideological fervor largely divorced from reality? Check.

    A hazard of autodactyl knob polishing, one supposes.

    Now, as he is likely still on the floor, somebody help Dave up.

    Not to forget: typically dishonest? Check.

    PZ added an update to his post pointing out that Luskin had dishonestly mangled the "quote" by joining two separate comments from different websites months apart.  

    He did this a day before DS copied PZ's post to UD. It was the only bit missing from DS's copy. No wonder PZ gets a little miffed sometimes.

    Actually, the quote is a pastiche of two completely different comments (the IDists seem to have to mangle a quote, even one that doesn't need twisting; it's like a reflex with them). You can read the originals in context here and here. I stand by my words without hesitation.

    Date: 2007/03/04 19:46:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Does the server provide the page views for each thread to see which ones generated the most interest? I don’t know if your server gives this information automatically. I was just curious as to which topics generated the most interest from those who look at a discussion but don’t comment.

    Yes, as a matter of fact it does. I hadn’t looked at it before because up until a week ago our articles had cryptic archive numbers. Now that the URLs for articles reflect the title it’s easy to read those statistics. Here’s the top 8.

    Bwahahaha. From a computer's point of view there was never any difference between producing a list of the most populular "titles" and the most popular "cryptic numbers". If you want to convert a "cryptic number" to a title enter something like
    http://www.uncommondescent/archives/2125 and see how the url morphs into something more tard-friendly or just look in the database (assuming you are some sort of computer dell millionaire whizz-entity).

    Date: 2007/03/04 20:42:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    For the unitiated (and DS) here's a quick explanation about how the "cryptic numbers" at UD work.  Each time a new topic/post is initiated at UD it is assigned a unique number.  The numbers begin at 1 and increase by one for each new post. It is an entirely trivial procedure to convert any number between 2 and (currently)  2129 to a corresponding title (although post 1-n (eg 10)  are generally taken by a wordpress "intro" post and test posts by the site's admin which are subsequently deleted.)

    One disadvantage of this system is that 'missing' posts become conspicuous by thier absence which is not a good thing if your site wishes to "disapear" embarrassing posts. Any indivudual missing number may be explained as a "draft post which didn't reach the high standards expected of the site" or in some cases a post which was dissappeared because it was so obviously full of crap that  even your typical ID supporter would smell a rat. A snake oil salesman (motto:  Caveat Emptor" = let the buyer beware) would no doubt switch to a non-numeric system.

    Date: 2007/03/05 16:52:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (BWE @ Mar. 05 2007,21:01)
    Aaarrrgh. How the heck do you set yourself up as a user on stupidpedia? It says: click the .... lower left of your screen.

    That part's got nothing. Like their genetalia I suppose. Hmmphff.

    Can anyone supply a link to that page? The one where you actually create an account. That is NOT the same page where you log in, even though it says it is. Grrrr.

    Has it occurred to anyone here that they are successfully creating an alternate reality for their minions to be free in?

    I copied the last bit of the signup URL of wikipedia to the end of a conservapedia one and got this:

    You are not allowed to create an account

    To be allowed to create accounts in this Wiki you have to log in and have the appropriate permissions.

    Date: 2007/03/05 17:02:47, Link
    Author: steve_h

    If you clone bacteria, split them into several groups and then keep them under identical conditions, all of them will experience the same mutations in the same order.

    This has been tested once, on mushrooms, in Dave's basement lab, but didn't yield the expected result.

    Date: 2007/03/05 17:37:12, Link
    Author: steve_h
    From conservapedia:

    "Editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach," says a Conservapedia contributor in England's Guardian.

    from the grauniad:
    "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

    Date: 2007/03/05 17:59:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Also from the News section:
    Wired News has a story on Conservapedia here.

    That wired news is almost entirely about how everyone is taking the piss. However at the end

    Conservapedia has fallen victim to countless attacks. One entry in particular has gotten a great deal of attention: the page about a tree-dwelling mollusk called the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus.

    Schlafly is amused by the page and its references to the endangered species falling victim to the ravages of logging and suburban encroachment. He sees it as a parody of environmentalists, and he plans to leave it up.

    "Conservatives have a sense of humor, too," he says.

    The entry on the arboreal octopus reads:  
    At the request of its original author, this entry no longer exists here. You are welcome to visit other entries on Conservapedia.

    Date: 2007/03/09 06:45:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Barry talks about his piles  
    Apparently, the student assumes if a researcher performs a scientific investigation of a phenomenon and concludes that design by an intelligent agent is the best explanation for the phenomenon, the matter is then settled and all further scientific inquiry is foreclosed.

    Shah shah shah (*).  They won't be using ID to further the research will they? To get any further they would have to resort to materialist science.  Any conclusion they 'tentatively' (yeah right) reached was foregone - as they had almost certainly concluded all life was designed long before they'd even heard of ID.

    (*) I think it means "Why am I cursed with this idiot of a grandson".

    Date: 2007/03/11 10:43:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    [quote=Kristine,Mar. 11 2007,08:08]  
    Oh, but he was working, I see, on the sucky contest. (You know, I didn't even read the thing he wrote, whatever it is. I have work to do, and there was a friggin' fire in the library this afternoon! *I'm still raw, heh - sorry, UDudes* So if someone could boil it down to a haiku, I would sure appreciate it.)  :)

    He sold lots of books,
    invented CSI (*) and
    farted like a god.

    (High praise Dembski-style)

    edit: (*) independantly of course.

    Date: 2007/03/16 12:25:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,17:47)
    Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:

    A point of interest: As a backup (in the event technical problems preclude the use of windsonde data), we program the guided-airdrop systems in advance with trajectories computed from forecast winds. These proprietary forecast winds are provided by the military and are generated with the best information available and with the best computer models. By the time we deploy on a mission, these wind forecasts are a few hours old. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t. In only a few hours winds can completely reverse direction or change in velocity significantly, and this is impossible to predict reliably. If wind predictions a few hours from now are hard to make, what chance do we have of accurately predicting the climate a few decades from now?

    Emphasis mine.

    Gil, I can't predict what number is going to roll on a die, but if you roll a thousand dice and add them I'll estimate very, very close to the aggregate by any meaningful measure (MSE, MAD, MAPE)

    I expect some of his payloads drift off into space, because if you can't predict exactly where on Earth something will land, it is equally likely to miss it completely.

    His computer models may improve a little, if he stands his computer in front of a big fan so that it also gets buffeted by high winds.

    Date: 2007/03/17 12:24:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    [quote=J-Dog,Mar. 16 2007,21:00]  
    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2007,12:22)
    Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 16 2007,11:25)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,17:47)
    Gil shows us why he's uncommonly dense:


    Actually, this is a very interesting post at UD, in that several posters call Gil out on being a moron, and their posts haven't been Magicaly Disapeared.  Even DaveScot, the Tardmaster "hisself", has been chastised in writing!?

    Maybe too much Old Bushmills for DaveScott?  (I don't want him drinking Jamesons - that for us good guys - Dave can stick with the Proddy product)

    Jesus H Christ on a crutch, I should know better by now!

    All the critical comments are gone... poofed by The Designert into the same spot that AFDave's Global Flood Waters went away to.

    I assumed that you were talking about the old Dodg'em post (archives/1660). Gil and DS were criticised there by people not immediately banned. It was too soon after DS's return to the fold.

    AFAICT, all the comments  have remained unchanged since I made my copy in october last year. They are still all there.

    Shortly afterwards of course, Gil tried to move the discussion to his home turf, Parachute drops He and DS received further drubbings from Karl Pfluger and Tom English.  Gil tried to make out that his previous post was a joke (maybe he was just taking the piss out of creationists or something?) and then the thead mutated into a discussion about simulation of electronics which caused much amusement here. And then the bannings started.

    Date: 2007/03/18 10:39:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Engineering deals with non-material causes all the time. Such causes are called “acts of God”.;hl=en

    Now that I’ve answered your question you can hopefully answer mine.

    I've pointed this out before but "Acts of God" does not mean "non-material cause" it means "Events that couldn't have been prevented by human foresight and for which no human could be held responsible".  A bolt of lightning may be termed "Act of God" in an insurance contract, but it actually has a material cause.  There's nothing in that Google Scholar search to suggest otherwise.

    Normally DS would verify that using wikipedia and then try and find some special case in which he might have been right, or write a new post claiming he knew that all along. I'm surprised he could just repeat something so obviously wrong.

    Date: 2007/03/20 17:33:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,18:23)
    If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I
    oh Dave, what about Alan Fox's neutral venue?

    Edit: Quote from FTK's blog.

    I don't think he's banned at Pharyngula.  PZ has a complete list of the banned here. Maybe DS considers the certainty that he would run away from PZ very quickly and being banned as roughly equivalent.  I vaguely recall PZ specifically mentioning DS as one who isn't banned, but I couldn't find it in the first 2-3 minutes of searching and gave up.

    Date: 2007/03/25 10:42:37, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 25 2007,10:05)
    P.S. Someone else can have fun with Dense O'Lry's "I can't be bothered to read what I'm criticising" post.  I can't be bothered to criticise what I'm reading.

    You are right. She doesn't seem to have followed the link to redstaterabble] where Dembski's "mistake" was  dealt with.    

    Before we decide, let's do what Dembski and his readers didn't. Let's read the passage in context. Here's a link to the Project Gutenburg online text of Descent of Man.

    As you can see, the first sentence cited by Dembski (The reckless, degraded...) is Darwin summarizing the views of Greg and Galton. The rest of the paragraph is Darwin quoting Greg.

    Does Darwin do this because he agrees with Greg and Galton? No. He cites their arguments in order to refute them. They argue that if evolution were true, the Irish would "multiply like rabbits" and the good frugal Scots would, by their habit of marrying late, become extinct. In effect, Greg and Galton are making a powerful argument against evolution in man.
    and she certainly did not follow the link to the original Darwin Text.

    Instead she argues that Darwin must have been a racist because he was a British Toff, which is racist in itself. But if all "British Toffs" were racist as she claims, why single out Darwin for special treatment?

    edit: Bob O''H,  did you try escaping the apostrophe with a second apostrophe?  Databases don't usually escape with backslashes.

    Date: 2007/03/27 12:23:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2007,15:50)
    Someone tries to buy a clue:




    9:36 am
    A bunch of Darwinists are keen to point this out:

    I figured I’d post it minus the usual insults.

    'The usual insults' = Dembski is a Tard who couldn't find his arse with both hands.

    Of course at UD they  would never stoop to insults over something like this:



    I did not find the Milan Journal of Mathematics in the ISI index of science journals. why not?

    You didn’t find it because you’re a lazy and not particularly bright troll who seldom if ever exercises any due diligence before writing.

    It may not be listed in older indexes because for most of its 80 year history it was published under the name “Rendiconti”.

    Or maybe you just can’t read because it’s right here under “M” in the ISI master journal list:


    Either way, you were warned and now you’re out of here.

    Date: 2007/03/27 17:43:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 27 2007,23:02)

    Now, what are the odds (evens)?

    Is this design or what? I can't tell anymore. :p

    Hexagonal patterns are seen in snowflakes. They are not designed.

    Hexagon patterns are also made by bees. Bees are not particularly intelligent, however bees are designed. Therefore hexagonal patterns can be second order design.

    Hexagon patterns in crop 'circles' are designed.

    Therefore Saturn's hexagon is not designed, indirectly designed and designed.   HTH.

    Date: 2007/04/03 14:27:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski writes
    This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low.

    Of course ID proponents would never do that. Oops, no wait, the whole thing was just an excuse to add "and PZ is the lowest of the low".
    But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

    Date: 2007/04/03 16:20:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (jujuquisp @ April 03 2007,22:29)

    William Dembski
    With regard to these authors’ take on Revelation, C. S. Lewis wrote that if you don’t know how to read a book written for grown-ups, then you should leave well enough alone.
    Some time back I wrote that it can be used to advantage that the other side thinks we’re such morons. Let me hasten to add that the preponderance of morons on the other side can also be used to advantage.

    Dembski--such a hypocrite.
    So, no matter what side a moron is from, he/she can be used to the advantage of ID.  HAHA.  Didn't think that statement through very much, did you Dr. Dr. Dumbski?

    He didn't say there are morons on the ID side - merely that evolution supporters (presumably wrongly) believe that there are. However he does believe that a significant proportion of the evo side are morons (and name callers) who can't read books written for grown ups . But that doesn't make him a hypocrite.

    Date: 2007/04/03 18:09:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I think you could be over-reacting a little Kristine.  Calm down and count to 10 (thousand if necessary).  Leave the drinking to people like me and SteveStory who become more attractive and sophisticated after a few percents.  There have always been opinionated people and people who get a bit carried away with the invective but I don't think they are all out to crush us all under some jackboot or other.
    (OK, there's DS with his "nudge nudge, wink wink, I wouldn't be surprised if the Kitzmiller pupils got beaten up" message to the kids at Dover and his "maybe PZ will beat himself up" hint to any thugs in Morris. But DS has always been a bit special ) :)

    Date: 2007/04/07 17:42:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Parody site owner (possibly Dembski under an assumed name) promoted to contributor status at  Is this the best the ID movement has?

    Galapagos Finch, Galapagos Finch, William Dembski, William Dembski, Demsbki/Finch

    Date: 2007/04/09 10:57:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    tribune7: Global warming failed to predict earthquake

    Date: 2007/04/11 16:28:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (carlsonjok @ April 11 2007 14:44)
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2007,08:05)
    However, a comment from Fross cuts to the chase (methinks Fross is not long for UD!)

    two words:

    Lee Strobel.

    Let’s assume these guys want a purely scientific debate. Having Lee Strobel on the bill makes it look like a religious seminar aimed at trying to make their views seem scientific. The guy is 100% a Christian apologist and a strict Bible literalist.

    Erm, Fross, it's your side that's organised this debate!

    Oh, Fross went off script a couple times yesterday. Check out this comment (in part):

    Would something like dog breeding be considered ID? (and therefore something like eugenics?)

    TTBOMK,  Fross had always been on our side. (s)he has 43 posts here, the last one being on page 466.

    Date: 2007/04/22 15:21:15, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Kids are not stupid.  OE was promoted as a creatokid hangout, but the posts were dominated by old farts.
     I thought Dembski edited the farts out.

    Date: 2007/04/25 17:33:37, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Incidentally, my inspiration for the snowflake in stones or crop-circles questions are these messages from DS.

    The problem for ID is that it is extremely difficult to precisely quantify what patterns are too improbable for known or possible natural mechanisms to explain. We seem to have no problem intuitively recognizing them, as in the case of crop circles, and this handily explains why so many people intuitively accept the premise of ID. It takes only a short dissertation to adequately elucidate the concept of ID while 150 years of unending attempt to dispute it with the theory of natural selection has failed to convince more than a small minority ID has no rational merit.

    Comment on comments as of 2/9/06 3pm:

    The $64,000 question remains unanswered.

    If a pattern like the one above were discovered not in a farmer’s field but carved into an asteroid would you presume it had an origin devoid of intelligent agency?

    Answer yes or no, then support your answer. If you dare!


    Snowflakes don’t look designed. They are not assemblages of interdependent parts that perform a function. Machines are designed. Snowflakes are merely repetitive crystal patterns. They look pleasing, not designed. Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.

    Without mentioning the first post, I made the following point in the second thread, hoping to get banned for putting words into DaveScot's mouth which was one of his favorite grounds for bannination back then.

    and yet if the same snowflake pattern were to be found cut into a field of corn, I suspect you would have no problem intuitively recognising it as as designed, just from the pattern  

    but he didn't bite - or respond in any way.

    Date: 2007/05/07 16:02:02, Link
    Author: steve_h

    I call them the Four Big Bangs:

    1’) the Cosmological (the universe “just popped” into existence out of nothingness).

    2’) the Biological (life “just popped” into existence out of a dead thing).

    3’) the Psychological (mind “just popped” into existence out of a brain).

    4’) and the Moral (morality “just popped” into existence out of amorality).

    IIRC, "Agnostic" Dave has argued against 3 and 4 at UD. Why is he now repeating them without comment?

    Secondly, how does agnosticism deal with these questions?

    Or for that matter theism?  God breathed life into dust and spoke the universe into being, FFS?  

    Meanwhile on the Denyse version of this post bornagain77 informs us that
    a) Scientists don't know in which areas of the brain memory resides.
    b) when they block out those areas (which they don't know about), the memories become more vivid.

    edit: and if bornagain77 is reading this. Can you explain how brain damage has caused many people to be incapable of remembering things that happened a few minutes ago but they have no problems remembering stuff from several years back?  

    For others: does the loss of memory due to blow to head thing beloved of all TV script writers ever really happen?

    Date: 2007/05/29 20:21:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    And I'm not sure where he got the 100% figure, but CO2 obviously doesn't reduce by 100% before it increases by 100% and it obviously doesn't double year to year.

    The graphs don't show total CO2, only increase in CO2. Sometimes the increase can be more then double the previous year's increase or less than half of it. However it's always an  increase  (never a decrease) and generally an increasing increase. I think DS is trying to portray a smaller increase some years as an absolute  decrease, rather than a reduced increase. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

    AIUI, The report from which the graphs are taken concludes that human activity has contributed rather a lot to the net warming influence since 1750.

    edit: Do'h! I just read Richard Simons' post which made the point far more succinctly.

    Date: 2007/05/31 17:18:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    board v. slow. Why board slow?

    Date: 2007/06/14 20:01:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Lou FCD @ June 15 2007,02:31)
    Arden, you forgot "uphill.  Both ways."

    Aye, an' that was just t' swimmin' t' Galapagos part - an' we di'n't have no Richard Dawkins wi' us!

    Date: 2007/06/29 16:12:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2007,21:13)
    Just for giggles, let me ask: has Dembski ever conceded a significant point?

    The only one I can think of is this:  Public Retraction and Apology to Kevin Padian

    Strictly speaking though, it wasn't a point about ID/Religion, which would have made it considerably easier for him. Still,  he does seem to go on to add a certain amount of "but actually, come to think of it, I was right and you are a bigot" towards the end.

    Normally "conceding" takes the form of removing the page on which the original point was made and/or banning people.

    Date: 2007/06/30 14:49:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    We see peer reviewed literature by Zuckerkandl, Ayala, Koonin, and others referencing intelligent design. Here is a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology: The intelligent design of evolution where the authors assert:

    The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…
    Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

    Although we'd call that a quote mine, Slimy would probably prefer to call it a "literature bluff" because he is relying on nobody at UD being capable of following the link  or understanding that what was written there does not support his claim.

    Also, despite his recent repetion of a wrongful accusation of Equivocation against Elsberry and Shallit, he is actually equivocating on two different meanings of "Intelligent Design" here (as many at UD do from time to time, including der der Fartmeister himself)

    Intelligent Design: People designing things and
    Intelligent Design: Pseudoscientic claims about Design Detection

    edits: e, being, der

    Date: 2007/07/01 07:39:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 01 2007,06:14)
     Bornagain77 elaborates.

    He's C&P'd it into at least 5 threads at UD over the last few months - and also to PT and Scienceblogs' EvolutionBlog using a different name.

    Date: 2007/07/02 17:56:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The newly revitalised and important seems to be destined for greatness this time:

    4 posts from 4 days ago
    3 posts from 3 days ago
    2 posts from 2 days ago
    1 post from 1 day ago
    0 within the last day.

    Therefore one would expect 1 post deleted tomorrow
    2 the day after that
    3 the day after that.

    edit: s/post/comment/g

    Date: 2007/07/03 07:27:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Whoever it is, they have already "demonstrated excellence and courage in research and promotion of intelligent design" so our guys will already be on to them. I don't think possesion of $100 and a book is going to make things any worse for them.

    Date: 2007/07/04 13:53:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering

    t tells us that the universe contains, in at least one instance, intelligent agency capable of purposeful tinkering with heritable traits in living things in steps of any size or complexity. It’s a proof of concept for ID.

    Leaving aside the question of wether a heart bypass operation is a heritable trait or not, everyone at UD was quick to point out that the inheritable traits tinkered into existance by known designers were degenerative ("Proud wolves" to "sick poodles" or wtte).

    Good point, DaveScot. Jonathan Wells and I make the same point regarding the origin of life in our book THE DESIGN OF LIFE, which is coming out in two months:

    “Proof-of-concept works only when one proves the concept. Origin-of-life researchers are a long way from establishing proof of concept. Indeed, it has completely eluded them. Their willingness to embrace just about any highly speculative scenario for life’s origin suggests that in fact they are giving up on proof of concept and acting out of desperation, trying to shore up a materialistic explanation of life’s origin when life is clearly telling us that its origin is not materialistic.”

    This seems to be saying: There is no proof of concept for Intelligent Design as far as origin of life is concerned.

    Date: 2007/07/05 17:00:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Meanwhile, over at, Salvador Cordova is about to present a worked-through example of how to calculate CSI .........

    Date: 2007/07/05 18:33:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    no he's F*king not!

    Language!, oldmanintheskydidntdoit. Shame on you! Sal is desperate to settle this issue, but I don't see how he could possibly do it even if just one person, anywhere, is questioning his willingness or ability to do so. Just go buy Demsbki's next book and his last one and the one before that, and all will become clear.

    Date: 2007/07/05 18:55:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    In my previous post, I cited a Miami Herald article that refers to “The National Center for Science Education, a pro-science watchdog group.” For the real pro-science watchdog group, check out the following links:
    That’s right. I own those domain names

    Curses! is already taken! How will my inane ramblings ever become respectable science if things continue as they are!!
    and !

    Date: 2007/07/10 17:50:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    You are a slightly disreputable conveyor of pseudoscience to the religiously uninformed.  A foundation with more money than sense offers you a wad of cash to produce a book about theology, which is a hobby of yours. Unfortunately,  you wish to distance yourself from that for the sake of your book sales and notions of sciencyness.
    Do you:
    A) promise them a book on theology, and then write it,
    B) offer to write them a book on your pet subject which has unfortunately has nothing to do with theology and hope they accept, or
    C) offer to write a book on theology, but deliver a book on your pet subject and run away with $100,000?

    Examples of non-credit answers:  A & B.

    Date: 2007/07/26 17:01:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Question: Would Pinker allow me to test this principle on him if I could demonstrate that shooting him in the head would increase the overall pleasure of not only the person who shoots him, but also the pleasure of the majority of people who heard about it (not to mention the babies and old people who would not be killed if, God forbid, his ideas were ever implemented as policy) to a greater extent than it increased his pain and the pain of those who heard about it?

    Shah, Shah, shah, BarryA. maybe I have a higher opinion of your fellow (Christian or other) projected beings than you do, but I think that most would be horrified rather than pleased to hear about the murder of a fellow human being - even if he did think of things in a different way to them.

    what happened to DS and global warming?

    Date: 2007/07/26 18:19:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2007,00:50)
    This is some weird shit. BlarneyA stretches out:

    I'd put a Glock 19 to his temple, the back of his head, or shove it in his mouth. I'd put a bullet into his skull at 1000 fps. I'd deposit the entire energy of that round into that materialist sonofabitch's brain, and there'd be a sort of pinkish mist, and he'd taste God's wrath before he tasted his own blood, before his corpse bled out. I'd wanna see him cry first, and beg, and grovel but I'd do him anyway. Then I'd rummage around his place and find something to eat.

    I think this deserves the 10th runner up prize for the anonymous 2007 Salvador Cordova award for mining the essense of a quote if not the actual words.  Places one and one to nine reserved for the sponsor, whoever he be, natch.

    Date: 2007/08/03 16:34:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2007,22:24)
    Sal calls cells      
    The self-replicating Turing Machines of biology


    He never explains it in any detail....

    I think I can help out here.  Now, you see a Turing machine consists of a tape and/or helix which contains sequences written using a finite alphabet, and a head reads the symbols and uses the current state and a symbol to look up a new state in a lookup table and then move the head backwards or forwards along the tape and/or helix. That's pretty much exactly what a cell does.  You can work out the details by reading Minsky 1967, and Demsbki/Behe (passim),  or by reading again any of the many detailed explanations  I already gave you.

    If you seriously want spoon feeding with stuff you should know already,  you will have to prove your willingness to take my explanations seriously by implementing a simple bubble sort in
    brainfsck and after that, if you haven't caused any offense, or disappeared to your own thread, and I haven't run away with my fingers in my ears, I will see what  I can do.

    slimey steve.

    Date: 2007/08/03 17:00:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,23:36)
    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,16:28)
    Question of the day for the Darwinists who visit our site:  If life on earth is not possible without the existence of these nano-machines, what is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of these machines?

    If life isn't possible without nano-machines, then the ultimate cause of nano-machines must not have been alive.  

    Actually we could have been designed by aliens. They would be living aliens, obviously, but they wouldn't contain complex nano-machines, or fracterial bagelums.  They would get thier life, vast intelligence, artistry, sense of justice, and love of guns  from simpler arrangements which look complex to the initiated but are just a natural product of chemical and physical laws.  I dunno, like, er, snowflakes, or sumfin.  That's why global warming is a good thing. We can't let the snowflakes take over.

    Date: 2007/08/09 07:27:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The last post still in is from 16 July.  Three posts later Dembksi announced the new link to  Baylor’s fleeting Evolutionary Informatics Lab,


    (Via "latest news" at the ever popular ud4kids site, if anyone wants to try and rescue and other goodies)

    Date: 2007/08/10 13:32:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Which obviously includes hominid descent. Not only does he no longer have the balls to state his conviction on such an important issue when idiotic posts the the contrary appear, the post itself has been vaporized, as searches on UD make clear.

    He doesn't volunteer that sort of objection any more (he'd called that a "lie by omission" if it were us), but when pressed by Mark Frank:

    Dave - are you denying that you wrote these words on this blog - my italics (the item was of course removed from the blog pretty quickly):

    “I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn’t get the issue framed around science it’s going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I’d ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.”

    Or you have changed your mind since?


    Of course I wrote that. Your next comment here will explain how that argues against saltation. Good luck. -ds

    Date: 2007/08/12 15:06:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    or more recently:

    You misstated Von Daniken’s hypothesis rather badly. His hypothesis is that aliens influenced early human civilization. It does not speak to the origin of life. You don’t need to read Chariots of the Gods to know this. It’s in the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry for von Daniken. If you can’t be bothered to do a small bit of due diligence before posting comments here why should we bother to publish your comments?
    (My bold)
    From the second paragraph of the wikipedia entry for von Däniken:
    He also supports the hypothesis that human evolution may have been manipulated through means of genetic engineering by extraterrestrial beings.

    ok, it's not talking about OOL but "Aliens designed Humans" is certainly an ID position.

    Date: 2007/08/14 03:27:42, Link
    Author: steve_h
    A cool way to make ID palatable….
    Uncommon Descent - Tue, 2007-08-14 02:46

    the origin of this universe and all others that may exist lies in the will of a supreme consciousness,
    rather than purposeless laws or fields preexisting, it is a supreme intelligence that preexists, and that the ideas of this intelligence give rise to laws of physics that create universes

    but in order to make the claim palatable, make sure to add the appropriate disclaimer:

    This has nothing to do with intelligent design

    See The God Theory by respected astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

    Copyright © 2007 Uncommon Descent ...
    Categories: Intelligent Design News

    Doesn't he mean "this has nothing to do with religion"?

    Was there more of this? UD4Kidz only shows up to the fold. Note: some snippage, in order to keep it "fair-use" ;-)

    edit: I dun added a link

    Date: 2007/08/14 03:43:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    That link 404s now.  Can't those people even run a blog?

    "If it’s been edited out, it didn’t happen?!"  - William Dembski

    Date: 2007/08/14 18:57:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    1.  "hate god" is somehow tied to the concept of original sin.
    2.  Christians have original sin too.
    3. Therefore christians have strong feelings about god, which we may refer to as hatred. I.e Christians hate god, Muslims hate god, Buddists hate god, followers of Thor hated god --- everyone alive hates god and everyone dead hated God.

    So why single out atheists as God-haters when you are clearly a god-hater yourself, God-hater?

    Date: 2007/08/15 15:50:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Heddle: you are using the word "hate" in a way that the majority of english speakers do not. Your version of "hate" does not appear in most dictionaries (if any). Wouldn't it make more sense to use words with widely accepted meanings when dealing with a wide/unknown range of english speakers or to put the words between quotation marks?

    Date: 2007/08/19 15:01:19, Link
    Author: steve_h
    There seem to be question marks where UD has changed normal quotation marks to special left and right curly quotation marks (66 and 99) which have codes higher than 127.

    On page one of this thread, multiple spaces (in a code block) in my comments, have been replaced by a character which looks like an A with a caret (^) symbol over it. ?

    Testing some german chars: ??????

    Those should have been aou and AOU with umlauts. So I guess anything outside of 0x01-0x7F is potentially a problem.

    Date: 2007/08/20 06:50:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (keiths @ Aug. 20 2007,11:53)
    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2007,21:29)
    For a journalist, Denyse is a terrible writer. Really substandard.

    Has anyone else noticed what Denyse considers to be cool journalistic lingo, like calling herself a "scijo" and referring to paragraphs as "graffs"?

    Most of what she writes is just a load of old lox.

    Date: 2007/08/21 15:23:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Scordova takes Ed to task  
    Ed Brayton repeats the Darwinist mantra. Crowther's Lies on Origin of Intelligent Design

    Brayton writes:  
    Nick did not claim that the phrase intelligent design was invented for the first time in late 1987; he said that this was the first time the phrase was "used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc." In other words, it was only after the Edwards ruling that this phrase began to be used by anti-evolutionists as a label for their alternative position, and thus began to be used as the label for their movement.

    The evidence for this is absolutely undeniable.

    Not quite. Darwin used the phrase "intelligent design" to describe the alternative (to his) position.
    In contrast, Darwin did not even use the phrase "creationism" or even the word "Bible" or "biblical" in Origin of Species.

    Over at Ed's site Andrea observes:  
    Of course, Bill Dembski's expert witness report at the Kitzmiller trial completely agrees with Nick:
    Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use.

    Strangely, I have never heard the DI complain of Dembski's "canard".

    edit: "quote mending"

    Date: 2007/08/22 07:22:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    O'leary posted churchside, over a month ago that:
    Anyway, I have now received Pivar's book and am sending it out to be reviewed by a non-pharyngulite who is versed in evolutionary biology. I will publish that biologist's review on this blog when I receive it. (I can always read it myself later.)
    I 'd been interested to know if that person was a scathing as PZ. I posted a comment 12 hours ago asking if she had received anything, but it hasn't got past moderation yet.
    Is there anyone not banned tardside who can ask her?

    Date: 2007/09/03 20:10:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Trying to make sense of the Dembski-Marks-Baylor-UnwittingLabHosts thing to which Dembski relates in a series of flashbacks in no particular order at :

    (I tried to put the dates in a neutral format, and in more or less the correct order):

    1999-2005 Dr Dr Demsbki at Baylor. Booted out.
    (unspecified) Distinguished Distinguished Proffesor Marks secures a grant from Lifeworks.
    06 NOV 2006 Dr Dr Demsbki appointed Senior Research Scientist at Baylor.
    04 Dec 2006 Dr Dr Dembski called into Dean's office: "you're not supposed to be here, are you?"
    05 Dec 2006 Meeting about Dr Dr Demsbki at Baylors Faculty Senate. Demsbki's position to be revoked.
    07 Dec 2006 Dr Dr Demsbki learns his postion is about to br revoked.
    07 Dec 2006 Distinguished Distinguised Prof Marks and and another DDP Walter Bradley tried to persuage Dean Kelley to let Dembski stay
    08 Dec 2006 Baylor claim to have good reason to terminate the good Dr Dr. He's basically been moonlighting.
    08 Dec 2006 (later) Dr Dr Dembski gets email inviting him to collect all of his crap from his desk.
    09 Dec 2006 Dembski tries to get subsidised meal from an institution which no longer employs him and is escorted off the premises by security (forcefully I hope :))

    01 Jan 2007 Dembski looks forward to ID-friendly research center at Baylor. Despite the fact that he's not even allowed to eat there anymore. Hasn't he read his own summary ferchrisakes?
    Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I'm looking forward to in the coming year:

    A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish - stay tuned.)

    02 Jun 2007 Dembski announces the Baylor Informatics Lab, a collaboration of him and Robert Marks at (a university that won't even allow him to eat on their premises). The lab is a virtual entity within the "personal" sub-pages of Robert Marks II (not distinguished professor Marks?). Baylor don't know about it yet.
    02 June 2007 Botnik, AKA William Dembski is the first to congratulate Dembski on the new lab.
    Fantastic! I suppose the other side is going to say that this has nothing to do with ID.

    03 June 2007 Bob O'H first ATBC person to poke fun at informatics lab.
    06 Jun 2007 Steve Story reveals that he has had 20 year old girlfriends with D-cups (That doesn't belong here, but, bastard).
    12 July 2007 Dembski and Marks nearly eviscerate "The Jesus Tomb", but it turns out they're a tard late -- every else had already been there and done that.
    Link still
    XX July 2007 Demsbki acquires domain name
    15 July 2007 A better link to the Informatics lab revealed at UD
    16 Jul 2007 RichardHughes notes "Bwahahahahahaha..."
    16 Jul 2007 etc. etc.
    17 Jul 2007 Albatrosity2 posts picture of Ben Stein (who he?, ed)
    20 Jul 2007 Reference to Informatics Lab in Archie Bunker thread
    20 Jul 2007 Casey Luskin interviews Robert Marks converning the new Evolitionary Informatics Lab
    27 Jul 2007 (O'L) Kelley tell Marks he must remove his (fraudulent) website. ?(SH added Fraudulent because it was)
    29 Jul 2007 (O'L) Kelly suggests a meeting, Marks gets a lawyer.
    02 Aug 2007 Wesley notes that the "Evolutionary Informatics" group link is dead.
    03 (O'L) Kelly removes content from Marks "Baylor" web space which Baylor owns, without asking his consent.
    03 Aug 2007 At UD, rrf asks why the informatics link is not working. He/She is Ignored.
    04 Aug 2007 At UD, IrishFather42 points out that the Baylor Informatics Link no longer works. He/She is ignored.
    08 Aug 2007 At UD, Grayman asks if anyone can shed any light on the non-workingness of the BIL. He/She is Ignored.
    XX Aug 2007 Slimey Sal ( not his real name), aka Salvador Cordova (not his real name), currently in hiding, attempts to apply for position at Informatics Lab, which everyone else knows has been defunct for some time (at the very best).

    edits: question marks, Dembski mispellings, Casey mispelled, removed business seminar ref, incorporated O'Leary timeline. "Personal" quoted. "Fraudulent" quoted

    Date: 2007/09/04 03:23:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I know I said "Botnik AKA Dembski" but a thought just occurred to me (Well, it is the first Tuesday of the month): ? Could Botnik, who has just caused some embarrassment with his fake letter, be Joel ?"ID is ?creation in disguise" Borofsky, the world's leading only ever ID research assistant - or was he banned?

    Date: 2007/09/05 15:57:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The story of how Demsbki was forced to come out of his closet (*) may make it to film.
    EXPELLED still has room for this material ? no need to go to a sequel. You may be surprised what Ben Stein will do with this.

    edit: (*) aka the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

    Date: 2007/09/06 20:44:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 07 2007,00:08)
    DT quoted by Chatfiefd: ? ? ? ?  
    At one point, about 18 months ago, I wrote an article saying I was going to delete all arguments against common descent

    Even if common descent is a fact, that speaks volume about DT's policy at UD. "Everything that goes against my opinion will be censored."

    What an ass.

    Maybe that was his policy, but I think he got a bit of talking to and was forced to reconsider unless he wanted to spend the rest of his life in (greater) obscurity at the floating command center. Since then, TTBOMK, DS has made a point of never speaking against big tent denizens who argue about common descent -especially "I'm not descended from no monkey". Also, IIRC, he's fairly comfortable with the materialist idea that brains are responsible for all things connected with "the mind" but opts for conspicious self-censorship over bannination when the others go on and on and on about how only souls can explain such and such (E.g. anything by OwhywontyoubuymybookLeary).

    Date: 2007/09/07 16:17:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 07 2007,22:38)
    - Heavy objects fall faster than light objects.

    Actually, they do Bill...

    F = GMm/R^2

    Where F is the Fastness or the rate of Falling.

    Date: 2007/09/07 16:53:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Richard is right when you take into account the falling is relative. One black hole and one feather would accelerate towards a fixed second black hole at the same rate.  But if the second black hole is not fixed, it would accelerate towards the first black hole more than it would to a feather at a similar distance leading to a higher relative acceleration.    

    (Disclaimer: it's a long time since I did any physics and I was never brilliant at it).

    Date: 2007/09/07 17:07:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Once  I saw Gödel at a Motörhead concert.

    Date: 2007/09/07 18:36:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 08 2007,00:19)
    If the falling is relative, does that mean it's not intelligent after all? :O

    Don't worry, it's still all done by Angels, but as part of a family business.

    Date: 2007/09/09 15:19:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski links to a WacoTrib article.

    Gilmore (Marks's Attorney), however, says that Marks, who spent 27 years at the University of Washington before coming to Baylor three years ago, has never tried to represent his work as being Baylor-related.

    William Dembski reproduced the following quote from Marks's site on his blog:

    Robert J. Marks II (see biosketch below) has just put his new Evolutionary Informatics Lab online:

    Here is how the lab is described on the website:

    Evolutionary informatics merges theories of evolution and information, thereby wedding the natural, engineering, and mathematical sciences. Evolutionary informatics studies how evolving systems incorporate, transform, and export information. Baylor University’s Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory explores the conceptual foundations, mathematical development, and empirical application of evolutionary informatics. The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.

    My bolding.

    Date: 2007/09/10 16:32:07, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski notes that it's OK to publish emails sent to you, if the sender also sent copies to some other people    
    It started with Benjamin Kelley, dean of engineering and computer science at Baylor, sending Prof. Marks the following email (I share it here since Dean Kelley copied others at Baylor and had no compunction about embarrassing Prof. Marks with it)

    I don't know who those other people are (maybe they were the sort of person one might expect to be copied: personel dept, Sysadmins etc, not just people Marks had been trying to impress socially or whom Baylor employed to mock thier employees in public), so I won't get into that side too much, but this post did remind me of something from last year.

    In December 2006, Dembski sent an email to Dawkins and copied to all of the people he featured in ID's greatest work to date, the flash fart animation. Dawkins reproduced it on his web site and Demsbki got all self righteous about it.  He used it as an excuse to publish a previous (2006) email sent by Dawkins to Dembski (alone) and thereafter they both printed each others emails (according to DDD - I don't often read Dawkins site), but with Demsbki complaining about the fact that Dawkins was now doing the same thing as himself.

    I'm not sure if Dembski is now saying that Dawkins was right all along to publish his first multiple-recipient email and Dembski was just being melodramatic, or whether he still thinks it was wrong, but is using one person's immoral behaviour towards him as an excuse to act immorally towards someone else.

    Date: 2007/09/11 13:49:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    D'OL Writes Post at UD Shock!

    So where ARE the plugs for The Spiritual Brain? For uncommonlydenyse's other blogs?

    So where ARE the Friends of Robert Marks? Of intellectual freedom at Baylor?

    Date: 2007/09/18 17:03:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 18 2007,23:52)
    Heh.  Is the copyright notice on the new old banner new or old?

    Is Dr.Dr. Dembski about to take a page out of Hovind's book?

    The old headers had no copyright notice (edit: but there has been a copyright notice in the footer for some time):

    Here's the previous William and Denyse header:

    Date: 2007/09/20 19:04:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 20 2007,19:08)
    It's biology, not biologies
    It's chemistry, not chemistries
    It's math, not maths
    It's Darwinism, not Darwinisms (heh)
    It's computer science, not computer sciences*

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

    and home economics and religious studies. :)

    Date: 2007/09/20 20:23:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I don’t think a moving bike is stable all by itself.

    Not taking the piss for once, I think this guy has it wrong.  Experience tells me that if I run along pushing a bike and then let it go, it will run along itself for some time,  gradually steering off to one side and eventually toppling over. If it's not moving it will fall over within a very short time indeed.
    My first thought was that there is some sort of gyroscope effect due to the rotation of the wheels, but in the end I think it's just that the axis around which the front wheel turns is positioned in such a way that the bike will turn into the direction of lean, causing the bike to turn in that direction and a centripetal force to force the bike back towards the upright.  We take advantage of that natural turning when we ride no-handed, or try to steer the bike by running alongside holding only the saddle.  Maybe we could reorientate the axis so the bike turns away from the direction in which we lean, and the bike would be very unstable indeed.

    OTOH, if scientists can't prove something which obviously happens in my experience, then it does seem slightly premature to assume that, for e.g., "if science can't give a blow by blow account for the the fractieral blagellum, then god must have dunnit". Presumably angels are balancing my bike and eventually steering it into a wall after I let go.

    Date: 2007/09/22 15:14:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I took a Fortran course in college, naturally, having last been in college in the late 70’s.

    Nitpick:  no you didn't. ;)

    Date: 2007/09/26 18:14:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski provided a partial analysis of a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" in the essay I linked.
    I think Dembski's calculations could be improved.  He assumes a 10^5 probability of each of the above concepts "bidirectional", "rotary", "motor driven" and "propeller". However if you take the "propeller" part as a given, how many choices are available for the other words?  

    Rotary?   Ok I guess it could be "linear" or "random" instead.
    "Motor Driven" could be "elastic band driven", I guess.
    "Bidirectional" could have been "unidirectional", or "non-directional"

    To compensate, I would add "super-dooper", "microscopic", "biological", "international standards based" -- and maybe do away with the analysis of English language concepts altogether as the basis of the calculations,  and consider  instead potential chemical and biological precursors.

    Date: 2007/09/26 19:58:39, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Uncommonly Densye   defending "classis crackpot" Stuart Pivar    
    That said, I hope that the little lambs of affirmation can bear the shock if someone, somewhere reads Pivar's book with an open mind, because if I get anywhere near the bottom of my in tray, I am planning to.

    So, Densye sends her copy of the book to an open minded reader, Jerry Bergman of the Institute for Creation research; Two months later, he delivers his verdict and PZ Myers' original partisan verdict is exposed as the Darwinoid hatchet job wot it is.  
    Specifically, Pivar proposes an embryogenesis based on the properties of a toroidal surface - that is, the shape of a doughnut ... All cells and embryos assume the toroidal shape. How they respond to this initial shape determines their adult morphology. The details of how this shape guides development and morphogenesis in general were, in my opinion, not very well defended in this work. This theory may explain certain aspects of the external morphology of a life form, but how much else does it explain?
    Conversely, Pivar proposes a radically new theory, of which parts may well have merit. Only time will tell. What he needs is empirical and experimental evidence.
    That's it, after two months , he only hints at what the content is.  "Not very well defended" is perhaps something PZ might agree with on one of his kinder/less honest days. Even the ICR guy is struggling to be nice about this "work". The rest of the review concerns itself with how mean the amazon reviews were, and the motives of Pivar's critics.

    Date: 2007/10/16 20:55:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 17 2007,03:19)
    BA77 relaxes the sphincter a bit more to explain his notions to fellow tard-travelers borne and magnan.

    The resulting dungheap contains at least a couple of gems; I'm sure that more experienced spelunkers will find several more. For me, the highlights included this          
    A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth.

    13. Materialism didn't predict that, but theism did (ed: seems a bit short, try and flesh pad it out a bit)

    Date: 2007/10/25 07:42:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

    DS tried to cover his many errors in subequent exchanges by displaying his knowledge of black body radiation and explaining how we measure the temperature of individual photons etc. Discussion around here started just before this post by ss on page 39 and continued for a while after.

    Date: 2007/10/25 17:10:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DaveScot at UDOJ
    I hate to disappoint the church burnin' ebola boys but I won't be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I'm going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he's going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it's back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He's napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we'll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

    P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

    HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!

    Date: 2007/10/25 21:59:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    One of my favorites from "“IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security”
    Dr Dr :
    Information Forensics (IF) — another branch of ID:

    James Wynne asks what this has to do with ID.

    this is what

    At the time of writing, Dembski had already disappeared James Wynne's (*) comment asking "what has this got to do with ID".

    DS searches for Forensic Information & Dembski. All of the early results are to uncommondescent, arn, and other usual suspects. None to sites involved in Forensic Science. Take away the "Dembski" and the situation reverses.

    James Wynne was banned by Dembski after one more comment. I shouldn't mention that here because it's a DaveScot thread.

    Date: 2007/10/26 07:36:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Michael Shermer Admits Science Is Religion To Him  
    They’re a crackpot when they’re Michael Shermer, The Skeptic, happily exposing his science-is-spiritual beliefs in a science journal. He’s supposed to be a skeptic adhering to the scientific method to expose this stuff as metaphysical wool gathering and here I find him blithering about his own personal metaphysical beliefs in a hard science journal. Non sequitur. Shermer is worse than a garden variety mystic. He’s a hypocrite. -ds

    ds: “ in a hard science journal“

    Ho hum. Scientific American is not a “hard science journal”. It is a conventional magazine providing a roundup of science news for a scientifically educated readership.

    I’m not sure it was worth fishing this out of the spam bin but I thought it might a good way to point out that the picking of semantic nits is about the best you got. Get lost. And stop taking up space in the spam bucket. I’d rather see the thouands of ads for online casinos, low interest loans, and viagra than more of your tripe. Thanks in advance for your courtesy. -ds

    Date: 2007/10/29 11:12:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2007,15:55)




    1:47 am

    As soon as I saw a Monty Python cartoon appearing in Sean Carrol’s review of Edge of Evolution I stopped reading. Anyone who needs to resort to Monty Python in a scientific argument can be safely ignored as not having any legs to stand on.

    How do you feel about farting flash, Dave?

    Evolutionary Theory and Monty Python’s Black Knight, Dembski:  
    Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. Where, in the whittling of the Black Knight, is evolutionary theory (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?):

    The Problem of Improvable Design DaveScot:
    The story of King Arther and the Black Knight would have been much more entertaining if people could regrow lost limbs too!

    By the way, I think there’s an analogy between Arthur (ID) and the Black Knight (evolution) to be made here.

    Glen Davidson - Candidate for Stupid Question of the Year, DaveScot:
    Thanks for showing us all the 5 D’s of Darwinism, by the way. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge! You’re not good at it but I’ll give you an A for persistence and no matter how big an ass I make of you, you keep coming back for more. Have you ever seen The Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”? That’s you Glen, the Black Knight. It’s only a flesh wound. Don’t stop now. You can still try to bite my legs.  -ds

    Darwinism the Invincible Douglas Moran

    Date: 2007/10/29 15:25:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Steve h - I am not sure how you came up with these quotes, but excellent work!  You must have one hell of a memory, the world's greatest filing system,..

    Just an average memory and Google Toolbar's 'search only on on this site' thingy. I remember thinking "not the black knight again" as one of the later ones appeared ( especially as PZ had done one around about the same time).

    Date: 2007/10/29 16:20:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I wonder if Barry always gets DaveScot's name wrong deliberately.

    Date: 2007/10/30 21:18:02, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I'm not especially proud of these. Note to self: be more high-brow in future.

    Brazil  (seen too many times, can't watch any more)
    Notting hill (almost ditto)
    Being John Malkovich  (code 1,  current player code 2)
    Fargo / The big Lebowski (Fargo on video, VCR dead)
    Shaun of the dead  (Hot Fuzz ok but doesn't quite do it for me)
    The sixth sense
    Erin Brokovich
    The Elephant Man
    La Vita è bella  (although, of course, I know it only as "Life is Beautiful")

    Easily manipulated, I inevitably get something in one of my manly eyes whenever I watch four of them.


    Twister  (I wonder what's going to happen to all those wind chimes etc and how strong will the
    wind be exactly?  Couldn't stand the dialog, but loved Buffy and Firefly/serinity, how could
    the same guy be behind them?)

    Once Worked (unsuccessfully) where they shot:

    Life Story (TV) - recognised about 10 seconds (Franklin leaves the building at night).

    Chumley Warner Link

    Date: 2007/11/01 14:39:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I wonder if Gil could write a program to model a load of unevenly shaped boulders as they tumble down a hill into a lake causing ripples to appear in the water and damage to the rocks and their surroundings. Surely that can happen on this planet without an intelligence orchestrating it? Come on Gil, let's see you do an accurate simulatation without using fancy programming techniques such as using data structures to hold data about the terrain, or mathematical formulae to calculate distances between objects, centers of gravity and the like.

    And to further Richard's point, your program must run in real time on a computer which is tumbling down a hill into a lake.

    Date: 2007/11/07 18:26:14, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Radiohead: House of Tards.

    Um, er, branching out into albums:

    Manic Street Preachers: this is my truth don't tell me yours.
    ELP: Tardus.
    Paul Simon: songs from the tardman.
    Mike Batt: The hunting of the tard.
    Roy Harper: Bulinamingtards.
    CCR: Tardi Gras.
    and anything by the Tardigans.

    Date: 2007/11/12 16:05:14, Link
    Author: steve_h
    BarryA not attributing bad actions to Darwinism:

    I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.

    getawitness, read the post again. I did not attibute Harris’ and Auvinen’s actions to Darwinism. The point of my post is that they did.

    BarryA explains that Darwinism is responsible after all.
    In the case of my post, the moral implications of Darwin’s theory are there for all to see.  Eric Harris was a brilliant young man (Dylan Klebold was a follower, more or less along for the ride).  Harris paid attention in class and he learned both Darwin and Nietzsche (and wrote about both in his journal). He put two and two together and got “kill everyone whom I deem to be inferior.”

    Make your mind up Barry. Was it Darwin's theory that is morally responsible or Harris's and Klebold's misunderstanding of it?  If it's the latter, who do you think is doing the most to foster future misunderstandings?  - for example, by describing Darwin's theory as an attempt to explain how people should behave rather that as an attempt to explain why nature, good or bad, turned out how it did.

    Date: 2007/11/13 18:16:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    on moral progress:

    Jason Rennie,

    “Actually the answer to the question is, no it was not evil. There is quite a bit of background to be gone into to understand the circumstances”

    Interesting. I don’t believe in some phantom objectivity, and yet I think genocide is always wrong. You do believe in objective morality and think mass slaughter is always wrong — except when it’s right! Clearly your principled defense of slaughter beats my wishy-washy abhorrence of same.

    Jason Rennie

    Wrong only means something like, “I don’t like genocide” so your proclamation lacks meaning.

    It means something to me. It means that Getawitness can't coldly rationalize away the deaths of an entire people because they are religiously "the wrong sort" in the same way that Jason can. Some people really do give me the creeps. Jason has been doing so since he told us how he objectively values all people's lives so much at the sciphishow.

    Date: 2007/11/14 17:39:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I made a snapshot of the no black swan thread a few days ago (Last post was #50 by jack krebs).  Here are the deleted comments.  There could be some mistakes. My side by side comparison algorithm was thrown off once by the appearance of an early post that had been held in moderation. There may also be some unintended paragraph breaks - I copied from iexplorer not from the "view source" text.

    15. Getawitness


    The hypothesis you present actually supports the argument I’ve been making in the other thread.

    All complex biological systems are generated by intelligent agents.

    Does “all” mean “all”? If biological life on Earth is designed by material beings from elsewhere, those material beings would presumably be “complex biological systems,” right? Well, then they need a designer that is ultimately not a complex biological system. Or s Dr. Dembksi puts it, “our best empirical evidence confirms that we live in a nondeterministic universe that is open to novel infomraiotn, that exhibits specified complexity, and that therefore offers convincing evidence of an unembodied designer who has imparted it with information.” (No Free Lunch, page 340).

    An argument for a non-material designer does not take us away from ID; it’s at the heart of ID.

    17. Borne
    Black swans aside. I vigorously protest the idea that mammals descended from reptiles.

    That idea is crude and even ridiculous assumption-based Darwinist hype and story telling.

    It’s almost as bad as the “water breathers deciding to get out and live” on land stories. (??? a strange idea if ever there was one)

    Of course the first fish that tried would die within minutes. So would all the others.

    So how did that happen?

    Di they evolve air breathing systems while still in the water? Think about how dumb that is for a second.

    And why would creatures perfectly adapted to water ‘decide’ to get out and take a walk? Thus miraculously developing limbs as they kept trying!?

    Try it yourself. Go ‘back to the sea’ (like whales and dolphins supposedly did!)

    Just how many generations of humans drowning would it take before one succeeded? The answer is infinite, because none would ever succeed at all without the appropriate morphological mutations occurring before hand! This isn’t hard.

    Darwinist fairy tales (frogs to princes - there’s no real difference, the mechanism is the same - it’s called MAGIC) aside where is reason in these bozo the clown scenarios?

    The problems are stupendous.

    And as always such tales of biological magic can’t be proven.

    You have to demonstrate the possibility with a viable sequence of RM + NS steps and then show how it actually did work.

    The whole concept is based on enormous assumptions and the number of required functional morphings involved from cell to fish to reptile to mammal is astronomically high.

    And no one has the slightest idea of how such drastic changes could have occurred undirected. Gradualism sucks.

    Thus the whole idea is not merely astronomically unlikely but just plain old dumb to the nth power.

    19 Getawitness    

    “We are limited to what we can observe. Right now we can observe living organisms on this planet, so we ask “how did they (we) get here?””

    True. But as you pointed out on your blog, we also observe “The Universe.” Dr. Dembski’s mathematical objections to the spontaneous rise of CSI should be good if the laws of the Universe are, well — universal! (In fact, your own blog talks about the laws being the same everywhere — a key point of Galileo agains the cosmology of his day.)

    Dr. Dembski’s argument is not a “regress game” but a claim that natural processes can never create life. That’s why he says “such an intelligence would in all likelihood have to be unembodied.” I see why this would be controversial, but not why it would be controversial here.

    25. Borne    
    Glarson24: I don’t think you paid attention to what I said.

    Again. It requires something called proof. Hint: There ain’t any.

    Even the evidence is highly debatable - interpretation of the data can be totally contradictory as it already is anyway.

    I am not a “xian Darwinist” by any means. I think the term is an oxymoron. Christ descending from primates carries tremendous problematic and may constitute a real insult to Deity.

    If we say, ‘God did it’, without reflection or proof, we are in fact no better than the Darwinist who says, ‘evolution did it’ - and btw, that’s all they can say.

    26. Gerry Rzeppa  
    Borne -

    “This isn’t hard.” I love that. I think you would enjoy my little book (which only takes ten minutes to read, and which you read online just by clicking the ad for “Some of the Parts” at the right).

    I often wonder why the Darwinists have gotten as far as they have - until I remember their real motive.

    28 Berceuse    
    We need to *be* wary, sorry (why is there no edit feature ?)

    31 Getawitness    

    “Falsificationism doesn’t work. In practice, a theory can always be rescued from an anomalous observation.”

    This reminds me: isn’t Popper kind of dated in the philosophy of science? My impression is that few people in that world treat falsification as the ultimate criterion, or have that high a view of Popper. But I may be wrong.

    35 bornagain77    

    neo-Darwinism is rooted in the materialistic philosophy which is based on blind chance acting on purely material processes. Your church might as well be in a Vegas casino, and your priest might as well be a blackjack dealer, if blind chance acting on material processes is the creator you give praise to.

    36 getawitness    

    Whatever your differences with Glarson24, it seems inappropriate to insult his religion and even his God.

    37 Jerry


    The expression Christian Darwinist is only an oxymoron if one is using the term Darwinist in it philosophical meaning and not as one who subscribes to neo Darwinism as a scientific theory. Pope Benedict has come out against many of the interpretations of those who he believe have taken neo Darwinism too far.

    As you say there are many very devout Christians who subscribe to neo Darwinism as the process for how life developed over time. I am not sure if Pope Benedict is one of them. If you read carefully what the Catholic Church has said about evolution there is no official endorsement of neo Darwinism. In fact there is some expression of doubt.

    ID proponents do not believe that neo Darwinism is an adequate answer to all the changes in life over time. You can disagree but that is the main issue and what the debate is about.

    The term Darwinist or Darwinism has developed for many to encompass much more than the scientific theory of evolution called neo Darwinism and as such has become anathema to many religious people including the Catholic Church.

    38 Jack Krebs    
    I think it’s important to keep the philosophy of materialism separate from the theory of evolution, because as Jerry points out, many Christians accept the theory of evolution and reject materialism.

    Of course, there are many who are materialists and who accept the ToE, but that doesn’t mean that all who accept the ToE are materialists.

    39 bornagain77    

    For Glarson24 stating this to Borne:

    “maybe you really ARE a Christian Satanist”

    I make absolutely no apologies for my comments!!!

    Especially on this site!

    40 bfast    
    Jack Krebs:

    I think it’s important to keep the philosophy of materialism separate from the theory of evolution, because as Jerry points out, many Christians accept the theory of evolution and reject materialism.

    Before the validity of this statement can be seriously considered, an accurate definition of the theory of evolution must be established.

    Many of us IDers are ID evolutionists, which is to say, we accept “common descent”, the so called “fact of evolution”. That said, there are two common views amongst the IDers on this site: the agency view, and the front-loading view. Both of these views are, by broad definition, evolutionary views (well, agency may or may not be), but they require fundimental forces beyond random variation and natural selection; forces that are fundimentally telic.

    If you mean that blind chance events plus the filter of natural selection is responsible for all of the variety of life on earth, you may still be an IDer. It would appear that this is Michael Denton’s view. At least that’s how I read “Nature’s Destiny”. Yet Denton holds to a view that the universe was carefully designed, the properties of matter were carefully designed so that humanity or something very similar would invariably be the result. As such, he sees a potentially evolutionary process producing the intention of a designer. Denton too is an ID evolutionist, though he is more of a classic evolutionist than I am.

    If you mean that there is something immaterial (God) but that we are not the product of intention, then I would suggest that the immaterial is inconsequential, and as such is ignorable.

    45 Getawitness    

    glarson24’s words were inappropriate (I shudder to repeat them). But I don’t think his bad attempt at humor is worth attacking his Catholicism. You could have taken issue with the post, or even with the idea of Christian Darwinism, without attacking his religion. That was beneath you.

    But I will say no more about it. I’m not going to be a nanny.

    50 Jack Krebs    
    Can you outline a method for determining the moment of the insertion of the CSI? If such a method could be both measurable and reproducible by independent investigators, then it would establish the possibility of a scientific determination between what is designed and what is not. This seems to me, and has for many years, a project the ID research community should be engaged in.

    So, what are your ideas on how this could be done, and/or can you point to the work of others on this task?

    Date: 2007/11/18 15:41:30, Link
    Author: steve_h
    “Cheryl Crowe’s Single Sheet Really Really Clean Tissue” declared unsafe by the ACU

    Rereleased - with childish flatulence and remarks that some people felt to be offensive (eg "What happened to that Marks and Dembski paper?") removed.

    +: I, for one, am glad. It would have been a shame for such a classic example of ID research to have been lost to the world due to the actions of one inconsiderate individual.

    Date: 2007/11/19 20:15:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (bystander @ Nov. 20 2007,01:59)
    It could be my paranoia but I wonder if UD is generally letting the trollery (?) to occur so they can eventually say: "Look they are always complaining about us censoring comments so we stopped censoring comments and look what has happened, we are overrun with trolls making stupid comments"

    I thought that too.  However, there's a difference between banning trolls attempting to misrepresent ID with strawperson caricatures and banning serious opposing view points.  No doubt they would use one to justify the other.  Maybe they are also writing thier own troll posts to justify a clampdown.

    Date: 2007/11/27 15:39:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DS explains CSI  
    Specified Complexity - this an arbitrarily complex pattern that can be independently described. The independent description is the specification. Complexity is defined by Dembski as any pattern which can take on 10^150 or more different permutations. Again let’s look at an automobile. The complexity is given by the number of possible arrangements of the atoms that make it up which easily exceeds 10^150 possibilities. The independently given specification is a self-powered transportation device.

    Armed with this specification of a car, we could now all go out and build one for ourselves should we get the urge. If you would rather build something else, here are some specifications which would allow you to do so:

    Motor boat: "a self-powered transportation device"
    Helicopter: "a self-powered transportation device"
    Submarine: "a self-powered transportation device"
    Space Rocket: "a self-powered transportation device"
    Donkey: "a self-powered transportation device"
    Fracterium with blagella. "a self-powered transportation device"

    Notes in edit: DS is still a white-box.

    Date: 2007/11/28 22:28:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 29 2007,04:02)
    Can anybody explain to me what the hell kairosfocus is saying?   It's thick, thick tard.

    I am saying that observed phenomena studied through scientific means include not only those tracing to chance and to mechanical necessity but also to agency.

    Consider Newton’s investigations with a prism, or Hooke’s with a spring for simple cases. Were these foundational investigations in Physics any less scientific because these entities are agent-originated, i.e designed?

    Plainly, not at all.

    [And for that matter, indeed, an experiment is contrived, i.e designed. We routinely — and often demonstrably reliably — infer that the phenomena we observe there and the laws we infer as explanations or patterns carry over into situations we have not designed nor have we observed the origin of directly, in the cosmos. I am saying just the opposite of what you seem to fear.]

    Next, I am pointing out — as I do in section A of my always linked — that when we consider a communication and/or information technology situation, we are routinely scientifically studying agent-originated entities. In particular, we comfortably and reliably make the inference to message not lucky noise when we study signals in the presence of noise or potential noise. (DNA is an information-bearing molecule, with a sophisticated message of information carrying capacity that starts at about 500, 000 to 1 million bits in observed situations. This is far, far beyond the reach of random walks in the appropriate configuration space, on the gamut of our observed universe. And related multiverse proposals are in this context essentially ad hoc, after the fact patches that are metaphysics not empirically tested science.]

    In statistical investigations we similarly make inferences to design when we set out to reject chance null hypotheses.

    To artificially restrict the set of possible causal factors ahead of time [in a context where it so happens that the credibility of a certain worldview that likes to call itself “scientific” is at stake] is therefore to beg the question, and it robs science of its true force as an empirically constrained search for learning and understanding the truth about the universe, however imperfect the status of the search may be at any given time.

    RWT featured a discussion on this only recently (70's I think).

    Date: 2007/11/29 17:24:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Colin comes dangerously close to admitting that his opponent could be right:
    You bring up some good points that I will think about.
    Come on Colin! Concentrate!!! If you concede any sort of point to the Materialoids (other than some sort of minor typo),  Satan will win and Heaven will be covered in yellow pus.

    Date: 2007/11/29 17:59:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Oh Noooooooh!!!


    Sorry - what were you saying?

    Flippin' eck!  Is that the time?

    Fee ee ling sle.. must stay awa... Snort, Hey wow! great! I'm buzzin'

    edit: (Jumps into a corner)

    Wonder what the tards are up to. Oh bugger!

    edit: Just realised, I could have been channelling Black Adder III above.

    Date: 2007/12/01 10:57:48, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The latest wave of media interest over the sneaking of undesirables into the Baylor cafteria scandal (from the Baylor Lariat):

    But Baylor is not the only player with transparency issues. Although intelligent design advocates often accuse Baylor of violating academic freedom and being less than forthcoming in its dealings with the controversial field, perhaps both sides in the argument have something to learn about conducting business openly.

    If Marks had wanted to give the administration a heads-up about bringing a controversial figure back to campus, he certainly could have done so, academic channels or not.

    This entire situation closely resembles the inner workings of boardroom politics, an unfortunate reality at a Christian institution of higher education. But as in politics, openness and honesty are the best ways to tackle a problem, no matter the side you're on.  

    been available on line at the Lariat for some days for some days now, but surprisingly not at UD.

    Date: 2007/12/02 17:23:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    This materialistic version of what's going on is clearly getting us nowhere. Other scientists have produced much better models. For example, O'Leary and Beauregard have established that memories are not stored in the brain but in the mind.  We know this because no one has been able to pinpoint exactly where individual memories are stored within the brain.

    Since memories are stored in the mind and/or in the soul, the brain does nothing when you try to access memories except open a channel to the mind to advise it to access a memory and experience it. Except the mind is in control and doesn't take instructions from the brain. So, when your mind tries to remember something it must access a memory that is stored non-materially in the  mind, but if the brain isn't working properly  the mind can not access those memories. You'll have to buy the book to find out why. I'd like to tell you more but there's been so much talk of plagiarism lately.

    When you had your accident, the informationary pipe connecting your brain to your mind became non-operational. Therefore your mind was not receiving the information it needed from your brain to store as memories, although it was receiving the same information on a different channel in order to maintain some semblence of lucidity in the forgotten conservation your body had with the people around you - but your mind wouldn't have permanently stored it because it was a "nosave" channel. However, your mind was able to access memories it already had and send them to you brain so that it could order your vocal cords to talk about them.

    Words are stored in the language areas of the brain. Words are not memories - they are facts which are remembered differently. When you had your aphasia, er, thingummy, your mind  was forming thoughts as per normal and then accessing your damaged brain for the words so that your mind could then remember thinking about them and then instruct your brain to order your vocal cords to voice them. However the materialistic part let the side down once again. We see that all too often. Material stuff is crap.

    I'm not sure how memory blocking works.  I expect the medicine has a non-material-mind-acting part somewhat akin to homeopathy which possibly makes use of quantum effects.


    (I recently had root-canel work and a rather horrible tooth scraping session which I remember all too well. Do I win?)

    edited: for (cough)clarity

    Date: 2007/12/04 19:02:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Chimps can outperform humans in some memory tests. Memories are not stored in the brain, therefore they must be stored by the soul.  According to conventional wisdom, animals don't have souls, but chimps, apparently do after all, which means they deserve to go to monkey hell.  Hurrah!

    edit: reverted last edit. Hah!

    Date: 2007/12/05 20:16:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    IIRC, Dembski once unwittingly claimed eugenics as an intelligent design discipline.  I don't remember enough context to Google it though. It was one of his "people can intelligently design things, therefore intelligent design is the one true theory of origins" posts.

    edit: no edits made this time.
    edit: ignore last edit, I was stuck in a "Dollis Hill loop" when I made it.

    Date: 2007/12/06 17:48:15, Link
    Author: steve_h
    tards claim victory!
    X is no longer with us.
    then, go buy these books ...

    edit: Rats! Mister DNA did "buy books" already.

    Here are ten things that
    Materialists di'n't guess
    but theists did .... d'oh

    Date: 2007/12/08 08:19:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DaveScot: Clearly Comer has a right to a personal opinion that doesn’t necessarily agree with her employer’s position and a right to express her opinion. What one doesn’t have a right to do is use an employer’s resources to express personal opinions. Had Comer used an email address not associated with the state of Texas and used a computer and internet connection not provided by the state of Texas to send the emails in question, and not represented herself as an employee of the state of Texas in the emails she should not have been subject to any disciplinary actions over it.

    DS is right for once. Forwarding emails that don't reflect official company policy is wrong.

    What she should have done is set up a web site called the Texas Education Agency Darwinism Lab on the agency's web server and posted the email there.

    Date: 2007/12/11 14:45:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I am not saying that BarryA is some sort of immoral sleazebag lawyer, who would attribute any mass shooting whether by atheistic darwinists or by (possibly lapsed) christians incited by Darwinists, to score points against the theory of evolution and/or people who accept it,


    if we assume for the sake of argument that he is, and without straying outside of the bounds of the discussion as I set it, would that make BarryA a good person or a bad person?

    And assuming BarryA will always find some way to blame people who disagree with him for every tragedy, which am not saying is necessarily the case, should he be criticised for what amounts to incitement to hatred (as he understands it)?

    Edit: Rats! R.B got in with a "Darwin at Columbine" link while I was away working on mine.

    Date: 2007/12/11 21:38:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 12 2007,03:14)
    Let me just say, this is all some really damn unoriginal writing. Thirty percent quotation? More? I'm still tracking posts down, but it's getting to be like an emo BA77.

    Er, this thread is dedicated to discussion of posts and comments at It is not intended as a repository of original works of literature. Unfortunately we have to quote the parts of posts on which we comment because the originals at UD could disappear at any time.

    edit: Looking back at the last few pages, I think 70% own-to-referenced-material would be an over-generous appraisal of your own contribution here. Accordingly, I would not be surprised to learn that you were posting this under the influence of something or other (like everyone else here apart from Wesley). I know I am.
    edited for *hic*.

    Date: 2007/12/11 22:16:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Annyday and Reciprocating Bill,

    My apologies.  I refer you both to my earlier remarks which I copied from somebody else.

    edit: @#°§ !!!

    Date: 2007/12/14 14:15:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2007,19:14)
    The Bad Astronomer weighed in a few weeks ago.


    if the Texas Education Agency heartily endorses I will not only visit it, I will also believe everything I read there.

    Or did you mean "f.y.i"  (The T.E.A. brings this event and/or website to your attention so you can picket and/or destroy it)?

    Date: 2007/12/14 16:50:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I just noticed that all of Densye's recent posts are filed under "The Design Of Life". I wonder if that's just her natural book plugging instinct kicking in - or if this is an attempt to get traffic to her own blogs once interest in this science shattering masterwork takes off.

    Sorry if this has been pointed out already.

    Date: 2008/01/07 17:50:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    BarryAConsider the following statement one often hears:  “We can be as certain that the diversity and complexity of living things arose by chance and necessity through blind watchmaker Darwinism (BWD) as we are that the earth orbits the sun.”

    One "often" hears the phrase "blind watchmaker Darwinism" (seven [7] times according to google) but it's always uttered by creationists offering up strawmen,  usually on UD.

    Date: 2008/01/07 18:08:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Going back a bit:

    BarryA 1. We are discussing theories here. You enter: “some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge.” This is just another way of saying, “We have no idea.” “We have no idea is not a theory that competes with design and NDE. It is an admission of ignorance. It is not a theory at all.

    Earlier Barry gives us a humble example of something much better than "We have no idea".
    The next question is, what do ID proponents make of this whole sudden appearance and stasis matter? How does it fit into a design framework? I believe there is a diversity of opinion on this matter, but one view is that in a front loaded design framework the designer put a sort of “timer” into living things that causes the pre-existing design to manifest itself in bursts.
    (my bold)

    Date: 2008/01/07 18:39:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    That's an awful long time.  I wonder if god ever got bored during the last couple of billion years as he watched his little timers go off.  "oh look, a 75 million year timer just went off.  now we have a multi-cell organism.  Oh boy this is great!  just wait and see what happens when the 1.3 billion year timer goes off!
    and then there's the disappointment when the "warps space-time"/"phases through material"/"defies gravity"/"absorbs power"/"insane killer dual persona" etc. power fails to kick in as necessary and as predicted by ID.

    Date: 2008/01/08 16:46:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 08 2008,21:30)
    That makes me think of the appendix as a timer.

    Praise the designer!

    I'm thinking of the arrow heads; For thousands of years they existed as rocks and then suddenly, like almost overnight, they are arrow heads on Barry's wall. Some sort of front-loaded timer mechanism is surely the best explanation for that.

    Date: 2008/01/15 15:34:33, Link
    Author: steve_h

    btw…why are we only talking about biology?

    Quite.  I want to hear how DS's aliens created the cosmos that we and they live in. And how did they bypass the origin of life obstacle which kills any chance of explaining subsequent Darwinian processes. Dead!  
    Uncommondescent holds that...

    At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution

    Date: 2008/01/15 19:40:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 16 2008,00:54)
    quote-miners from outer space? :D

    Perfectissimo, Afarensis!

    They explain that there are four main hypothesis to explain the maintenance of Non-genic DNA in genomes. First, Zuckerkandl suggested that nongenic DNA performs essential functions such as regulation of gene expression, consequentially, he argues, all DNA is functional (which raises the question of how we could choose between ID theory and Zuckerkandl). Second, nongenic DNA is junk (suggested by Ohno) and remains in the genome because it is linked to functional genes. Third, nongenic DNA is a parasite, suggested by Ostergren in 1945 (i.e. selfish DNA). Fourth, DNA has a structural function - one unrelated to carrying genetic information. This was suggested by Cavalier-Smith, who argued that DNA served as a nucleoskeleton which determines nuclear volume. Li and Graur sum up the discussion as follows:

    I would add as an ID prediction: [5] most Junk DNA is disabled versions of front-loaded DNA for totally unrelated species. DS predicted somewhere that [6] junk DNA was actively encoding instinctive behaviour or that it is  [7] "trial balloons" to be launched at some point in the future and that some parts of it constitute some sort of [8] additional channel for carrying extra special information on top of its junk role. That's not to say that ID can make any prediction and therefore predict nothing of course.

    Date: 2008/01/17 17:25:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DaveScot had a totally *new* and *original* insight into the way things really are:    
    In fact I, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, have written on UD about the notion that humanity’s purpose is to discover habitable earth-like planets and design vehicles that can deliver single-celled life to them. In other words we are the means by which bacteria can survive the inevitable turning of our planet into a cinder when the sun becomes a red giant a few billion years down the road.
    If it wasn't suggested before (and I really can't be arsed to check right) now, I think we should christen (D'oh) this "the selfish bacterium" model.

    Oh yeah, and Barry just churned out some more crap about how you can't emulate human minds in two or three lines of visual basic or something, again.

    edit: emphasized sarkiness.
    edit: given "tongue in cheek" qualification, maybe whoever first mentioned selfish bacterium was him. If so, D'oh again. I stick by my Barry remark.

    Date: 2008/01/20 15:21:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Grandma has published some id "predictions" on her blog and linked to them from UD .  It's not clear to me if any of those are the ones that she gathers Dr Dr Dembski has sent to the TV producer.

    None of her predictions  follow from the statement "Some things are better explained by design" - several are about human consciousness and mind-body separation of which ID does not speak.

    In fact they all seem to boil down to "one day Materialists will be shown to be wrong, and we will be shown to be right and then things will be much better for everyone"

    Maybe they should rewrite the definitions of ID in order to make her "predictions" into predictions.

    "ID is the theory that some patterns in nature and the universe are best explained by the statement 'that was designed, that was'. And that the human mind exists separately from the human body as a real non-physical entity with free will. And the earth was designed to thwart our efforts to destroy it.  And  Junk DNA will be shown to always have a purpose except from some occasions when it hasn't. And no intermediate fossils will be found other than the ones that are. And wife beating will be found to be  morally relative and depend upon which culture you belong to (That can't be right. Ed.). And Baylor's cafetaria will be closed down after an anonymous tip-off."

    Date: 2008/01/21 13:17:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Mathematicians are trained to value simplicity

    Gil Dodgen gave a brilliant analogy in a Sept 28, 2006 post at UD: he said that if you really want to simulate evolution with computer programs, you should introduce random errors not only in the string simulating DNA, but also in your entire program, the compiler that is compiling it, the operating system, and the computer hardware on which it is running–then see what happens

    Gil was "only joking", Granville.
    In my original post about mutating the CPU instruction set, the OS, etc., I was being somewhat sarcastic. Obviously, this would be silly, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to take such an experiment seriously.

    Still, Bill's "predictions" post is off the main page and that's the main thing.

    Date: 2008/01/21 17:12:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Gil has replied to GS and unwittingly failed to mention his previous drubbing at the hands of Tom English and Kurt Plfuger.

    He also writes:

    1) what specific mutations would be required to engineer the change,
    2) what the likelihood is that these mutations would come about by chance, given the number of individuals, generations, and reproductive events,
    3) what specific survival advantage would be afforded, and that this advantage would be profound enough to warrant statistically significant selection, and
    4) what the likelihood is that the mutation would become fixed in the population.

    Without these details, proposing Darwinian gradual-improvement pathways is a complete waste of time and not worth taking seriously at all. In light of the requirements listed above, I expect that essentially nothing of any real significance in the history of life came about through Darwinian mechanisms

    A few things stand out AFAIC:

    Gil seems to realise that Granville's "clear simple proof" is bollocks. Not only is it a very unrealistic computer simulation, it's an imagined unrealistic computer simulation.  

    Well, actually he doesn't make the association with GS's proof - his criticisms are aimed only at evolutionary models. He seems to think that if something can't be modelled accurately because of our ignorance of the details then it can't have happened in the real world.

    Also he doesn't seem to realise that he has identified one  reason why Dembski's and Behe's probability calculations are so meaningless and why it's not really valid to claim that your own supernatural explanations are to be favored until the other side puts forward some mutation by mutation history.

    Date: 2008/01/22 20:18:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    bum kn[iao]ckers wee-wee anyone?

    Date: 2008/01/24 04:58:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 24 2008,07:33)
    4. And the debate hots up in the comments section of DO'L's DoL post:



    That rush of activity is put into perspective by the sheer deluge of comments that has hit the design of life blog since comments were enabled there.

    Last time I looked they were well into double figures (*) with comments from a broad cross section of humanity including:

    - Canadian cross dressers.
    - Grandmothers.
    - Semi-literate churchgoers.
    - Student pseudoscience bloggers.

    * all 'I' (as of Jan-XXIII, MMVIII)

    Date: 2008/01/29 16:49:14, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Once again DO'L demonstrates the non-material nature of the mind: Mind and brain: How do unconscious people know when to wake up?

    Yes it sounds so silly.  People expect to be woken up at a certain time, they wake up shortly before. The unconscious brain can't wake itself up; That would be silly.

    Instead the non-material mind wakes the brain up non-materially by releasing material hormones that trigger material chemical events.  

    It probably doesn't matter that my mind does all this without my mind ever being aware that it is doing it; Unconscious activity is only a problem for brains.  

    It probably also doesn't matter that Granny believes consciousness is something that happens in the mind not in the brain.  The mind unconsciously triggers some chemicals to activate the brain, whch isn't the seat of consciousness, but can at least ask the mind to become conscious possibly by subsequent release of hormones that trigger supernatural stuff to happen. Or something. Pathetic detail and all that.

    Date: 2008/01/29 17:17:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Here’s an interesting recent book, just the thing for Darwin Day, I guess: Apes or Angels?: Darwin, Dover, Human Nature, and Race by Cornelius J. Troost. Here’s his publisher’s blurb, abbreviated a bit:

    APES or ANGELS?: It speaks the truth about Darwin’s views on human origins and race. Contrary to the beliefs of most academicians and educated readers, Darwin had two dangerous ideas instead of one. The second idea is rarely mentioned in politically correct America- that the human races are different in sometimes significant ways. Indeed, inequality is a normal condition of nature. Darwin’s clash with Christianity is winding down because modern science is a foundation of western culture and it fully accepts the truth of natural selection and the evolution of life(including man).

    (My emphasis)

    Abbreviated a bit, hmmm, what was removed and replaced by that ellipsis?

    Daniel Dennett was perfectly right about the first, which was the notion that natural selection operated in a way that precluded explanatory intrusions from outside the natural world. In other words, metaphysics has no place in biological explanation. Things spiritual, like vitalism and finalism, are simply inapplicable to evolutionary biology.

    "Darwin’s clash with Christianity is winding down"

    Rather suggests that Darwin's disagreement with Christianity was about the  supernatural stuff. The  racist stuff was not something they disagreed about (*).  No wonder DO'L had to "abbreviate a bit".

    (*) if you don't take into account that Darwin was significantly less racist that the average christian (or anyone else) of the day.

    Date: 2008/02/01 14:38:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 01 2008,19:10)
    Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,09:50)
    Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

    Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

    From the article:
    Over the past 15 years, researchers have uncovered a series of fossils intermediate between whales and land animals, but were still missing a link to landlubbing beasts, which Thewissen says Indohyus now provides.

    Date: 2008/02/02 17:12:55, Link
    Author: steve_h

    applying the claim that intelligent agency must precede intelligent living agency

    Nowhere in the definition does it say this. No more warnings. Adios.

    edit: Bannination aside, DS is right. ID proponensists never claim that origin of life (OOL) is an impossible hurdle for non-intelligent processes to overcome. Never.

    Date: 2008/02/02 20:30:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 02 2008,23:53)
    Sigh. I've always been rather fond of the letter Q.

    Of course, this means that Uncommon Descent is no longer equipped with the prerequisites of scientific inquiry.

    larrynormanfan on the other hand, manages to scrape by uite well without it.
    edit: for the time being.

    Date: 2008/02/03 09:11:14, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 03 2008,14:26)
    DaveScot: larry

    “Ebola boy” is short for “Church Burnin’ Ebola Boy” which is an affectionate name I gave to a group of my antangonists who congregate on an ancillary message board attached to the blog “Panda’s Thumb”. I liked it, they liked it, so it’s all in good sport.

    and here's the post where Dave Scot affectionately first accuses the Pandas Thumb of hate speech and encouraging violent acts.

    Date: 2008/02/05 18:59:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    John Davison challenges PZ myers to a debate      
    This is something I’d pay to see. John Davison received his PhD in biology before Myers was born. Ironically he received it from the same university Myers teaches at today. Unless one counts the decades more experience Davison has as a professor of biology (University of Vermont) then they appear to be evenly matched. We’ll understand if Myers is intimidated by Davison’s greater experience and chickens out. Davison makes the challenge here at the bottom of the page.

    Davison is a kook. As DaveScot has pointed out, he was once quite productive, but then that all changed at  the same time he discovered ID. I see no reason why PZ would accept a challenge with this guy - everyone would lose.

    However, on a more positive note, I see that JAD takes the opposite view to DS on global warming and (using Demsbki/Forest Mims  logic) wants to kill most of the world's human population  (quick! call homeland security!) and DS sees debating Davison as a good thing which only a lilly livered, yellow streaked, cowardy custard girl (ducks) would decide against.  So how about it? A debate in which DaveScot will argue that Global warming is a liberal science conspiracy and Davison will take the opposing view (and continue jabbering on to himself long after everyone has left)?

    Date: 2008/02/06 06:25:55, Link
    Author: steve_h

    I’m banned by Myers too. Interesting story. I was commenting at Panda’s Thumb on something and Myers thought to condescendingly tell me that the environment contributes information in ontogenesis. I replied that if he was talking about epigenetic factors (outside the DNA) then I knew all about that but if he was talking about information coming from the outside environment he was all wet. I condescendingly described how all the information required to make a chicken is inside the shell of the egg and the environment need provide nothing but warmth as any child who’s hatched a chicken egg under a light bulb knows quite well. There are a few exceptions such as the gender of alligators being determined by the incubation temperature of the egg but as a general rule no information is provided by the environment outside the egg. He went apoplectic and started disemvoweling my comments from that point on.Myers can dish it out but he can’t take it.

    More DaveScot revisionism.  His chicken egg remarks are here on 2005-02-21:
    Some biologists evidently need a sticker on their foreheads warning of the hubris therein.

    So Dr. Myers, did you come up with any examples for me of the new information created inside a chicken egg while it’s going from egg to chick, or are you prepared to concede that ontogeny is the expression of preformed information?

    He continues on that thread without disemvowelling.

    Grey Wolf Wrote:
    The moment the chick-to-be goes from undifferientiated cells to slight specialization there is an increase in the information, according to Shannon’s Information Theory.

    No, there is not. All the information required for differentiation is already there. No new information is created. None is added from the environment. Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.

    No, there is not.  All the information required for differentiation is already there.  No new information is created.  None is added from the environment.  Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.

    OK, show me where the information for, say, gastrulation is located. Explain how dorsal is specified in the chick without referencing anything in the environment or in the epigenetic history of the oocyte.

    Only one more reply from DS (to Grey Wolf) on this thread. It was not disemvowelled

    From this point on, according to DaveScot, his comments were summarily disemvowelled but on 2007-02-2005 on PZ's  "Penis Evolution" thread he continues:      
    Researching amniote penises seems like a wonderful application of your natural talents, Dr. Myers. Keep up the good work!

    Richard, may I call you Dick?

    Alright then, Dick. I didn’t want to erect any seminal barrier between us that would interfere with further intercourse. At first glans I thought it might be too presumptious.

    Note the vowels!  Then on 2005-03-04 he comments on another PZ thread "The brain of Homo floresiensis"
    The Drudge Report posted a link to the news before Panda’s Thumb.

    How ‘bout that!

    Too bad Scott Page isn’t still posting here so he can tell me how many more children he can save once he knows exactly where to place the hobbit in the tree of life.


    ”It worked well in experimental situations, but it did not suitably reflect what happens in nature.”

    No, that’s not right. What it didn’t suit was the argument for mutation/selection. Nobody could demonstrate, even in 20,000 years of selecting dogs for unique traits, that a new species had arisen.

    Darn. Well, if you can’t show those anti-Darwinians an instance of speciation then just change the definition of speciation!

    If you can’t reach the goalpost just move it closer and pretend it was in the wrong place all along.


    Testing for capability to produce fertile offspring is often IMPRACTICAL but otherwise it’s the definitive test for a new species and I’m not going to accept any Darwinian apologist notions to the contrary.

    On 2005-03-06 The Tangled bank is going to be half my age, Davescot wishes PZ:      
    Happy Birthday!

    Then, on 9 March, after all the champagne has been drunk

    I wouldn’t have guessed you were old enough to legally consume adult beverages…

    and Slimy Sal wishes PZ a happy birthday too!

    2005-03-14  DS contributes to PZ's "Berlinski: I can’t believe I’m wasting time on this guy" thread.          
    Don’t worry about it, PZ. There’s no controversy. Guys like Berlinski are just a bad dream you’re having. Click your heels together three times and repeat after me:

    There’s no place like home!

    There’s no place like home!

    There’s no place like home!


    Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.


    [ since DaveScot claims to have ‘unintentionally’ cut&pasted so many names, I’ve taken the liberty of correcting his mistake. ]

    DaveScot still has vowels but the inappropriatly cut and pasted full dissent from Darwinism list has been remoeved      
    Sorry about the length of that. I didn’t mean to cut & paste so many names. The list is actually a lot longer and grows larger every day.

    Longhorm Wrote:
    it is a scientific fact that all organisms to live on earth are the descendents of self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago

    Prima facie evidence of the brainwashing of naive, impressionable young minds.

    Good grief. I’m stunned.

    PZ 2005-03-15
    Yes. This blind recital of lists of names of uninformed people is spamming, and just like Berlinski’s dishonest editorial, is intended to mislead. You can find this list at the Discovery Institute; just link to it, you moron, and spare us the indigestible glob of pointless text.

    If you are unable to say something intelligent and can do nothing but spew canned boilerplate (man, is that unsurprising…creationists are the most unimaginative people I’ve ever met), I will delete them.

    2005-03-20 PZ warns          
    Listen, people, and consider this a formal declaration: among the last couple of articles I’ve posted here, there have been some extremely annoying attempts by creationist trolls like DvSct and Jhn Dvsn to derail what should be interesting discussions with their pretentious caterwauling. I appreciate input from readers, but I will not tolerate any more of this crap from fckng mrns. OK?

    If you want to disagree with my interpretations, that’s one thing, but whining about unfairness or dredging up old, tired idiocies that are trivially refuted if you would just read Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims are going to get cut short or disemvoweled.

    Davison has complained in e-mail that if I continue to gut his comments he will “stop wasting [ his ] time with Pandas Thumb.” I consider that a promise. Goodbye, Mr Davison. We won’t miss you.
    and then DS remarks about PZ's "not despicable Tactics" gets disemvowelled thusly
    Mrs tctcs rn’t dspcbl. Th’r prdctbl. Wht dd xpct, Jhn, frm scntsts wh s th jdcl sstm t stfl crtcsm f thr thst fth? H’s gng t d whtvr t tks t sht p.

    Which I guess was orginally something like:

    Myer's tactics are'nt despicable. They're predictable. What did you expect, John, from scientists who use the judicial system to stifle criticism of thier atheist faith? He going to do whatever it takes to shut you up.

    So, PZ didn't disemvowel him for the chicken remark, but along with JAD,  for  numerous sarcastic, insulting remarks, and repeated attempts to derail threads.

    Anyone not yet banned at UD want to try posting the Steve's list on one of DaveScots threads there?

    edit: Somehow I changed "Dick" into "Disk". Apologies in advance for any other errors or omissions.

    Date: 2008/02/07 16:59:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    By taking a model T apart

    or a "Prefect" for that matter.

    Date: 2008/02/12 18:26:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Patience please!  I'm sure Dr Dr Dembski will enlighten us once his predictions have been rigorously and scientifically confirmed.

    Date: 2008/02/13 06:32:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 13 2008,08:54)
    I'm impressed that she was able to multiply $24.99 by 2 to get $49.98.

    Now if only her writing was as good as her math...

    She gave that example twice. I suspect she actually bought two things costing $24.99.  Hopefully she chose the example after doing the shopping, rather than choosing the numbers and then searching the shops all morning for things that cost that much.

    Date: 2008/02/13 19:57:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 14 2008,01:39)
    Quoth the nondenominational Pascalian protestant agnostic. Followed by ... hahahah, now he's evangelizing about how he's an agnostic former Darwinist converted by learning the truth etc.

    I love Dave. He's like a rabid, but toothless animal. Gumming frantically away...

    as the old joke goes: doesn't bite, but can give you a nasty suck!

    Date: 2008/02/14 06:44:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 14 2008,03:03)
    DaveScot can't possibly delete the thread that humiliated him, so he's bumping up the Bulverism thread, complete with comments, no doubt in the hope that people will just forget.

    and also the Did math accidentally evolve? and Where does disbelief in Darwin lead? threads.

    Date: 2008/02/14 15:11:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2008,19:41)


    William Dembski


    2:27 pm
    Nick, I was always more skeptical of Jones. In any case, hindsight is 20-20. Did you offer any predictions about Jones’s likely decision in the Dover case?

    Tyke, Of course I wouldn’t turn down a $3.5 million cash advance. Nor do I begrudge Dawkins that advance. He’s a good writer, has a huge following, and is striking at the right moment.

    So why did I post my post: (1) To indicate that there is great interest in our issue and that the same New York trade press is willing to publish both sides of the issue. (2) To offer some titles that I find amusing and that seem to capture more accurately what Dawkins’s book is likely to be about. (3) To work in, albeit awkwardly I admit, that crazy ad about Dean Sachs looking to Mammon as a spiritual provider.

    Tyke, you need to loosen up.

    Yes, Bill, Tyke needs to lighten up. Now stop crying into your cornflakes.

    There is more good news for Dawkins and the people who wish him well (such as Dembski)

    It looks like another company has bought the UK and commonwealth rights for Dawkins' next book for a "substantial sum" which means, if I understand this correctly, that the $3.5 million is just for the US rights.

    Date: 2008/02/14 16:10:52, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,21:39)
    Hey.  Djy'all know that God gave us the printing press?

    And don't forget why.  According to UD chief tard and theologist davetard, gawd gave us the printing press  so we could read the bible for ourselves!  This begs a few questions:

    Why did gawd wait to invent the printing press in the year 1440?  Why not invent it, say, 0030 or so?  Even better why didn't gawd give us the printing press when the old testament was first written?  Did gawd hate jews and think khrischuns were more deserving of the ability to read for themselves?  

    Why did gawd keep humanity in the dark ages when he could have easily given them a printing press far sooner?  Imagine how faster every culture on planet earth would have developed had they been given a printing press where news of new discoveries and insights could have been published and distributed with ease?  

    Finally, why does davetard make shit up (that is so obviously false) as he goes along and no one from the UD cult sees it?  To his favor you do have to love reading him preach krischun scripture to the UD cultists.  Classic tard.

    I think he was arguing from a perspective he does not actually share with that printing press remark.  I thought that the his performance on this thread has been pretty good and he has gone up considerably in my estimation.

    I'm not sure if I should add "despite yesterday's events" because I suspect that the tinyurl change and closing of comment may have been down to Dembski, once he realised what had been going on.

    ETA: not so impressed by the "hope you burn in hell" remark though. I don't think he could mean that given his opposition to suffering in all animals.

    Date: 2008/02/14 17:29:14, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I am now slightly more confident that my hypothesis (ok wild guess) about Dembski being the real genius behind the link modification to PTET, is correct. Still Semprini (language timothy!) has provided a new one.
    edit: touch of sarcasm

    Date: 2008/02/14 18:05:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    So why did I post my post: (1) To indicate that there is great interest in our issue and that the same New York trade press is willing to publish both sides of the issue. (2) To offer some titles that I find amusing and that seem to capture more accurately what Dawkins’s book is likely to be about. (3) To work in, albeit awkwardly I admit, that crazy ad about Dean Sachs looking to Mammon as a spiritual provider.

    4. To insinuate that Dawkins is motivated by greed rather than intellect.
    5. To give the old Materialist/Materialist equivocation a bit of a run, 'cause some of our dopey readership will be taken in by it.

    Date: 2008/02/14 19:09:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    A theory is a sort of wild guess drawn out of thin air, and a law is a decree which states that you can choose to do or not do something, but will be punished for doing if you choose to do it (or not depending on the phrasing). Example: The latter requires a law maker, who might punish you for falling upwards after stepping off a high building.
    ETA: eg.

    Date: 2008/02/14 20:44:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 15 2008,01:57)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2008,19:18)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2008,18:57)
    Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 14 2008,17:44)
    OMG you guys the  Prediction List is In!  Call the paparazzi!  Dembksi's getting out of the car!  He's going to give a beaver shot!  Zooming in!  It's . . .

    Oh, never mind.


    That's IT??

    Condensed version: ID predicts the phenomena it was devised to explain. Like circular logic.

    Hey, he also predicts no useless DNA ever. That's something. Sort of. Except that it's not true ... but hey, it's something.

    I don't see how that's a prediction of ID.

    ID can produce things which happen to have mostly  junk in them or they can produce pure non-junk.

    For instance: Front loading.  Our ancesters - ok not our ancesters, we were produced directly by the designer - but the ancesters of chimps and gorillas and cats and dogs and rabbits and sloths and cows and geese and hippos and sharks and whales were rather complex frontloaded thingies with all of the frontloaded information required to make all of the above.  Therefore one might expect a chimp to contain front-loaded information for making hippos and deer and whales and anchovies which has been disabled or "made safe" via detrimental mutations. The so called junk would actually be knobbled other-species code. It would still be junk but it would be junk that bore a striking similarity to non-junk in distantly related species.  The chimp would contain all sorts of junk, and its DNA would be very different from Human DNA, which would have no historical reason for the junk.  Human DNA would bear some relationship to that of the chimp - we do have certain physical traits in common, but human DNA would not be front-loaded with disabled code for stoats and badgers and gorillas because we are not related to them.

    Therefore the DNA of a chimp and a badger should be more similar to that between either of those and a human. The badger will contain disabled chimp DNA and the Chimp disabled badger DNA due to thier animalistic front-loadiness, but the human will be something quite different, distinct and special.  His or Her  DNA will be better crafted,  and the various letters G, A, T & C will be precisely formed in a pleasing typeface as opposed to the lazy scrawl of the so-called chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the so-called badger (Melus Garethsouthgaticus).

    Date: 2008/02/18 17:08:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    To paraphrase the Filosophy of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, "Tard will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no Tard."

    just make sure you don't get burned.

    Date: 2008/02/19 17:06:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 19 2008,22:27)
    Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 19 2008,14:32)
    Aw, come on!   He was only off by a little bit!

    Well sure, but that little bit was a fourth of a nibble!!!1!!

    Actually, he said one letter had changed, not one bit.

    However, a two-bit change is well below the UPB and you don't calculate CSI just by counting the bits - you are supposed to work out how specific, the change was.

    For instance.  If you change 2 bits at random in the url, you are most likely to break the URL - some bits can be changed because the URL isn't case-sensitive. A change that is more likely to be successful than not does not indicate design.  However I calculate 63 out of 64 2-bit changes to the URL would break it.

    Therefore not design !

    If on the other hand, you calculate the  number of possible 2-bit changes that DS could have applied to the internet in an attempt to break the URL, and calculate the specificity by assuming the english phrase "BREAKS LINK"  as an independant specification you get:

    log_2  [ (8x2x10^16)^2 / (2x10^5)^2 * k * Z ]

    where 2x10^16 is a the number of bytes Google processes each day [1]; 2x10^5 is the number of words  in my limited english dictionary [2] ;  k is the number you first thought of; and Z is a number between 1 and infinity which reflects how acquanted you are with UD revisionism.  Then you conclude:

    Therefore design !

    [1] man in pub.
    [2] man in pub

    Date: 2008/02/22 16:41:18, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 22 2008,21:07)
    Why isn’t ALL life extinct? by DaveScot: One method is called a “factory restore”. In this method a protected image of the known working software load from the factory is used to replace the evolved load.

    In biology, we call it "replication". If a bacterium makes a bad mistake, there are all sorts of other little copies ready to take its place.

    ID prediction #1:  There is a small pin-sized hole somewhere in your back which can be used to invoke a factory reset.

    ID Prediction #2: When somebody is waking, poke them repeatedly on various parts of the body. This will cause a BIOS menu to appear. This menu will allow you to disable limbs and organs or boot the person in safe-mode.

    ID prediction #3:  you are "backed up" off-site somewhere at regular intervals. If you die it won't be a problem - your aquired knowledge and experiences will be downloaded into a new body and continue as if nothing had happened, albeit noticably faster.

    ID Prediction #4.  At some point in the next year or so, you will be presented with the option of downloading a live fix for the HIV virus from Dembski Labs™. It may require a reboot.

    ID prediction #5: some people are big-endian and some people are little endian. I personally am little d'oh-big endian.

    edit: Because I must; Errors developed on send.

    ETA: ID Prediction #6: At least one of your bodily orifices should support one of the following formats:
    USB (1/2), Firewire, RS232. It may take several hours for the required automatic downloads to take effect.

    Date: 2008/02/28 13:25:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 28 2008,16:02)
    But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
    Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
    Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
    Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder.
    But its day is done.
    Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
    Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
    Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
    Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

    Such nonsense. Simple-minded, fallacious arguments following a weak premise. Evolution was around long before Darwin - he came up with natural selection. Why is Imperialism being laid at his door?

    Kevin Miller has a you tube video of Ben Stein in which he says    
    Darwinism is a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant theory, beyond words, brilliant but it only takes you part of the way
    Imperialism and genocide are, apparently, not quite enough. He also adds    
    Believe me, none of us have anything but respect for Darwin, we just think that there are lot of questions that should be asked that aren't being asked

    Admittedly I'm doing a bit of a "Slimey Sal" here, because Imperialism and Genocide didn't come up in that interview.  It just astounds me (it shouldn't, I know) that he can flip between "Darwin the brilliant" and "Darwin is teh evil" depending on who he is talking to.

    Date: 2008/02/29 05:48:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 29 2008,11:23)
    Is Underwhelming Evidence completely dead?  The last twenty three posts were authored by Denise OLeary.  

    It's a link farm. Its only role now (now?) is to lead the gullible to the many places where they can buy her book(s).

    edit: moved apostrophe from "It's" to "Its"

    Date: 2008/03/06 14:31:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Sal explaining the difference between hypothetically dropping out of a GMU course due to being hopelessy behind with everything and nothing seeming to be sinking in (not true, obviously) ,and being expelled!!oneone! because he is just too brilliantly sciency for them (yeah that's it)?

    Thank you Dembskian,

    I had worried that the universities would tell me some day:

    Dear Salvador,

    You criticized Darwin on the internet and in print and in blogs, therefore even though you have a 4.0 in an Applied Physics grad program at Johns Hopkins you will be expelled.

    Further you’ll be expelled becuase you intend to use your degree for the furtherance of the Christian faith.

    By the way, forget the inalienable rights conferred to you by your Creator. Your creator was Darwinian processes, and he doesn’t give a hoot about you…your civil rights don’t count since Judge Jones ruled it is unconstitutional to criticize Darwin.

    I decided, if that happens,
    well, fine. I’m honored to be a martyr. I simply request the schools be forthright about the reasons I’ll be dismissed or denied opportunity to get a diploma. They need to spell out Darwinism’s relevance to physics. Did I miss their explanation when they expelled a professor of physics named Guillermo Gonzalez?

    Date: 2008/03/11 15:55:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Inspector Springer of New Scotland Tard explains the latest crime busting techniques.

    First we get CSI to determine if the victim was killed accidentally or by design and they turn invariably to the crime detector's bible, "The Design Inference" by Dr Dr William Dembski (they may deny this, but they do). They calculate the number of permutations of knife and body: knife penetrating body, knife entirely outside body, or knife entirely inside the body. That's three possible outcomes which correspond to two bits of information and three independant specifications:  murder by stabbing, murder by not stabbing, and accidental death due to eating way too quickly. Two bits of CSI information is well above the LPB which is also used to detect link modification etc.

    As to the identity of the murderer:  First we assume it was someone from a rival blog.  Then someone else owns up to doing it and we modify our hypothesis to include "or possibly an alien, or a deity - it's not that important, move on, nothing to see here" and we return to our primary function which involves sitting around in our cars eating snacks. If anyone complains, we escort them from the premises and never allow them back.

    Date: 2008/03/12 07:35:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 11 2008,20:45)
    I can't believe that no one has commented on the change in ownership over at Overwhelming Evidence? Per Sam Chen:
    In the last few weeks, my associate here at Patrick and I have been working closely in turning this site over to be the official blog site for The Design of Life and for continuing this discussion. As of today, I am officially resigning my position as the head of the site and the site is passing on to Denyse O'Leary.

    Great news for students!  If OE becomes the blog of "Design Of Life" and "Design Of Life" becomes the companion book  to Ben Stein's EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED, then maybe students will finally get paid for writing blog entries at OE - and Ben Stein will get a farty video (If he hasn't got one already).

    Date: 2008/03/13 17:16:18, Link
    Author: steve_h


    All you had to say was there are two telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. Theoretically the telomeres could have been inserted by random mutation into an unfused chromosome which later split in two at the convenient join. But that doesn’t seem as likely as a fusion so I’ll call myself satisfied with a fusion as the best explanation.

    How dare you give a detailed, well thought-out, and polite answer to the question I thought would stump you. That's one strike. Allen - one more and you're outta here.

    Date: 2008/03/23 21:31:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    StephenB no more no less. In order for science to confirm Scripture, science must be different than Scripture. You are taking that phrase by Johnson to make it appear that ID religiously based, when, by definition, it cannot be religiously based and confirm religion at the same time.

    ID r not abowt relibyan.Itz abowt tryin 2 pruv dat Relibyan is teh Trufe ™

    (I 8z teh katz btw)

    Date: 2008/03/24 13:21:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 24 2008,18:23)
    DaveScot: Dawkins, Myers, and what R.S.V.P. means

    DaveScot kindly provides the link to the Expelled - RSVP System. It says "Welcome. Please choose a location and time below." Sounds like an invitation.

    I think DaveScot's point might be (apart from hurling loads of insults at PZ) that the link to the private screenings is different from this one.  The link to this page is available on the main expelled site, but in order to get to the "private screenings" page you must either receive the link in an email invitation or start guessing at page names.

    However, there's no reason PZ needed to do either of those; Once one person has done either (Eg Glen Davison), and published the link where anyone can see it, anyone, PZ included, can follow it and in good faith interpret the message at the top of the page to be an open invitation to anyone. Maybe the objection then would be that it says "Private" (i.e. not for the general public) at the top of the page in big letters, but that could also be dismissed as typical marketing blurb (see also: "you have been specially selected" )

    Date: 2008/03/24 15:24:15, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 24 2008,20:15)
    I thought his point was specifically that PZ should have known because the proprietary name of RSVP, therefore, "Myers is dishonest."

    This is typical. You are invited to a FREE PRIVATE SCREENING
    You are invited to a FREE private screening ... Forward this email to a friend!

    Addendum: And as Todd Berkebile and other have pointed out, You and your community are invited to attend FREE of charge! View and RSVP for an event near you. Click here.

    You're right about those two links. They contain links to the and indicate that all are welcome to apply - not just people who have had a personal invite from Mark Mathis or Ben Stein.

    Also, I think it is highly likely that one of the interweb's most prominent atheist and a star of the film will have had many emails from supporters informing him of a screening in MN at the time of the athiest conference and supplying the link. He would follow the link, see the invite, RSVP to that invite and then receive his confirmation all totally above board.

    PZ should be assumed innocent of any wrong-doing at and DaveScot should follow his own advice:
    Real men ‘fess up when caught pulling sophomoric stunts

    The link that Todd Berkebile gave is to a different list of public screenings.  There's no link on that page to the private screenings.

    ETA: of course real men don't 'fess up, they disappear stuff.

    ETA: Well said NoChange (Apart from the "Meyers (sic) is the Devil" bit)

    Date: 2008/03/24 17:41:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 24 2008,22:44)
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 24 2008,06:15)
    Is it possible to be a concern troll on your own blog?

    This doesn’t bode well for Myers’ upcoming tenure review. If enough of his peers start viewing him as a liability to science and the University of Minnesota then they’ll give him the bum’s rush just as quick as they did Guilliermo Gonzalez. And PZ Myers’, unlike Guilliermo Gonzalez, has no impeccable publication record to fall back on in protest so it won’t be difficult or unseeming for the tenure committee to give him a thumbs down.

    This is very, very bad for us. If PZ Myers didn’t exist we’d have to invent him. Myers does more to give Darwinists a bad name than any man alive. If he’s denied tenure we might be forced to put together a “Save the Myers” foundation to solicit donations to keep his blog alive.

    Like DS can even remember what the inside of a university looks like. And if we're going to talk about "liabilities to science" I suggest you start with Dembski and Behe. Do they also have an "impeccable publication record to fall back on" ?

    We probably should take this seriously, Dave's track record of predicting these things is pretty impressive:


    This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.

    Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

    My guess is he will get tenure because he will unleash the hounds of war on anyone who stands in his way.

    My power is more immense than you can possibly imagine, since I just leapt into my time machine and retroactively gave myself tenure five years ago. My critics better worry. I don't use my powers for anything as crude as killing their grandfather before he had children...instead, I'll go back and sleep with their mother 9 months before they were born.

    That'll send chills down their spines.

    ETA: Rats! Arden beat me to it by one minute on the "Lifetime achievement award" thread.

    Date: 2008/03/25 16:42:52, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2008,19:13)
    I am not particularly pleased when people come to a forum just to flog their own, so I don't plan to spend my time here linking to my own stuff.

    A warm belated welcome to the Antio'leary. Are you here to buy books?

    Date: 2008/03/25 21:45:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reed @ Mar. 26 2008,03:22)
    Dear anonymous (if that's your real name),

    That's got to be an oldy but nevertheless, I love it so.

    Date: 2008/03/26 17:52:06, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Zachriel has already given a link to from an expelled-friendly blog site:, which, on 2008-03-11, encouraged the whole world to visit

    Whoever runs that site clearly thought it was ok to pass the invite on to a wider audience.  That audience included Glen Davison.  

    AISI This lends weight to the "viral marketing" argument.  If the makers were indentifying specific individuals, the invite-urls would contain a reference number identifying the invitee and they wouldn't need to enter their names again.

    Date: 2008/03/27 18:49:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The link is (Zachriel posted it here a few pages ago, I didn't find it myself)

    I've explained to William Wallace on his/her blog how anyone visiting that site is "invited to a FREE PRIVATE SCREENING". (S)he objected that it led to a site which only had six entries - because by then the expelled-guys had changed (if that's no too difficult a word) it. However the "Mall Of America" version was still in the google cache and I gave a link. WW agreed that I seemed to be right, listed the entries and then came up with a set of minor nitpicks which had no bearing on whether PZ had gamed the system or not. I addressed them, at which point (s)he closed the thread, hurled a parting insult at me, and continued to plead PZ's guilt elsewhere. Various others weighed in and at the end of that there seem to be some concessions, but (s)he is still pushing the PZ is guilty line at UD and complaining about the injustice of being the target of a rhetorical attack by the evil PZ on his/her blog (*).

    * That's his/her as in William Wallace not as in PZ who I know is whatever squids is.

    Date: 2008/04/07 20:19:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (silverspoon @ April 07 2008,22:34)
    In the sequel to EXPELLED Kevin will explore Gregory Mendel's laws of heredity, and how Mendelian Genetic thinking propagated Nazi thinking. Kevin will interview well known theologians of today. Pay no attention when these interviews are interspersed with footage of Nazis goose-stepping, and bodies of dead Jews. And the name of this sequel is-----

    From Mendel to the Wannsee Conference.

    You’ll laugh, you’ll cry. But most of all you’ll tell Kevin to go pound sand.

    I was just thinking that "Expelled 2: A different viewpoint" - coming to lots of theaters near you for a very short time - would show a clip of Dembski; A monotone narrator would point out that Demsbki was a Christianist and an Intelligent Designist and they would suddenly cut to:

    A concentration camp (not any of the ones used in the first film).  Ben Stein is looking very, very sad because he has just learned that Jews (Nooooh, not again!) were exterminated there as well. Furthermore it turns out that most of the people who carried out the orders were Christianists (cut back to Dembski smiling,  then cut back to the CC again) by people using principles of intelligent (human) selection to intelligently weed out the poorer races (cut back to smiling Dembski again, then back to the CC) and direct the human species to a Christianist Ideal (Adam, Noah, whatever)  (cut back to extremely smug looking Demsbki who thinks he's in a film called "Heroes of Intelligent Design", then back to the CC again).

    Ben Stein explains how Christianism leads to "Christianist Language" leads to genocide - or Kevin Miller does it for him, doesn't matter really so long as everyone sticks to strictly documentarian standards.

    Date: 2008/04/09 16:34:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2008,14:07)
    Tribute to great tards

    I was hanging out on the front steps of the lecture hall when David appeared, and we chatted in both French and English. (As bizarre as it might seem, although I earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D, my three college degrees are in French language and literature, and classical piano.) I was wearing my Harley Davidson windbreaker, and David asked if I was a Harley rider, to which I replied yes. He asked about what model Harley I rode, and expressed his passion for motorcycles.

    David is one of the most eloquent, insightful, clever, iconoclastic, and irreverently humorous speakers I have ever had the pleasure to encounter.

    Gil Dodgen is a sad loser, onlookers.  I hate to see tragic failure, except when it is from such a sanctimonious and fractally wrong priapism for Jeesus.  Berlinski must have hit on him.

    You'll have to read the rest to pick up the "And I found out we are both concern trolls" bit.  Where's the beef?

    I would like to second Kristine's proposal for a Barf emoticon to made available on this board. Anyone like to bet that GD didn't find some excuse to shoe-horn his world beating checkers program or his imagined humiliation of Dave Thomas on the subject of Genetic Algorithms into the conversation?

    Date: 2008/04/10 15:55:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I'm looking forward to some scenes reminiscent of those taking place in or around  lifts/elevators/vertical-people-carriers at the end of the 1988 movie  "Working Girl" - only with the emphasis more on cell animation that on advertising.

    Date: 2008/04/10 16:36:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    WorldNutDaily 2007-04-10    
    Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford who wrote the book "The God Delusion," gained entry only by foregoing his evolved surname for the formal, Clinton.

    I would have thought by now, after it's been pointed out several times by several people, that  everyone would have figured that Clinton is not his surname.

    Expelled" controversy held the No. 1 slot:check
    Look down their elitist noses at the unwashed ignorant religious masses and scoff: check
    Darwin->atheism->eugenics->Hitler:  check
    Planned Parenthood: check
    "Much Butt Kicking": check
    "break out the knuckerdusters": no check.(ed: you're fired)

    Date: 2008/04/11 16:49:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (sparc @ April 11 2008,19:45)
    Don't miss David Bolinsky's e-mail published at  

    Just in case no one has mentioned it already:

    A design inference!!  - and we all know they are never wrong.

    Date: 2008/04/11 18:12:19, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Mr DNA's screen capture indicates that the 100000th post was on the UD thread on 23rd March 2008 at 20:19 and yet there is no post on the UD thread at that time.  I suspect some sort of Manufactroversy (duh duh duuuh). The nearest is here.

    (Also there's nothing on the B.W at that time. Hmm, do BW entries get new times? )

    Date: 2008/04/11 18:56:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Do'h! you are right. Mostly. We are in front of you. I'm in Switzerland which is one hour ahead of jolly old blighty.  So the time was actually 2008-03-24 02:19 here, unless I've inexplicably screwed up again.

    It was followed by a particularly crappy post from me (*), written under the influence (*), which I am relieved to say was not noted as a landmark post on this forum.

    (*) see also any of my other posts.

    Date: 2008/04/12 17:42:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    This post doesn't strike me as being written by the good doctor doctor. However the truncated recent comments match up to genuine recent comments from that time (albeit with a different font size because they wrap differently from what I see).

    If you look at the source code for these two threads:  and and search for      
    you will see that each post at UD is given a serial number. You can find old posts using http//  where nnnn is that number.  O'Leary's  "Darwin lobby's attack site" post can be reached via  the previous "Animation infringement post" by WaD is and is a standard UD 404 (page disappeared)

    This could mean that someone has created a draft post and not published it, or that something was posted and subsequently disappeared (either Demsbki posted something, or  somebody else posted in Demsbki's name), either way it would be difficult for an outsider to fake this.

    edit: <s>fixed urls.</s>Broke urls some more. Bugger.
    edit: hopefully fixed urls.

    Date: 2008/04/13 15:23:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (ERV @ April 13 2008,02:12)
    Quote (steve_h @ April 12 2008,17:42) is a standard UD 404 (page disappeared)

    This could mean that someone has created a draft post and not published it, or that something was posted and subsequently disappeared (either Demsbki posted something, or  somebody else posted in Demsbki's name), either way it would be difficult for an outsider to fake this.

    Wait, Bill (our Bill, not Tard Bill) didnt make that 'UD post'?


    It was R.B. and he got a little lucky with the timing for it to come at a time when a number went unused (eg a discarded draft).

    However, seems he didn't need  a great deal of luck because he could have got 3204 or 3208 (or any of three others after 3170) instead. Clearly my EF needs some fine tuning. Now, where did I put that hammer?

    Date: 2008/04/13 16:11:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 13 2008,21:38)
    Steve, you're working too hard - my intention was to parody WAD, ID, expelled, etc., not fool anyone into believing this is the real thing. I mostly worry that the text is far to ridiculous to be good parody - but Per Wesley and BobDiddy on Poe's law...

    I didn't think it was a genuine Dembski post, but I did think it a possibility that someone may have managed to plant a parody at UD and that it had been quickly removed.

    Date: 2008/04/14 19:58:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I've been expelled from Kevin Miller's limerick competition:


    Some company, Plagiarmation
    Once copied a cell animation
    "inner life of the cell"
    it's as blatent as hell
    so now we await litigation

    A comp'ny that really excelled
    at lying to rubes was compelled
    to exploit deaths of jews
    to get in the news
    a pile of shite called "expelled"

    Sorry, Steve H. Had to delete your contribution for legal reasons.

    Edit: For scanniness. Rats! is there no word that google can't find?

    Date: 2008/04/19 17:50:49, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (factician @ April 19 2008,20:39)
    $1.1 million at box office on opening night.  I'm not sure whether to celebrate or cry.


    Is that before or after the various "cash for stubs" schemes are accounted for?

    Date: 2008/05/09 19:12:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    If I had that kind of imaginatin (sic), I would beright (sic) up there with J.K. Rowlings (sic) (rowling in dough, right?)

    Denyse O'Linky seems to share Dr^2's cash envy.

    Date: 2008/05/09 20:16:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Various topics are covered in O' Linky's (ok it's never going to be a successful meme) latest post:

    * Prof Sues.

    Teacher of English distrusts science. Therefore, science bad.

    * Math Prof. makes design inference.

    Old Joke recycled as evidence for ID.

    * British physicist asks ...

    Y.E.C British physicist asks ... to be more precise (ASSF).

    * "Anonymous friend" complains that local theaters do not want to show world famous documentary despite potentially half-packed front rows.

    * "Anonymous friend" reports that university biology courses are convincing sceptical 1st year students  that Godiddit by the time they reach thier second year.

    * Haeckel, Ultra-Darwinist inspiration of the Holocaust, etc.

    Date: 2008/05/22 18:52:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ May 22 2008,19:12)
    Denyse is rather coy        



    7:50 am

    Tard Alert!

    Bob O’H, I own three Blogger blogs, each of which supports a book, present or proposed. I am paid to blog at several sites and volunteer blog or guest blog at others. It is a congenial way of life for a freelance writer.

    OK, she won't tell me, but let's try and work it out.  Her three blogspot blogs are

    Then she also posts at
    Overwhelming Silence

    what have I missed?  And which onse does she get paid for?

    She is also a contributor at The Whirred Gild: Canadien orfers who is kristyuns, the whorespishuss organization wot resently nominated one Dense O'Linky for free Right?-Canada awards.

    edit(s): 4 spelin
    eta: (various 'today at my other blog' posts)

    Date: 2008/06/25 16:18:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    According to DaveScot,  the fact that no one has successfully reproduced or disproved the results of Blount, Borland & Lenski's  twenty year long experiment in the three or so weeks since they published, means that no one in the science world regards their work as worthwhile, and therefore ID wins.

    Date: 2008/06/25 16:43:42, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DaveScot accuses Blount, Borland, and Lenski of the typical systematic errors that he expects of chance worshippers, because they haven't considered the possibility of front loaded design.

    Didn't they use twelve separate populations and find an adaption requiring three mutations in only one of them? And also that the adaption had a chance of being replayed in the one population, provided it  had the early mutations?

    If the mutations were front-loaded wouldn't they happen in parallel in several or all of the populations, or be replayable in a sample of the successful population taken before the first mutation?

    PZ seems to think this paper confirm Gould's theory that the history wouldn't replay itself.  Shouldn't preloaded history replay itself?

    edit: Blount

    Date: 2008/07/11 15:13:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (dnmlthr @ July 11 2008,18:57)
    Back to the scheduled programming, todays forecast contains much gloating about the fallout of PZ's cracker post.

    Doesn't seem right to me to be gloating about the expelling of a professor by a university because he thought child rape and genocide were somehow worse than mistreating a cracker. How will PZ support his poor trophy wife and family now that he is out of a job?  What? he still has his job (*) but his private web site is no longer linked to from Baylor's . And how will PZ support his poor trophy wife and family now that he is out of a job?</melodrama></exaggeration>

    </chirpingcrickets>Actually, I reckon the principal of UMM was probably more than a little pissed off at PZ for urging his readership to inundate him with positive complimentary messages of support. That's going to annoy anyone. I think the web site would still be there if it wasn't for that.  I'm assuming it wasn't PZ's decision.  That OK for you DS?

    Not as bad as urging one's readership to inundate an entire board of regents with threats and hate mail. But not still not very nice.

    (*) despite the best efforts of many christians.
    edit: removed extra "not". Rats, someone already quoted it.

    Date: 2008/07/11 15:30:16, Link
    Author: steve_h

    Date: 2008/07/11 17:33:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Maybe not so much in the states where DS lives, but here, in Yerp,  that energy is sometimes violently pointedly released in the form of moderate to insufficiently-moderate storms and windiness.

    Date: 2008/07/12 20:18:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I just reviwed the  page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me.  Damn you, badger.


    Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be  contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake ....  nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake.  You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person.

    Date: 2008/07/12 21:47:00, Link
    Author: steve_h
    People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.

    People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.

    People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.

    The similarities are just frightening.

    Date: 2008/07/12 22:21:12, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 13 2008,03:54)
    Quote (steve_h @ July 12 2008,19:47)
    People in receipt of burning crosses, often ended up dead at the hands of the KKK.

    People who found their walls daubed with Nazi symbols, often turned up dead at the hand of the Nazis.

    People who found their crackers disrepected, often ended up being killed by killing, or threatening to kill their oppressors people whose "religion" is that crackers are just crackers.

    The similarities are just frightening.

    You know of many recent examples?

    No I don't, unless you count the recent death threats against PZ, but I'm sure that such incidents live on in the thoughts of previous victims and the people that know them.  The symbols would be just as shocking today. I am neither a Jew nor an African-American. If such symbols have been relegated to the trashcan of history as you seem to imply, I would be delighted to hear about it. I haven't heard of any specific incidents recently but I think it would be unwise to assume that racial extremist are no longer a concern.

    For the sake of argument, I will take you at your word. Cracker abuse is the last taboo. Nazis are gone, Racists are gone, but how do we handle the PZ-cracker situation? How do we, or should  we, respect the rights of people who think crackers are just crackers? I say we agree to disagree with kill them express our regret that people with similar outlooks to ours might do something we don't exactly sanction but do sort of understand.

    Edited by Steve_h on 2008-07-13  

    Date: 2008/07/17 20:45:00, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The original thread has 29,999 comments. Aren't there supposed to be 30,000? Has Dembski's Meisterwerk all-caps guest appearance been disappeared or summat? Enquiring (read enebriated) minds want to know!

    eta: rats! "no", the original post doesn't count. But that doesn't mean that Demsbki's guest appearance wasn't  disappeared anyway (unless it wasn't, sorry)Eta: Double rats. SteveStory pointed out the mistake while I was typing this)ETA Triple Drat (which is tard spelled backwards, three times) he spelled it out even more when I was typing that Ok I give up!!!!!one!!!!one

    Date: 2008/07/18 16:47:39, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (N.Wells @ July 18 2008,22:02)
    Try to say something nice about Dr. Dr. D.???????  That is a challenge.

    Let's see.  

    (About half an hour....)
    No, I've really got nothing.

    He does make exceedingly good cakes!

    Date: 2008/07/21 10:34:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    (Screwed up by editing, put my edit into DS's quote by mistake.  Starting over...)

    Yes PZ, the sand on a beach is exceedingly complex. What you don’t seem to grok is that it has no specification. It doesn’t have component parts that function together in a machine that performs some specific task. There are no abstract codes in a pile of sand like there is in a strand of DNA. There is no ribosome translating those codes into instructions for assembling a protein. There is nothing like that in a pile of sand. There is no specification.

    Sand piled into the shape of a person washing a car on the other hand is a machine which uses thousands of interacting  parts to carry out a specific task, and uses abstract codes and instructions for assembling a protein (or another car).

    Date: 2008/08/03 18:23:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Bfast accurately described the characteristics of several artificial languages then showed that the language of DNA conforms to those same characteristics.
    One can therefore deduce that a reaonable definition of language is a syntax that communicates complex details between a sender and a recipient(s). By this definition English is a language. “C” is a language. and DNA is a language because it communicates complex details to the systems that assemble protein, to systems that replicate DNA, and to other systems not yet specified (control systems, etc.) It is a language, calling it a language is not “an analogy.”

    Using this definition, is light a language?, is sound a language?, is touch a language?, is smell a language?, is taste a language?  And if so, do light and sound require a designer?

    Also can bfast present some examples of invalid DNA? i.e. examples not conforming to the rules of the language (but still conforming to the the ATGC aphabet )
    Eg invalid English: "ATGGCCGGC GTCTGCT"; invalid French "ATGGCCGGC GTCTGCTA" invalid DNA, ATGGCCGGC GTCTGCTA?

    Date: 2008/08/05 18:11:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    You heard it first on the bathroom wall:

    US cracks 'biggest ID fraud case'

    Correction, "second biggest". Soz.

    Date: 2008/08/10 11:00:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Unfortunately for all of them, a commenter named GCUGreyArea uses the fifth comment to point out that this is just another god of the gaps argument by DT and the others. You have to wonder how long his/her stay at UD will be...

    DS will not like the gaps argument. But IIRC, unlike everyone else there, he is not opposed to the idea of brains being responsible for consciousness. I wonder if he is actually allowed to comment on that  - if not he may prefer this commenter to stick around for at least a short while.

    Date: 2008/08/14 09:17:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Number of pages:

    Date: 2008/08/24 20:15:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I always got the impression that there was some sort of mutual dislike between DaveScot and BarryA. But recently DaveScot has praised BarryA's undeaconlike humor and BarryA has praised a DaveScot comment and urged him to promote it to the exalted "UD Post" status. Could "DaveScot and O'Linky get a room" be next?


    Date: 2008/08/25 15:48:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Antony Flew Reviews Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”  ...  again !

    Date: 2008/08/26 17:35:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Shakespeare's works don't just contain information and they are not just complex - they contain complex specified information!!one! For instance, in Macbeth, the number of possible arrangements of the words is, from the arse, more than 10^1050. But M. is also independantly specified by the short spec, "Scottish dude meets pushy wife, ghost, Kristinewitches, spot,  maybe a knife and (*spoiler alert*) gets deaded", which can probably be further reduced by zipping.

    Date: 2008/08/27 20:29:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    There are similar considerations with Macbeth. There are not 2^8 = 256 letters, spaces, and punctuation marks in Shakespeare's text, so you get some compression simply because the initial 8-bit representation of characters is inefficient. At first blush, I would say that the number of distinct characters is no more than 64. Thus to get a better estimate of the compressibility of Macbeth, count 6 bits per byte of the source text, not 8. Count 8 bits per byte of bzip output. (Bzip may tell you the number of bits in the output -- I haven't used it in a long time.)

    I just downloaded Macbeth from Project Gutenberg and compressed it with the latest version of WinZip.  It reduced from 116kb to 31.5kb. Instead of one character being stored in eight bits, it required a little over two bits. That's rather better than what you'd get by saving random six-bit characters.

    Date: 2008/08/29 15:07:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I'm a bit baffled by all of these calcuations.  One group is calculating the probability of an exact sequence of 8 bases starting at a particular location.  Another person is allowing the sequence to run backwards or forwards and starting within a particular 8-base range. Another is arguing the probability of 4 objects of one kind, 3 of another and one of another to form a particular sequence at random.  Which is the most relevant calculation?  Would a calculation showing a particular eight character sequence somewhere in a chain of n-thousand also be applicable?

    Date: 2008/09/07 08:00:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    A sincere  "Ditto" to what Alan Fox said. Hope to see you back sometime.

    ETA: my new sig isn't working - adding it manually
    What do we want? More openness in moderation policy.
    When do we want it? Now!

    Date: 2008/09/08 16:56:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2008,22:16)
    The current headline at UD:

    Sarah Palin Unlikely to Push Evolution Issue
    was ‘Creation Science Enters the Race’

    [that] that word salad wasn't written by Denyse, is the weird part.


    Makes perfect sense to me. It's written using an "updated newspaper headline" idiom:  <today's headline> was '<yesterday's headline>', though I'm buggered if I can figure out how to google for other examples, as "was" is something of a noise word. Maybe there should be an additional punctuation mark or some brackets.

    I unwisely suggested a correction to your comment. That will make my own errors look especially foolish, when they form during transmission.

    Transparent moderation policy, transparent moderation policy, Ra Ra Ra! Give me a 'T', give me an 'R',  give me an .. oh sod this.

    Date: 2008/09/15 16:30:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 15 2008,19:27)
    In the fantomarks thread, DaveScot writes,

    Let’s give alternate representations of reality weight commensurate with physical evidence in support of it. In the case of fantomarks that’s not equal time it’s zero time.

    Let's remember that one!  

    I can think of some other words that would substitute well here for "fantomarks."

    I think DS needs to be reminded that:

    Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. etc. etc. etc.

    Date: 2008/10/10 18:12:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly, in Honolulu,

    I think it's shocking that the republicans currently in power, haven't ordered the various intelligence agencies to check out this Muslim foreigner who is making a mockery of the electoral system by standing as sole presidential opposition candidate when he can not legally win.

    Why haven't they stopped this travesty? It's a pointless exercise costing exorbitant amounts of time and money. If he wins, the whole thing will have to be declared null and void.

    Should he be allowed to take up the post, it is good to know that at least one Patriotic source of Trustworthy information will continue to berate their inarticulate, elitist, secretive, over-liberal fraud of a President for the duration of his term. Unless there is some sort of million to one accident on the server.

    Date: 2008/10/16 18:14:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Was there something embarrassing on the Howard Stern Thread

    [ETA: Apart from the (paraphrased) "blacks only vote for blacks because they are stupid black voters" comments by DS, of course) ]

    I thought it was quite a recent one, but it looks to me like it might have had its date modified (possibly) to shift it off the front page.

    The date on the post is currently 7 October 2008. However the comments start on 13 october.  

    It's in the  news page dated 2008-10-14 04:11

    The internal post number 3680 places it between the "artificially evolved creatures" (3679 on the 13th) and "Joe the plumber"  (3682 on the 16th)

    The date in the google cache version is 13th october (taken on the 15th)

    The linked-to video on you tube was added on 13th october.

    Date: 2008/10/16 19:51:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    ...but I don't know. The link goes to a page headed "2008 Election Coverage - DAVID SCOT SPRINGER FOR PRESIDENT!", but the video component that it features never loaded for me despite various combinations of platforms and browsers. Has anyone here successfully loaded the video?

    Worked for me. It was one of those <insert your name/photo here> videos which lets you become the star of a fake news report. See also: make your own dummies' guide, dancing-elf christmas greeting etc.

    Date: 2008/10/17 12:30:17, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 17 2008,17:15)
    test comic
    test italic
    test bold

    The single-quotes in the style tag are getting translated to HTML entities, that's what. Not sure why.

    Try it without the quotes

    Date: 2008/11/04 04:19:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Maybe they finally banned everyone  :)

    Comments seem to have been in decline, but I think the total loss of comments is due to it being broken - hence Dembski's point 4 on his Administrator skills list. I suspect he wants to swith hosting companies because he blames the current one (either for the breakage or the inability to restore) - but of course all of this is pure speculation.

    If they are switching sites, it may take a few days to get everything fully up and running and for the domain name change to kick in. They may have to go back to a standard WordPress layout for a while.

    Rats! Might have to get a life.

    Date: 2008/11/05 12:23:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The "hosted by" item in the bottom right hand corner has changed from "SWT" to "Network Omega".   AFAICT no pages have gone missing despite the fact they would have had a ready-made and plausible excuse. They must be slipping :)

    ETA: but the about page doesn't feature the contributors now (and as has been pointed out, D'ol and friends are no longer on the banner)

    Date: 2008/11/06 04:37:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 05 2008,18:23)
    AFAICT no pages have gone missing despite the fact they would have had a ready-made and plausible excuse. They must be slipping :)

    Sorry, I didn't check thoroughly enough.



    both cached by google on Nov 4th. Haven't checked for other Obama threads.

    Date: 2008/11/06 18:37:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 06 2008,22:45)
    So not only do individual embarrassing comments disapparate, but entire threads get 404'd?  Just wow.
    I guess I'm still learning about the UD way, as the rest of you don't seem surprised at all, and accept this as Situation Normal.

    Bannination is the only thing that allows one to be an intellectually fullfilled intelligent design creationist.

    Date: 2008/11/07 19:48:30, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Hey Apollos ; Can you do the math on the comment that “One Teaspoon of matter, more or less would have rendered life impossible in this universe?

    Here’s the video that quotes the number 10^60:

    Overwhelming Evidence For God From Physics Part 3 of 4

    What the? The linked video talks about change some value of Rho_critical, the amount of matter in the universe, from 10^60 to 10^57.  I don't know what the equation is, but either way, doesn't that increase or decrease the amount of matter in the universe by a factor of 1000?  AIUI, one teaspoon is less than either 0.001 universes or 1000 universes, unless they are seriously f*cking big teaspoons.

    Date: 2008/11/11 15:47:15, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I wonder if Barry the lawyer has ever wondered why the legal system that employs him exists. It seems to me that fear of judgement and punishment by other human beings plays quite an obvious role in keeping religious people as well as atheists in line

    Date: 2008/11/11 17:56:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I would have though everyone has done something that they are not particularly proud of and which they'd rather other people not learn about (and maybe wish could somehow just magically disappear from the historical record, cough).  Yet God knows about all such things and has forgiven them, and he's the only one that counts, so why worry about mere people knowing about them?  If you believe that disappointing God is the only thing that makes people moral, you should have no problem confessing your forgiven misdemeanors to the IRS folk, the spouse, the congregation etc.

    Date: 2008/11/13 11:04:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 13 2008,13:13)
    gpuccio: You cannot explain biological information without a designer, and you cannot explain the process of design only on the basis of the laws of matter...

    Shortly thereafter.

    Joseph:  And ID does NOT posit the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.

    It's simple. When Gods says "let there be light" and then there is light, that's creation; But when an alien designs light and then there is light, that's only design.

    Date: 2008/11/14 12:56:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I wonder what charitable use the money they raise will be put to. Hopefully something more than advertising Dembski's books, paying premium rates for scientific UD advice from prominent theological mathematical philosophers, and providing nourishing meals to people who are excluded from local restaurants etc.

    Date: 2008/11/15 19:48:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    He’s saying that God is so implausible and so complex and so different than known causes that he is even more implausible than aliens.

    Not really. Depends on how much time each of them has to grow more complex. In an infinite amount of time an infinitely complex intelligence is not just plausible, it’s inevitable.

    Er, maybe if, over time, you get various individuals with random Intelligences ranging from zero to multiple doctorates you'll eventually get a very very smart one. However, of you have only one individual intelligence, well that is not  guaranteed to increase over time. In the case of a single unchanging individual even more so. In the case of a single unchanging individual who lives outside of time (i.e has no time in which to develop) even even more so that that.

    NotedScholar's reply probably encompasses all of this:
    Okay, so you’re telling me that your thesis depends on a doctrine of the evolution of God. Feel free to scientifically examine that proposition, and post the evidence. Great.

    Date: 2008/11/17 15:19:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The post in which DS announced that he had deleted some posts has been deleted.

    Date: 2008/11/18 18:49:06, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Uncommonly Denyse seems to have abandoned her link farm. There have been no self links since 14th nov around about the time the 'What's new at UD' post appeared.  Also, IFIACT there are no longer new interfarm links on her farm sites.

    Is the change due to Bazza, a rare attack of ethics, or the realisation that Google and co. are wise to link farms?

    Date: 2008/11/20 18:34:02, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 20 2008,23:06)
    Nov 19, 1999) was an extremely cool day with a property that won't be seen again for over 1100 years.

    It's the last date expressible using only "1"s and "9"s until 11 Nov 9111 (or 1 Jan 9111 if you don't insist on 2 digits for M&D).  More than 7000 is more than 1100.

    Either way, the rapture, a scientific theory of ID, and some realistic worked out examples of CSI in biology should just be around the corner by then. :)

    Date: 2008/11/20 19:19:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 21 2008,00:52)
    Close--it's the last day in MM/DD/YYYY format, or the girly Euro DD/MM/YYYY format, to be all odd numbers: 11/19/1999 --until 11/11/3111 (or 1/1/3111 if you give that pass you mentioned to leading zeroes.)

    Hmmm, I think mine was more special. There will be lots of dates which have your property between now and the next date which has my property.

    Also my date has a high degree of CSI.  The number of possible dates following today is infinite.  The description 'next day containing only ones and nines' is short and specific. Therefore, more books sold to the easily impressed, and more profit.

    Also "one" is perfect, as in "one true god". And "nine" is perfect, as in "trinity of trinities" which could get the numerology people to part with thier dosh as well.

    Date: 2008/11/28 19:22:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DO'L: Jennifer Gold reports for Christian Today (November 24, 2008) that

    The results of a new poll out today by faith-based think tank Theos have revealed that eight in 10 people in Britain are unaware that 2009 marks two major Charles Darwin anniversaries.

    Across the country, special events and celebrations are being planned for next year to mark the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth on 12 February and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species on 24 November.

    Yet the results of the ComRes poll out today reveal that only 21 per cent of the population are aware of the two anniversaries.

    I wonder how many Brit toffs, Yank Toffs, people who are allowed to eat at the Baylor restaurant, people who aren't allowed to eat at the Baylor restaurant (or their sicophants)  are aware that September 2008 marked the first 10-year-enery  of that ground breaking, paradigm-shifting book, the Design Inference...

    ETA2: (a) O'Linky (b) decennial

    Date: 2008/12/04 17:24:48, Link
    Author: steve_h
    This EF news is bound to give an almighty shock to all of the fire investigators, policemen, art forgery experts,  and judges who have been using Dembski's design detection techniques all these years. And many people who have been sent to the electic chair are going to need retrials !!!1

    ETA: and many more will be concerned that Dembski is to concentrate on the CSI part of the EF as that was the one bit that nobody knew how to use (apart from the ol' "read Dembski's book and all become clear" bluff)

    Date: 2008/12/07 20:18:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I  can't help feeling that Clive Hayden is thier new wordpressczar. Two days ago, I'd never heard of him and now he's out there threatening bannination left, right and, ok, he's not had enough posts to get to include center yet but he's obviously just itching to include it. Who is he? How did he get white box status so quickly when, afaict, he's never posted anything of substance (!??;) and doesn't seem to exist even to  google?  (unless he's a Brit Toff ™ osteopath in London, a Brit Toff ™ in Poland, or some bible wiz in Australia)

    Date: 2008/12/17 18:33:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    At last O'Morphy gives an interesting link. I C&P'd a few of her posts and got:

    Date: 2009/01/02 10:47:06, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Only in ***** theory is it acceptable to talk about wrist watch production (design), jumbo jet production (design)finch beak variation (design), dog breeding (design), and insect pesticide resistance (design), and then claim with full assurance that these phenomena can be extrapolated to explain the origin of everything in biology
    E.g.  Blagellums (design), blood clotting (design), fire investigation (design), arrowheads (design), plagiarism (design), death by malaria (design), life (design), universe (design), Zyklon B production and use (Darwin)

    Date: 2009/01/02 20:17:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The ID movement is ‘dying’ if you view it as, say, an attempt to get specific ID ideas taught in public schools. If you view it as the development of a broad variety of ideas about illustrating design or the activity of intelligence within/behind nature, then it’s only growing and diversifying.
    Nowhere is this more apparent than at UD itself.  First, it was about Dembski trying to sell his books, then it grew to Dembski and friends trying to sell Dembski's books and now it's an entire community of like-minded engineers, all trying to sell Dembski's books as a non-profit (with maybe one exception) organisation.

    Date: 2009/01/03 09:10:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 03 2009,09:28)
    From O'Leary's latest.

    Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.

    How?  Can anyone explain this?

    It's quite simple.  Your brain can't know everything about itself, that would create a paradox: it would also have to know how it can know that.  

    When you learn a new fact, your brain would have to know which new connections to forge in order to encode that fact.  That would entail your brain being aware of all of its own wiring, which it can't even see.

    Obviously, some outside agency is required. Your mind skilfully observes your brain and knows exactly how to manipulate it to achieve any desired effect. And it does this without you being aware that it knows it.

    Er, yes, that's it. There's a hind-mind which knows all about brain circuitry but isn't part of your consciousness, and a fore-mind which is your consciousness but  knows sod all about brains (Unless you watched "The Man with Two Brains", in which case it may know that they are incredibly slimy).

    Read about it in my new book "The Spatula Fore-Mind"

    Date: 2009/01/03 20:39:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I made a design inference!    
    Housekeeping note ...Our Webmaster Jack Cole kindly alerted me to his philosophy regarding trolls, as in - do not feed the trolls.

    Bring out your inner lab rat: Take this test to find out if you are truly an intelligent design type - or not Clinical psychologist Jack Cole offers a simple perceptual test to differentiate between intelligent design types and atheistic naturalists.

    Following the link on offers:

    and from the "about" page, onward to, which contains so many  links to O'bleary that it could be considered to be part of the link farm.

    and from the Comment policy link:
    I generally approve all comments that are constructive and informative; however, I do not feed trolls.

    This could all be a coincidence but the chances of it happening are less than one in a BIGNUMBER * something I can't be arsed to calculate * something I can't possibly know. Therefore design inference!!One

    (somebody mentioned bignumber here earlier, which I nicked)

    Date: 2009/01/09 13:15:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    BarryA can't make up his mind about the bus ads. Are they "just silly" or are they one of the gravest sins imaginable, roughly equivalent to deliberately drowning children?

    Date: 2009/01/16 11:24:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Any living organisms found on Mars will be based on DNA and ribosomes essentially identical to what all life on earth utilizes. This is because life, even the simplest forms, is too complex to have originated in our solar system very early in its history.

    Why couldn't the aliens that seeded life have used a mechanism more similar to that which exists in their own bodies? You know, the one that allows aliens to exist by simple means, not requiring a God and not requiring infinite regression?  

    It would make more sense to base life on their own simple chemistry - after all, it enabled them to achieve far greater intelligence than we can aspire to.

    Also, does something which is designed have to be almost identical to every other thing that is designed? Cars are designed by intelligent designers; Therefore, ID predicts that life on Mars should resemble cars.

    Date: 2009/02/01 11:18:17, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The wikipedia article on the 'Observable Universe' says the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be of the order of 10^80.

    It also gives a 'back of the envelope' calculation which yields 8x10^79;   In rounding from that to the approximation 10^80 they've added 2x10^79 particles which is rather more than one grain of sand - more like 2^60 2x10^60 grains  (assuming no screw-ups on my part).

    I imagine Dave has seen different estimations of the number of particles which varied by around 20 orders of magnitude from each other (eg from 10^70 to 10^90) and got all confused about it.

    ETA: a) confirmed screw-up. b) 10^20 = 1020

    Date: 2009/02/02 15:40:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    the new FAQ – which is entitled “Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design – is nearing completion. Watch for the final product to appear on this page soon.

    If you can't wait that long, type faq onto the end of the UD homepage.

    eta: linky

    eta2: it's linked on the main page now under "Moderation policy"  (Maybe it already was) d'oh

    Date: 2009/02/03 13:24:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 03 2009,18:20)
    A promise from gpuccio

    “Please give a demonstration of how to quantify CSI as part of your FAQ.”

    It is coming. And you may notice that I have given you a specific indication about that in another thread.

    You can't wait, can you?

    No, but I predict it will be the usual -log2 (xxxx) formula and will be applied only to randomly drawn cards not to functional proteins.

    Date: 2009/02/04 18:31:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    KD's second installment:  
    For example, an observer gazing at the skies between AD 1000 and the present, would have seen an empty sky save for the usual clouds, birds, etc. However, early in the 20th century, the observer would have seen something anomalous, an aircraft. People desired a function or held an objective to fly. Nature did not seem very helpful in satisfying this objective, so humans exercised their ability for intelligent design (def. 1) and produced a piece of intelligent design (def 2) that would fulfill that function. The resulting aircraft in the sky was an anomaly within the physical system.

    Presumably, because it isn't a bird (def: an intelligently designed musical flying thing with feathers) or a cloud (an intelligently designed part of an irreducibly complex water delivery system without feathers) or a blue sky (an intelligently (designed oxygen/CO_2 delivery)/(blueness-qualia/natural-beauty-detector excitement) system.   And it's made of metal (and/or something else).  

    Davescot adds his own pointers. In particular how the commenting system at UD works.
    Just delete this comment after reading it.

    Date: 2009/02/06 15:39:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (olegt @ Feb. 06 2009,19:20)
    Quote (sparc @ Feb. 06 2009,13:07)
    What is poly(A)?
    These guys are indeed qualified to discuss biology.

    And just to be inclusive, they wouldn't mind discussing astrology in an astronomy class.  Linky.

    FAQ1:  The use of astrology and the use of animal innards or tea leaves to predict the future are all standard items in the toolbox of the Unfettered Truth-Seeking Scientist. So yes, IDC is science.  Behe understood that.

    FAQ2:  a) Engineers use information theory when looking for signals which they have designed to be distinguishable from random noise.
    b) IDCists go on about information theory.   A lot.
    c) Therefore, scientists, who are basically low-paid ivory tower based engineers,  accept that life shows signs of design by intelligent beings and  think that Dembski is great and want to be like him.

    Date: 2009/02/11 15:09:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Also from Jerry  
    For example, the designer might not want each organism to live forever so there must be some defect/design in the genome to ensure this.

    I feel a falsifiable hypothesis coming on...  If there is a designer, all living things will die. If we observe some living creatures and they never die, because they have so perfectly designed, intelligent design will disproved.  

    (Avoiding Zebra crossings until further notice)

    Date: 2009/02/13 20:17:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Competition pressures hit Evolutionary Biology      
    In an ironic twist, professors arguing that nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of natural selection, are experiencing a different type of selection pressure themselves.
    How important is evolutionary biology really?

    A) It has been expelled. Obviously, it's not very important.
    Q) Has evolutionary biology been replaced by ID in this (or any other) instance?
    A) That's a question; We don't answer those, but perhaps we could reinterpret it as a weak argument using our own words....

    Date: 2009/02/16 19:02:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Message Theory – A testable ID alternative to Darwinism
    Strange, many of those glowing reviews from people who know what they are talking about seem to indicate that this ID alternative is some sort of creationist creationist creationist cdesign propensists creationist meisterwerk.

    edit: inadvertently came to the wrong conclusion there.

    Date: 2009/02/16 19:29:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Has he updated anything?  Or is this just a "buy my book!!" push for the same rancid horseshit he self-published over 15 years ago?

    Find out which, in my new book, "Intelligent Design Creationism:  Rancid Horseshit or 'Buy My Book'?" only $99.99, available at all good church basements bookstores.

    Date: 2009/02/21 19:31:00, Link
    Author: steve_h
    StephenB starts with the frequently used  "Darwinists tend to go for potty mouthed insults rather than addressing the real issues" attack.    
    Rob, is it clear to me that you do not even begin to grasp the concept of CSI, let alone it’s subset FSCI. I don’t think it is fair for you to continue throwing thumbtacks along the highway hoping that someone will get a flat time. Somehow, you labor under the misconception that persistent mindless criticism of a proposition constitutes a refutation. It doesn’t
    rOb counters        
    Unfortunately, StephenB, everything I said about CSI comes straight from Dembski, as you can readily verify by reading his work.
    StephenB can't manage even the most basic notpology and decides to go with additional accusations of wrong-doing against his opponent  
    I agree that the charge of “mindless criticism” is grossly unfair and borderline rude. As it turns out, though, I did not make that charge nor did I write that post @18. I noticed those comments as well, but I have no idea how they appeared there or how they arranged themselves into such an insulting formulation. Please stop accusing me of that which I did not do.
    JerryB (who may or may not be an undercover agent) points out to StephenB, that his behaviour might reflect on the IDCers    
    Their only problem is that the other commentators know that there are external judges of the contest who will decide who has won.
    StephenB over the course of two posts tries to salvage some self respect      
    It is in that spirit that I assure you that I don’t know what happened @18. I can only conclude that natural forces generated the posting and arranged the texture and sequence of the words. I truly regret that it worked out that way, and, frankly, I don’t understand why you don’t believe me.
    OK Rob, here is your retraction. I am not one to extend an exercise beyond its normal life expectancy. I did not mean those things I said @18, which, of course, means that I did not consider your comments to be mindless in any sense of the word. For my part, your comments are always welcome.
    My purpose was to take you through an exercise of CSI detection, nothing more.

    I never thought I'd see it, but I think Salvador Cordova has finally been out-slimed.

    Date: 2009/02/26 17:44:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    bfast on whether IDCists do research.

    Oh, may no, mon ami.
    Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.
    After slaving away in the lab for what seems a very long time, ID scientists have finally worked out a new answer to the question "what do you get if you divide 6,000,000 by 10"

    ETA:  Curses!   I shouldn't have previewed. Skullboy got in 7 seconds ahead of me. Skulboy beat me to it by some considerable margin. More curses

    Date: 2009/02/26 17:58:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Skullboy @ Feb. 26 2009,23:37)
    bFast attempts a mathematical refutation.


    Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.

    Bacteria reproduce hourly, or faster. 6,000 hours is less than a year. Therefore we can simulate the number of generations from the last common ancestor to man in less than a year.

    Ouch, simple truth like that must hurt the other side.

    Good post, as usual.


    Oh, nevermind...

    Bfast passes ID peer review. Yay!

    Date: 2009/02/26 18:19:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I'm no mathematician, but I think that makes for 600,000 generations.
    Maybe you're not a mathematician, but you are an oppressed ID researcher now -  even if you didn't realize it.

    Date: 2009/02/26 18:35:02, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 27 2009,00:29)


    Oh, may no, mon ami.

    bFast's French is about as good as his math.

    Je suis shocked, shocked je tellez vous.

    Date: 2009/02/27 18:34:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Davescot It seems that a significant percentage of the human race just isn’t happy unless they believe there’s some man-made global catastrophe on the way that must be fixed.
    I do have a question. How is this relevant to intelligent design?

    Put your irony meters in the special lead-lined boxes provided.   Oh, I should have said that before giving you the quote. Sorry.

    Date: 2009/03/13 22:25:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (ck1 @ Mar. 14 2009,03:51)
    About 4.5 hours ago I posted this on Barry's new moderation policy thread (it has not appeared):

    I'm a biologist (32 years since PhD) working in genetics, virology and evolution.  I am delighted to hear of this new moderation policy and I look forward to being able to post here now.

    I will simply note for now that often scientific findings are counterintuitive.  It is the data that matters, not suppositions based on common sense.

    Too confrontational?

    I think the word you are looking for is "Vicious". It's a vicious personal attack and therefore unsuitable for inclusion at a refined scientifical forum such as UD. Drop the insults, the foul language, the pathetic mindless mischaracterizations, hate speech, puppy butchering and fascism and try again, somewhere else, in a year or so you racist chance worshipping bastard holocaust causer.

    This comment was automatically screened for naughty words during transmission; It contain nothing that an IDC supporter would consider objectionable.

    Date: 2009/03/16 21:24:36, Link
    Author: steve_h
    And what are the closest neighbors to English on this branch (its evolutionary cousins)?

    Easy peasy, in order of increasing verbosity:
    Unwinese, Pig Latin, Eggy Peggy, Worzelese and the sadly now unreadable Mullinseze with its weird
    a->(3.Q.IIIIIIIIIX) constructions and whatnot.

    Date: 2009/03/17 22:01:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 18 2009,03:13)
    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. anthracene) have been found in planetary nebula. Amino acids and other complex compounds have been found in spark experiments. And random nucleotide sequences can have catalytic function, including autocatalytic properties.

    Yoinks! How many generations did that one take?   ;)  ;) ...

    Date: 2009/03/20 20:53:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Shorter Adel Dibagno: I know DaveScot, and you, sir, are no DaveScot
    Aferensis, Apologize to Adel Dibagno (eta)/Jerry!

    <font=less_tough>(or congratulate him, or notgratulate him, or whatever)</font>

    Date: 2009/03/20 21:58:07, Link
    Author: steve_h
    O'drearyIf you have decided that a multiverse makes more sense than a designed universe, chances are, you will rethink after you see this:

    Ha ha ha, the very idea of a multiverse is laughable. There's only one universe, this one, and teh one in which God teh Designer lives in. Two universes, thsi one and teh one that  God Teh Designer lives in; ... and the one that teh people that God teh Designer wants to suffer in, at teh hands of teh apprentis Designer, go. Three universes  - but 3 is leik teh maximum! 3! Any more than that wud be teh stoopid mutli neo Darwinbotism speakin. (*)
    Also, time travel is teh Brit T0ff racist (I 8's Brits 'n' Toffs, but speshly Brit Toffs); there're two many paradoxes. Better to solve 'em, all wif one Cdesigner who exists outside of time, who sees teh one tr00  future and changes it all over the places  at His whim His non paradoxy, non-Brit(spit), non-Toff, Plan.

    (*) and therefore a racist. Did I mention that Darwinist are racists? I forget sometimes.

    Date: 2009/03/24 19:55:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    "The mother produces a set number of children and the fittest child is selected to become the new mother for the next generation. If this is correct, then we do not need an array. The mother births each child in turn, and " the environment"  compares it to the previous child and discards the least fit."

    Mother doing the comparison and the killing would be sprogicide. When the environment does it, it's just a mysterious way. Same Functional Sponge Cake Ingredients in either case, but the moral distinction is important.

    Edited: cake stuff.

    Date: 2009/03/24 22:06:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 25 2009,03:28)
    jerry: If anyone want to see the Weasel generator that was created a couple years at Monash University in Australia follow the link I put up above and press demo at the bottom. It uses a latching function.

    Then it isn't an evolutionary algorithm, and it isn't Weasel.
    From the link
    Note that this demo works slightly different than the model described by Dawkins in his book. We are grateful to Dr. W. R. Elsberry for pointing this out and for highlighting the differences. In the original model the letters do not become fixed. Instead, at each generation (i.e. step) a number of mutant strings are produced from the current copy by randomly changing some letters. The mutants are considered to be chosen for the next generation. The chosen string is the one that most resembles the target string.

    Date: 2009/04/03 21:51:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    O'leary Essentially, I think God can create however he wants.

    He can use direct creation and various types of evolution, including Darwin’s natural selection. Or other methods beyond my ability to imagine.

    God could have been the prime mover behind the holocaust (D.O'L passim*)- Darwinism is like totally bad when Darwin does it, but it's like sooo sooo good when God does it. Or he cud of dun uvver stuff wich was werse even than wot I can thik of.

    * passim = all other O'Dreary posts which equate Darwin to Hitler.

    Date: 2009/04/26 16:45:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ April 26 2009,14:57)
    Quote (Zachriel @ April 26 2009,07:51)
    Fun with BIG numbers!

    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?

    Oh dear!   Now Demsbki is going to have to pay someone to produce a brown version.

    Date: 2009/05/07 17:43:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    MARK CHU-CARROL comments:
    Not as far as I know.

    In the bibliography, they list two other of their papers, which are listed as "to appear", with the journal names black out. If you delayer the PDF to see the text under the blackouts, it says "International Journal of Fun and Games – You’re too Clever – Gotcha!" - which I take both to be a sign of lack of professionalism, and an admission that they can't get this stuff published anyplace real.

    For the less technically minded, instead of "delayering the PDF" you can get the same effect by copying from PDF and pasting into Notepad

    Date: 2009/05/21 15:14:02, Link
    Author: steve_h
  • Templeton Foundation Book Prize ($100,000) for writing book on information theory, 2000–2001.

  • Is it just me, or does that wording imply that the book had already been written at the time of the award? Should it be "for a proposed book uniting Information Theory (not very interesting to Templeton) with Theology (v. interesting to them) which he never delivered"?

    Date: 2009/05/27 15:57:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (keiths @ May 27 2009,19:13)
    Quote (Hermagoras @ May 27 2009,09:48)
    Deep thought: IDC just needs one more website to win the day!

    Which reminds me to visit that overwhelming website,  The dates of the last ten comments there:
    1 week 6 days ago
    2 weeks 44 min ago
    4 weeks 6 days ago
    9 weeks 19 hours ago
    9 weeks 19 hours ago  
    12 weeks 1 day ago
    14 weeks 4 days ago
    16 weeks 1 day ago
    17 weeks 2 days ago
    19 weeks 6 days ago

    At this rate they're on track to exceed 25 comments this year!  The cool kids sure hate Darwin, don't they?

    At least the web's leading resource for all matters of Intelligent Design Research is still as active as ever.
    31 July 2006
    (diff) (hist) . . Glossary:D?; 03:29 . . JosephCCampana (Talk | contribs) (?Darwinist)
    (diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 02:03 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)
    (diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 02:00 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)
    (diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 01:49 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)

    Date: 2009/05/27 17:49:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    One thing that always struck me about the site is that it listed, AFAICT, no actual current research - it just listed lots of potential avenues that ID could follow. This was done by listing as many branches of mathematics, science, and philosophy as the Intelligent Design Research Community (AKA Joey C Campana) could think of, and adding question marks everywhere.

    Then in July 2006 the community decided to go into the second phase where they hit the labs and tried to answer some or all of those questions. Rats, it was the rapture, wasn't it?

    Date: 2009/05/28 17:35:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    According to Wikipedia, the impact was probably equivalent to a 10-15 megaton nuke. Pretty powerful for 1908.

    My bold.

    Yes asteroid technology hadn't advanced beyond a few kilotons back then- The one that wiped out the dinosaurs,
    60-odd million years ago, was only equivalent to a few pounds of TNT and they just like seriously over-reacted.

    ETA: or meteor or whatever.

    Date: 2009/05/31 22:19:37, Link
    Author: steve_h
    From the endorsements of DrDrD's new books
    Dembski’s insights may well prove to be a Copernican breakthrough.
    –Hank Hanegraaff, host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast and author of The Complete Bible Answer Book: Collector’s Edition.

    Meanwhile from O'leary  
    Uncommon Descent Contest 4: Can we save physics by dumping the Copernican principle?

    Also meanwhile:
    Dark energy? “Dark” means we are in the dark about it. According to the current model, we don’t know what 70 percent, approximately, of the cosmos comprises. Whatever that 70% is, it does not respond to light. It also does not answer e-mail, phone mail, or letter mail. Bummer.

    OMDD!!one! The current model needs to be scrapped because it doesn't state exactly what The Designer is made of (Dark matter) and what He uses to get it moving (Dark Energy) or why He doesn't return our calls etc.

    Date: 2009/06/01 10:29:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Chapter 1, Paragraph 1:
    We inhabit not just a physical environment but also a moral environment. Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn defines our moral environment as “the surrounding climate of ideas about how to live.” Though we cannot help but be aware of our physical environment, we are often oblivious of our moral environment. Yet our moral environment is always deeply influential.

    Bzzzzzt. Trivially wrong. Anyone who reads UD knows that we don't get morality from an "environment", we get it directly from the Designer of teh Absolute Morality; Unless we are an atheist, in which case we live destructive lives untouched by morality of any kind.

    Date: 2009/06/07 20:01:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DLLs are great. They allow humans to reduce their DNA content by 5.4% by removing all of the code for the human lung and replacing it by a few simple calls to a generic HumanLung.dll library. The call can be coded in optimized DNA as "TTAG GGGG AAAA AAAA GGTG" whereas the library which is stored somewhere in %bibleland%\sys\organ\lung requires over 17 billion pages of shared DNA computer code. By coding for other major organs and systems in a similar way, the human genome is reduced by a factor of loads resulting in a genome much smaller than a non-ID "scientist" would expect.

    The problem comes when you try to improve an existing function (eg BreathIn(double volume))  by something more nuanced (eg SharpIntakeOfBreath(double volume, double sharpnesss)). You replace the HumanLung.dll V3252556 by a new version V3252557 and everyone else dies.  Mass extinctions: predicted by programming but inexplicable in terms of RM&S.

    I'm not a biologist but I play a mean comb and paper have a frilly shirt and used to be an atheist.

    Date: 2009/06/09 17:48:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52)
    Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:
    9 June 2009

    A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution


    In another thread a fellow who goes by Legendary made some rather derisive comments about a suggestion I once made, concerning making computer programs that purport to model biological evolution more realistic. The suggestion was half serious and half tongue-in-cheek, since it would be impractical.

    My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems.

    Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations.

    Thus, a realistic simulation would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion, just as a real organism’s ability to survive and reproduce would be affected randomly by mutational interference. A mutation might cause an enzyme to malfunction and the organism would suffer an early demise, or it might be rendered sterile, and the beneficial mutations would never be passed on.

    Of course, this would not be practical, and each “organism” would require its own computer, but the point should be clear: A simulation can’t just arbitrarily ignore aspects of the reality it purports to simulate, because taking them into account would be likely to result in an undesirable outcome.

    As a footnote, I highly recommend reading Eric Anderson’s piece on Avida here.


    so when Gil said he was only joking about that, he wasn't joking about the  ridiculousness of DNA mutation affecting the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, only about the difficulty of modelling those crazy changes on both his precious finite element analysis software and his checkers program (bangs head on <looks around for something suitable and fails> moves eyebrows a bit)

    If DNA mutations do affect the laws of physics, how on earth    Heaven  not-specified did Teh Designer model his plan before he/she/He poofedcdesinged it into existence?

    Date: 2009/06/09 17:58:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Anyone know what the Harvard cafeteria serves? I heard they have pasta and rice and  (gasp!) fish and (Eeek!!) pork (*).

    The opportunities for ID research are endless.

    (*) actually, I didn't.

    Date: 2009/06/09 20:14:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Gil Dodgen:  
    Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
    Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

    Date: 2009/06/29 20:29:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Apropos of nothing, I just noticed that the letters of ex-moderator Davescot's name can be rearranged to get "Tards cove".  Though to be honest, I did have to throw in an additional 'R'.  linky

    Date: 2009/07/07 21:42:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I was really just mocking the UDists for their "well I once sat next to the Auntie of Neil Armstrong therefore I've been in space" type bullshit. It's the same vein of dumb that Project Steve so beautifully mocks. They crave some form of tenuous rhetorical validation for their claims and themselves and hence hilarity ensues!

    I was once confronted by Griff Rhys Jones in a train doorway. We did that side to side shuffling thing and the "you go first", "no you go first" business and then he backed off (ha! loser). Anyway he has a Bacon number of 2 which gives me a 3. Also he was sporting a Hitler moustache as he was appearing as some Hitler-like character in a play about Hitler (or whatever), which gives me a Hitler-number of 2. (Re-reads what Louis just wrote) Anyway, that's what someone at UD might say - I'm not even going to mention it.

    Date: 2009/07/08 17:18:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 08 2009,22:28)
    Mario A. Lopez is the tardmeister serving this pile of shite up, and if you don't know his primary "contribution" to ID is making websites and "grass roots" ID sites that link to each other, like an O'Leary link fest. All empty shells.

    Go here

    Try find an active club!  


    Isn't it about that time of the year when somebody associated with that organisation is generously rewarded in recognition of his or her fearlessness in fighting on the front line against the Darwinian Oppressors,  but then can't be named for his or her fear of being  associated forever  with Casey Luskin?

    And aren't we due a new meltdown academic discussion about some entry in the new FAQ?

    Date: 2009/07/09 12:46:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Every post for over 4 years is available on this site except for a few which were removed for obnoxious purposes.

    (My bold) Jerry unwittingly got the last bit right.

    Date: 2009/07/13 17:07:29, Link
    Author: steve_h

    You have inspired me to pustulate an ID theory to explain why homeopathic* medicine works.  Start with a solution containing the medicine, which has a given amount of CSI. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution, but since CSI must be conserved, no CSI is lost.  Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.  The final solution** has exactly the same amount of CSI as the original.***

    I've figured out a way to store hundreds of films on a single re-recordable  DVD.
    Take three DVD-RW/DVD-ROM/whatevers. Onto one copy a film and destroy the original, leave the second DVD empty and record random noise onto the third.

    The first contains high amounts of FCSI - and the other two, not so much.
    Then overwrite a second film onto each DVD from a fourth source DVD. Then utterly destroy that source DVD.
    To materialist (spit) science, the three DVDs now contain only the new film. But the ID scientist knows that  information is preserved due to Dembski's law of preservation of information. ANYONE with access to Dembski's work (*) would have no problem in identifying which DVD was which, by examining it's total CFSI (**), and, with a suitable player (***), watch either film in its original glory. You may need to destroy the other two copies to ensure that all the CSFI  is concentrated on DVD#1.

    Then simply repeat the process for hundreds of other films.

    (*) Don't remember which, buy the lot just to make sure. Do your own homework.
    (**) No new quantities of own private meaning were used in this comment.
    (***) buy beta version on-line at or any good ID technology outlet  sometime soon (Waterloo first, then the players)

    Date: 2009/07/24 18:52:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Extra credit I:  visit this science oriented non-profit web site.  Click the donate button and enter a number of 10^<number of extra credits required>. Please bear in mind that the selfless sacrifice needed to publicize science books and retain expert consultants with backgrounds in theology, philosophy AND mathematics can seem a little costly to the uninitiated.

    Extra credit II. Befriend a student of Baylor Baptist university. Arrange to meet them in its cafetaria and, while you are there, score me some of their delicious danish pastries (or whatever) without getting burned.

    (Rats, my browser is convinced that I am a German and is underlining all of the English words.)

    Date: 2009/07/27 16:23:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    ID scientist discovers a new variety of simple.
    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

    Date: 2009/07/27 18:27:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 27 2009,22:27)
    Quote (steve_h @ July 27 2009,17:23)
    ID scientist discovers a new variety of simple.      
    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

    try following his link to the "metrics" sometime.  you'll want to stab your eyeballs out with an unintelligently designed ball point pen.  what a maroon

    Let contingency [C] be defined as 1/0 by comparison with a suitable exemplar, e.g. a tossed die.
    ok. you win this time ras. Bugger, can't find a suitable writing implement. Maybe if I just whack myself repeatedly with the keyb

    Date: 2009/07/29 17:12:58, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Why do creationists like Dembski always wear wed braces (under their sweaters), apart from the obvious reason (thttu)? It's amazin, hardly anyone in the general population does this, but creationists do to a man. Try  buying a pair in Texas, you can't, they're all sold out. Creationists bought them all!!

    I think we should call 'em the Red Braces Brigade and taunt them with "what's wrong with belts grandad?".

    [note to Josh: see if you can dig out or vaguely remember some good examples from Wikipedia]
    Hi Steve, this is Den your journalist grandparent. I tried to corroborate your theory by making some discrete phone calls. Unfortunately I kept getting the care home (damn auto dial) - they wanted to know where I was. So I think we can safely assume that you are correct on this occasion.

    Date: 2009/07/29 18:16:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    There is documentary evidence that catholics also value that which is counter-intuitive (and/or unexpected)

    Date: 2009/07/31 21:25:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    O'Linky and Dr^3 have evidence of vacuity in "Darwinian thought"

    Via noted Evolutionary scientists, Deepak Chopra and Oprah Winfrey ( slightly more indirectly in Granny "Paraphrase the Paraphrasor"'s case).

    The barrel's been scraped away, now there's just a 200m deep crater where a barrel used to be.

    ETA: DATCG seems to have caught the postscript bug.

    Date: 2009/08/03 16:12:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    xx.yy.200z: (disappeared?) Kevin Padian notpology
    eta for Americans (yy.xx.200z)

    Date: 2009/08/12 07:35:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    That said, we are happy to announce that the first individual blog we have added is that of Dr. Michael Behe.  All of his previous posts from his Amazon blog have been imported to his UD blog.  

    but sadly, none of the comments made it.

    Date: 2009/08/21 15:48:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    So many times, teachers have cried over their coffee to ME about this very problem

    Coffee! --  standard ISO-approved disclaimer; Obviously they didn't expect anyone to take them seriously.

    Date: 2009/08/24 17:49:52, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Goffr @ Aug. 22 2009,08:36)
    Dumski thinks he is a clever dick. From his paper

    E. Partitioned Search
    Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure
    best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character

    METHINKS ? IT ? IS ? LIKE ? A ? WEASEL. (19)

    Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters


    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


    Oh wait what is that random phrase reversed?




    oh ha ha.

    It's a shame Dawkins' program DOESN'T MUTATUTE EVERY CHARACTER EACH GENERATION. Man is this guy full retard.

    This proves that the paper is ID-friendly.

    You KNEW that the backwards stuff was designed and not some random gibberish. Therefore design detection has been demonstrated even though the words "design" and "detection" did not appear in the paper.

    </lame*></idc*> still feel dirty </lame></dembski>

    Date: 2009/08/26 21:33:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Densy's code competion seemed to be open to all (including the banned such as myself ) so I thought I'd temporarily ignore my ban and post some thing.  Alas it seems to have disappeared with no 'awaiting deletion by clive and/or densy' message so I will return to respecting the ban that hasn't been lifted after all.

    I found this on Dawkin's old page.  Some of the original formatting may be lost.
    Code Sample

    C                 IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE. 01.03.1986
    C                  IPOD TO CATCH FIRE.
    C                  (C) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, CRD, 1986
         CHARACTER*28 GOODRN(40)
         DATA GOODRN /
        1 28HDWORC LAUSU YB DEWEIVER REEP,                                DI GUYS
        1 28HYLR YGOLOEHT TON ECNEICS CDI,                                IN COURT          
    C     128HLIVED EHT FO LOOT SI ECNEICS,                                IN CHRCH
         INTEGER QLCTHD(28)                                                QUASI-
         INTEGER LATCHD(28)                                                LATCHED
         CHARACTER *28  SEQNCE
         CHARACTER *28  CHILD
         INTEGER GORDON                                                    PADDING
         INTEGER E                                                         MORE PADDING
         INTEGER MULLIN                                                    MORE PADDING
         INTEGER S                                                         MORE PADDING
         INTEGER KAIROS                                                    MORE PADDING
         INTEGER INSTUT                                                    MORE PADDING
         FLOAT  WIND, BAG
         PARAMETER FITNESS = 0.5
         DO 10 I = 1, 28
         SEQNCE(I:I) = INITAL(I:I)
      10 CONTINUE
         DO I=1,23
         GOODRN(I) = REVERS(GOODRN(I)                                    
    23   CONTINUE

         DO 20 J = 1, 23
         DO 30 IPOP=1,IPOPSZ
         CHILD = SEQNCE
         DO 30 K = 1,28
         IF ( RAND() .GT. 1000 ) GOTO 100
         IF ( LATCHD(I) .NE. 0) GOTO 101
         IF ( QLATCH(I) .NE. 0) GOTO 101
    299  CHILD(I,K) = TARGET(I:K)
    100  CONTINUE
         K = RAND(28)
         FOR L = 0,28
         GOTO (100,660,299,301) RND(4)
    660  CHILD(I)(K) = GOODRN(J)(K:K)
         GOTO 200
    200  GOTO 300
    101  IF (I.GT.3) GOTO 100
    300  DO 301 IZ=1,100
         DO 304 IZ1=1,28
         RDHRNG(IZ1) = RNDCH();
    304  CONTINUE
         WRITE (*, (A38)) RDHRNG
    301  CONTINUE
         IBEST = 1
     20  CONTINUE
         IF (RND(199) < 15) GOTO 10
    999  WRITE (*, (A28)) GOODRN(22)

    Date: 2009/08/31 18:17:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Uncommonly Behe      
    Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it’s understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads


    This entry was posted Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 7:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    ETA: emphasis

    Date: 2009/09/13 19:42:44, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Cornelius Hunter reports predicts...  
    Thousands of DNA segments have been found to be nearly identical across a wide range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. Evolutionary theory expected no such high similarity for species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for hundreds of millions of years. The only explanation could be a super strong functional constraint requiring the very unusual similarities, but none was found

    I've only read the abstract of the paper to which he refers. It states:  
    We propose that the cis-regulatory inputs identified by CNEs arose during the re-wiring of regulatory interactions that occurred during early animal evolution. Consequently, different animal groups, with different core GRNs, contain alternative sets of CNEs. Due to the subsequent stability of animal body plans, these core regulatory sequences have been evolving in parallel under strong purifying selection in different animal groups.
    . This suggests to me that certain B I G changes to body plans etc. were laid down in the (pre) cambrian and that you don't mess around with these changes in organisms which rely rather heavily on them.   Cornelius seems to think that a modification which will produce mammalian offspring without, say, bones  should be equally likely to succeed as one which makes one individual have slightly darker skin or differently colored hair. He backs this up with a website of Evolution's" predictions, written by one Cornelius Hunter.

    Date: 2009/09/15 19:12:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Searching for posts on the UD I & II posts is not as easy as it should be.

    When Wesley add the following links to the bored mechanics thread, I thought my problems were solved. They present
    entire threads in two huge pages.
     - Complete UD I thread
     - Complete UD II thread

    remove the initial X to get the real results (Warning may crash browser)

    Since every browser I tried on windows XP struggled to display those pages. I realised that my problems were not solved after all.

    So I tried to split the  huge files into manageable chunks, one file per comment, named after the post number, date, and author

    - surely the "find in files.." of so many editors or the indexing service would text care of things. Well, to an extent yes, but the HTML formattings got in the way somewhat, and the search results were pretty much unreadable.

    I tried creating a new set of files with all of the HTML stripped out (No fonts, bolds, italics, links, images etc) and the result was a bit better but still not very readable.

    Then I put the texts into an SQLITE database and wrote a simple TCL script to search it and display the results.

    The result was still crap, because so much depends on knowing what is quoted and what isn't, so I arranged for <Q> and </Q> to be placed around the quoted stuff, then for the quoted stuff to be in different colors, then for the hyperlinked text to be hilited, and then for images to display (thumbnails only).  

    Finally I added double clicking of urls and images to paste the URLs to the clip board, and control-left-mouse-button to open in a browser (I.E hardcoded, but it's a script which you can edit).

    It's fairly basic and it's unlikely to be improved unless I get very bored indeed. Here's a screenshot:

    If you want to try it, you can download
    -the database (12.5MB),
    - the (optional) thumbnail views of most of the images (15.5MB)
    - and the browser script browse.tcl

    You may also need/like to download:
    - A free TCL 8.5 interpreter from]
    - The free open source sqlite3 database program sqlite3.exe from
    - Free open-source ZIP-compatible archiving software

    Post bug reports, comments, improvements, missing images, copyright infringements here. If any of my HTML-stripping has completely altered the meaning of any comment, then obviously I would like to know about it. Also I've noticed some instances of characters such as ä/ö/ü/è being rather badly mangled. I don't need to know every page that contains character errors but examples of each bad character would be nice.

    Disclaimer: I've only tried this on windows-XP so far. I may need to choose a unix friendly compression algoritm and/or tweak the TCL script.

    Edit:  Corrected thumbnail link
    Edit:  b
    Edit: Corrected database link,

    Date: 2009/09/16 06:48:53, Link
    Author: steve_h

    Thanks, the link was wrong. The filename is of course.

    Also, if you remove atbc.db from the end of that url, leaving just the directory name, you can see all of the files -- Just in case the editing process broke any other links....

    Date: 2009/09/16 17:56:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I just read some stuff in the UD III thread which contained stuff crap complete bollocks perfectly valid alternative viewpoints which had been humorously struck out. Such outstriking is systematically lost/expelled by my program,  substantially altering the legibility of some comments.

    However, I need to think about how to fix this. I'm not a three thousand bug-free lines of code per hour "star programmer" and I've had a few drinks. During the meanwhile, the term "fixed that for you" may indicate that not all the the previous text should be subject to strict grammatical analysis.

    To summarize: D'oh !  Or as HJS dubbed into German would say, "Nein !"

    Date: 2009/09/19 12:30:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,17:40)
    Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

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

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

    I guess these are quasi-originals rather than actual originals.

    Both change exactly one letter of each child (possibly back to the original value) with no regard to whether it's already correct or not.

    AFAICT they are trying to use the same algorithm, but #2 is displaying every child.

    And I think no.1 gets stuck in an infinite loop inside the SameLetters function because it doesn't advance the loop count when the tested letter doesn't match the target. I expect Dawkins 1986 version is still running somewhere.

    Neither keeps all of the correct letters while choosing new values for all of the incorrect ones as D&M did.

    Maybe this is a close as Dembski is capable of getting to admitting that they got the algorithm wrong.

    ETA: Oops misread the code. 'If' ... 'then' is followed by one statement (or several between "begin" and "end")

    Date: 2009/09/19 13:53:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Yes, the code's not really in question, but my pascal parsing skills are.

    I wouldn't have made this mistake if  Dawkins  had formatted his original code :) as follows:

    Code Sample

    While I <= Length(New) do
        If New[I]=Current[I] Then

    Date: 2009/09/19 15:08:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,20:47)
    It does indeed satisfy KF's claim of implicit latching.

    Both versions of the program do. There's supposed to be a change in explicit latching to quasi latching between the two versions.  

    I do hope Gordon of Talky tries to educate DrDr about this.

    Date: 2009/09/30 17:39:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Brilliant! I've learned a new word, mustela, and had my stomach churned by some imagery that Maya would've been proud of.

    Date: 2009/10/01 16:23:09, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I think he's gone further than just allowing blantant YECers - I appear to have been the subject of a silent (gasp) unbanning.

    My Fortran weasel program a few weeks ago, never appeared, but since then I've posted three times. One of my posts was a poem on Dembski's blasphemy thread in which I asked who designed the designer etc., and finished with the word "tarred". I was rather disappointed when the expected routine ironic re-banning didn't result.

    Maybe I was serving a fixed term ban. Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.

    Date: 2009/10/01 18:17:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Bugger! It's between fixed-term bans and lightweights then.

    Date: 2009/10/08 15:30:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    AFICT it was one carlsonjok back on page 521 of the first UD thread.  


    Damn!  the browser's links back to ATBC seem to be broken. There's no ST=nnnn part. To get this link, I had to calculate it from (521-1) * 30 = 15600.

    I don't feel like regenerating the DB from scratch right now though, so you'll have to do your own calculations for other posts.

    ETA:  I found this by searching for ICANHAS.

    Incidentally, I used another nice free program, irfanview, to produce the thumbnails.  This also gives you an easy way to browse directories of images as thumbnails (including my thumbnail images). I didn't see any obvious LOLCATS before yours.

    Date: 2009/10/08 15:50:19, Link
    Author: steve_h
    By the way, I am wondering if someone is going to periodically update the post and thumbnail zip files?

    Probably not.  I checked the stats and, AFAICT, everyone who has downloaded the files, has also posted in this thread.

    So I have to put this down as a dismal failure. Sniff.

    If I get really bored when move on to UDIV I may consider an update, but there's not been enough interest
    to justify frequent ones.

    I think we should just pester Wes to implement a proper search at ATBC.

    Date: 2009/10/08 16:26:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Thanks. I will probably revisit this after I've had a sufficient break from it, and start to have fond memories of things on the current thread that I can no longer find. Though I doubt that I will ever get around to producing a fully automated process.

    Date: 2009/10/11 12:35:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I didn't save my remark (but from memory)

    I don’t find that those who oppose homosexuality can be put in the same camp as those who fly airplanes into buildings

    I think that if you divided humanity into two camps, one which opposes homosexuality and one that does not, the people that fly airplanes into buildings will be in the first one

    What I did not say was that anyone who disagrees with me is the type of person that flies planes into buildings.

    Date: 2009/10/11 12:40:02, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (didymos @ Oct. 11 2009,05:35)
    Someone's been fiddling with the PA system again:

    steve_h has been redacted:        




    5:53 pm

    Editors: The thrust of this comment: “People who disagree with me are the type of people who fly airplanes into buildings.” The comment and the commenter have been deleted from this site.

    (Copied to the bans thread)

    I didn't save my remark (but from memory)

    I don’t find that those who oppose homosexuality can be put in the same camp as those who fly airplanes into buildings

    I think that if you divided humanity into two camps, one which opposes homosexuality and one that does not, the people that fly airplanes into buildings will be in the first one

    What I did not say was that anyone who disagrees with me is the type of person that flies planes into buildings.

    ETA:  And what's the point of deleting a comment if you then tell everyone what it was  (unless you knew your new "thrusty" version was rather different)?  It's not as if he cleaned up the language or anything.

    Date: 2009/10/11 13:14:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    On another note, my harsh moderation policies have been considerably reined in at UD given the new management, but I have no problem banning you from this thread and I still have enough clout here to get you banned period. So keep it civil or head for the exit. –WmAD

    (my unbolding, for emphasis)

    Date: 2009/10/12 15:02:38, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 11 2009,04:19)
    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    
    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).

    That "404" comment has been removed. I think at least one other went with it. The only one left now is of the "First Comment!!" variety.

    Date: 2009/10/14 06:05:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I can't find the "pathetic level of detail quote" on that page - or that thread in the index.  If I switch to a different page, I get the same page again.

    Has there been some sort of tragic accident at ISCID?

    Date: 2009/10/30 20:52:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Gil B1
    B) I program computers
    I am a professional scientist(*), not an amateur, with the relevant, demonstrable credentials concerning the issue at hand

    1)  therefore Darwin is wrong.    
    It is evolutionary biologists who lack the requisite scientific credentials to evaluate their own theory with rigor.

    (*) Scientist:  An engineer (**) in a frilly shirt.
    (**) Engineer: A guy who runs computer simulations who has no understanding of what they are.

    ETA (**)

    Date: 2009/11/03 17:03:24, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Did anyone here save the JJSOL animation?  IIRC, the RDF copied the original farty version, but agreed to keep it to themselves  when asked to by DrDrD. However, I think this historical document should be a part of the public record, so that future generations will know how the judiciary functioned towards the end of the 20th century.

    Date: 2009/11/03 18:55:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,00:25)
    Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 03 2009,18:03)
    Did anyone here save the JJSOL animation?  IIRC, the RDF copied the original farty version, but agreed to keep it to themselves  when asked to by DrDrD. However, I think this historical document should be a part of the public record, so that future generations will know how the judiciary functioned towards the end of the 20th century.

    A link into OE that still functions: Self-same link.

    Thanks RB, a quick "view source" reveals a more direct link which may be immune to unseen accidental omission due to "mapping errors" etc., here.

    I'm offically banned from commenting at UD, so I haven't tried and I won't until someone high up posts something to the effect that no one is banned at UD; But I can still log in and change my settings. So I set my web site to but it seems to be held in moderation (Note, it's not MY website, but arguably, it's my "favorite" and it's not obscene or anything)

    Date: 2009/12/24 17:52:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Following the almost unprecedented success of the Uncommonly Dense Thread Browser a few months ago, I have decided to branch out in a new direction.

    UnDembski is an extension for the Google Chrome (BETA) browser which aims to do the exact opposite as Dembski and his trusty moderators;  Whereas they remove comments from, UnDembski puts them back.

    It does this by keeping local copies in a local sqlite database and looking for differences each time you load a page from UD.  

    The end result should look something like:



    Maybe WAD will complain about copyright, but I think this comes under "Fair Use" :

    * Only deleted posts are displayed by the extension.
    * They are displayed in their original context. Anyone reading them will see his current advertisements etc.
    * And, mostly, they are not written by Dembski and Co anyway.

    There are two versions:  
    and UnDembskiTest.crx.

    The former only processes files from The latter also opens files from (i.e your own computer), but has scarier warnings during installation. It allows you to test the software by saving files from UD into a local directory and them manually and carefully removing comments - as I did in order to get the above snapshots.

    There are also ZIP files with the source code. You should see all of the files here.

    I don't know how much the local databases will be allowed to grow. The next version may need to do some pruning of older comments.

    The one after that will hopefully  allow you to upload deleted comments (and posts) to a central server. So that you will get additions from other users.

    Merry Xmas / Happy Monkey / Whatever.

    edited: fix links newfanged->newfangled

    Date: 2009/12/27 13:22:31, Link
    Author: steve_h
    There's a new version of UnDembski (but not UnDembskiTest) at the same site.

    New Features:
    * Always show a summary at the top of page, otherwise you don't really know that the extension is running.
    * Automatically add a word count to mullins' posts.

    Date: 2009/12/27 14:17:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    My first result !!!one from
    Jonathon Wells

    Known bugs:

    * it didn't detect the deletion of the duplicate post. Actually, the duplicate fixed the spelling error, but Wells deleted that and fixed the original which already had other comments on it. Currently I don't inspect the front page, which I would need to do to be sure of catching post deletions.

    * It didn't hilite the modification to the original post.

    * It currently won't hilite minor modifications to comments - only their deletion.

    * It  doesn't draw attention to Zachriel's posts (or any other held in moderation for that matter).

    * it has a rather crappy icon.

    * You can't click on the new posts count to scroll down to the first new or held-back post.

    * it would be nice to be able to hilite modifications in different colors etc, but I don't know of a good way to do this - especially without screwing up HTML tag nesting etc.  I think I will have to settle for detecting changes by comparing pure text versions of new and old comments/posts (with all whitespace reduced to a single space) and then allow the user to toggle between new and old.

    Date: 2010/01/02 16:42:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Just donated 4x20 SFr. to MSF in honor of Nakashima's continued presence at UD. Keep up the good work whoever you are.

    Date: 2010/01/17 18:39:07, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2010,14:48)
    This won't be up long:

    According to UnDembski, at least 6 comments by h.pesoj have been removed from that thread. (The next version should have a nifty quoting mechanism, but I had some problems with it and then I got busy with other stuff)

    ETA: And at least one on the "Eugenie Scott" thread
    ETA: And at least seven on the "ID and common descent" thread

    Date: 2010/01/18 20:42:42, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 19 2010,02:53)
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,19:44)
    Oh look, the back of the UD short bus:

    I'll bet there's some science goin' on in there!

    Bus back, east of Selma, AL, Hwy 80 by will8939

    Could this be designed by GEM of Preachy pickin' up a little outside cash as an "Artistic Consultant"?

    No way. Gasbag of Mullins would have used the sides of the bus, which offer a far greater area, to convey his message. And maybe the top and the underside, and the internal advertising spaces, and so on all in a much smaller font. And the bus would have been towing a chain of somethings similarly engordened.

    Date: 2010/02/04 18:01:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:01)
    VJtorley thinks this counts as an explanation:
    You wanted to know how immaterial thoughts could cause bodily movements. Well, here goes…The soul doesn’t push neurons, as Cartesian dualists think; instead, it selects from one of a large number of quantum possibilities thrown up at some micro level of the brain…

    On a neural level, what probably happens when an agent decides to raise his/her arm is this: the arm goes through a large number of micro-level muscular movements (tiny twitches) which are randomly generated at the quantum level. The agent tries all these out over a very short interval of time (a fraction of a second) before selecting the one which feels right – namely, the one which matches the agent’s desire to raise his/her arm. This selection continues during the time interval over which the agent raises his/her arm. The wrong (randomly generated quantum-level) micro-movements are continually filtered out by the agent.

    Emphases in the original.

    You seem like a smart guy, VJ, but some of your views are close to psychotic.

    I love this sort of thing.  Let's see ... the arm twitches because of some quantum events and the soul feels the twitching and does something to allow it or stop it.  Presumably, it does this by willing that some of the quantum events didn't happen and so therefore they didn't, or acts to stop certain fluctuations from propagating by desperately wishing them to have no continued effect -- thus interacting somehow with the physical and chemical stuff, which is not a problem because he just explained it.

    I wonder what happens to Mr Torley's limbs when he is sleeping or otherwise occupied; They must be twitching away like mad. It must require tremendous concentration and attention to quantum detail just to keep his apparently unconscious body from performing strenuous physical jerks, even though his other mind may remain unaware of it all.

    Date: 2010/02/04 18:43:39, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,01:18)
    Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 04 2010,19:01)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:01)
    VJtorley thinks this counts as an explanation:
    You wanted to know how immaterial thoughts could cause bodily movements. Well, here goes…The soul doesn’t push neurons, as Cartesian dualists think; instead, it selects from one of a large number of quantum possibilities thrown up at some micro level of the brain…

    On a neural level, what probably happens when an agent decides to raise his/her arm is this: the arm goes through a large number of micro-level muscular movements (tiny twitches) which are randomly generated at the quantum level. The agent tries all these out over a very short interval of time (a fraction of a second) before selecting the one which feels right – namely, the one which matches the agent’s desire to raise his/her arm. This selection continues during the time interval over which the agent raises his/her arm. The wrong (randomly generated quantum-level) micro-movements are continually filtered out by the agent.

    Emphases in the original.

    You seem like a smart guy, VJ, but some of your views are close to psychotic.

    I love this sort of thing.  Let's see ... the arm twitches because of some quantum events and the soul feels the twitching and does something to allow it or stop it.  Presumably, it does this by willing that some of the quantum events didn't happen and so therefore they didn't, or acts to stop certain fluctuations from propagating by desperately wishing them to have no continued effect -- thus interacting somehow with the physical and chemical stuff, which is not a problem because he just explained it.

    I wonder what happens to Mr Torley's limbs when he is sleeping or otherwise occupied; They must be twitching away like mad. It must require tremendous concentration and attention to quantum detail just to keep his apparently unconscious body from performing strenuous physical jerks, even though his other mind may remain unaware of it all.

    My soul just told my mind to tell my brain to tell my eyes to read what you've written. Then my eyes returned information to my brain, which passed it to my mind (by means of my intelligence) and on up to my soul. My soul nodded approval, and told my mind to tell my brain to tell my muscles and fingers to type this, to let you know.

    It is all so simple, like a radio, and speakers, and stuff, one mind directly contacting another. And quantum mechanics. Not geometric relations, that would be self-referentially incoherent.

    My mind just filtered some quanta into a configuration that facilitated a dénouement whereby my brain state became   instinctively recognizable to my mind as not entirely unlike agreement with wot you just sed. Though it pains me to state the obvious.

    Date: 2010/02/04 18:59:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,01:47)
    All this is really immaterial.

    depends on what you mean by "really".

    Date: 2010/02/10 18:33:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,23:10)
    Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

    And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

    At least VJ Torley strongly disagrees with them
    Arguments 4 and 5 are ID arguments; some might say argument 3 is, as well.  Note that arguments 3, 4 and 5 do not require Deus ex machina interventions.  That’s a cheap anti-ID canard.  ID proponents really don’t care how God made the world; what matters is that He did it.
    which, reading between the lines, suggests God and/or aliens.

    Date: 2010/02/22 13:15:56, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 21 2010,03:56)

    Barry pulled the muzzle off of Mark Frank and Nakashima also. Maybe it was just too boring over there.

    When was Nakashima muzzled and how long did it last? I may need to ask MSF for some of my money back.

    Date: 2010/02/25 16:43:37, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Premise 1: If atheism is true, then so is Darwinian evolution.
    Premise 2: But if ID is true, then Darwinian evolution is false.
    Premise 3: ID is true (the controversial premise).
    Conclus 1: Therefore Darwinian evolution is false (modus ponents applied to Premises 2 and 3)
    Conclus 2: Therefore atheism is false (modus tollens applied to Premise 1 and Conclus 1)

    IOW Dembski proves that:

    ID, if true (controversial), implies that God(s) exist.

    Hmmm IIRC, ID does not require a deity; It could be aliens.

    It keeps us honest.

    I have no problem with "It".

    Date: 2010/03/01 16:43:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    According to Jerry Coyne, atheistic evolutionists and ID proponents have at least this in common — they can expect no bribes from the Templeton Foundation. Read Coyne’s post on the topic here.
    IIRC, there was a time when almost any ID upstart in an oversize sweater could secure a $100,000 bribe by offering to write a book which used information theory to demonstrate that science and theology were mutually dependent. But as I remember it, they got burned - The ID guy took the cash and gave them nothing in return.

    Date: 2010/03/11 18:26:45, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Atom on the "peer reviewed article"
    Do you have some work to show that their proofs are in error (where mathematical) or that their experiments were performed poorly or reported incorrectly?

    (My italics)

    Has ID done some experiments? I thought that experiments would be attempts to match a theory to actual physical/chemical/biological reality -- not just churning out fancy mathy stuff.

    Date: 2010/03/31 16:52:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2010,23:31)
    Barry finds a reason to close the thread:

    You are not being fair to Barry. Wordpress software only allows one thread to be open at a time. Barry had no choice. He certainly was not running away from that other thread, his comments had been held in moderation. Also Allen McNeill might have found it confusing to be involved in two threads simultaneously.

    Date: 2010/03/31 17:05:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 31 2010,23:47)
    BarryA: doing for accountancy what Dr Dr D did for biology.
    I frequently use the IRS Code to illustrate this point. The concept of the code is very simple. Add up your income. Multiply your income by the tax rate. Send a check to the government for that amount. There, I’ve said it in 20 words. The IRS Code is over 3.5 million words long. Why? Because of original sin.

    New IRS code conforming to the absolute moral law:

    "Do the right thing."  

    I find it somewhat amusing that Barry A, a member of a religion that espouses the leaving of judgement to the Almighty, makes his living as a prosecution lawyer: "My lord, the defendant is clearly in the wrong - but who are we to judge? There but for the grace of God go I. Let him go I say."

    Date: 2010/05/26 17:46:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Edward T- Oakes

    This is because for Nietzsche—who was perhaps the only truly honest atheist in the history of philosophy —science was ultimately ...

    This was already shite, but not shite enough for the world's most honest lawyer and christian (with über-moderator privs at UD), "honest" Barry Arrington, who was unable to resist the  creationist's natural urge to quote mine:
    Oakes: Nietzche, the Only Honest Atheist

    eta: corrected emphasis. Added "'honest' BA"

    Date: 2010/05/31 18:00:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 30 2010,21:35)
    Poor little Billy Dembski crying because NSF just awarded the Michigan State U. BEACON group $25 million for advanced studies of evolution while his ID brain farts got zirch.

    BEACON comes home with the bacon

    "Waaaah!   Waaaah!  Life's just not fair!  It's not it's not it's not!"

    :D  :D  :D  :D

    From the same NSF announcements page    
    Emerging Frontiers of Science of Information

    Wojciech Szpankowski from Purdue University in partnership with colleagues at Bryn Mawr College, Howard University, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and UIUC will establish a Center for the Science of information that has the potential to launch the next information revolution. These researchers will develop a unifying set of principles to guide the extraction, manipulation, and exchange of information integrating elements of space, time, structure, semantics & context. The center will bring together researchers from diverse fields (physics, life science, chemistry, computer science, economics, etc.) to develop models and methods to apply to these diverse applications. The center will also build an active community of scholars through education and mentoring activities.

    Looks like the NSF is also funding (unwitting) ID research. Shame that they missed a chance to get a bona-fide "Isaac Newton" on board though.

    Date: 2010/07/06 16:20:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (didymos @ July 06 2010,22:33)
    Can we just not use the word 'rag', no matter the sense, in any Denyse-related posts?  The accumulated memetic imagery associated with that woman is bad enough already.

    How about "organ"? (4)

    Date: 2010/07/21 16:43:59, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Why would Myers think anyone cares if he goes on strike? For that matter, will anyone really notice the absence of the rantings on his blog.(sic)

    Maybe Fox news didn't notice, but the  the Prestigous Scientific Journal Nature did.

    Date: 2010/07/26 15:17:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (J-Dog @ July 26 2010,21:20)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 26 2010,13:57)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2010,12:00)
    Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,11:56)
    Quote (fnxtr @ July 26 2010,10:52)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 26 2010,08:48)
    Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,10:40)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,10:22)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 26 2010,00:50)
    Read Ham's article, you won't be disappointed.

    And to think that DoubleDoctor must swallow it for the sake of the Big Tent ...

    [Mental image censored]

    One swallow does not a hummer make!

    You're a little pun gent today, richardthughes.

    It may all come to nothing. We'll just have to wait and see what goes down.

    Likely, he has yet to take it all in.

    I just can't get my head around it!

    I don't think Dembski's going to take this lying down.  He's going to go after Ham with both hands and not stop until Ham is screaming "Oh God, Oh God!".

    Now that Ham has blown the whistle on Dembski, I think it's only fair that Dembski should reciprocate.

    Date: 2010/07/26 18:57:07, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2010,01:22)
    Quote (KCdgw @ July 26 2010,17:25)
    Quote (JohnW @ July 26 2010,16:11)
    Quote (steve_h @ July 26 2010,13:17)
    Quote (J-Dog @ July 26 2010,21:20)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 26 2010,13:57)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2010,12:00)
    Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,11:56)
    Quote (fnxtr @ July 26 2010,10:52)
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 26 2010,08:48)
    Quote (Amadan @ July 26 2010,10:40)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,10:22)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 26 2010,00:50)
    Read Ham's article, you won't be disappointed.

    And to think that DoubleDoctor must swallow it for the sake of the Big Tent ...

    [Mental image censored]

    One swallow does not a hummer make!

    You're a little pun gent today, richardthughes.

    It may all come to nothing. We'll just have to wait and see what goes down.

    Likely, he has yet to take it all in.

    I just can't get my head around it!

    I don't think Dembski's going to take this lying down.  He's going to go after Ham with both hands and not stop until Ham is screaming "Oh God, Oh God!".

    Now that Ham has blown the whistle on Dembski, I think it's only fair that Dembski should reciprocate.

    I think you're being too hard on them.  Stop ramming it down their throats.

    But be sure to use some spit-and-polish.

    All that said, one has to admire the good Dr.Dr.'s oratory.

    Yes, but both tend to shun mass debates in favor of the more rigid one-on-one oral exchange format.

    Date: 2010/07/28 17:54:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    During the meanwhile, a temporary solution to let people such as SD to view their posts would be for them to modify the URLs, replacing the single quote (') by a percent sign (%). This would find all posts by "Shroedinger's dog", "Schroedinger!!!ONE!dog" etc.


    Date: 2010/08/04 18:50:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    What is dFSCI anyway?  AFAICT using Google, it only exist in the posts of Gordon E Mullings at UD. IIRC, even FSCI on which dFSCI is probably based, was pulled from the nether regions of the verbose one and has not gained traction with the many genuine Intelligent Design Scientists out there in the field and in the lab.

    Date: 2010/08/05 14:59:40, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (didymos @ Aug. 05 2010,02:48)
    Quote (steve_h @ Aug. 04 2010,16:50)
    What is dFSCI anyway?  AFAICT using Google, it only exist in the posts of Gordon E Mullings at UD. IIRC, even FSCI on which dFSCI is probably based, was pulled from the nether regions of the verbose one and has not gained traction with the many genuine Intelligent Design Scientists out there in the field and in the lab.

    Digital Functional Specified Complex Information.  I guess they just want to emphasize that stupid "Teh cell iz a maaaaagical computer-machine!"  nonsense.

    Well. I guess they have to distinguish it from all the other kinds of FSCI, just like they had to distinguish Functional CSI from the non-functional variety (of which none exists because it was the function rather than the independent specification that made it specified in the first place).

    I wonder, what units would be used for A(nalog)b(*)FSCI? I guess the quantities would still be "not much" and "obviously much more than 10^500"

    *b = biological. Doesn't narrow it down much further.

    Date: 2010/08/05 18:42:46, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (socle @ Aug. 06 2010,00:43)


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

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

    Those that can, do.
    Those that can't, teach.
    Those that can't teach, teach BA77.

    (And then he cheats by getting God to influence the results - possibly at the expense of someone smart who would have otherwise passed  - or maybe he just prayed that everyone put in their best performance and no one got permanently disabled like in the sports prayers)

    Date: 2010/08/11 18:31:23, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 12 2010,01:28)
    Quote (BillB @ Aug. 11 2010,14:27)

    After seeing a client . . .


    Sometimes I hate the images my imagination delivers up.

    I also hate the images your imagination just threw up.  I threw up.

    As did some of the onlookers.

    Date: 2010/08/17 03:35:30, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 17 2010,07:15)
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 15 2010,16:28)
    Y'know the Dodgenator has held up remarkably well over time. Kudos.

    True enough, although I think Gil is showing signs of losing it. In this post he seems to have abandoned the use of any premisses and has gone straight to his conclusion, i.e. "Darwin was wrong". Essentially he has reduced himself to shouting "One!".

    OK, to be fair to Gil, he explains to Onlookers that he is actually arguing E1 in the comments, but I hope my point stands.

    It didn't make the official list, but:

    f)  I both see and explain things with exceptional clarity (sometimes in French!) - just ask <insert name>.

    1) Therefore, Darwin is wrong.

    ETA: On this occasion, I suspect the conclusion was thrown in as an afterthought.

    Date: 2010/09/04 18:56:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Corny agrees.  *Buy my book* posts should not be open to comments (cf Dembski, Behe). Therefore, his Human Consciousness post appears at UD, which restricts comments from opponents, but not at  Darwins's God, which (inexplicably) doesn't.

    I really don’t know how to argue with people who believe computers could be conscious. About all I can say is: what about typewriters? Typewriters also do exactly what they are told to do, and have produced some magnificent works of literature. Do you believe that typewriters can also be conscious?

    Yes, but what if one intelligently designs the typewriter to stamp impressions of letters onto paper AND also be conscious?  Consciousness is not a problem for design - people in ID labs design conscious things all the time - so presumably his Intelligent Design book will explain exactly how one could do that.

    Date: 2010/09/18 18:50:28, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Coming soon:

    How Gil and his siblings had to get up at three o'clock in the morning, three days before they went to bed, climb out
    of the 'ole in the middle of the road and practice the romantic piano in a cardboard box for 65 96 hours before their saintly Dad killed 'em and danced on their graves singin' "random mutations".

    Date: 2010/10/05 18:26:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski read  an article by Frank Tipler at Pajamasmedia

    As is often the case, Dembski had very strong feelings on the matter and phrased his response in the strongest possible terms:
    Frank Tipler writes at Pajamasmedia:

    However, realising that some may capitalize on his aggressive approach, he utilized the standard question mark of deniability at the end of the title, "Darwin vs. Einstein?", and left the commenters to do the dirty work.

    Date: 2010/10/12 19:03:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    UD's intrepid reporter has a scoop: Coffee!! Fox News story: Chances are 100 per cent that far off planet has life.

    Though it does seem oddly familiar.

    Date: 2010/10/15 17:50:51, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Bully Arrington reports that        
    Atheist Philosopher Joel Marks Finally Admits That Without God There Can Be No Morality

    So did Joel Marks say that -- or did he express his own conclusion that there is no such thing as "morality", clearly labelling it as his own view? Has he decided to go on a killing, stealing and raping spree or does he believe that there are still arguably better reasons to behave in a way that others may see as morality in action?

    A) Christians believe it is wrong to bear false witness against another person (or the guy who lives next door at least).
    B) BullyA is a Christian.
    C) Well, maybe - but the ends justify the means. Praise Jesus.

    Date: 2010/10/18 17:10:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    In my experience “hardwired” is Evolution-speak for “evolutionary adaptation that influences behavior.

    Could "sinful nature" be equally expressed as "hardwired for sin"? If so, Darwin could be responsible for, duh duh daaaaah, "the Fall".

    Date: 2010/10/19 19:39:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 20 2010,01:02)
    How many times has KF reproduced the Lewontin quote?

    He did it sometimes

    I shit you not.

    Post of the *anything*. At first I was impressed by the scholarship but then when I tried to quote this I was blown away by the mad linkin skillz. All of my quoted links turned to crap.

    Date: 2010/11/01 14:14:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Thanks everyone. But this post is wrong in some of the particulars

    1) That's not my birthday.
    2) I'm not 49
    3) I'm hardly a forum legend:
    - I've written fewer than 500 comments. RH manages more than that in a slow week.
    - My comments have sparked little interest. Even O'Leary's dreariest efforts tend to do better.
    - Heck, the regulars don't even insult my mum (sniff).

    ETA: Kattarina's piccy isn't far off the mark though.

    Date: 2010/11/01 16:43:01, Link
    Author: steve_h
    So, when you set your profile to show your birthday is October 31, 1961 you were just trolling for attention and free treats*?

    <stares at feet>  
    * Not unlike your mother, I might add.
    Woo hoo! recognition at last. Can't wait to tell my mum......

    Date: 2010/11/02 15:54:04, Link
    Author: steve_h
    P.S. I am not baking you a cake until you tell us your real birth date. Hell this probably isn't even your real mother I'm insulting
    My real birthday is September 32nd unless it's a Wednesday. You're not going to use it to steal my identity are you? If anyone at my bank asks, my mother's maiden name was "Mussolini". Hmmm caaake.

    Date: 2010/11/04 21:48:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    JDH is "a bit strange"
    4. Without massive amounts of evil available as examples how can God explain to us what sin is. Certainly He has tried, and modern man has rejected the awfulness of sin. ( Rom. 1 )
    5. The awfulness of sin can only be understood in the suffering of the innocent. Sin is evil precisely because it does not follow the rules of Karma. Those who believe in Karma can not explain the real world ( Ps 73 ).

    Module 4.

    Now I love my cute little kitten, Fluffikins, but how would I feel if she were to be bludgeoned to death, stomped into a gooey mess and then put into a blender. Lets see *BLUDGE* *BLUDGE* *BLUDGE* *STOMP* *STOMP* *STOMP* *STOMP* *WHIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR*

    Hmmm, kitty smoke, don't breath that. Oh wow! isn't that upsetting? Sin is such a bad thing. I hope you have all learned your lessons and will not repeat this sad (but necessary) experiment, nor the ones in modules 1,2, and 3 about killing all them Jews, buggering all them choir boys and killing all of them Africans by malaria, AIDS, starvation, war and wotevvar.

    JDH also answers BullyA's question Is There At Least One Self-Evident Moral Truth? Well, the answer seems to be yes, it's ok to murder babies for pleasure as long as it morally informs and entertains the masses.

    Date: 2010/11/15 18:46:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Gil How far we have come since Handel’s masterwork!

    Satisfaction!, Satisfaction!, Satisfaction Satisfaction, Satisfa-a-a-a-a-action.
    SatisFACTion!, SatisFACTion!, SatisFACTion SatisFACTion, SatisFA-a-a-a-a-a
    I can't get none of this: Satisfaction, Satisfaction.
    When I'm driving in my car: I can't get no, I can't get no, Satisfaction.
    When I'm watching my TV: I can't get no. Satisfaction, Satisfaction. Satisfaction

    Thin boys: Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera Etceterara Etcetara Etcetera Ectetera Etcetera aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha ... ...
    Thin girls: aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha ... ...
    Fat Girls: aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha ... ...
    Fat boys: cos I try and I try and I try and I try
    Everybody: Satisfaction, Satisfaction, Satisfaction
    Everybody: Satisfa aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha Satisfa aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha Satisfa
    aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha aha (repeat forever).

    SAT! -  IS! - FAC! - SHUN!  (pause for effect, start over, repeat until numb ID makes sense)

    Date: 2010/11/17 17:53:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 17 2010,11:40)
    Batman, Batman, Batman, Batman
    Batman, Batman, Batman

    Batman, Batman, Batman

    This derivative work plainly rips off Handels little known 1733 masterpiece, Jesus.
    Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
    Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

    *LIE* (parp) *QUOTEMINE* (parp) *DENY* (clank)  *FOLLOWTHEEVIDENCE* (phhhrppp)

    De-sign, De-sign, De-sign
    Dadadadadadadadadadadadadah! De-sign

    Date: 2010/12/02 18:27:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Cornelius Hunter(before)

    If instead of phosphorus, what if some species turn out to use arsenic? That’s right, arsenic—the poison. It would not exactly be a minor design adjustment. In fact, it would be another major falsification of one of evolution’s most vaunted predictions.

    And what would be the evolutionary spin? That’s easy: we would be told that such a monumental finding tells us more about how evolution works. In fact, does it not tell us how incredibly flexible are evolution’s designs, and therefore how much more variety we should expect in the evidence of extraterrestrial life?    
    According to CH this is the sort of thing that only ID can produce - Evolution has been discredited but its adherents will no doubt find their excuses.

    Or to put it another way, if micro-evolution, acting in a changing environment, could bring about similar results, ID would be shown to be falsified and the Cdesign Propensists would hold up their hands and definitely not claim that this was just a special front-loaded case and that you still have to prove every other single IC system individually before they admit that they are wrong.
    [sound ofgoalposts quietly moving]  
    Rob Sheldon (After)
    So on the surface it would appear that this bug is using alien DNA, which is completely incompatible with phosphorus based DNA. Davies  appears to have found his alien life. Or has he?

    It seems this bug prefers to grow in phosphorus growth medium, and only grows in arsenic when it has to. And it would be my educated guess, that it has the same DNA code, the same ATP shape as normal Earth life, only switching to arsenic when it has to. In other words, I think we are seeing a highly adapted Earth life, and not an alien extraterrestrial life.

    Date: 2010/12/10 16:33:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    VJT appears to have unilaterally redefined "intimacy" to be "the intention of giving every fibre of your body(*) and soul to another person in a way that may produce offspring".  It can only be fully achieved if both parties express their love physically, emotionally, poetically, musically, partly through dance, and with a good honest disussion of how great Jesus is at half time. Miss any of those and the experience is less than it should be - and therefore EVVIIILLLLL.   Except you can miss any number of them so long as you're not a Homo.

    (*) Apart from your butt-hole of course, unless you use it to provide the musical accompaniment; In which case, vuvuzelas are bad, but harmonicas are acceptable (if tricky)

    Date: 2010/12/10 17:08:21, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Bagsies on the one who was published in Nature, got expelled from an informatics lab before he even joined it, and gave up his place in the limelight to advance the course of physics  with his upcoming landmark work on Maxwell's equations.

    Date: 2010/12/16 16:58:27, Link
    Author: steve_h
    You know or should know that the very opening sentence of the link you cited at 16 above is a vulgar piece of namecalling slander that uses an obscene word, "b*llshit".

    We don’t need that sort of demonising rubbish filth at UD
    (added italicized obscene word)

    My copy of "The originelle Goddebotherer'f Uncorrupted correctives to Mister Johnson'f Dictionarie(*)" of 1762 defines "b*llshit" as          

    1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
    2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
    3. Insolent talk or behavior.
    Ufage: This word waf formerly (1759) confidered to be taboo, and it was labelled as such in previous editions of ye correctivef. However, it haf now become acceptable in fpeech, although fome older or more conservative windebaggef may object to its ufe
    The same dictionary defined "filth" as        
    Foul or dirty matter.
    b. Disgusting garbage or refuse.
    2. A dirty or corrupt condition; foulness.
    3. Something, such as language or printed matter, considered obscene, prurient, or immoral.
    4. Excrement; Faeces; Shit - real shit not light-hearted metaphorical shit.

    If anything, Gordon's vicious attack is worse. He invariably seizes every opportunity to take offence, liken his oppenents to the worst possible human trash, then devote much of his post to denouncing what he considers to be their motives. While no doubt deluging the moderators with ever more pleas to silence them via email as he does so. (Links to video of rev. Lovejoy enduring yet another call from Ned Flanders)

    (*) With some help from passing backwards in time, i might add.

    Date: 2010/12/16 17:02:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 16 2010,23:18)
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 16 2010,16:05)
    Oh no, kairosfocus's sensibilities have been offended:

    Have his sensibilities ever not been offended?

    Frankly being offended is one of his key tactics to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.

    He'd be offended at not being offended if it were possible to write anything so inoffensive.

    (ETA: changed unoffensive to inoffensive - apologies in advance, Gordon)

    Date: 2010/12/21 19:11:39, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The Dodgenator 3000 appears to be temporarily on the blink. Could someone turn the power off and on again?
    Please accept my apologies for stating the obvious (this is not an ad hominem attack, just a statement of the truth): Jerry Coyne is a scientific half-wit.

    Behe has compiled and published an impressive oeuvre — based on logic, mathematics, empiricism, and all those things Darwinian “scientists” claim to idolize as the basis for their theories — and the evidence is conclusive:


    Coyne is hopelessly lost in the abyss of 19th-century, pre-information-theoretic ignorance, as was Darwin.

    Date: 2010/12/29 18:48:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Clive (Hi Clive) asks  
    All of this seems quite hamfisted. Why review a book 12 years AFTER its publication?
    I wonder if people will still be attacking Darwin's Origin of species  twelve or more years after it was published...

    Date: 2010/12/29 19:07:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    If you can imagine a being greater than what you think is God, then God is not the greatest being possible. That means that God is contingent, which means that he is not a necessary being. God, then, is just another being in the universe rather than the Ground of Being. Such a “God” is not the self-existent one that Moses encountered at the burning bush.

    No, it means that that God is not the greatest IMAGINARY  BEING possible. One can still imagine Gods that are greater -  but which turn out not to be actually possible, or improbable but nonetheless equally pointless wankery. The imaginary doesn't become real because you forgot to mention that you were imagining it. I can imagine a God whose only worthy attribute is that he can make bushes burn without destroying them while claiming to be top dog because they were the only attributes that his mummy allowed him.

    Date: 2011/01/16 18:26:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    PZ, together with all contributers to the P**d*s Th**b, was banned from commenting here some time ago by a previous blogczar DaveScot, so don’t expect any reply from him anytime soon. I’m also officially “deleted” so feel free to ignore and delete this.

    Date: 2011/02/03 17:36:22, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Robin @ Feb. 03 2011,22:36)
    [quote=Raevmo,Feb. 02 2011,12:44]

    Dumbest argument ever for dualism? Courtesy of StephenB:
    It is clear that two entities possessed by the individual must be involved for the placebo effect to work. If B [the changed state of an organ called the brain] is influenced, then it is also clear that B did not change itself, and therefore, A [a different kind of entity had to change it]. Further, A must be more powerful than B, which again, shows then A must be a different kind of entity than B.

    Soooo...waaaait...does this mean StephenB thinks that placebos actually affect the soul which in turn tricks the brain into thinking that the placebo actually had the desired medicinal effect? Or is the mind something different from the soul?

    I'm so confused...

    StephenB is entirely correct. The mind knows how to fix most medicinal problems, but it feels it must wait until a doctor gives it the go-ahead in the form of a sugar pill (or whatever). Once the Doctor's approval has been given, the mind can twiddle exactly those neurons, synapses and such that the mind knows will cause the body to fix itself.
    What I don't understand is how, although my mind knows all this brain twiddling stuff, I still know fuck all about it.

    Date: 2011/04/17 19:48:49, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Well looks like most of my comments in that thread regarding the love-hate relationship of electricity and water have been disappearinated.

    All the ID idiocy aside.... well to be fair, it is basically ALL idiocy over at UD ALL the time... but sometimes they say something that is actually true and correct. Problem is, in their determination to appear infallible and always appear to have the upper hand re: teh Scienz they forget to clean up the blatantly stupid BS such as "wet electricity" and "electricity hating water" and hundreds (thousands?) of other idiocy that creeps into their screed over the years. In their efforts to have the appearance of superiority they end up having to defend utter crap rather than police it themselves. It is exactly the wrong way to use "moderation."


    Also, one comment by Joseph which referred to them:
    11:01 am

    Artificial selection shows that changes can happen over relatively short timeframes. You make a bald assertion that natural selection cannot effect much larges changes over millions of years.

    1- The different dog breeds would not exist in the absence of artificial selection.

    2- The bald assertion is saying that nature can do something given enough time

    Are you telling us that every single information process in DNA is subject to some intelligent intervention?

    No intervention required. Does a programmer need to intervene to run spellchecker?

    Dude, you seem to be clueless about a great many things.

    Date: 2011/05/10 16:14:53, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Diderot was a convinced athiest, and was trying to convince the Russians into atheism also. Catherine was very annoyed by this and she asked for Euler’s help. Euler thought about it and when he began a theological discussion with Diderot, Euler said: ”(a+b^n)/n = x, therefore God exists” Diderot was said to know almost nothing about algebra, and therefore returned to Paris.

    Where x is approximately or much greater than 150 or 500 or 300 or 1080 functionally specified binary digits. Take that Mathgrrl! Biff!

    Date: 2011/05/19 15:09:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 19 2011,06:57)
    BWAHAHAHA!!  UD is scraping the bottom of the hole the barrel sat in.

    What if they gave an ID conference and nobody came?
    There’s Still Time To Apply For The C4ID UK Summer School
    Information on the forthcoming five-day UK intelligent design conference, which runs from July 18th to 22nd in Malvern, Worcestershire,  and details on how to apply, can be located here.

    Or if ID doesn't interest you, you could go to a bible camp at Regents Theological college instead.

    Date: 2011/06/14 14:55:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    The main point of my withdrawn paper was the tautology:
    If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering (or leaving) which makes it NOT extremely improbable.

    So contrary to what you lot have been telling me all this time, Granville Sewell has mathematically proved that I can't improve my chances of winning the lottery by choosing my numbers with all of the windows and doors wide open.

    Date: 2011/06/16 20:56:26, Link
    Author: steve_h
    DeNews: People apologised when the speaker for design was shouted down, but …              
    At Evolution News & Views today, our JonathanM describes (June 16, 2011) an encounter with a true blue dyed-in-the-wool slam dunk total believing Darwinist (the Aristotle of Morris, Minnesota, US):                
    Colliding With The Pharyngula: My Encounter With PZ Myers. Myers did mention the questions at the beginning of his lecture (describing yours truly as a “flaming moron”). He did not, however, despite promising to do so, provide satisfactory rebuttals to the questions at all during the course of his presentation (though he did attempt a response to one of the ten questions).
    During the course of the Q&A, I raised a question concerning the lack of congruence between homology and developmental pathways, citing several papers to substantiate my claims (which I gave to PZ following the talk). What ensued was an eruption of jeering and mocking from the floor. It became so loud at one point that it was difficult to audibly articulate the point. A few people apologised afterwards.
    But apology means never having to say you’re quarry.

    At www.evolutionnews,org, Jonathan M recalls how he pwned PZ, but then an angry mob of vicious evilutionists turned on him, drowning out his innocent sciency question with their loud braying before murdering him and burying his mangled body under an Irn Bru distillery.
    He modestly leaves us with a link to the Full presentation (minus the Q and A), rather than the record of his moment of intellectual superiority and martyrdom (in the Q & A)

    Eta: DrRec has a more measured response and another one

    Date: 2011/06/23 18:34:57, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2011,16:10)
    I can commit $200 - if we're looking to increase the pot. Come on lurkers! maybe we could get some sort of automated mechanism?


    I'll match that -- and that of two other people pledging a similar amount following this; But I do want the money back if we don't win. Is that possible ?

    ETA: I just read the last post on the previous page. No refunds. I'll donate $300.
    ETA: done

    Date: 2011/06/23 19:38:41, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2011,02:03)
    The TalkOrigins Archive Foundation's primary mission is to support its projects (TalkOrigins, PT, TalkDesign). But we have supported other efforts as they became apparent. We can't guarantee success in getting "Expelled", but we can assure everyone that the funds will make things harder for religious antievolutionists to carry on their campaigns, just as our efforts have done to date.

    I'd like to see some sort of totalizer output.  Amount received so far:  200 300 600 onetyone fahsand etc, along with the planned expenditure, average running costs, amounts paid to expert  advisors(*)/the management, estimate of how long overheads are presently covered for (eg until 2011-mmm-dd without further donations),  and so on for the site.  What I currently see are some TO balance sheets from 2005. The amounts there are likely to be dwarfed by the amounts that come in now.
    (*) eg. DrDr somewhere else.

    Date: 2011/06/23 20:36:50, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I was talking in general about sites soliciting donations without really saying how much they were getting or what they are spending it on.  If a site I enjoy is raising money because it's in danger of going under, that's a a different matter to one that is raising money to gold-plate its ceremonial Bugatti Veyron ™. In the latter case, I may be more motivated to spend my beloved dosh in order to reduce human rights violations or to acquire more lovely lovely cake.
    eta: but the totalizer giving away any bidding advantage is understood.

    Date: 2011/06/26 20:48:18, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Ptaylor @ June 27 2011,02:56)
    The current DeNews piece is titled:      
    Sociologist: Darwinism is the astrology of science
    The sociologist is, of course Steve Fuller, who testified at Dover, where analogies to astrology were notably drawn.
    One more time (& sorry to be Frill-like in repeating this): UD regulars, irony- strangers.

    Maybe what he meant to "he said it" was "Astrologist: Darwinism is the sociology of science" -- Either way, not convinced.

    edited  typo.

    Date: 2011/06/28 18:38:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    TOAF is planning to return contributions made towards the purchase of this film.  I would have offered more if I had known this, but in the end, I made my contribution with full knowledge that it was not returnable. If it is returned, I will therefore un-return it with a small addition for administrative overheads.

    Thanks for being so classy.

    (but I would like to see the money stuff pages kept up to date in the interest of openness)

    Date: 2011/07/01 20:17:43, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2011,19:49)
    KF has a melt-down:

    to be fair - "The Whole Truth", that isn't cool. Although Gordon didn't have the same apoplexy when his own side were outing people.

    Come on folks, the last thing to give Dipshit KF is a crown of thorns.

    ETA - Having trouble finding the offending material:

    So, I ask you onlookers, to reflect on what relevance my wife, her name [as incorrectly reported] or our children have to do with any discussion whatsoever over intelligent design, or the more specific matter that I happen to hold a moderate inclusivist theology, i.e. that God judges us by the light we have or should have

    (My bolding) So KF is being outed by a serious threat to the safety of him and his family by a dedicated stalker who hasn't yet figured out what his wife's name is. Couldn't they at least have had a guess at "Mrs M of TKI", or "Mrs Gasbag/Windbag/etc."?  Maybe they really actually said "Mrs XXXXXXXX" - how scary is that?!!!one?

    Date: 2011/07/04 16:15:08, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Let that be a guide to evaluating their credibility — and, since this was repeatedly drawn to their attention and just as repeatedly brushed aside in the haste to go on beating the even more intoxicating talking point drums,  sadly, this also raises serious questions on the motives and attitudes of the chief ones responsible for those drumbeat talking points and for the fever swamps that give off the poisonous, burning strawman rhetorical fumes that make the talking points seem stronger than they

    Breathe Gordon breathe.
    And, now also you know the most likely why of TWT’s attempt to hold my family hostage by making the mafioso style threat: we know you, we know where you are and we know those you care about.

    Yesterday TWT was issuing threats. Today he's attempting hostage taking. Tomorrow? My guess is he'll be using established psychological torture techniques, more harmful even than the despicable methodologies of the oppressive atheistic regimes such as those operating in lands as diverse as Germany and the Soviet Union and (continued at

    Date: 2011/07/07 14:04:58, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Gordon again ...

    However, that is not our main focus this morning.

    (BREAK IN TRANSMISSION: We did need to mop up the mess left by some outrageous behaviour culminating in mafioso style threats against my family.
    Does anyone have a book open on when Gordon will next write a post at UD that doesn't contain the word "mafiosa"? If so, I call bagsies on Sept. 13th 2011. (There may be more afterwards).

    Date: 2011/07/25 16:02:07, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 25 2011,13:24)
    Could someone in the mod department look at that?

    I can't view the thread.

    Temporary workaround:  

    Your Control Panel -> Account Options

    Do you wish to view members avatars when reading threads? [No]

    Date: 2011/11/16 16:39:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I just can't believe my luck sometimes.  The other day I was trying to remember an old quote I'd heard fron some guy called Lewontin and then I just happened to stumble upon it on some Intelligent Design Creationism site.

    And then I was trying to find a way of visualizing improvements to "The Argument From Ignorance". One that used a  simple ubiquitous flow chart instead of wasting time eliminating all of the things of which one isn't ignorant. Ideally, it would enable one to proceed directly to a conclusion after only scant consideration of one or two questions to which the answers were already known.

    And then I found that too ! on the same site !! and by the same author !!!!!  Amazing!!

    And Gordon Mullins! To top it all, there was also some backgound information on the great Design Thinker who really inspired the Nazis before that other beardy bloke tried to take all the credit. And a mention of my favorite part-time homosexuallist thinkist,  Plato. Whoop.


    Date: 2011/12/12 18:15:47, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Hold choir practice there.
    Stage a "world's most easily offended windbag" in one.
    Put a "Cafeteria" sign on the door.

    Date: 2012/04/13 16:04:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    According to this page, Suzi Eszterhaus, who took that photo was born in 1976. This means that in 1977 she would have been the youngest person ever to have a picture on the front cover of Time.

    (Edited to add the year the picture was first used)

    Date: 2012/04/13 17:03:20, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I remember that one well - it was one of the more famous ones. It was even hung on the wall of our cave for a while.

    ETA: .. until the bears ate it.

    Date: 2012/04/14 07:45:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Time Cover Fake;  1970's Global Cooling Fears Not
    It turns out the Time magazine cover “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age” is a photoshopped fake.  However, while the cover is a fake, Time was in fact printing stories about fears of global cooling in the 70’s.

    No Barry, the Time cover was not a photoshopped fake; the image that you posted here purporting to represent it was the fake.  Of course in your 'correction' you don't refer to the fake directly, or mention that it was posted here, by you, and you have subsequently deleted it to cover your tracks, or what your initial reaction (deleted) was when the error was pointed out to you (deleted).

    Of course you may claim that nobody could possibly think you were shifting the accusation of fakery on to Time magazine.

    KF however adds:

    UPDATE: Mr Arrington has announced that the  actual 1977 cover is a photoshopped fake, ouch. However, there most definitely were articles in the newsmags on just such a coming ice age, and indeed I recall reading even comic books discussing that.

    UPDATE & CORRECTION: Mr Arrington has pointed out that the cover pic from 1977 is a fake, of course he has listed articles that show that the news mags did discuss the upcoming ice age.

    Date: 2012/04/15 17:47:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Sal is a slimy lying scumbag?

    Filed under humor; that, and the question mark definitely makes it legally deniable

    Date: 2012/09/10 16:35:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 10 2012,15:51)
    Dynese goes on vacation and the boys break the house.

    I do believe that UD is broken. The home page isn't updating, no new threads are being added.

    You can see new posts by clicking on the RSS link on the right somewhere - or by searching for 'a' as I did.

    eta: (slaps forehead) Kyrospastic! just got it.

    Date: 2012/09/15 17:40:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    I had the dream again.  

    I was standing brave-heartedly before the assembled hordes of marauding scotchmen delivering my inspirational words to spur them in the battle against the hated sassynaks. I had asked the hordes if they'd had their tea and they had replied in the negative, "No Bydand No". So I told them how one of the sassynaks had made a vicious remark about my Sporran and another had made an oil-soaked homo ad remark about my man-skirt being a kilt of some kind. I told them that they could expect a sound thrashing from mr Leathers as soon as I regained consciousness and then they just laughed some more (the sassynaks not the assembled hordes). Unfortunately at this point I may have soiled my under-under-underpants and before you say it, there's nay rule which says a find upstanding scotchish lard kanney weir three pairs of underpants beneath his outer-underpant.

    edit: typos and declarificiation.
    edit also: braveheart.

    Date: 2012/10/27 15:07:29, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2012,06:13)
    Wow!  Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD.  I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".

    I grabbed the whole site using wget --recursive.

    It found a total of 12 pages, none of which references the page Dembski linked to.  

    So how did Demsbki (or Marks) get to it?  Was this page written with the full knowledge of the web site owners or is someone about to lose cafetaria rights?   -- again.

    (Actually I think the whole site is just there to give an appearance of legitimacy to the green-bashing page. There are similar sites whose owners are not hidden behind anonymous registration schemes available)

    Date: 2012/11/15 16:48:12, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,21:58)
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 15 2012,06:36)
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 15 2012,05:41)
    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 14 2012,23:01)
    Denyse is filling spamming yet another blog: bestschoolsblog run by James Barham.

    That template looks familiar. Part of me is hoping they took it without permission - we haven't had a decent Friday meltdown for a bit

    I wonder if Denyse came across that web site by accident, possibly while high on warm milk and cookies, and just assumed that UD had gone back to their old format and started writing?

    Nah.  I'm pretty sure that some money changed hands first.

    The owner of Best Schools, James Barham, has some ties with William Dembski.

    The person who registered thebestschools is one Wayne Downs.  Quite possibly related to the Wayne J Downs who has published books etc. with one William A Dembski. I suspect one of them is behind which did the "green fail" thing reported on UD, TheBestSchools, and almost nowhere else.

    Date: 2012/11/22 16:37:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 22 2012,22:37)
    I haven't bothered reading the whole Reply to Dr Dawkins thread, and I don't think I align with some of Bruce David's views (a bit new agey for me), but hell, he deserves credit for eliciting a response like this from KF:
    BD: Please, face the serious implications of what you have been saying, before it has an unspeakable price tag. KF

    UD link

    Mafiosi-style threats alert!

    Date: 2012/11/29 18:12:06, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dembski appears to have "disappeared" all of the "content" from; Now it's just:

    An expelled link (comments closed) about the persecution of christians.
    A link to the "green fail site" (comments closed) - an anti-green site which consists only of content from  pro-green sites with similar urls edited towards a final conclusion that "green is bad".

    Everthing else: gone.  Just like when behe closed his blog and recreated it  at uncommon descent sans all of the comments that disagreed/agreed with him.

    The  Internet archive will continue to provide partial historical information about this site until Dembski's lawyers, hereonuntorwhatever referred to as the "bully" Barry "the bully" Arrington, petitions them to "do otherwise or else"

    edited (within a few minutes) for emphasis. And again for Behe. Promise no more edits.

    Date: 2013/01/22 17:19:19, Link
    Author: steve_h
    UD Server Upgraded
    We hope you have noticed that UD is loading now faster than ever just in time for our 10,000th post.  We have just today completed a major server upgrade.  Thank you for your continued support.

    BTW, that little “Donate” button you see on your right is how we keep our virtual doors open.  If this site has been useful to you, please consider a contribution today.

    wtf? I thought it was their new corporate sponsor "President" Bully K Arrington of morally bankrupt lawyer fame (now gracing the arse-end of every UD post with adverts to his alternate non-science ego) who was  keeping the virtual doors open with his own money, and definitely not the other way round!1one.

    Date: 2013/05/01 13:20:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Doc Bill @ April 30 2013,23:32)
    You know, it might have been Garner Ted Armstrong on the radio, not Pappy.

    Is that the same Garner "Ted" Armstrong who once performed in a band alongside Adolf Hitler?

    Edit: changed link to one which used both stereo channels.

    Date: 2013/06/25 16:09:33, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (OgreMkV @ June 25 2013,18:02)
    Is Sal about to get banned?

    After this post, it seems likely:

    Of course, those are three OK reasons to reject ID.  I can think of much, much better ones.

    oh noes, he made things even worse with Mafia style outing tactics
    Very nice to hear from you Gordon

    Date: 2013/06/25 16:35:11, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Oops! That'll be me then.

    Date: 2013/07/23 17:00:42, Link
    Author: steve_h
    KF, I disagree with you on everything but this - apart from the prayer bit. I hope your son gets the best possible care and is delivered to full health as soon as possible.

    Date: 2013/08/06 14:30:54, Link
    Author: steve_h (july 15th 2013 from google cache)
    Mark Armitage studied biology and plant pathology at the University of Florida. He holds an MS in Biology with emphasis in electron microscopy from the ICR Graduate School. His photomicrographs have been featured on the covers of seven scientific journals and he has published widely on parasitology. He is currently enrolled in a doctoral program at Liberty University. He also teaches fundamentals of biology, electron microscopy and performs research at Azusa Pacific University. Mr Armitage is a Life Member of the Creation Research Society.  

    Since then it has grown to  
    Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there.

    Mark grew up in a military family and lived in Venezuela and Puerto Rico for 15 years. He became a Christian when he was a college senior, studying plant pathology at the University of Florida, and his family withdrew support from him.

    His experience in the business sector includes Olympus Corporation of America and Carl Zeiss. In 1984 he founded a microscope sales and service company and has been in business for 29 years. He was awarded a US patent for an optical inspection device in 1993.

    Mark’s micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, and he has many technical publications on microscopic phenomena in such journals as American Laboratory, Southern California Academy of Sciences Bulletin, Parasitology Research, Microscopy and Microanalysis, Microscopy Today and Acta Histochemica, among others. His career in teaching at educational institutions includes Master’s College Azusa Pacific University and California State University Northridge.

    Mark managed a working electron microscopy laboratory (SEM and TEM) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. In 2003 he moved his laboratory to the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center in AZ. His lab is still vibrant and is still producing publications.

    Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.

    He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University.

    Marks’s other unique discoveries include the discovery of two new species of trematodes and the reporting of new hosts for several trematodes. He also discovered short half-life radiohalos in clear diamonds, and the first ever discovery of soft tissues inside a Triceratops horn from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana.

    He is a lifetime member of the Creation Research Society where he has served on the Board of Directors since 2006. Mark is a member of the Microscopy Society of America, the Southern California Academy of Sciences and the American Society of Parasitologists.

    The internet archive contains several entries featuring him here which all describe him as a "Instructional Support Technician"

    Date: 2013/10/04 15:58:54, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 04 2013,19:49)
    Barry is an intellectual coward -- a bitch who wishes he could be a bully.

    Well there is that. But I wonder if this is also an attempt to end a never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced in every single bloody post no matter what the subject -  and very likely, behind the scenes, in endless emails too.   By the guy who invites people into his living room asks them to politely answer his questions and then drowns out everything they say by constant parenthesized interruptions delivered through his megaphone and a 10,000 watt echo unit p.a. system.

    Date: 2013/10/04 17:02:35, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 04 2013,23:08)
    If that's the case, Patrick's right and Barry's a coward.  If Barry is fed up of the never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced, the obvious solution is to ask for the source of those rants to stop.

    I don't deny that Barry is a coward when it comes to dealing with the people that disagree with him. It's just that he's also (or even more so) a coward when dealing with those that do agree with him.

    Date: 2013/10/08 14:56:15, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 08 2013,16:28)
    Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat upbraids O'Dreary:

    News: While the point on academic freedom and freedom of expression is valid, I suggest moderated tone. KF

    ...vaporizes every Hypocrisy Meter within a cubic parsec.


    Looks like that remark got it in the neck. Google still found the page when I searched for a part of Gordon's phrase but there are no remarks from him there now.

    Date: 2013/12/05 14:42:55, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Barry quotes Mark Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90 (June 25, 1981): 830-1, 830-32 (emphasis Bully).

    Some paleontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that the fossil record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of ‘punctuated equilibrium.” The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution – whether evolution occurred at all. This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments – and the present debate within paleontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution . . . In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.

    Quote Mine 49 at the TO quote mine project  and #3 at the RationalWiki popular quote mine page

    It's almost as if Bully is reusing old quote mines just to trick people into getting banned.

    Date: 2013/12/31 13:39:16, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,19:58)
    KF: Math is hard:
    10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

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

    A: 821051141354735739523

    B: 733615329964125325790

    C: 698312217625358227195

    D: 123409876135791113151

    E: 113581321345589146235

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

    17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Which of these is pi digits…

    Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


    A-E could also be telephone numbers (by taking the last few digits of several numbers)

    E looks like it could be the famous Fibonacci sequence formed by adding the previous two numbers to get a new one:

    1 + 1 = 3
    1 + 3 = 5
    55 + 89 = 146

    Date: 2014/01/01 11:35:34, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Trivially, all are pi-digits. Maybe not consecutive pi-digits. If he wanted to know which of the sequences corresponded to a range of consecutive digits found in the decimal representation of pi, I'm sure KF would have asked for that :)

    Date: 2014/02/24 16:07:10, Link
    Author: steve_h
    They've still got this on Dembski.

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

    Date: 2014/03/02 15:38:03, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Adam and Eve and Ann Gauger  
    Here’s a vid of Gauger arguing a similar point in a different venue:

    Said venue is of course the Disco'tute's fake lab / real stock photo.

    If only the materialists didn’t come across as such charlatans in the discussions here on UD.

    Date: 2014/03/09 12:49:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Dear Diary,

    just spent another hectic day monitoring the viral Dr Torley  thread. I just can't believe it, every time I check it's gone up by at least one. Bydand!

    Date: 2014/09/26 13:44:17, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 26 2014,10:41)
    Quote (REC @ Sep. 25 2014,10:03)
    Is steveh a clever troll, or a total moron (regarding trends in climate data:

    Global warming? Don’t make me laugh. The only thing happening here is that, over time, the plateaus are getting more elevated.

    More elevated? Like hotter?

    Perhaps he means the Tibetan Plateau.

    No I meant "hotter". I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the OP pointed to an earlier unelevated/cooler plateau followed by a later elevated/warmer one and at the same time claim that the there was no upward trend. And of course I had to do it without disagreeing with Barry.

    Date: 2017/07/27 18:22:32, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (PTaylor @ July 22 2017,10:22)
    Speaking of Barry, I notice that this:


    doesn't appear on UD pages anymore; only the 'Copyright © Uncommon Descent, Inc.' portion remains. Like its original appearance, I have no idea how recently it changed, or whether anything at all can be read into the fact that Barry is no longer credited as President.

    Does this mean that they have changed from some sort of non-profit organisation (*) to a strictly for-profit(**) organisation?

    (*) Non-Profit (AIUI) = all money donated by the rubes is spent strictly on the persuance of an ID educational agenda - after paying for some basics such as Web Hosting, Web Design, Legal fees, Dept Collection Fees, Board Advisory Fees,  Technical Advice ( Legal, Mathematical, Theological, Newsy, etc.), and payments to lecturers of various types (ID lecurerers, ID Law lecturers,  ID News Experts people who can write thier own name) etc, and other costs.

    (**) For-Profit (AIUI) = all money donated by the rubes goes straight to the owner's bank account - after paying for some basics such as Web Hosting, Web Design,  Technical Advice ( Mathematical, Theological, Newsy, etc.), and payments to lecturers of various types (ID lecurerers, ID News Experts people who can write thier own name) etc, and other costs.

    Disclaimer: I am not a company law expert.

    Date: 2017/10/25 13:05:25, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 25 2017,18:37)

    KF replies with just about every trope and cliche in his inventory:            
    RVB8, your habit of using invidious comparisons to Creationists not present to defend themselves is doubly offensive. First, the invidious comparisons, which send a not so subtle message of pushing ID into a boat in which even the same Creationists recognise it does not belong — yet another case of your speaking in insistent defiance of regard for truth you know or should know (and for correction). Second, it is an utter disgrace to do drive-by smears of those not present to defend themselves, regardless of how you may view them. I suggest that it is high time that you stop such behaviour, especially as it is part of the toxic trifecta of fallacies: red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems, to set them alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. In the case of Wikipedia, it is a clear case of radical relativism at work on the domain of knowledge and reveals that the attitude might and manipulation make ‘truth,’ ‘right,’ ‘rights,’ ‘knowledge,’ etc is an open invitation to domineering, amoral, nihilist factions who then entrench themselves and ruthlessly oppress those they target; through agit prop tactics and the underlying cultural marxist agenda to wreck our civilisation. It is a capital public manifestation of the failure and bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. KF

    I see the good scientists at AIG have joined the galloping dead on KF's list of people you shouldn't criticise because they are not here to defend themselves.

    Maybe that's why the obfuscated quote from L [[=> sounds a bit like where all the bad people go ] ... ew [[->An expression of disgust, for example ] .. ontin is conspicuously absent here.

    Date: 2018/10/30 18:11:13, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote, I agree with why you say NS doesn’t exist. Only Lamarckianism exists. Great point. There is no reproducing digital code in nature apart from living organisms, and all living organisms are purposeful. Therefore, only purposeful selection ever takes place. I believe that is a categorical disproof of Darwinian evolution.

    Reminds me of Gil's  post about mutating the computer doing the emulation for some reason.

    Date: 2018/11/06 18:15:05, Link
    Author: steve_h
    Quote (KevinB @ Nov. 06 2018,19:11)
    I'm getting a black border around all the posts on the UD thread, starting with Bob O'H's comment of Nov 5, 12:55.

    Does this indicate that someone else has been silently banned at UD, or merely that there's an unclosed tag that's crept in?

    The link in the preceeding comment has been mangled in a different way to the usual.