AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: stevestory

form_srcid: stevestory

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 184.73.87.85

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: stevestory

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/10/20 16:19:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Anybody catch Primetime tonight? Interesting show about a preteen pop duo called Prussian Blue who sing white supremacist songs. Imagine Mary Kate and Ashley singing songs about how great Rudolph Hess was. Yikes.

Date: 2005/10/20 18:52:05, Link
Author: stevestory
I'll give you that he has a terrible name Paley, but yours isn't much better. If you post under a ridiculous pseudonym, you put a barrier up to anyone who wants to quote some particularly cogent thing you might say. Not that you have to worry about that, but S.T. does.

Date: 2005/10/21 08:05:35, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't know if "The Shaggs" could be worse than these girls.

What was hilarious about the story was the generally horrible time the supremacists had, doing their various activities. One group went down to help only white victims of katrina. Nobody seemed to want their help.

Date: 2005/10/21 13:03:24, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL!

Date: 2005/10/21 16:24:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Comment #53117

Posted by Steve S on October 21, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)

And yeah, I really do think that degrees in biology, chemistry, finance, etc, should get much higher priority than the humanities. If there’s going to be no standard for what kind of education you publicly fund, then why stop at an undergrad degree? Fund everyone through their Ph.D. That way all the English BAs I used to work with at Borders can now have Dr. on their little nametags.
Is where I left off on PT. Let me continue: I think the current system of getting student loans is superior to Lenny's idea to just give everyone free college. One reason is this--20-30% of people get worthless English degrees. Linking someone's education to the cost, placed in the future, encourages them to go into more valuable, lucrative fields, such as business, engineering, etc. If the taxpayers payed everyone's education, there would be less incentive for people to avoid worthless majors.

Date: 2005/10/21 17:31:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Worthless is shorthand. I think some educations, like science, engineering, and business, are much more valuable. Economic value is not everything, but it's a good place to start. Before I graduated I worked at places like Borders, making $5/hr, and half the people I worked with had degrees in art, english, and graphic design. When I graduated with a physics degree, My salary instantly jumped 300%. I love the humanities. I've read nearly every play by Shakespeare, multiple times. I'm usually reading 2-3 books at a given time. But I don't think such degrees are nearly as valuable. If we're going to talk about buying everyone free educations, we should decide if some are worth buying and some aren't.

Date: 2005/10/21 19:17:11, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't think your response has anything to do with what I said.

Date: 2005/10/21 21:18:45, Link
Author: stevestory
"I would certainly label the public funding of art based solely on the potential economic value of the art to be censorship, wouldn't you?"

of course that's not censorship.

"I'm sure you're a nice, reasonable guy Steve, but I certainly wouldn't vote for ya, no offense."

Well if a guy who calls himself "Sir Toejam" wouldn't vote for me, I guess I'm crazy. No offense.

Date: 2005/10/22 15:50:42, Link
Author: stevestory
So I finally got a job at a tech company in RTP (It's off Cornwallis rd., to be exact) Anyone in that general area with a room for rent? Since I don't have a car, I need a place to move to pronto.

stevestory@gmail.com

Date: 2005/10/22 16:16:30, Link
Author: stevestory
"You take away peoples’ traditional religion, and you get Charles Manson, the Raelians, and Scientology."

Or you could win the grand prize and get an atheist.

Date: 2005/10/23 08:51:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Man, there is some dumb antiscience sh*t on the internets

http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/Product_detail.asp?sku=1595550194

Date: 2005/10/23 09:02:22, Link
Author: stevestory
TURNED ON--A revolution in the field of evolution?

Date: 2005/10/23 14:51:39, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I agree with Orr that switching probably plays a decisive role in evolutionary schema, but that its not so extreme as to overturn any current paradigms in evolutionary thought.  I wish the media would be more responsible about the way they portray scientific discoveries.
Uh, did you read the article to the end?

Date: 2005/10/23 14:54:30, Link
Author: stevestory
spare? Frak does that mean?

Date: 2005/10/23 19:50:33, Link
Author: stevestory
I should have been more explicit in my original post. If you look at everyone in America who rejected the Big Traditional Religions, you're talking about 10% or so of the population. The vast majority of those list themselves as Atheist/Agnostic. That is all you need to know to reject the idea that leaving the big religions means you join a cult.

Date: 2005/10/23 20:56:43, Link
Author: stevestory
the mouse thing, Tom goes to the mayor? stupid.

Give me Aqua Teen and Venture Bros. any day.

Date: 2005/10/24 04:05:15, Link
Author: stevestory
Towards the end he says
Quote
The point isn’t that evo devo is not important; it surely is. For the first time, we have a good understanding of how particular changes in DNA cause particular changes in embryos, which, in turn, cause particular changes in species. The point is that not all significant science turns our world upside down. Despite the nearly irresistible romance of the scientific revolution, the history of evolutionary biology might end up looking a lot more like evo devo’s own history of the animal kingdom: a few radical innovations early on, followed by some intensely interesting tinkering

Date: 2005/10/24 15:03:50, Link
Author: stevestory
heh. Reminds me of the exasperation of Fox Mulder one time.

"One more anal-probing gyro-pyro levitating ectoplasm alien anti-matter story and I'm going to take out my gun and shoot somebody."

Date: 2005/10/28 14:11:05, Link
Author: stevestory
You really should be watching this Tom Brokaw special exploring Evangelicals, what they believe, who their critics are, etc. It's very thought provoking. For one thing, watching these people, it's easy to see why SecHum and generic Atheism don't get too many converts. These evangelicals are fired up about selling their product. And they have done a good job producing a social/emotional product which is appealing to people.

Date: 2005/10/29 13:33:59, Link
Author: stevestory
A while back, Dembski alluded to some upcoming project with a Nobel Laureate. He didn't name names, but those of us familiar with the idiotic religious statements made by Richard Smalley
Quote

Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible's "Genesis." The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.
suspect it was him. Smalley, however, has just passed away. Had he been working with Dembski? Was the project complete? I wonder if we'll ever know.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9860676/

Date: 2005/10/29 16:58:24, Link
Author: stevestory
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," -Ray Mummert, Dover creationist.

Just had to remind people of that, after reading about it in Welcome to Idiot America, an excellent essay in this month's Esquire.

Date: 2005/10/29 18:06:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, i think it's an interesting situation. At least potentially interesting. Assuming it was Smalley, there are a few possible outcomes:

1) Smalley and Dumbski coproduced a document arguing for Intelligent Design before Smalley died.
2) Smalley wanted to work with Dumbski, told Dumbski he would work on producing ID-supporting materiel soon, but then died.

In the case 1, it's crappy, IDCs will endlessly claim that a nobel laureate agrees with them. In case 2, Dumbski has an interesting choice. Does he say, "Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley supported ID, he told me so."? That could make him look bad, Smalley being unavailable for confirmation.

Date: 2005/10/30 05:29:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Wiley Miller, in his comic strip Non Sequitur, has been beating ID like a rented mule, over the past few months. the beating continues today


http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/

Date: 2005/10/30 06:30:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh it's real. And it's spectacular.

Date: 2005/11/05 07:36:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, it might not be perfect here, but it still sucks in China.

Date: 2005/11/07 17:47:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Cantonese.  China is amazing.  And BIG
And polluted. And noisy. And they hassle americans about Visas. And have a police state.

Date: 2005/11/08 12:46:23, Link
Author: stevestory
If you can tolerate China, though, check out Chengdu. Fantastically beautiful women.

China, btw, doesn't have us by the nads economically. It's like the old saw--if you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it's your problem. If you owe them a billion dollars, it's their problem.

Date: 2005/11/09 13:05:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Kansas and Dover were just mentioned on ABC’s nightly news. Eugenie Scott got a statement in. The reporter was clearly treating ID as a crypto-creationist scheme. The coverage was actually pretty sweet—they showed Stephen Meyer, and showed an off-camera Discovery Institute handler stopping the interview when the reporter asked about the DI’s funders. The off-camera guy could be heard saying “We don’t want to go down that road.”

Date: 2005/11/11 12:12:43, Link
Author: stevestory
So now the pope supports intelligent design in the large?

Who gives a sh*t?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

Date: 2005/11/13 13:28:42, Link
Author: stevestory
“The Reformation was the scraping of a little rust off the chains which still bind the mind... Darwinism is the New Reformation"
T.H.Huxley

Date: 2005/11/13 15:56:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Nope. And I bet there was a collective grinding of teeth at the DI when Pat Robertson made his recent comments.

Date: 2005/11/17 13:57:40, Link
Author: stevestory
The storm-tossed and rudderless Republican Party should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking reelection were defeated. This expressed the community's wholesome exasperation with the board's campaign to insinuate religion, in the guise of "intelligent design" theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a required proclamation that evolution "is not a fact."


But it is. And President Bush's straddle on that subject — "both sides" should be taught — although intended to be anodyne, probably was inflammatory, emboldening social conservatives. Dover's insurrection occurred as Kansas's Board of Education, which is controlled by the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people, voted 6 to 4 to redefine science. The board, opening the way for teaching the supernatural, deleted from the definition of science these words: "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena."


"It does me no injury," said Thomas Jefferson, "for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education. The conservative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades.

Date: 2005/11/19 12:59:09, Link
Author: stevestory
I like it better than the bathroom wall because you can make threads. the only problem with the place is, far fewer people come here because it's more indirectly featured at PT.

Date: 2005/11/20 15:28:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Here's a thread where Heddle can continue his arguments, be they 1 the 120 OOM difference between the CC and the naive expectation of what it would be, proves ID
2 the 60 OOM size of the CC in reduced Planck units, proves ID
3 the unknown ratio deltaCC/CC, called Sensitivity, proves ID

or some new one, whatever that may be. I won't be participating unless he actually gives us a number for Sensitivity.

Date: 2005/11/21 16:17:00, Link
Author: stevestory
This is the last time I will ever correct you, Mr. Heddle. It's just not worth my time. Here we go.

Dave Heddle:
Quote
I wonder why you say “naïve expectation?” Could it be that you believe the theoretical calculations are on shaky ground? Have you investigated the quantum-gravity and GUT field-theoretic calculations that have been done, and feel justified in characterizing them as naïve? Does it bother you that when people like Krauss or Weinberg or Hawking discuss the discrepancy between theory and observation they never simply shrug it off as merely reflecting the naiveté of the calculations?


Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner:
Quote

However, no symmetry principle has yet been found that guarantees a zero
value for the vacuum energy, and quantum-cosmological arguments currently rely on
the shaky foundations of Euclidean quantum gravity. It could be then that whatever
mechanism does diminish the cosmological constant below one’s naive estimates does
not involve an exact symmetry and leaves a small vacuum energy.


Over and Out.

Date: 2005/11/23 08:27:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Your totality argument is nonsense. Squint Theory is much more conclusive.

Squint at an object. If it looks designed, it was!

See watch me squint at some fibrinogen...

He Lives! Tada!

Date: 2005/11/24 04:16:50, Link
Author: stevestory
And Dave, you really need to get a new name for your ideas. ID is something different.

The world's most recognized expert in ID, William Dembski, said: ""intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Now unless I missing something, your Sensitravisty is neither information theory nor John's Gospel. So you should change the name of your argument.

Date: 2005/11/24 05:26:34, Link
Author: stevestory
We all know Dembski's Explanatory Filter is not just bad, it's stupid. But what would it be like, if we lived in a world in which the EF was correct? Here's a scene from such a world. Contribute your own, if you think of any.

lawyer: So, you allege that the tree fell on your car through a purely naturalistic, regular process, isn't that right?
defendant: sure is.
lawyer: But the truth is You designed that, didn't you! You wanted the insurance money!
defendant: of course I didn't! and you don't have any evidence of it!
lawyer: oh, that's true. We didn't find any chainsaw. We didn't find a ladder. You weren't home at the time. All that is true.
defendant: see--i didn't do it.
lawyer: But...we ran the scenario through the Explanatory Filter!
jury: Gasp!
lawyer: care to know what the EF had to say about the falling tree branch....
defendant: ...gulp...but...but...you don't have any evidence at all about the mechanism I could have used to effect such a plan!
lawyer: Ha. This is forensic ID science, Mister. It is not my task to match your pathetic level of detail.
Judge: Guilty! Gulty! Gulty!

Date: 2005/11/25 07:45:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm all about Casey Luskin's IDEA club spreading. Because they require club officers to be christian. That says it all, right there.

Date: 2005/11/25 11:17:52, Link
Author: stevestory
"It would be a mistake to think that these actions and reactions are part of a continued trend toward a secular world ruled by science. On the contrary, divisions within the churches suggest a revewed search for the transcendent. Though today in the West the schools and governments, the press and the habits of public life, are no longer blended with religion, more and more demands are expressed that they should do so once again."

-Jacques Barzun

Date: 2005/11/27 03:54:05, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm in favor of the class. However if Mirecki really made the comments that "“The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology.” then he should perhaps be removed from teaching it.

Date: 2005/12/01 13:47:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

TOPEKA, Kan. - A University of Kansas course devoted to debunking creationism and intelligent design has been canceled after the professor who planned to teach it caused a furor by sending an e-mail mocking Christian fundamentalists.

Twenty-five students had enrolled in the course, originally called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies,” which had been scheduled for the spring.

Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies, canceled the class Wednesday, the university said.

Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as “fundies” and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a “nice slap in their big fat face.”

He later apologized, and did so again Thursday in a statement issued by the university.

“I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner,” he said.

Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Mirecki’s comments were “repugnant and vile.”

“It misrepresents everything the university is to stand for,” Hemenway said.

The class was added to the curriculum after the Kansas Board of Education decided recently to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for public school students.

State Sen. Kay O’Connor, a Mirecki critic, said the university did the right thing.

“I’m glad they decided to listen to the public. The public response was so negative because of what seemed to be so hateful coming from the KU professor,” said O’Connor, a Republican. “I am critical of his hatefulness toward Christians.”

thanks a lot, Mirecki.

Date: 2005/12/04 06:06:28, Link
Author: stevestory
ID Might be Meeting its maker

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

Date: 2005/12/04 10:11:25, Link
Author: stevestory
That he did. But we both beat Ed Brayton.

Date: 2005/12/04 10:19:49, Link
Author: stevestory
If Information Theory blew holes in evolution, there would be good evidence of it. You would be able to find papers, editorials, something, published by the IEEE or the Information Theory Society thereof, which discusses this. Dembski or Behe would be invited to IT conferences. Highly regarded Information Theory researchers would have made comments to that effect. But none of this evidence exists. Information Theory blows holes in evolution only in the minds of some zealots like Salvador Cordova.

Date: 2005/12/04 10:43:40, Link
Author: stevestory
still nothing from either Answers In Genesis or Dembski's blog about the new archyoptyrx fossil which strengthens the dino link.

Date: 2005/12/04 14:49:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I want Sal to skip to question #3. Let's see some non-materialistic weather forecasting.

"Now we go to Dan with the weather. Dan?"
"Thanks Bob. Today it's going to be overcast with spotty showers, and a 20% chance of raining frogs, because you're all a bunch of sodomites. Back to you Bob."

Date: 2005/12/04 16:52:20, Link
Author: stevestory
I think you might be right. That might not be the real Salvador. This person is making spelling errors, but not as many as Sal usually makes.

Date: 2005/12/04 16:56:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Not many grammar errors either. Sal usually mixmatches cases and such.

Date: 2005/12/04 17:02:12, Link
Author: stevestory
on the other hand, he said "wilfully", "Speuclations", "un-planned", "wil", "readshifts", and "hyptheses", all in one post, so it might actually be Salvador.

Date: 2005/12/07 02:53:20, Link
Author: stevestory
I also thought it was fake Salvador. But I have to toot my own horn a bit for this post a few days ago:

Quote

stevestory


Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 04 2005,  
on the other hand, he said "wilfully", "Speuclations", "un-planned", "wil", "readshifts", and "hyptheses", all in one post, so it might actually be Salvador.

Date: 2005/12/07 09:30:42, Link
Author: stevestory
MSNBC:
Quote

LONDON - Scientists have discovered how cancer spreads from a primary site to other places in the body in a finding that could open doors for new ways of treating and preventing advanced disease.

Instead of a cell just breaking off from a tumor and traveling through the bloodstream to another organ where it forms a secondary tumour, or metastasis, researchers in the United States have shown that the cancer sends out envoys to prepare the new site....

In research reported in the journal Nature, Lyden and his colleagues describe what happens before the arrival of the cancerous cells at the new site.

"The authors show that tumor cells can mobilize normal bone marrow cells, causing them to migrate to particular regions and change the local environment so as to attract and support a developing metastasis," Patricia Steeg, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, said in a commentary.

Cells at the site of the metastasis multiply and produce a protein called fibronectin, which acts like a glue to attract and trap the bone marrow cells to create a landing pad or nest for the cancer cells.

"These nests provide attachment factors for the tumor cells to implant and nurture them. It causes them not only to bind but to proliferate. Once that all takes place we have a fully formed metastatic site or secondary tumor," said Lyden.

Commentary: So scientists have discovered a whole new layer of complexity in how cancer spreads. Many cells and proteins act in concert to cause this process. Clearly, cancer is Irreducibly Complex. Thanks, Intelligent Designer! Thanks a bunch. Love your work.

Metacommentary: ID makes the Problem of Evil much worse. Previously, one could believe that terrible things were merely permitted to happen by god. With intelligent design, complicated awful things like cancer aren't just permitted, they must have been deliberately engineered by him. ID makes christianity less appealing.

Date: 2005/12/08 10:20:19, Link
Author: stevestory
Last week after I read the new data about archyopteryx's feet, I was disappointed that AiG wasn't replying with the high octane crazy juice. So I emailed them:
Quote


Scientists just said that they've found a new archaeoptyrx fossil, and that it confirms birds evolved from dinosaurs. yet i see no response on your website. so do you agree with them?


After several days, I've received a reply:
Quote


Dear Steve,



Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.  No, we would not agree.  Since their interpretation is based on their presuppositions.  Do you have a specific article we could look at?  Chances are this is just another attempt at make the “dinos to birds” connection.  I’m sure there is nothing new that we haven’t already covered.



What about Archaeoraptor and Archaeopteryx, which some evolutionists claim are ‘missing links’ between dinosaurs and birds?

·         Archaeoraptor Hoax Update — National Geographic Recants!

·         Archaeoraptor — Phony ‘feathered’ fossil

·         Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is not a hoax — it is a true bird, not a ‘missing link’

·         Bird evolution?

·         Bird evolution: discontinuities and reversals (Technical)

·         Bird evolution falls flat

·         Bird evolution flies out the window (An anatomist [Dr David Menton] talks about Archaeopteryx)

·         Claws on wings



I pray this is helpful.  Have a great day and God bless.



In His name and for His glory,





Matthew D'Orazio

Answers Representative

Answers in Genesis

P.O. Box 510

Hebron, KY  41048



http://www.answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis is a non-profit, Christ centered, non-denominational ministry dedicated to upholding the authority of Scripture from the very first verse! The information contained in this e-mail message is proprietary, privileged and confidential, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

In response, I emailed him the specific article he asked for:
Quote


Considering that this new data was reported a week ago, I doubt you have already covered it. You might already have made up your mind, but I doubt you've covered it already.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10283203/


I will report here any followup I get from them.

Date: 2005/12/10 11:40:37, Link
Author: stevestory

Quote

Science: New 'Mighty Mouse' Formula Found
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday December 10, @03:34PM


mystyc writes to tell us that scientists at Johns Hopkins have improved upon their original "mighty mice" discovery. Teamed with the biotech firm MetaMorphix and pharmaceutical company Wyeth, they have found a new agent that interacts with the muscle-limiting protein myostatin that was able to trigger a 60% increase in muscle size after just two weekly injections.

   * Read More...
   * 62 of 89 comments
   * science.slashdot.org


Boy, imagine what the MLB, NFL, and Chinese Olympics teams are going to look like in a couple years.

Date: 2005/12/10 11:44:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Of course, the important question is, "What will this discovery do for my wang?"

...Hey Hey Not that it needs anything, no sirree, I'm just saying...

But seriously, what'll it do?

Date: 2005/12/11 04:40:43, Link
Author: stevestory
check Nature's website, but I don't think this is going to be helpful to you yet.

Date: 2005/12/13 10:43:00, Link
Author: stevestory
as of this posting, neither Answers in Genesis, Dembski's blog, nor Evolution News and Views (the DI blog of Casey Ruxpin) has mentioned this new discovery about Archaeopteryx.

Date: 2005/12/14 03:06:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

  1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

         * increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
         * increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
         * novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
         * novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

     If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

Date: 2005/12/14 03:27:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
  2.  A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
         * Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
         * RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
         * Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
     The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

  3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

  4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

Links:
Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness

Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html
References:

  1. Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
  2. Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
  3. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
  4. Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
  5. Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
  6. Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
  7. Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
  8. Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
  9. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
 10. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
 11. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
 12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
 13. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
 14. Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html

Further Reading:
Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463 (technical)

Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92. (technical)

Date: 2005/12/15 03:59:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
salvador said:

Quote
The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.

-- Bertrand Russell
Salvador forgot to mention the context of Russell's quote. The widely held opinion Russell calls absurd refers to christianity.

Date: 2005/12/15 04:04:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Also be aware that Salvador manipulated the quote. The real quote is
Quote


"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible."

I understand why Salvador tried to mislead--christianity is a much more widespread belief than evolution.

Date: 2005/12/15 08:25:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Fish help unlock mystery of our skin color

One gene may play big role in making some fish golden, some people white

The cellular changes of lightly pigmented golden zebrafish show a striking resemblance to those of lighter skinned humans. The zebrafish pigment gene SLC24A5 is functionally conserved across evolution; a single base change in its parallel human gene may play a role in pigment variation in human populations.

 By Daniel B. Kane
Science
Updated: 2:00 p.m. ET Dec. 15, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480835/

Date: 2005/12/15 09:11:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, it's not a faith-based belief, but it is a belief in the broad philisophical sense that every statement you consider true is something you believe.

Date: 2005/12/15 11:23:36, Link
Author: stevestory
This blog post is about a cute new paper.

Quote


The medium (of the universe) is the message

You know we live in a post-modern world when even the serious academic articles start to smack of science fiction.

An article by Stephen Hsu of the University of Oregon and Anthony Zee of the University of California suggests that a putative creator of the universe could have encoded as many as 100,000 bits of information into variations in the cosmic background radiation merely by tuning the starting conditions. The article by Hsu and Zee on arXiv.org goes into much more technical detail. Science has a slightly easier summary blurb as well.

http://honesthypocrite.blogspot.com/2005....ge.html

Finding a message in those bits might be a way to get Real Cosmic Intelligent Design, rather than David Heddle's vapid hypothesis-testing-without-a-distribution non sequitur.

Date: 2005/12/17 15:54:41, Link
Author: stevestory
On the top post on PT right now, Gary Hurd says:

Quote


PS: This is my last post to Panda’s Thumb. There are contributors to PT whose personal politics are far closer to the rightist mob revealed above than to people with whom I will remain associated.



Is anyone else surprised by this? I haven't seen much to clue me in to what he's referring to, but of course I don't see the behind-the-scenes Panda's Thumb stuff.

Date: 2005/12/18 03:17:19, Link
Author: stevestory
WOOOOHOOOOO! I hope it being long means it's a bigass pony.

All I want for christmas is a pony.

Date: 2005/12/18 04:20:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I also thought the police conspiracy stuff was unusual. But I would like to know more about the behind the scenes political machinations if stuff like this is going on at PT. Get it out in the open.

Date: 2005/12/29 05:33:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
there are as many Xian terrorists as there are in any other religion.

extemeism is a state of mind, not a religious principle.
What kind of evidence is there for this claim?

Date: 2005/12/29 08:09:30, Link
Author: stevestory
One thing I'm going to be doing in the new year is thinking about how the "product" of atheism or secularism doesn't compete as well as religion does, in America and many other parts of the world. I have some vague ideas about why that is. Religions are social institutions, where people get real or percieved social benefits by going to church functions. Can atheism do something like that? When I've gone to local meetings of atheist or intelligence groups, it's usually a small group with an unfortunately high percentage of dysfunctional people. Is atheism a small percentage of people because we lack enticing social benefits? Is atheism too simple a philosophy to create such a social club, and we'll have to use humanism to do it? Thinking about these questions will be the first part of my new year.

Date: 2005/12/29 09:01:20, Link
Author: stevestory
America has largely had a dominant culture over the last half of its history. One could argue that earlier than that, large segments were speaking french or german or dutch or spanish, but since at least the 1800s its had a pretty unified cultural identitiy. Because of things like this http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin....41.html
in the next few decades huge regions of SoCal, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas are going to switch to majority spanish-speaking regions, and the more it grows, the more it accelerates, so sooner or later we'll have whole states where the residents speak spanish and probably no english. It's not unusual for countries to contain multiple large distinct ethnic populations, and we're about to have that. Wonder if this'll really change the way Americans see themselves?

I don't think it will, necessarily. My understanding of America doesn't really see whiteness and protestantism as essential elements. I think a lot of people who think of Americans as cornfed whitebread football players from Iowa are in the dying-off WWII generation. Of course, there may be a lot of opinion I'm not seeing. What do you think?

Feel free to argue orthogonal points like that big-city educated east-coast atheists like myself don't really have any cultural identity with insane evangelical Left Behind readers in Des Moines anyway, &c.

Date: 2005/12/29 17:27:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Who decides the school teaches in English? The local school board, that's who. I can imagine a few school boards changing that rule in a few years.

Date: 2005/12/30 05:40:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Hey, stop knocking Iowa.  


I wasn't knocking Iowa, though i understand what I wrote could be read that way. I just used it to refer to some place far away from me.

Date: 2005/12/30 06:25:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh lord, a troll hath invaded my lovely thread. Be happy Wes doesn't provide thread authors here the ability to do maintenance, Paley, because I'd delete every worthless thing you wrote. Go away.

Date: 2005/12/30 06:53:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Any plans for improvements to Panda's Thumb, as it nears its 2nd birthday?

Date: 2005/12/30 12:01:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Mobsters were rich, popular and sometimes famous when you had to go to them to get a drink.


BTW, the highest murder rate in the US was in the 20s.



I suppose the larger questions I should have asked here are, what are the essential features of American culture? Are the cornfed Iowa boy and the tacofed Miami latina living in the same culture, or not? Is American culture essentially just a few things like the rule of law, capitalism, widespread freedom, and property rights? Are other things like language important or meaningless? If a few states like Texas and New Mexico become Spanish-only, is America different in any important sense, or not?

Date: 2006/01/01 14:34:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Just ask "Nightline," the ABC News program, which broadcast a segment in August about intelligent design that the Discovery Institute, a conservative clearinghouse for proponents of intelligent design, did not like very much. The next day, the institute published on its Web site the entire transcript of the nearly hourlong interview that "Nightline" had conducted a few days earlier with one of the institute's leaders, not just the brief quotes that had appeared on television.

The institute did not accuse "Nightline" of any errors. Rather, it urged readers to examine the unedited interview because, it said, the transcript would reveal "the predictable tone of some of the questions" by the staff of "Nightline."

"Here's your chance to go behind the scenes with the gatekeepers of the national media to see how they screen out viewpoints and information that don't fit their stereotypes," Rob Crowther, the institute's spokesman, wrote on the Web site.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006....omepage

Date: 2006/01/02 04:46:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Wikipedia does not have a page for our beloved Panda's Thumb website. Somebody needs to start working on it. And that somebody isn't me, because I don't know jack about the history of how it came about. As far as I know, Panda's Thumb formed ex nihilo around March 2004.

Date: 2006/01/03 10:53:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Jeff Shallit has a good post up about mothemedoligistical natumarilism or whatever you call it. I'd like to see this sort of thing on Panda's Thumb.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006....ed.html

Date: 2006/01/04 08:22:42, Link
Author: stevestory
I just renewed my membership in the ACLU. I've been a supporter of them ever since I decided to go to their website and read what they actually think, instead of basing my opinion of them on howls of outrage by conservatives about one or another anecdotal case they were involved in. This happened in 2002. As I renew my membership, I encourage all of you who care about our Enlightenment values to join. They did right by us in Dover, show your support!

Check out the ACLU and join.

Date: 2006/01/07 06:08:37, Link
Author: stevestory
You really can't let them get to you. There are 300 million people in this country, several million of them are going to be militant idiots, and there's no point getting upset.

Date: 2006/01/07 13:51:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I understand. I used to get enraged at militant idiots. Now I just try to find them amusing. For instance, Dembski's the best the ID movement has to offer. A guy who has no success, lost all credibility, and now teaches at a bible college, and on top of that he just turned his blog over to 4 pseudonymous nuts with no credentials.

You call that a threat? Ha. The proper outlook to have about them is Humphrey Bogart's outlook on Peter Lorre in Casablanca.

   Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
   Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

Date: 2006/01/09 12:34:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Comment #69232

Posted by P.S. on January 9, 2006 05:33 PM (e) (s)

All of this parsing is really irrelevant anyway, because we know, from the wedge document and all the other facts, that the real goal of the IDEA Center and its organizers and funders is to undermine “secular materialism”.



Was a recent post at Panda's Thumb. And it made me think, what are the things we're doing to promote secular humanism? What are we doing to advance what the DI is trying to undermine? Any responses from noncreationists are appreciated.

Date: 2006/01/09 15:48:02, Link
Author: stevestory
No, I know the difference between the two, although I admit Secular Materialism is a bit redundant. The DI is opposed to Materialism or Naturalism or however you want to call it, and I was not asking what we're doing to promote merely methodological naturalism, but rather the whole Enlightenment freethinking rationalist epistemology. As far as using secular humanism as a synonym for that, I feel fine.

As to Flint's point that Materialism is wildly successful, you couldn't be more wrong. There are 5 theists in America for every atheist/agnostic. That's not overwhelming success.

Date: 2006/01/10 03:29:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I agree with that to some extent. I'd say half of the religious people around are rational and don't really take it seriously. But we need to be promoting secular values as secular and valuable.

Date: 2006/01/10 16:09:26, Link
Author: stevestory
ahahahhahahaaha. I know wes doesn't like bad language, but there's no other way to say this. DaveScot is a dipshit.

Date: 2006/01/11 04:31:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Doesn't that already exist? isn't that already TalkOrigins or something?

Date: 2006/01/11 12:48:23, Link
Author: stevestory
I would delete everything you wrote. And everything Charlie Wagner wrote. And Robert O'Brien. And that's about it. In other words, Panda's Thumb has banned about 5 people in its 2 year existence. I would have banned probably around 9. And Dembski and company would have banned over a hundred.

You may be a hillbilly, but nobody said you had to be stupid enough to confuse those two styles.

Date: 2006/01/11 12:52:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh and Dave Heddle and Carol Clouser. And that's it. By comparison, DaveScot is banning people all the time, to the point that he recently started banning ID supporters who happen to disagree about the details.

Date: 2006/01/11 16:04:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, i was counting JAD as one of the 5 or so PT already banned.

Why ban everything Paley said? a very weak quality control of banning loquacious creationists. If I ran an astronomy board I'd ban talkative people who argued the sun went around the earth. Pretty low bar, but better than nothing.

Actually, I'd run a /. style system, and leave the comments intact, just give certain commenters -1 status. anybody who wanted to view them could set their settings accordingly, but the rest of us wouldn't be bothered.

Date: 2006/01/12 06:35:43, Link
Author: stevestory
I had to post this. It's too funny to miss. In an UncommonPissant thread about this:
Quote


Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School - Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT) on Nickelodeon

NEW YORK, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ — In Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: God, Science, Politics and Your School, airing on Nickelodeon, Sunday, Jan. 22, 8:30 p.m. (ET/PT), award-winning journalist Linda Ellerbee and Nick News take a look at the on-going controversy surrounding the teaching of the theory of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classes.



is found the following comment:
Quote


#

My 13 year-old brother in law got a call from his youth minister at his church in Kansas City to go in and be interviewed for this particular show. I happened to be there and drove him over there, trying to explain some of the basic core concepts of ID so that he would have something intelligent to say, as he didn’t really know anything about it at all.I watched the interviewer talk to about 10 different kids from this particular church….none of them really knew anything about ID, and most of them ended up talking about Creationism and God and why it should be ok to teach that in schools. Unfortunately, I got the impression that this is what Nickelodeon was looking for, so I am sure the creationist and God comments will be all over the broadcast and ID will be misconstrued yet again.

Comment by Nate — January 12, 2006 @ 8:59 am


Oh, those poor IDiots, they're so misunderstood. Sniff. LOL.

Date: 2006/01/12 07:51:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Creationists are crazy and/or stupid people who aren't worth listening to. No different than listening to flat earthers--it's a waste of time.

Date: 2006/01/13 01:43:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Except for comedy of course. And when things like Dover happen, schadenfreude.

Date: 2006/01/14 06:46:48, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, i love it. Poor deluded idiots sitting around wringing their hands about how ID is being unfairly misunderstood by the schools, the media, scientists, journalists, televangelists, judges, teachers, Nickelodeon...

Date: 2006/01/14 06:51:25, Link
Author: stevestory
check out ARN on CafePress:

http://www.cafepress.com/accessresearch/982234

Quote


Intelligent Design Theory:
If It Looks Designed, Maybe It Is

Date: 2006/01/14 12:23:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Although I doubt God will turn out like the fundamentalists believe.



Indeed. Good Hitchens bit on this notion.

Quote


You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and around the clock monitoring, a celestial North Korea. But I cannot personally imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.

When he repeated this on tv, he added "...endless opportunities for self-abnegation... in that last paragraph.

Date: 2006/01/14 12:57:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

CDC: Flu virus resistant to two common drugs
Government urges doctors not to prescribe rimantadine, amantadine

Jan. 14: The CDC says the flu is resistant to two common antiviral drugs and are urging doctors not to use them. NBC's Robert Bazell discusses the report with MSNBC's Contessa Brewer.

ATLANTA - The government, for the first time, is urging doctors not to prescribe two antiviral drugs commonly used to fight influenza because of concerns about drug resistance, officials announced Saturday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the recommendation covers the drugs rimantadine and amantadine for the 2006 flu season.

Results of recent lab tests on influenza samples showed that the predominant strain this season — the H3N2 influenza strain — was resistant to the drugs, the agency said.


Man, what a jerk the intelligent designer is. We put a lot of work into developing rimantadine and amantadine, and he comes along and redesigns them?

Date: 2006/01/14 13:44:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Yo, Wes! Is Panda's Thumb going to make any changes any time soon? The format's been pretty static for a while. Any planned improvements coming up?

Date: 2006/01/14 13:48:15, Link
Author: stevestory
Microevolution indeed. I love how our critics have been reduced to saying, Well, evolution happens, but Not Much.

Date: 2006/01/14 14:20:19, Link
Author: stevestory
religion can never promote fear, hate or greed?

Date: 2006/01/14 14:25:50, Link
Author: stevestory
I usually prefer to miss that opportunity. Creationists are a stubbornly illogical bunch, and the least productive to engage in discussion. In terms of cost/benefit and opportunity cost, I seldom think it makes sense to engage them. Under some circumstances, but not often.

Date: 2006/01/15 05:54:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Stephen, you can't take a 1000 page book like the bible and reduce it to 'god exists and loves us'. There's plenty in the bible one can use to justify terrible acts, not the least of which is that in the end jesus becomes a mass murderer.

Date: 2006/01/15 12:46:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Simply looking at the bible, god seems to enjoy massacres under certain circumstances. There's no good argument against that. So the idea that religion has to be warped and perverted to justify atrocities is just not true. Religion is a fertile source of such justification.

The god of the bible just does not have the ethics we require nowadays.

Date: 2006/01/15 13:21:40, Link
Author: stevestory
If you're ignoring whole books of the bible, I think perhaps you are distorting the religion.

And that's a good thing, btw.

Date: 2006/01/15 14:52:01, Link
Author: stevestory
No, of course I know you're not a fundy, Stephen, I was just making the point that many religions are full of stuff that reasonable people have to ignore. It is not necessary to distort it to get support for terrible things, that support is right there on the printed pages.

Date: 2006/01/16 11:43:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda's Thumb all the time. The PTers aren't providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread's for that. I initiate the thread with a DaveScot link:

Quote


January 16, 2006
ID on 2006 Utah Legislative Agenda

What’s up with the Utah legislature considering whether to teach intelligent design in schools? Haven’t they heard about Dover? :-)
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Laws — DaveScot @ 9:48 am

apparently he isn't familiar with 'Divine Design' Buttars, or he wouldn't be so jolly.

Date: 2006/01/16 12:17:03, Link
Author: stevestory
It's not about getting anything. It's just fun to make fun of them.

Date: 2006/01/16 12:21:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Like for instance, DaveScot's been banning people who mention christianity and god too much, because he's trying to maintain the fiction that ID is separate from religion, but then he's such a dumbass he mentions Chris "Divine Design" Butters approvingly.

That's funny.

Date: 2006/01/17 01:50:37, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot explains some of his moderation behavior:

Quote


Why do you delete my comments, DaveScot?

They aren’t being deleted, Blipey. They’re being disapproved in the moderation queue. You are the only one aside from moderators who has seen the last 20 or so. The way WordPress works is it lets only the author of a moderated comment see it until it is either approved or disapproved. If it’s disapproved the author stops seeing it too. When and if you decide to stop trolling for negative attention and become a constructive contributor I’ll start approving them.

Comment by blipey — January 17, 2006 @ 1:52 am

Date: 2006/01/17 09:26:38, Link
Author: stevestory
"Religion-based alternative"

wow, journalists really are starting to get it.

Date: 2006/01/18 03:27:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
our server hiccuped and lost a whole bunch of woctor’s comments.


LOL You're not fooling anyone.

Date: 2006/01/19 05:12:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Ear’s evolution seen in fossil
Transitional stage may have helped ancient fish breathe
 

By David Brown
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:54 a.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

Question: What do you do with half an ear?

Answer: You breathe through it.

That's the conclusion reached by a pair of researchers who say they have found a fossil "snapshot" of the ear partway through its evolution to its current form.





full story

Date: 2006/01/19 05:16:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Q: Will those morons ever stop babbling about "Junk DNA"?

A: No. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/684

Date: 2006/01/19 08:26:21, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL:

Quote
No one has ever said this blog is open to all critics. Wherever did you get that idea? Dembski said at the beginning it was moderated and he’d allow thoughtful criticism that he hadn’t heard before. He said if he found you boring you’d get the axe and he was making up the rules as he went along. I believe I’m carrying on in the same moderation style as best I can but devoting more time to it than he had available. So instead of swinging the axe ruthlessly in order to save time and maintain order I’m doing more micromanagement in an effort to not cull those who might turn out to be constructive contributors if given more chance and direction. This is resulting in some taking advantage of it - several commenters have been invited to leave only to return using a different name knowing they’ll get another chance that way. It also results in a higher profile for the moderation. In the past you didn’t see how many times Dembski swung the axe because many never got their first comment past him. I tend to let the first comment from a new user pass through unless it’s a gratuitous flame and then if they continue to comment with a chip on their shoulder do something about it then.

The bottom line is this is a moderated blog. If you can’t deal with that, don’t let the door hit you on the tail on your way out.

Comment by DaveScot — January 19, 2006 @ 8:26 am


As hyperactively as you thought Dembski and DaveScot were at banning criticism, they're apparently worse.

Date: 2006/01/19 08:48:25, Link
Author: stevestory
try using the word ####? what?

Date: 2006/01/19 10:37:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Thanks for restarting The Bathroom Wall. It needs to be better integrated with PT, but this is much better than nothing.

Date: 2006/01/20 07:57:57, Link
Author: stevestory
check it out
Quote
#

blah blah blah

Jack - since I’m banned on Panda’s Thumb from commenting I see no reason why I should allow authors from Panda’s Thumb to comment here. Please make your responses elsewhere. -ds

Comment by Jack Krebs — January 20, 2006 @ 7:06 am


Okay, so now it's not even what you say on other discussion boards, it's the fact that you even post on them, which gets you censored.

I've still got last week of January in the Dead Pool of DaveScot's tenure.

btw, I wonder what motivated Jack to jump into that pig pen.

Date: 2006/01/20 12:49:12, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScots Reign of IDiocy may come to a hidden end. Or Dembski might demand he censor in a quieter way. Right now it's looking like the primary purpose of the blog is to publicly ban people from posting there.

Date: 2006/01/20 13:12:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

Sorry Steve.

If I can’t comment on Panda’s Thumb you can’t comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds

Comment by Steve Reuland — January 20, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
From the relentless trainwreck known as Uncommon Pissant.

Date: 2006/01/20 13:19:14, Link
Author: stevestory
The day DaveScot decided to ban anyone who'd ever contributed at Panda's Thumb, he banned, in principle, more people in one day than the Panda's Thumb crew has banned in 2 years.

Date: 2006/01/20 14:06:30, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't know what you're talking about. He did in fact announce that anyone from Panda's Thumb was banned.

Date: 2006/01/20 15:00:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Are you kidding me?

Date: 2006/01/21 02:46:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Anyway, back to reality. DaveScot just put a big pile of JAD garbage on UncommonPissant

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/692#more-692

Insane Money Quote:
Quote
So it would seem that we still do not have a working theory of evolution.


Love it.

Date: 2006/01/21 04:00:42, Link
Author: stevestory
You're wasting your breath if you comment over there. They ban more people before breakfast, than most sites do all year.

But if you must, DaveScot's been aggressively maintaining that ID and religion are totally separate, so you might ask something like, "What did Philip Johnson mean when he said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."?

Date: 2006/01/21 04:13:27, Link
Author: stevestory
man, as bad as DaveScot is, he's going to regret inviting JAD back. Dembski can't be happy with what JAD's writing all over his blog

Quote
Intelligent Design advocates would do well to separate themselves more completely from religious fundamentalism. I have managed and others can too.

“The main source of the present-day conflicts between religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
Albert Einstein

Comment by John Davison — January 21, 2006 @ 6:49 am

Date: 2006/01/21 17:10:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I get the same sense. While DaveScot seems malevolent, and Dembski a wolf fleecing the sheep, Casey just seems like a poor dumb guy who doesn't know any better. When I first started mocking him, he emailed me asking why in the world I thought his Intelligent Design club was religious in nature. Despite the fact that he was a minister, despite the fact you had to be a christian to be an officer in his club, despite every ID advocate being on record at some point saying a variant of "Of course ID is really just christianity in disguise", Casey really didn't seem to understand that it wasn't science. He seemed to really think he was doing science. After all, it sure sounded like science.

Date: 2006/01/22 05:07:38, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL now they're getting mad that people are using the phrase "Unintelligent Design" to refer to things in biology.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/693#comments

Date: 2006/01/22 10:04:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Here's the top of Uncommon Pissant at the moment:

Quote
January 22, 2006

On a Level Playing Field - We Win

It has come to my attention that some of our best informed ID supporters don’t believe politics are important to winning and that science education is the key. Now I dearly love science but without politics providing us a level playing field our arguments from math and science are doomed to being censored.
(more…)
Filed under: Education, Legal, Courts, Laws, Constitution — DaveScot @ 1:04 pm
Comments (0)


Yeah, that's the problem. IDers have focused too much on science, not enough on PR.

Date: 2006/01/22 11:40:47, Link
Author: stevestory
The I&O are completely consistent with science. The parts which don't seem to be are all miracles, so they don't count.

Date: 2006/01/22 12:03:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Comment #74895

Posted by RLLewis on January 22, 2006 05:59 PM (e)

I’m interested in any comments about the following article. (I don’t know how to post it as a main topic, so I’m attempting to post in here for someone to do as they see fit with it).

“A new movement is starting to shake a scientific establishment built on the assumptions of Darwinian evolution. What is intelligent design, and why is it gaining so much ground?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1562305/posts

Date: 2006/01/22 12:25:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
The anti-theist is free to exercise his faith, but the theist is not free to express her intelligent observation.

It is obvious to every fair minded person that if one view is religious, then both are religious; if one view is scientific, then both are scientific.

But now the courts allow only the anti-theistic view; the theistic view is absolutely prohibited by the power and force of the Federal Government….in absolute convolution  of the First Amendment.

Comment by Red Reader — January 22, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

{I added the boldfacing -Steve}
From Uncommon Pissant, an example of what happens when people use big words to sound all smart-like.

Date: 2006/01/22 12:59:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I've been trying to figure out what's wrong with a prototype for three months at work. Guess I should adopt ID Theory.

"Boss, it's simple--There is no naturalistic explanation for the anomaly."

Date: 2006/01/23 02:25:34, Link
Author: stevestory
Some IDer, who himself keeps getting deleted at Uncommon Pissant, is begging DaveScot to stop being such a censor:

Quote
Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.


I love it.

Date: 2006/01/23 03:27:17, Link
Author: stevestory
He can say whatever he wants, the fact remains: he has censored more people this week, than Panda's Thumb has in almost 2 years.

Date: 2006/01/23 03:41:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Since DaveScot's linking here at the moment, here's a brief statement to the ID folk who'll be wandering over:

You're welcome to discuss things here. Panda's Thumb, and After the Bar Closes, are run by scientists who believe in open discussion. As long as you aren't a raging jerk for months on end (which DaveScot was) you won't be warned or banned. Very few people have been banned here--fewer than DaveScot censored last week. I understand it's so bad over there that he's even banning ID supporters who don't agree exactly with him, like Josh Bozeman. We can all agree that since he's been moderating, DaveScot has made the blog about himself and how rigorous he is at purging the site of any alternative ideas. This trainwreck isn't going to last forever, and until it changes, you can discuss things here, just keep it civil.

Date: 2006/01/23 04:21:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Boy, JAD's really got some reading comprehension problems, in evidence over at UncommonPissant:
Quote
#

stevestory is now welcoming all the ID people back to PT ….he says. I want a personal guaranteed invitation steve baby, complete with an apology for the hideous way you hypocrites have treated an Emeritus Professor of Biology and his sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. Put your money where your mouth is. Fat chance.

War, God help me, I love it so!

Comment by John Davison — January 23, 2006 @ 9:07 am
What a loon. The informed observer will note that civil ID supporters, like Salvador Cordova and Carol Clouser, have been posting at Panda's Thumb and After the Bar Closes for almost 2 years now, almost without incident. I didn't welcome back those ID supporters, because they never left. A tiny handful of hysterical and rude ID supporters were banned, but only after months of warnings.

Enjoy the reign of DaveScot, JAD, because it's not long for this earth.

Quote
I don’t care who does the moderating. I’m just grateful not to be banned for a change. So if Dave decides to step down and I hope he won’t, I also hope Bill Dembski is very careful about who replaces him. I am getting sick and tired of being treated like garbage every where I go.

-JAD

Date: 2006/01/23 04:27:33, Link
Author: stevestory
BTW, I have reviewed the correct translations of the Looney Tunes cartoons, and they are all entirely compatible with science. When Wiley Coyote walks off the ledge and doesn't immediately fall, that is simply a miracle. When the road runner speeds through a rock painted to look like a tunnel, that is also a miracle.

Isn't it amazing how infallible the Looney Tunes are?

Date: 2006/01/23 04:45:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, I forgot gravity was different then.

Indeed, arden, this discussion proves how deeply we atheists need Looney Tunes to be incompatible with science. It is crucial.

Date: 2006/01/23 05:47:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Indeed, Arden, I was sitting in Ideas Coffeehouse in Durham this very weekend and heard someone talking about that concept. He said it distinguished theologians from idiots, that when he makes that point to scholars they usually resort to some version of "well, they're all reflections of the same truth, so other religions are basically fine", but when he makes that point to uneducated people the response is more often anger and animosity.

Date: 2006/01/23 06:31:23, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't. Does Bozeman also believe creating and refuting obvious strawmen is going to work here? If not it might be him who's smarter.

Date: 2006/01/23 06:52:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, what I was referring to was his obvious strawman of turning "You're an idiot if you think people should go to he11 for ignorance" into "You're an idiot if 1500 years ago that's what you believed the bible said".

Date: 2006/01/23 07:12:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
When Cosmologies Collide


By JUDITH SHULEVITZ
Published: January 22, 2006

In the merely controversial part of his decision last month banning "intelligent design" from biology classes in Dover, Pa., Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design, a theory that attributes the complexity of life to supernatural causes, amounts to religion, not science. In the part that really drove some of the theory's supporters crazy, he pronounced it "utterly false" to think that evolution is incompatible with faith in God. An editorialist on the Web site of the Discovery Institute, a research group that promotes intelligent design, declared that the judge had no right to tell him what to believe. "This is like a judge assuring us that it is 'utterly false' that Judaism is inconsistent with eating pork," he wrote.


The judge was echoing a position taken by scientific expert witnesses, who had testified that science is a method, not a creed - a way of finding things out about the natural world, not a refutation of anything beyond that world. On the enduring mysteries of divinity and transcendence, science remains officially agnostic. But people rarely hew to official doctrine. That science and religion belong to separate realms (they're "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould grandly put it) is a good line to stick to if you're going to argue that the creationists play unfair, but it's wishful to think that scientists always live by it.

Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect that they would. Given what it takes to train for a career in science, you have to ask why a person would persist if naturalism didn't strike him as the best way of explaining the world. It's no accident that you find a far greater proportion of nonbelievers among American scientists - upward of 60 percent - than among Americans in general. Those who deny that they discount nonmaterialist accounts of reality may have conducted a cold-eyed scrutiny of their own assumptions, but it's equally possible that they haven't. "Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard objective triumphs of science," the philosopher Daniel Dennett has written. "But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

Could something as trivial as scientists' lack of self-awareness help explain why, nearly 150 years after Darwin, creationism in its various forms has become the most popular critique of science? Well, consider how scientists tend to respond to the attack on evolution. Rather than trying to understand creationism as a culturally meaningful phenomenon - as, say, a peculiarly American objection to the way elites talk about evolution - they generally approach it as a set of ludicrous claims easily dismantled by science.

Eugenie C. Scott's EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM: (University of California, $19.95) represents this strategy at its best, and least inflammatory. Scott, a physical anthropologist, runs the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in high schools. (She advised the parents fighting the Dover school board.) Scott could be said to be the one really doing God's work as she patiently rebuts people who make most other scientists spit gaskets like short-circuiting robots. Her book is both a straightforward history of the debate and an anthology of essays written by partisans on each side. Its main virtue is to explain the scientific method, which many invoke but few describe vividly. Scott also manages to lay out the astronomical, chemical, geological and biological bases of evolutionary theory in unusually plain English.

Anyone who wants to defend evolution at his next church picnic should arm himself with this book. What's flood geology? It's the creationist thesis that a vast canopy of hot vapor once surrounded the earth, cooled down in the time of Noah, and turned into a flood; an atmospheric scientist explains why that's impossible. Why don't evolutionary biologists worry about the Cambrian Explosion, when invertebrates showed up on earth as if out of nowhere? Because paleontologists don't need to see a fossil of every species that ever existed to infer the links between species, for one thing. Scott also walks us through the legal history of American creationism - the court rulings that forced anti-evolutionists to adapt to their increasingly secular environment by adopting scientific jargon.

Go read the rest
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/books/review/22shule.html

Date: 2006/01/23 07:17:48, Link
Author: stevestory
AHAHAHAHA somebody on UncommonPissant, referring to us:

Quote
#

They’d all do well to follow Flew and finally follow the evidence whereever it leads.

Comment by Ben Z — January 23, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

Is somebody going to tell him that Flew is a deist, not a christian, and that he said he'd been misled by a christian?

If they do, DaveScot will nix the comment.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:21:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
all our righteous acts are filthy rags, and that nobody can please God--I would say that even the best acts of fallen man are tainted by sin, and that makes those acts of no merit before God.
I could never find life as grim and worthless as some of these religious people, that's for sure.

Date: 2006/01/23 07:58:36, Link
Author: stevestory
several IDers have been banned over there. He was banning anyone who called ID religious at one point, which means repeating William Dembski's statement that
Quote
Intelligent Design is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Would have gotten someone banned from Dembski's blog.

I don't think DaveScot will be in charge for long.

Date: 2006/01/23 08:14:41, Link
Author: stevestory
The 'scientists' say Greek came from ProtoIndoEuropean, but of course they're wrong, because there is no missing link language which is exactly half ProtoIndoEuropean and half Greek. Anyway, similarity doesn't imply common descent. The Intelligent Linguist could have made them similar for other reasons.

Date: 2006/01/23 09:20:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Quote
#

Red

I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesn’t speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and there’s no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm


Most ID Creationists have thrown in on their micro/macro distinction, and so this is going to be yet another source of conflict on Uncommon Pissant.

This is more entertaining than an Hispanic Soap Opera.

Date: 2006/01/23 10:18:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Woo, DaveScot has pissed some people off with his possible acceptance of "macroevolution" and common descent.

Quote
#

Red

I don’t like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesn’t get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists aren’t entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. That’s purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
#
Quote

Bling

Natural selection isn’t even operative in small isolated populations. It’s overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow knowledge depth in the modern synthesis. Genetic drift is quite capable of speciation. The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question.

In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. It’s an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
#
Quote

DaveScot said: >.[sic]

I do not agree at all with that. Where is all that evidence? To believe in common ancestry is to believe in macroevolution. Both are false and without any proof. That’s a strange error ID supporters should not do.

Comment by niwrad — January 23, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

Date: 2006/01/23 10:49:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Revelations is one of the more interesting books. Jesus goes from friendly hippy to psychotic mass murderer.

Great big revenge fantasy.

Date: 2006/01/23 12:01:16, Link
Author: stevestory
he also just deleted a post by Bling.

LOL. pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.

Date: 2006/01/23 12:09:42, Link
Author: stevestory
The number of views is higher than normal and I'm sure some IDers from Uncommon Pissant are coming over here. So here's an additional message to you guys:

While Dembski banned criticism like crazy, DaveScot has gone nuts, even banning criticism from you christian supporters of ID. I've seen three today. If you like this situation, fine. But if you don't, complain to the guy who owns the blog.

In fact, you might want to navigate one level up and start up a thread on After the Bar Closes to discuss ID. There you can post freely any criticism which comes to mind, as long as you're not persistently rude. You won't have to worry about being frivolously banned.

Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.

Date: 2006/01/23 13:46:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

Dave,

I appreciate your conviction and I understand how important it is to you.
But I’m with Dr. Dembski on this.

I’ve read Denton and Behe and they are convincing.

In my opinion, the concept of “irreducible complexity” simply nukes in toto the concept of macro-evolution.

For analogy, the design of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” and its production are complete in one life time. All of Da Vinci’s paintings bear a striking resemblance, but the one painting on the wall of the dining hall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan was drawn from raw materials right then and there: he didn’t assemble parts of paintings he had gathered from elsewhere.

Micro-evolution, I agree all day long. It’s a fact, no question.
We see it in action on every cattle ranch in Texas. (I’m from Texas.)

Comment by Red Reader — January 23, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
#
Quote

Dave

What evidence do you use to prove that macroevolution is “settled science”? Can you give me some resources (web sites, papers, books, etc.) which site evidence used in your proofs? In other words, please direct me to resources that would debunk the theory that the human body, for example, wasn’t designed in a day instead of billions of years.

Respectfully,
Saxe

Comment by saxe17 — January 23, 2006 @ 6:24 pm


LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

Date: 2006/01/23 15:12:35, Link
Author: stevestory
If DaveScot is going to try to convince IDers that "macro" evolution and common descent are legitimate, I pity the poor bastard.

After a few days he'll get so frustrated he'll ban everyone.

Date: 2006/01/23 17:08:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Julie, by the way, that is the cutest icon.

Date: 2006/01/24 03:46:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Zardoz said:
Quote
For one thing Scot doesn't represent ID in the true sense of the word. He calls himself an agnostic and yet believes in some convoluted form of ID?

You cannot be an agnostic nor an atheist and believe in ID, it's a contradiction. If you don't believe in an intelligent designer then how can you believe in intelligent design?
But Zardoz, doesn't Dembski hisself say it's not necessarily god?:

Quote
Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God? Even as a very traditional Christian and an ardent proponent of ID, I would say NOT NECESSARILY. To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature.

For instance, just because I hold to both Christian theism and ID doesn’t mean that God directly designed and implemented the bacterial flagellum by specifically toggling its components. It could well have happened by a process of natural genetic engineering of the sort envisioned by James Shapiro.

Date: 2006/01/24 03:53:05, Link
Author: stevestory
A ...nice...analogy from DaveScot:

Quote
#

Saxe

I read the Worldmag article you linked. It was kind of tedious and off topic until the end. Then there’s a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isn’t science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isn’t science? That’s like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isn’t it?

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Comment by DaveScot — January 24, 2006 @ 1:57 am
Lol.

Date: 2006/01/24 03:56:55, Link
Author: stevestory
btw, i just went to Uncommon Pissant, and the top 5 posts have 0 comments each. I'm sure it's just because they're new, but for a second I thought, "Has he done it? Has he finally banned everyone?"

Date: 2006/01/24 04:01:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Why is DaveScot linking to this editorial from the Daily Herald? It's not helping his case.

Quote
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In our view: Confusing religion with science

To listen to some senators in the Utah Legislature, schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in a strange religion. It is called science, and some senators believe they have the antidote.

Senate Bill 96, sponsored by Sen. D. Chris Buttars, passed on Monday and now moves to the House, where it is being sponsored by Rep. Jim Ferrin of Orem. The bill would require science teachers to tell students that there are several theories on the origin of life.

While the bill does not mention "intelligent design," "divine design" or any other euphemism for creationism by name, the implications are clear: A number of legislators want to push religion into the public schools by force of law. Among those voting for the bill were Parley Hellewell, Curtis Bramble, Mark Madsen and John Valentine.

The fig leaf that provides cover for a legislative enactment of religion in Utah is the notion that teachers impose speculative secular views on students and need to be ordered how by the legislature how to teach. Bramble even goes so far as to suggest that the body of scientific ideas concerning the origin of life and the nature of humanity represents a religion of its own, unsupported by fact, and so it's fair to enact law that forces faith-based views into the classroom. In weighing unprovable concepts, why should our children be fed only secular views that are no more valid than faith?

"Sen. Buttars's bill is only asking that teachers not impose their religious beliefs in this theory on him or upon others, especially upon those who rely on these same teachers to tell them the absolute truth," Sen. Allen M. Christensen, R-North Ogden, said during debate. He also dropped this revealing phrase: "It falls to us as legislators to ensure the truth is taught."

While we understand the lure of symbolic legislation in a state largely populated by religious conservatives, we had hoped our senators might have been a little more circumspect. S.B. 96 (see accompanying text), wants to control instruction concerning "origins of life." Oddly, it is laced with the word "theory." Some form of the "theory" appears in virtually every governing sentence of the bill, sometimes more than once.

The trouble is that there is no scientific theory on the origin of life. There is only speculation, which is something else altogether. A theory arises from a set of observable facts that support one another and suggest a possible cause. Speculation, on the other hand, is based on nothing. It is pure conjecture.

We could end the discussion right here and say that S.B. 96 may be nothing but unenforceable nonsense, since the public schools couldn't discuss an actual theory of the origins of life if they wanted to. None seem to exist. The chemical composition of living things is well established, but what makes them come to life remains a mystery.

And yet in S.B. 96 the Senate suggests that there are current scientific theories (note the plural noun) that deserve a full and fair vetting in the course of a science class. Bombarded by multiple theories about the origins of life, children might become confused about "absolute truth," to use Christensen's phrase. So S.B. 96 orders the public schools to "stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life ... is correct."

Only Utah's Legislature could come up with such an Aristotelian conundrum. We therefore invite our senators to elaborate on any of the genuine "theories" to which this bill refers. The Herald will provide space on this page for the effort. Please list in detail the scientific observations and measurements that support any, or all, of the theories to which your bill makes reference. We're ready to be enlightened.

Without such guidance, we will continue to be disappointed that our senators passed a bill forcing teachers to combine faith and genuine scientific theory in the public school curriculum.

The dictionary reports that the word "religion" is associated with "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." We think the government would be wise to stay out of this. Unfortunately, S.B. 96 nudges God into science class, using code words like "theory," as though one's belief in God were as externally valid as any scientific pursuit. But the proposition that God exists, that he created the universe and gave life to man is not a theory -- it is faith. It may be true, but it is not science. Misapplying scientific words to what amounts to a faith-based argument is ultimately not constructive. It is dishonest.

While many people believe they have empirical evidence for their faith, the standard of measurement is purely personal, not scientific. That is why there is so much disagreement in the world over religion. That is why James Madison argued so eloquently to keep religious doctrines out of secular laws. And that is why a new government in Iraq that is based on religion is likely to fail.

Other language in S.B. 96 is perhaps more troubling than the overt reference to theories about the origins of life. The bill ambiguously directs schools to present alternatives to what it calls "the origins or present state of the human race." Any attempt to find a concrete meaning in this semantic mush is difficult, but we can clearly see the intent -- and the danger. Buttars and his Senate colleagues want to push creationism into the public school curriculum. In truth, this is an attempt to insert a state-endorsed brand of religion into secular life.

Masquerading as a way to balance the curriculum (as though this were really needed in Utah), S.B. 96 enshrines psuedo-science in law. This is wrong. Decisions on curriculum should be left in the hands of professionals charged with oversight of the schools, not seized by a group of part-time politicians who attempt to think deep thoughts once a year.

Mostly, however, we believe all this is a colossal waste of time. Our legislators should spend their limited days on Capitol Hill doing something that will make a real difference to Utah.

Date: 2006/01/24 05:53:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Charlie, I've seen a lot of creationists with bad grammar and punctuation and spelling, but I've never seen anyone who put periods after question marks. What's up with that?

Date: 2006/01/24 07:42:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?


You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.

Quote
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.
ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments
against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly
complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139

72
mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73
(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).


or you might find this refutation from TalkOrigins more persuasive:
Quote
Claim CA510:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.
Response:

  1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

  2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
         * orthogenesis
         * neo-Lamarckianism
         * process structuralism
         * saltationism
     (See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)

  3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.

Links:
Isaak, Mark. 2000. What is creationism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Wilkins, John. 1998. So you want to be an anti-Darwinian: Varieties of opposition to Darwinism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html
Further Reading:
Kossy, Donna. 2001. Strange Creations: Aberrant Ideas of Human Origins from Ancient Astronauts to Aquatic Apes. Los Angeles: Feral House.


by the way, I doubt you have an argument against evolution which is not dealt with at the TalkOrigins list of creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Date: 2006/01/24 08:53:30, Link
Author: stevestory
Over at Uncommon Pissant this guy ftrp11 is making comments which contradict the official line, and he's been doing so for more than 24 hours. Wonder how long until he's bounced.

Date: 2006/01/24 09:21:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  


Then when you find an antievolution argument you believe is correct, go here and find out why it isn't.

Date: 2006/01/24 09:55:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
argumentum ad populum
In the abstract world of Platonic Ideals, this is an error, sure. And it doesn't prove, in a philisophically perfect sense, evolution. But it lends a huge amount of weight in the real world. In the real world, there isn't time for each person to debate and analyse every last thing. It is reasonable to use authority in making decisions.

Anyway, you said evolution was implausible to you. That's not a logically sound argument to begin with. So when someone responds that the experts don't feel that way, and you say they're making a logically unsound argument, you hold them to a standard you didn't meet.

Date: 2006/01/24 10:40:16, Link
Author: stevestory
the thread is drifting, and I don't enjoy creationist participation particularly, but I am enjoying this thread being more tolerant of ID advocates that Uncommon Pissant is being at the moment. That's just delicious.

Have you noticed that today's Uncommon Pissant threads are not getting much comment action? Banning so many people is having an effect, methinks.

Date: 2006/01/24 12:54:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Email Wesley Elsberry for it. I didn't ask him if I could redistribute it.

Date: 2006/01/24 13:17:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Eminem was right in that censorship is generally bad. What he didn't know is that William Dembski's weblog censors people several hundred times more than our evolution blogs.

Date: 2006/01/25 02:25:48, Link
Author: stevestory
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man™, into an active engineer of evil machines.

Date: 2006/01/25 02:42:40, Link
Author: stevestory
I wondered, recently, exactly how intolerant of criticism they've become over at Bill Dembski's weblog. We've all seen the deletion of comments, the banning of people who step out of line over there. We've seen them ban ID supporters who didn't hew to the party line. Two dozen contributors from Panda's Thumb are banned on Dembski's site, despite the fact that Dembski is not banned from Panda's Thumb. We've been witness to dozens and dozens of bannings merely in the few weeks since DaveScot's been in charge. So I decided to investigate.

I emailed Wesley Elsberry, and asked him how many people were banned. He wrote me back a thorough email about how many were banned from PT and AtBC. Depending on how you count, it's more or less 11. I went to Uncommon Descent, and asked DaveScot, "How many people have you banned/moderated?" As you can imagine, my question was deleted. However, he sent me an email, and that's where we begin:

(btw, the entire series is reproduced in full, with no editing)

Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Hi Steve,

I don't keep count.   Was I supposed to?

If I did, do I count people like Alan Fox and KeithS once each or do I count
each time they've snuck back with a fake registration which would make it
about 6 times between them instead of 2?

My marching orders, actually a suggestion as I was given free reign to do
what I think best, was to purge the place of trolls.  I'm purging.  Glad
they're all running to you.  I can't think of a better place for them.  In
fact I encourage all trolls to take up residence at Panda's Thumb.  I thank
you for putting out the welcome mat for them.

Cheers,
DaveScot
Quote
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

Go ahead and purge anyone you disagree with. ID will never be a scientific movement, but inner strife will take out the PR wing too. Purge away. In fact, you need to more rigid. Maybe demand everyone click thru a loyalty oath. Casey Luskin's ID club requires supporters to be christian. Do something like that.

Steve
Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Luskin's ID club required (past tense) officers to be Christians.  That
restriction has been removed.

Good reply, dummy.  It's everything I expected from you.
Quote
>From: steve story <stevestory@gmail.com>
>To: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com>

They changed the requirement? But won't they be deficient?

If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski
Quote
From: David Springer <dspringer56@hotmail.com> Mailed-By: hotmail.com
To: stevestory@gmail.com

Did I say your dumb ass could clutter up my inbox again?  No, I don't think
I did.

<plonk>

Date: 2006/01/25 05:48:22, Link
Author: stevestory
He can be occasionally rational, but he has a rage problem. See the emailed insults above. You can almost sense him thinking "Oh you evolutionists, you make me So Mad!"

Date: 2006/01/25 07:55:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Astronomers on Wednesday announced the discovery of what is possibly the smallest planet known outside our solar system orbiting a normal star.

Its orbit is farther from its host star than Earth is from the sun. Most known extrasolar planets reside inside the equivalent of Mercury’s orbit.

The planet is estimated to be about 5.5 times as massive as Earth and thought to be rocky. It orbits a red dwarf star about 28,000 light-years away. Red dwarfs are about one-fifth as massive as the sun and up to 50 times fainter. But they are among the most common stars in the universe.
Story continues below &#8595; advertisement

So the finding suggests rocky worlds may be common.

"The team has discovered the most Earthlike planet yet,” said Michael Turner, assistant director for the mathematical and physical sciences directorate at the National Science Foundation, which supported the work.

The discovery is detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.


the full story

Date: 2006/01/25 08:05:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
NEW YORK - In an unprecedented move, Stanford University is collaborating with Apple Computer to allow public access a wide range of lectures, speeches, debates and other university content through iTunes. No need to pay the $31,200 tuition. No need to live on campus. No need even to be a student. The nearly 500 tracks that constitute “Stanford on iTunes” are available to anyone willing to spend the few minutes it takes to download them from the Internet.


full story

Date: 2006/01/25 08:30:54, Link
Author: stevestory
No, I don't know how they did it, except to say they used gravitational lensing somehow. I suspect you'll have to go to a more science-oriented site like Discover, Scientific American, Space.com, or even the papers themselves, for info about the methodology.

What I think is just gorgeous is that as we develop increasingly better detection capability, we're seeing what one would expect if the universe was just littered with planets. I don't think that within my lifetime we'll make contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life, but we might at least learn it exists.

Date: 2006/01/25 09:25:32, Link
Author: stevestory
In all your born days, have you ever seen anything more ironic than davescot saying
Quote
Turn the sensitivity to criticism control down a notch, Bombadill.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/715#comments

And get a load of Bombadil's respose!

Quote
#

Oh dear, the pot has just called the kettle black.

Let the good times roll.

Comment by Bombadill — January 25, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

Date: 2006/01/25 10:33:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Wow, thanks SomeGuy. I found a bunch of funny bits, like
Quote
It's common knowledge that homosexuality was reclassified by political
pressure, not because of any breakthroughs in knowledge about its
cause(s).

Why are homophobes so stupid ?  It's genetic, we were born that way.
;-)

Dave "I can't help being a homophobe" Springer


You'll also find comments of his in groups like alt.impeach.clinton and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.

Date: 2006/01/25 11:04:46, Link
Author: stevestory
The guy is just *&$ing nuts. In one of his latest comments, he suggests that engineering is so much less ad hoc than science, because engineers like himself stifle their egos when necessary. I'll add quite a few posts above his so you have the necessary context, but read through to get to DaveScot's last comment. Just mind blowing:
Quote
#

Or it may be the cosmological constant is some infinitesimal bit larger than zero which I’m sure has Einstein rolling over in his grave as he thought it was the biggest mistake of his life to stick it into GR only to have it zeroed out by observation. Shrugging this off to a non-zero CC smacks of pencil whipping to me. Oh gee, the equation didn’t work out quite right but if we just pull a constant out of our arse and adjust the value to fit the observations we can keep the theory.

Uh, no. The jury is still out on this one.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
#
Quote

Davescot

in a sense, adding a cosmological constant to einstein’s equations is the most conservative modification one can make. it *is* a modification to GR. Whether MJ can reference a better explanation i am not so sure.

yes, the jury is still out on much of this—i’ll definitely agree on that. physics is hard and we don’;t know all the answers! if we did there wouldn’t be much more physics to do

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#
Quote

PaV
My point is that systems with random change can and often do generate patterned behavior. Patterned behavior is in not at all an indication of external design other then to say that a designer may have created certain rules for a system where random change can create patterned and ordered behavior. In short no external input is necessary for a chaotic system to create order and great complexity (CSI).

Comment by ftrp11 — January 25, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
#
Quote

i would say there are not really yet any firm theories of (this kind of) multiverse. i’m not sure to which theories you refer?

susskind’s intuition i think is that one will find universes bubbling off from our own, but there’s a lot more work to do yet i think.

there’s not much more i can say—the theories youre talking about need much more work to be well-defined. saying at this stage that these ideas will *never* be testable is premature. we don’t understand them well enough, yet.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
#
Quote

sorry that last comment to david heddle

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
#
Quote

PaV, i’d be interested in your response to #4—I think you’re being quite hasty in dismissing dark matter.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
#
Quote

Dave Scott,

Regardless of what he meant regarding the galaxy, there is no ToR breakdown. That is simply wrong.

A non-zero CC does not violate GR, it’s a term that, after realizing the universe was expanding, Einstein decided he didn’t need, since he wanted to use it to explain a steady state universe. My guess is, since it now seems to be needed, he’d be delighted at its rehabilitation.

Also, you imply that the CC was pulled out of the air to explain accelerated expansion. In fact, it has been recognized for sometime, prior to the recent observations, that a vacuum energy density looks like a cosmological constant—it was already making a comeback.

Furthermore, the CC contributes to the understanding of not just the accelerated expansion, but also the other big cosmological news: the flatness of the universe. (And also the “age” problem)

Yes the jury is still out. It often stays out for a long time in science.

Comment by David Heddle — January 25, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
#
Quote

physicist

re CC += GR (how’s that for cryptic?) :-)

The only problem with calling that the most conservative thing to do is that the amount of CC you’re adding is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than most QFT’s predict. And therein lies Heddle’s point about support for cosmological ID. The infinitesimally small value is like the mother of all fine tunings.

In engineering when things don’t work out quite like we predict and we do something like this to fix our model it’s called a kludge and it isn’t a complimentary term. Do you use that term in physics? If not you should.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
#
Quote

Davescot

At the level of classical GR there is no preference for a particular value of Lambda

one can only go so far with QFT on curved backgrounds—I agree the naive value of Lambda predicted is incorrect, but there is a lot more to the story of quantum effects and gravity. including quantum effects in gravity is a general a very hard and unsolved issue.

so i wouldn’t say the QFT indication of a large Lambda is a firm `prediction’. it has always been recognised that combining QFT and GR in this way is an ambiguous procedure. so i think kludge is misapplied.

if you want to look for fine tunings, there are lots of other constants in nature which are finely tuned–for example the precise mass ratios of fundamental particles. if you want to explain these numbers by design, you can—but part of the study of physics is seeking to find deeper and simpler underlying reasons for these apparently finely tuned numbers.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
#
Quote

so i would just re-emphasise that at the classical level, if you want to explain cosmological observations of type Ia supernovae, making lambda non-zero is indeed the simplest modification to GR you can make—and fits the observations well.

Comment by physicist — January 25, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
#
Quote

David H

I didn’t know science had become the art of salvaging theories with failed predictions by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses like smidgins of constants to equations that hadn’t needed them for the past 75 years.

Excuse me. GR is in fine shape. It just needed a little work is all. The jury I guess has come in. I’m curious, is there anyone on the jury in addition to David Heddle?

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
#
Quote

This mindset of salvaging pet theories with ad hoc kludges to explain failed predictions is what propped Darwin up for so long. I see it’s not just biology that is plagued by this. Us engineers are a different breed I guess. Lives can be lost when we’re wrong so we can’t afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.

Comment by DaveScot — January 25, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

Date: 2006/01/26 03:30:15, Link
Author: stevestory
They certainly believe in grandiose statements, don't they? How about this new Dembski post yesterday:

Further indications that neo-Darwinism is dead

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/718

Date: 2006/01/26 04:29:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Did you see the admin comment on Panda's Thumb? It looks like the pro from dover, thordaddy, and larry falafelman were the same guy.

Date: 2006/01/26 05:28:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Aldo does indeed point out that nothing in the paper supports ID. DaveScot imagines he's accomplishing something when he then replies:
Quote
#

aldo

Sound to me like yet another ad hoc modification of the modern synthesis to accomodate the stunning failure of its star mechanism RM+NS. RM+NS is dead and with it the modern synthesis. Its followers are worshipping a corpse in denial of the fact that it is no longer breathing. It’s starting to stink the place up so they better get on with the burial. Perhaps a postmodern synthesis will come along that explain design without intelligent agency. I hate to burst your bubble but a mechanism which merely increases the rate of random mutation above the background rate in response to evironmental stress doesn’t qualify. It’s been known for a long time that toxins cause vastly increased mutation rate. There’s absolutely no evidence that faster random mutations will turn a random process into a creative process. Sorry.

Comment by DaveScot — January 26, 2006 @ 10:14 am

To DaveScot, any perturbation of a preexisting theory is an 'ad hoc modification'. Yesterday he accused both physicists and biologists of performing these modifications, and said engineers are above that sort of nonsense.

Since I have a degree in physics, and work in RTP as an engineer, I can hardly stop laughing at that one. What a maroon.

Date: 2006/01/26 05:51:50, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm especially happy about what one astronomer from Princeton said about the results:

"The results suggest that rock-ice planets must be more common than gas giants."

Since over 170 extrasolar gas giants have been discovered already, Earth is starting to look a little less Privileged, isn't it.

btw, this is a good discussion of why Privileged Planet is crap anyway, courtesy of Mark Perakh's site:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Avalos.cfm

Date: 2006/01/26 07:11:36, Link
Author: stevestory
I also wouldn't have thought they were the same. While Larry just loves to talk and doesn't care to know anything prior to doing so, thordaddy's few posts I saw were incoherent.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:05:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, "Physicist" and "Alon" are unusual specimens amid the mouth-breathers over there. Even DaveScot looks good when he's trying to explain to one of the commenters that no, ID does not exclude 'macro'evolution or speciation.

Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2006,08:25)
I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man&#8482;, into an active engineer of evil machines.

That only applies if you subscribe to a biblically based religious philosophy, which I don't.
Neither do I. But it is a problem for the christian 99% of ID supporters, is really the point I was concerned with making.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:40:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Ah yes, that building which was hit at 400 mph by a 757 carrying 11,000 gallons of fuel...I wonder why it fell down....

OW! My eyeballs rolled so hard I sprained my inferior rectus muscles. Dangit.

Date: 2006/01/26 08:59:04, Link
Author: stevestory

Date: 2006/01/26 09:09:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Popular Mechanics: 9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
http://hearst.corp.printthis.clickability.com/pt....1227842

Date: 2006/01/26 09:39:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Why do you think ID predicts IC?

Date: 2006/01/26 10:27:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Eric, that link was to help you get access to intelligent info, not to argue with you. I'm sure you can point me to responses to responses to responses to responses. If there's one thing cranks have, it's time to write webpages.

In your first post you seemed intrigued in the conspiracy nonsense, so I thougth I'd help point you toward something sane. But now you seem committed to the nonsense, so I'll let someone else waste his time.

Date: 2006/01/26 10:35:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Some researchers at EMBL call proteins 'molecular machines' and predictably, DaveScot goes ap35h17 for it:

Quote
The entire protein household of yeast: 257 machines that had never been observed

And now for another amazing example of what natural selection can accomplish (or not):

machines! oh my!

and 257 of them! maybe there are really 256 and go--uh Intelligent Designer was using an 8-bit machine!

Date: 2006/01/26 11:06:12, Link
Author: stevestory
You know one sign you're dealing with a creationist? They treat the opinion of some unknown internet crank the same as scientific associations and biology departments. Why are you imitating them? If you wanted to, you can find explanations of why and how the towers collapsed at numerous departments and conferences of civil engineers, NIST, FEMA, MIT, &c &c. But you, you choose 911Research.WTC7.net.

smarten up.

Date: 2006/01/26 11:09:08, Link
Author: stevestory
It's about time he started threatening ftrp11. That guy is not marching in lockstep.

Date: 2006/01/26 12:47:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Steve, I've noticed that many of the questions you've asked me have been addressed extensively in the links I posted. Is it possible that you haven't read any of them yet? If not, I encourage you to do so. After you've read them, I'd be interested in your take as to their credibility. If you think they're hogwash, and can give me some reasons why you think so, I'll probably be persuaded to rethink my position. But so far you haven't really said anything that defeats any of the arguments given in those links.
It's simple heuristics. One doesn't have infinite time, so one has to make decisions about how to spend one's time. There are a million conspiracy loons out there. You can't spend your entire life researching the technical claims of any idiot who can register a webpage. You haven't given me any reason to think that cranky-looking webpage is any different than a million other loons. So take a look at the facts on the ground, and you'll see there's not enough reason to waste any time on them. Without reading any link you provide at all, here's what I know:

1 bigass planes filled to the gills with fuel smashed into some buildings at 400 mph.
2 said buildings managed to stand upright for over an hour before the steel warped and bent enough for collapse.
3 I saw the footage 100 times, didn't see any secondary explosions.
4 An engineer interviewed by my local paper, the News and Observer, 4 years ago, who was involved in the project, said he knew they'd come down.
5 Reports have been issued by MIT, NIST, the American Society of Civil Engineers, &c &c, none of which expressed incredulity.
6 The Feds have a hard enough time not looking like idiots in the wake of a hurricane, so big undetectable plots in manhattan in broad daylight....

now, I love a good conspiracy story. I really do. I'm a big fan of the X-files, that Clive Barker story where frog races determine the fate of the world, and so on. But in light of just what I already know, you have to bring some serious piece of evidence to get me to consider that MIT, the ASCE, etc were totally wrong.  Wanting me to go to some 2nd rate webpage and evaluate claims about civil engineering is not going to happen without some pretty solid reason to think something's amiss. It's a simple matter of having some kind of standard so you don't waste your life on the thinnest of claims.

Date: 2006/01/26 12:53:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
where the indiscreet elite meet. Read it and weep!

Well, I at least have to give him points for the assonance.

Date: 2006/01/27 02:52:15, Link
Author: stevestory
There's a lot of gnashing of teeth going on over at Uncommon Descent. Read this line of comments and tell me if they look like a happy bunch:

censorship, davescot, HIV, etc

Date: 2006/01/27 03:05:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
But if you're not willing to look into the situation, are you sure you're qualified to have an opinion on it?
...
But I don't think you can reasonably attempt to rebut those claims without examining them in the first place.
I don't have to be qualified to say that if the building obviously shouldn't have fallen, a dozen MIT civil engineers would have concluded this, and they didn't.

And I wasn't rebutting anything. I gave reasons why the claims do not deserve analysis.

Here's a good rule of thumb: When a layman like yourself believes the best engineers in the world are wrong about an engineering question, the mistake is probably not on their end.

Hey, after you get done with the WTC, look into how the moon landings never happened. The experts will all disagree with you, but I don't see why you would care. There's some websites which say they're all wrong.

Date: 2006/01/27 06:52:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Puck, you might not agree with us, but I think you'll enjoy the room to breathe here.

Russell: isn't that the same DaveScot who called Mark Perakh an alcoholic liar, or something like that?

Date: 2006/01/27 08:03:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Stevestory....I do agree with you....why would you think i didnt?
I haven't read much of your stuff, but I recall seeing you at Uncommon Pissant, so I assumed you were an IDer who didn't quite agree with the orthodoxy over there, and had moved here instead. Mibad.

Date: 2006/01/28 03:55:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Programmers get paid all sorts of different ways. I think the paid-per-line was a thing IBM did for a while. It didn't work well, but coming up with a metric for judging the performance of a programmer is hard. Hey, maybe this is somewhere else Intelligent Design could contribute. They could make a software package that analyses the amount of "CSI" in the code. Then the programmer could be paid based on how much CSI he added.

Date: 2006/01/28 04:01:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Check out comment #1 on this page. It's nice and crazy.

Uncommon Pissant

Date: 2006/01/28 04:43:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Those subnormal morons over at After The Bar Closes are nothing but a bunch of gossiping barnyard hens.


I think of myself more as Statler or Waldorf, those two old muppets who sat up in the balcony mocking the show.

Does Intelligent Design deserve any other treatment?



“I like Dembski's next book!"
"It hasn't been published yet."
“That's what I like about it!"

Date: 2006/01/28 05:03:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Does anyone else find it uncomfortable to read JAD's posts, and watch a guy's descent into senility?


Not the product of a healthy mind

And I don't mean that as an insult, I mean literally that something is wrong with his brain.

Date: 2006/01/28 05:43:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Man, there are some idiots over there at Uncommon Pissant:

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

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

Date: 2006/01/28 06:33:20, Link
Author: stevestory
I should hope so. But with creationists I can never tell. This classic is perfectly serious:

Date: 2006/01/28 07:53:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Man, talk about your dishonesty. A Harris poll here ( http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 ) finds that educated people are far less likely to doubt evolution than uneducated people. 73% of people with High School or less support creationism, 6% support ID, and 17% support evolution. By the time you get to postgrad degrees, evolution support has jumped to 35%, creationism has fallen to 42, and 17% say they support ID. How does DaveScot spin this?

Harris Poll Shows ID Support Rises Fastest With Education

link

Date: 2006/01/29 03:48:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
First of all it is Dr. not Mr. Johnson if you don't mind. I've been setting bones for over 40 years now and I have a grown son doing the same thing.
I know dozens of ph.D's and M.D.'s and in all my days, I have only known one who requested to be called Dr. She taught at Lake City Community College in Florida, and her doctorate was in Creative Writing.

Either O. Johnson is lying about being a doctor, or he's pretty insecure.

Date: 2006/01/29 08:56:22, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, says the following over on Uncommon Pissant: (emphasis in original)

Quote
Judge Johnson’s ruling was 139 double spaced pages. Just for a lark, and since it was easy to do with Adobe Acrobat, I searched for the word Pandas and found it was used 74 times in the ruling. That’s more than once per single spaced page. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the school board. Clearly what was on trial wasn’t the 60-second statement read to the biology class that students could opt out of hearing. Clearly what was  on trial was the book  Of Pandas and People.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Legal, Courts, Laws — DaveScot @ 10:17 am
 

Poor Dave. If you get the PDF and search for Pandas you indeed find 74 mentions. But if you search for Bonsell, you get 75 mentions. Search for Behe and you get 84 mentions. A search for Board turns up 227 responses. Clearly what was on trial, was the school board.

Date: 2006/01/29 10:11:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
"Judge Johnson's ruling"?  Could that be a Freudian slip?
Good catch!

Date: 2006/01/31 02:51:52, Link
Author: stevestory
You HAVE to check out the thread Bob O'H links to above. Man, DaveScot is wailing and gnashing his teeth. He's demanding that people stop talking about religion, he's disputing quotes people are posting from his ID 'betters' such as Jonathan Wells, banning people, etc.

He wants a totally secular ID theory and everyone on board.

Why do we always want, what we can't have?

Oh, it is so delicious to watch an exasperated DaveScot try to argue against the common-descent-denying dolts.

Quote
Creation science already lost. Didn’t you get the memo?


and I love this quote from DaveScot about common descent, on the John Lynch thread:
Quote
It’s claims denying the virtually undeniable that gives ID a bad name.

Date: 2006/01/31 04:50:31, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, he would have to ban Nelson. (For those who haven't seen it, Nelson just smacked DaveScot:

Quote
The point here, Dave, is intellectual freedom. Many scientists with no obvious religious motivations doubt universal common descent (Darwin’s single Tree of Life, which you consider beyond question). By your lights, they would not be welcome here. Is that really the forum you wish to encourage — one where the monophyly of life on Earth is taken as a given?

If so, Uncommon Descent is badly misnamed, for lots of reasons.

Comment by Paul Nelson — January 31, 2006 @ 8:24 am
)

Date: 2006/01/31 07:57:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Qualiatative, banned at 10:16pm last night, was back by 10 am this morning. Has DaveScot been reined in?

Date: 2006/01/31 08:16:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Dave Springer (DaveScot) apparently doesn't know how the word random is used:

Quote
First of all prove it’s random. As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows.

Date: 2006/02/01 02:07:55, Link
Author: stevestory
keiths, where'd you see that? I don't see it on the main Uncommon Pissant thread.

Date: 2006/02/01 04:38:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Lol. They're talking now, at Uncommon Pissant, about how so many people there are engineers. Much better suited to understand biology, don't you know. Anyway, had to repeat this funny bit from Sal Cordova:
Quote
If biotic reality has a hidden message spread accoss genomes, and IDists are able to essentially reverse engineer the “internet protocol” of biolgy and thus decode lifes hidden messages, it will be a slam dunk victory for ID, and Darwinism will dead forever!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — February 1, 2006 @ 8:22 am

Date: 2006/02/01 05:47:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I wonder why we're so important, they have to talk about us secretly.

But it's the IDers, and we all know that hiding parts of their agenda is essential if they want to succeed

Date: 2006/02/01 10:25:04, Link
Author: stevestory
just a reminder:

Quote
It’s simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor.

--DaveScot née Dave Springer

Date: 2006/02/02 04:46:46, Link
Author: stevestory
and lawyers.

Date: 2006/02/02 06:36:53, Link
Author: stevestory
In one sense, I have more respect for the Wises of the world than the reinterpreters. They're taking a stand for their religion. When you 'reinterpret' a religion to remove contradictions with scientific evidence, you're submitting to the higher authority of reason, but too chicken to deal with the full consequences.

But that's the subject of another thread.

Date: 2006/02/02 06:58:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
“Evolutionists lay low when they actually have to defend their beliefs, but when the floor is only open to them they will do whatever they can to tell fables,” he concluded.
Would Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Date: 2006/02/02 07:01:53, Link
Author: stevestory
the parts where he types ---craaaaaack--- is where he's actually taking hits off the pipe.

Date: 2006/02/02 07:04:52, Link
Author: stevestory
oh, that looks interesting. wonder if i'll be able to Netflix it anytime soon.

Date: 2006/02/02 07:37:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Has anyone watched any of this new Adult Swim stuff? I tuned out months ago, and have my tivo set to record any aqua teen if it comes on. Is any of the new stuff any good?

Date: 2006/02/02 08:00:20, Link
Author: stevestory
I've seen Squidbillies, 12 Oz. Mouse, Tom goes to the Mayor, and those are all horrible. Looks like I'll have to check out Boondocks and the Orel one, though.

Date: 2006/02/02 15:29:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it.


somehow that didn't wind up on the Put a Sock In It list. I think we can safely assume that Dave Springer has been told where he can shove his Common Descent.

Date: 2006/02/03 04:15:26, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. Now they're framing themselves as Galileo to Judge Jones's Inquisitor.


Quote

February 3, 2006
Judge John E. Jones III as Inquisitor

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/775

Date: 2006/02/03 13:05:10, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot has been quiet for days, perhaps smarting from the spanking Dembski no doubt gave him in private. Well, he's back, and arguing with everyone, but not in a particularly entertaining way this time.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/778#comments

get a load of this:

Quote
Machines Are the Result of Intelligent Agency

In every case where a machine is observed and its origin can be determined it is the result of intelligent agency.

When observations have been repeated billions of times by billions of people like this without a single exception it is a law of nature, not hypothesis and not mere theory. (more…)
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 11:20 am


Man, how many ideas can Dave Springer simultaneously misunderstand?

Date: 2006/02/04 04:30:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.
that's too bad, I rely on these guys for my weekly comedy intake.

Date: 2006/02/04 05:08:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Slaveador Cordova is all over that on Uncommon Pissant.

Quote
But this highly trained biologist wanted students to know what she herself deeply believed: that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science.
Starring PZ Myers as the Cigarette Smoking Man!

Date: 2006/02/04 05:29:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Updated: 10:25 a.m. ET Feb. 4, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria - Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators set the Danish embassy on fire on Saturday to protest the printing by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, a Reuters witness said.
The fire badly damaged the embassy’s building and fire engines went to the scene.

Protestors also threw stones at the building shattering its windows.



msnbc story

nice bit from the NYT I had to add:
Quote
"We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one preacher at the al-Omari mosque here told worshippers during Friday prayers, according to wire service reports.

Date: 2006/02/04 07:25:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Update: also the Norwegian embassy, btw.

Date: 2006/02/04 07:44:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Did you mean to post that in another thread? Presumably it makes sense w/r/t some other discussion.

Date: 2006/02/05 05:49:36, Link
Author: stevestory
It's not just people living in theocracies. MSNBC found a bunch of American muslims who think the cartoon should be illegal.

US Muslims React With Tempered Anger

Date: 2006/02/05 05:55:26, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot is persuing common descent again. Or maybe not. Or maybe. It gets all confused in the comments. One thing's for sure. No one else on the site is happy with the idea.

Common Descent or Common Design?

Date: 2006/02/05 08:02:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Dave Springer really should look up Ad Hominem. It does not mean, what he thinks it means.
Quote
#

Red Reader- I know this might be tough for you, since you seem to reside is a Bizarro universe of logic, governed by the equation (zero original peer-reviewed research supporting ID) + (plenty of original peer-reviewed research debunking the irreducible complexity hypothesis) = (overwhelming scientific support for ID). But leaving that larger and oh so boring issue aside, and focusing on the article spawning this thread, my point is quite simple. If you think that the linked article provides scientific evidence for ID, I have every reason to doubt your reading skills and/or your critical thinking ability. At least you still have the ability to laugh at yourself. Enjoy the game today.

This was dj’s final answer. dj and his ad hominem vomitus are no longer with us. May they live happily together elsewhere.

Comment by dj — February 5, 2006 @ 10:30 am

Date: 2006/02/05 08:21:30, Link
Author: stevestory
Here's a delicious bit from Uncommon Pissant
Quote
By the way, I am more than halfway through “Of Pandas and People” and it is wonderful.

It seems boggling to me that anyone could think that the universe had no intelligent creator. We are fully capable of feeling the holy spirit. Shouldn’t the fact that this is repeatable and testable be included in “Science”?

Comment by Artist in training — February 5, 2006 @ 12:14 pm


No religion there.

Date: 2006/02/05 09:20:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, calling an insult an ad hominem is just uneducated people trying to sound smart-like.

Date: 2006/02/05 12:35:04, Link
Author: stevestory
who stuck his foot in his mouth?

Date: 2006/02/05 14:43:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 05 2006,12:54)
Is this something new? Since when do religious people object to the BB?

Welcome to our planet. We call it "Earth". Will you be staying long?

Date: 2006/02/06 04:33:49, Link
Author: stevestory
JAD and Dave Springer are fighting over at Uncommon Descent:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/781#comments

Date: 2006/02/06 09:00:24, Link
Author: stevestory
post 784 has been deleted, apparently. anyone got a copy? i can't find one this time.

Date: 2006/02/06 09:07:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Anyone here want to write a script which will surf uncommon descent every few hours and save the pages, so that we still have them after the Orwellians try to shove them down the memory hole?

Date: 2006/02/06 09:57:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Score! Ed Brayton linked to Andrea Bottaro's copy of the missing post:


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/upload/2006/02/Raj%20baldev.htm

Date: 2006/02/06 10:01:27, Link
Author: stevestory
They get nuttier and nuttier. One day, DaveScot's going to see something he wrote, get pissed, and ban himself.

Date: 2006/02/06 12:24:19, Link
Author: stevestory
Amazing how many people misunderstand ID, huh? Teachers, research scientists, professors, biologists, information theorists, scientific organizations, judges....

It must be a very subtle and brilliant idea indeed.

Date: 2006/02/06 13:44:48, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. Slate magazine:

Galileo and
the Intelligent
Design Wackjobs
Who Love Him


You can bet the Disco Institute's Media/Judge Complaints Department will be whinging about that.

You should read the article, if you haven't, it's good

Slate ID article

Date: 2006/02/07 03:41:19, Link
Author: stevestory
You guys should start a new thread for this discussion with Avocadoist. I'd like to keep this one about Uncommon Pissant.

For instance, here's a priceless new gem--they're suggesting antibiotic resistance might not be evolution:

Quote
February 7, 2006
Does Darwinian Evolution Explain Antibiotic Resistance?


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/787

Everybody make sure you see it before they realize it's stupid and delete it!

Date: 2006/02/07 05:02:29, Link
Author: stevestory
I've currently quit for three months. I did it by switching to Skoal. I still get my nicotine fix, but in a much safer way. Smokeless tobacco is not harmless, but it's much less harmful than smoking.

Date: 2006/02/07 06:43:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Chris Mooney links to this Salon article describing the anti-relativity fringe. It's no wonder that some Disco Instituters are also relativity deniers (cough cough Jay Richards cough), it's a similar strain of quackiness.

salon article

Date: 2006/02/07 07:04:04, Link
Author: stevestory
right now at Uncommon Pissant, I get
Quote
Index of /

     Name                    Last modified       Size  Description

[DIR] Parent Directory        07-Feb-2006 12:45      -  
[DIR] _private/               04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] archives/               22-Dec-2005 16:53      -  
[DIR] books/                  04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] cgi-bin/                04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] darwinalia/             26-Sep-2005 23:36      -  
[DIR] documentation/          26-Dec-2005 10:50      -  
[DIR] images/                 31-Jan-2006 19:27      -  
[   ] local_42539.xml         07-Feb-2006 10:32     1k  
[   ] random_shirt.php        09-Dec-2005 15:20     1k  
[TXT] robots.txt              20-Apr-2005 07:04     6k  
[   ] tla_ads.php             26-Jan-2006 16:48     2k  
[DIR] videos/                 09-Dec-2005 10:04      -  
[DIR] wp-admin/               07-Feb-2006 13:05      -  
[DIR] wp-content/             04-Jun-2005 19:57      -  
[DIR] wp-images/              01-Aug-2005 15:41      -  
[DIR] wp-includes/            07-Feb-2006 13:07      -  


the only comedy to be had, right now, is the robots.txt file where they disallow all caching, for obvious reasons.

Date: 2006/02/07 10:01:12, Link
Author: stevestory
You have GOT to check out this thread.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/787

DaveScot found a paper about how bacteria, when stressed out by a harsh environment, will turn off their mutation-repair mechanisms and do other things which promote mutations, in order to rapidly evolve. Somehow he thinks that this is evidence against "random mutation plus natural selection" as an agent of evolution.

check it out before it's deleted.

Date: 2006/02/07 14:58:15, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL

Date: 2006/02/08 03:35:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Chris, I've seen your posts over there, and I'm sure we all appreciate what you're doing, but DaveScot's just going to ban you. He's really out to lunch on what random means, what 'random mutation' means. He's got this really confused mess where anything that has purpose isn't random, or anything which is initiated by a prior step isn't random, or anything which is deterministic isn't random.

Really, all the 'random' in 'random mutations' means is, nobody's picking to mutate one site instead of another site. It means that the positions of the mutations have certain statistical distributions. It doesn't have anything to do with Dave's big ol philosophical notion of randomness.

But this is what you see when people try to comment way outside their area of expertise. They make intro-level errors, misunderstanding and misapplying basic concepts.

Date: 2006/02/08 03:51:11, Link
Author: stevestory
On a lighter note, get a load of this craziness:
Quote
   Natural selection is death, and the last time I checked, death did not have the power to “bring together parts of a system” for any purpose whatsoever.

   Comment by GilDodgen — February 6, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
Where exactly does one check on that? Is there a government department? Who did he call, last time he checked?

"Hi, it's been six months since I checked, does death still not have the power to bring together parts of a system for a purpose. Oh, good. Thanks." click.

Date: 2006/02/08 06:54:02, Link
Author: stevestory
William Dembski on the Wisconsin bill:

"I take this as a clear sign that we are winning."

and

"Dover certainly wasn’t ID’s Waterloo. Wisconsin may well be evolution’s Waterloo."

LOL.

Date: 2006/02/09 09:20:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Paley, your nonsense is not welcome on my thread.

Date: 2006/02/09 12:15:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Every once in a while, the thinkers over at Uncommon Pissant say something that just makes your jaw drop open. Behold!:

Quote
#

Hmmm… a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. Interesting.

I wonder if it’s feasible to get the selling of evolution in court on antitrust grounds. It seems to me a there’s a legitimate case to be made for economic damage resulting from monopolizing textbook sales.

I can see students, with the support of their parents, boycotting 9th grade biology for the unAmerican, state sanctioned monopolistic practice going on within.

Is it time for a little good old American civil unrest and courtroom theatrics?

Comment by DaveScot — February 9, 2006 @ 3:59 am

Date: 2006/02/09 12:21:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Also check out comments by "artist in training" over there. He's so clueless about evolution and ID, he's way off the script:

Quote
I posted something like that on Pandas Thumb last week and they just kept parroting the questions: “What is the scientific theory of ID?” “How can it be tested?” “What predictions does it make?”

I replied that it isn’t a “Theory” it is a few specific experiments that demonstrate the existence of a designer. That it couldn’t be tested because how can you test God, that is foolish. And that it doesn’t predict. What would it predict? Who could presume to know the mind of God?

Date: 2006/02/09 12:53:54, Link
Author: stevestory
don't be annoyed, it's the funniest thing around. think of the comedy we've seen lately. DaveScot announces that you'd have to be a religious nut to oppose Common Descent, only to have DIers show up and tell him off. Commenters arriving every day to talk about Jesus Jesus Jesus. Embarrassing posts they tried to cover up, only to be thwarted by browser cache. DaveScot's circular non-helical DNA. It's just hilarious.

Date: 2006/02/09 13:10:17, Link
Author: stevestory
update: flunky claims he is right, and Hansen is biased and political.
Quote
George C. Deutsch, the young NASA press aide who resigned on Tuesday in the center of a storm over his efforts to keep the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming, defended himself today in his first public interviews.

Speaking to a Texas radio station and then briefly to The New York Times, Mr. Deutsch said the scientist, James E. Hansen, exaggerated the threat of warming.


NYT story

Date: 2006/02/10 04:57:09, Link
Author: stevestory
The people at Uncommon Descent are caught in Russell's Dilemma--they can't tell if Artist is a creationist, or a spoof of a creationist.

Date: 2006/02/10 08:05:11, Link
Author: stevestory
FYI Artist, here's a list of 400 or so claims Creationists (of the Intelligent Design flavor and other flavors) make regarding evolution, with explanations about why the claims are wrong, and references for further reading, etc.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

If you are an educated person, and are not a zealot, hang out and read Panda's Thumb articles for a few weeks or months, and you'll understand what's wrong with ID and its proponents.

Date: 2006/02/10 09:16:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
but for me and many others who may not be as strong as you when it comes to coping with a harsh reality of meaninglessness and loss
Why do I only ever hear this from the religious camp? I never hear fellow atheists talk about how grim and wretched life is. Where do religious people get this idea that life without god is meaningless and worthless? This erroneous idea goes quite against the evidence that we atheists are not depressed and nihilistic. Perhaps the religious people just don't appreciate the value of evidence.

Date: 2006/02/10 09:27:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, there was that moron recently who claimed that atheists really believed in god, but pretended not to, or something. That's so dumb, I'm not sure the word 'retarded' goes far enough. Can't remember on what blog that guy was being mocked.

Date: 2006/02/10 14:15:21, Link
Author: stevestory
You're just talking crazy talk. Where do you get off saying I don't have any meaning or support any causes? Why do you presume to tell me what I think or value?

Date: 2006/02/10 14:23:46, Link
Author: stevestory
I guess I should cancel my ACLU membership. Stop appreciating Miro paintings. Tell my girlfriend I don't love her.

Because according to some guy who doesn't know me, I only care about fulfilling my duty to our species' DNA. Glad that christian guy came along to tell me what I think.

Date: 2006/02/11 06:25:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Ah, I see, in the light of day, I did overreact. My only excuse is that I was quite drunk at the time. And quite hungover now.

BTW, I suspect fishyfred is a spoof or exaggeration or something. The extremely bad english he uses rings a little fake.

Date: 2006/02/11 07:27:25, Link
Author: stevestory
New quote from WAD:

Quote
Once again, an ID perspective seems much closer to reality than the Darwinian (Lamarckian?) just-so stories.


Aren't they precious when they pretend their ideas are useful?

Anybody else notice the phrase "an ID perspective" rather than "ID theory"?

Date: 2006/02/11 08:02:14, Link
Author: stevestory
There's a southern way of using the word 'ignorant' which befits Ken Ham. It means ignorant, but also hopeless.

That boy's just ignrnt

Date: 2006/02/11 09:14:53, Link
Author: stevestory
this reminds me of:

Quote
"Officials in Georgia have mandated that schools continue to use the word evolution when teaching science. However, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus horses'."

-- Jimmy Fallon

Date: 2006/02/11 09:27:49, Link
Author: stevestory
You find Davison amusing? I find his comments empty and pompous. I stopped reading them ages ago, when he was still allowed on PT. Watching the IDers pretend to be neither creationists, nor religiously motivated, watching them delete large threads because they've mucked things up irredeemably, watching engineers talk about how they're revolutionizing biology while botching introductory concepts like the shape of DNA in a plasmid, those things are the hilarious parts of Uncommon Pissant, in my opinion.

Date: 2006/02/11 16:09:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
stevestory i google davescot and get 16200 hit...not all right davescot but most are...it look like he say million words on evolution and you only got one mistake to crow about?
Why do you incorrectly assume I have only one mistake to point to?

DaveScot has deleted dozens of his own comments. Several of the people at Uncommon Pissant have deleted their own comments, and entire threads, when they got embarrassed.

Here's discussion about one of my favorites:

Dave Springer and the Case of the Missing Post 744

Date: 2006/02/11 16:13:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Pound for pound, Uncommon Pissant might be the funniest website on the internet. Or maybe Answers in Genesis. Hard to say.

Date: 2006/02/11 18:54:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote (Zardoz @ Feb. 11 2006,23:07)

Quote
But the fact of the matter is that evolution is directly in contradiction to actual catholic or in fact any biblically based belief system or dogma. So it's not that evolution is copacetic with catholicism or christianity in their traditional forms, it's copacetic with some people who call themselves catholic or christian.



So you're saying Bill Dembski is not really a christian. Interesting statement. Probably get you banned at Uncommon Pissant. But then again, what wouldn't.

Quote
I could make my peace with Darwinism if I had to, and I'm sufficiently theologically astute to do the fancy footwork, but it's the science itself that I don't think holds up, and that's what motivates me to critique Darwinism and develop intelligent design.

-Bill Dembski (quoted at http://www.antievolution.org/cs/ )

Date: 2006/02/12 05:46:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
if you feel this a challenge to your credibility
If you're challenging my credibility, while defending a guy who has posted under someone else's name, (Scott Page), erases his mistakes, and in the words of one ID supporter "is ruining Dembski's weblog", then go right ahead, no one cares, which is why nobody visits your weblog, JAD.

Date: 2006/02/12 06:02:13, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. the top thread at Uncommon Pissant, "Jack Krebs Asking About Common Descent", has just been updated by DaveScot. At the bottom he added
Quote
Notice: Stay on topic. This thread isn’t about whether or not common descent is true but whether or not Intelligent Design Theory takes a position on common descent and about how the association fallacy is being used to conflate IDT with denial of common descent.
Any time he mentions common descent, all the little creationists start yelling about how they ain't come from no monkey, and DaveScot gets all pissed off.

It's so great to watch.

Date: 2006/02/12 11:11:45, Link
Author: stevestory
now dave's putting up limited-lifetime comments:

Quote
#

DaveScot

Is there a particular reason my comments no longer appear here, but remain awaiting moderation seemingly indefinitely?

Of course there is a reason. Any comment I don’t consider constructive, if I see it, gets flushed. This is triply true for articles I write. For some reason that I’m sure I no longer recall you have a red flag by your name so that I see all your comments. I don’t keep a diary of this stuff. If there’s a long enough period of time where I don’t flush any of your comments I remove the red flag to save myself the trouble. Read this quickly because it’s off topic and won’t stick around long. -ds

Comment by Xavier — February 12, 2006 @ 11:52 am

Date: 2006/02/12 14:07:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Actually I'm Sober Steve Story right now, having had only two Yuenglings so far. But their ten buddies in the fridge are fearing for their lives, as well they should be. You're making an a55 out of me, huh? If you say so, JAD.

Date: 2006/02/12 16:13:46, Link
Author: stevestory
I think ridicule is an important strategy. Plus it's High Comedy. I'm proud to be part of the Panda's Thumb Statler and Waldorf Team.

Statler: Wake up you old fool! You slept through the latest post at Uncommon Pissant!
Waldorf: Who's the fool? You read it!
Hohohohohohoho!

Date: 2006/02/13 07:16:48, Link
Author: stevestory
I support such a system. Or a karma system, like /. has, which also encourages responsible behavior.

Date: 2006/02/13 07:24:00, Link
Author: stevestory
How can they deal with Evolution Sunday? Wouldn't they have to try to loudly claim that evolution is incompatible with christianity? How will that play in court later?

Date: 2006/02/13 07:28:04, Link
Author: stevestory
40-50% of the biologists who believe in evolution are christians, so you certainly don't have to give one up for the other. And if you want more info about why ID is a hoax, I suggest a book like Why Intelligent Design Fails.

Date: 2006/02/13 07:37:34, Link
Author: stevestory
What I like about the /. system, I think would work here if it could be implemented--people who have been around long enough to be trustworthy are given small powers of moderation. They can demerit comments for being offensive or garbage or whatever. Individual viewers of the site can select what level of comments to see. If you particularly want to see the worst comments, you can, but everybody else wouldn't have to. At /., they have so many comments that their system has 7 tiers, but here we'd only need two: regular and garbage.

***

I was just alerted to the fact that Uncommon Pissant has an RSS feed. This is the answer to our prayers, because they can't delete that once it's out. So everybody who uses RSS, please set up their site. That way they won't be able to delete a thread on us again.

Date: 2006/02/13 07:49:39, Link
Author: stevestory
speaking of him, I'd almost pay money to watch him teach algebra.

http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?impulse=3

Date: 2006/02/13 08:17:34, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL I can't remember if I was Hovind or Ken Ham who had that hilarious cartoon where a dinosaur, who has an eye on one side of his head, thinks something like "That works real good. I think I'll try real hard to evolve another one!" and he starts straining like unnngggghhhhhh...

Date: 2006/02/13 08:35:26, Link
Author: stevestory
No, feel happy for him, he learned. Now Salvador Cordova, or DaveScot--feel sad for them.

Date: 2006/02/13 08:55:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Everybody who wants thread #809 over at Uncommon Pissant better go get it now. DaveScot is claiming that obviously Cartesian Dualism is crap, and that the mind is just what the brain does. At some point he'll be clued in to the fact that Overlord Dembski is a Cartesian Dualist. When that happens, the thread might do the disappearing act thread 744 did.

Quote
Let me know when you have some way of measuring mind apart from brain and you can argue with me about it. In the meantime mind/brain duality strikes me as wool gathering so you aren’t going to persuade me of anything no matter how hard you try.

--DaveScot

Date: 2006/02/13 10:04:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Instructional videos where he teaches you Algebra. I guess the site does that internal navigation crap where the apparent link will not take someone there.

Oh and yes, Henry, that is materialism. DaveScot is some kind of agnostic, who actually thinks there is a real scientific theory in Dembski's work. He's been fooled by the math, in other words. He made a big stink saying you'd have to be a religious zealot to doubt common descent, perhaps without realizing that he was surrounded by creationists. Similarly, he is going to piss off people by calling dualism crap, but he doesn't know that yet.

Because he doesn't understand that ID is entirely a political movement motivated by religion, he's stepping on religious toes, and it's having consequences. Some ID supporters say he's destroying the blog.

I think it's great comedy. It's like watching the Three Stooges run around the deck of the titanic.

Date: 2006/02/13 12:00:49, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL keiths, that's so great.

Date: 2006/02/14 04:18:19, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Where are the thread numbers over there?
Put your mouse on the main link on a thread, and see what it says in the status bar

Date: 2006/02/14 08:45:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
February 14, 2006
Nuclear Evolution Debate

This page is for an as-yet-to-be-named person from Panda’s Thumb to present all the evidence, predictions, and repeatable tests that neoDarwinian theory has to support the hypothesis of random mutation + natural selection being the mechanism underlying the evolution of the eukaryote nucleus from a prokaryote ancestor. “Whoever” will then fisk the presentation in an attempt to show that NDE’s claim is entirely vacuous. I don’t expect there will be any volunteers from Panda’s Thumb and that’s okay too because it will show they can’t even begin to make a reasonable argument in support of a neoDarwinian mechanism for this crucial event in the evolution of life.

The challenge was made here.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — Administrator @ 11:50 am
The nucleus challenge is just a request to fill a certain gap. Young Earth Creationist Henry Morris, in 1974, said the same thing about the "gap" between vertebrates and invertebrates. The front page of Uncommon Descent is therefore a micromutated creationist argument from 30 years ago.

Furthermore, here are some Creation Science websites where creationists argue that a prokaryote could not have led to an eukaryote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp
http://www.creationinfo.com/evcr/6_7_2004.htm
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/jcdverha/archive/2004/12/11/17189.aspx
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3105.html


Answers in Genesis:
Quote
Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells?

(Or, can the endosymbiont theory explain the origin of eukaryotic cells?)

by Dr Don Batten, AiG–Australia

6 July 2000


Thanks, Uncommon Pissants, for helping demonstrate that Intelligent Design = Creationism.

Date: 2006/02/14 13:15:42, Link
Author: stevestory
no, it's still there. look in the list on the right-hand side

Date: 2006/02/14 16:32:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Is there any way to make me feel better about my annual ACLU dues, than Doug Moron posting the following at Uncommon Pissant?

Quote
ACLU: America’s Intellectual Terrorists


I don't think there is.

Date: 2006/02/15 04:15:29, Link
Author: stevestory
If you posted this on Official Uncommon Pissant Discussion thread, you could dilute the babbling of JAD a little bit.

Date: 2006/02/15 04:19:19, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot babbled about Panda's Thumb
Quote
Every article there has ZERO trackbacks.


Except the ones which don't, of course.

Date: 2006/02/15 05:50:07, Link
Author: stevestory
They probably don't know what to do right now. If they delete the post, they know we keep copies now and will revel in it. And they were so pissy and rude that they can't say they were wrong. My guess is they'll attach an update saying something critical about the implementation.

One thing is for sure--somebody in the last ten hours has noticed the obvious error, tried to correct them in the comment section, and been deleted. Probably several somebodies.

Date: 2006/02/15 07:04:29, Link
Author: stevestory
update:
DaveScot deleted what he said earlier, and replaced it with

Quote
February 15, 2006
Trackback URLs Broken at Panda’s Thumb

Miracles DO happen. Wesley claims he didn’t change anything but trackbacks all of a sudden started appearing. It’s a miracle! ;-)
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 1:23 am


If the reader is not a complete idiot, he will note that PT trackbacks were obviously working fine yesterday, for instance here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/ohio_news_1.html

Date: 2006/02/15 11:43:29, Link
Author: stevestory
All their arguments are old creationist arguments, occasionally with technical jargon added to make it seem more scientific.

Ken Ham says, "mutations do not add information", and William Dembski tarts it up into "the NFL theorems demonstrate that algorithms cannot produce Complex Specified Information blah blah blah".

Don't be fooled by the fake math.

Quote
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski
Sounds like creationism to me.
Quote
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side
Actually, I think that's a pretty good supposition. Arguing against evolution was reasonable in 1860, unreasonable by the late 1940s, and a sign of ignorance and/or stubbornness in 2006.

Date: 2006/02/15 11:54:54, Link
Author: stevestory
ditto on the pricelessness of TurboGoalposts v3:16

Date: 2006/02/15 12:03:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.

Date: 2006/02/15 12:48:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Also, IIRC Luskin in a minister of some kind. However, I'm not sure Casey is lying, if you demand people have certain religious beliefs, and then maintain that religion is irrelevant to what you're doing, it strikes me less as lying, and more like some kind of Oliver-Sachs-patient dysfunction like being unable to see things which are blue.

Date: 2006/02/15 14:27:30, Link
Author: stevestory
i got in because of the comedy. I've always been a physics geek, and growing up in the south, I was occasionally treated to some outrageous confident anti-science claim like "They say the earth is spinning at a thousand miles an hour. But you know that's BS. If the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour, we'd all be flung into space." and they were so hysterically funny that I eventually started paying attention to the wackos for the laugh value. I barely know anything about evolution, but there just aren't that many screaming idiots in physics, so I gravitated to the evolution/creation fight. IDiots like Casey Luskin trying to sneak relabelled creationism by the courts via clubs that require christianity?!?!?! That's hilarious. I mean, Jim Pinkowski?? How could you not find that funny? The Discovery Institute going down in flames because of dimbulbs like Buckingham? I love it.

Date: 2006/02/16 04:27:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Post 817 on Uncommon Descent, where DaveScot made these erroneous comments about how trackbacks worked, is no more.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/817

Date: 2006/02/16 13:45:19, Link
Author: stevestory
If you want to have an interminable fight with JAD, consider the following things: 1 I'd rather you didn't clog up this thread with his senile nonsense, and 2 he's supposed to be banned from here anyway.

Date: 2006/02/16 14:25:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Yes. So here's something else to talk about. Just when you think you've seen the most pitiful ID dimbulb, a new one comes along, worse than him:

Quote
#

We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

Date: 2006/02/16 15:31:47, Link
Author: stevestory
ID201--Theory of Imaginary Numbers. And Imaginary Theorems. Groundbreaking, Imaginary Theorems.

Date: 2006/02/17 03:57:51, Link
Author: stevestory
There haven't yet been any replies to
Quote
#

We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
over there ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/826#comments )

Perhaps nobody can figure out what math courses ID is a part of.

Date: 2006/02/17 06:12:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
DaveScot,
If I don’t get a response from you as to why my comments are being censored, I will be forced to start spreading the word about your actions. This is absolutely inexcusable and hypocritical. I have done nothing to get myself banned!

egbooth

Well let’s run down the list. Pick any one or more of the following: trite, derivative, boring, ignorant, wrong, hysterical, hyperbolic… read the comment moderation policy on the sidebar. I’m under no obligation to provide you with a soapbox. You got a chance to speak your mind. Now take it somewhere else. -ds


Comment by egbooth — February 15, 2006 @ 10:15 pm


Quote
Why don’t you put up my original comment that I posted this morning and let your reader’s decide whether I was on a soapbox or not.


I’m an editor. My job is to make people’s words disappear before others see them.



You’re blaming Panda’s Thumb for being censors…how is this any different?


I’m up front about it. A bold-lettered statement above every comment submission box says comments are moderated. Comment moderation policy is in the sidebar on the right.



The least you can do, DS, is tell me why…


I don’t have the time.


Give me a chance. You may find out that we agree on more than you think (e.g., getting Atheism out of science).

You get a chance with every comment. I don’t stop anyone from submitting them. If I don’t think it’s constructive for any reason it gets flushed.

I will however see about putting a link to the moderation policy above the comment submission form so it’s clear what the rules are. -ds



Comment by egbooth — February 16, 2006 @ 105 am


The difference, btw, Egbooth, is that 1) in 2 years Panda's Thumb has edited or banned about a dozen people, or roughly the number DaveScot has edited or banned since yesterday afternoon. and 2 We don't delete evidence of our mistakes here, which DaveScot has to do pretty frequently. Look for threads 744 and 817 on Uncommon Descent. They are long gone.

Date: 2006/02/17 06:47:13, Link
Author: stevestory
I have to preserve this bit from Uncommon Pissant before it gets deleted.

the post:

Quote
February 17, 2006
“If an alien found human engineering on Mars…”

“… Would they be able to detect products of intelligence and deduce that these objects had not evolved from the surrounding materials by chance?”

Look here.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — doug moron @ 10:56 am


Quote

1 Comment »

  1.

     I’m going through the thought exercise right now.

     If aliens found the mars rover thousands of years from now, they’d be correct in determining that it was put together by an intelligence. They would instantly realize that it didn’t “evolve” from the surroundings because:
     a. there’s no population of these rovers
     b. the rover doesn’t reproduce, therefore it has no way to “evolve”

     This will quickly lead them to detect design. By looking at the rover they will look at the metals used and realize that the metals weren’t of martian origin. Upon looking closely at the pieces, they will see cut marks (from diamond saws, sand paper, etc) showing that tools were used to shape it. Perhaps some of the pieces will have inscriptions on them. (circuit labels, wire gauge labels, etc)
     Perhaps the aliens will then scout out the nearby planets and find that earth has the same compounds used for this rover. They will find other artifacts on earth (assuming we’re extinct) showing the same trademarks found on the rover. By studying the designs of everything they found, they conclude that it has something to do with an extinct intelligence. Let’s assume they’ve never seen a human and all traces of the biological human has vanished from earth, but looking at the designs, they can conclude that we were bipedal, has clasping hands, ranged in height from 3-7 feet. By looking at the range of colors used by humans, they can determine that we only saw a limited spectrum of lightwaves. By looking at our musical instruments, they can determine what our hearing range was, etc.

     All fields of study that detect design (archaeology, SETI, criminal investigators, etc) always use that detection to learn about the motives, tools, processes, origins,of the designs. The study of design and the designers seems to be interconnected in every case I can think of.

     What are your thoughts?

     Comment by Fross — February 17, 2006 @ 11:21 am
I bet that comment doesn't last long.

Date: 2006/02/17 08:53:56, Link
Author: stevestory
After which, I would like to see a calculation of the CSI in the face on Mars, and a comparison of the amount which leads to concluding one is designed, and one not.

Date: 2006/02/17 10:44:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I'm not sure if the units of "specified complexity" have ever been named. Someone suggested "Dembskis", (kilodembskis, megadembskis, etc)
I have, one time, seen Dembski refer to bits of CSI. I think it was in the paper where Elsberry and Shallit beat him like a rented mule.

Date: 2006/02/17 12:20:21, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot:
Quote
The point of the argument is about probalistic resources in design detection. If you find complex information in a pattern that can be independently given and cannot reasonably find any means it could have come about through serendipity then you’ve detected design. The alien spacecraft is a grossly simplified case that exhibits all these things in an incontrovertable manner:

1) complex arrangement of matter - obvious
2) independently given pattern - transportation device
3) no accidental means means of assembly - obvious
4) bingo - positive design detection

Now apply to flagellum

1) complex arrangement of matter - obvious (now)
2) independently given patter - propulsion device
3) no accidental means of assembly - controversial but none demonstrated
4) tentative design detection

This is the same way that murders and told apart from accidents in criminal investigations, hidden messages are told apart from noise in cryptanalysis, intellegence told apart from natural radio signals in SETI, and designed artifacts are told apart from accidents of nature in archeology. -ds


Got that, kids:

Designed object has 3 things,
Flagellum has 3 things,
Flagellum is designed object.

Quote


Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term

Abstract:  The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term is discussed and illustrated.
I. We continue our study of the syllogistic fallacies with a second common fallacy.
A. Note, how in the following argument, about the only persons likely to be sympathetic are those who dislike Senator Jones.  (Notice that singular statements are treated as universal affirmative propositions.)
All [Communists] are [believers in heavy taxes].
[Senator Jones] is a [believer in heavy taxes].
[Senator Jones] is a [Communist].


from http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/middle_fall.html</quote>

Date: 2006/02/18 08:40:02, Link
Author: stevestory
First, read this really interesting Discover story, then go have a good laugh at DaveScot's asinine comments about it.

Date: 2006/02/18 10:01:08, Link
Author: stevestory
good article by Michael Kinsley, who is not conflicted about the Danish cartoons.

Date: 2006/02/18 10:26:05, Link
Author: stevestory
And get a load of this:

Quote
#3

I think the general concept is that viruses could potentially have once had a self-catalyzing RNA. Recent work has been able to get an evolving, self-reproducing little RNA monster going just from the catalyst protein and a soup of raw materials. The idea is that if its possible that a virii had a self-catalyzing shape, then it could get going and evolving without any separate catalyst to start with. So, all in all, not quite that weird.

Unless you can provide me a link to support your “RNA monster” claim here it’s your last comment on this blog. -ds

Comment by plunge — February 18, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Quote
#12

Dave
It’s called Spiegelman’s Monster and has been around for many years. Here is an excerpt from Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle (1999)describing it.

“The Qb virus doesn’t need anything as complicated as a cell in order to
replicate: a test tube full of suitable chemicals is enough. The
experiment, conducted by Sol Spiegelman of the University of Illinois,
consisted of introducing the viral RNA into a medium containing the RNA’s
own replication enzyme, plus a supply of raw materials and some salts, and
incubating the mixture. When Spiegelman did this, the system obligingly
replicated the strands of naked RNA. Spiegelman then extracted some of the
freshly synthesized RNA, put it in a separate nutrient solution, and let it
multiply. He then decanted some of that RNA into yet another solution, and
so on, in a series of steps. ”
found here: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200001/0229.html

The original experiment was in 1963 but you can find more if you type in Autocatylizing RNA at Pub Med or elsewhere. There is more about Spiegelman here:
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p164y1983.pdf

Cheers

Comment by MacDaddy — February 18, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

Date: 2006/02/18 11:41:28, Link
Author: stevestory
my favorite bit:
Quote
But perhaps that wedding is not unique. At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

The relevant statistical methodology is identical for both fields.

Date: 2006/02/18 12:18:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Logically, DaveScot must now convert to christianity. If the Bible Code methodology is equivalent to Intelligent Design's methodology, and Intelligent Design's methodology is sound...

Date: 2006/02/18 14:55:50, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL
Quote
The promoters of hidden-message claims say, "How could such amazing coincidences be the product of random chance?"
Sound familiar, DaveScot?

Date: 2006/02/18 16:11:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Dembski and Johnson:

Date: 2006/02/18 16:35:32, Link
Author: stevestory
fyi, 16 people died in Nigeria today in the ongoing Muslim Cartoon Riots of 2006.

Date: 2006/02/18 17:02:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Not as bad as the 2002 Nigerian Muslim Riots, also related to a newspaper. IIRC, somebody said something in a newspaper about Mohammed and beauty contests, and the blood started filling the streets. Several hundred died.

Date: 2006/02/18 17:28:09, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm a big Neal Stephenson fan (not so much the recent historical stuff, but otherwise) and he writes in depth about technological or systematic things. I think his nonfiction essays are even better. See for instance these two excellent pieces:


Mother Earth, Motherboard
In the Kingdom of Mao Bell

But this kind of geek writing is found in relatively few places. Wired is one. Can anyone point me to other writers who write about similarly techy topics? To be clear, I don't merely mean computer things, anything where a complex system is discussed in an interesting way.

Date: 2006/02/19 05:52:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Good grief, Myers. This is a prime example why biologists aren’t qualified to recognize design. What you think you’re just discovering is something I recognized decades ago. The flagellum for example isn’t the sum of its proteins. While each individual protein is complex in its own right, the assembly instructions are the real specified complexity. Design engineers recognize that immediately and it’s taken you what, 20 years to begin catching on?

Myers gets a clue. Will wonders never cease?
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 5:17 am
LOL. PZ puts up a nice big post about complicated gene networks, and the best DaveScot has is "uh...I could have told you that."

this stuff is too good.

Date: 2006/02/19 10:47:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
1 Comment »

  1.

     About what percentage of ID people believe in Jeffrey Satinover’s Bible Code theory?

     Comment by Karen — February 19, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
someone asks on Uncommon Descent. It should be 100%, of course, because Bill Dembski says they are methodologically identical.

Date: 2006/02/19 12:06:02, Link
Author: stevestory
As you could have foretold, my pseudonymous comment to Karen, saying as much, never saw the light of day over there. Essentially, DaveScot had to delete Dembski's own words, in order to preserve his ideas. Which is of course why I posted it in the first place. :-)

Date: 2006/02/19 14:20:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Phil Johnson and the bible code

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9811/johnson.html

Date: 2006/02/19 15:54:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I was a little wrong above. I didn't literally quote him. What I said was :

Quote
" About what percentage of ID people believe in Jeffrey Satinover’s Bible Code theory?"

It should be nearly 100%, of course, because Bill Dembski says ID and the Bible Code are methodologically identical. Therefore if one is valid, the other must be.
As best I can remember. Which is more or less just repeating what Dembski said. And DaveScot prevented those words from being seen, because he refuses to accept the consequences of Dembski's words.

Date: 2006/02/19 19:14:06, Link
Author: stevestory
He's likely referring to the Discover link I posted about halfway up this page.

I guess that would be, halfway up the previous page.

Date: 2006/02/20 02:28:22, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot needs to learn how to Intelligently Design some apostrophes.

Date: 2006/02/20 03:42:44, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL now some dum-dum over there is saying
Quote
One thing that has always irked me is that rarely on this site do we find any critics of ID attempting to challenge the tools/methods of ID directly. For example, one could claim that “CSI isn’t a reliable indicator of intelligence” or “the explanatory filter breaks down under certain conditions” or “ID regularly produces false positives under x conditions” or “Irreducible Complexity can indeed be overcome via a Direct Pathway” and then show why and/or how. Instead, arguments are almost always made against the implications or we’re arguing over the interpretation of various data. Perhaps these challenges are not made because it’s so difficult to make sustainable arguments in this regard but I’d like to at least see people try.
is he really that ignorant of the literature? Somebody send him Why Intelligent Design Fails, Unintelligent Design, that Ellsberry and Shallit paper, etc etc etc please.

Date: 2006/02/20 05:14:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, does that guy know that DaveScot deletes virtually any criticism of ID?

Date: 2006/02/20 05:50:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, his schizophrenic relationship with JAD is hilarious. It's like a Crank Soap Opera over there.

Will DaveScot ban Davison forever?
Who will insult common descent?
Will Crandaddy accept The Bible Codes?
Will someone delete an embarrassing thread--but too late?

Tune in next week!

Date: 2006/02/20 09:40:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, I didn't see that new stuff, because JAD's blog goes in the direction opposite every other blog in the world, with newest posts lower on the page. I shouldn't have expected any less.

Date: 2006/02/20 09:47:15, Link
Author: stevestory
lol JAD says about DaveScot:
Quote
Friends we are witnessing the bottom of the barrel.
Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

Date: 2006/02/20 11:42:53, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with that, go right ahead.

Date: 2006/02/20 12:41:16, Link
Author: stevestory
omigod. Davescot, at that google link above:

Quote
1) there are several proteins in human hemoglobin that must
  cooperate in gas transport.  The proteins differ in types
  A, B, AB, O, rh+ and rh- blood types.  Assuming that humans
  started with a common blood type, and diverged at some
  point into the types common today, how did this happen ?
  A single protein mutation that doesn't kill the host has
  pretty long odds.


JESUS THAT IS STUPID. There's an error in every single sentence.

Date: 2006/02/20 13:09:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Man, that's just so amazingly ill-informed. I almost never get into the details of where creationists went horribly wrong, but I know a bit more about hematology than the average person, so let me point out the basic errors in DaveScot's comments:

1) The blood type proteins do not have anything to do with gas transport, that's hemoglobin.
2) A, B, AB, etc are not proteins within hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is a protein inside RBCs, while the blood type antigens are on the outside.
3) There are a lot more than A, B, AB, O, rh+ and rh-. There's H, Kell, Lutheran, MNS, Duffy, and dozens more.
4) Considering that different monkeys have different blood types, there's no reason to assume all humans had the same type at some point.
5) Nobody with Any experience with proteins would say "A single protein mutation that doesn't kill the host has pretty long odds." about a typical protein. A typical protein has All Kinds of functionally identical substitutions. There are, for instance, subgroups of type A blood type B blood, etc, based on mutations.

Date: 2006/02/20 17:15:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Right. I meant that humans didn't necessarily have the same blood type at some point. Some prehuman ancestor may have.

Date: 2006/02/21 03:35:19, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, I mean, it's essentially this:

creationists: We've got a list!
evolutionists: We've got a Much bigger list!
creationist: Lists are flawed!

I mean how stupid do you have to be?

Date: 2006/02/21 03:37:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Ah yes

Quote
KADUNA, Nigeria (CNN) -- Organizers of the Miss World pageant announced Friday they will move the pageant from the Nigerian capital, Abuja, to London in the wake of violent pageant-related protests in the northern part of the country that left more than 100 people dead.

The pageant will be held on the same date, December 7.

Dozens were killed in northern Nigeria in rioting that erupted after a newspaper suggested the Prophet Mohammed would have approved of the Miss World beauty contest.

Date: 2006/02/21 03:55:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah. If you bust out laughing when some nitwit says at Uncommon Descent, "I'm amazed that our critics never tackle the substance of our arguments.", then you'll laugh at Python.

Quote
How many times, after an IDist argument has been disarmed, defeated, humiliated, destroyed, dismembered, and generally made the object of slapstick fun, have we witnessed the IDer, a la the Black Knight at the bridge, come back with "it's barely a scratch! C'mon! what are you afraid of?"


Martin Brazeau: I just chopped your head off.
Ghost of Paley: No you didn't.
Brazeau: What's that there?
Ghost of Paley: Tis but a flesh wound!

Date: 2006/02/21 05:51:15, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL reminds me of a line from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Quote
Today Pakistan is a military dictatorship and has been for most of its 50 plus year life. Its only claims to fame are killing journalists, operating jihadi camps, beating up women who try to run marathons, possessing nuclear weapons and blowing up the local KFC to prove that Islam is not violent.

Date: 2006/02/21 12:41:00, Link
Author: stevestory
opinions on whether this'll be any good?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

Date: 2006/02/21 17:26:52, Link
Author: stevestory
I think though, even if you just had two people, if one had alleles for A and O, and the other B and O, you could get kids with A, B, AB, or O.

Date: 2006/02/22 03:29:45, Link
Author: stevestory
To add to what tacitus said, it's natural to dislike the government. So the european system of making the clergy an official power is, the clergy recieves the same kind of love and goodwill the tax collector feels.

Also, Pangloss is right, Americans historically chose their flavor of christianity voluntarily, rather than having it imposed by King whoever.

Date: 2006/02/22 03:37:46, Link
Author: stevestory
In a sense, I don't think the former school board has anything to apologize for, if it was representing the will of the voters. If the majority of voters elect a group of retards, why should the retards have to apologize to said voters when they go on do something retarded?

Date: 2006/02/22 03:51:30, Link
Author: stevestory
PicoFarad, who might actually be DaveScot, might be JAD, but is at the very least an Uncommon Pissant devotee, claims my criticism of DaveScot's wildly inaccurate description of blood type proteins is unimportant because it was a decade ago, and DS presumably could have learned a great deal in the meantime.

But that of course misses the point, which is that DaveScot is willing to lecture about biology on topics he's completely ignorant about, in service to creationism.

And no, that isn't two errors I found, it was an error per sentence. His description of blood types would be obviously wrong to even a good high school biology student.

Date: 2006/02/22 04:02:58, Link
Author: stevestory
PF also makes a weird case of Argument from Authority above, suggesting that because DaveScot had some success as an engineer, his biological statements, already shown to be trivially wrong, should be given respect. The thing is,  we've seen DaveScot bungle biology, and we've never seen him demonstrate any expertise in the field, so he gets no love.

Date: 2006/02/22 04:12:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Speaking of DaveScot, Dembski's explanation that Intelligent Design and The Bible Codes were identical in methodology got a lot of airtime here and on PT. Did anyone else notice that DaveScot didn't touch that with a ten foot pole?

Date: 2006/02/22 05:33:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Of course when the officials are violating someone's rights with the approval of the public, that can't be tolerated. But  here the public is having to pay money as a consequence of their representatives having done what they elected them to do. The representatives didn't double-cross the people, they did what the people knew they'd do, so they don't owe those people any apology.

What they maybe should apologize for, though, is acting in a way that voided their insurance policy. I think even though the voters wanted creationists, and got creationists, they might have expected that even creationists would not have been so irresponsible and stupid as to do that.

Date: 2006/02/22 10:01:22, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. Some guy named PaV, who is apparently not the sharpest reptile tooth in the mutant chicken's beak, has posted at Uncommon Pissant about the mutant chicken alligator teeth story we're all talking about today. He says,

Quote
The difference between genome and phenome can be extravagant. “Front-loading” suggests that there’s a lot to the genome that is not seen in the phenome. This discovery should make for some interesting head-scratching.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — PaV @ 1:39 pm

Date: 2006/02/22 10:39:06, Link
Author: stevestory
I had to read through a bunch of powerpoint, but I think i finally found, last year, that the school district had a budget of about $15 million.

Date: 2006/02/23 02:45:48, Link
Author: stevestory
I never understood anything about that human sacrifice religion of theirs.

Date: 2006/02/23 07:34:02, Link
Author: stevestory
which comments were deleted?

Date: 2006/02/23 08:04:13, Link
Author: stevestory
is Uncommon Descent offline?

Or did they just go into a deletion frenzy and accidently delete everthing?

update: now it seems to be back up.

Date: 2006/02/23 11:54:57, Link
Author: stevestory
hehe I would have said
Quote

I'm torn here: who is the better advertisement for the Modern Synthesis: Sal "I"m a relegyous biggot" Cordova or Dave "I'm a religious bigot wait this isn't about religion I'm Banned!" Springer?

Date: 2006/02/23 15:18:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Don't demean tits by comparing them to DaveScot.

;-)

Date: 2006/02/24 04:36:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Some days ago I claimed that contributor PaV on Uncommon Pissant was not playing with a full deck. I present to you evidence of this:

Quote
Why don’t you ‘google’ “The Velikovsky Affair” to see what depths the scientific community will descend to protect its materialism. You’ll then see that it’s the “wedge strategy” versus the “sledgehammer strategy”.

Comment by PaV — February 23, 2006 @ 5:51 pm


Yes, you read that right, the scientific community is conspiring against ID like they conspired against Velikovsky.

Date: 2006/02/24 04:55:14, Link
Author: stevestory
I love that whole thread, it's hilarious. Here's a good part:

Quote
Scientists are a tiny part of the population. They have failed miserably to convince a significant number of people that the NeoDarwinian story is true. The only thing left propping it up is that it enjoys legally enforced exclusivity in public schools. Judicial fiat is the only thing maintaining its exclusivity. If you think it’s so robust why not let it be taught? Surely no one will believe anything else. What are you so afraid of? -ds
Dang ol judges, somehow stopping all those ID papers from being published. Somehow.

I also love this brilliant comment from DS:
Quote
If you don’t like federal laws it’s not so easy moving to another country. Just ask Alex Baldwin.
From blood types to movie stars, DaveScot is a master of the details.

Date: 2006/02/24 05:44:26, Link
Author: stevestory
you all have GOT to check out this post "Tolstoy’s Last Letter".

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/858

It's so sad, their feeble efforts.

Date: 2006/02/24 06:35:42, Link
Author: stevestory
According to Ed Brayton, Dembski is misrepresenting that excerpt.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....toy.php

I know you're all shocked that Dembksi would do something like that.

Date: 2006/02/24 09:05:10, Link
Author: stevestory
I would like to point out that DaveScot's post on abortion accords with the Wedge Document:

Quote
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES
...
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
...
   * Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God


from http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Date: 2006/02/25 05:58:48, Link
Author: stevestory
You should have just let him stew. But such batshit insanity is amusing to read. Not amusing enough to read the whole tedious thing, though.

Speaking of batshit insanity, did you see that On a Lighter Note post on Uncommon Descent? In it, David Berlinsky equates ID with Copernicus, evolution with Ptolemaic astronomy, and Dembski with Isaac Newton. It is actually a pretty boring read. The creationists may call Richard Dawkins snide, but he doesn't hold a candle to Berlinski.

Date: 2006/02/25 06:26:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Does Dembski still read his own blog? If he does, I bet he's pissed that DaveScot allows such an obvious crank like JAD to lower the property values.

Date: 2006/02/25 12:10:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Apesnake:

In my more cynical moments I sometimes wonder if the Discovery Institute and perhaps some or most of the fundamentalist movements are not just a big conspiracy to make religion look foolish. Why was I not let in on the scheme?
There's some evidence for this. Why else would Dembski turn his blog over to a 2nd-rate retired computer technician? Especially one who already has a track record of making painfully stupid commentaries on biology, such as the one discussed on the Uncommon Pissant thread?

Date: 2006/02/25 14:51:19, Link
Author: stevestory
According to this post, http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/861 , Holt has altered textbooks at the behest of the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2006/02/26 04:13:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Over on Uncommon Pissant, salvadum points us to an amusing quote from Bill Dembski:

Quote
The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth–that God acts in the world by dispersing information–also has scientific content.


No religion there.

Date: 2006/02/26 12:06:13, Link
Author: stevestory
He is right in an abstract sense, though. Typing wholly incorrect things and then hitting the Add Reply button is too easy.

Date: 2006/02/26 12:13:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Now let's look at Slaveador Cordova's behavior at Uncommon Descent. He quotes a story about a rise in creationism in the UK. Here's Salvador's quote of the story:

Quote
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. …. Many …were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.


Now here's the article as it appeared in the UK Guardian:

Quote
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.


Some choice edits Salvador made, eh?

Date: 2006/02/27 03:15:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Like the rest of you, I'd heard Henry Morris's name for years. Didn't bother to find out who he was. Then yesterday, Savior Cordova posted here http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/863#comments
that Morris was a professor of Engineering.

(smacks forehead)

Of course. What did I think he would have been? A biologist?

Date: 2006/02/28 02:58:36, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL I just came over here to mention DaveScot's reference to his alter-ego PicoFarad.Ditto on what Russel said--I'm not even taking my new Ironometer out of the box when DaveScot's around. Notice him also, on Uncommon Pissant, correcting Craig Venter about DNA.

I think he calls himself PicoFarad because when he unleashes all his power, the result is hard to notice.

Date: 2006/02/28 05:25:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
If the Supreme Court gets an ID case, it's going to be a unanimous decision...a decision DaveScot isn't going to like very much.
No, I don't think so. Thomas and Scalia will vote for creationism. Roberts and Alito might, I haven't seen enough of them.

Date: 2006/02/28 07:48:30, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Shirley, haven't you heard: "the Scientific theory of Intelligent Design is that some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by  an unknown entity [which may or may not have been the God of the Bible] having done an unknown thing by unknown means at an unknown time".

Do try to keep up, won't you?
The argument doesn't change if you replace 'designed' with 'flinkywisty'. It remains as scientific.

Q: What is the theory of Flinkywisty?
A: The theory of Flinkywisty says that living things exhibit Flinkywisty.
Q: What is Flinkywisty?
A: It's kind of like human Flinkywisty. It alters probabilities, perhaps. Or something.
Q: How did the living things wind up with the Flinkywisty?
A: That question is entirely off limits to science. Ask a philosopher.
Q: How do you know a living thing has Flinkywisty?
A: Living things are like paintings, right? Paintings have flinkywisty. I mean, it's obvious.
Q: So life didn't evolve?
A: Of course not! Where would the Flinkywisty have come from?
Q: um...just from natural selection?
A: NO NO NO NO NO. That's just Apparent Flinkywisty.
Q: So nature can put in Flinkywisty?
A: If it does, that was Front-loaded Flinkywisty.
Q: And what does Flinkywisty Theory tell us about the world?
A: It's not my job to deal with pathetic details.
Q: Anything else?
A: Would you like to buy my book?

Date: 2006/02/28 08:06:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Flinkywisty takes NO POSITION on the age of the Earth.

Date: 2006/02/28 08:11:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Great! Simply mail $30 by check or money order to

Flinkywisty Jesus Newsletter
777 E Christ is Lord Street,
Jesusville, Md 90210

There are only two rules to being in the Flinkywisty club:

1 You can subscribe as long as you're christian.
2 Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this. I'm amazed you could even thing such a thing. Are you a bigot?

Date: 2006/02/28 08:53:35, Link
Author: stevestory
I agree! You're an anti-religious jesus hating bigot for disagreeing with our completely secular idea. And you're an atheist.

Date: 2006/02/28 11:56:57, Link
Author: stevestory
ID appears, using classical logic, to be inconsistent in the words of its adherents. George Gilder can say there is no content, while others say it's a positive argument. Some can say the definition of science must be expanded to include ID, others say it's already science. Some say ID does not have to predict the little details, others can say Hoyle used it to do just that. Some say it requires math and engineering know-how, while some say it's obvious.

I agree, these are contradictory states, but you see, that's not a problem--ID is simply a new type of Quantum Science. Just as a particle can be in two mutually exclusive states so long as it's not observed, so can ID. All these contradictions are fine, since as we all know, the theory of ID has never been observed.

Date: 2006/02/28 12:03:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
What does the theory of Natural Selection (the most well tested theory in science) predict about Avian Flu?

Anything at all practical that isn't obvious from simple observations of past flu behavior?
Dayum that's stupid. 'past flu behavior' includes of course evolution, so he's saying, "What does evolution say, which isn't obvious from evolution?"

Date: 2006/02/28 16:02:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Never mind the little details, what about any details at all... ;)


Flinkywisty Theory does not have to explain those either. All it proves is that living things are Flinkywisty.

I notice you 'scientists' have utterly failed to explain how RM+NS could explain Flinkywisty.

Date: 2006/03/01 03:16:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Ever get the feeling that the entire ID movement can be summarized as a few religious zealots looking over at scientists and yelling "You SUCK!"

Date: 2006/03/01 06:04:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Is Intelligent Design atheistic? Evolution's been accused of being atheistic. Why isn't intelligent design atheistic?

Date: 2006/03/01 06:20:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Remember last week, when the morons at Uncommon Descent were misinterpreting Tolstoy to be an evolution denier? As if that would matter even if it were true?

behold today!



Quote

George Bernard Shaw to Henry James about Darwinism
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/877

Date: 2006/03/01 08:36:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Irony, thy name is Uncommon Pissant. Said today about Ken Miller's remarks that ID was bad for the future of science in America:

Quote
#

I find it disturbing that science questions are being waged through PR campaigns. I don’t understand why he needs to be so vehement in his public opposition to ID. ID is a new science and as such, it will gain its credibility with published scientific work. Why is that scary? Isn’t that how all the rest of science works?

Comment by Doug — March 1, 2006 @ 11:51 am

Date: 2006/03/01 10:40:23, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't want the IDiots coming over here, Puck. Not on this particular thread. On this thread I just like to repeat, with laughter, things they say over there. I do not want this thread to turn into an Andy H / Carol Clouser style trainwreck. You'll notice my initials are not PvM.

The purpose I had in mind when i started this thread 1000 comments ago, was a place where people who enjoyed laughing at the mind-boggling craziness of the creationists at Uncommon Pissant could tip each other off to zany UP comments, and riff on them. I like having a thread specifically for that. It would be better to argue with creationists on other threads.

Russell, Through The Looking Glass really sums it up. When I read that UP commenter say that the PR campaign that was evolution would not be able to stop the stream of scientific data and papers that was ID, my brain was thrown offline. My mind just went blank, so hard was it sprained.


"Uhh...uhhh......What?"

Date: 2006/03/01 11:04:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Of course, if you are going to enable JAD to post here by proxy, this is the way to do it, on a dedicated thread, where people can easily avoid it if they want.

Date: 2006/03/01 12:35:10, Link
Author: stevestory
It's really a banner day over at Uncommon Pissant. Here we go:

Quote

Anti-ID folks like Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest can make transparently outrageous claims about impending doom, the collapse of science, and conspiracies to establish a theocracy, and make these claims with complete impunity. Why is this?

If those on the other side made analogous claims they would rightly be labeled nutcases.

Comment by GilDodgen — March 1, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Okay, Gil, I agree. When ID people accuse scientists of an atheistic conspiracy/cabal, it is right to label them nutcases.  So, how's it feel to have nutcases for co-contributors?

Quote

Hey Ken- you and your ilk are the problem.

Ken do you realize there isn’t any difference between your “God” and no “God” at all?

And finally Ken, thanks for the closing quote by Darwin exposing the theory of evolution as just another Creationist theory. After all if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there would be no need to posit its subsequent diversity arose via those type of processes.

Or are you just too stupid to realize what you just admitted to?

Comment by Joseph — March 1, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Yes, exactly, Ken Miller is just so stupid. Everybody who meets him says that. And now we know he's an atheist, according to Joseph.

Quote


Did anyone click on the picture of Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller? Very interesting - look closely at the slide in the background. It is an AiG book cover by Ken Hamm. Now, not to offend any YEC, but look at what Miller is doing - using an argument against YEC - his typical approach (caught red handed in this picture). ID is not YEC in a cheap tuxedo - but rather Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller is trying to fit a cheap tuxedo onto ID.

Ken “I’m-a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution” Miller knows better than this, but he keeps running the same tired arguments up the flagpole.

But, I can’t really argue with him, considering he is “a-commmited-Catholic-who-believes-in-evolution”, I guess I should believe it too.

Comment by ajl — March 1, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Okay. So when Dembski said, on Uncommon Pissant (post 863)
Quote
May the work of dismantling Darwinian materialism that [Young Earth Creationist Henry] Morris began come to completion soon.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 11:43 pm
He was also 'caught red-handed' conflating the two? I agree.

Quote
Since when can evolution define a relationship with a creator it (Darwinism) specifically denies the existence of? Remember, evolution is supposedly an “unplanned, purposeless process” and was invented in the first place to eliminate the need for a creator (and subsequently make atheists feel intellectually satisfied).

Comment by dougmoron — March 1, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

Leaving aside the poor writing here, evolution was invented as a psychological balm? Huh. the 150 years of agreement with data is one he11 of a coincidence then.

Date: 2006/03/01 13:56:47, Link
Author: stevestory
I meant to include that one, it's almost the first thing I saw. "The ID scienceS"? WTF. Those guys are delusional.

Date: 2006/03/01 16:26:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Maybe he's trying to make himself look more worldly. In fact, we just imagine a dorkier young Dembski in prep school, imagining himself exposed to the underworld.

Yeah, money and family circumstances might have gotten him into prep school and U Chicago, but it was his talent which got him to Kentucky Bible College.

Date: 2006/03/02 08:19:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Embarrass any creationist who accuses PT of censorship by telling them that on 1/20/2006, DaveScot banned, from Bill Dembski's weblog, more people than PT (and AtBC combined) has banned in its 2-year history.

Date: 2006/03/02 11:07:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Chris Hyland

It is the agnostic engineer types that confuse me the most, I imagine they're just more comfortable with the idea of approaching complex systems as designed entities.
Extremely few ID people are agnostic. I suspect the one you have in mind, let's call him DanScot, is just lying. Jesus is the fuel of the ID movement.

But it's perfectly easy to understand why engineers comprise such a large subset of educated creationist.

1 They spend years working around complex systems which were all designed. 2 They don't have any biology training to know how successful evolution is, or how large the mountain of evidence is 3 They have enough technical skill to feel confident in the face of opposition.

Add religion, and you have excellent targets for the ID meme.

Date: 2006/03/02 11:54:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Conservatives want pay-by-channel cable — except the TV preachers
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6751.html
by way of Kevin Drum

Date: 2006/03/02 12:48:45, Link
Author: stevestory
In certain situations involving large infrastructure investments, it's believed that a regulated monopoly can provide the best benefit. Cable is one such market, so pricing is regulated by the FCC or FTC or someone. The a la carte pricing change would require a change of regulation, is why it's a legal issue.

Date: 2006/03/02 15:41:56, Link
Author: stevestory
"This is his body, this is his blood...uh...this is his complementary garlic bread..."

Date: 2006/03/03 02:54:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

John Davison, who isn't as adept at sidestepping these obstacles, can't post here at all.   The pathetic reflection on this forum is that Davison is actually a biology professor with 50 years experience in teaching and doing research in comparative physiology.  No one is more qualified to smack you people down and he isn't allowed to do it.  That's so illustrative of the actual practices here.
Last I heard, Davison was once again banned from Dembski's weblog. So you're calling Uncommon Pissant pathetic.

No argument here.

Date: 2006/03/03 04:42:36, Link
Author: stevestory
The dum-dums are at it again. Sewell and Cordova are back, to once again abuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments

Date: 2006/03/03 07:59:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Actually, admitting he was wrong, and taken in by frauds, is the one thing that would make us respect him. The embarrassing thing is insisting otherwise.

Date: 2006/03/03 10:27:40, Link
Author: stevestory
OMFG. I think I have just seen the dumbest misunderstanding which has taken place on Uncommon Pissant to date. I can hardly believe what I'm reading.

Okay, so Granville Sewell is back with a dumb idea about thermodynamics which is supposed to prove ID. You might remember Mark Perakh on PT a month ago destroying his last great thermo proof of ID. Well, he's got a new one.

Quote
March 3, 2006
Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design

Check out the following online lecture/tutorial by Granville Sewell (Texas A&M) on the connection between thermodynamics and ID: www.math.tamu.edu/~sewell/odes_pdes/thermo.html
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 8:06 am
It seems to be some kind of confusion of physical entropy and Information Theory entropy or something. The usual suspects are raving about it:

Quote
#

The article is extremely informative. Sewell points out IDists are on the whole uncomforatable with the old creationist arguments from the 2nd law. I certainly am. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen used an innovative approach by combining thermal entropy with configurational entropy to make a 2nd law-like argument, but I found it rather inelegant. I think the idea of a 4th law clarifies the issue better….

Sewell makes the point there is an underlying principle to the 2nd law (probability). I do feel comfortable with that. I think (and I could be wrong), that the laws of probability underlie both the 2nd and 4th law. Thus his point (as I see it) is evolution is in violation of principles even more fundamental than the second law.

All in all, a wonderful link!

Salvador

Comment by scordova — March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 am
(somebody tell Cordova there already is a 4th law, which basically anyone who knows thermo is aware of)

Well anyway, we all know about this guy over there, ftrp11, because although he's a creationist, he's shown some resistance to the dumber arguments they've made. He shows up and objects to Sewell's dumb idea:

Quote
#

According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law. Granted that the information in life is more complex and potentially less probable, but the principle is the same. Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the arguments reasoning, should not be there.

I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.

Comment by ftrp11 — March 3, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Good point. If the hypothesis makes everything in the universe impossible, maybe it's a bad hypothesis, guys. Now, sit down, swallow any liquids you are drinking, lean back, and take in the response someone made to that:

Quote
#

ftrp11 wrote:
“According to his line of reasoning I would have to conclude that the formation of everything from the initial atoms to galaxies, stars, and planetary systems is equally a concievable violation of the 2nd Law.”
–This is an EXCELLENT OBSERVATION and exactly correct.
–That the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the logical inference we make from what we have learned from the development of the Big Bang theory–the origens of the material universe cannot have had a material origin.

Bingo, ftrp11!
“Everywhere we look in the universe we see thermal order that, by the argument’s reasoning, should not be there.”

Comment by Red Reader — March 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm


Since according to the hypothesis everything is totally impossible, that makes Intelligent Designer more necessary than ever.  

wow. just wow.

Date: 2006/03/03 10:35:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
...the existence of the material universe is a violation of the 2nd Law...


There has never been a source of humor so deep and inexhaustible as the Intelligent Design / Creationist movement.

Date: 2006/03/03 11:27:55, Link
Author: stevestory
The Uncommon Descent Comedy Train rolls on inexorably:
Quote

ftrp11 wrote:

“I think the probability angle makes for the best 2nd Law argument that I have heard, but it really does not address the classic failings of such arguments.”

What are those classic failings? The principal and oft-repeated assertion I have seen is the assertion that the second law does not apply to open systems, which is nonsense. I would be interested to hear about specific failings of 2nd law arguments.

Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

Date: 2006/03/04 04:12:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Man. Now other people have shown up and are trying to correct this guy, and it's not working. He's maintaining that the SLoT prevents the amount of 'complex specified information' we see on Earth. This is so great. Read the whole thing.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884#comments

But if you won't, here's the bestest post:

Quote
Here is the crux of the matter: The second law doesn’t say that entropy cannot decrease in particular system, open or closed. Rather the second law indicates that entropy will *tend* toward a maximum, all things being equal, or put another way, unless there is a countervailing influence that checks or reduces the entropy. What we see in life around us is a countervailing influence.

In terms of simple heat, averaged out across the entire space of our supposedly open system, it may be simple enough to inject more heat so that the average goes up in the so-called open system. In terms of order, and what we are really interested in here — complex specified order, however, it makes no difference whether we talk about the Earth being open or closed. You can define the Earth as an open system receiving energy from the Sun, or you can define the Earth-Sun system as closed. You get exactly the same result. The Sun’s energy (or cosmic rays or whatever else one wishes to invoke) hasn’t the slightest capability of producing the kind of results that are of interest here.

The whole “Earth is an open system” is a weak (and rather unsophisticated) attempt to sidestep what is in fact a very interesting question: Why is it that life offers a temporary rebuke to the second law, and whence that capability?

Comment by Eric Anderson — March 3, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
LOL. I wonder what my thermo prof would have thought if I'd written

S=k*ln(omega) + CountervailingInfluence

Date: 2006/03/04 05:08:39, Link
Author: stevestory
I just watched Sewell's idiotic presentation from the link on Dembski's site. It's 14 minutes of dumbass. Probably not worth your time, though around the 12 minute mark he says some unintentionally funny things about how you don't even have to know any biology to see that evolution is impossible, and in fact he hasn't found any biologists impressed by his argument, though he has found others, like engineers and mathematicians. It's a little painful to listen to, because Sewell's voice is as pretty as Dembski's face.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:12:15, Link
Author: stevestory
He also complains that he doesn't get any respect.

Boo hoo hoo, nancyboy.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:38:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah. Davison's fueled by 100-octane crazy.

Date: 2006/03/04 05:48:52, Link
Author: stevestory
FYI, here's Mark Perakh giving Sewell a bitch slap

Date: 2006/03/04 06:26:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Didn't you know all caps is a sign of brilliant communication? Consider this passage from Hamlet:

Quote
   O, I die, Horatio;
   The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
   I CANNOT live to hear the news from England;
   But I do prophesy the election lights
   On Fortinbras: HE HAS MY DYING VOICE;
   So tell him, WITH THE OCCURRENTS, more and less,
   Which have solicited. THE REST IS SILENCE.

   Dies

HORATIO

   Now cracks a noble heart. GOOD NIGHT SWEET PRINCE

Date: 2006/03/04 06:31:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


I really do utterly regret visiting UD sometimes.
Oh I think it's the cat's pajamas. I have a button to it up on the Firefox toolbar.

Date: 2006/03/04 06:57:48, Link
Author: stevestory
He might have been. I had to look a while to find where he injected his comments into a comment, something he used to do every second or third comment, but he did so on the Ken Miller post two days ago. He's still in power, but perhaps he's been weakened.

Date: 2006/03/04 07:27:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, he made some interesting comments in that fiasco, where he said, intelligently, 'look, arguing against common descent is complete idiocy, we can't justify it as science, and we'll lose lose lose if we don't jettison it' and shortly after that he got shouted down by Discovery Instituters like Paul Nelson who argue against common descent. So there's a good chance he's pissed off and depressed about the movement. Anybody who's not totally deluded can see what's happening to the ID Titanic.

Date: 2006/03/04 07:49:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Does Dave know that some of the people on that site, like one of the people who shouted him down, Paul Nelson, and Dave's coadministrator Slaveador Cordova, are Young Earth Creationists?

Date: 2006/03/04 08:08:14, Link
Author: stevestory
I think Alan noticed something real. DaveScot is just not the hyperactive baninator he used to be, baninating the countryside, baninating the peasants, baninating all the people and the thatched-roof cottages...

Date: 2006/03/04 09:06:49, Link
Author: stevestory
ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated. Soon creationists are going to turn to a new strategy. What will the strategy be? I have no idea. But I can tell you what I'd do, if I were them. I would create a system of creationist science classes, and tell parents it's an innoculation against the evils of Darwinism. I'd assemble a network of instructors, which would be creationists with any kind of undergrad science degree. And I'd try to get churches and rich christians to sponsor the meetings. Meetings would be once a week, an hour each time, for perhaps two months. All the creationist 'science' would be taught in those eight lessons. Privileged Planet would be shown, and maybe a tour to a Natural Sciences museum with a creationist tourguide. Since it's not official, no judge could stop me, and I would be able to give the kids creationism with both barrels, not the pussyfooting Intelligent Design business. And a lot of the program would be devoted to things like Icons of Evolution, where scientists are portayed as scheming liars. That way, when the kids do get to high school science classes, they are already suspicious of the whole thing, and find it easier to reject.

That would be my plan. what about the rest of you? What would you do?

Date: 2006/03/04 10:09:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Tuxedo shirt, really.



No, not for any reason.

Just because.

Date: 2006/03/04 10:20:19, Link
Author: stevestory
This happened a few miles from my apartment:

Quote
(03/04/06 -- CHAPEL HILL) - The driver of an SUV that plowed into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill on Friday told police it was retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world, sources tell Eyewitness News and ABC News.
It happened around noon Friday in front of Lenoir Hall on the campus, in a common area known as the Pit. Paramedics took six people - - five students and a visiting scholar - - were treated for minor injuries and released from UNC Hospitals. Three refused treatment at the scene.

Chopper 11 shows the accident scene near The Pit at UNC-CH.
Police say they arrested the suspect, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, of Chapel Hill, shortly after the incident. He reportedly called police shortly after the incident and surrendered a few miles from campus.

[URL=http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3958312

Date: 2006/03/04 11:13:10, Link
Author: stevestory
a disaster? Why, because it would make Americans into religious nuts who don't know science?

too late.

I'm an atheist who lives in the South. To me, it wouldn't make much difference if every politician in every position in the country, as well as every primary and secondary school teacher, were replaced by Pat Robertson.

What would it change? Would the word god be changed to jesus on the coins in my pocket? would I be asked to put both hands on the bible in court? would the budget of the faith-based initiatives program be doubled? Would Bush stop caring so much about the environment?

I'd hardly notice.

Date: 2006/03/04 11:25:46, Link
Author: stevestory
I love the christian exodus movement. that's the first time i've seen 'Phaoro....Pharoa...dammit, how do you spell that...Pharoah. that's the first time I've seen 'Pharoah' used in place of 'government'. That's awesome.

Quote
At the heels of the recent 11-4 decision by the State Board of Education to censor any criticism of Darwinian evolution, it has become clear that our young people are being indoctrinated into not only a pro-homosexual, but a humanistic religion, as well.
Oh no, humanistic religion! That's the kind of vile filth that spawned the constitution and individual rights. Damned Erasmus.

Date: 2006/03/04 14:04:59, Link
Author: stevestory
This is a lounge. I'm drinking some guinness and talking about interesting stuff.
Quote
At least he didn't kill anybody
If you've seen The Pit, you know it took a bit of work to get a car in there. To put effort into this, driving around hitting people with a friggin SUV, and not manage to kill anybody? That's truly bizarre.

Date: 2006/03/04 14:43:14, Link
Author: stevestory
When at the second-worst Barnes and Noble in the world this afternoon, at the Southpoint Mall in Durham, I picked up Jeeves in the Morning, having heard great things about Wodehouse by people such as Hitchens. I wasn't sure which one to start with, but they all looked somewhat self-contained, so I picked the cheapest one.

Anybody here a Wodehouse fan? Any recommendations?

Date: 2006/03/04 15:40:52, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm watching that right now on the tivo. This Ori thing is kind of interesting. they're a better enemy than the Gou'auou'uould

Date: 2006/03/04 16:34:38, Link
Author: stevestory
There's a creationist over at Uncommon Pissant who's not getting why Sewell's SLoT arguments are nonsense. Several actually. Dembski, Cordova, a few others. Apparently something's going on with DaveScot because people are making anti-Sewell comments on the blog. This never would have been permitted under DaveScot's ordinary regime. Anyway, I still won't bother to try to comment there, so I'm putting my comment here, since we know they read us. RedReader, if you don't get why Sewell's thermodynamics argument belongs in a litterbox, here are two explanations--

jason rosenhouse
mark perakh

Date: 2006/03/04 17:18:37, Link
Author: stevestory
hey Shi, check out www.fixedearth.com . That guy falsifies heliocentrism with the same brilliant level of logic with which you falsified uh ‘Darwinism’.

Date: 2006/03/04 18:19:19, Link
Author: stevestory
google video player is the crappiest piece of software ever written by anyone anywhere, from the moment Ada lovelace picked up a pencil in 1842, to the moment I typed the period at the end of this sentence.

Date: 2006/03/05 14:46:18, Link
Author: stevestory
the worst one i've ever been to, is that one at Southpoint. The employees never pick up the phone, their science section is smaller than the one in my apartment, and there are never fewer than 20 people in line at the cafe.

When I called it second worst, I was merely leaving room for the possible existence of a Barnes and Noble in the Sudan, or maybe downtown Baghdad. ;-)

Date: 2006/03/05 15:30:21, Link
Author: stevestory
if i were him, i'd take extra glee in how his Uncommon Pissant devotees fall in line. Over there right now, they're defending Sewell, because their Master and Commander approved of him.

Date: 2006/03/06 04:03:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Hmm. apparently 'joy in the morning' and 'jeeves in the morning' are two titles for the same book.

I have to say, as I sat down to read it this weekend I was enchanted from the first sentence:

"After the thing was all over, when peril had ceased to loom, and happy endings had been distributed in heaping handfuls..."

Date: 2006/03/06 04:06:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

R P Feynman
It's a little known fact that Feynman was looking at Dave Springer when he said this.

Date: 2006/03/06 08:25:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Heat diffuses in a closed system until maximum entropy is reached where the heat is uniform (everything is the same temperature).

Thermal equilibrium is not where the 'heat is uniform'. Heat is not a state variable.
Quote
Likewise a dye will diffuse through a glass of water until its distribution is uniform (everything is the same color). Dye and heat are not the same thing and you can heat or chill that glass of water all you want and it won’t undistribute the dye.
Dave has apparently never heard of the esoteric technology referred to as a Still.
Quote

The layman’s expression relating to this is “you can’t unbake a cake”. The reason why you can’t unbake it is it would violate 2LoT. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy.
No no no no GOD YOU'RE RETARDED.

Date: 2006/03/06 10:39:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Henry J



Posts: 172
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Mar. 06 2006,15:33  
Just wondering, but does a cake necessarily have less entropy than the raw ingredients did before the baking?

Henry
Hmmm. We know that the cake reactions are endothermic, but that doesn't tell us whether the batter or the cake has higher entropy. So I'd say it's not necessarily lower entropy, the cake. Can't think of an easy way to figure it out.

Date: 2006/03/06 10:42:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I also didn't see a tally, so last year I emailed them. I was disappointed when they said they had around 700 people so far. I was hoping it was more like 7 million.

Date: 2006/03/06 13:24:01, Link
Author: stevestory
this is great. Salvador starts talking about getting ID into university philosophy classes, http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/889#comments
and someone shows up and asks:
Quote

5 Comments »

  1.

     Well, Salvador, as an infrequent blogger on this site, I must say, I’m pretty impressed with your assessment of ID. However, why do you feel we have to wait another 10 to 15 years before ID is actually taught in the university level?

     Comment by Benjii — March 6, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
and salvador says
Quote
#

It can be taught at the university level today, but just not in the science classes. One serious consideration is that we (I and some people brainstorming the idea) don’t necessarily want biology students having a blackmark on their transcripts for having taken an ID biology course. We’d rather they receive on their transcripts credit for a humanities course such as “special topics in philosophy”. They get college credit for taking the time to learn, but are not singled out as ID sympathizers.
yeah right.

You can't teach ID in college because there's nothing there. No theory, no experiments, no results.

Date: 2006/03/06 14:19:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Sal needs to cash in on this and write an Intelligent Design book while there's still money to be made.

Date: 2006/03/07 02:38:15, Link
Author: stevestory
I call DaveScot a retard, but that's really not fair to actual retards, who as far as I know are perfectly nice people. I need a new word. How about DaveTard? I think that describes the following:

Quote
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
That's davetarded. Next time you decide to be argumentative, Dave, I hope you know more about the subject than your pet rock.

Quote
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.
You're guilty of being wrong, energy is not measured in degrees.

Quote
And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat.
Maybe on Sesame Street dave, but not in thermodynamics.

Date: 2006/03/07 02:50:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

This is an excellent point - why on earth does Dembski allow the lunacy that is UD to continue?
I talked with someone who is behind the scenes at Uncommon Pissant, but who didn't give me permission to repeat their remarks. What I can tell you is that Dembski doesn't really care what happens on the site. He's busy doing other things.

Rilke:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886#comments

Why post in ignorance? that's the amazing part. the words 'energy in photons' in davetard's post is a link to a wikipedia page which contradicts davetard. see for yourself, it's just fantastic.

Date: 2006/03/07 02:57:52, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't know, and the person didn't specify, what other things Dembski is up to. I checked ID The Future, but there's nothing new there. Maybe he's busy at that bible college he works for.

Date: 2006/03/07 05:46:27, Link
Author: stevestory
It is a rule--you're not allowed to be an ID supporter unless you regularly embarras yourself. Here's a new post from Dembski:

Quote
March 7, 2006
Chicken? Egg? None of the above?

Beyond the standard chicken-and-egg positions on the origin of life (i.e., ploynucleotides-first vs. proteins-first), there is now fast emerging a lipids-first position (cf. the work of Pier Luigi Luisi and coworkers). For more on the fat-first position and its potential to revolutionize origin-of-life studies, see O. Mouritsen, Life — As a Matter of Fat: The Emerging Science of Lipidomics (Springer: 2005). Question: What is the natural route to lipid membranes in the absence of other cellular machinery?
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 10:26 am


Having actually done research in biophysics (unpublished, sadly), I commented:
Quote

Phospholipid bilayers will spontaneously form when phospholipids are squeezed through small holes, under certain conditions.

Don't expect to see my reply on the site any time soon.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/892

Date: 2006/03/07 06:32:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Davescot is not correct. Energy is not measured in units of temperature. A relationship exists between the two, but it's not the same. It's like saying that for photons, energy is measured in units of meters. No. Wavelength can also tell you the energy, but it's not the same thing.

Just to be a tedious pain in the a55 about it.

Date: 2006/03/07 07:34:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I've gotten a couple emails about this, so I'll elaborate a bit:


Temperature and energy are usually related. You can usually find out one from the other. But that doesn't mean they're the same thing, just that there's a relationship. Davescot thinks that temperature == amount of heat == energy, but all these things are very different if you look at them closely in for instance a thermodynamics class, which Dave has apparently never had.

Here are three really good pages to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae210.cfm

especially the last one is relevant to the question at hand. A single photon does not really have a temperature. When someone talks about the temperature of some photons, they mean what temperature blackbody would give such a radiation spectrum.

It's complicated stuff, but really interesting.

Date: 2006/03/07 08:23:58, Link
Author: stevestory
exactly Arden.

Davescot, you make me do this to you...

Date: 2006/03/07 08:38:23, Link
Author: stevestory
'Davetard' has such a great sound.

Date: 2006/03/07 09:54:53, Link
Author: stevestory
it's gut science because it produces crap.

edit: dangit. beaten by Sir TJ

Date: 2006/03/07 09:59:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

The individual plant does not violate the law of information entropy (if we can call it that) because the information to generate the plant in its entirety is already in place when the seed comes into existence.

The question is whether any information can come into existence — or increase in meaningful complexity — without a greater **information** input.

A key concept here is that duplicating information is not the same as creating it. I think that understanding would be central to evaluating information entropy compared to heat entropy.

Comment by Gandalf — March 7, 2006 @ 11:15 am


Where are they getting these sentences from?



In many cases, entropy is extensive, so if you're calling information entropy, yes, you can get more by duplicating it.

Date: 2006/03/07 10:05:29, Link
Author: stevestory
I think just from the 39 pages of this thread, you could get enough info to justify ignoring ID forever.

Date: 2006/03/07 10:24:01, Link
Author: stevestory
hehe, that's so awesome. everybody else, you have to check that out:

http://www.repentamerica.com/

love that title page.

Date: 2006/03/07 11:12:06, Link
Author: stevestory
WOW! Davetard is back with a vengeance:

Quote
#

Davescot

If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.

Me writing this sentence. -ds

Comment by physicist — March 7, 2006 @ 11:30 am
I can't even think of anything to say about that. It just boggles the mind.

Date: 2006/03/07 11:24:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Isn't that amazing? Dembski links to work that has nothing to do with ID, just because the words intelligent design are in the title.

And his followers will dutifully support him. And we will laugh.

Date: 2006/03/07 12:41:17, Link
Author: stevestory
We're nearing 1200 replies and 30,000 views on this, the greatest thread of all time. And I'd like to thank the person who make it all possible:

Davetard.

Davetard, without you, we could never have had enough material. You didn't just suck; you sucked above and beyond the call of duty. You've taken sucking to whole new level--you make it look easy.

May you give us another 1200 comments' worth of material.

Date: 2006/03/08 02:05:18, Link
Author: stevestory
UncommonlyDense...that's great.

Quote
No boring comments. I'm bored by challenging statements, and science in general.

LOL

Date: 2006/03/08 02:43:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Doug Moron, jealous at all the attention Davetard is getting, has decided to rectify the situation with a post in which he compares evolutionists to the black knight.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/896

Date: 2006/03/08 02:49:45, Link
Author: stevestory
my favorite part is where he explains that atheists are necessarily intellectually dishonest.

Date: 2006/03/08 02:52:56, Link
Author: stevestory
new favorite part:
Quote
And I would call our current state of affairs Darwinian Fascism - as part of our scientific community’s attempts to render even the slightest criticism of Darwinism illegal by judicial decree.
Oh, i just can't choose, it's all so great.

Date: 2006/03/08 03:30:09, Link
Author: stevestory
I'll never understand how an adult human being can write the part about how christians such as himself are intellectually honest, because they can without worry follow where any scientific theory goes, since science can never disprove or prove god; and atheists are dishonest, since they a priori must reject any science which implies the existence of god. (if you're confused by my paraphrasing, go read the original)

It's just amazingly dumb. I saved a copy in case he understands what he wrote and deletes it.

Date: 2006/03/08 03:35:58, Link
Author: stevestory
here's the part i was talking about:
Quote
My faith does not depend on the final scientific answer to any question. Indeed, my philosophy literally broadens the scope of possible naturalistic explanations. I don’t need to a priori reject any potential explanation because my personal philosophy allows any to be true. [1] Said another way, science can neither prove nor disprove whether or not there is divine purpose behind natural processes, so I am able to accept as fact any scientific conclusion that the evidence leads to.

But there is a dilemma here: if it is my theism that allows me to be open to following the evidence wherever it leads and to be completely objective, then what of the pure materialist whose atheism does not permit him the same objectivity, especially if it were to lead to an answer his philosophy does not allow? To be honest to his chosen philosophy, he must be intellectually dishonest at least to the extent of a priori rejection of an infinite number of potential truths. [2]He must put his philosophy ahead of science, and wear blinders that remove from sight any evidence that *might* point to it (his philosophy) being wrong.

1-science can't provide evidence for god
2-yes it can

Date: 2006/03/08 03:40:22, Link
Author: stevestory
I agree Russell. If someday the mask comes off and Davetard, DougMoron, etc all announce that this has been an elaborate performance piece, I will lead a standing ovation.

Date: 2006/03/08 04:14:58, Link
Author: stevestory
never put jam on a magnet.

--Paul's Letters to the Corinthians

Date: 2006/03/08 06:05:51, Link
Author: stevestory
no you can't, or else I'd have the whole set on DVD. You just have to sit back and let it bubble up naturally from Tard Springs.

Date: 2006/03/08 09:58:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Such a total reversal of terms would be religious zealots attacking scientists for being dogmatists.

Date: 2006/03/08 13:12:56, Link
Author: stevestory
PuckSR, I will bet you that DougMoron is For Reals. Think of a bet item. what kind of beer/liquor do you like? I like coconut rum, myself. I'll bet you a bottle of coconut rum / whatever you like, that Doug Moron is not kidding. think of a way to verify, and we're on.

There is nothing so stupid, that religion cannot make people believe it.

Date: 2006/03/08 15:34:08, Link
Author: stevestory
I've been toying with the idea of switching for a year now.

Pros:
elegant OSX
Ease of setup/reinstalls
pretty hardware

cons:
less software
much more expensive
steve jobs's occasional insanity
dependant on one company

The machine i'm using at home is a Dell from 1999. At work I run lots of MatLab etc, but at home I just chat and read webpages. So I haven't been forced to upgrade. But I will need to decide, sooner or later, whether to switch.

anybody got any helpful advice?

Date: 2006/03/08 15:57:49, Link
Author: stevestory
but the apple's so pretty....

Date: 2006/03/08 16:27:49, Link
Author: stevestory
`Have some Intelligent Design Theory,' the Doug Moron said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any ID Theory,' she remarked.

`There isn't any,' said the Paul Nelson.

`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.

Alice I've had enough of your crap. You're outta here. -ds

Date: 2006/03/09 02:10:24, Link
Author: stevestory
credit has to go to Fross for suggesting the tea party thing.

Date: 2006/03/09 03:26:53, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, in terms of easy use/maintenence the mac seems to be the winner. now that they've moved to intel hardware it'll be better. my 1999 500 mhz dell running XP is faster than the eMacs I used at NCSU running OSX. I think I'll wait for them to iron out any bugs from the hardware change, and then get a Mac mini or something.

Date: 2006/03/09 04:03:58, Link
Author: stevestory
for some reason, Jack Krebs imagines Uncommon Pissant might be a good place to have a discussion.

Quote

This seems like a gratuitous and unwarranted accusation - what in the world do these church burnings have to do with anything that is discussed at the Panda’s Thumb?

College students and hate speech directed at religion abounds on Panda’s Thumb and you know it. All the dopey Dawkins “religion is the root of all evil” fans are drawn to it like flies to shi bees to flowers. I suggested the perps were probably exactly the kind of anti-religion zealots that Panda’s Thumb attracts. That’s neither gratuitous or unwarranted. -ds

Comment by Jack Krebs — March 9, 2006 @ 4:57 am

Date: 2006/03/09 07:55:09, Link
Author: stevestory
even the Uncommon Pissanters are offended by Davetard:

Quote
  1.

     Or they have watched Dawkins athiest palaver on “Root of all evil?” one to many times and thought to prove him wrong :) !

     Comment by tb — March 9, 2006 @ 3:10 am
  2.

     This seems like a gratuitous and unwarranted accusation - what in the world do these church burnings have to do with anything that is discussed at the Panda’s Thumb?

     College students and hate speech directed at religion abounds on Panda’s Thumb and you know it. All the dopey Dawkins “religion is the root of all evil” fans are drawn to it like flies to shi bees to flowers. I suggested the perps were probably exactly the kind of anti-religion zealots that Panda’s Thumb attracts. That’s neither gratuitous or unwarranted. -ds


     Comment by Jack Krebs — March 9, 2006 @ 4:57 am
  3.

     Davescott,
     I am sure you are kidding about the perpetrators being PT readers - even though the world-views might correlate well (I don’t read PT by the way, so am speaking from ignorance on their views) - but I would hate to see this kind of gag escalate to making a Mirecki of the situation.

     Comment by Charlie — March 9, 2006 @ 10:21 am
  4.

     This post is not worthy to be placed on Uncommon Descent. Maybe I didn’t read the right news article but I saw no link between the arsonists and the ID debate.

     DaveScot, do you have any evidence that there is a link? If not, then apologize and delete your post.

     Comment by StuartHarris — March 9, 2006 @ 11:24 am

Date: 2006/03/09 12:29:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
SirRamicCap

Unfortunately DaveScot is right in the case of a photon and he doesn't attempt to make a case for anything other than a photon.  With almost anything else to derive total energy from temperature you need mass.  A photon has zero rest mass and travels at a constant speed in a vacuum so all you need is color temperature or wavelength to find total energy.
nope. He said energy was measured in degrees kelvin. It's not. you can get energy from associating the distribution with a blackbody of a certain temperature, you can get the energy from the wavelength, but energy is not measured in these units. Physicists in certain fields (astro-) may talk about photons of a certain temperature, but this is merely convenient shorthand. And like someone else pointed out, it's not degrees kelvin, it's kelvin(s).

But don't focus on Davetard's boring errors, focus on the incredible ones, like when he said he breaks the SLoT by typing a sentence. Now that's comedy.
Quote
    PuckSR



Posts: 106
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Mar. 09 2006,17:20  
hey....who bet me a fifth of rum that DaveScot and some of the others were just part of an elaborate joke?
I'll bet you that davetard and dougmoron are not joking.

Date: 2006/03/09 12:47:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard:
Quote
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
Wikipedia:
Quote
It is a common misconception to confuse heat with internal energy

Date: 2006/03/09 13:04:52, Link
Author: stevestory
There is no minimum number, dumbass, you're sampling from a mother distribution. The mother distribution is a curve in the shape of Planck's law for blackbodies for an unknown T. The more photons you get, the smaller you can make the confidence intervals.

Oh, davetard, you're just making it worse. Please go back to Uncommon Pissant and write more about how the Panda's Thumb crew burned down those churches.

Date: 2006/03/10 02:19:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Milly Henry



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 10 2006,01:53  
SirRamic asked for a minimum number of photons that can be given a temperature and how that minimum number is derived.  No one provided him a numerical answer.  It appears SirRamic won that point by default.
No Davetard, you didn't.

Date: 2006/03/10 02:50:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Aardvark



Posts: 5
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 10 2006,00:20  
I have exclusive access to some of UD's forthcoming headlines:

Domestic dog drinks from toilet -yet another ID prediction fulfilled

Area man eats cold pizza for breakfast -ID theory confirmed in the process
LOL. I've got another one:

Evolution Discovery Really Supports Intelligent Design

Date: 2006/03/10 03:03:12, Link
Author: stevestory
somebody at UP tried to show dougmoron that he had a contradiction:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/896

dougmoron apparently couldn't argue otherwise, so he resorted to insult.

Date: 2006/03/10 03:15:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
thordaddy



Posts: 14
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 10 2006,01:06  
Baratos,

You don't see the silliness of claiming a post-ID world?  It's as though science can end the speculation of a designer?
Nobody said theological speculation would end. ID is a political strategy for getting creationism past the courts. It is going down in flames, and we're entering the post-ID world as we speak.

Date: 2006/03/10 03:32:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Plantinga's attempts to justify christianity don't impress many other philosophers, anymore than his newspaper article impresses me.

Date: 2006/03/10 03:40:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


DaveScot is right on the money as usual. I appreciate his insight and hope he continues to call it as he sees it. Anyone who’s read the PETA peanuts has experienced the struggle between speaking their mind and remaining politically correct. Fortunately for all of us, DaveScot is blessed with both incredible insight and the courage to express it. It is not at all surprising that the other side would react as they have to his comments - the guilty usually do.

Keep it up, DaveScot.

Comment by dougmoron — March 10, 2006 @ 1:24 am

Date: 2006/03/10 03:45:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Panda’s Thumb Denizens?

These three guys been reading the hate speech at Panda’s Thumb too long?

Update: It’s absolutely amazing that so far no commenters here have comdemned what these three men did. They targeted and burned down 12 fundamentalist Christian churches. They terrorized the communities surrounding these churches in so doing. Not to mention the property damage, any of those churches could have had people in them when they were torched and lives would have been lost. Is there no outrage here?

Update 2: To those of you saying PT does nothing to encourage things like this I will remind you of PZ Myers (Panda’s Thumb author and Professor of Biology) saying scientists are not angry enough, not martial enough, and these [Christian fundamentalist] lunatics deserve responses involving righteous fury and butt-kicking. Maybe he got more than he wanted in this church burning incident. Then again maybe that’s just what the doctor ordered.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:59 am
Comments (10)
It's absolutely amazing to me that DaveScot never condemned the massacres of Pol Pot.

Date: 2006/03/10 06:00:23, Link
Author: stevestory
someone asked a while back, if Davetard is removed from power, will it make ID less amusing and entertaining. I was not sure, but after seeing him blame the church arsons on Panda's Thumb, I have to say, yes.

Date: 2006/03/10 06:06:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Dembski is a dualist, I believe.

Date: 2006/03/10 10:01:02, Link
Author: stevestory
good going, Davetard. Now if you spend a month or so looking at the word 'peak' in your explanation, you might see what we've been trying to explain to you.

Date: 2006/03/10 10:38:13, Link
Author: stevestory
hint: it's less than 50%

Date: 2006/03/10 10:54:01, Link
Author: stevestory
This began with Davetard saying:

Quote
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


Dougmoron exhibited the same kind of behavior Davetard is exhibiting here--the inability to admit to a basic error. Everybody makes mistakes. Dave makes three in the first twe sentences of that excerpt. Energy isn't measured in kelvin, it's not degrees kelvin, and temperature is not the same thing as heat. When Davetard said this, he showed us ignorance and insult. But not admitting the error just adds stubbornness to the mix.

Date: 2006/03/10 10:59:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Russell said:



No, you shouldn't. Your perspective, once again, is spot on.  And I,  speaking as one "real biologist", have lost the will to try to get through to Thorguy.
I lost that will years ago. Now I just point and laugh.

Date: 2006/03/10 11:45:46, Link
Author: stevestory
I hadn't read your posts before, and now I have, and you actually think ID is science, so best of luck, but I'm not going to bother trying to explain anything to you. I'm sure one of the numerous people who likes to talk to creationists will oblige you.

Date: 2006/03/11 06:08:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Hateful speech leads to hateful acts and PT admins breathlessly participate in it (like PZ Myers) or they let it flourish without attempting to stop it in any way.
Davetard the Banninator thinks we should censor more people? I thought he said PT was a sham of a forum with no real free speech anyway?

I know the idea of a forum which doesn't enforce a rigid ideology gives Davetard the howling fantods, but tough titty said the kitty.

Date: 2006/03/11 06:37:58, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, that's not going to make it, unless Davetard's on vacation.

Wahrheit ist Verboten!


Date: 2006/03/11 06:46:50, Link
Author: stevestory
"Uncommonly Dense" really is just superior. I hereby renounce my support for the nickname Uncommon Pissant, and pledge my loyalty to Uncommonly Dense.

Date: 2006/03/11 07:20:35, Link
Author: stevestory
(from the Uncommonly Dense 'liquid water on Saturn's moon' thread)
Quote

Anyone that thinks Life can just ’start up’, I have a bridge to sell….on the Moon.
By the way, don’t any dare to wonder how hot geysers can exist on a 330 mile diameter moonlet
for a billion years. Not where THAT evidence leads!

Comment by mmadigan — March 10, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

Is this idiot saying that the liquid water on Enceladus implies intelligent design?

How many times am I going to see these non sequiturs? A moon has heat, therefore Intelligent Design. The cosmological constant is not something it isn't, therefore Intelligent Design. Eclipses give you a great view of the corona, therefore Intelligent Design. Will I go to Uncommonly Dense tomorrow and see "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, therefore Intelligent Design"? Will these cretins at least bother to create an argument? Irrelevant Fact X therefore Intelligent Design is not an argument.

But it probably looks like one to people who can't tell the difference between ID and science.

Date: 2006/03/11 12:08:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Well, there goes my irony meter again. Dang! I just bought it!


The guys at Uncommon Descent are no holds barred, major league world champion unintentional ironists. There's no higher level of play. In terms of irony, that is The Show.

to wit: there is a thread where DougMoron wrote an essay about how important it was to be intellectually honest. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/896
To follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

can you see where this is going?

Well in the essay, he made an obvious boneheaded doofus contradiction, which has been pointed out on this thread. He claims that as a christian he has no problem following the evidence wherever it may lead, since evidence can't go to the question of whether there's a god. Several sentences later, he's forgotten about this, perhaps, because he says that atheists can't be objective, because in order to maintain their atheism, they are compelled to ignore any evidence which implies there's a god. I mean, duh. Pretty boneheaded, considering that the sentences are about a paragraph apart.

But that's nothing. That would just be an error, made by a person who thinks too highly of himself. Well, here's where DougMoron distinguishes himself, and really goes the extra mile, drawing deep from some inner reserve that separates the boys from the Major League Supreme Ninja ironists.

Somebody pointed out that there's an error here, and I'll quote all the comments from there out:

Quote

SenatorChunk, Doug doesn’t actually know what he thinks. His essay contains contradictions. For instance:

“Since no scientific theory or data can prove or disprove God exists, no scientific theory can prove or disprove how he might act in the world - or that there is (or is not) purpose to any given thing, or intent to any given incident.”

is completely contradicted by:

“He [an atheist] must put his philosophy ahead of science, and wear blinders that remove from sight any evidence that *might* point to it (his philosophy) being wrong.”

Either there’s no such evidence and the first sentence is true, or there’s evidence and the second is true.

Comment by ctaser — March 8, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
#
Quote

ctaster:

Maybe this will help you understand why that’s not a contradiction:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users....bus.htm

Comment by dougmoran — March 9, 2006 @ 8:34 am
#
Quote

What, reading a syllabus? I’ve had both philosophy of science, and epistemology. Either belief in god can be affected by scientific evidence, or it can’t. If it can, you’re correct that an atheist would have to ignore that evidence. If it can’t, you’re correct that theists can follow any evidence free of threat.

Comment by ctaser — March 9, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
#
Quote

ctaser:
My fault, I didn’t realize the spring term is halfway through. Maybe you should catch the summer session (or the fall if summer isn’t offered).

Comment by dougmoran — March 10, 2006 @ 12:59 am
#
Quote

Doug,

I agree with your premise but ctaser has a valid point and why did you post a syllabus? I too have some logic training and I don’t think he is wrong. Can you elaborate?

Sincerely,
A fellow Doug.

Comment by Doug — March 11, 2006 @ 12:07 am
#
Quote

Doug,
ctaser claimed “Doug doesn’t actually know what he thinks. His essay contains contradictions.” The tone of this statement is not something I’m inclined to waste my time on responding to. If he had simply asked to explain the logic I would have been happy to. To lighten the situation I posted a Philosophy 101 syllabus. Gotta have a sense of humor to survive these discussions.

The quotes provided by ctaster must be viewed within the context being discussed, not taken out of context to show a non-existent contradiction. One context is that of a person of religious faith. The other is within the context of a person of athiestic worldview.

-Doug (this could get confusing if any more Dougs join in)

Comment by dougmoran — March 11, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
That's right. after making an obvious, middle-school-essay mistake, he then refuses to admit it on a thread about intellectual honesty. Do you know how few unintentional ironists can play at that level, day after day? We may never see a backcourt like DaveTard and DougMoron again. Enjoy it while you can, fans.

Date: 2006/03/11 12:22:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Is there a better predictive factor for religion, that what religion the parents were? People primarily get their religion in their childhood from the nearby adults.

Date: 2006/03/12 03:25:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
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.
Is there a word for how pathetic that statement is?

Date: 2006/03/12 11:07:38, Link
Author: stevestory
hey thordaddy. don't be rude. this thread is supposed to be about what the creationists are going to do now that ID is mortally wounded. If you want to talk about how incredibly scientific your parents' religion is, why don't you start a thread for that instead of hijacking mine?

Date: 2006/03/12 11:23:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I really should write up a list of say Top Ten Uncommonly Dense basic science errors.

Date: 2006/03/12 12:32:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Now that I've made it easier to accomplish, I will be pushing contributors to make more use of it.
Good. PT is better with a bathroom wall.

Date: 2006/03/12 12:51:51, Link
Author: stevestory
too bad I can't move you to the bathroom wall.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:06:21, Link
Author: stevestory
update: people continued to tell DougMoron he had a contradiction, and said people were banned.

Quote
#

Doug,
ctaser claimed “Doug doesn’t actually know what he thinks. His essay contains contradictions.” The tone of this statement is not something I’m inclined to waste my time on responding to. If he had simply asked to explain the logic I would have been happy to. To lighten the situation I posted a Philosophy 101 syllabus. Gotta have a sense of humor to survive these discussions.

The quotes provided by ctaster must be viewed within the context being discussed, not taken out of context to show a non-existent contradiction. One context is that of a person of religious faith. The other is within the context of a person of athiestic worldview.

-Doug (this could get confusing if any more Dougs join in)

Comment by dougmoron — March 11, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Quote

#

Doug,
I think I understand what you say. The fact that science cannot definitely prove or disprove a Creator is the objective truth; but that is not perceived equally by all.
In the worldview of the faithful, that truth is well understood: The religious person can pursue scientific goals knowing their findings will never question their faith.
The atheistic worldview fails to see this, however. So, the atheist is subconciously insecure, afraid they might actually find some evidence that will prove the very thing their worldview denies, and prefer to steer away from such recearch.
What I wonder, however, is why? Why should we assume that it cannot sometimes be the other way round, with confident atheists and subconciously insecure believers? What is there in the religious viewpoint that makes it understand science’s true limitations, while the atheist’s viewpoint doesn’t grasp them and regards science as a potential enemy deep down?
My opinion is that there isn’t anything, and that the difference of perspective usually comes out of a difference in character, regardless of beliefs. And that’s why you can get confident and insecure individuals on both ’sides’ in this argument.
But I’d also like to know your views on this.

Comment by Phed — March 11, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Quote

#

Phed,
I agree with you that character plays an important role, and that there are insecurities on both sides of the issue that lead to undesireable behaviors (see my comment #5 above). But in my opinion there is also a fundamental difference in the way a person of faith views evidence - as compared with the athiest - that is a logical outcome of their chosen worldviews. It is a built-in limitation of the athiestic worldview that does not exist for the thiest.

The person of faith is able to view the complete set of evidence completely objectively because he knows none of it can threaten his worldview (character flaws neglected for the moment). But the athiest is forced into a defensive position immediatly: a subset of existing evidence must be either ignored or marginalized by “just-so” stories and wildly imaginative hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which are infinitely untestable even conceptually. Taking the limiting case as an example (but there are many, many more): the anthropic principle v. the need for infinite universes.

It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure.

Comment by dougmoron — March 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Quote

#

dougmoran:
“The person of faith is able to view the complete set of evidence completely objectively because he knows none of it can threaten his worldview (character flaws neglected for the moment).”

Doug,
What about the many Christians (including Paul Nelson, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind) who accept the Genesis creation story? They are undoubtedly persons of faith, but their worldview is profoundly threatened by the abundant evidence for an old universe.

Unless you have some evidence I find acceptable that Nelson’s worldview is profoundly threatened I think you should take your comments elsewhere. -ds
Comment by woody — March 12, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Quote

#

the contradiction remains.

You however don’t. -ds

Comment by ctaser — March 12, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
can't help but add that Davetard is asking for evidence that YEC is threatened by science, yet in the past has said that denying common descent just makes the IDers look bad. Common Descent takes more than 6,000 years, Davetard.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:10:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure.
You're obviously not one, or you'd know we don't.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:15:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Empiracally paultry? First of all it's 'paltry', and second of all, I hear that all beliefs are based on studying the empirical evidence, so I don't know how you could say mine wasn't. Now will the lot of you start your own thread? it's rude to hijack mine.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:18:43, Link
Author: stevestory
i know. that's the most amazing line. Dougmoron is the ne plus ultra of unintentional irony.

Date: 2006/03/12 13:38:16, Link
Author: stevestory
the basic science errors they make are not necessarily creationist arguments, they're things like 'energy is measured in degrees, duh' and "A and B are types of hemoglobin and the slightest change is lethal".

While they may be shoved together to creat creationist arguments, they are Irreducibly Crappy all by themselves.

Date: 2006/03/13 02:56:37, Link
Author: stevestory
does it get any better than DaveScot banning someone for describing a YEC? Does anything show the futility and incoherence of their cause? Does anything better show how the Discovery Institute has spent $30 million with nothing to show for it?

Date: 2006/03/13 03:01:23, Link
Author: stevestory
The amazing thing is that since Paul Nelson has admitted his YEC beliefs conflict with science, a respondent to Davetard's demand would probably have gotten banned for simply posting a Paul Nelson quote where he says "my beliefs conflict with science".

Date: 2006/03/13 05:20:20, Link
Author: stevestory
update

Quote
#

Wht wld hv bn th “rght” nswr, Dv? ntrzd sttmnt frm Pl crtfyng tht hs wrldvw ws thrtnd?

Y r n ntllctl cwrd, bnnng ll wh s (nd pnt t) th hls n th swss chs lgc f y nd yr crns. s tht y trly r s rdcls s y r prtryd t “ftr th Br Clss”.

Bn ll f s, bt w’r stll lghng, whthr y cn hr s r nt.

Comment by woody — March 13, 2006 @ 12:13 am

Date: 2006/03/13 10:42:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Arden, I have relatives who believe both in Answers in Genesis, and in conspiracy theories involving Satanists, so I can answer the questions for you:

Satanists are everywhere. They are rife in the areas you mentioned, among the people you mentioned. Also, they have completely infiltrated the highest realms of power. The president, the UN, the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the FBI are all stuffed with Satanists. And the judiciary. And universities. If you think some piece of evidence x refutes this idea, piece of evidence x was provided by a Satanist.

They even believe that certain other conservatives / conspiracists, like Rush Limbaugh and Bo Gritz, are plants and/or Satanists themselves.

Date: 2006/03/13 12:23:02, Link
Author: stevestory
In my hometown, while I was in high school, there was a grave robbing. The local paper, the Lake City Reporter, mentioned it and I believe pointed to Satanism. Whether or not they did, the community was pretty rapidly in the grips of Satanic Panic. It happens that I knew a guy named Travis, who was the brother of one of the robbers, and I can tell you they were just disaffected, apathetic poor southern aggressive boys. Playing pranks with some skeletons just struck them as a gnarly and extreme thing to do. It was an interesting experience to watch a fairly ignorant evangelical community go apeshit over some bored miscreants.

Aren't you the person who whines when others hijack his thread? How is this supposed to be on-topic? stevestory, you're outta here. -dt

Date: 2006/03/13 12:43:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard banned someone for saying Paul Nelson is a Young Earth Creationist, a fact admitted to by Paul Nelson.

What a day it's been. May the good (nonexistent) lord provide us a million more.

Date: 2006/03/13 13:35:43, Link
Author: stevestory
You have GOT to go read this Uncommonly Dense thread. When you get to crandaddy's statement that 'these are marginal claims' you will fall on the floor laughing.

unless you can prove that "Uncommon Descent" exists, that there is a 'crandaddy', and that I inject stupid comments in boldface, Your A55 is Grass -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 06:30:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Wesley R. Elsberry
 
I'm referring to the small roster of folks who have managed to get themselves banned.
Banning people is just like you Darwinists. You make me sick. You're out of here. -dt

Date: 2006/03/14 12:09:41, Link
Author: stevestory
there are so many facets to the Uncommonly Dense crowd. I almost feel like we need one thread for DaveTard's injections, one for DougMoron's Kindergarten-Error Philosophy Class, one for Slaveador Cordova, ...

Date: 2006/03/15 05:04:28, Link
Author: stevestory
before I started this thread I thought about ways to annotate Uncommonly Dense. It would be possible to have a browser plugin which let people add annotations, and others with the plugin would see the annotations when they went to UD. I've heard about similar software. But I'm not a programming wiz and it would probably take me 20 hrs to write such a thing myself. Since I have better things to do with those 20 hrs I started this thread ;-)

Everybody knows that annotations are measured in ergs per kilogram. And of course ergs are synonymous with parsecs. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -dt

Date: 2006/03/15 07:20:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Most people including most biologists, except a few specialists, believe in evolution not because they have studied it carefully.  They do so because the experts told them so.
It just doesn't get any better than this.

Except maybe at Uncommonly Dense.

Date: 2006/03/15 07:26:15, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
March 14, 2006
The Trouble with Methodological Naturalism

Andrew Rowell over at ID in the UK has done a very good job of exposing the problems with having methodological naturalism as the exclusive methodology for the natural sciences:
...
Filed under: Intelligent Design — crandaddy @ 6:57 pm
Comments (2)


Quote
Claim CA301.1:
If the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural, the naturalistic method of science will miss it. "With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative."
Source:
Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Response:

  1. Nobody has ever come up with a useful definition of supernatural. By most definitions, something having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself. So any explanation for something we see in nature can be considered natural by definition.

  2. We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it.

  3. Suppose we do conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct. It is impossible, even in principle, to distinguish one supernatural explanation from another. Many people, including many scientists, are willing to accept certain supernatural explanations on faith. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not claim special privilege for their faith. Some people, however, are not satisfied unless others believe as they do; this group includes all those who want to make the supernatural a part of science. Since they cannot make their case by using naturalistic evidence, they must resort to other means, such as force of arms. (This is not hyperbole. Such groups continually attempt to get political enforcement on their side.)

  4. If we do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless.

  5. Creationist accounts of origins are not disqualified. People are free to believe whatever religion they choose. P. E. Johnson and others like him merely object to their religion not being taught as science to the exclusion of all other religious interpretations (not to mention to the exclusion of all of science).

Date: 2006/03/15 07:40:57, Link
Author: stevestory
actual, unadulterated Davetard:

Quote
I have received emails from biology PhDs identifying themselves as commenters here using pseudonyms because they’re afraid of what will happen if they attach their real names to ID sympathetic writing.
...
-ds

Date: 2006/03/15 07:56:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Shi, English isn't your first language, is it?

Date: 2006/03/15 09:12:04, Link
Author: stevestory
What dave doesn't know is, every Nobel Prize winner, living and dead, has emailed me to say that Dembski is a fraud. Also, Dembski himself emailed me that he is a fraud. And Mike Behe. But they refuse to say so publicly, because they're afraid of what will happen.

Date: 2006/03/15 09:28:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Rick the Retarded:

Quote
As the decline of true science has been a major factor in the decline of Western culture, so too the renewal of science will play a big part in cultural renewal.


Man, he would fit right in at Uncommonly Dense, wouldn't he?

Date: 2006/03/15 11:09:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Over on my 'the post ID world' thread, thordaddy's been babbling:

Quote
The impression given here is that if you question evolution you MUST be a creationist.
maybe because 99% of the people who show up here and at PT and argue against evolution are, like thordaddy, creationists.

Quote
The masses will not stand for this elitists mentality that only serves to fatten the pockets and egos of those same elitists whether they be highminded scientists or low-brow liberal politicians.  What's fair is fair.
Low-brow elitists. Okey dokey.

Quote
Since my middle name is Thor and I have children, viola, thordaddy.
I have no idea what this sentennce means. Viola? I haven't heard that word since a music appreciation class 10 years ago.

Quote
I can't do anything but laugh at such an empirically paultry assumption.  My parents didn't espouse ANY religion.  They were too busy running their business and raising 6 boys.  That's a lot of ball games and homework, you know!
Your parents were christian, and so now you are christian. Empirical Schmimpirical.

Date: 2006/03/15 11:25:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Wow:
Quote

March 15, 2006
“IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security”

Information Forensics (IF) — another branch of ID:

http://www.ieee.org/portal....ics.xml
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 1:14 pm
a branch of Intelligent Design???????????

Date: 2006/03/15 11:34:29, Link
Author: stevestory
anyone know how to turn off those smileys which always misfire?

YOU always misfire. If either a computer or an evolutionist makes a mistake, it's always the evolutionist's fault. All you do is drink vodka with Mark Perakh all day long and you are a homo. -dt

Date: 2006/03/15 12:21:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Rosenhouse talks about an Uncommonly Dense thread by the clown Salvador Cordova:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/cordova-on-campbell.html

Date: 2006/03/15 13:55:52, Link
Author: stevestory
lol
Quote
#

James Wynne asks what this has to do with ID.

This is what.

Comment by DaveScot — March 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Quote


I get it now. If you enter any two search terms in the same Google search, then all hits are pertinent to whatever you want them to be pertinent to, or, it means that if there are any hits, the search terms must be related. How could I not have known that? Here’s another example for you that proves your point: http://tinyurl.com/mnuzr

Comment by JimWynne — March 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
And no, I didn't change the order.

Date: 2006/03/15 14:06:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Shi, which Asian country are you from?

Date: 2006/03/15 14:12:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Very amusing! Is he banned yet?
No, but you are, sucka! -dt

Date: 2006/03/15 14:22:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

Date: 2006/03/15 14:26:17, Link
Author: stevestory
While you're at it, let's get somebody peer-reviewing Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity. How do I know he wasn't just pulling my leg...

Date: 2006/03/15 15:03:10, Link
Author: stevestory
*tilt*

I know. Isn't Uncommonly Dense the best site in the universe? If it folded, I'd probably cry. I need to mail Davetard some of those vitamins for old people. We need him alive and healthy to work his magic.

Sometimes I wonder if they'll ever tire of being humiliated. But then I realize I'm dealing with people like Salvador E. Coyote here. They will never stop ordering the defective products of Dembski & Behe Inc., they will never stop chasing our roadrunner-like theory, they will proclaim themselves geniuses, they will never win--but they will amuse.

I think a certain other well-known theory is about to take Sal out here.

Date: 2006/03/15 16:15:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?


Yep.

Quote

JimWynne, You don’t have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — March 15, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

Date: 2006/03/15 16:58:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Fantastic. I wish I had known about that Dembski statement. I would be sipping some Mcallen this weekend. I'm about to go get banned at Uncommonly Dense for quoting Dembski.

Date: 2006/03/16 03:25:50, Link
Author: stevestory
yesterday I emailed the IEEE people behind the new Information Forensics business:

Quote
Hello: I read your interesting article about Information Forensics and the new journal about it. I was surprised when I read that William Dembski claims that Information Forensics is a branch of Intelligent Design, of which he is a famous proponent. The claim was made on his website at this address: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/922#comments and I wondered if anyone at the IEEE could tell me whether there was any merit to Dembski's claim?

thanks,
Steve Story
and this morning received:
Quote
Dear Mr. Story,

Thank you for your message however, IEEE is unable to verify the merit of
William Dembski's claim.

Please let me know if you would like a complimentary copy of the first
issue of IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security to assist
you with any questions you may have.  I will send to copy out immediately
if you would kindly supply me with your contact information.

Thank you and best,
*NAME*
************************************************
*NAME*
*POSITION*
IEEE Signal Processing Society
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ  08854
I removed the name and position of the person because I didn't explicitly tell her I was going to broadcast her response.

Date: 2006/03/16 05:23:30, Link
Author: stevestory
Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884

Date: 2006/03/16 05:36:36, Link
Author: stevestory
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.

Date: 2006/03/16 05:45:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?
We have Always been at war with Eurasia. And homos like yourself. -ds

Date: 2006/03/16 05:56:49, Link
Author: stevestory
That's why I make a point of saving Uncommonly Dense threads now. Davetard can do whatever he wants, he can't delete them from my hard drive.

Date: 2006/03/16 06:54:44, Link
Author: stevestory
sweet. it's still there. nevertheless, it's a good idea to save the pages.

Quote

Whoops.  I humbly apologize to Dave for my accusation of rewriting history, and will confine my snide remarks to his practice of editing history before it's written.
And often deleting history later.

Date: 2006/03/16 07:53:58, Link
Author: stevestory
I think there's some Panda's Thumb rule requiring contributors to be not completely insane.

Date: 2006/03/16 07:58:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
new age evodevo expert Sean Carroll
LOL

Date: 2006/03/16 08:43:18, Link
Author: stevestory
At Panda's Thumb basically anyone can comment, anonymously, with little or no oversight. Banning is extremely rare. At Uncommonly Dense, basically no one can comment. You can't comment if you haven't registered, or you've said anything unpleasant about ID in the past, or just for existing on certain other sites (like PT). How healthy are the comment boards as a result?

Panda's Thumb front page:
Those IDists can’t get no respect…

Posted by Tara Smith on March 16, 2006 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Kitzmiller: the movie — Pick your favorite actors now…

Posted by Nick Matzke on March 15, 2006 | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

Tangled Bank #49

Posted by PZ Myers on March 15, 2006 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Life on Mars? The real lesson from Lowell

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 14, 2006 | Comments (94) | TrackBack (0)

Caldwell’s Latest Nuisance Suit Dismissed

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 14, 2006 | TrackBack (0)

Edenomics 101

Posted by Tara Smith on March 14, 2006 | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

AAAS—-some new resources for teachers (and other interested folk)

Posted by Tara Smith on March 13, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Brits to teach controversy (or are they?)

Posted by PvM on March 11, 2006 | Comments (120) | TrackBack (0)

David Berlinski interviews self, calls self “crank”

Posted by Nick Matzke on March 10, 2006 | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)

Laonastes/ Diatomys/ kha-nyou/ rat-squirrel

Posted by PZ Myers on March 10, 2006 | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

New Law Review Article

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on March 10, 2006 | TrackBack (0)

Update on the Michigan Bill

Posted by Ed Brayton on March 09, 2006 | TrackBack (0)

Update on Alabama SB45/HB106

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 08, 2006 | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

The South Carolina Friends List

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 08, 2006 | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)

The South Carolina Enemies List

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 08, 2006 | Comments (69) | TrackBack (0)

Uncommonly Dense:


Paramount to make movie about Dover
Comments (0)
Australian Reply to Hubert Yockey’s Critique of ID
Comments (0)
Barrow wins 2006 Templeton Prize
Comments (7)
“IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security”
Comments (4)
Rosenhouse praises Discovery Institute Fellow John Angus Campbell
Comments (6)
March 14, 2006
The Trouble with Methodological Naturalism
Comments (10)
March Madnesss
Comments (4)
Nasty feelings in the OOL community toward Hubert Yockey?
Comments (11)
March 13, 2006
Chronicle of Higher Ed on ID
Comments (10)
Orthodox Darwinists Spanked in New U.S. Poll
Comments (28)
March 12, 2006
Is Russia ready for ID?
Comments (9)
Dembski to speak at UC Berkeley, March 17th and 18th
Comments (3)
March 11, 2006
Polanyi Quote
Comments (4)
Grassroots America Speaks Out (again)
Comments (4)
[quote mine] Ken Miller: “much of the problem lies with atheists”
Comments (28)
ID as “dead science”
Comments (9)
Anthropology and ID — fast friends in the making
Comments (9)
March 10, 2006
C’est la Avida
Comments (6)
Brits to Teach the Controversy
Comments (10)
March 9, 2006
Nelson vs. Sarkar debate tonight at UTAustin
Comments (7)

Panda's Thumb: 37.87 comments per post (counting Tim Sandefur posts as zeroes)
Uncommonly Dense: 8.45 comments per post.

Date: 2006/03/16 08:51:30, Link
Author: stevestory
You AND math are gone. -dt

Date: 2006/03/16 08:54:11, Link
Author: stevestory
the word Gone is gone. -dt

Date: 2006/03/16 09:07:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Dell is gone -dt

Date: 2006/03/16 12:18:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
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".
They do that frequently. They highlight a topic, but don't say anything about it themselves. Their followers will infer the typical argument "Irrelevant fact x, therefore Intelligent Design." but the poster doesn't have to come out and say it, which would give us ammunition.

Date: 2006/03/16 12:45:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
This is naive.  I thought the scientific method determined what was scientific, but stevestory seems to be lauding the "legal system" and its obliteration of ID.  Some would suggest this is tantamount to defining science...  judges defining science!  Is this what stevestory is all giggly about?  What makes stevestory think that such a trend will continue?  What makes stevestory think that another faction of the "legal system" WON'T resurrect ID and REDEFINE science?  
We were trying to fool everyone, and we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you pesky kids! Yes, you saw right through us. Intelligent Design is a phenomenal revolution in science. The theory is such an amazing paradigm that it has led to an explosion of experiments and results. But since we control the journals, we have so far managed to supress the hundreds, nay thousands, of resulting papers. Though Intelligent Design has led to phenomenal new results and technologies in the lab, we have kept it all illegal and hidden thanks to a sympathetic judge who, like the rest of us, is secretly an atheist.

Well, we tried, but you beat us.

Date: 2006/03/17 02:15:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Sadly, thordaddy's not helping us understand what the creationists are going to do, now that ID is bleeding to death on the battlefield.

Date: 2006/03/17 02:47:51, Link
Author: stevestory
This thread is going to go on forever. The Uncommonly Dense crowd will never stop saying absurd things:

Quote
March 16, 2006
Biologists Are Not Design Experts

Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm

Date: 2006/03/17 03:20:02, Link
Author: stevestory
You know how we said earlier
Quote
They do that frequently. They highlight a topic, but don't say anything about it themselves. Their followers will infer the typical argument "Irrelevant fact x, therefore Intelligent Design." but the poster doesn't have to come out and say it, which would give us ammunition.
Well, they resorted to exactly that when one of the scientists involved in the Astronomical double-helix shape showed up to chastise them:
Quote
#

The nebula we have found with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope is a remarkable example of something that can be accomodated by the scientific enterprise as readily as we can account for hurricanes. Although there is much to be learned yet about the nebula, what we do know can be well explained in terms of existing and well-supported scientific hypotheses about the Galaxy and its contents. Consequently, I am dismayed that it has been brought up in an ID blog. Logically fitting natural phenomena that display order and/or beauty into the scientific superstructure of self-consistent ideas about the universe about us are what makes science so satisfying, and so meaningful. Not everything is a God-induced miracle.

Comment by MRMorris — March 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
#
Quote

MRMorris

As readily as hurricanes, eh. Wow. I didn’t know you were able to fly aircraft into these double helix nebulas 50 times a year from start to finish measuring the forces and effects. So the article was wrong about this being the only one ever observed. It isn’t really a one-time event that happened millions of years ago when no one was there to witness it. You have an eyewitness account of it just like hurricane Katrina. You’re not just making up stories like someone died and gave you the exclusive right to tell this nebula’s story.

Thanks for the tip, Morris. It’s been duly noted.

Comment by DaveScot — March 16, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
#
Quote

Professor Morris,

Thank you for taking the time to comment here, although I am sorry you feel that your work is being tainted simply by being mentioned on this blog.

Contrary to the image that is portrayed by opponents of ID, we do not suggest that something is ’so complex, it must have been a miracle’. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine the formation of the double helix structure you have observed is analogous to the path traced out by an aeroplane’s propellor tips as it passes through the air - no miracles involved!

As you will surely note, there was no suggestion that this intriguing formation is ‘designed’ or that current science cannot adequately explain it. In his writings on design inferences, Wm Dembski has been at pains to point out the difference between the results of regularities (as we see here) and design.

Finally, if you are willing to answer, I an very curious as to how you found out that your work was mentioned on this blog. Did you get an email from a ‘defender of science’ warning that your work is being used for ‘creationist propoganda’ or something along those lines? I ask because there is a long history of certain people (no names mentioned) going to a lot of effort to do just this…

Comment by antg — March 17, 2006 @ 4:50 am
Davetard is showing his ignorance here, it's way more easy to understand how helix structures come about than hurricanes. a helix is just rotation plus translation. Hurricanes are complicated.

Date: 2006/03/17 03:32:36, Link
Author: stevestory
A trap by Dembski? Absolutely not. This is a perfectly ordinary occurrence at Uncommonly Dense. An expert shows up and talks about his expertise, and dummies like Davetard insult him. It was ever thus.

Date: 2006/03/17 03:37:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Some of us biologists are design experts anyway - I've a bio sciences background and design software for a living.
My degree is in physics, but my job is as a research engineer. I find Davetard's commentary on the difference between science and engineering to be expecially idiotic.

Date: 2006/03/17 06:35:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Why can't preachers define science?

Why can't a cat with a ouija board define science?

Date: 2006/03/17 07:43:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

I think you’re being too accomodating to Doctor Morris who appears to have forgotten his place in the scheme of things. We the taxpayers paid for this research including Morris’ time and the instruments he used. We didn’t pay for nor ask for his opinion about whether or not God had anything to do with this nebula’s formation although he’s free to give it in an unofficial capacity on his own time. The data belongs to us as much as does him as we’re all taxpayers and if we want to interpret it as a sign of design in the universe that’s our business.

Comment by DaveScot — March 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am
I Worked At DELL. DELL! Do you hear me!?!?! -ds

Date: 2006/03/17 09:09:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Stevestory:
Even tho he's enriched all our lives, sometimes I shudder to imagine what would happen to you if Dembski ever fired DaveScot.
I would cry, and shake my fist at the cruel universe, and then I would go read Uncommonly Dense. Dembski himself was not as entertaining, but still ridiculous. Remember when we predicted that he would turn his blog over to someone or be forced to close it, because it was taking so much of his time to singlehandedly ban every critic?  I don't think he'll take it back. They're creating a well-culled group of sycophants over there who will say 2+2=4 is a brilliant proof of intelligent design, if Maximum Leader tells them to think this.

Date: 2006/03/17 09:44:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

Dave,

Thanks for your reply. I did want to briefly comment on some of your points.

“Gathering data is repetitious grunt work and does not confer or require expertise in the subject area. It’s usually done by junior level staff. Surely you must be aware of that.”

I am not sure what your definition of ‘junior level staff’ is, but - and this could be my personal bias, I don’t necessarily consider post-docs, and Ph.D. candidates to be ‘junior staff,’ especially the former… the latter is arguable. Post-docs are perfectly capable of interpreting their own data and deciding how the data fits in own their own. The same should be true of an advanced candidate. My own personal experience with lab work and data analysis has been a matter of ’sink or swim,’ so to speak.

When I use the term ‘biologist’ I am generally considering those with Ph.D.’s or those about to receive Ph.D.’s. Lab techs were not included in my definition. I probably should have clarified this.

“Furthermore, data obtained from public funded effort is owned by the public. The gatherer has no more exclusive right to it than anyone else.”

I don’t think I claimed anyone had any ‘exclusive right’ to any data. I merely pointed out that commenting on systems that were either in one’s area of expertise, or commenting on evidence based on methodology you are familiar with is only natural, and makes sense.

Finally, why are we debating this amongst ourselves? It’s fairly obvious from my statements that I disagree with the position taken by Panda’s Thumb, and I inferred from your statements that you believe more-or-less the same thing.

Overall, it would appear that we’re in agreement… so why the rebuttal?

Post-docs aren’t just junior staff, they’re entry level. A technician in the same field with 10 years experience will run circles around them. You must not have much experience yourself. Obviously I didn’t entirely agree with you. -ds

Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 2:19 pm

Davetard is on some kind of crusade to get wrong everything in the world. The process of getting a ph.d is a process of producing new, original research, which advances the field. A person who has achieved a ph.d has demonstrated a degree of expertise. Less than senior scientists, but they are certainly capable of interpreting evidence.

Date: 2006/03/17 10:09:58, Link
Author: stevestory
And anyway, is Davetard arguing that people with higher credentials than himself aren't qualified to interpret evidence?  Man, Davetard, think before you type.

What am I saying, belay that order. Carry on.

Date: 2006/03/17 11:23:48, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
...what is logical about  professing the primacy of an educational endeavor that by definition limits the scope of empirical evidence...


sounds like thordaddy is having the same problem as poor Paul Nelson.

Date: 2006/03/17 11:50:01, Link
Author: stevestory
okay, scratch that, he looks like he might be much crazier than Paul Nelson. OTOH, Paul is a YEC. Hmm. I'll wait and see.

Date: 2006/03/17 13:30:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
This can't mean anything other than saying that science DOES NOT include or evaluate ALL empirical evidence.
As far as I know, the empirical evidence science evaluates are measurable phenomena. Evidences are measurements. How fast, how many times, what wavelength, what percentage of the time. Note that measurements aren't necessarily numerical, a measurement could be whether a person describes an experience as 'pleasant' or 'unpleasant'. What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring?

Date: 2006/03/17 13:51:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

Dave,

“Post-docs aren’t just junior staff, they’re entry level. A technician in the same field with 10 years experience will run circles around them. You must not have much experience yourself. Obviously I didn’t entirely agree with you. -ds”

This isn’t a question of ‘who will run circles around whom,’ it’s a question of whether or not someone is capable of evaluating/interpreting data for themselves. That a technician with 10 years experience is capable of interpreting data isn’t in question.

A post-doc, an advanced candidate, etc., are certainly capable of interpreting data for themselves. This is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that post docs and candidates, author papers, grants, etc.

So are we to assume that in your mind the only people capable of really evaluating data are people with Ph.D.’s and say more than 10 years experience over and above their graduate education? What exactly are the criteria YOU believe are necessary to capably interpret data?

My level of experience isn’t entirely relevant, as were not talking about me specifically, but ‘biologists’ in general. I merely added my own personal opinion, which for some reason seems to be really annoying to you. Is there something I’ve done/said in particular to instigate this vague ad hominem attack re: my expereince, or is this what everyone should expect?

Comment by mattison0922 — March 17, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
It's not even about him anymore. Dave Springer is bringing shame down upon the entire Springer clan.

How can this go on? I don't know, but somehow it does.

Update: I forgot to add, mattison0922 is an Intelligent Design Supporter.

Date: 2006/03/18 10:45:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, I just saw that. Since I don't do anything technical at home, I think when it comes time to upgrade I'll probably switch

Date: 2006/03/18 11:05:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
thordaddy



Posts: 41
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 17 2006,21:04  
stevestory asks,

Quote
What measurable phenomenon is science ignoring?


The measurable phenomenon of billions of believers in an IDer that has spanned most of recorded history.  What do scientists have to say about this phenomenon?

You will make progress when you understand that science is not denying the measurement that 'billions of people believe in ID'. No scientist would say that empirical statement is untrue. The evidence that billions of people believe in religion/ID/whatever is absolutely uncontested. Science is not denying this empirical fact. What science is not accepting is your interpretation of that fact. If you want to think more clearly on this issue, you need to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation. You are wrong that the evidence of widespread belief is ignored. Here's an example of a scientist trying to account for that fact-- http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155
Science is ignoring your argument that 'because so and so many people believe x, x should be taken seriously'. And science is right to ignore that argument. It is a stupid argument.

Of course I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because your writing isn't clear. It may be that your argument is 'because so and so many people believe in x, x is true'. If that's your argument, you're way way way out to lunch.

Date: 2006/03/18 11:23:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard--the answer is, we've decided to be as thin-skinned and intolerant of disagreement as you, so we don't allow your trackbacks anymore.

Ha! Us stoop to the level of you and WAD? That'll be the day. It's a technical glitch which'll be resolved.

Date: 2006/03/18 14:36:04, Link
Author: stevestory
btw Davetard, last time you announced this problem it turned out you hadn't read the directions. Remember that? You were so embarrassed you deleted your comments.

good times.

Date: 2006/03/19 03:44:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I have only said that this belief was an interpretation of empirical evidence.  It seems you concede this point?
Wrong wrong wrong. I didn't say anything about what the belief was w/r/t evidence. You said science was ignoring the evidence of 6 billion people believing. Now you try to swap in a point of ethics for a point of fact? You are confusing evidence of a belief, with the evidence that supports the belief. Among other things. You're just such a tangled mess of an argument I don't see the point in continuing. I'll let everybody else here try to fight through your spaghetti logic. Mysteriously, everyone here seems to think you've got your wires crossed. Can't imagine why.

Date: 2006/03/19 03:51:39, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Are you going to ask stevestory for evidence that mattison is an ID supporter?
Being a scientist carries some prestige. Being an ID supporter carries shame. It's perfectly reasonable to assume an anonymous person is being honest when he says he's an IDer, but then be skeptical when he says he's a scientist.

Date: 2006/03/19 03:56:26, Link
Author: stevestory
In other news, over at Uncommonly Dense we find:

Quote
March 18, 2006
Neo-Darwinism is Collapsing Under the Weight of the Integration of the Sciences

Collapsing! Berlin Wall! Waterloo! WA-TER-LOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

any day now.

Date: 2006/03/19 04:17:32, Link
Author: stevestory
That Davetard and Dougmoron and the like are in charge of Dembski's blog, pretty much tells you all you need to know about the size and intellectual firepower of the ID movement.

To anybody just joining us, go back a few pages to discussion of Dougmoron's essay about intellectual honesty. It is priceless.

Date: 2006/03/19 04:41:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


OK, maybe it's just me.....
Maybe it was you. You're gone. -dt

Date: 2006/03/19 05:25:36, Link
Author: stevestory
They've been announcing the imminent demise of evolution for nigh on 100 years now. Evolutionary biologists are always moments away from being revealed as frauds. To pass the time, they publish thousands of papers a year. Gives them something to do while they await the numerous, Atomic Waterloos.

Date: 2006/03/19 11:51:31, Link
Author: stevestory
You've got to admit though Alan, compared to calling science and religion identical, an incorrect use of 'portend' is hardly noticeable.

Date: 2006/03/19 11:58:30, Link
Author: stevestory
One reason there are so few comments on Uncommonly Dense threads is, even the ID supporters know they have a good chance of being deleted. Why bother trying to make a point only to have some half-wit computer technician send it to the garbage can.

Since it damages the UD community, I'm fine with that.

Date: 2006/03/19 12:22:56, Link
Author: stevestory
we all know how Grandaddy Dave is hurting ID by putting strain on the community via comment deletion, obviously ignorant statements, etc. But did you know he's also indirectly advanced modern literature? Valerie was so distraught about being banned, she was moved to write a brilliant coming-of-age novel about a struggling teen girl whose abusive and censorious granddad named Dave keels over dead from neck cancer. It's called:

A Day No Posts Would Die

Date: 2006/03/19 13:19:50, Link
Author: stevestory

Dude...yer gettin banned.

Date: 2006/03/20 01:56:34, Link
Author: stevestory
No point in discontinuing the hijacking now, this plane's nearly to cuba.

Date: 2006/03/20 02:41:43, Link
Author: stevestory
With his head resting on bags of $$$$. Seriously, he's probably already come to grips with the failure, and now is just going through the motions to pull in the royalties and speaking fees. I don't think you would put complete amateurs like Dave Springer, Doug Moran, etc in charge of anything if you were seriously trying to build a scientific movement. You only put them in charge when you realize that your audience can't tell the difference between science, and technical sounding mumbo jumbo.

Date: 2006/03/20 03:02:07, Link
Author: stevestory
who was it who said, "Making fun of evangelical christians is like hunting cows with a high-powered rifle and scope."

Date: 2006/03/20 04:36:19, Link
Author: stevestory
I didn't say you were pregnant, I said you were kinda pregnant.

Date: 2006/03/20 09:46:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Are murder and rape a part of the Universe?


wow. Just...wow.

Date: 2006/03/20 10:15:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
It is quite hard to get banned here. Notice Wesley said "Repeat offenders will be considered excessively annoying." not repeat offenders will be banned.
Wesley needs to grow a pair. Wesley is Gone. -ds

Date: 2006/03/20 12:22:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Uncommonly Dense must be a boon to researchers trying to locate the dumbest human beings in the world.

Quote
#

Global warming may be real, but who thinks mankind can stop it even if we wanted to? Not me. I mean, volcanos spit out far more “greehouse gasses” every year than humans do. Perhaps the Kyoto treaty should fine countries with active volcanos.

Comment by Lurker — March 20, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

Date: 2006/03/20 13:27:22, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL Davetard is like the Michael Jordan of the short bus. A regnant world champion with no peer.

Date: 2006/03/20 14:40:48, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, he's like Jack Bauer.

Date: 2006/03/21 04:12:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Don't listen to him Thordaddy. Keep on using words incorrectly. It adds flavor to your crazy ideas.

Date: 2006/03/21 06:46:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Enjoy the dumdums objecting to global warming. Another display of the fact that while Davetard is stupid, he's not the stupidest person over there.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/934#comments

I think Geoffrobinson might have the dumbest comment on the page.

Date: 2006/03/21 06:54:09, Link
Author: stevestory
It doesn't matter if Larry is officially banned or not. He's still wrecking threads.

Date: 2006/03/21 10:07:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Uh no.

Date: 2006/03/21 10:20:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard actually did a lot better than some other people in that thread who seemed ready to question the existence of warming. Only the wingiest of wingnuts will still do that. Most have moved on to the 'well it's happening, but it might be good, or inevitable.'

Date: 2006/03/21 12:46:02, Link
Author: stevestory
DaveScot Loses What Was Left of His Mind

Category:
Posted on: March 21, 2006 5:49 PM

You gotta hand it to this cretin - when he loses it, he loses it big.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....t_o.php

Date: 2006/03/21 14:03:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Why bother leaving now?

Huh. I see above I posted DaveScot Loses What Was Left of His Mind on the wrong thread. I meant that for OUPDT.

Date: 2006/03/21 14:07:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Arden Chatfield

Poor dumb Dave. He really does seem to be off his game today. More than usual, I mean.
Uninformed, hysterical nonsense is his game. He's not doing anything out of the ordinary here.

Holy Crap, I had to resave the Uncommonly Dense page. Something tells me this won't go unmolested:

Quote
#

I almost want to take back what I wrote on a previous post. I read the segment in detail, instead of relying on the summation given by DAveScot, and I have to say I am truly appalled at the treatment of this teacher. You cannot seriously believe that it was appropriate for her to be punished and asked to apologize for showing the children 12 minutes of an opera? Actually, far from wanting to remove what I said on the last post, I would even more strongly emphasize it precisely because of the greater contextual understanding I now have: who the #### are these so-called Christians that they object to their children seeing representations of the devil? Is not the devil a primary component of THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW? The central moral of the Faustus legend is fundamentally a Christian one: a man of learning selling his soul to the devil in exchange for all knowledge is practically a restatement of the Genesis account of the origin of evil. When I was talking about the weakness which is engendered by the attempt to sanitize and purify the surroundings in order to be safe from attack, this is exactly the behavior you would expect to see from such a psychically weakened state: the person, completely unable to endure ideas which run contrary to their own views, blindly begins attacking everything in sight, in much the same way as a weakened and disordered immune system, unable to endure the normal challenges of the microorganisms in its environment runs amok and begins attacking the body it was designed to protect! How nauseating. This does no service to the cause of ID which will depend, for its success, on precisely the virtues of impartiality and openmindedness which are so deeply degraded by this type of mindless conservatism. When I hear about women like the mother who called up the teacher to complain, I almost fear the religious right more than the anti-religionists. It really doesn’t matter which is worse, in the end. Just that both extremes are deleterious to the truth, which shall set us free…

Comment by tinabrewer — March 21, 2006 @ 6:53 pm

Date: 2006/03/21 14:14:10, Link
Author: stevestory
stevestory is gone. -dt

Date: 2006/03/21 14:21:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

I'm derailing YOU, pal. You're gone.-dt
Hey me, I already banned him. You're ...uh...we're gone. -dt

Date: 2006/03/21 15:04:34, Link
Author: stevestory
trying to expain to you, for the n-th time, what post-ID means, is not the point of the thread. There were a few relevant comments for a while, and I appreciate the people who left those.

Date: 2006/03/21 15:11:52, Link
Author: stevestory
HO-LEY CRAP.
Quote
Three comments of mine were deleted from Panda’s Thumb just yesterday. They were less offensive than yours, shorter, and I even used three different names in an effort to hide my identity. Don’t give me any sanctimonious crap about them being more open to debate. The only difference between me and them is I’m not trying hide anything. And I put your post up, little troll. Sans vowels. :lol: -ds

" I even used three different names in an effort to hide my identity." one sentence later "The only difference between me and them is I’m not trying hide anything."

He just pulled ahead of Doug Moron.



Date: 2006/03/21 15:29:06, Link
Author: stevestory
now he's modified it to say
Quote
Three comments of mine were deleted from Panda’s Thumb just yesterday. They were less offensive than yours, shorter, and I even used three different names in an effort to hide my identity. Don’t give me any sanctimonious crap about them being more open to debate. The only difference between me and them is I’m not trying hide anything (except the name DaveScot from PT censors). And I put your post up, little troll. Sans vowels. :lol: -ds

Date: 2006/03/21 15:33:41, Link
Author: stevestory
this juxtaposition is sweet:


Quote
#

Three comments of mine were deleted from Panda’s Thumb just yesterday. They were less offensive than yours, shorter, and I even used three different names in an effort to hide my identity. Don’t give me any sanctimonious crap about them being more open to debate. The only difference between me and them is I’m not trying hide anything (except the name DaveScot from PT censors). And I put your post up, little troll. Sans vowels. :lol: -ds


Comment by JKVisFX — March 21, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
#

Dave, why do you never post my comments? I find them stimulating and well-written, not to toot my own horn.

I don’t recognize your name. Sorry. This is the only comment of yours I have for reference. Maybe I deleted the others for being unforgivably forgettable? -ds
Comment by jt636 — March 21, 2006 @ 6:49 pm

Date: 2006/03/21 15:43:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Man, I'm having to peel myself away from Scrubs to post this stuff, it's coming in fast and furious right now.

Quote
#

I was just slumming through that thread and found this:

“Christians, can’t live with em, can’t feed em to the lions anymore.”

It’s comment #88206 by BWE. I should also say that I looked pretty hard to find where this person was somehow reprimanded for it but couldn’t see that it was even acknowledged. Over here, we have no tolerance for attacks like that directed toward any faith.

I can hardly believe you wrote this immediately following a comment about people being overly sensitive. Non sequitur. -ds

Comment by crandaddy — March 21, 2006 @ 8:03 pm


Davetard vs crandaddy?...can't they somehow both lose?

Date: 2006/03/22 03:27:41, Link
Author: stevestory
This software seems to use a signed 16-bit integer to hold the number of views, because said number has been stuck at 32767 for a while. WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO. We maxed out the odometer on this thread. Let's all have a party and get drunk and toast Davetard.

Date: 2006/03/22 04:12:41, Link
Author: stevestory
We calculated UD posts got 8 something comments per thread? What do we have here, 1625 coments? That's 203 Uncommonly Dense threads.

So yeah, it's possible that we've gotten more comments than the entire site we're mocking.

Of course, UD would have a lot more comments if DaveScot et al didn't delete half of them for real or imagined infractions.

Date: 2006/03/22 08:25:33, Link
Author: stevestory
improvius, several of us haven't taken him to task on this because go back and look at what happens when someone does explain something to him. He misconstrues it and makes demands for more explanations. It only makes things worse.

Date: 2006/03/22 12:16:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Weird. The 'views' number is going up again on this thread. I know it hung at 32767 for a long time. that doesn't make sense.

Ah, I just scrolled up and saw Wes's post. You didn't have to change it, wes, I kind of liked being the first? only? thread past the odometer. :-)

Date: 2006/03/22 15:29:01, Link
Author: stevestory
it's easy to tell Cordova and Davetard apart.

Salvador Cordova is a layman with insane views like the belief the earth is 6,000 years old.

Whereas Davetard is the guy who just said that a layman having ignorant science views is the evolutionists' fault.

Date: 2006/03/23 06:04:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Stranger than fiction



Posts: 12
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 23 2006,11:55  
Anyone know what dougmoran does for a living?  How does he know 30 to 40 MD's well enough to have had conversations about evolution with them?
Considering his arrogance plus ignorance, that belief that he's unusually intellectually honest, I would guess small business owner with no degree.

Date: 2006/03/23 07:50:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 18
Joined: Oct. 2005
 Posted: Mar. 22 2006,22:30    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry is posting as Noname in the Hunter's Distortions thread.  
When one person can cause the system so much grief, the system needs to be modifed.

Date: 2006/03/23 12:20:50, Link
Author: stevestory
oh, DougMoron's an engineer.





"LINE!"

Date: 2006/03/24 02:45:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Anyway, I'm really sorry this is off-topic. Cheers!
Not at all, you're perfectly on topic. The general topic is, pointing and laughing at the fools Dembski left in charge. Read other pages in this thread if you want to have some fun. Uncommonly Dense is what happens when you put 5 Homer Simpsons in charge.

Remember how Homer would talk down to Lisa about some sophisticated topic, because he was so clueless he thought he was brilliant? That's Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2006/03/24 04:24:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Perfect example of that. GilDodgy says

Quote
“The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.”
Afarensis posts this first part of a response:

http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....re

And then GilDodgy post this, thinking he's actually won:

Quote
March 23, 2006
My 15 Minutes of Infamy in the Evolutionary Anthropology Community
As the result of a somewhat insensitive and politically incorrect comment I made about evolutionary anthropology here, I have been immortalized for a few minutes at scienceblogs.com.

My comment was as follows: “The methods and concepts of evolutionary anthropology often consist of making up stories, presenting them as facts, and arriving at silly conclusions.”

Apparently this comment struck a nerve, because the author of the article (linked below) launches into a brilliant explanation about how studying tooth enamel reveals so much about human evolution.

He makes my point much more effectively than I. I’ll leave it to UD readers to be the judge.


http://scienceblogs.com/afarens....re

Filed under: Intelligent Design — GilDodgen @ 9:19 pm
Complete with overblown self-importance ("My infamy...")

It's like watching Martin Brazeau pummel Ghost of Paley. Ghost pisses you off so you like seeing him get his a55 kicked, but it's so brutal you kind of cringe.

You can just see Homer making some idiotic yet confident remark, a scientist explaining to him at length why he's wrong, and then homer saying, "Whatever all that meant, I'm still right."

Date: 2006/03/24 04:31:00, Link
Author: stevestory
I have talked with a behind the scenes person at UD, and the above discussion about Davetard's petulant and ignorant behavior matches what I was told. It was also suggested to me that Dembski just doesn't want to do the work of purging the site of contrary opinion himself anymore.

Date: 2006/03/24 10:35:15, Link
Author: stevestory
It's an all-win situation for us. They can say whatever they want, they can hurl every insult, level every charge of conspiracy, censorship, atheism, ID will never be real science.  No amount of hysterical christianity can change that. Whether they ever have any political or legal victories, ID will never ever be science.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:01:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Seems like yesterday Davetard was blaming the church burnings in Alabama on Panda's Thumb. Now we find out Judge Jones has recieved death threats. Will Davetard accept responsibility. Like he said, words have consequences.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:40:15, Link
Author: stevestory
oh no. wasn't you.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:43:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Anyone able to spot the link between A and B.
I can spot the difference. Compared to A, B is a sexy man. With a better haircut.

Date: 2006/03/25 04:53:39, Link
Author: stevestory
Good for you, Renier, if you used to be a fundie and were able to change your mind. Fundiness is so hard to break I don't even try to persuade them. I consider religion a family of insanities which are mostly benign, but occasionally malevolent and lead to suicide bombing etc.

Date: 2006/03/25 06:06:15, Link
Author: stevestory
We all remember Davetard blaming the Alabama church burnings on Panda's Thumb. Will he blame Uncommonly Dense for threats against Judge Jones?

No. I'm aiming for the 2006 World's Dumbest Inconsistency or Self-Contradiction Award.  I'm trying to beat DougMoron's juggernaut entry. -dt

Date: 2006/03/25 12:03:12, Link
Author: stevestory
steve_h, that's it. He says evidence can't go to the question of god, so theists like him can be intellectually free and honest, and then a paragraph later he's forgotten this and says atheists have to ignore evidence of god, hence are dishonest, and then when it's pointed out he refuses to admit it on a thread about how important it is for people to suck it up and be intellectually honest.

I mean, GOD####, that is magnificently retarded. I mean, that post is standing at the pinnacle of a mountain, it's cape flapping in a breeze, sunset casting a golden glow across it's chiseled features, gloriously retarded. It is the ne plus ultra of tard. It is to other retarded posts as Michael Jordan was to Craig Ehlo, on a distinct plane above even the world's best.

Date: 2006/03/25 12:11:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Tiax, good catch. Those two quotes are contradictory. Of course there's no way to tell which describes ID, because there is no theory of ID. ID is something somewhen consciously brought something into being somehow. It is fit only for fools like Paul Nelson and the Uncommonly Dense crowd.

Date: 2006/03/25 12:22:47, Link
Author: stevestory
I've got a comment about
Quote
I share your views. I went from fundie xtian to liberal xtain to agnostic to atheist (in 6 sec flat - just had to say that) - in about a year.
but I don't want to contribute to derailing here, so I'm posting it up a level.

Date: 2006/03/25 12:27:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I share your views. I went from fundie xtian to liberal xtain to agnostic to atheist (in 6 sec flat - just had to say that) - in about a year.
I'm glad I didn't have to go through what must have been a very painful event. For whatever reason I just never bought it in the first place. I was a very skeptical and contrary kid. Never believed in ghosts, Santa Claus, god, or any similar mythical creatures.

Date: 2006/03/25 12:36:08, Link
Author: stevestory
This WingNutDaily article, posted on Uncommonly Dense, deserves its own thread, so dumb, arrogant, and stuffed to bursting with error it is:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49431

Is there anything from the Index of Creationist Claims she didn't hit?

Date: 2006/03/25 12:51:40, Link
Author: stevestory
I love their use of the word perspective. They use it all the time. If they said "ID Theory says blah blah blah about viruses" their supporters would realize there's no such thing. So they say "the ID perspective on viruses blah blah blah".

Date: 2006/03/25 16:03:27, Link
Author: stevestory
What are you missing? Wrong question. What is Barry missing is the question. And the answer is, "the sense god gave a goose."

Date: 2006/03/25 16:09:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
This is why I am excited about ID – and honored to be invited to post on this site - because ID gives up hope for freedom. Holmes was tightly bound by the fetters of Darwinism. Tragically, he believed he was compelled to accept Darwin’s ideas and accommodate the law to those ideas. To me, the most thrilling thing about ID is that it shows us that while Darwinism may be true, it is not necessarily true. ID gives us hope that we can look forward to a day in this nation – and indeed the world – when our minds will have been finally wrested from Darwin’s tyrannical grasp. After 150 years of ascendancy, I hear the creaks and groans of an edifice on the verge of toppling, and all of our institutions – not least the law – will be better when it finally does.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — BarryA @ 4:29 pm


:D This guy is going to be awesome.

Date: 2006/03/26 04:54:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Either that, or he just doesn't care anymore and posts gibberish to keep his blog going.
Dembski knows better. But he knows his constituents don't.

Date: 2006/03/26 04:58:16, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Not only does jimbo display a profound lack of understanding with respect to the history of memory research, but he links to a website that posits a tenuous explanation for memory.
It is tempting to write a full reply to his assertion, but it would take something on the order of talkorigins to go over all the evidence. Suffice it to say, if any other posters have specific questions I will do my best to answer them.
No worries Drew. We're in no danger of believing Jimbo's idiotic comments. We know that you guys don't 'see a little blood flow and think you've got everything figured out'. Because we're not idiots.

Date: 2006/03/26 05:26:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Brand new UD dumdum is doing the whole "we're not a religion, we just have *implications* for religion....

Date: 2006/03/26 06:14:11, Link
Author: stevestory
It's nothing Dembski hasn't said before.

Date: 2006/03/26 07:22:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
  Lisa:  Dad, do you know what Schadenfreude is?
  Homer: No, I do not know what shaden-frawde is. Please tell me, because I'm dying to know.
  Lisa:  It's a German term for `shameful joy', taking pleasure in the suffering
         of others.
  Homer: Oh, come on Lisa.  I'm just glad to see him fall flat on his butt!
           He's usually all happy and comfortable, and surrounded by loved ones,
         and it makes me feel...  What's the opposite of that shameful joy
         thing of yours?
  Lisa:   Sour grapes.
  Homer: Boy, those Germans have a word for everything!


Schadenfreude isn't exactly what I feel. I don't get any pleasure out of seeing misery in ordinary people. But the Uncommonly Dense crew are our enemies. They pursue the ruin of science, and it's replacement with religion. So watching them crash upon the rocks inspires a certain malicious glee.

Date: 2006/03/26 07:52:54, Link
Author: stevestory
What gives it that Unintentional Irony punch is the juxtaposition of qetzal's snippet with

Quote

What makes it so much fun to watch is that so far not one of the critics understands it.

Date: 2006/03/26 07:57:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

On top of a pile of peer-reviewed, researched papers.
LOL!

clapclapclapclapclap.

Date: 2006/03/26 12:19:19, Link
Author: stevestory
if you went about it the right way you could discuss religion probably quite a bit. If I wanted to discuss religion on this board I'd start a thread for it. that would stand a better chance of surviving than hijacking a thread. but the occasional comment is not likely to get you in trouble. I make occasional insults toward religion and I never hear from Wes.

Date: 2006/03/26 12:32:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Why do we only have an infinitessimal amount to time (compared with eternity) to make a decision which, if we get wrong, condemns us to an unending #### of pain, anguish and torture?  Because some ancient book tells us we deserve it???
We have the idea of eternal torture because it was compatible with the ethical systems of the primitives who wrote the bible. Since we're not barbarians anymore, we find the barbarian laws unpleasant. Let me rephrase that. Those of us who aren't barbarians find those barbarian laws unpleasant. Some people still are barbarians, and will murder for their god. It's no surprise to me that people who commit to living by the barbarian book are more supportive of barbarism.

Date: 2006/03/26 14:56:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Renier, pointing him to TalkOrigins would be pointless. You're assuming that he is just ignorant of the basic evidence for evolution. But you must also notice that he is stupid enough to believe that he knows better than the overwhelming number of scientists in the relevant field. Evidence can correct ignorance, but can it correct stupidity?

Date: 2006/03/26 15:08:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Whatever we call it, evidence alone can't fix it.

Date: 2006/03/26 17:53:28, Link
Author: stevestory
standing O for Tiax. My hat's off to you pal.

clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*
clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*
clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*
clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*
clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*

Date: 2006/03/27 04:09:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Maybe DougMoron should ask his ID friends those questions. I mean, he is surrounded by a bunch of Galileos, isn't he?

Date: 2006/03/27 11:37:36, Link
Author: stevestory
if he wants evidence of stuff before believing in it, that's what you should be trying to cultivate, not belief in fairies and gods.

Date: 2006/03/27 13:46:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Whichever barbarians came up with the idea first, everlasting torture is all over the bible, and the people who follow the bible are influenced toward barbarism.

Date: 2006/03/28 03:28:25, Link
Author: stevestory
given the threats against Judge Jones, you think they'd be pretending they never talked about a blog being responsible for actions.

Date: 2006/03/28 03:32:03, Link
Author: stevestory
i can see though how getting him to believe in santa and then having him figure out different could provide a real teachable moment about evidence and belief.

Date: 2006/03/28 04:37:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
My major complaint is that you do not clearly state your points.

You deliberately make it difficult to communicate.
How do you know it's deliberate? How do you know his skill at communication isn't just as weak as his skill at logic?

Date: 2006/03/28 05:14:57, Link
Author: stevestory
The simple fact that you know enough to talk to your kid about how evidence and claims and beliefs work means the kid is probably going to turn out alright. The kid probably won't be as susceptible to the really awful reasons people believe in religions, such as "I just know it's true" or "the bible says it." or whatever.

Date: 2006/03/28 05:25:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Dawkin’s
Just last week I saw some creationist possessivize PZ's last name as Myer's. I know possessives can get confusing in some cases, but those aren't.

Date: 2006/03/28 07:14:14, Link
Author: stevestory
You left out that the person who said the thing about punching teeth out was criticised, and apologized.

I'm sure you simply forgot that part.

Date: 2006/03/28 07:52:04, Link
Author: stevestory
There's no telling what kind of violent comments have been made on UD because they delete so many comments. DaveScot has deleted hundreds of his own comments after they've proven embarrassing. Who knows what was in them all. The point is, saying Panda's Thumb incites violence is stupid. "christianity sucks" is not an incitement to violence.

Date: 2006/03/28 07:55:49, Link
Author: stevestory
ericmurphy, you might enjoy PZ's comments on the whole 'life begins at conception' nonsense.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/black_white.php

Date: 2006/03/28 09:38:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Hey Steve,

Yes, a whole bunch of arguments I hadn't thought of as well, but I think it's really Thordaddy who needs to click on your link to give him an idea of how meaningless the entire question really is.
Yeah, but i sent it to you because you'd appreciate it. Thordaddy can't tell sh1t from apple butter, as we say in the south.

Date: 2006/03/28 09:56:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Arden, you little church burner.

lol.

Date: 2006/03/28 10:02:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Welcome creationists who followed DaveTard's link over here. If you have a moment, enjoy this link:

DaveScot Steps in it Again...Or, the Case of Missing Post 744

Date: 2006/03/28 10:07:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Keiths, thanks for posting that. I wouldn't have seen it myself. I don't go to JAD's blog. He's angry and unhinged, but it's not the kind of wholly ignorant babbling that makes Uncommonly Dense so amusingly self-contradictory and ironic.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:02:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Also, I did not support what happened to the Armenians. Sorry for any possible confusion.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:09:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
You will even find active (although unpopular) threads right here at pro-science ATBC dedicated to mocking the religious - threads which are not locked or removed, oddly enough, given the rules for participation here.
Although other participants may admonish some offensive commenters (if the hate speech that Arden admits exists isn't directed at the right religious people) the statements are not removed, the commenters are not considered excessively annoying and banned, and the ridicule is actually instigated by some of those with posting privileges.
I'm not going to respect your religion, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

Date: 2006/03/28 13:14:34, Link
Author: stevestory
Sanctum, I browsed the last 60 comments here, and the worst you've come up with is us "mocking the religious". Is this all you've got? Is that the worst sin you've found?

Date: 2006/03/28 13:33:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, you're making the argument that we're so vicious and morally bankrupt compared to Uncommon Descent, I expect you to provide some evidence, but the worst I see is you claim that some of us mock the religious. You got anything stronger?

Date: 2006/03/28 14:18:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I am wondering if there has been any effort by PT to curtail the anti-religious rhetoric, in light of the situation, and its unenforced rules. I'm not saying it's necessary.
Not really, because no harm has come from it. If they want to start enforcing a rule, they need to start enforcing Rule 6, and get Larry's sorry ass, and all 17 names he's used, outta there. He derails every other #### thread. and they could send everything Carol Clouser writes straight to the bathroom wall. But the PT people are undermotivated in the censoring department. Unlike Uncommonly Dense, where Dembski and Davetard have described their editing of comments as, i'm not kidding, "ruthless".

Stephen Elliot, here's Hitchens's use of antitheist:
Quote
You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:31:34, Link
Author: stevestory
I know, Arden, I was just kidding. Anyway, everybody knows that PT contributers urge everyone to burn down  Lutheran churches. The ones in Alabama were Baptist. I mean, duh. Davetard is just way off.

Date: 2006/03/28 14:36:34, Link
Author: stevestory
guys, the AIDS situation in Africa doesn't help attack the fags. Therefore, it doesn't count. I mean, stop being so biased.

Date: 2006/03/28 15:11:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Now I remember. Andrea Battaro said that New Harmony Holiness Church was unAmerican, shortly before it was burned down.

Oh wait, that never happened. No one at PT ever said derogatory things about the target of the arson, the way the leader of UD said derogatory things about the target of the threats.

Date: 2006/03/29 03:01:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
For those with a vested interest in not looking like morons for believing the simplistic Darwinian time and chance fairy tale the tipping point hasn’t been reached yet but it’s nearing a bursting point. The more informed boys still clinging to it have a liberty bell of cognitive dissonance ringing in their cranial cavities as we speak. They either reach a tipping point, accept where it leads to quiet the bell, or go nuts. I think it’s too late for some of them and they’ve taken the road less travelled. Their only hope of a normal life from here is through the world of modern mind-manipulating pharmaceuticals to help them cope with a reality that doesn’t fit their fixed mental model of reality i.e. cognitive dissonance. These poor souls will become relics of a mistaken past they cannot part with. Pitiable eccentrics clinging to the genetic equivalent of a flat earth theory. Genomic Luddites. A rotten shame really as many of them are otherwise fairly bright people that might have contributed something useful to the world if they’d just swallowed their pride and admitted their error.

We're going to take over any day now!

*yawn*

Date: 2006/03/29 04:22:49, Link
Author: stevestory
The things I heard growing up in North Florida were the usual suspects.

"If we came from monkeys how come monkeys ain't still evolvin [into humans]?"
"You can watch that dog out there fer 1000 years it ain't never gonna turn into no horse."
"Evolution's just a theee-reee. Anybody can come up with a thee-reee."

So very early on, I understood that the anti-evolution side's not just wrong, but stupid and/or ignorant.

Date: 2006/03/29 07:07:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Why bother trying to post at Uncommon Descent? Did Carl Faberge give his eggs to a 3-year-old with a hammer?

Date: 2006/03/29 11:29:24, Link
Author: stevestory
BTW Arden, what's your icon about?

Date: 2006/03/29 11:35:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard's just mad he was caught plagiarizing me.

Oh yeah? Well now I'm caught banning you. -dt

Date: 2006/03/29 11:42:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Let's take a walk down memory lane, at one of those comments Davetard made, then deleted:

Quote
You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor.


And just for kicks let's look at what Discovery Institute Spokesdummy Casey Luskin said Monday afternoon.
Quote
To illustrate the difference between these two approaches, one can look at vertebrate embryos and recognize that they start developing very differently in a way which challenges the famous "biogenetic law," inspired by the faked 19th century "research" drawings of Ernst Haeckel (below). One can inform students that actual embryological data challenges the notion of common descent without saying anything about intelligent design or other alternatives to Darwinism.

(http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/teach_em_all_poll_misuses_disc.html)


D'oh!

Purty easy to see why Dave deletes himself so much, eh?

Date: 2006/03/29 11:54:00, Link
Author: stevestory
when he said he didn't delete himself, that was hyperbole. You church burner.

Date: 2006/03/29 12:00:36, Link
Author: stevestory
anyway Dave, shut up about me and Arden and go call DougMoron and tell him to get busy. He hasn't posted anything in 4 days and we're jonesing. Davetard is so February. DougMoron is the new hotness!

Date: 2006/03/29 14:13:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

So, you suppose we'll actually get to see Dave delete the thread where he claims to never delete threads?
I think if that happened, I'd go back to smoking.

Date: 2006/03/30 03:42:24, Link
Author: stevestory
but how much ontogenetic depth do the damselfish have?

Date: 2006/03/30 03:46:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Don't forget Barry Arrogant.  He's new, but quite retarded.
Barry Arrogant is the Carmelo Anthony of tard. He's young and flashy and has a lot of potential, but no rings on his finger yet. We'll have to see what he's really made of.

Date: 2006/03/30 03:52:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
“One practical benefit is they wouldn’t have to waste time trying to gratuitously fit the word “evolution” into everything they publish in order to get the tacit approval of influential senior scientists, who are predominantly atheists, who might not otherwise view the work or the author favorably.”

Okay, so they can save some ink. But I’m still not sure that I see how their day-to-day activities would change. Let’s take the article that Dembski referenced as an example (which is not, as the post title suggests, making the claim that natural selection developed Boolean logic).

Suppose for the moment that the researchers who wrote the article were supporters of ID (I’m presuming they are examples of the ‘genomic luddites’ you mentioned, though I could be wrong). What would they have done differently, if anything, in their research? Would they even have carried out that research? Would they have presented their results differently? You’ve implied that ‘time and chance’ is incapable of explaining the complexity of genetic structure. Okay. Suppose the authors had agreed with that. Would their research program look any different in any significant way, and if so, how?

I can’t answer this unless you give me a specific example of a research program. -ds


Dave, you can't just tell us what the ID research program looks like in that area? He's probably too busy doing ID experiments to answer.

Date: 2006/03/30 04:02:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
The newest entry by none other than WAD hisself is titled, "Evolution in free-fall."  Are we about to meet our "Waterloo" again?
LOL if i were an evolutionary biologist, I think I'd walk around wishing everyone Good Waterloo.

"Waterloo to you sir."
"And good Waterloo to you. How are you doing this fine Waterloo?"

Date: 2006/03/30 04:08:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I used to work with this guy who had an interesting experience.  He told me about how he was dreading going to Georgia (from MI) to visit his grandmother because she was so backward.  She thought that heaven and god resided above the clouds....or more accurately that the clouds were like the ground for heaven.
One of my mom's elementary-school-teacher colleagues told me one time how amazing it was that rockets got so high into space and still haven't seen heaven yet.

Date: 2006/03/30 04:14:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Wow.  That borders on insanity.
It is insanity. A mild case of it. Think of the person as a High Functioning Christian.

Date: 2006/03/30 04:34:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Barry Arrogant has a tough row to hoe. It's hard competing with Tard Hall of Famers like Doug Moron:

Quote
It seems the whole of the athiestic worldview now depends on the existence of something that cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Were I an athiest I would indeed be feeling quite insecure.

Comment by dougmoran — March 12, 2006 @ 12:59 pm


Quote

But then everyone will think you are Abba fans...
well, I am ha-ving the time-of my life...

Date: 2006/03/30 05:05:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Okay, look, I TOLD you last time you cited that quote it took 6 months off my lifespan just reading it and who KNOWS how many brain cells it cost me. So don't do it again.
LOL I know. reading that quote is like getting hit by Mike Tyson, it makes me punchdrunk.

Date: 2006/03/30 05:20:11, Link
Author: stevestory
all mimsy were the Doug Morons
and the Dave Tards outgrabe

Date: 2006/03/30 07:12:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Too right Arden. "Our argument isn't religious, you just don't like it because you hate jesus. Science should be expanded to include ID, and ID is already legitimate science."

Date: 2006/03/30 07:48:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I'm just relieved that SteveStory's count is up to 667 now. He probably won't burn any churches anymore. Probably.


tell me what church you attend and I'll make an exception. -ss

Date: 2006/03/30 07:54:39, Link
Author: stevestory
I wonder why they haven't put up an area at uncommonly dense devoted to mocking Panda's Thumb. Perhaps because we already came up for the best name for such a site, The Panda's Bum, and they want neither to give us credit or use an inferior name.

Date: 2006/03/30 10:11:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Indeed, one of the little joys of Uncommonly Dense is when Davetard (or someone else) says something indefensibly boneheaded and you see the post sit for days with no or very few comments, because Davetard is having to delete handfulls of people trying to correct him.

Date: 2006/03/30 10:39:12, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL
Quote


Finally, Nick Matzke Finds An Opponent That Makes Him Look Smart

I’d like to be the first to congratulate Nick Matzke on finding an adversary that makes Nick look well versed in science by comparison. It’s about time. Maybe if Nick starting fisking nursery rhymes for bad science he could appear even smarter than he does now.

Update: Awe shucks. It looks like I was wrong. The adversary is Dr. Robert C. Newman who was awarded a doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from (Ivy League) Cornell in 1967. Nick has not only failed to attain a doctorate, he switched his major at an unremarkable school from chemistry and biology to the much more lightweight field of geography. What’s next for Nick, a doctorate in basket weaving from the ITT Technical Institute? Theoretical Astrophysics is pretty much your stereotypical rocket science and far beyond Nick’s meager intellectual abilities. My abject apologies to Dr. Newman for the comparison.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 4:01 am




2 Comments »

  1.

     Boy,
     I just read the article, then I read the post on Panda’s Thumb and all the comments. It is a constant stream of ridicule and spitefulness. Not a single constructive comment on the whole thing. Very hostile and closedminded.

     Who are these guys? THey seem to know who UD and Dave Scot are. My next point would have to be removed by the moderator for being overtly hostile so I will moderate it myself.

     It’s worth reading the comments though just to see how they think.

     Comment by Doug — March 30, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
  2.

     It’s just ridicule and spitefulness…you mean, as opposed to Dave’s highly substantive post above that you are replying to?

     Coming from the crown prince of Darwinian flame artists I’ll take that as a compliment, Ed. Thanks!

     Comment by Ed Brayton — March 30, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

Date: 2006/03/30 11:11:18, Link
Author: stevestory
That's the great part. When davetard read what Newman wrote he called it garbage. When he found out what a big name Newman is in the ID movement, he had to eat his words or face the spectre of Philip Johnson etc calling garbage brilliant.

He was right the first time. Newman's stuff is garbage, and Philip Johnson etc are calling garbage brilliant.

Date: 2006/03/30 14:23:53, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL!

Quote
#

PZ is an icon of hypocrisy:
-He blasts ID proponents for not understanding biology, yet he himself does not understand the ID concept of complex specified information (otherwise he wouldn’t post rants like this one)
...
Comment by Qualiatative — March 30, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
and in case you're confused, no, the words 'this one' in Qualitarded's post goes to exactly where i linked it. It's a link to the page you're already at.

Edit: it's effectively a link to the page you're already at. It's a broken link, technically.

Date: 2006/03/30 15:32:09, Link
Author: stevestory
#

“He quotes ID proponents that make metaphysical statements in order to discredit them, yet on his very own blog Myers makes a habit of proselytizing his atheism.”

I always thought that Myers is an atheist or agnostic. Then I read this. What do you all think of his claim to be a Christian?

Comment by crandaddy — March 30, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
#

crandaddy,

You linked to a comment made by PvM, not PZ.

Comment by Qualiatative — March 30, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

Date: 2006/03/31 05:37:33, Link
Author: stevestory
on Davetard:
Quote
I would suggest that it’s pretty silly for the person in the minority to try to make an argument based on the weight of degrees and on elitism. I find that generally a sign of intellectual vacuity in any case, and when one knows that one’s opponents are more numerous, with more prestigious degrees, and a much more substantial research and publication record, then it’s vacuity compounded by stupidity. Of course, he would like to think he’s merely attacking Nick Matzke, and perhaps is enjoying his cheap shot when he thinks he can get by with it. I would suggest instead working on some of that scientific research. Perhaps he can show us sometime how any amount of mathematical formulas will make garbage-in not result in garbage out.


from Henry Neufeld's blog http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=143

soon afterward, Davetard shows up to issue his devastating retort:

Quote
#  DaveScot Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

“But my nonsense detector is in good shape.”

Says you…


Quote
#  bigdumbchimp Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

“Says you…”

wow

I’ve changed my opinion on the basis of that 2 word retort.
Quote
#  CedricKatesby Says:
March 31st, 2006 at 9:55 am

Hey, cut DaveScot a break.
He doesn’t have time to come up with anything really snappy.
He’s spends pretty much all his time deleting unwelcome posts at UncommonPissant.
Sad really.



Quote
#  Henry Neufeld Says:
March 31st, 2006 at 10:30 am

Well, I was going to comment as to how my ego was so deflated by DaveScot’s incisive commentary that I’d probably have to quit blogging, but it appears others are equally impressed with his retort.

I’m wondering something. How many people actually believe that the reason comments are removed from UncommonDescent is that Dembski is bored with them as he says in his comments policy? How many people think he has a distended and sensitive ego and can’t stand people making fun of him?

I would note that DaveScot made it back here to post his highly intellectual comment, but my trackback to them never showed up. It’s possible that a trackback got lost in cyberspace or …

Date: 2006/03/31 06:53:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
This is something I think we should hammer in — current evolutionary theory DEPENDS ENTIRELY on specific views of the origin of life which have shown LITTLE OR NO HOPE in being true. The attempt to separate the two is not that they are validly separate ideas, but that evolutionists are trying to cover up for a total empirical failure of their paradigm.

Comment by johnnyb — March 31, 2006 @ 11:40 am
One is reminded of Hamlet.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but capitalizing makes it so."

Date: 2006/03/31 07:01:48, Link
Author: stevestory
And Sal, if you're ever ready to come to grips with Dembski's fraud, you could start here. http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006....ad.html

Date: 2006/03/31 09:05:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Drew, I'd guess that's a spoof. But Remember Russell's Law: it's impossible to tell with certainty between a creationist and a spoof of one.

Date: 2006/03/31 11:30:26, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL!

Date: 2006/03/31 14:29:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
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.

Does Davetard know that some of his peers there at Uncommonly Dense, like Salvadork, believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time?

Date: 2006/03/31 15:53:59, Link
Author: stevestory
In addition to what Wesley said, I would suggest you not do that for a strategic and efficiency reason. Pretty much whatever you want to say, Wes will let you say it here. There's awfully little threat of banning or deletion. Go ahead and say what you want here. We know the unconfident Davetard watches us. If you say it here, he'll see it. I know you want the UD viewers to see it, but we just have to hope they get around to enough sites they eventually learn how awful UD is.

Date: 2006/04/01 04:49:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Basically, Dave is calling blogmate Salvador a dumbass.

I agree, Dave. Salvador is a dumbass.

Date: 2006/04/01 09:30:54, Link
Author: stevestory
What's Davetard talking about numbers of voters for? What's that have to do with a state approving an amendment?

Date: 2006/04/01 11:57:51, Link
Author: stevestory
This seems like an area for productive ID research. Does the Intelligent Designer respond to customer complaints for a redesign?

Date: 2006/04/01 12:25:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Aww, Poor Barry. It's soooo haaaard to be a christian in america today.

He should try being an atheist in the south. He'd go running home to Mommy.

Date: 2006/04/01 15:07:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard apparently wants to put Intelligent Design in schools via an amendment to the US constitution.

Date: 2006/04/01 15:41:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, you know, these are extraordinary circumstances. ID has led to an explosion of scientific knowledge, many captivating experiments, countless papers, it is the subject of conferences and entire journals, even the most ardent opponents grudgingly admit it has some explanatory power (Micro-ID they call it), and yet judge Jones, an atheist Democrat, has single-handedly censored it from the textbooks. ID supporters have tried everything, including making pleasant and cordial phone calls to Jones and his family. I guess they just have no choice but to alter the constitution.

Date: 2006/04/01 16:03:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

To be fair, he does not say that directly.
I don't care. Eliminating the ability of the federal government to do what Judge Jones did is clearly part of what he's shooting for.

Date: 2006/04/01 20:15:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, it's the whole State's Rights type stuff, which they loudly talk about when the feds do something they don't like, but which goes out the window when conservatives get control of the federal government. Then you get things like Raich vs Ashcroft.

Date: 2006/04/02 12:47:47, Link
Author: stevestory
IIRC, our current activities are causing extinctions at an historical level. Stopping this would probably take some dramatic policies. But what Uncommonly Dense is doing is a technique familiar to anyone who's seen fox news and rush limbaugh &c. Find someone who's certifiably insane, and portray him as a representative of your opposition. "Liberals like Pianka want to murder you to protect some spotted owl..." It's an amazingly effective strategy, as attested by their political success over the last 15 years.

Date: 2006/04/02 12:54:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Good point. If global warming is such a big problem and popping off thousands of nukes will cause a nuclear winter, shouldn’t popping off a few hundred nukes just serve to arrest global warming in its tracks? We shouldn’t even have to do it all at once. We could do like 50 per year and measure the effect each year. The Gobi would be the perfect place. Nothing lives there so it won’t make much difference if a few billion tons of Gobi sand is turned into stratospheric dust.

Why hasn’t anyone suggested this before?
Too many people have basic science educations, perhaps? One slight problem with Barry's short-bus science notions.

Date: 2006/04/03 04:56:14, Link
Author: stevestory
that formatting is kind of confusing.

Date: 2006/04/03 05:55:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Drastic reductions in our energy and resources footprint would not be difficult. We just put no value on it as a society. Some people give lip service to it, but others claim some perverse value whereby whatever consumption activities have been done by Americans recently, now become "the American lifestyle", and the preservation of those careless and wasteful activities becomes some kind of pseudoethical value. Big reductions in our energy and resources footprint would not be difficult at all. For example, I have a Nissan Sentra, but I typically drive my Honda Metro II scooter the 3 miles to my engineering job in RTP. The sentra gets 35 mpg. The scooter, which I drive the vast majority of the time, gets somewhere around 80 mpg. I could afford a 2000 sq ft house and a $200/mo power bill, but instead I have a 700 sq ft apt which costs $50/mo to heat or cool.

It's easy to do, people just have to value it.

Date: 2006/04/03 07:18:15, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. I have a feeling someone's about to get banninated:
Quote
April 3, 2006
Irreducible Complexity Redux?

When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence? Here’s just the latest edition:

   The propulsion system used by slime-squirting bacteria could teach rocket scientists and nano-engineers some new tricks.

   Myxobacteria are micrometre-scale filament-shaped organisms that glide along surfaces, leaving a trail of slime in their wake. Biologists were convinced the bugs produced the slime as lubricant, but couldn’t explain how they generated the force to move.

   Now it turns out that the bacteria push themselves along by ejecting the slime from nozzles on their bodies. “They are little rockets,” says Andrey Dobrynin, a polymer scientist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

Myxobacteria have 250 nozzles located on each end. By squirting slime from one set or the other they can dart forward or back at up to 10 micrometres per second.

http://www.newscientist.com/article....nd.html
Filed under: Intelligent Design — PaV @ 8:50 am
Quote
#

“When scientists have to continually look to nature to figure out how to do things well, doesn’t it become apparent at some point that we’re dealing with embodied intelligence?”

No. Why?

Comment by physicist — April 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am

Date: 2006/04/03 07:37:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Remember how the idiots at Uncommonly Dense alleged Panda's Thumb was responsible for the church burnings in Alabama? Then refused to take the blame for inspiring the threats against Judge Jones? Well, now Pianka is getting threats.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....tti.php

UD badmouths Jones, Jones gets threats. UD badmouth's Pianka, Pianka gets threats....hmm.....

Date: 2006/04/03 09:07:34, Link
Author: stevestory
it's a ripoff word

Date: 2006/04/03 09:16:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Detonating 50 or so nuclear bombs per year in the Gobi desert to balance out global warming, which both Davetard and Barry Arrogante supported, may be the most scientifically illiterate thing any Uncommonly Dense person has ever said.

Well, Salvador's a Young Earth Creationist. So I guess not. Still, it's close.

'Physicist' should ask Doug for the CSI calculation on the slime-squirting bacteria. I mean, that is the criterion for design, no? Something is designed if it has CSI? Surely he wasn't just going, "I reckon that looks designed."

Date: 2006/04/03 09:20:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Santum, your complaints fall on the deaf ears of us church-burners.

Date: 2006/04/03 09:52:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Dembski's bragging on UD that he called Homeland Security and reported someone based on heresay. Sit back and take that in. Everything you need to know about the sanity of the Intelligent Design movement is right there.

Date: 2006/04/03 10:30:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Btw, if you follow the link for the lass who wrote this, she is clearly another dedicated biologist who agrees with ID.
I know. That's one impressive thing about the ID movement. So many ID supporters are experts in biology. Why, it seems one can hardly get an advanced degree in biology without turning into an ID supporter.

Date: 2006/04/03 13:15:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Please note, that many us at atbc do not condone the use of nuclear ebola bombs to destroy churches.
I, however, do.

Quote
Now that I think about it, if Dembski or DaveScot do not go in and correct these misconceptions than any respect I have for them (with is very little right now) will be gone.
Davetard, last month, said that when he types a sentence the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violeted. This weekend he thought it was a great idea to detonate 50 or so nuclear bombs every year to balance global warming. He's as capable of correcting another person's scientific misconceptions as a bag of Ranch Doritos.

Date: 2006/04/03 13:33:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Dembski can't correct them without damning his own patented version of information theory.
I had a magnificent exchange with Salvadorc Ordova one time. He was saying that biologists couldn't appreciate Dembski's breakthroughs because they weren't experts in information theory. When I pointed out to him that searches of the IEEE Information Theory website and publications yielded absolutely no discussion about or even mention of Dembski's name, Sal responded with an out-of-context  quote to the effect that well, lots of people can be wrong sometimes.

In short, the exchange was
"You just don't get it because you're not an expert!"
"The experts don't have any regard for it either."
"Well They're Wrong!"

Date: 2006/04/04 04:26:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

The version I always liked was "could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?"
I started involuntarily laughing when I heard that. I've never heard that before.

Date: 2006/04/04 05:16:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Maybe he's chafing at how limited his options are. He doesn't know anything about science, this 'theory' he's signed onto is just double-talk, his fellow travellers are all obvious religious loons. There's only so many ways he can fill the air, you know?

Date: 2006/04/04 07:25:50, Link
Author: stevestory
And we used to Sternberg our enemies, but now we're thinking about Dembskiing them. That's when you report them to the government as a terrorist, without having any real evidence.

Date: 2006/04/04 09:40:50, Link
Author: stevestory
"If everyone from Mark Chu-Carroll to Jeffrey Shallit has pointed out that your definitions of Specification are where your CSI notion dies an ugly, gory death, please hang up and stop sucking."

Date: 2006/04/04 10:00:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Now we're "Darwinite cultists".

Quote
#

I’ve suspected this was set up from the inside with some confidence in the
judges’ unjudiciousness well ahead of time. They’re comrades…darwinite cultists.

Comment by mmadigan — April 4, 2006 @ 7:11 am


Just an FYI for all you little church burners out there.

Date: 2006/04/04 10:04:38, Link
Author: stevestory
posting this here in case it gets deletified
Quote
3 Comments »

  1.

     I’ve suspected this was set up from the inside with some confidence in the
     judges’ unjudiciousness well ahead of time. They’re comrades…darwinite cultists.

     Comment by mmadigan — April 4, 2006 @ 7:11 am
  2.

     This wouldn’t be the first time the ACLU had “backstage access” if the allegation is true. They pulled some stuff with that 10 commandments judge in Alabama too… the judgement against the judge was foreknown by months.

     Comment by jaredl — April 4, 2006 @ 8:57 am
  3.

    PT is claiming that  this is factually incorrect.

     Comment by johnnyb — April 4, 2006 @ 11:37 am

Date: 2006/04/04 13:29:55, Link
Author: stevestory
ftrp11 may be an ID sympathizer, but he may also possess the only functioning brain of the Uncommonly Dense crowd.
Quote
Is there a good reason to ignore the possibility of recombination, or is mr. jaredl just talking out his rear?
How likely do you think it is that Jaredl could correctly spell recombination?

Date: 2006/04/04 15:03:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Perhaps they'll invent some kind of Rube Goldberg scenario where the fees would have been nullified, then accuse the board of colluding to prevent that.

Date: 2006/04/04 15:12:43, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. I would love to see the comments that are being deleted in moderation on that thread.

Who wins? Is EvolutionNews and Dembski wrong about a basic point of law, or is Barry the Lawyer wrong about a basic point of law. Deeeeee-lish.

Date: 2006/04/04 16:40:34, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot?
Lol. Yeah, I think most people are still in middle school when they realize that if they disagree with all the experts, it's probably not the experts who are wrong.

Date: 2006/04/05 08:34:51, Link
Author: stevestory
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46938

Date: 2006/04/05 09:42:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Isaac who?

Date: 2006/04/05 10:07:22, Link
Author: stevestory
I have not seen one.

Date: 2006/04/05 10:18:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Basically Davetard is blaming the evolutionist school board for not quickly enough pulling from the fire the economic nuts put there by the ID school board, and which nuts, numerous lawyers both ID and evolutionist have said, could not have been pulled anyway at that point.

Date: 2006/04/05 10:26:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Nobody really believes Davetard is an agnostic. He's a christian, Dembski's a christian, they're all christians.

Date: 2006/04/06 05:15:45, Link
Author: stevestory
A friend of mine is in Mali in the Peace Corps. Every few months she gets to an internet connection and sends us emails about what's going on. The two I just received are particularly interesting, so I thought I'd pass them along, stripped of identifying info. Enjoy.

Quote
06 April 2006
Hey guys!

So here I am in Kayes, I’ve been here since last Friday and unfortunately
got stuck here because the train workers decided to go on strike, so it
looks like I’ll be here until Saturday afternoon.  Yesterday I almost popped
a cap in someone’s ass, oh oops, sorry, violent language, I thought it
sounded good anyway (been watching too much Will Ferrell this week.  Wedding
Crashers, a new favorite).

Here’s my story.  Sunday, I called the train station to find out when the
train would be leaving Kayes – Bamako this week (as there is no permanent
schedule).  They said Monday and Wednesday.  Okay, Wednesday sounded good.
So Tuesday I call the train gare again to find out when I can buy my ticket
(as this too is never consistent).  They tell me, “Il y a une petite
situation.” (There’s a small situation.)

“What kind of situation ?”

“Il faut écouter la radio ce soir.” (You’ll need to listen to the radio this
evening).

‘But I don’t have a radio, and even if I did, I wouldn’t understand it !
AHHH!’  I thought.

So I asked our guards at the house if they hear anything on the radio about
the train, if they could tell me, that would be awesome.  No problem, as the
radio here is their version of television for Americans.

The next morning I ask Sidi if he heard anything, “grève bé.  train te taa
bi.” (There’s a strike, there’s no train today.)  Awesome, a strike.

So I went out to do my errands for the morning, and got back to the house
around 10.30.  I thought maybe, just to be safe, I should call the train
station.  So I called, “train be bi wa?” (is there a train leaving today?)
“owo, nin allah sonna, train be taa 12.45” (yes, if it’s allah’s will, it
will leave at 12.45)
“n be sais ka n ka billet san sisan?”  (can I buy my ticket now?)
“owo.” (yes)
“aiwa, n be na sisan.” (ok, I’m coming now).

So I haul ass to the gare, when I arrive at around 11am, there were tons of
people everywhere loading.  The ticket window was open, but no one selling.
According to everyone standing around, “a bora.  a be na sisan sisan.”  (he
left, he’s coming right back).  All I’ve gotta say is I’ve been in this
country long enough to know that whenever ‘sisan sisan’ is put into a
sentence to mean right now, it’s actually translated as, “it’ll be awhile.”
So I walk around to try and find the guy, knowing very well this will do no
good, but I’m feeling kind of stressed out because I hadn’t even packed my
bags yet, and ‘inshallah’ the train is leaving in an hour.  So I finally
spot one of the train guards I know pretty well, “Coulibaly, what’s going
on, I’m going to Mahina, but where’s the ticket seller?”

“Oh, the train workers still haven’t signed the contract, so inshallah, the
contract will be signed and the train will leave at 12.45pm.  bari, a ma taa
folo dat! (but, it’s not leaving yet, another way of speaking i’ve learned
to mean :  this train isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.)”

So I go back to the ticket window with a VERY annoyed look on my face and
dripping in sweat, as it was only 111 degrees yesterday.  I had no idea when
the train was leaving, when I could buy a ticket, and all of my stuff was
still at the house, and I’d been standing there for 40 minutes.  I get so
irritated with this inefficiency and waisting of time!  There is a reason
why this country won’t develop anytime soon, there’s no concept of
efficiency and the existence of time.  Like if the ticket seller needs to
leave, have someone else step in and do the job, that might be too
efficient.  Or maybe if he did the job he’s paid to do!  There’s a novel
idea!  Then I thought I would just go back to the house, get my things, then
come back and sit in the 111 degrees until the ticket seller came back and
then until the train left.  But then there’s the possibility I would lose my
chance at getting a first class ticket (as there are only 12 to Mahina),
which means I’d have to sit next to the toilet/door, and I’m not looking to
die anytime soon.  So I reached the breaking point where I was going to pop
a cap in someone’s ass and left.  “Toubab muso, I be taa min?!  a be na
sisan!”  (Hey white girl, where are you going?!  He’ll be right back!”)  F
this s*** is all that I could think.  I was so HOT!

So I got back to the house and explained my angst to Sidi and he advised me
to stay until Saturday because the probability of me sitting at the train
station until night was very high, seeing as the contract hadn’t been signed
yet.  Considering he’s Malian, he’s probably right.  If I took the Saturday
train, I could buy my ticket Friday morning, and the train will probably
only leave around one or two hours late, a much better alternative.  Another
word, ‘inshallah’ (God willing), that I’ve learned not to put much faith in.

And this is why I cannot wait for my vacation to the developed world later
this month, countries with trains that are clean and efficient and run
according to a schedule (a concept Malians are still trying to work on, who
needs a schedule anyway?  let’s be honest!;)  Customer service, pah!  People
who do their job?!  Does that really matter in this age of globalization?
Of course not!  Oh wait….I’ve been here too long!  But I’m still happy and
kickin it live!

oh, and with all these complaints about hot season, there is one good thing
that comes out of it -- mango season!  mangoes are EVERYWHERE!  there are
more than can be eaten and it costs about .25 for four, it's a beautiful
thing!

Quote

06 April 2006

About two weeks ago, I had been in Bafoulabé for the day working at the
clinic, I had gotten back to village around 4pm feeling very hot and
dehydrated (quick story of the brilliance of big money NGO’s that work in
developing nations:  Bafoulabé is located on the river where already a large
part of its population drinks untreated river water infested with schistose.
There are a good number of pumps in Bafoulabé that are used.  Recently,
there has been a German NGO sweeping through the region of Kayes putting in
robinet systems (water spigots to be used by the community) in many small
towns in an effort to provide clean water and improve the lives of women who
are hauling water from the river or pumping it from the pump, faire enough.
However, in doing this, they are breaking all of the pre-existing pumps that
work just fine because they charge 10 CFA for each use of the water spigot.
With a pump, that provides competition for the robinet.  So these people are
already poor as it is, so this NGO is brilliant enough to take away a FREE
source of clean drinking water, putting in a more efficient clean source of
water and charging for it.  Apparently they forgot that river water is free,
and Malians are okay with drinking it, especially if they don’t have money
to pay for a bucket of clean water.  Brilliant!  In addition to this,
they’ve already broken all of the pumps before the spigot system has been
completed, so everyone is drinking dirty river water or well water.  And now
I’m forced to pay a ridiculous price for bottle water, and being hot season,
I blow through water like it ain’t no thang.  These big money NGO’s need to
reassess their work plans because they can really F things up.)

As I was saying, I had just gotten back and had gotten water (from my FREE
pump).  I had only my pagne wrapped around me as I was hot and getting ready
to bathe.  While pouring water from bucket to bucket and filling things and
cleaning things I suddenly heard the ever familiar sound of Ami screaming in
fear of the brutal blows coming from the hand of her husband, Issa.  Usually
Fanta is around to break it up soon enough, but it wasn’t stopping and the
screams kept getting louder and the blows sounded harder and harder as I
just stood there pouring my water.  I always take care in staying out of
village politics and affairs just to keep the peace, but this time something
in me snapped.  I feel I’ve lived here long enough now and I know what’s
okay to get involved in, and what’s not.  I also know what’s appropriate and
what isn’t.  I started walking to Issa’s house, past the dugutigi (chief of
the village and my host dad, he’s worthless in situations as such), my blood
and adrenaline starting to pump, I started shaking in anger.  The dugutigi
told me to go home and go back to what I was doing, Issa’s just like this
and he’ll always be like this.  I just walked past him with a big fat
‘whatever’ in my head.  A couple of other people had walked over to help
break it up, when I got to Issa’s house, he was just sitting there staring
straight forward, as his wife (who is also six months pregnant) laid in the
back wailing from the blows he had just landed on her.  At this site, I just
let lose and laid into him.  It’s been 17 months I’ve had to listen to him
beat his wives so I said to him, “Issa!  What are you doing?!  She is
pregnant!  You already killed your first child by her, are you wanting to
kill your second, because that’s exactly what you’re going to accomplish if
you continue hitting her that way!  I have lived here for 17 months now
listening to you beat your wives and I’m not going to live here any longer
listening to it and staying quiet.  So as long as I live here, I will not
tolerate it.  The next time I hear one of your wives screaming from your
beatings, I’m packing my bags and leaving.”  I started walking away, not
even realizing how badly I was shaking in anger, and when I looked up, I had
drawn a crowd, everyone just stood there, their mouths dropped open as they
have never seen me so angry before.  They told me to calm down, “I am calm!”
I kept saying.  Then I don’t really remember at this point, but I went
back to Issa’s and yelled at him some more.  He finally replied to me
telling me she had been insulting him.  I told him he was insulting her by
beating her.  He should understand that, being the intellectual he is (as
he’s the school director), there will always be rebellion against
oppression, look at the history of Mali, its people were oppressed by the
French, they rebelled, and won back their independence.  It’s the same with
a woman.

Then I felt like I let it all out.  I yelled at the dugutigi for allowing
this to go on in his village and that if I hear that one more time, I will
no longer live here (of course that is an empty promise, but I decided to
pull my white status card on this one, because he’s expendable and I’m not.
They would rather lose him than me.)

Then I finally decided to bathe, but I was so angry, I didn’t even want to.
So I threw my clothes on, and marched to Sané’s house.  Just to get my point
across, I told her the same thing, “Sané, women are not dogs, I know that
for a man to beat his wife is normal in this country, but there’s this thing
called basic human rights that everyone is born with, no matter what culture
one is born into.  I’m not going to put up with this anymore.  Issa needs to
stop this.”  So Sané made me go to Issa to talk to him.  In the end, Issa
promised he would not hit Ami again while she is pregnant.  Ass hole!
(excuse the foul language).  So I responded, “I don’t care if she’s pregnant
or not, she does not deserve to be treated like a dog, and I will not listen
to it anymore.”  And that was the end of it.

I felt kind of like a drama queen, but I feel that I’ve kept quiet for far
too long.  I think this is a topic that needs to have attention drawn to it,
because it is not acceptable, I don’t care what the norms of ones culture
may be, because a human being beating another human being is never
acceptable in any circumstance.

Then the plot thickened two days later.  There have been terrible brush
fires almost everyday around my village, and on this day in particular,
there had been an especially bad one.  Everyone had been fighting the fire
starting at 2pm, in the heat of the day, (and when I say fighting, I mean
the men get branches and beat the fire up close as the women pump water and
carry it on their heads three kilometres and dump it.  Could you imagine?)
By the late afternoon, they thought they had the fire under control.  Then
around 10pm, the orange glow of the fire was lighting up the sky, as we all
stood at the top of the small hill, looking down.  The men had a meeting and
decided the fire was not out and the youth needed to go out to continue
fighting it.  The fire was not going out, and around 11.30pm, the griot
rounded the village calling out everyone had to go and pump water and fight
the fire.  By this time, the fire was probably less than a kilometre away,
and I went and started packing my bags as everyone was fighting the fire –
what a team player I am!  I was so scared!  Finally, at midnight, they got
the fire out.  phew!  I was sitting with Fanta and the dugutigi talking and
I heard Ami’s voice at Issa’s house.  (Because for two days she left back to
her parents house, on the other side of village).  I asked Fanta if Ami had
come back, she shrugged her shoulders in an ‘I guess so’ look.

The next morning, Fanta and I were eating our porridge, and she says, “I did
not sleep at all last night.  Issa came and woke me up in the middle of the
night because Ami’s foot was cut and he wanted me to clean it.”

I looked at her confused, “how did Ami’s foot get cut in the middle of the
night?????”

She shrugged her shoulders and whispered to me, “Issa did it because she
refused to have sex with him last night, so he hit her, took a razor from
his razor and cut her foot.”

“What the F!  That is sick and inhumane!  Only crazy people do things like
that!”  She agreed.

The day following I saw the giant slash on Ami’s foot, I asked her how she
cut it, and she said there was a razor on the ground she stepped on.
Whatever.

Now I don’t even care anymore, Issa is crazy.  Men in this country cannot go
more than 24 hrs without sex, it’s no exaggeration, they say all the time,
“if my wife cannot satisfy me sexually, like if I want to have sex four
times in one day and she does not agree, she should only expect me to go on
the side to fulfill my need that she is unable to.”  I’ll fulfill your need,
with a knife in my hand.  Oh, that was violent again, sorry, can’t answer
violence with violence.  They’re pigs!  There’s a reason why AIDS and STD’s
are a problem in Africa, because this is the mentality.

Date: 2006/04/06 05:25:08, Link
Author: stevestory
I hope you're all watching Ed Brayton beat Davetard like a rented mule over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. There are several posts, scroll down.

Date: 2006/04/06 09:07:16, Link
Author: stevestory
There's almost nothing dumber than saying we should only do the science we'll know will have a practical impact. That's so dumb it reminds me of something a fundy relative once said.

fundy: "if the environmentalists don't like nucular waste, the should just put it on rockets and blast it to the moon."
my friend mike: "One out of every 20 or so rockets blows up, though."
fundy: "We'll they can just put that one out of 20 off to the side, then."

Date: 2006/04/06 09:10:39, Link
Author: stevestory
GOP's like Albert Einstein compared to thordaddy.

Date: 2006/04/06 11:09:38, Link
Author: stevestory
She's traveled extensively, but only to modern countries.

Quote

The travails detailed in the second letter serve as a good reminder that the problems we talk about here are as nothing compared to most of the rest of the world.
Yeah, and believe me, I have letters from her I wouldn't post here. Long, detailed stories about people attempting to enlist her help in clitorectomies and such. When she first got there, her letters had some equivocation. She kind of put up with a lot of stuff if it was part of the culture. But lately, I'm seeing that attitude break down.

Date: 2006/04/06 12:19:22, Link
Author: stevestory
And worse, they think their leader, the torturer, is the arbiter of right and wrong, and furthermore the source of all that is ethical. Truly, someone should call the authorities.

Date: 2006/04/06 12:22:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. ;)

Henry
Poor Henry has been exposed to the IDiots for so long he can now perfectly anticipate Salvadorc Ordova's responses.

Date: 2006/04/06 13:41:31, Link
Author: stevestory
I remember the day I chose, of free will, to be a heterosexual. I was in 7th grade and several of the other fellows had started dating. Not wishing to look developmentally delayed, I decided to begin also. But immediately I had a problem--there were two genders. Which one to select? This seemed like a dilemma of the first order, so I resolved to consider the problem carefully. On the one hand, I knew I could get along easily with males because we tended to like the same things. On the other hand, sometimes they became violent. It wouldn't feel good to have an abusive boyfriend, now would it. Girls seemed to be built more from curves than angles, and I think modernism is overrated, so curves were the more aesthetic choice. Point for the girls. In terms of smell, girls definitely smelled better, and since I would be spending a lot of time near whoever I was dating, this was a serious point for the girls. So with things pretty much tied I recalled that most boys I knew were dating girls by a margin of maybe 10:1. Perhaps this inexplicable imbalance was the result of hidden factors I wasn't aware of, which suggested girls would make better dates. Finally, I considered that I was in the south, and southerners will get very hostile to same-sex relationships usually. So I decided that girls were the clear winner, glanced at a girl's butt, and immediately got an erection.

Date: 2006/04/06 15:27:52, Link
Author: stevestory
if you needed to prevent your admirers from seeing things you cover up, would you allow caching? He's disallowed everything.

Date: 2006/04/06 17:27:18, Link
Author: stevestory
I had no idea about the birth order thing w/r/t gayness. That's really interesting stuff. I had no idea. 3 times as likely? That's a he11 of an effect. Wow. All I'd read recently was some suspicion that the brains of embryos who later became gay people were being exposed to the mixture of hormones normal to an embryo of the other sex. I'll have to research that birth order stuff, that looks really interesting.

Quote

SteveStory, LOL.  By the way, I owe you a thread derail, so take your shot :D

Steve is not for Vendetta, baby, I love everyone. I only lean on people on my threads when a corrosive creationist is oozing around, because all the little evolutionist t-cells will show up and start attacking him all kinds of ways, and you see what happens on Panda's Thumb as a result of that, I don't want that to happen on the threads where I'm interested in the topic.

(edited to get the word 'he11' around Wesley's filter, which filter must have been like number 384 in the birth order, so gay is it.)

Date: 2006/04/06 18:06:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
This doesn't make ANY sense at first glance.
Hey, he got one thing right! Good for him.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:31:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Church Burning Ebola Boys


UnMark, Sir Terriblename, Stephen Elliot, Faid, Drew, Arden, etc etc, I think we have our gang name.
Quote

I'm starting to think that this blog has a huge influence on DaveTard.
I'm unhappy about that, actually. If Davetard, DougMoron, and the rest watch us too much, and learn where they make most of their boneheaded, insanely great mistakes, there's a chance they'll be more cautious in the future, reducing their entertainment value.

Date: 2006/04/06 18:36:11, Link
Author: stevestory
It's a Dodgeball joke, you foreigner.

Date: 2006/04/06 19:44:29, Link
Author: stevestory
church-burning ebola boys would make a good acronym.

CBEB's. Which works, as an unintentionally similar acronym to CBGB's.

As far as lighters, part of my job involves scientific glassblowing, so what do you need? custom-built torches? Can do.

Date: 2006/04/07 02:55:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

hmm, burning churches is different.  I'd guess low heat, high volume type of thing; probably propane, but I'm new to this church burning thing.  what would you recommend?
liquid oxygen! Let's get this show on the road!

Date: 2006/04/07 03:29:34, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children
LOL. Yeah, being gay takes training. You bet.

"I wish I could quit you! But I'm so well trained."

Date: 2006/04/07 10:29:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


He'll never learn anything because he doesn't want to learn anything. I don't think he wants to bring people around to his point of view, either, since he just repeats the same dullardry over and over and over. He's not even a decent troll. GoP -- now, that's a troll. Every time one of his claims is smacked down, he comes up with another one that's even more manic and preposterous. A performance like that takes some effort, some skill, some... panache. Endless, unvarying repetition -- that's recess rhetoric.


GoP can think in complicated ways. He can make careful distinctions. His mental ability isn't the problem, his problem lies in enslaving that ability to the religious conclusion. He's using acrobatics to try to get to jesus.

On the other hand, and this is why you never see me argue with him, Thordaddy can't think clearly. Can't make careful distinctions. He always confuses points with similar points.

for example:
Quote
Cogzoid said:
Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on.
Quote
Thordaddy said:
cogzoid,

So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

Notice the confusion. Cogzoid basically says natural selection isn't selection of the perfect, and thordaddy turns that into natural selection doesn't exist. Then Thordaddy says  
Quote

So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
Which is a self-contradictory question, as homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If it is influenced by a genetic component, the genetic component plays a part in it.
  So while GoP has a decent brain but is trying to prove something false, Thordaddy simply doesn't know how to make or evaluate logical statements. That's why it's foolish to think you can talk any sense into him. You might feel there's some other reason for arguing with him, but if you're trying to convince him you're wasting your breath.

Date: 2006/04/07 12:23:59, Link
Author: stevestory
2. MISSING GENES: FINDING THE KEY THAT OPENS DARWIN'S BLACK BOX.
It was a lousy day for intelligent design, which has had a lot of
bad days lately.  Even as a missing link showed up on the pages
of Nature, a report in Science from the University of Oregon
showed how a new hormone-receptor pair evolved.  An existing
molecule, created for a different role, was recruited to do the
new job.  The lead author, Joseph Thornton, believes this may be
common in the evolution of complex systems.  Hormone-receptor
pairs would seem to be an example of what intelligent-design guru
Michael Behe calls "irreducible complexity" (ID).  One without
the other would be useless.  However, Behe scoffed to the NY
Times that Hormone-receptor pairs aren't really ID.  Either he's
still a little cranky from the Dover trial, or he just prefers
miracles http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn102105.html .

Date: 2006/04/07 12:47:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Mind you, it would also depend on whether your university physics dept had a pet nuclear reactor or not...
NCSU has a reactor, so BRING IT!

LOL at NCSU the physics building (Cox) and the chemistry building (Dabney) are structurally interconnected, so we'd quickly call a truce and join forces to attack the math weenies.

Date: 2006/04/08 06:21:57, Link
Author: stevestory
"You evolutionists want to murder 90% of humanity. You are despicable. You make me sick. We called homeland security on you."
"No we don't. And here's the transcript. See?"
"Let's not dwell on this, really...."

Date: 2006/04/08 08:38:22, Link
Author: stevestory
One of the great things about mocking Davetard, and him reading it, is he can't make changes to the hilarious stupid bits, because then we'd see and mock him more. Heads I win, tails Dave sucks.

Date: 2006/04/08 08:47:57, Link
Author: stevestory
I think he's going to have to stall. A geocentric view is the wrong way to go about that. It would be like using polar coordinates to explain the geometry of a pool game. You could do it, but it'll be ugly, and there's a much better choice available. Of course, if their bible told them to do it, they probably would.

Date: 2006/04/08 09:14:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions

I haven't read 97% of this thread, but as far as the title goes, has Paley backed up anything here? In the 97% of the posts I didn't read, did he accomplish anything? Would anyone be nice enough to give me a rundown of that's happened?

Date: 2006/04/08 10:09:17, Link
Author: stevestory
(Please do not take this to mean it wasn’t so before: just that the small cadre of contributors here has sharpened and honed the defense of ID in positive and productive ways.)

Date: 2006/04/08 10:18:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Dangit. I'm all conflicted about whether to point out that Red Reader is dumb even by Davetard's standards. In doing so, I risk influencing their decision in a way opposite my comedy interests.

Date: 2006/04/08 10:55:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

That is why I have specifically said "homosexuals" (gay males).

Can we get thordaddy on as an Uncommon Descent contributor too? Red Reader wants a slot, maybe thor can get one. That would the bomb.

Date: 2006/04/08 12:43:34, Link
Author: stevestory
Actually he could put my mother in charge. She's a wacko who believes in YEC, fluoride conspiracies, NASA conspiracies, UN conspiracies, &c &c. She'd fit right in over at UD. She even has a degree in a non-science field, so she'd be perfect. Except they don't seem to have any women contributors over at Uncommonly Brokeback....

Date: 2006/04/08 13:23:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


I still wonder, though. How does a non-rational animal simultaneously evolve the specifically arranged neurons in its brain (programming it to use the lungs, spinnerets, wings, eat meat, stick its tongue down an anthill, etc.) SIMULTANEOUSLY with the evolution of the novel organ. NS says use it or lose it. Ya cain’t use what ya don’t know ya got!

Aren’t we talking about several thousand (at least) ‘lines’ of genetic code regarding the neural activity which controls the instinctive behaviors as well as the reflexes for the newbie organ? These must be in place BEFORE the novel structure can be used for anything but fishbait. I have not seen this issue of NS’ ability to teach (imprint extremely specified information in such a way that it can be recalled or used when needed) what it is about to evolve.

Not to belabor this, but a ’small’ organ or systematic difference in a higher organism can require a completely novel set of behaviors that cannot be learned by the organism. If DM through NS happens it must happen (and we must account for it) in the brain first.

Comment by kvwells — April 6, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1004#comments

Date: 2006/04/08 13:27:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I have a question for McEevo’s, National Geographic sponsors, Nature, Science. Will they allow top scientist who are skeptics to review all the data, up close? Perform their own test and then report to the public their findings? This is what happens in all other areas of science. Why not Paleontology?

But wait, maybe not all areas of science. Dr. Behe is treated with scorn by neo-Darwinians. Without an opportunity of original work on IC by Dr. Behe in Science, now a paper appears in Science attempting to refute IC and thus ID. Yet they never allowed Dr. Behe the equivalent academic peer-reviewd treatment.

So, they put forth questionable evidence against ID while not allowing the original proponents same access? How cowardly is that? Honestly, is that not what cowards do? They denounce their opponents sharply without allowing them rebuttals? Thus running from confrontation of the evidence before them?

I am seriously doubting the objectivity of Popular Science magazines today, and even the peer-reviewed papers, their editors and scientist in this area of paleontology and the extended ongoing controversy of ID.

Comment by Michaels7 — April 7, 2006 @ 1:41 pm


http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1004#comments

Date: 2006/04/08 13:35:30, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Arden,
...

Let's ask a scientific question?

Why would evolution devise a "sexual orientation?"

Yeah Arden! You got an answer for that? Got something for that in your big answer-book? Huh?

Date: 2006/04/08 14:30:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, don't read it if it's ruining your weekend. It doesn't ruin mine. Few things can make me laugh more consistently than those dingbats.

You know what else breaks the SLoT? Me banning you. -ds

Date: 2006/04/08 15:34:04, Link
Author: stevestory
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1013#comment-30607
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1013#comment-30609
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1012#comment-30568
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/996#comment-30249

Date: 2006/04/08 15:38:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Pianka, Dawkins, Myers et.,al. are “elitists”.
And their elitist ideas are grounded in a Darwinianist evolutionary worldview in which they see themselves as the apex of evolutionary development–smarter than all, wiser than all, the most advanced of all in the long slog of biological systems from the priordial soup.

It is not rational to embrace at the same time both Darwinism AND the concept “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Comment by glennj — April 5, 2006 @ 11:56 am

Date: 2006/04/08 17:20:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
April 8, 2006
Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts Wusses Out

Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts, without having seen a transcript of the Lamar speech where the recording devices were ordered off (the published transcript is only the last 5 minutes of a 45 minute speech), decides that Forest Mims is a <strikethrough> liar </strikethrough> man of terrible misjudgement and misunderstanding. Mike Gene, who has surely read the student review saying Pianka PREACHES that 90% of the population SHOULD be wiped out by airborne ebola, a student review of Pianka’s class that echoes what Mims heard in the Lamar speech, must also think this student is a liar person of terrible misjudgement and misunderstanding too.

I’m very disappointed in Mike Gene, whoever he is. No wonder Mike Gene refuses to identify himself. Wusses are like that. Get a clue, Mike. Pianka hates humanity and thinks it’s no better or more deserving of life than bacteria or bison. It’s okay for you to say it, Mike. You’re anonymous. The least you can do is be brave enough to call a spade a spade from behind your mask of anonymity.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:09 pm
Fight! Fight!

Date: 2006/04/08 17:38:02, Link
Author: stevestory
And my friend's brother knows this guy who's like totally into Satan worshipping, and he says Pianka is too!

Date: 2006/04/08 20:26:14, Link
Author: stevestory
and biology.

Date: 2006/04/09 05:01:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
  1.

     I’ll just make a few quick points here. The decision to retract was not Mike’s alone. It was a group decision of our blog. Second, we didn’t “wuss out”. Yes, it does appear that Pianka has a devalued view of human life. He’s got that classic environmental extremist view that we’re “bad”, and that the world would be better off with a lot less of us, and he appears unnervingly cozy or “interested” in the notion that this could happen in some pretty awful ways. Things we do know he said in the transcript, like toying with the idea of mass sterilization, are pretty repulsive. I think it sucks that the TAS applauds and awards these views, and that kind of thing ought to be reported on.

     But, we can’t in good faith support many of the accusations against him, such as that he’s “calling for mass death” or that he’s genocidal. Even worse are insinuations that he’s actually calling for or inciting others to a terrorist attack, such that the FBI needs to intervene. These things certainly went too far, and in the light of them, we can’t in good conscience assume that the rest of Mims’ interpretation was correct. This doesn’t mean that he’s a liar, and I don’t think he is. But since there is doubt, we cannot assume the worst about Pianka either. Some of the things we said in our blog, we do not feel we can support. Also, even if Mims’ original interpretation was correct, Pianka has been put through more grief than his remarks merited, and we decided that we didn’t want to contribute to it. Because of these reasons, we decided to retract, and I think we made the right decision.

     A group wuss out. How nice. Did you cry about what you’d done to poor misunderstood Eric Pianka? How about we all sing a nice round of Kum Bai Ya and have a big group hug. Gag me with a spoon. -ds

     Comment by Deuce — April 9, 2006 @ 5:10 am

The amazing thing is that Davetard allowed the heretics to comment at all.

Date: 2006/04/09 11:18:26, Link
Author: stevestory
William Saletan's brief comment about that new paper has just the right tone w/r/t the creationists:

Quote
Scientists say a new study debunks intelligent design. ID claims that evolution can't explain "irreducibly complex" systems, in which the parts serve no useful function until they're combined. According to this theory, the parts couldn't have arisen and evolved into the whole system through natural selection, since they offered no advantage. The new study shows how, in one case, two parts evolved for independent reasons and then fortuitously combined to produce an advantageous system. Rebuttals from ID proponents: 1) We're not convinced the parts made enough sense to survive natural selection. 2) New rule: To debunk our theory, any system you explain this way has to have at least three parts.

Date: 2006/04/09 11:42:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Sadly, Davetard is learning from Panda's Thumb:

Quote


TT may have crossed a line or two in their rhetoric and level of speculation. There could be liability issues according to one of the contributors at TT. It may be that TT wanted to step back and act responsibly.

My position is that Dr. Pianka and/or the TAS must release the full text of the speech. I don’t know if sunshine laws apply in this case, but until the text is available, we have to refrain from judgement regarding Dr. Pianka’s TAS speech.

We don’t have to refrain from voicing our opinions. Pianka is at least a limited public figure now and it will be exceedingly difficult for him to win a libel case against anyone even if our opinions are dead wrong. -ds

Comment by DaveW — April 9, 2006 @ 10:17 am

Date: 2006/04/09 12:20:08, Link
Author: stevestory
By virtue of taking down the unsupportable accusations, and failing to call Homeland Security based on heresay in the first place, Telic Thoughts distinguishes itself nicely from Uncommonly Dense.

Date: 2006/04/09 14:18:38, Link
Author: stevestory
If an ID supporter called that reasoning argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad auctoritatem it would constitute a sharp irony. You see, it doesn't make sense to attack that reasoning with phrases like argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad auctoritatem. We're not living in a world of perfect knowledge and careful proofs. For a scenario like what to think about Pianka, we have a few pieces of imperfect data. So we judge the data according to heuristics, which are essentially statistical rules of thumb to navigate the world. According to our common-sense type heuristics, Pianka probably didn't say anything evil. Interestingly, the design inference--for all their BS talk about CSI and IC--is nothing more than, Dang, that sure looks designed, I bet it was. In other words it's a heuristic. For getting around in the world, like finding watches, it works 9 times out of 10. Evolution, being one of those careful scientific topics, is an exception, just as lots of areas of science are exceptions to common-sense rules. Is Relativity common sense? Of course not. So the irony is, a guy who's inappropriately using heuristics when he should be using logic w/r/t design, would be criticising you based on inappropriate use of logic when you're rightfully using heuristics.

Date: 2006/04/09 14:49:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Nutjob Dave Springer wrote:
Quote
I just think life is a book and earth is just one chapter in it. Not the first or the last chapter either - it originated elsewhere and if it’s successful here on earth it’ll start over again on a younger planet and so on and so on. This is the pattern of birth, growth, reproduction, and geographic movement in search of resources to continue is a pattern that all life follows. Why should that pattern either have started here or end here on this speck of dust we call the earth? -ds
Davetard doesn't think the life we see here on earth began here?

Date: 2006/04/09 16:09:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Crick did put forward a cute idea, but it's unlikely. That Davetard considers it probable it just Davetard being Davetard.

Date: 2006/04/09 17:05:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Tard Writ Large:

Quote

Then, Dave, are you an “adherent” of panspermia? Where, in your opinion, did life on Earth originate?

Not an adherent. I’m an agnostic so I don’t adhere to anything. But I lean that way. Panspermia fits the evidence in a more complete and coherent manner than anything else. That doesn’t make it right but it makes it the default position until a better fitting explanation is proposed. I think it most likely that life on earth was placed here purposefully with a genome preprogrammed (front loaded) to evolve in a prescribed sequence with the changing environment serving as no more than a trigger to proceed to the next state. Phylogenesis is thus more or less the same process as ontogenesis only writ large over a much longer time scale and greater diversity in the end products. -ds

Comment by Jeffery Keown — April 9, 2006 @ 7:39 pm

Date: 2006/04/10 01:59:59, Link
Author: stevestory
This thread mocking them has garnered more comments than their whole blog.

Quote

DaveScot that is the first thoughtless post I’ve ever seen from you.


Yeah, but it's the last I've seen from you. You're Audi 5000. -ds

Date: 2006/04/10 04:26:15, Link
Author: stevestory
Amusingly, Davetard just put up blog stats to show how successful they are and how fast they're growing:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1019

I reiterate. Since its inception, this thread, which simply mocks them, has garnered more comments than their whole site.

Date: 2006/04/10 11:03:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Before the Uncommonly Dense creationists, upon reading these things about Crick, begin to imagine that he was thinking like them, they should read this bit from Wikipedia:

Quote
It has been suggested by some observers that Crick's speculation about panspermia, "fits neatly into the intelligent design concept."[26] Crick's name was raised in this context in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial over the teaching of intelligent design. However, as a scientist, Crick was concerned with the power of natural processes such as evolution to account for natural phenomena and felt that religiously inspired beliefs are often wrong and cannot be trusted to provide a sound basis for science.

Crick wrote, "The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." (source: The Astonishing Hypothesis)

In a 1987 case before the Supreme Court, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[27] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday[28].

Date: 2006/04/10 11:18:26, Link
Author: stevestory
fundies who tell you not to be gay or have premarital sex in order to avoid STDs are lying to you. HPV vaccine, anyone? They don't care about STDs. They don't want you to be gay or have premarital sex because their bible tells them it's evil. If they were honest they'd say that to your face. But they aren't, so they pretend to have a secular concern.

Date: 2006/04/10 12:44:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
sometimes i think it's a complete waste of time to argue with a rock.

sometimes i think it would be best to just ignore the ramblings of lunatics.

sometimes.
I have no idea why you guys are arguing with this idiot. In 214 posts he's shown he has no ability to understand an argument. I don't know what your goal is.

Date: 2006/04/10 14:59:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Don't freak out BWE. Even if they manage to temporarily get some hand waving into a university, that's all they have. they got no theory, they got no predictions, they got no experiments. There's no ID science. Nothing to be concerned about.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:08:36, Link
Author: stevestory
Flint, perhaps what we're witnessing is projection. Perhaps he's feeling a bit guilty after that poll which found that christians were more likely to support torture than secular people.

Date: 2006/04/11 10:35:46, Link
Author: stevestory
Wow. Not even an ellipsis. He just took it out.

Date: 2006/04/12 02:05:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

There is NO way to differentiate between a specific zygote AND the person it becomes.

Date: 2006/04/12 02:53:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Go take a look at the Wesley's Biology Test post on UD.

Date: 2006/04/13 05:05:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Priceless.

Date: 2006/04/13 07:29:47, Link
Author: stevestory
There won't be an official ID position on ERVs. There really is no official ID position on anything except "There's some kind of Intelligent Desginer *cough*god*cough*. What? I didn't say anything about god."

There can't be an official position on them. ERVs are great evidence for Common Descent, and too many IDers like Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova reject Common Descent.

There can never be an official ID model because any scientific model which isn't braindead will contradict the Young Earth Creationists, who are too large a group to lose.

Date: 2006/04/13 11:35:37, Link
Author: stevestory
They're arguing about Common Descent again. So far it's been civil.

Date: 2006/04/13 16:52:16, Link
Author: stevestory
They couldn't have evolved, you silly man. They are irreducibly complex. They have the sticky in the groundy part, and the standy up straighty part, and the yellow coating part. Remove the sticky in the ground part and what's the rest going to do? Levitate? Now you're just being ridiculous.

Date: 2006/04/14 04:20:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Davetard, April 2006:
Quote
One seemingly msut presume the designer is using existing living templates for new species, as in (designer thinking to himself) “I think I’ll create a giraffe today and this antelope I made in the past seems like a good starting point” so he picks a couple germ cells from living antelopes, modifies the genomes, and grows a pair of giraffes, complete with the retrovirus baggage from the past.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1034#comment-31182


Charles Krauthammer, Nov 18, 2005:
Quote
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion....15.html

Date: 2006/04/14 04:27:25, Link
Author: stevestory
does it?

Date: 2006/04/14 06:06:26, Link
Author: stevestory
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....ula.php

Date: 2006/04/14 13:54:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Someone does really need to point out to the IDers that intelligence does not equal supernatural.


Yeah, go right ahead buddy. I'm sure you'll have a lot of success.

Date: 2006/04/14 16:06:32, Link
Author: stevestory
I would use small amounts of steroids if I were an athlete. The risk/reward equation dictates it. But in normal life, there's no reason to do so. I doubt it would improve your health.

Date: 2006/04/14 16:33:04, Link
Author: stevestory
I was not very clear Flint, of course I didn't mean steroids were ineffective for your particular condition, that would be stupid of me. I seem to remember taking them myself once or twice as a kid in response to some emergent medical condition I forget the nature of. Something to do with my nose? In any case, when I said I doubt steroids would improve your health, I should have specified that I was responding to this statement
Quote
I've been reconsidering the use of steriods as a way to significantly enhance my health.  
Which seemed to be based on the idea that steroids were just general health-enhancing things in small doses, which I don't think they are.

Date: 2006/04/14 17:02:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah. I'd say like 45 mins of cardio and 45 mins of weights every day is what I'd do if I was trying to get in great shape. I wouldn't bother with steroids unless I was trying to gain mass. (Which at 6' and 230 I'm not trying to do :-)) But I'm the wrong guy to get health info from, I drink about a gallon of beer a day.

Date: 2006/04/14 18:53:37, Link
Author: stevestory
eric murphy:

Date: 2006/04/15 06:32:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
April 15, 2006
Sounds Fishy (or, How to Get Published at AAAS)

unScientific American and Science News are reporting in (this) story that “darwinian debt”s are being generated by over-fishing and the result is that

   "Fast-growing fish therefore get penalized evolutionarily
    because they quickly become large enough to get caught…"

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this nothing more than an exagerated example of dog-breeding (except with fish, of course)?

DougMoron, promise me you'll never leave.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1037#more-1037

Date: 2006/04/15 12:48:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Paley, why are you capitalizing it as AIDs with a small s?

Date: 2006/04/15 12:53:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Looks like it. You can always hope Thordaddy shows up and says something like "How can you say that ID has not been taught at Cornell in the past? Aren't you aware of a little thing called farming? Or do you wish to deny that transsexuals (bisexual females) don't return there movies to Blockbuster and therefore should be sent to leper colonies?!?!" and you guys'll be off to the races again.

Date: 2006/04/15 12:57:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

"Here's your coffee dave"

"I don't like it black"

"But you said you did!"

"You're banned missy. Take your hateful speech elsewhere."


LOL!

"30 seconds? Dave? 30 seconds?"

"I'll take my good lovin elsewhere, ingrate. Get dressed. You're outta here. -ds

Date: 2006/04/15 13:01:49, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
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.
Salvador has suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks we'll find a hidden message from Glorious Old Designer encoded in the 'junk' DNA. It's howlingly funny but it's so pitiful it actually makes me feel a little bit for him. Poor dumb idiot.

Date: 2006/04/15 14:38:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Since every post he does provides further evidence of how much of a waste of time it is even to respond to Thordaddy, this will be my last post directed at his diatribes.


I have to say, I called it on Thordaddy weeks ago.

Date: 2006/04/15 14:53:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Human Being © Tanaka Heavy Industries. Genetic Organism may be covered by one or more of the following Galactic Treaty Patents: 4,901,221; 4,914,568; 5,291,587; 5,301,301; 5,301,336; 5,475,851; 5,481,740; 5,481,741; 5,497,500; 5,504,917; 5,583,988; 5,610,828; 5,652,909; 5,732,277; 5,734,863; 5,737,622; 5,764,546; 5,784,275; 5,821,934; 5,847,953; 5,905,649; 5,920,479; 5,966,532; 5,974,254; 5,987,246; 5,990,906; 6,053,951; 6,064,409; 6,064,812; 6,064,816; 6,102,965; 6,138,270; 6,173,438; 6,282,699; 6,370,569; 6,411,987; 6,437,805; 6,505,247; 6,526,566; 6,584,601; 6,690,981; 6,751,653; 6,874,148; 6,876,368; 6,880,130. Licensees are granted permission to gestate, populate, clone, or modify organisms under established Fair Use guidelines. License does not include the right to evolve organism to a different species. License nontransferrable. Organism is region-coded for Solar System only. Any use of organism other than at reasonable temperatures and radiation levels voids warranty....

Date: 2006/04/15 17:55:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Holding an irrational theological belief is not "insane".  In fact, most theological beliefs are irrational.  
I am not insane if I claim that 1+1=3.  I may be incorrect, and I may be wrong...but I am not crazy.


I would call that very mild insanity.

Date: 2006/04/16 04:07:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
They need to stop throwing out the red herrings of possible supernatural connections to ID and get into the lab or go out into the field and do some research!


You know how someone can say something that makes your mouth hang open, you can't even begin to think of a response, your brain's been knocked off the air?


The IDiots do that to me all the time.

Date: 2006/04/16 05:14:37, Link
Author: stevestory

Date: 2006/04/17 10:39:01, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I didn't realize that DS considered himself to be a theorist. I haven't seen any of DS's work on the theory myself.
Davetard has exactly as many peer-reviewed scientific papers explaining the theory of Intelligent Design as everybody at the Discovery Institute put together.

Zero.

There is no theory, there are no predictions, there are no experiments. There is nothing but jargon.

Date: 2006/04/17 14:08:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Comment #97009

Posted by afdave on April 17, 2006 06:58 PM (e)

I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ … I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources. I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why … very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it … try explaining it nicely and politely.

Date: 2006/04/18 02:58:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Go read all that Hovind/Davetard stuff. It's great.

Date: 2006/04/18 12:29:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
improvius



Posts: 84
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 18 2006,11:59  
I don't understand what the hold-up is.  Why don't we just burn Dinoland down like we do all the other churches we don't like?
While I find the Church Burnin Ebola Boys stuff hilarious, keep in mind that William Dembski recently showed us he will call the feds and report you based on what someone else claims you said.

Date: 2006/04/19 05:57:48, Link
Author: stevestory
It looks to me like AFDave is really MCDave.

Date: 2006/04/19 12:35:05, Link
Author: stevestory
I throw those ACLU things in the trash. I don't follow the local ACLU politics, though I should, being a member and all. After searching around the internet I don't see much about it. Is anybody going?

Date: 2006/04/19 12:41:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Pretty soon I'll reciprocate and give my 7 points on why I'm a Creationist


Too much jesus, too little science. All done.

Date: 2006/04/19 12:50:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
While I may not agree with ya'll on a lot of things, you do give a guy a chance to make his case, and I appreciate that. What gives him the right to pollute one of the last bastions of free expression? And then whine like a teenage girl with her cellphone privileges cut off.....
I get a chuckle out of the fact that Davetard has banned more people in a single day than PT & AtBC have banned in 2 years.

Date: 2006/04/19 12:56:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
No dear, in this case just building codes and income taxes. I would remind you (or instruct you as the case may be) that the United States got along just fine without building codes or income taxes for *anyone* for a very long time. I would be on Hovind’s side even if his claim had nothing to do with religion. The fact that he is a minister just adds insult to injury. I’m very much a libertarian and the best bit of advice I ever heard when it comes to gov’t is to make a rule that for every new law and new bureaucratic position made two old ones have to be unmade. -ds

Comment by cirejcon — April 19, 2006 @ 10:45 am


Wonder how you'd pass the first law...

Date: 2006/04/19 13:19:11, Link
Author: stevestory
I wonder if Davetard the Banninator has had his wings clipped. First of all, I haven't seen him say, "You're outta here" lately, and second, the posts at Certain 'N Dense usually average 8 comments, but the last few got 38, 14, 15, 17.

Date: 2006/04/19 16:36:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, let me add one:

5) Treating gays badly is well along the route treating blacks badly went down. Regardless of an internet argument, your belief will eventually earn you the kind of respect and admiration racial separatists receive.

Date: 2006/04/20 12:29:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Watching creationists defend the flood is a ringside seat into understanding what faith can do to the brain.
Yep.
Quote
It's when creationists try to cram a flood into the actual observations that we get our key insight: evidence *does not matter*.
Exactly. Listen to a YEC like Salvador Cordova or Paul Nelson for ten minutes and you get the distinct impression their brains have been replaced with bags of kitty litter. If you believe in Noah's Ark and a 6,000 year old earth and a voice-activated nothingness creating elements of the universe on command, you are (at least) mildly insane.

Date: 2006/04/21 03:32:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Has he ever suggested what he'd do differently if he had his perfect freedom of association?

Date: 2006/04/21 06:12:59, Link
Author: stevestory
In the comment section of the current top post on Uncommonly Dense, “Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science”--I don't know how anyone could find ID religious--someone has commented thusly:

Quote


You know Dr. Dembski, your contribution with this essay is nothing short of amazing. I appreciate the several novel insights you revealed in the paper: natural evil in its full form is a reflection or “picture” of our human sin, G-d allowing it to run its course as a way of showing us the reality of sin, the fact that a garden was necessary (never considered that before), etc. I’m sure your work will ruffle some feathers, but I suspect you are onto something.

Your name will one day be remembered among the giants of our age. Now if you could just learn to focus on humility, you’ll have nothing hindering you from that destiny. Stay blessed.

Comment by Atom — April 21, 2006 @ 8:41 am

Date: 2006/04/21 06:28:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
PBS said it accepted Goldberg’s film based on the “recognition that the overwhelming majority of historians have concluded that a genocide took place.” But to appease a small contingent of critics, the network commissioned Oregon Public Broadcasting, a partner on the film, to produce a panel discussion comprising two historians who back the film’s premise and two who dispute it.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12397821/

Some of the stupidest people in the world are journalists.

Date: 2006/04/21 12:48:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Maybe Behe should tell Luskin that he isn't helping.
Casey Luskin's been such a disaster for the DI that I wondered one time if he was a closet evolutionist having a ball saying nonsense. He emailed me one time to ask why I commented on PT about his IDEA club being a religious club. What on earth caused me to think that? he asked. At the time he wrote the email, being a christian was a requirement for being an IDEA officer.

Arguing with him would be like arguing with the guy on the streetcorner who thinks he's elvis.

Date: 2006/04/21 12:55:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
If the defense had put Dembski on the stand, the plaintiffs would have had Shallit there to rebut him. Like the defense was gonna let *that* happen... The last info from Pepper Hamilton to the defense team and Dembski before Dembski's withdrawal was announced was that Jeff Shallit would be attending Dembski's deposition the following Monday. Coincidence?
I didn't know that. OUCH. Dembski pulled out and let Behe play the fool.

Date: 2006/04/21 13:56:26, Link
Author: stevestory
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/04/call-for-maverick-id-bloggers.html

It's not totally correct, but at least he gets part of it right.

Quote
The first strategy I disagree with is proclaiming ID as science. Philosophical discussions aside, I will accept ID as science when I read something like this:

   A scientist at (some respected research university) has been awarded a grant to do experiment X. ID predicts the result of the experiment will be Y. Non-ID predicts the result will be Z.


And don't tell me this cannot happen because the secular scientific community would never allow it. I was a practicing scientist before I was a believer, and we never had any secret meetings where we discussed our true agenda of destroying Christianity in the guise of science.

Predictions such as We will never discover an evolutionary pathway for (whatever) or We will never detect a parallel universe are interesting and important, but they are not examples of predictability arising from a full-fledged scientific theory.

Date: 2006/04/21 15:25:17, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, Heddle's really an outlier in the data. It helps that he was a scientist, which Dembski, Davetard, Cordova etc weren't. he still makes scientifically bogus arguments like probability without the faintest idea of a distribution, but he at least recognizes and admits that ID is not science. He doesn't seem to get, though, the whole point and motivation for ID--to pretend that creationism is scientific. If ID is merely religious apologetics then it fails in the purpose of its conception, as a way of getting christianity into science class.

Date: 2006/04/21 16:11:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Tiax, how does one pronounce your name? I've been thinking of it as "Tee-axe", but if you consider how the 'ti' is pronounced in 'nation', I could pronounce it "Shee-axe". Which is it?

Date: 2006/04/21 16:35:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Cool. "Tee-axe" is slightly unusual, but not out of whack considering my name, "Steve Story", which 50% of people find hard to pronounce, but which a small percentage of people think is a superhero Patrick Warburton type name.

Date: 2006/04/22 05:35:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Listening to someone talk about the horrors of gay marriage is very similar to listening to christians tell you what murderous rapists they would all be if they were atheists. It's just not true, but their religion tells them it is, so they're not going to be convinced by any rational argument.

And by the way, that stuff about marriage and scale free networks is just gibberish.

It would be nice though if christians wanting to follow christian rules would at least be honest about it, and not try to disguise their wishes with incoherent arguments about STDs and such.

Correction: christians wanting to make everyone follow christian rules.

Date: 2006/04/22 06:02:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
April 22, 2006
Please Visit Larry Fafarman’s New Blog

Larry Fafarman makes many excellent points and was banned at Panda’s Thumb for making them too often. He and I are fellow outcasts. I invited him to become an author here but he turned me down because he’s strongly against comment moderation and I’m just as strongly in favor of not allowing trolls to ruin the commenting environment for everyone.

Anyhow, you can find the things I was hoping he’d write about for us at his new blog

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/

and I invite you all to give it a look.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 9:14 am
Comments (0)


Can you imagine what it would have been like, to have a group blog consisting of Davetard, DougMoron, SalCordova, and Larry Falafelman? God. That would have been like the Dream Team of tard.

And where's BarryA? He hasn't been seen on that site since March 28.

Date: 2006/04/22 12:41:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Wow, aren't you relieved. You're freed of the burden of attempting to listen to an opposing point of view. Convenient.


Yes, it is. There are all kinds of arguments I don't waste time listening to. Like geocentrists, NAMBLA, White Supremacists, the list goes on....

Quote
And by the way, didn't you once say that you would censor me if you had the chance? Of what are you afraid?
Yes, I would like to censor you from my threads if you mucked them up with your nonsense. But if I ran the Antievolution board I wouldn't censor you from the whole board. Just threads where I was interested in hearing a particular topic discussed by smart and sane people. I wouldn't care what any creationist said about them.

As far as your scale free networks bit, you get the Dembski Trophy for lengthy discussions of scientific concepts while utterly failing to tie them to your argument.

Date: 2006/04/22 13:02:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Wouldn't you love to see a polygamist use GoP's line of reasoning?

"Your honor, considering marriages to be nodes on a scale free network, the fact that I have 23 wives back at the house makes me a huge hub. Just enormous. And us huge hubs are sooooo sensitive to any change, why, the slightest change in my linkages could bring the whole system just crashing down. Your wife, your son's wife, all over, man, gone, just gone...."

Date: 2006/04/22 13:11:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, yeah, I know Heddle's been consistent with that. I remember him saying it in 2005. I meant that considering 99% of what he says is bible-worshipping gibberish, when he strings together multiple sentences like...
Quote
The first strategy I disagree with is proclaiming ID as science. Philosophical discussions aside, I will accept ID as science when I read something like this:

  A scientist at (some respected research university) has been awarded a grant to do experiment X. ID predicts the result of the experiment will be Y. Non-ID predicts the result will be Z.

And don't tell me this cannot happen because the secular scientific community would never allow it. I was a practicing scientist before I was a believer, and we never had any secret meetings where we discussed our true agenda of destroying Christianity in the guise of science.

Predictions such as We will never discover an evolutionary pathway for (whatever) or We will never detect a parallel universe are interesting and important, but they are not examples of predictability arising from a full-fledged scientific theory.
...it's remarkable.

Date: 2006/04/22 13:19:44, Link
Author: stevestory
I want to see them all gang up on Heddle.

Date: 2006/04/22 13:28:40, Link
Author: stevestory
They probably have a private discussion thread for the admins.

Quote
I suspect that Barry A has left the asylum for good.  He was too sane for that group.


I'd like to see the private thread during the exchange which led to Barry's leaving. It was probably short.

Quote
Uh...Dave?
Quote
Yeah?
Quote
You know that interesting post which I spent all weekend on?
Quote
Yep.
Quote
Um...well, there are like 34 really interesting criticisms in the moderation queue, and I think it could really be an interesting discussion, but you seem to have accidently banned all of them.
Quote
That wasn't an accident.
Quote
Huh?
Quote
Huh He11.
Quote
I know some of them disagreed with me, but that's the fun of debate, right?
Quote
You don't belong here.
Quote
I guess not.

Date: 2006/04/22 13:42:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Question for Eric Murphy, Steven Elliot, and Occam's Aftershave. When Thor and GoP say these ridiculous things about STD rates and Scale Free Networks and what have you, does it cause you to think they're being dishonest? Do any of you three believe that Thor and GoP are motivated by a careful study of health statistics or graph theory?

Date: 2006/04/22 13:50:20, Link
Author: stevestory

Dense O'Leary is now commenting on Larry's blog.



Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread is officially starting to feel anxious. It senses this thread may evolve into a serious competitor.

Date: 2006/04/22 15:27:57, Link
Author: stevestory
This guy wrote a magnificent Greasemonkey script for Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng...._ph.php
which I have been wanting at PT. It puts the little word 'kill' alongside a commenter's comment, and if you click it, the commenter is added to your personal killfile. From then on, their posts are stripped from the website you see. It's just fantastic. It gives individuals the power to go to interesting sites and not have their eyeballs assaulted by retards. And it's done in a democratic choice-based way. I'm urging him to modify it to work for Panda's Thumb. If this sounds like a great thing to do, if you never want to see a post by Carol Clouser or whoever again, urge him to do so too. His email address is in the pharyngula greasemonkey script.

Obviously I won't be blocking the amusing idiots like Salvador, but seriously, wouldn't that have solved the Larry problem in two shakes of a Lamb's tail?

Date: 2006/04/22 15:48:38, Link
Author: stevestory
He had lots of names because he was banned. With the killfile, banning would not be necessary.

Date: 2006/04/22 16:04:42, Link
Author: stevestory
fine by me. small price to pay.

Date: 2006/04/22 16:22:43, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

He had a legion of names.

Your momma had a legion of names. In her black book. Her I shagged. You I'll just ban. -ds

Date: 2006/04/22 16:57:59, Link
Author: stevestory
I think the moment he comes through with that script, I will be hunting down the names Morgan Lynn Lambada and Carol Clouser. And I would say Charlie Wagner but he died or something. Haven't seen him lately.

Date: 2006/04/22 17:06:27, Link
Author: stevestory
So I'm still reading Jeeves in the Morning, and it's delightful. And it occurred to me, Arden Chatfield, that your name is very Wodehousian. It really does sound like the perfect name for a hale fellow, well met.

Date: 2006/04/23 08:10:07, Link
Author: stevestory
So now Davetard, Larry F, and JAD are all pissed at each other.

http://www.blogger.com/comment....0081726

that didn't take long. I'm reminded of someone's comment that militant little groups seldom succeed in their ambitious plans because they spend all their energy infighting and splintering and such.

Date: 2006/04/23 08:42:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Hmmm. I don't know what used to be at that link.

Date: 2006/04/23 09:28:48, Link
Author: stevestory
He doesn't even rent the deep end. He owns it. His name is on the title.

Date: 2006/04/23 10:35:35, Link
Author: stevestory
May I direct your attention to Unintelligent Reasoning, a fairly new blog by the Uncommonly Dense poster known as Joseph.

Quote

Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning.


They can't publish a theory to save their lives, but those IDiots sure can blog.

Date: 2006/04/23 10:49:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Comment Deleted

   This post has been removed by the author.

   Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:03:06 PM


Here's the link to the thread on Larry's blog where this happened.

Date: 2006/04/23 11:07:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh I don't care about the content, I just think it's best to not let people like Davetard edit their own comments after the fact. I think that ability may cause some trouble in the future.

Date: 2006/04/23 11:16:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Doug--presumably DougMoron--has this to say about "The Flagellum Challenge":

Quote


I’m curious as to why this argument is used. This comment is not a good response so Dave should remove it but I hope for a reply.

The way I see it, in terms of credibility, even if this argument turns out to work, it is pointing out the overwhelming number of times where it doesn’t. Why would God choose do design a machine to allow a bacterium some advantage and yet leave humans to the vicissitudes of fate and evolution?

I can’t get past the most obvious way we can know about the designer: our innate sense of connection. We can literally feel our creator. So how is that not evidence? Now, I have one set of religious practices to enhance that feeling but others have different practices and all do feel it. We feel it when we are elated, ashamed, in awe; we feel abandoned by it when we are sad and strengthened by it when we strengthen our resolve; tibetan monks chant to it, hindu yogis express it as a word ohm, south american indians mutilate their bodies in homage to it. And on and on.

So why the flagellum? Why not the soul?

Comment by Doug — April 23, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

I'm grinning so hard I'm going to sprain a muscle.

Date: 2006/04/23 11:20:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Wow. That comment has already been yanked.

Date: 2006/04/23 11:37:31, Link
Author: stevestory
I love it. Nothing provides more entertainment than these guys.

Date: 2006/04/23 12:07:35, Link
Author: stevestory
But Chris, have you not considered Chaos Theory? A gay man getting married in Massachussetts could cause hurricanes in Louisiana. You need to read more Ghost of Paley.

Date: 2006/04/23 12:11:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Also could you please define the nodes and edges in your network in which marriage is a hub.
And explain why it's scale-free.

Date: 2006/04/23 12:39:33, Link
Author: stevestory
As might have been anticipated, Larry's no-rules blog has gone completely off the rails

Date: 2006/04/23 12:42:26, Link
Author: stevestory
where does Salvador blog, anyway?

Date: 2006/04/23 17:48:58, Link
Author: stevestory
If it doesn't make your mouth hang open, it's not Uncommonly Dense™

Date: 2006/04/24 02:07:58, Link
Author: stevestory
While a few bad words might give some people the vapors, the seriously off-the-rails stuff involves indirect death threats.

Date: 2006/04/24 02:55:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
No one has ever shown me a mutation which INCREASES the information in the organism.

I love how the Index of Creationist Claims says about this argument, ""It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim,...  

Date: 2006/04/24 06:51:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Therefore blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites.

Date: 2006/04/24 12:55:18, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm still waiting for GoP to explain why heterosexual couples are richly-connected nodes on a scale-free network.

Date: 2006/04/24 14:53:44, Link
Author: stevestory
Hey Ghost, how are heterosexual couples richly-connected nodes on a scale-free network?

And don't skimp on the math details. I can hang. I had plenty of 400-level math classes at State.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:01:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Paley, we've asked you three or four times to back up that scale-free network hokum claim you tossed out, and you've moved on to other arguments, and you're accusing us of shell games?

Date: 2006/04/24 15:11:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
blah blah blah probability theory blah blah blah


Ghost, how are heterosexual couples richly-connected nodes on a scale-free network?

Date: 2006/04/24 15:17:18, Link
Author: stevestory
And don't think I'm doing a Lenny Flank here and making the point that you can't answer the question. I'm hoping you actually come up with a nitwitted network model and argument for why it's scale free, so I can laugh at it.

But you don't have a reputation for coming through with the models you purport to work on.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:26:19, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm not going to play a shell game and jump to a new argument, Ghosty, it's such a bad habit of us liberals I'm taking a stand against it. I want to know why hetero marriages are scale free networks, how gay marriage would upset the linkages, etc.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:37:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Jeez, it's taking so long I'll go ahead and give you a scenario in which you're kind of right, just to amuse myself.

1 Imagine an alternate USA where polygamy was legal.
2 The wealth of the rich can be roughly described as a power law.
3 Assuming that rich guys could have wives proportional to their income,
4 The graph of people where a marriage is a link would have a power law distribution, and therefore would be scale free.

How you're going to make marriages into hubs on a scale free network in reality, I'm all ears.

Date: 2006/04/24 15:44:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm not making any explanation for Affirmative Action because I've never used it to support any argument. Paley did throw out scale free networks, and since we're trying to avoid shell games here, we need to see this argument through. How are marriages hubs in a scale free network, and how would the linkages destructively change if gay marriage is introduced?

Date: 2006/04/24 15:53:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Anyway, why are you trying to make such a model? You said 'no one could say' if marriages were hubs in a scale free network:

Quote
Let me try to clarify some of my cultural arguments. Why do I think that changing the definition of marriage will lead to such disastrous consequences?

   Consider how cultures form. Human beings are fundamentally biological beings. While the evos and I differ on the genesis of our drives, we all agree that humans share many biological needs with animals. As human societies evolve, they network with other tribes, invent technologies, and develop social structures to manage their affairs. Societies experiment. Soon, historical contingency selects the strategy that successfully defines, and therby demarcates, a culture. As modern research shows, many biological and technological networks such as the internet exhibit a scale-free structure. A scale-free structure is characterised by the development of a few early hubs, which serve as a nexus for most social interactions. Since they are primal, they develop a rich delta of connections and become crucial to the development of the society. As the society becomes more complicated, peripheral hubs form to add flexibility to the original structure. Of course, flexibility is the key; just as a Gothic structure relies on lancet arches, so must a society allow its citizens some freedom to pursue their interest. The central hub must be maintained, however; one may remove a peripheral node at one's convenience, but fiddling with one of the central connections will destroy the system:

Scale-free networks tend to contain centrally located and interconnected high degree "hubs", which dramatically influences the way a network operates. For example, random node failures have very little effect on a scale-free network's connectivity or effectiveness, however deliberate attacks on such a network's hubs can dismantle a network with alarming ease.

So, then, is marriage itself a central hub? No one can say, but the conservative notices that all attempts to radically restructure marriage has foundered, from the free love movement to the communal children's houses of the kibbutzim:
Now you say you're working on a model to show that marriage itself is a central hub? You already said 'no one can say' if marriage is a central hub. So what are you trying to do with this model of yours?

Oh, and I thought you were going to have to pick this up tomorrow? But you're still talking? If you can talk, you can provide us with your model, show us that marriages are central hubs on a scale free network, show us that gay marriage would ruin the network, and then show us why no one can say if marriages are central hubs on a network.

I'm all ears.

Date: 2006/04/24 16:08:28, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm actually going to email Mark Chu-Carroll a link to Ghosty's little scale-free shuck and jive. He might not touch it, but who knows, he might be a little thin on material right now.

Date: 2006/04/24 16:17:49, Link
Author: stevestory
heh.

Date: 2006/04/25 02:55:37, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Comment #98294

Posted by ben on April 25, 2006 07:49 AM (e) | kill

    afdave:

   why do you still not have a maj ority of people that believe your theory?


Why don’t you have a majority of people who believe in your theory, i.e. that your christian god actually exists? Is your belief system really so poorly-supported by evidence and so poorly-taught that you can only convince 1/3 of people in the world that it has any validity at all?

It’s such a stupid question, afdave. Why don’t a majority of people know that gravity bends light? Why can’t even 1/2 of americans find Iraq on a map? Why do so many people believe in ghosts (48% according to this poll, vs. a 45% minority saying they don’t)?

Should we teach our children that gravity doesn’t bend light, that science can’t say for sure where Iraq is, and that ghosts are real? Who cares what polls say?

Date: 2006/04/25 03:23:51, Link
Author: stevestory
lol also from PT:

Quote
Comment #98297

Posted by afdave on April 25, 2006 08:15 AM (e) | kill

Clarification for ben …

All my references to the Creationist majority are applicable to the USA which is where the poll referred to was taken …

This should have been clear in the original reference to the poll …

Duh, Ben, obviously statistics only count when they support my belief, I mean duh...Ben, you just don't think very carefully.

Date: 2006/04/25 03:31:20, Link
Author: stevestory
Flint, you're not being very scientific about this. You see, marriages are deeply-connected hubs on a scale-free network. And clearly, allowing gay marriages would decimate the linking structure and cause the whole system to short out. Any minute now Ghost is going to deliver a model which proves this. And then won't you be embarrassed.

Haven't you learned your lesson by now? When GoP says he's soon to deliver a devastating, scientific argument, he always comes through. Time after time.

Date: 2006/04/25 05:43:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Who is going to be manly enough to answer the obviously embarassing question of why most people in the USA are still creationists in spite of the evolutionists virtual monopoly over US schools, universities, publications and the media for at least 40 years?  

Same reason your evangelical buddies can't give a definition of molecule, or explain why it's cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

Date: 2006/04/25 05:47:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
What's amusing to me is how strenuously Ghost works to *avoid* saying "We deny equal rights to gays in the name of Jesus Christ, amen!"

Any BS argument he puts forth about STDs and scale free networks is a lie. He doesn't like gays, they repulse him and the bible says it's wrong, and that's why he opposes gay marriage. Anything else is a dishonest post-facto argument.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:23:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Our Waterloo, is overdue.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:26:42, Link
Author: stevestory
You know, evolutionary biologists are all nervous wrecks, waiting for the impending Atomic Waterloos. To preserve their nerves, they try to distract themselves by publishing several thousand papers per year.

Date: 2006/04/25 08:30:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
For the most part, Ghost hasn't waved his bible around;
I'm actually complaining about that. If he did that, he would be honest. He didn't get these beliefs from his stupid STD and scale-free network claims. Those are decoy arguments.

Date: 2006/04/25 10:15:22, Link
Author: stevestory
fine. more lesbiands for me.

Date: 2006/04/25 10:19:29, Link
Author: stevestory
Got that model for us Paley?

Date: 2006/04/25 13:16:52, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't see a model there Ghost.

Date: 2006/04/25 13:36:42, Link
Author: stevestory
<lame excuse>Well, this is a thordaddy thread. Do you imagine he is capable of being on topic, even by himself?</lame>

Date: 2006/04/25 14:06:04, Link
Author: stevestory
does the kid have ebola, or not?

Date: 2006/04/25 15:31:58, Link
Author: stevestory
believing in evolution made them have a gay marriage, whereupon the scale-free network catastrophe occurred, and gave him ebola.

Date: 2006/04/25 15:55:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Still no model.

Date: 2006/04/26 01:54:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I may be wrong, but I still have to see a convincing argument (or any argument at all, actually) that explains how legalizing gay marriage would result in any of the ill omens mentioned already (AIDS and other STD epidemics, tyrrany of the minority, increase in promisquity, crumbling of the foundations of society etc) becoming true.


Oh yeah, well, any minute now Ghost will post his explanation of how marriages are hubs on a scale free network which would be shattered by gay marriages. He said it was compelling, so it must just be taking a while to type up. It's not like Ghost would promise to back up a seemingly crazy claim and then just utterly fail to do so.

Date: 2006/04/26 01:59:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Atheists also have "faith" that they will not burn in #### after they die.
Oh I don't have any sort of faith that I won't burn in #### for eternity. I just don't have any evidence of an evil supernatural entity. Only a fantastically evil being could allow an ordinary person such as myself to be tortured eternally. Not being aware of any evil being, I have no worry about such a thing.

Date: 2006/04/26 15:50:17, Link
Author: stevestory
dang, Paley, I was sure this was going to be the comment where you explained the scale free model.

It's 'compelling', right? I can't wait to hear about it.

Date: 2006/04/27 12:31:13, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
That's all right, we don't expect anything from you until later next year.
I don't expect anything from him ever. His mouth has written checks his brain can't cash.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:03:31, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Arden Chatfield and Stevestory:

I don't mind if you post here, even if it's just to troll/insult me. But I do wonder why you bother. I mean, stevestory has made it clear that he doesn't want me "trashing" up his threads, and ordered me to GTFO of a couple of them (and yes, I obeyed). Yet here he is, returning the compliment. Why? Nobody's being forced to read this thread; in fact, it was created to make it easier to avoid unpleasant truths. So why do you care? Could it be that both of you are.....troubled by these facts, and wish to suppress them?

You pulled a Dembski and tried to use some obscure science to back up your dumb desires. I ask you to explain this 'scientific' argument in adequate detail. You of course can't, so you ignore it. I ask again. You ignore it. I ask again. And now you accuse me of trying to suppress your point? I'm trying to suppress your 'compelling' argument that heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, which would be destroyed by allowing gay marriages? By asking for you to make that argument? It's hard to resist calling you any number of things here, but instead I'll just ask you to provide the model you said you were working on, which shows how marriages are hubs in a scale-free network, and explain how gay marriage would cripple the network.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:09:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I wonder if the moderator's ears are still ringing from listening to your sniveling. "For the luvva Gawd, won't you please shut this guy up?!!!!
Ask the moderator whether I've ever requested you be censored.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:13:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Yeah, signatures are crap. Imagine you saw your friend several times a day, and each time he closed the conversation with the same clever quote. Be kind of annoying after a week, no?

Date: 2006/04/28 03:18:59, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
That being said, if you believe the bible is the innerant word of god, and no evidence will change your mind, we will respect you for that.

Some of us might. I won't.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:35:47, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't think pics are remotely as annoying as sigs. Except for animated ones.

Date: 2006/04/28 03:40:33, Link
Author: stevestory
Ah, right, I agree. I would respect that aspect. What I don't respect is people who try to hide that fact with BS arguments about scale-free networks and STD rates.

Date: 2006/04/28 05:00:07, Link
Author: stevestory
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin....Postman

some great bits:

Quote
"We're mostly trying to stop people from doing dumb things," Meyer said.


Quote
"Our role was widely misconstrued by both sides — and the media," Chapman said.


And, apparently, the reporter he was talking to when he said that.

Date: 2006/04/28 11:28:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

ID proclaims that ID is science, not religion.


Quote
"Who are you?" said Lunkwill, rising angrily from his seat. "What do you want?"

"I am Majikthise!" announced the older one.

"And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!" shouted the younger one.

Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. "It's alright," he explained angrily, "you don't need to demand that."

"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"

"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"

Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"

"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.

"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."

Date: 2006/04/28 12:07:35, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Do I have do go to my grave still wondering about your guts to gametes paper, or can I relax and enjoy my twilight years?
Is that one of these things like Scale-Free Networks, or that outline, checks Paley's mouth wrote but his brain can't deliver?

Date: 2006/04/28 13:49:07, Link
Author: stevestory
If you have homozygous recessive cretin genes, which is the only excuse for not visiting BoingBoing every day, you might not have seen this:

"C for Cookie," Sesame Street spoof of "V for Vendetta"

Date: 2006/04/28 14:06:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
And in the meantime, would anyone care to explain what I mean by "passing the blood test" in the context of marriage?


No.

for a few years while I was putting myself through NCSU I was a math tutor to HS/college students. It paid $20/hr, but the work was very inconsistent. Anyway, I learned how to explain things to people. I'm confident that I could teach most people most things. The catch is, if they want to understand it. People who are committed to an ideology which demands they reject something, cannot be taught that thing. They will refuse to see it, they will object, object, object until you give up. So it's not worth my time to try. Someone in the depths of religious passion can refuse to see the sky is blue, and they will argue you to the grave. Is arguing with that person the best way to spend your life?

Date: 2006/04/28 14:36:42, Link
Author: stevestory
It's actually much funnier in context. This is the chapter. Read the whole thing, though.

http://hitch14.tripod.com/chapter_25.htm

Date: 2006/04/28 14:55:33, Link
Author: stevestory
LA Story might be the greatest movie of all time, and H2G2 might be the greatest book of all time. The intro, to whet your appetite:

Quote


Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable  end  of
the  western  spiral  arm  of  the Galaxy lies a small unregarded
yellow sun.

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two  million  miles
is  an  utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-
descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that  they  still
think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most
of  the  people  on  it were unhappy for pretty much of the time.
Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these
were  largely  concerned with the movements of small green pieces
of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't  the  small
green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

And so the problem remained; lots of the people  were  mean,  and
most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches.

Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a  big
mistake  in  coming  down  from the trees in the first place. And
some said that even the trees had been a bad move,  and  that  no
one should ever have left the oceans.

And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after  one  man
had  been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be
nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on  her  own  in  a
small  cafe  in  Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that
had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how  the
world  could  be  made  a  good and happy place. This time it was
right, it would work, and no one would  have  to  get  nailed  to
anything.

Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone  to  tell  anyone
about  it,  a  terribly stupid catastrophe occurred, and the idea
was lost forever.

This is not her story.

But it is the story of that terrible stupid catastrophe and  some
of its consequences.

It is also the story of a book, a book called The  Hitch  Hiker's
Guide  to  the  Galaxy  -  not  an Earth book, never published on
Earth, and until the terrible catastrophe occurred, never seen or
heard of by any Earthman.

Nevertheless, a wholly remarkable book.

in fact it was probably the most remarkable book ever to come out
of  the  great  publishing  houses  of  Ursa  Minor - of which no
Earthman had ever heard either.

Not only is it a wholly remarkable book,  it  is  also  a  highly
successful  one  -  more  popular  than  the  Celestial Home Care
Omnibus, better selling than Fifty More  Things  to  do  in  Zero
Gravity, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of
philosophical blockbusters Where God Went  Wrong,  Some  More  of
God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?

In many of the more relaxed civilizations on  the  Outer  Eastern
Rim of the Galaxy, the Hitch Hiker's Guide has already supplanted
the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the  standard  repository  of
all  knowledge  and  wisdom, for though it has many omissions and
contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly  inaccurate,
it  scores  over the older, more pedestrian work in two important
respects.

First, it is slightly cheaper; and  secondly  it  has  the  words
Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

But the story of this terrible, stupid Thursday, the story of its
extraordinary   consequences,   and   the  story   of  how  these
consequences are inextricably intertwined  with  this  remarkable
book begins very simply.

It begins with a house.

Date: 2006/04/29 09:07:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Given the number of times Ghost of Paley has promised an argument, failed to deliver, and simply moved on to a new argument, and given that he accuses us of doing exactly that, which he referred to as a Shell Game, I suggest his new nickname be Ghost in the Shell.

Date: 2006/04/29 09:26:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Point me to the post where you explain how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and why gay marriage would alter the links in a disastrous way. You said it was compelling, I just want to see it.

Date: 2006/04/29 11:15:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
If you don't like it, why not complain about it in the appropriate thread? Flint did. But we all know what this is about - you're trying to misdirect the audience because you see that my latest citation is all too relevant to the issue on this thread.
Actually I don't know what's even being discussed on this thread. I've read maybe a dozen comments here. I gather it's something about the liberal media. Yeah, the media leans liberal. I don't care. I'm here because I followed you here, Ghost in the Shell.

Got that model yet? I've heard it's compelling, I want to see it.

Quote
But just wait until the big guns come out.....

Will the big guns be coming out before or after you unveil the Scale Free Marriage Network?

Date: 2006/04/29 13:04:37, Link
Author: stevestory
I bet it is hard finding a science textbook which doesn't include all the things creationists hate.

Date: 2006/04/29 14:08:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Quote
I’ve yet to meet this picture perfect liberal that Anne describes. I know a couple of godless atheists. One is a republican who loves listening to Rush.

Does that make sense to an American?


Does what make sense to an American? That quote? I can't tell what's being discussed, or in what context.

Date: 2006/04/30 04:41:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Limbaugh is extremely popular and influential among conservatives. I'd say he's been the most important conservative since Reagan.

Date: 2006/04/30 04:49:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#3

So ID theory leads to knowledge and understanding. What would Judge Jones say?

Comment by tribune7 — April 30, 2006 @ 7:08 am

(http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1084#comments)

Date: 2006/04/30 05:41:23, Link
Author: stevestory
What band?

Date: 2006/04/30 08:07:53, Link
Author: stevestory
thanks to PvM for finding this:
Quote


This brings up a closely related dialog with someone here who was repeatedly asking Dembski to use design detection formula to discriminate between “junk DNA” that has no function and DNA that has no *known* function. I kept telling the guy it doesn’t work that way. Before something is a candidate for design detection it must first have specificity. Junk DNA, by definition, has no known function. It is thus unspecified and not a candidate for making a design inference.

Comment by DaveScot — September 15, 2005 @ 8:37 pm


William Dembski:
Quote
Specifically, Ward challenged Meyer to explain how the theory of ID could be tested or falsified. Meyer stated that the competing explanations of Drs. Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller concerning the bacteria flagellum and Type III Secretory Systems is something that could be tested to determine which one came first. Meyer countered that neo-Darwinian evolution had been heuristically unfruitful in leading science to think that non-encoding DNA was simply “junk.” Meyer insisted that design assumptions more readily led one to conclude there was purpose in such “junk DNA.”

Date: 2006/04/30 11:54:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Wooohoooo! Ghost finally published the Scale-Free Marriage Network Model. (scan scan scan) Crap. He didn't. :-( It's been over a week, and Ghost in the Shell can't come through with the 'compelling' evidence.

Date: 2006/05/01 04:10:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Since there's been precious little justification for any liberal beliefs proffered on this blog, I find myself unimpressed with your posturing. But don't worry; I won't ask you to leave - we conservatives can tolerate opposing points of view. It's a civilisation thing - you wouldn't understand.


Ghost: I've got a model which proves my point.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: (silence)
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: I'm working on it.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're complaining in the wrong thread.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're trying to suppress my point.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're posturing.
Me: What's the model?
...

Date: 2006/05/01 06:44:55, Link
Author: stevestory
Davescot on the amazing dinosaur bone marrow discovery:

Quote

I dunno. I’ve got a decent biological microscope in my lab at home that resolves blood cells quite well and none of the photomicrographs in the article look anything like them. The colors are all far too vibrant too. As far as flexible tissues left over after acid treatment - hasn’t everyone done the rubber egg experiment in school where you soak a chicken egg in vinegar (a mild *acid*) and the shell becomes flexible? My bet is that nothing comes of this. They won’t find any DNA and they won’t ever confirm it’s really soft tissue or intact cells they have.

Comment by DaveScot — April 30, 2006 @ 10:56 pm

(http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1086#comments)

Date: 2006/05/01 08:08:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Anybody here read the book? Is it worth the $8 I'm considering spending on it this afternoon?

Date: 2006/05/01 09:07:53, Link
Author: stevestory
I read an earlier Dan Brown book, Deception Point, and while yes literarily it was a pile of crap, each sentence like a reject from a high school creative writing class, the plot was good, and that's what I'm looking for with DaVinci. Given the comments here I think I'll buy it.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:02:04, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Don't drop $8 on it -- there are billions of used copies around. You could probably get it for half that.
Yeah, I mean, I can get it on ebay for $2 and add $5 S&H. :-)

It turns out there are no used book stores very close by, just new ones.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:07:52, Link
Author: stevestory
That reminds me of this essay,where a guy gets pissed off that radiometric-dating-bashing christians are making christians like himself look like idiots, and he sets out to write a primer for why radiometric dating is not wrong.

Me, I prefer christians to be Paul Nelsons and Salvador Cordovas, crazy idiots with indefensible beliefs. Makes us atheists look better.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:14:45, Link
Author: stevestory
hmmm, yard sales, that's not a bad idea.

Date: 2006/05/01 11:03:37, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL

Date: 2006/05/01 11:48:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I had honestly underestimated the strength of the YEC readership at that blog.

With the pseudomath mumbo jumbo it's easy to forget that Intelligent Design is a facade with nothing but OECs and YECs underneath.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:14:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Right after she also read Demons and Angels (or the other way around), which preceded Davinci Code but was about the same illuminati-secret society crap.
I'm a sucker for conspiracy fiction. By the way, The Rule of Four was excellent. It's like a Dan Brown book written by a competent writer.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:50:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Last I saw, he was still struggling with a geocentric explanation of non-cosmological redshift.
At least he gave you a model, however ridiculous. He won't even give me a model he promised.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:58:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Certainly. I'm adding it to the list. I love anything where there are dark and complicated secrets about society/government/religion.

Date: 2006/05/01 13:18:05, Link
Author: stevestory
LA Confidential the movie was pretty good.

Date: 2006/05/01 13:41:50, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL

Date: 2006/05/01 13:57:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
 
I'm not giving up on you yet, Paley.  But I am ready to see the outline you have been working on.

Ditto. And that scale-free model.

Date: 2006/05/01 14:27:28, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Wait, I thought Dave was a theerist, not an experimentalist...

He's a polymath.

Date: 2006/05/01 14:32:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Every day, every day, creationists have to cover their ears and pretend some new research doesn't exist.

Date: 2006/05/01 14:38:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Terra Iu(ventus)

When the earth is referred to as old or young it should be kept in mind that time itself is not a constant, as postulated by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The rate of expansion of the universe since the Big Bang (Gen 1:1) would cause a time dialation effect …
Which in turn would cause mankind to argue about the age of the universe ..
Finally causing their careers to slow to a standstill .

Omnia tempus habent (Eccl 3:1)

Comment by Collin DuCrâne — May 1, 2006 @
4:01 pm

Let's get retarded....
Let's get retarded in heah....


Date: 2006/05/01 14:47:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Russell's Uncertainty Principle says that it's impossible to determine if some jaw-dropping creationist nonsense is real or a parody.

Date: 2006/05/01 15:00:05, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Wait, I thought Dave was a theerist, not an experimentalist...


Let me distinguish between the two: an ID Theorist is someone who fails to create an ID theory, while an ID Experimentalist is someone who fails to do ID experiments.

Date: 2006/05/01 16:14:41, Link
Author: stevestory
I'd hate to be Davetard's orthodontist. He's probably grinding his teeth these days. He's possibly smart enough to realize he's fallen in with retards.

Date: 2006/05/02 04:06:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Apparently that stupid relativity claim about the young earth comes from Answers in Genesis.

Date: 2006/05/02 09:08:23, Link
Author: stevestory
An alternate reality of imaginary hysterics.

Date: 2006/05/02 11:27:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

But you'd be wrong to say there's a consistent, systemic "liberal" bias to the media, because it ain't there.
I'd say there's a slight liberal bias to the media. But so what? As you can see from Ghost in the Shell's other posts, he imagines hysterical effects from insignificant causes. Among people like Ghost, gays and the media are humongous wrecking crews, covering America in destruction and ruin. I even saw one Ghost-type, at ProfessorBainbridge's site, blame Hurricane Katrina on the media. The media, you see, had failed to warn people as aggressively as it should have. They're people wearing religious and political blinders, who will refuse to see your point, and it's stupid to argue with them.

Date: 2006/05/02 11:38:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Next, they'll kidnap you, and force you to marry some guy named Steve.



You better get to the gym Thordaddy. I don't like fatties.

Quote

giant African American gentlemen whose intentions towards you are far from honorable.


If they are gentlemen, as you say, they would be honorable.

Date: 2006/05/02 11:50:08, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, I should have specified I meant it was stupid to argue with them for the purpose of convincing them. I understand there are other reasons one might do so.

Date: 2006/05/02 12:00:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
But then again, you are a "liberal."  You have no core principles...


Hey Thor, time to go to school!

Date: 2006/05/02 12:12:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

They can also have the whole "dinosaur bone marrow"
how would they 'have' that?

Date: 2006/05/03 02:54:17, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

#6

DaveScot,

Well, that’s the reason I hope we can discuss this amongst ourselves here. The salient DNA in a GMO is a man-made object.

If the explanatory filter is capable of detecting man-made objects (such as in the case of patent or copyright infringement), then Genetic-ID’s DNA fingerprinting is a method of design detection.

Salvador

Comment by scordova — May 3, 2006 @ 5:31 am

#7

antg wrote:

    Comparing the known GMO fingerprint (ie an independent specification) to a test sample is a design detection method,

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Think of it as comparable to detecting a copyright infringement. It is the same method of design  detection.

Comment by scordova — May 3, 2006 @ 5:44 am

#8

This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It’s comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I’m closing the comments on this thread.

Comment by DaveScot — May 3, 2006 @ 6:37 am

Date: 2006/05/03 03:01:39, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, sure, if you get your information from radical leftists like "Wikipedia". If you got your information from logical, rational, objective observers such as Pat Robertson, you'd understand what Thordaddy means.

Quote

"Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."


Did that clear things up, Stephen?

Date: 2006/05/03 08:41:05, Link
Author: stevestory
IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened.

Date: 2006/05/03 09:44:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Dembski was being sarcastic there Beervolcano.

Date: 2006/05/03 09:59:07, Link
Author: stevestory
I would go back and save his life. Jabbering street preachers are human beings and don't deserve to die. But if it were a choice between saving jesus and killing Stalin or Hitler, I'd definitely do the latter.

Date: 2006/05/03 10:30:53, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

“ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself.”

My daughter’s junior-high science book contains a number of the discredited icons, and students are taught as fact that microevolutionary changes can be extrapolated to explain all of life’s diversity, complexity, and innovation.

Students are taught that randomness (i.e., mutations) are the source of biological information, even though randomness represents the anti-pole of information. That which is known to cause the decay of information is invoked as its creator.

In no other field of science is such shoddy reasoning and such a low standard of evidence acceptable. Darwinian evolution as it is taught in the public schools is the assault on science, not ID.

Comment by GilDodgen — May 3, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

Randomness is the antipole of information. Except of course, in that little thing called Information Theory. But what does that matter? The IEEE Information Theory website contains not a single mention of Dembski, so obviously those "scientists" are really out of the loop about Information Theory.

Date: 2006/05/03 10:34:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Will it be an explanation of the "compelling" evidence of how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and how adding gay marriages shorts out the network? Because it's been like two weeks since you said you were working on that model.

I mean, I assume you don't just go around shooting your mouth off claiming ties between complicated math topics and your social beliefs, with no basis for saying so? I don't go around saying my opposition to the death penalty is based on the nilpotents of Abelian cyclic groups. That would be an asinine thing to do. That's not what you did, was it? Surely you have some kind of vague model in mind or you wouldn't have said that, no?

Date: 2006/05/03 11:20:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Oh, you heathen, you. Everyone knows it's potatoes all the way down.

In honor of this, I'm having some Communion Pringles tonight.

Date: 2006/05/03 12:00:32, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Actually, Steve, you might want to tune into tonight's thread as well......
Oh I will. But I already know you're not going to be delivering the scale free model.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:00:07, Link
Author: stevestory
I'm not voting. You can't deliver a scale free model. You know it. Everyone here knows it. You were trying to back up your desires with appeals to sophisticated topics, and when pressed, you can't deliver. You didn't have those sophisticated arguments to begin with, you were just waving your hands. Learn from the rest of us. Don't go around pretending to have deep intellectual models to support your social beliefs, when you don't have the deep intellectual models. Argue for things based on the real reasons you believe them.

Date: 2006/05/03 15:29:11, Link
Author: stevestory
there's an hilarious comment at the link you posted, Arden:

Quote
#

I am pretty sure that the case utterly hinged on the constitutional issue of the establishment clause. Judge Jones’s decision clearly states that ID=religion. In fact, that is what the whole case argued. I read the whole grueling thing. They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID and determined ID to be religious.

When activist judges create the legal reality to support the meme (ID=religion), then researchers in the ID sciences have more and more trouble getting grants, christians are made laughingstocks, and the foundations of our society tremble.

When America no longer calls itself a Christian Nation, we have lost and our children will suffer.

Comment by Doug — April 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am

I love it when they simultaneously complain that ID was labelled religion, and that attacking ID is attacking christianity. These guys are truly the Keystone Kops.

Date: 2006/05/04 02:23:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Talk about wasting money. the Big Bang Theory is useless and worthless yet tons of money poured into it.

Comment by Smidlee — May 3, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

Date: 2006/05/04 02:51:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I also recommend that you publish the geocentrism model on the bad astronomy forum there are a lot more physicists there.
LOL.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:04:52, Link
Author: stevestory
I want to see Paley deliver a geocentric model to the people at Bad Astronomy. It would go much like Brazeau vs Paley went, with multiple knockouts in every round.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:20:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
#

–According to the theory, when they saw a member of their group lose his footing they would laugh as a sign to each other that something was amiss, but nothing too serious.—
Seriously ironic because I read this and actually broke out laughing. This is a really funny theory.

Comment by tribune7 — May 3, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
#

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we need to keep evolutionary theory around for the laughs.

Comment by William Dembski — May 3, 2006 @ 9:35 pm


These ironometer explosions are going to start attracting Homeland Security.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:26:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Mr. Weissburg,

In comment #15 you make the following statements.

  ID seems to state that a deliberate, purposeful and intentional process determines properties of animals. this requires an intellegence to direct the course of evolution by specifying, in accordance with its particular desires, what animals will
   be like.

   […] no experiment or observation can either prove or disprove that a creative intellegence exists.


It is a common misconception among those unfamiliar with ID to think that it postulates a designing intelligence. ID theorists compare and contrast natural phenomena with effects produced by understood, defined intelligent agents and understood natural regularity sans intelligence and try to determine which offers the best causal account of whatever phenomenon is in question. There is a very fine line between saying “a designer did it” and saying “it is best explained as being the result of design”, but a line exists, nonetheless.

Comment by crandaddy — May 3, 2006 @ 11:19 pm


something here is sans intelligence, all right...

Date: 2006/05/04 11:37:40, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL

Date: 2006/05/04 11:54:12, Link
Author: stevestory

Date: 2006/05/05 02:55:27, Link
Author: stevestory
If Ghost of Dead Arguments ever gets around to posting one of his models, Thordaddy might lose the title of First Crank.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:00:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

You know, in all my travels across the wild internet seas, I don't remember ever meeting an extremely loud and raving fundie who didn't claim he was an atheist liberal once.
I've met several fundies who talked about what hellraisers they used to be. I think they're just trying to be cool.

Date: 2006/05/05 03:17:49, Link
Author: stevestory
If I make a claim that a complex math topic supports some point of mine, I can tell you how. Otherwise I wouldn't say it. Because I'm not trying to impress people into believing me.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:53:38, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Another layman question ... what's the meaning of 5' and 3' ... what do the numbers designate and what do the single quote marks indicate?


They indicate that the person who said this--

Quote
(1) No one to my knowledge has ever proposed a stepwise solution of HOW the 2A and 2B chimp chromosomes joined.  This appears to be a HUGE obstacle.
(2) The join was 'head-to-head'.  If my understanding is true (stated below) that chromosomes are read in only one direction, then this would be a SECOND HUGE OBSTACLE.
...

The blow for Neodarwinism comes, however, with the discovery that the theoretical ‘join’ is head-to-head. Since the chromosomes are always ‘read’ in the same direction, this means that the same ‘sentence’ would be read backwards, and would make no biochemical sense!


--hasn't got so much as a freshman's understanding of biology, yet shoots his mouth off about it.

Date: 2006/05/05 06:11:25, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
The reason, Dave is that most people are stupid.  Yes, that's right.  Stupid.  Civilization advances and is sustained on the minds of a vanishingly small percentage of the race.  The rest are drones - useful for evolutionary purposes, no doubt, but contributing nothing, unable to reason, unable to do much of anything except eat, sleep, and procreate.
Count me out on that. It reminds me of a Randroid math professor I once knew. He was puzzled that America was so successful. He said in European countries--he was Swedish--only the very few top people were selected to become professors and corporate executives and researchers and the like. America, he said, allowed anyone to try to do anything. Allowing all those unthinking idiots he and Rilke's Grandaughter believes in to try all those things, would waste so many resources America should be inefficient and poor.

Now, I would agree that most people don't think in a very logical and trained way. But they do think.

Date: 2006/05/05 06:26:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Let me give you an analogy, AFDave. Imagine you were interested in the question of whether we were nearing the Peak Oil point, so you hung out on Peak Oil blogs with geologists. And one day, somebody showed up there and posted
Quote
"You're all wrong, there's infinite gasoline, we'll never ever ever run out of gasoline, just look at this link to SomeCompleteCrank.com. And by the way, what the heck is "petroleum"?


Do you see how that guy looks? Well, that's what you look like, here.

Date: 2006/05/05 09:43:41, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
May 4, 2006
“The Conservation of Information: Measuring the Cost of Successful Search”

Here’s my latest contribution to The Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design: http://www.designinference.com/documen....on.pdf.

It’s still a bit rough. I’ll be revising it shortly.
Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 12:17 pm
and in the comments below it:
Quote
#3

Dr. D - I suggest your paper here seems to bring into stark focus what I call the “No Prior Specification/No Possible Background Knowledge” problem facing classical theology. I’ve written you before with a rough draft of this question. The gist of the problem is summed up in your paper: “If the information is created as
an act of intelligence, where did the information that this intelligence employs
come from?
” I suggest that within classical theology, positing as it does an intelligence which is the ground of all being and from which all information flows, this paradox is unresolvable. In our experience, all intelligences use preexisting information to generate “new” information.

This problem is explicitly addressed and resolved in at least one other theistic system.

Comment by jaredl — May 5, 2006 @ 7:36 am

#4

Of course, you could (and probably do) mean that bolded statement in an entirely different way than I have taken it, but the problem raised is nonetheless real.

Comment by jaredl — May 5, 2006 @ 7:47 am

#5

Just curious, jaredl, which theistic system is it that resolves the question?

Comment by Eric Anderson — May 5, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

Hard to understand how anyone makes the mistake of conflating ID with religion, huh? :-p

Date: 2006/05/05 10:15:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

...At least to me. Because, remember: I never bought any of this in the first place.

Ghost's mouth wrote checks his brain can't cash.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:24:14, Link
Author: stevestory
For me, it's like COPS. Creationists are trying to do evil. Science is precious. And these christianists are trying to ruin it. But because they are crazy and obvious liars they drive right off a cliff like in Dover. Here's a picture of the Intelligent Design Movement:



So for me, it's the amusement and satisfaction of watching the mean braggart fall on his own sword, over and over. They are evil and arrogant and they are being laid low, and it's great fun to watch.

I love a dolt like Casey Luskin requiring his ID club officers to be christian, and then demanding ID has nothing to do with religion. I love when they call us Atheists. I love when the Young Earth Creationists swarm Davetard. When Bill Buckingam declares, "Won't somebody stand up for Jay-sis?" I laugh until my sides hurt. I love when they say that the Intelligent Designer, who could be, you know, anybody, is off-limits for study, or a topic for Philosophy. They are evil and dumb and the seeds of their undoing are right there in their words and deeds.

Date: 2006/05/05 11:34:26, Link
Author: stevestory
According to Crazy Carol, the bible, read correctly, only prohibits unprotected homosexual anal sex. IIRC.

Date: 2006/05/05 12:28:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

stevestory,

You may have a point if this had anything to do with ID or Christians and the like or if I was an IDists or a Christian.  But it doesn't and so your "contribution" is meaningless.

Perhaps, you could put a positive argument forward for gay "marriage" that doesn't consist of ericmurphy's argument that gays want it and therefore they should get it.


Why would I waste time making logical arguments for you? I can't think of anything more futile.

Date: 2006/05/05 12:43:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Wes, as good as he is about evolution, is still a christian.

Date: 2006/05/05 13:09:19, Link
Author: stevestory
Generally you'll find me using my time to read hysterical things creationists say and having a good laugh about them, and sharing them here where others can have a laugh. Not wasting my time arguing with you kooks. And sometimes I will engage them, like Ghost of Paley, to try to get them to produce some argument I believe will be hilarious. I wanna see Ghost try to come up with his scale free model. I mean, the guy's a geocentrist fer chrissakes. Whatever he comes up with to support that is going to be USDA Grade A Crazy. I'll go get my Marion & Thornton and refresh my noninertial reference frame calculational ability just so I can skewer him.

Crazy...it's what's fer dinner.

(of course, maybe Ghost is correct. If so he'll win $1000. LOL)

Date: 2006/05/05 13:55:50, Link
Author: stevestory

Date: 2006/05/05 14:01:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
stevestory,

What is the "logical" argument for gay "marriage" and why have so many been unaware of this logic for so long?
Did I advocate gay marriage here? I can't remember. I don't remember advocating it any more than I advocate interracial marriage. I've never thought much about making a clear argument for it since it's so senseless to continue discriminating against gay couples, just as it was senseless in the 20th century to discriminate against interracial couples.

Date: 2006/05/05 14:07:45, Link
Author: stevestory
looks at card in wallet
Quote
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union
Mr. Steve Story
Member Since: 2002               52506946
Nadine Strossen                 J (something)
President                           Executive Director
Yep. I'm a liberal.

Date: 2006/05/05 14:37:02, Link
Author: stevestory
that's crap.

Date: 2006/05/05 14:46:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


Google may be faster but it's only helpful if you:
a) know what sources are reliable vs. those that aren't trustworthy
Quoting AiG pretty much means the quoter can't tell science from jargon-heavy babbling.

Date: 2006/05/05 15:00:59, Link
Author: stevestory
and that's ultracrap.

Date: 2006/05/05 15:25:12, Link
Author: stevestory
do you mean binary instead of binomial?

Date: 2006/05/05 15:30:05, Link
Author: stevestory
d
a
m
n


is on the censor list, but not 'fucking'? weird.

Date: 2006/05/05 15:36:12, Link
Author: stevestory
Tom Ames said:
Quote
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Tom, I like to cut to the chase. Please explain what that post means in three words. And no outside sources.

And then I'll tell you why I don't believe you.

Date: 2006/05/05 16:04:22, Link
Author: stevestory
Eric's having a teachable moment here.

Date: 2006/05/06 08:53:47, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I hereby nominate Gil for a spot in the Tard Hall of Fame, alongside DaveTard and DougMoron.  Speaking of which, I've been jonesing for a hit of DougMoron, but he hasn't posted for a few weeks.  Did he go the way of BarryA?
Doug's a really dumb guy, BarryA struck me as being smarter. I'd say Barry had a decent chance of seeing the tinpot thinkers for what they were. Doug's probably just been busy.
  It's not certain that Barry left, he was a professional, and he might have just had a really busy April. It looks like he left, though.

Quote


Oh, and I really like the way you directly compared Judge Jones to Hitler and, when someone called you out on that, tried to invoke Godwin's law on them. Reeeally classy.
That's the kind of creative stupidity you just can't make up.

Date: 2006/05/06 15:41:11, Link
Author: stevestory
SHHHHHHH! The Ghost of Paley who's getting therapy isn't the Ghost of Paley who will make me laugh with a childish geocentricity model. Hush you. I want him to put forth a model so I can get all a = g + T/m - 2w x v* on his a55.



*: equation of motion for Foucault's pendulum, in a rotating reference frame, neglecting the x' and y' terms.

Date: 2006/05/06 17:17:57, Link
Author: stevestory
They only call the shots if you let them. I don't let them call the shots. I just hang around and laugh at them because that's all they deserve. Geocentrism? HIV denial? Young Earth Creationism? They're idiots, and often funny, and that's why I'm here. I'm not trying to teach them. I've tutored people for years. These idiots are unteachable. But they are good for some laughs.

Date: 2006/05/06 17:22:01, Link
Author: stevestory
When the mormons knock on your door, do you argue with them all day, trying to convert them? No. They're brainwashed, they're committed to the belief, it's a waste of your time. Same here.

Date: 2006/05/07 05:38:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh no, plenty of people get conned by them. Lots of people will assert a vague belief in 'intelligent design'. They're not idiots. The ones who take up arms (verbally) against biologists, physicists, etc, over and over, who aren't swayed by argument, who've seen what all the experts say but think they know better--Thordaddy, GoP, Salvador, and the like--they're idiots, and unteachable.

Quote
Every “I just don’t have time to prove it right now”, as far as I’m concerned, is a concession of defeat.

It sure is. Like when Ghost said the evidence for marriage being hubs on a scale free network was compelling, and he was pushed to explain, and switched to saying he'd have to work on a model. In doing so he admits he had nothing. There shouldn't have been anything to work on. If he had something compelling he could have just shared it with us. But he didn't have anything compelling. He had some jargon he was throwing around.

About your larger point, they are counting on the public being laymen. They want to throw a bunch of jargon around, they need us to throw a bunch of jargon back, and then they can call it a debate and a controversy and try to get it into schools. When someone like DonaldM over on that Panda's Thumb thread starts babbling about how the programmers put the information in when they wrote the code, you and I know that DonaldM can't give us a useful definition of information, can't count how much the programmers 'put in', can't count how much came out, but Joe Smith doesn't know that. We know DonaldM's argument is bogus several different ways, but Joe Smith doesn't, and never will. We can't expect people to be educated to the point that they can see through this sophistry any time soon, considering things like half the country is unable to define the word 'molecule'. But what we can do is to shape our responses to indicate that arguments like Donalds are not just wrong but absurd and long dead. By doing things like linking to TalkOrigin refutations. By showing that real Information Theory researchers think those arguments are stupid.  By showing that the father of their movement doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS. By linking them to Young Earth Creationists. A belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.

Date: 2006/05/07 06:15:15, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
It hinged on the highly influencial Uggh v. Mbong where the judge in his opinion stated Aaaahhhhh!!!! and threw his club at Mbong.
LOL that reminds me of the great fedex commercial.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181801990250175607

apologies for that being google video, the worst video player ever made, by anyone ever, including RealPlayer.

Date: 2006/05/07 06:28:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
One argument that could be made against this line of reasoning is that women's suffrage was a "new" right as well.  However, women had never been treated like equals.  There have been societies that have treated homosexuals as equals...even encouraged homosexual activity...but gay marriage has never been an act equivalent to heterosexual marriage....even when it did exist it was more of a novelty or joke than an actual life partnership.

What are you babbling about?

Date: 2006/05/07 06:39:18, Link
Author: stevestory
We're all wondering what happened to BarryA. Did he reject Davetard's tinpot tyranny? Did he find himself surrounded by cuckoo creationists? Did he become aware of the criticisms of ID and understand they have Dembski dead to rights? We don't know. We just know he hasn't been seen since about April 4th and hasn't made a new post since late March.

But there's a way we can find out, if anyone wants to. In this post he gave enough information that he could be contacted, if anybody wants to.

*******************************************
Disclaimer for Homeland-Security-Calling Pseudoscientists and Their Lay Minions: I am not advocating anyone do any kind of harrassment. I am not even posting any contact info. I am merely pointing out where Barry posted info about himself.

Date: 2006/05/07 06:56:08, Link
Author: stevestory
I briefly forgot about that guy.

Date: 2006/05/07 07:03:20, Link
Author: stevestory
and within a minute of going there I'm cracking up

colin says
Quote
You misunderstand the case. That is hardly surprising; having read your posts, you are as bewilderingly ignorant of the law as you are of biology...

(and his post goes on for pages explaining what's wrong with Larry's argument)

then
Quote
Anonymous said...

   Colin, it's really much easier to summarize Larry's posts on law and biology:

   "Larry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about."

   There, that sums it up nicely.

   Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:16:48 PM


larry:
Quote
>>>>>You misunderstand the case. That is hardly surprising; having read your posts, you are as bewilderingly ignorant of the law as you are of biology.<<<<<<

The next shithead who calls me ignorant of the law or biology is going to be scorched by a reply that will be the biggest flame that he ever got.

colin:
Quote
Colin said...

   The next shithead who calls me ignorant of the law or biology is going to be scorched by a reply that will be the biggest flame that he ever got.

   That's very nice. But if people constantly tell you that you don't understand those topics, isn't it just possible that they are right? You really, truly don't comprehend the law in this case.

Larry:
Quote
Larry Fafarman said...

   Colin said ( 5/03/2006 10:05:43 PM ) --

   >>>>But if people constantly tell you that you don't understand those topics, isn't it just possible that they are right?<<<<<

   No.


LOL!

Date: 2006/05/07 07:55:53, Link
Author: stevestory
In guessing he saw through the dolts, we were probably wrong. Looks like we overestimated Barry. He is a tard.

Date: 2006/05/07 08:04:06, Link
Author: stevestory
and for that matter, all criticism of itself:

http://today.reuters.com/news....&rpc=22

Quote
"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

Date: 2006/05/07 11:44:58, Link
Author: stevestory
when he first started the blog i posted a few comments, but nothing in weeks.

Date: 2006/05/07 13:04:55, Link
Author: stevestory
why first thing monday?

Date: 2006/05/07 14:10:51, Link
Author: stevestory
NYT article about anti-contraception nutballs.

Quote
Kimberly Zenarolla, for one, is applying the theology of the body to the American political sphere. She is the director of strategic development for the National Pro-Life Action Center, a two-year-old organization with 10,000 members that lobbies on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and contraception. She's also a single 34-year-old who lives in Washington with, as she put it, "a group of young professionals who are living the countercultural message of chastity to its fullest expression."

Zenarolla told me she converted to Catholicism two years ago: "I tell people I became Catholic because of the church's teaching on contraception. We are opposed to sex before marriage and contraception within marriage. We believe that the sexual act is meant to be a complete giving of self. Of course its purpose is procreation, but the church also affirms the unitive aspect: it brings a couple together. By using contraception, they are not allowing the fullness of their expression of love. To frustrate the procreative potential ends up harming the relationship."

Date: 2006/05/08 04:00:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner.  
When someone completely ignorant of biology, doesn't agree with the biology experts, it really suggests to us that the experts are wrong.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Date: 2006/05/08 05:18:54, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

This is an amazing statement to me.  Do most of you guys really believe this?
Anybody with at least a freshman understanding of biology knows this. That would not include you.

Date: 2006/05/08 05:42:10, Link
Author: stevestory
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.

Date: 2006/05/08 06:29:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?


Out of patience. It's fine that you come in here with absolutely no understanding of science. We were all ignorant at one point. I didn't know what 5' and 3' meant with regard to DNA either, before 9th grade biology. But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things. So yeah, you're going to get some hostile treatment after a while. Go read a beginner's biology textbook and shut up.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:46:09, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I get the best of both worlds.
Claiming to win while looking like an a55?

Date: 2006/05/08 11:56:52, Link
Author: stevestory
You would find a lot of like minded people over at www.uncommondescent.com. For one thing, they support Intelligent Design, for another thing they're mostly really Young Earth Creationists like yourself, they know as much as you do about biology, which is nothing, and finally, they think they know better than the experts. You'd really prefer it over there.

Date: 2006/05/08 12:11:27, Link
Author: stevestory
What will stop him? There's no rule against being a horse's ass here.

Date: 2006/05/08 12:26:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Got that 'compelling' evidence that heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network sensitive to gay marriages? No? Didn't think so.

Date: 2006/05/08 12:35:03, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Steve has his unevidenced beliefs, you see, and that's all that matters. Oh yes, and getting the moderator/government to censor non-Steve-like points of view.
Anybody who believes this lying piece of 5hit, email Wes and ask him if I've ever requested Paley be censored.

Date: 2006/05/08 12:41:38, Link
Author: stevestory
I retract that. I'm not going to let a liar provoke me. Paley's got nothing. He shoots his mouth off and then can't back it up. Nobody here is fooled by Paley. Nobody believes what he says. Everyone has seen his absurd claims and his failure to follow through, and I'll settle with that.

Date: 2006/05/08 13:48:21, Link
Author: stevestory
whether or not there's a YEC who can make great claims is a distraction. Paley's got nothing. He can't back up what he said, his 'compelling' evidence doesn't exist; he's got nothing. Geocentrism, Scale-free networks, he's an idiot, and he's got nothing. If I were him I would also be under a pseudonym. But I wouldn't be him. I don't shoot my mouth off about complicated topics without having any meat to bring to the discussion. If he ever provides his scale free network model, or an explanation of geocentricity which explains Foucault's pendulum--without a Heraklidean cheat--I'll eat my hat.


Which is a Stetson, and not that edible.

Date: 2006/05/09 07:46:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Paley:
Steve has his unevidenced beliefs, you see, and that's all that matters. Oh yes, and getting the moderator/government to censor non-Steve-like points of view. But ole Wes, he's still naive enough to believe in that fair-minded poppycock, so Steve has to be content with bullying others for now.

Quote
Me:
Anybody who believes this lying piece of 5hit, email Wes and ask him if I've ever requested Paley be censored.

Quote
Paley:
I was actually referring to the time you said that, if it were possible, you'd delete anything I wrote that appeared in one of your threads, or in a thread where you desired commentary from "intelligent" and "sane" people.

You, Paley, are a liar. I never attempted " getting the moderator/government to censor non-Steve-like points of view.", and anyone can ask Wes, and find out that you are a liar.

Quote

Sorry - not trying to derail the thread - I just can't stand a bully, is all.


You made an obviously bogus claim weeks ago about scale free networks. We asked you to explain yourself. You said it wasn't ready. And you've said we asked on the wrong thread. And you've said there weren't enough votes. And now you're saying all the asking is bullying.

You've got nothing.

Date: 2006/05/09 07:55:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

I am constantly stuck with the notion not that fundies aren't experts but that they lack the fundemental information. Like, if they just understood the physical earth sciences a little better, they would avoid most of their ridiculous ideas. Maybe, geology, oceanography or physical geography 101.

Then they'd just take the Paul Nelson Insanity Position: The evidence is all against me, and I don't care.

Date: 2006/05/09 07:59:57, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

No, he thinks people who believe stupid, superstitious junk science have nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion. You, uh, can't see that distinction?

I believe--this is from memory--that I would remove Kreationist Komments from certain discussions I wanted to have. I don't believe I ever said "no creationist has ever had anything to contribute on anything ever."

Date: 2006/05/09 11:36:21, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

This is a lesson for Darwinists — things are not always what they appear to be.

I  Uncommonly Dense.

Date: 2006/05/09 11:51:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Dave certainly knows what the guinea pig did, and we'll be PWNED when he expose this biblical evidence.
Paley has a definitive model showing what the guinea pigs did. But he's just been busy at work lately, and really not enough people have voted for the guinea pigs, and anyway this thread is supposed to be about apes,....

Date: 2006/05/09 17:42:43, Link
Author: stevestory
bans for everyone!

Including you! And your homo boyfriend! -dt

Date: 2006/05/11 02:15:19, Link
Author: stevestory
It's too bad AtBC has been down for a day, there have been so many awesome things on Uncommonly Dense lately.

Date: 2006/05/11 02:59:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I am sure everyone has seen all the things DaveScot said over at Larry's blog.
I haven't. Anything particularly awesome?

Quote
I'm completely shocked that UD didn't have some post about Panda's Thumb being down.  Usually DS seems to do some kind of gloating happy dance whenever PT has the slightest technical glitch.  Because...I guess somehow it proves ID.


Well why not. After all, hybrid polar bears prove ID, and cancer-resistant mice prove ID, and visual puzzles prove ID,...

Date: 2006/05/11 03:16:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Remember the guy on Uncommonly Dense who claimed that he could feel his Intelligent Designer, and why wasn't that scientific evidence?

Date: 2006/05/11 03:40:40, Link
Author: stevestory
yeah, i know what the blog is, I just wondered if there was some particularly awesome comment. I suppose I could go there and just search for 'davescot'.

Date: 2006/05/11 03:50:30, Link
Author: stevestory
killer (if true):

Quote
Comment #100371

Posted by JPadilla on May 11, 2006 08:23 AM (e) | kill

I am the person who went along (foolishly) with what William Dembsky said at his Uncommon Descent Blog and agreed that what was presented there sounded racist to me. I was wrong and wish to publicly say so, as is only right and honorable.

However, I have, over the past two days, attempted three times to post a comment at Uncommon Descent and have grown to believe that dissent is the only uncommon thing there, since each time it has remained unposted. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. Here is my post that I intended to leave there for public viewing and have been essentially forced to post here —————————-

Dr. Dembski: This represents the third time I have asked to have my comment posted. If it does not appear, I can only assume that you or your moderator has chosen to deliberately omit it, a proposition I find troubling and unethical, since my comment is not insulting or deprecatory to *anyone*. The post is as follows: After viewing the responses to Dr. Dembski’s assertions on “The Panda’s Thumb,” and some sleuthing on my own, I am going to retract any claims —on *my* part —of racism against Kevin Padian. It appears that the Berkland church groups are mostly Asian and were not singled out unfairly, merely to note that they are the kind of audiences Neo-Darwinians would like to reach.

It appears to me as though Dr. Dembski is misinformed because there are some serious discrepancies between what Dr. Dembski has posted here and what is claimed by both the NCSE ( personal communication) and a female (Christian) colleague of mine who attended Padian’s talk. Perhaps you can clarify these points, Dr. Dembski, and the points posted at “Panda’s Thumb” on the dating of your claims. What Padian said was not “racist” anymore than it is “racist” to say that there are a large number of European hockey players in the NHL who might be good spokesmen for Christianity. To mention the geographic origins of any group is not *inherently* “racist.”

To try to smear a man as a racist without good cause is, however, inherently unethical, (which I am sure you would agree with) and to deny the right of a dissenter (me) from having a NON-INSULTING disagreement with your point of view is frankly disturbing. If one claims to be an ethical and moral human being, then one has to walk the walk and not merely mouth the words. And if it is in fact DaveScot censoring this post, I would have thought the Marines taught men the meaning of honor.

End post————————————————————————————-

I have placed this here because of the apparent refusal of Mr. Dembski or DaveScot to post this in their forum. I have done so to apologize to Padian and to point out my personal disagreement with the manner in which Mr. Dembski “runs” his blog.

Date: 2006/05/11 04:13:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Remember the post where Salvador called a company's method of detecting GMOs an example of the Explanatory Filter, and Davetard cut him off at the knees and closed comments? He's

trying again:

(I would recommend reading it at UD, I just preserved it here in case Davetard deleted it.)

Quote
May 11, 2006
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.)

The corporation known as Genetic-ID (ID as in IDentification, not ID as in Intelligent Design) is able to distinguish a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) from a “naturally occurring” organism. At www.genetic-id.com they claim:

   Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms.

I claim that detecting man-made artifacts (like a GMO) is a valid instance of applying the Explanatory Filter.

The Explanatory Filter is used all the time (implicitly):

  The key step in formulating Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is to delineate a method for detecting design. Such a method exists, and in fact, we use it implicitly all the time. The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter.

I want to emphasize, the Explanatory Filter (EF) is used ALL the time. When ID critics say the EF has never been used to detect anything, they misrepresent what the EF is, because the EF is used ALL the time.

   The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes

   how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property
   ….
   Entire industries would be dead in the water without the Explanatory Filter. Much is riding on it. Using the filter, our courts have sent people to the electric chair.


(bolding mine)

When we detect design in a physical artifact, we detect the Complex Specified Information (CSI) the artifact evidences. That means we see that a physical artifact conforms to an independent blueprint.

In the Bill’s book, No Free Lunch (NFL), the concept of CSI if formalized. CSI is detected when the information from a physical artifact (physical information) conforms to an independent blueprint or conception (conceptual information). CSI is defined as:

  The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex.

It is important to note CSI is defined by two pieces of information not just one

  CSI is consistent with the basic idea behind information, which is the reduction of possibilities from a reference class of possibilities. But whereas the traditional understanding of information is unary, conceiving of information as a single reduction of possibilities, complex specified information is a binary form of information. Complex specified information , and specified information more generally, depends on a dual reduction of possibilities, namely a conceptual reduction (i.e., conceptual information) combined with a physical reduction (i.e., physical information ).

Genetic-ID uses PCR (polymerase chain reaction) to detect whether an organism has physical characteristics (physical information) which match a known blueprint (conceptual information) for a GMO. This is a relatively simple case of design detection since the pattern matching method is exact and highly specific. Genetic-ID’s technique is a somewhat trivial example of design detection, but I put it on the table to help introduce the concept of the Explanatory Filter in detecting designs at the molecular level.

But how about less specific pattern matches to detect GMO’s? Do you think we could detect a GMO such as this:

   Data stored in multiplying bacteria

   The scientists took the words of the song It’s a Small World and translated it into a code based on the four “letters” of DNA. They then created artificial DNA strands recording different parts of the song. These DNA messages, each about 150 bases long, were inserted into bacteria such as E. coli and Deinococcus radiodurans.


Or how about this kind of GMO, a terminator/traitor which does not have a published specific architecture : Terminate the Terminator.

  Terminator technology (sometimes called TPS-Technology Protection System or GURTs-Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) refers to plants that are genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds. If commercialized, the technology will prevent farmers from saving seed from their harvest for planting the following season. These “suicide seeds” will force farmers to return to the seed corporations every year and will make extinct the 12,000-year tradition of farmers saving, adapting and exchanging seed in order to advance biodiversity and increase food security.

Extending these ideas, can we in principle detect nano-molecular designs such as a nano-molecular computer? If we find a physical molecular artifact conforming to the blueprints of a computer, should we infer design?

With that question in mind, I point to the fact that biological systems are computers, and self-replicating computers on top of that! This fact was not lost upon Albert Voie who tied the problem of the origin-of-life to the fact that the physical artifacts of biology conform to a known blueprint, namely, a self-replicating computer. I commented on Voie’s landmark outline of the origin-of-life problem here.

In as much as biology conforms to the blueprints of a computer, are we justified in inferring design? And finally, are not the claims of Darwinian evolution ultimately claims that blindwatchmakers can create “Gentically Modified Organisms” from pre-existing organisms? What then do we make of Darwinian evolution’s claims?

Filed under: Intelligent Design — scordova @ 7:03 am

Date: 2006/05/11 08:44:49, Link
Author: stevestory
wow.

Date: 2006/05/11 08:54:20, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't think it's libel if no reasonable person would believe it. And it's Uncommonly Dense. No reasonable person would believe them.

Date: 2006/05/11 12:20:58, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Chris Hyland opines,
However several sociologists and psychologists have assured me it doesn't make any difference, and that a child brought up by a gay familiy is no more likely to be gay than one brought up by a straight family.

If a child is raised in Catholic family, would you say he/she has no more chance of being Catholic than one raised in a Muslim family?


Oh, T Diddy, you make me laugh til I cry.

Date: 2006/05/11 12:36:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

It seems the peanut gallery liked the “Defenders of Science” political satire so much they archived it at antievolution.org


Check it out quick before they make it disappear!

Comment by DaveScot — May 11, 2006 @ 4:28 pm


This is just bizarre. Davetard, who deletes things, and deleted his klan cartoon, links to our archiving of it, and then smears us as soon to delete it. That's some kind of recursive irony.

Date: 2006/05/11 13:00:30, Link
Author: stevestory
If Davetard ever understands that all ID arguments are as awful as Salvador's GMO one, he'll understand all the thrashings ID receives.

Date: 2006/05/11 13:42:23, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Gosh, if only GoP spent as much time on his science as he does on his politics, we'd all be convinced the sun revolves around the earth by now...

LOL so you're saying a silk purse can be made from a sow's ear, given enough time.

Date: 2006/05/11 14:09:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Maybe, in which case there's the hyper irony that the Davetard who's defended Dembski's banning policy, and extended it, then relies on our non-censorious site to circumvent it, in order to continue the defamation Dembski began.

Whatever the He11 is happening, it's fun to watch.

Date: 2006/05/11 15:02:07, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Yeah, this is just like old times! I was afraid that with Dembski back taking a higher profile, the site would get boring.
Yeah, Dembski is old and busted. Davetard, DougMoron, BarryA, are teh new hotness.

Quote
Nah, you guys are overanalyzing Dave. It's just that he's still quite proud of his post, and wants people to see it, so he directs them here. The rest is gibberish to sound like he's joking.


So the unintentional irony is even more accidental? I told you this sh1t was self referential. Somebody call Jeff Shallit. :-)

Date: 2006/05/11 15:14:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Shake. That. Thing.
Doug MoronMoron
Shake. That. Thing.
Dave TardyTardy
Shake. That. Thing.
Cor-DovaDova
Shake. That. Thing....

Date: 2006/05/11 15:20:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Look, can we agree that massive immigration serves the interests of both liberals (gotta overturn the Evil West)
As both a card carrying liberal and holder of an undergrad physics degree, I can tell you Paley's understanding of liberals is roughly the same as his understanding of the -centricity of the solar system.

Date: 2006/05/11 16:08:19, Link
Author: stevestory


that's my impression of eric murphy.

Date: 2006/05/12 04:49:18, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values.


Considering that Mexicans are about 98% catholic, are you saying that all these catholics lack western values?

Date: 2006/05/12 05:03:39, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
"Church Burnin’ Sheet Wearin’ Ebola Boys "
Doesn't make any sense at all. The Klan was a christian terror group.

Date: 2006/05/12 06:28:38, Link
Author: stevestory
That's K.E., our rambling street preacher

Date: 2006/05/12 07:10:44, Link
Author: stevestory
I think it's mostly your lack of commas which make your sentences read so disjointed and irregular. But you did give me a chuckle with Count Billious Von Dembstern.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:16:36, Link
Author: stevestory
I mean gosh incorygible, that was such a HUGE unfounded assumption. I hope you've learned your lesson. It's equally likely the whole scene with the van was arranged ex nihilo by a magical being for inscrutable reasons. You're so stupid.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:41:45, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Is a homosexual someone who does not feel a sexual attraction to the opposite sex?
Is a homosexual someone who does feel a sexual attraction to the same sex?
Both are required, I'd say.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:45:00, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL well, it's a step in the right direction.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:50:13, Link
Author: stevestory
I think everybody knows by now that Paley had no such model of heterosexual marriages as hubs on a scale free network. He was just trying to impress with references to an unusual scientific topic, and he got called on it.

Date: 2006/05/12 07:54:24, Link
Author: stevestory
Christopher, they're basically admitting they're psychopaths.

Date: 2006/05/12 08:10:14, Link
Author: stevestory
Well, at least he's being honest and not hiding the god part. I'd love to see him go over to Uncommonly Dense and explain to Davetard, who believes in common descent, that Davetard and Michael Behe, who believes in common descent, are wrong. But we all know what happened last time.

Date: 2006/05/12 08:35:20, Link
Author: stevestory
There are going to be 'straight' cultures and 'gay' cultures which include the bisexuals eric describes. I wouldn't say those bisexual people are gay or straight, though, they're sexually attracted to both sexes. So they're bi. That's I think the normal way of defining the terms. If you're talking about the people within a particular social context it might be useful to use some different definitions, though.

Date: 2006/05/12 08:38:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Russell, you know what the response to that's going to be, don't you? If you don't, here's a hint:


Date: 2006/05/12 11:49:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
On the other hand, their culture(s) also seems to suffer from high levels of crime, a pervasive anti-intellectualism
anti-intellectualism? Isn't that one of your values?

ROTFL the geocentrist is complaining about anti-intellectualism. What is it about creationism that confers genius-level abilities in the Unintentional Irony department.

Date: 2006/05/12 12:03:00, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Nobel prizes and license fees to the usual address.
LOL! "That really is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing I think I'd like to steal it."

Date: 2006/05/12 12:32:56, Link
Author: stevestory
I like opening new topics for news items. A bunch of people see them, and if they don't start a discussion, they slowly drift down the page and are gone.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:08:13, Link
Author: stevestory
I can't even respond to AFDave's latest post. I'd just get mad and call him names. It's that combination of complete ignorance and arrogance that angries up the blood.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:15:10, Link
Author: stevestory
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that's what Dave does. I was just making a general comment.

Date: 2006/05/12 14:38:56, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks.  See www.dissentfromdarwin.org


Oh Dave you're so innovative. We've never heard that before.

Quote

Your problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.  I don't fault you for this ... it's understandable because of the overwhelming power of your Darwinian worldview.


Never heard that one before either, Dave.

bo-ring.

Date: 2006/05/12 15:25:37, Link
Author: stevestory
AFDave said
Quote
blah blah blah junk dna blah blah


More nonsense we've heard so many times we've archived a response to it.

Further information.

Date: 2006/05/12 17:02:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote


If we want to be pedantic about it, that's the only accurate definition for the terms.

Definitions operate within a context. They make distinctions, and statements can be made about the distinguished groups. The definition is a label for the group of things it defines. The label is then attached to statements about the group. But I don't know if it means anything to say that a label is 'accurate' unless you're measuring it against the attached statements.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say everyone with white hair is labelled a 'blorkie'. We define 'blorkie' to mean a person with white hair. Then we can make statements about blorkies, like

1 blorkies are usually old
2 blorkies seldom use hair dye

so here we've got a definition of blorkie, and some statements about blorkies, but is it 'accurate' to say that blorkies are people with white hair? Is this the only 'accurate' way to define the word 'blorkie'?

So I submit that definitions are only 'accurate' with respect to some use of the definition to make additional statements, and definitions don't have any objective 'accuracy'.

But my blood alcohol level is quite high by now, and I might have missed something. But I'm throwing this out there to see what people say about it.

(and to avoid accusations of plagiarism, I should say that this is basically a reworked argument from the Feynman Lectures on Physics, where he defines a 'gorce'.)

Date: 2006/05/13 04:24:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
It seems that the guinea pig-human pseudo GLO similarity all by itself falsifies common descent for apes and humans.


I wish there was some way to make you see how stupid a thing to say this is, Dave. I tried, before, with the petroleum example, but you just can't get it. If you could see how this makes you look, you'd stop making a fool of yourself. But I don't think you can. You don't know enough to know how ridiculously mistaken you are.

Date: 2006/05/13 04:30:26, Link
Author: stevestory
Has anyone else thought the Young Earth Creationists were flexing their muscles more these days, over at Uncommonly Dense?

Quote


If a Young Earth seems a better fit, what is the major reason for rejecting it?
There are unanswered questions on all sides. Why choose conventional darwinite ‘wisdom?
They are certainly wrong on other issues.

Comment by mmadigan — May 13, 2006 @ 8:06 am

Date: 2006/05/13 04:49:12, Link
Author: stevestory
It's not even necessarily true on that 'one little piece of DNA'. Whats the sequence similarity for the GLOs? We just know in this discussion that two are broken. It's absolutely idiotic to use this single fact to infer things about common descent. There are several different ways they could be broken, and it's almost certain that there's more sequence similarity between the human and primate GLOs. Going by nothing more than which two are broken is painfully stupid. It's like saying that this Porsche 944 with a broken windshield is closer to this Dodge Dart with a broken windshield, than to this Porsche 928, because the 928's windshield is intact.

Date: 2006/05/13 04:51:53, Link
Author: stevestory
test removed

Date: 2006/05/13 08:02:40, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

I want to offer you and Steve and whoever else may be responsible my sincere thanks for creating a forum like this where "Anti-Evolution" and related topics may be discussed.

Wesley's the one to thank, I just hang out here and bite ankles.

Date: 2006/05/14 03:14:02, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

So my question is: Is the debate possible, lets say in genetics, if the AiG type doesn't understand these concepts?


I tutored high school kids in math and science for years while getting my physics degree. It was strenuous work under the best conditions. When I see an AFDave type or a Thordaddy type, I know exactly who they are. They're like what my tutoring clients would have been, if the client had not just been ignorant, but actively disputed every single thing I said. That's why you won't find me arguing with them. They don't have the modus operandi necessary to learn things.

Date: 2006/05/14 05:00:11, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Hence everybody can be said to fall under the category of “fundamentalist religious extremist”.


When your conclusion is idiotic, you should go back and look at your reasoning.

Date: 2006/05/14 05:06:32, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL street preaching the three little pigs. You know, that's actually much better than the street preachers we had at NCSU, who mostly discussed who was going to he11. If you're curious, it turns out the answers are "fags", "sodomites", "liberals". I forget the others.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:33:27, Link
Author: stevestory
Can Bozeman compete in the Unintentional Irony department? I mean, UD is a place where they call Kevin Padian a Klansman because he doesn't like fundamentalist terrorists.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:50:58, Link
Author: stevestory
There are lots of YECs over there. Salvador. this guy.

Date: 2006/05/14 06:55:27, Link
Author: stevestory
LOL. Dembski tries to 'reason' with one of his subjects.

Quote
#3

If a Young Earth seems a better fit, what is the major reason for rejecting it?
There are unanswered questions on all sides. Why choose conventional darwinite ‘wisdom?
They are certainly wrong on other issues.

Comment by mmadigan — May 13, 2006 @ 8:06 am


Quote
#4

Mmadigan: Astrophysics and geology are serious sciences. Darwinian evolution is not. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — May 13, 2006 @ 10:13 am

Quote
#5

Respectfully, I consider myself a serious scientist, with no religious predeliction.
I was erroneously misled by darwinian mythologies in my youth. Astrophysics has many
‘old earth’ problems. And except for the haphazard radiodating inculcated with circular reasoning,
I have yet to see insurmountable problems for a Young Earth Geology.
So again, what is unacceptable except the Established Religion Consensus?

Comment by mmadigan — May 13, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

Quote
#6

Erroneously misled is a redundancy. Have you read Gerald Schroeder?

Comment by mmadigan — May 13, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

Date: 2006/05/14 10:18:41, Link
Author: stevestory
I wonder why AFDave isn't hear setting you all straight about your convergences and your BLASTs and what have you.

Date: 2006/05/14 10:26:07, Link
Author: stevestory
What Daylight Savings Time kicked in, this board went an hour behind, as displayed on my computer.

Date: 2006/05/14 14:13:42, Link
Author: stevestory
nice bit just then
Quote
Flanders: "They're teaching evolution is true even though there's nothing about it in the bible!"
Rev. Lovejoy: "Ned, you've gotta take this thing with a grain of salt. I mean, come on."

Date: 2006/05/14 14:16:53, Link
Author: stevestory
it would be useful to ask other PT visitors if they're getting this weird and annoying problem.

Date: 2006/05/14 14:20:50, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
marge: what's wrong dear?
Lisa: they're making us learn 'creation theory' in school. today we had a test, and every answer was "God did it."

Date: 2006/05/14 14:58:08, Link
Author: stevestory
every few times i come to PT, it hangs my browser up for 10 seconds doing god knows what. Anybody else getting this? I'm using firefox.

Date: 2006/05/14 15:57:33, Link
Author: stevestory
haven't seen Paley lately, now that you mention it.

Date: 2006/05/14 16:24:24, Link
Author: stevestory
I have no idea what that means, but perhaps it means something to Wes and Reed.

Date: 2006/05/15 05:06:06, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
If Padian’s remark about the Flintstones wasn’t meant to denigrate creationists then my remark about it being bigotry obviously doesn’t apply either. You be the judge. -ds
It's just one dumb mistake after another, over there.

Date: 2006/05/15 05:39:28, Link
Author: stevestory
It's been a funny year, with Davetard at the helm.

Date: 2006/05/15 06:07:28, Link
Author: stevestory
no, it wasn't. Dembski was just as hysterical about censoring disagreement, but he had better judgement. I don't think he would have courted JAD, for instance. Dembski's much smarter than the group DougMoron, Davetard, BarryA, etc. Those guys don't know anything about science, anything at all.

Date: 2006/05/15 07:32:42, Link
Author: stevestory
Exactly! Censoring is bigotry! Uh...wait a minute....uh...gotta go. -ds

Date: 2006/05/16 08:00:51, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote

Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds

Logic with Davetard:

I am an expert in computers.
Computers are digital machines.
some cell parts are digital machines.
Therefore I am an expert biologist.

Quote
Now, who still thinks that neo-darwinism is scientific theory?
This little lamb maintains it is political doctrine in shepard’s clothing.

Comment by Collin DuCrâp — May 16, 2006 @ 11:55 am

LOL. I don't know Collin. Every biologist in the world?

 
Quote

...
If companies move from GMO to fully modified organisms(or lets say more that 50%), how will it be discussed in education - even at high school levels? They will eventually have to talk about identifying artificial design in living organisms. Since artificial design is not evolution, is this not a quandry for evolutionist?
...

Comment by Michaels7 — May 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm


In what alternate reality would this be a quandry for evolution?

Date: 2006/05/16 09:58:51, Link
Author: stevestory
You left off my favorite part. The full quote:
Quote
"...defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. To be specific, I'm referring to William Paley, not Ghost of Paley from the After the Bar Closes discussion board, who is incapable of delivering scientific arguments, he merely promises them, says they're compelling, and then changes the topic to something like whether or not the media is liberal." (pp24-25)

Date: 2006/05/16 10:46:08, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
Are we at 100 pages yet?


damnn near. 3 posts away.

Date: 2006/05/16 12:54:09, Link
Author: stevestory
This is the greatest thread of all time.

BTW, someone should find out when the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ended racist policies. I bet it was long after Haeckel died.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:01:38, Link
Author: stevestory
I don't like body function humor, but that was priceless.

BLUHUHUHUHUHUHUH!

Date: 2006/05/16 13:10:52, Link
Author: stevestory
Quote
I don't have the stomach for these afdave threads


Yeah, me either. I check them occasionally for funny lines, but 98% of it is

Quote